TMSJ 12/1 (Spring 2001) 69-87 THE SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE IN APOLOGETICS Michael J. Kruger* A simple statement from a kindergarten song such as“the Bible tells me so” is sufficient to prove the truthfulness of Christianity. That fact should prove to Christians that defending their faith from the standpoint of neutrality is fruitless. Believers have become enamored with a neutral starting point in apologetics because of the influence of modernism and postmodernism in today’s culture. Such a neutral beginning point is impossible because of a disagreement with unbelievers over the naure of knowledge. Also, neutrality is ineffective, because it grants autonomy to the unbeliever by releasing him from the authority of the Bible, and is inconsistent, because the Bible makes clear that Christ is the source of all knowledge. Since the Bible is sufficient in apologetics, Christians should attack the unbeliever’s worldview in addition to defending his own. God’s claim on the human intellect is absolute, not minimalistic. Because of this claim, apologetics is theological and not just philosophical. Arguing presuppositionally by using the Bible as the ultimate authority enables the Christian to cut the legs from under an unbeliever’s argument. * * * * * The fundamental question of apologetics, writes Robert L. Reymond, is, “How do I know that what I believe is true?”1 Although most Christians agree that this is the essential question to be asked, few agree on what the answer should be. Some say they should believe Christianity because it conforms to the scientific, historical, and philosophical evidence. Others suggest they should believe Christianity because it works to solve their problems and improve their quality of life. And still others think they need not offer any reason to believe at all. Ironically, in the midst of these disagreements and discussions, they have had the answer all along. When it comes to apologetics, perhaps all can agree with the title of Robert *Michael J. Kruger is a Ph.D. candidate in New Testament and Early Christianity at New College, The University of Edinburgh. He is a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary in California and has served as Assistant Pastor at Church of the Redeemer in Mesa, Arizona. 1Robert L. Reymond, The Justification of Knowledge (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1984) 5-6. 69 70 The Master’s Seminary Journal Fulghum’s well-known book, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. If Christians would only return to the simplicity and profundity of their kindergarten songs such as “Jesus loves me, this I know,” they would discover the answer to their question of why they should believe: the Bible tells us so. Undoubtedly, some will read this response and shake their heads disapprovingly: “The Bible tells me so? Is that it? That may have been a sufficient answer when I was five years old, but that will never hold up in my university religion class. Everybody knows that you can’t assume what you are setting out to prove; I can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible. I need some neutral starting place—where both the unbeliever and I agree—from which I can prove the Christian position.” This hypothetical response is all too common in the evangelical church today. Indeed, as the church has slowly abandoned its commitment to the sufficiency of Scripture, nowhere has it been more evident than in the area of apologetics. Some Christian apologists say that in order to gain a hearing from the world in arguing for the truth of Christianity, one must adopt a neutral and unbiased position as to the truthfulness of the Bible.2 According to this view, a person must begin the defense of the Bible (and the Christian faith) with a “nobody knows for sure” type of attitude, being neither for nor against Christianity from the outset. It is only after having proven the reliability and trustworthiness of the Bible to the unbeliever from some common, neutral starting point that a believer can then turn around and appeal to the Bible as any sort of authority—thus, the Bible is the conclusion of the argument, not its foundation. This essay purposes to challenge that popular view of apologetics. Although appealing to the Bible as the ultimate epistemological foundation for belief may seem simplistic and naive to some (as well as unpersuasive), the following discussion will argue that this is the key to maintaining the full sufficiency and authority of Scripture. Not only does God not call Christians to put the authority of His word “on the shelf” while they argue for Christianity, but doing so will deny the very thing they are setting out to prove, namely, that God’s Word should be the authority over every area of thought (including apologetics). Indeed, the Bible is not just sufficient for teaching about the Christian worldview; it is sufficient also for defending the Christian worldview. This does not mean, of course, that apologetics is reduced simply to quoting the Bible over and over again. On the contrary, introducing extrabiblical data into a discussion with the unbeliever is quite allowable and necessary (more on this below). But it does mean that the primary reason Christianity should be accepted as true is because God’s Word declares it to be such. Bahnsen concurs: “The ultimate ground of the Christian’s certainty and the authority backing up his 2Dennis MacCullum in his book Christianity: The Faith That Makes Sense (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1992) holds this view: “If we are fair, we will take a neutral posture when determining what to believe” (11 [emphasis added]). The Sufficiency of Scripture in Apologetics 71 argumentation must be the word of God.”3 After all, if the Bible really is God’s word, then to what more authoritative standard could one possibly appeal in order to defend it? What fact in the universe is more certain than the Scriptures? Therefore, when defending the faith, Christians must reject the allure of supposed neutrality and instead follow Peter’s instructions: “[I]n your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Pet 3:15, NIV [emphasis added]). Roots of the Problem: Why Are Christians So Eager to be Neutral? What has caused modern-day apologetics to be so willing to adopt a “neutral” stance while arguing for the faith? The answer to this question is somewhat complex. Engaging in the apologetic task today involves two distinctive intellectual forces that have caused some to leave the Bible out of the discussion: modernity and postmodernity. Modernity is a product of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.4 With the rise of the Enlightenment there came a new guardian of truth to replace the church: science. No longer would human beings stand for the irrational musings and archaic dogmatism of religion—science (with reason as the foundation) was the new god and all intellectual theories had to bow and pay homage in order to be seriously considered. Science viewed Christians as being naively committed to ancient myths, unable to see past their bias and to take an objective and neutral look at the world. So, modernity proffers the idea that mankind, armed with rationalism and science, is able to access absolute truth and make unlimited progress toward a better life for itself. Therefore, at its core, modernity is a celebration of human autonomy. Charles Darwin, in his 1859 The Origin of Species, exhibited clearly the effects of modernity when he referred to the Christian view of creation as “a curious illustration of the blindness of preconceived opinion.”5 Darwin, like most modern evolutionists, was eager to frame the debate to offer two options and two options only for those wishing to settle the enigma of origins. On one side was the evolutionist; he was scientific, objective, and empirical. On the other side was the Christian; according to Darwin, he was speculative, biased, and irrational, relying on faith, not on science. A choice between the two was obvious. Who would want to side with religion over science? Who would reject the obvious empirical data in favor of myths and conjecture? This sort of pressure from modernity has caused many Christians to modify 3Greg Bahnsen, Always Ready (Atlanta: American Vision, 1996) 68. 4For an excellent treatment of Enlightenment thought see Ernst Cassirer, The Philosophy of the Enlightenment (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University, 1951). 5Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (New York: The Modern Library, 1859) 369. 72 The Master’s Seminary Journal their apologetic strategy. To avoid the charge of having “preconceived opinions” or of being “biased,” many Christians have insisted on leaving the Bible out of the discussion—after all, you cannot use what you are trying to prove. In an effort to show that Christianity passes the scientific test, they insist that scientific evidence, and scientific evidence alone, should decide the debate. Therefore, they start their argument from neutral ground, being neither for nor against Christianity from the outset, in hopes of gaining credibility with the unbeliever and showing him that the facts “speak for themselves” and undeniably lead to Christianity.6 But when they argue like this, what they often do not realize is that they are letting modernity set the criteria for truth: reason and science. Instead of challenging modernity’s criteria for truth (insisting it should be the Bible), they simply try to meet their criteria for truth. Thus, in an attempt to beat the scientists at their own game, the apologetic task primarily takes the form of philosophical, historical, and scientific arguments, and the Bible becomes merely the conclusion of the entire process. Postmodernity, although no friend of modernity, proves itself to be an equally influential factor in the way evangelicals do apologetics today. Postmod- ernity, in contrast to modernity, rejects any notion of objective truth and insists that the only absolute in the universe is that there are no absolutes. Tolerance is the supreme virtue and exclusivity the supreme vice. Truth is not grounded in reality or in any sort of authoritative “text,” but is simply constructed by the mind of the individual. Consequently, postmodernity has given birth to the radical deconstruc- tionism of Stanley Fish, Richard Rorty, and Jacques Derrida which has taken hold in today’s universities. Deconstructionism has relegated all texts to simply societal constructions—i.e., the readers’ own experience and perspective so conditions interpretations that there can be no one “right” interpretation. Phillips and Okholm furnish an example when they write, 6There are numerous examples of many well-meaning Christians defending the faith as if the “facts” themselves are decisive, irrespective of underlying philosophical presuppositions. There is at least a broad conception that unbelievers have the ability (and the authority) to interpret the facts and decide for themselves. Phillip Johnson—who has done an outstanding job cataloging the evidence against Darwinism—in his recent work Darwin on Trial (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1993) seems eager to keep the Bible out of the picture and stay focused on the facts alone: “One thing I am not doing is taking sides in a Bible-science conflict. I am interested in what unbiased scientific investigation has to tell us about the history of life” (157). Johnson, who is usually very perceptive about underlying assumptions, seems to think the “neutral” and “objective” facts will decide the issue. Paul Little in Know Why You Believe (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1981) seems not to realize that man’s rational abilities are tainted by sin and unable to interpret the facts correctly. He thinks the problem is with only the moral will of man and not his intellect: “[Unbelievers] don’t want to believe it. It’s not a matter of brain power. . . . It is primarily a matter of the will” (43 [emphasis in the original]). A final example is Bill Bright in the foreword to Josh McDowell’s Evidence That Demands a Verdict, vol.1 (San Bernadino, Calif.: Here’s Life, 1979), who declares: “I personally have never heard a single individual—who has honestly considered the evidence—deny that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of men. The evidence confirming the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ is overwhelmingly conclusive to any honest, objective seeker after truth” (iii). But who is honest and objective? The Sufficiency of Scripture in Apologetics 73 Then how can we speak of any reality outside the autonomous self? We create it with words. Postmodernism shares a purely pragmatic instrumental view of language. There are no true propositions. There is only the question of what words we should use.7 Thus, postmodernity, just like modernity, also celebrates human autonomy. Despite the fact that the two philosophies are in some ways opposed, the one thing they have in common is that man is both the starting place and the stopping place for whatever can be deemed “truth.” Obviously this radical relativism and pluralism has also affected apologetic method. Due to the hostility (or should I say “intolerance”) displayed by postmod- ernists toward those who make absolute truth claims, Christians have tended to act more “neutral” and less assured of their position, leaving the Bible out of the discussion all together. After all, the Bible has a way of being inconveniently dogmatic—which would certainly turn off any listener with a postmodern mindset. Furthermore, the deconstructionist tendencies of the postmodern culture make any appeal to an authoritative text seem almost irrelevant. Phillips and Okholm note, “Postmodern people are reluctant to accept totalizing metanarratives that define reality and truth for them.”8 If one cannot appeal to the Bible in an apologetic encounter with the postmodernist, then it must be replaced with some other argument for why Christianity should be accepted. At this point, evangelicals find themselves again trying to meet their opponents’ criteria for truth (as they did with modernity above), rather than challenging their criteria for truth. What are the postmodernists’ criteria for “truth”? Simply what works. The postmodernist is not concerned about absolute truth like the modernist; he defines his “truth” by more pragmatic concerns: What makes me feel good? What solves my problems? What is attractive to me? Consequently, so much of modern apologetics today (and modern preaching) tries to cater to the felt needs of its audience. Thus, the argument for Christianity takes on therapeutic overtones: a person should become a Christian because it will make you feel better; it will improve your quality of life; it will bring you inner peace, etc.9 7Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L. Okholm, eds., Christian Apologetics in the Postmodern World (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1995) 13. 8Ibid, 22. 9Allow me to make some qualifications. I am not suggesting that there is never a time to mention all the blessings and benefits that the Christian life offers. Indeed, it does offer joy and peace and hope, etc.; and many people are attracted by such things and should be. Furthermore, these things should be a large part of our evangelism, i.e., we do want to tell people that real and abundant life is in Christ. However, never should these blessings and benefits of Christianity be presented as the primary reason why Christianity is true, because this simply makes pragmatism the criterion for truth. How then could we respond to the unbeliever when he tells us that Hinduism works “better” for him and brings him more peace and hope? In effect, what we have done by making pragmatism the main argument is grant man autonomy do decide what he likes best and then call that “truth.” Ideally, our apologetic ought to rest solely on the authority of the Bible, but at the same time be willing to share and teach about the obvious blessing and benefits of the Christian life. 74 The Master’s Seminary Journal Christian Apologetics in the Postmodern World edited by Phillips and Okholm shows postmodernity’s effect on apologetic method. The book offers an apologetic response by various authors to the ominous threats of postmodernity. Although many essays were helpful and well-intentioned, much of the book is unfortunately an example of the impact of postmodernity on apologetic method rather than an example of how apologetics should impact postmodernity. A specific instance of this is the article by Phillip D. Kenneson entitled, “There’s No Such Thing As Objective Truth, and It’s a Good Thing Too.”10 As the title promises, Kenneson denies the concept of objective truth, and even suggests that such a concept is “corrupting the church.”11 Kenneson also says, I realize there are plenty of Christians who think it makes good sense to say the proposition, ‘Jesus Christ is Lord of the universe’ is objectively true; that is, our temptation is to insist that this is simply true whether we or anyone else believe it or not. But succumbing to such a temptation is deadly for the church. There is no place to stand and judge this statement as true per se.12 But what about the Bible as a place to stand? Can one not appeal to the Scriptures as a reason why this is objectively true? Since Kenneson has adjusted his apologetic to the demands of the postmodern world, then it is no surprise that his apologetic has nothing to do with the authority and place of the Bible—any appeal to the Bible as a reason for why the postmodern world should believe is conspicu- ously absent.13 In its place is a much more pragmatic approach; the argument for why people should become Christians is that they see the “moral authority of the church’s embodied life” and are consequently attracted to Christianity.14 In other words, the way the unbeliever can know Christianity is “true” is by seeing that it really “works” to change lives and make people different. Although Kenneson’s insistence that the church faithfully live out its beliefs in the eyes of the world should be applauded—indeed a consistent witness can gain 10It is interesting that Kenneson’s premise that there is no objective truth makes his own title contradictory. In other words, is it objectively true that “There is no such thing as objective truth”? If not, then the title is in error; if so, then the title is still in error because the title claims there is not any objective truth. Either way, Kenneson’s view turns out to be self-contradictory. He tries to avoid this problem by suggesting that he also does not believe in “relativism” which is what he considers to be the flip side of objective truth. So, Kenneson says, if you reject relativism, you must also reject objective truth. However, then we must ask, Is it objectively true that rejecting relativism requires rejecting objective truth? Whether the answer is yes or no, Kenneson’s view is still self-contradictory. 11In Christian Apologetics in the Postmodern World, Phillips and Okholm, eds., 156. 12Ibid, 167. 13The words “Bible” or “Scripture” were never used in the entire article (according to my fallible counting), and a verse was quoted once (1 Pet 3:15), but only as an example of what method is not effective in a postmodern world. 14Kenneson, “No Such Thing As Objective Truth” 166. The Sufficiency of Scripture in Apologetics 75 a hearing from the world and is honoring to God—his attempt to make pragmatic considerations the foundational reason why Christianity is “true” will ultimately deny Christianity any authority to challenge the unbeliever’s autonomy. The discussion to follow will explore this issue and more aspects of Kenneson’s article (and subsequently the book as a whole). So modernity and postmodernity have had an effect on apologetic approaches and have slowly removed the Bible from the center of defending the faith and replaced it with a demand for neutrality. From this position of supposed neutrality both have their own criteria for truth that they demand be met: the modernist wants to see if it is scientific/reasonable and the postmodernist wants to see if it works to improve his life. Although Christians certainly should be aware of culture and adjust their apologetics to the need of the hour, it seems they may have unfortunately gone too far and allowed non-Christian opponents to set the terms of the debate. They have, perhaps in the name of relevancy, altered the fundamental nature of the Christian argument so that it is more palatable and attractive to those who hear it. But, as Os Guiness has noted, relevancy can be a dangerous venture: In addition, relevance has a false allure that masks both its built-in transience and its catch-22 demand. Dean Inge captured the transcience in his celebrated line “He who marries the spirit of the age soon becomes a widower.” But it was Simone Weil who highlighted the catch-22: “To be always relevant, you have to say things which are eternal.”15 Despite the fact that holding a neutral and “nobody knows for sure” attitude seems popular with modern-postmodern culture, evangelicals cannot adhere to such a starting point in their apologetic process. The Essence of the Problem: Why Not Be Neutral? As culture perpetually pressures Christians toward intellectual agnosticism, it is imperative they understand why they must resist. Does it really matter if they seek to plant their apologetic in the soil of neutrality? Consider three reasons why believers should not to be neutral. Neutrality Is Impossible Jesus has declared neutrality to be impossible: “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other” (Matt 6:24, NIV). Failing to comprehend this truth has lured many Christian apologists into a very common mistake: they ignore the philosophi- cal worldviews that lie behind each system of thought and instead quibble over 15Dining with the Devil: The Megachurch Movement Flirts with Modernity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993) 63. 76 The Master’s Seminary Journal isolated facts only, not realizing that it is the philosophical worldview (or presuppo- sitions) of people that determines what they see as a “fact.” In other words, they forget that every person has a “worldview” through which and by which he interprets the evidence—making neutrality an impossibility.16 John Frame notes that “there is no ‘purely empirical’ inquiry. We never encounter ‘brute,’ that is, uninterpreted facts. We only encounter facts that have been interpreted in terms of our existing commitments.”17 Consequently, the disagreement between the Christian and the non-Christ- ian is not over just, for example, whether Pontius Pilate was a real historical figure, rather the disagreement is over the very nature of knowledge itself. The Christian, as he sets out to defend the Bible, will soon realize (if he is perceptive) that his disagreement with the non-Christian is not just about what took place in history, but is about the very nature of historical research, reasoning, and evaluation. In other words, as Christians debate non-Christians, it will soon become apparent that their disagreement covers not only what they claim to know but also, due to their conflicting worldviews, it also covers their method of knowing (epistemology). Therefore, rather than simply tossing out the facts to the unbeliever as if he were objective and unbiased, Christians need to challenge the unbeliever’s philosophy of fact, i.e., to attack his worldview as much as attacking the conclusions of his worldview. As was noted above in the discussion of mod- ernity/postmodernity, believers need to concern themselves not just with meeting their opponents criteria for truth (which is determined by their worldview), but also with challenging their opponents’ criteria for truth by showing that it should be God’s Word. Now, if evangelicals fail to consider and respond to the underlying presuppositions of the unbeliever, then he will simply “reinterpret” their facts within his own worldview. For example, imagine an atheist walking down the street in Washington, D.C., when suddenly God appears to him. What would his response be? Well, according to his worldview there is no God and no supernatural, so he would likely pass the event off as a peculiar and rare hallucination. Now, say that he continues down the street and sees the president walking across the White House lawn. Does he think this is a hallucination? No, because it fits with his prior set of beliefs, namely, that the president is a real human being who resides in Washington and lives on Pennsylvania Avenue. The bottom line is this: what a particular individual regards as a fact is dependent upon his prior worldview. 16A worldview can be defined as a network of assumptions (or presuppositions) not tested by natural science in terms of which all experience is related and interpreted. A worldview is not just one belief, but a comprehensive network of beliefs that deal not only with religious ideas but with every aspect of human experience from science to the arts. Thomas Kuhn reflects such an idea (he calls “paradigms”) as it applies to scientific study and experimentation. See Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1970). 17John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1987) 117. The Sufficiency of Scripture in Apologetics 77 Games such as chess and checkers illustrate this point further. Each game has its own rules and standards about what is possible and impossible, what is winning and what is losing, what is a good strategy and what is a bad strategy. How absurd would it be for the chess player to criticize the checkers player for violating the rules of chess? The rules and “facts” of one game are entirely different from those of the other. Similarly, if a Christian engages a non-Christian in a debate without challenging his overarching worldview, then his effectiveness will be minimal; each side is playing by its own set of rules. Consider the words of Cornelius Van Til, When man became a sinner he made of himself instead of God the ultimate or final reference point. And it is precisely this presupposition, as it controls without exception all forms of non-Christian philosophy, that must be brought into question. If this presupposition is left unquestioned in any field all the facts and arguments presented to the unbeliever will be made over by him according to his pattern.18 So, for Christians to enter into an intellectual debate thinking the brute facts themselves will be decisive is simply naive. The unbeliever is not only biased, but the Scriptures indicate that he is adamantly biased against God.19 He hates God and suppresses the knowledge of God every chance that he gets (Rom 1:18-20; 3:10-18). Neutrality Is Ineffective Attempts to be neutral have a bit of irony to them. Believers agree to meet unbelievers on some common ground because they are convinced that it will make them more effective, when in fact that is the very thing that hinders them. It is similar to young David’s attempt to wear Saul’s armor in his fight against Goliath (1 Sam 17:38-39). It seemed like the right thing to do in battle, but it proved to be more of a hindrance than a help. In the end, David simply needed to trust that God knew better how to wage warfare than he did. In a discourse with the unbeliever, he will perpetually demand that Christians be neutral (as he considers himself to be). If they agree with their opponent at this point, they have lost the debate from the outset and minimized their effectiveness. Why? Because the moment they get out their intellectual flashlights and join the unbeliever in the search for truth from some supposedly neutral starting point—claiming “the facts speak for themselves”—then they have conceded that he 18Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1967) 77 [emphasis added]. 19Herbert Schlossberg notes the amazing bias against the Christian view of creation by quoting D. M. S. Watson: “Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or . . . can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible” (Idols for Destruction [Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1990] 144). He then goes on to note how “the scientific scabbards fall away to reveal ideological swords” (ibid., 145). 78 The Master’s Seminary Journal is able and competent to correctly interpret the facts.20 Thus, when the unbeliever turns around and uses the facts to argue against Christianity, Christians no longer have a basis to object to his conclusions. After all, did they not tell him “the facts speak for themselves”? To grant the unbeliever neutrality is like handing him a loaded gun; why should believers be surprised then when he turns around and uses it against them?21 The point is this: to grant neutrality to the unbeliever is to grant him autonomy—the very autonomy so cherished by the forces of modernity and postmodernity (as was seen above). To say that man can reason correctly and cogently apart from having the Bible at the foundation of his thinking sets man up as the standard and the judge over what is true and what is not true; he becomes the ultimate epistemological authority and not the Bible. Such a situation is obviously abhorrent to God, who proclaims Himself as the ultimate authority of the universe and condemns man’s quest for independence and intellectual self-sufficiency (1 Sam 2:3; Prov 1:7; Isa 40:25; Rom 10:9; 14:9; Phil 2:11; 2 Cor 10:5) . Furthermore, such a method of arguing with the unbeliever virtually encourages his rejection of the Bible: if the unbeliever is allowed to make the decision independent of God and according to his own standards (which are sinful and depraved), then he certainly will conclude against God’s Word. Even if the unbeliever did accept God’s word after such a process of reasoning, that does not alleviate the problem. Note the insightful words of C.S. Lewis: “The trial may even end in God’s acquittal. But the important thing is that man is on the bench and God is in the dock.”22 Phillip Kenneson’s article, “There’s No Such Thing As Objective Truth and It’s a Good Thing Too,” falls into this same trap from a postmodern mindset. As was noted earlier, his suggestion that Christianity’s authority is founded on pragmatic grounds grants to the unbeliever the authority and autonomy to decide which 20Van Til explains the futility of granting neutrality to the unbeliever: “Shall we in the interest of a point of contact admit that man can interpret anything correctly if he virtually leaves God out of the picture? Shall we who wish to prove that nothing can be explained without God first admit some things at least can be explained without him? On the contrary we shall show that all explanations without God are futile. Only when we do this do we appeal to the knowledge of God within men which they seek to suppress. This is what I mean by presupposing God for the possibility of intelligent predication” (Van Til, Defense of the Faith 200). 21A great example of granting the unbeliever authority to interpret the facts as he sees fit is found in Terry L. Miethe, ed., Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? The Resurrection Debate (San Francisco: Harper and Row 1987). Miethe, in his introduction to the debate between Habermas and Flew, states, “Each person should study the arguments, sift the evidence, and decide which case best fits the facts. . . . The decision is yours” (xvi). How, then, could the Christian respond when the unbeliever comes back from judging the evidence having concluded against Christianity? Didn’t we tell him that he had the ability and the right to interpret the evidence correctly? Thus, to grant neutrality to the unbeliever is to lose the debate from the outset. 22C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970) 244.