A Presupositional Apologetic

I was just glancing over the titles on my bookshelves and noticed a common theme among many of them: evidences for the faith, logical arguments for belief, rational reasons for God, etc., and I thought who does this profit primarily? I've always thought that evidential apologetics was for the unbelieving seeker. Now while this is somewhat true, I think the full impact finds itself inside the already believing community. I say this for two reasons: (1) those who reject Christianity (generally speaking) do so becuase they don't want to submit their lives to the lordship of Christ, not becuase of lack of evidence or clever arguement for the faith, and (2), because it's the believing heart that finds itself so compelled to be reassured of what it already assumes, not the other way around - in fact, the unbelieving heart wishes not to be reminded of what they suppress. There's a lot to lose for the believer if he's wrong. Paul said if Christ wasn't really raised, than our whole faith is in vain (1 Cor. 15:14). That's motivation! At least it should be for the Christian. Reassurance of our faith by means of reason or historical, scientific, or philosophical evidence is an edifiying work in the believer's mind and soul, but what about the unbelieving man? An old apologetics professor of mine, Tim Hoelzel, always said "the heart of the problem is the problem of the heart." This is precisely the problem of the unbelieving man, namely, a rebellious heart by which the truth of God is deliberately suppressed in exchange for a lie (Rom. 1:18, 25). Looking back, I see why much of my evangelistic effort has not been very efficient in past times, save for my own mind, because that was never really the obsticle to belief for so many... it was only pretended to be. This is the most common pretense of the unbeliever because it is the easiest one to get away with. This is becuase so many Christians have no idea why they believe what they claim to, and so naturally, the unbelievers tend to win those battles on intellectual grounds, and thus avoid the true matter altogether. Now for this purpose I think evidential apologetics is of necessity - to provide, not a cheap answer to the skeptic, but a good answer to why we as Christians believe (1 Peter 3:15). And even this should not be done out of motivation to convert the skeptic (for this isn't why they're asking [remember my major premise]), but to strengthen the face of the Christian Church for the glory of God. An this will show the nations that the Truth of God is something the Church passionately cares about to study - to be knowledgeable of, confident in (after much critical study thereof), and persuaded by intellectually. Our careless attitude today about apologetical study of our faith, doesn't give us a profitable commentary for the world to read, and I think this may be a surface reason for their lack of interest. Why should they be interested when the people of God don't seem to care much? There does happen to be that skeptic without an axe to grind with some genuine questions about the faith in which evidences then prove their profit for the evangelist, but I find it a rare case. We must remember that "the heart of the problem is the problem of the heart," and work from there.

Whatever Happened to Doctrine?

Why is it that theology and doctrine have taken a back seat in the priority of the Church today? Doctrine mattered to those who came before us; the Puritans, the Reformers, the Early Church Fathers, even the Apostles. Many died as martyrs for the faith because of some theological stance, or doctrinal position. Why is it so neglected and even shameful in so many churches? I've become very critical of this type of church. A church without a love for theology is a church without an affeciton for God Himself, since that's what the term literally means: "the study of God," or "an affection to know the things of God." The ecuminacal spirit of today has something to do with it I'm sure, in which many would have all our doctrinal differences put aside and be united as one church. Doctrine does divide, but isn't that the point, to divide truth from falsehood? At least on the essential matters of the faith! But even this is too much to ask for, as the gospel itself is being compromised to bring in more numbers, or provide a more "comfortable environment" for the seekers. You know, I appreciate the sentiment, but unbelievers OUGHT to feel "uncomfortable" when approaching the prescense and holiness of God. Many churches have forgotten all about the holiness of God. I fear for the future, at least for the American Church.