The Anvil – God’s Word

Last eve I passed beside a blacksmith’s door,

            And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime;

Then, looking in, I saw upon the floor

            Old hammers, worn with beating years of time.

“How many anvils have you had,” said I,

            “To wear and batter all these hammers so?”

“Just one,” said he, and then, with twinkling eye,

            “The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.”

And so, thought I, the anvil of God’s Word,

            For ages skeptic blows have beat upon;

Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,

            The Anvil is unharmed—the hammers are gone.

— Anonymous

Three Views on Apologetics

In defending the Christian faith, believers should be aware of the three general approaches to apologetics, and which method is the most consistent with that faith.  The three approaches are the classical, the evidential, and the presuppositional methods.  First, there is the classical method, which operates on a form of rationalism.  Generally speaking, rationalism maintains that, beginning with self-evident truths and applying the laws of logic, the human mind can arrive at epistemic certainty by deduction.  Additionally, the legitimacy of natural theology is assumed; that is, that man can begin with general human experience alone and arrive at an accurate understanding of God, the world, and man’s relation to both.  Moreover, classical apologetics presupposes that the reprobate mind is neutral toward God’s truth, and functions properly independent of God (contra, Jn. 3:19; Rom. 8:7; Eph. 4:17—19).  Classical apologetics, then, appeals to human autonomy as the source of ultimate authority.  Secondly, evidential apologetics, or evidentialism, is similar to the classical view.  However, evidentialism begins with the presupposition of empiricism rather than rationalism.  Empiricism supposes the validity of sense perceptions; and, applying induction and verification, man can arrive at true knowledge.  Similarly too, evidentialism makes its final court of appeal the authority of autonomous human reason.  Lastly, presuppositional apologetics, or presuppositionalism, works on the epistemological presupposition of revelation, that of Christ and the Scriptures.  Because unbelievers suppress the truth of God clearly and authoritatively revealed in the natural world, the Scriptures are required as corrective lenses for reinterpreting natural revelation after God (see Rom. 1:18ff;).  Presuppositionalism does not rely on human wisdom to persuade the unbeliever.  Rather it rests on the foolishness of the cross and the saving, regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, without which no one can believe (1 Cor. 1:18—25; 2:14).  Presuppositionalism makes the self-attesting Word of Christ its final authority, seeking to bring the sinner’s intellect in submission to the Lordship of God in Christ.  Classical and evidential apologetics suggest that human reason is competent to authoritatively judge the veracity of Christ and his Word.  Therefore, of the three approaches to apologetics, presuppositionalism is most consistent with the faith that Christians are defending.    

Thoughts from Irenaeus on the Incarnation

It never fails. Tis the season to hear from every facet of the media, both local and national, attacks on the miraculous birth of our Savior and King. Inevitably, toward the end of most of the letters, columns, articles, or interviews, the author will make a vain attempt at consolation, concluding their drivel with Gnostic-like remarks about how one needn’t believe the reality and/or historicity of the event of the Incarnation to see the ‘real spiritual message and meaning.’
Hear this word from Irenaeus against the Gnostics of his day (...and ours as well):

“And, if one does not accept His birth from a virgin, how can he accept His resurrection from the dead? For it is no astonishing, nor marvelous or extraordinary thing if, without being born, He neither rose from the dead; moreover we cannot even speak of the resurrection of one who is unbegotten, since one who is unbegotten is also immortal, and one who has not undergone birth will neither undergo death—for one who has not had the beginning of a man, how is he able to assume his end? So, if He was not born, neither did he die; neither was He raised from the dead; and if he was not raised from the dead, death is not conquered nor its kingdom destroyed; and if death is not conquered, how are we to ascend to life, having fallen under death from the beginning?” (Demonstration on the Apostolic Preaching, 38—9)

Irenaeus got it right. For those who deny the time-space reality of the Incarnation, there is still a ‘real spiritual message and meaning’ left for us to hear, namely that we all remain “fallen under death from the beginning.”

So, as Christmas season rushes upon us, let us be all the more convinced of the hard, earthy realism of our most holy Faith, of the Incarnation of the Son of God. Who “made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Phil 2:7—8); the eternal One, who “became flesh and dwelt among us,” and so became the Self-same historical One (Jn 1:14). And let us, “being armed with the invulnerable doctrines of the faith, do battle against him (the devil) on behalf of the weak” (Justin, On the Resurrection, 1, read in full here), following in the steps of the Master whose appearing was to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8)!

Rallying with a Relativist

“It’s wrong to impose your morals on others!”

Uh…pardon me, but when you tell me it’s wrong to do something, aren’t you imposing your morals on me?

“There are no absolutes.”

That in itself is an absolute statement.

“No one’s moral opinion is valid because we all speak from how we’ve been indoctrinated.”

Well, I guess that would apply to you as well, which means what you’ve just said isn’t valid either.

“Everyone should be able to believe whatever they want!”

Then why are you arguing with me?

“Life is meaningless!”

Would you consider that a meaningful statement?

“You can’t know anything for sure.”

You seem rather sure about that.

“Students, no view of reality is superior to any other.”

Then why are you grading our papers?

“You have no right to say truth is external! We all create our own reality!”

Then I’m your fault.

“Oh, here we go again, another right-wing fundamentalist making bold assertions of fact!”

Pardon me, but didn’t you just make a bold assertion of fact?

“There is no right; there is no wrong.”

Is that statement right or wrong?

“You can’t tell anybody they’re wrong.”

Am I wrong in doing so?


From Frank Peretti’s The Wounded Spirit, (Nashville, TN: Word Publishing, 2000) pp. 117-118