Knowing vs. Showing:

A critique of William Lane Craig’s position regarding

how we know that Christianity is true

 

By:  Erick Nelson

Last Updated:  April 5, 2007

ErickNelson@cox.net
 

Word Format 

 

 

Audience:  The expected audience consists primarily of Christians and scholars who are interested in apologetics. 

 

 

ABSTRACT

 

William Lane Craig, in his book Reasonable Faith and several other works, offers a sharp contrast between knowing Christianity is true and showing it is true.  He contends that the only way we know this truth is by a direct experience of the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit; while we only show this truth by way of evidence and reasoning (apologetics). 

 

I would respectfully submit that this thesis is wrong on several levels.  It suffers from four major problems.

  1. The content of Christianity, that is "what is known”, is poorly specified - and it is not clear there is a way to improve it.
  2. The thesis is beset with logical problems, including being unfalsifiable.
  3. There are several epistemological problems.
  4. It does not squarely face New Testament evidence to the contrary.
     

Replacing the knowing/showing distinction with an integrated approach not only solves these problems but (a) provides more adequate scope for the Holy Spirit, (b) properly honors the integration of the concrete and the spiritual, and (c) answers Craig’s concerns about limiting apologetics to the intellectually elite and dealing with objections to the faith. 

 

 

Introduction

 

The person seriously considering Jesus Christ has the right to a decent answer to the fundamental question, “Why do you think Christianity is true?”  That is, “What good reasons are there for thinking this man is The One you claim him to be?” 

 

Apologetics attempts to provide such good reasons.  These reasons are commonly taken to provide or constitute knowledge that Christianity is true.  Many of us who have come to find that Christianity is true have considered evidence and reasons, objections and counter-arguments, and wrestled with this hugely important subject over a course of years.  And many of us thus believe we have a rational foundation for our faith which holds us secure.

 

William Lane Craig, in his book Reasonable Faith and several other works, disputes this common perception.  He offers instead a sharp contrast between knowing Christianity is true and showing it is true.  He contends that the only way we can know this truth is by a direct experience of the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit; while we only show this truth by way of evidence and reasoning.

 

Note the “only” here:  To many students of apologetics, Craig’s thesis is characterized more by what it denies (that apologetics yields knowledge that Christianity is true) than what it asserts (the Spirit yields knowledge that Christianity is true).

 

So how do I know Christianity is true?  Craig says, “Not through apologetics!”  His contention is that apologetics does not provide or constitute knowledge that Christianity is true, but serves only ancillary purposes.  To many of us this is a strange twist, and seems especially ironic coming from one of the world’s foremost Christian apologists.  What is he getting at?  Why does he say this?  And is this a valid distinction?

 

The potential impact is tremendous:  Do we need to tear up our foundations?  Is our rational belief illusory?  Do we believe the right things for the wrong reasons?

 

This paper will explore these issues.  We will conclude that Craig’s contention, while well motivated, is untrue, harmful, and unnecessary; and we will go on to suggest a better way forward.

 

 

CRAIG’S POSITION

 

Interestingly, at first glance Craig himself would seem to indicate that apologetics does indeed provide knowledge that Christianity is true (in To Everyone an Answer:  A Case for the Christian Worldview (p 19) and Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (p 103)).  Notice these three points:

 

  1. Apologetics “seeks to provide rational warrant for Christianity’s truth claims.” 
  2. Knowledge is “warranted true belief”.
  3. Therefore, apologetics provides knowledge.

 

But his considered opinion is otherwise.  We will begin with a set of key quotes in Craig’s words.

 

How do I know that Christianity is true?  In answering this question, I think we need to distinguish between knowing Christianity to be true and showing Christianity to be true.  (Reasonable, p 31)

 

May I suggest that, fundamentally, the way we know Christianity to be true is by the self-authenticating witness of God's Holy Spirit?  Now what do I mean by that?  I mean that the experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical and unmistakable (though not necessarily irresistible or indubitable) for him who has it; that such a person does not need supplementary arguments or evidence in order to know and to know with confidence that he is in fact experiencing the Spirit of God; …  that in certain contexts the experience of the Holy Spirit will imply the apprehension of certain truths of the Christian religion, such as "God exists," "I am condemned by God," "I am reconciled to God," "Christ lives in me," and so forth; that such an experience provides one not only with a subjective assurance of Christianity's truth, but with objective knowledge of that truth (Reasonable, p 31-32)

 

Thus, although arguments and evidence may be used to support the believer's faith, they are never properly the basis of that faith. …  A person who knows Christianity is true on the basis of the witness of the Spirit may also have a sound apologetic which reinforces or confirms for him the Spirit's witness, but it does not serve as the basis of his belief. (Reasonable, p 34, 36) (italics mine)

 

… such experience does not function in this case as a premiss in any argument from religious experience to God, but rather is the immediate experiencing of God himself (Reasonable, p 32-33)

 

Now the truth that the Holy Spirit teaches us is not, I'm convinced, the subtleties of Christian doctrine. ... What John is talking about is the inner assurance the Holy Spirit gives of the basic truths of the Christian faith. This assurance does not come from human arguments but directly from the Holy Spirit himself. (Reasonable, p 33)

 

We will summarize these, and other passages, into key points, below.

 

Role of the Holy Spirit – Knowing

 

 

Role of Apologetics – Showing

 

 

Note that Craig is decidedly not against apologetics as such.  In several places, and indeed in his life, he seems to regard apologetics in the “common-sense” way, of providing not only a formal defense but a basis for knowing.  He agrees that the Holy Spirit is not against apologetics, but rather uses it to accomplish his work:

 

The Holy Spirit can use such arguments and evidence as a means of drawing people to himself. … they serve as a sort of catalyst to faith, even if they do not become the basis of faith.  Moreover, apologetic arguments can confirm the witness of the Holy Spirit, providing a valuable backup in times of spiritual dryness” (Foundations, p 20)

 

But the view just expounded enables us to hold to a rational faith which is supported by argument and evidence without our making that argument and evidence the foundation of our faith.  (Reasonable, p 49)

 

“Is then apologetics an utterly trivial pursuit?  [No], For apologetic arguments may be sufficient for rational faith, even if they are not necessary. … The Holy Spirit can use such arguments and evidence as a means of drawing people to himself. … they serve as a sort of catalyst to faith, even if they do not become the basis of faith.  Moreover, apologetic arguments can confirm the witness of the Holy Spirit, providing a valuable backup in times of spiritual dryness” (Foundations, p 20)

 

And so, how do we resolve this apparent contradiction?  In Craig’s view, the answer must be that apologetics takes us right to the steps of knowledge, or possibly that it provides certain pre-conditions for knowledge to be accepted, but the Holy Spirit is the one who provides the sole basis of true faith and knowledge that Christianity is true.

 

Why is This Important?

 

In Craig’s view, why is this distinction so important?  What does it serve? 

 

 

And, perhaps even more important, is the “otherwise”:

 

 

 

EXPOSITION

 

KNOWING VS. SHOWING

 

The most striking aspect of Craig’s thesis, of course, is the contrast of “knowing” something is true with “showing” it is true. 

 

At first, one wants to object that this just doesn’t make sense:  “What is the point of apologetics if it doesn’t lead to knowledge that Christianity is true?  If you show me x is true, don’t I then have a right to say I know it’s true?  Why bother to ‘show’ me at all – why not, rather, just tell me directly how you know it and how I can know it?”  These are fair questions.

 

Properly Basic Beliefs and Direct Experience

 

Craig helps us understand what he means by a “properly basic belief” engendered by the Holy Spirit.  He provides a crucial illustration of knowledge based on direct experience:  the person who knows he is innocent even though all the evidence says he is guilty.  He knows this because he remembers being at another place and doing something else at the time in question.  In this case, he knows one thing even though the evidence shows the opposite. 

 

In Craig’s illustration, this man’s own direct experience must take priority over any possible set of evidence.  He possesses a “defeaters of all possible defeaters.”  Let’s take it to the next step.  Presumably for him to achieve vindication, he would need to marshal evidence to convince others of his innocence.  Therefore, he knows x in one way, but he shows it in an entirely different way.

 

Craig’s point is that our knowledge of the truth of Christianity is based on direct experience, and that even though we can perhaps point to it via reasons, can create a congenial intellectual climate, can raise the issues, can appeal to the minds of our audience, and so on - at the end of the day, each person can only know the truth by experience of the Holy Spirit’s witness.  Let us try to understand what this means.

 

Plantinga and Properly Basic Beliefs

 

Craig appeals to Alvin Plantinga, who has been concerned to show that one may have epistemic warrant in believing something that he/she cannot prove.  For instance, as in the previous example, one may know things through experience but not be able to make a convincing evidential case to prove it.  These beliefs are “properly basic.”  Therefore, one is not irrational in holding Christianity to be true, for instance, on the basis of experience of the Holy Spirit.

 

However, Plantinga’s view differs from Craig’s in several ways.  As there is no space here to consider Plantinga’s view, we will continue to allow Craig to speak for himself.

 

 

THE HOLY SPIRIT’S WITNESS

 

First, it is important to understand what Craig does and does not mean by the Holy Spirit’s witness. 

 

What Craig Does Not Mean 

 

Craig could be thinking of the Spirit as the general source of all knowledge and inspiration.  After all, for a Christian, Jesus is the Logos (the discursive reason of God, and source of logic) and the Triune God is the ultimate source of all truth, goodness, and beauty; and so it is no surprise if the Holy Spirit constantly and actively affirms all truth to our minds and hearts.  “All truth is God’s truth.”  Just as we cannot draw a single breath without God’s sustaining power, we cannot apprehend even the most mundane truth without the Spirit.  In this sense, it’s almost analytically true that the Spirit is the ultimate basis for knowledge (of all kinds).  But this is not Craig’s point.

 

Or, he might be saying that when we hear preaching and presentation of apologetics – and we use reason heavily to process and understand these concepts – ultimately, it is God’s Spirit who hammers the point home, who opens hearts and minds, and who enlightens our understanding.  Is this what Craig is getting at, that all human forms of communication about God ultimately become knowledge only through the Spirit?  No, that’s not it, either.

 

Craig is clearly not making either of these claims.  Here’s why.  He is careful to distinguish our knowledge of core Christian beliefs (which are provided directly by the Spirit) from the implications (“ramifications”) and nuances of Christian doctrine (which we must “think about” ourselves). 

 

“Though the Holy Spirit gives us assurance of the basic truth of our faith, He does not impart knowledge of all its ramifications and ins and outs – for example, whether God is timeless or everlasting, how to reconcile providence and free will, or how to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity.  Those are things we must decide by thinking about them.”  (Hard Questions, p 37 - italics mine)

 

What Craig Does Mean

 

And so Craig’s point is more narrowly focused.  What he seems to be getting at is the description of a divine encounter which yields “assurance of salvation”, and in which this assurance is somehow fleshed out into a knowledge of the fundamental truths of Christianity.  Craig says this:

 

Sometimes we call this experience “assurance of salvation.”  Now, clearly, salvation entails that God exists, that Christ atoned for our sins, that He rose from the dead, and so forth, so that if you are assured of your salvation, then you must be assured of all these other truths as well.”  (Hard Questions, p 36)

 

… rather is the immediate experiencing of God himself; that in certain contexts the experience of the Holy Spirit will imply the apprehension of certain truths of the Christian religion, such as “God exists”, “I am condemned by God”, “I am reconciled to God”, “Christ lives in me”, and so forth;   (Reasonable, p 32)

 

From this, we are not to suppose, I think, that the Holy Spirit simply whispers a laundry list of truths in our spiritual ear, but rather that there is some divine experience from which core propositions are somehow seen to be true.  And so, this is the structure:

 

§         Experience of the Holy Spirit

§         Resulting in assurance of salvation

§         From which (as we will see below) at least six core propositions logically follow 

 

WHAT KNOWLEDGE DOES APOLOGETICS PROVIDE?

 

If apologetics (reasoning and evidence) does not provide knowledge that Christianity is true, what sort of knowledge does it provide, then? 

 

Real World and Analytical Truths

 

First, Craig must agree that reasoning and evidence do provide knowledge of ordinary, real-world matters … otherwise we’d have no knowledge at all.  And we can safely say that we know that analytic truths are true – whether their domain is in everyday affairs, or in philosophical discussions, or dealing with religious claims.  That’s pretty safe ground.

 

False Philosophical and Religious Systems

 

Next, can we say we can know that certain philosophical statements or religious claims are false based on reasoning and evidence?  He would again have to agree, I would think.  Certain philosophical positions are self-stultifying and therefore false.  Certain world-views are internally inconsistent and therefore false.  Certain religious claims which don’t come true (such as the world ending), would also be known to be false.

 

If this is true, can we even say that certain entire philosophical and religious positions can be proven to be false on the basis of reasoning and evidence, via internal inconsistency?  Again, yes.

 

Would Craig then agree, given the above steps, that many and possibly most philosophical and religious systems that are indeed false are, in principle, provably false?   Yes – and the only ones who escape would be those set up to be unfalsifiable; that is, no conceivable state of affairs could ever overturn them.

 

If we can, in principle, prove most false systems to be false, then we can, in principle, have knowledge that they are false.  Therefore, we can know in principle, by reasoning and evidence, that most false philosophical and religious systems are indeed false.

 

True Philosophical and Religious Statements

 

Similarly, is it possible to prove that certain philosophical arguments are true?  I think Craig would say (but am not sure) that some arguments, such as the Kalam argument, are so strong that they amount to knowledge. 

 

For example, taken along with the acceptance of the Big Bang theory, we can reason from the beginning of the universe to a source external to the universe.  This cause has – by definition! – the attributes of God.  Craig says,

 

On the basis of our argument, this cause would have to be uncaused, eternal, changeless, timeless, and immaterial. Moreover, it would have to be a personal agent who freely elects to create an effect in time. Therefore, on the basis of the kalam cosmological argument, I conclude that it is rational to believe that God exists.  (Truth Journal (online), “The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe”)

 

The Big Bang is said to have become one of the most well-established discoveries of science.  The principle that the trillions upon trillions of stars in entire universe couldn’t have come from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing can hardly be disputed.  The attributes of this “something” are analytically true. 

 

Craig seems careful to say only that it is “rational” to believe this.  Don’t we then, have the epistemic right, on this basis, to claim that we know that God exists?  Since this is arguably one of the strongest philosophical arguments imaginable, if he denies knowledge to this, there’s no reason to think we can have any philosophical knowledge at all.

 

Events in the First Century

 

Back to the real world events which can be proven with reasoning and evidence.  What if I were able to go back in time and live with Jesus and the disciples, and see his miracles and his crucifixion and his resurrection myself? – hear him talk about his Father, put my fingers in the holes in his hands and my hand in his side?  Could I be said to know that these things really occurred?  Certainly!

 

What if I couldn’t witness these things for myself, but could interview and cross-examine the disciples and other eyewitnesses.  Is there any reason this would not still yield knowledge about things which had happened?  Certainly not.

 

And therefore, in principle, the only thing keeping me from being in the position of interviewing the disciples is the happenstance that I live now and not then, and therefore need to do a lot more work and analysis to reach these same conclusions.  Is Craig somehow a skeptic of historiography?  Is there something about this process of analysis which keeps knowledge at arm’s length?  No!

 

And so, in principle, we can know that the real-world events of Jesus’ life (including the miracles and resurrection and his claims) truly happened, given the time, intelligence, and diligence necessary to examine the historical traces.  Even concerning the resurrection, Craig agrees:

 

In particular, my own research concerning Jesus’ resurrection has convinced me more than ever that this was a historical event, verifiable by the evidence. The Christian can be confident that the historical foundations of his faith stand secure. You can bet your life on it.  (Online Virtual Office, “Rediscovering the Historical Jesus: Presuppositions and Pretensions of the Jesus Seminar”)

 

Christian Meaning

 

Therefore, Craig’s problem must be with the interpretation of these events.  For if I can know about the events themselves, the only thing keeping me from knowing Christianity is true is determining their significance or meaning.

 

And so, perhaps he is saying I can never have knowledge about their religious implication, especially for me now:  that Jesus is the Son of God, that he will come again, that he now lives in me and has saved me, and so forth.

 

Summing Up

 

In this thought experiment, if we are right, Craig would hold that we can, in principle, know:

 

 

But he would deny that we can have true knowledge of the meaning or implication of Jesus’ life through reasoning and evidence.  Is it not strange that reasoning and evidence would enable us to know that many philosophical and religious claims are true, and even that some other religions are false, but not that Christianity is true?

 

 

CRAIG’S REAL APOLOGETIC

 

When someone asks us, “Well, why do you believe that Christianity is true?”, or “How do you know?”, we must be ready to tell them.  There are, of course, only two logical options:  (a) we can lay out our reasons (whether historical evidence, personal experience, philosophical arguments, or other reasons), or (b) we can confess that we have no reasons at all. 

 

It seems reasonable to say that laying out our reasons is “doing apologetics.”  In fact, since nearly every Christian has some reason for believing, the issue is only whether we do apologetics well or badly.

 

Craig is one of the leading thinkers in Christian scholarship today.  As such, he has frequently presented scientific, philosophical, and historical arguments for the truth of Christianity.  He presumably thinks of this as “doing apologetics.”  But what is his real apologetic?  By this I mean, what is his true rationale for claiming that Christianity is true?  He summarizes his view in the following direct and simple way.  If talking to someone who wants to know why he thinks Christianity is true, he would reply:

 

My friend, I know Christianity is true because God’s Spirit lives in me and assures me that it is true.  And you can know it is true, too, because God is knocking at the door of your heart, telling you the same thing.  If you are sincerely seeking God, then God will give you assurance that the gospel is true.  Now to try to show you it’s true, I’ll share with you some arguments and evidence that I really find convincing.  But should my arguments seem weak and unconvincing to you, that’s my fault, not God’s.  It only shows that I’m a poor apologist, not that the gospel is untrue. . . But ultimately you have to deal, not with arguments, but with God himself.” (Reasonable, p 48)

 

His real apologetic is simply his own personal experience of the Holy Spirit’s witness (in the sense articulated above), with the recommendation that the seeker directly and personally engage the Spirit in like manner. 

 

 

CRITIQUE

 

I see several problems in Craig’s thesis.  These involve (a) problems having to with the content of “Christian knowledge”; (b) logical problems; and (c) New Testament teaching.   We will look at each of these in turn.

 

 

ISSUES OF CONTENT

 

Craig’s contention is that we know x (the core tenets of Christianity) is true based on this divine encounter, but we know that y (other things) is true on the basis of reasoning.   But what precisely is x?  Craig does not clearly say. 

 

We should be careful to note that his thesis provides what can be described as a “top-down” view of Christian knowledge, a paradigm which cannot work.  It suffers on four counts as it tries to map the “witness of the Holy Spirit” to “knowledge of Christianity” by way of “assurance of salvation.”  We will discuss each of these and contend that: 

 

  1. The Core Tenets are not well specified.
  2. The Core Tenets do not logically follow from "assurance of salvation".
  3. The Core Tenets need external information to achieve meaningful definition.
  4. The “Rest of Christianity” is left out of this analysis.

     

The Core Tenets

 

What are the core tenets of Christianity which are under discussion? 

 

Note that Craig does not even provide us with a decent list of propositions, but in both cases cited earlier he ends a short list with “and so forth”, as if we already know how to divide the central from the peripheral.  In another passage, he merely tells us that this content is “the belief that one has been reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, or some rough equivalent.”  (Reasonable, p 30)  But our complaint is that his “rough equivalent” is far too rough and uncertain.

 

It is a severe fault in this thesis that it does not provide a clear definition of what he means by “knowledge of Christianity”, that is, the core tenets.  I will try, however, to provide a working definition of six “core tenets of Christianity” based primarily upon Craig’s quotes.

 

 

Deriving the Core Tenets

 

Of interest next is the question about how these core tenets can be derived from “assurance of salvation.” 

 

At first, it seems obvious that the proposition “I am assured of salvation” does not in itself logically entail anything about God’s existence or Christ’s atonement, much less Jesus’ resurrection. 

 

Consider that there are probably millions of people who reject most of the core tenets yet feel assured of their salvation.  Some believe they are “saved” just because God is good and saves everyone.  Some believe they are saved because they were never lost.  Hindus and Buddhists have their own concept of “salvation” which has more to do with escaping the wheel of reincarnation than in attaining fellowship with God in heaven.

 

In order for “assurance of salvation” to entail the core tenets at all, we need to define “assurance of salvation” as “assurance of salvation according to the core tenets of conservative Christianity”, which is obviously circular. 

 

The way out of this situation is to say that the experience of the Holy Spirit itself must directly present these core concepts to the believer, packing “assurance of salvation” with the necessary meaning.  But then this seems to lead us to the paradigm of the Spirit whispering a laundry list of truths into our spiritual ear.  Is this what Craig wants to say? 

 

It is not easy to see, experientially, that this would even be a plausible explanation.  If you took, say, a thousand evangelicals, and put them in a room, and asked them to write down what the Holy Spirit told them when He assured them of their salvation, would they all write the same list?  Indeed, the fact that Craig does not present us with his own list speaks volumes about the haziness of this whole claim.

 

We must conclude that the Core Tenets simply do not logically follow from "assurance of salvation".

 

Defining the Core Tenets

 

What is actually meant by each of these core tenets can vary greatly.  Let’s take Jesus’ deity.  What am I saying when I make the claim that Jesus is the Son of God, or God in the flesh? 

 

 

Each of these would justifiably claim to believe in “Jesus’ deity”, but only the last would “know that Christianity was true” regarding Jesus’ deity in the sense Craig wishes to maintain.

 

Again, concerning Jesus’ resurrection,

 

 

Each of these would claim to believe in “Jesus’ resurrection”, but only the last would “know that Christianity was true” regarding Jesus’ resurrection in the sense Craig wishes to maintain.

 

This analysis can, of course, be done on any of the other core tenets.

 

So how do these core tenets find their true definition?  Does the Holy Spirit provide it at conversion?  This is not even plausible, especially bearing mind the multitude of confused ideas often held by the newly converted.  No, Paul calls these people “babes” in Christ for good reason – they must learn over time what is meant by the deity of Christ and by his resurrection.  This is done first by reading the testimony of Jesus’ apostles and reflecting on them – asking questions, considering alternatives, and coming to understand what is claimed.

 

We must conclude that the Core Tenets are not completely defined in the Holy Spirit experience, but require external information to achieve full, accurate, and meaningful definition.

 

The Rest of Christianity

 

Note that there is an extremely wide gulf between these six simple core truths and the “fine points of doctrine” Craig refers to.  In fact, there is the “Rest of Christianity” – the bulk of commonly accepted propositions of historic Christianity – to consider.  How does this relate to knowledge that Christianity is true?

 

Historically, one major way of defining Christianity has been to create creeds, most notably the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed.  The latter asserts the following:

 

 

Any definition of “Christianity” without these fundamental truths is too narrow, too sparse.  After all, these statements make up some of the practical ways we recognize Christianity when we see it! - how we distinguish it from Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, New Age philosophies, atheism, materialistic reductionism, and other belief-systems. How can we leave these out of any claim to “know that Christianity is true”?

 

But even these definitions are arguably too limiting, because so much is still left out:  Jesus’ life, his miracles, his teaching.  Are not these also definitive of Christianity?  When we are defining “Christianity”, is it really sufficient to appeal to a handful of specialized terms, or even the major creeds - or ought we not acknowledge Jesus’ whole life, his parables, his teaching, his example, his miracles, … and how this all fits together?

 

If we have good reason to think that these took place essentially as described in the gospels, and we thereby understand them, does this not increase our knowledge of Christianity?  And, if so, don’t they participate in our basis for knowing that Christianity is true?

 

Even this would not exhaust the content of core Christianity.  Paul’s teaching was presumably put forth to explain what Christianity is (and what it is not), and what it means to us in practical terms.  This is part of the vast “Rest of Christianity” as well.

 

It is a weakness in Craig’s thesis that the “Rest of Christianity” is left out of the  analysis.

 

Top-Down and Bottom-Up

 

We should take notice that Craig’s epistemology is “top-down”, that is, atomic propositions (such as “Jesus rose from the dead”) are derived from a higher-level assertion (“I am assured of my salvation”) understood in context of a Holy Spirit experience.  The Content problem is to find a plausible explanation for the derivation of core tenets and how they are mapped to “knowledge of Christianity.”

 

We now see a serious and obvious dilemma.  The more specific and comprehensive the proposition-set which defines “Christianity”, the less plausible it is that this is communicated to us directly by an experience of the Holy Spirit, and even less plausible that this is somehow logically entailed by simple propositions. 

 

The fallacy of the top-down approach is that the specific and the comprehensive cannot be derived from the general and the simple.

 

In contrast to this, apologetics typically employs a “bottom-up” strategy (for good reason), starting with atomic facts of some kind – such as philosophical arguments, religious experience, historical events, and so on - and building toward a conclusion. 

 

 

LOGICAL ISSUES

 

This thesis also suffers from several logical/epistemological problems, which we will now discuss.  The thesis asserts or implies that:

 

  1. Christianity is unfalsifiable.
  2. Apologetics serves the purpose of “rationalization.”
  3. Unbelief in Christianity is deemed to be always and only due to moral failing.
  4. There is an (unproven) antithesis between reasons for faith and the truths of the Spirit
  5. Knowledge is only one-dimensional (either one knows or one doesn’t).

 

Unfalsifiable

 

One remarkable facet of Craig’s thesis is that no conceivable evidence or argument could possibly count against the truth of Christianity.  He offers us an unassailable Christianity at the price of making it unfalsifiable.  He is clear about this:

 

Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa. (Reasonable, p 36)

 

Unfortunately, the deck appears to be stacked.  Craig is clear in other passages that when we encounter arguments against our Christian position, it is a good thing to face them squarely and overcome them if possible.  And, while we are struggling with them, we must hold fast to that given us by the Spirit.  This can all be agreed.  But then he goes on to advise that when intractable problems are encountered, we must simply walk away from them – because nothing can be allowed to count decisively against the Christian position.

 

It is tremendously liberating to be able to know that our faith is true and to commend it as such to an unbeliever without being dependent upon the vagaries of argument and evidence for the assurance that our faith is true (Reasonable, p 49)

 

This kind of iron-clad position has been deemed technically meaningless because absolutely nothing is allowed to count against it.  There is a great deal of literature surrounding this topic, and while it is not necessary to go so far as to deny meaning to Craig’s contention, still one does not have to be Karl Popper to see that “My mind’s already made up, don’t confuse me with facts” is an extremely weak position to defend. 

 

Rationalization

 

Citing Luther, Craig goes on to say that the “magisterial” use of reason must not be allowed to decisively influence our decisions about Truth.  Rather, reason must be used as only a servant or tool to serve the gospel. 

 

At first glance, this seems perfectly fine, and even pious.  After all, God’s thoughts and ways are not ours.  Our reasoning is limited, and so it must take second place to God’s secure revelation.  However, this is not all as cut-and-dried as one would think.  Don’t we need to use reason and logic in order to form, interpret, and understand the very propositions that comprise truth? 

 

Or is Reason something less rigorously defined, as “It just doesn’t seem reasonable to me that God would want his four gospels to differ from each other”; or “No educated man believes miracles can happen in this day and age”?  In that case, the answer should not be to reject or ignore “reason”, but to correct it with real logic and better reasoning.

 

If the “magisterial” distinction is taken seriously, then we must only use reason and logic as tools which bolster beliefs held on the basis of something entirely different.  We are, it appears, told to be propagandists, advocates for a view – rejecting out-of-hand any evidence to the contrary, and looking only for that which strengthens our case. 

 

But isn’t this the same as “rationalization” – that is, holding something to be true on one basis, and then trying to put together a rational case to bolster it? 

 

Relegating the function of rationalization to the apologist, while fitting many of the secular caricatures of the same, does not do justice to this God-given task.

 

Moral Failing

 

A third objection to Craig’s thesis concerns the all-too-facile implication that anyone who disagrees with the Christian is simply a bad person.  How convenient!  What comes across is  “The Holy Spirit is telling you that this is true, but you are such a horrible person that nothing will convince you.”

 

Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Christ it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties:  at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God’s Spirit on his heart. (Reasonable, p 35)

 

Let us press on this a bit.  Is it really true that there is no one who questions Christianity because she misunderstands, or has been poorly taught, or has not even been presented with the clear gospel?  What if he is a sensitive soul who temporarily doubts his salvation?  What if she is a very logical person who just can’t see how Jesus could have been God and man at the same time?  Are these problems only due to their “refusal” to believe?  Always?

 

If that’s the case, why is it that when such misunderstandings or confusions are cleared up (as Craig himself has related), all of a sudden their moral turpitude vanishes?

 

Even granting that humans have a propensity to believe what they wish to be true, and many may be resistant to the gospel, isn’t it possible that some people earnestly desire to know but are temporarily hung up on issues that can be resolved with some clear thinking?

 

The position that unbelief in Christianity is always and only due to moral failing is not well-founded and only serves to confuse the issue.

 

Properly Basic Beliefs and Knowledge

 

One of Craig’s concerns is to preserve the epistemic warrant of those simple believers who base their trust in Christ on something other than reasoned argument.  There are, of course, many millions of people who are probably in that condition right now.  In doing so, he grants their belief (if based upon the experience of the Holy Spirit) the status of “knowledge” (as properly basic) that “Christianity is true.” 

 

However, he then makes the additional move of excluding any other basis of knowledge, making all external evidence merely ancillary.

 

[from evidential apologetic works such as McDowell’s Evidence] It became quite evident to me that it was possible to present a sound, convincing, positive case for the truth of Christian theism.  Still I could not embrace the view that rational argument and evidence constitute the essential foundation for faith, for the fruits of that viewpoint had become forcefully clear to me at Wheaton.  (Five Views, p 27 - italics mine)

 

But surely this is a false dilemma.  Even if our properly basic belief counts as knowledge, why should it be played off against ordinary forms of knowledge (reasoning from facts)?  Why can’t there be various kinds of knowledge, all useful, all important, all acceptable?

 

Even in Craig’s own illustration (the man who directly knows he is innocent of a crime even though the evidence is all against him), which is one of his strongest arguments for “properly basic beliefs”, it is not clear that external sources of knowledge need be excluded.  The issue of interest here is that all past experiences are mediated by memory.  Here’s what I mean.

 

It is granted that I wouldn’t let my own experience ordinarily take precedent over evidence to the contrary.  However, let me present an example.  I vividly remember seeing The Mandala (an R&B group, the most powerful band I have ever seen in my life) perform in 1966.  I remembered that they presented the “Seven Steps to Soul.”   Over thirty years later, I was in contact with George Olliver, their lead singer, and he laughed and said, “No, there were only Five steps!”  Now, do I cling to my memory or accept his?  What if I talk to four other people who remember it George’s way?  I would reasonably allow my own memories, most of which were right on the money, to be supplemented by external evidence (George’s testimony) and even corrected by it.

 

And so, even in mundane matters, since our direct experience is mediated by fallible memory, we sometimes allow external corroboration to provide significant weight.  Our properly basic beliefs can work in concert with reasons, arguments, and evidence.

 

False Antitheses

 

One of the most damaging ways to spread confusion is to create a false antithesis between two concepts.  Thus, for instance, the ability to reason is sometimes played off against the capacity to love.  “Works” are made antithetical to “faith” (as if a “faith-full” life entails less care for others!).  I’m sure you can think of many other examples.

 

One recent example that bothered me was the contrast between factuality and metaphor.  Marcus Borg wrote,

 

Moreover, when what is said about the canonical Jesus is taken literally and historically, we lose track of the rich metaphorical meanings of the gospel texts.  The gospels become factual reports about past happenings rather than metaphorical narratives of present significance.  (Reading the Bible Again, p 191)

 

Do you see what he is doing?  Traditionally, Christians have appreciated the meaning and symbolism and spiritual significance of the gospel accounts because they really happened!  Borg turns this around, so that something like a causal relationship becomes a relationship of exclusion.  Now, he says, we can only grasp the significance of something by denying, or at least ignoring, the literal meaning.

 

In much the same way, I think that Craig contrasts two things which are not only complementary, but should be tightly integrated:  reasons for faith, and the truths of the Spirit.

 

Let it be understood here that the burden of proof belongs to the one who wishes to contrast things that may be complementary – not the other way around.  It is Craig’s burden to establish clearly and decisively that we must choose between these two ways of knowing.

 

Dimensions of Knowledge

 

Craig seems to think that either we know something or we don’t.  But this is manifestly false. 

 

Here’s what I mean.  In our everyday lives, do we either completely know something or else are completely ignorant?  Doesn’t knowledge admit of degrees?  As we learn about something, don’t we come to know more and more about it?  Knowledge is characterized by degrees of depth and breadth across several dimensions.  This has, no doubt, been formulated in a variety of ways.  I find that the following delineates the multiple dimensions of knowledge in a straightforward and helpful manner.

 

Scope of Definition

As we discussed earlier, the definition of “Christianity” can vary – from core tenets, expanding to fundament truths of “mere Christianity”, and expanding even further to include the actions and teachings of Jesus.  Thus, the definitional breadth of ‘Christianity” can increase as knowledge increases.

 

The depth of this knowledge, as we have seen, can increase as questions of “deity” and “resurrection” are fully fleshed out and understood.

 

Scope of Rationale

The reasons for holding something to be true may be called the rationale for this belief.  These can increase in breadth, as we will see later with “converging evidence.”  The more avenues of inquiry, the greater the breadth of rationale.

 

Again, each avenue may be explored in a deeper way, and the knowledge gained will increase the depth of rationale.

 

Scope of Confidence

The subjective confidence in one’s knowledge may increase across two dimensions as well.  First, the formal confidence increases as my ability to articulate what is understood increases. 

 

Secondly, the existential confidence increases as I “feel” more confident, and as I am willing in my everyday life to rely on this knowledge in significant ways.

 

And so, I think it is highly misleading to say that one either “knows Christianity is true” or one doesn’t.  We come to know this, as well as all other things, in a way that allows our scope of definition, rationale, and confidence to grow – both broader and deeper

 

 

NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING

 

The thesis does not deal with counter-examples from the New Testament.

 

  1. The apostles reasoned from Scripture to produce knowledge.
  2. The apostles appealed to real-world facts to produce knowledge.

 

Craig, properly, turns to scripture, especially the New Testament teaching that the Holy Spirit lives inside us and teaches us.  He appeals to 1 John (“you have no need that anyone should teach you”).  John alludes to the more “sure word” than the apostolic testimony, but need this exclude his own testimony, which is his basis for authority?     

 

Reasoning

 

There are certainly places in the New Testament where knowledge seems to be explicitly tied to reasons.  The first is in the case of the Bereans in Acts.  These new believers are typically used in sermons to illustrate that we should base our beliefs on the teachings of the Bible, because they “searched the Scriptures.”  But there is more to it.  We should remember the context:  Paul’s strategy in the synagogues was to show that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah by reasoning from the Old Testament.  In Berea, they were careful to look at these passages to see for themselves if these things were true (that is, to find out, to know).

 

Acts 17.1

In Thessalonica

When they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ," he said.

 

Acts 17.10

In Berea

As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue.  Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

 

Notice that because the Bereans followed the argument (which, by the way, referred to more than just the “core tenets”), they came to see for themselves that this was so.  This train of reasoning was in reality the basis for their belief.  The knowledge they possessed was, as it were, composed of facts (the scriptures and Jesus’ life), reasoning (rationally appreciating the correspondence), and conclusion (that Jesus was the promised Messiah).

 

The apostles reasoned from Scripture to produce knowledge.

 

Facts

 

In the same way, the gospel of Luke begins with a very clear and straightforward statement of intent.  He says that he personally investigated the stories about Jesus’ actions and words, and wrote them out so that … what?  So that the reader can “know with certainty” the things that have been taught about Christianity.  And the inference would follow that this is a component of knowing that Christianity is true.

 

Luke 1.1

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

 

Even in the 1 John example, Craig’s strongest illustration, while accepting that the Spirit gives a “more sure word” than the words of humans, note that John believes his readers do need to be taught, because he is writing this letter specifically to teach them core doctrines of Christianity (against the Gnostics or proto-Gnostics).  He appeals to his own personal, everyday knowledge – touching, handling, seeing, hearing.  He concludes with “See that what you have heard from the beginning [the apostolic testimony] remains in you.” (1 John 2.24)  This has to be construed as part of the very foundation of their faith.

 

1 John 1.1

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us.

 

1 John 2.22
Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son.

 

It is clear that the apostles appealed to real-world facts to produce knowledge.

 

 

THE WAY FORWARD

 

At this point, the reader may object, “Sure, there may be some problems in the way Craig explains his view.  He’s certainly not clear about what he means by “Christianity” and exactly what is given by the Holy Spirit’s witness.  And, we can grant that there are logical peculiarities, such as the fact that this theory is unfalsifiable.  But maybe that’s just the way it is.”

 

The reader may go on to say, “But it’s easy to be a critic, isn’t it? - especially of a theory that is not fully laid out.  But what do you have, in a positive way, to show the proper role of apologetics, and how to answer Craig’s very legitimate concerns?”

 

I agree that it’s important to map out a better way forward, and will attempt to offer a proper solution to these questions.

 

 

KNOWLEDGE AND SAVING FAITH

 

The first thing to realize is that recognizing the difference between “Saving faith” and “knowledge that Christianity is true” immediately solves many of Craig’s concerns.  Craig has made many distinctions, but the most important distinction, which is staring us in the face, he does not see.  He unnecessarily conflates “saving faith” with “knowledge that Christianity is true.”

 

[from evidential apologetic works such as McDowell’s Evidence] It became quite evident to me that it was possible to present a sound, convincing, positive case for the truth of Christian theism.  Still I could not embrace the view that rational argument and evidence constitute the essential foundation for faith, for the fruits of that viewpoint had become forcefully clear to me at Wheaton.  (Five Views, p 27 - italics mine)

 

Here, as in other passages, Craig uses “foundation for faith” and “basis for knowledge” (that Christianity is true) interchangeably.  We should, instead, make a clear distinction between Saving Faith and Knowledge that Christianity is True. 

 

Saving Faith without Knowledge

 

A person can surely have saving faith without full knowledge that Christianity is true.  (This doesn’t mean that it’s completely irrational – only that full knowledge is not provided.)  Consider the thief on the cross.  He didn’t have a lot of time or opportunity to evaluate the evidence.  He based his plea on very limited knowledge!  He presumably couldn’t have believed in Jesus’ resurrection (since it hadn’t occurred yet), and there is no evidence that he had a firm grasp of Jesus’ virgin birth, his deity, the sin-bearing nature of his death on the cross, or other main truths.  He simply did not “know that Christianity is true”, even in the most primitive sense.  However, he did see that there was something about Jesus, and he trusted Jesus to pull him through – somehow.

 

I think that Peter, sinking in the waves, is an excellent example of the condition of many, many converts.  “Lord, save me, I’m sinking!”  Jesus commended simple faith and accepts those who are muddled, confused, have weird beliefs, and otherwise are not even in a position to assent to the core tenets of Christianity.  I am sure that these people are truly saved, are Christians, and Jesus lives in their hearts if they simply say “yes” to Jesus.  I, with thousands of hippies like me in the late 60’s and early 70’s, committed my life to Christ and was “saved” with even less to go on than Peter had.

 

And so, a person who is thus a new Christian emphatically does not necessarily possess the “knowledge that Christianity is true”, if this means understanding and accepting a set of core propositions.  He/she will certainly later seek to know more about Jesus and to understand his teaching, and thus will come to deeper and broader knowledge, but this knowledge is not always present at conversion.  Ask anyone who is in that boat.

 

Knowledge without Saving Faith

 

On the flip side, it is equally clear that someone could have knowledge that Christianity is true without having saving faith.  We may start by considering the demons, who know with certainty that Christianity is true, and tremble - but they do not have saving faith.

 

Second, there are those (as Craig himself tells us regarding his experience at Wheaton) who presumably had had “salvation experiences” but eventually fell away.  Without exploring the “eternal security” controversy, it still could be argued that they knew, at one point in their lives, that Christianity was true – but they also did not have saving faith.

 

Third, it is at least conceivable that there are people who in their heart of hearts know that the Lord is calling them and that the gospel is true.  But they cannot, or will not, respond.  They are so tied up in themselves, or so committed to their own pleasures or fears, that they can’t get outside that to make the right choice.  If so, then they have knowledge without saving faith.

 

Summary

 

This is all very elementary, and I am sure that similar examples can be multiplied.  If this distinction between Saving Faith and Knowledge is accepted, then much of Craig’s concern simply goes away!  We have no paradox about Christianity being available only to the elite who “know” based upon reasons.  The Christian is free to cling to Jesus even when the intellectual waters are troubled. 

 

The solution, then, is not to de-couple rational warrant from evidential knowledge, but rather to de-couple salvation from this kind of knowledge.

 

 

JESUS IS EVIDENCE

 

To the Christian, Jesus is, himself, evidence regarding who God is, what he has done, and who he wants us to become.  We devalue this evidence at our peril.

 

The Evidential Incarnation

 

God spoke through visions and prophets for a long, long time.  His Spirit was evident to the hearts of those who would listen.  Still, his goal of saving his people was not reached. 

 

Now, imagine you are God and you want not only to save your children but to reveal yourself and your intentions:  to show them who you are, what you have in store for their lives, what is good and true and right and important.  There are surely many ways you could do this.  But God made the decision, before the foundation of the world, that the best way to reveal himself would be to enter human history.  He would represent himself in the court of public affairs.

 

Consider this.  In the man Jesus, he chose to walk about publicly, healing people of their sickness, casting out demons, and teaching crowds of people wherever he went.  Jesus revealed who God is and what he wants by being the personal instantiation of God.  Therefore, God has arranged that the primary source evidence for knowledge of God is Jesus himself.  Jesus is evidence.  In not only his teachings, but in every action, every thoughtful gesture, every healing, every step toward his death in Jerusalem, in the very dirt and grit of his life on earth, he testified that this is what God is like, this is what a real human life looks like, this is who we were made to be.

 

And so, what evidence do I have that God is good, that he is the Creator, that he cares about me, that he has a purpose for my life, that I can live forever in heaven?  The man Jesus, he is my evidence.

 

Jesus’ Legacy

 

Yes, but how can Jesus be evidence for everyone?  Only a small fraction of people who have ever lived personally witnessed his life, and the vast majority of those only caught glimpses of him.  Perhaps we could all see him if God instantiated himself thousands of times, but this was not chosen. 

 

Or, perhaps Jesus could have written a book himself.  At first, this seems entirely plausible (and I have often wondered about it).  But it’s not just his teachings that are important, it is also his actions, especially his passion and death and resurrection (which would have been difficult for him to write down) … but this is all speculation – he chose not to do that, either. 

 

The avenue of communication Jesus chose was not to multiply himself like the loaves and fishes, nor to write a book.  He chose to leave us his Legacy.  What do I mean by that?  Jesus very deliberately and intentionally gathered 12 disciples around himself and became their Friend.  For a period of three years he showed them everything, up close and personal.  He trained them.  They truly knew him.  As the disciple John points out, all of their conversations and actions would have filled a whole library.  His Legacy to them was their experience of him.