Advice for Christians struggling with sexual sin

Having discussed in the last post the sinfulness of masturbation, we are now forced to confront the reality that our sexual desires rarely seem to act in accord with our beliefs.  That is, we may know that it is unwise to "stir up" desires at this point in our lives, but that doesn't stop our bodies from becoming sexually aroused---quite often!  Are we up against an insurmountable obstacle?  God forbid!  Let me remind you of some truths.

1. God created us to seek pleasure, just as He seeks pleasure

God did not create sex just so He could tell people not to indulge in it.  Rather, He created sex because He delights in pleasure Himself.  He made us as sexual creatures so we could experience this pleasure.  This stands in sharp contrast to evolutionary thinking, in which sex randomly arose from natural selection because it inferred a survival advantage.  Sex is a very beautiful, purposeful activity, and we should love it just as God loves it.  Indeed, when God made Adam, who was created as a sexual creature, He declared that it was "very good" (Gen. 1).  It is an utterly false notion that sex or nakedness is inherently evil.  This thinking may be found in the ascetism of some pagans, but it should never be found in the thinking of Christians.  Remember, in 1 Cor. 7:5 Paul said that husbands and wives should not deprive one another of sex.  God loves marriage, romance, and sex so much that He wrote an entire book dedicated to the subject: Song of Solomon.  Many might be shocked to discover that the book very graphically describes (using metaphors) the intoxicating thrill of sexual pleasure experienced between two lovers.

2. Since God loves to please us, He has told us how we may receive the best kind of sexual pleasure

If God created sex and wants us to enjoy it to the fullest extent then don't you think He would have told us how we might best enjoy sex?  Well, He did tell us---in His word.  The most satisfying way and the only satisfying way to experience sexual fulfillment is through the union of marriage.  The best analogy I've heard involves fire: inside of the fireplace, a fire brings warmth and comfort.  But outside of the fireplace, the fire burns uncontrollaby, spreading to all parts of the house, destroying everything and bringing great plain and loss.  The similarity to sex is astounding: outside of marriage, our sexual desire knows no end because it can never find an object that completely satisfies it.  How many times have you been "burned" by sexual sin?

3. Satan's desire for you is your destruction, not your pleasure

Never forget that our God is the Lord of pleasure (Ps. 16:11, Ps. 145).  Satan, who is the king of this world's system of thinking, could not care less whether you are happy.  He will use anything he can to hinder your walk with the Lord.  If he can deceive you by offering you false promises of pleasure, he will.  Lust looks great from the outside, but afterward we always find ourselves disappointed.  The reason is simple: only the truth can bring true, lasting pleasure.  And the truth is that we were created for sex within God's context, not the world's false, fake, ugly version of sexual pleasure.  Christ had the following to say about the devil:

When you do sin, don't think for a moment that Satan is actually glad that you are receiving pleasure.  1 Peter 5:8 says that he is like a "roaring lion, seeking who he may devour."  He wants you to sin, and he knows that the wages of sin are death (Romans 6:23).  Christ, on the other hand, promises just the opposite: "I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly" (John 10:10).

4. Sexual fulfillment through sexual sin is a lie

Sin is fun for a moment, until reality sets in---the reality that we traded something good (our purity and holiness) for something awful (shame and regret).  As it says in Romans 1, we have "exchanged the truth of God for a lie."  Are you surprised, then, that the Bible talks of sin in terms of slavery?  And the truth in terms of freedom?  Consider John 8:31-6.

Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?” Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.

• Memorize God's word
  Psalm 119:9-11 says, "How can a young man cleanse his way?  By taking heed according to your word. ... Your word I have hidden in my heart that I might not sin against you."  The point, of course, is not memorizing for memorization's sake, but to have our mind constantly filled with truth and goodness (Phil. 4:8).  When our minds are filled with truth they are not filled with lies.
  

• Get out and do something
  If your life is sedentary and your mind is idle, you are far more likely to fall prey to your fleshly desires.  The old proverb, "An idle brain is the devil's playground" is quite true.  So do something, particularly something challenging and meaningful.  Get some exercise.  Help the elderly.  Lead a Bible study.  There are millions of ways you can encourage, provide, and care for others.  Determine what opportunities God has given you and pursue them.  When you are busy doing good you are far less likely to find yourself in tempting situations.  The recent book Do Hard Things looks like it is trying to motivate young people along these lines.
  
  
• Get in a schedule
  Tying in heavily with the previous point, you need some way to ensure that you will be doing something.  You need a schedule.  When you do whatever whenever you are more likely to find yourself slipping into situations you'd best not be in.  For example, I have my internet filter set such that I cannot use the internet past 11:00.  This forces me to get off of the computer and get to bed.  The more tired I am, the more I am tempted.  Likewise, in the morning you should wake up at a regular time and get out of bed immediately.
  
  
• Use media for a purpose
  When you use the internet or TV, have a purpose in mind.  Avoid "surfing".  You are infinitely more likely to "accidentally" surf into something you shouldn't.  So when you use the internet, check your email, check the blogs you want, look up the info you need, and then get off.  This will also ensure that you don't waste time using media that you could use doing more profitable activities, such as investing in relationships.
  
  
• Put your TV and computer out in the open, and get a filter
  Keep them in places where people can see what you are doing.  Use them only when others are around.  Also, get an internet filter if you don't have one.  Fifty dollars a year is more than worth it.  I use Bsafe Online because it is run from a server and not from your computer, so you can't tamper with it.  If you buy the filter for yourself and don't want to know the password, create a really long number that will be impossible for you to remember.  Write down the password on a piece of paper and give it to a friend or family member.  Tell them why you are giving it to them and tell them not to give it you unless they are with you at the computer.  (In case you need to change the options.)  Yes, the filter will sometimes block sites that are appropriate.  Get over it.  If you are serious about getting pure and staying pure, things like that are an afterthought.
  
  
• Invest in godly relationships
  Everyone desires relationships, right?  Well, go build some.  Go spend time with family and friends.  It is particularly valuable to have good friends of the opposite sex, too, I believe.  Furthermore, get out of friendships that are causing more harm than good.  This can be tough, but you must do it.  Don't succumb to the notion that you're going to "win" your lost friends by involving yourself in worldly activities with them.
  
  
• Get an accountability partner
  Find someone that you respect, someone who cares about your spiritual well-being, and someone who is responsible.  (I would highly recommend finding someone older than you who has experience and wisdom.)  Ask them to check up on whether you are staying pure.  They need to be forward with you.  Accountability means no excuses, no lame attempts to avoid the question.  "Are you staying completely pure in thought and deed?"  And, just as importantly, "What will you do to ensure that you will stay pure/get pure?"  Talk over your strategy with your partner.  Pray with your partner.
  
  
• Pray
• Pray for God to satisfy your need for intimacy
  Prayer is intimate, and what you need is intimacy.  So pray to the Father, and ask Him to draw you closer to Him.  Ask Him to grow you in Christ-likeness and provide for you in every way.  Why is it that we say, "Christ is all we need?"  Will Christ actually fulfill our sexual desires?  Only in the sense that He can and will fulfill our desires for intimacy.  After all, intimacy is what we're really seeking, not sex.  When you are married, enjoy sex, but don't think that you need sex in order to be satisfied.  You may want sex---and that is good---but all you need is Christ.  Learn the difference and pray accordingly.
• Pray for God to give you pure desires
  Why is it that we forget that God wants to sanctify us?  If our desires are holy desires, then will He not satisfy them? (Ps. 37:4)  Henry Scougal once wrote, "Hast thou excited these desires in my soul, and wilt thou not also satisfy them?"  He was talking about his God-given desire for holiness.  Since our desires determine our choices, and God sovereignly determines our desires, ask God that He would give you desires for purity.  Do you really think He will reject your petition?  Of course, He won't suddenly remove your sexual desire---and He's not supposed to.  Ask Him not for an end to the battle but the strength and willingness to fight.  Rejoice in your God-given desires for sex, but rejoice even more in your God-given desires for self-control.
  

• Desiring God --- the classic text by John Piper regarding the pursuit of pleasure.  Piper's concept of "Christian hedonism" has changed my life, and has revolutionized my view of sexual sin.  If this is too long for you, get the condensed version of the book: The Dangerous Duty of Delight.
• The Life of God in the Soul of Man --- the Puritan text that inspired John Piper and many others.  The author, Henry Scougal, wrote this book on his deathbed when he was just 27.  A very short but very powerful book.
• The Purity Principle --- A very short book by Randy Alcorn that combines Christian hedonism with lots of practical advice and thought-provoking insights on purity.

Masturbation is a sin

This is the appendix to the paper I presented in my previous entry.  My Wisdom Literature professor noted that this is really the most important and valuable part of the entire document since it is an exegetical and linguistic defense of the core tenets of the main body.

This paper assumes to some extent that you have read the previous entry.  And like the previous entry, this paper assumes that the reader is already familiar with presuppositionalism.

Appendix: A Defense of the Presuppositionalist Interpretation of Proverbs 1:7

As discussed at length, Proverbs 1:7 is a favorite prooftext of revelational epistemologists, namely presuppositionalists.  Of course, such an interpretation assumes that the Hebrew word translated as knowledge, da’at, refers to justified, true belief.[1]  In all of my time studying the works of Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, and Butler, I have never seen a defense of this interpretation.  This is perhaps curious, because even a cursory glance at many popular commentaries on Proverbs will reveal that the few who draw epistemological implications from this verse spend little time, if any, discussing these implications.  Of course, this may say more about the modern evangelical scholar’s interest in epistemology than anything else.

A few have challenged presuppositionalists in their use of Proverbs 1:7.  Therefore, I would like to examine whether da’at refers to justified, true belief against two common arguments.[2]

            The first argument states that da’at refers only to “moral knowledge,” which is why some Bible versions may translate da’at as “wisdom” instead of “knowledge.”  Consequently, the argument states that Solomon only had practical skill for living in mind and not epistemology when he penned verses like Proverbs 1:7, 1:29, 2:6, and 9:10.  The presuppositionalist may respond in several ways.

            First, da’at and its root, yāda’, is defined and used epistemologically.  In the Old Testament, yāda’ is used 944 times to describe a variety of situations in which a person believes, understands, perceives, recognizes, or discerns something about reality.[3]   Concerning da’at, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament defines it as “knowledge gained in various ways by the senses” and calls it a “general term for knowledge.”[4]  Furthermore, da’at is used when describing technical knowledge (1 Kings 7:14), discernment (Ps. 119:66), moral cognition (Gen. 2:9,17), unintentional deeds (Deut. 4:42), and mistaken opinions (Prov. 19:2).  God has da’at because nothing is hidden from Him (Ps. 139:1-18), and He teaches da’at to man (Ps. 94:10).  In some of these cases, da’at refers to knowledge that is not limited to that of an practical, moral nature.  It seems strange that Solomon would use such an epistemologically-rich term if he did not intend to convey an epistemological statement.

The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis seems less enthusiastic about da’at as an epistemological term, choosing to emphasize its theological dimension (the necessity of da’at in one’s relationship with God).[5]  NIDOTTE still discusses da’at as a derivative of yd’ (a different spelling of yāda’), which means to “observe, realize, find out, recognize, perceive, care about, be(come) acquainted with, have sexual relations with, choose, (come to) understand, know, have insight; …”[6]  The derivative da’at is specifically defined as “knowledge, ability, knowledge of, insight …”[7]  Commenting on the wide range of usage of yd’ in the Old Testament, NIDOTTE says the following.

The meanings of yd’ are difficult to relate to one another.  They range from sensory perception to intellectual process to practical skill to careful attention to close relationship to physical intimacy. … It is probable that precision in nuancing is not to be sought in such words in isolation; only the context enables some distinctions to emerge.[8]

            As the second response will show, the meaning of da’at does clearly emerge in light of the context.  NIDOTTE also makes an interesting point regarding the act of knowing:

In the broadest sense, yd’ means to take various aspects of the world of one’s experience into the self, including the resultant relationship with that which is known.  The fundamentally relational character of knowing (over against a narrow intellectual sense) can be discerned, not least in that both God and human beings can be subject and object of the vb.[9]

            This actually closely mirrors the “triperspectivalism” of presuppositional apologist John Frame.  In The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, Frame spends a great deal of time explaining that knowing is always an act done in relation to God’s word, the creation, and the self.  Frame says that “they are so closely related to each other that knowing law, world, and self are all the same process, seen from different ‘perspectives.’”[10]  This relational nature of knowing fits nicely with Proverbs 1:7 and 9:10, because knowledge is understood only in light of Yahweh.  The Baker Commentary on Proverbs agrees:

As a beginning, [Proverbs 1:7] claims that there is no knowledge apart from a proper attitude and relationship to Yahweh.  Fear of Yahweh is foundational to knowledge, which here functions as a close synonym to wisdom.  In this way, the book acknowledges the radically relational and theocentric nature of knowledge/wisdom.  This is important especially in the light of the fact that the wisdom literature does not hammer away this idea.  Many of the proverbs in the latter part of the book cite experience, observation, or human reason as the grounds for their advice, and this has led some scholars to suppose that wisdom, at least in its early stages, is a “secular” enterprise.  However, the present form of the book is thoroughly theological so that even human observation depends on divinity in a foundational way.[11]

            Continuing the theme of perspectives, the Handbook on Wisdom Books and Psalms quotes Clifford as saying that Proverbs has an epistemological, ethical, and religious dimension.[12]  As with Frame’s triperspectivalism, each dimension must be understood in relation to the other.  A proper way of knowing must presuppose a dependence on Yahweh.  Furthermore, a proper way of knowing is inherently ethical because it entails how one ought to think.  Frame observes the following:

To ask a person to justify a belief is to ask an ethical question.  It is to ask what ethical right that person has to believe such and such; it is to ask whether and why we are ethically obligated to believe it.  What is the “pressure” we feel to accept a justified belief? … The pressure, I think, can be understood only as a moral pressure, as the pressure of conscience.[13]

Having examined the inter-related perspectives of knowing, we see that Proverbs 1:7 encapsulates them all beautifully.  The person who knows is obligated to fear Yahweh.  Epistemology, ethics, and theology all intersect at the heart of wisdom.  Consequently, to proclaim Yahweh as the beginning of wisdom is to make a statement about how we know, what we ought to know, and who God is.  To deny the epistemological component of wisdom, then, is to deny wisdom itself.  The critic of presuppositionalism has found himself in the same position as the unbeliever: presupposing the very thing he argues against.

            A second and perhaps more lethal response to this first charge involves the context.  Proverbs presents a vivid picture of the wise and the fool.  As discussed at length, foolishness is an epistemology with devastating and unavoidable implications for how the fool reasons and behaves.  Paul explains in Romans 1:22 that the fool’s self-glorifying epistemology leads him to consider himself wise, when in reality he is the exact opposite—a fool, and precisely because his epistemology is so irrational.  Likewise, Psalm 14 states that the fool does not believe in God.  This unbelief makes him a worker of iniquity—one who is corrupt and does not seek God.  The psalmist asks in verse four, “Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge?”  In other words, unbiblical epistemologies are irrational and sinful, and this defines what it means to be foolish.  Since wisdom is the opposite of foolishness, we can deduce that wisdom entails rationality and righteousness.  Rationality requires a sound epistemology, therefore wisdom itself must be an epistemology.  Therefore, to say that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom is to say that Yahweh is the foundation of true epistemology.

Perhaps some would grant that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of justified, true belief, but this was not Solomon’s intention when writing Proverbs.  But how could Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, write a book about wisdom and foolishness and ignore the epistemological consequences?

Furthermore, Proverbs 1:7 is regarded as the summary of the preamble of Proverbs (Prov. 1:1-7), which makes it a very important verse.  The New International Commentary on the Old Testemant calls it the “quintessential expression of the basic spiritual grammar for understanding the book.”[14]  If in that one verse the core difference between the wise and fool is described then it no doubt must encompass all of the differences between the wise and the fool.  Since the wise and the fool have different epistemologies, Proverbs 1:7 must entail an epistemological dimension.  Of course, I would go even further and say that the core difference between the wise and the fool is epistemological, therefore the core verse of Proverbs that explains the core difference between the wise and the fool should be explicitly epistemological.

We see again how epistemology ties in so strongly with ethics.  Drawing again upon Frame’s clever observation, we see that epistemology is ethical because biblical epistemology shows us not only what is the right way to think but how men ought to think.  After all, the intellectual suicide of the unbeliever stems from an ethical pitfall—namely his rejection of the true knowledge-giver in favor of his own autonomy.  Once again, even if the presuppositionalist conceded that da’at is chiefly ethical, epistemological implications are only a short leap away.

            A third counter-argument considers Proverbs 1:7 within the context of the topics in the rest of the book: education (22:6, 1:5), counsel (11:14), instruction (12:1), discretion (1:4, 2:11, 5:2), discernment (2:3), understanding (1:2, 2:2), study (15:28), truth (3:3), investigation (25:2), legal defense (25:8-10), certainty (22:21), and perception (1:2, 20:12).  Each of these practices or disciplines must correspond to God’s created reality if they are to have any value.  Justifying such a correspondence theory of truth, of course, requires a cogent epistemology. 

Not surprisingly, Solomon provides the basis for all of the above disciplines almost immediately in Proverbs 1:7.  NICOT agrees by pointing out that “beginning” in Proverbs 1:7 refers to temporality rather than quality.  The fear of the Lord is not merely the “choice part” of wisdom.  Rather, it is necessarily prior to understanding the book of Proverbs:

However, the temporally first step in this case is not on a horizontal axis that can be left behind but on a vertical axis on which all else rests.  It denotes both the initium and the principium.  What the alphabet is to reading, notes to reading music, and numerals to mathematics, the fear of the Lord is to attaining the revealed knowledge of this book.[15]

            Fourth, if we view wisdom, understanding, and knowledge in the book of Proverbs as solely “moral,” 3:19-20 presents an odd picture.  In these verses we have non-moral actions being accomplished through the aforementioned trifecta.  Would breaking up the depths not require a knowledge of how the depths must be broken up?  “Practical skills for living as Yahweh intends” are simply not in view here.  My intention here is not to get readers to abandon the moral component of the trifecta but to simply acknowledge a more robust, encompassing definition of the terms.

            Fifth, NICOT presents understanding, which is closely tied to knowledge and wisdom (Prov. 9:10) as being “the faculty of the intellectual discernment and interpretation ….”[16]  Moreover, “it refers to the faculty of reason and intelligence applied to the content of the sage’s teaching.”[17]  Finally, NICOT wisely points to Prov. 3:5 as a refutation of the “autonomous use of the intellect.”[18]  Autonomy always leads to intellectual death and therefore knowledge “falsely so-called” (1 Tim. 6:20), which is why we must lean not on our own understanding but on the true knowledge-giver.

            The second argument some Christians may present against a presuppositional reading of Proverbs 1:7 involves the “fear of the Lord.”  Presuppositionalists argue that all men know God as the authority and therefore are epistemologically subservient to Him.  In order to have knowledge at all, all men must fear the Lord, even if they suppress this fear.  In many proverbs, however, Solomon seems to present the fear of the Lord as something possessed only by the righteous.[19]  For example, to fear the Lord is to hate evil (Prov. 8:13), but fools obviously do not hate evil.  Also, Proverbs 1:29 presents the fear of the Lord as something that men choose—not something that all men have through general revelation.  How does the presuppositionalist resolve this seemingly crippling contradiction?[20]

            The simplest response is that in one sense unbelievers do not fear the Lord and in another sense they do.  Unbelievers do suppress the knowledge of God and therefore act as though they do not know God, and even claim that they do not know God, but this does not change the fact that they do know God.  The unbeliever is simply lying to himself (and therefore is bearing false witness to the truth and is without excuse).  In doing so he appears to reject the fear of the Lord.  In other words, he outwardly denies what he must inwardly believe.  His fundamental presuppositional commitment is to himself, and yet apart from a presuppositional commitment to his dependence on God he could not operate in this world.  Greg Bahnsen once noted that his unbelieving doctor was able to perform a successful heart surgery on him because the Christian worldview is true, not the doctor’s.  Of course, principles such as induction, the reliability of the senses, logic, memory, other minds, and so on, are usually taken for granted.  Most people do not stop to consider what justification they might have for these transcendentals, and even if they have they cannot articulate a justification apart from scripture.[21]  Yet they do know the justification through general revelation: All men know that God provides the transcendentals because all men know that “in Him we live and move and have our being,” (Acts 17:28).  All men know that God is the creator and sustainer—and apart from this knowledge of God as the “Greater Transcendental” man could not justify his use of the “Lesser Transcendentals.”  In other words, it is not enough to be made in God’s image (and therefore possess rationality).  We must actually fear the Lord to have knowledge.  We must actually submit to Him.

            Another response to the conundrum of unbelievers fearing the Lord invokes common grace.  Bahnsen quotes Van Til on this matter as follows:

[The unbeliever] has within him the knowledge of God by virtue of his creation in the image of God.  But this idea of God is suppressed by his false principle, in turn, suppressed by the restraining power of God’s common grace … And by the striving of the Spirit … their hostility is curbed in some measure … And as such they can cooperate by virtue of the ethical restrain of common grace.[22]

            Though the unbeliever seems to dwell in irreconciliable tension, he does find himself in possession of some knowledge through God’s grace.  Furthermore, since all knowledge given to sinful men is an act of grace, we may also deduce from biblical epistemology that faith itself comes through grace alone.  The Holy Spirit, therefore, plays the crucial role in restoring one’s epistemology, just as He restores one’s soul.  As Bahnsen wisely said, “Christ is not just the way back to the Father, He is the way back to the Father’s world.”[23]

It is worth noting that some commentators recognize the epistemological implications of the fear of the Lord.  NICOT states that the “fear of the Lord … is the book’s theological and epistemological foundation.”[24]  NICOT also affirms the significance of the fear of the Lord in general revelation in a quote by R.N. Whybray: “[The fear of the Lord refers] to a standard of moral conduct known and accepted by men in general.”[25]  Despite knowing this standard, men suppress their fear of the Lord in order to evade His authority.

The Word Biblical Commentary quotes G. von Rad as saying that “Israel attributes to the fear of God … a highly important function in respect to human knowledge.  She was … of the opinion that effective knowledge about God is the only thing that puts man into a right relationship with the objects of his perception.”[26]  A later excursus on the fear of the Lord provides another illuminating quote by G. von Rad that neatly summarizes many of the points propounded in this paper.

The thesis that all human knowledge comes back to the question about commitment to God is a statement of penetrating perspicacity.  It has, of course, been so worn by centuries of Christian teaching that it has to be seen anew in all its provocative pungency.  In the most concise phraseology it encompasses a wide range of intellectual content and can itself be understood only as the result of a long process of thought.  It contains in a nutshell the whole Israelite theory of knowledge.[27]

In conclusion, we see that the two main charges, although worth answering, fail to nullify Proverbs 1:7 as a prooftext for presuppositionalist epistemology.  The first charge seems to stem from an unwarranted prejudice against epistemology, or at least an unfortunate ignorance towards epistemology.  Examining the Hebrew as well as the context quickly dismantles the charge.  The case is further strengthened in light of Frame and Clifford’s perspectivalist, relational view of knowing.  The second charge merely misunderstands presuppositionalism and has already been addressed by Bahnsen and Van Til.  Therefore, a “wise” reading of Proverbs will appreciate the seventh verse in its fullest epistemological sense.

Apologetical Implications of Proverbs

Introduction

            Contrary to the opinion of some, apologetics is not a discipline that doctrine-obsessed Christians concocted to satisfy their need to argue with dissenters.  Rather, apologetics is mandated by scripture so that believers may worship God with their minds, protect the church, and evangelize the lost.  Specifically, apologetics may be defined as the intellectual contention for the veracity of the Christian worldview (1 Pet. 3:15, Jude 3, 2 Cor. 10:4-5).  A proper understanding of this important discipline requires a study of epistemology, methodology, argumentation, attitude, and behavior.  By studying Proverbs we will find that God has given us a book that almost single-handedly may be used to furnish the Christian apologist with an understanding of each of these topics.

            Before we study the apologetical implications of Proverbs, a basic overview of the book is in order.  Written by King Solomon, Proverbs contains practical instructions in wisdom—living as Yahweh intends.[1]  To accomplish this, Proverbs presents the way of the wise and the fool.[2]  The observations made concerning these two types of people over a wide variety of situations have been distilled into timeless maxims that anyone seeking wisdom should adopt.[3]  These maxims, or proverbs, are brief, particular expressions of truth that reflect an inductive look at the world.[4]  Therefore, most proverbs were not intended to describe every situation that one will encounter.

Epistemology

            At the heart of apologetics is an epistemological question: is Christianity true and how do we know?  Although the topic of apologetics receives considerable attention, epistemology has been relegated to the realm of obscurity by most Christian teachers—a realm of thinking best left up to ivory tower philosophers.  Such a low view of epistemology is very foolish, however, since a worldview will live or die on epistemological grounds.  Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that Proverbs—a book that focuses so heavily on foolishness and wisdom—should contain such rich epistemological insight.  Unfortunately, most Christians enter the book of Proverbs oblivious to such insights.  Greg Bahnsen, the well-known student of Cornelius Van Til, rightly comments on this problem:

It is a shame that Christian scholars, apologists, and philosophers have so often neglected a detailed study of the book of Proverbs in their attempts to exposit and work from a biblical epistemology (theory of knowledge). … Proverbs can certainly aid us in the development and elaboration of the presuppositional approach to knowledge …[5]

            For both scholars and laymen, a neglect of epistemology is most likely rooted in improper responses to modernism that developed over a hundred years ago.  Unsure about how to respond to the great onslaught by modernism that begin in the Enlightenment period, many Christians either assimilated to modernist influence or raised the white flag with regards to philosophy in general.[6]  In both cases, epistemology became another realm owned by the world and therefore uninfluenced by the Bible.  Likewise, Christians began to accept the dichotomy of faith and knowledge, seeing faith as something sacred and knowledge as something secular.

            Such a dichotomy, or fact-value distinction, is foreign to scripture.  Rather than separating faith and knowledge, Solomon presents God has having a monopoly on knowledge: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov. 1:7) and “From His mouth come knowledge and understanding” (Prov. 2:6).[7]^,[8]  This parallels Colossians 2:3, in which Paul says that in Christ “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”  Of course, the thought that God is sovereign even over knowledge is greatly offensive to carnal man, which is why “fools hate knowledge” (Prov. 1:22).  The fool refuses to acknowledge his epistemological subservience to God and consequently is lacking in understanding, discernment, instruction, wisdom, and knowledge (Prov. 2:2-11). 

[Note: This last sentence is originally said "without" in place of "is lacking in."  The former rendering, however, was incorrect.  I thank Adam for pointing this out to me.  Nowhere does scripture teach that the unbeliever is without knowledge, and in fact such a teaching would contradict Romans 1:18-21 and consequently make God unjust in His punishment of unbelievers.  Rather, Prov. 2:2-11 teaches that since wisdom, knowledge, and understanding stem from God one may apply their heart to study these and without fail encounter God.  Therefore, the student will understand more fully what it means to "fear of the Lord," since the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.]

            Paul speaks at length on how man’s foolishness, which begins with a desire for autonomy, affects his mind.[9]  In Romans 1:21 we read that “although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”  The consequence, Paul writes, is that they refused to acknowledge the Creator-creature distinction by “exchanging the truth of God for a lie” (Rom. 1:25).  And in Ephesians we read that those renewed in Christ “should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them” (Eph. 4:17-18).  We see, then, that foolishness does not merely affect one’s epistemology, it is an epistemology.

            Having rejected the beginning of knowledge, the fool now interprets empirical data, experience, and revelation through a paradigm that will always exalt his autonomy.  The consequence, according to Paul, is often “knowledge falsely so-called” (1 Tim. 6:20).[10]  And just as the fool’s thinking is futile, so is any attempt to correct his foolishness (Prov. 12:1, 26:11-12).[11]  The fool will not abandon his false epistemology because to do so would require him to repent and admit his rightful place before the Creator.  Furthermore, in Romans 1:26-32 and Ephesians 4:19, Paul explains how the fool’s futile thinking leads to immoral behavior.  In other words, the unbeliever suppresses his knowledge of God in hopes of trying to excuse his desire for wickedness.[12]

            Unfortunately, many Christian apologists adopt the foolishness of the unbeliever by catering to the unbeliever’s epistemology.  Rather than obeying Peter’s admonition to “sanctify the Lord God in your hearts” (1 Pet. 3:15) at the beginning of the apologetic task, these apologists argue towards God’s authority rather than from it.  The concluding argument is rather odd: the apologist assumes that man is the ultimate authority in order to prove that God is the ultimate authority.  Bahnsen comments on this in Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis:

The Christian’s final standard, the inspired word of God, teaches us that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov. 1:7).  If the apologist treats the starting point of knowledge as something other than reverence for God, then unconditional submission to the unsurpassed greatness of God’s wisdom at the end of his argumentation does not really make sense.  There would always be something greater than God’s wisdom—namely, the supposed wisdom of one’s intellectual starting point. The word of God would necessarily (logically, if not personally) remain subordinate to that autonomous, final standard.[13]

Such double-mindedness, of course, is sinful because the apologist has abandoned his presuppositional commitment to God’s word.  Rather than fully trusting Yahweh, the apologist has leaned on his own understanding (Prov. 3:5).  Furthermore, the apologetic itself will utilize inferior arguments that are grounded in sinking sand, according to the vain traditions of men, and not according to Christ (Matt. 7:24-27, Col. 2:8).

            In summarizing Christian epistemology we would do well to use the words of Johannes Kepler: “O God, I thank Thee that Thou hast permitted me to think Thy thoughts after Thee.”[15]  All knowledge is given by God (Ps. 94:10, 1 Cor. 4:7), and apart from Him is no understanding (Prov. 2:6, 9:10).  The wise will accept this and remain humble before the Lord of knowledge (1 Sam. 2:3).  “My son, pay attention to my wisdom; lend your ear to my understanding, that you may preserve discretion, and your lips may keep knowledge” (Prov. 5:1-2).

Methodology

            Biblical epistemology deeply affects methodology.  To err on the former is to err on the latter.  As we have seen, the unbeliever holds to an entirely different means of knowing than the believer.  This difference is not rooted in some intellectual misstep that can be corrected with more knowledge.  Rather, the unbeliever already has the very knowledge that he attempts to refute (a knowledge of God’s existence and authority).  Just as foolish as unbelief, then, is the notion that apologists should cater to unbelief in their apologetic.

            In remaining faithful to Christ, we must make Him the beginning as well as the end of our apologetic.  Rational apologetics has long taught that reason precedes faith, as presented in adages like, “I have reasons to believe,” or “Christianity is not intellectual suicide.”  Christian epistemology, however, teaches that which Augustine stated long ago: “I believe in order to understand.”  Psalm 36:9 says, “In your light we see light.”  And even though many evidentialist and rationalist apologists regard 1 Peter 3:15 as the charter verse of apologetics, they fail to consider its opening clause: “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts.”  Peter understood that Christ has pre-eminence in the apologetic task.  As C.S. Lewis explained, it is man and not God who is “in the dock” during apologetics.[16]

            Having recognized the unavoidable prejudice of every man, the apologist should readily avoid any appeals to “neutral ground” between himself and the unbeliever.  Instead of pretending that the unbeliever’s bias will not affect his verdict from the evidence, the apologist should attack the unbeliever at a presuppositional level by pointing out and refuting his anti-God bias.  Furthermore, the apologist must recognize that attacking a non-Christian worldview using evidence interpreted within the Christian worldview is simply a begging of the question.[17]  How does one avoid unfaithfulness and circularity?  Proverbs 26:4-5 presents a solution to both of these apologetic dilemmas: “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him.  Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.”

            The rich apologetic insight of this verse is often missed, unfortunately, in favor of vague commentary that does little more than restate the obvious: there is a time to answer the fool and a time to simply ignore him.[18]  In light of presuppositionalism, however, we see that verse four echoes the concern of adopting the unbeliever’s foolishness in order to cater to him during argumentation.  Verse five contains even more profound insight.  In order to argue without begging the question the apologist must utilize a line of argument known as reductio ad absurdum (“reduction to absurdity”).  Bahnsen elaborates on this in Always Ready:

In using this kind of argument your aim is to show that the opponent’s premise entails a conclusion which is known to be false.  Since it does so, the premise in question must itself also be false.  (This is a rule in formal logic known as “modus tollens”: from “If P, then Q” and the addition of “not-Q,” the conclusion “not-P” necessarily follows.)[19]

            By stepping inside the unbeliever’s worldview and defeating it by its own standards the apologist has avoided circularity.[20]  Christ uses this type of argument in Mark 3 after the scribes charge him with casting out demons by the ruler of demons: “How can Satan cast out Satan?  If a kingdom is divided, that house cannot stand” (Mark 3:23-24).  Likewise, Solomon indicates the strength of reductio ad absurdum: “Therefore they shall eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled to the full with their own fancies” (1:31).  The idea presented is identical to the modern maxim “you are what you eat.”[21]  Applying this to apologetics, we could say that when the unbeliever begins his epistemology with a foolish presupposition (his own authority) then he will craft for himself a nonsensical worldview.

            Proverbs 14:12 also carries strong apologetic overtones: “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.”  The New International Commentary on the Old Testament summarizes this verse’s implications very nicely.

[The road to death] is deceptive because there is a conflict between the limited, opaque human perception of truth and the constitution of reality itself.  The house of the wicked is annihilated because it is built on the flimsy foundation of human epistemology, the relative truth accessible to human sight.  Only the omniscient, omnipotent God knows the true road that leads to life, reality as it actually is.[22]

            Solomon also hints at the strength of reductio ad absurdum in Proverbs 10:14, 10:27, 11:9, 11:14, 14:18, and 14:27.  In each case, the fools “received in themselves the penalty of their error which was due” (Rom. 1:27).  Pointing this out to the unbeliever can make for an enlightening, even soul-winning, conversation.  In the case of the arrogant fool, however, the apologist can only hope to silence the fool.  To continue along in “foolish disputes” (Titus 3:9) no doubt contradicts Solomon’s admonition in the fourth verse. 

Arguments

            Whereas many laymen think that apologetics amounts to little more than stacking up the best arguments against the unbeliever, we have seen that the biblically-minded apologist should understand epistemology and methodology before engagement.[23]  Fortunately, Solomon has written many proverbs that may furnish the presuppositional apologist with solid reductio ad absurdum arguments.  Such “internal critiques,” however, do prove Christianity in and of themselves.[24]  Rather, internal critiques fit into a proof known as the “transcendental argument for the existence of God” (TAG).[25]  Formally written out, TAG appears as follows:[26]

Prove A: The Christian God exists.
Step 1 ~A: (Assume the opposite of A) The Christian God does not exist.
Step 2 (~Aà B): If God does not exist then there is no intelligible experience because God is the precondition of intelligibility.
Step 3 (~B): There is intelligible experience. (Contradiction)
Step 4 (~ ~A): It is not the case that God does not exist. (Modus Tollens on 2 and 3)
Step 5 (A): God does exist. (Law of negation)

Referred to as the “crown jewel” of the presuppositionalist’s arsenal against unbelief, TAG aims to undermine anti-Christian arguments by proving that one must actually presuppose the truth of Christianity in order to attempt to disprove Christianity.  As Greg Bahnsen famously said, “The best proof for Christianity is that without Christianity you couldn’t prove anything.”[27]  Van Til noted that TAG amounts to nothing less than a “call to conversion,” because the unbeliever is confronted with his need to fear the Lord on even the most fundamental level of reasoning.[28]

The key premise is found in step two, which is essentially a deduction from Proverbs 1:7, Colossians 2:3, or 1 Sam. 2:3.  Apart from this grounding in God’s word, TAG would have no more justification than any of the proofs presented by the unbeliever.[29]  Of course, presenting TAG as written above lacks persuasiveness since the circularity is so obvious.  Instead, the apologist must demonstrate step two through an internal critique.  It is here, therefore, that several of Solomon’s proverbs become valuable apologetic tools.

One of the more common epistemologies held throughout the millennia is empiricism.  Empiricism basically posits that all knowledge comes through sense experience.  Consequently, empiricists must ultimately appeal to sense experience when justifying their beliefs.  Such an epistemology presupposes, however, that the human senses are actually reliable.  Have empiricists succeeded in proving the reliability of the senses through empiricism?  Any attempt to do so will beg the question, in which case the empiricist must fall back on subjective dogmatism—which is no justification at all.  In scripture, however, we have good reason to trust our senses: “The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made them both” (Prov. 20:12).  In other words, we have reason to trust our senses because a good God made them who intended us to learn through our senses.

            Another acclaimed epistemology since the Enlightenment is positivism, which holds that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge.[30]  Thanks to positivism, many people regard science as a foe of Christianity.  Ironically, the positivists have no justification for science—their cherished idol—for numerous reasons.[31]  Not only does scripture provide the justification, but Proverbs actually presents science as something glorious: “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter.”  God is glorified by His omniscient, which makes Him superior to man.  Man, nevertheless, is glorified in his own way when he “searches out” God’s creation, like a child exploring a seashore.[32]

            “Free will,” or indeterminism, is a popular concept among Christians as well as non-Christians.[33]  Christian indeterminists argue that since God is fully sovereign and yet man is full responsible, compatibilism must be the case.[34]  To maintain such a position, however, the indeterminist must hold to the philosophical surd of libertarian free will (LFW).  LFW destroys both knowledge and moral responsibility by ultimately making choices uncaused, in which case choices are arbitrary and therefore irrational.  Having reduced LFW to absurdity, the biblical apologist may point to Proverbs 16:33 as a clear indicator of incompatibilist determinism: “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.”[35]  Here Solomon shows that even the quintessence of randomness—the casting of a lot—is fully under the Lord’s control.

            The value of argumentation itself is up for question during apologetic discussion.  Without realizing it, both parties assume that argumentation is a means of arriving at truth.  Yet why use argumentation and not brute force, emotional appeals, or some other form of coercion to persuade one’s opponent?  Or why argue towards the truth at all?  Why not argue towards a lie, so long as it will help achieve one’s ends?  Proverbs, however, urges those in disagreement to argue towards the truth: “The first one to plead his case seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him” (18:17).  In both the Old and New Testament the Lord looks highly upon rational discourse (Is. 1:18, 2 Cor. 10:4-5, Acts 17:2-3).  Furthermore, the legal system requires honest argumentation in order to operate justly (25:8-10).

As with epistemology, the unbeliever’s system of ethics is entirely subjective.  Consequently, he has no basis on which to condemn the most horrendous atrocities.  Legal positivism and cultural relativism simply incur the questions, “Whose law do we follow?” and “Whose culture is right?”  Justifications for war, revolution, civil disobedience, and even keeping the law become arbitrary.  Arbitrariness easily leads to moral chaos, such as in Israel under the judges, when “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).[36]  Once again, Solomon’s words in Proverbs 14:12 ring true: “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.”

            Like a house of cards, attacking the non-revelational epistemology of unbelievers will result in the crumbling of the entire worldview.[37]  With no starting point from which to assert a truth claim, let alone attack Christianity, the wise unbeliever can only remain silent, lest he consistently proclaim foolishness (Prov. 12:23).  Of course, following the internal critique the believer must present the true beginning for the preconditions for the intelligibility of the human experience.  Ironic, then, that so many unbelievers haughtily deride Christianity as an irrational worldview.  “Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” (1 Cor. 1:20)

Attitude and Behavior

            The wise apologist will take his attitude and behavior just as seriously as his epistemology, methodology, and arguments.  Whether interacting with believers or unbelievers, a failure to act wisely will only perpetuate the many negative connotations associated with apologetics.  Rather than being compassionate, articulate, and calm, those who defend the faith (or their version of the faith, at least) are often seen as prideful, argumentative, and vicious.  Often times, however, the observer fails to recognize the significance of an issue and then falsely condemns the apologist with being argumentative or unnecessarily divisive.  In either case, the apologist may need to alert himself or the observer to the following truths taught in Proverbs.

            First, everyone is an apologist.  The letters containing the most blatant commands to defend the faith (1 Peter, 2 Corinthians, Jude, 1 John) were not addressed to the clergy but to all Christians.  In 1 John, for example, John writes to his “little children” on how to protect themselves from antichrists and false converts (1 John 2:1).  Likewise, all Christians should behave like the Bereans in Acts 17 and “rightly [divide] the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).  Solomon conveys this most clearly in Proverbs 15:28: “the heart of the righteous studies how to answer.”  Planning one’s apologia is a requirement of all those who claim Christ as Lord, not just the “trained professionals.”[38]  See also Proverbs 18:15 and 15:14.

            Second, apologists must argue.  When two individuals disagree, the truth must be sought—not the assuagement of one’s pride.  In scripture, truth is found through the interaction of finite minds.  As quoted earlier, Proverbs 18:17 says that “The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him.”  Likewise, Proverbs 25:8 instructs the wise to “debate your case” during disagreements, rather making hasty, baseless assertions (Prov. 29:20).  Elsewhere in scripture do we find arguing used positively, in the pursuit of truth: “Come now, and let us reason together,” says the Lord to those who might neglect repentance (Is. 1:18).  Christ and Paul also frequently engaged in debate and discussion (Matt. 22:41-46, Luke 2:46, 20:20-26, John 8:48-59, Acts 17:2-3).  See also 2 Tim. 4:2 and 2 Cor. 10:4-5.

            Third, apologists must understand that unbeliever’s epistemology will force him to hold tight to irrational positions.  Proverbs provides harsh words for the fool in this regard.  “As a dog returns to his own vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.” (Prov. 26:11)  Indeed, the wise apologist should learn to expect this kind of response, even after soundly refuting the unbeliever’s arguments.  “Though you grind a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, yet his foolishness will not depart from him” (Prov. 27:22).  Apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, the unbeliever will always remain unpersuaded, no matter how compelling the arguments.[39]  The wise apologist, therefore, will learn to discern whether a debate is worth pursuing (Prov. 26:4).

            Fourth, the apologist must realize that gentleness tears down walls that relentless, self-glorifying argumentation will always keep in place.  “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (Prov. 15:1).  Solomon also points out that “any fool can start a quarrel” (Prov. 20:3) and that “the forcing of wrath produces strife” (30:33).  The apologist will do well to examine his motive in engaging those in error: is it out of love or out of pride?

Fifth, apologists must recognize and accept correction in humility.  Even the sharpest apologist will inevitably cause himself damage when he arrogantly refuses to admit error.  As Solomon says, “Whoever loves instruction loves knowledge, but he who hates correction is stupid” (Prov. 12:1; see also 15:32).  Furthermore, “Before destruction the heart of a man is haughty, and before honor is humility” (Prov. 18:12).  Countless believers have had their ministries weakened or destroyed as the result of exalting their pride over the truth.[40] 

Sixth, apologists must recognize that sincere love requires will sometimes require rebuke, since love rejoices in truth (1 Cor. 13:6).  “Open rebuke is better than love carefully concealed” (Prov. 27:5).  Wise friends will respect such correction: “He who rebukes a man will find more favor afterward than he who flatters with the tongue” (Prov. 28:23).  Also, we should love those whom we correct just as the Lord loves those whom He corrects (Prov. 3:12).

            Seventh, believers are called to encourage and strengthen one another.  By learning together and goading one another on to fear the Lord, believers heed Solomon’s wisdom in Proverbs 27:17.  “As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.”  Apart from such sharpening, the church will suffer greatly.  “Where there is no counsel, the people fall; but in the multitude of counselors there is safety” (Prov. 11:14).  See also Hosea 4:6 and Proverbs 29:18.

Conclusion

            The book of Proverbs is quite possibly the richest apologetics text in all of scripture.  By examining the way of the wise and the fool, Christians receive tremendous insight into the nature of all facets of biblical apologetics: epistemology, methodology, arguments, behavior, and attitude.  The wise apologist would do well to study Proverbs and consider whether his apologetic is rooted in scripture or his own autonomous human reasoning.  Is our trust in God founded in my own experiences or the work of scholars?  Or do we trust God simply because of who He is?  In answering, we could do no better than to repeat Proverbs 30:5.

Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
  Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.