Who said I am supposed to convince you?

Written by David Smart, Posted in Apologetics

A little over three weeks ago I published an article addressing 1 Peter 3:15 and how, when it comes to apologetics or defending the biblical world view, we are to set apart Christ as Lord in our hearts when meeting that task (Smart, 2011); that is the very point which the passage begins with, after all.

Today I received a comment on that article by Jeremy Styron of the Our Daily Train blog. No, I do not know who that is either, nor am I familiar with that blog at all. But that is neither relevant nor important vis-a-vis addressing his comment, which was brief so I shall quote it in full here, and then I want to address it (Styron, 2011):

The third paragraph here (beginning with “And we certainly ought to be ready”) is a garbled mess of question begging and wishful thinking. Explaining the “hope” you possess in Christ isn’t good enough, since Muslims aren’t going to convince me of their hope in Allah either. And you admitted it here that Christ is your reason for hope. So you actually should provide a reason for why he’s your reason for hope. And good luck with that. Outside of your own desire for it to be true, there is scant evidence that Christ existed at all, much less that he was anything other than a peasant roaming the countryside. There is not a single contemporary source that confirms his existence. Base your hope on a guy for which there is no evidence outside of the Bible all you want.

There are two essential points here that I wish to address.

First, he suggests that I am guilty of begging the question, a charge he connects to the very existence of Jesus. However, his existence was not the question so this charge is utter nonsense. It is both common and reasonable to assume certain things for the sake of argument; one is guilty of begging the question only if one’s argument assumes the very thing to be proved. The existence of Jesus was not the point at issue or the thing to be proved; the point at issue was the role he plays in the hope we possess, which does not make sense apart from his existence so we obviously assume his existence for the sake of that argument. The question of whether or not Jesus ever existed is an important and relevant but nevertheless separate question. Assuming the existence of Jesus does not per se (by itself) explain the hope we possess, which simply underscores that his mere existence is not the question.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, he said that our explaining the hope we possess in the faithfulness of Jesus Christ is “not good enough.” Good enough for what? For convincing him, apparently: “Muslims are not going to convince me of their hope in Allah, either.” And thus Styron makes the all too common mistake of supposing that the Christian’s task is to convince unbelievers. This, of course, is not the Christian’s task at all, which Styron would know if he bothered to understand the biblical world view he presumes to argue against. It is rather like hearing a young-earth creationist say, “Evolutionists are not going to convince me that we evolved from monkeys.” If one is going to argue against a position, one should properly understand it first. It is not our task as Christian’s to convince Styron; that is the Holy Spirit’s task (see regeneration). Our task is to spread the message of the gospel everywhere, making disciples in all the nations of the earth, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything Jesus commanded us. As Peter notes, part of that task involves always being ready, with Christ set apart as Lord in our hearts, to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope we possess. One plants the seed of the word, another waters it, but it is God who makes it grow (Deu 30:6; Eze 11:19; 36:26-27; John 3:27; 6:63-65; 10:25; Act 11:18; 13:48; 16:14; 18:27; 1 Cor 2:4–5; 3:6–7; Eph 2:8-10; Php 1:29; 1 Thes 1:4–6; 2 Tim 2:25-26; Jas 1:18; 1 Pet 1:3; 2 Pet 1:1).

References:

David Smart, “The context is setting apart Christ as Lord,” Aristophrenium [blog] (2011, November 24).

Jeremy Styron, comment on Smart, 2011. (2011, December 23).

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

Zemanta

1 Peter 3:15 Jeremy Styron Our Daily Train

http://twitter.com/ourdailytrain Our Daily Train blog

Why is it a separate question? You listed Jesus as both your hope and your reason for your hope. This sounds circular to me, but in any case, I would like to know why he is your reason for hope? You have to have a reason for saying that Jesus – someone for whom there is scant evidence – is your reason for such optimism. You make the rather large assumption that Jesus is a figure on which people can place their hope. This assumes, first, that he exists in the first place, and second, that he is benevolent. So yes, you assume he is a being on which a person can base their hopes, thus begging the question.

Second, this is a common tool of believers: to say we non-believers haven’t properly grasped the biblical worldview. As a former Christian myself, I know the stock arguments about the Holy Spirit. I just think it’s been proven bogus. So, in spreading the gospel and your belief in Christ, you’re not trying to convince a soul, huh? You’re just putting the message out there and letting folks deal with the information however they wish and then letting the Spirit do his work? Sure. And that’s why missionaries make pains to travel around the globe to evangelize to Africans and Chinese and South American people. You really think that if evangelists did not proselytize to those nations, instilling the hope of eternal life in Christ (and the fear of hellfire) in people that the Holy Spirit would just move on his own accord? Please. My suggestion: you might want to pray harder for the Holy Spirit to work his wonders because from what I’ve seen, he has performing rather poorly in spite of believers’ best efforts. And you needn’t have posted all those many passage links. I’ve read most or all of those; God has failed to “make it grow.” And it is here, I’m guessing, you or someone else might claim that it I did something wrong as a believer or didn’t believe hard enough and that God couldn’t have possibly turned up an absentee. Go on believing that too. So be it. Amen.
Nik

I just wanted to point out two things here.

“So you actually should provide a reason for why he’s your reason for hope.”

This is a fallacy because it leads immediately to an infinite regress. In order for something to be reasonable, you don’t have to give a reason for your reason. And then you’d have to give a reason for the reason of the reason. This goes on ad infinitum.

Also to say that there is no contemporary scholar who recognizes Yeshua as a historical person is to admit total ignorance of New Testament criticism and scholarship. Here are a few articles by Bill Craig on the historicity of Jesus, with sources.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html
http://twitter.com/ourdailytrain Our Daily Train blog

Nik, really? You are really going to trot out the infinite regress argument? I thought that was a non-believer’s tactic? lol.

It is appropriate for me to ask for a reason why the blogger thinks Christ is his reason for hope because Christ, if we are to have any working model of him at all, claims to transcend the natural laws of the known universe. People are not born of virgins (although many gods of antiquity were, indeed, born of virgins). Human matter can not walk on water, and humans can not remove “demons” from pigs or cure people of blindness or leprosy or any other ailment. No. The regress stops at Christ in this instance.
Your infinite regress argument in the above post more pertains to world creation theories about arguments about who created the world. If God created the world, then who created God, for instance. I don’t think this is a relevant question at all; just trying to give lip service to your claim.
http://twitter.com/ourdailytrain Our Daily Train blog

And, Nik, I subconsciously, perhaps, read over your note about Jesus as an historical figure. My bad, but I did not say there was no contemporary scholar who did not recognize Jesus as a historical person. I’m sure there are many (however deluded they may be). I said there was no contemporary source that confirms his existence (i.e. in Jesus own time). That’s quite a different matter. Willaim Lane Craig is obviously not a contemporary source. If you can’t tell the difference, that’s not my problem.
http://twitter.com/ourdailytrain Our Daily Train blog

Am I assuming by the silence that I won the argument or …? If you are going to call someone out for their criticisms of your post and make pains to create a separate entry devoted to said criticism, I would have expected more.
http://aristophrenium.com/ Ryft Braeloch

Jeremy,

I have to wonder if you know what begging the question means; it is assuming either implicitly or explicitly the very thing to be proved. But perhaps you know this and so the problem is that you have not considered properly or thoughtfully the point I am making. Let me explain. Yes, my hope in Christ Jesus makes sense only if he actually exists, but granting his existence arguendo like this is a question-begging move only if his existence is itself the question—and it is not (vis-a-vis our present context of 1 Peter 3:15). His existence is relevant to the issue, and it is of crucial import to the issue, but is not itself the issue. His existence is a given when the point at issue is his role in the hope we possess. As other readers might discern, I am simply repeating here what I already said in the above article, which means that rebuttal has not been addressed. I would ask that you take seriously and consider thoughtfully what I have said.

Why is Jesus Christ both the hope of Christians and our reason for hope? He is himself our hope because it is him that we long to see and be with and whose glory we seek, in whom we have peace with God. And he is our reason for hope because apart from his life, death, and resurrection we are hopelessly lost heirs of Adam without reconciliation to a just and holy God; it is through Christ that we have “obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in the hope of God’s glory.” If you require scriptural references for the preceding, let me know. But you need to understand a crucial point here: Jesus being a figure upon whom people can place their hope is not a “rather large assumption”—by definition, sir, as it is actually a conclusion drawn from ample scriptural evidence. You have to redefine words in order to say that drawing a conclusion is an act of assuming.

If you are tempted to suggest that Scripture does not constitute evidence for you, then let me obviate that by simply reminding you of two things: first, that your autobiographical details are patently irrelevant, and second, that convincing you otherwise is neither the Christian’s task nor what 1 Peter 3:15 mandates. Scripture itself predicts—yes, a prediction we can test—that apart from the grace of regeneration by the Holy Spirit you will never accept what Scripture has to say as either authoritative or sufficient. Giving a reason for the hope we possess is our task; whether or not that persuades you is God’s task. In love we are obedient to him without presuming ourselves worthy or capable of his job.

And yes, we spread the message of the gospel while letting the Holy Spirit do his work; but how does this in any way lead to the notion that the Holy Spirit would work independent of our evangelizing among the lost? I think that your argument—granting there is one—is missing a crucial step or two because as it stands that is a brutal non-sequitur. You claim to be a former Christian, but were you one who was familiar with his Bible? If so, then please demonstrate biblically (1) that the Spirit does his salvific work apart from the preached word, or (2) that someone can come to Christ apart from the salvific work of the Spirit.

A bonus aside: How has this function of the Spirit been “proven bogus”?
http://aristophrenium.com/ Ryft Braeloch

Jeremy,

I am not sure what you do during the holiday season but I can assure you that I have been kept very busy, both with work and with church family activities. In the absence of you taking into consideration the demands that the holiday season can place on people, if you wish to conclude that you have “won” something then by all means feel free to do so. Like you the readers will draw their own conclusions.
http://twitter.com/ourdailytrain Our Daily Train blog

Ryft,

I know quite well what begging the question means, and you don’t have to slip into Latin to make the point or sound more erudite than you actually are. I could equally say that I place all my hope in Zeus and that Zeus is my reason for hope, and you would probably trip over yourself to help me understand that Zeus does not exist and that he isn’t a good entity in which to place one’s hope. To which I might then reply that the existence of Zeus is not in question in the first place because I have some ancient texts that tell me that, indeed, he is the god of the universe and all-loving, all-powerful, etc. I could blog about Zeus and cite these references, and then say, as you did, that within the context, the existence of Zeus is not in question. But to you, my references would not be sufficient sources for A) evidence for Zeus in the first place or B) and more importantly, any framework by which one might find a reason to have hope in Zeus. And this is how I view your original post and subsequent replies. Therefore, for me to even begin to understand why Christ is your reason for hope, I would have to accept the context.

I originally replied because if believers are going to even attempt to write about their beliefs (presumably they have a reason for spreading “the truth,” that reason being to obey the great commission), they must first spend less time on the gobblygook about how Jesus is the way, the truth, the light, all the cliches (because that is white noise to me), and first and foremost should set out to show why they think the Bible is a valid book on which to base one’s life in the first place. Apologetic writing that does anything else is just wearisome.

- Jeremy
http://aristophrenium.com/ Ryft Braeloch

Jeremy,

I have never observed someone actually reacting to Latin before, especially a term that is so common as “non-sequitur.” That was a new and strange experience for me. Notwithstanding your personal attack on my education, those who enjoy theological, philosophical, and scientific literature find nothing terribly remarkable about Latin terms and phrases; in fact, some are so mundane they are scarcely noticed (e.g., non-sequitur, ad hominem, a priori and so forth). But you find it remarkable. That is interesting.

At any rate, you could only appeal to Zeus at the expense of admitting you are a theist. Are you a Zeus-believing theist? No. Thus your rebuttal is defeated by your own world view; mine never had to enter the picture at all. Since neither of us are Zeus-believing theists, I have no idea why that world view ever entered our discussion.

But let us pretend that you know someone who is a Zeus-believing theist, and you bring her into the conversation to offer this rebuttal you wish to attempt; let us then pretend that she has ancient texts regarding Zeus and his imperatives; let us further pretend that these texts ascribe to Zeus attributes that are coincidentally similar to those of God; and let us also pretend that one of the imperatives in those ancient texts is coincidentally similar to that found in 1 Peter 3:15. She is your unicorn, but let us pretend all this anyway. Given this young lady wishing to tell me all about her hope in Zeus, would I trip over myself to help her understand that Zeus does not exist and is nothing to hope in?

No. I hate to ruin your reputation as a mind-reader but there you have it. Perhaps next time you might ask what my response would be, instead of embarrassing yourself with faceplants like this. You see, his existence is relevant to the issue, and is of crucial import to the issue, but is not itself the issue. Thus her assuming the existence of Zeus in that context would not be question-begging. To be guilty of begging the question she would have to assume the very thing to be proved, and in this context “the very thing to be proved” is the role Zeus plays in the hope she possesses, which she is not assuming but demonstrating (presumably, if you want the analogy to hold). His existence is granted arguendo when the point at issue is his role in the hope she possesses.

Does that sound oddly familiar? It should, for it is now the third time I have said it.

You are defending a position that can only fail, sir. It is not question-begging to meet the imperative of 1 Peter 3:15. (1) If Jesus is my Lord and Savior, then he is the reason for the hope I possess. (2) Jesus is my Lord and Savior. (3) Therefore, he is the reason for the hope I possess. That is the valid argument form of modus ponens. (Yes, logic makes use of Latin, too. You will have to try and overlook that.) By fleshing out the second premise I am meeting the imperative of 1 Peter 3:15. And hopefully you are able to see that the existence of Jesus is not what the argument concludes, thus assuming his existence does not beg the question.

And yes, for you “to even begin to understand” why Christ is my reason for hope, you “would have to accept the context.” And how do you come to accept the context? Only by the Holy Spirit bringing you under the grace of regeneration. But then this is likewise something I have already said—and which you, as a former Christian, ought to already know. Of course, you think this function of the Spirit has been “proven bogus,” but how that has been “proven” is just some of my questions you have conspicuously ignored.

Finally, the only people who are going to attempt proving to you the validity of the Bible are those who do not accept the Bible as God’s final and authoritative word. The truth of God and his self-revelation in Scripture is my fundamental and non-negotiable starting point, from which everything else is derived—including the criteria used for evaluating metaphysical, logical, epistemological, and ethical questions. This is simply what it means for God to be the final reference point of all predication, an ultimate presupposition with which the Christian world view is self-consistent.

The Aristophrenium

23

9