Earlier this week, we presented an introduction to Pre-Suppositional Apologetics (here). In it, we covered the difference between Evidentialism, or defending the faith through evidence, vs. Pre-Suppositional Apologetics, as well as reasons for both. We also discussed how 1 Peter 3:15 states that believers are to be ready at all times to give an answer for the hope that they have to anyone who asks. An analogy that has been used to visualize the two types of apologetic methodologies asks the following:

If you were locked in a room with a man who had unlimited bullets to fire at you and you intended to survive, how would you do so? Well, you could either perform gymnastics to leap and dodge every bullet, matrix-style, in order to survive the onslaught, or you could simply take the gun away.

In like fashion, we can learn the Greek and Hebrew and have theological responses to each “bullet” or accusation, but there will only be another objection. What Pre-Suppositional Apologetics does is it takes the gun out of the hands of the unbeliever by directly challenging the critics fundamental assumptions. Today, we are going to take a brief look at how Pre-Suppositional Apologetics challenges fundamental assumptions regarding Logic.

What is Logic?

Logic is a Field of Thought that, among other things, underpins the principle of reasoning. Logic has fundamental elements. For instance, Logic is:

1.) Immaterial

2.) Universal

3.) Unchanging

Those elements are consistent only with the Christian Worldview.

So if an unbeliever says for instance, that there is a contradiction in the Bible, instead of wasting time explaining each and every example, I simply say,

“Why are contradictions not allowed?”

I know why contradictory statements are not allowed according to my worldview, since contradictory statements amount to lying and we are commanded not to lie in Scripture (Exodus 20:16).

But why are contradictions not allowed according to your worldview?

Often the reply will be that contradictions are not allowed because they violate the Laws of Logic.

Well let’s discuss the Laws of Logic then, shall we?

The Laws of Logic are universal, they are not made of matter, and they do not change.

Similarly, the God of Scripture is universal, He is not made of matter, and He does not change.

Now, according to the Atheistic Worldview, we live in a universe made only of matter and one that is constantly changing.

How do you get universal laws, without contradiction within a worldview like that?

That is a logical fallacy.

Therefore, when unbelievers challenge us for evidence to, lets say, support the Bible, we need only point out that evidence assumes logic, and logic is only consistent with the God of the Bible.

When someone is demanding proof for my faith, once again, proof assumes logic, and logic is only consistent with the God of the Bible.

The rudimentary question when it comes to Logic is, “Where did Logic come from?” It either was invented by man or it originates with God.

The Atheist is quick to assert that man must have made logic since he does not want to admit that logic actually comes from God and is a reflection of the way that God thinks.

Well then, if man made logic, could the universe both have existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way, before man came along?

To say that man made logic is to assert that:

A.) Logic is dependent upon man

B.) Man came along and changed the nature of the universe

C.) Man can still create Logic

If the universe is constantly changing and Logic is just a property of the universe, how do you know the Laws of Logic won’t change?

If we can’t guarantee that Logic will always be valid, how can we be sure when to apply it.

Therefore, if logic originated with man, all I’d have to do to “logically” defeat the Atheist is to assemble a group of people who say the Atheist’s position is illogical. After all, man created logic, right?

Hopefully it would be obvious to the Atheist that, “Wait a minute, Logic must have come from outside of man.”

However, if they claim that man did not create logic, then they can’t even account for the fact that they exist, and that’s absurd too.

Because of believers fidelity to Scripture, particularly regarding these matters, critics charge that we are being close-minded. Rather than running away from the charge, I actually embrace it. I’m close-minded because I have the right answer. If someone asks what 2 + 2 equals, I’m close-minded that the answer is 4. I’m not going to say, “Well it may be 5 or possibly 6…”.

The answer is 4.

And I’m close-minded about that.