Now that we’ve lain what I hope is a convincing groundwork for opening (and closing) our apologetic on Scripture, we can now turn our attention to the central frustration of all apologetics: the stuff in between—the “cross examination.” As we briefly mentioned last week, there are multiple ideas or theories of how to “do” apologetics. The three main approaches are evidentialist, classical, and presuppositional. While there are many others, when we look a bit closer we see that they are really only hybrids of these three main categories. Our job as apologists is not to defend a particular apologetic system; it is to defend the Christian worldview. “Be ready always to give an answer to everyone who asks for the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Pet. 3:15).

We can only have hope if Christ Himself is faithful and trustworthy. If Christ was in the business of making promises that He never intended to keep then our hope would be baseless. There can be no hope if the very object of that hope is unreliable. And this is where the heart of the apologetic lies: the apologist believes that God is faithful and true, but the antagonist does not. The apologist believes that God is the ultimate authority, while the antagonist believes that this authority rests with man. It is this antithesis, or opposition, that is at the center of the unbeliever’s objections to the Christian worldview. This is the “statement behind the questions” of the unbeliever. If we, as apologists, ignore this simple fact, it will be to our peril and shame. The surface level questioning of the unbeliever is, in actuality, only the visible part of his iceberg of unbelief. His main objection—rejecting God’s authority in favor of his own—is buried deep under the water, locked away behind multiple layers of ice.

It is for this reason that many presuppositional apologists will appeal to Proverbs 26:4-5 as a scriptural example of their method. “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.” One of the most fascinating points about this passage is that it gives a negative and a positive command[1]: Do not answer; do answer. This is important because it clearly defines what is being spoken about. In writing these verses Solomon is giving a very clear model about how to answer “a fool.” Solomon had already defined a fool as one who despises wisdom and knowledge: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Prov. 1:7). Name-calling is not the issue here; fools are ones who deny the very source of their life and breath. As Paul writes, they “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18).

The negative command of Proverbs 26:4 is a simple declaration to not suppress the truth yourself when you are answering a “fool.” In other words, don’t surrender your solid holy ground to the fool’s island of sand. Jesus said that the wise man would build his house upon the rock and the foolish man would build on the sand. Remember that Jesus was not talking about architecture; he was talking about the foundations—the worldview and beliefs of the builder. “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and acts on them may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock...Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand” (Matt. 7:24-27).

The positive command of Proverbs 26:5 then is a call to force the fool to live with his own foolishness. It is a charge to keep the fool locked inside his house built on sand. Don’t allow him to use any of your Gospel rocks to reinforce his sand castle. He must be taken to the logical conclusion of his foolishness, but this is not possible if you allow him to steal your building material. This is the more difficult and abstract of the two commands, but with practice and experience it can become almost second nature. Every objection that a “fool” will raise ultimately flows out of his rejection of the authority of the Word of God; although it is not always immediately recognizable or obvious. We will look at this in more detail next week. 

Footnote:
[1] As an interesting sidenote, R. J. Rushdoony pointed out in his Institutes of Biblical Law that, contrary to popular opinion, negative law is actually far less tyrannical than positive law. "A negative concept of law deals realistically with a particular evil...The law thus has a modest function, the law is limited...But if the law is positive in its function...the law is unlimited...it becomes the business of the state, not to control evil, but to control men." (pp. 101-102)