The Riddleblog

Posts in Apologetics

Preaching and Apologetics

This is an edited version of my den Dulk Lectures given at Westminster Seminary California in April, 2021. The content of the lecture has been edited for publication here.

Preaching and Apologetics

“Like A Lion”

You may have heard the quip from the ever-quotable Charles Spurgeon: “The Word of God is like a lion. You don’t have to defend a lion. All you have to do is let the lion loose, and the lion will defend itself.”[1] There is much truth in Spurgeon’s comment. The pulpit is not the place from which to prove to your hearers that the Bible is the Word of God. The preacher’s job is to let the lion loose.

Before we proceed further let me briefly address the debate over apologetic method within the Reformed tradition and its impact upon my topic. I am of the opinion that B. B. Warfield was correct when contending that apologetics is a distinct theological discipline which belongs in theological prolegomena (the preparation for the doing of theology). This is contrary to the opinion of Abraham Kuyper and Cornelius Van Til who both understood apologetics to be a subset of theology proper.

But Warfield did contend that the theologian (or the pastor in the pulpit) must assume the truth of God’s Word because, presumably, the apologist has already done their work and passed along to the minister the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. Despite a disagreement about where apologetics belongs in the theological encyclopedia, Warfield, Kuyper, and Van Til were in full agreement about one thing–the minister enters the pulpit assuming that he’s about to let the lion loose and no defense of the Bible is needed — hence Spurgeon’s vivid metaphor. There is no disagreement between Reformed evidentialists and presuppositionalists on this point.

When I speak of the relationship between preaching and apologetics I too am affirming that it is not the duty of the pastor to use the pulpit to convince a congregation that the Bible is the Word of God. That discussion can and should be done in catechesis, Bible study, or in venues such as conferences or other forms of focused apologetics training. The minister preaches God’s word assuming every word in the Bible is true because that word was breathed forth by the Holy Spirit through the agency of human authors (2 Timothy 3:16).

Christianity Is a Truth Claim

Therefore, when I speak of preaching “apologetically,” I do not mean trying to convince people that the Bible is the word of God. What I do mean is preaching to a congregation in such a way as to show forth the lion’s huge fangs and sharp claws when the biblical text requires it. Preaching apologetically entails two points which I will raise to reinforce my thesis. The first point is that Christianity at its heart is a truth claim. When Jesus says in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth and the life,” his words echo YHWH’s declaration in Isaiah 43:11, “I am the Lord, and besides me there is no savior.” Jesus is telling his disciples, among other things, that he is God in human flesh, that he is truth incarnate, and that salvation from the guilt and power of sin is found in no one else. Jesus declares himself to be the source and author of life. This is a truth claim. If that which Jesus says of himself is true, then necessarily all other religions and religious claims are false. There cannot be two ways, two truths, or two methods of finding life eternal.

To read the rest, follow the link below

American Religion, Apologetics, History and Culture, Riddleblog Publication, Reformed ResourcesKim RiddlebargerAugust 18, 2025Preaching and ApologeticsComment

The Forgotten Apologist – Edward John Carnell (Part Three) "Common Ground and the Third Way of Knowing"

Carnell on Common Ground – The Descriptive But Not the Normative

An important area in Carnell’s apologetic method is his treatment of common ground.[39] Carnell outlines what he describes as three levels of meaning: (1) the personal, (2) the scientific, and (3) the ultimate or metaphysical. According to Carnell, all people share the personal level of meaning, but Christians and non-Christians do not share the metaphysical level. However, Christians and non-Christians do share a portion of the scientific level—namely, the realm of mere observation—which is not governed directly by metaphysical presuppositions. Since Carnell views the metaphysical as the ultimate level of meaning, it extends into most of the scientific realm. In practice, then, common ground is minimal and largely limited to observation (the descriptive).

While all descriptive aspects of reality and life ultimately point to the metaphysical, as we have seen, there remains common ground in the personal realm regarding what we observe and experience in the world. Carnell’s emphasis on “soul sorrow” and a shared personal level with non-Christians highlights the fact that acknowledging such common experience and observation leads us toward the normative—that is, the explanatory metaphysical ultimate. Observation and experience can tell us what is, but not what it means. Thus, whatever common ground exists at the personal level and within portions of the scientific (i.e., the observable), it is continually given through general revelation, which is ongoing. The things we experience and observe demand an explanation—the normative. While there may be some common ground between Christians and non-Christians, it is not and cannot be "neutral." This is a hostile environment for non-Christians, who, as Scripture teaches, must suppress the truth in unrighteousness to avoid facing the normative truth (cf. Romans 1:18-25).

To read the rest, including Carnell’s discussion of the “third way of knowing,” follow the link below.

ApologeticsKim RiddlebargerMay 12, 2025common ground, thrid way of knowing, third way of knowingComment

The Forgotten Apologist – Edward John Carnell (Part Two) "Soul Sorrow and Systematic Consistency"

Carnell – A “Combinationalist”?

One of the earliest treatments of Carnell’s apologetic method came from Gordon Lewis, whose analysis is insightful. As noted previously, Lewis contends that Carnell’s method is a synthesis of the methodologies of Cornelius Van Til, Gordon Clark, E. S. Brightman (an eminent philosopher from Boston University who focused on God’s dynamic relationship with the world), as well as a number of contemporary concerns shaped by Carnell’s doctoral studies of Niebuhr and Kierkegaard. Lewis explains:

From Cornelius Van Til at Westminster Theological Seminary [Carnell] took his starting point—the existence of the triune God of the Bible. However, this tenet is not an unquestioned presupposition for Carnell, but a hypothesis to be tested. His test is three-fold. At Wheaton College, in the classes of Gordon Clark, Carnell found the test of non-contradiction. The test of fitness with empirical fact was championed by Edgar S. Brightman, where Carnell earned his Ph.D. [Boston University]. The requirement of relevance to personal experience became prominent during Carnell’s Th.D. research at Harvard University in Søren Kierkegaard and Reinhold Niebuhr.[14]

Given these varied influences, Carnell is often considered a “combinationalist”—that is, one who combines various apologetic methodologies.[15] In Carnell’s apologetic, we can indeed find elements from the sources identified by Lewis, Sims, and Morley, but we should not think that Carnell merely borrowed from others and replicated their distinctive apologetic emphases. Rather, he synthesized these influences into a distinct apologetic method, much like Francis Schaeffer did. This becomes clear upon reading his An Introduction to Christian Apologetics, which, as Lewis describes, presents a “single picture,” or a consistent methodology.[16]

The Universal Human Experience of “Soul Sorrow”

Carnell begins with a compelling (though now somewhat dated) account of the universal human condition and experience, which he identifies as “soul sorrow.” This predicament arises from our awareness of human limitations—we are created as both body and soul (with the limitations of each), and we are certain to die. Awareness of this condition and the ills that accompany it precedes Carnell’s discussion of how to defend the Christian faith to those who are not believers.

To read the rest, follow the link below

ApologeticsKim RiddlebargerMay 2, 2025Carnell on Soul Sorrow, Carnell on systematic consistencyComment

The Forgotten Apologist – Edward John Carnell (1919-1967) Part One

Who Was E. J. Carnell and Why Does He Matter?

My guess is that most readers of the Riddlebog will not know the name of Edward John Carnell. Carnell was one of the most innovative apologists of his time but dared to walk the razor’s edge between a scholarly defense of the Christian faith and the fundamentalism of his youth which he felt compelled to defend. He possessed a brilliant mind, was an excellent lecturer, as well as a prolific writer–with a significant number of books published by his early thirties.

But in the end, Carnell found that the razor’s edge he walked was exceedingly sharp and he was unable to keep his balance–feeling the deep cuts which the razor inflicted. His efforts pleased neither the evangelicals nor the fundamentalists. His attempt to gain intellectual credence for evangelicalism among progressive theologians and critical scholars failed to impress either group, and his efforts only brought harsh criticism from several of his friends who felt he conceded too much to modernism.

Carnell was a troubled soul, and the damage done by years of herculean effort without seeing any positive results, all the while coming under constant criticism from allies during the tail-end of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy, eventually brought about a severe emotional crisis which led to his early death at the age of 47 under questionable circumstances. Carnell found himself caught between his desire to see a more intellectually defensible form of Christianity and the feud between fundamentalism and those theological progressives who were too willing to give up the essentials of the faith in exchange for social relevance. The conflict eventually broke him.

This essay will focus upon Carnell’s efforts to formulate an apologetic which builds upon Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til’s presuppositionalism, but which is tweaked for application to the controversies facing the new evangelicalism. Carnell’s work in this regard is still worth our consideration. In part one, we will consider Carnell’s life and work, and how this set the stage for the formulation of his unique apologetic methodology.

To read the rest, follow the link below

ApologeticsKim RiddlebargerApril 23, 2025E J Carnell Comments

How Much Evidence Is Required for Christ’s Resurrection?

Here’s a simple and effective argument to use when contending for the truth of Christ’s resurrection.

According to John Warwick Montgomery . . .

The issue here is a miracle: a resurrection. How much evidence is required to establish such a fact? Could evidence ever justify excepting it?
Phenonmenally (and this is all we need worry about for evidential purposes) a resurrection can be regarded as death followed by a life, D. then L. Normally, the sequence is reversed, thus L. then D.
We are well acquainted with the phenomenal meaning of the constituent factors (though we do not understand the “secret” of life or why death must occur), and we have no difficulty in establishing evidential criteria to place a person in one category rather than in the other. Thus the eating of fish (Luke 24:36-43) is sufficient to classify the eater among the living, and a crucifixion among the dead. In Jesus' case the sequential order was reversed, but that has no epistemological bearing on the weight of evidence required to establish death or life. And if Jesus was dead at point A, and alive at point B, then resurrection has occurred.

From John Warwick Montgomery, “A Revelational Solution” in Human Rights and Human Dignity (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1986), 154-155.

ApologeticsKim RiddlebargerMay 4, 2023Christ's resurrectionComment