An Argument for Cumulative Apologetics

Cumulative Apologetics and the Reformation in Contemporary Evangelicalism

Well, hi there. Let me start my music for you. You hear that? This is for your slow ride home while listening to apologetics live. If you'll remember a couple months ago, I was hosting because Andrew wasn't here and We were having issues with the music.

It just wasn't showing up. It just wasn't working, right? This is another one of those night for apologetics. So welcome. Enjoy, I'm gonna be talking about a cumulative cumulative Apologetics, we hope that it blesses you.

But I'm gonna go ahead and I'm gonna bring in my co-host for this evening Adam Parker.

Adam good work. If I took it off of mute, but yeah, thank you very much. Glad to be on here.

Yeah, so I mean you've been on. You were on the since they've been doing. Andrew's been doing kind of the series through apologetics you have been. You were on the first one talking about classical.

Apologetics, were you on the precept one? I was not. I would have loved to have been on that one as well as the evidentialist case but I. You know, I'm doing ministry also so I have a I'm the youth pastor.

So that kind of pulls away at some of my availability on Thursday nights here and there. So I got yeah.

Yeah, yeah, I would I would have loved to have been on Definitely the evidentialist episode because I myself am a pre supper along with Andrew You know, of course the bit Take it right but You know, I always come up with these excuses as to why I can't right so the during the classical episode I was we were having a baby So we were in the hospital couldn't come and then I forgot the excuses I gave for the other two.

But we're here now and we're going to be talking about cumulative Apologetics now, I've got to be really honest like I was I was talking to Andrew the other day when he called me and I said Andrew I've got to confess like I've been studying apologetics for several years I've Never heard of the cumulative approach now if I had to guess I would say it's probably a combination of all of the methods of Apologetics, but I've never heard of it.

Right? And so so it is my assessment. Correct? Like is it like this? Cumulative methodology approach to apologetics. Yes. So in dr. Williams who is gonna be.

Making the case for it is is gonna add more to this but the cumulative case for apologetics is essentially Why not have all? and so taking evidentialism classical apologetics and as well as precept and Combining it all into one and using whichever one seems the most beneficial depending on the conversation at hand.

So. Okay, yeah, that's essentially what cumulative apologetics is. One of dr. Williams good Friends, I guess you could say Douglas grew Tice Seems to have been the one to really make this kind of a prominent thing.

But he can fact-check me on that when he comes in but yeah, so I'm excited for this and you know, I don't know if Andrew told you but one of the reasons why he's doing this is he was on my podcast and In about an hour and a half.

I tried to cram all of these conversations Into one, you know big caught the big podcast. So we had you know All of these guys that he said except for whoever your pre supper was I had Andrew representing the presuppositional Approach for apologetics and so we all got on there together wanted to have a healthy Godly debate, you know, hey, which one is best and you know, let's have it just have a discussion about it and so we did that and then Andrew wanted to continue the Conversation and so that's what he's been doing here.

So yeah, I had them on the bold apology a podcast and that's what we did. Okay. Yeah, I mean.

Listening to that. It sounds like you would need to kind of break it up because it seems like there's just so much information, right? Especially like just speaking from the precept standpoint when you start getting into the methodology.

Well, you could take a whole one two, three four hours to explain that, you know. Especially different situations you might find yourself in with different people. So imagine that along, you know. Classical apologetics evidential apologetics and then cumulative, right?

That's that that's a lot of a lot of speaking. So yeah, it makes sense to split it up into different shows.

Well, you you you know, you take priests up and classical ism. Just alone. There's years and years and years of thought behind these different approaches and they have their histories and it's good to be able to go a little bit deeper.

Evidentialism is kind of a newer concept but Evidential ism is starting to get its own, you know kind of history behind it as well and so it's good to be able to dig a little deeper. And the goal of the podcast I did was essentially just to introduce and what I am Happy to to really be involved in in this Podcast or what Andrew and you guys are doing?

The you know, one of the reasons why I'm happy to be a part of that is essentially you guys are taking kind of What was laid out in that podcast and expanding it getting the discussion going a little bit more.

So that's good. Yeah.

Reformation Day, Evangelical Drift, and the Call to Reform

Yeah, that's uh, that is what we like to do here. Especially anyone who knows Andrew knows Andrew loves to talk. So whenever we can, you know come up with a series or something where Andrew can expand and talk even more.

Yeah, that's that's what we do here. Of course, you know. So, but let's go ahead. Let's bring in. Dr. Donald Williams to the show. Dr. Williams, how you doing? I'm good. All right. How are y 'all good?

Welcome to apologetics life. Good to be here. Yeah, so we were. We were talking backstage and with it being Reformation Day. You you mentioned a book and I want to throw it out there just because it is Reformation Day.

You wrote a book.

Tell us a little bit about that book. It's called 95 theses for a new Reformation and the premise is what if Martin Luther were alive today and Instead of responding to the corruption of medieval Catholicism. He was responding to the corruption of Contemporary evangelicalism, what might the 95 theses be then and So that's that's how the basic thing is laid out.

I deal with 19 areas in which I think the evangelical movement is just losing its grip on The the truth that it was bequeathed by the Reformation And it starts with the five Reformation solos So I'm thinking if if Luther is going to do 95 theses for us today a Lot of them are going to be the same.

Yes, it's because I Keep running into people who say well solo scripture. This doesn't work and they don't even know what it is. You know, these are people who are evangelicals and Sola gratia sola fide Solus Christus soli deo gloria You know the evangelical movement Used to stand for these things it was the form in which the theology of the Reformation came down to the present mediated through the Puritan fathers of the 17th century and the evangelists of the first Great Awakening and You know when I when I was Coming up in the faith That was a thing and and it to be an evangelical was to be committed to these things.

Now you can't figure out what in the world the movement stands for Interesting to dip into Christianity today, you know a decade at a time and And you'll discover that every time you do the boundaries have gotten wider until now they've disappeared.

Yeah We're not willing to say anybody's not an evangelical anymore. Yeah, so It's it's 95 theses for a new Reformation not New as in different but new as in renewed Because of course one of the principles of the original Reformation was simple ray for Amanda.

The church should be always reforming and So that this is my.

Attempt to help that little process along. Yeah, it does sound interesting. Yeah.

A chapter is 19 chapters each one of which has five theses. So you start out five theses on solo scriptura. Where I break each one of these things down explain Historically where it came from why it's important.

Why it's biblical etc and why it's needed. Desperately today and there's a chapter on apologetics. That you know We have this commandment To be always ready to give an answer to any to give an apologia to anyone who asks a reason for the faith that is within us and somehow Vast swaths of the evangelical world think it's unspiritual to obey this biblical commandment.

So in order to reform the church and to bring it back Into a position of faithfulness Where it can preach the gospel with integrity again, one of the things that has to be reformed is We need to be obedient to that commandment and I'm glad that we have this podcast of people trying to do that.

Yeah. Don't go nice. I don't know if he originated the cumulative case Approach, but I think he popularized it. There we go. Certainly. It's It the term is used in the first time. I encountered it was in his big tome on apologetics and The basic idea is you know, it kind of is using everything.

But but the basic idea behind it is the strongest argument we have for the truth of Christianity is that many different independent lines of reasoning Converge on the same place and lead you to the same answer.

Okay, so So, yeah, I I'm in the Unusual position tonight as a defender of the cumulative case approach of being agreeable. I mean the Every one of the classic approaches. Presuppositionalism practical evidential when they're making their positive case.

I'm going, you know, yeah, you guys are right. And they start making their case why they have the perfect right way to do it and nobody else does. That's when they start losing me. Longest case. For that conclusion would be the presuppositional case.

Because you know, they're they're saying you don't argue to God you argue from God and there's and there's If you act like there's common ground between you and the non-christian, you're validating his rebellious autonomous reason, etc and and my response to that is You you don't have to do that in order to do it you can Put this person in a position where It you're just making it more difficult for him to maintain The the pose that the non-christian the atheist apologist wants to wants to take this pose that.

You know, I'm an atheist because I care about reason and evidence and you guys just believe in a bunch of myths. So you really care about evidence? Do you let's look at the effects and see if you do and Why not give him an opportunity to realize that he's in conflict not just with Christians but with reality.

If you're in conflict with God you're in conflict with reality and. So Yeah, I I say why not have all the tools in your toolbox and Be able to use them as needed. So I very much value a presuppositional approach.

I think it's the framework That makes evidence meaningful and it's the framework that makes the classical arguments meaningful. And in that framework We we show that every line of evidence every line of reasoning that is valid and matches the world is Gonna take you to the same place.

It's going to take you To God as the Creator and Christ as his son who was raised from the dead in history.

Presuppositional, Classical, and Evidential Arguments in a Cumulative Case

Yeah, yeah, you know I'm glad you mentioned the Framework, right the the presupp framework is. What when you look at the evidence? Well, it was it's what gives that evidence foundation. And so what I think about when I think about the evidentialist position is I think about someone like a William Lane Craig who is Debating Lawrence Krauss and Lawrence Krauss asked them straight up Do you know for certain God exists and he says no.

Well at that point he's given up Christianity, right, but he's gone through this whole debate in order to try to prove God well, if That if your your starting point is that you don't know for certain.

You've already given it up right so so as a presupp I go. Well, I start in the same place Greg Bonson did in his debate with Gordon Stein. It's I start with the God of the Bible. This is who he says he is.

The Bible is God's Word. This is the God that I believe in therefore anything after this must conform to the God of the Bible, right? Any evidences must conform to the God of the Bible as its foundation.

And so I taught a class on apologetics once and comparing kind of the two presupp evidentialists and I used a quote from William Lane Craig where he said the preponderance of the evidence leads to the greater probability of a God and So I go well, I don't serve a probable God.

I serve the God and that comes with my starting point, right? So his starting point would start with the evidence now. I'm not trying to lump all evidentialists in there with that but That's where he was starting from.

Whereas I would say we need to start from here the God of the Bible because if we don't start here Then where are we going?

I Would I would say that you need to distinguish Between the existence of God which is not probable. It's just he exists and the strength of a given case for that existence. Which might add to our confidence in the conclusion even though by itself.

You would say this makes God what this what I can conclude for this is that The God hypothesis is a really good explanation of this set of material and the atheist Or skeptical or pantheistic or whatever other hypothesis doesn't explain it nearly as well.

That is consistent with the Existence of God. I wouldn't I wouldn't use the the probability language. I would simply say I Would simply say God isn't dependent on my ability to prove his existence. But Here's here's a case.

It's a good case. It's a strong case. And when you put all these cases together It's very strong and it justifies our believing with confidence that God Exists and that he is the God of the Bible. So, yeah, you can you can frame the argument in a way that it it's almost and I think I Think Craig is trying to just be intellectually honest and not claim He can prove more than he actually can prove.

But I think it was probably unwise to bring Probability up. You know you said because if you start with God and then you say, you know everything that we find is consistent with this. You're open to the charge of circularity.

You Know and if I were not a believer if I were an atheist and I was arguing with the presupposition list. I would say well Yeah you look at the world and Confirmation bias causes you to see stuff that is consistent with your assumption.

That doesn't make it true. Because there's tons of data in the world that's consistent with tons of stuff. But That doesn't necessarily make it true and so There's a you know, we have to we have to show Reason we have to show why This starting place works better than all the not just works better than the other ones.

But actually is the only one that doesn't lead you into a blatant contradiction.

Either with yourself or with reality, yeah, you know, there's a you know, Jason Lyle. I'm a huge fan of Jason Lyle. Jason Lyle would be a presupposition list who? Studied under Greg Bonson, but at the same time he's a double PhD Astrophysicist and then a lot of his teachings in his lectures.

He uses evidences from astronomy geology In order to Make his case So and in effect, I think effectively disprove, you know theories like evolution. I.

Think I think the issue with evidential ism In a very specific case is if you come at it from the perspective of I need to use evidence to prove That God exists as a whole like I think it is important to take the presuppositional approach to that I think There there are Christians or people who say they're Christians who come from the position, you know, I can prove God exists with evidence and I don't need precept.

I don't need to use presuppositions at all. And I think that would be the extreme side of Evidentialism what I appreciate about Daniel McAdams as he acknowledges that there's there is Presuppositional apologetics mixed in with his evidentialist approach.

I think there are a lot of apologists who identify with all three of those camps.

William Lane Craig being one of them that are.

Essentially cumulative case guys. But they just have an emphasis in that one one area because I think you know Classical apologetics By itself Has a weakness that is it might suggest that the existence of a God of it might suggest that theism is a better answer to certain philosophical and scientific problems but We're not interested in just theism we're interested in a very specific God.

Evidentialism by itself Runs into a problem. What in the world is an evidentialist do with a post-modernist? Who rejects? Logic and thinks all your evidence is just you know, I'll prospect I will. Everything's relative.

Yeah, he's got nothing he can say to a person who doesn't care about evidence because from Evidentialism per se by itself alone He has no argument as to why we should care what the evidence says and the presuppositional approach.

I'm tempted with some presupposition list to say well, that's a very interesting theory, but does it fit the facts and. So, you know you're going it seems to me like you're going to have to Borrow from all three approaches in order to argue with real in order to make a case with real people.

Yeah, and each one of them offers something. Okay, so if I Make this really really strong case with historicity of the resurrection. It really the historical evidence really looks like the resurrection happened, but if you think God is inconceivable It doesn't prove anything except that something really weird took place 2 ,000 years ago.

So I need the classical arguments to put me in a position where The idea of God makes sense. You know, this is a world. That is the kind of world we would have if God created it it's not the kind of world we would have if he didn't and.

And the presuppositional is I think become more important with every passing day as The culture slips into post-modernism whatever is going to come after that. You know post post-modernism. Post post post modernism, you know, you really when you when you name your movement, you really should think about what you're you're doing like New College Oxford, right?

There's 39 different colleges that make up Oxford University and New College really sounded like a good name at the time. It was the new college. It's the fourth oldest of the 39 and 600 years old. It's still called New College you know the post-modernism, it's like You never conceived of the possibility that would there would be something coming after that.

Post-modernism, you know, yeah in. But anyway when talking about the the point is that.

That presuppositional is and gives you resources for dealing with people with that set of issues. But at some point you're gonna have to look at the evidence and At some point you're gonna have to look at the concept of what do we mean by God, you know?

Just because Genesis says God created the earth that doesn't Prove that God exists unless I already believe the Bible. In which case I probably Don't need you as an apologist because I already believe in God anyway.

So I Think people will emphasize one of the approaches based on their own gifts and their own inclinations and The ministry they have and the kind of people they deal with. But it seems to me like in the at the end of the day, we actually need all three and that.

Yeah, the God that we need to have to explain the existence of the universe and its Intelligent design and the fact that it contains a moral law. How Do we know who he is? Well, we need the evidence that scripture is presenting him to us accurately we need We need all three approaches.

It seems to me.

Listening, Questions, and Tailoring the Apologetic to the Person

Adam is there anything you wanted to tack on to there?

Well, I think you know with all of this you kind of laid it out really well. What what is it? But here's a good question for you because you're in this conversation with a person. What is your way of going through like what is the best?

Let's say approach to take. Depending on a specific person. What what do you go through? What evaluation do you use to determine which? approach you're gonna use in your Apologetics, let's say you're having a conversation with an atheist or someone.

What are you gonna do? Well, I listen.

Okay, I Listen, and I try to find out where he's coming from And what his issues are and I use a lot of Socratic questions. And and at first I'm just trying to figure out okay Hey, is this guy a really seeking truth, or does he just want to argue?

Hmm, you know, I think apologists waste an awful lot of time and in fact Build their apologetic to deal with people who just want to argue. And I don't think that's Doing anything for the kingdom or for the cause of Christ.

And I think it makes apologetics.

Less useful. So would you say. Those type of people are typically the kind who in turn just want to argue themselves as well?

Well, yeah, that's that's that's the problem. You know, if the guy just wants to argue then Unless There's somebody who's listening that might be influenced by him. He's he's the swine before whom I don't need to be casting my pearls, it's just a waste of time.

Yeah, if there's any chance, he's actually open and wanting to know the truth and. Because yeah, so many Conversations with skeptics only one person is listening in the conversation. It's not the skeptic, right?

How many times have I been in a in a in a? A debate. Maybe online or something, you know, and and you you make this carefully worded statement and the guy comes back. It's obviously hasn't even bothered to read it.

He's.

His spiel, you know, yeah, it's a complete let's say this is a person though who is a genuine seeker like so. Presuppositionalist they have their Where they approach things from right which would be that God has spoken then there's the evidentialist they'll go and they'll try to pull in the evidence.

The Classicalists will try to prove theism and then bring in some kind of evidence to back it up. I guess my question for you or that question was more meant to be how does a cumulative case? Apologist.

Mm-hmm. Approach these things. It seems like it's it's a much more complex way of going about things because you have three different schools of thought. That you've got to pull from.

Well, I've got. Three different schools of thought that offer me resources that I can use. Okay, and it's. In a way, it's more complex. I would use the word flexible. Okay, okay, so I don't have a set spiel right.

And I've got to take everybody through steps one through.

17 in that order. Well, I suppose that was a little bit more to my question, too because as a cumulative case person, it seems like you have The option to take it in a more personalized approach like as as for you.

You can then it seems like you could take a more personalized approach whereas someone who's doing presep will often follow the mold of those guys who did it before. A Classicalist will follow the mold of the guys who did it before typically, you know if they're going hardline for that case.

So You said you have flexibility. How would you go about it? I mean, yeah, every person is different. But I'm assuming that you would use a mix of each school of thought. Regardless, so what does that look like for you?

Well, I mean, I'm an atheist. Explain to me why God exists.

Well, why do you exist? That's a good question.

Let's say I mean, let's say let's say.

How about this? Oh, so here we are. We both apparently exist. I mean you might be a figment of my imagination I might be one of yours, but let's just. Let's just for the sake of argument say that we are here and we exist.

Well, just real quick you kind of threw me off there because I have to you said well, why do you exist? Oh, man, now I have to think like an atheist. So I think like an atheist part of me. What is like, how do I unscrew my head and take my brain out of my.

Why does anything exist right, okay so There are two major answers to that question on the table for most of us Westerners. Okay. Now he may be New Age and or or Eastern or whatever and that's a whole different conversation but You've you've either got naturalistic evolution.

Or you've got creation, okay so if Evolution is true Then how do you explain The fact that you have aspirations for things like Goodness truth and beauty. You know because because you know, the evolutionist keeps telling us that we're just Just another animal with an extra convolution in our brain and opposable thumbs but we're like just one step down the road from where other intelligent animals have evolved to.

Have you noticed that? That you know, there are some monkeys who are pretty intelligent a bonobo will like break off a stick and use it as a tool to dig termites out of a mound or If he's in a room with a banana suspended from the ceiling that he can't reach He might arrange boxes into a pile and climb up there to get the banana that's that's intelligent that's problem-solving intelligence but what he will not do is Arrange the sticks or the boxes into a symmetrical pattern just to sit back and contemplate it Without getting any termites or bananas out of it at all.

He's a 100 pragmatist and you're not because You know You like to tell stories and and you like to play music and you like to do all this stuff. It's like How is explanation the X the how is evolution the explanation for us on?

The other hand if we were made by an intelligent personal God then you know things make a different kind of sense, so Why should we even be open to this idea of God because the alternative doesn't have answers to the deep philosophical questions and If God's there those questions now are open and we have we ultimately have the option of believing that truth meaning goodness and beauty exist and have significance or They don't.

Now if we're open to the idea that God might be there Is there any way we can know if he is in fact, if you know, is this more than just a nice idea a nice theory and you know, then there are reasons for thinking that it is because You have the fact that he's revealed himself to us in nature and You know, by the way I see all the arguments being used in Scripture.

Classical arguments are there Psalm 19 1 the heavens declare the glory of God the firmament showeth his handiwork all the column. Argument does is take the testimony of nature and make it more explicit.

How does nature show the glory of God. It does it by being intelligent it does it by existing. Even though it's contingent. It does it by being intelligently designed etc, etc, etc. So there's lots of reasons for thinking that God is not.

And the first there's there's a reason for us to be interested in him. Because he gives us answers that make our humanity actually livable and Once we're open to that possibility Then we can look at the evidence and see if in fact he has shown us that he's actually there.

So are you saying that are you saying that your first approach in a can your cumulative case is to give reasons why it's a good idea to Consider at least consider his existence. Is that what you're saying?

Doesn't think he needs to. Yeah, and so. You know, can I get you to at least have an open mind on the question and to see some reason why. We might be interested in the answer instead of just assuming we've already got it.

Now. It's like it's kind of a presuppositional start there except it's not. It's not a pure Vantillian type of start because I'm not. I'm not. No, it's like. What I'm not telling him is I've got an advantage because I've already read the answers in the back of the book.

But the first thing I have to do is get you interested in them. Give you a reason to care whether God's there or not, but and and to think. You know because because you're just assuming God's this nasty person who's going to boss me around and I don't want that.

So I don't want him to be there. Well, let's rethink that I mean is is is that the only way to look at it. Is that the best way to look at it. And. Are there problems with.

That approach. You know, I have and this is I mean.

What I'm not what I'm doing. I'm not what I'm not doing right now is laying out. Here's the way to do this. This is a scenario with an imaginary Atheist who looks like Adam and Of course how he responds at each point Will dictate where I go from there.

Add some responses to what you're saying there too because You you had mentioned, you know what you'd brought up, you know apes. They they're very pragmatic whereas us, you know, we think about the deeper things we enjoy art we you know things like that and can't help but look back to my my days in Sunday school growing up and The perfect answer was always hey.

They'll ask you a Sunday school type question. And if as long as I said Jesus the answer was right And so but but for the atheists they have their own and that being oh, well We're it's just because we evolved to be higher thinkers, you know.

That seems to be their Jesus answer if they had their Sunday school as well. Just evolution you evolve better. You know and and you know, how would you approach a question like that as a cumulative case guy because It's pretty easy to veer off into left field if If there's not an intentioned goal in your your steps because the idea Hopefully by the end of it is to have given them a case for for why God exists and really getting to the gospel.

So well what happens there?

Is evolution a good explanation for human beings and The answer is no, it's really not Because we're not one step further down the same road. We're a right turn and a leap across a Grand Canyon from the other animals.

Best resource I know of on this question would be GK Chesterton's book the everlasting man In it, but what Chesterton does is he takes The evolutionary premise as true for the sake of argument and pushes it until it falls apart To show that You know It's really not capable of explaining us now there are technical ways of doing that for example, you could bring up A irreducible complexity or a specified complexity and You know, all this stuff is potentially on the table Depending on how the guy responds on what his objections are, etc but you know my initial thing is is Can we Get the idea of God on the table as something that we can discuss Because his default setting is no, that's there's no evidence for it.

It's already it nothing but a superstition in a myth No reason why anybody should be interested in that. No, really You know when I think there's I think there are lots of reasons why we should be interested in it and Once we are Then there are lots of reasons why we should think that God is not just a Theoretical answer to why there is meaning and truth and stuff that evolution Doesn't give you but he's reality because he's he's revealed himself to us.

Okay, and then so so from there your your responses to him. This fake or pretend atheist or whatever. Your responses to such a person would Really depend on his answers to your questions.

From my go my go is to get to the point where I'm having a real conversation with him. Okay there's there's you know instead of what typically happens is you get two guys who are just giving each other their spiel and And the first guy pauses and the other guy gives his and then the the first guy picks up his again.

And they're not really Interacting. They're not really communicating. So, I think the first thing you want to do is get past that scenario because that's normally.

That's normally where we find ourselves but what I mean, I think I think even for pre sup guys evidentialists and classicalists they find themselves in that position to where they. They will need to get that at least get them going in the direction of that conversation.

And so like they have a they have a way that they do that as well. And it seems like it wouldn't be too different from what a cumulative case person would you know what you're doing?

I guess I don't have any original Ideas. Everything I got I stole from either the presupposition lists. Or the classical guides, you know, it's right, but it's just my perception is that your case is stronger if you have the resources that they all provide and I'm looking for a big picture in which they're all Part of the case for the capital C.

Right. And so I guess I guess where I was going with the question is I was hoping to get the point where you. You would then explain how you go about inferring which? School of thought to.

Utilize as I guess where I was going. Well, if I can add on to that question To or expand it a little bit because when I'm listening The How you would approach it how you you're talking to this. You know this atheist and trying to get this conversation going.

It seems like it Depending on the setting it might not work in certain settings. So this would be. I can see this if we have time to sit down Coffee shop lunch something and we have time to have this long conversation.

But that might not be the case for if I'm out street preaching and evangelizing and I've got Seconds for the person that's passing by that makes the comment or something like that, right? So in terms of are there certain settings where the cumulative approach is better and maybe not in other settings.

I don't think there's a setting in which the cumulative approach is not better. I think there are settings in which all you have the opportunity to do is put a pebble in the guy's shoe and. That pebble is going to come from if it's one pebble.

It's going to come from one of the three.