A review of Every Thought Captive by Richard L. Pratt, Jr.
Every Thought Captive is a book about Christian apologetics, which refers to arguing for the Christian faith. It involves reasoning and presenting the biblical worldview in order to persuade the unbeliever that his worldview is inconsistent. I found this book to be helpful, as it dispels a number of misconceptions about evangelism.
Don’t Let Go and Let God
“Peter wrote that we should ‘always be ready to make a defense’. So, he who is lax in these matters fails to submit to the Lordship of Christ and to depend on the Holy Spirit, for true submission and reliance will result in the careful study of apologetics.”
Pratt addresses a couple of issues here. One is the idea that apologetics is only for those with special training or gifting. The other misnomer is that Christians don’t need to study and prepare for evangelism, since the Holy Spirit will give them the words to say when the time comes. One could just as well use the same justification for the refusal to memorize Scripture. While we firmly believe that regeneration is monergistic, we just as surely assert that sanctification is synergistic. Yes, the Holy Spirit can give us supernatural apologetic ability, but His ordinary means is to give us courage to apply what we’ve learned through study. He gives us the desire to learn about Him through His Word and the hunger to obey Him in fulfilling the dominion mandate. “Let go and let God” might appeal to sentiment and sell bumper stickers, but it is bad exegesis in this instance.
Dead, Deaf, Enslaved, Blind and Treasonous
(But other than that, he’s an ok guy)
“Sin has such a firm grip on fallen man that he is actually unable to submit himself to Scripture.”
This is a great example of how one’s view on fallen man directly affects his approach to apologetics. The majority opinion in America at this time among professing Christians is that sinners are not dead, but only “mostly dead”. Thus, they don’t need the Lord Jesus Christ, per se, since Miracle Max will do in a pinch. According to the Big Eva crowd, unbelievers are not totally unable to repent and believe without the preceding regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. They are not deaf to the Word of Life, they are not bound by sin, they are not children of Satan who do his will. They are mostly blind, but they are able to see a little bit of light. They are not enemies of God who do not seek the Truth. If you hold to these opinions, you will engage in evangelism by attempting to convince the individual that the evidence for God demands a verdict. By so doing, you put God in the dock, with the pagan man passing judgment as to the veracity of the truth claims of the Bible. Someone who holds to Pratt’s view uses a drastically different method. The biblical, historic, orthodox view is that fallen man is dead in trespasses and sin. He is utterly incapable of responding to God in any kind of attitude rather than rebellion. He cannot and will not seek God, love Him or submit to Him as Lord and King. His ears are stopped to the truth of God’s Word. He is enslaved by sin and is a child of the Devil. He is completely in the dark. How can someone in this state be made to hear the Gospel and respond in faith? Only through the Spirit, by the preaching of the Gospel. Therefore, we feel no need to defend Scripture as if God must answer to man. Rather, we start with the presupposition that the Bible is true and what it says about God and man is unassailable. We then proceed to show the unbeliever that his worldview is inconsistent and that the only true viewpoint is that of God’s.
No Switzerland
“To say that Christianity may be true is to say it may not be true.”
One approach that apologists use in defending Christianity is to attempt neutrality, to put themselves in the same position as the non-christian. They will proceed to mount evidence that there may be a god, then that there is a god. They often stop there, thinking it is a bridge too far to insist that there is one God and one Lord, namely Jesus Christ. “Let’s examine the evidence together” is their catch-phrase. As you can see by Pratt’s quote above, this line of thinking is a loser. As Christians, we are not neutral and we are not fooled into thinking that the so-called atheist or agnostic has not chosen sides. We realize that there are only two categories of people according to the Bible, there are only two roads, only two ways. Our confidence in the truth claims of Scripture are not based on any inherent wisdom in ourselves; rather we are pointing people to the Source of all wisdom—the fear of the Lord.
Are You Sure?
“Since the unbeliever has not examined all the possible evidence for God‘s existence, he cannot be absolutely certain that He does not exist.”
Now we get into one of the key distinctions that Pratt uses to argue for the Christian faith. The unbeliever will dogmatically state that God does not exist. However, we must show him that there is no way for him to know that with absolute certainty. Thus, the possibility of God’s existence must be left open. We have to be careful at this point to avoid putting God and His Word on trial; rather, we aim to show the unbeliever that he has no reason for confidence in his position. We then return to pushing the claims of King Jesus over all of creation.
The Case Against Christ
“From a non-Christian perspective, the ‘evidences’ for God’s existence are not convincing.”
I think it’s important to understand what Pratt is saying here. If someone asks you why you are a Christian and you say that you examined the evidence and made a decision for Christ, then you believe that you can persuade others to do the same. Please notice that if you think that the reason that you’re a Christian and your pagan neighbor is not is because you made a logical decision, while the unbeliever did not, what are you saying? Aren’t you claiming that you are smarter than your neighbor? Doesn’t that give you something to boast about? In contrast, Pratt’s understanding is that the believer is not saved by being convinced of the evidence for God and independently exercising his will to believe. Instead, the Holy Spirit must regenerate a man before he has any ability or desire to believe in Christ. We must understand that all the evidence in the world will not change a sinner’s mind apart from being born again by the Spirit of God. Don’t we know this to be true from Scripture? Didn’t Christ do miracle after sign after wonder which only served to harden the rebels and solidify the faith of His those the Father had foreordained to eternal life?
Pratt continues,
“Not all unbelievers believe Jesus was a great moral teacher. Not all would agree that the unusual life which Jesus led is different in quality from lunacy. Not all non-Christians would accept the recent dating of the gospel records as convincing evidence of the factual nature of their content, especially in supernatural and miraculous matters. Unbelievers will certainly never be logically forced into believing Christ is truly the divine son of God.”
If you’ve engaged in apologetics with people for any length of time, you know this to be true by experience. While it is easy for the believer to agree with the supernatural quality of the teachings of Jesus and the manuscript evidence for the historical reliability of Scripture, billions of people have been, are not, and never will come to the conclusion that Christ is the Son of God and they must believe in Him to receive life. There is a great freedom in realizing that this is exactly as Jesus predicted and the Christian’s task is to courageously proclaim the Gospel. God will convert those He chooses.
Pratt goes on,
“If the unbeliever is going to question the accuracy of the biblical account regarding Christ’s death, it is hardly adequate to answer his view with other portions of the biblical account. That argument alone will not answer the objection of the non-Christian adequately.”
We are to be clear that everyone has a point of view, and we are basing our worldview on the Bible. The non-Christian is basing his worldview on his own thoughts, ideas and opinions. Nevertheless, we will use God’s Word as the foundation for all of our truth claims. Pratt expands on this idea: “If stripped of its biblical meaning, the resurrection proves nothing.” Again, if the unbeliever rejects the context of Christ’s resurrection from Scripture, proving that Jesus rose from the dead will not convince him. But, as Pratt points out, “Biblical authority must never depend on human verification for it is the unquestionable Word of God.” We have to be assured of this fact or we will find ourselves on the defensive, with a creature making demands of the Creator of the world! Indeed, as Pratt says, “If belief in Christian truth comes only after the claims of Christ are run through the verification machine of independent human judgment, then human judgment is still thought to be the ultimate authority.”
“Most Christians do not know about the so-called scientific evidence for and against evolution. Yet, this in no way calls into question the certainty of the biblical record of creation.”
Since the Bible is our ultimate Source of authority, we don’t need to learn all the details of every system that sets itself against God. While it can be helpful to take a deep dive into someone’s belief system, we see that Scripture gives us to tools to categorize all aberrant belief systems and respond from God’s Word. We know that Darwinians have made science their god, thus providing them with “evidence” from their god to support their theory. However, this “wisdom” of man is foolishness to God and to those who believe His Word. As Pratt says, “Every thought contrary to Christianity which the unbeliever has results from his desire to set himself up as the independent judge of truth.” So we recognize that Darwinism is just another way that man attempts to put God in the dock and act as his own judge.
The author includes a number of questions that are helpful to think through and assess how well prepared one is for apologetics.
Review Questions
How would you argue by truth for:
The Bible is the Word of God?
The uniqueness of the Bible in distinction from other religious books?
The sinfulness of all men?
The sovereignty of God and human responsibility?
How would you argue by folly against these objections:
“The Bible contradicts itself.”
“The Bible contradicts history.”
“The Bible is not the word of God, because it was written by men.”
“The Bible is too mythological to be God’s word.”
“The Bible is too ambiguous to be God’s word.”
“The Bible has been lost through translation and transmission.”
“There are so many religious books that the Bible is not unique.”
“No religious books can have God’s authority.”
“Only my religious book has authority.”
“We should not say one religious book is better than another.”
“I think all people are good at heart.”
“Some people are good, and others are bad.”
“I don’t think we should be so arrogant as to think anyone is evil.“
“God is unfair if he holds guilty.”
“A loving God would not hold men guilty.“
How would you argue by truth for:
The origin of the world?
The end of the world?
The certainty of faith?
The uncertainty of faith?
How would you argue by folly against these objections?
“Evolution disproves Christianity.”
“There is no judgment.”
“Christianity is too naïve.”
“Christianity is too dogmatic.“