Copyright © 2013 Pradeep Tilak All rights reserved. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has permission to reproduce and disseminate this document in any form by any means for purposes chosen by the Seminary, including, without limitation, preservation or instruction. A CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW APOLOGETIC ENGAGEMENT WITH ADVAITA VEDANTA HINDUISM A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by Pradeep Tilak May 2013 APPROVAL SHEET A CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW APOLOGETIC ENGAGEMENT WITH ADVAITA VEDANTA HINDUISM Pradeep Tilak Read and Approved by: __________________________________________ James Parker III (Chair) __________________________________________ James D. Chancellor __________________________________________ Theodore J. Cabal Date______________________________ I dedicate this dissertation to my wife, Sunita. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE . vii Chapter 1. CONTEXT OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS . 1 Biblical Mandate . 3 Key Methodological Principles . 5 Dangers in Worldview Apologetics . 15 2. WORLDVIEW CASE STUDY . 21 Hindu Philosophic Tradition . 21 Sankara . 23 Ramanuja . 31 Madhva . 40 Summary . 44 Advaita Vedanta . 47 3. CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS TO ADVAITA . 49 Examining Methods of Rapprochement . 51 Examining Methods of Antithesis . 57 Recommending a Faithful Approach . 60 Conclusion . 65 4. PROOF: PRESENTING THE CASE . 67 Vedanta’s Basic Beliefs . 68 Christianity’s Basic Beliefs . 79 Apologetic Review . 90 iv Chapter Page Conclusion . 93 5. OFFENSE: HIGHLIGHTING THE STRENGTHS . 94 Vedanta’s Challenge . 94 Christianity’s Challenge . 99 Apologetic Review . 110 Conclusion . 113 6. DEFENSE: RESPONDING TO CHARGES . 115 Vedanta’s Defense . 115 Christianity’s Defense . 121 Apologetic Review . 128 Conclusion . 130 7. APOLOGETIC REVIEW . 132 Metaphysics . 133 Epistemology . 140 Ethics . 147 Conclusion . 153 8. PERSONAL APOLOGETICS . 155 Kierkegaard and the Will . 156 Salvation . 170 Conclusion . 172 9. GOSPEL-CENTERED APOLOGETICS . 174 Current Evangelistic Apologetics . 175 Future of Evangelistic Apologetics . 178 Conclusion . 191 10. CONCLUSION . 193 v Chapter Page Worldview Apologetic . 193 Future Research . 196 Conclusion . 198 Appendix VEDANTA SUMMARY COMPARISON . 199 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 201 vi PREFACE This dissertation is the culmination of my spiritual and intellectual wrestling with the Christian truth set in the context of evangelism to Hindus, particularly those of the pantheistic persuasion. During the past decade, the biblical worldview had taken a deeper root in my mind, to see more clearly the fault-lines in Hinduism. For this clarity, I am thankful to God, especially for enabling my study at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and my edification at Bethlehem Bible Church. I cannot adequately acknowledge everyone, but I am particularly grateful to James Parker, my advisor, and Michael Abendroth, my pastor. Through one, I was introduced to the tranquil beauties of the philosophical world. Through the other, I was humbled under the brilliance of God and his Word. My committee members were deeply instrumental in my intellectual development while my fellow-elders strongly supported me in ministry. I am indebted to the prayers of my family in the flesh and in Christ. Sunita has been more than an able partner – without her, I would not have stepped out into this adventure. Her patient endurance and strong support brings this journey to fruition. I thank God for our parents’ prayers and for our daughters, Kathryn and Judith, who joyfully traded their playtime with Dad for his drives to “tentuky.” God has been gracious in granting physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual stamina through this enterprise. Any good from this dissertation is due Him alone. Pradeep Tilak Louisville, Kentucky May 2013 vi i CHAPTER 1 THE CONTEXT OF WORLDVIEW APOLOGETICS Worldview apologetics is well situated on the lofty and majestic context of Christian apologetics. Currently there are a vast array of Christian apologetic methods and foci. These approaches provide both a defense against the intellectual attacks on Christianity while going on the offensive against false world systems. To explore the context of Worldview apologetics,1 it helps to first delve into the broader biblical mandate for apologetics which grounds the enterprise. The contextual study will array broadly the principles and key methodological aspects of apologetics, before their specific elements are reused in the targeted context of Worldview apologetics.2 The strengths and weaknesses of each method will be viewed primarily through the lens of Classical, Evidential, Reformed, and Fideistic apologetics. While the content of apologetics largely frames the above methodologies, the ethical delivery of apologetics introduces additional criteria to evaluate apologetic encounters. The dangers facing the apologist will be examined in terms of faithfulness to God, to one’s own integrity, and toward unbelievers. This will set up the gauge for success or failure in the intellectual, moral, and emotional honesty of the apologist. 1A worldview is “how one views or interprets reality. The German word is Weltanschauung, meaning a ‘world and life view,’ or ‘a paradigm.’ It is the framework through which or by which one makes sense of the data of life. A worldview makes a world of difference in one’s view of God, origins, evil, human nature, values, and destiny.” Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 785. 2Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, and J. P. Moreland, To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004), 9, 14-17. 1 Apologetics is sometimes seen as a purely philosophical activity, but Christian apologetics is a vital component of both theology and philosophy. Worldview apologetics can be broadly defined as the defense of the Christian worldview. Positively, it presents and defends biblical theology toward unbelief with evidence and reason. Negatively, it contrasts unbelieving worldviews as a whole against the gospel framework, critiquing foundational errors of unbelief that are untenable.3 This effort is leveraged by Bryan Sims whose evangelical apologetic follows the flow of redemptive history to develop a biblical worldview expanding upon the Transcendental and Abduction approaches. He argues for a biblical worldview analysis that follows the fundamental turning points of salvation and human history: creation-fall-redemption (CFR). These turning points or epochs are essential because of the universality of their scope, existential significance, and narrative nature. In addition, the CFR schema, with its universal and existential dimension, supplies evangelical apologists with abundant connecting points with dialogue partners.4 The Worldview apologetic in this dissertation attempts a comprehensive application from a broad range of apologetic strategies within a biblical framework that is in the spirit of Sims’ dissertation. To this end, it helps to first review the Christian theological mandate before looking into the philosophical outworking of that biblical charge. 3Steven B. Cowan, “Introduction,” in Five Views on Apologetics, ed. Stanley N. Gundry and Steven B. Cowan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 8. Colin Grant, “Why Should Theology Be Unnatural?” Modern Theology 23 (2007): 103. Grant demands that theology challenge today’s philosophy. 4Bryan Billard Sims, “Evangelical Worldview Analysis: A Critical Assessment and Proposal” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2006), 20. Sims’ dissertation utilizes specific input to develop the Worldview apologetic in the CFR framework. This dissertation broadens that approach, expanding the Transcendental approach to a fully Reformed, presuppositional method, while leveraging every apologetic method, including elements of Abduction by inferring the best explanation. Sims develops the works of epistemologist Robert Audi and philosopher of science Imre Lakatos. The breadth of Sims’ approach is thus defended: “Each element of the CFR matrix possesses tremendous evidential potential in terms of commending the Christian worldview” (ibid., 20). Sims notes that his “apologetic approach might be appropriately dubbed ‘presuppositional evidentialism,’ but . the best strategy is [to call it] ‘worldview apologetics’” (ibid., 23). See also William A. Dembski and Jay Wesley Richards, eds., Unapologetic Apologetics: Meeting the Challenges of Theological Studies (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 15: “Apologetics must never be divorced from the offense of the gospel.” 2 Biblical Mandate The Christian mandate for apologetics comes from various texts of Scripture.5 1 Peter 3:15 requires Christians to be prepared to make a defense , from which the term apologetics is derived. This pericope is examined for the mandate: Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil.6 Apologetics is typically a Christian response to an inquirer of the reason for our hope. In the milieu of these verses, the following apologetic aspects stand out: The apologetic mandate is surrounded by verses on suffering. Suffering is also the overall theme of the book.7 Peter makes it clear that the believer must not suffer for doing wrong, but rather must be zealous for doing good. In his exemplary life of goodness to the unbeliever in word and deed, the believer can expect suffering, including slander and persecution, on account of the gospel. This suffering is a blessing from God and not viewed as a failure of apologetics. Misunderstanding and willful misrepresentation of unbelievers.