INTRODUCTION

The study of Apologetics provides the rationale for the basis of our faith. It can be a difficult subject to master because it involves deep philosophy. You may think that you have clear feelings that have led you to believe in God and that is fortunate. You may be curious about God and matters of faith but need to have reasons for and an understanding of who God is before you would believe in him. Apologetics can help you to be able to explain these matters first to yourself and then to others.

We will be covering our book organized by ten topics which roughly correspond to the book’s chapters. We will be adding in additional information to augment the rich materials provided by our book’s Authors. There will also be some assignments in each chapter and a final quiz where you will have the opportunity to see how well you have mastered the material.

I believe we need the ability to argue for our faith using logic and reasoning. This methodology is not covered directly in the book but you will find some hints towards this end in places throughout the book. We also need to argue for our faith with kindness, gentleness, and graciousness.

Should you become a skilled “Apologist,” you should be able to face non-believers and “... give a reason for the hope that is in you.” 1 Pet 3:15, PHOCA, Pg. 9.

Lesson 1. APOLOGETICS AND REASON

This topic defines the meaning and purpose of “Apologetics” and covers material from Chapters 1 and 2 of our book. 

Apologetics uses logic and reason to explain the nature of God and his plan for our lives. It substantiates why we believe as we do in the saving grace of Jesus Christ. Apologetics is the attempt to defend Faith with reason’s weapons. PHOCA, Pg. 13.

Many of us may wish to explain our faith as a “heart thing” but unfortunately many times our heart will follow our head. Having our faith straight in our heads will free up our hearts to more closely follow the leading of the Holy Spirit and strengthen our relationships with God.

We need apologetics now more than ever because the fabric of our Nation and of our Families is being torn not by just sin but by the forces of human secularism. The book describes this as a three way crossroads crisis: cultural, intellectual, and spiritual PHOCA, Pg. 11. We are also being “taken advantage” by our media who reject the truth of God and seek to substitute the facts of his creation with notions of “Evolution” and the media will avoid any facts that contradict their position. The third crisis is one of broken Spiritualities. There may be plenty of attention paid to so-called “spiritualists” and “spiritualism” but no real attention to the saving power of the Holy Spirit. The book describes this as the “spiritual sanity of our ostrichlike age” which in my opinion is more of a “spiritual Insanity.” Our authors have it completely correct in their description of the coming judgement of God., PHOCA, Pg. 11-12.

Our text continues with a definition of faith and by discussing the types of faith: Emotional Faith, Intellectual Faith, Volitional Faith, and The Heart of Faith.

The “object of faith” is all the things that are believed. The object not the act of faith is discussed as propositions. The “act of faith” is something to live for and something worth dying for. It is not a mere belief but belief in something beyond ourselves and that which is ultimately important. 

There are several types of faith:

1. Emotional Faith  is feelings of assurance, trust, or confidence in a God. This includes hope (which is stronger than a wish) and includes peace (which is stronger than mere calm).

2. Intellectual Faith is belief. It is the aspect of faith that is formulated in propositions and summarized in creeds.

3. Volitional Faith is an act of the will, a commitment to obey God’s will. This faith is faithfullness or fidelity. It manifests itself in behavior, that is, in good works.

4. Heart Faith begins in the obscure mysterious center of our being or “heart.” With the heart we choose the fundamental decision of “yes” or “no” to God, and thereby determine our eternal identity and destiny. PHOCA, Pg. 14.

The relationship between the objects of Faith and Reason:

Truths of Faith and not of Reason (type1), Truths of both Faith and Reason (type2), Truths not of Faith but of Reason (type3).

The truths of faith and not of reason are those truths that we gain from our understanding of God and his will but which are not explainable by human reason. These truths could include the mysteries of the Christian faith like the relationship between Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

The truths of both faith and reason are aspects of our faith that have been revealed to us by God and that are explainable by human reason. These truths could include the need for a God to provide us with moral values, the need for the existence of a God, and the existence of our souls.

The truths not of faith but of reason are those truths that are not given to us by God but are truths that can be arrived at through human reason alone. These truths are natural scientific truths.

As apologists, we are responsible for providing answers to all of the objections against type1 truths, and providing reasonable explanations for all type2 truths. Type3 truths can be left to the scientific method.

There needs to  be a harmony between faith and reason: The harmony of Faith and Reason: Summa Contra Gentiles 1.7 Aquinas - “The truth that human reason is naturally endowed cannot be opposed to the truth of Christian Faith.”

And also: Aquinas - “Whatever arguments are brought forward against the Faith are conclusions incorrectly derived from the first and self-evident principles embedded in [rational human] nature.”

I.E. Every argument against every aspect of Christian doctrine has a logic mistake in it somewhere and we need to provide a logical and rational reason for this error.

Reason is flawless “de jure” but reasoners are not “de facto.” PHOCA, Pg. 18.

Take the Lesson 1 Quiz 

Lesson 2. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

I remember as a very young boy when attending church, I felt a special presence of something bigger than myself or something that “cared for me” that “championed me” and not because of something I did or was but just because I for some reason was “special to them.” As I got older, I realized that this must be God. And because I felt this “unmerited Love” that this was a strong proof for the existence of a “God.” You may or may not have had this feeling but may reflect on the existence of God in a different way, but for all, I believe there is something inside them that points to or provides proof for a “God.”

In our text, the authors provide several arguments or “proofs” for God’s existence. These proofs are very philosophical yet most lend themselves to causal logic. We will examine several of these proofs (taken from Chapter 3 of our text) that I find to be most approachable and ones that we can share with others as a way of helping them to find their own personal understanding of the existence of God.

The Design Argument.

Many things in the Universe show a clear intelligence and functional purpose beyond a chance organization of physical artifacts. The efficiency and function of human organs and the inherent beauty and order in nature are examples. The atheist would attribute such things to chance design or formulation over considerable periods of time.

The Kalam Argument.

The Kalam means “the speech” in Arabic and it is an argument that God created the universe because it can be shown to have a finite age, a beginning, and therefore would be in need of a creator. 

ACTIVITY: View - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0 - The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Part 1 - William Lane Craig

ACTIVITY: View - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vybNvc6mxMo - The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Part 2 - William Lane Craig

The Ontological Argument.

Anselm of Canterbury proposed: Given that the definition of God is, “that which cannot be conceived of as being greater.” Therefore it is great for something to exist in reality, than for it to exist in the mind alone. God exists in the mind and therefore God exists in reality. 

ACTIVITY: View - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBmAKCvWl74 - The Ontological Argument - William Lane Craig

The Moral Argument.

If God does not exist, we have no moral obligation to do good and avoid evil. The atheist view would suggest that we are a chance occurrence of nature and have no other obligation for moral behavior beside our desire to do good. The theist view would be that we have a real moral obligation to do good because God exists.

ACTIVITY: View - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU - The Moral Argument - William Lane Craig

The Argument from Conscience.

Even the atheist would view that we have a moral obligation by virtue of our own conscience. I am not obligated to have a moral conscience by something less than myself, nor by myself, nor someone else in society. If I am obligated to have a moral conscience, then only something greater than “man,” can do so, which supports the existence of God.

The Argument from Desire.

People will not desire something that they can not imagine exists or have not had some experience with in the past. We desire things from our experience that are in this world, while we desire things from “somewhere else” if we can only imagine this object or attribute. We naturally desire something more from life or an eternal life, for example “a Savior/Christ” and “Heaven.” We could only have imagined these things and desired these things if they exist.

Pascal’s Wager.

This was suggested by Pascal not as a means of proving God’s existence but when reason fails to prove to us of this fact, we need to view the outcome of each choice. If we choose that God exists we lose nothing.

If we choose that God does not exist we stand to lose everything for if we choose to not believe in God and it turns out there truly is a God, then we face eternal separation from him. If on the other hand, we choose to believe in Jesus, and to repent, and to love God, and there is no God, there is nothing to be separated from, and there is no loss.

ACTIVITY: View - “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09kH136vXog” - Pascal’s Wager - Matt Fradd

ACTIVITY: View - “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBmAKCvWl74&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EfL-NyraEGXXwSjDNeMaRoX” - Reasonable Faith Animated Videos - William Lane Craig

Take the Lesson 2 Quiz 

Lesson 3. Creation and Evolution

Creation and evolution have been framed in “either or” terms with theists using creation as a means of proving that there is an intelligent creator, or God, and atheists using evolution as proof that God couldn’t exist or at least that creation story in the Bible is false.

The authors of our textbook instead look at these issues philosophically in reference to the answers to five questions: 

1. Is creation possible?

2. What difference does creation make?

3. Is evolution possible?

4. What difference does evolution make?

5. Does evolution contradict creation?

Is Creation Possible?

The authors suggest that creation is possible for an omnipotent God and that it makes all of the difference of how a person views themselves in relationship to God and to the absolute nature of ethics and morality. Likewise, an all powerful God could allow evolution to operate on one level or another but that even science has not been kind to evolution and ultimately will have the final say.

What difference does creation make?

The fact of creation changes how we view God, nature, and how we view ourselves. God becomes the author and perfector of the Universe, nature, and of mankind. He is all knowing, all powerful, all present, and unconstrained by time, space, nor how we view him.

Is evolution possible?

I think the authors correctly assert that evolution does not nullify the possibility of an intelligent creator, and that it is likewise possible that evolution could operate in the context of creation, and therefore they are not mutually exclusive. The theory of evolution does not match up to the fossil record and we have no data that would indicate a change in “kind” between species. E.G. Birds may change in function and appearance due to environmental factors but they are still birds.

We also have no data that would indicate dinosaurs changed into birds even though they share many commonalities in form and function. This would still not be a change in kind which is necessary for evolution to explain species diversity and how the universe was created.. A dog changing into a cat would be a change in kind. The jury is still out whether the theory can be salvaged. It is far from becoming a law which would be the natural progression of science, i.e. proven theories become laws.

What difference does evolution make?

The authors of our text identified three meanings in the definition of evolution: how species became diverse which should be seen in the fossil record, the manner in which species change, i.e. via natural selection, or via random mutations, and the philosophical view of the  absence of an intelligent creator, and his ability to use natural selection as a process. The greatest impact being that if evolution was found to be the manner at which all things were created, in the absence of God, then we have no absolute morality, and only morality dictated by our own desires.

Does evolution contradict creation?

Evolution does not contradict creation but it does not adequately explain how the soul was developed in man. The human body is an organism and evolution can operate and explain the development of its form and function. Unfortunately, evolution can not help in our understanding of the development of the human soul: thought, consciousness, reason, and self awareness. [1:p. 40]. These are all parameters of human intellectual development which are inorganic and therefore not explained by any of the aspects of evolution.

ACTIVITY: View - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeSxIqAYP4M - Ray Comfort, “Evolution vs. God”

ACTIVITY: Read - http://assets.livingwaters.com/pdf/OriginofSpecies.pdf - Introduction by Ray Comfort.

Take the Lesson 3 Quiz 

Lesson 4. EVIL

The chapter on “The Problem of Evil” seeks to answer the question, does the presence of evil contradict the presence and omnificence of God? It seems that many atheists base a large part of their argument against the existence of God on the presence of evil in our world and the presence of disasters that befall mankind like hurricanes and earthquakes

Our Authors begin with four propositions:

1. God exists.

2. God is all good.

3. God is all powerful.

4. Evil Exists.

It seems that if the fourth proposition is true then the first three must all be false. Atheism, Pantheism, modern “Naturalism”, and Idealism all deny at least one proposition. Only Theism accepts all four, but does so by indicating that some of the terms are ambiguous.

The authors settle this question by defining five important definitions because they argue that our main problems with evil revolve around illogical thinking about these related terms.

A definition of evil.

The book identifies two misconceptions on evil. First, evil is not a being, if it were then God would have had to create “this being” and would therefore not be perfect. Instead, evil is the result of the application of an object like a sword or a gun and not the actual object itself. It is the misuse of the object that is evil or the “user” of the object who is evil.

Second, there is a distinction between the evil that we do or control, and the effects of evil or suffering we endure that are due to acts of nature. The evil that we control clearly is caused by our own free will. The evil and suffering we endure then would appear to be caused or in God’s control which lends us to believe that either God cannot control our suffering, or that even our suffering is in response to free will.

A definition of “free will.”

Though a person may not be in a “free society,” left to ourselves we all can feel, think, and act in any way we choose. This “free will” makes us “human” and separates us from animals and machines.

The authors provide an illustration of “free will” by contrasting it with determinism which would seek to deny the existence of free will. Determinism would suggest that we operate under two main factors: hereditary, and environment. Though necessary, these two factors cannot completely explain our behavior in the absence of “free will” which is a third factor.

A definition of omnipotence.

God did create a world without sin, until Adam and Eve first sinned. God cannot remove sin without removing our “free will.” God is perfect in that he is “perfectly consistent” in the creation of the universe even if he and his creation is beyond our powers of logic or comprehension.  

A definition of goodness.

Goodness comes from the old-english “God-ness” and has traditionally been a term to describe God. God will do for us what is best and that which is in our best interest. The effect may not seem like goodness because we get it confused with kindness. God does not seem kind at times because he allows us to suffer but he is doing so to improve and strengthen us. In doing so, he is being more than kind.

A definition of happiness.

Happiness is a spiritual state controlled and governed by an individual's philosophy and is a general positive outlook of at least minimal response. This is a deeper definition than the world would bring to us. This is an on-going state of the spirit and not a response to positive fleeting outcomes.

God’s Providence and Our Freedom.

Reflecting on these definitions we realize that evil doesn’t hinge on whether God created it or not but that we have the freedom to choose as to whether we are going to be practitioners of Love or practitioners of evil. In God' s providence, he created us and gifted us with free will and the freedom to love Him or hate Him, love others, or only ourselves, or not even ourselves as well.

Merely that God can see forward in time and knows all things, that he knows what decisions we are going to make, and that we are “predestined” to love Him and others, or love only the world, does not mean we don’t have freedom, only that he knows what “brand” of freedom we are going to chose. Will it be freedom from sin and death, or freedom to act as though God does not exist?

ACTIVITY: View - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k64YJYBUFLM - Suffering and Evil: The Logical Problem 

ACTIVITY: View - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxj8ag8Ntd4 - Suffering and Evil: The Probability Version - William Lane Craig

Take the Lesson 4 Quiz 

Lesson 5. Christ the Son of God

The truth of Christianity hinges on “Christ the Son of God.” If Jesus Christ was not the son of God then he was nothing more than a prophet. 

Christ described himself as “God” when he referred to himself as “I am” like God referred to himself to Moses when he presented Himself in the burning bush. If Jesus isn’t the “Son of God” the second person of the Holy Trinity, then he was either the Lord, a liar, or a Lunatic. P. 64.

What is the evidence that Jesus viewed himself as the “Son of God:”

1. The harmony of the Gospels, “the data” itself would indicate that Jesus viewed himself as the “Son of God.”

2. Jesus referred to himself as, “the Son of Man” in many places in the Gospels. In doing so, he was indicating that he was “The” “Son of Man” as described in Daniel’s vision in Daniel 7:13,14. 

3. He claimed to be the “resurrection and the life”, and that he would “return to judge the living and the dead.”

4. He claimed to be able to forgive the sins of man, even those not directly affecting himself. In Jewish thought, only God could forgive sins.

5. Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter. Only God could change a jewish person's name.

6. Jesus claimed to be sinless and only God is sinless.

“Buddha, Confucius, Muhammad, and other religious founders fulfilled no prophecies, performed no miracles, and did not rise from the dead. Jesus did.” Pg. 59.

There are clues in history, nature, and science to the divinity of Christ:

1. There are historical stories of a god coming to earth, and of a god rising from death to life, and of a flood story, and an Eden story. These lend strength and are clues to the story of Jesus and the more historical stories lend strength to the Gospel narrative and the more stories that harmonize with the Gospel the more likely that these historical events actually happened.

2. Incarnation is not an impossibility when one considers this a transformation from death into life and could be argued to be an argument for the transformation and potentially the ultimate “evolution.”

3. The two natures of Jesus, one of man, and one of God, can be seen in all men, where we are both a physical and a spiritual being and likewise consisting of two natures.

The more direct arguments for the divinity of Christ follow clear logic and build on the data of the Gospels. 

1. The New Testament describes Jesus as a trustworthy person. Others throughout history find him to be a good teacher of moral truths without error. A trustworthy and morally honest person is neither a lunatic nor a liar, he must then be God.

2. Alternatives to the divinity of Jesus, would also include the development and execution of the most amazing myth and run contrary to Jewish thought, belief, and culture. Thousands of people who are contemporaries of Jesus would have to risk prosecution and death. A dozen of his closest followers would have to change, mostly overnight, from cowards and deniers, to missionaries and spokes people for Christ. They would have to risk death and even poorer treatment than Jesus himself with no clear gain. The disciples proved their convictions by their martyrdom.

3. The authors of the New Testament clearly identified the virtues and gifts of Jesus and wove a story so compelling that it would have fooled billions of people over the last two thousand years which would be more unlikely than Christ actually being God.

There are several reasons given in our text for denying the divinity of Christ, with none being logical, rational, nor objective.

1. People need to give up “control” of their own lives and live a moral life that places restrictions on what is “appropriate” behavior.

2. Many people fear large institutions such as the Church which may also solicit them for donations and service to others.

3. Many people have not looked into the claims of Christ nor have they rationally approached the data in the Bible. They have not seen the clear evidence for the prophecy of Christ in the Old Testament nor the fulfillment of those prophecies by Jesus in the New Testament.

4. The truth that brief in Christ is the only way to salvation runs contrary to the tenants of other religions and contrary to equality so prized by Americans.

ACTIVITY: View - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCX3u2mz5-c “Gary Habermas Gives 4 Proofs Jesus is God”

ACTIVITY: View - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJufpQJds0A “5 Reasons Jesus is Divine”

ACTIVITY: View - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWVyCfha4LU “The Difference between the Son of God and the Son of Man”

Take the Lesson 5 Quiz 

Lesson 6. The Resurrection

The “Good News” of the Gospel is that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, that he came to save us, that he was killed for threatening the political powers of the day, but that he was resurrected, and that he is RISEN!

The resurrection of Jesus proves that he was not just a prophet, a teacher, and our friend, but that he was God because no common man could be resurrected, nor resurrect themselves. The truth of the resurrection provides the key to our salvation and hope in Christ.

The proof of this resurrection can be found in the data, i.e. the New Testament. One does not need to prove the infallibility of this document, nor that it is divinely inspired, They only need to show that it exists, that it is reliable, and that it describes and defines the Christian religion as we know it today.

The logic and support for the truth of the resurrection can be shown in the discussion of five possible theories: the Swoon theory, the Conspiracy theory, the Myth theory, the Hallutation theory, and the Christian theory.

Five Possible Theories:

The Swoon Theory

The swoon theory suggests that Jesus did not die on the cross but that he was just badly beaten, had great blood loss, but survived the crucifixion. He then awoke, struggled out of his winding sheets, crawled out of the tomb, moved a heavy stone, and later appeared to the disciples in fair shape. 

This theory does not hold up because Roman guards were very good at crucifixion, and were even threatened with death themselves should anyone have survived a botched crucifixion. When a guard came to Jesus to break his legs, they determined that he was already dead. Saint John reported that both water and blood came from his side when he was pierced by the spear of a Roman soldier. This would indicate that Jesus’ lungs had collapsed, he asphyxiated, and had died. 

If Jesus had survived his crucifixion, where did his body go? At that point, he was relatively famous and would not have gone away without a trace. Neither the Jews, nor the Romans, had ever produced the body of Jesus Christ.

All indications of a possible swoon theory eventually turn into a Conspiracy theory as there would have been more than a few persons who were privy to the swoon lie.

The Conspiracy Theory

A “Conspiracy” is a shared lie made up to provide some advantage or profit. If the resurrection was made up as a lie and shared by the twelve disciples and their cohorts, then they would not have received any advantage nor profit because all of the disciples and most of their cohorts faced prosecution and eventually death.

Jesus’ body was never produced by the Jewish leaders nor the Romans. The shared lie of the resurrection would have been found out as soon as a body was produced. Also, the lie would have occurred in Jerusalem at the same time and place as the crucifixion and it would have surely have been found out by the Jewish leaders and other Hebrew sympathizers.

The Myth Theory

The Webster Dictionary defines Myth as: “a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.” Myth is a cleverly devised story. The authors of PHOCA, further describe the parameters of myth as being:

1. Overblown, spectacular, and childishly exaggerated events. Pg. 76.

2. They are verbose.

3. There is a psychological depth where spectacular events are outside of the focus of the story.

4. They develop over considerable time and are authored many decades or centuries after the focal event.

The events in the Gospel story of the resurrection are brief and focused with only details that are directly related to the story.

“Nothing is arbitrary. Everything fits in. Everything is meaningful. The hand of a master is at work here.” PHOCA Pg. 76.

The Gospels were written within a generation of those who would be eyewitnesses and many would still have been alive. There was no time between the event of the resurrection and the necessary development of the story as a myth.

The myth theory has also been described in two different stories, one with Jesus not being a deity, not conducting miracles, and not rising from the dead. The second story is one in which Jesus is the Son of God, that Jesus provided miracles to prove his divine capability and authority, and third, that he rose from the dead, was resurrected to life, and is risen. There is no evidence, written, or historic proof of the first story, but the Gospels of the New Testament provide the data for the second story.

The authors of PHOCA rightly identified an issue of culture which would further negate the myth theory. The first ministry members to the tomb and witnesses of Christ’s Resurrection were women. In first century Jewish culture, women were not considered valid witnesses, had no legal rights, and were of low social status. The authors of a myth would have chosen one or more of the male ministry members or disciples to be the first witnesses of the resurrection. The women as first witnesses would have only been included if it was actually factual and part of the truth.

Finally, Saint Peter made it clear that the truth of the Gospels and of the resurrection was provided by eyewitness testimony and not by myth.

“For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” 2 Pet 1:16 NASB

Therefore, the story of the resurrection would not be considered myth but would be considered a lie which we have already refuted in discussion of the "Conspiracy Theory.”

The Hallucination Theory

The resurrection also may not have occurred if the Disciples (and others) merely thought that they had seen Christ and that it was only in their imagination, i.e. were hallucinating. These sorts of visions only occur for seconds or minutes at a time, to one person at a time, do not repeat themselves, do expected things, do not eat, can’t be felt, and speak very few words.

The resurrection and the presence of Christ lasted for 40 days and was repeatable. It was witnessed by one or more people at a time up to and including over 500 witnesses. During this period, Jesus did many new and unexpected things, ate several times, and spoke to the witnesses extensively.

Also, a hallucination would not explain the empty tomb, the large stone rolled away from the entrance of the tomb, nor explain the fact that Jesus’ corpse was never found or recovered. The disciples were simple, trustworthy, and moral people. Had they hallucinated and then lied about their visions, the Jewish leaders would have refuted this lie by producing Jesus’ corpse.

The Christian Theory

If the resurrection can not be explained as a “failed execution” by the Romans (swoon), a carefully interwoven lie which was kept undisclosed for all time (conspiracy), a story that was with some basis and had a purpose of supporting a possible world view (myth), nor caused by a vision or apparition (hallucination), than what is left is the eventual truth of the resurrection.

If those who would be unbelievers are truly honest with themselves, rational, and logical, then they could only conclude that the resurrection is fact and that Jesus is the Son of God as no mere person can resurrect themselves. They can only avoid salvation by not accepting God’s grace and the data, and the Gospel “the Good News.”

ACTIVITY: View - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tirvyfSDP6E “Why Conspiracy Theories Related to the Resurrection Are Untenable”

ACTIVITY: View - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko2xhGc7Q98 “Don’t Believe Jesus Resurrected?”

ACTIVITY: View - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPxYmsZwJGo “Four Theories that Try to explain away Christ’s resurrection”

ACTIVITY: View - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRz7Xj7JjQo “Responding to the Conspiracy Theories”

Take the Lesson 6 Quiz 

Lesson 7. The Bible as History

For many years, at Christmas time, the special collections at the University of Michigan, Graduate library, would feature a display on the 8th floor, entitled, “A History of the Bible from Ancient Papyri to King James.” [5] Sadly, special collections no longer display these texts, possibly because it has become less “politically correct.” This display showed the near perfect agreement between very early copies of Luke’s Gospel,  those copies found later as parchment, and as published in the King James Bible.

The Bible “documents” the Jewish Faith (in the Pentateuch, and the remaining books of the Old Testament) and the Christian Faith (in the New Testament). The Apologist needs to be aware that there will be attacks on the authenticity of these books as a means for attacking these faiths. The Books of the Bible should be viewed not as myth but as data. This is because of the reliability of these texts.

Thankfully, these texts are in very good shape in terms of their authenticity. There are 10 times as many copies of the Bible as there are of the Illiad, (the next most copies of any other ancient text), and there is excellent agreement  between the many sources and/or copies of the Bible. [1] [4]

Arguments for the authenticity of the Bible

The authors of PHOCA give 10 reasons why the Bible should be treated not as myth, but as Data:

1. If the Biblical texts are treated like all other ancient texts, then no other ancient document could be as carefully dissected, and still be found to be incredibly reliable. 

2. If we view the Biblical texts, and especially the texts of the New Testament, openly, and fairly, one could only conclude the reliability, inter-textual correlation, and accuracy of the Biblical accounts. If they did not include miraculous events nor place constraints on how we live our own personal lives, they would be easily accepted as historical fact.

3. There was very little time between the first copies of the New Testament and the actual events. There are no documents which refute the articles of the New Testament which would have assuredly come from eye witnesses who were still alive when they were penned and distributed.

4. There is no evidence that a mythic layer to the New Testament was added at a later date. There is great agreement between the different books of the Bible with only minor differences in items like the “number of things” reported, e.g. numbers of people fed by Jesus.

5. The Gospels do not follow a mythic literary style but provide eye witness accounts and descriptions of things as they happened.

6. Jesus was crucified because he claimed to be the “Son of God” and this blasphemy was not acceptable to the Jewish authorities. They then made up a lie that Jesus was a rival of Caesar to get the Romans to execute him.

7. There are four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They all had different authors, were written at different times, were written with different goals and purposes in mind, and for different groups of people. Even so, there is a great harmony between the Gospels with no real significant differences. The account of Jesus’ crucifixion was provided more like witnesses to a crime scene with the combination of depictions providing a clearer sense of the facts. [6]

8. Christians were tortured and murdered until the Edict of Milan” in A.D. 313. What could they have possibly gained by confessing the truth of the Gospels? They would have had no reason to devise the Bible texts if they were myths.

9. Jews in the first century were very unlikely to confuse truth with myth. “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.” 2 Pet 1:16

10. If one reads the Gospels without preconceived notions and with an open heart, they will conclude that, “no mere man could have possibly invented this story.” PHOCA Pg. 87

The Error of some Modern Theologians

Modern theologians help to provide a framework for the Bible in reference to 20th and 21st century philosophy and thought. Some would like to downplay miracles in the Bible or at least to argue that they are not necessary for an understanding of Christianity and the New Testament.

They may be seeking to appease modern thinkers and non-christians. They would argue that the Bible can be used as a social framework to provide a reason to show charity and grace to all people and that the books of the Bible do not need to have a literal interpretation.

They would be arguing in a circle:

1. The resurrection is a myth because the Bible is a myth.

2. The Bible is a myth because it provides miraculous and mythical stories.

They should be arguing:

1. If the resurrection did happen then …

2. Miracles do happen …

3. The stories of the Bible can therefore be history and not myth.

Scripture in Apologetics

Scripture is extremely important in apologetics. The truth of miracles and the resurrection are connected in that if one is untrue, the other is untrue as well. 

The Apologist can not argue that scripture is infallible because it should receive special treatment as the “Word of God.”. The non-christian will not first agree that scripture should be given special treatment and so it should be believed.

Ancient Christians effectively argued for the truth of Christianity before the New Testament was ever assembled. Instead a more rational argument would be:

1. The Bible is reliable as historical evidence (as data) for Christianity.

2. Christ claimed divinity in the New Testament.

3. Logically there is evidence to Christ’s claims of being the “Son of God.”

ACTIVITY: View - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB18or8bJ10 “Errors in the Bible?”

ACTIVITY: View - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOH2SOyfhJE “Skeptical Student Challenges the Bible”

ACTIVITY: View - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KriS6RNZTPU&t=146s “Why the Bible is True”

ACTIVITY: View - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZAPFKXMy_Y “Why is the Bible reliable?

ACTIVITY: View - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGHAZAZiSGM “Why the Bible can be trusted.”

Take the Lesson 7 Quiz 

Lesson 8. Heaven and Hell

The doctrines of Heaven and of Hell are always under attack by the non-believer. We need to be prepared to provide arguments for both doctrines. I think because we favor the idea of Heaven so much, we tend to not think as much about Hell and this may cause us to be less able to provide supportive arguments for Hell.

The idea of God and Heaven are wonderful and provide peace and seem to naturally go together because a wonderful loving Father (God) would want us all together with him in his home (Heaven). In a similar sense, Christianity (Christ) and the doctrine of Hell also have a natural fit. Christ himself gave us the clearest imagery for the existence of Hell and without such a “failed and foolish choice” there would truly be no free will.

Support for Heaven

The authors of PHOCA provide seventeen objections for the existence of heaven and provide arguments against each. They are not meant as an exhaustive list but as a framework for the support for the doctrine of Heaven. I will provide a summary for each objection:

1. Reincarnation seems to be more reasonable. This objection seems to allow for infinite “do overs” until a person finally overcomes their sin and other earthly limitations. This would suggest that God makes imperfect people which is impossible. The notion also suggests that we can finally “get it right” even though we don’t remember the previous life and how we “got it wrong.” There is no support for this notion in orthodox tradition and is refuted in scripture. (Heb 9:27).

2. There is a lack of scientific evidence for the existence of Heaven. This objection does not recognize two things about science. One, that there are many things in science that are imagined and postulated, and believed without clear repeatable evidence. This is why we call many things “of science” hypotheses and theories. And two, science is not a noun but is a verb. It is a method by which we can provide proof that two things or phenomena are significantly different, and that this difference matters in scale, and that the difference is mathematically evident, and its measurement is repeatable. Just because you will not be able to have a mathematically repeatable proof for heaven (a law) does not mean that it does not or could not exist.

3. Heaven is a place designed by man and is a necessary place that many wish existed and is nearly an essential concept. The objection for this notion is that if so many people would have dreamed up a place like heaven, then it supports the hypothesis that God created heaven for us and placed that dream in many people’s hearts. The shoe being fitted for the foot as opposed to the foot being designed for the shoe.

4. The notion of heaven is no different than the “Happy Hunting Grounds” of the First Nation peoples, or the “Elysian Fields” of Greek mythology. Like the previous objection, the fact that other peoples and cultures also have a notion of a place like heaven adds support to the existence of Heaven, and does not detract from the possibility of true existence.

5. The notion of heaven is a distraction for the unpleasant reality of death and is pure escapism. The existence of Heaven is not escapism because it actually exists. It would only be so if it was a lie. To be an escapist, one would need to absolutely prove that heaven does not exist.

6. The notion of heaven is also a distraction from our current lives and activities. The hope of Heaven does not distract from, devalue, or demean our earthly responsibilities or pursuits but instead provides an additional goal to and framework for our activities, providing meaning, renewed focus, and enhanced reasoning for our earthly pursuits.

7. The notion of heaven causes one to pursue it for the “reward of a heaven” regardless of the means necessary to achieve a “heavenly goal” at the sake or expense of rational intellectual honesty. We are more than mercenaries fighting for a final goal of Heaven, we are missionaries, serving, loving, and helping others towards Heaven by rightful logic and understanding through the power and enablement of the Holy Spirit.

8. It is arrogant to think that God would make a place especially for you. God said that his Church is the “Bride of Christ” and that he has made a place especially for us.

9. Some have objected to the thought of a Heaven where everyone there will be worshiping God for all eternity. That we will be worshiping God for ever is true but he will also have other things for us to do for him in addition to this worship.

10.  People with loved ones who are not in heaven will be sad and not happy even if they were in Heaven. God himself will be sad that some people will not accept his free gift of salvation and reject him and not be in Heaven. He will teach those with errant loved ones how to still be happy even though they may have loved ones not in Heaven.

11. Heaven is forever and the loss of a sense of time will make us unhappy. We will experience a new sort of time, a Heavenly time, a sense of time that God experiences and makes him happy.

12. We will not be free to sin in Heaven and will be like autonomous robots. Heaven will be a place where people could sin but that they will not want to nor have any reason to sin.

13. We will all be identical in the sense that we will all be saints in effect being carbon copies of God (or little gods). We will be more like the facets of a beautiful diamond, each beautiful and lovely but different in our own ways. We will be like a special seasoning, each adding a new spice to Heaven and making it richer and more enjoyable.

14. Heaven will be a place of very bright light and there will be no place for privacy. We only need privacy to hide our sin. We will not be sinning and therefore not need a hiding place.

15. There will be no sex in Heaven and no one will want to go there. There will be an intimacy that is richer and more rewarding that our notion of sex in this world, and where sex as we know is only a foreshadowing of the level of pleasure and intimacy that we will experience in Heaven.

16. Focusing our lives on the aspects of Heaven is being disloyal to our home on earth. Heaven is our home. Focusing on our real home (of Heaven) is being honorable and thankful to God. Focusing on any other possible home is being unthankful and sinful.

17. Heaven is so different from Earth that it will feel alien and too different for us to be happy and comfortable. God has created a place even more beautiful than all the “best places on earth.” He has set that true home in our hearts and we will be more than comfortable, we will be ultimately happy when we reach Heaven.

The Reality of Hell

We think much more about Heaven than we think about Hell. This is a good thing and is expected because Heaven is a good place and Hell is a bad place of eternal death and separation from God.  Like other doctrines of the Christian faith, Hell is one that many would like to deny its very existence. How could a loving God condemn men to a place like Hell?

And like all doctrines of the Christian faith, we must also be able to make arguments for and explain how this could be possible even with a place like Hell. We need to shore up any frequently attacked positions and we will do so like our defense of Heaven, we will outline several objections about and reasons for the existence of Hell.

1. Christ himself, explained much of what we know about Hell and who gets sent there. If Hell was not a real place then Christ scared us unnecessarily and lied to us about Hell. Christ is no liar, the Devil is the liar.

2. I can be a Christian and not believe in Hell. Christ came to explicitly save us from our sins so that we would be able to avoid a place like Hell. Christians who would deny the existence of Hell are contradicting Christ himself. The only way to truly accept Christ is to accept that Hell is a real place and that we don’t want to be there and that only Christ can save us from the eventual outcome.

3. We can drop the doctrine of Hell as it is very uncomfortable to accept that it could exist. Christians must search out doctrine in scripture and by learning from responsible and capable teachers of scripture. We can not pick and choose what doctrines we will accept and ignore if we are to truly be Christians.

4. We can all make any life choices that we find acceptable because there is no Hell. There has to be a way of winning the game, of winning the race, as well as losing either or both. To have a belief in Heaven and in a loving God, causes us to refrain from life choices that would be unacceptable to God and therefore these unacceptable life choices must be the way we lose the game and the race.

5. Salvation is universal and automatic for everyone. It is the possibility of Hell and the eventual separation from God that makes Hell possible and refutes the universality of salvation.

6. If there is no Hell, there is no reason for Christ and no need for salvation. God would not have sent Christ, as his only Son, to save us if there was no need for salvation and no place like Hell to be saved from.

7. The reason we have missionaries and that the Saints before us were willing to be martyred for a faith in Christ is because we need to be saved from something. That something is Hell If there was no Hell, there would be no reason or need for missionaries and God would owe all of the martyrs an apology.

8. Hell is not necessary because salvation is automatic. Christ’s crucifixion would have been a mistake and an unnecessary sacrifice if there was no place like Hell.

9. Christianity (God is good and God is love) and the doctrine of Hell stand on the same ground. Christ’s authority and teaching reveals God to us in the most approachable way possible and it is his authority on God’s love and on Hell that proves their very existence.

10. If Hell exists, God is a god of wrath and hatred, and is unfairly condemning even those who would have loving hearts and show kindness to others, even though they reject Him. It is exactly the hatred of the condemned for a loving God which causes them to be sent to Hell. It is their very rejection of God’s Love.

11.  Sinners are forced into Hell as God’s punishment. Sinners are instead, choosing Hell themselves. It is their very rejection of God, their choice of ego over the choice of the Creator, their free choice of sin over repentance, and  their selfish self-loving life choices over God’s love, that earns them Hell.

12. Choosing Hell over God’s love is insane. We all make this choice when we choose sin over righteousness. If we all recognized the truth of Hell, we would never make sin as our “life choice.”

13. God does not pre-design some for Hell, instead he instills in all of us a desire to live forever and a notion of Heaven. There is a predestination of Heaven which instills an avoidance of Hell.

Appropriate use for the Doctrine of Hell

We must teach and believe in the doctrine of Hell. We need to do this because it is a real place and a certain outcome for sinners. We need to be careful and not to overly emphasize the certainty of Hell as a painful punishing stick but instead emphasize the love of God and his desire to be with us forever in heaven. We should not use the doctrine of Hell to control and dominate people and thought. It is our belief in Jesus Christ and his sacrifice on the cross which opens the gates of Heaven to all.

We can not avoid addressing and teaching about Hell even if we are misaligned and attacked for this unwelcome news. That is because the doctrine of Hell is true and it needs to be understood by all sincere Christians. Teaching about both Heaven and Hell may just be the information needed by a young one for searching out and finding Jesus through the Holy Spirit.

ACTIVITY: View -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gEbkZvn3S4 “God's Love and the Problem of Hell”

ACTIVITY: View - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-KLsfQ3rLU “Apologetics: What is Hell?”

ACTIVITY: View -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XqM6lYdZQ0 C.S. “Lewis’s Depiction of Hell in The Great Divorce”

ACTIVITY: View -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hche9gJ4KnM “Apologetics | Heaven”

ACTIVITY: View -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baFj5eNM08E  “Heaven - What is Heaven - Apologetic Answers”

Take the Lesson 8 Quiz 

Lesson 9. Salvation Through Christ

The business of the Church is about salvation in Christ. All the sermons ever written and all the hymns ever sung are for the express purpose of revealing the truth of Christ to others through the work of the Holy Spirit, i.e. sharing the Good News of the Gospel.

Admittedly the Church is in many other businesses: social work, charity, education, and health (physical and mental). All these pursuits and services are provided as a means to share the Gospel with others in words and/or in action, i.e. importantly in Action. 

Without the “Great Commission” as our primary mission all other aspects of the Church are nothing more than a means for providing comfort. The most important mission of the Church is to increase the number of souls in Heaven and to decrease the number of souls who will die in Hell.

Faith and Works

The Protestant movement correctly and effectively began when Martin Luther (a Catholic Priest) nailed his 95 Theses to the front door of the Wittenberg Church. The main points of these articles are as follows: faith alone (sola fide), grace alone (sola gratia), and scripture alone (sola scriptura).

Accordingly, we are saved by FAITH alone such that no one can do any works which improve on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. This salvation is free to all who accept Jesus as savior because of God’s gift of GRACE alone. God’s will for us and a complete explanation of this Gift, and His grace is given in SCRIPTURE. It is the complete authority of God’s plan without error or blemish.

The authors of PHOCA provide an enriching explanation of the relationship between faith and works which can serve as a guide for bringing the Catholic and Protestant faiths together and to a better understanding of the relationship between the two important facets of the Christian thought (faith and works).

These authors believe that the Catholic church looks at “faith alone,” as a starting point to a journey of sanctification, i.e. faith in a beginning or smaller sense. That our search for, and spiritual travel on the “narrow road” (our works) leading to our eventual salvation in Heaven, i.e. the works (process) of salvation in a larger sense.

The Protestant church views faith as the only necessary step to achieve salvation, i.e. faith in a complete and larger sense. Once we have made a faith decision, we live out the rest of our lives attempting to find and walk the “narrow road” providing Grace and Mercy to others through service, i.e. works in a smaller sense.

Accordingly, the two churches have been “talking past themselves” when both recognize the importance of both faith and works but as one sees faith in a larger sense, and works in a smaller sense, the other sees these important aspects in opposite proportions. Pg. 114. We have much in common and with the Orthodox Church, make up the “Larger Christian Church,” i.e. “The Bride of Christ.” It is my hope that we can grow closer together, working closer together, for the importance and mission of sharing the “Good News,” i.e. the Gospel of Christ.

Insufficiency of Sincerity

Is a sincere heart sufficient for salvation? It has only been the last couple of thousand years that non-christians have looked at faith as being a subjective issue where people should use it if it works for them, and not as an objective issue, i.e. only moral and not about God. They view faith as something created by us instead of created by God. They view faith as something we add to our busy lives instead of our discovery of God and his will in our lives. One needs to be more than sincere about their faith to be saved, they need to find and believe in God’s Son, Jesus Christ, and repent of their sins.

Salvation for Non-Christians

Some would ask, what becomes of those people who died before Jesus Christ walked this earth, or died before they learned about the saving love of Jesus Christ? Do these individuals miss out on salvation?

The Gospels tell us that Jesus is the way the truth and the light, and the only way to salvation and God is through his Son. There are several important elements that go along with salvation through Jesus Christ. One needs to search for that something that is more than themselves (i.e. a Creator [seek]), they must find that thing and realize their insufficiency (insufficient by themselves [believe]), and they must find the truth of right and wrong, and turn away from [repent] of their immoral actions. These are the primary elements for salvation (seek, believe, and repent)  and even though the language may be different, they describe the necessary and minimum ingredients for salvation.

We see in the Gospels that Moses and Elijah were alive and came from heaven in the “Mountain Top Transfiguration” experience of Mark (Mark 9:2-8). Neither one would have met and known Jesus Christ while they were alive but both would have recognized the one “True God,” their self-insufficiency, and their need to live according to God’s commandments (repent of their own sinful ways). A person who can live their lives in the framework of these two prophets can find salvation.

Jesus Christ is the Truth

The conflict for salvation arises when we concede that people can be saved without knowing the saving truth of Jesus Christ. If Jesus is not the only way to salvation then is he really necessary?

We are all called to share the truth of Jesus Christ and his saving grace. It is our clearest and most efficient means for others to know God. We have a hope that those who hear the good news will find a special and lasting peace that begins when they accept Jesus as their savior. Without this knowledge they may never have this peace that passes all understanding. It is this reason that we share the Gospel with others and that we participate in his mission work.

ACTIVITY: View - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Ss2DW9DC4 “Jesus is the Truth”

ACTIVITY: View: -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwVDkDcSjv8 “In Christ Alone | Salvation Matters”

ACTIVITY: View: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXYyIBdBubE&t=50s "Why did the Protestant Reformation Happen?"

Take the Lesson 9 Quiz 

Lesson 10. Subjective Feelings Versus Objective Truth

The Failure of Relativism and Subjectivism

The key issue between subjectivism and objectivism is what is truth. It is an important distinction that must be resolved in apologetics.

The subjective position fails to rise to a position that can be refuted. Believing in religion may be right for you but is not “true” or necessary for me. It is where God is just like Santa Claus and not a true entity that is all knowing, all powerful, and perfectly good.

If all things can be relative and subjective then nothing can be tested, can be in error, and can be fixed. The facts that Christ walked the earth, was killed, was buried, and was resurrected can be argued about and data can be brought into the discussion. The facts that God exists and that we can give arguments for his existence can only be done if there is objective truth. 

Subjectivism can not be argued about, can’t be tested, and can’t be proven. It only rises to a mere feeling or impression.

Defining Objective Truth

Truth isn’t the method by which we know it is what we know. Truth is not how we feel about something or an attitude we have about something. It doesn’t mean what is most frequently accepted or known by most people. We don’t have a vote as to what is true. Objective truth can be known by a private individual and still be an objective truth like the location of hidden treasure.

The definition of truth and that fact that truth exists is one of the most important points in apologetics. The authors of PHOCA use Aristotle’s definition of truth, “saying of what that is it is, and of what is not that it is not.” “Truth is the correspondence between what you know or say to what is.”

Other failed theories of truth include:

Pragmatic truth - Truth is what works. Unfortunately, what might work one time may not work another time and therefore that “truth” would be relative and subjective.

The empiricist's definition of truth - Truth is what one can sense. This sensing is not measurable and reliable. It seeks to remove objective moral law, God, spirit, and soul a priori and is therefore not empirical.

The rationalistic theory of truth - Truth is what can be proven by reason. Unfortunately one can not show that truth is only what can be proved. There are many truths which have been found even though they can’t be expressly proven. 

The coherence theory of truth. Truth is agreement or coherence between a set of ideas. This does not provide a correspondence or relationship between an object and any reality about that object.  Because the object doesn’t correspond to the ideas about that object, the coherence definition is incoherent.

Once we can look at other definitions or theories of truth in simple clear statements we can see that they do not provide a correct definition of truth.

The Self Destructive Nature Subjectivism

Subjectivism is harmful to intellectual thought and reason. It purports that what is true about God and about religion are only a personal truth and can’t be proven or shown to be true. It is a position that is only taken when the Apologist has provided clear arguments for the existence of God, the deity of Christ, and the facts of the resurrection, that can’t be refuted by the non-Christian. 

The Apologist needs to be prepared to provide a clear explanation of truth and show the failure of alternative explanations of truth. Once a clear definition of truth can be agreed upon, then the arguments for faith can be provided and discussed.

ACTIVITY: View - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Ss2DW9DC4 “Jesus is the Truth”

ACTIVITY: View: -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwVDkDcSjv8 “In Christ Alone | Salvation Matters”

Take the Lesson 10 Quiz 

RELATED BIBLE VERSES

2 Tim 2:22 - Flee from youthful passions …

2 Tim 2:23-26 - Stupid discussions and not breeding arguments. Be gentle when refuting opponents.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Kreft, Peter and Tacell, Ronald A. “Handbook of Christian Apologetics,” InterVarsity Press. 2003.

2.  Mc Dowell, Josh and Mc Dowell, Sean, “More Than a Carpenter. His Story Might Change Yours,” Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. 2003.

3. Lewis, C. S. “Mere Christianity,” Harper Collins, C.S. Pte. Ltd, 1972.

4. Mahoney, Timothy P.; with Law, Steven. “A Filmmaker’s Journey, Patterns of Evidence Exodus.” St. Louis Park, MN: Thinking Man Media, 2015.

5. Web Link: https://www.annarbor.com/news/a-history-of-the-bible-on-display-at-the-university-of-michigan-library/ Ann Arbor Press. 2010.

6. Wallace, J. Warner and Wallace, Susie. “God’s Crime Scene, for Kids.” David C. Cook, 2017.