Christian Apologetics Part 1 - Introduction

Introduction

1 Peter 3:15b,16

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.  But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. (NIV)

Today's blog is the first in a 9 part series on Christian Apologetics.  There are many, many resources and more books than you can count on this subject and it seems everyone has their own approach.  My approach here is to take the most common objections that I have heard and answer them as best as I can.  These span scientific, logical, and philosophical issues with sidebars thrown in as appropriate

There are five main questions which will be addressed (some broken down into sub-questions).

1. How can we know there is a creator and that he interacts with his creation?
2. How can we know that the Bible is accurate and true?
3. How do we know that Jesus is the Messiah?
4. Why would a good God let bad things happen to good people?
5. What must I do to be saved?

 I draw heavily from other sources and where I have done so, I provide a reference where you can find the information for yourself.

I begin today with a discussion of the basic philosophy behind my approach when answering, as Peter directs, "everyone who asks [me] to give the reason for the hope that [I] have."

Christianity is logical and reasonable

Salvation is by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8).  The purpose of apologetics is to remove the obstacles to that faith being careful not to create more obstacles in the process.  Once a person takes that step of faith, the “scales will fall off” and they will understand the peace that passes understanding which is unfathomable to anyone who has not experienced it.

Simply quoting scripture to a person who does not believe the Bible is true could have less than the desired effect.  Giving evidence based on sound Biblical doctrine using logic and reasoning, however, is powerful and effective since Christianity is both logical and reasonable.

The Christian should also be prepared to stand up for his faith when untruths are being used to lead others astray and should be prepared to give his own testimony when asked.  A Christian’s testimony can be very powerful and cannot be refuted.

Faith which cannot stand up to scrutiny is sure to collapse under a strong wind

The basic tenets of the Christian faith cannot be refuted and are not subject to question.  The most basic tenets of Christianity are the following:  Everyone is a sinner in need of salvation.  Jesus is God and has the authority to save us from our sins.  All that is required for salvation is the admission of the need for salvation (I am a sinner in need of a savior) the belief that Jesus is who he says he is (Jesus is that savior), and the acceptance of Him as personal Lord and Savior (come into my life and save me from my sin).  Everything else is just doctrine.  In these matters of doctrine we should not hold so tightly to a particular position that it is not subject to reason or an alternate explanation.  An open mind can lead to greater wisdom.

By subjecting your faith to scrutiny regularly your faith will be able to endure when the gale force winds blow.  It is doubtful that any denomination has all the answers and strict dogma can be off-putting to a seeker who finds certain positions to be illogical or unreasonable.

If your belief is truth then it should be able to withstand any challenge and so such challenges should not be avoided nor discouraged, but rather sought out and encouraged.

Discourse with the unbeliever should be dispassionate

Some “anti-Christians” will spew forth blasphemy to get you upset and even potentially irrational.  If this is allowed they win without ever having to support their position and witnesses to the scene could be negatively impacted as well.

Never participate in ad hominem attacks.  Use your dispassionate response as an asset to lend credibility to your message.  Additionally, you should never raise your voice and be accused of yelling at someone even if this was not the intent.  It is very easy to get upset during an intense debate and the Christian should enter such debates intentionally not allowing the discourse to be reduced to such lack of civility.

A seeker (who may be a family member or friend) who has legitimate objections will be reticent to dialogue openly with you if they believe you will get upset or dismiss their objections out of hand.  Objections should be stated openly and then openly addressed in a respectful manner.

Answer all objections and ensure all of your points are acknowledged and responded to, otherwise, little headway can be made.  If an objection cannot be answered immediately, research an appropriate answer and reply at a later time.

Do no put words into your another person’s mouth.  It is okay to restate the question or objection to ensure you properly understand the point, but to restate with exaggeration or intentionally misstate the point loses credibility and hinders progress.

You cannot argue someone into heaven.  If the discussion is going nowhere it may be appropriate to politely end the discussion and save the relationship.  The conversation can always be picked up at a later time and you may have had more of an impact than you realize.  Ego (or some other factor) may be preventing immediate acceptance and your attitude may have a bigger impact than anything you say.

The Scientific Method

One of the greatest fallacies of the non-believing world is that Science and Christianity conflict.  This could not be farther from the truth (see http://www.reasons.org for ample evidence to the contrary).  A person who states, "I believe in science and science cannot prove God exists, so I don't believe in God" simply doesn't understand the scientific method.

It is not the objective of science to prove anything.  Any scientific understanding is only as good as its latest test.  The scientific method is based on 1 Thessalonians 5:21: “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;” (NIV) and is designed to show ever increasing probabilities that something is true.  The more tests validate the stated hypothesis the more likely it is to be true, but it only takes one test to invalidate it and no scientific theory is so strong as to be unfalsifiable.

Certain terms are used in a specific way in science and mean very specific things as opposed to the same terms when used in everyday language.  It is important to define what a scientist means when he uses the terms hypothesis, theory, and law.

The term “hypothesis” is essentially an educated guess.  A scientist will formulate a hypothesis based on some observation, logic, calculation, or other reasoning.  Once a hypothesis is formulated, the scientist will make predictions of what should be found when the hypothesis is tested.  Tests are then carried out and if the tests do not support the hypothesis, it is reformulated and retested.  This process will continue until the hypothesis cannot be disproven despite rigorous testing.  Importantly, the objective of the tests is not to prove the hypothesis is true, but to disprove it.

When the hypothesis is sufficiently tested (and not disproven) that it becomes generally accepted as true, it becomes a “theory”.  Theories will continue to be tested and are only as valid as the latest test.  Even the most accepted of theories can be disproven by a single test.  An example of a theory is the Big Bang Theory.

A theory will typically explain not only what, but also why.  A “law” on the other hand, is something which is observed to be true, but has no explanation as to why.  The difference in a theory and a law is whether or not the why is explained.  An example of a law is the Law of Gravity.  It is generally accepted as valid and true, but nobody knows what causes it.

Another principle of the scientific method is, when seeking an understanding of nature one should proceed without preconceived notions.  A scientist should seek the truth regardless of where that truth takes him.  Eliminating any possibility (such as the existence of God) invalidates the test.

Finally, a critical part of science is proper interpretation of the data.  In many cases, the exact same data can be interpreted in more than one way.

As an example, evolutionists believe that since most creatures have eyes, the logical deduction is that they all evolved from the first creature who ever acquired eyes (through the evolutionary process).  The similarity of all of these eyes in these various species shows obvious evidence (to them) that all creatures with eyes evolved from a single species, or that similar environmental conditions for multiple species resulted in the same evolutionary process in these species.

Christians, on the other hand, believe that God created a good design for an eye and reused that design in every creature he created which would benefit from eyes.

For the die-hard atheist and evolutionist, there is no argument which will convince him that a creator exists because they can always interpret the data in a way which supports their point of view.  Even the more ardent objectors, though, must admit that since the existence of God cannot be disproven, there is always the possibility that He exists.  If there is a possibility that God exists then the possibility that God is the "why" also exists.

An atheist once said to me, "You can never prove that God exists."  I responded, "If you see Jesus coming on the clouds as He says he will in Mark 13:26 will you believe that God exists?"  He said, "If I see Him coming in the clouds I will believe he exists."  That's a good start.

It is very important to understand that, whereas you may find it necessary to defend your faith against these individuals, it is unlikely that any evidence you provide will change their mind.  It isn’t our mandate to change their mind, only to speak the truth in love and let God do the rest.  For those who are truly seeking, however, and see these issues as obstacles to faith, the principles outlined in this study can be quite helpful.

Since the scientific method is a Biblical principle, the method works well for Bible Study also (that was it’s original intent).  A person can formulate a hypothesis based on what he has been taught or what he finds logical and then search for verses which invalidate the hypothesis.  If contradictions are found, the hypothesis is reformulated based on the new information and then retested until all questions are answered to the individual’s satisfaction.  This is contrary to the popular method of formulating an opinion base on what we want to believe is true and then trying to find support for that opinion in the Bible (often ignoring the verses which contradict it).

The process may occur over long periods of time (perhaps over a lifetime) as the Bible student seeks knowledge and understanding of the many and various aspects of Biblical truth.

God and Science

God has revealed Himself to us in two ways (two books), Special Revelation (The Book of the Bible), and General Revelation (The Book of Nature).

In the Bible, God reveals Himself to us directly.  He tells us “I am a jealous God (Exodus 20:5)”.

The Bible also tells us that God reveals Himself to us through Nature.  Romans 1:19,20 tells us, “because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (NIV)”

God is a God of truth and cannot contradict himself.  Science is the study of nature, so if God is the author of the Bible and nature, then the Bible and science must agree.  If they do not, then either the Bible or nature is being interpreted incorrectly.  Notice I didn't say either the Bible or science is wrong, just that they are being interpreted incorrectly.

As an example of an incorrect interpretation of the Bible, it was widely believed in the 14^th century and earlier that the earth was flat.  This was due, at least to some degree, to verses in the Bible referencing the “four corners of the earth.”[1]  Those who believed the earth to be round were accused of heresy.  It is well understood today, however, that the earth is spherical and that such Biblical references are metaphorical.  In this case, our understanding of the Bible was improved by our understanding of nature.

On the other hand, it was widely believed by science as recently as a century ago that the universe had always existed despite the Biblical account of creation.  This was later disproven when it was discovered that the universe is expanding at a measurable rate.  By reversing time, one will come to a point when the universe began.  As science discovers more and more about our world we find that it makes the biblical account of history stronger and stronger.

According to astronomer Hugh Ross, “As we learn more about the earth, the evidence gets about a million times stronger every month that a supernatural, super intelligent creator designed the universe, the galaxy, the solar system, and our planet, to make human life possible here on planet earth.”[2]

It is most important to note that since God is omnipotent and created nature, He can operate supernaturally.  It is reasonable to assume, however that He will operate within the bounds of nature and using the laws that He created unless it suits his pleasure to do otherwise.  God’s ability to perform miracles and subvert the laws of nature that He created is His way of proving to His creation that He is God.

In this study we will show how science supports the biblical worldview and the biblical story.  We will also investigate some philosophical questions and end with the greatest question of them all: What must I do to be saved?

Hopefully this study will provide the information necessary to speak confidently with non-Christians about your faith and will help strengthen your faith as well.

---

[1] Revelation 7:1;20;8, Isaiah 11:12, et al

[2] “Testing Anthropic Selection: A climate change example” 04/06/2011.  http://www.reasons.org.