A theology of General Revelation
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- His eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen being understood what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). Christian's acknowledge two forms of revelation -- special and general. Both are testimonies to the majesty and sovereignty of God. Special revelation involves God's supernatural intervention in the affairs of man. General revelation involves God's witness through creation itself. Our universe is an example of general revelation; it bears the marks of intelligent design and purpose: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands" (Psalms 19:1). General revelation includes the natural order -- it is a God-ordained testimony that he is creator and sustainer: "Yet He has not left Himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their season" (Acts 14:17).
General revelation also includes that which God has placed in our hearts; for example moral law: "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law do by nature things required by the law ... they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness" (Romans 2:14-15).
God has spoken to us through creation. It is not for lack of evidence that people reject God. General revelation is available to all. Acceptance of this light will lead one to the greater light; rejecting it leads one further into darkness. "Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made. In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it" (John 1:3-5).
General revelation also includes that which God has placed in our hearts; for example moral law: "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law do by nature things required by the law ... they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness" (Romans 2:14-15).
God has spoken to us through creation. It is not for lack of evidence that people reject God. General revelation is available to all. Acceptance of this light will lead one to the greater light; rejecting it leads one further into darkness. "Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made. In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it" (John 1:3-5).
Outline
Definition of apologetics
Types of apologetics
Historical or philosophical defenses of Christianity.
Bible and science
Bible and history
Bible and archaeology
Bible and internal consistency
Bible and prophecy
The biblical basis for apologetics
Basic assumptions necessary to proceed
Historical and philosophical defenses of Christianity
Basic arguments demonstrating the probability of the existence of a creator
Design and order found in the universe
The role of the moon
The role of Saturn and the “cone of safety”
Bible and science
The Two Books: the Bible and Nature (General and Specific Revelation)
The historical conflict between “faith” and “science”
The historical alliance between “science” and “faith
The Galileo controversy
Major Christian contributors to science
The contributions of Islam
The fundamental problems of language and approach
Biblical vs. Scientific language
Difference in goals:
Bible: Who and Why
Science: What and How
The issues of transcendence and immanence in creation
The Trinitarian creative process: Will, Power, Action
The limits of logic and the necessity of faith
Anticipation of science in the Scriptures
Science in the Bible
Meteorology
Hydrology
Physics
Math
Intro to the age-of-the-earth debate
Relativity and the creation days
The correlation between the fossil record and the biblical sequence
The biblical basis for long days: our continuing status in the “sabbath”
Genesis 1-2 and Standard Theory / The Big Bang
Noah’s flood
Scientific evidence for an ancient creation
Extinction events
Geology issues
Astronomy issues
Anthropology issues
Biology issues
Dinosaur blood controversy
Up from apes?
Mystery of life’s origin
Darwinianism
Origin models side by side and how they fare
Putting atheistic evolution to the test
Bible and history
Bible and archeology
Bible and internal consistency
Bible and prophecy
Types of apologetics
Historical or philosophical defenses of Christianity.
Bible and science
Bible and history
Bible and archaeology
Bible and internal consistency
Bible and prophecy
The biblical basis for apologetics
Basic assumptions necessary to proceed
Historical and philosophical defenses of Christianity
Basic arguments demonstrating the probability of the existence of a creator
Design and order found in the universe
The role of the moon
The role of Saturn and the “cone of safety”
Bible and science
The Two Books: the Bible and Nature (General and Specific Revelation)
The historical conflict between “faith” and “science”
The historical alliance between “science” and “faith
The Galileo controversy
Major Christian contributors to science
The contributions of Islam
The fundamental problems of language and approach
Biblical vs. Scientific language
Difference in goals:
Bible: Who and Why
Science: What and How
The issues of transcendence and immanence in creation
The Trinitarian creative process: Will, Power, Action
The limits of logic and the necessity of faith
Anticipation of science in the Scriptures
Science in the Bible
Meteorology
Hydrology
Physics
Math
Intro to the age-of-the-earth debate
Relativity and the creation days
The correlation between the fossil record and the biblical sequence
The biblical basis for long days: our continuing status in the “sabbath”
Genesis 1-2 and Standard Theory / The Big Bang
Noah’s flood
Scientific evidence for an ancient creation
Extinction events
Geology issues
Astronomy issues
Anthropology issues
Biology issues
Dinosaur blood controversy
Up from apes?
Mystery of life’s origin
Darwinianism
Origin models side by side and how they fare
Putting atheistic evolution to the test
Bible and history
Bible and archeology
Bible and internal consistency
Bible and prophecy
Introduction
Psalms 14:1 HCSB For the choir director. Davidic. The fool says in his heart, "God does not exist." They are corrupt; their actions are revolting. There is no one who does good.
Have you ever wanted to determine, once and for all, to your intellectual satisfaction, that there actually is a God? Have you ever had to deal with someone who did not believe in the existence of a Supreme Being and placed your faith on the same order as Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy? Have you ever, in those late night hours when you were alone and looking on the shambles of your life, reached out with your heart and asked “Is there anybody out there?”
Most people view the field of religion to be like a supermarket, a vast conglomeration of products that are each being pitched to us as the be-all, end-all of life when they are more likely cheap knock-offs made in a sweat shop somewhere simply to profit off of our gullibility. They equate the preference of Fruit Loops over Cheerios to the choice between Judaism and Christianity, Buddhism and Islam. The decision of a religious worldview, in the mind of many, is one that people may choose to make or simply set aside as irrelevant. You want to go to church? Good for you. You simply never pick a religion or a church and live your life focused on your paycheck and your flat-screen TV? Fine and dandy.
Have you ever wanted to determine, once and for all, to your intellectual satisfaction, that there actually is a God? Have you ever had to deal with someone who did not believe in the existence of a Supreme Being and placed your faith on the same order as Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy? Have you ever, in those late night hours when you were alone and looking on the shambles of your life, reached out with your heart and asked “Is there anybody out there?”
Most people view the field of religion to be like a supermarket, a vast conglomeration of products that are each being pitched to us as the be-all, end-all of life when they are more likely cheap knock-offs made in a sweat shop somewhere simply to profit off of our gullibility. They equate the preference of Fruit Loops over Cheerios to the choice between Judaism and Christianity, Buddhism and Islam. The decision of a religious worldview, in the mind of many, is one that people may choose to make or simply set aside as irrelevant. You want to go to church? Good for you. You simply never pick a religion or a church and live your life focused on your paycheck and your flat-screen TV? Fine and dandy.
A better metaphor
In actuality, a better metaphor would be a doctor’s office. All of humanity has been afflicted with a fatal disease. In the doctor’s office there may be many drugs, but only one has the cure for our disease. The consequences of a poor choice in this metaphor become life-and-death important. If we choose well, we live. If we choose poorly, we die. It doesn’t matter how palatable the medicine is. Whether we like the packaging or the presentation matters not a whit. The only thing that is truly significant is whether or not it works!
In order to deal intelligently with the study of religion, with its multitude of forms, denominations, cults, and schisms you have to first develop a better understanding of the study called "apologetics". Apologetics is simply a systematic way of arguing for the defense of Christianity. It does not mean you are apologizing for being a Christian; it means you are explaining reasonably why you believe that Christianity is divinely inspired when there are so many other religions that make the same claims.
In order to deal intelligently with the study of religion, with its multitude of forms, denominations, cults, and schisms you have to first develop a better understanding of the study called "apologetics". Apologetics is simply a systematic way of arguing for the defense of Christianity. It does not mean you are apologizing for being a Christian; it means you are explaining reasonably why you believe that Christianity is divinely inspired when there are so many other religions that make the same claims.
Some Fundamental Questions
Intelligence is driven by questions rather than answers. Millions of people saw apples fall out of a tree. One genius named Newton asked himself why and came up with the Law of Gravitation. Billions have seen the light of the sun. One genius named Einstein asked himself what a photon would look like if one could run alongside it.
Years ago, I had declared myself to be an atheist. Out of rebellion and hatred I rejected the God of my fathers and, like the Prodigal Son, I struck out on my own and gleefully embraced what I thought would be the freedom of a mind unshackled by superstition. Gradually though, I began to struggle with some of the concepts that I was being taught in public school. From my point of view, what had at first glance appeared to be the tightly woven fabric of reductionist thought was being revealed as a ragged, frayed rag filled with gaping holes. Some of the types of questions that I struggled with as a teenager looked like this:
A singularity (a black hole) must by definition have infinite mass in an infinitely small point with and infinite negative curvature. What could reverse this process? What could turn infinite compression into infinite expansion?
According to Hawking, within such an infinitely small point and at such levels of density, all physical laws cease. He said that it is even pointless to allow your thinking to proceed past the initial singularity for it would be impossible to make any projection into that lawless morass. However, if the totality is chaotic, what could make this chaos turn to orderliness if even within our own physical laws there is no provision for such progress? What could turn absolute chaos into mathematical, law-abiding order?
Then I began to have doubts about the arguments for the initial expansion themselves. I asked myself, “It is said that this singularity exploded due to the approach to near infinite temperatures by the compression and friction of the mass. However, are there or are there not laws in a singularity? You cannot say that a singularity has no laws and then use physical laws to explain the explosion.
If Light is supposed to be the fastest thing in the universe and even light cannot escape a “simple” black hole, how is heat supposed to make matter escape a universal black hole?
Finally, the question that brought the “AHA!” moment for me was “Why is the night sky dark?” One night as I was camping in Quebec, I realized that if there were an infinite number of stars then there should be nowhere I could look that light would not be. I realized then that the universe was a closed, finite system. Minutes later, I realized what that meant: the universe had not always existed. Something had always existed but it could not be matter.
The next day, I began to identify what that original thing was. This work is partly the result of that search.
Years ago, I had declared myself to be an atheist. Out of rebellion and hatred I rejected the God of my fathers and, like the Prodigal Son, I struck out on my own and gleefully embraced what I thought would be the freedom of a mind unshackled by superstition. Gradually though, I began to struggle with some of the concepts that I was being taught in public school. From my point of view, what had at first glance appeared to be the tightly woven fabric of reductionist thought was being revealed as a ragged, frayed rag filled with gaping holes. Some of the types of questions that I struggled with as a teenager looked like this:
A singularity (a black hole) must by definition have infinite mass in an infinitely small point with and infinite negative curvature. What could reverse this process? What could turn infinite compression into infinite expansion?
According to Hawking, within such an infinitely small point and at such levels of density, all physical laws cease. He said that it is even pointless to allow your thinking to proceed past the initial singularity for it would be impossible to make any projection into that lawless morass. However, if the totality is chaotic, what could make this chaos turn to orderliness if even within our own physical laws there is no provision for such progress? What could turn absolute chaos into mathematical, law-abiding order?
Then I began to have doubts about the arguments for the initial expansion themselves. I asked myself, “It is said that this singularity exploded due to the approach to near infinite temperatures by the compression and friction of the mass. However, are there or are there not laws in a singularity? You cannot say that a singularity has no laws and then use physical laws to explain the explosion.
If Light is supposed to be the fastest thing in the universe and even light cannot escape a “simple” black hole, how is heat supposed to make matter escape a universal black hole?
Finally, the question that brought the “AHA!” moment for me was “Why is the night sky dark?” One night as I was camping in Quebec, I realized that if there were an infinite number of stars then there should be nowhere I could look that light would not be. I realized then that the universe was a closed, finite system. Minutes later, I realized what that meant: the universe had not always existed. Something had always existed but it could not be matter.
The next day, I began to identify what that original thing was. This work is partly the result of that search.
Definition of Apologetics
As we said earlier, Christian apologetics is the systematic defense of the Christian faith through logical arguments. The term comes from the Greek word apologia, which means "defense". There are a number of subfields within apologetics. For example:
Because of the broad spectrum of lines of thought, the vast repositories of knowledge that are required for each, and the unique form of each avenue’s logic, most prospective apologists should probably choose one area of focus rather than trying to be a "jack of all trades".
Some feel that faith alone should need no justification, however, many feel that Christians should be prepared to defend and spread their faith by intellectual means, especially as many people will not accept Christianity without a "rational" reason to do so.
Christian apologetics has existed as long as Christianity itself. Jesus Himself spent time in the temples and synagogues, debating and explaining the meaning of the scriptures. The Apostle Peter exhorted early Christians to apologetics, writing,
Let’s break that down, shall we? Peter says that we should be ready before the conversation with the unbeliever; that we should be willing and able to defend the Faith against all comers; that we must learn how to do this graciously so that we don’t discredit ourselves and our Master; and we must live lives that back up our profession of loyalty to the Lord.
The Apostle Paul also spent time in Athens, debating Stoic and Epicurean philosophers.[1]
Great theologians such as Origen, Athanasius, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Augustine and Aquinas continued the tradition of apologetics on a dramatic scale. At the same time, apologetics was practiced by countless individual Christians, who carefully explained and defended their beliefs.
[1] Acts 17:16
- internal biblical consistency,
- scientific defenses of the Bible,
- historical or philosophical defenses of Christianity.
Because of the broad spectrum of lines of thought, the vast repositories of knowledge that are required for each, and the unique form of each avenue’s logic, most prospective apologists should probably choose one area of focus rather than trying to be a "jack of all trades".
Some feel that faith alone should need no justification, however, many feel that Christians should be prepared to defend and spread their faith by intellectual means, especially as many people will not accept Christianity without a "rational" reason to do so.
Christian apologetics has existed as long as Christianity itself. Jesus Himself spent time in the temples and synagogues, debating and explaining the meaning of the scriptures. The Apostle Peter exhorted early Christians to apologetics, writing,
- 1 Peter 3:15-16 HCSB but set apart the Messiah as Lord in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you. (16) However, do this with gentleness and respect, keeping your conscience clear, so that when you are accused, those who denounce your Christian life will be put to shame.
Let’s break that down, shall we? Peter says that we should be ready before the conversation with the unbeliever; that we should be willing and able to defend the Faith against all comers; that we must learn how to do this graciously so that we don’t discredit ourselves and our Master; and we must live lives that back up our profession of loyalty to the Lord.
The Apostle Paul also spent time in Athens, debating Stoic and Epicurean philosophers.[1]
Great theologians such as Origen, Athanasius, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Augustine and Aquinas continued the tradition of apologetics on a dramatic scale. At the same time, apologetics was practiced by countless individual Christians, who carefully explained and defended their beliefs.
[1] Acts 17:16
Purposes
Apologetics has generally been used for two purposes: We must defend the reasonableness of our faith to ourselves so that we are not swayed by doubts. So, we begin by persuading ourselves without necessarily seeking to convince others of the truth. Then, once we have done that, out of that security, we must persuade others of the truth of Christianity.
Types of Apologetics
Three Broad Categories
There are three broad categories of apologetics, three principle currents in the river, if you will.
1. Evidential
2. Philosophical
3. Presuppositional
Evidential Apologetics
Evidential apologetics seeks to defend Christian belief through evidence. This can take the form of:
Historical apologetics
Arguments based on the historical accounts of the Bible; defense of the historical accuracy of the Bible.
“Legal” apologetics
Legal apologetics is a branch of Christian apologetics that affirms that the available evidence to defend Christianity argues for the veracity of the historical and central claims of Christianity when Western legal standards of weighing evidence are applied. An area that has received considerable attention in the field of legal apologetics is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Traditionally, Christianity has believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is critical to the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul wrote,
If Christ did not rise, then the Bible is wrong at best and deliberately deceitful at worst. If He did not rise, then He does not have power over death as He promised and He cannot resurrect us either. If this is true, then all the people (including the Apostles) who testified they saw Him raised were delusional at best or conmen at worst, and the entire New Covenant is questionable as a source of moral direction. Small wonder Paul said what he did! The resurrection is a critical lynchpin in apologetic argument!
Archeological
This primarily deals with biblical archeology, that is to say archeology of the Middle and Near East. It seeks to show that the Bible is consistent with, agrees with, the physical archeological evidence.
Cosmological
Cosmological apologetics must be distinguished from the specific argument called the cosmological argument. Cosmological apologetics deals with the origin of the universe and the origin of life. It seeks to show that the creation accounts of the Bible are reasonable and are a natural explanation that is couched in non-scientific terms. The cosmological argument, on the other hand, will be dealt with below.
Philosophical apologetics
Philosophical apologetics seeks to defend Christian belief through philosophical argument, primarily taking the form of arguments for the existence of God. This can take the form of:
Teleological argument:
Arguing that the universe shows too much design to be the result of chaos. This is related to the anthropic principle, which is sometimes misused by atheists like Richard Dawkins. The fact that so many details had to be just so, including physical constants, to allow for our existence, in the minds of Christians, argues for a Designer. The teleological argument states that the universe is too closely designed for our form of life to have come about by chance. Skeptics will respond, “But of course it is closely designed for us! If it were not, we would not be around to argue about it!”
Allow me to illustrate the problem with that argument. Say you were walking down a path and found a pocket watch lying on the ground. You pick it up, open it, and discover to your delight a phenomenally complex little instrument that is ticking merrily away and is precisely accurate in its measurement of time. You say “I believe this watch was made by someone. They must have dropped it here.” The skeptic responds, “No that watch is simply the result of an accidental strike of lightning on an ore vein. The molten ore piggy backed on some self-replicating crystals, became gradually more and more complex until this watch was formed.” You could look at this person in amazement and cry, “But it is so incredibly complicated! And look! It keeps perfect time!” The skeptic would smugly smile and (if they use the anthropic principle as an argument) answer “It’s only because you already have a concept of time that the watch even makes sense to you. If you weren’t around with these ideas floating in your head then the watch wouldn’t even exist.”
This is a simplification of the line of reasoning but it is reasonably accurate. As you can see, there are some pretty serious problems with it – particularly in the area of common sense!
Cosmological argument
Every event in the universe is caused by something. It is impossible that everything should have a cause, going back to eternity. Therefore, there must be a first cause, which itself is not caused, and that first cause must be capable of causing the universe, aka God.
In the 20th century, this argument has been strongly supported by science, with the discovery that the universe had a beginning. Prior to the 1920s, it had been widely believed that the universe's existence had been eternal but Mr. Hubble’s discovery that all the light from the stars was redshifted, demonstrated that this was a fallacy. This discovery alone verifies the very first three words of the Bible: "In the beginning".
Ontological argument
God is the being than which no greater can be conceived. It is greater to exist than to not exist. Therefore, if you conceive God as not existing, you are not conceiving the being than which no greater can be conceived, and are therefore not conceiving God. Therefore, it is impossible to conceive of God as not existing. Therefore, God exists. Though, historically speaking, this has been a popular argument, I personally find it very poor, very weak. I could imagine the moon being made of cream cheese! Just because we can imagine something, and just because we think it’s the greatest idea ever, does not mean that it necessarily reflects reality. This too closely resembles the new age idea that we humans can create reality out of our own heads for my taste. I don’t use it when I witness. Nevertheless, I felt it necessary to introduce it to you because you will see it out there in both camps: Christians desperately trying to make it work, and atheists gleefully attacking this self-inflicted chink in our armor.
Moral argument
All humans are born with a natural, moral code that often runs contrary to the survival of the individual. We all recognize this code. Every culture agrees that it is better not to lie. They will differ slightly on when it is acceptable, but they universally understand that it would be best to not lie. There are no civilizations that encourage running away in battle. There are differences in how many wives we may have, but no tribe or nation says you can have any woman you want any time you want. So, this moral code is a universal. Yet, we usually fail to obey it. Though we all agree that it is wrong to lie, we all lie. Though we all agree that immorality is wrong, lust remains a pretty consistent problem. Therefore, this code must come from outside humanity. A moral code implies a moral code giver, aka God. The Scriptures state that God Himself uses the moral argument. Quoheleth teaches;
And Paul argues,
God argues that since He has “placed eternity” in our hearts, and since out of unrighteousness we suppress the evidence for the existence of God that is in our hearts, then He is justifiably angry.
Presuppositional Apologetics
Presuppositional apologetics seek to defend Christian belief by showing that belief in Christian precepts is necessary to make sense of the human experience as a whole. It does not use evidences in the traditional manner, however in the sense that it does not use evidences as an appeal to the authority of the unbeliever's autonomous reasoning. The problem is that the unbeliever cannot reason autonomously (on their own). This is true from both the standpoint of materialistic reductionism and the Christian worldview.
Atheists believe that everything must be reduced to chemical reactions and atomic structures. All those processes we consider to be free thinking are in fact (in that worldview) no more than algorithms that have been adopted by the organisms survival mechanism faced with random stimuli. The greatest of human philosophy and art is thus reduced to no more than knee-jerk reactions – mere reflexes. Thus, Christians believe that atheists are being inconsistent with their stated presuppositions. They cannot state out of one side of the mouth that there is no such thing as free-will abstract reasoning, then out of the other claim to be rationally disclaiming a consistent world view. Either they are reflexively spouting programming or they are thinking, reasoning, rational creatures who are responsible moral agents. Christians believe that without God, there would be no possibility of reason.
There lies the crux of the matter. That is precisely the crucial point. Ultimately, the intellectual conflict between believers and unbelievers is a matter of antithetical worldviews. The essence of the Presuppositional apologetics is the attempt to show that the unbeliever's worldview drives him to subjectivity, irrationalism, and moral anarchy. Therefore, Presuppositional apologist calls for the Christian and non-Christian to set side by side their two worldviews and do an internal examination of them both in order to determine whether or not they are consistent even within their own framework. In our point of view, if God does exist, and if Christianity is true, then any worldview which denies these truths are false and can be demonstrated to be so.
There are three broad categories of apologetics, three principle currents in the river, if you will.
1. Evidential
2. Philosophical
3. Presuppositional
Evidential Apologetics
Evidential apologetics seeks to defend Christian belief through evidence. This can take the form of:
Historical apologetics
Arguments based on the historical accounts of the Bible; defense of the historical accuracy of the Bible.
“Legal” apologetics
Legal apologetics is a branch of Christian apologetics that affirms that the available evidence to defend Christianity argues for the veracity of the historical and central claims of Christianity when Western legal standards of weighing evidence are applied. An area that has received considerable attention in the field of legal apologetics is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Traditionally, Christianity has believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is critical to the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul wrote,
- 1 Corinthians 15:14 HCSB and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is without foundation, and so is your faith.
If Christ did not rise, then the Bible is wrong at best and deliberately deceitful at worst. If He did not rise, then He does not have power over death as He promised and He cannot resurrect us either. If this is true, then all the people (including the Apostles) who testified they saw Him raised were delusional at best or conmen at worst, and the entire New Covenant is questionable as a source of moral direction. Small wonder Paul said what he did! The resurrection is a critical lynchpin in apologetic argument!
Archeological
This primarily deals with biblical archeology, that is to say archeology of the Middle and Near East. It seeks to show that the Bible is consistent with, agrees with, the physical archeological evidence.
Cosmological
Cosmological apologetics must be distinguished from the specific argument called the cosmological argument. Cosmological apologetics deals with the origin of the universe and the origin of life. It seeks to show that the creation accounts of the Bible are reasonable and are a natural explanation that is couched in non-scientific terms. The cosmological argument, on the other hand, will be dealt with below.
Philosophical apologetics
Philosophical apologetics seeks to defend Christian belief through philosophical argument, primarily taking the form of arguments for the existence of God. This can take the form of:
Teleological argument:
Arguing that the universe shows too much design to be the result of chaos. This is related to the anthropic principle, which is sometimes misused by atheists like Richard Dawkins. The fact that so many details had to be just so, including physical constants, to allow for our existence, in the minds of Christians, argues for a Designer. The teleological argument states that the universe is too closely designed for our form of life to have come about by chance. Skeptics will respond, “But of course it is closely designed for us! If it were not, we would not be around to argue about it!”
Allow me to illustrate the problem with that argument. Say you were walking down a path and found a pocket watch lying on the ground. You pick it up, open it, and discover to your delight a phenomenally complex little instrument that is ticking merrily away and is precisely accurate in its measurement of time. You say “I believe this watch was made by someone. They must have dropped it here.” The skeptic responds, “No that watch is simply the result of an accidental strike of lightning on an ore vein. The molten ore piggy backed on some self-replicating crystals, became gradually more and more complex until this watch was formed.” You could look at this person in amazement and cry, “But it is so incredibly complicated! And look! It keeps perfect time!” The skeptic would smugly smile and (if they use the anthropic principle as an argument) answer “It’s only because you already have a concept of time that the watch even makes sense to you. If you weren’t around with these ideas floating in your head then the watch wouldn’t even exist.”
This is a simplification of the line of reasoning but it is reasonably accurate. As you can see, there are some pretty serious problems with it – particularly in the area of common sense!
Cosmological argument
Every event in the universe is caused by something. It is impossible that everything should have a cause, going back to eternity. Therefore, there must be a first cause, which itself is not caused, and that first cause must be capable of causing the universe, aka God.
In the 20th century, this argument has been strongly supported by science, with the discovery that the universe had a beginning. Prior to the 1920s, it had been widely believed that the universe's existence had been eternal but Mr. Hubble’s discovery that all the light from the stars was redshifted, demonstrated that this was a fallacy. This discovery alone verifies the very first three words of the Bible: "In the beginning".
Ontological argument
God is the being than which no greater can be conceived. It is greater to exist than to not exist. Therefore, if you conceive God as not existing, you are not conceiving the being than which no greater can be conceived, and are therefore not conceiving God. Therefore, it is impossible to conceive of God as not existing. Therefore, God exists. Though, historically speaking, this has been a popular argument, I personally find it very poor, very weak. I could imagine the moon being made of cream cheese! Just because we can imagine something, and just because we think it’s the greatest idea ever, does not mean that it necessarily reflects reality. This too closely resembles the new age idea that we humans can create reality out of our own heads for my taste. I don’t use it when I witness. Nevertheless, I felt it necessary to introduce it to you because you will see it out there in both camps: Christians desperately trying to make it work, and atheists gleefully attacking this self-inflicted chink in our armor.
Moral argument
All humans are born with a natural, moral code that often runs contrary to the survival of the individual. We all recognize this code. Every culture agrees that it is better not to lie. They will differ slightly on when it is acceptable, but they universally understand that it would be best to not lie. There are no civilizations that encourage running away in battle. There are differences in how many wives we may have, but no tribe or nation says you can have any woman you want any time you want. So, this moral code is a universal. Yet, we usually fail to obey it. Though we all agree that it is wrong to lie, we all lie. Though we all agree that immorality is wrong, lust remains a pretty consistent problem. Therefore, this code must come from outside humanity. A moral code implies a moral code giver, aka God. The Scriptures state that God Himself uses the moral argument. Quoheleth teaches;
- Ecclesiastes 3:11 HCSB He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also put eternity in their hearts, but man cannot discover the work God has done from beginning to end.
And Paul argues,
- Romans 1:18-19 HCSB For God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, (19) since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them.
God argues that since He has “placed eternity” in our hearts, and since out of unrighteousness we suppress the evidence for the existence of God that is in our hearts, then He is justifiably angry.
Presuppositional Apologetics
Presuppositional apologetics seek to defend Christian belief by showing that belief in Christian precepts is necessary to make sense of the human experience as a whole. It does not use evidences in the traditional manner, however in the sense that it does not use evidences as an appeal to the authority of the unbeliever's autonomous reasoning. The problem is that the unbeliever cannot reason autonomously (on their own). This is true from both the standpoint of materialistic reductionism and the Christian worldview.
Atheists believe that everything must be reduced to chemical reactions and atomic structures. All those processes we consider to be free thinking are in fact (in that worldview) no more than algorithms that have been adopted by the organisms survival mechanism faced with random stimuli. The greatest of human philosophy and art is thus reduced to no more than knee-jerk reactions – mere reflexes. Thus, Christians believe that atheists are being inconsistent with their stated presuppositions. They cannot state out of one side of the mouth that there is no such thing as free-will abstract reasoning, then out of the other claim to be rationally disclaiming a consistent world view. Either they are reflexively spouting programming or they are thinking, reasoning, rational creatures who are responsible moral agents. Christians believe that without God, there would be no possibility of reason.
There lies the crux of the matter. That is precisely the crucial point. Ultimately, the intellectual conflict between believers and unbelievers is a matter of antithetical worldviews. The essence of the Presuppositional apologetics is the attempt to show that the unbeliever's worldview drives him to subjectivity, irrationalism, and moral anarchy. Therefore, Presuppositional apologist calls for the Christian and non-Christian to set side by side their two worldviews and do an internal examination of them both in order to determine whether or not they are consistent even within their own framework. In our point of view, if God does exist, and if Christianity is true, then any worldview which denies these truths are false and can be demonstrated to be so.
Scriptural Basis
Keep your thoughts in line with Scripture.
As Christians, we need to always compare the findings of our minds to the Scriptures, and other older Christians so that we don't go off on wild tangents.
Be able to answer any question concerning the hope you have.
We must be ready at any time, under any circumstances to "reason together". All Christians encounter the questions such as "Why do you have such hope when the world is falling down around our ears?", "Why do you believe that such an old, outdated book like the Bible is Divinely inspired?", "Why do you even believe there is a God when science so clearly has proven that we have evolved from more primitive life-forms?"
We must be able to answer these questions and it must be done in meekness, “with the utmost courtesy”. This attitude is possible only if you are confident in your knowledge and do not feel threatened by your questioners. Obviously, this implies that we must study beforehand and study is sometimes difficult, requires seriousness, diligence, and disciplined thought. As servants, our Master requires this of us. After all, didn’t He go to enormous lengths to win us to the life-giving, light-bringing truth?
The apologist’s purpose must be to:
1. Elevate our Master as Lord and King in our hearts;
2. To not be swayed from ahavat Adonai;
3. To lead the other person to the truth of the Gospel.
Speak to each man in his language, on his level, to his need.
Paul, probably the greatest missionary ever, writer of a good portion of the New Testament, and martyr for the Faith showed us in the method he used to evangelize.
Paul felt that the primary purpose of the discipline of apologetics was the promotion of the Gospel so that he could become a partner in its benefits. To that end, he made himself without law to the lawless, weak to the weak, strong to the strong.
Paul taught that we should not automatically attack every weakness we see in the audience’s worldview. Every Believer, but especially the apologist, must make himself the servant of the person to whom they are witnessing. We must identify their language, level, and need and then do what we can to meet those three standards. If we are talking to religious people, then there is no need to prove life after death, sin, or deity. Efficient apology demands that we build from commonalities rather than negatively attack perceived weaknesses.
There are certain men that, when approached, already have the assumption of God's existence and with such you don't need to deal with chemistry, physics, and apologetics. It would unnecessarily confuse the more important issue of their salvation. We must not be side tracked by petty arguments from preaching the cross. Others, however, fancy themselves to be wise.
Out and out atheists do not want to glorify God. That would entail personal humility! They are ungrateful for His creation and continued help. They don’t want to acknowledge God’s superior wisdom. Like Adam and Eve in Gan Eden they want to be considered wise. They want to think they know better than others. With such, it is sometimes necessary to approach on an entirely different level. It is for these that we study apologetics.
By “language” I mean the linguistic group, the dialect and the worldview that comes part and parcel with a particular language. I won’t do you any good to be speaking Japanese to a Javanese. When we lived in Africa and were translating the Scriptures we encountered difficulties like describing something as “white as snow” to Africans who had never seen snow. In order to properly communicate what the Scriptures were saying, we had to paraphrase it to “white as manioc root”.
By “level” I mean their emotional and intellectual level. You won’t be able to approach a 60 year old Oxford scholar in the same way as you do a 5 year old kid from Podunk Illinois. You need to get to know the person and couch your arguments in such a way that they can be absorbed. Could the Oxford scholar understand the arguments that the 5 year old could? Absolutely. However, he would be so bored, he would be repulsed. He would actually look at you as if you were retarded and not actually listen!
By “need” I mean that you must attempt to build bridges from your points of commonality. Your audience needs direct testimony to perceived emotional and physical requirements. Jesus was a Master of all three of these approaches, but He is best known for this third one. How often did He precede His sermons by direct action to perceived needs? He healed the sick, fed the hungry, cast out demons, and granted forgiveness of sins. Then, when He spoke, the people truly listened because they realized that this teaching offered real solutions.
Nature can be used to come to know God.
Am I simply taking an isolated passage and interpreting the way I choose? Look at how Paul himself meant this.
He was referring to a Psalm that David wrote:
Paul was referring specifically to the study of astronomy; the study of the heavens or space. Anyone who looks carefully and deeply at nature, in its complexity and order, will find the signs of intelligence. It can be found in the underlying principles of nature, in the facts revealed by the sciences.
We look at a garden in the middle of chaotic woods and know there is a gardener at work. Look into the vastness of space and know God’s immensity. Look into the sun and worship His power. Gaze upon a snowflake and stand in awe at His workmanship. Sit beneath sighing pines and bathe in His comfort.
Study widely, read generally, seek wisdom everywhere.
Another point that we can learn from Paul is that we not only need to heed the Scriptures, we not only have to check ourselves by nature (through scientific observation), but we are also responsible to know and be able to quote and refute our audience’s own works; at the very least the foundational works or sacred texts of their system of faith. Look at Acts 17:28 where Paul quoted the Greek's philosophical poets right back at them.
There are two quotations here. The first, “In Him we live and move and exist,” is from the Cretan poet Epimenides (c. 600 BC) in his Cretica. Epimenides was a 6th century BC native of Knossos, Crete. Epimenides was held in high esteem by the Cretans and several fulfilled predictions were ascribed to him. The second, “For we also are His children,” is from the Cilician poet Aratus (c.315-240) in his Phaenomena, as well as from Cleanthes (331-233) in his Hymn to Zeus.
Paul also quoted Greek poets elsewhere. In 1 Corinthians 15:33, Paul quoted from the Greek comedy Thais, which was written by the Greek poet Menander, whose writings the Corinthians would know. The application of the quotation is that those who are teaching that there is no resurrection (v.12) are the “bad company,” and they are corrupting the “good morals” of those who hold to the correct doctrine (cp Proverbs 13:20).
In Titus 1:12, Paul again quoted from the poet Epimenides.
Would anyone dare to question the methods of the apostle Paul? He knew their writings well enough to quote them on the spot. Yes, Paul was a famed scholar but his studies had been in Judaic law. He did not study Greek philosophy at the feet of Gamaliel. Somewhere along the line Paul spent time reading their books, studying their thoughts.
These men were unbelievers, they were even polytheistic (believing in many gods). Their gods had all the same passions, greed, and lusts as Man; they stole and raped and committed adultery. They were simply super powerful humans – in essence they did not believe in a God as we conceive of Him. Paul may as well have been talking to atheists. So, Paul quoted their own philosophical poets in order to refute them. You too can do that.
Notice, however, that even though they were Godless philosophers, they had stumbled on a useable truth. Just because a person is not a Christian does not mean that they are automatically idiots. After all,
We should approach all world views balancing respect with critical (in the sense of analytical) thought. Proverbs teaches that there is a possibility of learning something from all situations, from all men.
“My cry is to mankind.” The Ruach’ ha Kodesh speaks to all humans. We refer to this as the “Law of Light.” The short form is “Use it or lose it!” God offers each of us a certain amount of light or enlightenment. When we obey it, we get more. When we refuse it, we not only do not receive any more – we actually lose some of our ability to perceive more and our minds become “darkened.” The one who buries his talent has it removed. What little we have is removed from us. Those who stiff arm God’s Spirit, by their own willful, stubborn recalcitrance will soon find their minds darkened.[1]
As you read the book of Proverbs, you find that Wisdom is calling out in the market square, in the city gates, outside the town, on the hilltop – everywhere. Sometimes, men listen to part of what she’s saying. I may hear something you don’t. You may hear something another can’t, but each of us is capable of hearing if only we’ll listen. It is religious bigotry to think you or your denomination have the corner on the market of truth.
The Japanese samurai had a saying. It went “Shiken haramitsu dai kyo myo.” It generally meant “In every encounter there is enlightenment.” They felt that every encounter they made with another man yielded the opportunity to come a little closer to the Truth. This ancient Japanese proverb sounds remarkably close to what Wisdom has to say in Proverbs doesn’t it? Let me show you something.
(Jesus) Do to others as you would have them do to you. Luke 6:31
(Buddha) Consider others as yourself. Dhammapada 10.1
(Jesus) If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also. Luke 6:29
(Buddha) If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words. Majhima Nikaya 21.6
(Jesus) Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me. Matthew 25:45
(Buddha) If you do not tend one another, then who is there to tend you? Whoever would tend me, he should tend the sick. Vinaya, Mahavagga 8.26.3
These words, attributed to Buddha, predate the Christian era by more than five hundred years. Truth is truth, regardless from whose lips it falls. Just because a person has not yet found ultimate Truth does not mean that they don’t possess some part of it. Just because a person is a Lowlander doesn’t mean they’re stupid! What must be made clear is that we do NOT believe that Christ borrowed from Buddhist teaching. Both the Buddha and the Mashiach’ were referring to an internal, universally known truth – an inherent moral code.
In Buddhist terms, there is one truth, not many. I also am not advocating many truths. We are all like the blind men who grasp an elephant. One, with his arms around a leg proclaims “An elephant is like a tree!” Another, with his hand upon the elephant’s trunk, shakes his head “No, it is more like a python.” While yet another, feeling only the tail, smiles “Oh, no! It is snake-like, yes but not that large a snake!” The last, trying vainly to hold to a great flapping ear, gasps out. “A great banana leaf. It is like a great banana leaf.” Are each one wrong? Yes. Are each one right? Yes. Each is partially right and partially wrong. Their common problem is that they will only believe the little piece they have in their hands, never guessing how large and mighty a creature an elephant actually is.
Aren’t we often like that? Does God like ritual? Yes, claims the Levitical scholar. However, isn’t God sick of ritual and wanting a close personal relationship with us? Oh yes, sighs the student of Christ’s life. We need to forego our religious and denominational arrogance and begin to seek the Truth; the whole, many faceted, complicatedly simple and contradictory yet profoundly honest Truth – wherever we can find it.
Up to this point, we have seen that we must keep the following five points in mind as we approach apologetics:
a. Keep your thoughts in line with Scripture.
b. Be able to answer any question concerning the hope you have.
c. Speak to each man in his language, on his level, and to his need.
d. Nature can be used to come to know God.
e. Study widely, read generally, seek wisdom everywhere.
Now, we finally come to the last point:
Expect to work hard.
In this passage, Quoheleth gives us points we must take into consideration in the pursuit of wisdom.
a. Accept what Hashem says as truth.
b. Deliberately store His commands – memorize.
c. Listen closely as He speaks.
d. Intentionally seek understanding.
e. Pray for insight and understanding.
f. Make it a high value priority.
g. Realize that some is hidden – it will take effort to unlock.
Not only that, but you need to be able to "rightly divide the truth", so that if someone says man does not possess a soul but is a soul you are able to realize the importance of that statement and give a refutation. It is more than semantics; it is the basis of life-changing decisions.
As Quoheleth had advice on the issue of the pursuit of ultimate wisdom and the approach, we must take to apologetics, so the Apostle Paul gives us some very practical advice. He says:
Be diligent – work hard. Of course it is difficult, but it is a responsibility that God has placed squarely on your shoulders.
Be accountable. He says the apologist must be prepared to “present himself”. Remember that you will have hearers whose lives may or may not be changed by your message, depending on how hard you’ve worked to be a good messenger. Remember too that one day you will have to appear before your Master and give an accounting of yourself.[2] You will even account for every careless word![3] You want to not only present yourself but you want to “be approved”, says Paul.
Be bold – don’t be ashamed. This can only come from long hours of hard study and much practice. You need to handle the word constantly. This is where the difference between arrogance and confidence shows up. Arrogance is boldness for no good reason. Confidence is boldness based on fact. You have a great God and your faith has endured for many thousands of years. It’s not a fly-by-night, flash in the pan kind of thing. You can have great confidence in it.
Correctly teach. The Apostle defines this as “teaching the Word of Truth.” Anybody can teach. Clowns can teach you how to fall or aim a cream pie well. However, you can do a sloppy job at falling or throwing pies and still get a good laugh! This isn’t true of apologetics. You need to be able to express the ideas. You need to be able to express ideas that will change hearts and minds. You need to do this well, using cutting edge teaching methods. If there is any area of your life in which you need to pursue excellence – it’s in apologetics.
Be respectful. If you quit being humble, you will do more than just lose your opportunity to witness; you will lose your ability to hear from the Holy Spirit and you may actually bring God’s judgment upon yourself. He resists the proud after all. Speak quietly. Listen well. Take notes. If possible try to establish a rule of equal time and equal respect. You’ll listen to them quietly for half an hour, then they must listen to you quietly for half an hour.
Choose your words carefully. There is nothing more crucial than the conversion of a rebellious soul back to its rightful King. You could not find a more lasting consequence or reward, were you the president of the world! Also, there is nothing more treacherous than the human soul and spirit. The wrong word here, a raised eyebrow there – it takes very little to put someone off and lose the chance to win them to your side. Approach the conversation as you would a minefield, for surely there will be multiple emotional landmines around! When I say that, I don’t mean develop a fearful attitude, for that is not how one survives a minefield crossing. When you must cross a minefield you get down low, you move slowly, you methodically check each square foot before you. You systematically sweep from side to side, pushing your knife or stick into the dirt, trying to find that elusive metallic clank. When you do, you carefully ease the mine up, unscrew the cap, and defuse it. Then you wipe your brow, take a deep breath and start slowly stabbing the earth again. It almost becomes a zen-like, meditative, or trance-like experience. It’s very calm and focused. That’s what I mean. Approach an apologetic opening as you would a minefield crossing.
[1] Proverbs 1:25-28; 6:23; 13:9; 18:1; 29:13, 18; Isaiah 66:3b-4; Matthew 25:28-30; Luke 8:16; 12:47-48; 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12
[2] Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-28; Romans 14:12
[3] Matthew 12:36-37
- Colossians 2:8 HCSB Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elemental forces of the world, and not based on Christ.
As Christians, we need to always compare the findings of our minds to the Scriptures, and other older Christians so that we don't go off on wild tangents.
Be able to answer any question concerning the hope you have.
- 1 Peter 3:15 HCSB but set apart the Messiah as Lord in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.
We must be ready at any time, under any circumstances to "reason together". All Christians encounter the questions such as "Why do you have such hope when the world is falling down around our ears?", "Why do you believe that such an old, outdated book like the Bible is Divinely inspired?", "Why do you even believe there is a God when science so clearly has proven that we have evolved from more primitive life-forms?"
We must be able to answer these questions and it must be done in meekness, “with the utmost courtesy”. This attitude is possible only if you are confident in your knowledge and do not feel threatened by your questioners. Obviously, this implies that we must study beforehand and study is sometimes difficult, requires seriousness, diligence, and disciplined thought. As servants, our Master requires this of us. After all, didn’t He go to enormous lengths to win us to the life-giving, light-bringing truth?
The apologist’s purpose must be to:
1. Elevate our Master as Lord and King in our hearts;
2. To not be swayed from ahavat Adonai;
3. To lead the other person to the truth of the Gospel.
Speak to each man in his language, on his level, to his need.
Paul, probably the greatest missionary ever, writer of a good portion of the New Testament, and martyr for the Faith showed us in the method he used to evangelize.
- 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 HCSB For although I am free from all people, I have made myself a slave to all, in order to win more people. (20) To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win Jews; to those under the law, like one under the law--though I myself am not under the law--to win those under the law. (21) To those who are outside the law, like one outside the law--not being outside God's law, but under the law of Christ--to win those outside the law. (22) To the weak I became weak, in order to win the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that I may by all means save some. (23) Now I do all this because of the gospel, that I may become a partner in its benefits.
Paul felt that the primary purpose of the discipline of apologetics was the promotion of the Gospel so that he could become a partner in its benefits. To that end, he made himself without law to the lawless, weak to the weak, strong to the strong.
Paul taught that we should not automatically attack every weakness we see in the audience’s worldview. Every Believer, but especially the apologist, must make himself the servant of the person to whom they are witnessing. We must identify their language, level, and need and then do what we can to meet those three standards. If we are talking to religious people, then there is no need to prove life after death, sin, or deity. Efficient apology demands that we build from commonalities rather than negatively attack perceived weaknesses.
There are certain men that, when approached, already have the assumption of God's existence and with such you don't need to deal with chemistry, physics, and apologetics. It would unnecessarily confuse the more important issue of their salvation. We must not be side tracked by petty arguments from preaching the cross. Others, however, fancy themselves to be wise.
- Romans 1:21-23 HCSB For though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or show gratitude. Instead, their thinking became nonsense, and their senseless minds were darkened. (22) Claiming to be wise, they became fools (23) and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man, birds, four-footed animals, and reptiles.
Out and out atheists do not want to glorify God. That would entail personal humility! They are ungrateful for His creation and continued help. They don’t want to acknowledge God’s superior wisdom. Like Adam and Eve in Gan Eden they want to be considered wise. They want to think they know better than others. With such, it is sometimes necessary to approach on an entirely different level. It is for these that we study apologetics.
By “language” I mean the linguistic group, the dialect and the worldview that comes part and parcel with a particular language. I won’t do you any good to be speaking Japanese to a Javanese. When we lived in Africa and were translating the Scriptures we encountered difficulties like describing something as “white as snow” to Africans who had never seen snow. In order to properly communicate what the Scriptures were saying, we had to paraphrase it to “white as manioc root”.
By “level” I mean their emotional and intellectual level. You won’t be able to approach a 60 year old Oxford scholar in the same way as you do a 5 year old kid from Podunk Illinois. You need to get to know the person and couch your arguments in such a way that they can be absorbed. Could the Oxford scholar understand the arguments that the 5 year old could? Absolutely. However, he would be so bored, he would be repulsed. He would actually look at you as if you were retarded and not actually listen!
By “need” I mean that you must attempt to build bridges from your points of commonality. Your audience needs direct testimony to perceived emotional and physical requirements. Jesus was a Master of all three of these approaches, but He is best known for this third one. How often did He precede His sermons by direct action to perceived needs? He healed the sick, fed the hungry, cast out demons, and granted forgiveness of sins. Then, when He spoke, the people truly listened because they realized that this teaching offered real solutions.
- Matthew 7:28-29 HCSB When Jesus had finished this sermon, the crowds were astonished at His teaching, (29) because He was teaching them like one who had authority, and not like their scribes.
- Philippians 3:8-9 HCSB More than that, I also consider everything to be a loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. Because of Him I have suffered the loss of all things and consider them filth, so that I may gain Christ (9) and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own from the law, but one that is through faith in Christ--the righteousness from God based on faith.
Nature can be used to come to know God.
- Romans 1:18-20 HCSB For God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, (19) since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. (20) From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse.
Am I simply taking an isolated passage and interpreting the way I choose? Look at how Paul himself meant this.
- Romans 10:18 HCSB But I ask, "Did they not hear?" Yes, they did: Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the inhabited world.
He was referring to a Psalm that David wrote:
- Psalms 19:1-4 HCSB For the choir director. A Davidic psalm. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky proclaims the work of His hands. (2) Day after day they pour out speech; night after night they communicate knowledge. (3) There is no speech; there are no words; their voice is not heard. (4) Their message has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the inhabited world…
Paul was referring specifically to the study of astronomy; the study of the heavens or space. Anyone who looks carefully and deeply at nature, in its complexity and order, will find the signs of intelligence. It can be found in the underlying principles of nature, in the facts revealed by the sciences.
We look at a garden in the middle of chaotic woods and know there is a gardener at work. Look into the vastness of space and know God’s immensity. Look into the sun and worship His power. Gaze upon a snowflake and stand in awe at His workmanship. Sit beneath sighing pines and bathe in His comfort.
Study widely, read generally, seek wisdom everywhere.
Another point that we can learn from Paul is that we not only need to heed the Scriptures, we not only have to check ourselves by nature (through scientific observation), but we are also responsible to know and be able to quote and refute our audience’s own works; at the very least the foundational works or sacred texts of their system of faith. Look at Acts 17:28 where Paul quoted the Greek's philosophical poets right back at them.
- Acts 17:28 HCSB For in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'
There are two quotations here. The first, “In Him we live and move and exist,” is from the Cretan poet Epimenides (c. 600 BC) in his Cretica. Epimenides was a 6th century BC native of Knossos, Crete. Epimenides was held in high esteem by the Cretans and several fulfilled predictions were ascribed to him. The second, “For we also are His children,” is from the Cilician poet Aratus (c.315-240) in his Phaenomena, as well as from Cleanthes (331-233) in his Hymn to Zeus.
Paul also quoted Greek poets elsewhere. In 1 Corinthians 15:33, Paul quoted from the Greek comedy Thais, which was written by the Greek poet Menander, whose writings the Corinthians would know. The application of the quotation is that those who are teaching that there is no resurrection (v.12) are the “bad company,” and they are corrupting the “good morals” of those who hold to the correct doctrine (cp Proverbs 13:20).
In Titus 1:12, Paul again quoted from the poet Epimenides.
Would anyone dare to question the methods of the apostle Paul? He knew their writings well enough to quote them on the spot. Yes, Paul was a famed scholar but his studies had been in Judaic law. He did not study Greek philosophy at the feet of Gamaliel. Somewhere along the line Paul spent time reading their books, studying their thoughts.
These men were unbelievers, they were even polytheistic (believing in many gods). Their gods had all the same passions, greed, and lusts as Man; they stole and raped and committed adultery. They were simply super powerful humans – in essence they did not believe in a God as we conceive of Him. Paul may as well have been talking to atheists. So, Paul quoted their own philosophical poets in order to refute them. You too can do that.
Notice, however, that even though they were Godless philosophers, they had stumbled on a useable truth. Just because a person is not a Christian does not mean that they are automatically idiots. After all,
- Proverbs 8:1-4 HCSB Doesn't Wisdom call out? Doesn't Understanding make her voice heard? (2) At the heights overlooking the road, at the crossroads, she takes her stand. (3) Beside the gates at the entry to the city, at the main entrance, she cries out: (4) "People, I call out to you; my cry is to mankind.
We should approach all world views balancing respect with critical (in the sense of analytical) thought. Proverbs teaches that there is a possibility of learning something from all situations, from all men.
“My cry is to mankind.” The Ruach’ ha Kodesh speaks to all humans. We refer to this as the “Law of Light.” The short form is “Use it or lose it!” God offers each of us a certain amount of light or enlightenment. When we obey it, we get more. When we refuse it, we not only do not receive any more – we actually lose some of our ability to perceive more and our minds become “darkened.” The one who buries his talent has it removed. What little we have is removed from us. Those who stiff arm God’s Spirit, by their own willful, stubborn recalcitrance will soon find their minds darkened.[1]
As you read the book of Proverbs, you find that Wisdom is calling out in the market square, in the city gates, outside the town, on the hilltop – everywhere. Sometimes, men listen to part of what she’s saying. I may hear something you don’t. You may hear something another can’t, but each of us is capable of hearing if only we’ll listen. It is religious bigotry to think you or your denomination have the corner on the market of truth.
The Japanese samurai had a saying. It went “Shiken haramitsu dai kyo myo.” It generally meant “In every encounter there is enlightenment.” They felt that every encounter they made with another man yielded the opportunity to come a little closer to the Truth. This ancient Japanese proverb sounds remarkably close to what Wisdom has to say in Proverbs doesn’t it? Let me show you something.
(Jesus) Do to others as you would have them do to you. Luke 6:31
(Buddha) Consider others as yourself. Dhammapada 10.1
(Jesus) If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also. Luke 6:29
(Buddha) If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words. Majhima Nikaya 21.6
(Jesus) Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me. Matthew 25:45
(Buddha) If you do not tend one another, then who is there to tend you? Whoever would tend me, he should tend the sick. Vinaya, Mahavagga 8.26.3
These words, attributed to Buddha, predate the Christian era by more than five hundred years. Truth is truth, regardless from whose lips it falls. Just because a person has not yet found ultimate Truth does not mean that they don’t possess some part of it. Just because a person is a Lowlander doesn’t mean they’re stupid! What must be made clear is that we do NOT believe that Christ borrowed from Buddhist teaching. Both the Buddha and the Mashiach’ were referring to an internal, universally known truth – an inherent moral code.
In Buddhist terms, there is one truth, not many. I also am not advocating many truths. We are all like the blind men who grasp an elephant. One, with his arms around a leg proclaims “An elephant is like a tree!” Another, with his hand upon the elephant’s trunk, shakes his head “No, it is more like a python.” While yet another, feeling only the tail, smiles “Oh, no! It is snake-like, yes but not that large a snake!” The last, trying vainly to hold to a great flapping ear, gasps out. “A great banana leaf. It is like a great banana leaf.” Are each one wrong? Yes. Are each one right? Yes. Each is partially right and partially wrong. Their common problem is that they will only believe the little piece they have in their hands, never guessing how large and mighty a creature an elephant actually is.
Aren’t we often like that? Does God like ritual? Yes, claims the Levitical scholar. However, isn’t God sick of ritual and wanting a close personal relationship with us? Oh yes, sighs the student of Christ’s life. We need to forego our religious and denominational arrogance and begin to seek the Truth; the whole, many faceted, complicatedly simple and contradictory yet profoundly honest Truth – wherever we can find it.
Up to this point, we have seen that we must keep the following five points in mind as we approach apologetics:
a. Keep your thoughts in line with Scripture.
b. Be able to answer any question concerning the hope you have.
c. Speak to each man in his language, on his level, and to his need.
d. Nature can be used to come to know God.
e. Study widely, read generally, seek wisdom everywhere.
Now, we finally come to the last point:
Expect to work hard.
- Proverbs 2:1-5 HCSB My son, if you accept my words and store up my commands within you, (2) listening closely to wisdom and directing your heart to understanding; (3) furthermore, if you call out to insight and lift your voice to understanding, (4) if you seek it like silver and search for it like hidden treasure, (5) then you will understand the fear of the LORD and discover the knowledge of God.
In this passage, Quoheleth gives us points we must take into consideration in the pursuit of wisdom.
a. Accept what Hashem says as truth.
b. Deliberately store His commands – memorize.
c. Listen closely as He speaks.
d. Intentionally seek understanding.
e. Pray for insight and understanding.
f. Make it a high value priority.
g. Realize that some is hidden – it will take effort to unlock.
- 2 Timothy 2:15-17 HCSB Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who doesn't need to be ashamed, correctly teaching the word of truth. (16) But avoid irreverent, empty speech, for this will produce an even greater measure of godlessness. (17) And their word will spread like gangrene, among whom are Hymenaeus and Philetus.
Not only that, but you need to be able to "rightly divide the truth", so that if someone says man does not possess a soul but is a soul you are able to realize the importance of that statement and give a refutation. It is more than semantics; it is the basis of life-changing decisions.
As Quoheleth had advice on the issue of the pursuit of ultimate wisdom and the approach, we must take to apologetics, so the Apostle Paul gives us some very practical advice. He says:
Be diligent – work hard. Of course it is difficult, but it is a responsibility that God has placed squarely on your shoulders.
Be accountable. He says the apologist must be prepared to “present himself”. Remember that you will have hearers whose lives may or may not be changed by your message, depending on how hard you’ve worked to be a good messenger. Remember too that one day you will have to appear before your Master and give an accounting of yourself.[2] You will even account for every careless word![3] You want to not only present yourself but you want to “be approved”, says Paul.
Be bold – don’t be ashamed. This can only come from long hours of hard study and much practice. You need to handle the word constantly. This is where the difference between arrogance and confidence shows up. Arrogance is boldness for no good reason. Confidence is boldness based on fact. You have a great God and your faith has endured for many thousands of years. It’s not a fly-by-night, flash in the pan kind of thing. You can have great confidence in it.
Correctly teach. The Apostle defines this as “teaching the Word of Truth.” Anybody can teach. Clowns can teach you how to fall or aim a cream pie well. However, you can do a sloppy job at falling or throwing pies and still get a good laugh! This isn’t true of apologetics. You need to be able to express the ideas. You need to be able to express ideas that will change hearts and minds. You need to do this well, using cutting edge teaching methods. If there is any area of your life in which you need to pursue excellence – it’s in apologetics.
Be respectful. If you quit being humble, you will do more than just lose your opportunity to witness; you will lose your ability to hear from the Holy Spirit and you may actually bring God’s judgment upon yourself. He resists the proud after all. Speak quietly. Listen well. Take notes. If possible try to establish a rule of equal time and equal respect. You’ll listen to them quietly for half an hour, then they must listen to you quietly for half an hour.
- Romans 12:18 HCSB If possible, on your part, live at peace with everyone.
Choose your words carefully. There is nothing more crucial than the conversion of a rebellious soul back to its rightful King. You could not find a more lasting consequence or reward, were you the president of the world! Also, there is nothing more treacherous than the human soul and spirit. The wrong word here, a raised eyebrow there – it takes very little to put someone off and lose the chance to win them to your side. Approach the conversation as you would a minefield, for surely there will be multiple emotional landmines around! When I say that, I don’t mean develop a fearful attitude, for that is not how one survives a minefield crossing. When you must cross a minefield you get down low, you move slowly, you methodically check each square foot before you. You systematically sweep from side to side, pushing your knife or stick into the dirt, trying to find that elusive metallic clank. When you do, you carefully ease the mine up, unscrew the cap, and defuse it. Then you wipe your brow, take a deep breath and start slowly stabbing the earth again. It almost becomes a zen-like, meditative, or trance-like experience. It’s very calm and focused. That’s what I mean. Approach an apologetic opening as you would a minefield crossing.
[1] Proverbs 1:25-28; 6:23; 13:9; 18:1; 29:13, 18; Isaiah 66:3b-4; Matthew 25:28-30; Luke 8:16; 12:47-48; 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12
[2] Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-28; Romans 14:12
[3] Matthew 12:36-37
Check to determine the results of your teaching.
After every event, you should sit down and cast your mind back on the conversation. Call it PBA, post-battle assessment. Debating is very hard work and it takes long hours of work that must often be delivered at unexpected times off the top of your head. You don’t want to waste time or energy!
What results did you get? Were they positive? Were they negative? Was there a mixed bag of results? Which argument seemed to hit home? Why? Would it work for everyone or just for this particular person or situation? Come away from the debate having learned something every time. Even if you spectacularly fail and walk away with your face red and your ears burning, at least don’t lose the opportunity to learn SOMETHING from it. Don’t let it be a complete waste.
What results did you get? Were they positive? Were they negative? Was there a mixed bag of results? Which argument seemed to hit home? Why? Would it work for everyone or just for this particular person or situation? Come away from the debate having learned something every time. Even if you spectacularly fail and walk away with your face red and your ears burning, at least don’t lose the opportunity to learn SOMETHING from it. Don’t let it be a complete waste.
Christians have, at times, been obstacles
It is very common to hear people assert or insinuate that religion, and Christianity in particular, has been an obstacle in the way of the progress of science. Sometimes, Christianity is spoken of as a formidable enemy. The argument is that Christians stifle science by telling the scientist that the questions he has striven to settle by observation and reason have already been determined, once for all, by the infallible authority of the Bible.
These allegations are not entirely untrue, or mere fabrication. There are facts on which they have been founded, regardless of any mistakes or exaggerations that are included in their interpretation. Religion has from time to time frowned upon, denounced, and proscribed (forbidden) the legitimate pursuits, researches, arguments, and hypotheses of physical inquirers. This attitude is not specifically unique to Christianity. Even before Christ, science faced religious persecution.
These allegations are not entirely untrue, or mere fabrication. There are facts on which they have been founded, regardless of any mistakes or exaggerations that are included in their interpretation. Religion has from time to time frowned upon, denounced, and proscribed (forbidden) the legitimate pursuits, researches, arguments, and hypotheses of physical inquirers. This attitude is not specifically unique to Christianity. Even before Christ, science faced religious persecution.
Anaxagoras
Anaxagoras was arraigned before an Athenian court for “holding impious physical doctrine”. He held the heretical belief that the sun was an incandescent stone, larger than Peloponnesus. The only reason he retained his life was due to the friendship and eloquence of Pericles.
Albert the Great
In the Christian era, students who were (whether in the hope of transmuting the baser metals into gold or for some better reason) interested in chemical experiments were suspected of having entered into a league with the devil.
Even Albert the Great, the teacher of Aquinas, who enjoyed the study of chemistry, did not wholly escape this dangerous suspicion.
Even Albert the Great, the teacher of Aquinas, who enjoyed the study of chemistry, did not wholly escape this dangerous suspicion.
Roger Bacon
Later, Roger Bacon had more to endure from the same type of accusations. The principle source of frustration he caused was his insistence on the use of empirical methods as opposed to blind faith in the church fathers and his willingness to learn even from Muslim and Jewish scholars like Avicenna, Averroes, and Maimonides.
Galileo
Still later stands the memorable case of Galileo. Galileo was an Italian scientist and philosopher who played a pivotal role in the Scientific Revolution. He ran into trouble with the papacy when he championed Copernicanism, the belief that the solar system revolved around the sun (known as heliocentrism) as opposed to around the Earth (known as geocentrism). For this, he was denounced to the Roman Inquisition in 1615. The Catholic Church formally condemned heliocentrism as “false and contrary to Scripture” in February of 1616. Later, when Galileo tried to defend his views in “Dialogue Concerning Two Chief World Systems” in 1632, he was again tried by the Inquisition, forced to recant, and spent the remainder of his days under house arrest.
Sure, this Florentine astronomer was imprudent in the advocacy of his doctrines, and he showed temerity in venturing to discuss the biblical applications of his discoveries, instead of leaving the interpretations to the authorized mouthpieces of the Church. However, these are no excuse for the enormous wrong of the organized, unrelenting endeavor to suppress the publication of important scientific truth. The men involved were guilty of not “loving the truth.”[1] They were unwilling to heed the biblical command to “learn from the heavens.”[2] They were not humble concerning either their understanding of the Holy Scriptures or science.[3] Worse, they caused an old man to perjure himself[4] by abjuring beliefs which his accusers and persecutors knew that in his heart he really held.
[1] Psalm 15:2
[2] Romans 10:18; Psalm 19:1-4
[3] Proverbs 18:15
[4] Deuteronomy 13:14; 17:14
Sure, this Florentine astronomer was imprudent in the advocacy of his doctrines, and he showed temerity in venturing to discuss the biblical applications of his discoveries, instead of leaving the interpretations to the authorized mouthpieces of the Church. However, these are no excuse for the enormous wrong of the organized, unrelenting endeavor to suppress the publication of important scientific truth. The men involved were guilty of not “loving the truth.”[1] They were unwilling to heed the biblical command to “learn from the heavens.”[2] They were not humble concerning either their understanding of the Holy Scriptures or science.[3] Worse, they caused an old man to perjure himself[4] by abjuring beliefs which his accusers and persecutors knew that in his heart he really held.
[1] Psalm 15:2
[2] Romans 10:18; Psalm 19:1-4
[3] Proverbs 18:15
[4] Deuteronomy 13:14; 17:14
Protestant reaction to geological findings
Protestantism, on its part, also must acknowledge that the same sort of mistake has been made. From the first rise of geology, down to modern times, the students of this branch of science have had to fight their way against an opposition conducted in the name of religion and of the Bible. They were charged with a presumptuous attempt to contravene the plain teaching of revelation. Cowper, in satirizing the dreams and delusions which get hold of the minds of men, castigates those who:
“Drill and bore
The solid earth, and from the strata there
Extract a register, by which we learn
That He who made it, and revealed its date to Moses,
was mistaken in its age.”[1]
There is no doubt that this amiable poet intended to pour scorn on the theory that the globe is more than about six thousand years old, a theory then novel, but now nearly universally accepted. The geologists were supposedly flying in the face of Moses: they were audaciously setting up their pretended record, dug out of the earth, against the Creator’s own testimony, given in the Scriptures. How arrogant could they possibly be? How many pulpits thundered their denunciation of these atheistic geological lies!
[1] The Task and Other Poems, Book III, The Garden (1785)
“Drill and bore
The solid earth, and from the strata there
Extract a register, by which we learn
That He who made it, and revealed its date to Moses,
was mistaken in its age.”[1]
There is no doubt that this amiable poet intended to pour scorn on the theory that the globe is more than about six thousand years old, a theory then novel, but now nearly universally accepted. The geologists were supposedly flying in the face of Moses: they were audaciously setting up their pretended record, dug out of the earth, against the Creator’s own testimony, given in the Scriptures. How arrogant could they possibly be? How many pulpits thundered their denunciation of these atheistic geological lies!
[1] The Task and Other Poems, Book III, The Garden (1785)
Bishop James Ussher's young earth
Let’s take a minute and examine the origin of the young earth theory. A 17th century Anglican archbishop in Ireland by the name of James Ussher is the one who formulated a chronology of the world based on what he understood to be a literal reading of the Bible. His work’s name was “Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the origins of the world”.
After carefully listing all the births and deaths he found in the Old Covenant, he came up with the surprisingly specific conclusion that the creation process began the nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C.
After carefully listing all the births and deaths he found in the Old Covenant, he came up with the surprisingly specific conclusion that the creation process began the nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C.
Problems with Ussher's hypothesis and methodology
On the first page of Annals Ussher wrote:
“In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth, Gen. 1, v. 1. Which beginning of time, according to our Chronologie, fell upon the entrance of the night preceding the twenty third day of Octob[er] in the year of the Julian [Period] 710. The year before Christ 4004. The Julian Period 710.”
He began with the hypothesis that the Earth could not last longer than 6,000 years (4,000 before and 2,000 after Christ) He based this on the six “days” of Creation on the grounds that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”[1]
There are several problems with Bishop Ussher’s methodology that inevitably lead to erroneous conclusions:
(1) The chronologies he used jump entire generations or multiple generations, emphasizing only those people that are useful to the ongoing story of Yahweh’s interaction with humanity. There were three major periods that Ussher had to treat, each with their own difficulties to deal with.
a. Early times (creation to Solomon). This would seem to be the easiest since we are given an unbroken lineage from Adam through Solomon. However, there are substantial differences between the Masoretic text and the Septuagint that shed doubt on the chronology.
b. Early Age of Kings (Solomon to the destruction of the Beit ha Mikdash). Here we have NO lineage; only a list of kings with overlaps and ambiguities clouding the issue.
c. Late Age of Kings (Ezra/Nehemiah to Jesus). Here we have no biblical information at all. The only way to identify anything is through extrabiblical records of other culture’s kings. These present their OWN difficulties because they are either not honest, not complete or give legendary origins or lifespans to their kings.
(2) At that time, many thought that Creation would have taken place in the spring because that was the start of the Babylonian, Chaldean, and other culture’s chronologies. Ussher disagreed, and felt it must have taken place in autumn because that is when the Jewish calendar begins. Either way, the choice was arbitrary and not founded on any specific scientific or theological statement. It was simply a matter of personal preference.
(3) A third problem is that Mr. Ussher missed the Apostle’s point. The point Peter was making in 2 Peter 3:8 was that for God, as a transcendent being, linear time is irrelevant. Note that the equation works both ways. One day = one thousand years and one thousand years = one day. Why didn’t he choose the second half as opposed to the first? This arbitrary choice that set aside the principle point the apostle was making has led many to bring ridicule upon the Church.
So, regardless of one’s scientific view, from a strictly theological or hermeneutic point of view, Bishop Ussher’s methodology was riddled with problems and should not be taken seriously. It may literally be regarded as an accident that his view even became as widespread as it did. In his day, two other men, Scalinger and Bede, had also developed competing “chronologies” and had widespread audiences. However, the enormously influential King James Version began to include Ussher’s chronology which is actually fairly surprising, seeing as Ussher only relied on the Bible for about 1/6 of his work.
[1] 2 Peter 3:8
“In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth, Gen. 1, v. 1. Which beginning of time, according to our Chronologie, fell upon the entrance of the night preceding the twenty third day of Octob[er] in the year of the Julian [Period] 710. The year before Christ 4004. The Julian Period 710.”
He began with the hypothesis that the Earth could not last longer than 6,000 years (4,000 before and 2,000 after Christ) He based this on the six “days” of Creation on the grounds that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”[1]
There are several problems with Bishop Ussher’s methodology that inevitably lead to erroneous conclusions:
(1) The chronologies he used jump entire generations or multiple generations, emphasizing only those people that are useful to the ongoing story of Yahweh’s interaction with humanity. There were three major periods that Ussher had to treat, each with their own difficulties to deal with.
a. Early times (creation to Solomon). This would seem to be the easiest since we are given an unbroken lineage from Adam through Solomon. However, there are substantial differences between the Masoretic text and the Septuagint that shed doubt on the chronology.
b. Early Age of Kings (Solomon to the destruction of the Beit ha Mikdash). Here we have NO lineage; only a list of kings with overlaps and ambiguities clouding the issue.
c. Late Age of Kings (Ezra/Nehemiah to Jesus). Here we have no biblical information at all. The only way to identify anything is through extrabiblical records of other culture’s kings. These present their OWN difficulties because they are either not honest, not complete or give legendary origins or lifespans to their kings.
(2) At that time, many thought that Creation would have taken place in the spring because that was the start of the Babylonian, Chaldean, and other culture’s chronologies. Ussher disagreed, and felt it must have taken place in autumn because that is when the Jewish calendar begins. Either way, the choice was arbitrary and not founded on any specific scientific or theological statement. It was simply a matter of personal preference.
(3) A third problem is that Mr. Ussher missed the Apostle’s point. The point Peter was making in 2 Peter 3:8 was that for God, as a transcendent being, linear time is irrelevant. Note that the equation works both ways. One day = one thousand years and one thousand years = one day. Why didn’t he choose the second half as opposed to the first? This arbitrary choice that set aside the principle point the apostle was making has led many to bring ridicule upon the Church.
So, regardless of one’s scientific view, from a strictly theological or hermeneutic point of view, Bishop Ussher’s methodology was riddled with problems and should not be taken seriously. It may literally be regarded as an accident that his view even became as widespread as it did. In his day, two other men, Scalinger and Bede, had also developed competing “chronologies” and had widespread audiences. However, the enormously influential King James Version began to include Ussher’s chronology which is actually fairly surprising, seeing as Ussher only relied on the Bible for about 1/6 of his work.
[1] 2 Peter 3:8
C.I. Scofield's two-cent's worth
Because of its association with the KJV, it later became a part of the immensely popular Scofield Reference Bible whose author had his own problems. He was forced to resign from the U.S. attorney’s office due to questionable financial transactions and was jailed for forgery. He was an alcoholic who abandoned his wife and two daughters. His first wife justifiably sought a divorce and Scofield began courting his second wife before the divorce was even finalized. They married three months after it was.
Some may argue that these things happened before his conversion, but may I point out that his divorce was finalized at least four years AFTER he made a profession of faith? That means that he willfully abandoned his wife and did not seek reconciliation with her and then wrongfully remarried well after his conversion. He subsequently refused to help support his ex-wife and daughter even though 1 Timothy 5:8 says that a man who does not provide for his own is worse than an infidel.
He began to falsely refer to himself as “Doctor” Scofield in 1892 though he had earned no such title. Even most of the events surrounding his so-called conversion have been proven false which causes a wise person to question whether or not he was even saved!
On August 27, 1881, two years after his supposed conversion, the Topekan newspaper called the Daily Capital had this to say about Mr. Scofield:
“The last personal knowledge that Kansans have had of this peer among scalawags, was when about four years ago, after a series of forgeries and confidence games he left the state and a destitute family and took refuge in Canada. For a time he kept undercover, nothing being heard of him until within the past two years when he turned up in St. Louis, where he had a wealthy widowed sister living who has generally come to the front and squared up Cyrus’ little follies and foibles by paying good round sums of money. Within the past year, however, Cyrus committed a series of St. Louis forgeries that could not be settled so easily, and the erratic young gentleman was compelled to linger in the St. Louis jail for a period of six months.
Among the many malicious acts that characterized his career, was one peculiarly atrocious, that has come under our personal notice. Shortly after he left Kansas, leaving his wife and two children dependent upon the bounty of his wife’s mother, he wrote his wife that he could invest some $1,300 of her mother’s money, all she had, in a manner that would return big interest. After some correspondence he forwarded them a mortgage, signed and executed by one Chas. Best, purporting to convey valuable property in St. Louis. Upon this, the money was sent to him. Afterwards the mortgages were found to be base forgeries, no such person as Charles Best being in existence, and the property conveyed in the mortgage fictitious…”
He had stolen his mother-in-law’s last $1,300 in a time when the average income for a woman was $54.50 a year and a man’s was a whopping $71.40 a year. He had stolen nearly 24 years of income from a widow.
In direct violation of 1Timothy 3:2-4, he was ordained as a minister and even became the pastor of Moody church in Chicago! His fame is what pushed the sales of his Bible, which sold the erroneous young earth view to tens of thousands of Christians all over the world. The people who overlooked his poor character and ordained him will have much to answer for at the Bimah seat!
There is a logical fallacy called ad hominem abusive which is essentially insulting or belittling one’s opponent rather than actually dealing with his argument. This is fallacious because even true negative facts about his personal character are largely irrelevant to the logical merits of his point of view.
By bringing these issues up in the case of Mr. Scofield, are we guilty of this particular fallacy? Not in the case of theology. 1 Timothy, Titus 1, and 1 Peter 5 all point out the necessity of excellent character in an elder or teacher of doctrine. Mr. Scofield violated the following nine positive traits required in an elder.
Further, he was guilty of the following five negative traits forbidden to an elder.
1. Proud[10]
2. Dishonest[11]
3. Unholy[12]
4. Greedy[13]
5. Addicted[14]
Just as you cannot have a person teach math who cannot do math, you cannot have a man teach theology who apparently does not know God. Mr. Scofield was not qualified to be an elder thus he was not properly authorized to teach in Christ’s church. He is to be considered a false teacher who taught for his own gain (1 Timothy 6:5; 2 Peter 2:14). In regards to such men, the Scriptures command the following:
As science produced more and more contradictory data, Ussher’s chronology fell into disrepute. However, it was not only scientists but also theologians[15] who disagreed with the good Bishop. Unfortunately, many Christians still hold on to a “young earth” theory, mistakenly believing that they are defending the Bible against all comers, when in fact the Bible actually says no such thing.
In his defense, unlike C.I. Scofield, Bishop Ussher was not a wicked man. He represented the flower of theological scholarship of his day and he did the best he could with the materials he had before him. Simply put, he was a well-meaning man who was led astray by his false assumptions. The ones who should be judged are the ones who have good science and better theology in front of them and still refuse to acknowledge their errors.
[1] 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:8; Gal. 5:23
[2] 1 Tim. 3:7
[3] 1 Tim. 3:2, 8-9; Titus 1:6
[4] Gal. 5:13-14, 22
[5] Titus 1:8
[6] 1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6
[7] 1 Tim. 3:4, 12
[8] 1 Tim. 3:2, 8; Titus 1:7
[9] Titus 1:8; Gal. 5:22
[10] (Boastful Gal. 5:26; Haughty Pro. 6:17; Reviler 1 Cor. 6:10; Overbearing Titus 1:7)
[11] (Deceitful Pro. 6:17; False witness Pro. 6:19; Liar 1 Tim. 1:10; Perjurer 1 Tim. 1:10)
[12] (Unholy 1 Tim. 1:9; Profane 1 Tim. 1:9; Ungodly 1 Tim. 1:9; Quick to sin Pro. 6:18)
[13] (Lover of money 1 Tim. 3:3; Pursuing dishonest gain 1 Tim. 3:8; Titus 1:9; Thief 1 Cor. 6:10; Covetous 1 Cor. 6:10; Swindler 1 Cor. 6:10)
[14] (Addicted 1 Tim. 3:3, 8; Titus 1:7; Gal. 5:21; 1 Cor. 6:10; Carousing Gal. 5:21; Sensual; Immoral Gal. 5:19; 1 Tim. 1:10; Impure Gal. 5:19; Sensual Gal. 5:19; Adulterer 1 Cor. 6:9)
[15] Princeton professor William Henry Green; conservative theologian B.B. Warfield among many others.
Some may argue that these things happened before his conversion, but may I point out that his divorce was finalized at least four years AFTER he made a profession of faith? That means that he willfully abandoned his wife and did not seek reconciliation with her and then wrongfully remarried well after his conversion. He subsequently refused to help support his ex-wife and daughter even though 1 Timothy 5:8 says that a man who does not provide for his own is worse than an infidel.
He began to falsely refer to himself as “Doctor” Scofield in 1892 though he had earned no such title. Even most of the events surrounding his so-called conversion have been proven false which causes a wise person to question whether or not he was even saved!
On August 27, 1881, two years after his supposed conversion, the Topekan newspaper called the Daily Capital had this to say about Mr. Scofield:
“The last personal knowledge that Kansans have had of this peer among scalawags, was when about four years ago, after a series of forgeries and confidence games he left the state and a destitute family and took refuge in Canada. For a time he kept undercover, nothing being heard of him until within the past two years when he turned up in St. Louis, where he had a wealthy widowed sister living who has generally come to the front and squared up Cyrus’ little follies and foibles by paying good round sums of money. Within the past year, however, Cyrus committed a series of St. Louis forgeries that could not be settled so easily, and the erratic young gentleman was compelled to linger in the St. Louis jail for a period of six months.
Among the many malicious acts that characterized his career, was one peculiarly atrocious, that has come under our personal notice. Shortly after he left Kansas, leaving his wife and two children dependent upon the bounty of his wife’s mother, he wrote his wife that he could invest some $1,300 of her mother’s money, all she had, in a manner that would return big interest. After some correspondence he forwarded them a mortgage, signed and executed by one Chas. Best, purporting to convey valuable property in St. Louis. Upon this, the money was sent to him. Afterwards the mortgages were found to be base forgeries, no such person as Charles Best being in existence, and the property conveyed in the mortgage fictitious…”
He had stolen his mother-in-law’s last $1,300 in a time when the average income for a woman was $54.50 a year and a man’s was a whopping $71.40 a year. He had stolen nearly 24 years of income from a widow.
In direct violation of 1Timothy 3:2-4, he was ordained as a minister and even became the pastor of Moody church in Chicago! His fame is what pushed the sales of his Bible, which sold the erroneous young earth view to tens of thousands of Christians all over the world. The people who overlooked his poor character and ordained him will have much to answer for at the Bimah seat!
There is a logical fallacy called ad hominem abusive which is essentially insulting or belittling one’s opponent rather than actually dealing with his argument. This is fallacious because even true negative facts about his personal character are largely irrelevant to the logical merits of his point of view.
By bringing these issues up in the case of Mr. Scofield, are we guilty of this particular fallacy? Not in the case of theology. 1 Timothy, Titus 1, and 1 Peter 5 all point out the necessity of excellent character in an elder or teacher of doctrine. Mr. Scofield violated the following nine positive traits required in an elder.
- Self-controlled / disciplined[1]
- Good reputation with outsiders[2]
- Above reproach / respectable[3]
- Serves others in love[4]
- Upright / holy[5]
- Married to one wife[6]
- Manages family well[7]
- Temperate[8]
- Loves what is good[9]
Further, he was guilty of the following five negative traits forbidden to an elder.
1. Proud[10]
2. Dishonest[11]
3. Unholy[12]
4. Greedy[13]
5. Addicted[14]
Just as you cannot have a person teach math who cannot do math, you cannot have a man teach theology who apparently does not know God. Mr. Scofield was not qualified to be an elder thus he was not properly authorized to teach in Christ’s church. He is to be considered a false teacher who taught for his own gain (1 Timothy 6:5; 2 Peter 2:14). In regards to such men, the Scriptures command the following:
- We are to MARK them and AVOID them. (Romans 16:17; 2 Timothy 3:5)
- We are to SEPARATE from them (1 Corinthians 5:9-11).
- We are to KEEP AWAY from them (2 Thessalonians 3:6).
- We are to REBUKE them (Titus 1:13).
- We are to REJECT heretics (Titus 3:10).
- We are to TRY them (1 John 4:1).
- We are NOT to RECEIVE them (2 John 1:10-11).
As science produced more and more contradictory data, Ussher’s chronology fell into disrepute. However, it was not only scientists but also theologians[15] who disagreed with the good Bishop. Unfortunately, many Christians still hold on to a “young earth” theory, mistakenly believing that they are defending the Bible against all comers, when in fact the Bible actually says no such thing.
In his defense, unlike C.I. Scofield, Bishop Ussher was not a wicked man. He represented the flower of theological scholarship of his day and he did the best he could with the materials he had before him. Simply put, he was a well-meaning man who was led astray by his false assumptions. The ones who should be judged are the ones who have good science and better theology in front of them and still refuse to acknowledge their errors.
[1] 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:8; Gal. 5:23
[2] 1 Tim. 3:7
[3] 1 Tim. 3:2, 8-9; Titus 1:6
[4] Gal. 5:13-14, 22
[5] Titus 1:8
[6] 1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6
[7] 1 Tim. 3:4, 12
[8] 1 Tim. 3:2, 8; Titus 1:7
[9] Titus 1:8; Gal. 5:22
[10] (Boastful Gal. 5:26; Haughty Pro. 6:17; Reviler 1 Cor. 6:10; Overbearing Titus 1:7)
[11] (Deceitful Pro. 6:17; False witness Pro. 6:19; Liar 1 Tim. 1:10; Perjurer 1 Tim. 1:10)
[12] (Unholy 1 Tim. 1:9; Profane 1 Tim. 1:9; Ungodly 1 Tim. 1:9; Quick to sin Pro. 6:18)
[13] (Lover of money 1 Tim. 3:3; Pursuing dishonest gain 1 Tim. 3:8; Titus 1:9; Thief 1 Cor. 6:10; Covetous 1 Cor. 6:10; Swindler 1 Cor. 6:10)
[14] (Addicted 1 Tim. 3:3, 8; Titus 1:7; Gal. 5:21; 1 Cor. 6:10; Carousing Gal. 5:21; Sensual; Immoral Gal. 5:19; 1 Tim. 1:10; Impure Gal. 5:19; Sensual Gal. 5:19; Adulterer 1 Cor. 6:9)
[15] Princeton professor William Henry Green; conservative theologian B.B. Warfield among many others.
The causes of intolerance
The causes of the attitude of intolerance, which have frequently been taken by religious men toward new opinions in natural science, are many. We will only take the time to deal with two of the most common.
There is, first, an impatience of new truth or of new doctrine that stands in opposition to cherished ideas. This type of conservativism is far from being peculiar to theologians or to the religious. The path which scientific discoverers have to follow, apart from the religious and ecclesiastical jealousies that they are liable to awaken, is not apt to be a smooth one. Every important revolution in scientific opinion that has succeeded has involved a conflict with the adherents of the traditional view, an internecine war among the cultivators of science themselves.
Secondly, religious faith, as it exists in almost every mind, is habitually associated with beliefs erroneously supposed to be implicated in it. Religious beliefs, in the average mind, are so interwoven with one another, as the mere effect of association, where there may be no necessary bond of union, that where one of them is assailed, the whole are thought to be in danger. Because the idea is new, we are at first unsure of how it can be applied. The old Greeks held that the stars were the abode of gods: they were animated and moved by intelligences. Plato and Aristotle also believed this. When a man like Anaxagoras said that the sun was a stone, the entire theological edifice was felt to be threatened with collapse. They thought that stars were where the gods lived, that the stars were intelligent, living beings. They were afraid that the denial of their understanding of the nature of stars would inevitably lead to atheism.
This sheds considerable light on the current struggle between many believers and their view of the theological implications of scientific discoveries.
We do not have to assume that an ancient universe necessarily implies atheism. Evolutionary theory does not automatically deny the existence of God. Who are we to dictate HOW God made everything? As Jesus at times spoke healing and at other times spat on dust, made mud, and rubbed it on the eyes of the blind, so Elohim may have many different ways of creating. After all, He did speak the primordial energy into being and yet fabricated Adam from dust and yet again fabricated Eve out of Adam!
There is, first, an impatience of new truth or of new doctrine that stands in opposition to cherished ideas. This type of conservativism is far from being peculiar to theologians or to the religious. The path which scientific discoverers have to follow, apart from the religious and ecclesiastical jealousies that they are liable to awaken, is not apt to be a smooth one. Every important revolution in scientific opinion that has succeeded has involved a conflict with the adherents of the traditional view, an internecine war among the cultivators of science themselves.
Secondly, religious faith, as it exists in almost every mind, is habitually associated with beliefs erroneously supposed to be implicated in it. Religious beliefs, in the average mind, are so interwoven with one another, as the mere effect of association, where there may be no necessary bond of union, that where one of them is assailed, the whole are thought to be in danger. Because the idea is new, we are at first unsure of how it can be applied. The old Greeks held that the stars were the abode of gods: they were animated and moved by intelligences. Plato and Aristotle also believed this. When a man like Anaxagoras said that the sun was a stone, the entire theological edifice was felt to be threatened with collapse. They thought that stars were where the gods lived, that the stars were intelligent, living beings. They were afraid that the denial of their understanding of the nature of stars would inevitably lead to atheism.
This sheds considerable light on the current struggle between many believers and their view of the theological implications of scientific discoveries.
We do not have to assume that an ancient universe necessarily implies atheism. Evolutionary theory does not automatically deny the existence of God. Who are we to dictate HOW God made everything? As Jesus at times spoke healing and at other times spat on dust, made mud, and rubbed it on the eyes of the blind, so Elohim may have many different ways of creating. After all, He did speak the primordial energy into being and yet fabricated Adam from dust and yet again fabricated Eve out of Adam!
