THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF APOLOGETICS
part 1
 
 
“Men despise religion.  They hate it and are afraid it may be true.  The cure for this is first to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect.  Next make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is.  Worthy of reverence because it really understands human nature.  Attractive because it promises true good.”
—Blaise Pascal, Pensées, #12/187.
 
 
I.          The Definition of Apologetics
 
A.        The rational defense of the Christian worldview as objectively true and existentially or subjectively engaging.  More generally, to commendation of Christianity in the face of unbelief or doubt.
 
B.        Concerns defining Christian truth-claims that one must believe in order to be a Christian
 
1.         Essentials of orthodoxy:  Trinity, Incarnation, biblical authority, justification by faith, etc.
 
2.         Truth-claim:  propositions affirming the existence or nonexistence of certain states of affairs
 
a.         Different than a sentence; many sentences affirm of declare the same proposition (More on this in D. Groothuis, Truth Decay, chapter four)
 
b.         Truth-claims are different than questions, emotive utterances, commands, etc.
 
 
II.        Relation of Apologetics to Theology
 
A.        Apologetics is dependent on theology for its content (essential doctrines), which are defended as true
 
B.        Theology’s ideal is to systematically and coherently articulate what Scripture teaches
 
C.        We need a theology of apologetics
 
·         Theological truths (such as human depravity, general revelation, divine transcendence and immanence) guide one’s understanding and application of apologetics
 
 
III.       Relation of Apologetics to Philosophy
 
A.        Comes under one category of philosophy—philosophy of religion: the rational investigation of religious truth-claims
 
·         But not all philosophy of religion is Christian apologetics; may be done in service of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism, etc.
 
B.        Attempts to rationally justify theological statements through philosophical means (theistic arguments, defending the coherence of doctrines, such as the Trinity or Incarnation, etc.)
 
·         Need not be propaganda or proselytizing, but may be
 
C.        Resurgence of Christians in philosophy in the last two-three decades.  See James Kelly Clark, ed., Philosophers Who Believe (InterVarsity Press, 1993); Thomas Morris, God and the Philosophers, ed.  (Oxford, 1995).  Academic journals:  Faith and Philosophy; Philosophia Christi
 
 
IV.       Relation of Apologetics to Evangelism
 
A.        Apologetics used when necessary to remove obstacles to evangelism: doubts, misunderstandings (Matthew 28:18 – 20)
 
B.        Evangelism declares Christian truth and invites unbelievers to embrace it; apologetics defends Christian truth and clarifies its meaning
 
C.        Apologetics as pre-evangelism (Francis A. Schaeffer)
 
http://www.relyonchrist.com/Lecture/Audio/01.mp3

This talk covers some of the basic concepts of truth, logic and persuasion which are helpful when we are 'defending and communicating the faith'. The notes below highlight a few of the issues covered.
Truth – what corresponds with reality
Laws of logic

Law of non-contradiction – something cannot be so and not so at the same time in the same way
Law of the excluded middle – either-or

Discovering the truth by reason, deduction, testing – coming to a tentative conclusion
Absolute 'proof' exists only in mathematics
Scientific 'proof' – looks at the apparent weight of evidence – science moves on
Areas for doubt caused by

– sensory confusion, memory failure, etc. 
– bias
– our limited understanding
– our limited knowledge
– limits from being a part of the universe
– our limited view of the past

Two books of truth – book of Nature and book of Scripture
In Scripture, God spoke through individuals – not dictate Scripture
Nature – Experiments 
Scripture – Interpretation or Hermeneutics
Argument – how we tease out truth logically, by reasoning and deduction
Asking "What is the evidence for that?"
Probability – is something more likely than it’s negation.
Knowledge – warranted true belief.
Some beliefs cannot be demonstrated to be true – properly basic beliefs: our own physical existence, other minds are real, reality of the past and validity of memory, etc.
Propositional truth: assertions that something is true: God exists; God appeared in history in Jesus; God will judge the world.
Biblical approach of apostles: persuasion is needed, not just proclamation. Includes refuting falsehoods.
Are our beliefs well grounded? 
https://www.bethinking.org/truth/why-bother-arguing

Overview of the Lecture

The rise of the 'New Atheism' has stimulated a new interest in Christian apologetics, both in the academy and the churches. The appeal to science in the writings of leading 'New Atheists', such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, is reflected in two apologetic strategies.
In the first place, the use made of science to defend atheism by Dawkins and Dennett has been challenged as unrepresentative and improper. In the second, defences of the rationality of faith have been developed which reflect inductive or abductive approaches, paralleling those used in the natural sciences.
This lecture explores the ways in which the natural sciences have been used in recent Christian apologetics, and assesses their significance.
https://www.bethinking.org/apologetics/new-atheism-new-apologetics

My Science Teacher Says 'Science Has Buried God'

When I was at secondary school, one of the science teachers ran an assembly where he asserted that evolution has done away with the need to believe in a God. Many of my friends afterwards were keen to press this point with me – “how can you believe this rubbish in light of science?”
The only time Jesus was mentioned in my science lessons was when we learnt how radiocarbon dating proved the Turin Shroud (which was claimed to be the burial cloth of Jesus) was a medieval fake. If God is mentioned in science lessons, it’s often in the sense of ‘until science came along, people used to tell fairy stories like this to explain it’.  
The problem with this kind of view is that it starts with a massive assumption: that science and Christianity are fundamentally opposed to each other. Often there is a second belief too, something along the lines of ‘scientific evidence is the only real evidence’. That is, if you can’t test it in the lab, it’s not true.
So here are some questions for you to think through, and to raise with your teacher if this issue arises in class. Each question is followed by a bit of explanation of the issue it’s exploring. (For more practical tips on approaching and speaking with your teachers, check out Engaging Well with Teachers).

How can you be so sure that science will always point the way you think it does right now?

Science is constantly developing and changing as new research is conducted and new information comes to light. Although people talk about ‘scientific proof’, science itself doesn’t actually prove anything. The most up to date science simply represents the best understanding we currently have of the way things work. So whether we believe in God or not, we should be careful about hanging too much on any current understanding. A good example is the fact that for a long time it was widely held that the universe was eternal, that it had always been here. Later, when evidence for a beginning of the universe became increasingly hard to ignore, scientists found they had to change their thinking. Who knows how future discoveries may change way we understand the world

If scientific evidence is the only real evidence, how do you handle the fact you can’t prove that statement in the lab?

Those who make this argument (perhaps in slightly different words) probably don’t realise that it defeats itself. It is impossible to prove that only scientific evidence is valid because you can’t get scientific evidence for that statement. In asking this question you may stimulate a discussion about how we know things at all, and the fact that we all believe things we cannot prove.

If science is so fundamentally opposed to religion, how do you account for the fact so many influential scientists have been religious?

As we look at the history of science we see that many of those who drove the development of science were religious. In fact, the idea that the world around us can be understood was originally based on belief in God. C.S. Lewis put it this way: “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver” (Miracles, p.169). Science flowed out of a desire to understand the world God had made. You can, of course, be a scientist without this belief, but the continued involvement of religious believers in science wouldn't make sense if science had once and for all done away with God.

The great cosmologist Allan Sandage, who won astronomy’s version of the Nobel Prize, concluded that God is ‘the explanation for the miracle of existence.’ Sir Fred Hoyle, who devised the steady state theory of the universe to avoid the existence of God, eventually became a believer in an Intelligent Designer of the universe. The astrophysicist Hugh Ross, who got his doctorate in astronomy from the University of Toronto and did research on quasars and galaxies, said scientific and historical evidence ‘deeply rooted my confidence in the veracity of the Bible.’ Robert Jastrow, a confessed agnostic and director of the Mount Wilson observatory and founder of the Goddard Space Institute, concluded the Big Bang points toward God. And I like what mathematical physicist Robert Griffiths said: ‘If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn’t much use.’— Norman Geisler (from, The Case for Faith)

WHY DOES IT MATTER?
---------------------------

I recently ran across three stories—and three individuals—in Mark 5 that surprised me.  Mark first introduces us to a demon-possessed man, who upon seeing Jesus on the shore at a distance, immediately runs to him and falls upon his knees before him.  Jesus heals him, sends him home to his family, and then gets back into a boat with his disciples.

Next Mark tells us, “When Jesus had again crossed over by boat to the other side of the lake…one of the synagogue rulers, named Jairus, came there.  Seeing Jesus, he fell at his feet and pleaded earnestly with him, ‘My little daughter is dying.  Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.'”  And how does Jesus respond to this man?  Mark says simply, “So Jesus went with him.”

However, before Jesus can get to Jairus’s house, a large crowd presses upon him, including another desperate person seeking his help—this time a woman bleeding for twelve years.  Writes Mark, “She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, ‘If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.’  Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering.  At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him.  He turned around in the crowd and asked, ‘Who touched my clothes?'”

Jesus’s question prompts his disciples to ask with urgency and impatience, “You see the people crowding against you…and yet you can ask, ‘Who touched me?'”  Do you hear what they communicate?  “Jesus, we are trying to get to the home of this powerful synagogue ruler before its too late and his child dies, and you stop to ask who touched you in this throng of people?  What does it matter?  Why do you care?”  But Jesus kept looking around, Mark observes, to see who had done it.  “Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear, told him the whole truth.”

So here again in this chapter, as with the demon-possessed man and Jairus, we see another desperate person literally falling at Jesus’s feet.  I hadn’t noticed this particular intimate detail before, but given how different each of these individuals are—a powerful yet enslaved man, an influential synagogue ruler, and a destitute woman with a disease—their identical response to Jesus is even more striking.  They realize their utter desperation; they know they are in the presence of the power of God,

And how does Jesus respond to this prostrate, trembling woman?  He tenderly calls her “daughter” and says, “Your faith has healed you.”  Jesus’s reply indicates that he has not only granted her healing, but also salvation: She is now part of the family of God, for she has become a daughter of God.  Although Jesus is urged to the dying daughter of a prominent ruler, he stops to attend to another daughter—a woman of no means, having spent all she had to no avail.  Suffering with bleeding for twelve years, she is undoubtedly a social outcast.  Yet Jesus esteems her and her faith before all, and then blesses her: “Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.”

Mark’s poignant description of this encounter provides another window into the ministry of Jesus.  For notice how his disciples’ impertinent question stands in stark contrast to Jesus’s patient compassion to seek out who had touched him.  Certainly Mark is speaking truthfully and vulnerably by declaring “his disciples”—and not merely “some” of them—posed this question.  Furthermore, Jesus’s attention to this woman once again reveals the nature of the kingdom of God (and an important theme in Mark’s Gospel).

One person in a large crowd touches Jesus.  The disciples insinuate, “What does it matter?  Why do you care?”  But one person matters to Jesus.  He cares; he seeks out even one, and attends to her.  Because Jesus doesn’t distinguish between the powerful and the powerless;

ne who falls before him shall be called “daughter” or “son.”  O “how great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God!” (1 John 3:1).  And that is what we are!

 

Danielle DuRant is director of research and writing at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia. 

1. Persecution is bound up with Christ’s persecution.

Jesus made that clear on His way to Jerusalem when he told his disciples that there he would “suffer many things . . . and be killed, and on the third day be raised” (Matt. 16:21). And then he told his followers that they were, in fact, to follow him by taking up their cross—that is, by fully identifying with him, whatever that would cost them and wherever that would take them. Suffering for the sake of the gospel is a way in which we identify with Christ’s sufferings—and he, in turn, identifies with the sufferings of His people. “Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.” (1 Pet. 4:12–13).


https://corechristianity.com/resource-library/articles/10-things-you-should-know-about-persecution

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/30/17936564/new-atheism-religion-science-god-john-gray

New Atheism is a literary movement that sprung up in 2004, led by prominent authors like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. Although they were right about a lot of things, the New Atheists missed something essential about the role of religion. For them, religion was just a protoscience — our first attempt at biology and history and physics. But religion is so much more than a set of claims about the world, and you can’t fully understand if you don’t account for that.
John Gray is a British philosopher whose latest book, Seven Types of Atheism, explores the history of atheism. It’s both an affirmation and a critique of atheism, written by an atheist who is aware of all its contradictions.

Perhaps the deepest, soil-hardening challenges to the apologetic task in our time are moral objections to Christianity – to the perceived immorality of Christian behaviour in history (the Crusades, the Inquisition) and of Christian attitudes in the present (intolerance, arrogance). In this session we re-think apologetics along these lines (soil management), explore the implications, and discuss strategies and approaches for engaging these objections and turning them into positive pointers to the gospel. This is an ‘apologetic’ for ethical apologetics.

Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect. Next make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is. 

Blaise Pascal, Pensées

1. Apologetics as Art and Science

Apologetics is the art and science of explaining and defending the truth-claims of the Christian worldview. As a science, it requires mastering information and arguments. As an art, it requires understanding one’s ‘audience’ and engaging them in real communication.

2.  Apologetics as Positive and Negative

Positive apologetics points to the truth of the gospel by offering reasons, positive pointers. Negative apologetics answers objections, clears away obstacles that obstruct one’s vision of the truth of the gospel. 

3.  Apologetics as ‘Credibilizing’ and ‘Plausibilizing’

For one to assent to proposition X as being true, one needs to think that it is true. There is a credibility filter in one’s mind that X must successfully pass through, before one can believe X (is X true?). Apologetic strategies have traditionally focused on this level, providing evidence that the gospel is true. But there is a prior filter in one’s mind that X must successfully pass through before one will even entertain the question whether X is true (and thus, evidence that it is): the plausibility filter (could X be true?). ‘Soil’ considerations primarily enter at this point: if one has misconceptions about the gospel, faulty assumptions, experiences with bad Christians, absence of good Christians, or some other issues that render Christianity unattractive or unthinkable, one may simply write it off from consideration entirely (it couldn’t be true) and never seriously consider evidence that it is true. Much of the apologetic task today involves plausibilizing the gospel, softening the soil so that seeds may be able to penetrate.
https://www.bethinking.org/is-christianity-true/moral-objections-to-christianity

Rampant cynicism, ignorance, and skepticism has made our task [of evangelism] more difficult, but that does not mean it has become impossible. Believers who can communicate the basis for their faith can be far more convincing and make a far greater impression with their personal testimony. If we are unable to answer unbelievers’ questions about Christianity, however, we leave ourselves open to the charge of being uncritical and not caring to examine our faith. Paul, in fact, advised the Thessalonians to “prove all things” (1 Thess. 5:21). The Bible does not encourage a blind faith. — James Patrick Holding (from, When Apologetics Was Evangelism)

“Can’t we just read the Bible and worship God without getting all technical?”
--------------------------------------------
Theology is the study of God and is very important. It helps us to understand the God to whom we are worshiping. Proper worship is based on an accurate understanding of who God is. Anytime anyone says anything about God, what is said is something doctrinal. Theology shapes our image of God and if a person’s theology is false then his or her image of God will also be false, which would ultimately lead to idolatry.
In math, the proper answer will proceed from a proper path.

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10

In the same way a proper understanding of who God is, what He would do, and what He wouldn’t do; will inform our doxology (praise) and better guide our prayers.

“Are all these big words and facts really that important?”

For salvation? No. Salvation is not found in head knowledge. However, knowing who God is will help us appreciate Him more, understand the Bible better, and also help us discern false teaching.

Often times we have conversations with family, friends, co-workers, church members, and strangers about God or the Bible. At this point you have just assumed the position of theologian. Apologetics, is the term for defending biblical and theological truths. When these discussions become debates or if you’re just defending you position, you have become an apologist. The more “tools” you have in your mental “toolbox” the better equipped you are to make a defense.
https://www.thepoachedegg.net/2018/11/is-theology-and-apologetics-really-that-important.html?utm_content=buffer487ed&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Question: "What is the creation mandate / cultural mandate?"

Answer: The terms creation mandate and cultural mandate can be used in various contexts with subtly different meanings. It’s important to clearly define which of these definitions is at hand in any particular discussion.

The term creation mandate refers to the idea that God’s original intent for creation infused mankind with supreme earthly authority, along with specific responsibilities. Among these privileges are the rights to freely use all of earth’s animals, plants, and resources for the benefit of humankind. The creation mandate is expressed most directly in Genesis 1:28, “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’” The Hebrew term for “rule over” (radah) implies an absolute sovereignty of man over the rest of the earth.

This creation mandate also implies responsibilities to which mankind is bound. As the God-appointed ruler, mankind is prohibited from abusing or wasting those aspects of Earth he controls; since creation ultimately belongs to God, misusing it would be an act of disrespect and irresponsibility. Likewise, God’s command includes an expectation that man will “multiply,” obligating man to adhere to God’s intended plan for human sexuality: heterosexual monogamy (Genesis 1:27; 2:24; Mark 10:5–9).

In short, the creation mandate says that man is sovereign over the rest of the earth, man is obligated to responsibly use what God has placed under his control, and man is expected to reproduce according to God’s intended design.

The term cultural mandate is far more flexible, implying a wider range of topics than the term creation mandate. There are three primary versions of the idea of a cultural mandate. The first is essentially the same as the creation mandate. The second connects God’s command in Genesis 1:28 with Christ’s Great Commission (Matthew 28:18–20), implying divine authority over all social and political matters. The third places the Great Commission within the creation mandate, requiring political and social matters to be forcibly brought under Christian control.

The first definition of the phrase cultural mandate is mostly used in references to sexuality and marriage. There, it’s just an emphasis on God’s ordained plan for procreation and male-female relationships.

The second way in which cultural mandateis used is in pairing the creation mandate with the Great Commission. In this sense, the cultural mandate implies that part of our “good stewardship” of the earth includes making an effort to influence culture and politics toward attitudes that reflect God’s will. That is, everything—including our personal lives and interactions with government and society—should be seen as part of our responsibility to enact the will of God. This view of the cultural mandate acknowledges that the “submission” implied in Genesis 1:28 is that of the earth to man—not of man to other men. This definition seems to be the most in keeping with the Bible’s perspective on government and society.

The third use of the term cultural mandateis the most controversial, and for good reason. Under this approach, the Great Commission is seen as a further explanation of the creation mandate. In other words, man has an obligation to apply Christian concepts formally and forcibly—through government and law, among other means. In this approach, government is required to mandate adherence to Christian ideals, on civil, social, and personal levels. This view of the cultural mandate implies that the “subdue” command of Genesis 1:28 includes other men, under the auspices of government. Those who take this view of the cultural mandate, such as those who hold to Kingdom Now theology, believe that laws and governments should be explicitly Christian, as a matter of necessity.

This third approach is not easily harmonized with Scripture. One reason God warned Israel about taking on a king (1 Samuel 8)

that human government is always—by definition—subject to human flaws. Even in the New Testament, Christians are called on to consider their obedience to God as something separate from—and higher than—their loyalty to earthly rulers (Acts 5:29; Matthew 22:21).

While making scriptural laws into civil laws sounds fine in theory, we find that the human beings who have to enforce those rules are not so infallible. Attempting to force people to adhere to Christian ideas when they have no personal relationship with Christ is futile (1 Corinthians 2:14). Worse, it leads to abuses and excesses that are then blamed on the Bible rather than on fallible people. History makes the reality of this problem abundantly clear.

In blunt terms, claiming that a “cultural mandate” requires civil government to be explicitly Christian is contrary to Christ’s own teaching on the nature of His kingdom, which He said is “not of this world” (John 18:36).

The phrases creation mandate and cultural mandate should be used with common sense. Of particular importance is being sure that these ideas are used in the correct context and with the right biblical perspective. The creation mandate most simply refers to man’s authority over the earth and his responsibility to follow God’s design for stewardship and sexuality. The cultural mandate, in its most biblical sense, is our personal obligation to submit all of our lives to God’s will, specifically including the way we interact with others through government and society. As the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13), we influence the culture for good.

A God-Centred Approach to Mathematics

Do God and mathematics have anything to do with one another? Can understanding who God is help us to understand what mathematics is? In Redeeming Mathematics: A God-Centered Approach, Vern S. Poythress addresses these questions. He argues that mathematical truth reflects God’s character, and that our ability to understand mathematics reflects that we are made in God’s image, both in our logical thought and (more specific to mathematics) in our conception of infinity:
https://www.bethinking.org/your-studies/redeeming-mathematics-review

‘Another calculus lecture drifts by, and I still don’t understand how my faith in Jesus has got anything to do with the hours upon hours I spend every week learning more about maths.’ This is the experience of so many Christians in the world of maths, as we find it hard to see how our faith relates to our subject. So, what has the God of the Bible got to do with maths? What has maths got to do with the Christian gospel?
As we begin, it’s important to acknowledge that we are not trying to represent a Christian view on maths here, but rather we are trying to understand the reality of maths. What we are looking at is not simply our perspective as Christians, it is the true reality revealed to us by the God of the universe.

The Lord of maths

Let’s begin with what the apostle Paul says about Jesus in Colossians 1:15–20:

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Jesus Christ has the supremacy over everything that exists – and that includes maths. Jesus is supreme over maths, he was the one who thought it all up, and he cares about those things that you care about and get excited by. Jesus is the Lord of all, Jesus is the Lord of maths. I wonder how that makes you feel?
https://www.bethinking.org/your-studies/studying-maths