105 Sermon Illustrations on Apologetics

Ralph Filicchia says people are not won to Christ by persuasive argument and wisdom, but God uses us to bring about his will. The apostle Paul used persuasive arguments in his sermons and debates. The truth of the gospel must be presented in the marketplace.

Sermon in Acts series. Paul before the Athenians. Acts 17:16-33

================

SEEKING SKEPTICS

================

I. "Know your enemy."

II. Paul's confrontation with the modern world.

A. Ancient Athens was the intellectual center of the world.

B. Epicureans. "Eat, drink and be merry."

C. Stoics. "If you don't mind, it doesn't matter."

III. These popular philosophies summed up how ancients coped with life.

A. There has been little change to this day.

B. The pursuit of pleasure and knowledge still dissatisfy.

C. Paul was labeled a babbler.

IV. "Unknown gods."

A. Paul preached to the people on their level.

1) God is the Creator.

2) All humans have a common ancestor.

B. We are morally responsible before God, and must change our ways.

V. All truth is God's truth.

A. Paul quotes two Greek poets, Epimenides and Aratus, for support.

B. God's truth can be found in other cultures.

VI. What do Christians have to say to their world?

A. Evangelicalism is tagged as anti-intellectual.

B. We should challenge our society on its level.

C. The gospel still stands.

#2542

*

WITNESSES TO FACTS OF THE GOSPEL

The Gospel is not presented to mankind as an argument about religious principles. Nor is it offered as a philosophy of life. Christianity is a witness to certain facts -- to events that have happened, to hopes that have been fulfilled, to realities that have been experienced, to a Person who has lived and died and been raised from the dead to reign for ever.

-- Massey H. Shepherd, Jr., FAR AND NEAR

I heard John Stott speak last night at Cherry Creek Presbyterian church. He spoke on evangelizing our cities and cited Paul's strategy for reaching the lost and the importance of not neglecting our cities. He began by citing figures and statistics which boiled down to the fact the by this year over half of the world's population will live in cities. He asked the question what was it that drew the apostle to cities. He stated that Paul went to Athens because of the intellectualism, to Corinth because of its commerce and to Ephesus because of its many religions. He went on further to give three major lessons to learn.

The first lesson was Paul's MOTIVATION. He was taken back by Athens because of its idolatry. He talked about the intensity of the Greek language and the Septuagint (LXX) to show how Paul was "cut to the quick" over their refusal to recognize the one true God. The LXX translation of the OT used the same language that the OT writers used when describing God's jealously over Israel's own flirtation with idolatry. He said that God's jealousy is righteous jealousy and is a resentment of God because of those rivaling him for affection. He said that God is jealous, because there is no rival to God. Then he made this statement. How God feels is how we should feel about idolatry.

The second lesson was Paul's MESSAGE. He quoted from 1 Cor. 2:1-5. In its simplest terms, he said, the gospel is truth from God. We haven't invented the gospel or manipulated it or created it. Its origin is from God and it has been given to us. It is truth from God about who Christ is and the cross. Then he talked about how immoral Corinth was and how the gospel is available to those who humble themselves. He said, "The gospel humbles proud people and the cross challenges their self-indulgence." He summarized this point by stating that Paul did this in the power of the Holy Spirit. He talked about Paul's physical characteristics. Stating that it was the power of the Holy Spirit not Paul's personality or appearance that brought results. (by the way he concluded that this text was the most important text on evangelization)

The third lesson was Paul's METHODOLOGY. Citing Acts 19:8-10. He emphasized how Paul chose secular places. He emphasized that we should look closer at home evangelism, getting involved in our communities, and lecturing at our universities. He stated that Paul used reasoned presentations and arguments and persuasion to share the gospel.

Bill Nicoson

*

The apologetics of Cornelius Van Til.

Whether one entirely agrees with him or not, no Christian interested in apologetics -- the reasoned defense of the faith -- can afford to be uninterested in Cornelius Van Til, the late professor of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. According to John Frame, Van Til "is perhaps the most important thinker since Calvin." Yet Frame demonstrates throughout his book that he is willing to be quite critical of his former professor. His praise is not due to an unquestioning allegiance, but to years of reflection as a theologian, philosopher, and apologist.

Why is Van Til so important? Building on the thought of Reformed theologians in America (Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield) and Holland (Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck), Van Til developed an approach to apologetics based on two foundational points: that all people are obligated to acknowledge God in all their thinking, and that non-Christians unremittingly resist this obligation. These two points are perhaps most obviously set forth in Romans 1:18-32, where the apostle Paul declares that God is clearly revealed in creation but that people suppress that revelation and worship creatures rather than the Creator.

Correcting the common misconception that Van Til did not believe in "general revelation" -- that God is revealed even to non-Christians in nature and history -- Frame shows that Van Til strongly affirmed that God is clearly revealed to all people. The problem is that all people practice self- deception.

Van Til's radical critique of non-Christian thought constitutes what he regarded as an "absolutely certain proof" for the existence of God -- not merely a "supreme being" of some sort, but the Triune God of Scripture. Negatively, this proof was an indirect argument that said that unless the God of the Bible exists, knowledge is impossible. Since no argument of any kind could be made if knowledge were not possible, Christianity is left as not merely the best option, but the only intelligible option. Positively, this proof spelled out how the existence of a personal God, the Trinity, providence, the distinction between creator and creature, humankind's creation in the image of God, and God's revelation of himself make human knowledge possible.

"The issue between believers and non-believers in Christian theism," Van Til wrote, "cannot be settled by direct appeal to 'facts' or 'laws' whose nature and significance is already agreed upon by both parties to the debate. The question is rather as to what is the final reference-point required to make the 'facts' and 'laws' intelligible.'"

But if Christians and non-Christians are operating on the basis of fundamentally different presuppositions, how can they even join in productive debate? Van Til's answer was that Christian apologists should "meet our enemy on their own ground," assuming their position "for the sake of argument" and reducing it to absurdity, showing that their reasoning "leads to self-contradiction, not only from a theistic point of view, but from a nontheistic point of view as well."

The self-contradictory presumption that bedevils all unbelieving systems of thought can be seen at work, Van Til argued, even in the primal Fall. On the one hand, to disobey God's command, Adam and Eve had to assume that God was incapable of making predictions about the future, just as they were. Here is a model of the universe as a product of chance (or, as Frame puts it, "the general structure of unbelieving thought includes an ultimate epistemological irrationalism, correlated with a metaphysic in which reality is reducible to chance"). On the other hand, to believe they could ignore God's command with impunity, Adam and Eve had to assume that they would not be cursed if they ate from the tree. Here is a model of man the sovereign knower: "Man therefore does not need to live by the authoritative assertions of the Creator. He can discover by his own independent inspection ... what will take place in the course of time." Thus, Van Til concludes, "man, in rejecting the covenantal requirement of God, became at one and the same time both irrationalist and rationalist."

Frame, who is himself professor of apologetics at Westminster Seminary in California (Escondido), provides not only a clear overview but also an in- depth breakdown of Van Til's thought. This is extraordinarily helpful to both the beginner and the reader who has slogged through many of Van Til's books. As Frame says, Van Til speaks of proving Christian theism "as a unit." In teaching apologetics, he throws his whole system at the reader all at once, so to speak, rather than bit by bit. And if the reader doesn't grasp it all, well, Van Til throws it all at him a second time. Thus the reader gets the impression that he cannot pick and choose; it is either all or nothing; Van Til must be thoroughly embraced or totally opposed.

Not only did Van Til's method tend to make for bad communication, it also polarized the debate over apologetic methodology. Anyone who didn't "thoroughly embrace" him found it easy to "totally oppose" Van Til. Frame himself discusses his run-ins with "movement Van Tillians," who become extremely upset over mere departures from Van Til's language, let alone criticisms of his ideas. And Frame does criticize some of Van Til's ideas. Having broken down Van Til's thought he disagrees with some points and wishes other parts had been nuanced more carefully. He is especially helpful in defending apologists with whom Van Til clashed, such as Edward J. Carnell, Gordon Clark, and Francis Schaeffer. Yet Frame maintains that the good in Van Til's thought is well worth picking from the dross. Indeed, his work seems to be a plea for fellow laborers in the field. Frame's irenic tone and his mastery of such fascinating and challenging material should win for him some partners in analysis and some friendly critics as well. He makes it clear he would appreciate both.

-------------------

"Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought," by John M. Frame (P&R, 463 pp.; $27.99, hardcover). Reviewed by Mark Horne, a freelance writer based near Saint Louis, Missouri.

-------------------

Copyright (c) 1995 Christianity Today, Inc./CHRISTIANITY TODAY Magazine

ctfeb96mrj6T20406124

#3945

*

It takes more than the right arguments to lead people to faith. (Running example of author witnessing to Andreas, a Swedish exchange student.)

1. Make the most of every opportunity.

How to work witnessing into everyday life.

2. Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders.

Listen to their hearts, not just their words.

Acknowledge good questions.

3. Let your conversation be full of grace, seasoned by salt.

Speak the truth, not pious lies. Be credible.

Do not make Christianity sound better than it is.

- Believing in Jesus does not solve all our problems.

We believe in Jesus because he is TRUE, not because it works.

4. Faith has spice when you're equipped.

Three Pillars of Modernism.

1) Acceptance of the Natural World and Rejection of the Supernatural.

• The only reality is that which you experience – sensory.

• Miracles are myth.

• The orderliness of nature proves existence of God, but He is no longer

involved with His creation. (Deism, the belief system of the

American founding fathers.)

• More recently, the modern world determined there is no real need of a

God who is not involved in His creation.

2) All of society and human tradition is to be built on reason alone.

• All things can be understood by ways of human reason.

• Personal faith requires no need for revelation.

• Great challenge for the Church is to prove that Christianity is true.

3) Science and education are the preeminent values that produce progress.

• Truth is objective, factual.

• Absolute truth rules the universe apart from God’s intervention:

• More education is the answer to most human problems.

“For the last two centuries, modern thought has assaulted Christianity in the name of reason and in the name of humanism. Christian theology was dismissed as superstition, unworthy of rational, educated human beings. Christian morality was also dismissed as repressive, built around fear and guilt.”

Postmodern Times, Gene E. Veith, page 71.

#4263

*

(Radical Jewish rejection of historical Jesus. Part 1 at #4440)

REFUTING MISSIONARIES:

PART 2: THE LACK OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR JESUS

The usual Christian response to those who question the historicity of Jesus is to palm off various documents as "historical evidence" for the existence of Jesus. They usually start with the canonical gospels of "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke" and "John". The usual claim is that these are "eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus made by his disciples." The reply to this argument can be summed up in one word - *pseudepigraphic*. This term refers to works of writing whose authors conceal their true identities behind the names of legendary characters from the past. Pseudepigraphic writing was particularly popular among the Jews during Hashmonean and Roman periods and this style of writing was adopted by the early Christians.

The canonical gospels are not the only gospels. For example, there are also gospels of "Mary", "Peter", "Thomas" and "Philip". These four gospels are recognized as being pseudepigraphic by both Christian and non-Christian scholars. They provide no legitimate historical information since they were based on rumors and belief. The existence of these obviously pseudepigraphic gospels makes it quite reasonable to suspect that the canonical gospels might also be pseudepigraphic. The very fact that early Christians wrote pseudepigraphic gospels suggests that this was in fact the norm. It is thus the missionaries' claim that the canonical gospels are *not* pseudepigraphic which requires proof.

The "Gospel of Mark" is written in the name of Mark, the disciple of the mythical Peter. (Peter is largely based on the pagan god Petra, who was door-keeper of heaven and the afterlife in Egyptian religion.) Even in Christian mythology, Mark was not a disciple of Jesus, but a friend of Paul and Luke. "Mark" was written before "Matthew and "Luke" (c. 100 C.E.) but after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. which it mentions. Most Christians believe it was written in c. 75 C.E. This date is not based on history but on the belief that an historical Mark wrote the gospel in his old age. This is not possible since the style of language used in "Mark" shows that it was written (probably in Rome) by a Roman convert to Christianity whose first language was Latin and not Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. Indeed, since all the other gospels are written in the name of legendary characters from the past, "Mark" was probably written long after any historical Mark (if there was one) had died. The contents of "Mark" is a collection of myths and legends put together to form a continuous narrative. There is no evidence that it was based on any reliable historical sources. "Mark was altered and edited many times and the modern version probably dates to about 150 C.E. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 C.E. - c. 215 C.E.) complained about the alternative versions of this gospel which were still circulating in his lifetime. (The Carpocratians, an early Christian sect, considered pederasty to be a virtue and Clement complained about their versions of "Mark" which told of Jesus's homosexual exploits with young boys!)

The "Gospel of Matthew" was certainly not written by the apostle Matthew. The character of Matthew is based on the historical person named Mattai who was a disciple of Yeishu ben Pandeira. (Yeishu, who lived in Hashmonean times, was one of several historical people upon whom the character Jesus is based.) The "Gospel of Matthew" was originally anonymous and was only assigned the name "Matthew" some time during the first half of the second century C.E. The earliest form was probably written at more or less the same time as the "Gospel of Luke" (c. 100 C.E.) since neither seems to know of the other. It was altered and edited until about 150 C.E. The first two chapters, dealing with the virgin birth, were not in the original version and the Christians in Israel of Jewish descent preferred this earlier version. For its sources it used "Mark" and a collection of teachings referred to as the "Second Source" (or the "Q Document"). The "Second Source" has not survived as a separate document, but its full contents are found in "Matthew" and "Luke". All the teachings contained in it can be found in Judaism. The more reasonable teachings can be found in mainstream Judaism, while the less reasonable ones can be found in sectarian Judaism. There is nothing in it which would require us to suppose the existence of a real historical Jesus. Although "Matthew" and "Luke" attribute the teachings in it to Jesus, the "Epistle of James" attributes them to James. Thus "Matthew" provides no historical evidence for Jesus.

The "Gospel of Luke" and the book of "Acts" (which were two parts of a single work) were written in the name of the Christian mythological character Luke the healer (who was probably not an historical person but a Christian adaptation of the Greek healer god Lykos). Even in Christian mythology, Luke was not a disciple of Jesus but a friend of Paul. "Luke" and "Acts" use Josephus's "Jewish Antiquities" as a reference, and so they could not have been written before 93 C.E. At this time, any friend of Paul would be either dead or well into senility. Indeed, both Christian and non-Christian scholars agree that the earliest versions of the two books were written by an anonymous Christian in c. 100 C.E and were altered and edited until c. 150 - 175 C.E. Besides Josephus's book, "Luke" and "Acts "also use the "Gospel of Mark", and the "Second Source" as references. Although Josephus is considered to be more or less reliable, the anonymous author often misread and misunderstood Josephus and moreover, none of the information about Jesus in "Luke" and "Acts" comes from Josephus. Thus "Luke "and "Acts" is of no historical value.

The "Gospel of John" was written in the name of the apostle John the brother of James, son of Zebedee. The author of Luke used as many sources as he could get hold of but he was unaware of "John". Thus "John could not have been written before "Luke (c. 100 C.E.) Consequently "John" could not have been written by the semi-mythical character John the Apostle who was supposed to have been killed by Herod Agrippa shortly before his own death in 44 C.E. (John the Apostle is apparently based on an historical disciple of the false Messiah Theudas who was crucified by the Romans in 44 C.E. and whose disciples were murdered.) The real author of the "Gospel of John" was in fact an anonymous Christian from Ephesus in Asia Minor. The oldest surviving fragment of "John" dates to c. 125 C.E. and so we can date the gospel to c. 100 - 125 C.E. Based on stylistic considerations many scholars narrow down the date to c. 110 - 120 C.E. The earliest version of "John" did not contain the last chapter which deals with Jesus appearing to his disciples. Like the other gospels, "John" probably only attained its present form around 150 - 175 C.E. The author of "John" used "Mark" sparingly and so one suspects that he did not trust it. He either had not read "Matthew" and "Luke" or he did not trust them since he does not use any information from them which was not found in "Mark". Most of "John" consists of legends with obvious underlying allegorical interpretations and one suspects that the author never intended them to be history. "John" does not contain any information from reliable historical sources.

Christians will claim that the "Gospel of John "itself states that it is an historical document written by John. This claim is based on the verses "John 19.34 - 35 and "John" 21.20 - 24. "John" 19.34 - 35 does not claim that the gospel was written by John. It claims that the events described in the immediately preceding verses were accurately reported by a witness. The passage is ambiguous and it is not clear whether the witness is supposed to be the same person as the author. Many scholars are of the opinion that the ambiguity is deliberate and that the author of "John" is trying to tease his readers in this passage as well as in the passages which tell miraculous stories with allegorical interpretations. "John" 21.20 - 24 also does not claim that the author is John. It claims that the disciple mentioned in the passage is the one who witnessed the events described. It is again notably ambiguous as regards the question of whether the disciple is the same person as the author. It should be noted that this passage is in the last chapter of "John "which was not part of the original gospel but was added on as an epilogue by an anonymous redactor. One should beware the fact that many "easy to understand" translations of the New Testament distort the passages mentioned so as to remove the ambiguity found in the original Greek. (Ideally one needs to be familiar with the original Greek text of the New Testament in order to avoid biased and distorted translations used by fundamentalist Christians and missionaries.)

In order to back up their claims that the gospels of "Mark" and "Matthew" were written by the "real" apostles Mark and Matthew and that Jesus is an historical person, missionaries often point to the so-called "testimony of Papias." Papias was the bishop of Hierapolis(near Ephesus) during the middle of the second century C.E. None of his writings have survived but the Christian historian Eusebius (c. 260 - 339 C.E.) in his book, "Ecclesiastical History (written c. 311 - 324 C.E.) paraphrased certain passages from Papias's book "Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord "(written c. 140 - 160 C.E.). In these passages, Papias claimed that he had known the daughters of the apostle Philip and also reported several stories which he claimed came from people named Aristion and John the Elder, who had still been alive during his own lifetime. Eusebius appears to have thought that Aristion and John the Elder were disciples of Jesus. Papias claimed that John the Elder had said that Mark had been Peter's interpreter and had written down accurately everything that Peter had to tell about Jesus. Papias also claimed that Matthew had compiled all the "oracles" in Hebrew and everyone had interpreted them as best they could. None of this, however, provides any legitimate historical evidence of Jesus nor does it back up the belief that "Mark" and "Matthew" were really written by apostles bearing those names. Papias was a name dropper and it is by no means certain that he was honest when he claimed that he had met Philip's daughters. Even if he had, this would at most prove that the apostle Philip in Christian mythology was based on an historical person. Papias never explicitly claimed that he had met Aristion and John the Elder. Moreover, just because Eusebius in the 4th century believed that they were disciples of Jesus does not mean that they were. Nothing at all is known about who on earth Aristion actually was. He is certainly not one of the disciples in the usual Christian tradition. I have seen books in which certain fundamentalist Christians claim that John the Elder was the apostle John the son of Zebedee and that he was still alive when Papias was young. They also claim that Papias lived in c. 60 - 130 C.E. and that he wrote his book in c. 120 C.E. These dates are not based on any legitimate evidence and are complete nonsense: Papias was bishop of Hierapolis in c. 150 C.E and as already mentioned his book was written sometime in the period c. 140 - 160 C.E. Pushing the date for Papias back to 60 C.E. still does not place him during the lifetime of the apostle John who according to standard Christian legends was killed in 44 C.E. Besides, it is unlikely that John the Elder had anything to do with John the Apostle. According to Epiphanius (c. 320 - 403 C.E.), an early Christian named John the Elder had died in 117 C.E. We will have more to say about him when we discuss the three epistles named after John. Whatever the case, the stories which Papias collected were being told at least a decade after the gospels and "Acts" had been written and reflect unfounded rumours and superstition about the origins of these books. In particular, the story about Mark obtained from John the Elder, is nothing more than a slight elaboration of the legend about Mark found in "Acts" and so it tells us nothing about the true origins of the "Gospel of Mark". The story about Matthew writing the "oracles" is simply a rumour, and besides, it does nothave anything to do with the "Gospel of Matthew ". The term "oracles" can only be understood as a reference to the collection of writings known as the "Oracles of the Lord" which is referred to in the title of Papias's book and which in all likelyhood is the same thing as the "Second Source", not the "Gospel of Matthew".

Besides the canonical gospels and "Acts , missionaries also try to use the various Christian epistles as proof of the Jesus story. They claim that the epistles are letters written by Jesus's disciples and followers. However, epistles (from the Greek: epistol q "e", meaning message or order) are books, written in the form of letters (usually from legendary characters from the past), which expound religious doctrines and instructions. This form of religious writing was used by the Jews in Greco-Roman times. (The most famous Jewish epistle is the "Epistle of Jeremiah , which is a lengthy condemnation of idolatry written during the Hellinistic period in the form of a letter from the prophet Jeremiah to the people of Jerusalem just before they were exiled to Babylon.) As in the case of the gospels, there are Christian epistles not contained in the New Testament which both Christian and non-Christian scholars agree are pseudepigraphic and of no historical value since they expound beliefs and not history. The existence of pseudepigraphic epistles and indeed the whole concept of an epistle, suggests that epistles were normally pseudepigraphic. Thus again it is the claims by missionaries and Christian fundamentalists, that the canonical epistles are genuine letters, which requires proof.

The "Epistle of Jude" is written in the name of Jude (Judas) the brother of James. According to "Mark" and "Matthew", Jesus had brothers named Judas and James. Comparison with other writings shows that the "Epistle of Jude" was written in c. 130 C.E. and so it is obviously pseudepigraphic. There is no evidence however that its author used any legitimate historical sources as regards Jesus.

Two of the canonical epistles are written in the name of Peter. Since Peter is a mythical Christian adaptation of the Egyptian pagan deity Petra, these epistles were certainly not written by him. The style and character of the "First Epistle of Peter alone shows that it could not have been written earlier than c. 80 C.E. Even according to Christian legend, Peter was supposed to have died following the persecutions instigated by Nero in c. 64 C.E. and so he could not have written the epistle. The author of "Luke" and "Acts" used all written sources he could get hold of and tended to use them indiscriminately, however he did not mention any epistles by Peter. This shows that the "First Epistle of Peter" was probably written after "Luke" and "Acts" (c. 100 C.E.). No references to Jesus in the "First Epistle of Peter" are taken from historical sources but instead reflect beliefs and superstition. The "Second Epistle of Peter" speaks out against the Marcionists and so it must have been written c. 150 C.E. It is thus clearly pseudepigraphic. The "Second Epistle of Peter uses as sources: the story of Jesus's transfiguration found in "Mark", "Matthew" and "Luke" , the "Apocalypse of Peter "and the "Epistle of Jude". The non-canonical "Apocalypse of Peter" (written some time in the first quarter of the second century C.E.) is recognized as being non-historical even by fundamentalist Christians. Thus the "Second Epistle of Peter" also does not use any legitimate historical sources.

We now turn to the epistles supposedly written by Paul. The "First Epistle of Paul to Timothy" warns against the Marcionist work known as the "Antithesis". Marcion was expelled from the Church of Rome in c. 144 C.E. and the "First Epistle of Paul to Timothy" was written shortly afterwards. Thus we again have a clear case of pseudepigraphy. The "Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy" and the "Epistle of Paul to Titus" were written by the same author and date to about the same period. These three epistles are known as the "pastoral epistles." The ten remaining "non-pastoral" epistles written in the name of Paul, were known to Marcion by c. 140 C.E. Some of them were not written in Paul's name alone but are in the form of letters written by Paul in collaboration with various friends such as Sosthenes, Timothy, and Silas. The author of "Luke" and "Acts", went out of his way to obtain all sources available and tended to use them indiscriminately, but he used nothing from the Pauline epistles. We can thus conclude that the non-pastoral epistles were written after "Luke" and "Acts" in the period c. 100 - 140 C.E. The non-canonical "First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians" (written c. 125 C.E.) uses the "First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians" as a source and so we can narrow down the date for that epistle to c. 100 - 125 C.E. However, we are left with the conclusion that that all the Pauline epistles are pseudepigraphic. (The semi-mythical Paul was supposed to have died during the persecutions instigated by Nero in c. 64 C.E.) Some of the Pauline epistles appear to be have been altered and edited numerous times before reaching their modern forms. As sources they use each other, "Acts", the gospels of "Mark", "Matthew" and "Luke" and the "First Epistle of Peter" . We may thus conclude that they provide no historical evidence of Jesus.

The "Epistle to the Hebrews" is a particularly interesting epistle since it is not pseudepigraphic but completely anonymous. Its author neither reveals his own name nor does he write in the name of a Christian mythological character. Fundamentalist Christians claim that it is another epistle by Paul and in fact call it the "Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews . This idea, apparently dating to the late fourth century C.E., is not accepted by all Christians however. As a source for its information on Jesus it uses material common to "Mark , "Matthew" and "Luke , but no legitimate sources. The author of the "First Epistle of Clement" used it as a source and so it must have been written before that epistle (c. 125 C.E.) but after at least the "Gospel of Mark" (c. 75 - 100 C.E.).

The "Epistle of James" is written in the name of a servant of Jesus called James(or Jacobus). However, in Christian mythology there were two apostles named James and Jesus also had a brother named James. It is not clear which James is intended and there is no agreement among Christians themselves. It quotes sayings from the "Second Source" but unlike "Matthew" and "Luke" it does not attribute these sayings to Jesus but presents them as sayings of James. It contains an important argument against the doctrine of "salvation through faith" expounded in the "Epistle of Paul to the Romans". We can thus conclude that it was written during the first half of the second century C.E., after "Romans" but before the time that "Matthew" and "Luke" were accepted by all Christians. Thus regardless of which James is intended, the "Epistle of James" is pseudepigraphic. It says almost nothing about Jesus and there is no evidence that the author had any historical sources for him.

There are three epistles named after the apostle John. None of them are in fact written in the name of John and were probably only ascribed to him some time after they had been written. The "First Epistle of John" , like the "Epistle to the Hebrews", is completely anonymous. The idea that it was written by John arises from the fact that it used the "Gospel of John" as a source. The other two epistles named after John are written by a single author who instead of writing in the name of an apostle, chose simply to call himself "the Elder." The idea that these two epistles were written by John arose from the beliefs that "the Elder" referred to John the Elder and that he was the same person as the apostle John. In the case of the "Second Epistle of John" this belief was reinforced by the fact that that epistle also uses the "Gospel of John "as a source. We can thus conclude that the first two epistles ascribed to John were written after the "Gospel of John" (c. 110 - 120 C.E.). Consequently none of the three epistles could have been written by the apostle John. It should be pointed out that it is quite possible that the pseudonym "the Elder" does refer to the person named John the Elder, but if this is so, he is certainly not the apostle John. The first two John epistles use only the "Gospel of John" as a source for Jesus; they do not use any legitimate sources. The "Third Epistle of John" barely mentions "Christ" and there is no evidence that it used any historical sources for him.

Besides the epistles named after John, the New Testament also contains a book known as the "Revelation to John . This book combines two forms of religious writing, that of the epistle and that of the apocalypse. (Apocalypses are religious works which are written in the form of revelations about the future made by a famous character from the past. These revelations usually describe unfortunate events occurring at the time of writing and also offer some hope to the reader that things will improve.) It is not certain how much editing the "Revelation to John" underwent and so it is difficult to date it precisely. Since it mentions the persecutions instigated by Nero we can say with certainty that it was not written earlier than 64 C.E. Thus it cannot have been written by the "real John." The first few verses form an introduction which is clearly not intended to be by John and which provides a vague admission that the book is pseudepigraphic even though the author feels that his message is inspired by G-d. The style of writing and the references to the practice of kriobolium (baptism in sheep’s blood) suggests that the author was one of those people of Jewish descent who mixed Judaism with pagan practices. There were many such "pagan Jews" during Roman times and it was these people who become the first converts to Christianity, established the first churches, and who were probably also responsible for introducing pagan myths into the story of Jesus. (They are also remembered for their ridiculous belief that "Adonai" Tzevaot" was the same as the pagan god "Sebazios.") The references to Jesus in the book are few and there is no evidence that they are based on anything but belief.

Besides the epistles accepted in the New Testament and besides the epistles which are unanimously recognized as being of no value (such as the "Epistle of Barnabas"), there are also several epistles which although not accepted in the New Testament, are considered of value by some Christians. Firstly there are the epistles named after Clement. In Christian legend, Clement was the third in succession of Peter as bishop of Rome. The "First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians" is not in fact written in the name of Clement but in the name of the "Church of God which sojourns in Rome." It refers to a persecution which is generally thought to have occurred in 95 C.E. under Domitian, and it refers to the dismissal of the elders of the Church of Corinth in c. 96 C.E. Christians believe that Clement was bishop of Rome during this time and this is apparently the reason why the epistle was later named after him. Fundamentalist Christians believe that the epistle was in fact written in c. 96 C.E. This date is not possible since the epistle refers to bishops and priests as separate groups; a division which had not taken place yet. Stylistic considerations show that it was written in c. 125 C.E. As references it used the "Epistle to the Hebrews" and The "First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians" but no legitimate historical sources. The "Second Epistle of Clement" is by a different author to the first and was written later. We may thus conclude that it was also not written by Clement. (There is no evidence that either of these epistles were named after Clement before their incorporation into the collection of books known as the "Codex Alexandrinus , in the fifth century C.E.) As sources for Jesus, the "Second Epistle of Clement" uses the "Gospel of the Egyptians", a document which is rejected by even the most fundamentalist Christians, and also the New Testament books which we have shown to be valueless. Thus again we have no legitimate evidence of Jesus.

Next we have the epistles written in the name of Ignatius. According to legend, Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch who was killed under Trajan's rule c. 110 C.E. (Although he is probably based on a real historical person the legends about his martyrdom are largely fictional.) There are fifteen epistles written in his name. Of these, eight are unanimously recognized as being pseudepigraphic and of no value as regards Jesus. The remaining seven each have two forms, a longer and a shorter. The longer forms are clearly altered and edited versions of the shorter forms. Fundamentalist Christians claim that the shorter forms are genuine letters written by Ignatius. The "Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans" mentions the threefold ordering of bishops, priests and deacons which had not yet taken place by Ignatius's death which occurred no later than 117 C.E. and which probably took place c. 110 C.E. All seven shorter epistles attack various Christian beliefs, now considered heretical, which only became prevalent c. 140 - 150 C.E. The shorter "Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans" contains a quote from the writings of Irenaeus, written after 170 C.E. and published c. 185 C.E. We can thus conclude that the seven shorter epistles are also pseudepigraphic. The shorter "Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans" was certainly written after 170 C.E. (In fact, if it was not written by Irenaeus then it was probably written after c. 185 C.E.) and the other six were written no earlier than the period c. 140 - 150 C.E. if not later. There are no sources for Jesus in the Ignatian epistles other than the New Testament books and the writings of Irenaeus which only use the New Testament. Thus they contain no legitimate evidence of Jesus.

There are two more epistles which Christians claim are genuine letters, namely the "Epistle of Polycarp" and the "Martyrdom of Polycarp". The Ignatian epistles and the epistles concerning Polycarp have always been closely associated. It is quite possible that they were all written by the Christian writer Irenaeus and his disciples. There certainly was a real historical early Christian named Polycarp. He was bishop of Smyrna and was killed by the Romans sometime in the period 155 - 165 C.E. When Irenaeus was a boy he knew Polycarp. Fundamentalist Christians claim that Polycarp was the disciple of the apostle John. However, even if we accept the legend that Polycarp lived to the age of 86, he could not have been born earlier than 67 C.E and therefore could not have been a disciple of John. (It is possible that he was a disciple of the enigmatic John the Elder.) Since Irenaeus had known Polycarp they also assume that Irenaeus was in fact his disciple, a claim for which there is no evidence. "The Epistle of Polycarp" uses most New Testament books and the Ignatian epistles as references but it uses no legitimate sources for Jesus. Those Christians who reject the Ignatian epistles but believe the "Epistle of Polycarp" is a genuine letter, claim that the references to the Ignatian epistles are a later interpolation. This idea is based on personal bias not on any genuine evidence. Based on the blind belief that this epistle is a genuine letter, some Christians date it to around the middle of the second century C.E. shortly before Polycarp's death. However, the references to the Ignatian epistles suggest that it was in fact written some time in the last few decades of the second century C.E., at least about a decade after Polycarp's death if not later.

The "Martyrdom of Polycarp" is written in the name of "the Church of G-d that sojourns in Smyrna." It starts off in the form of a letter but its main body is written in the form of an ordinary story. It tells the tale of Polycarp's martyrdom. Like the "Epistle of Polycarp", it was written some time during the last few decades of the second century C.E. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that it used any reliable sources for its story, only rumours and hearsay. The story in fact appears to be highly fictionalized. The references to Jesus are not taken from any reliable source.

We have thus seen that the epistles used by missionaries as "evidence" are just as spurious as the gospels. Again, the reader should beware "easy to understand" translations of the New Testament since they call the epistles, "letters," thereby incorrectly implying that they are really letters written by the people after whom they are named.

Now, besides the books of the New Testament, and besides the epistles relating to Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp, there is only one more Christian religious work which Christians claim as historical evidence of Jesus, namely the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" also known as the "Didache". All other early Christian religious works are either wholly rejected by modern Christians or are least recognized as not being primary sources as regards Jesus. The "Didache" began as a sectarian Jewish document, probably written during the period of turmoil in c. 70 C.E. Its earliest form consisted of moral teachings and predictions of the destruction of the current world order. This earliest version, which obviously did not mention Jesus, was taken over by Christians who heavily edited and altered it, adding a story of Jesus and rules of worship for early Christian communities. Scholars estimate that the earliest Christian version of the "Didache" could not have been written much later than 95 C.E. It probably only reached its final form around c. 120 C.E. It appears to have served an isolated Christian community in Syria as a "Church Order" during the period c. 100 - 130 C.E. However, there is no evidence that its story of Jesus was based on any reliable sources, and as we have mentioned, the earliest Jewish version had nothing to do with Jesus. In fact, this document provides evidence that the myth of Jesus grew gradually. Like the "Gospel of Mark and the early versions of "Gospel of Matthew , the Jesus story in the "Didache" makes no mention of a virgin birth. It makes no mention of the fantastic miracles which were later attributed to Jesus. Although Jesus is referred to as a "son" of G-d, it appears that this term is being used figuratively. The evidence we have concerning the origin of the crucifixion myth suggests that one of the things leading to this myth was the fact that the cross was the astrological symbol of the Vernal Equinox which occurs near Passover, when Jesus was believed to have been killed. It is thus not surprising to find that the story in the "Didache" makes no mention of Jesus being crucified, although it mentions a cross in the sky as a sign of Jesus. The twelve apostles mentioned in the full title of the "Didache" do not appear as twelve real disciples of Jesus and the term clearly refers to the twelve sons of Jacob representing the twelve tribes of Israel. Thus the "Didache" provides vital clues concerning the growth of the Jesus myth, but it certainly does not provide any evidence of an historical Jesus.

Since none of the Christian religious texts provide any acceptable evidence of Jesus, missionaries turn next to non-Christian texts. Christians claim that several reliable historians recorded information about Jesus. Although some of these historians are more or less accepted, we shall see that they do not provide any information about Jesus.

Firstly, Christians claim that the Jewish historian Josephus recorded information about Jesus in his book "Jewish Antiquities" (published c. 93 - 94 C.E.) It is true that this book contains information about the three false Messiahs, Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas and Benjamin the Egyptian, and it is true that the character of Jesus appears to be based on all of them in part, but none of them can be regarded as the historical Jesus. Moreover, in the book of "Acts", these people are mentioned as being different people to Jesus and so modern Christianity actually rejects any connection between them and Jesus. In the Christian edited versions of the "Jewish Antiquities" there are two passages dealing with Jesus as portrayed in Christian religious works. Neither of these passages are found in the original version of the "Jewish Antiquities" which was preserved by the Jews. The first passage (XVII,3,3) was quoted by Eusebius writing in c. 320 C.E. and so we can conclude that it was added in some time between the time Christians got hold of the "Jewish Antiquities" and c. 320 C.E. It is not known when the other passage (XX,9,1) was added in. Neither passage is based on any reliable sources. It is fraudulent to claim that these passages were written by Josephus and that they provide evidence for Jesus. They were written by Christian redactors and were based purely on Christian belief.

Next the Christians will point to the "Annals "by Tacitus. In the "Annals" XV,44, Tacitus describes how Nero blamed the Christians for the fire of Rome in 64 C.E. He mentions that the name "Christians" originated from a person named Christus who had been executed by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberias. It is certainly true that the name "Christians" is derived from Christ or Christus (=Messiah), but Tacitus' claim that he was executed by Pilate during the reign of Tiberias is based purely on the claims being made by the Christians themselves and appearing in the gospels of "Mark", "Matthew "and "Luke" which had already been widely circulated when the "Annals" were being written. (The "Annals" were published after 115 C.E. and were certainly not written before 110 C.E.) Thus, although the "Annals" contains a sentence in which "Christus" is spoken of as a real person, this sentence was based purely on Christian claims and beliefs which are of no historical value.It is quite ironic that modern Christians use Tacitus to back up their beliefs since he was the least accurate of all Roman historians. He justifies hatred of Christians by saying that they committed abominations. Besides "Christus" he also speaks of various pagan gods as if they really exist. His summary of Middle East history in his book the "Histories" is so distorted as to be laughable. We may conclude that his single mention of Christus cannot be taken as reliable evidence of an historical Jesus.

Once Tacitus is dismissed, the Christians will claim that one of the younger Pliny's letters to the emperor Trajan provides evidence of an historical Jesus. ("Letters" X,96.) This is nonsense. The letter in question simply mentions that certain Christians had cursed "Christ" to avoid being punished. It does not claim that this Christ really existed. The letter in question was written before Pliny's death in c. 114 C.E. but after he was sent to Bithynia in 111 C.E., probably in the year 112 C.E. Thus it provides nothing more than a confirmation of the trivial fact that around the beginning of the twelfth decade C.E. Christians did not normally curse something called "Christ" although some had done it to avoid punishment. It provides no evidence of an historical Jesus.

Christians will also claim that Suetonius recorded evidence of Jesus in his book "Lives of the Caesars" (also known as "The Twelve Caesars"). The passage in question is "Claudius" 25, where he mentions that the emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome (apparently in 49 C.E.) because they caused continual disturbances at the instigation of a certain Chrestus. If one blindly assumes that "Chrestus" refers to Jesus then, if anything, this passage contradicts the Christian story of Jesus since Jesus was supposed have been crucified when Pontius Pilate was procurator (26 - 36 C.E.) during the reign of Tiberias and moreover, he was never supposed to have been in Rome! Suetonius lived during the period (c. 75 - 150 C.E.) and his book, "Lives of the Caesars", was published during the period 119 - 120 C.E. having been written some time after Domitian's death in 96 C.E. Thus the event he describes occurred at least 45 years before he was writing about it and so we cannot be certain of its accuracy. The name Chrestus is derived from the Greek "Chrestos" meaning "good one" and it is not the same as Christ or Christus which are derived from the Greek "Christos" meaning "anointed one/Messiah." If we take the passage at face value it refers to a person named Chrestus who was in Rome and who had nothing to do with Jesus or any other "Christ." The term Chrestos was often applied to pagan gods and many of the people in Rome called "Jews" were actually people who mixed Jewish beliefs with pagan beliefs and who were not necessarily of Jewish descent. Thus it is also possible that the passage refers to conflicts involving these pagan "Jews" who worshipped a pagan god (such as Sebazios) titled Chrestos. On the other hand, the words Chrestos and Christos were often confused and so the passage might even be referring to some conflict involving Jews who believed that some person was the Messiah, but this person may or may not have actually been in Rome and for all we know, he may not have been a real historical person. One should bear in mind that the described event took place just several years after the crucifixion of the false Messiah Theudas in 44 C.E. and the passage may be referring to his followers in Rome. Christians claim that the passage refers to Jesus and conflicts arising after Paul brought news of him to Rome and that Suetonius was only mistaken about Jesus himself being in Rome. However, this interpretation is based on blind belief in Jesus and the myths about Paul and there is nothing to suggest that it is the correct interpretation. Thus we may conclude that Suetonius also fails to provide any reliable evidence of an historical Jesus.

All other writers who mention Jesus, from Justin Martyr in the second century C.E. to the latest expounders of Christian myth in the twentieth century, have all based their references to Jesus on the sources we have discredited above. Consequently their claims are worthless as historical evidence. We are thus left with the conclusion that there is absolutely no reliable and acceptable historical evidence of Jesus. All references to Jesus are derived from the superstitious beliefs and myths of the early Christian community. The majority of these beliefs only came into existence after the persecution by Nero and the tragedy of 70 C.E. Many of these beliefs are based on the pagan legends about the gods Tammuz, Osiris, Attis, Dionysus and the sun god Mithras. Other myths about Jesus appear to be based on various different historical people such as the convicted criminals Yeishu ben Pandeira and ben Stada, and the crucified false Messiahs Yehuda, Theudas and Benjamin, but none of these people can be regarded as an historical Jesus.

*FURTHER READING*

1) J. Allegro, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth ", Prometheus Books, reprinted 1991. (Examines how ancient myths were misused by the early church and misrepresented as history.)

2) J. Campbell, "Occidental Mythology", Penguin Books, reprinted 1985. (An exposition of religious mythology in western civilization. Includes important evidence concerning the borrowing of pagan myths by Christianity.)

3) E.D. Cohen, "The Mind of the Bible-Believer", Prometheus Books, reprinted 1991. (Uncovers the psychological ploys around which the New Testament is built and exposes the adverse effects of Christian fundamentalism.)

4) R. Helms, "Gospel Fictions", Prometheus Books, reprinted 1991. (Exposes the gospels as being largely fictional documents composed as a culmination to an extensive mythological tradition.)

5) S. Levine, "You Take Jesus and I'll Take God: How to Refute Christian Missionaries", revised edition, Hamoroh Press, Los Angeles, 1980. (Exposes the tricks used by missionaries and the misquotations of the Tanach in the New Testament.)

6) J.M. Robertson, "A Short History of Christianity", 2nd Ed., Watts & Co., London 1913. (One of the first serious academic investigations into the origins of Christianity. Exposes the elements of the Jesus story borrowed from pagan myths.)

7)"The Talmud", should be compulsory reading for all Jews although it is unfortunately neglected in modern times!

#4441

*

"Giving a Reason for Our Hope"

A lecture given by T.E. Grover Gunn on March 10, 1997, at the apologetics conference sponsored by Christ Presbyterian Church in Elkton, Maryland.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the seventeenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, we have an account of the clash of the Titans. The Apostle Paul, that educated, intelligent and erudite defender of the Christian faith, visited Athens, the philosophical center of the pagan world. There at the Areopagus, also known as Mar's Hill, the apostle Paul boldly defended the Christian faith. He proclaimed the Christian message in that ancient citadel of worldly philosophy, that intellectual stronghold of the enemy. Paul there did battle with the philosophical Goliaths of his day. Mt. Zion confronted the pagan Mar's Hill. The heavenly Jerusalem did battle with worldly Athens.

But Paul is not the only apologetic warrior we read about in the book of Acts. We also read about Peter, the man not trained at the feet of Gamaliel but trained to be a fisherman. Acts 4:13 says,

"Now when [the members of the Sanhedrin] saw the boldness of Peter

and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men,

they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus."

I find great hope is this verse. Peter was no Paul, certainly not in terms of education, perhaps not in terms of native intelligence and mental ability. Peter even mentions that certain things in Paul's writings are "hard to understand" (2 Peter 3:16). God, however, used Peter as well as Paul as an apologist. Similarly, you may not be another Cornelius Van Til or another Greg Bahnsen in terms of education and intelligence, but God can use you just as He used Peter. God can use you as an apologist, a defender of the Christian faith.

There is a sense in which every aspect of every Christian's life is part of the Christian apologetic. There is something similar in regard to evangelism. Not every Christian is a gifted evangelist. God has not called every Christian to dedicate all his energies to evangelistic preaching or to efforts such as tract ministries. Not every Christian is an evangelist in the narrow sense of the word, but every Christian is an evangelist in a broader sense of the word. The life of every Christian should be a living epistle proclaiming the good news that Jesus delivers His people out of the bondage of sinful living and into the freedom and meaning of righteous living. In that sense, all of life is evangelistic. Similarly, we are not all called to be apologists for the faith in the narrow sense, but in the broader sense of the word, all of life is a defense of the faith. The life we live either adds credibility to our message, or it takes away from it.

Let's now look at what Peter, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said about the apologetic task. Our Scripture reading is 1 Peter 3:15, perhaps the most basic verse on apologetics to be found in the Bible. Some call it the Magna Charta of apologetics.

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to

give a defense to everyone who asks you for a reason for the hope

that is in you, with meekness and fear."

Apologetics is the science of giving a reasoned defense of the Christian faith, and that is what this verse commands us to do. We are to give a defense, and the Greek word translated defense is apologia, the word from which we get the English word apology. And in this context, an apology is not an expression of sorrow for something wrong one has done nor a request for forgiveness. Apology in this context is a rational defense of the faith.

Apologetics, the defense of the faith, is the responsibility of every Christian. It is the responsibility not only of people such as Paul of Tarsus, the brilliant student of Gamaliel, but also of people such as Peter, the fisherman who was categorized by his opponents as uneducated and untrained. Peter says to all Christians, "be ready to defend the faith." Notice some of those to whom Peter is writing: to babes in Christ, to wives, to younger people, to slaves, and to the lower classes who have no social protection against persecution. To all of these, Peter says, "be ready to defend the faith."

I am reminded of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 about the social status of many Christians:

26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according

to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.

27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame

the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to

put to shame the things which are mighty;

28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised

God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to

nothing the things that are,

29 that no flesh should glory in His presence.

These are the people called to be apologists for the faith. Apologetics is not a task assigned only to well educated scholars, only to well read philosophers, only to trained logicians, only to skilled debaters. It is assigned to all Christians regardless of their gifts and training.

We too easily think of apologetics as if it were strictly an intellectual enterprise such as a game of chess. We line up our evidences for the faith like so many chessmen on a game board. Then we try to move them with such skill and strategy that our opponent is forced into a corner where he has to concede intellectual defeat. When we start thinking about apologetics that way, we want to leave it to the experts, those masters of strategy who are skilled in debate and well read in philosophy. Either that, or we engage in apologetics ourselves and are tempted with pride because we view ourselves as one of the gifted few. We can become more concerned about winning a debate than about winning a soul. We can become more concerned about demonstrating our knowledge and intellectual sophistication than about defending the gospel message.

Peter is not calling us all to become rhetorical gladiators, people skilled in debating strategy, erudite in the fine points of philosophy, adept in the forceful use of logic. What then does it mean to be an apologist for the Christian faith? The answer is found in 1 Peter 3:15. This passage gives us insight into the apologetic method, which is usually our focus in apologetics. 1 Peter 3:15 also, however, tells us about the apologetic moment and the apologetic manner. I want to look first at these two more neglected aspects of apologetics.

THE APOLOGETIC MOMENT

First, let's consider the apologetic moment. What does it matter if one has honed his apologetic skills to a fine art if he never has an opportunity to use them? Before one can defend the faith, he must first earn a hearing for the faith. I believe the foremost duty of the Christian apologist is to live his daily life in obedience to Jesus in the power of Jesus. That is what, more than anything else, will earn a hearing. It will draw the interest and attention, the amazement and wonder of a watching world. Beloved, we don't earn a hearing for the gospel by parading our intellectual achievements and capabilities.

This passage describes the apologetic moment. It is when someone approaches the Christian and asks him to give a reason for his hope. 1 Peter is written to Christians in a time of persecution, and it gives guidance on how the Christian is to conduct himself during such times of tribulation. It is this supernaturally empowered conduct that causes the world to approach the Christian and to say,

"Give me a reason for the hope that is in you. Your life has caught

my attention, and I want to know."

Even when the words "Give me a reason," are uttered as a hostile challenge and are intended as verbal persecution, these words have been inspired by the observation of a life style that is strikingly different.

Beloved, if we are not living in the power of Christ, then we can have the most intellectually sophisticated arguments for Christianity which the world has ever heard, and the world could not care less. Apart from a Christ honoring and Christ empowered life, our intellectual arguments for Christianity will be like those scholarly articles buried in academic journals which no one reads. The Christ honoring life is the cutting edge of apologetics. The Christ empowered life is the foot in the door. It is the necessary price we must pay if we are to earn a hearing.

It is only logical that it would be easier to sell ice skates in Canada than it would be to sell them in Mexico. Similarly, the gospel message is more persuasive where the church is strong than where it is weak, where Christians are living out the gospel message than where the they are living as hypocrites.1 By keeping covenant, by obeying God's law, by loving God with all our being and our neighbor as ourselves, by doing this without complaint, even with a joyful spirit, in the daily grind of the circumstances where God has placed us, we are living out a powerful apologetic, a powerful testimony to the truth of the gospel.

It is when we experience difficulties in life that we are given special opportunities to bear witness with our lives. It is when we are experiencing life's difficulties that others sense that they have more of a window into our souls. We should recognize that our difficulties are not accidents. There are no accidents, only divine assignments because God plans everything that comes into our lives. When we experience material loss, physical sickness or social persecution, we should view it as a providentially given opportunity to bear witness by bearing the fruit of the Spirit.

J. I. Packer described the fruit of the Spirit this way: "Each is a habit of reaction that is most strikingly seen in situations where, humanly speaking, a different reaction would have been expected."2 There is a moment of decision between the stimulus and the reaction, and in that instant, that twinkling of the eye, one's heart character takes over and dictates the response. That response reveals one's inner character to others. Here is where ethics and apologetics overlap. One is in a painful, unfair, tense situation. How will one respond? With love or with bitter hatred? With joy or with self-pity? With peace or with enmity? With patience or with a short fuse? With kindness or with a spirit of revenge? With gentleness or with forceful rage? With self-control or with uncontrollable emotions?

Beloved, even though I speak the apologetic message with the eloquent tongues of angels, without the fruit of the Spirit, I have become a sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. The fruit of the Spirit is a sine qua non of an effective apologetic.

Think a moment about a water saturated sponge sitting on a table. If we push down with our finger even slightly, water runs out onto the table. We immediately know what fills the interior pockets of the sponge. The same is true with people. A watching world can tell what fills the Christian on the inside by observing what comes out when the Christian is under pressure. 3 Respond to life's miseries with the fruit of the Spirit, and the world will say, "Give me a reason for the hope that is in you!" That is the apologetic moment. Respond to life's miseries as the world responds to them, and your apology for your faith will fall on deaf ears.

This key to the apologetic moment is a large part of the message of 1 Peter. Repeatedly this epistle refers to the trials of life and the need to endure them in a matter that brings glory to Christ and which also develops one's Christian character (cf. 1 Peter 1:6-7; 2:12, 19-20; 3:14-18; 4:12-13)

Look again at 1 Peter 3:15. Notice that before one gives a defense, he is to sanctify the Lord in his heart. To sanctify the Lord in one's heart is to set Him apart as someone special, to reverence Him as Lord of all of life, to look to Him as one's hope and stay. Doing that will produce the life that inspires the apologetic moment. It will also enable one to defend the faith with meekness and fear. Setting apart Jesus as Lord not only inspires the apologetic moment but also enables the apologetic manner.

THE APOLOGETIC MANNER

Again, we put so much emphasis on the correct apologetic method that we forget the importance of the apologetic manner. And dare I say it? Our apologetic manner can speak louder than our apologetic method. We can be precise and pure in our method, and yet the harshness and the arrogance of our manner can overpower and drown out our technically correct message. Who can hear the delicate tune of our reasoned message when it is drowned out by the discordant blare of aroused emotions?

Let's say that one man is an evidentialist who argues for the faith with a gentle and loving spirit, and another man is a presuppositionalist who argues for the faith with an arrogant and harsh spirit. Which of these two does the most good? Which of these two does the most harm? I would say that there is no way to know as a general rule. We would have to evaluate each specific case, but the presuppositionalist with the immature manner will in some cases be the one who does the least good and the most harm.

For over five years, my wife worked in the libraries of two different seminaries. She often had to tell seminary students that their library books were overdue and that they owed a fine. She learned rather quickly that being advanced in doctrinal knowledge and precision is no guarantee that a person is emotionally mature.

"And though I understand all mysteries and all knowledge, but have

not love, I am nothing."

The apologetic manner is important. What we say is important, but so is how we say it. 1 Peter 3:15 says that we are to give our reasons with meekness and fear. This is the proper apologetic manner.

MEEKNESS

We tend to misunderstand what it means to be meek as the Bible uses that word. J. Upton Dickson founded a group called DOORMATS. That stands for "Dependent Organization Of Really Meek And Timid Souls." Their motto was: "The meek shall inherit the earth -- if that's okay with everybody." Their symbol was the yellow traffic light, whose message is, Slow down and prepare to yield the right of way to others. 4

That's not what the Bible is talking about when it speaks of meekness. The biblical concept of meekness does not imply softness or weakness. It does not mean wimpy. We know this because of whom the Bible sets before us as the premiere examples of meekness. The Old Testament model of meekness is Moses (Numbers 12:3), and the New Testament example is Jesus (Matthew 11:29). Whatever Biblical meekness is, it is not being a doormat. All we have to do to know this is to think of Moses confronting Pharaoh or to think of Jesus with a scourge of cords driving the moneychangers out of the temple.

The root of Biblical meekness is a total dedication to doing the will of God, out of which grows both gentleness and strength. We see meekness in the life of Moses. Though Moses was raised as a prince in Egypt, he chose to identify with God's people in spite of their low position as persecuted slaves. In submission to God's will for his life, he left his luxurious station in Egypt and endured forty years of obscurity as a shepherd in the wilderness. After his encounter with Jehovah God at the burning bush, Moses obediently returned to Egypt to confront Pharaoh, the most powerful man on earth, not with military might but in the power of the living God. When the redeemed masses of Israel lacked faith to enter the Promised Land, Moses continued as their leader and wandered with them in the wilderness. Moses finally submitted without complaint to God's judgment upon him that he could see the Promised Land from a distance but not enter it himself. Here we see a selfless submission to the divine will which resulted in a forceful boldness when confronting God's enemies combined with a patient gentleness when shepherding God's people. Moses stands out as an example of meekness under the old covenant.

We see meekness even more clearly in the life of Jesus. Moses left the treasures of Egypt, but God the Son gave up the riches of heaven. "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich" (2 Corinthians 8:9). "... [A]lthough He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" (Philippians 2:5-8, NAS).

Again, the root of meekness is a total dedication and submission to the will of the Father. The climax of Jesus's submission was His willingness to experience the shameful and painful death of the cross in obedience to the will of His Father. At Gethsemane, He prayed "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will." The writer of Hebrews comments on this prayer, stating that Jesus "offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear" (Hebrews 5:7). God the Father answered Jesus' prayer for salvation from the death of the cross but not by enabling Him somehow to escape the ordeal as He had requested. The Father's answer to the prayer of Gethsemane was Jesus' resurrection from the dead on the third day. Jesus humbly submitted to the will of the Father in this matter, selflessly putting aside His personal desire. Jesus "endured the cross, despising the shame," for the joy of victory which was set before Him (Hebrews 12:2). He was like an athlete who endures the agony of competition for the sake of the anticipated joy of victory. Jesus' anticipated joy was the completion of the work of redemption which would result in our salvation and the Father's glory. This is meekness.

This meekness produces a gentle spirit. Isaiah prophesied concerning the Messiah, "A bruised reed He will not break, and smoking flax He will not quench" (Isaiah 42:3). The bruised reed is close to being broken, and the smoking flax is close to being extinguished. These represent the broken and downtrodden masses who are easily overcome by brute force. Yet Jesus in compassion healed their diseases even while their leaders plotted His death (Matthew 12:14-21). The Son of Man exercises His authority not by forcing others to serve Him but by serving others even to the point of giving His life a ransom for many (Mark 10:42-45).

There is a good example of Jesus' gentle patience near the end of His earthly ministry. When Jesus had "steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem," a Samaritan village refused to receive Him during His journey. James and John suggested to Jesus, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?" Jesus responded, "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them." They then went to another village (Luke 9:51-56). Here is gentleness rooted in a singleminded dedication to the will of the Father. Here is gentleness rooted in a sense of mission.

This is the sort of meekness which makes the difference between a wild stallion and a trained war horse. Both are strong, but the war horse is dedicated to doing the will of his master. The war horse will selflessly charge into the line of battle at his master's command, and the war horse will calmly ignore any challenge apart from his master's command. Meekness is this gentleness rooted in a devotion to God's cause and a confidence in God's strength.

How will this meekness affect our apologetic manner? It will eliminate any defensiveness, any proud concern about our winning the argument, any protective sensitivity about our reputation. It will give us patience. It will enable us to ignore personal affronts. It will enable us to maintain a quiet dignity. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that the meek will inherit the earth. The meek will also prevail in defending the faith. The meek are those who care the least about obtaining any personal honor and acclaim, and they are also those most likely to win the apologetic victory.

FEAR

The other component in the proper apologetic manner is fear. Fear can refer to a respect of our fellow man as a creature created in the image of God. The Christian's respectful attitude, however, goes beyond the image bearer to the Creator Himself. The fear of God is the beginning of all true wisdom.

I have just finished reading through C. S. Lewis' Narnia series with my family. Here is an interchange from The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, the first in the series, which illustrates a proper reverence toward God and Christ:

"Is - is he a man?" asked Lucy.

"Aslan a man!" said Mr. Beaver sternly. "Certainly not. I tell you

he is the King of the wood and the son of the great Emperor-Beyond-

the- Sea. Don't you know who is the King of Beasts? Aslan is a lion

- THE Lion, the great Lion."

"Ooh! said Susan, "I'd thought he was a man. Is he - quite safe? I

shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion."

"That you will, dearie, and no mistake," said Mrs. Beaver, "if

there's anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees

knocking, they're either braver than most or else just silly."

"Then he isn't safe?" said Lucy.

"Safe?" said Mr. Beaver. "Don't you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells

you? Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's

good. He's the King, I tell you."

"I'm longing to see him," said Peter, "even if I do feel frightened

when it comes to the point." 5

And here is a quotation from another book in the series, Prince Caspian:

"Hush!" said the other four, for now Aslan had stopped and turned

and stood facing them, looking so majestic that they felt as glad as

anyone can who feels afraid, and as afraid as anyone can who feels

glad. 6

A fear of God will have two effects upon the apologist. First, when he defends the faith, he will treat the issue with a respectful seriousness. He will remember that the apologetic contest is not an intellectual game. It is a very serious matter. It is spiritual warfare. The eternal destinies of people are at stake.

Secondly, the fear of God imparts a gentle boldness. Men with a vision of God can speak with confidence before emperors. They are not overwhelmed by outward trappings of power or by diplomas and titles and respect or even by threats to their own safety or prosperity.

I am reminded of the bold fearlessness of Elijah at Mt. Carmel when he mocked the priests of Baal. Baal was the storm god, and his statues often modeled him with a thunderbolt in his hand. Yet this god Baal was not able to light a fire on an altar. As Baal's priests cried out to him to light the fire, we read in 1 Kings 18:27 that Elijah mocked them,

"Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is meditating, or he is busy,

or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be

awakened."

According to the notes in the New Geneva Study Bible, the word busy here is probably a euphemism for a trip to what the British call the necessary room. There is a place for bold fearlessness in apologetics.

I am also reminded of the martyrdom of Polycarp as recorded by Eusebius. In the arena at Smyrna, the Roman proconsul tried to persuade Polycarp to deny Christ and to swear by the genius of Caesar. There Polycarp gave his famous reply:

"You threaten with fire that burns for a time, and is quickly

quenched, for you do not know the fire which awaits the wicked in the

judgment to come and in everlasting punishment. But why are you

waiting? Come, do what you will."7

The beast can order as many as will not worship his image to be killed, but the angel of God cries out, "If anyone worships the beast, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation." (Revelation 13:15; 14:9-10).

The man who fears God fears no man. The man who sees a vision of the Lord upon His throne in all His splendor cries out, Here I am! Lord, send me! 2 Corinthians 5:11 says, "Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men" (NIV).

Does apologetics sometimes degenerate into an argument, into an intellectual contest, into a matter of pride and a question of who's right? That will not happen if we have the correct apologetic manner. In Revelation 5, we read that the apostle John heard the words "Behold, the Lion." John looked and saw "a Lamb as though it had been slain." The Christian apologist is to have the humble gentleness and the servant's heart of the sacrificial lamb, and yet the Christian apologist is also to have the bold fearlessness of a lion. We certainly see both in the life and ministry of our Lord. We are to follow His example by giving our reasoned defense with meekness and fear.

THE APOLOGETIC METHOD

The correct apologetic method is what we normally think about when we think about apologetics. Yet I have put the apologetic method third after the apologetic moment and the apologetic manner. The Christ-like life is what gets the world's attention so that someone asks for a reason for the Christian's hope. The Christ-like manner as expressed by the words meekness and fear is what keeps the world's attention as the Christian defends the faith. What one says, the apologetic method one uses, is also of great importance. Our discussing the apologetic method last is not meant to downplay its importance.

First, we must think through our apologetic method and message ahead of time so we will be ready to give a defense. The main problem today with the typical effort to defend the faith is a lack of knowledge. Christians today have a shallow understanding of the Bible and its teachings. One can't really defend what one is unfamiliar with. One can't really defend what one doesn't understand. Getting to know the Bible is, of course, a life long process. One has to prepare.

Second, one must be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks for a reason for the hope that is within him. Now what does that mean? Notice the three words, defense, reason, and hope. Defense refers to one's apologetic; reason refers to the rational, logical use of human intelligence; and hope refers to the essence of what one believes, to faith as it looks to the future and sustains one in the present. The key question is this: in one's apologetic defense, what is the relationship between reason and faith? The answer to this question will determine one's apologetic method.

Now consider carefully the wording of 1 Peter 3:15:

"Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason

for the hope that is in you."

Notice that the apologetic defense involves both reason and hope, and thus reason and faith because faith is implicit in the concept of hope. Notice secondly that the reasoning is done in the context of hope or faith. The reason explains and confirms the faith which already existed prior to the explanation and confirmation. This use of a reasoned defense in the context of faith, is the basic methodology of presuppositional apologetics. The presuppositionalist uses reason in the defense of the faith without abandoning his hope in the Christ of the Bible in the process.

FIDEISM

Now notice what Peter did not say. To use a play on Paul's words in Philippians 4, Peter did not say:

"Bear witness to the hope of God which, transcending all

understanding, guards your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus."

If Peter had said that, he would have been advocating fideism, which is an apologetic with faith divorced from reason. Our apologetic would be reduced to a bold assertion. Our assurance would be based solely on a deep inner encounter with God which does not involve the mind. Our faith would be a leap into the dark which we cannot rationally explain, much less defend.

One tends to associate this sort of apologetic with cults that define true religion as an ecstatic emotional encounter. Such cults sometimes defend this position by arguing for a strong dichotomy between mind and spirit. The mental process is defined as a function of the soul, and we are admonished to be spiritual and to reject all soulish religion. Therefore there is no place for logical reasoning in our apologetic.

One also associates this sort of apologetic with neo-orthodoxy. Karl Barth believed that apologetics is an illegitimate pursuit. Neo-orthodoxy teaches that God is transcendent or wholly other in the sense that He cannot communicate to us in a manner we can comprehend with our minds. Thus the Bible is not the Word of God. The Bible contains the word of God in that when we read the Bible, God can communicate to us through a spiritual encounter deep within our being, a spiritual encounter which does not directly involve the mind. Thus, to use the language of neo-orthodoxy, God is wholly revealed to us in terms of an irrational encounter but He simultaneously remains totally hidden from us in terms of our mental comprehension.

RATIONALISTIC EVIDENTIALISM

Also, to use a play on Paul's words in Ephesians 2, Peter did not say:

"Use the world's reason, which has no hope and is without God, to

establish and prove your hope in God and Christ.

If Peter had said that, he would have been advocating rationalistic evidentialism. This viewpoint says to the pagan inquirer,

"I want to reason as you reason so that you will accept my reasoning.

I don't want to argue in a circle and beg the question by assuming

what I am trying to prove. Therefore, I will set aside for the

moment my belief in God, my belief in Christ, my belief in the Bible

as a divinely inspired book. I am going to set aside my faith in

everything but my faith in my own ability to reason, and then I will

use that ability to prove my faith in God, Christ and the Bible."

This viewpoint advocates autonomous human reason as a foundation for faith. This viewpoint makes faith in human reason more foundational than faith in God and His Word. 1 Peter 3:15 begins by saying, "Sanctify the Lord in your hearts." From the very beginning of our apologetic, we must set Jesus apart as the Lord of our thoughts; we certainly must not set Him aside as epistemologically irrelevant in our quest for common ground with the nonbeliever.

CONCLUSION

Presuppositionalism incorporates the strengths of both fideism and evidentialism while avoiding their weaknesses.

Like fideism, presuppositionalism recognizes that God is incomprehensible. One cannot fit God within the confines of the human cranium. We may not be able to fully understand the trinity or creatio ex nihilo or divine sovereignty, but that does not mean that they are not true.

Like evidentialism, presuppositionalism recognizes that God is knowable. God's communion with us is not limited to the emotional. God has revealed truth about Himself that can be intellectually digested and rationally understood.

Like fideism, presuppositionalism recognizes that God's Word is the most ultimate authority. One can't elevate human reasoning as a self- authenticating final authority and then use it to authorize Scripture as a legitimate and genuine authority.

Yet, like evidentialism, presuppositionalism acknowledges a place for human reasoning in apologetics. Human reasoning can confirm and bolster and strengthen our faith in the Bible as life's self-authenticating and final authority. Reason is a mental tool, an intellectual facility which God has given us to use. We can use it profitably in submission to God's Word. The Bible commands us to bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ and to love the Lord God with all our mind.

Like fideism, the presuppositionalist recognizes that the gospel in the power of the Spirit is more powerful than human logic. Spurgeon put it this way:

"Suppose a number of persons were to take it into their heads that

they had to defend a lion. There he is in the cage, and here come

all the soldiers of the army to fight for him. Well, I should

suggest to them that they should kindly step back, open the door, and

let the lion out! I believe that would be the best way of defending

him. And the best 'apology' for the gospel is to let the gospel out.

... Preach Jesus Christ and him crucified. The Lion of the tribe of

Judah will soon drive away all his adversaries."8

Yet, like evidentialism, presuppositionalism recognizes that we have a responsibility to try to persuade people of the truth of Christianity. God has given weak and fragile humans the honor and privilege of bringing His message of grace to the world. "... [W]e have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us" (2 Corinthians 4:7). In Acts 10, God sent an angel to visit the Roman centurian Cornelius to instruct him to meet with the apostle Peter, and God gave a divine vision to Peter to prepare him to meet with Cornelius. God chose to use both the angel and the vision, not to communicate the gospel message to Cornelius, but to enable and facilitate Peter's sharing the good news with Cornelius.9 God has chosen to work through human agents in proclaiming the gospel, including their skills of persuasion.

Man was created in God's image, and that image testifies deep within the heart of man that the Gospel is true. Like fideism, presuppositionalism recognizes that that image is not limited to the intellect. There are voices deep within the heart of man which cry out that the message of the Bible is true. The intellect is not the only witness to God's truth which fallen man has to suppress.

Yet, like evidentialism, presuppositionalism recognizes that the image of God within man includes the intellect. Jesus is to be Lord of the mind. Peter says "gird up the loins of your mind" (1 Peter 1:13). Paul says, "bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:4- 5). We are to love God with all our heart, all our soul, all our strength, all our mind. Christianity is not a mindless religion.

THE PLATINUM ROD

Allow me to close with an analogy. W. A. Criswell, in his book The Bible for Today's World, wrote,

"Washington, D. C., is the home of The Bureau of Standards. Every

weight and every measure that is used in the United States is a copy

of the standard that is kept inviolate by the Bureau in Washington.

In that Bureau there is a perfect inch, a perfect foot, a perfect

yard, a perfect gallon, a perfect pint, a perfect millimeter, a

perfect milligram. Every weight and measure that we have finds its

standard in that Bureau in Washington, and all are judged by that

standard."10

Let's say that in the Bureau of Standards in Washington, D.C., there is a platinum rod that defines the length of the yard. How do we know that that platinum rod is really one yard long? Should we all get out our wooden yardsticks and measure it just to make sure? No, that would be senseless. Doing that would test not the rod but our yardsticks because that platinum rod defines exactly how long a yard is. That rod is the standard by which we measure all our yardsticks, and no yardstick can sit in judgment over it.

The evidentialist is like a person who insists that his wooden yardstick proves that the platinum rod is one yard long. He treats his wooden yardstick as if it were the national standard and the definitive measure.

The fideist is like the person who burns all his wooden yardsticks. He says that the platinum rod is all he needs. Who needs a wooden yardstick?

The presuppositionalist agrees with the fideist that the platinum rod, not a wooden yardstick, is the final and definitive measure of the yard. Yet the presuppositionalist agrees with the evidentialist that wooden yardsticks are important and have their use. After all, the wooden yardsticks are modeled after the platinum rod, and that is why they are reliable measures. Our experience of their reliability in measurement confirms our faith in the platinum rod. That's because the platinum rod was the standard by which all the wooden yardsticks were manufactured.

The presuppositionalist is the one who believes both in the final authority of the platinum rod and in the use of wooden yardsticks. Presuppositionalism incorporates the strengths of both fideism and evidentialism while avoiding their weaknesses.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOOTNOTES

1. William Edgar, Reasons of the Heart (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book

House, 1996), 60.

2. J. I. Packer, Rediscovering Holiness (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Servant

Publications, 1992), 240.

3. Craig Brian Larson, editor, Illustrations for Preaching & Teaching from

Leadership Journal (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), 22.

4. taken from the INFOsearch illustration collection, P.O. Box 11749,

Arlington, TX 76003, 817-468-0074.

5. C. S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (New York: MacMillan

Publishing Company, 1950), 75-76.

6. C. S. Lewis, Prince Caspian (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company,

1951), 148.

7. W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of

a Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus (Grand Rapids: Baker Book

House, 1965), 271.

8. Tom Carter, compiler, 2200 Quotations from the Writings of Charles H.

Spurgeon (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1988), 13; see page 256 of

volume 42 of Spurgeon's sermons in their original printed form.

9. William Edgar, Reasons of the Heart, 39.

10. taken from the INFOsearch illustration collection, P.O. Box 11749,

Arlington, TX 76003, 817-468-0074.

For more information about the apologetics conference, email T. E. Mike

Chastain at DeoRex@aol.com.

These lectures are available from Southern Presbyterian Press, the publishing arm of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. For more information, email Mr. Andy Wortman at awortman@carol.net.

*

[NOTE: The “GB” references are to specific pages that document this in the book, THUS SAITH JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES.]

___________

“The Gentle Touch In Soul Winning” is made up of several elements. The first element is to be constantly in prayer that the Lord will bring into your path the person of His choosing. Be alert to what is going on around you so opportunities can be identified. Does the person speak philosophically? Join in and pose the question, “If a man die, shall he live again?” for example. Go fishing, find a point of interest. Always be asking this question, “I wonder if this person knows Jesus Christ?”

The second element is to ask questions of the person to whom you are talking.

THE KEY QUESTION

As the conversation continues and you enter the spiritual realm look for a place to ask this question. “According to your understanding of the Christian religion what was the purpose of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross?”

This the KEY question. Fail to ask it and the method won’t function. What it does is to focus on the death of Christ, on his/her understanding of it, you go to the heart of the issue.

You will usually get an answer something like this,

“Well, my understanding is that Christ died for the sins of the world.”

Your answer: “I’ve asked a lot of people that question and your answer is one of the best I’ve heard. What I’d like to do is prove to you that you are right.” Then ask, “Could I take a minute and show you something that has been a big help to a lot of people?” I’ve never had a person say no.

DID YOU KNOW YOUR NAME IS IN THE BIBLE?

At this point you pull out your New Testament and open to 1st Peter. If the person is Catholic you can ask if they’ve ever read the letters that Peter wrote? Peter is big stuff with them, but in 100% of the cases, you will find they have not read his letters. 1 Peter chapter 2 verse 21 is where you start. You show that the subject matter of the section is Jesus Christ, but that you will be looking more at verse 24 than this one. When you come to vs. 24 you can ask this question. “By the way, did you know your name was in the Bible?” “Oh no, no way can that be! Let me see it.” Then you show them the “our” and ask whether since Peter wrote the book, that would include Peter, you and me. “Well, OK,” and that is always a brand new thought.

WHERE ARE YOUR SINS?

“Let’s read together the 24th verse.” Read the first phrase and then pose the question, “According to this verse, are your sins on you or are they on Christ?” You will get a variety of answers here but the key is that they are admitting that they are sinners. They might say, “How can they be on Christ, I did them,” or variations of this. “OK, let’s try it once more and you read it to me with your name in it.” Using the name is optional, depending on how intently the person is following things. “What does it say, are they on you or on Christ?”

At this point you will be very likely to get what I call the “Round the World Orbit.” He/she tells you about his great-grand daddy who was a circuit riding preacher. And then there was his mother, bless her memory, who really was into church. And it goes on and on. Sometimes it is short and sometimes long, the longest for me ran about 45 minutes, but that was an extreme case.

I DON’T THINK YOU UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION.

By and by the person runs out of steam. He has told his story, you have grunted sympathetically all the way through his monologue, having made NO COMMENTS at any time.

Your feet are tired, but the thing is getting close. When he winds down you jump in and tell him what it meant for him to lay his soul bare like that. “You have told me things about yourself that you might not have told anyone else, and I really appreciate it.”

What do you say about what he has said? Nothing. You don’t take up any points he has raised, dispute nothing, ignore it all. The man has had his say and a sympathetic person was there to really listen, that is enough. You are his friend for life. So you say it this way. “That was just terrific, but I don’t think you understood the question.”

QUOTE HIM EXACTLY.

Occasionally I find it helpful to break in at this point, look at my watch, and remark that I am really running out of time. You would be amazed at the way they want to continue. I’ve had them actually grab me and say, “Let’s finish this. What was the question?” and you go back to the beginning and tell him what he said when you asked what his understanding of the purpose of the death of Christ on the cross was. And you quote him exactly. Nothing cements the thing more than to be quoted with approval by you, who is getting more and more interesting to him. “You said this and we looked at what Peter wrote and the question was: According to this verse are your sins on you or on Christ?¹ That was the question and lets try it again.” You go through it once more and this time you get a very small orbit, might be one minute’s worth. You ignore it, never even acknowledge what was said, and go over the verse once again.

TAKE A DIFFERENT TACK.

“Let’s try it one more time.” This time you take a slightly different tack. Have the person read the verse with his name in it, then ask, “According to the Bible, where are your sins?” When they give the answer that the Bible says their sins are on Christ, then ask “According to you, where are your sins?”

(This is the moment of truth.)

MY SINS REALLY ARE ON CHRIST!

Suddenly it hits a person that, “Hey, this is true, my sins really ARE on Christ!” Some laugh at how simple it all is and they missed it for so long. Others weep but when the truth of the location of that person’s sins hits them, they have already trusted Christ and you have a new Christian on your hands.

After they see that their sins are on Christ, ask them, “Well, where are your sins right now?” They will say, “On Christ.” And you ask, “How do you know?” At this point they will usually take the Bible from you, point to the verse and say, “It says so right here!” I then ask if that is all the proof they have, and they will apprehensively say that it is, wondering what comes next. I tell them that they are correct, it is all the proof they have, or ever will have and it is enough. The Bible settles it.

Then I ask if they ever pray. Whatever the answer, show them 1 John 1:9 and explain how we acknowledge to God that we have sinned, but now that they are put away, we can also thank God for forgiving them. “Can you do that when you get home?”

It is thrilling to watch them grow, what a joy.

________

How to use this method to win souls:

Memorize the questions that are italicized and use them as the Holy Spirit leads to move the conversation along. Do not spend time telling people what you believe, just ask questions and listen carefully to the answers.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #4553]

Christians need to have an understanding of basic Christian apologetics in order to successfully dialogue with a lost postmodern world and ready their minds to hear the Gospel, Norman Geisler said in a chapel message at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina.

Geisler, a leading evangelical apologist and president of Southern Evangelical Seminary, pointed out that the entire evangelistic technique employed by many Christians today is predicated on the belief that God does exist, a notion many postmodernists may not be willing to embrace.

Therefore, Geisler said, pointing to the Apostle Paul's defense of the faith at Mars Hill in Acts 17 as an example, Christians must be able and willing to reason with the lost, “casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.”

“If a person doesn't believe in God,” Geisler said, demonstrating the evangelical imperative behind his apologetics, “they cannot believe in the Son of God. You cannot separate apologetics from evangelism.”

Given the context in which the church finds itself today, he said it is increasingly important that Christians argue for the existence of God and absolute truth, a belief that has fallen out of fashion to many today.

“Every pastor must be an apologist,” Geisler said. “If you speak the truth of the Gospel and they don't even believe in [the concept of] truth, what good does it do you?

“Every system of unbelief has a self-defeating argument,” Geisler said, referring specifically to the claim that absolute truth does not exist, which is itself a truth claim. “You can't deny truth without affirming truth. Anyone who denies it affirms it.”

Next, Geisler challenged the notion of religious pluralism, which would have all religions be tolerated equally as reliable paths to truth.

“Opposites can't be true,” he said, using the examples of Christianity and Islam, which denies the divinity of Christ. “Somebody's wrong; we can't both be right. We believe the heart of the Gospel is that Jesus died and rose from the dead. Somebody's got to be wrong."

“Truth is narrow,” he continued. “Even a pluralist who says pluralism is true is excluding all non-pluralists. Don't be ashamed to say, 'Jesus said, 'I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.'“

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #25719]

"Unfortunately the average Christian is about as well prepared

to confront an atheist or cult member as they are prepared to do

battle with a group of terrorists equipped with machine guns."

- Bill Gordon

To understand Easter you need to understand the identity of Christ, said apologist and evangelist Frank Harber.

"If Jesus wasn't God, he should have won an Oscar," Harber said, referring to individuals who claim that Jesus wasn't the Son of God. "Jesus Christ did an incredible job. He lived as no man ever lived. He talked as no man ever talked. He did things that no human being could possibly ever do."

Harber, a former atheist, is president of the Institute for Christian Defense and is notable for his effectiveness in apologetic presentations. He is the author of "Reasons for Believing: A Seeker's Guide to Christianity," as well as a co-creator of "got life?", an apologetics-based evangelism strategy. Harber was personally invited by evangelist Billy Graham to speak at Amsterdam 2000 on the subject "The Evangelist and Apologetics."

"I believe a person does not have to check their brains at the door to become a Christian," Harber said. "You do not have to commit intellectual suicide."

Rather, Harber noted, "I believe becoming a Christian is one of the most reasonable, intelligent decisions you can make."

Harber abandoned his atheism at the age of 21 and became a Christian. Since then, he has "dedicated my life to helping people not only know how to become a Christian but why they should become a Christian."

Taking his message text from Acts 2:24, Harber spoke of the miracles of Jesus, arguing that the most significant thing Jesus ever did was to rise from the dead.

"The resurrection is the engine that fuels the gospel rocket," he said. "If you can prove that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then you can prove that Christianity is not the truth. But if Jesus did rise again from the dead, then he is the hope for mankind."

Yet to understand the resurrection, Harber said individuals must understand the identity of Jesus Christ.

"Once you understand that Jesus Christ is God, you can but not understand how he could but not come back from the dead," he said. "Jesus Christ had to come back from the dead because Jesus Christ is God."

Referencing Jesus' miracles, Harber said, "No one ever disputed the fact that Jesus could do miracles. Jesus did incredible miracles to demonstrate that he was who he said he was."

It wasn't until the second century that people began to attack the veracity of the miracles including the resurrection and the virgin birth.

"The virgin birth ensures the sinless nature of Jesus Christ," Harber said. "Jesus didn't just claim to be your Savior. He claimed to be your sinless Savior.

"You have to choose a Savior not based on preference but on what that Savior can do for us," he said. "I would never tell anyone to become a Christian because it was easy. I would tell them to follow Christianity because it is the truth."

__________________

Harber is pastor of the First Baptist Church of Colleyville, Texas, and delivered his remarks at a special Easter chapel service.

*

The latest book by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, “THE GOD DELUSION,” is an attempt to shore up the faith of atheists, Oxford theologian Alister McGrath said at a meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

“I believe Dawkins’ book was really written to persuade atheists that their faith is still valid,” McGrath, professor of historical theology and senior research fellow at Oxford University’s Harris Manchester College, said Feb. 23, 2007.

Dawkins, whose other well-known writings include “The Selfish Gene” and “The Blind Watchmaker,” promotes an evolutionary view of nature that excludes any notion of God. McGrath said Dawkins’ work has become increasingly crusading and anti-religious.

McGrath read a portion of THE GOD DELUSION in which Dawkins says he hopes “religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.”

“Dawkins’ assertion that science disproves God is not right. The evidence isn’t there and his argument is weak,” said McGrath, who holds doctorates in molecular biophysics and Christian theology.

A former atheist, McGrath has written extensively on the subjects of theology and science and on atheism grounded in the natural sciences. McGrath’s response to Dawkins, titled “The Dawkins Delusion: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine,” soon will be released in the United States.

McGrath said Dawkins attempts to build a case on five points: belief in God is irrational; science disproves God; faith can be explained on scientific grounds; religion gives an impoverished view of the universe; and belief in God leads to violence.

Dawkins dismisses belief in God as infantile and akin to believing in the tooth fairy, but McGrath noted that people do not begin believing in the tooth fairy in adulthood whereas many people have come to faith in God as adults.

Atheism and theism are both faiths and neither can prove their position with 100 percent certainty through the natural sciences, McGrath said. Science does not necessitate atheism or theism, and the question of God’s existence must be resolved through other means, he said.

McGrath cited the late C.S. Lewis, a renowned apologist who pondered which worldview makes the most sense of what can be observed and experienced in the world.

“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else,” Lewis wrote in “The Weight of Glory.”

Dawkins’ claim that science proves there is no God is implausible in light of the significant number of Christian scientists, McGrath said, adding that even Dawkins admits Darwinian evolution is subject to revision as new facts come to light. This shows the provisional nature of scientific knowledge, McGrath said.

“If the sciences are inferential in their methodology and hence provisional in their conclusions, how can Dawkins present atheism as the certain outcome of the scientific project?” McGrath asked.

To Dawkins, belief in God is a projection of human longings and a type of wish-fulfillment, McGrath said. Such an argument works against atheism as well, he added, since an atheist wishes there is no God and therefore believes there is no God.

Dawkins concludes that belief in God is caused by “a virus of the mind,” McGrath said. With no observational evidence for mind viruses, McGrath countered that atheism also could be attributed to a virus of the mind.

“Dawkins ends up making the totally subjective, unscientific argument that his own beliefs are not viruses, but those he dislikes are,” McGrath said.

Rather than the puny, medieval universe Dawkins claims Christians embrace, McGrath said Christians see a majestic creation pointing to a majestic Creator. Christians can appreciate both the beauty of the earth and the mathematical models that describe it, McGrath said.

As a native of Northern Ireland, McGrath acknowledged the violence carried out in God’s name but also pointed to the crimes against humanity committed by the atheist Joseph Stalin. Violence is not a religious issue but a human nature issue and shows the need for redemption and transformation, McGrath said.

“As Christians, we can respond with confidence to THE GOD DELUSION that Dawkins’ arguments are weak, unsupported by evidence, and tell us more about the condition of present-day atheism than about faith in God,” McGrath said.

*

[Original illustration at this number was moved to HolwickID #26625]

Voltaire is reported to have said, "If a miracle occurred in the

market place of Paris and in the presence of two thousand men, I would

rather disbelieve my own eyes than the two thousand."

Facts alone, irrespective of how well they are presented, will

never bring a man to Christ.

My Source:

STANDING IN THE GAP

Nesbit, MS

September 12, 1999

Author: David B. Jones

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

SHOULD WE AGGRESSIVELY DEFEND THE WORD OF GOD?

by David B. Jones

Our age is an age characterized by a lack of conviction and a liberal dose of compromise. On every hand we are taught by the liberal media, politicians, and the entertainment world to accept everybody and everything no matter what they believe or practice. This is a result of the humanistic teaching which has slowly, but surely, permeated our land through our school system and into our homes over the television airways. This liberal way of thinking has now made its way deeply into the hearts of the Lord's church in many places. It manifests itself in the form of those who do not believe we ought aggressively and militantly to defend the word of God. In many places the idea of "live and let live" is flown higher on the banner than the inspired word of God.

What are the consequences of such a way of thinking? FIRST, the Lord's church is thought of as nothing more than a denomination among denominations. The advocates of this theory teach the church is a product of our heritage and tradition. They credit Alexander Campbell with its origin. SECOND, a generation has now been reared who believe this nonsense. Consequently, the church in many places has become ignorant of the truth. Their appreciation for the preciious bride of Christ has been lowered to the equivalent of a harlot or mistress. Of course, they do not realize this because they have been fed the lies of Satan in the form of liberal preachers and denominational hirelings. THIRD, the word of God has been replaced with the feelings and subjective thoughts of humans. The standard of God's word has been lowered and the opinions of men have been raised to sit on the throne. FOURTH, faithful congregations who aggressively defend the word of God, have been labeled as "troublemakers," or "legalists." Gospel preachers have been "raked over the coals" because they STAND IN THE GAP and defend God's word. The conclusion to the whole matter is that Satan wins a decisive victory because he has confused the majority who will not study, but who will listen to humans. The masses continue to follow him to a devil's hell and take their innocent young people with them!

What can we do to help these from being separated eternally from God and His glory? The answer is to defend the word of God aggressively and militantly. We will notice some principles which teach us the fact God wants His word defended with all diligence and militance.

GOD HAS ALWAYS DEMANDED

AGGRESSIVENESS FROM HIS

PREACHERS

James writes: "Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience" (Js James 5:10). When we look to the prophets for examples of those who have spoken in the name of the Lord, we see those men who were aggressive in that speaking. Elijah was one example of aggressiveness. When in the presence of the wicked Ahab we hear this exchange, "And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, [Art] thou he that troubleth Israel? 18 And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the LORD, and thou hast followed Baalim" (1 Kgs 18:17-18). Elijah didn't give some wimpy, "wishy-washy" type of answer. He spoke directly and to the point. He laid the blame at the feet of the person who was at blame. The Bible said of Ahab: "And it came to pass, as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he took to wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshipped him. 32 And he reared up an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he had built in Samaria. 33 And Ahab made a grove; and Ahab did more to provoke the LORD God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him" (1 Kgs 16:31-33). In the face of that person, Elijah denied being the trouble-maker, but told who really was. Today we need men who will tell the truth about who causes trouble. Those who advocate liberalism in the church are the ones causing trouble. We need to point that out clearly and convincingly. We do not need to be ashamed and we do not need members who will not support that kind of preaching. Later on Mount Carmel at the confrontation (something many brethren hate), Elijah made this statement: "And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD [be] God, follow him: but if Baal, [then] follow him. And the people answered him not a word" (1 Kgs 18:21). We need to be asking people the same thing. How long will you halt between the truth and error? If God be God follow Him, and if the liberals (Rubel, Max, Jeff, etc.) be "god" then follow them! Elijah went on to show the power of God and we need to do the same today.

Another great prophet who was aggressive was Micaiah. In 1 Kings 1 Kings 22 we are introduced to him as Jehoshaphat attempts to go to war with Ahab against the Syrians. Ahab asked his 400 prophets if he would be successful if he went to war and they said go ahead. Jehosophat realized something about that situation and wanted another opinion. Micaiah was discussed, but Ahab hated him, probably as much as he did Elijah. ISN'T IT A SHAME TO SEE GOSPEL PREACHERS HATED TODAY BECAUSE THEY SPEAK THE TRUTH ALSO!!! Micaiah was summonsed and on the way he was told: "...Behold now, the words of the prophets [declare] good unto the king with one mouth: let thy word, I pray thee, be like the word of one of them, and speak [that which is] good" (1 Kgs 1 Kings 22:13). In other words he was told not to rock the boat, but to go along with everyone else and everybody would be happy. Micaiah's answer was a classic: "And Micaiah said, As the Lord liveth, what the Lord saith unto me, that will I speak" (1 Kgs 1 Kings 22:14). We see the aggressiveness of Micaiah. He would not go along to get along. He spoke as he ought! We need to be like him today and be yet one man for the Lord!

Isaiah was also one who was aggressive when it came to speaking. We read in Isaiah chapter one--"Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. 11 To what purpose [is] the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. 12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? 13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; [it is] iniquity, even the solemn meeting. 14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear [them]. 15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil" (Isaiah 1:10-16). Does not Isaiah sound aggressive? He, of course, spoke and wrote by inspiration, but what does that say about God's attitude? God wanted him to be aggressive when he spoke to God's people.

Another prophet who spoke aggressively was Ezekiel. God warned him about the people to whom he was going--"For [they are] impudent children and stiffhearted. I do send thee unto them; and thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD" (Ezk Ezekiel 2:4). God told Ezekiel to go to His people and to say, "Thus saith the Lord." That kind of preaching is ridiculed and rejected by the many today, but that is the kind of preaching God demands. Later God would tell Ezekiel, "Behold, I have made thy face strong against their faces, and thy forehead strong against their foreheads" (Ezk Ezekiel 3:8). It takes diligence to be aggressive. A sentiment which is common in the book of Ezekiel is expressed in this verse, "And when this cometh to pass, (lo, it will come,) then shall they know that a prophet hath been among them" (Ezk Ezekiel 33:33). God wanted Ezekiel to speak in such a way that they would know a prophet had been in the land. God demands preachers today who will speak in such a way that the people will know the truth has been preached!

We could notice the minor prophets who also were very aggressive. Joel said: "And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for he [is] gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil" (Joel 2:13). We could notice Amos who spoke with candor and clarity: "Woe to them [that are] at ease in Zion, and trust in the mountain of Samaria, [which are] named chief of the nations, to whom the house of Israel came" (Amos 6:1). Obadiah spoke with courage and conviction: "The pride of thine heart hath deceived thee, thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation [is] high; that saith in his heart, Who shall bring me down to the ground? 4 Though thou exalt [thyself] as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the LORD" (Obadiah 1:3-4). Obadiah did not pull any punches and neither should we.

These examples (and multitudes more which we could notice) from the Old Testament show how God expected His prophets to be aggressive as they defended His word. We do not see any compromise in their preaching. They defended the word of God aggressively.

As we look to the New Testament we see more of the same. Paul wrote to Timothy and said: "Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. 4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of [this] life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier" (2 Timothy 2:3-4). We are to be soldiers in the army of God and we are not to be afraid or ashamed! Paul asked for the prayers of the church that he might speak as he ought: "And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak" (Ephesians 6:19-20). There are far too many preachers and elders who pride themselves in NOT speaking boldly. They major in speaking in such a way as to NOT say a thing! If you question what they say, they respond by saying, "You misunderstood me," or "You took me out of context." What they need to do is just open their mouths and speak boldly!

SATAN DEVOURS HIS VICTIMS

BY BEING AGGRESSIVE

Peter warned about our adversary: "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour" (1 Pt 5:8). Satan will use any and everything at his disposal to deceive and devour his victims, but he will be aggressive in it. One needs to remember how aggressive Satan was in dealing with Job. He was relentless and ruthless as he devoured Job's material possessions in one day. He next went after Job's health and did so aggressively. Satan is as relentless and ruthless today and he is also aggressive.

This is why we must be aggressive with truth. We must battle him unless we want to lose. Paul wrote: "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]" (Ephesians 6:12). We are engaged in a spiritual battle with an opponent who is capable of devouring us if we do not use the proper armor. That armor is the truth and we must be aggressive in its proclamation in order to protect ourselves and produce fruit unto God.

SOLDIERS TODAY MUST DETERMINE TO

BE AGGRESSIVE AND MILITANT IN

DEFENSE OF GOD'S TRUTH

Christians today must determine in their hearts and minds to be aggressive in the proclamation of the truth. God demands such from those who would teach and preach. We need once again to speak out against all sin and error. In order to do this, we must remember some things. FIRST, we need to remember it is the word of God which saves: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek" (Romans 1:16). Also, "Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls" (Js Romans 1:21). We can not save ourselves with our own words. We must carry the word of God to the lost if they would be saved.

SECOND, we need to remember what is at stake--the souls of the world. This includes our own souls, the souls of our children and grandchildren, and the souls of families and friends. We do not help those who are closest to us if we "water down" God's message. In fact, we do not even care about them if we do this. We must teach them aggressively so they can come out of the darkness and into the light. It would be the same principle as if they were in a burning house and we saw the house burning and did not rush to them, trying ot get them out. How many of us would do that? NONE!! Why do we not see the urgency to be aggressive with truth because those outside the church are in a position to burn forever!! We must once again come to that realization and act accordingly! May God help us to be aggressive and militant in proclaiming His word!!

We also need to be aggressive in opposing those who teach error and would lead others down their road of destruction. Just as God's prophets and preachers in the past taught aggressively, they also defended aggressively! God demands we be aggressive, Satan devours aggressively, and we must oppose aggressively!

One day in a college class, students were discussing the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas and his teachings about God. One student became noticeably agitated. Finally, he stood up and nervously asked permission to leave.

Later he explained his strange behavior to the professor. "I'm not interested in finding truth," he confessed. "All I care about is what has immediate practical value for me." Searching for truth, on the other hand, just might turn his whole world upside down.

The story reminds us that truth can be scary stuff, and truth about God is the scariest of all. Like the student who left class, some people would actually prefer not to find it. In "How to Stay Christian in College," J. Budziszewski of the University of Texas says even on the college campus -- a place historically devoted to the search for truth -- there's actually a good bit of hiding from the truth.

Once Christian students understand this, they can respond better when their faith is under attack. Consider Pilate's question to Jesus: "What is truth?" Did Pilate really want an answer? Not on your life! He didn't even wait for an answer. The question was just a smokescreen, a cynical slogan to cut Jesus off.

In the university setting today, Christian students often encounter similar smokescreens. Budziszewski tells the story of a conversation between a Christian professor and a student named Tom, who was arguing that morality is relative.

"How do we even know murder is wrong?" Tom asked defiantly.

The professor knew the question was a smokescreen, because the Bible teaches that the moral law is written on the human heart. That means everyone really knows murder is wrong, whether he admits it or not. So the professor asked Tom, "Are you in real doubt about whether murder is wrong?"

Tom was evasive: "Many people might say it was all right."

"But I'm not asking other people," the professor pressed him. "Are you at this moment in any real doubt about murder being wrong?"

There was a long silence. "No," Tom finally admitted. "No, I'm not."

"Good," the professor said. "Then we don't have to waste time asking whether morality is relative. Let's talk about something you really are in doubt about." Tom realized that his smokescreen had been blown away, and he agreed to discuss his real questions about morality and religion. It was a turning point in the conversation -- and perhaps in Tom's life as well.

Many of the ideologies that Christian students encounter in the modern university are smokescreens, set up not to find truth but to hide from truths that threaten people's comfort zones -- and Christians must learn to tell the difference. If Christian kids are going to survive college with their faith intact, they need to learn how to give honest answers to honest questions -- but they also need to know how to blow away smokescreens that only hide the truth.

___________________

Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

For many of us, it's hard to imagine a place less receptive to Christian ideas and the difference that those ideas can make -- both in individuals and the life of a culture -- than Harvard University.

Yet one of the most popular courses at Harvard is about precisely that: the strength of a Christian worldview when measured against the secular alternative.

The course is entitled "Sigmund Freud and C. S. Lewis: Two Contrasting Worldviews" and is taught by my good friend Dr. Armand Nicholi. Nicholi is a professor at the Harvard Medical School, editor of the HARVARD GUIDE TO PSYCHIATRY, and a committed Christian.

In the course, Freud is Nicholi's symbol for the secular worldview that sees traditional ideas about God as "embarrassing" and even infantile. As Nicholi puts it, "Freud remains the spokesman for moral relativism and materialism."

In contrast, he calls C. S. Lewis "one of today's primary spokesmen for absolute truth and religious faith." What makes studying the two together so fruitful, says Nicholi, is that Lewis "responds to Freud" because "Lewis knew Freud's theories." After his conversion, a lot of what Lewis wrote was a direct response to the Freudian worldview he found all around him.

For instance, Freud wrote that religious belief was absurd and a sign of intellectual weakness. Lewis, in contrast, said that "anyone who is honestly trying to [live a life of belief] will soon find his intelligence sharpened." And Lewis can testify to that from his own experience.

Freud wrote that "sexual love [is] the prototype of all happiness . . ." Lewis, on the other hand, wrote that "for any happiness, even in this world, quite a lot of restraint is going to be necessary [and] ... surrender to all of our desires leads to ... everything that is the reverse of health."

This kind of honest comparison, a dialogue between worldviews, is desperately needed on college campuses. Someone who appreciates this need is Ray Hornblower, an opera singer and entrepreneur who took Dr. Nicholi's class in the 1970s.

Hornblower notes that "the two great scandals in this country today [Enron and the Boston Archdiocese] both have Harvard men at their epicenter. When you educate without exposure to moral issues, you get people who are very intelligent but for whom success is everything." Amen.

And Hornblower is far from alone in his assessment. The seminar is so popular that there's only room in the class for one in four of those who sign up. And while you may never enroll in the seminar, you can still benefit from Nicholi's work. That's because the material is now available in Nicholi's outstanding new book, THE QUESTION OF GOD: C. S. LEWIS AND SIGMUND FREUD DEBATE GOD, LOVE, SEX, AND THE MEANING OF LIFE.

What makes the book so compelling -- and a great gift to your friends -- is that Nicholi, though a believer himself, simply compares what Lewis and Freud have to say about life's most important questions. Two men present their views: Freud and his relativism; Lewis and his Christian faith. And that's the best kind of apologetic. Let people come to the truth on the strength of the case made. And in this event, there's no worry, because Lewis makes the better case -- because it is true.

For further information:

Armand M. Nicholi, Jr., THE QUESTION OF GOD: C. S. LEWIS AND SIGMUND FREUD DEBATE GOD, LOVE, SEX, AND THE MEANING OF LIFE (Free Press, 2002).

Armand M. Nicholi, Jr., "When Worldviews Collide," THE REAL ISSUE, January 1998, part one of a speech delivered at Southern Methodist University, 23 September 1997. Part two of the speech appeared in the March 1998 edition of THE REAL ISSUE.

Armand M. Nicholi, Jr., "C. S. Lewis vs. Sigmund Freud on good and evil," AMERICAN ENTERPRISE, March 2002.

Learn more about the HARVARD GUIDE TO PSYCHIATRY here:

Jack Thomas, "Nicholi's Believe It or Not," BOSTON GLOBE, 13 May 2002. (The article is archived and costs $2.50 to retrieve.)

Gina Dalfonzo, "Lewis vs. Freud: On God, Love, Sex, Etc.," BOUNDLESS, 9 May 2002.

David Neff, "The Dour Analyst and the Joyous Christian," CHRISTIANITY TODAY, 19 April 2002.

_________________________

Copyright © 2002 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

"Don't talk to me about the authority of the Bible," one of my neighbors told me flatly. "Now, if other ancient writers could document the life of Jesus, then I might believe it. But you can't expect me to believe a bunch of stories written by his friends."

What this man wanted was corroborating evidence, and I can understand why people ask for that. Most of us, when we hear something unusual, are a bit skeptical. We withhold judgment until the story is confirmed by a source we trust.

In the gospels, we have many eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ. But as former journalist Lee Strobel asks in his book, The Case for Christ, "Are there writings outside the gospels that affirm or support any of the essentials about Jesus?"

For the answer, Strobel went to Edwin Yamauchi, former president of the Institute for Biblical Research. Let's be honest, Strobel told him. Is there really much corroboration of the events in Jesus's life outside the Bible?

Absolutely, Yamauchi replied. "We do have very, very important references to Jesus in Josephus and Tacitus. Josephus was a first-century Jewish historian who, because of his collaboration with the Romans, was hated by his fellow Jews. In the Testimonium Flavianum, Josephus writes of Jesus' life, miracles, death, and resurrection. Josephus wrote, "On the third day [after his crucifixion] he appeared to them restored to life."

As Yamauchi explained, "Josephus corroborates important information about Jesus: that he was the martyred leader of the church in Jerusalem ... who had established a wide and lasting following, despite the fact that he had been crucified."

Tacitus, the most important Roman historian of the first century, was an unsympathetic witness to the spread of Christianity. So, his testimony is especially credible. Tacitus wrote that an "immense multitude" held so strongly to their beliefs that they were willing to die rather than recant.

And the Jewish Talmud, Yamauchi notes, finished in AD 500, also mentions Jesus. Although it calls him a "false messiah," the fact that it mentions him at all is a corroboration of his life in ancient Israel.

Finally, we have the writings of the apostolic fathers," the earliest Christian writers after the New Testament. Among them was Ignatius, who went to his execution claiming that Jesus rose from the dead, and that those who believe in him would be raised, too, Yamauchi said.

Put together the writings of Josephus, the Roman historians, Jewish writings, and the apostolic fathers, "and you've got persuasive evidence that corroborates all the essentials found in the biographies of Jesus." And, he added, "Even if you were to throw away every last copy of the gospels, you'd still have a picture of Jesus that's extremely compelling -- in fact, it's a portrait of the unique Son of God."

In the Information Age, it's hard sometimes to separate truth from falsehood. So it's not surprising that people like my neighbor are skeptical.

We need to make sure people like this understand that there's plenty of corroborating evidence of what the gospels have to say. Evidence that points to the fact that Jesus is exactly who he said he is: the Son of God -- and our Savior.

For further reading:

Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998.

____________________

Copyright (c) 1999 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Holwick - a church member sent this to me. The site is rabidly anti-christian and profane. The writer makes a valid point in that many Christians resort to cliches rather than strong arguments. Of course, atheists have their own cliches...]

Many atheists, myself included, have argued with Christians and Creationists so long, that we've noticed many of them seem to repeat the exact same statements over and over again, particularly with respect to their dismissals of what we have to say. By "dismissals", I mean that they usually end their thread of the conversation with a put-down. For example, first on the list below is "I'll pray for you", which sounds nice, but is often used in the same context as "Well, [forget] you anyway." When most Christians or creationists end their conversation with "I'll pray for you", they are essentially saying "Well, I'm still right, and you're wrong, despite which one of us may be better educated or carried their argument better..."

Below is a list of the most commonly repeated Christian cliches. You will see these statements, or slight variations of them, in nearly every message board and newsgroup that deals with religion versus non-religion. Please use this list to point out the complete lack of originality, or the predictability of Christians in conversations.

______________________________________

The List

THE PATHOS OR "I PITY YOU, FOOL!" GROUP

These statements basically say that the Christian is a superior person who must have pity on all of the poor, lowly unbelievers.

(1) "I'll pray for you."

(2) "Jesus Loves You"

(3) "God Loves You"

(4) "I feel sorry for you."

(5) "Atheists suffer from a mental illness that makes them unable to detect God/Spiritual things."

(6) "Jesus still loves you!"

______________________________________

THE "ATHEISM = RELIGION/FAITH" GROUP

These all boil down to saying that not believing in a religion is the same as believing in one.

(7) "You have to believe in SOMETHING!"

(8) "Everyone worships SOMETHING!"

(9) "It takes a lot more faith to believe in Evolution than it does to believe in God."

(10) "It takes a lot more faith to ignore the evidence of God than it does to believe in him."

(11) "I only wish that my faith in God was as strong as your faith in Atheism/Evolution."

(12) "You may think you're happy, but you can only know TRUE HAPPINESS through Jesus Christ."

______________________________________

THE "YOU'RE STUPID, I'M SMART, SO STOP WASTING MY TIME..." GROUP

In these cliches, the Christian tells you that you're either blind, stupid, ignorant, or willingly deceiving yourself, despite how much better your argument is than theirs.

(13) "You have already made up your mind, and it's a waste of time to try to convince you."

(14) "You have chosen to be blind to the TRUTH!"

(15) "You have closed your heart off to the TRUTH!"

(16) "You have obviously been deceived by the devil."

(17) "I found Jesus. Why can't you?"

(18) "The fool sayeth in his heart that there is no God!"

(19) "You're obviously running away from God!"

(20) "You're obviously hiding from the truth!"

(21) "Though you say you don't believe, deep down inside, you know there is a God!"

______________________________________

THE "GOD'S OBVIOUS TO ME, WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM?" GROUP

This group assumes that all unbelievers have a mental block, or cannot see what it obvious to the believer.

(22) "If there is no God, how do you explain the world we live in?"

(23) "What happened in your life that made you hate God?"

(24) "Of course the Bible sounds like foolishness! Without faith in God, you cannot understand his wisdom!"

(25) "Even though you don't believe it, Jesus/God Loves you!"

(26) "Even though you don't believe it, Jesus/God is REAL!"

______________________________________

THE "YOUR LIFE HAS NO MEANING" GROUP

These statements tell the unbeliever that their life is worthless, pointless, meaningless, or otherwise not worth anything, unless they accept JESUS

(27) "Well, those people were not TRUE Christians..."

(28) "A universe without God is a universe without Hope!"

(29) "Without a God, life is meaningless."

(30) "Christianity is not just the best answer. It is the only answer."

(31) "You have devoted your life to something NEGATIVE (atheism), rather than something POSITIVE (Christianity, of course)."

______________________________________

THE "JUST YOU WAIT..." GROUP

These all basically say that you'll eventually be a believer, when you're old enough, smart enough, have a revelation, etc.

(32) "One day, you will know what THE TRUTH is!

(33) "Some day, God will call you."

(34) "One day you will call to God for help."

(35) "If you simply have faith in him, you will see that God is real."

(36) "I was once like you, a foolish, young, unbeliever..."

(37) "There are no atheists in foxholes..."

______________________________________

THE "THREATS OF HELLFIRE" GROUP

These are all empty, pointless threats that even if you can win the debate, you're going to go to hell, so [forget] you.

(38) "The day will come when you realize the lord is your only salvation."

(39) "It's too bad that you're going to Hell."

(40) "One day you will have to answer to Jesus Christ Himself, and then it won't be so funny when he throws your unrepentant soul into HELL."

(41) "You had better get right with God now before it's too late."

(42) "Hope you have an asbestos suit, 'cause you're going to HELL."

(43) "Hope you enjoy your special place in HELL."

(44) "One day, when you're burning in Hell, you'll remember this conversation, and that I warned you!"

[The first of a six-part series]

1. WHO ARE THE MORMONS?

A. HISTORY.

Mormonism started in 1830 with 24-year-old year old Joseph Smith Jr. According to Smith, he had several experiences, during which God, Jesus, and the angel Moroni gave him instructions. Part of the instructions was to dig up some gold plates buried by the angel Moroni around A.D. 400 on a hill just outside of Smith’s town of Palmyra, New York. Smith dug up the plates, claimed they were written in “Reformed Egyptian,” and that God had given him the ability to translate them. This translation became known as the Book of Mormon, an account of the ancient inhabitants of North America between 600 B.C. and A.D. 400 (see endnote 1).

Mormons have four sources of authority: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has become one of the fastest growing religions in the world. In 1997, Latter-day Saints membership totaled just shy of 10 million worldwide (endnote 2). The church owns many businesses, including Brigham Young University.

B. DOCTRINES.

Mormon beliefs are fundamentally different from biblical Christianity. These have been detailed in other publications (endnote 3). Therefore, it will not be the purpose of this article to spell out the differences in Mormon and Christian doctrine, but rather to answer the question, “Is Mormonism true?” However, a few of the more peculiar Mormon doctrines are mentioned below:

1. God. Once a human as we are now, and progressed to become God. He is one of many Gods.

2. Man. Has the ability to progress and become a god just as Jehovah did.

3. Marriage. Polygamy is no longer advocated, although it once was encouraged.

4. Jesus. The son of God, but not part of the Godhead.

Mormons do not believe in the Trinity (endnote 4).

C. THE PEOPLE.

Mormons are wonderful people who are very sincere about their faith and are very caring. Conversations with Mormon missionaries promise to be cordial. Although Mormon scholars, such as those at Brigham Young University, are well aware of the challenges which face Mormonism, Mormon laity, including Mormon missionaries, are pretty much in the dark and will be surprised when you share the information contained in the first half of this book.

2. WHAT MORMONS TELL YOU WHEN THEY KNOCK ON YOUR DOOR

When Mormons visit you, they usually will not focus on the doctrines previously mentioned. In fact, they probably will not even bring them up during the first few meetings. Instead they will seek to find common ground with you on many of the doctrines Christians believe. For example, they may begin by saying that God revealed the Old Testament through Moses and the Prophets. Then Jesus came, was crucified and resurrected. His disciples wrote books and letters that became the New Testament. We all agree on these facts. Then the differences begin. They will tell you that before Jesus’ ascension into heaven, He appeared to the inhabitants of North America and gave them the Gospel as well. His message and the history of these inhabitants from 600 B.C. to A.D. 400 are recorded in the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, they will tell you that since the apostles were not replaced when they were killed, the Church went into apostasy. In other words, it abandoned the true faith, and consequently, a restoration was necessary. Mormons believe that God chose Joseph Smith to bring that restoration; therefore, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true Church.

3. HOW TO ANSWER MORMONS

Mormons are well equipped to answer many of the issues Christians bring to their attention and have answers adequate to silence the average critic. The Mormon missionaries who come to your door are cordial and will listen to what you have to say. Enjoy the opportunity to share your faith with them, but be prepared by having good answers.

Although there are many issues which you may bring to the Mormons’ attention, focus on four that are of primary importance. These will be the focus of the first half of this book and are:

A. The Bible is reliable.

Mormons claim that the Bible has been corrupted over the years as evidenced by the many different translations. How do we know that the Bible we have today is the same as it was two thousand years ago? In Part 2 we will see that the original words of the Bible have been preserved with remarkable purity and that its accuracy has been confirmed by both history and archaeology. We will also discuss how the variances among English translations do not call into question the preservation of the Bible over the years. Until you have shown this to a Mormon, it is useless to point out that some Mormon doctrines differ from the Bible. They will only respond that the Bible is unreliable. This is our topic in the next part of this series.

B. There is no archaeological confirmation of the Book of Mormon.

While the spade of the archaeologist has confirmed many places and peoples mentioned in the Bible, it has not been at all favorable to the Book of Mormon. Although Mormons will confidently assert that archaeology has confirmed the Book of Mormon’s accuracy time and time again, professional archaeologists have arrived at quite a different conclusion. You will find out more about this problem in Part 3.

C. The Book of Abraham is a fraud.

The Book of Abraham is one of the books in the Pearl of Great Price, one of Mormonism’s scriptures. Joseph Smith purchased some ancient Egyptian papyri and claimed it was an original book penned by Abraham himself while in Egypt. He translated it allegedly by the same gift which God had given him to translate the Book of Mormon. Professional Egyptologists have translated the papyri since their rediscovery in 1967. Their translations bear no resemblance to Smith’s translation, exposing him as a charlatan. You will find out about this subject of which few Mormons are even aware in Part 4.

D. Evidence for Mormonism?

Mormons are convinced that Mormonism is true because of the inward testimony of God that tells them so. If you are going to be effective when talking to Mormons, it is crucial that you address this issue as well. Otherwise, no amount of solid evidence, which testifies against Mormonism, will be of help to them. See that their approach is neither prudent nor biblical. This will be addressed in Part 5.

Part 6 will show you how to communicate these four issues so that you will be able to respond intelligently and effectively to Mormons the next time they knock on your door.

________

Mike Licona is the director of apologetics & interfaith evangelism at the Southern Baptist North American Mission Board.

ENDNOTES

1. It was originally believed that the events described in the Book of Mormon occurred in North America. Most Mormons who come to your door believe this. However, since no archaeological evidence has surfaced, Mormon scholars also consider Central America as a possible setting. However, this theory has serious problems, as we shall see in Chapter 3.

2. TIME, Aug. 4, 1997, p. 52.

3. Jerald and Sandra Tanner. “Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?” (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Mission, 1982). The Tanners are former Mormons who have written many books on Mormonism and have one of the best-known ministries to Mormons. For information, you may order from your bookstore, call Utah Lighthouse Ministry at 801-485-8894 or reach them on the Internet at www.utlm.org. Judy Robertson. “No Regrets” (Indianapolis: Light & Life Communications, 1997). Judy and her husband Jim also are former Mormons. Jim is a former bishop. For information, you may order from your local bookstore, call the author at 602-833-2537 or reach them on the Internet atwww.concernedchristians.org. Henry L. Ropp. “Is Mormonism Christian?”(Joplin: College Press Publishing Company, 1995). These books discuss the doctrines and problems of Mormonism in depth.

4. For a defense of the Trinity, see “What to say to Jehovah’s Witnesses when they knock on your door.”

*

[Original illustration at this number was added to HolwickID #15265]

“For since the creation of the world His invisible [attributes] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify [Him] as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” (Romans 1:20-21 NKJV)

The Heathen World Without Excuse

• invisible…him — Exod 33:20, John 1:18, 6:46, 1 Tim 6:16 — existence, attributes — “Thyself invisible or dimly seen but through Thy works.” (Milton)

• world — Gk., order, arrangement

• seen — “creation the mirror of God”

• understood — inferred reasonable deductions

• things made — Ps 19:1–3 — the visible creation — “The landscape has its praise, but not its Author.” (Cowper)

• Godhead — Divinity, Godlike perfection — “His supreme perfections in essence and action.” (Bengel), “Divinity” (Ellicott), “Divine goodness.” (Tholuck), “Totality of Divine attributes.” (Meyer, De Wette)

• excuse — without apology, or self-defense

• when…God — knew what was knowable of Him, and in this way

• glorified — did not worship and obey

• as God — a personal Being to whom they were individually related

• thankful — attributing to luck, chance, etc., or to their own reason and skill, what they should have traced to God

• vain — 2 Kg 17:15, Eph 4:17-18, John 3:19 — foolish

• imaginations — speculations, conclusions

• foolish — wayward — “Nothing so absurd but has been maintained by a philosopher.” (Cicero)

• heart — understanding, affections

• darkened — with error. Only the wise: “With filial confidence inspired,

Can lift to heaven an unpresumptuous eye, And smiling say, ‘My Father made them all.’”

Gratitude — H. W. Beecher

Has thankfulness to God been in any proportion to the benefits received?

I. Let us look at man’s own organization and inquire in what way he is wont to receive that as a comprehensive and complex gift of God

II. Look at the gifts of God expressed in the human mind and dispostiion

Ill. Consider our social advantages.

IV. Our relations to the gifts of God in nature and in human society.

V. Consider the work of God in providences towards every one of us.

VI. God’s spiritual dealings with us:

1. The gift of Christ;

2 The ministration of angels;

3. The gift of the Holy Ghost;

4. God’s tenderness, and matchless delicacy m dealing with us, taking no advantage of power or position.

The harmony and order of creation — The famous astronomer, Athanasius Kircher, having an acquaintance who denied the existence of the Supreme Being, took the following method to convince him of his error upon his own principles. Expecting him upon a visit, he procured a very handsome globe of the starry heavens, which being placed in a corner of a room in which it could not escape his friend’s observation, the latter seized the first occasion to ask from whence it came, and to whom it belonged. “Not to me,” said Kircher, “nor was it ever made by any person, but came here by mere chance.” “That,” replied his skeptical friend, “is absolutely impossible; you surely jest.” Kircher, however, seriously persisted in his assertion, took occasion to reason with his friend upon his own atheistical principles. “You will not,” said he, “ believe that this small body originated in mere chance; and yet you will contend that those heavenly bodies, of which it is only a faint and diminutive resemblance, came into existence without order and design.” Pursuing this chain of reasoning, his friend was at first confounded, in the next place convinced, and ultimately joined in a cordial acknowledgment of the absurdity of denying the existence of a God

Cosmos — According to the testimony of all the ancients, it was Pythagoras who first used the word Cosmos to designate the order in the universe, and the universe itself; and Humboldt employs the word in this sense, in conformity with the Hellenic usage of the term subsequently to the time of Pythagoras, and in accordance with the precise definition given of it in the treatise entitled Declamolo, which was long erroneously attributed to Aristotle. It is the assemblage of all things in heaven and earth, the universality of created things constituting the perceptible world. Plutarch expressly says that Pythagoras gave the name of Cosmos to the universe on account of the order which reigned throughout it; so likewise does Galen. Plato designates the heavenly bodies by the name of Uranos; but the order pervading the regions of space he too terms the Cosmos. In Aristotle Cosmos signifies, “the universe and the order pervading it,” but divided into the sublunary world, and the world above the moon. Taken in a more limited sense, the word is also used in the plural, either to designate the stars, or the innumerable systems scattered like islands through the immensity of space, and each composed of sun and moon. It was not until long after the Ptolemies that the word was applied to the earth. Humboldt says:- It is by a separation and classification of phenomena, by an intuitive insight into the play of obscure forces, and by animated expressions, in. which the perceptible spectacle is reflected with vivid truthfulness, that we may hope to comprehend and describe the universal all in a manner worthy of the word Cosmos in its signification of universe, order of the world, and adornment of this universal order.” — John Timbs

“Infidelity is the beginning of sin, folly the foundation of infidelity, and the heart is the seat of both.” Bishop Horne

“How calmly may we commit ourselves to the hands of Him who bears up the world — of Him who has created, and who provides for the joys even of insects, as carefully as if He were their father!” — Richter

“A man finds in the productions of Nature an inexhaustible stock of material upon which he can employ himself, without any temptations to envy or malevolence, and has always a certain prospect of discovering new reasons for adoring the sovereign Author of the universe.”

“Those who have obtained the farthest insight into nature have been in all ages firm believers in God.” — Whewell

When several Christians were elected to the school board in Vista, California, a few years ago, national groups immediately swooped down for the kill. The American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way relentlessly attacked the board members as bigots and religious extremists.

What is their crime? Why, the Vista board actually asked schools to teach students the scientific evidence against evolution.

The uproar that ensued highlights the rigid dogmatism with which evolution is treated in the schools today. To question the ruling orthodoxy of Darwinism is dismissed as out of bounds. To go further and suggest that life may be the product of design or purpose is regarded as really outrageous as some oddball invention of the Religious Right.

But design in nature is no recent invention of religious extremists. In fact, it has a long and respectable history. As Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton show in their book The Soul of Science, for nearly three centuries biology was dominated by the Christian concept of creation.

Take, for example, John Ray, in the seventeenth century. Ray is credited with offering the first biological definition of species based not on how organisms look or behave but on reproduction: No matter how much variation an organism may exhibit, it belongs to the same species as its parents.

To modern ears, this sounds obvious. That’s because reproduction the ability to interbreed has become the standard definition of species. But where did it originate? From Genesis 1. John Ray proposed that a species consists of all the descendants of a male- female pair created by God just as the human race consists of all the descendants of the original human pair, Adam and Eve.

Another famous believer in creation was George Cuvier in the nineteenth century. It was said that Cuvier could reconstruct an extinct animal from a single bone. His stunning accomplishments flowed from his conviction that God created each organism as an integrated system with each part adapted to its way of life. So carnivores have claws and sharp teeth for catching prey, while grazing animals have hooves instead of claws, and flat, rough teeth for grinding.

Cuvier was adamantly opposed to any notion of evolution. He argued that since an organism is an integrated system, you cannot create a new organism by random changes. It would be like letting a child randomly move a few wires around in your computer. Obviously, that would be much more likely to destroy the computer than to create a new and better one.

If these arguments sound familiar, it’s because they have been revived in recent years by the design movement. The idea of design is not a recent fabrication by religious zealots. It has a rich and respectable history.

Groups like the ACLU will continue to inflame public fears, warning that any mention of design in the classroom will destroy science. But our response ought to be that for centuries the majority of biologists believed in design in creation and biology survived very well indeed.

As Christians, we desperately need to recover our history and to reclaim our rich heritage in science.

Although storytelling has been around since the days of the real Fred Flintstone, without question this era has to be the busiest time ever for spinners of tales. The public is bombarded by media fables, with today's dream weavers using one allegorical figure after another to solve the riddles and frustrations of life. But have these countless humanist illustrations detracted from the legitimate Gospel? Do today's movie wizards and superheroes trivialize mankind's true Savior?

In his Entertainment Weekly review of the 1997 film “Hercules,” critic Owen Gleiberman wrote, “Hercules, the super strong hero born of Zeus, is a Greek precursor to our own messianic myths -- he's Jesus with Nautilus equipment.” That statement reads matter-of-factly that, according to Mr. Gleiberman, Jesus is a myth. It is a common belief in Hollywood, perhaps brought on by the industry's atmosphere of illusion. So, have we invented Jesus to calm our fears much like the Greek gods were conjured up to explain the stars, the seasons and nature's fury?

“Organized religions in general, in my opinion, are dying forms. They were all very important when we didn't know why the sun moved, why weather changed, or why volcanoes happened. Modern religion is the end trail of mythology,” said Bruce Willis, as quoted in Servant magazine from an interview in George magazine.

There are thousands of fables, legends and folktales embraced by movie magicians in order to interpret the mysteries of the universe. And Bruce Willis is not alone with the erroneous theory that religion is merely a fanciful explanation. Many movie scenarios add to this humanistic assumption. In “Star Trek VI,” for example, a scene has Mr. Spock explaining the meaning of a painting of Adam and Eve fleeing the Garden of Eden. Spock says, “It is a depiction from ancient earth mythology. The expulsion from Paradise.” Mythology, eh. That from an actor with points glued to his ears.

Throughout this age of “enlightenment,” many filmmakers use Hercules, or E.T., or Tolkien Middle-earth creatures to express a mortal comprehension of God's creation. But unlike ancient Greek tales of gods and goddesses or America's latest messianic incarnation, Neo from “The Matrix,” Jesus is the real deal. There is evidence.

For starters, local Christian bookstores display an entire section of apologetics, offering book after book substantiating the fact that Christ actually lived and that He has fulfilled the prophecies.

In his book “He Walked Among Us,” foremost apologist Josh McDowell chronicles documented findings that give evidence for the historical Jesus. “After personally trying, as a skeptic myself, to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scriptures, I had to conclude that they actually are historically trustworthy,” McDowell writes (pp. 117-118).

Journalist Lee Strobel, once a spiritual scoffer, writes in the well- researched “The Case For Christ” (page 262), “Hundreds of years before Jesus was born, prophets foretold the coming of the Messiah, or the Anointed One, who would redeem God's people. In effect, dozens of these Old Testament prophecies created a fingerprint that only the true Messiah could fit. This gave Israel a way to rule out impostors and validate the credentials of the authentic Messiah.... Jesus, and only Jesus, matched this prophetic fingerprint.”

There is also proof of another kind that this man from Galilee did more than walk the earth.

Through the centuries, persecution of Christians has continued. Most of Christ's disciples died horrible deaths, as have thousands upon thousands of followers who refused to deny His name. Corrie ten Boom, imprisoned during World War II for aiding Jews, wrote, “There is no pit so deep that He is not deeper still.” The steadfastness of these men and women would suggest that something far more substantial than myth upholds the followers of Christ.

During an episode from Paulist Productions' “The Jesus Experience,” an eight-part series that undertakes a scholarly examination of the history of Christianity, the documentarians examine Russia's religious tribulations. Despite Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev's outlawing of Christianity, the Christian faith proved itself durable and substantial. The Russian revolutionists who doggedly attempted to replace religion with a communist manifesto are now dead, mourned by few, but the body of Christ has prevailed. Church buildings have been restored and the former USSR is now thriving with believers.

Pastor Ron Wilson of First Baptist Church in Thousand Oaks, Calif., states, “The media does what it can to draw society away from the deity of Christ. The resurrection is what sets Christ apart from methodical figures. Yet, the media ignores this spiritual phenomenon.”

True enough. The ABC TV-drama “Judas,” which aired a couple of seasons back, presented viewers with a new take on the life of Christ. This spin had Judas helping Jesus define His purpose. Its depiction of the greatest story ever told also excluded the crucifixion. How does one avoid the crucifixion and therefore the resurrection when doing a story about the Christ?

Actually, the spin wasn't all that new. Martin Scorsese's “The Last Temptation of Christ” explored similar territory, wherein Jesus supposedly questioned His objective. By studying the Scriptures, it is impossible to come to the conclusion that Christ was unaware of who He was or His mission. So to portray Him otherwise is misguiding.

Though the human nature in even the strongest of believers may cause him to question his beliefs at some time, in the soul of the believer an assuredness that Jesus is our Messiah remains. The Holy Spirit has placed this confidence deep within.

But no matter how many books document the personage of Jesus, or how many testimonies are heard purporting miracles done in His name, ultimately, there is the need for faith. This was by design. For the only way mankind can please God, the only gift it can offer Him, and the only way people can develop a spiritual character, is through faith. “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Hebrews 11:6 NIV).

If the Bible truly is the Word of God, and many among great and small have believed so, then a myriad of media messages are misleading. And the exploits of its liberating heroes are pale imitations of what the Lord Jesus has done. Christ said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6 NIV). With everything He said and did, that assertion rang loudly, and with authority.

Today's churchgoers must be vigilant of the post-Christian influence now dominant in Tinseltown. Don't be fooled by Hollywood's assertions. “They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them” (1 John 4:5 NIV). Jesus, the only route many artists do not seek in order to find peace and assurance, is the one true way to finding salvation. “If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God” (1 John 4:15 NIV).

To discern the media's misconceptions and misdirections, we must be grounded in the words of Christ. “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish” (John 10:27-28 NIV).

People can learn truisms through the parables of the Greek gods or the exploits of Frodo Baggins, but it is Jesus who teaches the truth.

_____________

Phil Boatwright publishes The Movie Reporter, a film guide from a Christian perspective, at www.moviereporter.com.

*

Honest dialogue rather than heated debate characterized day two of the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary Feb. 23-24, 2007. Scholars Keith Parsons, William Lane Craig, Evan Fales and Hugh McCann continued the discussion of the topic “The Future of Atheism.” Two scholars from a previous dialogue -– evangelical theologian Alister McGrath and atheist professor Daniel Dennett -– responded to each of the four presenters.

Parsons and Fales, representing an atheist viewpoint, offered some of the most challenging questions of the day. Parsons, professor of philosophy at the University of Houston at Clear Lake, started the Saturday sessions with his paper titled “Atheism: Twilight or Dawn.”

Parsons responded to the book by McGrath titled “The Twilight of Atheism,” in which McGrath points to the decline of atheism and the resurgence of religion in the 20th century. Parsons was unconvinced.

“How odd, in that case, to find atheist books recently heading up the bestseller list and atheists showing up on the TV talk shows to make the case for unbelief,” Parsons said. This, he said, evidences the public’s pro-atheism leaning.

Parsons, though, didn’t rest his argument on public opinion. He attributed the success of atheism to religious institutions themselves. Religions, namely Christianity, set themselves up to fail, he said, because of the claims they make for themselves.

“The Christian church, according to its own account, was charged by its founder to be the light of the world and the holder to the keys of the kingdom of God,” Parsons said. “When so much is expected of an institution or an individual, moral lapses are going to stick out with particular vividness.

“It cannot be enough to be no worse than others when you present yourself as setting the standard.”

Parsons then posed this question: “Who needs atheist agitators when the day-to-day impact of the church on people’s lives is so small?”

In response to Parsons’ charges, McGrath warned today’s Christians by way of history: In his book The Twilight of Atheism, he found that whenever in history Christianity became linked to power, atheism played a major role in the revolt against it. With this in mind, he cautioned American Christians against becoming too politically powerful.

“There is a burden on all of us who hold a religious position to ensure that this is actually lived out properly and does not lead to violence,” McGrath said. “That seems to raise a whole range of political and ethical issues.” He pointed to the Amish community who, when violence occurred at one of their schools in 2006, gained the attention of much of the world through their response: forgiveness.

“They have recognized in the DNA of Christianity is the nonviolent ethic of Jesus of Nazareth,” McGrath said. “The Amish made no call for retribution but instead offered forgiveness.”

MOTIVATION

Evan Fales, associate professor of philosophy at the University of Iowa and the second atheist to speak, devoted much of his attention to the matter of motivation: If a person believes there is no God, what is there to motivate him or her toward moral living?

“Devotion to family and friends and to the wellbeing of all humanity, happy pursuit of one’s calling, delight in the beauties of nature and art, commitment to moral ideals and courage in their defense: these are all enough to fill a life with worthy goals and satisfactions,” Fales said.

Also, because the atheist does not believe in God, he or she cannot rely on God ultimately to right all of history’s wrongs, Fales said, which, too, is a motivation to moral living.

“That ... makes life infinitely more precious and the need to pursue the good while we can an infinitely deeper obligation,” Fales said in contending that God’s existence has no bearing on morality.

McGrath’s response to Fales’ argument, therefore, didn’t simply hinge on the existence of God. Instead, it focused on the existence of a personal God.

McGrath told how he, as an atheist when he was young, would gaze up at the stars and sense the temporal nature of life. “Now as a Christian, I look at the same stars and they symbolize something very different,” he said. “In dealing with God, we are not dealing with an indeterminate, divine entity. We are dealing with a very specific, divine entity who chose to enter into this world and put Himself at the disposal of people.”

ARGUMENTS FOR THEISM

William Lane Craig, research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, and Hugh McCann, professor of philosophy at Texas A&M University, made the case for theism.

Craig, who has presented papers at all three Greer-Heard Forums, discussed current convincing philosophical arguments for theism, which include the cosmological argument, the Kalaam cosmological argument and the teleological argument.

Ultimately, he said, these reasoning tools point to the universe having both a beginning and a cause. That cause, he said, necessarily transcends space and time and is, thus, changeless and immaterial.

“Such a cause must be beginningless and uncaused,” Craig said. “Such a transcendent cause is plausibly taken to be personal.”

Dennett, however, did not think the idea of a changeless God to be an appealing one. “The problem with a changeless God is that it is changeless. It is outside of time,” Dennett said. “Don’t bother praying to it and certainly don’t expect it to hear and answer your prayer.”

McCann briefly addressed the personal nature of God. He presented three areas in which religion offers a source of knowledge about God. Through religion, adherents gain an understanding about the origin of the universe and, therefore, the creator of the universe. In addition, believers gain knowledge of particular events that occurred miraculously. The third source of knowledge spoke to the question of the personal nature of God raised by Dennett after Craig’s paper.

That last source of knowledge is experience. “Suppose someone tells us he has had an encounter with God,” McCann said. “For him, he says, the matter is settled. He knows there is a God because he has learned it from direct experience.

“Is there a way to approach a claim such as this with a scientific spirit?” McCann asked. “In part, I think the answer is yes. Those who make such statements are testifying to something they say they have observed.”

McCann offered Jesus as an example.

“Regardless of what you think about who Jesus was, this is a guy who had a rich spiritual life,” McCann said. “He told people about it. It had quite a profound effect [on the world].”

Even though personal experience of God is not necessarily scientifically measurable or observable, McCann said, it does not make that knowledge inadmissible.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #12342]