exploring approaches to apologetics ca513 o apologetics t … · 2019. 9. 13. · o apologetics t...

Exploring Approaches to Apologetics

Transcript - CA513 Exploring Approaches to Apologetics © 2019 Our Daily Bread University. All rights reserved.

1 of 12

LESSON 02 of 24CA513

Old Testament Approaches

Exploring Approaches to Apologetics

What is the basic issue of apologetics? In any discipline it is crucial to have a clearly defined problem and purpose. In apologetics, as we have noted, we are frequently confronted by contradictory claims. As the cultural war of values intensifies, we will be more regularly confronted by them. Equally dedicate and committed Secular Humanists, Hindus, New Agers, and Christians contradict each other on many important issues. The basic problem in the philosophy of religion or apologetics is resolving contradictory truth claims, for one of the contradictions must be false. The challenge of conflicting truth claims is not specific to Christianity. Every philosophy and religion faces it. Some of the philosophers who consider themselves above doing apologetics nevertheless do it dogmatically when defending their own non-Christian alternatives.

What then is a contradiction? It is very important to be able to define it, because contradictions are often alleged in the Bible, but when asked for the meaning of a contradiction and a specific instance, critics are often wanting. A contradiction occurs when we affirm and deny the same thing at the same time and in the same respect. Christians affirm, non-Christians deny a personal living God distinct from the world, the deity of Jesus Christ, and the Bible’s inspired truths. Whose views are to be accepted? How can a person know that his or her view is correct and a contradictory claim is not? Issues of conflicting truth claims require choices, for both sides of a contradiction cannot be true.

In this course, in contrast to most others in a Christian seminary or college, we do not assume that Christianity’s claims are true. That would not be giving a reason for our hope, but assuming the very point to be established. Circular reasoning is logically fallacious and not a good defense of anything, let alone Christianity. Rather, we ask: How can we know that what Christian’s believe is true? In matters of ultimate reality and religious values, how can anyone decide what is true or false? If the great minds of history have

Gordon Lewis, Ph.D. Experience: Senior Professor of

Christian and Historical Theology, Denver Seminary, Colorado.



2 of 12

Lesson 02 of 24

differed on these issues, who are we to decide?

Interestingly enough, evangelical scholars who agree that we should address this basic problem disagree on how to go about it. We will find it instructive to learn from several recent ways of reasoning, but first explore with me approaches to conflicting truth claims in the Scriptures themselves. We will survey approaches of some Old Testament prophets, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Gospel writers, the Apostle Peter, and the Apostle Paul. They may not all be called apologists, but they face the challenging issue of conflicting hypotheses. We will then touch also on some apologists in the history of the Church and will major on approaches for defending the faith in the last half of the twentieth century. The largest part of the course will compare and contrast six ways of reasoning used by leading thinkers who contributed to the resurgence of evangelicalism in recent years. They constitute six ways of reasoning in the search for truth about ultimate reality.

Students may find one—or some combination of them—to best resolve the deepest questions that can be raised about the faith. The comparison will introduce some of the major alternatives in human thought about epistemology. The comparison will promote several values that need to be kept in mind as the work becomes taxing. You will have more than one arrow in your quiver. The variety of approaches may enable you to “become all things to all people in order to win some” (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).

The course may also help you see ways to share the reasons for your hope with younger and older people who struggle with the very foundations of Christian faith. Although most courses in philosophy of religions and apologetics consider only God’s existence, we will be considering the issues concerning Jesus Christ and the Bible.

All right, we have focused on the central issue that is to be addressed. Let us turn now then to the approaches we find in the Old Testament. As we survey apologists in the Bible, note the particular type of challenges faced, how these were confronted, and what you may find weak and what you may find of strength that you may accept and use. Also, as we review biblical approaches, imagine how different the Bible’s history would be if these people had not reasoned as they did. Having considered the basic issue apologists face, we look then to the thought of Abraham.



3 of 12

Lesson 02 of 24

Consider first from the Old Testament the life and work of Abraham. Soren Kierkegaard and his followers have imagined that Abraham is an example of one whose faith was unfounded. It was simply a deeply passionate commitment. Abraham had little knowledge when called to leave his hometown. He and Sarah were well beyond childbearing when he was promised countless descendants, and when God asked him to sacrifice Isaac, he did not have nearly as much knowledge as those later in the progress of revelation. But we cannot agree that his faith was totally unrelated to knowledge. His faith is helpfully analyzed by Paul in Romans 4:27, “Being fully persuaded that God had power to do what He had promised.” Abraham’s commitment to sacrifice Isaac was not groundless, but directed by knowledge of God’s promises. Abraham could distinguish the Word of God from the word of others. He knew God well enough to know that He would keep His Word.

God would give him countless descendants through Isaac, even if God had to raise him from the dead. Against great odds, humanly speaking, a well-founded faith does involve passionate commitment, but it is holistic commitment including the mind. Abraham’s faith was not a blind faith. He did not worship and serve an unknown God. His faith involved knowledge of God in himself, persuasion of the truth of God’s promises, and commitment to live by them. “Faith,” as Elton Trueblood said, “is not belief without evidence, but trust without reservation.” If our faith is like Abraham’s it will unreservedly trust a God we have good reason to believe to be faithful. Such a solidly grounded faith is often called upon to act against the circumstances and the majority of people who would deny God’s supernatural power.

Abraham is not ordinarily considered an apologist, but unquestionably he defended his faith before skeptical relatives and friends who laughed at the old man. He also lived by the truth he believed. At the very least, Abraham cannot be used as a case study against the use of apologetic reasoning.

Moses—after 400 years of slavery in Egypt, Moses defended his faith in the living God against Pharaoh and led the Jewish slaves to freedom. The Egyptian leader was the intermediary between the people of Egypt and the gods of the cosmos. Moses affirmed belief in the God over the cosmos with all of its powers. Moses called upon God to send one miraculous evidence after another to convince the Pharaoh to let his people go. Egyptian occultists could duplicate some of the plagues, but not the full force of the



4 of 12

Lesson 02 of 24

entire series.

Why were the plagues sent? They had a distinct apologetic purpose. They were sent, God said, through Moses, “so that you may know that there is no one like Me in all the earth” (Exodus 9:14). At one point, Moses explained to Pharaoh, “When I have gone out of the city, I will spread out my hands in prayer to the Lord, the thunder will stop, and there will be no more hail, so you may know that the earth is the Lord’s” (verse 29). There was an apologetic purpose in the evidence of each plague. They were given that unbelievers might come to believe in the living God.

Moses did not just assume God’s existence; he did not just give his testimony to Pharaoh. He did not say, “once I was blind, now I see” and leave it at that; neither did Moses say to Pharaoh, “Unless you start by presupposing the God who speaks through the prophets and reason deductively, you will never understand.” Moses did not say, “Let’s be totally objective. Start with a blank mind and reason inductively from observed affects to an adequate cause.” Neither Moses nor Pharaoh could be totally objective. They were committed to radically different values and courses of action. They had conflicting ultimate concerns. The approach of Moses was, “Let’s see whose hypothesis best explains the relevant evidence in its entirety the progressive, developing plagues.” They conclusively indicated that the God who is and who has power over the laws of nature in the cosmos is not only a covenant maker, but a promise keeper.

The dramatic Exodus of Israel from Egypt provides one answer to the case against apologetic reasoning sometimes made from Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God…” From this it may be said that the Old Testament assumes God’s existence; it does not argue for His reality. So evidence is not needed and should not be sought to support the belief in the Creator. Is it the case that the Bible everywhere assumes the existence of God? Such a hasty generalization does not do justice to the rest of the Bible. It does not provide evidence every time it mentions the name of God, but when belief in God’s wisdom or power is put to the test—as over against a contradictory hypothesis—it is supported by evidence.

At the time of the Exodus from Egypt, there were ten converging lines of relevant evidence sufficient to convince a hardened unbeliever that God is Lord of all. At the time of the Exodus, Moses put contradictory proposals to the test of evidence. One hypothesis was disproved; the other verified.



5 of 12

Lesson 02 of 24

Turn then to thinking about the test of a true prophet. After the death of Moses, how could God’s liberated people know whether a prophet who suddenly appeared in town spoke for God or not? The approach to this problem of apologetics among God’s Old Testament people did not just assume or intuit that anyone who claimed to speak for God did. Each prophet must be put through a combination of two tests. The logical test for disclosing false prophets was inconsistency of teaching regarding God. If the alleged prophet spoke of a God other than the Creator and Deliverer of Israel from Egypt, he was found to be a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:1-3). For assuredly Moses was a true prophet of God. If they invited people to follow after a god unlike and different from Moses’ God, they were not of the same source.

The empirical test exposed false claims. If a predicted sign did not take place or come true, the lack of evidence unmasked a false prophet (Deuteronomy 18:21-22). So truths coming from God must be verified by two criteria. First, they do not contradict themselves or earlier revelation, for God cannot lie. Second, they fit the facts, for God knows all the relevant data.

Think then of the life and work of Elijah. Consider also the evidence for trusting the living God and His challenge of the Baal prophets. The very existence of God’s people and the line of the promised Messiah was threatened. King Ahab blamed the Prophet Elijah for all the nation’s problems (1 Kings 18:17). The political problems of Augustine’s day were blamed upon Christianity then, and the increasing political problems of the present time are attributed to evangelical Christians.

Elijah responded to Ahab that Ahab had been responsible for the problems of Israel because he had followed other gods, the Baals (1 Kings 18:18). Who had the true diagnosis of Israel’s problems at that time? Elijah said, “How long will you halt between two opinions?” and stated the problem in terms of two hypotheses. “If the Lord is God, follow Him, but if Baal is God, follow him” (verse 21). To settle the issue between the two hypotheses, Elijah put the two views to a severe test at Mount Carmel. To that mountain Elijah invited 450 prophets of Baal and 450 prophets of Asherah, whom Jezebel favored. As over 900 gathered, no one could say that they were outnumbered by the one prophet of God. These many prophets placed a bull on their altar. Elijah placed one on another. Then Elijah said, “You call on the name of your god and I will call on the name of the Lord. The God who answers by fire, He is God” (verse 24). “The multitude of prophets chanted the name



6 of 12

Lesson 02 of 24

of Baal, danced, and slashed themselves until the blood flowed from morning until evening. But there was no response. No one answered. No one paid attention” (verse 29).

Then Elijah repaired his altar in the name of the Lord, placed the sacrifice on it again, soaked it with water three times, and filled a trench with water around it. At the time of the evening sacrifice, Elijah prayed, “O Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. Answer me, O Lord, answer me, so these people know that you O Lord, are God and that you are turning their hearts back again” (verses 36, 37). “Then the fire of the Lord fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood and the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench” (verse 38). “When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, ‘The Lord—He is God! The Lord—He is God!’” (verse 39).

Elijah used a verificational approach to apologetics. At Mount Carmel, he did not ask them first to believe Moses and the Bible; he did not ask them first to accept his presupposition. On that momentous occasion, there were two strongly held conflicting beliefs. These hypotheses were put to a severe test, not of mere internal, spiritual experience alone, but also of external, publicly observable data. In view of all evidence from Elijah’s integrity and the burning of his sacrifice, the reality of Israel’s God was overwhelmingly confirmed.

Think then of that great prophet, Isaiah. Isaiah contrasted the two live options of his day—the god of the idol worshippers with the God of creation and of Israel. In chapter 44, Isaiah presents the case for the One who is eternal, the first and last (verse 6) who established His people as a nation (verse 7), and predicted what is yet to come. In contrast, the prophet pointed out, all who make idols treasure what is worthless, blind, and ignorant (verse 9). They shape a god and cast an idol which can profit them nothing (verse 10). They work so hard from morning till night making their gods that they become exhausted. They cut down wood. With some of it they make a fire to warm themselves and say, “Aha, I am warm,” and with some of it they fashion a god in the form of a man in all his glory (verse 13).

Their idols cannot move or save them. Their gods know nothing, for their eyes cannot see, and they understand nothing for their minds are closed (verse 18). Shall a person bow down to a block



7 of 12

Lesson 02 of 24

of wood when the rest is burned in a fire? Isaiah would bow down before the God who made all things in heaven and earth, including himself. The prophet did not make God in his image. The Creator made Isaiah in His image. The Creator knows and understands the future. He makes fools of diviners and overthrows the learning of the wise and turns it into nonsense (verse 25). He predicts the restoration of Jerusalem and Judah and the coming of the non-Jewish ruler Cyrus to decree its rebuilding (verse 28).

Before which God can one bow with authenticity? By which belief can one live without hypocrisy? Isaiah adds to the criteria of noncontradiction and fitting the facts the demand of existential authenticity or viability.

Concluding our very brief survey of the Old Testament, the Old Testament prophets’ approach to conflicting truth claims incorporated elements of several more recent methods of reasoning, not just one. They recognized the hold of alternative views of ultimate reality, but did not consider them too ultimate for verification. They put claims on both sides to the test. The test was three-fold. First, they were to be believed because they did not contradict earlier divine revelation to Moses, God’s evident leader during the Exodus. Second, their predictions came to pass. Fulfilled prophecies could be verified and their miraculous signs could be observed by the senses. The word of the prophet did not have to be believed in order to make sense of the evidence. The evidence was plain in order to give credence to the prophetic teaching. Third, they could live by their teaching unhypocritically. Their truth claims were existentially viable in their relationships with God and with all others.

Let’s look briefly, then, also at the New Testament. What approaches to apologetics are found there? We begin with the approach of Jesus Christ. The One who claimed to come from above approached His own and His own received Him not. The best approach is not always immediately successful in terms of the long-range goal. Success must be evaluated in terms of a simple step in the right direction. The Pharisees, by magnifying their misinterpretations of the Old Testament and adding their traditions to it, had missed its central message. God is love and wants us to love Him with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind and our neighbors as ourselves. Without love, Jesus insisted, all our public displays of piety may simply disclose hypocrisy.



8 of 12

Lesson 02 of 24

The thesis of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount is found in Matthew 5:20. “I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” To be blessed, the people needed the characteristics of the Beatitudes. They needed to learn that love fulfilled the law, that hatred was a sin equivalent to murder, and lust to adultery. The Christianity that Jesus defended required loving even our enemies, giving not to be seen of men, but to help the needy, praying that God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven, and not worrying while laying up treasure in heaven. Jesus was not concerned with one’s financial portfolio, but deeply concerned about one’s spiritual investments.

Some have imagined that in the great Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught that there were errors in the Old Testament when He said, “You have heard that it was said, but I say unto you….” It was not the Old Testament He challenged, but the Pharisees’ externalized interpretations and additions. See, for example, Matthew 5:43, “You have heard that it was said, ‘love your neighbor and hate your enemy,’ but I tell you ‘love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.’” The passage quoted from the Old Testament says, “Love your neighbor,” but it does not say, “Hate your enemy.” That was the Pharisees’ unwarranted inference. Jesus could not have made it clearer in the context, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen will be any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17,18).

Jesus came to teach the truth, to distinguish it from error, and support it with sound reasons and miraculous evidence. Jesus asked His disciples, “Who do men say that I am?” Inadequate hypotheses suggested that He was John the Baptist or Elijah or other prophets, but the proposal that fit the facts affirmed that He was the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of the Living God (Matthew 16:13-16). Jesus claimed, “I am the Way, both the Truth and the Life,” (John 14:6). He taught information that conformed to reality, and in His conduct He exemplified the existential validity of the truth He taught. Truth in His usage was not either conceptual or existential; it was both essential and faithfully lived. Jesus used human words—the Koinea Greek and the Aramaic of the time to convey His Heavenly Father’s changeless truth. He did not see a conflict between human conceptual thought of God’s image bearers and God’s thought. His words, like those of the Old



9 of 12

Lesson 02 of 24

Testament conveyed life, power, truth, and freedom. He did not consider the teaching of doctrine to be dead and lifeless. “The words I have spoken to you,” He said, “are Spirit and they are life” (John 6:63).

He also said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31,32). The words He spoke were no idol between Him and the Living God. They were Spirit-endued vehicles of meaning for which His hearers were accountable, and they conveyed truth that changed lives, the lives of His disciples. Jesus had given the disciples the words the Father gave Him and prayed, “Sanctify them by the truth. Your Word is truth” (John 17:8, 17). Jesus Christ said, “For this I came into the world to testify to the truth” (John 18:37). Our Lord testified of the truth in the words He spoke and He presented many visible signs that He was who He claimed to be. He appealed to reason from the evidence in support of His claims.

Recall how Jesus gave empirical evidence to help doubting Thomas realize that He was not a gardener or a ghost. Thomas would not accept the reports of the other disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead. When Thomas was present later, Jesus appeared through the doors that were locked. After greeting them, “Peace be with you,” Jesus spoke directly to Thomas. “Put your finger here. See my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Jesus’ approach to the skeptical Thomas did not scold him for questioning. Jesus offered publicly verifiable evidence supporting the truth of His claims. As a result of Jesus’ apologetic, Thomas said to Him, “My Lord and My God” (John 20:27, 28). Jesus constantly made truth claims and supported them in word and deed.

Look briefly at the Gospel of Mark. Mark’s book focuses on Jesus’ own apologetic purpose for performing His miracles. Mark 2:10-11, “But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. He said to the paralytic, ‘I tell you get up, take your mat and go home.’” The purpose of Jesus’ physical healings was to demonstrate His ability to perform spiritual healing. Why did Jesus challenge the Pharisees’ Sabbath traditions? He said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, so the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (verse 28). Jesus could speak to a hurricane (Hazel, perhaps) and its winds would subside.



10 of 12

Lesson 02 of 24

And what about the Gospel of Matthew? Matthew’s Gospel presented many converging lines of evidence that Jesus was the Jews’ long awaited Messiah. When John the Baptist sent a follower to ask, “Are you the one who was to come? Or should we expect someone else?” Jesus simply listed characteristics the prophets had been expecting of the Messiah. “Go back and report to John what you hear and see. The blind receive sight; the lame walk; those who had leprosy are cured. The deaf hear; the dead are raised and the good news is preached to the poor” (Matthew 11:4). John was expected to decide for himself that the only view that would account for all these lines of evidence was that Jesus was the Messiah.

The Gospel of Luke also is significant here. The physician who traveled with Paul did extensive research and many eyewitness accounts of the things that had been fulfilled. Having done his homework thoroughly, this trained medical doctor wrote his gospel in order that others might know the certainty of the things that had been taught about Jesus. “Therefore, since I myself,” Luke said, “have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things that you have been taught” (Luke 1:3,4). Evidence produced belief, not belief, evidence.

In the Gospel of John there is significant information about apologetics as well. The Jewish philosopher Philo in the First Century spoke of an impersonal, imminent Logos or Word guiding the development of all things. But John’s message was that transcendent personal Word who was in face-to-face relationship with God and was God (John 1:1) “became flesh and lived among us” (verse 14). The Gospel of John records His mighty acts from turning water to wine at a wedding, feeding 5,000, healing the blind man, raising Lazarus from the dead, and coming back to life again in His glorified resurrection body. After that climatic evidence, John explained his purpose in writing the gospel. It indicates the relation of knowledge and evidence to believing. John 20:31, “Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of His disciples which are not recorded in this book, but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.” Truth is given that we might believe, and belief is the way to spiritual life.



11 of 12

Lesson 02 of 24

In 1 John, the apostle went out of his way to make it clear that these miraculous events were not mere myths or symbols, but verified facts. “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched, this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared and we have seen it and testified to it. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard” (1 John 1:1-3). John demands that we test the spirits by their teaching concerning the Messiah (chapter 4, verses 1-3).

2 John 9 underlines the awesomeness of receiving and holding on to these propositions. “Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God, but he who continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.” John’s approach to defending his hope in the affirmations that the eternal Logos became incarnate includes the coherence of the view with all of the evidences of fulfilled prophecy and miracles.

Peter, similarly, provides some instructive information. Peter at three times denied the Lord. He knew personally the importance of forgiveness and love and became an ardent apologist. He it was that urged us to set apart our hearts to Christ as Lord, then become “ready always to give an apology to everyone who asked a reason for the hope that is in us.” Peter’s great message on the Day of Pentecost affords a model of apologetics for a Jewish audience. He addresses fellow Jews in Acts 2:14 and defends the apostles against the charge of drunkenness, because it is only nine in the morning. And he points to the fulfillment of the prophecy in Joel 2:28-32. In that dramatic message, he continues to address primarily the men of Israel concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a Man accredited by God by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did among you through Him (Acts 2:22).

With the help of wicked men, he was nailed to the cross (verse 23), but God raised Him from the dead (verse 24). His resurrection fulfilled the prediction of David, the prophet who saw what was ahead (verses 25-31). Quoting Psalm 16:8-11, Peter then appeals to the many eyewitnesses of the fact of Jesus’ resurrection (verse 32). Jesus then ascended to heaven and poured out the Holy Spirit as you now see and hear as David also predicted (Psalm 110:1). Peter’s hypothesis differs from those who crucified Him as a criminal, for that view does not fit the facts. In view of fulfilled prophecy, Peter concludes, “God has made the crucified Jesus both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36).


Christ-Centered Learning — Anytime, Anywhere

12 of 12

Old Testament ApproachesLesson 02 of 24

Peter’s Spirit-filled approach assumes knowledge of the Old Testament as the Creator of all and the covenant-making Lord of Israel. Peter need not make clear who God is; they know. Because they are familiar with the prophetic Word, he needs only remind them of the predictions of the coming Messiah. He then appeals to the eyewitness fulfillment of these predictions and concludes the historical Jesus, that Jesus of Nazareth, is indeed the Messiah. In response to Peter’s apologetic message, the people cried out, “What must we do?” He said, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins may be forgiven” (38-39). He pled with them further and about 3,000 were baptized and added to their number that day.

Many people think that Peter’s approach is the only one to take in apologetics today. Simply speak directly about Christ and appeal to the evidences of prophecies fulfilled and miracles performed. This is indeed the preferred approach when the ones to be reached are acquainted with the Old Testament and its all-knowing God. Increasingly, however, even among Jews, there may be little understanding of the transcendent living God or of the authority of the Old Testament. In a post-Christian and post-theistic time, we may need to start out quite differently. With people unfamiliar with the Bible, we do well to follow the example of the Apostle to the Gentiles (the heathen).

Tune in to lecture three for a more thorough consideration of Paul’s apologetic approach to people like most of those we seek to reach today. In this lecture, we focused on the underlying issue; that we face conflicting truth claims. We surveyed some examples of apologetic approaches in the Old and New Testaments, and established some criteria of truth.

exploring approaches to apologetics ca513 o apologetics t … · 2019. 9. 13. · o apologetics t...

Documents