A course on Apologetics
The New England School of Theology plans to launch the course Introduction to Christian Apologetics course this fall. We will meet every Monday night 6:30-8:30 starting on September 13th. We plan to cover: Classic Arguments for the Existence of God; Comparative Religions and Competing Truth Claims; Questions of Origins; Science and the Bible; God, Evil, and Human Suffering – to name a few topics in our sessions. Our course will explore competing worldview arguments (on death, evil, origins, etc) and position philosophical, historical and theological counter arguments.
But why?
Heady stuff, some might complain. What relevance does an obscure philosophical argument have to do with me? Isn’t it enough to just believe in Jesus and tell others? These questions have not escaped leading apologists who concern themselves with just such matters.
Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks address the importance of apologetics in When Skeptics Ask. Our course will use this textbook in the fall.
There are some good reasons why every believer should study Christian Apologetics. Let’s look at a recent street level personal encounter that encourages Christians to remember: good questions deserve good answers.
A Conversation on the back porch – with cake in hand
While having a piece of cake at a family party, my wife alerted me to an interesting discussion out on the deck. A woman named Lori was reading palms and foretelling the future of eager listeners.
She wove together intriguing stories about potential mates, financial matters and general happiness. As I looked on, it became clear that her worldview was something of a selective blend consisting of Christian-Buddhist-Hindu and popular neo-Pagan elements. The exact combination was determined by an inner feeling she had of each with no instruction from a particular text such as the Bible.
As she finished palm reading, I asked her about her faith how she came to it. She explained first that she was a vegan, and felt that animals should not be eaten because they could contain human souls, which her husband enthusiastically acknowledged. She believed that all people lived through multiple lives and through their good works achieved continued levels of enlightenment until one day full enlightenment would be achieved.
She next got around to discussing the great religious leaders of history. She felt that Jesus was a prophet along with Mohammed and Buddha and each had a sense of the truth. The truth was what she felt. It was known to all but they must find it within themselves, as she teaches students who come to her house for weekly instruction.
I listened to her with little interruption asking how she came to know all of this. She proudly stated that she “just knew it to be so.” Though I did not challenge her neo-Gnosticism, I asked specifically about her understanding of the Bible or the Koran (given her reference to both monotheistic faiths).
She claimed total ignorance and had not ever consulted them nor likely ever would. She felt it was totally unnecessary to read these books and even scoffed at my “unspiritual” need to seek external information. She had a prideful smile and made affirming eye contact with others nodding as though she won a point.
I continued my examination of her statements. “Well how do you know if your information about Jesus or Mohammad is correct if you did not get it from the appropriate source? Scientists, lawyers, doctors, artists; historians, architects; electricians, plumbers and other trained individuals got their knowledge from books. Even people from the great theistic faiths Christianity, Judaism and Islam consult ancient writings and devote themselves to being very familiar with basic writings.”
Perhaps sensing a weakness in her argument, she more sheepishly responded, “Well I know it to be so.” I continued, “When I was a little boy, I was certain that fire was a wonderful toy to play with until one day I learned otherwise. I knew playing with fire was fun but objectively a lesson confirmed something contrasting with my feelings.”
Lori had no curt answer to deflect the point. I said, “Lori, I don’t doubt that you have an opinion about Jesus and the others, but what objective facts do you base your opinion on?” She became evasive, smiling less. I began to outline some facts about the Bible and Koran and how they differ in their testimony about Jesus. Her syncretistic view began to melt in the frying pan of fact as we reviewed the basic testimony of each text.
The Koran, while calling Jesus a prophet, denies his divinity, his resurrection and his virgin birth – and so contradicts clear biblical teaching, orthodox interpretation and historic views. At that point, I did not defend the Biblical testimony or challenge Koranic teachings but asked, “Which one of the two is correct?” She said, “I don’t know.” She became very uncomfortable and could see the implications of her “equitable” belief system.
If the Koran is correct, Jesus was a terrible liar given his own testimony about himself. For that matter even the Koran would contradict itself in calling Jesus a prophet of God since Jesus turns out to be a lying prophet! If the biblical testimony about Jesus is correct, the Koran cannot be. The two testimonies could not simultaneously stand because they contradict. One of the two sources is wrong.
I explained, “two opposite statements referring to the same object cannot be true at the same time. This is a definition of the law of non-contradiction.”
One of the more tongue and cheek definitions was offered by the early Persian philosopher Avicenna. “Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.” In the example, one cannot be both beaten and not beaten! Either one is beaten or one is not beaten.
Nearer to our own time, the German philosopher Kant (1724-1804) viewed the law of non-contradiction in more mathematical or symbolic terms. A thing cannot be both A and not-A.
Likewise, Jesus cannot be both God (as claimed in the New Testament, John 1:11-14; 1:18; 3:34-35; 5:18; 8:58; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8, etc ) and not God (as claimed in the Koran, 4:171). Unless there are some fancy disclaimers or qualifiers – and there were none at our informal backyard barbeque discussion – Lori’s statement was contradictory or inconsistent in light of the available texts. I kindly pointed out that one of the two texts consisting of prophetic disclosures must be wrong, or what is worse, presenting distortions and lies.
Lori was caught in a bit of a bind exposing her primary and only tool for truth finding: feelings. Lori slowly withdrew from further discussion and turned her attention back to palm reading. Her husband was not discouraged and wanted to know more. We began to talk about the Bible and what it said about sin and death and the role that Jesus played. He patiently listened and politely asked questions. As they left the party he was grateful for the time spent and said he would consider these things.
What it comes down to is this…
Many do not carefully inspect what they believe or even how they come to accept the propositions they hold dear. Lori felt a particular way but never challenged what she felt with outside facts. As a result, she fell into a confused mish-mash of philosophies, religions and self-approved ideas.
Did our rather obscure philosophical discussion-as some might hold-impact Lori and her husbands “gut level” approach to spirituality? Many at the party listened also and nodded as we carefully reviewed the notion that all spiritual claimants are equally correct. Perhaps some of the objections and questions held so tightly by Lori and others somewhat loosened before we further explored the Gospel. It is hard to know but it is exactly these kinds of discussions that begin to open the door to sharing the Gospel.
Geisler and Brooks (G&B) offer the idea that spreading the gospel requires these kinds of preparatory discussions. It may be proper to detail the life, death and resurrection of Jesus (evangelism) with some people but with others who may reject the concept of miracles or existence of God another type of ministry is required.
Answering objections and conditioning the listener to basic biblical assumptions is called pre-evangelism, as the authors explain. To borrow from the earlier example, Lori was not yet prepared to simply receive the Gospel message. Various terms and presuppositions needed to be introduced and suppositions challenged. She overvalued “what she felt” in spiritual matters and under appreciated, even rejected, objective historical facts. The goal of the discussion was not to end with a detailed lecture on logic and the law of non-contradiction but these topics served as a necessary bridge on the way to the Gospel presentation. That some of the technical points struck a cord is uncertain but had they not been said Lori and other listeners would have continued unchecked in their fallacious ideas.
Proper apologetics or defending the faith is best done understanding the perspective of the recipient. Understanding what someone believes is vitally important to help position the Gospel message. Our course will survey various views and worldviews in an attempt to prepare the students to share the Gospel.
Next time we will examine Westminster Theological Seminary professor Dr. William Edgar’s approach to apologetics.
By John DeMassa
