Erhalten Sie Zugang zu diesem und mehr als 300000 Büchern ab EUR 5,99 monatlich.
- Herausgeber: IVP Academic
- Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
- Sprache: Englisch
- Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022
Second Edition of a Landmark Apologetics Work People are hungry for hope.They want to understand our human condition—its origin, nature, purpose, and destiny. The Christian faith offers hope for individuals and the entire universe, grounded in absolute truth. But how can we know that Christianity is true? And how can Christians confidently present their beliefs in the face of doubts and competing views? In this comprehensive text, Douglas Groothuis makes a clear and rigorous case for Christian theism. The second edition of this landmark work has been updated throughout to address current issues and sources. It includes - New chapters on topics such as doubt and the hiddenness of God, the atonement, the church, and lament as a Christian apologetic, - The most common questions and objections people raise regarding Christianity addressed in a way that demonstrates how apologetics must be both rational and winsome, - A foundation for the biblical basis for apologetics, apologetic method, and a defense of objective truth, - A presentation of key arguments for the reality of God, a case for the credibility of Jesus, and evidence for the resurrection, and - Groothuis's evaluation of alternative views and response to challenges such as religious pluralism and the problem of evil.To know God in Christ, Groothuis argues, means that we desire to make Christian truth available to others in the most compelling form possible. Students, ordinary Christians, and seasoned philosophers will all find a wise guide for this endeavor in Christian Apologetics.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 1978
Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:
Ähnliche
To Rebecca Merrill Groothuis (1954–2018),
astute and intrepid editor,
dedicated follower of Jesus Christ,
and beloved wife of thirty-three years
Contents
Preface to the Second Edition
I OWE THE READER an account of why there is a second edition of Christian Apologetics. This already-large book (which I call “the doorstop” or “the brick”) has grown even larger. A necessary condition for a second edition was that the first edition sold well and has been used in many seminaries and Christian colleges. So the demand was there. For that, I am grateful to God.
After teaching my book for several years, I realized that I had omitted significant material, that chapters needed to be updated, and that certain material could be omitted. Some chapters remain nearly the same as the first edition (such as “The Ontological Argument”), but most have been significantly updated and revised. (Drs. Blomberg and Hess have kindly updated their fine chapters as well.) For example, in the chapter, “Distortions of the Christian Worldview—or the God I Don’t Believe In,” I have added a section on sexual identity in light of recent LGBTQ concerns. I have also added sections on contractarianism, evolutionary morality, and Derek Parfit in the chapter “The Moral Argument,” and much more. The resurrection chapter has become two chapters—one on miracles in general and one defending the resurrection of Jesus in particular.
The heft of this already hefty book is due largely to the addition of seven new chapters: “Original Monotheism” challenges the claim that monotheism evolved from primitive animism or polytheism, something taught in many religion classes at universities. “The Argument from Beauty” is an aesthetic-design argument that may touch people that more technical design arguments may not. “Doubt, Skepticism, and the Hiddenness of God” concerns questions of whether there is sufficient evidence for Christianity, given so much unbelief. Perhaps the most important additions are two chapters on the atonement, “The Atonement: Stating It Properly” and “The Atonement: Defending It.” The first edition heartily defended orthodox understanding of the person of Christ, but did not speak enough to the work of Christ as our Savior. Also, the first edition lacked any defense of the church. Jesus came to build his church, not simply give evidence for a worldview. In a day when people think they can be spiritual without being religious and can dispense with “organized religion,” a defense of the church is imperative. Thus, the chapter, “In Defense of the Church.” The final new chapter is “Lament as Christian Apologetic,” which argues that Christianity equips the believer to suffer well and with meaning, which is itself an apologetic.
Much of my life as a Christian philosopher has been dedicated to apologetics, and I am grateful while in my midsixties to present a new edition of my major work on that grand topic. May God use it to equip his people to defend the faith given once for all to the saints (Jude 3) so that many enter into the eternal and abundant life that only Jesus Christ can give (Jn 3:16; 10:10).
Acknowledgments
THIS SECOND EDITION OFChristian Apologetics comes out of my Christian life and all who have contributed to it. Since this book is as close to a magnum opus as I will ever have, I should thank as many people as possible who, in one way or another, contributed to its existence. However, I will attempt to be mercifully brief.
A number of people were instrumental in my intellectual development as a Christian philosopher. Karsten Musaeus taught an undergraduate course on worldviews (The Twilight of Western Thought: A Christian Response) through the Sociology Department at the University of Oregon in the late 1970s that significantly shaped my thinking. I later taught this course for nearly five years. Our faculty sponsor, Dr. Benton Johnson, professor of sociology at the University of Oregon, was most gracious and helpful in preserving this rather offbeat class from being censored by secular attacks. During that time (1979–1984) I worked for the McKenzie Study Center, a Christian think tank focused on the University of Oregon. My thanks go to the Center’s director, Wes Hurd, for giving a young, idiosyncratic, aspiring thinker a lot of room to develop his skills in campus ministry and in writing. Of great encouragement during this formative time was also Richard Beswick, a campus minister with whom I would later work at the University of Oregon. My gratitude also goes to two of my best friends, Stuart Smith (1944–2019) and Pat Knapp, who have given me so much encouragement and insight on my Christian pilgrimage. My mother, Lillian Groothuis Dunn (1930–2010), was a lifelong encourager and supporter. I owe to her more than a few words could possibly say, and I miss her.
Professor Keith Yandell (1938–2020) was my adviser at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where I received my MA degree in philosophy in 1986. From Keith I learned the rigors and virtues of analytic philosophy and what it could mean for Christian philosophers. My doctoral adviser at the University of Oregon was Robert Herbert (d. 2006), who further sharpened my thinking by being a devout critic whose seldom-heard praise could keep me going for weeks.
Editor Andrew Le Peau, of InterVarsity Press, exercised great patience and accommodation when the first edition of this book doubled in size and became a textbook. He never rushed me but provided encouragement for me to write the kind of book I had to write. Many thanks to David McNutt and Rebecca Carhart for their good work on the second edition. Thanks also go to Sarah Geis, who provided great help in adjusting footnotes, compiling the bibliography, finding parallel biblical texts and doing other literary chores that freed me up to finish the main manuscript. The Denver Seminary library staff provided me with needed interlibrary loan material in short order. I am also grateful to the leadership of Denver Seminary for granting me sabbatical time that helped greatly in writing this work.
David Werther and Paul Copan carefully and critically evaluated the entire text of the first edition and made it far better than it otherwise would have been. I also received important help from Jonathan Wells, Brian Miller, and Michael Behe regarding my critique of Darwinism; from Timothy McGrew, Lydia McGrew, and Sean McDowell on the resurrection of Christ; from Harold Netland on religious pluralism; from Winfried Corduan on original monotheism; from Alan Gomes and Elizabeth Johnston on the atonement; from Michael Sudduth on natural theology; from J. P. Moreland on the argument from consciousness (and many other topics), from Garry DeWeese on the argument from beauty; and from Ed Komoszewski and Robert Bowman on the claims and credentials of Jesus. Of course, any errors that remain should be credited to me, not them. The chapters contributed by my colleagues Craig Blomberg and Richard Hess make this volume far better than it would be otherwise, and for this I am grateful. Both chapters have been updated for the second edition.
I have been greatly inspired and encouraged by two pioneering Christian thinkers who preceded me at Denver Seminary: Dr. Gordon Lewis (1926–2016) and Dr. Vernon Grounds (1914–2010). Both received doctorates when few evangelicals even considered such an undertaking, and both have made tremendous contributions to the kingdom of God through their philosophical skills. I am also grateful to my many students who over the years have both learned from me and taught me. Many others, too numerous to mention, also provided important insights and references for Christian Apologetics. I thank my beloved wife, Kathleen, for her patience, prayers, and encouragement on this project, which took me away from her for many long hours.
My greatest debt of thanks goes to my late wife, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis (1954–2018), whose editorial contributions touch every page of the first edition (and every page of all of my books before that). Rebecca was an editor and writer extraordinaire, who continually made me a better writer, a better thinker, and a better person. She improved the quality of this book in a multitude of ways. Moreover, as the first edition dragged on and on, she encouraged me to finish the race and worked very hard to finish the editing of this huge volume of material, despite her own considerable obstacles toward achieving that end. Truly, she has received her eternal reward and now has no need at all for apologetics.
IS THERE HOPE FOR THE UNIVERSE? There certainly is hope in the universe, given the presence of hopers—we who think and speak in the future tense, who invest ourselves in that distinctively human tense through anticipation, imagination, rumination, and speculation (both informed and reckless).1 But is there any hope for the universe and its intrepid hopers? One is hard-pressed to find a larger, more significant question than this imperious query concerning the cosmos. For all our cynicism, we are—at the end of the day—inescapably creatures of hope. We look forward; we yearn for something more, something better—anything to give meaning, value, and substance to our short lives. Even when our hopes for family, friends, country, and ourselves are satisfied—by a happy reunion, an election that goes our way, a job promotion, a negative biopsy—larger hopes (and fears) still loom.
Yet we strive after the future. Even when we reflect back on our lives, our species and our planet, we wonder: What does it mean? What will endure? Is history progressing toward a goal or merely staggering along? What of the present instant, the ongoing now of my unfolding—or unraveling—life? From here and now we look back and we strain ahead. But what is possible for me to hope, to know, and to do? As we explore the tenses of life, we often fear that our hopes are empty, hollow, mere specters without a home, that in the end it is hopelessness that will rule the day and our destiny. For the possibility of despair is always close at the elbow of hope, acting as a debating partner if not a heckler. Can one agree with the biblical philosopher that “love is as strong as death” (Song 8:6)? Or will death have the last laugh on us all?
How we answer these questions—or if we attempt to answer them at all—will shape who we are and who we become. We are all citizens of the universe—anxious travelers, much of the time, passing through our days and nights in uncertainty and confusion concerning what matters most. In one sense, we are alone. No one else will live our life or die our death. Each self is unique, responsible, and indissoluble. Yet our fate is bound up with our world and our fellow travelers, each of whom has a particular way of coping with—or avoiding—these insistent immensities. We are alone—together.
What if these perennial human questions, yearnings, and wrestlings with destiny are merely human, all-too-human? What if hope cannot extend beyond human endeavor itself and is never answered by anything beyond it? What if the millennia of human cries echo only into the empty sky and no further? That possibility must be faced if the quest itself is to have any meaning. In the end, hope without truth is pointless. Illusions and delusions, no matter how comforting or grandiose, are the enemies of those who strive for integrity in their knowing and being. Statements such as “I like to think of the universe as having a purpose” or “The thought of an afterlife gives me peace” reflect mere wishes. These notions do not address the truth or falsity of there being purpose in the world or of our postmortem survival, because there is no genuine claim to knowledge: a warranted awareness of reality as it is. A hearty, sturdy, and insatiable appetite for reality—whatever it might be—is the only engine for testing and discerning truth. Truth is what matters most, particularly truth concerning our human condition in the world—its origin, its nature, its purpose (if any), and its destiny. Knowing the truth and living according to its requirements should be the hope and aspiration of the reflective person. Only our knowledge of truth—our awareness of reality, no matter how sketchy or partial—can help resolve the inner bickering between the claims of hope and the fears of despair.
The very concept of objective truth is under fire today. Some esteem it as nothing better than a philosophical hangover from less realistic days, a chimera impossible to attain yet still alluring for too many. (We return to these denials and deniers in chap. 5.) Truth may also be shunned in a more pedestrian manner. Instead of being philosophically pummeled, the concept of truth may simply be shunted aside with a shrug and a smirk—as antique and extraneous to “real life,” which then is defined as little more than what lies within one’s short-term memory and what enflames one’s immediate expectations.2 Yet humans are privileged with the ability to transcend their immediate experiences and ponder other matters. Such is the stuff of philosophy, literature, religion, and late-night discussions in college dormitories (at least one hopes these still occur).
Perhaps instead of our seeking a reason for hope or asking for life’s meaning or meanings, the situation is reversed. Perhaps we are on the witness stand before the jury of life. This is just how the late psychiatrist Viktor Frankl put it in his classic work Man’s Search for Meaning: “Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather must recognize that it is he who is asked. In a word, each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his own life; to life he can only respond by being responsible.”3 “The gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek,” Frankl observes, “were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”4 As a prisoner of Hitler’s death camps, Frankl noted that those captives with a sense of meaning that reached beyond their immediate experiences maintained hope and dignity, even in their Nazi hell. Those without benefit of this conviction tended to atrophy and die in the pressure cooker of evil, even if they were spared the gas chambers.
Nevertheless, one may live or die for a lie; one may hope in something that gives meaning, direction, and even courage for life and be on the wrong side of the truth. Zeal does not ensure knowledge; in fact, zeal may serve as a beguiling surrogate for knowledge. It may even blind us to what matters most—and destroy others as a result. After months of meticulous preparation, nineteen young zealots boarded four American passenger flights on September 11, 2001, to carry out a mission that was centered on and animated by a particular interpretation of reality. They were no nihilists—barren of meaning—seeking to destroy for no reason, as some early commentators intoned. They endeavored to accomplish the will of God (Allah) itself—at the expense of their earthly lives, but in the hope of a paradise of very earthly delights. Their lives they gave, and over three thousand lives they took, and the civilizations of the globe will never be the same as a consequence.
Years before the events of September 11, 2001, political scientist Samuel Huntington spoke of a “clash of civilizations” that lay ahead. This thesis was in stunning contrast to a much-celebrated and debated book on world civilizations by Francis Fukuyama published in 1992 that heralded “the end of history.” Reworking some themes from Hegel’s philosophy of history, Fukuyama claimed that the liberal democracies of the West set the standard for world emulation. In that sense history had reached its end or telos. Other nations would soon follow the lead of these enlightened Western nations. Global conflicts over which form of government was ideal would diminish since that issue was really settled with the failure of Communism and the ascent of liberal democracy worldwide. Fukuyama wondered if this democratizing and stabilizing process might eventually lead to a kind of boredom, but he did not foresee the events that now enshroud us.5
But Huntington saw another, less felicitous world. The struggles between civilizations, he claimed, would not primarily be fueled by nationality, politics, ideologies, or economics, but by different “cultures” and their perspectives on reality. “Peoples and nations are attempting to answer the most basic questions humans can face: Who are we? And they are answering that question in the traditional way human beings have answered it, by reference to the things that mean most to them.”6 What means the most to them is, in the final analysis, their worldview: that complex of concepts that explains and gives meaning to reality from where they stand—given their diverse ancestries, histories, institutions, and religions.7 The slogan “One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter” may be correct on a descriptive or sociological level, but it rings hollow philosophically, since it avoids the vexing questions of hope, meaning, truth, morality, and rationality. Religion is not withering away under the conditions of modernity, nor can it be adequately accounted for on the basis of social and political factors. It has its own intrinsic power in world affairs and in the minds of mortals.8
But these observations, while important, cannot settle the question of which religion (if any) is true and worth following. Nor can the resurgence of religion in the world—particularly Islam and Christianity in the Majority World9—count intellectually against a secular worldview that leaves no room for God in its understanding of reality. Truth is not determined by counting noses. To begin to answer these questions regarding ultimate reality, we must dig deeper than charting or anticipating social change. We need to think hard, ponder, and assess the options in light of the sharpest reasoning and the best available evidence.
I am convinced that a solid and compelling case can be made that what matters most for everyone in this life and beyond is one’s orientation to Jesus of Nazareth, the incarnation of God. Hope here finds its goal—in the truth that satisfies and liberates. Finding one’s way to this discovery may take many routes. This book carves out a path of intellectual investigation and argument. It is a work of apologetics, the ancient and ongoing discipline of defending and advocating Christian theism. This book is applicable to both unbelievers and those believers who seek a stronger reason for their hope. To this end we will explore the core claims of Christianity in light of the counterclaims of its major rivals in the contemporary world. I do not pretend to be neutral on this score. I am a professing Christian who believes the Christian worldview to be true, rationally compelling, existentially engaging, and socially, globally, and perennially pertinent. However, the book will appeal to rational and factual considerations that any thinking and concerned person should be able to appreciate.
Before outlining the contours of my approach in more detail, a few words about my own journey may be apropos, since one’s biography invariably shapes one’s thinking—although a book is better judged by the merits of its arguments than by the story and credentials of its author.10 After my conversion to Christianity in 1976 at age nineteen, I was counseled by some (although not in so many words) to give up the life of the mind—which I had just begun to explore in my first year of college—in favor of a faith rooted in experience. I attempted this for a few tormenting months. I failed, but I did not give up on being a Christian. There was another and better way. The inquiring mind needs satisfying answers, not merely experiences. As Aristotle put it in the opening sentence of his Metaphysics, “Man by nature desires to know”—and this is no less true of the Christian than of anyone else.11 Moreover, a Christian anthropology affirms that humans were made to know their Maker and to love God with all their minds (Mt 22:37-39). This is often a demanding task, but also a rewarding one. Since my failed experiment in unreflective faith, I have pursued the life of the mind as a calling from Christ.
Accordingly, I earned graduate degrees in philosophy and worked for twelve years in campus ministry at two secular universities. I have written extensively on diverse topics for many different kinds of publications (academic and popular), and have been a full-time professor of philosophy since 1993. I make it a point to speak and write in forums where the truth of Christianity is not taken for granted. I do this in order to challenge the audience with its revolutionary claims as well as to test my own mettle in intellectually demanding situations. So, while this book makes no claims to be the final word on the subject, it does flow from a life consistently and continually occupied with the themes it addresses. The book does not presuppose the truth of Christianity, nor does it want to beg any philosophical questions. My approach is that of Francis Schaeffer, who said, “I try to approach every problem as though I were not a Christian and see what the answer would be.”12
Christian Apologetics begins by laying out the biblical case for apologetics and the apologetic method necessary for defending the faith. That faith (i.e., the Christian worldview) is then explained and defended against various false charges. This initial ground clearing is followed by a defense of the concept of objective truth and the need to seek truth passionately, especially given the high stakes of the Christian message (heaven or hell). The next several chapters address the case for God from natural theology—ontological, cosmological, design, moral, and religious experience arguments for God. To these arguments for theism are added arguments for why the uniqueness of humanity—our greatness, misery, consciousness, and rationality—is best explained by Christian theism. The next several chapters defend the historical reliability of the Bible, particularly the New Testament. With that foundation, we take up the identity of Jesus Christ, his claims, credentials, incarnation, and resurrection. In arguing for these things we will also be considering alternative views and how they fare intellectually. Having made this overall case for Christianity, we then take up three significant challenges to it: the challenge of religious pluralism (Christianity cannot be the only way, given so many religions), the resurgence of Islam and its claims to be the one true religion, and the problem of evil (God cannot be all-good and all-powerful, given the evils of the world). In the next chapter, I turn the tables and argue that Christianity, of all the worldviews, gives the best existential response to coming with evil (which is lament). The final chapter exhorts those confident of Christian truth to lead lives that radiate those convictions before the watching, waiting, and weeping world. Two appendixes attend to significant questions that have not been fully explored earlier in the book. The first appendix defends the biblical doctrine of hell as rooted in the wise and sobering teachings of Jesus himself, and the second appendix (by Richard Hess) tackles some vexing questions related to the reliability and morality of the Hebrew Bible.
IS THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW TRUE and rational? Is it worth believing and living out? Within these questions resides the discipline of Christian apologetics. It offers answers based on rational arguments, yet these arguments can never be divorced from the apologist’s personal character. Therefore, apologetics is necessarily both theoretical and personal, both intellectual and relational. Along with the method of the apologetic argument comes the manner of the apologist himself. Both are equally vital, as we will see.
The task in this chapter is to tighten up our understanding of apologetics by explaining its basis in Scripture. After these basics are battened down and the course charted, we can launch out into intellectual adventures argument by argument in the chapters that follow.
THE MEANING OF APOLOGETICS AND ITS BIBLICAL BASIS
The word apologetics is often used today in a derogatory way to mean a biased and belligerent advocacy of an indefensible position. Yet the idea of presenting a credible “apology” for a legitimate position or viewpoint has a long and rich history. For example, the American founders presented an apology (or apologetic) for what would become the American form of government in the Federalist Papers. These learned and eloquent apologists explained and rationally defended a political perspective in the face of objections. Socrates famously defended himself against criminal charges in the Apology. An apologist, then, is a defender and an advocate for a particular position. There are apologists aplenty for all manner of religion and irreligion. The position is not reserved for Christians or other religionists. Richard Dawkins, for example, is a tireless apologist for atheistic Darwinism and, as such, an equally tireless opponent of all religion, but particularly of Christianity.1 While apologists may resort to propaganda or even coercion in order to win approval for their positions, they need not do so. Of course, the Christian, following Christ’s example, must never do so.
Christian apologetics is the rational defense of the Christian worldview as objectively true, rationally compelling, and existentially or subjectively engaging. The word apologetics comes from the Greek word apologia, which can be translated as “defense” or “vindication.” In the days of the New Testament “an apologia was a formal courtroom defense of something (2 Tim 4:16).”2 The word, in either the noun form apologia or the verb form apologeomai, appears eight times in the New Testament (Acts 22:1; 25:16; 1 Cor 9:3; 2 Cor 7:11; Phil 1:7, 16; 2 Tim 4:16; 1 Pet 3:15). The term is used specifically for a rational defense of the gospel in three texts: Philippians 1:7, 16, and most famously in 1 Peter 3:15-16.3
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer [apologia] to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
Peter writes to strengthen Christians who are suffering for their faith. The reason they can endure and even find hope in suffering is Jesus himself. But simply saying “Jesus” when someone asks why you have hope in times of suffering is to fail to give a full apologetic. Although this passage does not directly address the whole scope of apologetics, it does encourage believers to articulate the reason for their Christian confidence. In light of this, we should also explain why we believe in Jesus in the first place; that is, why Jesus is our sufficient comfort and inspiration for difficult conditions.
Apostolic authority bids us to give a reason for our hope with “gentleness and respect”—two qualities usually absent from disputes about religion (and politics). In an astute book about Christ-like gentleness, Mary Ann Froelich defines gentleness as “a conscious decision to temper one’s knowledge, skills, authority, or power with kindness and compassion” and argues that Jesus ministry was characterized by this virtue.4 By following the Master, one can become, like him, “a gentle powerhouse.”5
Apologetics defends the defining Christian truth claims against various challenges from unbelievers (see chap. 6). This definition of apologetics invokes both rational legitimacy (objective truth) and emotional appeal (subjective attractiveness). As such, it harks back to Pascal’s programmatic comment on his own never-finished apologetic project.6
Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect. Next make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is. Worthy of reverence because it really understands human nature. Attractive because it promises true good.7
Many people are, at least initially, wary or even resentful of Christianity—its demand for faith, humility, submission to divine authority, willingness to sacrifice for the Christian cause, repentance (meaning the end of indifference and hedonism), and so on. They fear that if it is true, they are on the hook, and if they submit to its terms, their lives will get worse. But if it is true and they fail to submit, God will get them in the end.8 The antidote to this conundrum is to defend Christianity’s core claims rationally in order to show that Christianity is indeed objectively true. But more than this, apologetics needs to demonstrate that Christian truth is winsome because it explains who we are and how we can flourish as creatures in this life and beyond, if we are reconciled to our Creator.
But apologetics is offered not only in response to the doubts and denials of non-Christians.9 It also fortifies believers in their faith, whether they are wrestling with doubts and questions or simply seeking a deeper grounding for their biblical beliefs. When John the Baptist was in prison and wondering whether Jesus was truly the Messiah, as John had previously proclaimed, Jesus provided evidence of his identity as the Messiah. Jesus did not rebuke John’s questions but answered him by listing his unique credentials as the Messiah who supernaturally fulfilled prophecies from the Hebrew Scriptures (Mt 11:1-11). One reason Christianity has failed to exert much influence on the major intellectual institutions of America is that too many Christians hold their beliefs in an uninformed and precarious fashion. Instead of pursuing answers to the toughest questions an unbelieving world can marshal, they attempt to preserve certainty through ignorance and isolation, relying on platitudes rather than arguments.
Near the end of his noteworthy apologetics book, The God Who Is There, Francis Schaeffer chides and challenges his Christian readers:
When we understand our calling, it is not only true, but beautiful—and it should be exciting. It is hard to understand how an orthodox, evangelical, Bible-believing Christian can fail to be excited. The answers in the realm of the intellect should make us overwhelmingly excited. But more than this, we are returned to a personal relationship with the God who is there. If we are unexcited Christians, we should go back and see what is wrong.10
Enthusiasm at the prospect of knowing and advocating Christian truth does not exclude rational rigor. The apologist, in fact, cannot substitute bare emotional fervor for intellectual acumen and hard study. Rather, they should work hand in hand.
APOLOGETICS’ RELATIONSHIP TO THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY
Apologetics is linked to theology, philosophy, and evangelism, but it is not reducible to any one of these disciplines. The conceptual content of apologetics depends on theology, the goal of which is to systematically and coherently articulate the truth claims of the Bible according to various topics, such as the doctrine of God, salvation, and Christ. The apologist who has a strong commitment to the truth of Scripture endeavors to defend what Scripture teaches, and nothing less. Therefore, the discipline of apologetics requires skill in reading the Bible aright, since one would not want to defend something not warranted by Scripture, which is the ultimate authority when properly interpreted by the principles of logic and hermeneutics (the philosophy of interpreting documents).
Apologetics and biblical interpretation. Bad biblical interpretation can make Christianity look bad. The influential New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff, who is not a scholar of religion, began a book review in the New York Times Book Review by quoting the apostle Paul: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” He then writes that scholars “suspect that this was actually written by some grump other than St. Paul, but such sexist passages are sometimes used by conservative Christians to justify the subjugation of women—and by secular liberals to portray the Bible as outdated.”11
Karen Armstrong, however, has come to the rescue by giving a third way for interpreting the Bible and other holy books. Her book, The Lost Art of Scripture,12 Kristoff claims, provides a deeper understanding of Scripture that goes beyond both fundamentalism and dismissive secularism. Holy books must not be read literally, but in other more spiritually creative ways. If so, one can preserve a holy meaning without endorsing things like the subjection of women (Christianity and Islam) and the persecution of the infidels (Islam). Armstrong’s large volume gives us this interpretive key, Kristoff claims.
Armstrong is a perennialist, who believes that all religions at their core teach that God is an unknowable oneness beyond language.13 Thus, her hermeneutic will bend Scriptures in that direction when needed. However, it is not needed if a text is straightforwardly nondualist, such as some passages from the Hindu Upanishads.
Kristoff’s favorable review highlights the role of hermeneutics (the philosophy of interpreting documents) in apologetics. Texts from the Bible are often dismissed as out and out wrong (as in female subjection) or are interpreted in a way that dishonors the nature of the text itself. In Paul’s passage about women (1 Tim 2:12), a proper hermeneutic considers Paul’s context, his original audience, and his teachings on women in the rest of this writings. One should also consider the Bible’s overall teaching on gender. With any writing, a text taken out of context is a pretext for error. Given these considerations, far from laying down a universal restriction on women teaching, Paul is, rather, handling a particular problem of false women teachers at Ephesus at that time. He recognizes and encourages women to teach and lead in other settings.14
But however one addresses Paul’s statement quoted by Kristoff, it raises the question of properly interpreting the Bible in order that apologists know what they ought to defend. Part of apologetics is defending what ought to be defended and what ought not be defended, since the Bible does not, in fact, teach this. So, apologists need to be solid interpreters of Scripture. The apostle Peter warns his readers that some have “twisted” the letters of the apostle Paul and have done so to their own destruction” (2 Pet 3:16).15 Reading Scripture wrongly is serious business before God, according to Jesus:
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.” (Mt 15:1-6)
Apologists dare not “nullify the word of God” for the sake of tradition or because of bad interpretation or for any other reason. Like Jesus, we need to flush out misunderstandings of Scripture in order to defend the truth of the Bible. Chapter eight takes up some false appropriations of Scripture. But let us here consider some essential considerations for the proper interpretation of the Bible.16
First is the question of translating the Bible. Craig Blomberg’s chapter in this book defends the New Testament documents as historically reliable and that they have been accurately translated over all. I only want to add that to interpret the Bible properly—in order to defend what it means by what it says—one needs to consider three basic philosophies of translation.
Translations such as the King James Version, New American Standard Bible, and the English Standard Version take a word-for-word approach as much as possible and do not explain the significance of some figures of speech that may be foreign to modern readers. The dynamic equivalent approach, used in the New International Version, will sometimes explain a figure of speech instead of literally translating it. A paraphrase, such as the Living Bible, the New Living Translation, or The Message, does not strive for word-for-word accuracy or dynamic equivalence, but rather the sense of a passage using contemporary idioms.
In studying the Bible to discern its meaning, it is best to read the original biblical languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. However, consulting several translations in comparison is helpful to understanding. As Miles Coverdale wrote in 1538 about the Paris edition of his translation of the New Testament into Latin and English,
For if thou open thine eyes and consider well the gift of the Holy Ghost therein, thou shall see that one translation declareth, openeth and illustrateth another and that in many cases is a plain commentary unto another.17
And by learning the basic principles of interpretation the original meaning the author intended can usually be recovered, understood, and believed. The Bible is not a closed book to those who want to open it (Ps 119; Heb 4:12).
Second, the question of taking the Bible literally is usually dogged by unacknowledged confusion if not obfuscation. The Bible depicts Jesus as lamb and a lion in the book of Revelation. No one takes this to mean that Jesus transmogrified into a lamb or a lion (or some combination) after his ascension when the events of the Apocalypse get cranked up. The issue is not about taking the Bible literarily but taking the Bible seriously given the different kinds of literature it presents. To interpret the resurrection of Jesus metaphorically instead of historically (or literally) would be a grave error.18 But to take one of Jesus’ parables as a historical event would be mistaken as well.
Third, apologists must root their understanding of biblical texts in the intent and cultural background of the original author, as much as this can be discerned. Texts may have implications and assumptions beyond what the authors explicitly state, but the essential meaning of any text is found in the ideas that the author was attempting to convey. When I receive a written card from a friend, I want to know what he was trying to communicate. I want to know his mind on the matters at hand. I should not view his card—or any other written document, whether the Constitution or the liner notes to a sound recording—as a wax nose that I can twist in any direction I want. When you consult a recipe to prepare a dish, you want to know what the cook had in mind. You may improvise in your culinary skills, but you must first read the recipe as it was intended to be written.
Divine inspiration does not contradict this principle, since God works through human authors in their own literary, personal, and historical contexts. The Spirit directed the authors to write what they wrote when they wrote it and for their original audience (2 Pet 1:20-21). God, having made humans in his image and likeness (Gen 1:26), does not shy away from employing human words—whether spoken or written—to make his truth known. We can never directly read the mind of God of know truth exhaustively; but we may plumb the meaning of God’s chosen author in a book in the Bible.
This third point means that any postmodern or deconstructionist readings of the Bible are ruled out in principle. Texts are not elastic in their meaning nor does the reader give a text its meaning.19 Rather, the objective otherness of the text should be accepted as a challenge for understanding. If I try to discern the meaning of a painting, I don’t bring a paint brush with me. If I try to discern the meaning of a poem, I don’t bring white-out with me.
Fourth, recognizing the genre of a biblical books is crucial for fathoming their meaning. For example, a proverb from the book of Proverbs is a generalization that gives us a wise orientation to life. “Work hard and you will proper” is a repeated theme in Proverbs. But we know from our life experiences and from Ecclesiastes that this is not a sure-fire recipe for success, since hard work and talent often go unrewarded in our fallen world “under the sun” (Eccles 9:11). Still, Proverbs gives good advice on many topics.
To take another example, the four Gospels recount the life and teachings of Jesus. Each book is written by a different author and has different audiences in mind. They all address the life of Jesus, and want to get the facts straight for the good of their respective readers (Lk 1:1-4; Jn 21:25). But when we come to an epistle (a letter written by an apostle to a church or to all churches), the literary situation changes, since these letters are occasioned by certain questions and problems in the early church, whether in Corinth or Ephesus. Thus, some of the instructions given may be time-bound (although not arbitrary). When Peter says, “Greet one another with a kiss of love” (1 Pet 5:14), we need not take that as a universal command about kissing in the church. Rather, it was a sign of love and acceptance that has its analogs today in a handshake or an embrace. Thus, we apply the underlying intention of the author, not how he applied that meaning in his first-century culture.20
Fifth, since the one and true God is the primary author of the Bible, all the affirmation of Scripture agree with one another, and all are true. This is known as “the analogy of faith”—the Bible interprets the Bible. For example, a statement in Luke will not contradict a statement in Revelation. When critics claim that “the Bible contradicts itself,” we must ask what the critic has in mind and then consider the basis of the charge. When the apostle James says that we are justified by works and not by faith alone (Jas 2:14-26), on the surface it seems that he is contradicting Paul’s teaching that justification is by faith alone (Eph 2:8). A closer look reveals that James is speaking of the verification or confirmation of our faith when he speaks of works. Good works demonstrate that a true faith is at work in the believer. Paul likewise writes that faith will produce good works (Eph 2:10). Thus, there is no contradiction, and the critic’s mouth is shut (for now).
Sixth, sound biblical interpretation requires an open heart and a sound mind, both of which should be grounded in the power of God himself, who is the God of all truth. To that end, we must beseech God for the skills and humility to read and heed his Word aright and then get busy consulting the proper experts and developing hermeneutical skills. Isaiah said, “Hear the word of the LORD, you who tremble at his word” (Is 66:5). I am not advocating a mystical-magical method by which the Holy Spirit tells us things that are not objectively in the text. On the contrary, the Spirit answers to the Word, since the Word is “God-breathed” (2 Tim 3:16). That same Holy Spirit who inspired the Scripture can, through the principles I have given, illuminate us as to its objective meaning and particular application.
Apologetics and philosophy. Apologetics is an aspect of the philosophy of religion (broadly understood), which is the rational investigation of religious truth claims. Certainly, one may engage in the philosophy of religion as a critic of Christianity (such as William Rowe, Michael Martin, or Graham Oppy) or as an advocate of the Buddhist or Islamic worldviews. However, the Christian apologist employs the tools of the philosophy of religion in service of the Christian worldview.
While apologetics in one sense may be considered a branch of theology, it also walks arm in arm with philosophy. The definition of philosophy is not easy to stuff into a nutshell, but I suggest that philosophy, whatever else it might be, is the investigation of significant truth claims through rational analysis.21 In that light, the necessary and sufficient conditions for being a philosopher (whether good or bad, major or minor, employed or unemployed) are a strong and lived-out inclination to pursue truth about philosophical matters through the rigorous use of human reasoning and to do so with some intellectual facility.
A Christian-qua-apologist, then, must be a good philosopher (even if not a professional philosopher). This is nonnegotiable and indispensable. As a logical and persuasive discipline, the connection of apologetics to philosophy is vital. Those who do not yet believe the Bible typically are not interested in expositions of biblical doctrine per se. Of more pertinence to the unbeliever is whether the arguments under consideration are rationally compelling.
Apologetics and evangelism. The defense of Christianity as objectively true, rationally compelling, and subjectively engaging also plays a leading role in evangelism. Many leading evangelists, such as Billy Graham, make almost no use of apologetics; but Graham did not disparage apologetics. On the other hand, I once spoke with a gifted evangelist who could not fathom why a prominent apologist spent so much time explaining and critiquing postmodernism during his lectures to college audiences before inviting people to convert to Christ. From this man’s perspective, “all this philosophy” was a waste of time that would have been better spent explaining the gospel and giving the “invitation.” I believe this evangelist’s complaint was grounded in a misunderstanding. Apologetics can be used to remove or diminish intellectual obstacles that hinder people from embracing Christ as Lord; thus it serves as pre-evangelism. In some cases—especially in academic settings where unbelief has become second nature for so many—“all this philosophy” is required for evangelism to become even a possibility. J. Gresham Machen (1881–1937), the great biblical scholar and apologist, understood this well in the early twentieth century.
God usually exerts power [for conversion] in connection with certain prior conditions of the human mind, and it should be ours to create, so far as we can, with the help of God, those favourable conditions for the reception of the gospel. False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervour of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion.22
In a time when people are worried about “religion being shoved down their throat,” it is important to draw a distinction between apologetics in service of evangelism and proselytizing. Proselytizing and evangelizing can be used synonymously in some contexts, but proselytizing is usually used pejoratively to mean the exercise of untoward or unethical influence on a person. However, Christian persuasion (involving both apologetics and evangelism), if it is true to Scripture and the Holy Spirit, eschews any undue pressure, personal threats, power plays, coercion, or deception. The goal of conversion does not justify every means of convincing, but only those means that flow from Scripture itself. Christ-like apologetics labors to communicate the truth in love and with wisdom (Eph 4:15). In truly Christian persuasion, one simply seeks to make known the Christian message so that others may hear it, believe it, and live it out.
The results are left to God’s sovereignty and the judgment of those who hear. The apostle Paul sets the standard in his letter to the Thessalonians:
For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you. On the contrary, we speak as those approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please people but God, who tests our hearts. You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a mask to cover up greed—God is our witness. (1 Thess 2:3-5; see also Gal 1:10)
THE BIBLICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR APOLOGETICS
Before exploring the rudiments of apologetic method in chapter two, a strong biblical support for apologetics needs to be established, since it seems many Christians deem apologetics unnecessary at best and harmful at worst. Some claim that the ways of God are incorrigibly mysterious and beyond figuring out, thus leaving no place for rational argumentation for Christian truth. “You cannot argue anyone into the kingdom,” it is often said. Yes, an infinitely wise God has myriad ways of getting our attention and revealing his saving truth. But the biblical evidence, as we will see, indicates that arguments in favor of Christianity are one way by which God reaches those in need of God’s provision. The claim that no one is argued into Christianity is simply false. Although reasoning with unbelievers can prove frustrating, this may be more the fault of poor arguments, poor presentations, or poor character than of the fruitlessness of apologetics per se. William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, two leading Christian apologists and philosophers with decades of experience, claim that arguments have been pivotal tools in their evangelistic strategies, particularly on college campuses.23 They go further: “To speak frankly, we do not know how one could minister effectively in a public way on our university campuses without training in philosophy.”24 Moreover, noteworthy modern thinkers such as John Warwick Montgomery, C. S. Lewis,25 and Lee Strobel26 trace their conversions to key transformations in their thinking wrought through rational arguments.27 And one should never forget that the conversion of the great Saint Augustine involved sustained philosophical engagement with Christianity.28
The foundation of apologetics is the very character of God. There is but one God, whose nature and revelation must be affirmed and declared by the faithful in the face of multiple counterfeits (Ex 20:1-3). We discover the importance of reasoning regarding religious claims throughout the Old Testament. As Moreland points out,
Regularly, the prophets appealed to evidence to justify belief in the biblical God or in the divine authority of their inspired message: fulfilled prophecy [Is 40–45], the historical fact of miracles [Elijah and prophets of Baal], the inadequacy of finite pagan deities to be a cause of such a large, well-ordered universe compared to the God of the Bible [Jer 10:1-16], and so forth. They did not say, “God said it, that settles it, you should believe it!” They gave a rational defense for their claims.29
This is highlighted by the words of God through Isaiah the prophet, “‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ saith the LORD” (Is 1:18 KJV). We can add that Israel was given rational tests for the prophets. If they denied the religion that had been given to Israel, they were false prophets, even if their predictions came to pass (Deut 13:1-5). If their predictions did not come to pass, they were deemed false prophets (Deut 18:20). The creation account of Genesis 1 may have been written as a polemic or apologetic against the mythical cosmologies of other Near Eastern cultures. Genesis’s emphasis on one Creator who is separate from his nondivine creation radically contradicted the polytheism of surrounding cultures.30 While the ruler of the universe is certainly in a position to issue threats and make pronouncements when needed, he also deigns to reason with his creatures who are made in his image and who, therefore, share (in a finite and fallible way) the ability to reason.
JESUS AS APOLOGETIC EXEMPLAR
Because Jesus, echoing the Hebrew Scriptures, affirmed that we should love God with all of our being, including our minds (Mt 22:37-39), believers should defend God’s truth when it is assailed. Jesus himself did just this throughout his ministry. He was an apologist and a philosopher, although these categories are rarely applied to him today.31
Consider just one example of Jesus’ ability to escape neatly from between the horns of a dilemma when challenged intellectually.32 The Sadducees attempt to spring a trap on Jesus by questioning him about the afterlife. They, unlike the Pharisees, did not believe in life after death, or in angels or spirits (although they were theists), and they granted special authority only to the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. So the Sadducees remind Jesus of Moses’ command “that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him” (Mt 22:24). Then they propose a scenario in which the same woman is married to and then widowed by seven brothers, none of whom sire any children by her. Then the woman dies. “Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?” they ask pointedly (Mt 22:28).
Their argument is brilliant. The Sadducees know that Jesus reveres the law of Moses, as they do. They also know that Jesus, unlike themselves, teaches that there will be a resurrection of the dead. They think that these two beliefs are logically at odds with each other; they cannot both be true. The woman cannot be married to all seven at the resurrection (Mosaic law did not allow for polyandry), nor is there any reason why she should be married to any one out of the seven (thus honoring monogamy). Therefore, they figure, Jesus must either come against Moses or deny the afterlife if he is to remain free from contradiction. They are presenting this as a logical dilemma: either A (Moses’ authority) or B (the afterlife).
Philosopher Michael Martin and others have asserted that Jesus praised uncritical faith and threatened more than he argued.33 If these charges were correct, one might expect Jesus (1) to dodge the question with a pious and unrelated utterance, (2) to threaten hell for those who dare question his authority, or (3) simply to assert two logically incompatible propositions with no hesitation or shame. Instead, Jesus forthrightly says that the Sadducees are in error because they have failed to know the Scripture or the power of God.
At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”? He is not the God of the dead but of the living. (Mt 22:30-32)
Jesus’ response has an astuteness that may not be obvious. First, he challenges their assumption that belief in the resurrection means that we are committed to believing that all of our premortem institutions will be retained in the postmortem, resurrected world. None of the Hebrew Scriptures teach this, nor did Jesus believe it. Thus, the dilemma dissolves. Jesus states a third option that exposes this false dilemma as such: there is no married state at the resurrection.
Second, as part of his response to their logical trap, Jesus compares the resurrected state of men and women to that of the angels, thus challenging the Sadducees’ disbelief in angels. (Although the Sadducees did not believe in angels, they knew that their fellow Jews who did believe in angels thought that angels did not marry or procreate.)
Third, Jesus cites a text from the Sadducees’ own esteemed Scriptures (Ex 3:6), where God declares to Moses from the burning bush that he is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus could have cited a variety of texts from writings outside the first five books of the Bible in support of the resurrection, such as the prophets (Dan 12:2) or Job (Job 19:25-27), but instead he deftly argues from their own trusted sources, which he also endorsed (Mt 5:17-20; Jn 10:31).
Fourth, Jesus capitalizes on the verb tense of the verse he quotes. God is (present tense) the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, all of whom had already died at the time God uttered this to Moses. God did not cease to be their God at their earthly demise. God did not say, “I was their God” (past tense). God is the God of the living, which includes even the “dead” patriarchs. “When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching,” for Jesus had “silenced the Sadducees” (Mt 22:33-34).
OTHER BIBLICAL TESTIMONY
Many other examples of Jesus’ intellectual acumen and apologetic savvy may be mustered, but the point is that Jesus unapologetically engaged in apologetics with his sharpest critics. If he is the model for Christians, we should do so as well. Jesus’ apostles and other writers of the New Testament certainly recognized this. Peter admonishes the followers of Jesus to be ready with an answer (apologetic) concerning their hope in the gospel and to present this in a gentle and respectful spirit (1 Pet 3:15-17). Likewise, Paul speaks of coming against arguments that deny the knowledge of God (2 Cor 10:3-5;34 see also Col 2:8-9). Jude joins the chorus by writing, “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people” (Jude 3).
Luke, the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, recognized the need for certainty on behalf of the original recipient of his Gospel.
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Lk 1:1-4, emphasis added)35
Not only do the writers of the New Testament commend apologetics, they engage in it as well—just as their Master did. The sermons of Peter and Paul recorded in Acts all have a strong apologetic backbone. For the Jews, these apostles develop an apologetic of Jesus as the fulfillment of ancient Jewish prophecy concerning the Messiah. For the Gentiles, the emphasis rests more on the evidence of God’s workings through nature and history in general.36 One sermon of Paul’s deserves a bit more commentary, since it exudes apologetics aptitude.
PAUL IN ATHENS: APOLOGIST EXTRAORDINAIRE
Paul came to Athens after fleeing persecution by the Thessalonians in Berea (Acts 17:13-15). His witness at Athens is the most detailed account in Acts of a Christian teacher challenging non-Jewish thinkers.
Athens in Paul’s day was not at the height of its intellectual, cultural, or military influence, but it was still a cultural powerhouse. It was much like a major college town today. Yet Paul was “greatly distressed” because the city was full of idols (Acts 17:16). But instead of unleashing a thundering condemnation on the Athenians, Paul began to reason with the Jews in the synagogue and with the God-fearing Greeks day by day, as was his custom.
There was “a group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers” in Athens who “began to debate” with Paul (Acts 17:18). Although they wrongly accused him of being a “babbler” (or intellectual plagiarist) who advocated “foreign gods,” they nevertheless invited him to speak to the Areopagus (Acts 17:18-19). This was a prestigious group of thinkers who deemed themselves the custodians of new ideas.
From creation to Creator.
