Here is a great resource for sermons and also research. It provides great quotes from original sources. I have started a study on Mormonism an up coming sermon and CARM has been a very helpful resource.
There were at least three major doctrines covered in the sermon by Jesus in Luke 24:27 that fixes believers with a non-biblical world view. The survey of major doctrines of the Old Testament in one sermon produced a Biblical world view. Jesus preached what Paul would later call the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27), what Albert Mohler calls the big story or the metanarrative of Scripture and what D. A. Carson calls the “Bible’s plot-line or a comprehensive story that provides the framework for a comprehensive explanation, a comprehensive worldview” (D. A. Carson. The Gagging of God.Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, page 191).
1) Creation was a supernatural act of God
This Biblical doctrine equips us to answers the big questions: “Where did this world come from?” “Where did I come from?” “Why was I born?” “Why am I here?” “What is my purpose in life?” The secular world view, Atheism, says a freak accident in nature caused everything: A big bang. The big bang theory is defined by Carson: “An original and unimaginably condensed particle of all matter/energy blew up and in time produced the universe? (The Gagging of God, page 199).
The Biblical world view, Creationism, believes God created the universe out of nothing in six 24 hour days. He created the first man in His image. Therefore only humans are capable of fellowshipping with God. According to John 1:1-3 God used Jesus to create the universe. I’m sure Jesus mentioned this truth in His seven mile Bible conference. We are God-like or capable of having a relationship with God. We are not hairless apes. We are also accountable for this responsibility. David in Psalm 139:13-14 praises God for creating him in his mother’s womb. We have to believe that God made us the way we are for a reason: Do you praise Him with your lips and life. This is why you are here. We are not freak accidents of fate. You might say, “But my parents did not plan me.” “God did!”
2) The fall of man was rebellion against God.
Creation answers questions like, “Where did this planet come from?” “Where did I come from?” “Why am I here?” “What is my purpose for existence?”
The Biblical doctrine of the Fall helps us answers some more big questions: “Why do I have difficult circumstances?” “Why are people so mean?” “Why am I so mean?” God had created the planet and man in six 24 hours days and said, “It is very good.” The earth and the environment were perfect. Adam and Eve literally lived in a paradise. They were as morally and totally innocent as a newborn baby. What happened? The environment is now deadly. People are wicked and selfish. Some lady from Mt Airy counterfeited our checks and wiped out our checking account before Christmas. She did this selfish act because of the Fall. Adam and Eve rebelled against God’s one rule in Genesis 3. God’s one rule was stated clearly in Genesis 2:16-17: You must choose to love me more than yourself. If you choose to love yourself more than me, you will die. Paul interprets the impact of this sin on each of us here today in Romans 5:12. We are born rebels and that is the reason people are selfish and mean.
Man rebelled and God was offended as universally demonstrated in the Flood in Genesis 6:5-7. The history of man is the repeated history of rebellion against his holy Creator. God selected one nation (Israel) out of all the rebellious nations to bless the other nations. That nation soon rebels against the goodness of God. He gives them His commandments and they construct a golden calf to worship.
In the NT Paul paints a bleak picture of us sinners. He describes us as “dead in trespasses and sins.” Not sick and with a little help we can make ourselves better. With a little antibiotic of religion I can heal myself. No, we don’t have a temporary sin virus. We are dead, which will require a supernatural resurrection. God is still offended at sinful, rebellious sinners. He is going to judge this planet again not with a universal flood but with a worldwide fire. Peter predicts (2 Peter 3) that this planet will be a great ball of fire in the future when God once again pours out His wrath on a generation of rebels.
3)The cross is our only hope.
Creation answers questions like, “Where did this planet come from?” “Where did I come from?” “Why am I here?” “What is my purpose for existence?”
The Biblical doctrine of the Fall helps us answers some more big questions: “Why do I have difficult circumstances?” “Why are people so mean?” “Why am I so mean?”
The Biblical doctrine of the Cross answers the final big questions: “How can I fix my messed up life?” “How can I enjoy real meaning in life?” “I have lots of things and possessions but they don’t fill my deepest longings.” “How can I get rid to this guilt?” “How can I overcome my sins?” All through human history, man has sinned as seen in Genesis 3 and all through human history, God has judged sin as when God expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. All through human history, God has provided a solution. Jesus had to have related the first substitutionary sacrifice when God covered Adam and Eve’s nakedness with the skin of an animal whose innocent blood was shed for their sin (Genesis 3:21). All of those blood sacrifices that God ordained and instituted in the OT pointed to the Lamb of God, Jesus, who died in our place on the cross in order to take away the sin of the world.
What is the solution to my sin problem?
a) Not reform or self helps or breaking bad habits.
I grew up in church and started drinking to prove to my church friends I was not a goodie two shoes. But then I realized there was no happiness in this sinful addiction. I tried to reform. I still hung out with the wrong crowd. But I tried to hide my emptiness. When the beer can was passed to me I would put the can of beer to my lips but not drink and pass it to next person.
b) Not religion. I had religion. I went to Sunday school, youth group, and church.
c) A Relationship with the person who loved me and gave Himself for me.
3. The Result Of God’s Word In Believer’s Lives
It is true that believers can live with a secular world view. It is also true that God’s Word can fix that problem. The result of Jesus surveying the entire OT was the opening of the believers’ eyes in 24:28-35. Before, they did not recognize Jesus in their circumstances and now they do. Before they were sad, now they are excited. Before they disbelieved the Word of God and now they believe that Jesus is risen. Before they were negative and critical and now they rush out to tell others the good news. Their worldview changed from secular to Biblical through the Word of God preached to them.
God’s Word is still quick and powerful and sharper than any two edged sword to change the way we think, act, and react. As Paul said to Timothy, “Give attendance to the reading, doctrine and exhortation of God’s Word” and experience a changed life and world view.
How do you interpret the evening news? I talked to a deputy sheriff this past week who told me that while he was still in training and on one of his first crime scenes there was a drunk driving accident where the passenger was cut in two. The highway patrol was so upset he grabbed the drunk and started shouting, “Look what you did to your friend!” “Look at what you did to your friend!”
Was this just a terrible accident? Was this just bad luck? Or was God involved and going to accomplish His will out of this horrible sin?
2. How do you view your life?
What is your purpose for living? What do you live for? How do you view your difficult circumstance you are presently in? How do you view the problem people in your life?
3. How do you determine what is right or wrong?
What is the basis for your decision making? What will happen to you at death? How you interpret these events, people, circumstances, problems, your purpose, right and wrong, and your future is your world view. Your world view is the prescription glasses or contacts through which you see all things. Your world view is either Biblical or Secular.
Albert Mohler says “One of the challenges of preaching in the postmodern age is that most of the people around us have rejected the idea of the big story altogether.” What Mohler and others call the big story or metanarrative is the world view. “They deny that there can be any one overarching ‘metanarrative’ to which all other narratives are accountable. Jean Francois Lyotard, the chief French theorist of postmodernity, defined postmodernism this way: ‘Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodernity as incredulity toward metanarratives.’ The prevailing ‘incredulity toward metanarrative’ is a big story itself, ironically, and it helps to explain a good deal” (Albert Mohler, Jr. He Is Not Silent. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008, page 90). So every person has a world view or metanarrative even if it is a rejection of world views.
1. Your World View can be Secular (Marxism, Atheism, Pantheism, Postmodernism are secular or non-biblical world views)
There is no supernatural involvement in my life. My life is in my hands or fate. World events are mere tragedies. I have no real reason for living that is eternally significant. I am on my own solving the difficult circumstances or people in my life. My existence ends at death.
Where does a person get this secular view? From secular sources: Secular TV, movies, music, education, literature, novels, etc. This is where it gets tricky. We are in the world but not of the world. Paul read secular Greek poets (Acts 17) and attended or at least knew of secular Greek sporting events (1 Corinthians 9) and wrote about them in Scripture. But Paul did not live for these events. Paul did not idolize these events.
2. Your World View Can Be Biblical (Supernaturalism as seen in Christianity)
There is a supernatural, personal God who loves me and is intimately involved in my life. World events are being directed by God to His ultimate end time goal as predicted in Bible prophecy. I have the greatest purpose for living: to glorify and bring my God pleasure. God has promised to help me and sustain me in my difficult circumstances and with my problem people. God’s Word helps me decide what is right and wrong and do what is right. My future is in God’s hands.
Where does a person get this Biblical world view? You get this Biblical World View from spending serious time in the Bible.
A. Believers Can Live With A Secular World View
Jesus provides a real flesh and blood example of this anomaly in Luke 24. This event happened probably on the afternoon of His resurrection. He joins two disciples who are leaving Jerusalem on foot for a 7 mile walk to Emmaus. They are disappointed that Jesus was put to death by religious leaders. Their world view is secular even though they are believers. In verse 15, they are reasoning and interpreting the events of the first Easter. But they are sad. Their world view is not Biblical. Their world view prevents them from seeing God when they looking straight at Him in the face of His Son. Their world view rejects the supernatural resurrection as expressed in their despondent words in verses 19-24. Believers with a secular world view see circumstances but not God, time but not eternity, and people but not souls.
B. Jesus Rebukes And Fixes Believers With A Secular World View
Jesus rebukes their secular view of the supernatural events of the first Easter in 24:25-26. Jesus changes their world view by surveying the entire Scriptures in what had to be the greatest Bible conference ever in 24:27. Jesus surveyed the 39 books of the OT in one sermon. This was obviously not a verse by verse exposition of 39 OT books or 951 chapters. This was a survey of the major doctrines of the Christian faith, even more specifically the doctrine of Christ as heard in the words “the things concerning Himself,” which enable us to view the world from a Biblical perspective.
There were at least three major doctrines covered in this sermon that fixes believers with a non-biblical world view. We will take a look at these doctrines in Part 2.
Thomas Aquinas represents Rationalism which propounds that Christianity could be proven by pure logic which includes the theistic arguments for God’s existence: cosmological, teleological, anthropological, and the ontological arguments. These arguments for the existence of God in theory came from Thomas Aquinas. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was a Roman Catholic theologian whose Summa Theologica, was declared by Poe Leo XIII to be the official doctrinal statement of the RCC in 1879. Aquinas was influenced by the Greek philosophy of Aristotle and his famous a posteriori argument from effect to cause. The classical arguments for God’s existence as discussed by Ryrie, in part, follow Aquinas’ famous Five Ways or proofs for God’s existence. Here is a summary of Aquinas’ Five Ways or five rational arguments.
Dr. Bowman has excellent notes entitled A Theological Investigation of Evangelical Apologetics in which he classifies evangelical apologetics into four groups. I would suggest you purchase these notes from our book store. The first group is Rationalism. This is the group in which Aquinas would fit. The three other groups are semi-rationalism, semi-persuppositionalism, and presuppositioalism.
Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways or five rational arguments for the existence of God
The argument from motion: All things in motion need a Mover
The cosmological argument: All effects have a Cause
The argument from contingency: All things exist in dependence
The argument from perfection: There is an increasing degree of perfection among things
The teleological argument: The observable design in the world suggests that there must be an intelligent Designer
Semi-Rationalism is represented by Edward John Carnell, who believes that Christian Evidences are necessary to prepare the sinner for the gospel. When I think of this view, Romans 1:16 comes to my mind where Paul said, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes.”
Edward John Carnell wrote An Introduction to Christian Apologetics, A Philosophic Defense of the Trinitarian-Theistic Faith and he taught apologetics at Fuller Theological Seminary. Carnell taught that Christian Evidences are necessary to prepare the sinner for the gospel. His methodology for witnessing to a Type B agnostic who sincerely has intellectual problems with Christianity includes the following steps.
First, present evidence, such as archaeological proof, to prepare the sinner for the gospel. According to Carnell you dare not start with the gospel until you have answered all of the intellectual difficulties.
Second, if the sinner is impressed turn to the Scripture.
Third, if the sinner is unimpressed use logic and pure rationalism.
Fourth, if the sinner is still unimpressed, stop and go no further.
When Carnell was a freshman at Wheaton College, under the philosophy teacher Gordon Clark, Carnell stopped witnessing at the street meeting when certain men asked him questions about Christianity which he could not answer. What do you think he should have done?
Semi-Presuppositionalism is similar to the Semi-Rationalism view. Semi-Presuppositionalism has a little more dependence on God than Semi-Rationalism. Semi-Presuppositionalism believes Christian Evidences may be used by God.
Bernard Ramm in his book Protestant Christian Evidence explains: “Apologetics and Christian evidences are not the gospel, but if a man has a prejudice against the gospel it is the function of apologetics and evidences to remove that prejudice” (Bernard Ramm, Protestant Christian Evidence (Chicago: Moody Press, 1953, p. 15). I do not have a problem with God using Christian Evidences or Apologetics to remove the prejudices but God is not limited to Apologetics or Christian Evidences to remove the prejudices.
Lee Strobel in his The Case For Christ interviewed archaeologist John McRay on the role of archaeology in apologetics. McRay’s response was as follows. “Archaeology has made some important contributions, but it certainly can’t prove whether the New Testament is the Word of God” (Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998, p.95). Can God use archaeology to enhance the reliability of the New Testament with an unsaved critic? He can! But God is not limited to using archaeology to remove the critic’s prejudice. If God is limited to archaeology in removing prejudices then why did He wait until the 20th century to confirm the Bible through archaeology or other Christian Evidences. This means that 1st century believers did not have such confirmations.
The final category in the Chart of Evangelical Apologetics is Presuppositionalism. This view is represented by Cornelius Van Til, F. F. Bruce, and modern theologians like Dr. Robert Reymond, Dr. John Whitcomb, and Dr. Hoyle Bowman.
Let me start with a few quotes: “Like his first-century predecessors, the apologist of today must confront men with the truth about God – Creator, Provider, Lord of history, Judge of all – and His command to repent” (F. F. Bruce, The Defense of the Gospel in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1959, p. 48).
“The so-called theistic arguments (ontological, cosmological, teleological) do not really prove the existence of God. One must already be a Christian before these theistic arguments would have any confirming weight” (Hoyle Bowman, A Theological Investigation of Evangelical Apologetics P.B.C. notes, 1970, p. 29).
The Presuppositionalist assumes that God exists (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 14:1; John 1:1; and Heb. 11:6) and has already convinced sinners that He exists. Romans 1:18 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth inunrighteousness.”
The Presuppositionalist believes the sinner is totally depraved and totally blind to the gospel (2nd Cor. 4:4a) and only the Spirit of God using “the glorious gospel of Christ” (2nd Cor. 4:4b) can opened satanically blinded eyes.
The Presuppositionalist follows the example of Paul in Acts 14:1-18 at Lystra with the unsaved pagans.
1. Paul first preached the gospel and not a rationalistic argument (14:7).
2. Paul assumes they believe in the existence of a higher being (14:15).
3. Paul’s apologetics started with special revelation in verses 15-17 which allude to Gen. 8:22; Ps. 4:7; and Isa. 25:6.
Thomas Arnold wrote an article for the Baptist Bulletinin May of 2006 entitled “Tailoring Apologetics to Evangelize.”He discussed the strengths and weaknesses, in his opinion, of the five apologetic strategies: Fideism, Presuppostional apologetics, Classical apologetics, Evidential apologetics, and Experiential apologetics. Arnold believes the strongest of the five are presuppostional, classical and evidential.
Two of the reasons presuppostional apologetics is rejected as the only apologetic approach that can ultimately convince the sinner to trust Christ as Savior are the following. I say ultimately evidences can be used to win a hearing and answer objections, but it is the special revelation of the gospel that God uses to convict and convert the unsaved.
The First reason is an unbiblical view of the Fall.
Thomas Aquinas had a different view of the fall than Calvin or Luther. He did not view man as totally depraved. His will was weakened and his intellect clouded, nonetheless his nature is not totally corrupted, for as created by God it is still basically good. Nevertheless man cannot attain to salvation on his own but is in need of grace. Though the intellect is clouded, unassisted human reason can still attain to many of the truths about God. For instance the existence of God can be shown from the nature of the created universe. Nonetheless certain things are only knowable through Divine Revelation such as the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity. Because of his view of the power of the human mind, though harmed by the fall, yet not totally destroyed, the works of the classical, secular philosophers could be brought into the service of Christian theology. Charles Murray wrote, “Aquinas made the case, eventually adopted by the Church, that human intelligence is a gift from God, and that to apply human intelligence to understanding the world is not an affront to God but is pleasing to him.”
The Word of God states clearly the Fall of man affected his total person including his mind. Ephesians 4:17-18 defines the effect of the Fall on the sinner’s mind: “This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart.”
Not only did the Fall of man affect the mind but also Satan has blinded the sinner’s thinking so that he cannot believe unless the gospel penetrates “to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:3-6).
“Any system of Christian apologetics that underestimates the power of Satan in the minds of unbelievers or the effects of the Fall is inadequate to save. What is desperately needed today is an apologetic with power”(Dallas Theological Seminary. 1977; 2002. Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 134).
The second reason is an expanded view of General revelation.
This point is important because Classical apologetics would begin with the theistic arguments from general revelation to prove God’s existence and the Bible’s reliability to answer the objections of the skeptic. Robert Thomas quotes Demarest and Lewis in exposing Millard Erickson’s expanded view of general revelation to include truth broader than “the disclosure of God in nature, in providential history, and in the moral law within the heart, whereby all persons at all times and places a rudimentary understanding of the Creator and his moral demands” (Bruce Demarest and Gordon Lewis, Integrative Theology, 1:61).
About Erickson, Thomas warned: “Certain data Erickson would class as general revelation have come to light only recently and have not been available at all times, neither are they at present available to all people in all places” (The Master’s Seminary Journey 9/1, Spring 1998, 5-23, page 7). When Erickson broadens general revelation to include truth that is not universal in all places and times for all people, special revelation is weakened so that it is no longer alone necessary to save the unregenerate. That position is not true to Scripture (Acts 4:12; John 14:6; etc.).
In Thomas Arnold’s article for the Baptist Bulletin he shared how he responded to a skeptic who said, “Since everything evolved, why bother with God?” Arnold wrote: “I had him consider the alternatives to God as our Creator, and I established the existence of the Biblical God, using presuppositional apologetics. Next I verified the Bible by first showing the eleven times the Bible says God has been stretching out or expanding the universe. I shared that in 1929 astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding, just as the Bible has said all along, and that running the expansion backwards necessitates a beginning of the universe, which necessitates an eternal Creator. Before modern science, only the Creator could have known these facts, so the Biblical Creator God is real, and His Bible is accurate.” After Arnold answered his skeptics objections, he gave him the gospel. I would have no problem first giving the gospel and then addressing his issues. Because it the gospel of Christ that “is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16).
Apologetics (1 Peter 3:15) is a reasoned defense of the gospel. There are three kinds of apologetic that I will either illustrate or discuss.
1. Pre-suppositional apologetics
Dr. John Whitcomb taught and practiced pre-suppositional apologetics. Pre-suppositional apologetics depends not on Christian evidence to win over sinners or skeptics but the gospel which is the power of God unto salvation. The following is Dr. John Whitcomb’s testimony:
My personal experience with Christian apologetics began in February, 1943, when I accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord as a student at Princeton University. It had not been my privilege to be raised in a Christian home nor to attend a Bible-teaching church. But God in His grace used one or two Christian students at the university to invite me time and time again to attend a weekly Bible class being taught in the student center by a Princeton alumnus and former missionary to India. The gospel message was skillfully and graciously presented, and after several months of such teaching, I surrendered to the claims and the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ.
As far as I could tell, there were no other Christians in the dormitory where I resided at that time. But I had made several good friends, one of whom was a sophisticated intellectual from a wealthy home. I was convinced that the conversion of such a man could bring great changes in the dormitory and university, so one day I invited him to attend our Bible class. My hopes were high, because I was prepared to convince him that no one else could match this Bible teacher who had led me to the Lord.
The conversation, as I recall over the years, proceeded as follows: “Harry, here is a teacher who can make the message of the Bible clear and convincing. Why not come with me Sunday afternoon and see for yourself?” “The Bible? Why should I take time to study a religious book that is already nearly two thousand years out of date? You know that there isn’t a single science prof here at Princeton who takes the Bible seriously on the origin of the world. The idea of creation by divine fiat is no longer held by intelligent people. I have no interest in the Bible.”
Stung by this flat rejection of God’s Word on the basis of a scientific consensus, I retreated to my Christian friends. Weren’t there any publications of a scholarly nature, I asked, that could help my friend see the weaknesses of evolutionism and thus the possibility of supernatural creation? Except for a few small booklets, nothing came to hand; but armed with these I approached Harry again. He was surprisingly gracious. “Thanks for going to all the trouble of collecting these booklets for me. I really didn’t know that anyone who could write took Genesis literally anymore. I’ll tell you what I’ll do. Someday, if I ever have the time, I’ll look into it.” And that was it. A polite but final brush-off.
Deeply dismayed at this and similar failures to convert my friends to Christianity, I discussed the problem with my Bible teacher. “What’s wrong with me? Is it my personality, or do I need more time to collect better arguments?” Instead of lecturing his new disciple on the intricacies of biblical apologetics, he very wisely invited me first to join him in a brief visitation program in one of the other dormitories where a freshman five months earlier had somewhat rashly indicated on a survey card his interest in attending our Bible study class. As the door swung open in response to our knocking, pipe smoke poured out into the hallway. “I’m John Whitcomb and this is the Bible teacher of the Princeton Evangelical Fellowship. Is Tom Smith here?” Suddenly, a trampling of feet and the crash of a table lamp were heard as various figures in the semi-darkness fled in terror, leaving our victim to fend for himself against these unwanted intruders. “The Princeton Evangelical Fellowship? Oh yes, I guess I did sign a card last fall; but I’m not interested in the Bible anymore. I used to think it was true, but five months of study here has been enough to convince me it is full of errors.”
“I’m fascinated to hear you say that,” my teacher quietly commented. “Tell me, what particular errors did you discover in the Bible that convinced you it is not true?” This was unexpected. Wasn’t one firm rebuff sufficient to end this uncomfortable conversation? Wasn’t the general consensus of this great university sufficient to silence anyone who still believed the Bible to be true?
Tom thought for a moment and then answered. “Jonah and the whale. There’s your proof. No educated person today could believe for one moment that a whale could have swallowed a man and then spit him out alive on the shore three days later!”
Here was the crisis for me. How could we handle this direct challenge to the historicity of the Book of Jonah? Perhaps we could find in the university library some books on whales that would demonstrate their ability to swallow men alive. Perhaps we could even find historical evidence of men who had actually survived such an ordeal.1 That would convince him that the Book of Jonah is as infallible as the rest of the Bible!
Providentially, it was my teacher who answered him first. “Tom, I’m frankly very thankful that it is the Book of Jonah you seem to be struggling with. There is no more fascinating book in the Old Testament than Jonah. Someday, if we have time, I would like to discuss with you the entire message of that book, which was alluded to by Christ Himself for a very important reason. In the meantime, however, would you mind if I explained to you why I have come to believe that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore true in all its parts?”
Impressed with the irresistible graciousness and confidence of this man who seemed to know from personal experience the God of whom he spoke, Tom gave his cautious consent. What he heard was not a scientific, historical, or philosophical defense of Christianity, but a gospel-saturated testimony directed prayerfully to his heart. “Tom, I felt exactly the way you do about the Bible when I was a student here thirty years ago. I thought I had all the answers I needed concerning life. But I was wrong. In His infinite love, God reached down to me in my deep personal need and showed me through the familiar words of His matchless Book that my root problem was sin-deliberate alienation from God Himself. For this I deserved destruction, eternal destruction from His presence. But Christ, God’s unique Son, died one day on a cross to pay in His own person the full penalty of my sin, and He rose from the dead three days later to confirm the infinite price He had come to pay. Tom, it wasn’t my efforts to reach God or my superiority to other people that brought me peace with God. It was simply my acceptance of His gift of love, His eternal Son, by faith in the truth of His promise. And Tom, this great gift is for you too. You may have Him as your eternal Savior from sin’s penalty today.”
As I recall the conversation, Tom did raise some questions about Christianity and the Bible. The questions were not totally ignored, but the answers were always amplified by new perspectives on the gospel and fresh appeals for surrender to Christ. At the end of an hour I saw something I had not dreamed possible-a proud university student kneeling beside his bed with this God-honoring missionary, acknowledging the lordship of Jesus Christ in his life. There had been no great arguments, no rushing to the library for documentation on this or that Christian evidence, no appeal to human authorities. What had we really done to prove to this young intellectual that the Book of Jonah records historical events? And yet now he had no insuperable problem with this portion of the Bible. He didn’t know any more than he had known before about the details, but he did have a totally new perspective on the authority of Scripture because now for the first time he had personally met the true Author of this unique Book.
This was not the only time I saw this happen during my years at Princeton University, and it is still happening today through the intensively biblical witness of this servant of God, now eighty-four, and through his associates in the Princeton Evangelical Fellowship. Literally hundreds of students have come to know Christ on that campus during these forty years, and many are now serving Him in pastorates and in the mission fields of the world.
All of this forced me to take a new look at some basic factors of Christian apologetics that I had seriously neglected. I have come to believe that my initial ignorance concerning these biblical principles also characterizes many frustrated and fruitless Christian workers today.
My problem was basically twofold. I had underestimated the depth of man’s rebellion against God, and I was unaware of the absolutely crucial part which the Word of God must have, through the convicting and illuminating work of the Holy Spirit, in bringing sinful men to Christ. It is my purpose in this series of studies to examine biblical revelation concerning man’s spiritual inability, God’s method of reaching lost men, major proof texts for rationalistic apologetics, and the part which Christian evidences may have in our ministry of witnessing today (John Whitcomb. Contemporary Apologetics and the Christian Faith, Part 1. Bibliotheca Sacra, April-June, 1977).
2. Evidential Apologetics
Lee Strobel is an example of how God can use Christian evidences but not in a vacuum. Lee was a journalist for the Chicago Tribune and also an atheist. His wife Leslie started going to church and Lee noticed positive changes in her lifestyle. He went to church with her at Willow Creek and heard Bill Hybel preach.
This started a two year investigation of Christianity. The first year he studied the Gospels. He wanted to know if the Gospels were historically accurate. Was there eye witness verification to the events in the Gospels. Were there contradictions? Was the transmission of the text reliable since there were no original autographs? Was there outside corroboration of the New Testament? What about the Gnostic Gospels? So Lee sought out and interrogated leading theologians such as N.T. Wright, J. P. Moreland and Mark Strauss. They answered his questions.
Lee ceased being an atheist and became a seeker. Next, he asked the scholars “who was Jesus?” He learned that Jesus claimed to be God (John 14:8-9) and Jesus performed miracles that gave evidence of his claims. Lee became convicted by the evidence.
The second year, Lee examined the resurrection of Jesus. All the time his wife was praying for Lee’s salvation. Finally on Nov. 8th, 1981, Lee went into his study with a legal pad. He drew a line down the middle and wrote on one side “Positive Evidence” and on the other side, he wrote “Negative Evidence.” He then weighted the evidence decided to trust Christ as his savior.
The impact of Christian evidence in Lee’s life, however, did not take place in a vacuum. He heard the Word of God preached by Hybel and witnessed to him by his wife. God used the evidence but it was the Word of God under the convicting power of the Holy Spirit that drew him to Christ.
3. Embodiment Apologetics
The Emerging Church which believes the sinners must see truth practiced in the community more than believed for salvation practices embodiment apologetics. Belonging to their community is more important than believing doctrine. They believe in salvation by osmosis. While orthopraxy is important, orthodoxy is necessary for salvation. The sinner must “believe on the Lord Jesus” (Acts 16:30).
Have you ever struggled with doubt? I mean doubt in God. Hisgoodness, fairness, or love because of the pain you were suffering or the disappointment you were experiencing. James Dobson talks about the awesome “Why?” The first time in your life you seriously questioned God. I was a high school senior taking biology with my educated teacher who taught atheistic evolution, when I felt the sting of the first “Why?” In contrast, my pastor, though godly, was illiterate and a creationist. The biology teacher successfully planted doubts in my mind to the truths I had loosely held most of my life. I will never forget the strange, new feeling of cynicism. I doubted the divine person I, at least, had held in high esteem. The darkness in my soul was like a lost confidence in a mentor because of some scandal or betrayal by a best friend.
In the coming weeks I will review, chapter by chapter, Tim Keller’s book on apologetics subtitled, Belief in an Age of Skepticism. Keller introduces his book with this quote from Darth Vader setting the tone: “I find your lack of faith—disturbing.” In the introduction, Keller shares his own battle with tough questions about Christianity: “What about other religions? What about evil and suffering? How could a loving God judge and punish? Why believe anything at all?” As he studied these issues, Christianity won out.
Keller documents: “the population in America is paradoxically growing both more religious and less religious at once.” He quotes a George Barna report confirming “One in Three Adults Is Unchurched.” The anti-religion books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens are increasing in sales. At same time, members are leaving, dead old-line denominations and going to orthodox churches that demand conversion to Christ. For example, Keller launched his church in New York City, Redeemer Presbyterian Church, in the late 1980s and by 2007 his weekly attendance was over 5,ooo.
Each of the growing groups, skeptics and conservative believers, should look at their doubts. Each group has its doubts and belief systems and needs to deal with the hard questions the other side is proposing. Believers should be able to answer the skeptic’s arguments against Christianity lest they fall prey. I was unequipped to answer the atheistic evolutionary tenets of my biology teacher and I was rocked.
The skeptic should go and do likewise. The cynic who says “There can’t be just one true religion” cannot prove that truth claim empirically and therefore has faith in an indefeasible belief. Keller says to the skeptic that it would “be inconsistent to require more justification for Christian belief than you do for your own.”
Keller declares his thesis: “If you come to recognize the beliefs on which your doubts about Christianity are based, and if you seek as much proof for those beliefs as you seek from Christians for theirs—you will discover that your doubts are not as solid as they first appear.”
In the first half of The Reason for God, Keller confronts seven objections skeptics level against Christianity and the alternative beliefs those objections rest on. On Keller’s website, “The Movement”, which you can access from my blogroll, he has a post entitled Deconstructing Defeater Beliefs: Leading the Secular to Christ. In this post Keller calls the seven objections Defeater beliefs which he describes as “a set of ‘common-sense’ consensus beliefs that automatically make Christianity seem implausible to people. These are what philosophers call ‘defeater beliefs’. A defeater belief is Belief-A that, if true, means Belief-B can’t be true.” Next week we will review chapter one and the Defeater belief: “There Can’t Be Just One True Religion.”
In the second half of the book, he examines the reasons underlying Christian beliefs. Keller ends his introduction with the example of Thomas. When Jesus confronted “doubting Thomas” he challenged him “to acquiesce in doubt (‘believe’) and yet responded to his request for more evidence.” Jesus gave the skeptic the evidence of His deity in his hands and side. This is Keller’s approach, to give more evidence to the skeptic to win them. Publishers Weekly agrees when it writes that Keller’s book was “written for skeptics and the believers who love them.”
Sometimes I like to read several books at the same time, instead of sitting down and reading right through one book. If that is your modus operandi, then join me in reading through The Reason for God and add your weekly comments.
