APOLOGETICS CAN TAKE MANY DIFFERENT FORMS

Apologetics is as big as the entire world of ideas. This is because challenges to the faith (and data in support of the faith) come from every direction and discipline. For example, out of the halls of science has come the theory of evolution. Out of biblical criticism has come various theories that claim that the Bible is just the product of human beings trying to make sense of their lives. If we fail to take these ideas captive, they will take us captive along with our faith.

One such theory, the Wellhausen Hypothesis, had taken me captive before I had entered seminary. This theory had no room for God. Instead, it claimed that the Hebrew Scriptures, the Pentateuch in particular, were merely the result of editors cutting-and-pasting from various manuscripts over a period of hundreds of years.

However, I decided that I wouldn’t allow such skepticism to tamper with my faith. Instead, I would tuck it away in the recesses of my mind until I’d have the resources to confront it. However, our minds don’t work that way. Instead, whenever I would read the Bible, the arrows of this theory would secretly puncture my confidence, sowing doubts and discomforts. Consequently, I began to read the Bible less and less.

Fortunately, I was given a copy of Survey of Old Testament Introductions by Gleason Archer, which conclusively exposed the fallacies of Wellhausen. Consequently, I cried my way through this ordinarily dry book. Archer had restored my Bible back to me.

***

Apologetics can take many different forms. For the sake of simplicity, I will divide them into two forms – negative and positive.

The positive approach offers evidences; the negative answers the challenges with logic and reason. The negative is the more offensive and direct of the two. Jesus used both. When the religious leadership accused Him of casting out demons by the hand of Satan, He retorted with an example of negative apologetics:

·       Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? (Matthew 12:25-26)

If Satan is at war against himself and his minions, his kingdom would self-destruct. Therefore, the allegation of the Pharisees was not reasonable (logical). Adding to their their logical problems, the next verse suggests that they too had been encouraging of the deliverance ministry among their own without a concern that they might also be tapping into the power of Satan. It seems like their charging Jesus with a satanic partnership, without likewise examining their own people, smacked of hypocrisy.

Similarly, the Pharisees often charged Jesus with violating the Sabbath by healing on the Sabbath. On numerous occasions, Jesus pointed out their hypocrisy through a logical critique (negative apologetics). For instance, after a healing at a synagogue, the leadership criticized Him of violating the Sabbath. To this, Jesus responded:

·       “You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger and lead it away to water it? And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?” (Luke 13:15-16)

Were they truly hypocrites? Yes! Jesus logically demonstrated that they were using a double standard – one standard against Him and another to allow them to take care of their animals on the Sabbath. Besides, healing the woman was of far greater importance than watering the animals.

This type of logical critique is so powerful that it allows no come-back. Instead, the leadership was ashamed of themselves. (Sometimes love requires shaming!)

Elsewhere, Jesus again pointed out their hypocrisy – their use of two different standards. They accused Jesus of healing on the Sabbath, while they gladly circumcised on the Sabbath:

·       If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the Law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man’s whole body well? Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” (John 7:23-24)

By regarding only one verse out of the many on the subject, they were not rendering a superficially correct but prejudicial judgment. Often, Jesus accused them of either misusing or not even knowing Scripture:

·       But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” (Matthew 22:29-32)

In contrast, the “positive approach” offers evidences and proofs but does not immediately silence the opposition. For example, take your own testimony. While some will find it impressive and even inspiring, others will dismiss it, saying:

·       Why should I believe you, or

·       Buddhists’ claim that meditation has changed their lives, or

·       Muslims claim that Allah has given them meaning and purpose.

Whatever you say, they can always offer counter “evidence.” If you say that Jesus changes lives, they can retort, “Jesus also ruins lives.” If you say that Christianity served as the impetus for the resurgence of science, they will say that, “Christianity has been the source of ignorance and repression,” and might cite how Christians have impeded fetal tissue research.

In short, when you are confronted by a hostile militant and decide that it is better to hold your ground than to wipe the dust off of your feet, it is generally more profitable to use negative apologetics. This is what I often use to address the militants.

“Negative apologetics” come in many forms. After I had posted a brief essay on Facebook, an atheist reiterated the same tiring challenge: “Well, you first have to prove your god exists!”

If you have tried to present proofs to militant atheists, you know how futile this can be. No matter how weighty your proof, the atheist can still quibble with it. This might not reflect a problem with your proof, but their unmovable commitment to their own faith. It also might reflect a problem with all proofs in general. However strong they might be, they are never airtight or unassailable.

Rather than engaging in this frustrating process, in many cases I’ve opted to place the burden of proof on the atheist: “First prove that you exist! This will prove to me that it is even worthwhile for me to even attempt to prove that God exists.” Of course, they never can prove this to my satisfaction. The following dialogue illustrates this fact:

ATHEIST: You still have not shown me any evidence that god exists.

ME:  Well, if you prove you exist, I'll prove God exists.

ATHEIST: I asked you first!

ME:  That’s true, but if you are just a computer spewing out messages, I don’t have any obligation to you.

ATHEIST:  Daniel, do you honestly think that there is a direct comparison between whether I exist, and whether god or Jesus exists? Clearly you have more evidence for me existing than for god or Jesus.

ME:   Then prove you exist! Prove that you are not simply a bio-chemical robot or that you are not just an illusion as a monistic Buddhist claim. Consistent with this, please define your use of the word "I." What is this thing you call "I?"

ATHEIST: You are just unable to prove that God exists.

ME:  No! I am just presenting you with an object lesson. If you are unable to prove that you exist, you are in no position to demand that I prove that God exists. Besides, if I can successfully quibble about your existence, I trust that you will also be able to quibble with any solid evidence I offer in favor of God’s existence.

You might ask, “Why even engage in such an argument?” Perhaps this argument will fail to show him the hypocrisy of his demand for more proof of God’s existence than even for his own. However, there are others reading these exchanges on Facebook. It is my prayer that it might sow valuable seeds in the thinking of others.

However, negative apologetics can be used more effectively. When I have done open-air evangelism, scoffers will assault me with a series of charges. One scoffer yelled, “This is no way to be absolutely sure of any of this stuff.”

While it might be tempting to over evidences against this challenge, a question is often the best way to answer to a militant opponent. I therefore responded, “Are you absolutely sure?” If he says he is, I respond:

·       How is it that you can be absolutely sure while you absolutely deny that I can be absolutely sure? Sounds like a double-standard to me.

Nine times out of ten, this will silence the scoffer. However, if he answers, “No, I am not sure,” I will simply respond, “Why then are you making such a claim if you are not sure!”

Many others insist, “There is no such thing as absolute truth.” I simply ask:

·       Is your statement absolutely true?

Once again, if he answers, “Yes,” I point out that he just contradicted himself, because if there is no absolute truth, then his own statement cannot be absolutely true.

There are many variations of these illogical challenges. For instance, some say, “The only truth is change itself.” Therefore, I ask, “Then doesn’t that mean that the ‘truth’ of your statement is changing?” If he admits to this, then I merely respond that his statement is therefore meaningless, since it too will change in the next day.

Sometimes our negative apologetic might require a bit more information to expose the contradiction. Often, skeptics will make moral charges against our faith and God. For example, in a Times Magazine debate (11/13/06, p. 55.), atheist and evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, was asked:

·       “Do humans have a different moral significance than do cows?”

To this, Dawkins responded, “Humans have more moral responsibility, perhaps because they are capable of reasoning.”

However, if our moral responsibility depends on being “capable of reasoning,” then some humans are more morally culpable than others. Why? Because some reason better than others! Therefore, before the court can pass judgment on the guilty party, they should administer an IQ test to determine the extent of the punishment. Absurd, right?

However, Dawkins has a greater problem. Prior to this, Dawkins admitted, “I don’t believe that there is hanging out there, anywhere, something called good and something called evil.”

This makes Dawkins a moral relativist. He doesn’t believe that morality has any existence outside of our thinking. Therefore, morality is just something that we create. This makes morality relative to the individual and society. Consequently, without a higher, unchanging, and objective basis, morality is subjective. It’s just what we feel or decide it to be. This means that Dawkins cannot say that his morality is more valid than Hitler’s morality. However, in The God Delusion, Dawkins famously claimed:

·       “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Had Dawkins merely stated, “This is just the way I feel about God,” there would be no logical problem. However, coming from a position of moral relativism or subjectivism, he cannot coherently pronounce an objective indictment the something is absolutely wrong.

In order to claim that Hitler or God was wrong, we would need to base our indictment upon an objective standard. When, as Probation Officer, I wrote up charges against a probationer, I had to use objective language coming directly from the State Penal Law book. I could not charge a probationer with something that I merely felt was crime.  Instead, it had to be written in the code book.

However, Dawkins admits there is no code book, no objective or absolute moral laws that have been broken. In fact, whenever a moral relativist - and all atheists are essentially moral relativists - brings a moral indictment against Christianity, I remind them that they cannot bring an objective charge without an objective standard. With their subjective self-based morality they cannot logically bring a moral charge against anybody.

Therefore, when the atheist charges, “Your God is a genocidal maniac!” I simply respond, “What's wrong with that?” As a moral relativist, there can be nothing objectively wrong with that!

However, for us, this doesn’t end the question. We want to be able to know and to explain why our God is not “petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic…” as Dawkins has claimed.

Why? Confidence in our faith and our walk depends upon successfully grappling with these issues. This requires us to meditate on the Word both day and night (Joshua 1:8; Psalm 1), so that we can offer (to ourselves, first of all) positive evidences to the contrary.

This brings us to the following chapters of this book, were we deal with positive apologetics, the evidences that the Bible is the Word of God.

I hope, at this point, that you are still following me through this prolonged introduction to the world of apologetics. We will now change gears and look exclusively at the evidences of the Bible.

I am convinced that this question of the origin of the Bible, whether of God or of man, is the most important question that confronts apologetics. If the Bible is fully God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16-17), then it can become the foundation of our entire lives. If, instead, it is the word of man, then why bother with it!

You might protest that, “The Bible must be the word of man, since, in so many ways (vocabulary, writing style, the personal experiences of the authors), it contains the fingerprints of its authors.” While this is true, I’m convinced that our God is so great that He is able to commandeer our personalities, inclinations, and even our freewill choices for His purposes.

“Rubbish?” The Bible is littered with examples of how God led individuals, kings, and even nations to do His bidding as they lived their lives and made their freewill and culpable choices. How? That answer resides with our Lord and His glory.