Integrated

Apologetics
How to bring a certain message to an
uncertain world

Richard Ramsay
 Dedicated to my son and daughter, Nicolas and Melany.

We are very proud of you both!

We couldnt have asked for a better son and daughter!
May the Lord strengthen you and help you defend your faith
in the challenging world of the university.

2
PREFACE...............................................................................................................6

Chapter 1............................................................................................................................8

Introduction; Why do we need apologetics?...................................................................8

A. My story......................................................................................................................8
B. What is apologetics?...................................................................................................9
C. The present opportunity............................................................................................11
D. Hard questions people ask........................................................................................12

PART 1..................................................................................................................15

X-RAY OF THE NON-BELIEVER........................................................................15

Chapter 2..........................................................................................................................16

The line of uncertainty in Greek philosophy.................................................................16

A. Introduction...............................................................................................................16
B. The theme of the universals and particulars..............................................................17
C. The downward spin in the early Greeks....................................................................20
D. The Greek giants.......................................................................................................21
E. Skepticism and ethics after Aristotle.........................................................................24

Chapter 3..........................................................................................................................26

The line of uncertainty in modern philosophy..............................................................26

A. The medieval background.........................................................................................26
B. The downward spin in early modern philosophy......................................................27
C. The modern giants.....................................................................................................29
D. Agnostic despair........................................................................................................32
E. The continued struggle for truth................................................................................34

Chapter 4..........................................................................................................................39

Conclusions about the non-Christian viewpoint...........................................................39

A. Uncertainty................................................................................................................39
B. The self-destruction of monism...............................................................................42
C. Mans real problem...................................................................................................43
D. The vital conflict of the non-believer........................................................................43

PART II..................................................................................................................45

APOLOGETICS....................................................................................................45

3
Chapter 5..........................................................................................................................46

A Christian framework for apologetics.........................................................................46

A. The Christian answer to uncertainty.........................................................................46
B. Key Bible passages about man..................................................................................48
C. Different dimensions of revelation............................................................................51
B. The different channels of man to receive revelation.................................................53

Chapter 6..........................................................................................................................56

Representative apologists (part 1); Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, G. K. Chesterton,

C.S. Lewis, and Cornelius Van Til.................................................................................56
A. Augustine (354-386).................................................................................................56
B. Anselm (1033-1109)..................................................................................................57
C. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)...................................................................................57
D. G. K. Chesteron (1874-1936)..................................................................................58
E. C.S. Lewis (1898-1963)...........................................................................................59
F. Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987)..................................................................................61

Chapter 7..........................................................................................................................65

Representative apologists (part 2); Francis Schaeffer, Norman Geisler, Henry

Morris and Duane Gish, Josh McDowell, Antonio Cruz, and John Frame...............65
A. Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984).................................................................................65
B. Norman Geisler........................................................................................................68
C. Josh McDowell.........................................................................................................71
D. Henry Morris and Duane Gish..................................................................................72
E. Antonio Cruz.............................................................................................................74

Chapter 8..........................................................................................................................79

A suggested approach, and three questions to answer: the existence of God, the
authority of the Bible, and other religions.....................................................................79
A. General principles.....................................................................................................79
B. A suggested approach................................................................................................80
C. Practice with typical questions..................................................................................82

Chapter 9 Three more questions to answer; the problem of evil, evolution, and
eternal condemnation......................................................................................................94

STUDY GUIDE....................................................................................................119

Course description.........................................................................................................119

Goal.................................................................................................................................119

Objectives........................................................................................................................119

4
Main texts.......................................................................................................................119

Assignments....................................................................................................................119

Grade..............................................................................................................................120

Course outline..................................................................................................................120

5
Preface
People are like houses, with windows and doors around the walls of their hearts. Some people
have small round windows that cant be opened, yet others have sliding doors that are easy to
enter. In a sense, non-Christians have put up storm shutters that barely allow light to pass
through, in order to resist the hurricane force of the gospel. However, everyone leaves something
unlocked. Our challenge is to find the right window or door. It might be a convincing logical
argument, or it might be simply showing the person that we care. It might be our own testimony,
or it might be a thought-provoking question that helps them see their own inconsistencies.

I believe that evangelism should not be limited to one type of presentation, because everyone is
unique. I really like the probing questions of Evangelism Explosion, (If you died today, do you
believe you would go to heaven? If you went before God and He asked you why He should let
you into heaven, what would you answer?) They were especially helpful to me while I worked as
a missionary in Chile, since there is a common belief in God and the Bible, yet a frequent
misunderstanding of salvation by grace through faith. However, when I tried them on my neighbor
in Santiago, they completely failed. He simply answered, Well, those questions dont mean
anything to me at all, because I dont believe in God and I dont believe in life after death! The
only open door we had with these neighbors was the fact that they loved our children. Children
often break down heavy barriers.

The same applies to apologetics, the theological study of how we should defend the gospel.
Often people argue about which is the right approach to apologetics. Some believe in using
evidences, while others use logical reasoning. Some appeal to common sense, while others
refer to history. I had the privilege of studying apologetics under one of the greatest Christian
minds of the twentieth century, Cornelius Van Til, who is known for his presuppositional
approach, which will be explained later in this book. His approach is what I needed, and the Lord
used it to bring about what I call my second conversion (the conversion of my mind). However,
while I think he has the right answers at the rock bottom, I cannot agree with some of the fanatic
VanTil fans who think there is nothing helpful in other apologetic methods.

I would like to propose integrated apologetics, in which we use every form of revelation, and in
which we use the best of different apologetic strategies, depending on the person and the
situation. This means we need to discover the best arguments of the best apologists. When we
back up to the ultimate questions, I will be siding with Van Til (in renouncing the unbelievers sinful
attempt to be independent from God and in announcing the absolute sovereign authority of God
and the Scriptures). However, I also believe that we should take advantage of the abundant
evidence all around us (general revelation) and within us (we are made in Gods image). I believe
that all truth is Gods truth,1 that absolutely anything that we consider within creation will point to
God, and that any thought that tries to deny God will inevitably lead to self-contradiction and
uncertainty. I know that Van Til agrees with this, but he hesitates to use evidences. I would say
that if someone believes in evolution, and this impedes his faith in God, why not show him the
evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution? If someone believes the Bible is full of
contradictions, why not show him the complete coherence of the Scriptures? When used properly,
and that is where it might not always be easy, all truth and any evidence should help us present
the gospel.

The Fall affected all of our relationships: with God, with other people, with creation, and with
myself. Salvation restores all four of these relationships. I also believe that our apologetics should
include all of these dimensions. We need to proclaim to the non-believer what God says, let him
hear the testimony of other people, show him the evidence in creation, and help him look inside

1
It is not clear who first said this. It has been attributed to:
St. Augustine (See http://www.calvin.edu/~schu/),
John Calvin (See http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199907/0004.html ),
and Arthur Holmes (See http://www.gospelcom.net/rzim/publications/jttran.php?jtcode=JT99FSA).

6
himself to see the image of God. These four dimensions suggest the use of many aspects of
apologetics.

The Holy Spirit works especially through the Scriptures to show the gospel, and the Bible must be
our priority in apologetics. Furthermore, Jesus Christ must be the center of our message. But God
speaks through all of creation, and we should let Him reveal Himself in as many ways as we can.

My personal testimony will provide some of the background for this book. I grew up in a
committed Christian home, and attended a small church that was a vital part of our life. However,
when I went to college I began to doubt everything I had been taught. My story of recovering faith
in God, Jesus, and the Bible will hopefully add a personal touch to this study of apologetics.
When I experienced my turn-around, I told the Lord I wanted to help others who were going
through the same kind of spiritual despair that I had suffered. Thats why I entered the ministry,
and thats why I am writing this book, as partial fulfillment of that promise.

This book is not a practical manual on evangelism. Neither does it pretend to be a philosophical
treatise, or to offer a new apologetic. It aims somewhere in between. I would like to enable
Christians to defend their faith more effectively by giving them some theoretical tools. First, I offer
a simplified overview of western philosophy, in order to show an x-ray of non-Christian thinking.
This focuses especially on how thinking leads to uncertainty when God is not recognized as the
source of all truth. Next we will analyze some key Scripture passages that help us understand
mans real problem. Then I will take a quick look at some examples of popular apologetic
approaches and arguments. We will focus on authors such as Augustine, Aquinas, G.K.
Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, Josh McDowell, Norman Geisler, Cornelius Van Til,
Antonio Cruz, John Frame, and others. Finally, I would like to suggest how to develop an
apologetic mindset that is prepared to look for the open window and customize the most
appropriate defense of the faith for that unique person in that particular moment.

7
Chapter 1

Introduction; Why do we need apologetics?

...Always be prepared to give the reason for the hope that you have....
1 Peter 3:15

A. My story

I dared to take Introduction to Philosophy my first semester of college. The professor began
class the first day by asking a question: How many of you believe in God? Of about 200 of us,
only half raised our hand. Then he declared his intention for the course: I hope that by the end of
the semester, you will all see that there is no reason to believe in God. As we studied the
traditional arguments for the existence of God, I began to realize that none of them were
completely convincing, and my faith began to wobble. When I talked with my brother who was in
the same class, neither dared to say exactly what he was thinking, and we would usually end with
a half-hearted attempt to cover up our doubts by saying, Well, I guess you just believe by faith. I
took walks to think about it all: Does God really exist, or did everything develop through an
evolutionary process? I tried it backwards also: suppose God doesnt exist? Can you prove that
He doesnt? If He doesnt exist, why should I be good instead of bad? Why am I here, anyway? I
began to sense my life like a page of scribbled class notes with no heading.

One night I decided to lie down in the grass on campus and just look at the stars. There were
millions of them, all sparkling like diamonds, and I sensed the endlessness of the universe as well
as my smallness. Suddenly I knew God was there. I began to pray and said, Lord, I cant prove it
with arguments, but I just know you are there. Do whatever it takes to get me back on the right
road. I felt like a train off the tracks and needed a heavy shove to get back on. I walked home
that night with a sense of joy and peace that I had never felt before. I not only knew that God was
there; I knew God!

I seemed to be doing fine during the next two years, growing stronger in my faith. My pastor
taught me to study the Bible and to share my faith. Then I went to Germany for a junior year
abroad program, where I had little Christian fellowship and had some troubling conversations with
some Jehovahs Witnesses. They made me doubt the divinity of Jesus. Furthermore, my brother
had never recovered from the struggles of the philosophy class, and he was challenging my faith
in the Bible in his letters. When I returned to the United States for my last year of college, I told
my pastor I was still a Christian, but that I wasnt sure about the Bible or the divinity of Jesus. He
would read from the Bible to show that it was inspired, but I told him that was a circular argument.
How could he use the Bible to prove the Bible?

I knew that I was heading down a dark alley with no escape, and it was frightening. I was using
Descartes method of only accepting what I could not doubt. I still believed in God and would say
to myself, Ok. God exists. Now what other truth can I build on that foundation? But I was getting
nowhere! I couldnt put any brick on top of the first one. In my spiritual pilgrimage, I began to read
books by C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer. The God Who is There was especially helpful. At
least I realized there were very intelligent Christians who were trying to answer questions like the
ones I had. I liked what Schaeffer had: a complete truth system that fits together, based on the
Bible. I decided that truth was not something to build, one piece at time, but a complete package
that stands or falls together. But I wasnt totally convinced yet, but at least I wanted to believe in
the Bible.

8
I decided to go to seminary. I couldnt go on without some important answers. I had seen some
books by Cornelius Van Til, and wanted to study where he was teaching. When I visited
Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, one of the students told me that his studies with Van Til
had made him so sure of his faith that he would be willing to talk to anyone about the gospel,
even the most intelligent philosopher on earth! I thought to myself, Wow! Thats the way I want to
feel!

I have to confess that my first classes with Van Til were a bit disappointing. He seemed a bit old,
and seemed to be repeating himself a lot. Every day he would draw two circles on the
chalkboard, one to represent God and the other to represent the creation. Finally, I realized why
he was repeating himself so much; it wasnt because he was so old, but because we had to hear
it ten times to begin to understand! His explanation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden
definitely broke through my stubborn heart and mind. He said, here they were, mere creatures of
the Almighty Sovereign God, asking themselves, I wonder..., I wonder..., I wonder... if God is right
or if this serpent is right! They had no right to question God! Who did they think they were! This
was the beginning of the Fall. It was their arrogant pretension that they could set themselves up
as the judge of the truth, even over God Himself, that wrecked everything. Wow! Thats exactly
what I am doing, I thought to myself. Who am I to wonder if Gods Word is true? By what
standard do I judge Him? Again, instead of finding a clever argument to convince me, I needed a
spiritual awakening. I needed to repent! I asked the Lord to forgive me, and I told Him that I would
accept whatever He told me. I remember thinking, If God tells me the moon is green cheese,
then the moon is green cheese! Ill just have to change my thinking about the moon, about the
color green, and about cheese!

It was sort of like a second conversion. Now not only my heart belonged to God, but my mind
also. I cant tell you how important this change was for me. I felt that I had been pulled out of the
quicksand and set upon a rock.

B. What is apologetics?

I tell my story, partly to make apologetics real, and partly to show that our apologetics task is not
simply giving the right logical argument. Our doubts are as much due to spiritual issues as they
are due to intellectual issues. Then why bother with another book on apologetics? Precisely
because I want to clarify this whole relationship between the intellectual struggle and the spiritual
struggle. I want to propose an apologetic that integrates important aspects of our evangelistic
approach, instead of isolating just one dimension.

The first thing we should recognize with regard to apologetics is that we cannot convince anyone
to become a Christian. If we simply argued somebody into agreeing with us about the postulates
of the Christian faith, they still would not be saved. In order to be saved, you must put your
personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. This means trusting Jesus with your eternal life.
While it definitely must include intellectual assent to the truth, saving faith is much more than that;
it is a personal commitment. Paul tells the Corinthians that he did not come to them with
persuasive words of wisdom, but that he preached Jesus Christ crucified. Why? So that their faith
would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of
wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing
among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in
fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive
words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would
not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

9
 2
(1 Corinthians 2:1-5)

Mans main problem is spiritual, and not intellectual. Nevertheless, this does not mean that
intellectual reasoning has no place in apologetics. The non-believer has also built up brick walls
of defense that include arguments and reasoning. Part of our job is to break down these barriers.
As long as we keep our feet firmly planted in the Scriptures, we should be willing to dialogue
about anything with the non-believer, in order to help him see the truth. Without compromising our
position, we can try to understand his thinking, try to persuade him of his error, and try to show
the beauty and consistency of the gospel. Paul used the Scriptures to reason with the Jews
about the resurrection.

And according to Pauls custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with
them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and
rise again from the dead, and saying, This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the
Christ.
Acts 17:2-3

Peter exhorts us to be ready to give a defense or an answer (NIV) to everyone who asks us
why we believe. The Greek word is apologa, from which we get our name apologetics.

...but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to
everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness
and reverence; 1 Peter 3:15

We can define apologetics as the defense of the faith, as long as we realize that a good
defense of the gospel also includes a good offense. That is, we also need show the non-
believer the errors and inconsistencies in his or her thinking. Our goal is to take captive every
thought for Christ.

We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of
God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,
2 Corinthians 10:5

While becoming a Christian is primarily a spiritual renewal, giving our hearts to Christ, it also
includes surrendering our minds to the Lord.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind,
so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and
perfect.
Romans 12:2

We should never separate apologetics from the gospel. In fact, apologetics is an essential aspect
of evangelism.

We have a big task at hand. We need to understand non-Christian thinking, we need to discover
Scriptural principles about apologetics, we need to learn the best ways to present and defend the
gospel, and we need to discern the unique shape of our message for each individual. Thats
apologetics.

C. The present opportunity

2
All Scripture quotes will be from the New American Standard Bible, 1995 update, unless
otherwise indicated.

10
Our postmodern age is challenging, but it also presents a unique opportunity. While people may
seem slippery and reluctant to commit, they also hurt deeply because of the uncertain situation in
which they live. They are facing a dreadful life without meaning, without truth, without right and
wrong, and without God. They should be ready to hear a message of hope, of love and of
certaintly.

Try to make sense of these words to a recently popular song called Toxicity by a group called
System of a Down.

Conversion, software version 7.0,

Looking at life through the eyes of a tire hub,
Eating seeds as a past time activity,
The toxicity of our city, of our city,

Now, what do you own the world?

How do you own disorder, disorder,
Now, somewhere between the sacred silence,
-Sacred silence and sleep,
Somewhere, between the sacred silence and sleep,
Disorder, disorder, disorder. 3
....

What does this mean? Well, maybe less than you think. The individual phrases seem to make
sense, but when you try to put them together, it becomes balderdash. Even the name of the
group combines words in a nonsensical way. The only answer I come up with is that they think life
is disorder, and so their song must reflect that disorder. If they believe life is disorder, and yet they
write an orderly song that clearly and orderly explains their view, then they have utterly
contradicted themselves.

How can we try to make sense to someone who thinks nothing makes sense? Well, at this point
we have to believe that deep down they really know that there must be some sense to things.
Furthermore, we must assume that they really dont want to keep on living without meaning. We
can show them hope, and light a candle in their darkness.

One of the most terrifying paintings I have seen is called Head VI by Francis Bacon (1949). I
refer to it all the time, because it graphically reflects postmodern despair. It shows a man dressed
in religious garb, sitting as if he were enclosed in a glass box on exhibition. His head is
disappearing, and there is hardly anything above his nose except for the eye cavities and black
smears. The only part of his head that you can see clearly is his mouth, which is open in a chilling
scream. Bacon himself once wrote, Now... man is aware that he is an accident, that he is a
completely futile being, and that he must finish the game without reason. 4 Dont you think
people like Francis Bacon would be willing to listen to our encouraging message that we are not
really just an accident?

3
http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/SYSTEM-OF-A-DOWN/Toxicity.html, May 19, 2005.
4
H. R. Rookmaaker Modern Art and the Death of a Culture (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity
Press, Chicago, 1970), p. 174.

11
 Head VI 5

D. Hard questions people ask

I have written down a few of the most common questions I hear people ask. When I teach classes
on apologetics, I ask the students what hard questions people throw at them, and usually they
mention the same ones. Keep these questions in mind, because we will come back to them. We
will suggest some ways to answer them at the end of the book. But first, we need to establish a
solid foundation.

#1 How can you prove that God exists?

#2 How can you be sure that the Bible is true? What about the apparent contradictions
and errors?

#3 What about other religions? How can you be sure that they are not also legitimate?

#4: If God is both good and All-powerful, why does He allow evil?

#5: What about the theory of evolution? Doesnt it prove that the Bible is wrong?

#6: How can a good God condemn people?

5
http://www.francis-bacon.cx/figures/headvi.html, May 19, 2005.

12
I personally believe that probably the toughest issue that grinds away at peoples natural instincts
is the question of evil. Here our battle can become bloody. We need to be prepared.

I recently watched a fascinating program on television (PBS) called The Question of God. A
Harvard professor, Dr. Armond Nicoli gathered a group of intellectuals with diverse beliefs to
discuss the lives of Sigmund Freud and C. S. Lewis, one who believed and one who did not, to
see what they could learn about the existence of God. They were analyzing the way faith (or the
lack of faith) affected them. I thought one of the representatives did a great job of representing
the Christian position until it came to the question of suffering, where he absolutely surrendered
to the atheists and said that he had no answer, and that the question troubled him deeply. At this
point the representative from Skeptic Magazine jumped on the opportunity to ridicule him by
saying that he should be an atheist, because atheists dont have to struggle with this problem.

There is a web site called Losing my religion, 6 managed by people who say they used to be
Christians (which I personally dont believe can happen), where they challenge Christians to
debate such challenging questions. I have been disappointed by the harsh attitudes and weak
responses of some of the Christians, and would like to see us do a better job of apologetics.

If you can stomach some very offensive blasphemy, read a few lines from this dialogue between
Darcy of Losing My Religion and a Christian named Roger. 7

Darcy West: Roger, what would you think of a father who said to his child, "Love
me by the time you are six, or I will bake you in the oven."?

Roger: Darcy, God doesn't say that...he says, "Here's the way out of hell, PLEASE
TAKE IT."

Darcy West: Are you suggesting that hell exists outside of God's control?

Roger: What do you think?

Darcy West: If hell is not a danger that exists outside of God's control, then the
analogy you used does not work. In your analogy, you portray God as trying to
protect his child against a danger over which he has no control. Yet, in the case of
the biblegod, hell is a danger which he created. It would be as if a parent said,
"Don't go into the street or you will be hit by a car." Then, when the child goes
into the street, the parent jumps in a bus and runs the child over. If the parent then
says, "Well, he made his choice," would you believe that the parent did the right
thing?

Roger: Darcy, hell was created for Satan and his demons, not for humans.

Darcy West: Roger, the abusive parent bought the oven to bake cookies. However,
if he uses it to bake his children, does that remove his guilt?

6
http://www.losingmyreligion.com/, May 19, 2005.
7
Heaven and Hell: Interview One, by Darcy West, http://www.losingmyreligion.com/.

13
This dialogue ends with Roger giving in to the logic of Darcy.

Darcy West: Who do you feel is more worthy of respect....a man who worships
Hitler to avoid being sent to the ovens, or the man who refuses to bow to Hitler,
regardless of the price.

Roger: Darcy, the man who refuses.

Darcy West: Roger, thank you very much.

Would you like to develop an apologetic understanding that would help you even in situations like
this? If so, I trust that this book will not disappoint you.

14
Part 1
X-ray of the non-believer

15
Chapter 2

The line of uncertainty in Greek philosophy

A. Introduction

I used to think that philosophers were very certain of their beliefs. Now I realize that it
was precisely their struggle with uncertainty more than anything else, which drove them
to philosophize. I would like to present a simplified overview of western philosophy that
traces the general pattern of this struggle.

I suggest that we can locate philosophers somewhere along a line of uncertainty. This line
basically describes the vacillation between believing that you know something and being
skeptical about everything. 8

But it is more complex than this. The line begins with certainty, then experiences doubt,
and faces a low of agnosticism. However, it is too painful to live with meaninglessness,
and they seek for some way out, for some way to know something. Finally, even though
they realize their inconsistency, they strangely enough begin to concentrate on ethics.

8
I acknowledge a great debt to Francis Schaeffer in my thinking, and especially in this case to his
concept of the line of despair in modern thought. (See The God Who is There, Downers Grove,
IV Press, 1998). While my line of uncertainty is different, I recognize the roots of the idea in
Schaeffer.

16
Philosophy is usually divided into three aspects: ontology or metaphysics (the study of
being), epistemology (the study of knowing), and ethics (the study of right and wrong).
Ontology asks, what is the nature of things? Epistemology asks, how do we know the
truth? Ethics asks, how do we know what is right and wrong? The emphasis in this study
will be especially on epistemology, but also somewhat on metaphysics.

As we study philosophy, we can find residues of Gods revealed truth, but we also see
how His truth has been distorted. Philosophy is often taught as if knowledge developed
through a positive process. Man grows in his understanding over time. Someone might
assume for example, that early man did not believe in God, then he developed the idea of
many gods, then one God, and finally realized he did not need God after all. This concept
fits an evolutionary scheme and has been proposed by great thinkers such as Hegel and
Comte. However, the Bible gives us a different picture. It teaches that the one and only
true God has revealed Himself from the very beginning, and that man has borrowed and
often distorted this revelation. Many would say the Bible copied ideas from other
religions or philosophies, but we know it is just the other way around; these religions
took truth from Gods revelation and modified it. By common grace, many philosophies
and religious leaders have discovered something of the truth, such as a sense of morality,
a sense of guilt, a sense of a supreme being, and a sense of eternity. However, because of
sin, their presuppositions and their observations are distorted. As we examine the Greek
philosophers, we can look for residues of truth, but we should also be aware of how they
twisted the truth.

B. The theme of the universals and particulars

Greek philosophy was struggling especially with the problem of the universal or the
particulars, and its implications for epistemology (the problem of the one and the many,
or unity and diversity). There are several aspects to this problem that led the Greeks
toward uncertainty.

1. Starting with the particulars

17
As you search for truth and meaning, you can either begin by investigating particular
details one at a time, then draw general conclusions, or you can begin with general
universal concepts, then draw conclusions about the specifics. For example, you might
start looking at individual apples, then draft a definition of apple, based on your
findings. Or you might begin with your intuitive concept of apple, then study different
fruits to see if they fit the description. We call the first process inductive reasoning, and
the second process deductive reasoning.

If we begin with the particulars and use inductive reasoning, we have two problems:

1) First, everything changes. What happens to the apple when I eat it? Does it still exist?
When does it stop being an apple? These changes make us uncertain, and force us to
look behind the particular items to find something universal that does not change.

I can remember a disturbing Physics class when I was a senior in High School. The
teacher was talking about relativity, and I remember puzzling to myself: if the whole
universe suddenly shrank to half its size, and yet everything kept its proportion, would we
even notice it? It frightened me, because it made me feel uncertain. However, God
quickly reminded me that He is here, and He would know if everything shrank. That
thought comforted me immensely.

2) Secondly, there are an infinite number of details related to an individual apple, and we
cannot possibly know them all, since our mind is limited. For example: What color is an
apple? How does this particular apple I am holding differ from an orange? From an
avocado? From a round rock? How are apples cultivated? What is the apple tree like?
How tall do they get? Where do apples grow in the world? When is apple season in these
countries? Are apples different in Chile? We may not know the answer to all these
questions, but so far we could probably find out the answers, even if it took a lifetime to
research them and report on them. However, we can think of other questions that we
probably wont be able to answer in a whole lifetime, such as, are there apples on some
other planet? In fact, to make a complete description of the apple, we would have to
explain how the apple is related to everything else that exists, such as animals and insects
that may eat the apple, sugar that comes from it, the biological process of how the apple
tree grows, the sun, water, minerals, on and on and on. Once we think about it, we realize
that we dont really know a lot about the apple after all. Finally, there are other questions
that we simply cannot answer at all, such as, will there still be apples on the earth in five
hundred years? Consequently, we lose confidence regarding our knowledge of the apple.
How do I know there is not some other fact that makes my present understanding
incorrect?

18
So.... I look for an alternative. I look for something stable behind the change, and for
something comprehensible behind the confusion of infinite details. I decide to begin with
universals and use deductive reasoning. I go from the universal to the particular.

2. Starting with the universals

However, if we start with the universals, we encounter a new set of problems:

1) First, how do we decide on the universal? For example, how do we decide on the
concept of apple. Just by my own authoritative definition? Remember that now we are
not observing the particulars in order to draw a conclusion, because that method has
failed. But I dont have many options for defining a universal. Suppose I simply decide
on the characteristics that I want to ascribe to an apple and write them down. Nobody can
argue with me about this. Then when someone hands me an apple that doesnt exactly fit
my description, I will have to say that it is not an apple. Maybe it is a yellow apple, and
I have only allowed for red and green colors in my definition. However, I intuitively
sense that it really is an apple. I realize that the truth goes beyond me, and that I cannot
be consistent with my own definition. Therefore I cant pretend that I have the absolute
authority to define an apple, but neither can I think of another way to arrive at a universal
definition.

2) Secondly, when I begin with abstract universal concepts, the particular items lose their
importance. If I begin with the abstract concept of apple, the unique details of the
particular apple I hold in my hand dont really matter any more. The only thing that
matters is what this apple has in common with all other apples. My apple becomes like a
drop of water in the ocean. In other words, when we are focused on the ocean as a whole,
we lose interest in the water molecules. However, real life is not so abstract, and I want to
maintain the importance of the unique details. I dont care much about the concept of
apples if I cant eat the one in my hand! I sense that something important is missing when
I focus only on the universals. Pablo Picasso is known for seeking to represent abstract
universals. He painted a picture of his lover in geometric figures, supposedly trying to
make her a universal woman. However, he then wrote at the bottom, "Jaime Eva" (I love
Eva), because it was her, a particular woman that he loved, and he did not want to
eliminate her importance as an individual. 9

3) Finally, if the process of seeking universals is carried out consistently, it eventually

leads to destroying the identity of everything and everybody, as well as destroying the
possibility of communication between us. To be consistent, we should end up with one
universal abstract being, and every particular is absorbed into the global entity. This is
called monism. If everything is one, then I become a part of a huge glob, or a huge
machine, and even my thoughts lose their meaning. For example, if everything is one
material entity, then my thoughts are nothing but a movement of chemicals. Cabanis

9
Francis Schaeffer, The God Who is There (Downers Grove: IVP, 1968), pp. 32-33.

19
would be right in saying, The brain secretes thoughts as the liver secretes bile. 10 Van
Til frequently told a story in class about "Amos and Andy," two road workers who are
standing at a distance, looking at each other with the hope of communicating. They begin
to pave a road so they can get near each other, but once they finish it, they are buried
underneath the asphalt and disappear! I didnt understand the story for years, but now it is
clear to me that he was speaking of this process of unifying everything to the point of
destroying your own identity.

C. The downward spin in the early Greeks

Thales (585-548)
Considered "the first philosopher of Greece," 11 Thales was seeking the universal reality.
He is known for his postulate that everything is water. How could he be so ignorant?
Well, maybe it wasnt so ridiculous after all. When you consider the fact that water can
become vapor, and the fact that everything can become melted and converted into gas
when it is heated enough, then you can understand why somebody might think that all
things have one common essence, and that everything is water.

Notice that Thales really thought he knew something. Other philosophers considered that
everything was the atom, or numbers, or reason, or that there were four elements (air,
water, earth, and fire). But at least they affirmed something.

Heraclitus (535-475)

According to Heraclitus, everything is in flux, and everything is one.

"You cannot step twice in the same river, for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon
you."
"All things are one."
" Good and ill are one."
" To God all things are fair and good and right, but men hold some things wrong
and some right. 12

While Thales assumed there was something stable behind everything, Heraclitus
considers that the only stable thing is change itself. Apparent contrasts are really in
harmony. With this, he opens the door to doubt and uncertainty.

10
Cabanis, quoted in James Sire, Universe Next Door (Downers Grove: IVP,1997), p. 98.
[However he does not give the orginal source or the full name. He is probably quoting Pierre Jean
George Cabanis, a French philosopher, from Rapports du physique et du moral de l'homme;
Paris, Bureau de la Bibliotheque Choisie, 1830 (2 vols.). Others attribute this quote to Karl Vogt.
See the Encyclopdia Britannica, "Modern Materialism."]
11
Frank Thilly, A History of Philosophy (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1659), p.23.
12
Fragments, http://members.aol.com/cyberstoic/heracliteans.html (June 3, 2005).

20
Gorgias ( 483 - 375)

Gorgias faces the consequences, and concludes that knowledge is impossible.

1) Nothing exists (As soon as it exists, it stops being what it was.)
1) Is something did exist, it could not be known.
2) If something could be known, it could not be communicated. 13

Cratylus

This leads to despair. Another disciple of Heraclitus named Cratylus, decided to live
consistently with this conclusion, and stopped talking altogether! 14

D. The Greek giants

Now we come to three of the greatest thinkers of all time, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.
They all presented a hope for true knowledge, one through dialogue, one in the world of
universal ideas and the pre-existence of the soul, and the other in the world of particulars
and logic.

13
On the Non-Existent, http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/300/gorgias/negative.html. See also
http://www.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/WestCiv/Gorgias.CP.html (June 3, 2005)
14
Humberto Giannini, Esbozo para una Historia de la Filosofa (Santiago, Chile, 1981), p. 34. See
also Abraham Stone, On the teaching of virtue in Platos Meno and the nature of philosophical
authority, p. 29, footnote 48, http://64.233.179.104/search?
q=cache:x9Rh3DlL5ssJ:home.uchicago.edu/~abestone/short_meno.pdf+cratylus+stops+talking&hl=en&sta
rt=12 (June 8, 2005).

21
Socrates (469-399)

One of the most famous sayings attributed to Socrates is, I only know that I know
nothing. 15 He calls wise the person who knows that he does not know. However, this
is just the starting point for Socrates, not the end. He believed man could discover truth in
logical dialogue with others. As we recognize our ignorance, we clear our mind of
incorrect notions, then test and rebuild our views on a firmer foundation. He did not
pretend to construct a system of philosophy as much as he wanted to motivate love for
truth and virtue in order to live correctly. He was more interested in practical moral issues
than in futile speculation about metaphysics. 16 Thus, we already see a tendency toward
seeking an escape from skepticism into the realm of ethics.

Plato (429-347)

According to Plato, ideas are what is real, and they exist independent from the human
mind. What we see and observe are only shadows of reality. Mans soul is his real
essence, not his body. Man can know something because his soul existed previously, and
because his soul can remember.

His Allegory of the Cave describes how we can know the truth by means of a mystical
experience. In the story, he describes how some men are chained up in a cave, watching
shadows on the wall. They think that the shadows are reality because they know nothing
else. What happens when one leaves the dark cave and comes into the light? 17

...At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and
turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp
pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of
which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one
saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is
approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he
has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his
instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them,
-will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly
saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?

...You will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the
ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which,
at your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. 18

15
http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/Socrates/1/(June 8, 2005).
16
Thilly, pp. 65-68.
17
Giannini, (La Repblica, p. 307-311) (Giannini, p. 40),
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/platoscave.html ,
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html
18
Allegory of the cave, From http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html (June 3, 2005).

22
Aristotle (384-322)

Aristotles philosophy is considered the most comprehensive synthesis of knowledge

ever achieved by the mind of man. 19 He wrote works on: logic, natural sciences,
psychology, metaphysics, ethics, politics, and rhetoric. While he accepted the distinction
of Plato between ideas and matter, he believed that both were real, inseparable, and
eternal. Ideas only exist as they are expressed in concrete objects. However, he gives a
certain priority to the particulars, saying that behind all change, the fundamental thing is
not ideas, but prime matter. (p. 62, Giannini).

His hope for knowledge was in logic. He believed that there is objective knowledge,
refuting the relativism of earlier philosophers. Something is not true because you think it
is; rather it is true, and therefore you are correct when you think it is true. Knowledge
begins with perception of the observable particulars. Then, by inductive logic we arrive at
primary premises (universals). Finally, by deductive logic we can arrive at other
conclusions. For example, we can observe many triangles and measure the sum of the
degrees of their angles. They all add up to 180 degrees. Secondly, we conclude that all
triangles have 180 degrees. Finally, we can deduce that any other triangle we find will
also have 180 degrees.

Curiously, intuition (or the soul) is necessary in this process. We cant study every single
triangle, but after observing many triangles, our intuition grasps the concept that all
triangles have 180 degrees. It must be true!

Aristotle formulated the law of non-contradiction. If x equals y, then x cannot equal the
negation of y. If x equals y, then it cannot be true that x does not equal y. If a tree is an
apple tree, it cannot be true that it is NOT an apple tree.

He also defined the syllogism:

1. Triangles have 1800. Major premise
2. This figure is a triangle. Minor premise
3. This figure has 1800. Conclusion

Aristotle can only be described as a hero in his noble efforts to save knowledge. His
explanation of the laws of logic is genius. Most western people tend to think along these
19
Thilly p. 118.

23
lines instinctively. I believe that logic is one of the residue truths that God has allowed
non-Christians to discover. It is part of the image of God in man. However, logic must be
kept in the proper perspective as a fallible instrument. It must be submitted to God, and
not allowed to become independent, or it will lead us into error, as it did with Aristotle.

ADD GRAPHIC UP TO ARISTOTLE (USE COREL)

E. Skepticism and ethics after Aristotle

After Aristotle, there is a reaction against systematic philosophy among the Greeks. They
prefer something more human and practical. They seek inner peace. They are skeptical
about finding true knowledge, but emphasize ethics.

The Stoics despised material possessions and honors. They held a pantheistic and almost
mystical concept of nature. For them, all is one living, rational, divine being. We must
submit to our destiny in order to be free and happy.

The wise man is free...because he desires that which necessarily will occur.
(p. 74 Giannini).

The Epicureans tried to develop a serene life. They believed that happiness is the final
goal of life, but they sought happiness by eliminating passions (especially the fear of the
gods and of death.) By avoiding desires, they avoided disappointment.

The Skeptics exhibited a similar attitude about knowledge. To avoid disappointment, its
better just to admit from the beginning that you dont know anything. Common sayings
among them were the following:

"We determine nothing."

20
"Every saying has its corresponding opposite.

This completes the line of uncertainty. The Greeks have moved from certainty, to doubt,
to agnosticism, to a struggle to save knowledge, to a confirmed skeptical attitude
combined with an emphasis on ethics. While this review may not do justice to the
complexities of Greek philosophy, I believe it properly reflects general tendencies and
helps us understand the dilemma of man without God.

ADD GRAPHIC WITH ALL GREEKS

20
Ancient Skepticism, http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/Skept.htm (June 3, 2005).

24
I also believe that the line of uncertainty represents what many of us experience in our
own personal epistemological journey, before our conversion. We begin by thinking we
know something, then we doubt, then we begin to lose hope of true knowledge. But we
cannot live with total uncertainty, so we struggle to find meaning, even if we have to
accept some inconsistency. Many of us never really have the courage or capacity to face
the consequences of life without meaning, so we skip over the bottom stage and move on
to a struggle for some kind of hope. Finally, if we dont turn to God and find the truth in
His revelation, we simply learn to live with a degree of uncertainty and try not to think
about it too much. However, we cant avoid establishing some guidelines for living, and
we continue to argue about what is right and wrong, even if we admit that we have no
basis for it! Ironically, sometimes the people who are most passionate about how we
should live are the least certain about how we can know anything at all.

25
Chapter 3

The line of uncertainty in modern philosophy

Modern western philosophy follows a similar pattern. But first, let's look at the medieval
parenthesis, in which Christian theology dominates philosophical thought.

A. The medieval background

Christian thinking prevailed in the Middle Ages. Because of that, I call it a "parenthesis"
in our "x-ray" analysis of non-Christian thinking. Knowledge was possible through faith
in God's revelation. However, the great debate was the relationship between faith and
reason. With which of these two should we begin in the knowing process?

For Augustine and Anselm, faith comes first. Augustine said, "I believe in order to
understand." ("Credo ut intelligam.") 21 Anselm said, "I do not seek to understand in order
to believe, but to believe in order to understand. Because I believe this: I will not
understand if I do not believe." 22

For St. Thomas of Aquinas (1225-1274), we begin with observation and reason. We can
study nature (general revelation) in order to understand many things. For example, we
can come to believe that God exists. (Aquinas developed five proofs for the existence of
God.) But this method only serves us up to a certain point. Then we need special
revelation and faith. For example, nature will not lead us to believe in the Trinity; we
need faith for that. Francis Schaeffer has described this perspective as two "stories." He
considers that Aquinas unwittingly opened the door for modern secular philosophy. 23

21
Anselm uses the phrase in Proslogion, but Augustine apparently said it first.
22
Proslogion, chapter 1.
23
Francis Schaeffer: The God Who is There, Flight from Reason.

26
The distinction that Aquinas makes permits a dangerous dichotomy. It separates faith and
reason, leaving reason independent of faith. It weakens the role of reason and objective
observation in the areas of theology, and weakens the role of faith and revelation in the
realm of science.

The Catholic Church still holds this position. In the Encyclical Letter of Pope John Paul
II, Fides et Ratio 24 (1998), the Pope says there is danger in separating faith and reason.
He insists that there is only one truth, and that faith and reason are valid instruments to
find that truth, but that they should not be separated. However, he concludes that both
faith and reason each should be granted their own respective autonomy!

B. The downward spin in early modern philosophy

Modern philosophy begins with certainty, then falls into skepticism. Thinking becomes
secular, and revelation is not the source of truth. God is no longer the center of attention,
but man.

Modern philosophy centers on two great issues: 1. Is truth objective or subjective?, and 2.
Is man free or determined? The first debate regards the locus of truth and the means of
obtaining it. Some consider that truth is in our own mind (subjective) and that our
reasoning can find it and process it. Others believe that is outside our mind (objective)
and that we begin by observing with our senses, then process it with our reason.

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

Bacon proposed the scientific inductive method of finding truth, moving away from the
medieval faith in revelation. He reacted against reading the old works of previous
thinkers (degenerate learning), especially Aristotle, and preferred a fresh study of
nature, using our capacity for observation. His attitude was one of complete confidence in
his capacity to find true knowledge.

By far the best proof is experience.

Knowledge is power. (Religious Meditations)
I have taken all knowledge to be my province. 25

Ren Descartes (1596-1650)

Descartes closed himself up in a "stove" (a room with a stove?) for a day of meditation,
and followed the guideline that he would not accept anything as true if he could doubt it.
26
His first conclusion was that he could not doubt that he himself existed, because he was

24
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-
ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html. See sections 9, 16, 17, 45, and 48.
25
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Sir_Francis_Bacon (June 24, 2005)
26
(Discurso, pp. 34-39)

27
thinking. ("Cogito ergo sum," I think, therefore I am.) 27 From this basis, he developed
other postulates, most importantly that the world exists and that he can trust his senses to
observe the world. Why? Because God would not deceive us.

The picture of Descartes meditating in a closed room graphically illustrates the new
subjective tendency of modern philosophy. It has a new starting point: the self-conscience
of the individual. His subjective logical methodology is called rationalism, and Descartes
can be considered the father of modern philosophy. Notice that he really believes that he
knows something. He begins a new cycle of certainty-uncertainty.

John Locke (1632-1704)

As opposed to Descartes, and similar to Bacon, Locke believed that there are no innate
ideas, no ideas previous to experience. Reality is outside the mind. The mind is a "tabula
rasa", a blank writing board, that receives sensations from without, caused by the
qualities of the things. The mind reflects on its observations, and can develop complex
ideas. This is called empiricism. While he has a completely different approach, Locke
also holds to the possibility of knowledge.

David Hume

Hume was a skeptical empiricist. While he accepted the method of knowing through
observation, he questioned the existence of things. He concluded that only perceptions
exist. Thus modern philosophy falls into uncertainty.

27
Discurso, p. 66, Gianini, p. 138

28
(NEW ONE WITH BACON INCLUDED)

C. The modern giants

Just as Greek philosophy produced a few thinkers who seem to stand head and shoulders
above the others, so did modern philosophy. Kant and Hegel demonstrated an unequaled
capacity for abstract thinking. Like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, they attempted to rescue
knowledge from skepticism.

Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804)

Kant pretended to put an end to the subjective-objective, rationalist-empiricist discussion

by combining the two. He proposed that a thing does not exist in itself, but only as it is
perceived. You can't separate the perceiving subject from the perceived object. While
things really exist outside the mind, we cannot know them as they are without the
subjective influence of our own mental filter that processes the data. 28

He distinguishes between the realm of noumenons and the realm of phenomenons,

the metaphysical world and the physical world. Pure reason functions in the physical
world, but in the metaphysical world, there are contradictions. Only practical reason
functions in the realm of noumenons.

28
Crtica de la razn pura, Buenos Aires, Losada, 1979), p. 147.

29
 (Religion, morality, freedom)

NOUMENONS PRACTICAL REASON

Metaphysical realm (antinomies, contradictions)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Physical realm

PHENOMENONS PURE REASON

(Science, experience)

Frederich Hegel (1770-1831)

Hegel brought a colossal change in western thinking. He actually integrated an oriental

perspective of monism (all reality is one) and tried to apply it consistently.

This opens up a second main debate (after rationalism versus empiricism) in modern
philosophy, the debate between determinism and freedom. Some such as Hegel proposed
a unified universe in which everything is impersonally directed, leaving man without
freedom. Others such as Kierkegaard and the existentialists reacted against this scheme
and emphasized the freedom of the individual.

Hegels monism also affected his epistemology. Since all is one, the truth is everything,
and everything is true. 29 Previously, most western philosophers accepted the logical law
of non-contradiction. If A is true, then you cannot also say that A is not true. When you
are presented with two contradictory statements (2+2=4 versus 2+2=5), then at least one
of these statements is false. In a sense, Hegel denied the law of non-contradiction. In
another sense, he denied all contradiction, period.
Hegel proposed the dialectic, in which all apparent conflicts are resolved and reconciled.
Instead of looking at two apparently contradictory positions (a thesis and its antithesis) as
mutually exclusive choices, we should look at them as different aspects of a larger truth,
and expect them to merge into a synthesis. Each synthesis becomes a new thesis, which in
turn merges with its antithesis to form another synthesis. This dialectic process continues
on and on.

29
Fenomenologa, p. 16. Lo verdadero es el todo.

30
Truth is like a plant that grows and produces a bud, then a flower. While the bud
disappears, it is still present in the flower.

True reality is basically one, and it is not material, but spiritual. Hegel calls it the Geist
(spirit, mind, reason), the interior being of the world. 30 The Geist involves all of history,
nature and human thought. 31Everything, even knowledge, is in a dynamic process of
development. Marx would later turn this idea upside down and propose that, while reality
is in a continual dynamic process, it is not spiritual, but material.

While Hegel could be understood by some as a "solution" to the debate about truth, the
result is that we lose all absolutes. We lose the distinction between true and false, and we
lose the difference between right and wrong. This will have devastating consequences.

It drives people to sing songs like the following:

...
Dont you know the devil is in me and God she is too
my Yin hits my Yang But what the heck ya gonna do
I choose a rocky ass path but thats how I like it
lifes a bowl of punch go ahead and spike it 32

If all is one, then even God and the devil must be one. The "Yin" and "Yang" are the
oriental words for right and wrong, for black and white, two apparent opposites that
really form part of the universal oneness. Morally, this position leaves us totally
disoriented.

Much like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, Kant and Hegel are trying to avoid the
consequences of skepticism. We have not yet seen the agnosticism that we found in

30
Pg. 26 Fenomenologa, Pg. 339-340
31
Fenomenologa, p. 469.
32
311, Plain, http://www.najical.com/311/03ahydro.htm

31
Gorgias or Cratylus, but we will discover that later. We could place the modern
philosophers that we have mentioned so far on the line of uncertainty.

D. Agnostic despair

Skepticism leads to despair, and despair leads to moral degeneration. A lifestyle

consistent with the denial of God and the denial of absolute truth becomes completely
self-centered and abusive. We will look at two representatives of this aberration.

Marquis de Sade (1740-1814)

Even though he would not normally be considered a philosopher, I would like to

include an influential writer who represents the underside of agnostic despair. Marquis de
Sade lived between the time of Kant and Hegel. (For the first time in our study, we will
joggle the chronology somewhat.) He was known for moral libertinism and for receiving
pleasure from sexual cruelty, from which the name sadism is derived. 33 Cynical and
dedicated to his vices, he was not concerned about the consequences of his actions. He
wrote from prison:

By Nature created, created with very keen tastes, with very strong passions;
placed on this earth for the sole purpose of yielding to them and satisfying them...
I am only sorry for the modest use I made of the faculties (criminal in your view,
perfectly ordinary in mine) she gave me to serve her; ....

33
http://www.epdlp.com/sade.html, Obras de Sade: Justine o los infortunios de la virtud
(1791), Juliette o las prosperidades del vicio (1796), Los 120 das de Sodoma and La filosofa
en el tocador (1795)

32
 Renounce the idea of another world; there is none, but do not renounce the
pleasure of being happy and of making for happiness in this. 34

Are you perhaps scandalized by this, o virtuous one? Does it burn your ears that
from infancy have been assaulted by the fables of the church? Well then, go in
peace; if the absurd people that have taught you are right, if as they have told
you there is a hell in which those who abandon themselves to sin will be
punished, then there is no doubt that we will burn in it. But, as Blangis said, a hell
inhabited by those of our own species, in spite of all the tortures, is much more
desireable than a heaven occupied by monotonous creatures who present
themselves to us as models of virtue. 35

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)

Son of protestant pastor, Nietzsche is famous for declaring that God is dead. He denies
God, the meaning of life, and morality. He suggested that Christianity encourages
weakness. Ethics comes from the instinct to protect yourself, therefore it is based on fear
and not on love. On the other hand, we should become more like the Ubermensch
(Super-man) who has been freed from ethics, and has a strong will. He can not only
suffer, but make others suffer, without feeling bad about it. He creates his own ethical
norms and is self-sufficient. Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin nurtured their tyranny in their
understanding of his philosophy, and Nietzsche himself died mentally ill. For him, there
was no longer any up and down, and the world had become cold.

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours,
ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am
looking for God!"

As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he
excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his
way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone
on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang
into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and
I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink
up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did
we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now?
Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling?
Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are
we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty
space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the
34
Dialogue between a priest and a dying man,
http://www.feastofhateandfear.com/archives/marquis.html
35
Epilogue from 120 Days of Sodom, 1785,
http://www.gratisweb.com/daf_de_sade/Aportaciones.html ENGLISH????

33
 time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the
noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of
God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And
we have killed him. 36

E. The continued struggle for truth

Existentialism

While some of them seem pessimistic and agnostic, the existentialists can be included
among those struggling to find truth. They balked at the dreaded consequences of
Nihilism and fought to find meaning and maintain human freedom. Camus said,

In the darkest depths of our Nihilism, I have sought only for the means to
transcend Nihilism. 37

Liberal theology

Liberal theology can be compared to the Greek stage of admitting a skeptical posture
toward truth, while emphasizing ethics. Liberals abandoned the foundation of the inspired
Scriptures and lost the notion of absolute truth. Nevertheless, they somehow continued to
defend ethical principles. Jesus becomes simply a moral example instead of a Savior.

There are hundreds of famous existentialists and liberal theologians, but we will examine
just one example of each, Sren Kierkegaard and Jos Mguez Bonino. Even though he is
36
From Gay Science, quoted at:
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/friedrich_nietzsche_quotes.html (June 10, 2005).
37
Quoted from Lt by James Sire, The Universe Next Door; a Basic Worldview Catalogue
(Downers Grove, Ilinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997), p. 95.

34
technically more the grandfather of existentialism than a representative of it,
Kierkegaard reveals the basic presuppositions of the viewpoint. Bonino not only
represents liberal theology, but a particular brand called liberation theology, especially
popular in Latin America.

Sren Kierkegaard (1813-55)

Kierkegaard resisted the consequences of a dynamic impersonal universe. He wanted to

save mans freedom and leave space for faith in God. He especially reacted against
Hegel, and liked to make fun of him. Some of the titles of his books are meant to ridicule
him, such as: Concluding Un-Scientific Postscript, Philosophical Fragments. He felt
Hegel did not touch human reality. Such pure thought was like having to travel in
Denmark with a small map of Europe on which Denmark is no larger than a steel pen-
point. 38

He rejects the logical conclusion of Hegels dialectic that would make even our own
thoughts a result of the flow of history. His way of escaping such determinism was to
focus on mans subjective free choice. The truth becomes a leap of faith.

...the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can
live and die. 39

He introduces a moment of freedom within the dialectic scheme.

The moment of freedom is like the synapse in the brain (the small gap between neurons).
The moment is eternal, infinite. There is freedom, individuality, and faith in that moment.
Only the moment has meaning.

38
From Concluding Unscientific Postscript, quoted in:
http://www.utas.edu.au/docs/humsoc/kierkegaard/resources/Kierkquotes.html (June 10, 2005).
39
From The Journals, quoted in Anthology, pp. 4-5.

35
Faith goes against reason, but we must believe anyway. It is a leap into infinity, a free act
of the human will. It is a paradox; you cannot have faith, but you do. Faith is like love;
you cant explain it. Its a passion, its blind, a matter of the heart, not the intellect.

Faith is the objective uncertainty along with the repulsion of the absurd held fast
in the passion of inwardness, which precisely is inwardness potentiated to the
highest degree.

Jos Mguez Bonino

Liberation theology is an unusual combination of marxism and liberal theology. It

begins with a concern for poverty and injustice, then develops a distorted theological
defense of political movements that are trying to overthrow capitalistic power structures.
Behind the socio-political movement is a new hermeneutic that begins with praxis instead
of with the Scriptures.
Jos Mguez Bonino believes that truth is in history, not in abstract concepts. To
know the truth is to experience it, not to think it. He accepts a theory of communication
that eliminates all certainty. For him, the meaning of any communication between two
people involves the complete situation: the tone of voice, gestures, the background of
each person, and an infinite number of factors surrounding them. Since it is impossible to
communicate an infinite number of factors, it is impossible to be sure about the validity
of the message given and received. 40 (This reminds us of Gorgias!) For Bonino, this
problem also affects the communication between God and man. It is impossible to be sure
about our understanding of God's message to us.
However, in spite of this epistemological skepticism, Bonino has no problem in
encouraging us to make a committment to the marxist revolutionary movement to help
the poor and the oppressed. He admits that this Christian cooperation with the marxist
revolution is an "uneasy alliance," and that liberation theology could be mistaken!

May nobody think, then that I cam proclaiming "liberation theology" as it has
appeared in Latin America and in other places, as the theology for the new world,
or as the precursor of a new Christianity. It is simply an initial and ambiguous
answer and a tenuous perception of a new task and a new responsibility. It is
destined to die. May God permit that its life and death be fruitful. 41

Regardless of this uncertainty, Bonino has strong convictions about injustice, the
causes of poverty, and ethics. He asks for a commitment to the point of possibly using
violence, something very radical considering the fragile basis of his convictions!

(MODIFY / PUT KIERKEGAARD, Sir Francis Bacon)

40
Jos Mguez Bonino, La fe en busca de eficacia (Salamanca: Ediciones Sgueme, 1977) pp.
118, 119.
41
Jos Mguez Bonino, New Trends in Theology, Duke Divinity School Review 42 (Fall, 1997):
141,142.

36
Postmodernism
Postmodernism is not technically a philosophy either, but rather a term used to describe
a whole set of cultural tendencies, including art, music and moral and philosophical
values (or lack of values!). The name suggests a reaction against modernism. Whereas
modernism began with a trust in reason and science, postmodernism no longer trusts
them. Postmodernists no longer care about what reality is like (ontology) or about how
you can know the truth (epistemology).

Antonio Cruz explains:

The postmodern individual...has been transformed into a vagabond of ideas. He

doesnt hold on to anything sincerely. He has no absolute certainties. He doesnt
seem to be surprised by anything, and of course, nothing keeps him awake at
night. He changes his opinion today as easily as he changes his shirt. 42

Probably the best word to describe postmodernism is eclectic; anything and everything
is ok. Douglas Groothuis suggests that the tendency is pluralistic, relativistic, and
nihilistic. Postmodern art uses all kinds of styles and forms, with no visible coherence.
43
He tells of an artistic presentation on stage at the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis,
in which two women sewed acupuncture needles into the head of a man, while he
injected himself with thirty hypodermic needles and cut a design in the back of another.
They passed towels over the heads of the people in the audience with the mans blood on
them, while two women danced until the bells that were sewn to their bodies fell off and
left them bleeding. What the public didnt know was that the blood on the towels was
contaminated with AIDS! 44

The song that was quoted in the first chapter gives us a clear idea of the postmodern
sense of chaos and confusion. They feel like they are looking at life through the eyes of
a tire hub. Life seems to be disorder, disorder, disorder. 45

Now we can appreciate the painting also mentioned in the first chapter, of Francis Bacon
the painter from the 20th century, Head VI(1949). No wonder the man inside the box is
screaming; he believes he is an accident. We have come a long ways from the other
Bacon, Sir Francis Bacon, the philosopher from the 17th century, who trusted in reason
and the scientific method.

With these sketches of modern philosophy, we can complete the line of uncertainty.
Ironically, we move from one Francis Bacon to another, who are almost polar opposites
42
Antonio Cruz, Postmodernidad (Barcelona: CLIE, 1996), p. 52. Translated by the author.
43
Truth Decay (Downers Grove: IVP, 2000), pp. 239-262.
44
Truth Decay, pp. 247-248.
45
Toxicity by System of a Down.

37
with respect to their confidence in finding truth. We end with two strong tendencies of
our day, which are also complete contrasts in their levels of certainty. On the one hand,
the New Age movement has found certainty in claiming that man is God. On the other
hand, Postmodernism has abandoned the search for truth.

???? (MODIFY / PUT KIERKEGAARD, Sir Francis Bacon, New Age, postmodernism
and painter F. Bacon?)

38
Chapter 4

Conclusions about the non-Christian viewpoint

KATRINA; NEW ORLEANS; WEAK SPOT IS EPISTEMOLOGY
If we had to use one single word to describe non-believing man for apologetic purposes,
it would be uncertain. The history of western philosophy is basically a struggle to
overcome this epistemological dilemma, over and over again.

If we had to use one phrase to describe the root of mans problem with regard to finding
the truth, it would be that he pretends to be the judge of truth. This was the problem of
Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and it was the cause of the Fall.

Notice that the temptation presented to Adam and Eve was precisely to eat of the tree of
knowledge. This symbolized obtaining truth by themselves in an attempt to become like
God. When Satan distorted the truth and challenged them to rebel against God, they
began to weigh the choices in their own mind. The Fall began when they asked
themselves, I wonder who is right, God or the serpent. They had already made
themselves the judge of truth, pretending to be independent of God.

When Jesus Himself, the way the truth and the life, stood before Pilate, the last words
that the roman ruler said to Him were, What is truth? Apparently Pilate meant to
insinuate that nobody really knows what the truth is, because he didnt even wait for an
answer. Ironically, instead of listening to the source of all truth, he had Him crucified.
This illustrates mans most foolish mistake; with the truth before our very eyes, we refuse
to accept it. Instead, we crucify it and set ourselves up as the judge.

A. Uncertainty

In general terms, the Greeks followed a cycle of certainty, doubt, desperation, attempts to
save knowledge, then ended up talking of ethics. European modern philosophy followed
a similar pattern, except that Nietzsche doesnt seem to fit the chronological sequence.
Even though he came later, and even though he does speak a lot about ethics, I would
prefer to put him at the bottom in despair because of his negative nihilism. An individual
often goes the same path. He thinks he knows something, then doubts, then cant live
with total uncertainty, and ends up holding some ethical views, even though it is
inconsistent with his skepticism.

There are basically three choices: Either man must live with the fear that he cant be
really sure of anything, he must pretend that he is God, or he faces the brutal realization
that truth is impossible to know. If he doesnt believe in God, man has to assume the
terrible responsibility of deciding the truth. He either assumes that truth is outside of
himself, or that truth is inside his head, but in both cases, he is the judge. The only other
alternative is to deny the possibility of truth altogether, a rather extreme and unpleasant
option. A curious twist on the latter position is to act like everything is true. However, this
is just a cover-up for the same position that nothing is really true at all.

39
If truth is objective

If he thinks truth is objective, outside himself, he encounters the dilemma of needing to

know everything in order to be sure of anything.

When I talk to someone about this, I like to ask a question I know he cant answer, such
as: Is there a star a million light years directly north of the north pole? The question is
valid, because either there is a star there, or there isnt a star there. But everybody knows
they cant answer the question. This highlights the problem of uncertainty. I suggest that
there are many things he doesnt know, and ask how he can be sure there arent some
important truths that could completely change his perspective of the world. If he rejects
Christianity, how can he be sure it isnt true?

If truth is subjective

If he thinks truth is subjective, in his own mind, he must admit that he cant live
consistently with this. He cant just make something be true by thinking it is true. This
position means ultimately pretending to be God, but he knows he isnt.

When I talk to someone who takes this position, I like to ask him to imagine that we are
at the railroad tracks and he is standing right in the middle of the tracks. I ask him what
he would do if he saw a train coming. Could he simply decide that the train is not

40
coming? I guarantee he wouldnt try it! He will jump of the tracks just like anybody else
in his right mind! What does this prove? Simply that he cannot live consistently with the
idea that the truth is in his own mind or that he is God.

If truth is impossible

Another alternative is to simply deny the possibility of knowledge (nihilism or

postmodernism). However, this position has an even more obvious problem. In the
moment they affirm that nothing can be affirmed, they have contradicted themselves
hopelessly. If I cant be sure of anything, how can I be sure that I cant be sure of
anything? It is like saying, Everything I say is a lie! Again, we come back to Cratylus:
It would be better to say nothing!

While I was studying in seminary, I worked as a night supervisor in a college library

nearby to pay for my studies. There was a student who worked there also and frequently
talked with me about my faith. She once said, You cant be sure of anything. When I
asked her how she could be sure of that, she became furious and stomped out. Several
hours later she returned and blurted, I think that you cant be sure of anything. She
abruptly turned around and walked away without waiting for an answer.

If everything is true

Existentialists recognize the problem of uncertainty, but they also know that man cannot
bear to live with this. Therefore, without being able to defend it rationally, they make a
leap of faith. The problem with the existentialist epistemology is that anything can be
true. If everyone invents his own values, and decides for himself what is true, then
anything is true. But if everything is true, then nothing is true!

Many truths contain within themselves the denial of other truths. For example, if we say
there is only one straight line between two points, then we are denying that there are two
straight lines between two points. We cant believe both. If we begin to say that A is
true and A is also not true, then we are losing our mental sanity.

Its like the young man who appeared before presbytery to be examined for ordination to
be a pastor. When they asked him if he believed in the divinity of Jesus, he said, I dont
deny the divinity of Jesus; I dont deny the divinity of anybody! The problem is, if
everybody is divine, then divinity loses its meaning. The very concept of divinity
includes being superior to humans. If everybody is God, then nobody is God.

Eastern pantheistic monism also suffers a similar problem with regard to ethics. They
want to deny distinctions between true and false, between good and evil, but they cannot
live consistently with this. If I ask one of them if I can hit him in the nose, surely he will
say No! But if I ask him why not, what can he answer? If there is no distinction between
right and wrong, it is equally right to hit him or not hit him!

41
B. The self-destruction of monism

The majority of worldviews postulate some kind of unity in the universe, either material
or spiritual (naturalism or pantheism). The inevitable dilemma with this scheme is that
man is also a part of this unity, and he loses his identity and freedom as an individual.
Therefore, even his own thoughts have no meaning.

For example, if deism is true, that the universe is like a huge clock, then his thoughts are
nothing more than the tick tock, tick tock of the clock. What would his thoughts mean
then? The same is true is the universe is one large spiritual unity.

The ancient Greek philosophers understood this problem, and it led them into skepticism.
Heraclitus sustained that the universe was in constant movement like a river. 46 Then
Gorgias decided that all knowledge and communication was impossible. 47 Why?
Because you cant believe that the universe is a great flowing river and pretend that you
are standing on the riverbank, outside the river, observing the flow in an independent and
objective way. You must also be a part of the river. And if you are only a drop of water in
the river, how can you pretend to give your opinion about the nature of the river?
Cratylus was consistent with this scheme, and he decided to stop talking all together! 48
At least this was an honest reaction. If communication and knowledge are impossible,
why talk?

This dilemma also engendered existentialism. Hegel had proposed that the universe was
united, that it was a great Spirit that was continually evolving. With the dialectic, he tried
to eliminate all conflict. When a thesis encounters its antithesis, instead of deciding which
is correct, we simply let them form a synthesis. With this, the notion of absolute truth is
lost, along with the distinction between right and wrong. Man becomes a part of this
impersonal process and thus loses his freedom and identity. Kierkegaard discerned this
problem, but could not offer a rational alternative. He could only suggest that reason
doesnt function, that it only exists in paradox. Man is a part of the impersonal process,
but somehow he is also free. This is the leap of faith, an irrational faith.

46
Humberto Giannini, Esbozo para una historia de la filosofa (Santiago de Chile, 1981), p. 17.
(La primera edicin de su libro fue publicada privadamente.)
47
Humberto Giannini, p. 25.
48
Humberto Giannini, p. 34.

42
Think of the theory of evolution. If the world is nothing more than a product of an
impersonal process of evolution, and if nothing exists except matter, then my thoughts are
also nothing more than a movement of atoms, a silent chemical reaction. A crude way of
saying it is, The brain secretes thoughts in the same way that the liver secretes bile. 49
Therefore, why should we pretend that our thoughts are correct? Why would we think
they mean anything? The very theory that I am proposing is just a chemical reaction. This
is like sawing off the branch I am sitting on! Darwin himself wrote in a letter:

The horrendous doubt will always arise whether the convictions of the human
mind, which has evolved from the mind of inferior animals, really has value or is
to be trusted. Should one trust in the convictions of the mind of a monkey, if
convictions exist in such a mind? 50

C. S. Lewis quotes the succinct argument of J. B. S. Haldane:

If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my

brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are trueand hence I have no
reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. 51

C. Key characteristics of man, according to the Bible

The Bible gives us a clear description of man. There are a few key passages and
fundamental truths that give us an important orientation for apologetics.

First, he is the image of God. This point is fundamental, because it gives us something to
appeal to. The non-believer is not beyond our reach; we can communicate the gospel to
him. What does this image include? To understand it, think of the differences between
people and animals. Man is creative, he is sovereign master over the rest of creation, he
has social relations, a moral sense, the capacity to reason, the ability to communicate with
language, a will, and emotions. When we wake up in the morning and force ourselves out
of bed, we manifest our will power. When we compose a song, paint a picture or write a
poem, we show our creativity. When we enjoy time with our family, we reveal our
emotions and our need for personal relations. When we talk to our friends on the phone,
we demonstrate our linguistic capabilities. The image of God permeates everything we
do.

Genesis 1:26-28
Then God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule
over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the
earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created man
in his own image,
49
Cabanis, quoted in Sire, Universe Next Door, Downers Grove, IL: IVP, p. 98.
50
Quoted in Sire, Universe Next Door, p. 83. Sire attributes the quote to a letter to W. Graham
(July 3, 1881), quoted in The Autobiography of Charles Darwin and Selected Letters (New York:
Dover, 1892, new printing, 1958).
51
Possible Worlds, quoted by Lewis in Miracles, p. 22.

43
 in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God
blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth
and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every
living creature that moves on the ground.

Secondly, man actually knows that God exists. According to the Scriptures, we dont
really need to convince anybody that He exists, because deep down, they already know it.
God has revealed Himself to every human being, through creation and in his own heart.
The problem is that they suppress this inward truth and try to hide it.

Romans 1:18-25
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and
wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may
be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For
since the creation of the world Gods invisible qualitieshis eternal power and
divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been
made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither
glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and
their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they
became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to
look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Notice that Paul took advantage of this when he dialogued with the Epicurean and Stoic
philosophers in Athens (Acts 17). He noticed that among all the idols, they had one
dedicated to the unkown God. He realized that this betrayed a sense of the true God,
and turned this into a point of contact.

Acts 17:22-23
Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: Men of Athens! I
see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked
carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:
TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am
going to proclaim to you.

I experimented with this concept once when I was talking to a Buddhist girl from Viet
Nam. I first asked her to tell me the story of Buddha. When she finished, I asked her if
God let Buddha into heaven after he died. I was almost surprised when she said yes. I
repeated the question to make sure. I said, You mean that God was pleased with Buddha
and allowed him into heave when he died. Again she agreed. Then I said, Do you
realize that you just admitted that there is another God who is greater than Buddha?

Thirdly, he has a moral sense, a conscience, and therefore also a sense of guilt. Even
though the values may be quite distorted, there is at least a general sense of right and
wrong. As we saw in the history of philosophy, the desire to distinguish between right
and wrong is one of the last things that man desperately holds on to, even when he is
skeptical about knowing truth. Most movies somehow portray the battle between good

44
and evil. World religions in fact show some common moral values. Famous literature also
reveals the common problem of a guilty conscience. In spite of Freuds attempt to explain
away the true conscience of man, it is real. Our sense of right and wrong does not only
come from society, but much of it comes from God Himself.

Romans 2.14, 15
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by
the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,
since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their
consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even
defending them.)

Out, damned spot!, cried Lady Macbeth. She had urged her husband to commit murder,
and eventually goes insane due to her sense of guilt. She imagines her hands to be
permanently stained with blood, and rubs her hands desperately to remove it, but it cant
be cleansed.

Tolstoys main character in Resurrection, Nekhluyudov, senses compunction for his

shameful past. He had seduced a maid in his aunts house, then sat on a jury that unjustly
condemned the same woman for robbery. He had misled another young lady about his
romantic intentions, and also realizes he is living in contradiction with his own
convictions about wealth. He searches his soul:

But am I reallyhe stopped and stood stillam I really such a scoundrel?

Well, am I not? he answered himself.

Never before had there been such discord between what his conscience called
for and the life he was leading, and he was horrified when he saw the distance
between the two.

The distance was so great, the defilement so complete, that at first he despaired of
the possibility of being cleansed. Havent you tried to improve and be better, and
nothing came of it? whispered the voice of the tempter within. So what is the use
of trying any more? 52

Even tribal groups far removed from civilization manifest a sense of guilt and a need to
somehow make a sacrifice to cover their sin. One group may send out a dog on a raft to
die for them. Others may cut off the head of a chicken. Some even sacrifice their own
children. One of the most astounding things I have ever seen was a frozen indigenous
child found in the Andes mountains of Chile. The experts believe he is hundreds of years
old. He was dressed and seated in a way that showed he had been sacrificed to the gods.

52
Leo Tolstoy, Resurrection, trans. Rosemary Edmunds (London: Penguin Books, 1966), pp. 140,
141.

45
Mans mind is not a tabula rasa. It has the existence of God and the law of God written
on it. No matter how hard he tries to erase it or to hide it, these truths remain engraved in
his heart and mind.

Fourthly, man does not want to submit to God. Even though he knows God exists, until
the Holy Spirit miraculously renews his heart, he continues to deny God and refuse to
honor Him. His fundamental problem is spiritual rather than intellectual. He doesnt want
to accept the truth.

Romans 3:11
There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.

Romans 1:20-21
...Men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified
him as God nor gave thanks to him....

In order to avoid recognizing God as His creator and sovereign Lord, he invents his own
personal paradigms of reality that exclude God.

Romans 1:21,22
...Their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although
they claimed to be wise, they became fools....

Once while I was a student in seminary, we began talking with a young man from the
neighborhood who had joined us for outdoor basketball. He insisted that he didnt believe
in God or in miracles. I inquired as to what would possibly convince him that miracles
happen, and as to his understanding of a miracle. He explained that a miracle was
something he could not explain scientifically. I asked what he would think if I could kill
my friend and then raise him from the dead, raising my fist and trying to act like I might
really do it! While he was hesitating to answer, I decided to help him out, and suggested,
You would probably search the rest of your life to find a scientific explanation,
wouldnt you? Yes, probably, he admitted. Then there is really nothing that would
convince you that miracles can happen, is there? No, I guess not, he confessed. This
honest young man gives us a profound insight into the unbelievers thinking process. He
sets up his own rules in order to defend whatever he wants to believe.

D. The vital conflict of the non-believer

The non-believer cant really live with his own convictions. While he denies God with his
own invented truth, deep down he knows He is there. Whereas he refuses to live
according to Gods ethical guidelines, his conscience is constantly reminding him that
they are valid. Although he pretends that he is not guilty, in reality the burden is too
heavy to bear. He might decide in his mind that he is God, but the whole creation shouts
at him that he isnt. He might even try to deny his own dignity and the possibility of

46
knowing the truth, but since he is the image of God, every cell in his body urges him that
he is not really such a lowly being.

The non-believer is like John Nash when he was suffering hallucinations. The movie A
Beautiful Mind dramatically tells the story of the mathematical genius and Nobel prize
winner who heard voices of people that didnt exist. (In the movie, he actually sees
people.) To give importance to his life, he began to imagine that he was helping the U.S.
government decipher Soviet codes, and thereby avoiding a nuclear holocaust. How can
you convince John Nash that the people he imagines are not real? Every attempt was
interpreted by him as taking sides against him and with the Soviets. He always found a
way to fit the events into his own false scheme. Even his wife could not help him.
However, she did continue to love and support him, in spite of how disheartening it was.
Finally there was a breakthrough. He suddenly realized that one of the people in his
world was a young girl who was not growing up; she was always a young girl about ten
years old. This detail made him begin to question the validity of his imaginary world, and
he finally sought professional help.

This gives us a guideline for apologetics. We shouldnt let the non-believer think he is ok
when he is really ill. We need to persist in loving him, but also help him see his
inconsistency. We should look for something that makes him come to his senses. Our
task is to show him the contradictions involved in living according to his false scheme.
Then he can listen to our description of the Christian scheme, and understand that it is a
world view with which we can live consistently.

The non-believer is like the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) who took his share of the
inheritance and went far away. He tried to start a new life and pretend that his father
didnt exist, but he couldnt go on like that forever. The first things people ask you are
about your family and where you are from. Nobody can pretend that he just came into
existence somehow! How long can you hide your history? Can you imagine a
conversation with him while he was feeding the swine? Cornelius Van Til helps us
imagine the situation:

When the prodigal son left his fathers house he could not immediately efface
from his memory the look and the voice of his father. How that look and that
voice came back to him when he was at the swine trough! How hard he had tried
to live as though the money with which he so freely entertained his friends had
not come from his father! When asked where he came from he would answer that
he came from the other side. He did not want to be reminded of his past. Yet he
could not forget the past. 53

This is the non-believers dilemma. He knows where he came from, but he is trying to
deny it. However, there comes a moment when he has to admit the truth. He has to come
to his senses, as the prodigal son did. And when he does, God the father comes running
to receive him with open arms! He celebrates with a big party!

53
Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., 1979), p. 231.

47
Part II
Apologetics

48
Chapter 5
Representative apologists (part 1); Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, G. K.
Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, and Cornelius Van Til.

MULTITUDE OF COUNSELORS

What can we learn from some of the foremost apologists? In this chapter we will begin a
survey of what I consider some of the best arguments. This survey does not pretend to be
an encyclopedia of apologists, or even a thorough review of the ones studied here. It
simply explains some arguments and concepts that have been personally helpful to me.
Ill present them somewhat in chronological order, but not exactly.

As early as the second centuries there were apologists such as Justin Martyr (ca. 100-
165), who defended Christianity against the accusation of atheism (since Christians did
not worship the multiple gods worshipped by the Romans). He pointed to fulfilled
prophecies as proof of the validity of Christianity, and carefully explained Christian
customs, beliefs, and ethical principles.. 54 Irenaeus (ca. 130-202) wrote against the
Gnostic heresy. 55 Tertullian (ca. 155-230) also defended Christianity against false
accusations and the heresies of his day (especially Marcion). 56 These early apologists
were well educated, having studied Greek philosophy extensively, and were certainly
used by God in their day to open the hearts and minds of many non Christians. However,
we will begin our survey with the giants of medieval Christian philosophy and
apologetics, namely Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas, who have blessed us with an
enormous legacy of apologetic arguments that continue to be useful for many people even
today.

A. Augustine (354-386)

Augustine of Hippo disputed the dualistic philosophy of Manichaeism, and in this

process developed answers to the problem of evil. Mani held that good and evil have both
existed from all eternity. This supposedly avoids the contradiction of an all-powerful and
good God who creates or allows evil. Augustine answered Manichaeism by asserting that
evil is not a created substance, but a defect of the good, an accident (in the sense of
being a temporary negative situation), a privation of good. For example, sickness is a
privation of health. When the person becomes well, the sickness does not continue in
some other form, but it ceases to exist.

54
First Apology, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html,
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/175.html (July 22, 2005).
55
Against Heresies, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html (July 22, 2005).
56
Apologeticus, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tertullian.html (July 22, 2005).

49
 Nothing evil exists in itself, but only as an evil aspect of some actual entity. 57

Furthermore, God has allowed evil for an ultimately good purpose.

For the Omnipotent God, whom even the heathen acknowledge as the Supreme
Power over all, would not allow any evil in his works, unless in his omnipotence
and goodness, as the Supreme Good, he is able to bring forth good out of evil. 58

These assertions continue to be helpful in our efforts to answer the problem of evil.

B. Anselm (1033-1109)

Anselm is known for his ontological argument for the existence of God. Basically, the
argument is as follows:

1. The term "God" is defined as the greatest conceivable being.

2. Real existence (existence in reality) is greater than mere existence in the
understanding.
3. Therefore, God must exist in reality, not just in the understanding. 59

This argument is usually considered to be nothing more than a linguistic illusion, or a

tautology. A tautology is an argument that already contains the conclusion you want in
the premise with which you begin. It is basically a definition that proves nothing new.
We could define a gemonk as being a green moon, but that doesnt mean that a green
moon actually exists. Someone might insist that a gemonk must be green; otherwise it
isnt really a gemonk, but this doesnt prove that there really is such a thing. We could
also speak of a perfectly designed triangle with three sides of exactly equal length and
three angles of exactly 600. In theory, such a triangle exists. But whether such a triangle
actually exists as drawn on paper or as a part of some object is another question.
Similarly, we can define God as a perfect being, which includes the quality of existing.
Then we can say that God must exist, otherwise he would not be God. However, this does
not really prove that there is a real God, but is only a theoretical definition of God.

C. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

Aquinas applied Aristotelian logic to theology. He assumed that man could come to the
conclusion that God exists by observing nature and using his reason (natural theology).
He proposed five arguments for the existence of God:

1. Motion. Everything that moves has been moved by something or somebody. If we

continue looking for the first mover, we discover that it must be God.

57
Enchridion xi, chapter IV, http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/saints/augenc.htm#chap4
58
Enchridion xi, chapters III and IV, http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/saints/augenc.htm#chap4
59
Proslogium, http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/anselm.htm

50
2. Cause. In a similar way, everything has a cause. If we continue the process of seeking
the cause of everything, we will eventually find the first cause, who is God.
3. The impossibility of nothing existing. While it is possible for many things to not exist,
it is not possible that nothing exists. If anything exists now, then something always
existed. If we back up to the point where only one thing existed, that must be God.
4. Ideal standard. All things are compared according to good, better, best. Something
must be the best of all, with which everything else is compared, and that must be God.
5. Design. All things seem to have a purpose, which points to a designer, who must be
God. 60

The first three arguments have been called cosmological arguments. The fifth is called
the teleological (Not theological! The word comes from the Greek word telos,
meaning end or purpose.). Some consider the fourth argument a version of the
ontological argument, although it sounds quite different from Anselms argument. I
understand Aquinas to saying basically that something is better than everything else, and
we consider that to be God.

These arguments can be very helpful. They show the logic of believing in some superior
being that starting everything. The teleological argument is especially helpful since it
points to intelligent design. According to Romans 1:18-20, God has revealed Himself in
the creation, and mankind senses something of His invisible qualities, his eternal
power and divine nature. Psalm 19 says, The heavens declare the glory of God; the
skies proclaim the work of his hands. When I was doubting the existence of God, it was
by looking at the stars that I sensed the reality of His presence. So we certainly need to
take advantage of this kind of reasoning that points to evidence in the creation. In fact,
the sense of a superior being is so divinely programmed into man that we really dont
have to work very hard at convincing most people. Some may have covered it up more
than others, but most will soon concede that they believe in some kind of superior being.

However, we have to be careful how we use these arguments. We have to admit that they
are not sufficient to show very much about that superior being. If we use them by
themselves, without referring to the Scriptural concept of the one and only personal triune
saving God, then we havent really accomplished a lot. In fact, we may have immunized
our friend against the gospel, giving him just enough to invent his own concept of a
superior being and to avoid facing the true God. We might make a Muslim out of him, a
deist, a Jew, a Budhist, a Hindu, or just about any kind of religious believer. Remember
that when Paul was speaking to the Athenians, he didnt simply point out the altar to the
unknown God and say, Im so glad you believe in God! Rather, he said, Now what
you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. (Acts 17:23).

D. G. K. Chesteron (1874-1936)

60
Summa Theologiae, Question 2, Article 3

51
In the first half of The Everlasting Man 61, Chesterton, a Catholic journalist and apologist,
invites us to assume that man is a mere animal, then shows how that leads us to actually
see the astonishing differences between man and animal. In the second half, he follows
similar reasoning about Jesus. He shows that if we assume Jesus is a mere man, we will
soon be overwhelmed at the differences between Him and any other human being.

We cant consider him equal to other founders of religions such as Mahomet, Confucius,
or Buddha, since none of them claimed to be God. In fact, normally the people we
consider the greatest have been the least likely to make such a claim. The only people that
consider themselves divine are lunatics. But Jesus obviously was not a lunatic.

No modern critic in his five wits thinks that the preacher of the Sermon on the
Mount was a horrible half witted imbecile that might be scrawling stars on the
walls of a cell. No atheist or blasphemer believes that the author of the Parable of
the Prodigal Son was a monster with one mad idea like a Cyclops with one eye.
Upon any possible historical criticism, he must be put higher in the scale of
human beings than that. Yet by all analogy we have really to put him there or else
in the highest place of all. 62

E. C.S. Lewis (1898-1963)

C. S. Lewis is one of the most widely-read Christians of the last century. His childrens
books (The Narnia Tales) and science fiction (The Space Trilogy) are treasured by non-
Christians as well as Christians, and have been translated into many different languages.
His apologetic books are original, profound, and a pleasure to read. He was influenced by
C. K. Chesterton, George MacDonald and J.R.R. Tolkien. We will focus on three books
that give us some heavy ammunition for apologetics.

1) The Problem of Pain 63

Lewis begins this book by explaining how an argument from nature for the existence of
God would not work for him. Since there is so much suffering, it would only lead him to
believe in a weak God or an evil God. Either there is no spirit behind the universe, or
else, a spirit indifferent to good and evil, or else an evil spirit. 64 But He cleverly turns
this around and asks how in the world people could still believe in an all-powerful loving
God, considering the problem of pain. He suggests that this sense of God must come
from God Himself.

Then he argues that evil could be avoided only by altering the environment and by
depriving man of free will. Lewis insists that, while in one sense God can do anything, in
another sense He cannot do something that is intrinsically impossible. There is no limit to
61
New York, Doubleday and Company, 1955. See online version of this book at:
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/chesterton/everlasting/content.htm
62
The Everlasting Man, p. 202.
63
Written in 1940, the first apologetics book. 2001 edition available by HarperCollins.
64
C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1962), p. 15.

52
His power, but He cant make man with free will and at the same time withhold free will.
Neither can he make man in an environment that does not follow certain predictable laws
without taking away his freedom. God could have programmed man in such a way that
evil thoughts were impossible, so that his brain simply refused to function when he
attempted to think something evil. Or maybe He could avoid any suffering by constantly
manipulating the nature of things. But these options take away true free will.

We can, perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of this
abuse of free will by His creatures at every moment; so that a wooden beam
became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon, and the air refused to carry
the sound waves that carry lies or insults. But such a world would be one in which
wrong actions were impossible, and in which therefore, freedom of the will would
be void. 65

He concludes,

Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the
existence of free wills involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself.

Perhaps this is not the best of all possible universes, but the only possible one. 66

Lewis considers pain Gods megaphone, a terrible instrument, to remind us that

something is wrong here. It removes the veil and plants the flag of truth within the
fortress of a rebel soul. 67 Pain keeps us from settling in this world and points us to
eternity.

Our Father refreshes us on the journey with some pleasant inns, but will not
encourage us to mistake them for home. 68

With regard to hell, Lewis insists that the doors of hell are locked on the inside.

2) Miracles 69

Lewis argues for miracles in this book by showing that Naturalism contradicts itself.
Naturalism believes that the only reality is nature, and denies the spiritual or the
supernatural dimension. But Lewis says that we must be consistent if we believe in only
the natural, and we must include our own thoughts as a part of the natural process.
However, if my thoughts are caused by the impersonal movement of atoms (irrational
cause), then why believe that my thoughts are valid? This leads me to doubt the very
premise I am defending. He says,

65
The Problem of Pain, p. 33.
66
The Problem of Pain, pp. 34, 35.
67
The Problem of Pain, p. 95.
68
The Problem of pain, p. 115.
69
Originally published 1947. (2001 edition available by HarperCollins).

53
 If all that exists is Nature, the great mindless interlocking event, if our own
deepest convictions are merely the bye-products of an irrational process, then
clearly there is not the slightest ground for supposing that our sense of fitness and
our consequent faith in uniformity tell us anything about a reality external to
ourselves. Our convictions are simply a fact about us like the colour of our hair.
If Naturalism is true we have no reason to trust our conviction that Nature is
uniform. 70

He also argues:

The Naturalist cannot condemn other peoples thoughts because they have
irrational causes and continue to believe his own which have (if Naturalism is
true) equally irrational causes. 71

In other words, as we mentioned previously, the theory of a closed universe is self-

destructive. It is like saying, Everything I say is a lie. It is like sawing the branch you
are sitting on.

Lewis points out that Naturalism has a similar problem with moral judgments. If their
postulates are true, there is no reason to believe their moral system is better than any
other. In fact, he says, If Naturalism is true, I ought is the same sort of statement as I
itch or Im going to be sick.

This argument is powerful. Many people hold to some kind of naturalistic world view, or
some kind of monism or closed universe. Pointing out how their position is
indefensible may be a good start in forcing them to reconsider their system of beliefs.

3) Surprised by Joy 72

This is the personal testimony of how Lewis came to believe in God. He was intrigued by
an inexplicable sense of joy that often returned to him, especially as he remembered
pleasant moments of his youth. Where does joy come from? It certainly cant just be a
result of an impersonal process of the universe. He concluded that God must exist, and
that joy comes from Him. Here we find the reverse of the problem of pain. Just as non-
believers ask how evil can exist, we can ask them how joy could exist within their world
view.

F. Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987)

Van Til reminds us of the story of the emperor who had no clothes. The royal tailors
deceived the emperor into believing that he had a beautiful new suit of clothes, and that
only morons could not see the cloth. As he sauntered through the streets, nobody dared to
tell him that he was completely naked, until a humble child dared to shout it out loud. Van

70
C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: MacMillan, 1968), p. 108.
71
C. S. Lewis, Miracles, p. 22.
72
1955 edition by Harcourt Brace and Company, Orland, FL.

54
Til has been the like the little child who has dared to expose the pretended autonomy of
non-Christian thought.

I can remember when Dr. Van Til would pace back and forth in front of the class and
imitate Eve before the Fall. I wonder..., I wonder..., I wonder... who is right, God or the
serpent? What right did they have to question their creator? How could they set
themselves up as the judges of the truth, even over God? After the Fall, the situation is
even worse, since mans reason, his will, every aspect has been damaged. Man cannot
find the truth on his own, independently of God, but this is exactly what he tries to do.

Van Til insists that there are no brute facts without interpretation, just waiting for man
to find them. Truth is not neutral. To know the truth is to be faithful to God, and to
believe a lie is to be unfaithful. God has original absolute knowledge, and man has only
derived knowledge. We should think Gods thoughts after Him.

In a sense there is no real common ground we have with the non-believer. We should
not go over to his system of belief to try to persuade him of the truth. It wont work. Once
we have accepted his basic postulates, we cannot come back to the truth. For example, if
we agree with the non-believer that logic is the tool we use to judge the truth, we will not
be able to agree with him about some mysterious but basic doctrines such as the Trinity.
If we agree that logic is our test, then essentially we have allowed man to become the
judge of what is logical, and therefore of what is true. If man is the judge, then God is no
longer our authority and the source of truth. This does not mean there is no dialogue, or
that we do not try to listen to the non-believer or understand his thinking. But we cannot
agree with his basic foundation.

Neither does it mean that there is no point of contact with the unbeliever. Our point of
contact is the revelation that God has given us both. Deep in his mind he has a sense of
Gods existence, he is aware of the moral law, and he senses guilt for his sin (Romans 1
and 2). Furthermore, every person is the image of God, and has certain aspects of his
nature that reflect God. Van Til says that the whole creation has Gods fingerprints on
it.

All reasoning is circular, according to Van Til. That is, there is some starting point that we
cannot defend without referring back to the very same presupposition. The Christian
should always back up to the point of Gods Word. Why do I believe something? Because
God says so. How do I know God says so? Because God says He says so! The Christian
concept of truth will always take us back to God, not to ourselves.

On the other hand, the non-Christian will always back up to himself. Why does he believe
something? Because he says so!

55
 In the last analysis, we shall have to choose between two theories of knowledge.
According to one theory, God is the final court of appeal. According to the other
theory, man is the final court of appeal. 73

This is not just a blind irrational leap of faith. Gods Word also fits the general revelation
that we perceive and interpret, being ourselves the image of God. In fact, only by
presupposing the truth of Christian theism can we explain the world. Any other
presupposition leads to self-contradiction and confusion.

To defend the Bible, says Van Til, we must be careful to avoid submitting Gods word to
some other higher authority. If we judge the Scriptures by logic, we have put logic above
God. If we judge His Word by our scientific principles, by our notion of right and wrong,
by our interpretation of history, by our emotions, or by anything else, we have elevated
the other principle above God, and basically we have made our own minds the judge over
God, and we go back to the Garden of Eden!

We do not use candles, or electric lights in order to discover whether the light and
energy of the sun exist. The reverse is the case. We have light in candles and
electric light bulbs because of the light and energy of the sun. So we cannot
subject the authoritative pronouncements of Scripture about reality to the scrutiny
of reason, because it is reason itself that learns of its proper function from
Scripture. 74

Van Til certainly challenged me to give my mind back to the Lord, and when I did it was
like a second conversion. I believe many Christians still have not experienced this turn-
around in their thinking. Luther said that if God told him to eat crab apples and manure,
he would do it since it was a command. 75 As I mentioned previously, I would also say, If
God tells me the moon is made out of green cheese, then Ill change my mind about the
moon and about green cheese! Whatever God says, He is right. Who am I to question
Him?

As for apologetics, Van Tils analysis can give us a truckload of holy confidence for
dialoguing with non-believers. He helps us see the root of the unbelievers problem, and
to keep our feet firmly planted in the Scriptures. He encourages us to keep apologetics
evangelistic. In a way, he is basically saying that the non-believer needs to hear the
gospel proclaimed in clear and challenging way. We cant allow him to continue rejecting
the gospel because of his pretended autonomy. We must show him that even his way of
thinking is rebellion against his creator. I believe at the heart of the matter, Van Til is
right. Everything comes back to the gospel.

This was not only Van Tils theory; it was his practice. While many might see him as a
very philosophical writer who is hard to understand, his students remember how he
73
Cornelius Van Til, Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979), p.
34.
74
The Defense of the Faith, p. 108.
75
http://www.hfac.uh.edu/gbrown/philosophers/leibniz/BritannicaPages/Luther/Luther.html (July
29, 2005).

56
would frequently tell us that he met someone on the train and invited him for a cup of
coffee to share the gospel. We also remember how he would take walks with us around
campus to chat with us, and how his favorite hymn was Jesus loves me, this I know, for
the Bible tells me so. Apologetics must never be separated from practical evangelism.

The only danger in adopting Van Tils approach is that some of his disciples come to the
conclusion that all other apologetic approaches are wrong, and that the use of evidences
is futile. As his student, I myself first understood Van Til to be saying that it was
inconsistent to do anything besides preach the gospel to the non-believer. In his classes he
would repeat over and over that the non-Christian heart is in rebellion against God and
will not listen to our arguments. Once I asked him, Lets suppose that someone says he
doesnt believe in God because he believes the theory of evolution. Since there is plenty
of scientific evidence against the theory of evolution, wouldnt it be helpful to present
that evidence to him? Ill never forget how he just came back and repeated even more
forcefully that an unbeliever will not accept any evidence because his heart is darkened.
There seems to be some confusion with regard to Van Tils position on the use of
evidence. Probably the best authority on Van Til, John Frame (to be presented later),
asserts that he does not reject the use of evidences. 76 I think Van Til is not saying that it is
wrong to use evidences, but that we cant expect the non-believer to accept the evidence.
He is blind both to the gospel and to evidence, but the special instrument of the Holy
Spirit is the message of the gospel. Van Til says,

...Scripture teaches us to speak and preach to, as well as to reason with blind men,
because God, in whose name we speak and reason, can cause the blind to see.
Jesus told Lazarus while dead to arise and come forth from the grave. The prophet
preached to the dead bones in the valley till they took on flesh. So our reasoning
and our preaching is not in vain inasmuch as God in Christ reasons and preaches
though us. 77

As I see it, if we say that it is useless to present evidence from general revelation, we
would have to say the same thing about special revelation. But if we trust God to open the
eyes of the non-believer to the truth of the gospel, we can also trust the Holy Spirit to
open his eyes to evidence. Why not use all aspects of the truth? Of course, the gospel
message is absolutely necessary for salvation, and it has a definite priority, but sometimes
the evidence from general revelation can help clear the dust from the air so that he can
see the truth more easily.

G. Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984)

Much of Francis Schaeffers ministry was at a home called Labri in Switzerland, where
he and his wife received the intellectual seekers of the hippy generation. He was an
evangelist to people from all over the world. As such, he wrestled with their existential
doubts, and felt the anguish of their despair and uncertainty. He analyzed not only the

76
John Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God; an Introduction (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R
Publishing, 1994), pp. 12-13.
77
The Defense of the Faith, pp. 212-213.

57
philosophy, but also the music, art, literature, and culture in general, as it related to the
Christian message and worldview. He was prophetic in his understanding of where the
now-called postmodern thinking was leading us. He has identified key aspects of the
image of God in man, and touches them with the truth of the gospel. He is especially
good at pointing out the vital contradictions of the non-Christian.

The God Who is There

I personally consider The God Who is There his most important book. In the first
half, he points out that there has been a change in the concept of truth; now there are
no absolutes and no law of non-contradiction. He identifies the line of despair in
philosophy, art, music, general culture, and theology, below which there is no longer a
unified field of knowledge. Man is in a dark room with no windows. With regard to
philosophy, Kierkegaard is the first below the line, where faith is not rational. In art,
the door was opened by impressionists such as Gaugin, who painted What? From
whence? Whither? and tried to commit suicide. Later painting had little to do with
particular reality, such as Picassos cubism, since they were seeking something
universal. However, the abstract universal caused an inner struggle, and Picasso
finally wrote across his canvas, Jaime Eva (I love Eva) in order to hang on to the
particular woman he loved. Some contemporary music communicates chaos, such as
the Premier Panorama de Musique Concrte, which begins with a voice speaking
Greek, then slowly fades, begins to tremble, and ends in chaos. Bergmans movie
Silence is a series of pornographic images with no meaning.

In this context, apologetics (the second half of the book) can show that Christianity
makes sense, that it gives answers to confused contemporary man. How do we know
its true? Because it all fits together. Schaeffer gives an illustration of a torn book
found in the attic.

Imagine a book which has been mutilated, leaving just one inch of printed matter
on each page. Although it would obviously be impossible to piece together and
understand the books story, yet few people would imagine that what had been left
had come together by chance. However, if the torn parts of each page were found
in the attic and were added in the right places, then the story could be read and
would make sense.
...
So it is with Christianity: the ripped pages remaining in the book correspond to
the abnormal universe and the abnormal man we have now. The parts of the pages
which are discovered correspond to the Scriptures which are Gods propositional
communication to mankind, which not only touch religious truth but also touch
the cosmos and history which are open to verification. 78

Personally, with all due respect to Dr. Schaeffer, I would suggest turning the illustration
around. It is easier for me to think of the loose pages as a symbol of the abnormal

78
Francis Schaeffer, The God Who is There (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarisity Press, 1968),
p. 108.

58
universe and abnormal man that we tend to perceive in pieces, and it is easier to think of
the Scriptures as the unified portion of the book. Nevertheless, the illustration is
amazingly helpful.

Schaeffer suggests that we find the point of tension of the unbeliever, the point where
he cannot live consistently with his own beliefs, and help him see the incongruence. For
example, the musician John Cage believes that everything comes from chaos, and he
composes music by chance. However, when he goes to pick mushrooms, he doesnt do it
by chance. He carefully distinguishes between poison mushrooms and healthy ones! Each
person has constructed a roof to protect himself, and we should carefully and lovingly
take the roof off. 79

There is nothing quite like this book. It is a profound analysis of contemporary man,
along with diverse cultural manifestations, from a Christian point of view. Schaeffer
spoke clearly to a generation that was confused and facing a crisis of doubt and
uncertainty. He helped many Christians like myself see that Christianity was a consistent
package of truth, that intelligent people still believed it, and that the non-Christian was
absolutely lost in self-contradictions.

My only concern with his approach is that someone might begin to give reason a higher
priority than I think it should have. A logical analysis of the world we live in seems to be
the starting point for him. In the illustration of the book, he says:

The whole man would be relieved that the mystery of the book had been solved
and the whole man would be involved in the reading of the complete story; but
mans reason would be the first to tell him that the portions which were
discovered were the proper solution to the problem of the ripped book. 80

He also says later:

The truth that we let in first is not a dogmatic statement of the truth of the Scriptures,
but the truth of the external world and the truth of what man himself is. This is what
shows him his need. The Scriptures then show him the real nature of his lostness and
the answer to it. This, I am convinced, is the true order for our apologetics in the
second half of the twentieth century for people living under the line of despair. 81

However, I believe Schaeffer means that this order is more chronological than
conceptual. That is, we begin our dialogue with a non-Christian on the basis of his
observation and reason. Then we give the Scriptural explanation. But this doesnt mean
that we give more authority to reason, or even to general revelation, than we do to
Scripture. Schaeffer apparently wants to avoid a simplistic shouting of the gospel to deaf
ears. Sometimes we rush too quickly to share the message with someone who isnt ready.
We need to learn their language, see their needs, and speak to them in their situation.

79
The God Who is There, pp. 128-129.
80
The God Who is There, p. 108.
81
The God Who is There, p. 159.

59
He is there and He is Not Silent

This is my second favorite of Schaeffers books. He sketches the non-Christians

problems and the Christian answers in the three major areas of philosophy: metaphysics,
ethics, and epistemology. He shows how the Christian worldview is the only consistent
one.

With regard to metaphysics, there are only three possible explanations of the origin of the
universe: everything came from nothing, everything had an impersonal beginning, or
everything had a personal beginning. The first option is unthinkable. The second option
would mean that everything is really just one thing, and this would lead to a loss of
identity and significance for the particulars, including people and our thoughts. The only
acceptable explanation is that everything had a personal origin. Christianity has the
solution to the problem of the one and the many in the Trinity, unified and diverse at
the same time.

Schaeffer presents a similar argument about ethics. If the universe had an impersonal
beginning, then morality makes no sense. Neither would we have an explanation or a
solution for the existence of evil. Only Christianity gives a valid basis for absolute morals
based on the absolute character of God. Only Christianity offers a valid explanation of the
existence of evil without making God also evil: man was not created evil, but made
himself evil. Furthermore, in Christianity we find the hope of man being changed for the
good and we have a basis for fighting against evil.

Christianity also solves the problem of epistemology. Knowledge is possible because of a

personal infinite God who made the universe, made man in His image to live in it, and
has communicated with him, especially in the Bible. Since God knows everything, He
can communicate effectively with man, and His message is in total harmony with the rest
of the universe and mans experience. Man can know something truly, without knowing it
exhaustively.

Schaeffer illustrates the difference between blind irrational leap of faith and the biblical
concept of faith. Suppose that we are mountain climbing in the Alps and suddenly a fog
settles in. The guide says we will freeze to death by morning. To keep us warm, he moves
us into a dense fog, but now we have no idea where we are. One person decides to drop
down just anywhere, in the hope of landing on a ledge, where he might have the
possibility of surviving (a blind leap of faith). Suppose that now we hear the voice of a
man telling us from a distance that he knows where we can find a ledge. We cant see the
man, but we ask who he is, and realize that his name is known to be of a family who lives
in the area. We ask more and more questions, until we begin to trust him. Only then do
we drop where he says and find a ledge (Christian faith, based on trust in God). 82

Schaeffer is brilliant at pushing the non-Christian to see the inconsistency of his position,
and making the Christian postulates resonate within his innate sense of significance,

82
Francis Schaeffer, He is There and He is not Silent (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale, 1972), pp. 99-
100.

60
truth, and morality. He lays out the philosophical issues on the cobblestones of daily life.
Once when a young man insisted that they were not really communicating, pretending to
show that no real communication was possible, he astutely asked him for a cup of tea.
When the man brought the tea, he simply said, Now we are communicating! 83
Anything to break through to a person in despair.

Francis Schaeffer is one of my heroes. His books helped me through my doubting years.
He showed me that Christianity is a complete harmonious package of truth, consistent
with my own experience, and led me to really desire to believe it. He showed me that I
was being brainwashed into thinking that truth was relative, and he opened my
understanding to contemporary culture. He awakened a desire to make a creative piece of
artwork out of my own life.

83
?????????

61
Chapter 6

Representative apologists (part 2); Norman Geisler, Henry Morris and

Duane Gish, Josh McDowell, Antonio Cruz, and John Frame

A. Norman Geisler

Geisler has produced an arsenal of arguments that are very helpful for defending our
faith. He has written over sixty books and hundreds of articles. In When Skeptics Ask, he
presents evidence from science and archeology, biblical passages, and logical reasoning.
He places much weight on logic and the law of non-contradiction.

He refers to the classical arguments for the existence of God, and adds an argument from
the moral law, giving credit to Immanuel Kant. The idea is that a sense of ought cannot
come from the natural universe. It must come from a supreme lawgiver, who is God. The
fact that most people have many common ethical principles points even more to a divine
source of morality. Geisler points to the second law of thermodynamics as an argument
for creation. Heat dissipates, and the universe is slowing down. If it had always existed,
then it would have already run down.

In dealing with the problem of evil, he cites Augustine and develops the argument that
evil is not a substance that God created. Geisler says,

Evil is, in reality, a parasite that cannot exist except as a hole in something that
should be solid. In some cases, though, evil is more easily explained as a case of
bad relationships. If I pick up a good gun, put in a good bullet, point it at my good
head, put my good finger on the good trigger and give it a good pull...a bad
relationship results. The things involved are not evil in themselves, but the
relationship between the good things is definitely lacking something. In this case,
the lack comes about because the things are not being used as they ought to
be. ...Evil is a lack of something that should be there in the relationship between
good things. 84

In an argument similar to that of C.S. Lewis, Geisler suggests that a world without the
possibility of evil would only be possible in a world without free will. He challenges us
to consider the options: God could have not created anything at all, or God could have
created creatures that are not free. Theoretically, God could have created free creatures
that could not sin, but this not actually achievable.

He [God] could have set up some mechanism so that just when they were about to
choose something evil, a distraction would come along to change their decision.
Or maybe He could have programmed creatures to do only good things. But are
such creatures really free?
84
When Skeptics Ask (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990), p. 61.

62
Geisler considers that Forced love is rape; and God is not a divine rapist. He concludes,

This may not be the best of all possible worlds, but it is the best way to the best
world. If God is to both preserve freedom and defeat evil, then this is the best way
to do it. 85

With regard to the Bible, Geisler argues that we accept it on the basis of Jesus testimony.
He confirmed the Old Testament (Matthew 5:18, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21) and
promised the New Testament (John 14:25-26). All apparent difficulties in the Bible have
valid explanations. For example, the two different genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and
Luke can be explained by showing that Matthew gives the descent from Joseph, while
Luke gives the lineage of Mary. 86 Furthermore, genealogies in the Bible were often not
meant to be complete, such as in Genesis 5. Other supposed errors in data can be
explained by the fact that numbers were often rounded at that time. Purposeful
imprecision is not the same as an error. 87 Geisler deals with many other examples of
supposed errors in the Bible.

Geisler provides us with many sound arguments and up-to-date evidence. My only
concern is the place he gives to reason and logic. In the introduction, he proposes that
there is a difference between evangelism and pre-evangelism. Whereas evangelism is
based on revelation, pre-evangelism (apologetics) is based on reason. 88 Later he says,
Logic is a necessary presupposition of all thought and, How do we know that logic
applies to reality? We know it because it is undeniable. He asserts that you have to use
logic to deny logic. After explaining the principles of Aristotelian logic, especially
pointing to the fact that all logic can be reduced to one single axiom- the law of
noncontradiction, 89 he says:

These principles become the foundation for all knowledge. From this point, logic
and evidence can confirm that God exists and that Christ is His Son. Truth has an
absolute foundation in undeniable first principles and it can be tested through
logical means because it ultimately corresponds to reality. Christianity claims to
be true and it bids all to come in and dine at the table of truth. 90

I agree that logic is usually a valid instrument, and that it is part of the image of God in
man. But lets play the devils advocate a minute. Why should we accept logic as valid?
After all, not everybody believes in logic. We cant just say it is undeniable. Why cant
I deny it? Why cant I just believe that logic is invalid? Geisler might answer that I cant
even assert that logic is invalid without using logic. Then maybe I will just stop talking,
like Cratylus, or maybe I will just begin babbling, like Dada nonsense poetry, everything
85
When Skeptics Ask, p, 73.
86
When Skeptics Ask, p. 168.
87
When Skeptics Ask, p. 165.
88
When Skeptics Ask, p. 10.
89
When Skeptics Ask, p. 270-272.
90
When Skeptics Ask, p. 272.

63
by chance. Some people really believe that there is no sense in anything. I would say that
the only reason we know we can trust logic (usually) is because God says we can. That is,
the Bible suggests that the laws of logic, especially of non-contradiction, are valid. It
doesnt say so explicitly, but the communication and the argumentation presented to us in
Scripture assumes the validity of logic. Paul uses logic especially in Romans. For
example, he says, For if, when we were Gods enemies, we were reconciled to him
through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved
through his life! (Romans 5:10).

However, after the Fall, mans logic can make mistakes, and it needs to be submitted to
God for correction and for a description of its properly authorized realm. If we allow
logic to be the judge of truth, then what will happen to the doctrine of the Trinity, or to
the doctrine of the divine and human natures of Christ, or to many other theological
mysteries. To say that logic is the foundation for all knowledge stabs me in the heart. It
flies in the face of the biblical teaching that God Himself is the source of all truth.
Proverbs 1:7, The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge. I certainly dont
believe that Norman Geisler denies this, but his theory of apologetics is inconsistent with
his theology. I can use most of the arguments and evidence in his book, as long as I am
faithful to my commitment to the authority and the priority of Gods Word. But I am
uncomfortable with his theory of apologetics. What is our final answer? When someone
asks me why I believe what I believe, is my final answer going to be, because it is
logical, or because God says so? If my final answer is logic, then my final answer is
really, because I think so, and we repeat the tragedy of the Garden of Eden.

B. Josh McDowell

McDowell has been a popular apologist for Campus Crusade for Christ for more than
thirty years, speaking to college students around the world. He does not necessarily
present new and original arguments, but has written more than 65 books that are virtual
encyclopedias of data and evidence to support the truth of Christianity. His own
conversion came when he tried to disprove the resurrection and became convinced that
the evidence pointed to its validity.

In Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 91 he begins with evidence for the credibility of the
Bible: it is unique, and it is confirmed by history and archeology. Later chapters of the
book revisit this subject and present evidence of fulfilled prophecies. The middle section
focuses on the trilemma argument: Jesus was either a lunatic, a liar, or the Lord. Since
his life and teachings do not fit the pattern of a lunatic or liar, He must be who He said He
was, God. He later wrote a second volume of the same title to especially answer the
accusations of biblical higher criticism that pretend to turn the Bible into human
documents full of errors and contradictions. Finally, he combined these two into one
volume and updated it. New Evidence that Demands a Verdict 92 addresses the more

91
Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict (San Bernadino, CA: Heres Life Publishers,
1972).
92
New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999).

64
recent issues raised by the Jesus Seminar, as well as deeper philosophical questions
such as the nature of truth, skepticism, and postmodernism.

McDowell presents many examples of how Jesus fulfilled the prophecies regarding the
Messiah. Some of the most compelling examples are the following:

He would be born of a virgin.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and
will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)

He would be born in Bethlehem.

But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of
Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. (Micah 5:2)

He would enter Jerusalem riding on a donkey.

Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem!
See, your kinga comes to you, righteous and having salvation,
gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zechariah 9:9)

He would be wounded for our sins, yet would not defend Himself.
Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him
stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our
transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us
peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have
gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his
mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers
is silent, so he did not open his mouth. (Isaiah 53:4-7)

Other evidence is given for biblical prophecies whose fulfillment is confirmed in secular
historical books, such as the destruction of the city of Tyre. Ezequiel 26 indicates that this
city will be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, converted into a bare rock, a place to spread
fishnets, and that it would be finally totally destroyed and lost. McDowell cites secular
accounts of Nebuchadnezzars attack, as well as later fulfillments of this prophecy by
Alexander the Great and others. 93

C. Henry Morris and Duane Gish

Several believing scientists have been blasting away at the theory of evolution over the
last half a century, documenting very condemning scientific facts. Henry Morris is the
director of the Institute for Creation Research. In The Genesis Flood, he and theologian
John Whitcomb defend the position that the earth was created with apparent age and
point to the fallacies in the fossil records presented by evolutionists.
93
Evidencia que exige un veredicto, pp. 276-283.

65
For example, footprints of dinosaurs have been found that are supposedly 250 million
years old. However, in the same material, apparently human footprints are also found.
But according to the evolutionary scheme, man is only about one million years old! These
human prints were later questioned, even among Christians, and are still under
investigation. In the mean time, other tracks that appear to be human have been found
nearby. 94To confirm these tracks as human would be devastating for evolutionists.
Morris quotes another author,

If man, or even his ape ancestor, or even that ape ancestors early mammalian
ancestor, existed as far back as the Carboniferous Period in any shape, then the
whole science of geology is so completely wrong that all the geologists will
resign their jobs and take up truck driving. 95

Morris and Whitcomb argue that the Great Flood explains things such as the otherwise
baffling existence of thousands of frozen mammoths in Siberia. They believe that during
the catastrophe, the climate changed so quickly and drastically, that it caused the onset of
the ice age. The animals did not have time to migrate, and were consequently frozen. 96
According to the evolutionary scheme, the mammals would have had time to seek a
warmer climate.

In Science and the Bible, Morris also points out one of the most serious problems facing
evolutionists: the lack of transitional fossils. There is a lack of evidence of gradual
changes from one species to another, the very essence of the evolutionary scheme. There
are only fossils from animals that are very distinct among themselves. Instead of gradual
changes, the evidence points rather to sudden jumps. The development of the horse has
been given as a classic example of evolution, but research cannot provide the in-between
forms. Furthermore, the layers of fossils are often not ordered according to increasing
complexity, as would be the case if evolution were true. Instead, they often find the
different species that supposedly evolved over much time in the same historical age, and
in places far away from each other. 97

94
Fossils, Created or Evolved?, http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder7.htm
(August 19, 2005).
95
John Whitcomb and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co., 1961.
96
The Genesis Flood, pp. 288-295.
97
Henry M. Morris, Science and the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), pp. 51-55.
Ver tambin Duane Gish, Creacin.

66
Duane Gish, co-director of the Creation Research Institute, has written a simpler book
with a clear explanation of the problem of gaps in the fossil record. He quotes secular
scientists that have confessed this difficulty. 98

This regular absence of transitional forms is not limited to mammals, but is an

almost universal phenomenon.

Therefore, it is possible to affirm that such transformations are not registered

because they did not exist, that the changes were not by transition, but by sudden
jumps in evolution. (George Gaylord Simpson) 99

Briefly, each group, order, or family, seems to have appeared suddenly, and with
difficulty, if ever, do we find the forms that unite with the preceding group. (L.
DuNouy) 100

No matter how far we go in the fossil record of previous animal life on the earth,
we find not even a trace of any kind of animal form that is intermediate between
any of the principal groups or phylum.
(A. H. Clark) 101

One of the chapters exposes the weak evidence for the supposed age of man.

The Java man was later rejected by its own discoverer, and the bones of the
Peking man disappeared during the Second World War, and are not available now
for investigation. The Heidelberg man consisted of nothing more than a jaw bone,
and the Meganthropus consisted of only two jaw bones and four teeth, and many
have classified it as an Australopeticus.102

98
Duane Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record (San Diego: Master Books Pub., ,
1985). NOTE: These quotes have been translated back into English from the Spanish version,
and may reflect minor variations from the original English.
99
Tempo and Mode in Evolution, p. 105.
100
Human Destiny, p. 63.
101
The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 196.

67
What really bothers me is that these men are presented in the science textbooks and in
the sophisticated museums as examples of proven facts. It is really deceitful.

D. Antonio Cruz

Antonio Cruz is a Spanish biologist/theologian who is doing some fascinating scholarly

up-to-date work in the area of a Christian view of science, evolution, philosophy, and
postmodernism. While many of us may not be able to properly appreciate much of the
technical material presented in his books, we can simplify and use some of his most
important arguments. I am so glad for people like Antonio. I had the privilege of working
in the office next door to him for a year when he was giving conferences for Logoi
throughout Latin America, and I consider him one of the best speakers and writers of our
day.

He points out that evolution is running out of arguments and losing supporters even in the
secular scientific world. He shows that all of creation exhibits intelligent design, and that
you have to be blind or stubborn not to see it. He says,

There is an elephant in the scientific laboratories and the research centers called
intelligent design. But many do not want to see it because they have been told
that any hypothesis that leads to God cannot be scientific. Nevertheless, the DNA
molecule did not appear by accident, but was planned by someone. 103

Cruz argues that complexity of organisms has existed from the beginning, and that there
is no evidence of a gradual process from simple to complex, as evolutionists hold. Simple
cells of bacteria still exist that have not progressed at all to a more complex form.
Scientists admit that there are countless species such as sharks, crocodiles, lizards, and
ferns that have not undergone any modifications. Neither are there any fossil remains
that show intermediate forms between the species that now exist. 104 Cruz believes that
God created more species than now exist, and that many of them disappeared over time,
and especially with the Great Flood. While some species have experienced minor
changes, there is no evidence of macroevolution or jumping from one species to
another. 105

One of the most helpful things I learned from him was the problem of irreducible
complexity. 106 It makes evolution seem ridiculous. The idea is that organisms have
interdependent parts that dont function unless the mechanism is complete, just like a
mousetrap will not work unless all the pieces are there and properly fit together. Think of
the eyeball, for example; it wouldnt work without the optic nerve, or the retina, or the
pupil. Now try to imagine a long process of gradual changes in the animal world. Think
102
Duan Gish, Creacin, pp. 65-66. Este captulo fue escrito por varios autores y editado por
Henry Morris.
103
Antonio Cruz, La Ciencia Encuentra a Dios? [Does Science Find God?] (Barcelona: CLIE,
2004), p. 219. Translated by the author.
104
La Ciencia Encuentra a Dios?, pp. 81-82.
105
La Ciencia Encuentra a Dios?, p. 180.
106
Antonio Cruz, Sociologa; una desmitificacin (Barcelona: CLIE/Logoi, 2001), pp. 210-214.

68
of a species of dog with undeveloped eyeballs, or with short stumpy legs. How could it
survive? Francis Schaeffer pointed out years ago that a fish with partially developed
lungs would have drowned! 107 Cruz explains that the structure of the atom itself as
perfectly designed with no room for alterations.

If the mass of the neutron were reduced by merely 0.1% of what it is, the protons
would be converted into neutrons and this would cause all the stars of the universe
to collapse, forming giant black holes or neutronic stars. For life on earth to be
possible, the neutrons of the atoms must have the precise mass that they have. The
initial conditions of the universe must have been very special so that now there
can be life on the earth. 108

Cruz prefers the gap theory and the theory of an old earth, but clarifies that the Bible
does not give us the age of the universe. He suggests that Exodus 20:11 could be
translated, Because God worked the heavens and the earth, instead of Because in six
days, God created the heavens and the earth, because the original Hebrew does not have
the preposition in. His interpretation is that God first made the initial materials, and that
possibly several billon years passed before He created the plant and animal species. This
gap of time could have occurred between verse one of the first chapter of Genesis and
verse two. 109

E. John Frame

John Frame has taken the best from Van Til, but has modified his approach to make it
more practical, friendly, and open to the proper use of evidences and reasoned arguments.
In Apologetics to the Glory of God, he suggests that apologetics has three aspects: 1)
proof, giving a rational basis for our faith, 2) defense, answering objections, and 3)
offense, attacking the foolishness of unbelieving thought. It should be based on Scripture,
not on supposedly neutral arguments. Frequently, apologetics tries to start with
unbiased evidence. However,

Logic, facts, experience, and such become the sources of the truth. Divine
revelation, especially Scripture, is systematically excluded. 110

As Van Til has shown, there is no real neutrality. Nevertheless, we can use evidence as
long as we dont surrender our Christian presuppositions.

Frame recounts several arguments for the existence of God. First, the moral argument:
Ethical values are hierarchically structured. As we climb the ladder to a maxim which is
higher than any others, we ask where the authority of the absolute moral principle comes
from. There are only two possible answers: 1) the source is personal, or 2) the source is
impersonal If the source is impersonal, What of ethical significance can we learn from
107
Quoted by Charles Colson in Y ahora cmo viviremos? [How Shall We Now Live?](Miami,
Unilit: 1999), pp. 86, 87.
108
La Ciencia Encuentra a Dios?, pp. 181-182.
109
La Ciencia Encuentra a Dios?, p. 179.
110
John Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1994).

69
the random collision of subatomic particles?111 We conclude that the source must be
personal, and only the Christian God is both personal and absolute. Next, the
epistemological argument: The human mind correlates with world, and can make sense
of it. How could this come from chance? The hypothesis of absolute personality explains
the data far better than ultimate impersonality. These arguments remind us of Francis
Schaeffer.

He also has a unique contribution in the defense of Scripture, focusing on the Bible as a
covenant document. As we survey the history of Gods people and the plan of
redemption, it is to be expected that God would leave a written covenant. He has always
related to his people through covenants. The Bible covenant begins at Mount Sinai after
the liberation from Egypt. The Lord gives them the two tables of the ten commandments,
which are to be placed in the most sacred place, the Ark of the Covenant. He continues
adding to this document, until we have the complete Old Testament. Jesus Himself
commands that this Scripture should never be broken (John 10:33-36). Finally, Jesus tells
us that He is making a New Covenant (Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25). Obviously, we
would expect this to be written down also.

What of the New Testament? In the nature of the case, it could not talk about itself
as a completed collection of writings. Yet it leaves no doubt that it is Gods
purpose to give such a collection to the church. 112

Frame gives extended attention to the problem of evil, and this is probably one of his best
contributions. 113 First, he surveys different attempts to solve the problem, such as
process theology, which proposes that God is not totally sovereign, but interacts with
the creation over time. According to Frame, to excuse God by saying that He cannot
really prevent evil is not an acceptable solution. Others deny evil (eastern religions),
which obviously doesnt fit reality. Some suggest that this is the best of all possible
worlds (Leipniz). But why does a perfect world require evil? After all, God is perfect,
without evil. Evil is not logically necessary, and we do not know if this is really the best
possible world, but considering the historical sequence and the glorious plan of
redemption, we can say that this is the best world that God could have made. How
about the free will defense? It supposes that God in no way foreordains or causes mans
free choices. But the Bible teaches that God does in fact foreordain and cause choices,
even evil choices. (Acts 2:23, 2 Samuel 24:1 p. 161.) Frame insists that the Bible never
uses the free will argument when the issue of evil comes up. Authors such as Van Til and
Gordon Clark argue that God is not to blame for evil, since He is the indirect cause and
not the direct cause. Clark says that he is the author of his book, and that he is
responsible, but that God is ultimate cause. But Frame answers that Indirectness of
causality does not in itself mitigate responsibility. He finds that this argument makes
God look like some kind of mafia boss who keeps his hands legally clean by forcing his
underlings to carry out his nasty designs. 114 Gordon Clark also mentions the ex-lex
defense, proposing that God is outside of the law, or above the law. Thus He can forbid us
111
Apologetics, p. 98.
112
Apologetics, p. 125.
113
Apologetics, pp. 149-190.
114
Apologetics, p. 166

70
to kill, but He himself can kill. Frame admits that there is some truth to this, but reminds
us that the Bible also treats the law as a reflection of Gods own character. And this still
doesnt help us solve the problem of why God allows His creatures to suffer. Finally,
some simply say that man Man has no right to question God. Frame concedes this point,
but says that it doesnt really answer our question.

Frame wants to give us a biblical answer, and not a philosophical or speculative answer.
What does the Bible really say about the problem of evil? He begins by reminding us
that God doesnt owe us an explanation, and that man has no right to complain. Job and
Romans 9 put us in our place. Then he continues that we need to look at history and time
through Gods eyes, past, present and future.

I have always felt that a great many mysteries in theology boil down to the
mystery of time. 115

As for the past, we see that in the Old Testament, God lets suffering draw out, but that He
is solving the problem in Christ. In a sense, the problem of evil is more like a problem
of justice versus mercy in the history of Israel. God will put an end to evil by showing
justice. But He will also show mercy. How? By having His own Son suffer the justice,
thereby showing mercy to His people. Frames says, Christ is the theodicy of Romans
3:26. (The verse says, He did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to
be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.) 116 But why did God
wait so long?

As for the wait, well, in retrospect it almost seems necessary. The tension must be
built up to the nth degree so that we can feel to the utmost the liberating power of
salvation.

But here is the lesson for us: If God could vindicate his justice and mercy in a
situation where such vindication seemed impossible, if he could vindicate them in
a way that went far beyond our expectations and understanding, can we not trust
him to vindicate himself again? 117

How about the present? God is even now using evil for his own good purposes. He
displays His grace and justice, He is passing judgment on evil, and He is redeeming us.
Suffering has a shock value for unbelievers, to provoke a change of heart, it is used for
disciplining Gods children, and God vindicates himself. 118

We cannot always understand why God has chosen evil events to accomplish
these good purposes. We do know that God never foreordains an evil event
without a good purpose. (Rom. 8:28). 119

115
Apologetics, p. 180.
116
Apologetics, pp. 182, 183.
117
Apologetics, p. 184.
118
Apologetics, p. 184.
119
Apologetics, p. 187.

71
As for the future, we have the promise that God will eventually end all evil!

It may be that when we see God face to face, we shall see a face of such supreme
trustworthiness that all our complaints will simply disappear. ... At any rate, we
may be assured that in the last day there will be no problem of evil. 120

There are many other apologists that have made great contributions to the defense of the
faith. If I have left out your favorite apologist, please forgive me. We need to move on. I
have admitted that this is a brief sampling, that I am sharing some key arguments that
have been helpful for me personally. Paul Little has written several books and has spoken
to many young people on behalf of Intervarsity. Many authors refer to John Warwick
Montgomery, Clark Pinnock, R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, Bernard Ramm, Michael
Green, and Gordon Clark. I have already referred to James Sires helpful study of
alternate world views. Walter Martin is an authority on cults, and Peter Jones and Donald
Groothuis have written excellent books on the New Age. For dealing with Bible issues,
there are many great theologians such as Edward J. Young, R. Laird Harris, and Gleason
Archer, just to name a few. Frank Morrison has challenged us to look at the evidence for
the resurrection through the eyes of a lawyer (Who Moved the Stone?). Charles Colsons
How Now Shall We Live? is a powerful presentation of the Christian worldview and a
thought-provoking analysis of contemporary issues in many areas, including evolution,
science, philosophy and ethics. Ravi Zacharias is one of the most popular apologists
today (Can Man Live Without God). His engaging writing is loaded with up-to-date
illustrations. He basically follows the argumentation of Norman Geisler, especially in
pointing out the logical inconsistency of the non-Christian position. 121 But we must
continue with another topic, making some practical applications. How should we do
apologetics? How can we use the things we have learned so far?

120
Apologetics, p. 189.
121
Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God (Nashville: W. Publishing Group/Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1994).

72
Chapter 7

A suggested approach, and three questions to answer: the existence of

God, the authority of the Bible, and other religions

While apologetics is inseparable from evangelism, it is not exactly the same. Many times we will
simply share our faith and explain the gospel. That is evangelism. Our task becomes apologetics
when the person questions the message and we defend it.

A. A suggested approach

Our goal in apologetics is to point the non-believer to Christ. To do this, we can use both special
revelation and general revelation. However, since the gospel message is clear only in special
revelation, the latter must always be our final reference point.

Special
revelation

Special revelation is what

God has revealed in
Scripture, in Christ, and
in any other method of
direct revelation, such as
through miracles, visions
and prophecy. While general revelation points more generally to the existence of God, his
power, and his moral law, special revelation focuses mainly on the gospel of salvation in
Christ. All special revelation is miraculous in the sense that it breaks through the normal
routine of the laws of nature. Although fallen man is apt to misinterpret anything, special
revelation contained in prophecies and in Scripture is verbal and therefore less
susceptible to misinterpretation. In other words, on the one hand, two people who look at
the same sunset may perceive two completely different messages. One may think of
peace, and another may think of death. On the other hand, when two people read, In the
beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, their interpretations normally are not
going to vary quite so much, at least not as much as the difference between peace and
death.

This is why apologetics should always come back to the Scriptures and to the gospel
message. We have no promise that God will convert people as they look at a beautiful
sunset, but we do have the promise that the gospel will be accompanied by the work of
the Holy Spirit.

Romans 1:16

73
 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of
everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

2 Timothy 3:15
...From infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you
wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Isaiah 55:10-11
As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

Paul is very clear about the priority of preaching the gospel. Only the message of the
cross can break through the barriers of sin.

1 Corinthians 1:18, 21
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us
who are being saved it is the power of God. ... For since, in the wisdom of God,
the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the
foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

Our message must be clear: Man is a sinner, deserving eternal condemnation. God sent
His Son to live a perfect life in our place and to take the punishment for sin on the cross
in our place. Jesus rose again victorious over sin, Satan, and death, and will return to
establish the eternal form of His kingdom. By trusting Him as our personal Lord and
Savior, we are saved and given eternal life. This salvation is by grace through faith alone
in Jesus alone.

General revelation

Nevertheless, in our apologetic task, we should also take advantage of every aspect of
general revelation to help clear the air of obstacles to the gospel. General revelation is
basically what God reveals through creation. This includes nature and history, whatever
we can investigate with our five senses. Scientific studies point to a creator, and history
points to meaning. While the effects of the Fall have damaged the creation and our
capacity to interpret it, there are still clear signs of the divine designer. Mankind is part of
general revelation, in fact he is the culmination of it, and obviously the non-believer who
is examining the message of the gospel can also even learn much from himself as a part
of that revelation. That is, the very heart and mind of the person who is searching for the

74
truth contain vital information about himself that also points to God. He can see the
image of God in himself, with the capacity to reason, to feel, to enjoy, to love, to hate, to
struggle, and to communicate.

The different channels of man to receive revelation

Just as there are different aspects to revelation, there are also different aspects of man,
each with its own way of receiving divine revelation. God has endowed us with five
senses to observe the creation. He has also given us a mind to interpret our observations
and the ability to reason. Within our mind there is an innate sense of logic, an intuitive
notion that makes us want to avoid contradictions. We innately believe that if A is true,
we cannot also assert that A is not true. This is part of the image of God in man. Our mind
is damaged by the Fall of course, but the image of God is still there. We also have a
capacity to feel emotions such as love, hate, joy and pain. We are aware of it when
someone loves us or when we love someone. This aspect may go beyond our reasoning. It
is not something that we can explain very well, so we write poems and sing songs about
it. This means that we can also detect Gods love on this special wavelength. Finally, man
has a spirit that can receive spiritual communication from God. However, after the Fall,
this spirit is dead, and the natural man cannot hear the supernatural message.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are
foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Only when the Holy Spirit renews our spirit can we tune in to His communication.

In theology, the study of the doctrine of man includes a debate about how many parts
there are to man. Some consider that man is made up of body, soul, and spirit. Others
prefer to distinguish only body and spirit, judging that the Bible uses the terms for soul

75
and spirit interchangeably. Many emphasize that, whatever the distinctions, man is a
unity, and each part affects the other.

It is not the purpose here to solve this theological debate, but I prefer to speak primarily
of the inner and outer man, or of the spiritual and physical aspects. When we die,
these two aspects will be separated; the body dies and the spirit lives on. When Jesus
returns, he will gives us renewed bodies. This possibility of separation leads me to prefer
the two-part theory. Nevertheless, I would say that the physical aspect includes more than
just body cells. It includes what I would call the animal nature. Animals have more
than cells; they have something that makes them alive. Even though they do not have a
spirit like man, there is something more than material that gives them life. They also have
instincts of survival, protection, hunger, and fear, as well as the capacity to communicate
on a simple level. But man also has a spirit. God breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life, and man became a living being (Genesis 1:7). This is what distinguishes man from
the animals. It is the image of God in man. His spirit is where he has the rational, moral,
emotional, and volitional functions. It is where God Himself communicates with him. In
Genesis 3:8 we read the curiously matter-of-fact statement that God was walking in the
garden in the cool of the day. We can only imagine the magnificently close fellowship
that man had with God before the Fall, and we can only weep at the loss of it. Mans
spirit now needs renewal before it can begin to tune in to Gods communication. This
regeneration comes with the preaching of the gospel. This is why apologetics must be
bathed in prayer and it must include the proclamation of the message of Christ.

But rather than limiting man to two aspects, my purpose is rather the opposite. I want to
make sure we take into account the fact that man has several different channels for
receiving revelation. Whether we accept the doctrine of two main parts or three, we must
be aware that there are many ways to approach someone and touch him with the truth. As
we described in the beginning of the book, man is like a house, and we need to find
where there is an open window or an open door to get the message inside.

76
REDO WITH MORE DIMENSIONS? Inner and outer instead of heart and mind.
Christ focus of special rev., man focus of general rev.

ADD ONE WITH THE HOUSE?

The Christian answer to uncertainty

Only the Christian view of being and of truth allows for true freedom and true
knowledge. Christianity is the only view that doesnt self-destruct. The Christian view of
ontology is not monist, but affirms that there are two kinds of reality: God and His
creation. Thus man is not simply part of a machine or a flowing spiritual river. He is a
creature of God, made in His image, with freedom of thought, with use of reason, and
with emotions. The biblical concept of the truth is not centered on man, but on God. Man
does not discover the truth on his own. God knows all truth, in fact He is the creator of all
truth, and He chooses to reveal some truth to us.

77
ENGLISH!!

He promises that we can know the truth by listening to Him and believing Him. Knowing
the truth is not only an intellectual process, but it does include an intellectual acceptance
of the verbal propositions that God puts to us. It is not only intellectual because it
involves a personal trust in God, as well as a willingness to submit to God.

John 8:31, 32
If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the
truth, and the truth will set you free.

78
 John 17:17
...Your word is truth.

Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.

Jon 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.

Challenging the inconsistency

Apologetics should be both offensive and defensive. We not only give answers to the non-
believer, but we also challenge him with questions in order to help him see the inconsistency of
his position. His is a prodigal son, an uncertain and confused John Nash (A Beautiful Mind). We
should also speak to every aspect of man, not just his reason, but also his emotions, his spirit, his
will, his sense of dignity, his need for security, and his desire to find meaning. However, since our
main goal is to point him to Christ, the spiritual aspect must always be the priority. As we help him
see the truth of Gods revelation, we must keep in mind the fact that he is spiritually resistant, and
that until the Holy Spirit works in his heart, he will tend to reject the evidence presented to him.
We should pray that the Lord unlock some window or door to his heart, and that He show us
where he might be more open to listening to the truth.

As we defend our faith, we can ask the other people why they believe what they
believe. When they explain why, saying for example that it is logical, we can ask
why they trust logic. We can keep pushing them to their final answer. This is not a
game. We need to do this with much love and respect. Otherwise, we will lose
the opportunity to explain the gospel. But if we continue asking until there are no
more questions, where does the non-believer end up? What is his final answer?
He will have to back up to something beyond which he has nothing more to say.

One way or another, that final answer for the non-believer will be that he believes
it just because he believes it. Its true simply because he thinks its true. The non-
believer essentially makes himself the judge of true and false and of right and
wrong. We still havent learned our lesson from the Garden of Eden, and man still
pretends to be the judge of things, in spite of the fact that his creator is right there
beside him.

This of course eliminates all certainty with him, because to be sure of anything,
he really needs to know everything. This eliminates consistency, because he
knows deep down that he is not God and that he cant simply decide for himself
what the truth is.

The Christian alternative is to accept God as judge and the source of truth. When
you keep backing up a Christian to his final answer, it is God says so. Its true
because God says so. How do I know God says so? Because He says He says
so! I cant back up any further than God Himself. I cant put something over Him.

79
If I appeal to another authority superior to Him, I have just contradicted my own
worldview and destroyed the foundation underneath me.

Conclusion

We now have a basis for understanding both the weakness of the non-believer and the
strength of the Christian position. We also have become more aware of the variety of
channels through which we can communicate the message of the gospel. Finally, we have
seen that the power to open a non-believers heart and mind comes from the Holy Spirit
as He works through the gospel message.

The DEFEND approach

Each person and each situation are unique, and I dont want to encourage any kind of canned
presentation. However, I would like to suggest several aspects of the dialogue to keep in mind.
These may change in their order, and it might not always be necessary to include them all. It
depends on how the conversation goes. Furthermore, these points may be covered over a period
of time in a series of conversations.

1. Demonstrate interest.
Ask questions to get acquainted. Find out about his or her family, interests, and religious
background. Most people enjoy talking about themselves and their family, but be careful
not to meddle into private areas that are sensitive, or to make the person uncomfortable.
Be genuinely interested in the person, not just in a hurry to convert him. They can
always tell if you are not sincere. People are fascinating! Remember that they are the
image of God, and worthy of our love and respect.
2. Explain your faith.
Share your testimony. Try to find a natural transition to share about your own life, your family, and
your religious experience. Most people will begin asking you questions as the conversation
continues. However, they may not ask about spiritual things, and you will need to insert this
aspect. Explain how you understand the gospel. Dont treat them as unclean gentiles, or
assume that they are not believers. Talk with them as if you expect them to understand and share
your spiritual interest. This is a tip I learned from my wife, Angelica. She realized that we
protestant missionaries in Chile tended to put up unnecessary barriers by unconsciously
assuming people were not Christians. Many people in Latin America consider themselves
Christians, even though they may not really understand the gospel. So if you treat them like non-
Christians, it offends them. However, if they are not Christians, but you talk to them as if they
were, they get an inside view of what it really means to be a Christian. For example, if you talk to
them about your personal relationship with the Lord in a natural way, they suddenly realize they
dont have that personal relationship. Or if you talk to them about prayer and Bible reading, they
may realize they are missing this spiritual depth. Without putting them down, they see what a vital
Christian life is like, and realize that they dont have it.

3. Furnish answers to his questions.

Hopefully at this point, the person will become curious and ask questions. He or she may express
doubts, or even criticism of the Christian faith. It is important to accept these comments
gracefully, and not take them personally. Even more, do not judge him for them. This is where our
apologetics will help us.

4. Expose his basic presuppositions.

80
Now its your turn. I recommend asking the person why he believes what he believes. Then ask
again why he believes the second principle. Continue this pathway until he comes to the end,
until he cant give any other reason. For example, he might believe in evolution. Then when you
ask why, he gives scientific evidence. Then you can ask why he trusts scientific evidence.
Eventually, he will somehow reveal his basic starting point. This will have to be one of two things:
an outside authority, or his own mind. Most people will fall into the second category, unless they
are followers of some other religion. If it is his own mind, he either thinks truth starts within his
own mind (subjective), or he thinks it starts outside (objective). In either of these two cases, he is
the ultimate judge of the truth. If possible, try to bring to person to recognize this. This process will
very likely make the person very uncomfortable. You are stripping away his cover, forcing him to
expose his deepest convictions. Furthermore, these convictions probably have remained
practically unconscious until now, and it may be extremely unnerving to face them. You must be
gentle, but without backing down.

5. Navigate through the inconsistencies of the non-Christian view.

Again, you must be absolutely sure that you dont show pride or disdain. We can so easily
communicate a sense of superiority that will totally close the door. Nobody likes to feel ridiculed or
attacked. If we dont show love and humility, it doesnt really matter whether our arguments are
solid or not; they wont listen to us. But still, we need to gently show him where the non-Christian
position is inconsistent. You are like a medical doctor who has to discover the patients sickness.
You wont help the patient by denying his sickness, but keep in mind that nobody likes to hear bad
news. You are like John Nashs wife, pointing out the fact that the imaginary child in his pretend
world has not grown up. Something is seriously wrong with his scheme. At the bottom, the non-
Christian has been hanging on to beliefs that are self-contradictory, and he has developed a
worldview that he cannot live with consistently. For example, if he believes in evolution because
he believes in science, and he believes in science because he trusts his senses and logic, you
can point out the fact that if evolution were true, his own thoughts would be a part of that
impersonal process, and therefore they lose their meaning. If evolution is true, then his thoughts
are no more significant than the tick tock of a clock or a grape growing on a vine.

6. Direct the person to Christ.

It would be terribly cruel to expose the contradictions of the non-believer, and leave him with no
solution and no hope. He needs to know that Jesus has died for him and risen again. His unbelief
is not neutral, but it is a rejection of his creator. Remind him of the story of Adam and Eve, and
gently show him that he is also questioning his creator in an illegitimate way. But the good news
is that there is forgiveness and restoration. He can be reconciled with God by trusting in Jesus
and what He has done on the cross. He can begin a new life with the important things in proper
perspective. His train can be put back on the track. His planet can be returned to its proper place
in the solar system. He must be born again and submit his heart and mind to God.

These points can be easily remembered by the acrostic defend:

D emonstrate interest.
E xplain your faith.
F urnish answers.
E xpose his presuppositions.
N avigate through his inconsistencies.
D irect him to Christ.

B. Practice with typical questions

Now lets see how we might handle the questions posed in the first chapter, following the
guidelines to defend our faith.

81
Question #1 How can you prove that God exists?

D Demonstrate interest in the person.

In the initial stages of your conversation, you should try to find out about the spiritual background
of your friend, especially whether he or she believes in God.

E Explain your faith.

Explain how you came to believe in a personal God.

F Furnish answers.

I would recommend using the cosmological and theological arguments as evidence of

God. How did everything get here? It cant just have existed forever. If it had, things would have
run down by now, according to the physical laws of thermodynamics. How could things so
complex just happen to exist by chance? Look at the human body, the eye, the balance of nature.
Why is water the only element that expands when it freezes? If it didnt, ice would sink, lakes
would totally freeze to the bottom and all life would perish in them. Look at the precise balance of
gravity and centrifugal force that keep the earth from flying out of its orbit. Remember the similar
balance within the atom itself. Think also of the marvel of man, his emotions, his reason, his
creativity, and his appreciation for beauty. All of these amazing characteristics point to an
intelligent designer. Here we are pointing to general revelation that has Gods fingerprints all over
it.
We can admit that this may not be totally convincing, but we can also challenge the
person to look inside himself to see if he doesnt already know that God is there. The Bible
teaches that God has revealed Himself to everybody. (Romans 1:18-25). Everyone has a sense
that God exists. Everyone has an altar to the unknown God in his heart (Acts 17).
Finally, we might explain that any proof we might offer tends to put the proof above God.
God reveals Himself clearly in creation and in Scripture, and He doesnt need for us to convince
anybody that He exists. If we use logic to prove God, then logic becomes our god. If we appeal to
science, then science becomes our god. To try to prove His existence is like Nietzches crazy
man who went looking for God with a lantern. Rather than listen to our arguments, we
recommend that our friend just be open to let God reveal Himself to him. Try gazing at the stars at
night, watching the clouds, or observing the waves on the shore. Try praying and reading the
Bible with a sincere seeking heart.

E Expose the presuppositions of the non-believer.

Ask what he believes and why, why, why ... until you come to his final answer. If he is
honest, he will admit that he basically decides for himself what is true. Ask: What would convince
you that God exists? This question will help uncover his presuppositions. Most people will have a
hard time answering this because it leaves them vulnerable to being convinced. However, some
will answer, for example that they would believe if God would answer their prayers, or if God
would perform a miracle in front of them. If so, ask how they would know if their prayers were
answered, or how they would define a miracle. Help them see that they have probably set up their
evaluation standards in such a way to reject the evidence before objectively reviewing it.

N Navigate through the inconsistencies.

Show the serious problems of denying a personal God and creator. As we have
mentioned several times previously, it leads to an impersonal closed universe, which leads to a
denial of the meaning of his own thoughts. His thoughts become accidents, impersonal
movements of atoms, or the ticking of a clock. To deny God is to close yourself up in a box and
lose your brain like Francis Bacons painting. It also leads to a denial of morals and human
dignity. How could you explain love, joy, and a sense of right and wrong? Why would you even
bother to talk?
Show him that he is pretending to be the judge or source of truth, but that deep down he
knows he isnt. If he thinks he is the judge of the truth that comes from outside his own mind, ask

82
him if there is a star one million light years directly north of the north pole. He will probably admit
that he doesnt know. Then you can point out that there are many things he doesnt know, and
ask how he can be sure that God doesnt really exist. In fact, how can he be sure of anything?
How can he be sure he wont learn something tomorrow that totally changes his outlook of today?
If he claims to be the source of the truth, ask him if he would be willing to go stand on the railroad
tracks and wait for a train. Ask him if he could simply determine that a train is not really coming. If
he admits that he could not, then he has admitted that he is not really the source of the truth, but
that the truth is outside his own mind.
Furthermore, to deny God is to reject the inner sense of deity and moral law that has
been engraved on his heart. He is like the prodigal son denying his father. His heart has an empty
hole where God belongs. His need for love, significance, and security, can only be satisfied by
God.

D Direct him to Christ.

Explain that his life is like the erroneous view of the universe, before man
realized that the sun is the center. He is living as if he were the center of his life, but God
is the true center. He needs to experience a Copernican revolution and recognize that God
is his center of gravity. We are all guilty of denying Him, just like Adam. Our real
problem is basically spiritual, and not intellectual. Jesus went to the cross for us and
forgives us for rejecting our creator. He must let Him forgive him and start a new life.

#2: How can you be sure that the Bible is true? What about the apparent
contradictions and errors?

Dont forget the initial steps to apologetics:

D Demonstrate interest in the person.

Found out if the person has read the Bible at all. Be careful not to make him feel ignorant if he
has not read much of it.

E Explain your faith.

Share how you became interested in the Bible.

F Furnish answers.
The person may challenge you or give a simplistic dismissal of the Bible as outdated, or a book
full of errors, or something too ancient and mysterious.

I would suggest showing first how the Bible claims to be the Word of God. Refer
to key passages such as 1 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:21. Jesus considered the Old
Testament to be the Word of God (Matthe 5:18) and indirectly promised the New Testament ( John
14:25-26). You can also show fulfilled prophecies, such as the ones that Josh McDowell
mentions about Jesus.

He would be born of a virgin. (Isaiah 7:14)

He would be born in Bethlehem. (Micah 5:2)
He would enter Jerusalem riding on a donkey. (Zechariah 9:9)
He would be wounded for our sins, yet would not defend Himself. (Isaiah 53:4-7)

83
The example of the destruction of Tyre might be helpful also, since secular history
confirms it. (Ezequiel 26).
Refer to archeological supporting evidence as well. Whereas over the last
centuries, secular archeologists have tended to question a lot of biblical data, such as the
existence of David, the city of Jericho, and king Sargon, the more evidence they find, the
more it confirms biblical history. For example, they have found inscriptions in stone that
refer to David 122, they have found the ruins of Jericho, 123 and even the ruins from the
palace of king Sargon (in Iraq). 124 There are many web sites that provide more than
sufficient archeological data to support the Bible.
The Bible gives us a complete package of truth that fits the world we live in. It
explains the origin of the universe, the origin of evil, and the solution for evil. It describes
man in his wonderful complexity and gives wise advice for living in harmony with our
fellow man. Refer to the illustrations of Francis Schaeffer (the torn book and the loose
pages) and G. K. Chesterton (the man who wakes up on an island after a shipwreck).
The seeker may ask about specific passages that seem to be errors or
contradictions. Dont feel obligated to explain everything right away. You may need to
study the passage more carefully before giving an answer. Or you might just need to
admit that you arent sure of the best explanation, but that you can offer some options.
Some of the most common accusations are related to supposed contradictions in the
gospels. Most of these problems can be solved by realizing that the gospel writers didnt
always tell exactly the same details. Other common accusations are related to genealogies
and dates. As Geisler points out, the biblical authors often did not pretend to give
exhaustive genealogies, and many dates and periods of time were understood to be
rounded off in those times.
If the non Christian insists that you cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible, you
need to explain that you really wouldnt be consistent if you allowed some other factor to
become the rule by which you judge Gods Word. As soon as you put logic or science or
secular history above the Scriptures, you have violated the position you are trying to
defend, that the Bible is our maximum inspired authority. This doesnt mean that other
evidence doesnt help, just that nothing can be put above the Bible. In other words, we
have to let God speak for Himself.
This means that we should encourage our friend to read the Bible for himself.
Pray that the Holy Spirit speak to him as he comes into direct contact with it.
E Expose the presuppositions of the non-believer.
Now is the time to talk about epistemology. Since this has been the central focus of the
book, you should be prepared to carry out a serious dialogue about it. How do you know if
something is true? Ask your friend what his method is for determining the truth. Ask how he can
be sure of what he believes. Without being so obnoxious that he stops talking to you and walks
away, ask him why, why, why, .... until he backs up to his final answer. Push him to see his
starting point, his initial presuppositions. It will inevitably be either that he just thinks it is so
(subjective truth), or that the evidence he himself processes just seems that way to him (objective
truth). In either case, he needs to see that he is making himself out to be the final judge.

122
http://www.uhcg.org/news/is-bible-true.html (August 31, 2005)
123
See: http://www.crystalinks.com/jericho.html and http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/cs-
walls_of_jericho.html
124
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html (August 31, 2005).

84
N Navigate through the inconsistencies.
Show him that he cant be sure of anything, and he cant live consistently with his view,
as long as he makes himself out to be the ultimate point of reference. Furthermore, he knows in
his heart that he is neither the source of truth nor the final judge. Ask him about the star a million
light nears north of the north pole, or about the train coming down the tracks. Ask him how he
knows he wont find out something tomorrow that will change his mind. If he admits total
uncertainty, ask him how he can be certain that Christianity is not true. Show him that any belief
system that leaves him in the center will eventually collapse on top of him.
Here you should show the contrast of the Christian view of truth. God is the creator, the
source of all truth, and He reveals sufficient truth to us, although not all of the truth. We can live in
harmony with the truth He has revealed in the Scriptures, and we can live in harmony with the
Christian concept of revealed truth. All other systems are self-destructive.

D Direct him to Christ.

Plead with him to at least take a fair look at the Bible. Let the Lord Himself speak to him.
According to John 10, the Lords sheep will hear His voice, recognize it, and follow him. Our job is
to point him to the Good Shepherd.
He needs to see that his very way of thinking is sinful, because he is pretending to
discover the truth on his own, neglecting his creator. Remind him of the story of Adam and Eve in
the Garden of Eden, and help him to see that he is doing the same thing. His problem is more
spiritual than intellectual. This is why Jesus came to die on the cross, to forgive our sin of turning
from God. He can find forgiveness and begin a new life centered around Christ.

#3: What about other religions. How can you be sure that they are not also
legitimate?

This question has become increasingly common today with the growing interest in eastern
religions and the New Age. Some people have said to me, If I had been born in India or China,
my family would belong to another religion. Just because I was born in the United States, doesnt
mean that our religion is right and theirs is wrong. Often the illustration of the blind men and the
elephant is used. The following poem is based on a fable told in India many years ago.

The Blind Men and the Elephant

by John Godfrey Saxe

It was six men of Indostan

To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

85
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!

The Second, feeling of the tusk,

Cried, Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!

The Third approached the animal,

And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
I see, quoth he, the Elephant
Is very like a snake!

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,

And felt about the knee.
What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain, quoth he;
Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,

Said: Een the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!

The Sixth no sooner had begun

About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
I see, quoth he, the Elephant
Is very like a rope!

And so these men of Indostan

Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,

86
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Moral:

So oft in theologic wars,

The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen! 125

This charming story makes a valid point: No human being has all the truth, and everyone
can learn from others. However, the illustration has been used to defend the idea that all
religions are just different views of the same truth, and that all roads lead to the same
God.

Before we answer the question, remember that we are assuming you have already done
steps one and two:

D Demonstrate interest in the person.

Find out if your friend identifies himself with any religion. Let him explain what he
believes and tell how he came to that religion.

E Explain your faith.

Share how you became a Christian.

After this, lets assume the person raises the question of other religions. Now you can:

F Furnish answers.

First, as Christians, we realize that other religions contain traces of the truth,
residues of Gods revelation, but we also believe that there is only one way to God,
through Jesus Christ. Its not our own idea; its Jesus teaching.

Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the
Father except through me. (John 14:6)

Throughout the Bible we find references to other gods, but in NO case does God
say, Thats fine. These other gods are just different ways of worshiping Me. God
always considers these religious manifestations as offensive spiritual adultery.

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of
slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for
125
http://www.wordfocus.com/word-act-blindmen.html, American poet John Godfrey Saxe (1816-
1887) based the poem on a fable which was told in India many years ago. See a Buddhist version
of the story at: http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~rywang/berkeley/258/parable.html

87
 yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath
or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them;
(Exodus 20:2-4)

Now then, said Joshua, throw away the foreign gods that are among you and
yield your hearts to the Lord, the God of Israel. (Joshua 24:23)

With regard to the illustration of the elephant, its important to remember that
there really is an elephant there, only one elephant, and that a person with his full senses
could describe it fairly accurately. The men are blind, and when one says the elephant is
like a wall, or another thinks he is like a spear, they are really quite mistaken. They
have reduced the elephant to something very different from what he really is. This is what
other religions have done; they have distorted the truth so much that their teachings are
radically incompatible with Christianity. The God of the Bible is offended when people
worship Him by other names, and when they describe Him inaccurately.
Show your friend that other religions contradict Christianity in fundamental ways.
You cant accept Christianity and at the same time accept other religions. At the end of
this chapter, we will give a brief review of the basic teachings of other popular religions.
However, the main thing to emphasize is the way of salvation. Only Christianity teaches
salvation by grace. All other religions and cults teach some kind of works salvation. The
God of the Bible is a Trinity, three persons in one God. Furthermore, only Christianity
teaches that God the Father gave His son to die for us!
While Christianity may be accused of being exclusive, all religions are really
exclusive. Buddhism rejects the Vedas and the caste system of Hinduism. Islam excludes
any other sacred writings except the Quran. When other religions reject Jesus as the only
Lord and Savior, they are excluding true Christianity. Its like the young man who didnt
deny the divinity of Jesus, in fact he didnt deny the divinity of anybody! You cant claim
to accept the teachings of different religions that contradict each other. In doing so, you
inevitably exclude some teachings.
Show your friend that the Bible teaches that the true God has revealed himself to all
people (Romans 1:18-21). Tell him the story of Paul at Athens, where they had an altar to the
unkown God (Acts 17). Explain that even people who belong to other religions have a sense of
the real true God, but that they have covered up this innate knowledge.
Explain how the Bible teaches that the biblical God revealed Himself to the first human
beings on earth, that the first religion was Christianity, and that any deviation from the biblical
teaching is really a distortion of divine revelation. Even Adam and Eve were told about the
Messiah to come (Genesis 3:15). God showed Abraham that he would provide a sacrifice in our
place (Genesis 22). The tabernacle, the temple, and the sacrificial system of the Old Testament
point to the Lamb of God who was to come.
This explains why we find clues to Christianity among different cultures and remote tribes
all around the world. People make sacrifices and celebrate rituals that manifest their sense of
guilt and their need for expiation and reconciliation with God.

E Expose his presuppositions.

Your friend may be assuming that the contradictions between world religions are
insignificant, or he may be assuming that it doesnt matter if there are contradictions. Maybe he
doesnt even care about the law of non-contradiction. He may think of Jesus as just a good man.
Possibly he has unwittingly swallowed the evolutionary scheme of world religions, and he thinks
that they sort of evolved over time. If so, he may think that the eastern religions are older than

88
Christianity, and that they therefore hold greater validity. Try to get behind his spoken convictions
to the deeper assumptions. Find out what makes him believe what he believes. Keep asking until
he reveals his most basic assumption. Help him to see that he is pretending to decide the truth by
himself, and in doing so he is denying Gods sovereign rule over the truth.

N Navigate through the inconsistencies.

Ask your friend to think about his innate sense of right and wrong, and his sense of guilt.
Is there any other religion that can erase his guilt and calm his conscience? Help him see that if
he holds to a monistic view of reality, as do many religions, it leads to denying the validity of his
own thoughts, as well as destroying the distinction between right and wrong. If logical
contradictions dont really matter to him, help him see that he cant live that way. Would he go
pick mushrooms randomly, or would he carefully select the wholesome ones? Can he accept two
contradictory statements like A is true and A is not true? Then how can he accept two religions
that contradict each other? If he believes Jesus was just a good man, show him that a good
man would not claim to be God. If he did, he would be either a liar or a lunatic. Help him see that
he cant make himself the judge of truth without leading to total uncertainty or a vital contradiction
between life and ideology.

D Direct him to Christ.

Point to the unique and wonderful characteristics of Jesus Christ, full of grace and truth.
Tell him again the story of Jesus life, death, and resurrection. No other religion can be compared
to the gospel! Encourage him to read the gospels or to watch a biblical movie about Jesus, and to
consider the validity of his claims.
We can use the same elephant story and turn it around to describe our condition
before our spiritual eyes were opened. Before the Holy Spirit worked in our hearts, we
were just as confused as the blind men. But when He gave us new life in Christ, we saw
the truth. Your friend is like the prodigal son, like John Nash seeing illusions. He needs to
wake up and come back.

A Review of World Religions

In order to complete our answer this question, we should look at some popular current
religions. Again, this will be only a brief summary.

A. Animism

The term comes from anima (soul ), because they believe that everything,
including animals, plants, rocks, and all objects, have spiritual life. Some people estimate
that 40% of the worlds population today are animists. Frequently this religion includes
witchcraft, magic, superstition and rituals. Normally they believe in one creator god who
is over many small gods. Nevertheless, man cannot relate to the creator, but only to the
smaller gods of health, weather, and all that affects his daily life. In reality, animism is
often another form of pantheism, because everything that exists contains the universal
soul of god. 126
In Latin America, from the time of the colonization, the Catholic Church has
cultivated a syncretism of Christianity and the animism that existed among the
indigenous. Missionaries in Mexico took the image of Oztocteotl (god of the witch
126
J.N.D. Anderson, The Worlds Religions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), pp. 9-24. Also:
http://religion-cults.com/Ancient/Animism/Animism.htm

89
doctors) out of a cave, replaced it with an image of Christ, and told people that it had
appeared miraculously. The problem is that this was only a change in form, not in
content; the Christ has the same characteristics of the previous god. Now not only the
Catholics visit this statue every year, but also the witch doctors! The famous Virgin of
Guadalupe of Mexico is located in the same place where there was formerly a temple
dedicated to Cihuacoatl (goddess mother earth, mother serpent), long before the
conquistadores. In the image of this Virgin, she is standing on a symbol of the moon, an
important indigenous deity, showing that she is superior, but that she does not destroy it.
This image expresses graphically how they have simply added Christianity on top of
animism, without eliminating the ancient beliefs. 127

B. Hinduism
Hinduism has no main founder or leader. Their sacred texts are the Vedas,
collections of hymns, incantations and rituals written by different people between 1500
and 900 B.C. Other later writings such as the Brahmanas, the Aranyakas and the
Upanishads are commentaries on the Vedas. Their gods are nature gods, and the
sacrificial system was elaborated to gain favors from them. Eventually, three gods
became the most important: Brahman is the creator, Vishnu is the preserver, who came to
earth at least ten times, and Siva is the destroyer. The more philosophical writings teach
that behind the visible phenomena of this world, there is one ultimate reality, brahma.
Man needs to realize that he is also brahma, that his soul is really one with the soul of the
universe.

As rivers flow and disappear at last

In oceans waters, name and form renouncing,
So too the sage, released from name and form,
Is merged in the divine and ultimate existence. 128

Mans actions in this life accumulate either good or bad karma, which determines his
status when he is reincarnated in his next life. As J.N.D. Anderson says, 129

Once again he is caught up in the round of desire, action, and consequences, as

the water in the water-wheel is passed from one plate to the next, and finds no
release. 130

C. Buddhism
Buddhism has its roots in Hinduism, but breaks away from some of its
fundamental teachings. Gautama (563-483 B.C), the Buddha (enlightened one), came
from a wealthy family, but was impressed with the suffering of others, and decided to
seek a way to end pain and escape the unending wheel of rebirth. First, he attempted
asceticism, supposedly living on one grain of rice a day until his body became a skeleton.

127
Rodolfo Blank, Teologa y misin en Amrica Latina (San Luis, Missouri: Concordia, 1996), pp.
80, 101-105.
128
Mundaka Upanishad, quoted in Anderson, p. 110.
129
Anderson, pp. 99-117. Also: http://www.san.beck.org/EC7-Vedas.html#10 (Sept. 2, 2005)
130
Anderson, p. 109.

90
Eventually, he realized that the only way to end suffering was to eliminate desire. This is
why the statues of Buddha show no emotion. To achieve a complete release, one must
meditate, concentrating on a single object until he goes beyond sensations of pleasure or
pain, and enters a state beyond consciousness. This is full Enlightenment, Nirvana, and
deliverance from the cycle of rebirth. Gautama describes it as:

...a condition where there is neither earth nor water, neither air nor light, neither
limitless space, nor limitless time, neither any kind of being, neither ideation nor
non-ideation, neither this world nor that world. There is neither arising nor
passing-away, nor dying, neither cause nor effect, neither change nor standing
still. 131

It seems like virtual annihilation to me! Not exactly comforting! I also wonder what
happens when they come out of this state and finish their time of meditation. Dont they
come back into the world of suffering and endless reincarnation?
Buddhism can be considered more of a way of life than a religion. Any concept of
God seems to be out of the picture. It is centered on ones own personal spiritual
experience of release from suffering, and does not encourage any kind of worship of a
divine being. One author describes it as a non-theistic ethical discipline. 132

D. Islam
Muhammad (570 - 632 A.D.) supposedly received revelations that were to
become the Quran, making him the prophet of the movement. They consider Jesus just
another prophet, and teach that his followers deified him against his own will. Their creed
is simply, There is no God but God (Allah), and Muhammad is the Prophet of God.
Allah is so different from his creatures that man cant really say anything about him. He
created both good and evil, and governs the whole creation moment by moment
miraculously. In their fatalistic view of predestination, man has no real freedom of
choice, but only the illusion of it. Muslims tend to just accept everything that happens as
Allahs will, and not try to make the world better. When the earthquake erupted in the
Indian ocean on December 26, 2004, causing deadly tsunami waves to take thousands of
lives and bring devastation to hundreds of thousands more, some Muslim countries
denied aid to the victims because this was Allahs punishment on them. When people die,
they must face judgment by Allah, who will balance their good deeds with the bad. If
they are willing to give their lives in a Jihad (holy war) against the infidels, they are
guaranteed a place in Paradise. 133
We have seen the atrocious practices of this religion in the terrorist events of the
last decade. The powerful marriage of Islamic politics and religion has transformed the
twenty first century into a society of suspicion and fear. We were not prepared to confront
people with such strong convictions that they are willing to commit suicide to further
their cause. In fact, the Islamic fanatics have been persecuting Christians for centuries
around the world. In countries like Sudan, they have been fiercely at war since 1983,
where more than two million people have lost their lives. Muslims nail Christian children

131
Sacred Books of the Buddhists, Vol. II, pp. 54 ff. Quoted in Anderson, p. 126.
132
Anderson, p. 126. He quotes Prof. Kraemar, but gives no source.
133
Anderson, pp. 52-98.

91
to trees or behead them. They pierce holes in the lips of believers, attach a padlock, and
lock it. Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said in 2001, "There is perhaps no
greater tragedy on the face of the earth today." 134 While certainly not all Muslims agree
with this kind of persecution, I believe we have underestimated the threat of the fanatic
militant factions.

E. Judaism
Judaism is somewhat familiar ground for Christians. We know that they basically
accept only the Old Testament, and do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Of course they
do not believe in the Trinity, and salvation comes from good works and sincere
repentance for sin. Upon death, the wicked will usually spend twelve months in Gehenna
(similar to the Catholic idea of purgatory), then they join the righteous in Gan Eden in the
presence of God. 135
While we have much in common with them, sharing the rich heritage of the Old
Testament, the teaching of God the creator, of man in his image, and the moral law, we
must be careful not to think that we really have the same God. It is not just that they
need to add Jesus and the New Testament. Their concept of God and of the Old
Testament have been distorted in fundamental ways. We have to insist that the Old
Testament portrays a Triune God, salvation by grace, and the coming of Jesus.

F. New Age
What is New Age? It is not an organized religion or systematized philosophy, but
a group of ideas and a network of communication. It is a mixture of eastern religions with
western science and reason. It rejects oriental mysticism because of its failure to try to
change the world, but neither does it follow the western approach that tends to exclude
the religious and the mystical. They reject materialism, traditional culture, and nihilism. It
is a western version of oriental religions, but with emphasis on the individual. It has roots
in ancient Gnosticism, which held that matter is bad but spirit is good, and that
knowledge is the way of salvation. They do not reject other beliefs, but see them as part
of the process of human awakening. They are expecting a change of ages soon. In the age
of Aquarius, women will dominate.
They hold to a type of animism, which supposes the existence of many spiritual
beings. There are also witches and magicians that know how to control these spirits. They
practice channeling, the use of mediums to contact the spirits. Ultimate reality is
BEING, consciousness (not material, not energy). This Being manifests itself in two
ways, the visible universe, accessible by means of the normal conscience, and the
invisible universe, accessible through altered states of consciousness (for example, with
drugs). Reality is like a hologram, in which the whole picture can be included in each tiny
part. Any point of the universe contains the information of the whole universe. Therefore,
the whole universe is also in my mind! 136 That which separates man from God is his
ignorant conscience. Man must realize that he is God.

134
No Greater Tragedy, Christianity Today, June 11, 2001. See:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/008/43.95.html
135
Anderson, pp. 25-51.
136
Douglas Groothuis, Unmasking the New Age (Downers Grove: IVP, 1986), p. 99.

92
 Know that you are God; know that you are the universe. (Shirley MacLaine) 137

I feel the power of the galaxy flowing within me... I myself am the process of
creation, incredibly strong, incredibly powerful. (John Lilly) 138

Some known representatives:

Alvin Toffler (futurist)

Shirley MacLaine (actress)
Elizabeth Kubler-Ross (death expert)
Carl Jung (psychology)
John Denver (singer)
Steven Spielberg (movie producer) 139

These religions are distortions of Christianity, the first religion taught to the first human
beings. Only orthodox Christianity preaches a personal loving God who is a Trinity, and a
gospel of grace in which salvation is by faith alone. Only Christianity has the true answer
for the problems of the world: forgiveness, salvation and transformation in Christ. All
other religions leave people guilty and hopeless. If Christianity were not true, as Paul
says, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die! (1 Corinthians 15:32).

137
Quoted by James Sire, The Universe Next Door (Downers Grove: IVP, 1997), p. 155.
138
James Sire, p. 162
139
Groothuis, Unmasking the New Age, and Sire, Universe Next Door. These names are
referenced throughout both of these books. See the indices.

93
Chapter 8
Three more questions to answer; evolution, eternal condemnation,
and the problem of evil

The question of evolution is probably the most common scientific objection to Christianity. It has
also become a political issue in the United States, since many evangelicals are asking that their
school boards modify the standard curriculum to include intelligent design as an option to be
taught in the science classes. It is no surprise that this has caused a furious reaction.
Newspapers, magazines, and Internet web sites are currently filled with articles about this debate.
140

Question #4: What about the theory of evolution? Doesnt it prove that the Bible is wrong?

Demonstrate interest.
This issue may be volatile, and you need to establish a relationship of trust and mutual respect.
Remember to spend time showing interest in the person.

Explain your faith.

You need to explain that the most important issues here are whether God created the world, and
whether the Bible contains errors. These are basic tenants of our faith. However, even among
evangelical Christians who believe the Bible, there are differences of opinion about the best way
to harmonize the scientific evidence with the biblical account of creation. It is essential to express
our belief that there are not real contradictions between the Bible and scientific evidence. We may
be interpreting the Bible incorrectly, and we may be interpreting the scientific evidence incorrectly,
but as Francis Schaeffer says, there is no final conflict. 141 That is, if we understand them both
properly, they will be in agreement. We are not afraid of scientific investigation, nor are we afraid
to do a careful exegesis of Genesis.

Furnish answers.
However we interpret the first chapters of Genesis, the Bible is clear throughout that God is the
creator of the universe. Furthermore, the scientific evidence for the traditional theory of evolution
is absolutely inconsistent.

1. As Henry Morris, Duane Gish, and Antonio Cruz have pointed out, there is a lack of fossil
evidence of gradual transition from one species to another. On the contrary, the fossil picture is
one of sudden jumps. Furthermore, in the fossil deposits, the layers do not correspond to the
evolutionary scheme of progress from the more simple to the more complex.

2. I find the irreducible complexity argument very persuasive. Organisms are so uniquely
designed that they dont function unless the individual parts are complete and in working order.
The eyeball is a good example. Think of blind dogs with no legs and fish with lungs! The
movement of the planets and the very atoms that make up all material things are so finely
balanced that they would self-destruct if they werent functioning as they are. Many things could
not have developed in progressive stages, because the intermediate forms would not have
survived.

3. If scientists are going to be objective and base their conclusions on observation, why does it
not bother them that they have not observed a true change in species?

140
The Evolution Wars, Time, August 15, 2005, pp. 27-35.
141
Francis Schaeffer, No Final Conflict, originally published in 1975, reprinted in The Complete
Works of Francis Schaeffer (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 1984).

94
4. Some of the evidence is very weak and sparse at best, but has been manipulated to look like
proven facts. To take a jawbone and construct the whole body of a man is not exactly objective
science!

5. One of the biggest challenges we face in harmonizing the Bible with science is the apparent
age of the earth. We have several options in resolving this issue. Probably the simplest is to
assume that God made things with apparent age. Think about the moment God made Adam and
Eve. Suppose you arrived one minute later. They might appear to be say, 20 years old, while they
are really only a minute old. God made them with age. How about the trees? They may have
been made in one second, but if you cut one down and count the rings, you would think it is
hundreds of years old. The irreducibly complexity factor really applies to the whole creation. Isnt
everything interdependent in a way that made it necessary to create everything almost all at
once? How could you have animals with nothing to eat? How could you have trees with no
minerals in the ground to feed them? I would suggest that there is no way to prove that God did
not do things this way!

Others take the days of the creation as long periods of time. They believe that God created each
species supernaturally, but that He did it in stages over millions of years. One of the reasons
some evangelicals opt for one of these other explanations is that they think it would be
dishonest on Gods part to leave evidence that deceives us, especially fossils that appear to be
millions of years old. However, the theory of long periods has to answer the question of why the
animals were dying (and leaving the fossils) before the Fall. According to the Scriptures, death
was a result of the Fall.

Some scientists, like Antonio Cruz, prefer the gap theory, holding that God first made the
material world, then there was a long gap of time (inserted between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2) before
He created the plants, animals, and man. He believes that there is valid scientific evidence that
the universe is millions of years old.142

6. Time is also a problem for the evolutionists. Did things just always exist? If so, why hasnt the
universe already run down? The theory of the big bang is the non-believers answer to this huge
problem. However, how did the big bang occur? Just out of nothing? It begins to look like a
desperate and ridiculous attempt to avoid accepting the fact that God created everything. I cant
resist quoting a humorous parable that shows just how ridiculous the big bang theory sounds
when you take God out of the picture.

The origin and meaning of time

by Joe Boot

Consider the following parable:

Once upon a point of infinite density, Nothing that was Something went Boom!
Then there was Everything. Everything eventually named Something Matter, the
tragic character in our story. Sadly, Matter had no mind, yet this makes our tale all
the more amazing!

Now matter had only one companion, the hero of our fable, a mysterious
stranger of unknown origin called Chance. Chance, though blind, was a brilliant
artist. Chance taught mindless Matter to paint and paint our pupil did. Matter
painted a universe from center to rim on the canvas of a vacuum. And lo,
innumerable galaxies emerged filled with infinite wonders, beauty, order, and life.
142
Antonio Cruz, La ciencia encuentra a Dios? (Barcelona: CLIE, 2004), p. 179.

95
 The inspired brush strokes of ignorant Matter, guided by the hands of blind
Chance, created together a cosmic masterpiece. But as Matter and Chance were
working away they failed to spot out the villain called Time. Time crept in
unnoticed back at the boom and was extremely wound up about being stirred from
his sleep. Time determined there and then to wind down again and thus rub the
masterpiece outas soon as he got hold of that Chance! Chance, being blind,
didnt see Time coming and mindless Matter was helpless to intervene.

Now, Time ruins the painting little by little and brags that by Chance its just a
Matter of Time before the canvas is blank and the boom will swoon and
Everything that was Something will be Nothing again, once more upon a pointless
point of infinite nothingness, with no Time for Chance to Matter anymore.143

Expose his presuppositions.

Your friend may be assuming that science is objective and neutral. He may assume that the
evidence for evolution is a fact. He may assume that everything is material. At the bottom, he is
assuming that he can decide what the truth is.

Navigate through his inconsistencies.

We need to show our friend that if he takes God out of the picture, he has some serious problems
in trying to construct a consistent system of truth. His very thoughts would be just a chemical
reaction, and would therefore mean no more than the tick tock of a clock or the bile that is
secreted from his liver. He cant make himself out to be the judge of truth without ending up with
total uncertainty or total inconsistency.

Direct him to Christ.

The real problem is not scientific, but spiritual. The non-believer resists recognizing God as
creator and Lord, and will look for any explanation to avoid Him. His thinking has become
distorted. But this leaves him with a dark and empty universe. He becomes an insignificant blob
of paint on the canvas. He needs to come to Christ for forgiveness and to have a personal
relationship with his creator.

Question #5: How can a good God condemn people?

Einsteins problem with Christianity was that it would be unfair for God to punish
people for what He himself caused them to do.

In giving out punishments and rewards, he would to a certain extent be passing

judgment on himself. 144

The losing my religion web site uses this issue like a knife to stick into our side
and twist it around. They say God is like a father who tells his son to love him or he will
put him in the oven and bake him!
Of course, these are misunderstandings and offensive distortions of God our
Father. But to be honest, dont we all struggle with this at times? Is there really a hell, and

143
http://www.rzim.org/publications/jttran.php?seqid=103 (August 5, 2005)
144
Einstein, The World As I See It (New York: Citadel Press, 1995), pp. 27-29, quoted by Charles
Colson in How Now Shall We Live? (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1999), p. 207.

96
is it really a place of eternal fire and suffering? Why would God even create people who
would end up this way?
Since this question is closely related to the broader question of the problem of evil
and free will, our answers will be fairly brief here. There will be a longer discussion
under the next question.
Demonstrate interest.
Remember that we cant just jump into a subject like this without developing a degree of trust and
respect. One thing we need to be extremely sensitive about as we discuss this question is that
our friend is possibly thinking about someone he loves that is not a believer, or maybe even a
family member who has already died. This is definitely not just a theoretical question. I have been
appalled at the harsh way some Christians talk about hell, as if they almost enjoyed the idea.

Explain your faith.

The Bible clearly teaches that not all people will be saved, that the saved with spend eternity in
Gods presence and that the unsaved will go to hell away from His presence. (See for example
Matthew 5:22-30, 18:8-9, and Revelation 20:12-15)

Furnish answers.
How could God do this?

1. First, we need to begin with another perspective: Nobody deserves salvation. Nobody is
innocent. (Romans 1-3). If God condemned us all, it would be just.

3. Secondly, God must punish sin in order to be just. His character does not allow Him to simply
look away and let it go.

2. Thirdly, anybody that wants to be saved can be saved. Hell is reserved for those who do not
want to be in Gods presence.

BUT....
ROMANS 9

4. We cannot be dogmatic about exactly what hell is like, any more than we can be dogmatic
about heaven. These are realms that are beyond explanation in human terms. The Bible uses
language of fire, outer darkness, weeping and gnashing of teeth, and destruction. Some of
these terms would contradict each other if we took them literally. However, it is clearly a terrible
place of suffering away from the presence of God.

5. A few evangelical theologians have proposed that eternal condemnation will be annihilation,
that the unsaved will cease to exist when they die. This is hard to reconcile with the biblical
descriptions of a real place of real suffering. However, I have to admit that sometimes I wonder if
hell will continue eternally, in parallel with heaven. It just seems strange that God would permit an
eternal place of rebellion and sin, without at some point doing away with it. This may be
suggested by the word destruction.

5. We have to believe that God knows more than we do, that he will do what is right, even if we
dont understand it.

The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to
our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law. (Deuteronomy 29:29)

Expose his presuppositions.

97
Our friend assumes that he has a right to judge God. He is also confusing what he would like to
believe with what is true. At the bottom, he is setting himself up as the judge of the truth and as
the judge of what is right and wrong.

Navigate through his inconsistencies.

If our friend has a right to judge God, then God is not really God. In fact, if we could understand
Gods ways, He would not be God.

Direct him to Christ.

This delicate topic can be turned around to become a great opportunity to share the
gospel. Instead of focusing on the other people, challenge your friend to think about
himself. Does he have assurance of salvation? Would he like to? He does not need to
solve all the problems and answer all his questions, but he can be sure that he has eternal
life by giving his heart and life over to Jesus Christ. Flee to the cross for forgiveness and
the beginning of a new life.
The issue of eternal condemnation leads us to the greater question of why God allows evil and
suffering in general.

Question #6: If God is both good and all-powerful, why does He allow evil
and suffering?

I cant think of a question that gnaws at people more, even at us Christians, than why God
allows evil and suffering. It is more than a philosophical question; it is very personal and
painful. I wondered why my father died when I was seventeen. We ask why God allowed
the tsunami, the hurricane, or the earthquake. Why are children starving in Africa? If God
is both all-loving and all-powerful, why does He permit (or cause) this? It is our most
difficult apologetic challenge.

This is why existencialist Albert Camus lost his faith. After sharing a meal with the
pastor of the American Church in Paris, he confessed that he found the universe absurd.

The silence of the universe has led me to conclude that the world is without
meaning. This silence betokens the evils of war, of poverty, and of the suffering of
the innocent. I have been immersed in this suffering and poverty since the rise of
Fascism and Hitlers Nazism. So, what do you do? For me, the only response was
to commit suicide, intellectual or physical suicide, to embrace Nihilism and go on
surviving in a world without meaning. ... While I always trusted the universe and
humanity in the abstract, my experience made me begin to lose faith in its
meaning in the practice. Something is dreadfully wrong. I am a disillusioned and
exhausted man. I have lost faith, lost hope, ever since the rise of Hitler. Is it any
wonder that, at my age, I am looking for something to believe in? ...To lose ones
life is only a little thing. But, to lose the meaning of life, to see our reasoning
disappear, is unbearable. It is impossible to live a life without meaning. 145

145
Howard Muma, Albert Camus and the MInister (Brewster, Massachusetts: Paraclete Press,
2000), pp. 13-14.

98
We must be very careful to show sensitivity to the painful experiences people have had,
and not look at this question in a cold and abstract way. It is beyond our responsibility to
completely satisfy the doubter on a personal emotional level. Only the great Comforter
can do that. However, we can show that we care. And eventually we have to confront the
philosophical and theological issue head on.
D emonstrate interest.
Most people have suffered some painful tragedy, and can hardly bear to talk about
it. However, if you gain the confidence of a friend, he will usually appreciate the fact that he can
talk about his deepest struggles. Often it is the loss of a child or some other family member.
Maybe it is a divorce or sickness. Let them talk and explain how this has affected their faith in
God. Dont judge them, just try to understand and empathize with them.

E xplain your faith.

Be willing to share your own pains and be honest about your own struggles with the
same question. However, dont leave your friend without hope, as the Christian panel member did
on the TV program about Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis. Explain that, in spite of the fact that
you dont have all the answers, you still believe in God and trust Him that He is doing what is
best.

F urnish answers.

I believe our best answers are related to mans free will and to Gods plan to totally
eliminate evil and suffering. But these points need to be explained carefully.

1) First, we need to explain that God made everything good, in fact very good, and that
suffering comes as a result of the Fall, caused by human sin.

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. (Genesis 1:31)

God did not create evil, and He is not guilty of evil. Mans own decision in the Fall
brought corruption (Genesis 3:6-10). The word fall seems too small to describe what
happened in that instant. It was like an atomic bomb, blowing everything to pieces.
Genesis 3:7-19 describes the consequences of sin: Man hides from God, and is afraid of
Him. He is ashamed of himself. People begin to fight among themselves. They suffer
pain and work with sweat. Death is inevitable. In one word, sin brought conflict: conflict
between man and God, between man and his neighbor, between man and nature, and
between man and his own heart.

2) But why did God make man with the freedom to obey or disobey? Its dangerous to
speculate about the divine purposes, when the Bible does not reveal them clearly.
However, the is enough teaching in the Bible about the nature of God to permit us to
suppose that He did not want the love and obedience of man in a forced way, but in a
voluntary way, from the heart. Possibly the first book of the Bible to be written, the story
of Job, supports this teaching. When Satan approached God, he insulted Him by saying
that Job served Him only because of the benefits he was receiving. This displeased the
Lord, and He allowed Satan to make him suffer in order to test him. (Job 1)

If there are not two options, to obey or disobey, to love or not love, then the love and
the obedience dont mean a lot. God wanted more than simply obligatory obedience.

99
I would like to extrapolate on this and walk through the big events in history, and
consider the possible options that were before God. I believe that if we take time to
imagine the important decisions He made, we can see at least come closer to seeing that
this was the best way. These answers help me. If they are not the best answers, then God
has even better answers! But keep in mind that we are on sacred ground. We are
speculating as to Gods own thought process. Therefore, my suggestions are only
tentative.

In a popular movie, a man becomes angry with God for not doing a very good job with
his life. God comes to him in the figure of a man, and turns the city over to him for a
while. Soon the man realizes that it is not so easy. He tries to answer everybodys prayer,
and ends up messing things up for others. For example, he allows everyone to win the
lottery, so they all win merely 25 cents. I would like for us to play the role of this man for
a moment, but reverently and seriously, and ask ourselves how we think God possibly
could have done things differently. This is only for the purpose of trying to look at things
from Gods perspective.

a. Creation of man
At creation, could God have made man in a way that he would not sin? Hypothetically,
yes, but apparently He didnt want to. Why? Well, what would he have been like? Maybe
like a machine, or maybe like a dumb animal with no capacity to reason and make moral
choices. As C. S. Lewis suggested, God could have made our brains in such a way that
they refused to work when we starting to have an evil thought, but this is not freedom. As
we have said before, Scriptures suggest that God wanted man to obey Him out of love
and loyalty, and not because it was unavoidable.

Now lets go a little further with this idea. People from the web site Losing my religion
challenge Christians with the question, Will there be free will in heaven? Of course the
Christians answer yes. Then they ask them how they know they wont sin and fall from
heaven, just like Satan fell. Nobody seems to answer this. However, I would suggest that
in heaven we will be at another level of sanctification, so that while we are in a sense free
to sin, our character will be strong enough, made like Jesus, that we will not sin.

Jonathan Edwards made the distinction between natural freedom and moral freedom.
(SEE JAMES BOICE). On the one hand, a good person who is chained up in a dungeon
and wants to bow down to the king has moral freedom, but not natural freedom. On the
other hand, an evil man who is not chained up but does not want to bow down to the king
has natural freedom but not moral freedom. That is, his character wont allow him to
do what is right.

I suggest that before the Fall, man had both natural freedom and moral freedom. After the
Fall, he has natural freedom, but not moral freedom. In heaven, we will have natural
freedom and moral freedom again, but the moral freedom will be limited by our
sanctified character. It will be impossible to sin in the same way that it is impossible
for God to sin or do anything else that contradicts His own character.

100
But if we agree to this, someone might ask if God couldnt have originally made man on
earth the way he will be for eternity in heaven, that is, with free will, but also with the
strength of character to resist temptation. The answer is again, hypothetically, yes, but
apparently He didnt want to. Why not? Apparently He wanted sanctification and
salvation to be a process, and not something simply handed out to man at creation.

Why do I think that? Several things point to it. First, the whole creation has been made to
function in time as a process. People are born as babies, and then grow up. Plants begin
as seeds, and then develop.

Secondly, think about the spiritual realm. My wife Angelica likes to ask difficult
questions about midnight just as I am falling asleep. Once she asked why we arent
immediately sanctified when we become a Christian. The best answer I could think of
was that for some reason, the Lord enjoys watching the process of our growth. I assume
that a Christian can only become the way he will finally be in heaven as the result of a
process of being saved, sanctified, and glorified. That is, he couldnt have just been
created that way. He would be missing some things that only come by learning. His fall
and salvation are necessary steps in becoming morally pure.

Thirdly, and I think this is one of the most important aspects of this argument, man is to
be identified with Jesus in the struggle against sin and Satan. If we are to be like Christ,
we must participate in a painful battle. There are several passages that speak of this
mystery. From the very moment after the Fall, God announces a struggle between Satan
along with his offspring (evil spirits) and the woman along with her offspring.

And I will put enmity

between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel. (Genesis 3:15)

Who is the offspring of the woman? Of course we know this refers to Christ, and this
verse is our first promise of the Messiah and his ultimate victory over Satan. But we cant
forget that it also refers to the line of descendants leading up to Christ, throughout
thousands of years. Jesus could not have been born without Seth, Noah, David, Solomon,
and the rest. As we read the Old Testament stories, we can sense the drama: What if
Noahs family doesnt survive the flood? What if Abrahams son is not born? What if
Isaac is killed? Any missing link would destroy the redemptive line to the Messiah, and
salvation is lost. Do you see how man is identified with Jesus? The seed of Eve is carried
throughout history to miraculously form part of his human-divine being.

Theologians usually emphasize the fact that Jesus had to identify Himself with man in
order to take our place on the cross.

101
 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by
his death he might destroy him who holds the power of deaththat is, the devil
and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For
surely it is not angels he helps, but Abrahams descendants. For this reason he
had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a
merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make
atonement for the sins of the people. (Hebrews 2:14-17)

But sometimes we forget that the opposite is also true: man had to be like Jesus. Which
came first? In Gods plan, He obviously didnt decide that Jesus would be like man, since
Jesus is the eternal second person of the Trinity. Therefore, we must conclude that God
decided that man would be like Jesus.

Now, part of Jesus character is to be the Savior. This was always an essential part of His
nature. His character did not suddenly change at some point in eternity, but He is the
same yesterday and today and forever (Hebrews 13:8). Jesus was always meant to throw
Himself into the battle ring with the enemy and fight to the death. Therefore, man must
also be a warrior. He must struggle against sin and Satan. Of course, man cant be the
redeemer because he has been corrupted by sin. The point is rather that he must go
through the process. If he is to be like Jesus, he cant just be created pure and leave it at
that.

Mysteriously, even Jesus as a human had to learn obedience.

Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered.

(Hebrews 5:8)

This doesnt mean that He ever sinned, but that He just naturally had to grow in wisdom
and stature (Luke 2:52) as a human. Therefore, if Jesus had to go through a process, then
man should too. Paul expresses the fact that Jesus sufferings flow over into our lives (2
Corinthians 1:5), pointing again to mans identity with Christ in the struggle.

This points to an even deeper answer to the problem of evil. If part of Jesus eternal
nature was to be the Savior, then the problem of evil had to occur. Otherwise, Jesus
would not be able to be Jesus. The whole history of the Fall and redemption was
necessary for Him to realize His identity of the suffering and victorious Savior.

b. The Fall of man

Now think about the Fall. After man used his free will to rebel against his creator, why
did God have to carry out the punishment, letting creation get so messed up, and allowing
man to become so corrupt? Was it really necessary? Hypothetically, He could have just
passed over this incident. But He would have violated His own character and His own
justice. God is holy, and because of who He is, He had to punish sin and separate sin
from Himself.

102
Another option would have been to just destroy everything right away and get it over
with. But this would have violated His mercy. Nobody would have been saved. Not
Adam and Eve, nor all the others that were to be born during the following millenniums.
Furthermore, it would have skipped the process of struggle discussed above, and man
would not be like Christ. The best option was to carry out justice, but to pour it out on
His own Son, Jesus, thereby providing salvation to His people.

c. The victory of Jesus

How about after Jesus had already gone to the cross and conquered sin, Satan, and death?
Why doesnt God put an end to evil now? Why doesnt Jesus come back now and
establish the final form of His eternal kingdom? Here we do have a pretty clear answer in
Scripture. We are told that He is patiently waiting for more people to believe and be
saved.

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is
patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to
repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

If a non believer challenges us with this question, we can assure him that he would not
really want God to put an end to all evil right now, because that would leave him with no
opportunity for salvation!

d. The creation of the spirit world

Someone might push us back another step further yet, and ask why God allowed Satan to
fall? Scripture indicates that Satan was an angel who rebelled and fell (Isaiah 14:12,
Revelation 12:9). We can only assume that the demons are other spirits of fallen angels.
Our answers are basically the same as we have given regarding man. Although the Bible
doesnt speak to the issue, in fact it says little about the origin and fall of Satan, Gods
character was the same before creation, and therefore we must conclude that He did not
want the spirits to worship him in a forced, inevitable, or mechanical way either. Why
didnt God destroy him immediately? Again, He had a plan to make a human people of
His own and redeem them. This would not have occurred if He had ended things
immediately.

3) It is absolutely crucial to keep in mind that God turns everything into good. Romans 8
explains this clearly. Paul shows that Gods purpose is for us to become like His Son
Jesus Christ. He does not promise material prosperity, nor relief from suffering, but
spiritual blessing. All of our experiences help us grow spiritually.

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him,
who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also
predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the
firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he
called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (Romans 8:28-30)

The argument is that, if God gave His own Son for us, there is no limit to what He will do
for us!

103
 What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against
us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all--how will he
not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? (Romans 8:31-32)

Paul concludes the chapter stating emphatically and poetically that there is nobody and
nothing that can separate us from Gods love.
The cross of Christ is the best example. While Satan meant to destroy Jesus, and
so did the people who crucified him, God meant this to happen in order to save us. It is
both the most horrible thing and the most wonderful thing that ever happened. As
Augustin said, God would not permit any evil that He cannot turn into good.
This principal can be applied to all of life and all of history, not just to the
spiritual blessing of Christians. God has a wonderful purpose for everything, and He will
carry out His perfect plan.
It is unfair to point the finger at God and blame Him for evil in the world, when it
is really mans fault, and when God has done nothing but work to solve the problem since
the beginning of history. He has held nothing back to conquer evil, even His own Son.

4) At this point, we need to explain how we understand the sovereignty of God and the
freedom of man. These are two clear teachings of Scripture, but to harmonize providence
and freedom escapes the logic of the human mind. There are two perspectives to all the
events of human history. Its like looking first from a long distance through a telescope,
then looking up close through a microscope.
From one perspective, God plans for everything to take place according to His
plan. This is like looking through a telescope from far away. This is the big picture. God
lives beyond time and space, so for Him, all of earths history is like a moment within
eternity.

2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand
years, and a thousand years are like a day.

From another perspective, man makes use of his own will to make decisions, and
each decision changes the course of history. Man lives inserted in time and space, living
each moment at a time. This is like looking at things from close up, through a
microscope, looking at the details.
On the one hand, if the Lord did not show us the larger perspective, the only
perspective we would observe would be the small one. As a result, this would diminish
the grandeur of God, and we would have less trust in Him. On the other hand, if the Lord
did not shows us the smaller perspective, we would possible fall into a passive fatalism.
God has shown us both the big picture and the smaller picture, so that we give Him the
glory and so that we act responsibly.
Prayer is a truly mysterious exercise where we show that we believe both of these
apparently irreconcilable truths. In prayer we practice both Gods sovereignty and mans
responsibility. On the one hand, prayer shows we trust God as sovereign. If he did not
control everything, how could we trust him to answer our prayer? On the other hand,

104
prayer shows we believe that our participation is somehow an important part of the
development of Gods plan. We wouldnt pray at all if we thought it didnt make any
difference.
Man, with his limited mind, cannot comprehend exactly how these two
perspectives can be harmonized. Nevertheless, both truths are inescapable, and in the
infinite mind of God, they are harmonized.
The fact that we are not able to understand something should not keep us from
believing that it is true. We accept many things that we dont understand. We seem to
accept light perfectly well, without really understanding it, knowing that it somehow has
both properties of wave and particle. We accept the emotional aspects of man, without
understanding how they really work. We accept the fact that the universe has no end; we
cant really grasp infinity, but know that it cant be any other way.
When I was a child, we would travel twenty miles from Dodge City to Minneola,
Kansas, to go to church twice every Sunday, once in the morning and once at night. On
the way back at night I liked to lean my head back and look at the multitude of bright
stars through the back window. I can remember the moment when I realized that space
had no roof on it! I was trying to imagine as far out as possible, wondering what it would
be like. First, I imagined a wall, like a huge roof, but I immediately realized that it
couldnt be like that. I thought to myself, If theres a wall, then something must be on
the other side of the wall, and there would be more space over there, so it must just go on
and on! My head almost exploded with the thought! I sat there thinking about the size of
the universe, realizing that it had no end, but still unable to really grasp the concept.
We accept many doctrines that we dont really understand. We believe in the
Trinity, but we cant really comprehend how God could be one God and three persons at
the same time. We believe Jesus was both human and divine, but we cant understand it.
All miracles escape our human reasoning. In a sense, there are dimensions of truth that
defy us even in the simplest things we believe. As John Frame says, Even for 2 + 2 = 4,
we can say that God knows depths of meaning that we do not know. 146 This doesnt
mean we cant know anything, or that we dont speak the truth when we say 2+2=4, but
only that we dont fully understand it in the same way that God does. Francis Schaeffer
made a helpful distinction between knowing something truly and knowing it
exhaustively. 147
In the same way, we know that God is controlling everything that occurs, and we
know that we are free to make decisions, without seeing how they fit together. On the one
hand, if God doesnt control everything, He wouldnt be God. We cant completely
understand providence, but we know its true, because we cant believe its NOT true! On
the other hand, if man didnt make decisions, he wouldnt be man! Again, we cant
completely understand freedom in a world governed by a sovereign God, but we know
we have it. Our very thoughts would mean nothing if we werent free. We cant believe
its NOT true!

Isaiah 55:8

146
John Frame, Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing, 1987) p.
34.
147
Francis A. Schaeffer, The God Who is There (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p.
119.

105
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the
LORD.

Romans 11:33-36
Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his
judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or
who has been his counselor?" "Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?"
For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever!
Amen.

Think of an example: If I hold a pen in my hand, I can decide to drop it or not. I

dont stand paralyzed, wondering, Has God predestined for me to drop this pen? I
simply decide it, and I drop it (unless God intervenes in some special way). After I drop
it, I can recognize the fact that God had planned for me to do it. Thats the way
everything is; God plans it, but we still live out each experience in the successive
moments of time, making decisions.
Someone has said that the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man are
like two train rails going toward heaven; it seems to us like they will never meet, but
when the get to heaven, where God understands everything, they come together.

5) The concept of time

I believe that the concept of time helps us accept the two-sided mystery of
providence and freedom, as well as the problem of evil. Maybe not comprehend it, but
accept it. Have you ever thought about the relativity of time? When you see a falling star,
when did that star burn out? From your perspective, it just occurred, but if the star is three
light years away, then you could also say it happened three years ago. From the
perspective of a star three light years away, what you are doing now will not happen for
three years. Maybe this doesnt impress you, but lets go farther away. Lets go to
millions or billions of light years away. When did the events occur there? It all depends
on your vantage point.
Things get more complicated when we learn, thanks to Einstein, that time and
speed and mass are all interdependent. When an astronaut leaves the earth going very
fast, time slows down for him. With the theory of relativity, Newtons laws such as
distance = rate times time were found to be practical, but not exact.
Einstein said, The past, present and future are only illusions, even if stubborn
ones. 148 Scientists are now recognizing that time is a package. Paul Davies, Australian
physicist, says,

The most straightforward conclusion is that both past and future are fixed. For this
reason, physicists prefer to think of time as laid out in its entiretya timescape,
analogous to a landscapewith all past and future events located there together. It
is a notion sometimes referred to as block time. Completely absent from this
description of nature is anything that singles out a privileged special moment as
the present or any process that would systematically turn future events into

148
Quoted in Paul Davies, That Mysterious Flow, Scientific American, September, 2002, p. 41.

106
 present, then past, events. In short, the time of the physicist does not pass or flow.
149

Wow! This makes a lot of sense, especially when we include God in the picture. He is the
only one that understands time and space, and can see how it all fits together, past,
present, and future. For man, time is relative, but God is the final reference point for
everything. This gives new meaning to the verse we quoted above:

2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand
years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Have you ever seen read a science fiction book or seen a movie about going
backward in time? When they go back, people can change their decisions, but somehow
the events always turn into the same future. They have to, or else the starting context of
the movie would change and they would self-destruct! For example, in Back to the
Future, the young man portrayed by Michael Fox goes back in time and watches his
parents fall in love. If something changes to keep them from falling in love, he wont
exist!
This points to the profound truth that, just like the whole material universe is
interdependent, so are all the moments of history. The solar system wont hold together
unless all the pieces function properly together with the right force of gravity and the
exact speeds. Each atom is also like a tiny universe in which each piece fits together
perfectly. The human body, the plant world, the seas and the animals all work together
with exact precision to function properly. If you take away the insects, then some of the
animals die. If the eyeball has no retina, you cant see. In a similar way, all time is
interconnected, and only God sees the whole picture. You cant take out anything without
destroying the final outcome.
At the risk of being misunderstood, for God, watching history must be somewhat
like watching a movie that goes back in time. He already knows how it will turn out. In
fact, He is the one that made the movie! When we live out the moments of that history,
we actually exercise our natural freedom, but we cannot change the course of events. I
cant think of a better way to express this than the pithy proverb:

Proverbs 16:9
In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.

Fortunately, we dont have to understand this all in order to live our lives for Gods glory.
We are only required to trust Him, do what He says, and leave the consequences up to
Him.

Deuteronomy 29:29
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and
to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.

149
Paul Davies, That Mysterious Flow, p. 42.

107
6) It also helps me to remember that in everything that happens to us there are multiple
actors: God, Satan, ourselves, and other people, each with his or her own intentions. The
Lord is always working for our good, and Satan is always working for our harm. All
problems originated in the Garden of Eden, caused by sin, and since then, there has been
a cosmic war between good and evil, between God and Satan. God is governing all of
history to eliminate evil, bring salvation, and restore harmony, but Satan is fighting in
every moment to destroy Gods purposes. He seeks only to harm us in every event in our
lives, and is constantly tempting us. He senses a perverse pleasure in our pain and in our
failure. 1 Peter 5:8 says he is

...prowling around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.

Paul says,
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the
authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces
of evil in the heavenly realms. (Ephesians 6:12)

Other people are also involved in the events of our lives. As opposed to God who only
desires good, and as opposed to Satan who only desires evil, people have mixture of
motives, both good and bad.
Therefore, when we ask, Who caused this sickness?, we have to be careful.
Sometimes, we give an insensitive answer and simply attribute it to God. Others may
leave God out of the picture and just blame Satan. But the Bible gives us a more complex
answer. God means it for good, but Satan means it for harm.

7) We need to be careful about explaining natural disasters, too. I prefer to explain that
natural disasters are a consequence of the Fall. We must distinguish between a deistic
view of the universe, an Islamic fatalistic view, and the Christian view. We do not believe
that God simply wound up the universe and let it go. But neither do we believe that God
is in every moment moving everything personally and miraculously. This is the Islamic
view. Let me be careful here. Please dont misunderstand me. I am in no way denying the
complete sovereignty of God and his control over all things. But the Bible teaches that
God set many things into motion to follow patterns of physical laws. God speaks to Job
about the laws of the heavens (Job 38:33). He placed the planets in their orbits,
established the law of gravity, the characteristics of plant and animal growth, and the
patterns of weather.

When I consider your heavens,

the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place... (Psalm 8:3)

According to Proverbs, God greatly enjoyed making things, and His creative wisdom
planned an orderly universe. This is why scientists marvel at the wonder of nature and
this is why many things are normally very predictable.

108
 I was there when he set the heavens in place,
when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
when he established the clouds above
and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
when he gave the sea its boundary
so the waters would not overstep his command,
and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
Then I was the craftsman at his side.
I was filled with delight day after day,
rejoicing always in his presence,
rejoicing in his whole world
and delighting in mankind. (Proverbs 8:27-31)

Of course God can change the pattern of his creation in any moment and interrupt the
normal patterns. This is considered a miracle. He can stop time, calm the storms, hold
back the oceans, and send fire to burn entire cities. But He usually lets things follow their
course. If a man walks off the roof of a ten-story building, I prefer to attribute his fall to
gravity, and not imagine that God literally grabs him and pulls him to the earth.

Theologians make a distinction between Gods direct providence and His use of second
causes or means. Weather, for example, normally follows the means of the physical
patterns put into place at creation.

God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work without,
above, and against them, at His pleasure. (Westminster Confession of Faith,
chapter V on Providence, section 3).

When hurricane Katrina hit, Christians began to speculate about why God allowed this.
Some have even suggested that this was punishment upon the sinful city that celebrates
the Mardi Gras. But we have to be very careful. It is not our place to judge the people of
New Orleans. Why would God punish New Orleans instead of Rio de Janeiro where they
go crazy at the Carnival? Are we going to say God is punishing Mexico with earthquakes
or blessing the Japanese Buddhists by blessing their economy? Was God punishing Job?
When the disciples asked Jesus who had sinned, the blind man or his parents, Jesus
answered, Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the work
of God might be displayed in his life. (John 9:3)

Bad weather is fundamentally caused by the corrupting effects of the Fall. Paul says the
whole creation is groaning as it waits to be renewed and repaired. (Romans 8:22) Of
course, we can still ask why God didnt stop the hurricane, or why He didnt turn it away
from New Orleans. But at least, we have a clearer picture of how things are operating.

It is not our place to speculate about why God allowed or caused any particular thing,
unless He Himself chooses to tell us. Isnt that really the lesson from Job? At the end of
the book, God grants him the request for an interview, but doesnt really answer his
question. Instead, he drills Job with many questions that he cant answer:

109
 Where were you when I laid the earths foundation?
What is the way to the abode of light?
Do you know the laws of the heavens?
Do you know when the mountain goats give birth? (Job 28:4, 19, 33; 39:1)

8) God doesnt always explain the purpose of any particular suffering, but we must trust
Him that He has a good purpose in it. Thats the lesson we learn from the book of Job.
Job was a righteous man, but God allowed Satan to afflict him, as a test of his
faithfulness. He lost his possessions, his family, and his health. Jobs friends tried to
convince him that he had done something especially bad in order to deserve his tragedy.
However, Job knew that wasnt the case, and he questioned why it had happened. He
wanted the Lord to explain things to him. If we analyze it a little, we can understand why
God didnt want to tell him the reason he was suffering, precisely because it was a test.
Suppose that God had told him, Hang in there! Im trying to prove to Satan that you
serve me because you love me, not because I have blessed you with prosperity! It would
have made things easier for Job, but it would have made the test invalid.
The Lord appears to Job at the end of the book (Job 38-41), but He doesnt
exactly answer Jobs question, as he wanted. Instead, He asks Job some questions about
nature. Where were you when I laid the foundations of the world? (38:4). Do you know
where light comes from? (38:19). Have you seen the ostrich, so stupid that she hides her
egges in the sand, but when she runs, not even the horse can keep up with her? (39.13-18)
What does the Lord mean with all these questions? He wants to put Job in his place and
reorient the discussion. There are many things you dont understand, so why are you so
surprised that you dont understand this suffering? Job needed to accept the fact that God
was both good and just, even though he didnt comprehend his purposes. God was asking
that he simply trust in Him. In other words, Job had to believe that God was both all-
powerful and good at the same time.

9) Even though God doesnt explain the purpose of every trial in particular, He has
explained in general some of the blessings He brings out of suffering. We can assume that
when we hurt, it is probably for one of the following purposes:

a. It produces spiritual growth.

Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering
produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.
(Romans 5:3-4)

Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds,
because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance.
Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not
lacking anything.
(James 1:2-4)

2. It helps us understand and comfort others.

110
 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of
compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so
that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have
received from God. For just as the sufferings of Christ flow over into our lives, so
also through Christ our comfort overflows. (2 Corinthians 1:3-5)

3. It might be a test (like the case of Job)

In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to
suffer grief in all kinds of trials. These have come so that your faithof greater
worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by firemay be proved
genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.
(1 Peter 1:6-7)

4. Sometimes it is loving discipline.

In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding
your blood. And you have forgotten that word of encouragement that addresses
you as sons: My son, do not make light of the Lords discipline, and do not lose
heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he
punishes everyone he accepts as a son. Endure hardship as discipline; God is
treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? If you are not
disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children
and not true sons. (Hebrews 12:4-8)

10) How then should we react to suffering?

The story of Josephy in Genesis illustrates how we should react to suffering,
taking into account both the nature of sin and the sovereignty of God. His brothers had
betrayed him, selling him as a slave. Nevertheless, God has used Joseph in Egypt to store
up wheat in order to save lives during the famine. When he reveals his identity to his
brothers, he doesnt simply dismiss their sin, but neither does he forget Gods sovereign
purpose. He says,

You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now
being done, the saving of many lives. (Genesis 50:20)

Joni Erickson 150 would like to be healed, and has no problem in saying that she
has been disappointed many times, expecting God to heal her. But she has also learned to
accept her condition and recognizes that the Lord has used it for many positive purposes.
I just watched a documentary on television last night about a man who was born
with no skin. His life has been one of continual pain and frustration. His arms and legs
are bandaged, he rides in a wheel chair, and can barely put on a cap. When they change
his bandages, he bows his head and weeps quietly. Yet his attitude was so positive that it
made me feel like a whining baby. He says that we are all put on earth to learn something,
150
Joni Erickson, Joni (xxxxx) and One Step Further.

111
and that he was called to learn to be patient, to bear pain, and to put up with frustration.
He looked forward to his own funeral with such joy that he was planning it for months.
When I had my wisdom teeth taken out, I remember that as the doctor was
chipping away, digging and pulling, I kept thinking, This is going to be over with soon.
I also thought, Many other people have made it through this.
Again, the best example of our attitude in suffering is Jesus. While He did not
gleefully look forward to the cross, He did endure the cross in anticipation of the joy
set before Him. (Hebrews 12:2).

11) At some point in our conversation about the problem of evil, we should bring up the
problem of good. Whereas the non Christians challenge us to explain the existence of
evil within our scheme, we can also challenge them to explain the presence of good in
their scheme. In other words, if everything just happens to exist by chance or as a result
of an impersonal process, then where does love come from, or joy?

12) Ultimately, we know that God does all things for His own glory, and that is really all
we need to know.
E xpose his presuppositions.

There are a lot of erroneous assumptions made by non Christians when they challenge us
with the problem of evil. For example, Einstein undertood the Christian view of Gods
providence to be more like the deterministic Islamic view. Thus mans free will is not
considered. 151 Others assume that evil is actually a part of the creation.

But there are some deeper presuppositions that we might not normally consider. For
example, the non Christian is assuming that he has a right to judge God. He is also
assuming that we should be able to understand everything. He thinks if the Christian
cannot give a completely satisfactory answer to just one question, then our whole belief
system is destroyed. However, within our worldview, we have no problem in recognizing
that we dont have completely satisfactory answers for everything. We can offer some
pretty good answers, but as limited humans, we can never see the complete picture. I
would say again that the partial answers we have given leave me satisfied, and if they are
not quite in focus, then God has even better answers!
N avigate through his inconsistencies.

We cant really go over to the non Christian circle and accept his postulates. However, we
can reason with him to show that if we assume his presuppositions are true, it will lead to
disastrous contradictions. For example, if he holds to a monistic view of the world, he
loses all rights to make a moral judgment on God or on anybody else, because morality
doesnt exist. He even loses the credibility of his own thoughts.

Furthermore, we can challenge him to explain the existence of evil within his own system
of thought. If evolution is true, where did evil come from? If Hegel is right, how can he
explain immorality and tragedy? How could the Geist possibly turn against itself? It
151
Charles Colson, How Now Shall We Live? (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1999), p. 207.

112
would be like a plant strangling itself to death! Dualism postulates that good and evil
have always existed in parallel. The problem with this is that it really erases the
distinction between good and evil. If there is no God, and if these two tendencies are
eternal, what makes one tendency better than the other? Thats why the eastern religions
picture the black and the white within the same circle; if they are both eternal, then they
are really one. No other system can even come close to explaining the problem of evil,
and certainly no other system offers a solution to evil.

D irect him to Christ.

All theology comes back to Christ. The real explanation of evil must focus on
Him. From all eternity, Jesus has been a Savior, and in a sense, the Fall and redemption
had to occur for Him to live out His own character. Herein lies a great mystery. But this is
not just a divine game. Jesus was willing to suffer the cross, the condemnation, and the
wrath of the Father in order to save us. He is the solution to the problem of evil.
One of the best sermons I ever heard was at the Urbana Conference of
Intervarsity. Dr. Edmund Clowney spoke about human suffering and despair. He led us
through the history of suffering and existencialist anxiety, and after every point groaned,
Why? By the time he was nearing the end of the sermon we were all ready to weep,
and were sitting on the edge of our seats waiting for him to answer the question, Why?
Then he gently turned us to Jesus. He said, Take your whys to Jesus, leave them at the
foot of the cross, and listen to him ask why? My God, my God, why have you forsaken
me? Jesus understands our struggles and has suffered in our place to relieve our pain. Let
him ask the question for you. Believe me, if I had not been a Christian, I would have
become one at that moment!

113
REVIEW of APOLOGETICS

1.

Name the Greek philosophers studied in this course and give a brief
description of the main concepts of each. Include the final phase.

1. Thales All is water.

2. Heraclitus Everything changes.
You cannot step twice into the same river.
3. Gorgias Knowledge and communication are impossible.
4. Socrates I only know that I know nothing.
5. Plato Ideas are the real existence.
You know by remembering, by mystical
experience. (The cave.)
6. Aristotle Matter is the real existence.
You know by using logic and intuition.
Ethics Stoics Submit to destiny (Desire the inevitable).
Epicureans Eliminate passions (especially fear).

114
2.

Name the Medieval philosophers studied in this course

and give a brief description of the key concepts of each.

1. Augustine I believe in order to understand.

2. Anselm Explained the atonement.

3. Aquinas Arguments for the existence of God.

Divided faith and reason.

115
3.

Name the eight modern philosophers studied in this course

and give a brief description of the key concepts of each. Include
New Age.

Rationalism. Discard whatever you

1. Descartes can doubt. Cogito ergo sum.

2. Locke Empiricism. Knowledge is by observation.

The mind is a tabula rasa.

3. Hume Skepticism

4. Kant You cant observe an object without passing

it through your own mental filter.
Divides realms of noumenons and phenomenons.

116
 Dialectic Idealism. No real contradictions.
5. Hegel The Geist guides process.

6. Kierkegaard Leap of faith. Freedom.

7. Marx Dialectic Materialism. Communism.

8. Nietzsche God is dead. Life has no meaning.

Super-man ethics.

New Age East meets West. Pantheism.

Man must realize he is God.

117
Briefly describe the line of uncertainty in the history of philosophy. Make a line with
the names of Greek philosophers and another line with modern philosophers.

118
 4. Explain the difference between the non-believers objective view of truth and the
subjective view of truth. Mention the consequences. Contrast these with the
Christian view of truth.

Objective:

Thinks there are truths outside his mind that he can observe and process in his own mind.
Result: Leaves uncertain, because he needs to know everything to be sure of something,
and he knows he doesnt know everything.

* Is there a star a million light years north of the north pole?

119
Subjective

Thinks truth is in his own mind.

Result: Inconsistency. Cant live with pretension to be source of truth.

Biblical concept of knowing the truth. There are two kinds of being: God and His
creation. He knows all and reveals some truth to us. He promises that we can know the
truth.

Explain how Romans 1 and 2 help us with apologetics.

Shows that he knows God is there.

Shows that he has law of God on his heart.

120
 5. Name the apologists studied in this course and give a brief description of their
approach or their contribution.

Norman Geisler
Classical approach.
Apologetics based on reason.
Good arguments for problem of evil, difficulties in Bible, archeology, evolution.

/ The Norm is reason.

C. S. Lewis
Miracles: Shows self contradiction in closed universe why trust thoughts?
Surprised by joy points to God

/ C Contradiction
S Surprised by joy

Francis Schaeffer
Based on image of God in man.
Shows line of despair in all areas: philosophy, art, music, general culture, theology
Shows Christianity as unified system of absolute truth that we can live with.
* Torn book

/ With a Schaeffer pen, he draws the line of despair

Cornelius Van Til

Presuppositional method.
Exposes unbelievers problem of pretended autonomy.
Shows need to base arguments on Word of God, not compromise position.
Final authority must be Scriptures.
Point of contact in knowledge of God and Law (Romans 1,2)

/ He drives a Van til he comes to the end of the road at the presuppositions.

Richard Pratt
(Van Til perspective)
Proverbs 26:4,5
Should admit our dependence, show problems with independence.
If sure Christianity wrong, show that he cant be sure.
If not sure of anything, show cant be sure Christianity is wrong.

/ We are Rich in truth only when we depend on God.

John Frame
(Modified Van Til perspective)
Apologetics as proof, defense, and offense.
Ok to use evidence, but make sure based ultimately on Scripture.
Emphasizes morality as argument for existence of God. Points to personal absolute.
For problem of evil, avoids free will argument. Prefers to emphasize biblical focus on
fact that God is solving the problem in history, has a purpose, ultimately for His glory.

/ Gives us a biblical Framework for apologetics.

121
Describe the suggested TASC apologetic method.

T Testify.

Give your testimony. Share the gospel.

(Find the area of need, apply the gospel to it.)

A Answer questions.
Do the best you can to answer.
Dont feel like you have to answer everything, or satisfy him/her completely.

Use everything you can!

History, reason, archeology, but especially the Bible.

BUT.. Do not leave your Christian ground.

DO NOT accept his presuppositions, trying to argue him back.
DO NOT approve of his pretended autonomy.

S Show inconsistencies of the non-Christian view.

Ask what he believes and why? until he comes to his basic beliefs that he cannot defend.

Help him see that he cannot defend his own views without contradicting himself.
(For example, If closed impersonal universe What do thoughts mean?)

Appeal to his innate sense of God and of the law of God. (Romans 1, 2)

Challenge him to think of the consequences of his views:

C Come back to Christ.

Always come back to Christ

Where did all the problems come from?

Creation, Fall, Christ

What can you do about guilt?

Know what the real problem is? Trying to be independent of God?

Need forgiveness, new heart, new mind!

Should leave them looking at Christ. This is the way the Holy Spirit works in their hearts
to bring them to conversion.

122
 Final Exam, Apologetics
MINTS
May 10, 2004
Richard Ramsay

1. Name the Greek philosophers studied in this course and give a brief description of the
main concepts of each. Include the final phase.

2. Name the Medieval philosophers studied in this course and give a brief description of the
main concepts of each.

3. Name the eight modern philosophers studied in this course and give a brief description of
the main concepts of each. Include New Age.

4. Briefly describe the line of uncertainty in the history of philosophy. Make a line with the
names of Greek philosophers and another line with modern philosophers.

5. Explain the difference between the non-believers objective view of truth and the
subjective view of truth. Mention the consequences. Contrast these with the Christian
view of truth.

6. Explain how Romans 1 and 2 help us with apologetics.

7. Name the apologists studied in this course and give a brief description of their approach
or their contribution.

8. Describe the suggested TASC apologetic method.

123
Study Guide

Course description
This course introduces the student to the basic principles of Christian apologetics, with an
emphasis on epistemology and the methods of Francis Schaeffer, Norman Geisler, and
John Frame. The student becomes familiar with the philosophical inconsistencies of the
non-believer, and with a variety of approaches in defending the gospel.

Goal
The student will be confident and able to dialogue with the most educated and intelligent
person in the world about the gospel.

Objectives
1) The student will be able to express in his own words both the weakness of the
non-Christian position, and the strength of the Christian position with regard to
epistemology.
2) The student will be able to explain the apologetic methods of Francis Schaeffer,
Norman Geisler, and John Frame, as well as one other apologist of his or her
choice.
3) The student will demonstrate the ability to dialogue with non-believers in a way
that is consistent with his or her Christian convictions, making use of the lessons
learned during the course.

Main texts
Francis Schaeffer, The God Who is There.
Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1998 (214 pages)
Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996. (348 pages)
John Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God.
Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1994 (247 pages)

TOTAL: 809 pages

Assignments

3) Read the main texts. Prepare your own review questions (4-8) on each
chapter, as if you were preparing a study guide, and write your answers.
Note: Masters level students must report on all three main texts, but students
taking the course for Bachelors credit only need to prepare and answer review
questions on one of them (choose any of the three).

124
 2) Additional reading of 200 pages. Give an oral report (5 minutes). Choose from
the list of suggested reading below, or consult teacher about other options.

4) Written project (10-15 pages Masters level, 8-10 Bachelors). Choose from the
following topics:
a) Comparison of methods. Compare the apologetic approaches of
Schaeffer, Geisler, Frame, and ________ (author of book chosen for
additional reading). Which do you prefer? Why?
b) Apologetic dialogue. Suppose that you have a friend who believes in
evolution, New Age, Buddhism, or _________. Write out an
imaginary dialogue, showing how you would try to explain and defend
the Christian faith to him or her. Apply what you have learned about
apologetics in the course.
c) Apologetic treatise. Choose an opposing world view or religion and
write a treatise to explain and defend Christianity over and against this
view. You could write this in the form of an evangelistic tract or
booklet. Apply what you have learned in the course.
d) Web site or program. Choose an opposing world view or religion and
make a web site or interactive program to explain and defend
Christianity over and against this view. Be creative. Apply what you
have learned in the course.

4) Final exam. The exam will be based on the main texts and on the class content.

Grade
20% Reading of main texts and answers to review questions
10% Additional reading and oral report
40% Written project
30% Final exam

Course outline
Introduction
I. Why do we need apologetics?
II. X-ray of the non-believer
A. Brief history of western philosophy
1. Greeks
2. Medieval
3. Modern
4. Summary of popular current world views (Sire, Universe Next Door)
B. Conclusions about man
1. From the history of philosophy
2. From biblical passages
3. Why other world views self-destruct
III. Apologists

125
 A. Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks
B. Josh McDowell
C. C.S. Lewis
D. Francis Schaeffer
E. Cornelius VanTil
IV. Developing an apologetic approach

126
Bibliography:

Bahnsen, Greg, Van Tils Apologetic. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing.

Blank, Rodolfo,Teologa y misin en Amrica Latina. St. Luis, Missouri: Concordia,

1996.

Bonino, Jos Mguez, La fe en busca de eficacia. Salamanca: Ediciones Sgueme, 1977.

________, New Trends in Theology, Duke Divinity School Review 42 (Fall, 1997).

Brown, Colin, Philosophy and the Christian Faith. Downers Grove: IVP, 1969.

Chesterton, G. K., The Everlasting Man. San Fancisco: Ignatius Press, 1993.

Clark, Gordon, Thales to Dewey. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1957.

Copplestone, Frederick, A History of Philosophy, 9 volumes. Garden City, NY:

Doubleday, 1962.

Cowan, Steven, ed. Five Views on Apologetics (Includes articles by Stanley N. Gundry ,
William Lane Craig , Paul D. Feinberg , Kelly James Clark , John Frame , and Gary
Habermas). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000.

Cruz, Antonio, La Ciencia Encuentra a Dios? [Does Science Find God?] (Barcelona:
CLIE, 2004.
________, El cristiano en la aldea global. Barcelona: CLIE, 2004.
________, Darwin no mat a Dios. Miami: Vida, 2005.
________, Postmodernidad. Barcelona: CLIE, 1996.
________, Sociologa; una desmitificacin. Barcelona: CLIE, 2001.

Frame, John, Apologetics to the Glory of God; an Introduction. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R
Publishing, 1994.
________, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R
Publishing, 1987.
________, Van Til; an Analysis of His Thought. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R
Publishing.

Geisler, Norman. Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House,
1976.
_________, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker
Books; 1999.
________, and Brooks, Ron, When Skeptics Ask. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990

Giannini, Humberto, Esbozo para una Historia de la Filosofa. Santiago, Chile, 1981.

Groothuis, Douglas R., Unmasking the New Age. Downers Grove: IVP, 1986.

127
________, Truth Decay. Downers Grove: IVP, 2000.

Jones, Peter, The Gnostic Empire Strikes Back. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R.

Kant, Emmanuel, Crtica de la razn pura. Buenos Aires: Losada, 1979.

Kreeft, Peter, and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Downers

Grove: IVP, 1994.

Lewis, C.S., Mere Christianity. New York. Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc. 1960.
_________, Miracles. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1968.
________, The Problem of Pain. New York: Simon & Schuster. 1996.
________, Know Why You Believe. Downers Grove, IL: InverVarsity Press, 2000.

McDowell, Josh. Evidence that demands a Verdict. San Bernardino, CA. Here's Life
Publishers, Inc. 1979
___________, More Evidence that demands a Verdict. San Bernardino, CA. Here's Life
Publishers, Inc. 1981
________, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999.

McDowell, Josh & Stewart, Don. Answers to Tough Questions skeptics ask about the
Christian Faith. San Bernardino, CA. Here's Life Publishers, Inc. 1983.

Miller, Elliot, A Crash Course on the New Age Movement. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989.

Pinnock, Clark, Set Forth Your Case. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1967.

Pratt, Richard. Every Thought Captive. Phillipsburg: P&R.

Rookmaaker, H. R., Modern Art and the Death of a Culture. Downers Grove, Illinois:
Inter-Varsity Press, Chicago, 1970.

Schaeffer, Francis, He is There and He is Not Silent. Wheaton: Tyndale, 1980.

________, The God Who is There. Downers Grove: IVP, 1968.

Sire, James, Universe Next Door; a Basic World View Catalogue. Downers Grove, IL:
InverVarsity Press, 1997.
________, Why Should Anyone Believe Anything at All? Downers Grove, IL: InverVarsity
Press, 1994.

Sproul, R.C., Arthur Lindsley, and John Gerstner.,Classical Apologetics. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1984.

Thilly, Frank, and Ledger Wood, A History of Philosophy. New York: Henry Holt and
Co., 1959.

128
Van Til, Cornelius. Christian Apologetics. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing, Co. 1976.
_______, The Defense of the Faith. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., 1979.

129