Apologetics 7 - The Bible is True

Last post, reasons were discussed for believing that the Bible is authentic. Now, the claims of the authors need to be investigated to determine if they are reliable witnesses or not. This can be done in the same way our legal system judges witness testimony, which is shown in the diagram above, with four separate tests.

The Ability Test
The ability to present the truth necessitates one’s being near the chronology of the event themselves. Were they even there? Does the account display internal contradictions or factual errors? Is there evidence of dishonesty or reason to doubt the integrity of the authors themselves? Are there historical anachronisms? Were they being forced to lie?

The Corroboration Test

Can certain people, places, events be individually verified?  Is there archeological evidence for or against anything in the Bible? There is extensive documentation on this, which I could not even begin to reproduce here, but I will just make the assertion here that the answer is there is corroboration for some things and there is no evidence to the contrary for anything. Two good websites on apologetics for creation are Answers in Genesis and the Society of Creation.

The Accuracy Test

Did there story change over time?

Did others have a reason to want to discredit the accuracy of the account?

Is there a record of accusations of falsehood on the part of the authors?

Was there opportunity for opposing facts to be presented?

The Bias and Cover-Up Test

Do the authors have something to gain by giving a particular account? The usual motives are money, power/control, or sex.

No, they were actually persecuted and martyred.

Do the authors avoid presenting embarrassing details?

Peter’s denial, who is the greatest, doubting Thomas, etc…

The entire Bible hinges on the resurrection of Jesus. Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler wrote ten things about the Biblical account of the resurrection that just don't make sense if the Gospel were faked in their essay "If I had Faked the Resurrection..." And yet none of those things were done. They are:

1. I would wait a prudent period after the events before "publishing" my account
2. I would "publish" my account far away from the venue where it supposedly happened
3. I would select my witnesses very carefully
4. I would surround the event with impressive supernatural displays and omens
5. I would painstakingly correlate my account with others
6. I would portray myself (and any co-conspirators) sympathetically, even heroically
7. I would disguise the location of the tomb or spectacularly destroy it in my account
8. I would try to squelch inquiry or investigation
9. I would not preach a message of repentance in light of the resurrection
10. I would stop short of dying for my lie

Isn't it amazing that over 1600 years the 66 books of the Bible were written and yet they have one coherent story of the history of God's people and one theme or Jesus coming to save us?

Apologetics 6 - The Bible is Authentic

So far, in previous posts, it has been discussed how God exists, and even some of His characteristics, but this still does not prove that He is the God of the Bible.  To do this, we need to show that the Bible is true. The first step is to show that the Bible is authentic by dispelling two common objections. The first is that the Bible was never meant to be a historically accurate account. The second is that the Bible we have today has been corrupted or changed through time.

The Intention Test

• Was recording what actually happened something that the writers were concerned about? Were they even trying to be historically accurate?
• The beginning of Luke’s Gospel says yes.
• Does the text include specific details or outlandish mythologizing?
• No.
• Do the authors refer to issues which were prevalent at the time of writing, which seem to not have been prevalent during the time of the events?
• No.

The Bibliographical Test

This test examines the reliability of transition of a document to us. It is based on consistency between copies over time and determines how reliable the latest copy can be considered. F.F. Bruce states: “No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the eight earliest manuscripts of their works that are in use by us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.” Comparing classic literature, the New Testament of the Bible clearly has been handed down accurately.

Apologetics 5 - What God is Like

The Moral/Ethical Argument for the Existence of a Personal God

A common argument for the existence of God, and on C.S. Lewis relies on quite a bit, is that there are universal morals, that exist throughout all cultures and all times. Another is the that are universal truths. The argument is that there must be an ultimate, independent source of these, and that must be a personal God who is moral, ethical, and true.

The Anthropological Argument for the Existence of a Personal God

• Humans are personal beings who are:
• self aware
• rational
• experience emotions
• possess agency
• Humans have not caused their own existence
• Any Characteristics possessed by an effect is properly attributed to its cause
• Causes cannot give what it does not have
• All characteristics must pre-exist in its cause

We see that the cosmic environment possess a characteristic of personhood. The question, then, is does the cosmic environment provide the features of personhood? If so, then the ultimate context of which we exist is itself a personhood (pantheism or panentheism). If not, then, nature cannot be the cause of personhood, so there must be another cause, which must be a personal being or beings that has/have personhood/personhoods.

The Design (or Teleological) Argument for the Existence of a Personal God


The anthropic principle tells us that all of the exact current intricacies of the universe are necessary for conscious life to exist and must be exactly as they are for the way the universe to function as it is. As stated by Dr. William Craig, "The incredibly complex and delicately balance nexus of initial conditions necessary for intelligent life seems to be most plausibly explained if the nexus is the product of intelligent design.... To say that apparent design is a result of chance or coincidence is in fact to leave it unexplained."

Thomas Huxley, an evolutionists calculated the odds of life as we know it today occurring. It is important to note, here that for statisticians 1 in 10 to the 50 is considered "impossible" The probability of life in the form of a single cell randomly occurring is 1 in 10 to the 40,000. The probability of evolving a horse is 1 in 10 to the 3,000,000. Barrow and Tipler estimated the odds of evolving the human genome are 4 to the 180(110,000) and that is assuming that the universe already existed in the capacity to support it (e.g. containing the proper elements.) Hoyle famously stated that believing in chance evolution is like believing that, "a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials there." 

Even atheist physicists admit that the universe appears to be designed, even if they personally don't believe it actually is. Because the features of the universe indicate design, it is completely reasonable and logical to conclude that the best explanation for the cause of the beginning of the universe is an intelligence and purposeful designer. Being the creator of the universe means that God is powerful. Lastly, as the architect of the universe, he is intentional and intelligent. This, then leads us to what is called, "Supernatural Theism."

Apologetics 4 - God Exists

The Cosmological Argument

The first question we will ask is if the universe has a beginning or not. A sequence, or series, of events is a collection of things happening over time. If there were no beginning, then the past would be truly infinite. However, if the past were infinite, then coming to the present moment would require crossing an actual infinite number of events. It would be like counting to zero from negative infinity or jumping out of a bottomless pit. Scientifically, the second law of thermodynamics tells us that the universe is running out of useful energy. Therefore, if the past were infinite, the universe would have run out of energy and died an infinite time ago.

Since the universe has a beginning, the next question is if the beginning had a cause or not. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause for that beginning, because out of nothing, nothing comes. Events always have a cause and a beginning is an event. Also, something physical cannot cause its own existence, so it must have an external cause.

Things exist that do not have to exist, so they are not necessary, but merely possible. All things which exist cannot be merely possible. Things that are possible, but not necessary, at one time did not exist. If all things were only possible, then at one time, nothing existed. If at one time nothing existed, then nothing would exist now. Something exists now, so something that exists must be necessary. However, since all physical things must have a cause, a physical thing could not be the first cause. Physical things are cannot be the reason for their own existence. Therefore, there is a first cause that necessarily exists, that is non-physical.

The conclusion that the universe has a cause outside of itself, leads to the questions of if the cause was personal (a god gods, a life force, etc...), or an impersonal event. Many claim at this point that the "big bang" was the cause. However, events all have causes, so what caused the "big bang?" If something caused the "big bang" then it is not the first cause.  Scientists at this point often say the universe expands and then contracts into a singularity and the "bangs" again.  However, this just pushes the question back further and further.  If there were not an infinite series of "big bangs", then there still had to be a first cause at one point.  If there were an infinite series of "big bangs" then really the universe has no beginning, which we have already refuted.

At this point, an objection sometimes occurs, which is, if everything has a cause, then what caused God? However, we are only arguing that things that begin to exist have a cause. God, by definition, exists without a beginning, so he is uncaused, making him the first cause.else. This means that he must be independently self-sustaining. It also means that God is not physical, but immaterial, and in some ways, if not all ways, must be outside of the universe and separate from of.

Apologetics 3 - Humans Have Souls

Introduction

Substance: “Entity” existing in its own right, independently of something else, not as an aspect of something else. Having its own properties, but independent of those properties. The unifier of all properties possessed.

Materialism: Material substance (matter and energy) is all that exists (i.e. “Humans are just a bunch of particles.”)

Q: What would it mean if we are all merely made up of material substance?

A: We would just be matter, collections of atoms, molecules, cells, DNA, and organs. Nothing would happen when we die, except our bodies would decompose. We would have only physical properties and all apparent “non-physical” properties would just be chemical reactions in our brains.

Q: Are you the same person (the same being) that you were on the day of your birth?

A: Cells in the human body are continually dying and being regenerated. On average, all of the physical material that you consist of is completely changed every seven to ten years. We all know that we physically change continually, but by the time you are 75 years old have you been ~10 different people?

Q: What then identifies you as you over time?

A: For materialism, just that the change is so gradual and there is no distinct lines of separation between different yous. Imagine changing one board in a wooden outdoor deck every year. Eventually, it would be a completely different deck, but when that occurs is impossible to tell, so functionally we always just call it the same deck, even though it really isn’t. Are you really just functionally called you because it is hard to tell when the “you” changes? If not, then what is it we define as “you”? Is there an alternative to Materialism, the idea that we are only made of one material substance?

Substance Duality: Immaterial substance existing distinctly from, yet integrated with, the physical material body.

Q: What would it mean if we had an immaterial substance, in addition to our material substance?

A: That immaterial substance would be what we define as us, the “I”. Besides being the “same person over time”, there are four other key issues that point to substance dualism.

Consciousness

Something is conscious if it is aware of itself and its own existence, of things around it, and of having experiences.

Q: How can matter be aware of itself?

A: How can matter be aware of anything at all? Wouldn’t it seem odd if it was just your body that was aware of our body? If matter can be aware of itself, can the chair you are sitting on be aware of itself? Can a rock? Why does it appear that only humans have this faculty?

Q: If we are just matter, we might wonder what material in us is conscious. Where is our consciousness “organ” located? Is the “mind” just there because of chemical reactions in the brain, as some claim?

A: If the mind causes things to happen in the brain (like thinking you want to move and then moving), then the mind cannot be a causally inert byproduct of the brain. It must be more than just chemical reactions. The controlling “mind” must be separate substance from the totality of the physical body, something intimate enough with the brain for two-way causation to take place, but not consisting in the brain.

Relations/Relationships

How can two people be “close” to each other even if they are far apart or have never seen each other?

Q: Do a rock and a tree have any more than spatial relationships, such as left of, right of, above, below, in front, behind, next to, adjacent to, etc…? 

A: No

Q: Do we?

A: How about trust, love, respect?

Character/Personality

Q: What defines who you are? Is it just your height, weight, hair and eye color? What kind of person are you? How would others define you? Anything different than physical/material traits?

A: How can a bunch of particles, or a bunch of cells have a personality and character traits? Can matter be kind or mean, responsible or irresponsible?

Freedom

Q: How is it possible that we can make decisions, or think about alternatives? How can we have intentions (reasons for doing things)?

A: Today, some deny the existence of a soul and say that what happens in the “mind” is just a function of the physical brain chemistry. If our “mind” is just the “effect” of the brain (which is the “cause”), then all freedom of choice is an illusion, and we are just machines. Because if you are solely a material system, then you have no inner self that has the capacity to freely choose between options. You have no center of consciousness to make reasoned decisions. Physical systems operate completely by external programming, not by inner decision making. Thus, if materialism is true, you do not have any genuine ability to choose your actions.

Apologetics 2 - Truth Exists

It is sad that this even has to be the first step, but in today's culture, that's just the way it is, so I will start off by explaining that there are four basic kinds of statements:

1. Questions
2. Opinions
3. Commands
4. Propositions

Propositions, by definition, are those statements which can either be true or false. Religion, Christianity included, makes propositional statements (not questions or opinions) about God, the universe, and mankind. The question is, are these propositions, and truth itself objective?  There are four theories regarding truth, and what it consists of that we will investigate further.

1. Non-existent. – Very few actually take it this far because you could not make statements about anything and you could never be certain about anything or have a basis for anything.
2. Subjective and Internal – Each person can have a different truth.
• The Pragmatic Theory dictates propositions are true if they bring about the desired result, or provide me with a good basis for action. What about superstitions or mutually contradictory beliefs that both work?
3. Relative and Cultural – Societies or groups determine truth.
• The Coherence Theory dictates propositions are true if they are consistent within the overall system of beliefs (which can change over time). Are things true just because people believe they are? Were things not true before people believed them?
4. Objective and Intrinsic – Truth is external to and independent from people.
• The Correspondence Theory dictates propositions are true if they accurately correspond to a fact.

The laws of nature don’t change just because a person or group of people believe they do, otherwise science would not work. Science is founded on the principle that there is a truth about the way the material universe works that is constant. There has to be objective truth for science to work.

There are also self-evident truths, or things that can be known a priori. Even our country was founded on this principle.  Some statements point to truths by referring to themselves, such as, “this statement contains five words.”  Other statements are self-refuting and point to their opposite self-evident truths. The best example of this is the statement, “It is true that truth does not exist.” If it is true, then truth exists, so it is false. If it is false, then truth exists. Lastly, there are self-evident statements themselves. A good example is, “something exists.” This has to be true.  If there is any one thing that is objectively true, then objective truth does exist. Logic dictates that objective truth must exist.

Many, including C.S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity, make the claim for God because there are universal moral principles and they must come from somewhere. Some people refute that statement and claim that while there may be objective truths about science, there are not about morality. However, people who espouse the view of moral relativism are actually inconsistent and self-refuting. They say that there are no moral principles which apply to all people. The statement that everyone has relative morals is putting an absolute moral standard universally on everyone. Relativists don’t claim that relativism is true for relativists; they say it is absolutely true, yet they claim to not believe in absolute truths. Another example is the claim that you have to be tolerant.  That is actually hypocritical and self-refuting because it is intolerant against intolerance.

A relative morality cannot be improved, if morality is just what I want to do. This leaves no room for personal growth, or becoming a better person. When you change, it is no more valid or better than before, just different. Others cannot be accused of wrongdoing either, because if they want to do it, or their culture says it is okay, then you can’t apply your view that it is wrong on them. There could never be a means of solving disagreements nor could there even be the concept of justice or punishment.

Apologetics 1 - Introduction

Why Christian apologetics? On one extreme, some people state that you can never prove Christianity is true, so you should not believe in it. They are right that it cannot be proven, but that does not mean it is not true and that there are not good reasons to believe. Actually proving something requires complete elimination of all other possibilities, which is almost always impossible, even in science, much less religion. However, evidence can be examined and the best possible conclusion can be drawn from that evidence. This is exactly how our legal system works. Both sides present evidence and conclusions are made. Prosecutions have have to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt, not prove their case beyond the shadow of a doubt, or to a certainty. In fact, there are different levels of knowledge, as stated in Roderick Chisholm's Book, Theory of Knowledge. This used in the legal system as well as in the intelligence community to define certainty of analyses.

Certainly True
Obviously True
Evidently True
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - not justified in withholding
In the Clear to Affirm                - can withhold or affirm reasonably
Probable                                   - should withhold
Counterbalanced                     - must withhold
Improbable                               - should withhold
In the Clear to Deny                 - may withhold or deny reasonably
Reasonable to Deny                - not justified in withholding
Evidently False
Obviously False
Certainly False

On the other extreme, some people claim that having a reason for believing something exclude the need for faith. Stated another way, would you put your trust in anything that was completely irrational? I hope not. Faith does not exclude evidence, it implies that you have evidence as a basis of that faith. If a belief does not require evidence, then it would be completely arbitrary. It would us just believing what we want to be true, not what we actually think is true. In my previous post, I described how much of modern pop American Christianity is anti-intellectual, which is hurting the church. This shows a need for apologetics and learning in general, for Christians as well as non-believers. 1 Peter 3:15 says that we should have a reason for our faith, "always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for the reason for the hope that is in you." Also Acts 17:17 tells us that St. Paul, "reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there."

Everyone, whether Christian or not has beliefs. Everyone has a worldview, which is that set of beliefs and presuppositions about the world and how things are. These are things we know about they way things are. Our worldviews help us to understand and interpret our knowledge and life experiences. I am also claiming that we not only can have beliefs, but we can have knowledge of our beliefs. We must have reasons to believe what we believe. After all, our worldviews also have to survive a collision with the truth. In fact, Hebrews 11:1 states, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Of course many books have been written about apologetics and I will not be able to cover all of the material in a few bog posts, but I am going to attempt to summarize the main points and arguments, hopefully well enough to follow the logic.

A disclaimer, however, is that while apologetics is great for learning and having a defense of our faith, it does have limitations, especially in evangelism. From a false Palagian or Armenian viewpoint, some have tried to argue non-believers into the faith. This simply cannot be done. Faith is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8) and comes by hearing the Word (Romans 10:17).  People cannot convert people, only God can do that. While having reasons for our faith can eliminate intellectual barriers to the gospel, we confess along with Martin Luther, from his Small Catechism that “I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him.” Therefore, apologetics does not function as an "Natural Theology." In fact, it is not properly theology at all. While there is a natural revelation (Romans 1:20), it is not infallible and cannot tell us about Jesus' atoning sacrifice.  Only the Bible is the infallible revealed revelation of God (sola Scriptura). However, God's revelation does not run counter to reason, as can be (and hopefully was) shown.