mapping apologetics by brian morley - excerpt
Post on 02-Jun-2018
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 135
B R I A N K M O R L E Y
M A P P I N G
A P O L O G E T I C S
C O M P A R I N G C O N T E M P O R A R Y A P P R O A C H E S
A P O L O G E T I C S
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 235
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 335
B R I A N K M O R L E Y
M A P P I N G
C O M P A R I N G C O N T E M P O R A R Y A P P R O A C H E S
A P O L O G E T I C S
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 435
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 535
CONTENTS
Introduction 983097
Chart o Apologetic Approaches 983089983092
PART ONE FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES
983089 Apologetics in the Bible 983090983097
983090 Apologetics in History A survey 1048627983097
PART TWO APOLOGETIC METHODOLOGIES
Presuppositionalism
1048627 Cornelius Van il Christianity is an intellectual
commitment we cannot do without 983093983097
983092 John Frame We see ultimate truth rom
more than one perspective 983097983088
Reformed Epistemology
983093 Alvin Plantinga Belie in God is an immediate
awareness and belie in Christianity is a git o God 983089983089983096
Combinationalism983094 E J Carnell Gordon Lewis and Francis Schaeer
Christianity is logical actual and viable 983089983092983095
Classical Apologetics
983095 Introduction to Classical Apologetics
Prove theism then Christianity 983089983096983093
983096 Richard Swinburne heism andChristianity are highly probable 983089983097983088
983097 William Lane Craig God is proved by theistic
arguments and Christianity by evidences 983090983089983097
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 635
983089983088 Norman Geisler heism is proved by
what is undeniable and Christainity is
known rom evidences 983090983093983094
Evidentialism
983089983089 John Warwick Montgomery Facts point to interpretations
and critical acts point to Christianity 983090983097983090
983089983090 Gary Habermas Christianity can be proved by
widely accepted crucial acts 10486271048627983092
Conclusion Putting it all together 1048627983093983089
Name Index 1048627983094983095
Subject Index 1048627983095983089
Scripture Index 1048627983095983093
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 735
INTRODUCTION
On March 1048633 1048625104863310486311048628 Japanese lieutenant Hiroo Onoda walked out o the jungle
on a remote island in the Philippines finally convinced that World War II was
overmdashtwenty-nine years afer it had ended rained as an intelligence officer in
guerilla warare he was told to survive at all costs No matter what happened
his superiors would come or him
Just a ew months afer his arrival in 1048625104863310486281048628 the allies overwhelmed Japanese
deenses and Hiroorsquos band o five hid deep in the jungle surviving on what theycould find When the war ended many attempts were made to find and convince
the remaining soldiers to come out Newspapers and even letters rom relatives
were lef which they ound along with leaflets But how could the war have
ended so quickly And why were there spelling errors in the leaflets Hiroorsquos
own brother even came and attempted to speak to him over a loudspeaker Te
band considered each piece o evidence and always concluded that the enemy
was trying to deceive them One by one they died the last one afer twenty-
seven years in hiding leaving Hiroo alone
Finally a Japanese student tracked Hiroo down and beriended him He
could not surrender Hiroo explained until his commanding officer ordered
him to do so Te student returned to Japan and the government ound his
commander now a bookseller who returned in his tattered uniorm and per-
sonally gave the order Hiroo still in his uniorm with sword on his side and
his working rifle in his hand was relieved o duty and wept Philippine pres-
ident Ferdinand Marcos pardoned him or the approximately thirty people hehad killed over the years because the soldier had believed he was still at war
Hiroo returned to a world vastly changed realizing that his belies had been
completely wrong or nearly thirty years
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 835
10486251048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Hiroo illustrates the problem o belie what to accept as evidence and as
valid explanation how to weigh assumptions and much more We make such
complex decisions in our own lives over both minor belies and major onesAnd we all come to and hold the most crucial belies o our existencemdashour
worldviewmdashentailing whether to believe in a God how to live and what to do
about an aferlie i there is one
Tere could not be a more important question than how we are to decide
what to believe Tat is the subject o this book
S983139983151983152983141
Tere are a number o conflicting approaches as we shall see Some approaches
have been used to support a wide variety o worldviews and some have been
developed and used in a uniquely Christian context I have chosen those most
discussed today the live options as represented by those who have had a major
part in shaping them In a ew cases the choice was difficult and different ones
could have been made I would like to have written much more covering the
work o more apologists in each o the major categories but the bookrsquos total
length would have been dauntingI have tried to represent each thinker airly as they would describe their views
I have had the privilege o meeting and talking to most o the those I have written
about (including the late Greg Bahnsen) and whether by personal contact or
only via their writings I am glad to have been exposed to such brilliant minds
who have worked hard on these complex issues over a lietime I am grateul to
those who despite very busy schedules were able to review what I had written
about them and to offer some input John Frame Alvin Plantinga Mark HannaGordon Lewis (on his views and E J Carnellrsquos) Norman Geisler Richard Swin-
burne John Warwick Montgomery (who also gave helpul input on my con-
cluding chapter) and Gary Habermas James N Anderson983089 kindly went over my
chapter on Cornelius Van il and gave some helpul input Teir input was not
only valuable but also reassuring and encouraging Irsquom also grateul to Inter-
Varsity Pressrsquos anonymous reviewer or detailed thoughtul input
I have tried to be not only air but also clear so as to be accessible to readers who
have no special background in apologetic methodology o that end I have ex-
plained terms and kept specialized words to a minimum I have traded the tech-
1James N Anderson is associate proessor o theology and philosophy at Reormed Teological
Seminary in Charlotte North Carolina and supervises wwwvantilino
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 935
Introduction 10486251048625
nical rigor that characterizes purely academic writing or readability or a wider
audience (and in some cases have rerained rom reerencing more technical
sources) Incidentally I have occasionally used a male pronoun to reer to bothmen and women where my intention is obvious and I sometimes use both a male
and a emale pronoun (ldquohe or sherdquo) to make that clear Where it is not awkward I
use ldquotheirrdquo Biblical quotations are rom the New American Standard Bible
Along the way I repeat a ew things briefly by way o reminder so the reader
does not have to search back through the book and so that the chapters stand
alone better in order to aid the reader who does not go through the book quickly
Te structure o every chapter is not identical Some stop to compare apologetic
approaches and in others more time is spent exploring the criticisms
o benefit the reader with some background in the topic o the book and to
serve the advanced reader I have also sought where possible to bring out the
deeper underlying issues separating the views most o which are philosophical
having to do with issues such as the ollowing how we know how we have cer-
tainty (and how certain we can be) the relation between aith and evidence the
possibilities o reasoning by way o deduction induction and abduction the role
o assumptions and presuppositions the relation between evidence andworldview the validity o intuition as a way o knowing and its possible divine
origin and whether we can know some things without inerring them rom other
things we know (ie oundationalism) Trough all this I hope to bring the issues
into sharper ocus so as to acilitate more constructive dialogue on the subject o
apologetic methods
Te ocus o the book is on understanding the theories and how they see each
other so I have kept my own views to a minimum adding my conclusions and
constructive insights in a final chapter (Perhaps Irsquoll have the opportunity to
expand those into a book) Where I have made my own brie addition that could
be mistaken or the view o the eatured apologist I usually precede it with some-
thing like ldquoWe could add that rdquo In a ew places I have added the thoughts o
others to the material about the eatured apologist in order to broaden the
readerrsquos knowledge a bit (the longest addition being a section on miracles in the
chapter on evidentialism) In a ew sections in which I develop the thinking o
the eatured apologist I include a brie criticism rom another thinker in order
to save the reader rom having to go back rom the criticism section and search
to connect the criticism with the apologistrsquos view
My twenty-five years o experience as a proessor led me to add a list o terms
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1035
10486251048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
discussion questions and suggestions or urther reading Tat teaching expe-
rience has shown me too that complex issues are best understood i they can be
viewed rom different angles and more than onceIn order to increase understanding o where the approaches lead I have in-
cluded something o how they would actually be used ocusing on some o the
best insights that each has to offer Some approaches require a bit more detail
to show what the apologist is doing and how it all fits with their method For
example I summarize Norman Geislerrsquos rationale or selecting the right test or
truth review his criteria or selecting a worldview and finally show how he ap-
plies this method to arrive at theism It requires some detail to see the systematic
nature and rigor o his approach So at the end o the book the reader will come
away with not only the theories but also their application
As I mentioned at the beginning o this introduction I have ocused on those
who are currently influential which is why I have chosen or example Van il
over Abraham Kuyper I have also ocused on those whose work in the field has
been sustained original and extensive Tat entails choosing or example Gary
Habermas over Josh McDowell even though as a popular writer the latter has had
enormous influence My only regret is that the purpose o this book and the con-straints on its length do not permit more attention to those who have made very
worthy contributions in the past such as Gordon Clark and C S Lewis and more
recently John Feinberg the late Paul Feinberg Douglas Groothuis Ravi Zacharias
and K Scott Oliphint to name just a ew It is regrettable that only a ew pages can
be given to Francis Schaeffer who had an enormous influence in his day but is
not as well-known to younger people and shied away rom discussions on apolo-
getic theory most notably with Van il who was eager to engage him
Each apologist can be unique but can also in some ways resemble the char-
acteristics o someone representing a different approach William Lane Craig or
example is not ar rom Alvin Plantinga in his emphasis on the personal inward
awareness o God yet he is thoroughly classical in how he makes his case to
others John Warwick Montgomery a staunch evidentialist regards C S Lewis
as something o a mentor Tey are similar in the breadth o their interests pio-
neering the use o literature to communicate the gospel and it seems similar in
their personalities983090 But in overall approach C S Lewis is in the classical camp
One o my hopes or this book is that more people will gain a good grasp o
2o me they both seem expressive creative and interested in all o liersquos possibilities
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1135
Introduction 1048625983091
this crucial field o apologetic methods When the subject is taught ofen only
one approach is presented and students are lef with little or no grasp o any-
thing elsemdashand donrsquot really even understand the approach they are supposed toaccept and use Tose who are introduced to the issues outside o a classroom
tend to read only apologists rom their own camp
I progress is to made on a subject so vital we will need a new generation o
people who are interested in doing serious work Most o those who have la-
bored in this field in modern times are at or past retirement or have already
passed on My real hope is that this book will help motivate some people to take
up this work and carry it orward
I canrsquot thank InterVarsity Press enough (especially Andy Le Peau and Al Hsu)
or their great patience and encouragement as I struggled with a hellacious
onslaught o challenges that greatly slowed progress on the book I canrsquot imagine
a better publisher and I am honored they are doing this book I am also grateul
or Mark Hanna who first introduced me to this topic when I was a seminary
student Not only was he kind and encouraging but his grasp o all things apol-
ogetic has also always been inspiring I owe thanks to the sabbatical committee
which granted me time to work on this book and on God in the Shadows Evilin Godrsquos World 983091 I also want to thank my wonderul wie Donna or her con-
tinual support as well as her example o discipline and passion in the research
and writing o her own books
O983158983141983154983158983145983141983159
Tis book is organized according to a schema represented in the chart below
that I have used through much o my twenty-five years o teaching this subjectIt is not perect but I have ound that it aids understanding the relationships
among the views
On the ar lef is fideism (rom the Latin or ldquoaithrdquo) according to which
belie cannot or should not be supported by evidence o any kind On this view
aith and reason are in separate nonoverlapping circles I we have aith we have
no reasons to believe i we have reasons to believe we do not need aith Some
people are fideists because o such convictions about the nature o aith others
believe that the allen mind is incapable o processing reasons or that the
subject is simply beyond the mindrsquos grasp Te resulting view is that aith must
3Brian Morley God in the Shadows Evil in Godrsquos World (Geanies House Fearn Ross-shire Scot-
land Christian Focus 1048626983088983088983094)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1235
10486251048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Approach Fideism Presuppositionalism Reformed
epistemologyExperien-tialism
Pragmatism
rarr Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence rarr
Definingcharacteristics
bullFaithunsupportedbullFaith and
reason donrsquotoverlapbullOr reason isbeyond themindrsquos graspbullOr the mindis too fallen
bullStarting pointsare necessarypresuppositionsunprovable byindependent evidencebullNo independentlyknown factsbullldquoBorrowed capitalrdquo
bullAutonomy is theproblembullNo common ldquonotionsrdquobullReasoning must becircular deductiveindirect from
ChristianitybullTranscendentalargumentbullRange ofpresuppositionalistsfrom Van Til to Frame
bull Awareness of God( sensus divinitatus) isgrounded in howwe are made andtriggered
bullChristian faith agiftbullClassicalfoundationalismtoo narrowbullGod is properlybasicbullFaith can exceedreasons
bullExperiencealone
bullExperience isonly proof wecan have oronly proof weneed
bullAccept whatworksbullHas a widevariety of forms
Adherentsbull(Pascal)bullKierkegaardbullBarth
bullVan TilbullBahnsenbullFrame (modified keypoints)
bullAlvin Plantinga mdash
bullC S PeircebullWilliam JamesbullJohn DeweybullRichard Rorty
CriticismsbullSubjective
bullUnbiblical
bullAmounts to fideismbullTranscendental
argument cannot provethe Christian God
bullCannot rule outother beliefs likethe Great Pumpkin
bullExperiencesmust beinterpreted
bullWhatworks ne truth
bullWhat works isvague
Epistemo-logical startingpoint
Faith PresuppositionImmediateawareness
Experience Workability
Summary
No reasons or
certaintyentirelysubjectiveand volitional
No independent facts asreasons
Intuitions plusancillary reasons
One type ofevidence butsubjective
One type of
evidence thatlinks internaland external
Figure Chart of Apologetic Approaches
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1335
Introduction 10486251048629
Veridicalism Combinationalism Classical
apologetics Evidentialism Rationalism
Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence Cumulative case common ground
bullGivens + corroborationbullGivens are knownintuitively and certainlycan be corroboratedbullUniversal givens can beknown by all andconstitute cognitive
neutral groundbullGod is a universal givenbullSpecial givens areknown by ChristiansbullCommon ground =human needs commonexperiencesbullNo spiritually neutralgroundbullEight kinds of ldquoseeingrdquo
bullChristianity ahypothesis to be tested
bullThree-aspect testrational (self-consistent) empirical(fits relevant facts)existential (can belived)
bullProve theism thenChristianitybullProve theism usingtheistic proofs
cosmologicalargumentteleologicalargument moralargumentbullProve Christianity(same asevidentialists)
bullEvidence points toChristianitybullTheistic argumentsuseful but notnecessary
bullFacts point to bestinterpretationbullProphecy andresurrection provethe BiblebullUse universallyaccepted facts(Habermas)
bullAbsolutecertaintybullStart from
indubitablepointbullReason usingdeductionbullBuild up toworldview
bullMark HannahbullE J CarnellbullGordon LewisbullFrancis Schaeffer
bullNorman GeislerbullWilliam Lane CraigbullJ P MorelandbullR C SproulbullRichard Swinburne
bullJohn WarwickMontgomerybullJosh McDowellbullGary Habermas
bullDescartes
bullGivens cannot rationally
ground belief
bullThree tests are
unworkable
bullMain critics arepresuppositionalistsbullThere is no common
groundbullMust reason from
Christianity
bullFacts must beinterpreted
bullFacts cannot point totheir interpretation
bullIndubitablestarting pointscannot lead to a
worldviewwithout addingalong the way
Givens and corroboration Three-aspect test Two-step argumentFacts pointing tointerpretation
Deduction fromcertain startingpoint
Internal givens andobjective corroboration
Hypothesis tested
internal to theoryexternally with factsand existentially
Uses cosmos and order
to prove interpretiveframework (theism)then uses facts ofhistory
Proves Christianity
using many objectiveindependentlyexisting facts
Certainty is
absolutenothing issubjective orvolitional
Figure (continued)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1435
10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
be purely a gif rom God Fideists who tilt toward a Calvinistic view o salvation
(according to which God predestines individuals or salvation) may see the
action o the mind as irrelevant Because the ultimate cause o belie is divinechoice God bypasses the intellect
Fideism is thus a denial o apologetics which makes it different rom other
views All the views to the right hold that there is at least some overlap between
aith and reason that there are reasons o some kind or belie
On the ar right o the chart is rationalism which claims complete proo or
belie Te classic example is Reneacute Descartes (1048625104862910486331048630ndash1048625104863010486291048624) who lived in the tu-
multuous afermath o the Reormation when the Continent was divided over
religious belie He sought certainty by starting rom something he could not
doubt then building up rom there he used deduction a orm o reasoning that
guarantees the truth o the conclusion i we accept the premises In spite o his
original approach and rigorous effort virtually everyone today sees Descartes
as coming short o providing the level o certainty he offered
So the ar lef and the ar right are opposites aith can have no support and
aith has complete support
Just to the right o fideism is presuppositionalism which says we can have nodirect proo or either God or Christianity Tat means we cannot make either one
the conclusion o a noncircular argument In a traditional argument premises are
known independently o the conclusion and are offered as grounds or the con-
clusion Te problem with this says the ounder o presuppositionalism Cornelius
Van il is that nothing can be known independently o God because ultimately
truth is whatever God says it is God does not ldquoknowrdquo an independently existing
reality rather he determines that reality He knows the lights are on in the room
because he determined that they would be on Adam ell when he tried to become
independent o God determining or himsel what is true and morally right Fallen
humanityrsquos problem is not primarily ignorance but rebellion Te unbeliever does
not need to merely add a ew acts to his worldview but to completely tear it down
and rebuild one that makes God the source and guarantor o every act So to en-
courage the nonbeliever to think he can know premises and determine truth inde-
pendently o God is to inflame the problem Furthermore even i such a process
results in a person affirming the Bible as the Word o God he has in effect passed
judgment on God when God should be passing judgment on him As well things
can be tested only using something higher and more ultimate yet nothing can be
more ultimate than the Word o God Despite all this the presuppositionalist says
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1535
Introduction 10486251048631
we can have absolute proo or the Christian God because only i he exists can we
know anything Only i the Christian God exists and knows everythingmdashas well
as determines everythingmdashis knowledge o any kind about anything possible Allother viewpoints ail because they claim to be true yet cannot properly account or
how we have knowledge So while there is no direct proo there is absolutely
certain indirect proo or Christianity Christianity is a presupposition we cannot
do without It is claimed that even attempts to disprove Christianity must assume
it is true thus we can know Christianity transcendentally as a necessary as-
sumption Also the Bible is sel-attesting Godrsquos sheep hear his voice (Jn 1048625104862410486261048631)
Tis view is next to fideism because it bases knowledge on a presupposition
(roughly a commitment to a oundational assumption) rather than anything
known independently Proponents see their view as akin to rationalism which
offers absolute certainty or knowledge whereas many critics see it as closer to
fideism because it works by presupposing rather than directly proving
Note that there is a wide range among presuppositionalists rom those who
ollow Van il with little or no modification such as Greg Bahnsen to those who
have modified the view considerably such as John Frame Some o Framersquos mod-
ifications such as acceptance o some use o induction o the transcendental ar-gument as a direct as well as an indirect proo and acceptance o the cumulative
orce o arguments would put him on the right side o the chart Tere are also
those who take the label o presuppositionalist who emphasize Van ilrsquos rejection
o traditional direct proo but want little or nothing to do with his indirect proo
I knew one proessor who called himsel both a presuppositionalist and a ldquobiblical
fideistrdquo So on the chart we can have a lef side o presuppositionalism which is
closer to fideism and a right side which sees a robust role or proos o different
kinds In the middle would be Van il and Bahnsen Frame would be on the ar
right ideally on a line that extends to the right side o the chart (which would best
be indicated by an arrow since an actual line might be visually conusing)
Gordon Clark and Carl F H Henry represent a more deductive orm o pre-
suppositionalism in which the Bible is posited as true and what can be deduced
rom it is also true Unlike Van il and Bahnsen they do not try to justiy Christian
presuppositions transcendentally that is as the only basis or reason Herman
Dooyeweerd (DOE-yuh-vaird 1048625104863210486331048628ndash1048625104863310486311048631) took some o the oundations laid by
Abraham Kuyper (104862510486329830911048631ndash1048625104863310486261048624) in a different direction than Van il
John Frame has sought to remain true to Van ilrsquos central insights while
modiying significant aspects o his approach He maintains his ormer teacherrsquos
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1635
10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
convictions that since acts are not independently existing realities we cannot
simply see which interpretation fits best and use them independently to decide
on an interpretation (the view o evidentialism) and there can be no neutralground He emphasizes the important nuance that it is really statements o acts
that are not separate rom interpretation
Frame says that in an argument because the premises commit us to the
conclusion they thereore commit us to what the premises presuppose making
presuppositions a kind o conclusion Presuppositions are commitments that
govern our other belies and as such they are not deeasible (cannot be deeated
by evidence and argument) unless a contrary presupposition is adopted Since
all thought is dependent on God who makes all argument possible we should
not encourage the nonbeliever to think otherwise
Contrary to Van il Frame believes that there can be real agreement between
the believer and nonbeliever induction can be acceptable in apologetics and the
transcendental approach is an overall goal and not a single argumentmdashthere
being no way the Christian God o love justice patience wisdom and more
must be presupposed in order or anyone to understand and talk about anything
He also believes that there is no essential difference between direct and indirectreasoning thereore the major difference between presuppositional and tradi-
tional apologetics may be the intent o the apologist to acknowledge God as
sovereign and the source o all meaning intelligibility and rationality that is
the ultimate authority or human thought
Frame adds the extremely important stipulation that interpretations can be
verified on the basis o acts In other words we can compare the data o the
mind with the data o the external world Interpretations can be verified by
comparing them with acts and acts can be verified by comparing them with
interpretations Neither one is a brute incorrigible standard983092
Tese and other modifications make presuppositionalism much closer to
traditional apologetics and give it access to a large array o more traditional
arguments Frame adds his own highly constructive innovations holding that
as nonomniscient beings we can see things in different perspectives that are
simultaneous and overlapping where each can contain the other Knowledge
or example is a matter o sense experience reason and eeling
o the right o presuppositionalism is the Reormed epistemology o Alvin
4Personal email correspondence with Frame Aug 10486261048628 104862698308810486251048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1735
Introduction 10486251048633
Plantinga He challenges the notion that belie must be proportional to evidence
such that we are entitled to believe only as much as we can prove In answer he
points out that people commonly and rightly believe many things they wouldhave trouble proving such as that the world was not created with apparent age
only a ew minutes ago or that people have minds like us and are not merely
cleverly designed robots So it is rational to believe in God to a degree greater
than we can prove Te level o proo that would be required to justiy a belie
as crucial as Christianity would be very high and we have that level or virtually
no philosophical belies o that magnitude Knowledge o God is the result o
an inner knowing what Calvin called the sensus divinitatis which arises in us
because o how we are made Te catalyst or that knowing can be different or
different people perhaps the grandeur o mountains or the starry sky
Knowledge o Christianity comes by an inner knowing that is a special gif o
the Holy Spirit Te inner knowing o both God and Christianity is not evidence
or a conclusion but an immediate knowing (like knowing we have pain or that
we exist) Plantinga affirms the value o arguments but alone they hold little
promise o being sufficient to truly justiy belie in God or Christianity
Reormed epistemology is to the right o presuppositionalism because it a-firms a role or independent proos but it is on the lef side o the chart because
it is a type o intuition that grounds aith
Next is experientialism especially o the sort where an experience is taken
as grounds or the conclusion that God exists or that Christianity is true In this
type experience is evidence or the conclusion Tis would include such things
as experiences o answered prayers or providential care or an awareness o God
that is the basis or the conclusion that God is there What is unique about this
method is that such experiences are the only basis or belie Other methods to
the right o it accept experience as one proo among many o the lef o the view
fideism accepts no proo presuppositionalism does not regard experience as
proper proo or God or Christianity and Reormed epistemology regards ex-
perience as a direct knowing but not evidence or a conclusion So coming rom
the lef side o the chart experientialism is the first view that accepts something
as independent grounds to justiy belie
Although I have met people who take an experientialist approach to justi-
ying belie in God or Christianity it is difficult to find whole books supporting
the view People who take the view generally regard their experiences as ade-
quate to justiy only their own belies and do not expect mere reports o their
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1835
10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
experiences to be sufficient or someone else thus others would need to have
their own experiences So it is not hard to see why ew would see the value in
writing about their experiences as a way to convince others Tis book does nothave a chapter on the approach but it includes a brie critique by Norman
Geisler Te problem with experientialism is that experiences must be inter-
preted A person can have an experience but that does not mean we mustmdashor
even canmdashtake it at ace value Someonersquos experience o their dead ancestor
appearing to them could be interpreted in a number o ways as could a personrsquos
experience o the Hindu god Shiva Whether such things are regarded as real
imaginary demonic apparitions or whatever depends on what other belies we
hold as true Furthermore how do we resolve conflicts between experiences
Tereore experience is widely regarded as insufficient as the sole means o
proo though it typically appears as one type o evidence in the apologetic
methods to the right o it on the chart
Next we add pragmatism which essentially offers one source o justification
that o workability Tere are both simple and sophisticated orms o this view
but the idea is i it works we can accept a belie as verified to some degree Tere
is a difference between the (more radical) claim that workability equals truthor is what we mean by truth versus workability as an indicator o truth Te
latter view is ofen added into the mix o possible methods o justification
among views to the right o pragmatism on the chart I have chosen not to use
the available space in the book to detail pragmatism because so ar its best-
known philosophical orms have not been as popular as other approaches
among those seeking to know or justiy theism or Christianity Te view has
been developed by C S Peirce (pronounced ldquoPurserdquo 104862510486329830911048633ndash1048625104863310486251048628) William James
(1048625104863210486281048626ndash1048625104863310486251048624) and recently by neopragmatist Richard Rorty (104862510486339830911048625ndash1048626104862410486241048631) I have
included brie criticisms o pragmatism made by Norman Geisler
Moving again to the right on our chart veridicalism developed by Mark
Hanna sees knowledge as grounded in givens983093 which are known intuitively and
with certainty and are not inerred rom other things we know All humans can
benefit rom universal givens some o which cannot be coherently denied (be-
cause denying them would require assuming them) such as our own existence
5ldquoLiterally anything that can be veridically nonpostulationally and nondiscursively grasped by
consciousness is a given And i it is susceptible o apprehension by all human beings in prin-
ciple it is a universal givenrdquo Mark M Hanna Crucial Questions in Apologetics (Grand Rapids
Baker Book House 10486259830979830961048625) p 10486251048625983095
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1935
Introduction 10486261048625
and the principle o noncontradiction Awareness o the existence o the God o
theism is a universal given Christians benefit additionally rom special givens
including awareness that God cares or them that the Bible is Godrsquos Word (whichis sel-attesting only to believers1048630) and that he or she is saved Because universal
givens are knowable independently o a worldview and within any worldview
they orm cognitive neutral ground Tere is however no spiritually neutral
ground since everyone either accepts or rejects what can be universally known
about God1048631 Tere is common ground consisting o human needs such as guilt
and loneliness as well as cultural patterns o thinking and acting1048632 Tough
known immediately givens can be corroborated in different ways or example
by reflection and by their connection to other givens1048633 Some are known because
they are undeniable and others can be supported by evidence and inerence
Some arguments or theism are inductively strong such as the kalam cosmo-
logical argument and the teleological argument rom fine tuning o the universe
or lie9830891048624 In all it can be shown that God is the best explanation A case can also
be made or Christianity Te essential belies o Christianity are givens that can
be corroborated Tey are not arrived at rom nontheological data or premises983089983089
Citing Christrsquos statement that some see without ldquoseeingrdquo (Mt 10486259830911048625983091) Hanna iden-tifies eight kinds o ldquoseeingrdquo only one o which is physical Each has two poles
relating to its reality (metaphysical) and its knowability (epistemological) Tey
are physical intellectual introspective intersubjective (awareness o other
persons and onersquos relationship to them) moral aesthetic (which can grasp ob-
jective beauty) and spiritual (one mode that is common to all humans another
that is unique to Christians) Some orms o seeing overlap and interact or ex-
ample spiritual seeing requires some use o intellectual seeing He argues (in a
orthcoming book) that biblical theism is the only adequate explanation o the
eight modes o seeing and their objective correlates
Next is the view called combinationalism According to the combinationalism983089983090
o E J Carnell and Gordon Lewis traditional proos or the existence o God are
inadequate or the same reason that the empiricism they are implicitly based on
6Ibid p 104862598308810486277Ibid p 104862598308810486298Ibid9Ibid p 10486259830881048625
10Phone conversation with Mark Hanna Oct 1048625983094 10486269830881048625104862711Hanna Crucial Questions p 10486251048626104862512Te name was not chosen by Carnell but it is used in Norman Geislerrsquos widely read Christian
Apologetics 1048626nd ed (Grand Rapids Baker Books 104862698308810486251048627)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2035
10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
is inadequate you can never arrive at what is immutable universal and necessary
rom what is finite I you cannot arrive at God rom experience you must bring
God to experience in the orm o a hypothesis to be tested Tis does not meanour aith is weak or tentative only that to be intellectually honest as God would
have us be we must at least in principle be rational in our aith In this sense we
treat Christianity as a hypothesis and like any hypothesis it must not contradict
itsel Anything sel-contradictory cannot be true but what is noncontradictory
could be true o see i it is true we check it with all relevant acts looking or
contradictions between the hypothesis and the acts Te hypothesis should be
applicable to lie in the sense that it can be lived out without contradiction Tere
is common ground between believer and nonbeliever consisting or example in
the principle o noncontradiction values ethics and the need or love Fur-
thermore worldviews typically overlap in areas that are impersonal and nonmeta-
physical Even science properly practiced can be carried on between believer and
nonbeliever But worldviews diverge as soon as questions o ultimate meaning and
purpose arise We can prove that Christianity is true to the extent that we can
prove any real-world belie is true that is with high probability Yet we can have
complete inner assurance ldquocertituderdquo that it is true Combinationalism is to theright o pragmatism on the chart because it tests belie using an objective standard
that o consistency A hypothesis must be consistent within itsel consistent with
the acts and capable o being lived out consistently
In the next column is classical apologetics which is practiced by people as
diverse as C S Lewis William Lane Craig J P Moreland R C Sproul John
Gerstner and Norman Geisler Tis approach aims first to prove theism the
general belie that God is or example omnipotent omniscient omnipresent
holy creator and sustainer o the universe I theism is not proved first proo
or the resurrection or example would not necessarily be interpreted theisti-
cally by the unbeliever O course i the unbeliever already accepts theism
proving it is unnecessary
Classical apologists use theistic arguments (though they are also used by
some apologists who use other methods) Tey are types or amilies o argu-
ments in that there are a number o variations to each Te cosmological ar-
gument essentially reasons rom the existence o the universe to a creator One
orm argues that God is a necessary being that he must exist in every possible
world Another argues that everything needs an adequate cause thus the uni-
verse needs an adequate cause and that cause is God (he is not a thing and is
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2135
Introduction 1048626983091
uncaused) Te teleological argument reasons rom design in the universe to a
designer Modern science has uncovered intricate design in DNA or example
We are also discovering the amazing extent to which the universe has been finelytuned to allow or lie Te moral argument which is not used as widely as the
cosmological and teleological arguments argues rom the existence o objective
moral obligations to a higher moral being as the grounds o such obligations
Norman Geisler believes we must use a different approach to prove the truth
o a worldview versus truth within a worldview He uses six first principles o
reality which cannot be denied because any attempt to deny them would use
them (similar to Hannarsquos view) We do not need to prove them we simply ldquoseerdquo
that they are true once we understand them One first principle (stated inor-
mally) is that ldquosomething existsrdquo Anyone who attempts to deny that is admitting
they exist Another is the principle o noncontradiction which would also be
assumed by anyone attempting to deny it Once alternatives are eliminated and
theism is proved Geisler shows that Christianity explains all the known acts in
the most consistent way
o the right o classical apologetics and just lef o rationalism (on the ar right)
evidentialism has been popularized in recent decades by Josh McDowell who wasinfluenced by John Warwick Montgomery Gary Habermas has also been influ-
ential and widely known Te view does not require that theism be proved first
While most evidentialists accept theistic arguments and would use them they do
not believe it is necessary to first prove theism Unlike classical apologists eviden-
tialists believe that at least to some extent acts point to their proper interpre-
tation So evidentialists typically work to prove the resurrection afer supporting
the veracity o the Bible (eg John Warwick Montgomery) or at least the believ-
ability o very widely accepted crucial acts (eg Gary Habermas) Many o the
same acts and approaches used by evidentialists are used by classical apologists
in their second step which seeks to prove Christianity
Letrsquos review the chart again this time more briefly For fideism there can be
no proo but there is certitude rom aith in revelation For presupposition-
alism there can be no direct proo o Christianity but we must presuppose it
roughly assume it by conviction and necessity Te case must ultimately be
circular Revelation is known o its own authority but we can have proo be-
cause it must be presupposed For Reormed epistemology noncircular argu-
ments are acceptable in principle and should be developed but they are not
adequate to ground something as crucial as religious aith Belie in God is an
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2235
10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
awareness that can arise in us because o the way we were created and belie
in Christianity is a divine gif Moving right experientialism is the first view
that accepts something as decisive standalone evidence or the conclusion thatChristianity is true Te evidence is internal and subjective Pragmatism deals
with workability which is a more objective orm o experience and is thereore
to the right o experientialism (Note that what ldquoworksrdquo can be defined differ-
ently by different people)
Moving urther right (but not including rationalism on the extreme right nor
combinationalism) we have views that accept induction as an important and e-
ective method o proo or religious belie Tey (including combinationalism)
also accept a cumulative case that is layers o proo adding up to orm a stronger
case overall Religious experience and workability in lie (including giving lie
meaning) also typically play a supporting role in an overall case (whereas with
experientialism experience is the only proo) Veridicalism accepts both givens
that are known intuitively and that are undeniable and effective corroboration
through evidence and reason Everyone can have an immediate awareness o God
and the Christian can have an additional awareness o some essentials o Christi-
anity In its emphasis on direct awareness it is like Reormed epistemology but in veridicalism corroborating evidence can be strong and decisive So like Reormed
epistemology on its lef it has a place or intuition but like views on its right it
has a place or a convincing case based on evidence
As we continue to move right intuition (similar to ldquosel-attestingrdquo or presup-
positionalism) plays less o a role and there is more emphasis on independently
existing objective evidence as grounds or belie983089983091 Tere are also more such
objective criteria until we get to evidentialism which appeals to a multiplicity
o individual acts
Combinationalism accepts livability as a test o a hypothesis but only as one
o three aspects o consistency whereas to the lef pragmatism viewed livability
as the main criteria and to the right o combinationalism livability is viewed
as only one o a number o actors in an overall case
Classical apologetics accepts arguments or theism and or Christianity typ-
ically insisting (like presuppositionalism) that a worldview determines the in-
terpretation o acts But like the views on the right side o the chart that
worldview is established by something other than a necessary assumption (or
13Presuppositionalists would say that the transcendental argument provides objective evidence but
they would not say that it is ldquoindependently existingrdquo since no acts exist independent o God
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2335
Introduction 10486261048629
Geisler it is by undeniable first principles but unlike presuppositionalism they
are necessary in every worldview c Hanna)
Evidentialism is the near polar opposite o presuppositionalism affirmingthat acts can be known independently o the views that interpret them and that
acts can even point to the correct interpretation
I once showed this chart to Greg Bahnsen who not surprisingly said that pre-
suppositionalism should be on the right next to rationalism as offering absolutely
certain proo or belie In response I pointed out that certainty was secondary the
primary order o the chart was appeal to independent evidence or the conclusion
So fideism appeals to no independent evidence Presuppositionalism appeals to a
presupposition but not to independent evidence as grounds or belie (ie no direct
proo) Reormed epistemology appeals to intuition Experientialism appeals to
one subjective criterion as evidence or a conclusion pragmatism to one external
criterion Next is veridicalism which appeals to givens plus external and inde-
pendent evidence Ten comes combinationalism with its appeals to consistency
o hypothesis and fittingness with the acts plus livability Ten classical apologetics
appeals to independent evidence or theism and Christianity And finally eviden-
tialism appeals to a multiplicity o independent actsmdashthe opposite o presupposi-tionalismrsquos view that there are no independent acts Bahnsen thought or a ew
seconds and said ldquoTat could work that could workrdquo983089983092 I then mentioned that I
always tell my students that presuppositionalists see their view as close to
rationalism as ar as both offer certainty I add that they would see their presup-
positionalism as different rom rationalismrsquos method o using independent evi-
dence (Descartes or example amously beginning rom his own thoughtmdashagain
the opposite o presuppositionalism which begins with God as the standard o
truth) I it were not visually too complicated on the chart I might put fideism
presuppositionalism and rationalism each at different points o a triangle so that
presuppositionalism could be equidistant rom the aith o fideism and the absolute
proo o rationalism yet unique But over the years students have generally con-
firmed that it would be too complicated and thus unhelpul
Beore we begin it is worth briefly recounting why fideism which challenges
the legitimacy o apologetics is biblically inadequate Here are just a ew ex-
amples o biblical reasons or belie Moses asks God or signs to show his people
that he has divine authority (Ex 10486281048625) which God grants and later he grants
14Personal conversation afer Bahnsen was a guest speaker in my apologetics class Masterrsquos Col-
lege Newhall Caliornia in the all o 10486259830979830971048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2435
10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
abundant signs in the conrontation with Pharaoh (Ex 1048631ndash10486251048625) In the wilderness
God supernaturally demonstrates his presence his provision or his people and
his backing o Mosesrsquo leadership In the conquest o the Promised Land Goddivides the Jordan (Josh 98309110486251048631) gives victories over superior orces (Josh 10486251048628-1048633
98309110486251048624-10486251048631) and extends daylight (Josh 1048625104862410486251048626-10486251048628) He grants miracles or Gideon
(Judg 104863110486251048630-10486261048626) Samson (Judg 104862510486281048630 10486251048633 1048625104862910486251048629 10486251048630983091) and others Prophets such as
Elijah predict events and perorm miracles Jesusrsquo lie ulfills a number o proph-
ecies and is attested by miracles He points to them as grounds or belie (Lk
1048626104862810486261048631 Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) When John the Baptist doubts Jesus points to evidence that
matches prophecy (Mt 104862510486251048628-1048629 c Is 1048626104863310486251048632) Jesus meets Tomasrsquos doubts with
evidence (Jn 1048626104862410486261048631) Afer the resurrection he gives ldquomany convincing proosrdquo
(Acts 1048625983091 c Lk 104862610486289830911048633) John recounts some o Jesusrsquo supernatural deeds as a way
o inspiring saving aith (Jn 104862610486249830911048624) Te supernatural authority o the Seventy
(Lk 1048625104862410486251048631) and the apostles (1048626 Cor 1048625104862610486251048626) is attested by miracles Paul argues rom
Scripture that Christ had to suffer and rise again (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091) and he regards
the resurrection as ldquoproo to all menrdquo (Acts 104862510486319830911048625 c Rom 10486251048628) Some do believe
because o miracles (Jn 1048625104862610486251048625 Acts 104863310486281048626 104862598309110486251048626)
As mentioned above this does not show that an unproblematic appeal tomiracles and prophecy can be made today but that Scripture uses reasons in
support o aith Just how that should be done is the subject o this book
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 235
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 335
B R I A N K M O R L E Y
M A P P I N G
C O M P A R I N G C O N T E M P O R A R Y A P P R O A C H E S
A P O L O G E T I C S
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 435
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 535
CONTENTS
Introduction 983097
Chart o Apologetic Approaches 983089983092
PART ONE FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES
983089 Apologetics in the Bible 983090983097
983090 Apologetics in History A survey 1048627983097
PART TWO APOLOGETIC METHODOLOGIES
Presuppositionalism
1048627 Cornelius Van il Christianity is an intellectual
commitment we cannot do without 983093983097
983092 John Frame We see ultimate truth rom
more than one perspective 983097983088
Reformed Epistemology
983093 Alvin Plantinga Belie in God is an immediate
awareness and belie in Christianity is a git o God 983089983089983096
Combinationalism983094 E J Carnell Gordon Lewis and Francis Schaeer
Christianity is logical actual and viable 983089983092983095
Classical Apologetics
983095 Introduction to Classical Apologetics
Prove theism then Christianity 983089983096983093
983096 Richard Swinburne heism andChristianity are highly probable 983089983097983088
983097 William Lane Craig God is proved by theistic
arguments and Christianity by evidences 983090983089983097
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 635
983089983088 Norman Geisler heism is proved by
what is undeniable and Christainity is
known rom evidences 983090983093983094
Evidentialism
983089983089 John Warwick Montgomery Facts point to interpretations
and critical acts point to Christianity 983090983097983090
983089983090 Gary Habermas Christianity can be proved by
widely accepted crucial acts 10486271048627983092
Conclusion Putting it all together 1048627983093983089
Name Index 1048627983094983095
Subject Index 1048627983095983089
Scripture Index 1048627983095983093
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 735
INTRODUCTION
On March 1048633 1048625104863310486311048628 Japanese lieutenant Hiroo Onoda walked out o the jungle
on a remote island in the Philippines finally convinced that World War II was
overmdashtwenty-nine years afer it had ended rained as an intelligence officer in
guerilla warare he was told to survive at all costs No matter what happened
his superiors would come or him
Just a ew months afer his arrival in 1048625104863310486281048628 the allies overwhelmed Japanese
deenses and Hiroorsquos band o five hid deep in the jungle surviving on what theycould find When the war ended many attempts were made to find and convince
the remaining soldiers to come out Newspapers and even letters rom relatives
were lef which they ound along with leaflets But how could the war have
ended so quickly And why were there spelling errors in the leaflets Hiroorsquos
own brother even came and attempted to speak to him over a loudspeaker Te
band considered each piece o evidence and always concluded that the enemy
was trying to deceive them One by one they died the last one afer twenty-
seven years in hiding leaving Hiroo alone
Finally a Japanese student tracked Hiroo down and beriended him He
could not surrender Hiroo explained until his commanding officer ordered
him to do so Te student returned to Japan and the government ound his
commander now a bookseller who returned in his tattered uniorm and per-
sonally gave the order Hiroo still in his uniorm with sword on his side and
his working rifle in his hand was relieved o duty and wept Philippine pres-
ident Ferdinand Marcos pardoned him or the approximately thirty people hehad killed over the years because the soldier had believed he was still at war
Hiroo returned to a world vastly changed realizing that his belies had been
completely wrong or nearly thirty years
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 835
10486251048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Hiroo illustrates the problem o belie what to accept as evidence and as
valid explanation how to weigh assumptions and much more We make such
complex decisions in our own lives over both minor belies and major onesAnd we all come to and hold the most crucial belies o our existencemdashour
worldviewmdashentailing whether to believe in a God how to live and what to do
about an aferlie i there is one
Tere could not be a more important question than how we are to decide
what to believe Tat is the subject o this book
S983139983151983152983141
Tere are a number o conflicting approaches as we shall see Some approaches
have been used to support a wide variety o worldviews and some have been
developed and used in a uniquely Christian context I have chosen those most
discussed today the live options as represented by those who have had a major
part in shaping them In a ew cases the choice was difficult and different ones
could have been made I would like to have written much more covering the
work o more apologists in each o the major categories but the bookrsquos total
length would have been dauntingI have tried to represent each thinker airly as they would describe their views
I have had the privilege o meeting and talking to most o the those I have written
about (including the late Greg Bahnsen) and whether by personal contact or
only via their writings I am glad to have been exposed to such brilliant minds
who have worked hard on these complex issues over a lietime I am grateul to
those who despite very busy schedules were able to review what I had written
about them and to offer some input John Frame Alvin Plantinga Mark HannaGordon Lewis (on his views and E J Carnellrsquos) Norman Geisler Richard Swin-
burne John Warwick Montgomery (who also gave helpul input on my con-
cluding chapter) and Gary Habermas James N Anderson983089 kindly went over my
chapter on Cornelius Van il and gave some helpul input Teir input was not
only valuable but also reassuring and encouraging Irsquom also grateul to Inter-
Varsity Pressrsquos anonymous reviewer or detailed thoughtul input
I have tried to be not only air but also clear so as to be accessible to readers who
have no special background in apologetic methodology o that end I have ex-
plained terms and kept specialized words to a minimum I have traded the tech-
1James N Anderson is associate proessor o theology and philosophy at Reormed Teological
Seminary in Charlotte North Carolina and supervises wwwvantilino
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 935
Introduction 10486251048625
nical rigor that characterizes purely academic writing or readability or a wider
audience (and in some cases have rerained rom reerencing more technical
sources) Incidentally I have occasionally used a male pronoun to reer to bothmen and women where my intention is obvious and I sometimes use both a male
and a emale pronoun (ldquohe or sherdquo) to make that clear Where it is not awkward I
use ldquotheirrdquo Biblical quotations are rom the New American Standard Bible
Along the way I repeat a ew things briefly by way o reminder so the reader
does not have to search back through the book and so that the chapters stand
alone better in order to aid the reader who does not go through the book quickly
Te structure o every chapter is not identical Some stop to compare apologetic
approaches and in others more time is spent exploring the criticisms
o benefit the reader with some background in the topic o the book and to
serve the advanced reader I have also sought where possible to bring out the
deeper underlying issues separating the views most o which are philosophical
having to do with issues such as the ollowing how we know how we have cer-
tainty (and how certain we can be) the relation between aith and evidence the
possibilities o reasoning by way o deduction induction and abduction the role
o assumptions and presuppositions the relation between evidence andworldview the validity o intuition as a way o knowing and its possible divine
origin and whether we can know some things without inerring them rom other
things we know (ie oundationalism) Trough all this I hope to bring the issues
into sharper ocus so as to acilitate more constructive dialogue on the subject o
apologetic methods
Te ocus o the book is on understanding the theories and how they see each
other so I have kept my own views to a minimum adding my conclusions and
constructive insights in a final chapter (Perhaps Irsquoll have the opportunity to
expand those into a book) Where I have made my own brie addition that could
be mistaken or the view o the eatured apologist I usually precede it with some-
thing like ldquoWe could add that rdquo In a ew places I have added the thoughts o
others to the material about the eatured apologist in order to broaden the
readerrsquos knowledge a bit (the longest addition being a section on miracles in the
chapter on evidentialism) In a ew sections in which I develop the thinking o
the eatured apologist I include a brie criticism rom another thinker in order
to save the reader rom having to go back rom the criticism section and search
to connect the criticism with the apologistrsquos view
My twenty-five years o experience as a proessor led me to add a list o terms
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1035
10486251048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
discussion questions and suggestions or urther reading Tat teaching expe-
rience has shown me too that complex issues are best understood i they can be
viewed rom different angles and more than onceIn order to increase understanding o where the approaches lead I have in-
cluded something o how they would actually be used ocusing on some o the
best insights that each has to offer Some approaches require a bit more detail
to show what the apologist is doing and how it all fits with their method For
example I summarize Norman Geislerrsquos rationale or selecting the right test or
truth review his criteria or selecting a worldview and finally show how he ap-
plies this method to arrive at theism It requires some detail to see the systematic
nature and rigor o his approach So at the end o the book the reader will come
away with not only the theories but also their application
As I mentioned at the beginning o this introduction I have ocused on those
who are currently influential which is why I have chosen or example Van il
over Abraham Kuyper I have also ocused on those whose work in the field has
been sustained original and extensive Tat entails choosing or example Gary
Habermas over Josh McDowell even though as a popular writer the latter has had
enormous influence My only regret is that the purpose o this book and the con-straints on its length do not permit more attention to those who have made very
worthy contributions in the past such as Gordon Clark and C S Lewis and more
recently John Feinberg the late Paul Feinberg Douglas Groothuis Ravi Zacharias
and K Scott Oliphint to name just a ew It is regrettable that only a ew pages can
be given to Francis Schaeffer who had an enormous influence in his day but is
not as well-known to younger people and shied away rom discussions on apolo-
getic theory most notably with Van il who was eager to engage him
Each apologist can be unique but can also in some ways resemble the char-
acteristics o someone representing a different approach William Lane Craig or
example is not ar rom Alvin Plantinga in his emphasis on the personal inward
awareness o God yet he is thoroughly classical in how he makes his case to
others John Warwick Montgomery a staunch evidentialist regards C S Lewis
as something o a mentor Tey are similar in the breadth o their interests pio-
neering the use o literature to communicate the gospel and it seems similar in
their personalities983090 But in overall approach C S Lewis is in the classical camp
One o my hopes or this book is that more people will gain a good grasp o
2o me they both seem expressive creative and interested in all o liersquos possibilities
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1135
Introduction 1048625983091
this crucial field o apologetic methods When the subject is taught ofen only
one approach is presented and students are lef with little or no grasp o any-
thing elsemdashand donrsquot really even understand the approach they are supposed toaccept and use Tose who are introduced to the issues outside o a classroom
tend to read only apologists rom their own camp
I progress is to made on a subject so vital we will need a new generation o
people who are interested in doing serious work Most o those who have la-
bored in this field in modern times are at or past retirement or have already
passed on My real hope is that this book will help motivate some people to take
up this work and carry it orward
I canrsquot thank InterVarsity Press enough (especially Andy Le Peau and Al Hsu)
or their great patience and encouragement as I struggled with a hellacious
onslaught o challenges that greatly slowed progress on the book I canrsquot imagine
a better publisher and I am honored they are doing this book I am also grateul
or Mark Hanna who first introduced me to this topic when I was a seminary
student Not only was he kind and encouraging but his grasp o all things apol-
ogetic has also always been inspiring I owe thanks to the sabbatical committee
which granted me time to work on this book and on God in the Shadows Evilin Godrsquos World 983091 I also want to thank my wonderul wie Donna or her con-
tinual support as well as her example o discipline and passion in the research
and writing o her own books
O983158983141983154983158983145983141983159
Tis book is organized according to a schema represented in the chart below
that I have used through much o my twenty-five years o teaching this subjectIt is not perect but I have ound that it aids understanding the relationships
among the views
On the ar lef is fideism (rom the Latin or ldquoaithrdquo) according to which
belie cannot or should not be supported by evidence o any kind On this view
aith and reason are in separate nonoverlapping circles I we have aith we have
no reasons to believe i we have reasons to believe we do not need aith Some
people are fideists because o such convictions about the nature o aith others
believe that the allen mind is incapable o processing reasons or that the
subject is simply beyond the mindrsquos grasp Te resulting view is that aith must
3Brian Morley God in the Shadows Evil in Godrsquos World (Geanies House Fearn Ross-shire Scot-
land Christian Focus 1048626983088983088983094)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1235
10486251048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Approach Fideism Presuppositionalism Reformed
epistemologyExperien-tialism
Pragmatism
rarr Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence rarr
Definingcharacteristics
bullFaithunsupportedbullFaith and
reason donrsquotoverlapbullOr reason isbeyond themindrsquos graspbullOr the mindis too fallen
bullStarting pointsare necessarypresuppositionsunprovable byindependent evidencebullNo independentlyknown factsbullldquoBorrowed capitalrdquo
bullAutonomy is theproblembullNo common ldquonotionsrdquobullReasoning must becircular deductiveindirect from
ChristianitybullTranscendentalargumentbullRange ofpresuppositionalistsfrom Van Til to Frame
bull Awareness of God( sensus divinitatus) isgrounded in howwe are made andtriggered
bullChristian faith agiftbullClassicalfoundationalismtoo narrowbullGod is properlybasicbullFaith can exceedreasons
bullExperiencealone
bullExperience isonly proof wecan have oronly proof weneed
bullAccept whatworksbullHas a widevariety of forms
Adherentsbull(Pascal)bullKierkegaardbullBarth
bullVan TilbullBahnsenbullFrame (modified keypoints)
bullAlvin Plantinga mdash
bullC S PeircebullWilliam JamesbullJohn DeweybullRichard Rorty
CriticismsbullSubjective
bullUnbiblical
bullAmounts to fideismbullTranscendental
argument cannot provethe Christian God
bullCannot rule outother beliefs likethe Great Pumpkin
bullExperiencesmust beinterpreted
bullWhatworks ne truth
bullWhat works isvague
Epistemo-logical startingpoint
Faith PresuppositionImmediateawareness
Experience Workability
Summary
No reasons or
certaintyentirelysubjectiveand volitional
No independent facts asreasons
Intuitions plusancillary reasons
One type ofevidence butsubjective
One type of
evidence thatlinks internaland external
Figure Chart of Apologetic Approaches
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1335
Introduction 10486251048629
Veridicalism Combinationalism Classical
apologetics Evidentialism Rationalism
Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence Cumulative case common ground
bullGivens + corroborationbullGivens are knownintuitively and certainlycan be corroboratedbullUniversal givens can beknown by all andconstitute cognitive
neutral groundbullGod is a universal givenbullSpecial givens areknown by ChristiansbullCommon ground =human needs commonexperiencesbullNo spiritually neutralgroundbullEight kinds of ldquoseeingrdquo
bullChristianity ahypothesis to be tested
bullThree-aspect testrational (self-consistent) empirical(fits relevant facts)existential (can belived)
bullProve theism thenChristianitybullProve theism usingtheistic proofs
cosmologicalargumentteleologicalargument moralargumentbullProve Christianity(same asevidentialists)
bullEvidence points toChristianitybullTheistic argumentsuseful but notnecessary
bullFacts point to bestinterpretationbullProphecy andresurrection provethe BiblebullUse universallyaccepted facts(Habermas)
bullAbsolutecertaintybullStart from
indubitablepointbullReason usingdeductionbullBuild up toworldview
bullMark HannahbullE J CarnellbullGordon LewisbullFrancis Schaeffer
bullNorman GeislerbullWilliam Lane CraigbullJ P MorelandbullR C SproulbullRichard Swinburne
bullJohn WarwickMontgomerybullJosh McDowellbullGary Habermas
bullDescartes
bullGivens cannot rationally
ground belief
bullThree tests are
unworkable
bullMain critics arepresuppositionalistsbullThere is no common
groundbullMust reason from
Christianity
bullFacts must beinterpreted
bullFacts cannot point totheir interpretation
bullIndubitablestarting pointscannot lead to a
worldviewwithout addingalong the way
Givens and corroboration Three-aspect test Two-step argumentFacts pointing tointerpretation
Deduction fromcertain startingpoint
Internal givens andobjective corroboration
Hypothesis tested
internal to theoryexternally with factsand existentially
Uses cosmos and order
to prove interpretiveframework (theism)then uses facts ofhistory
Proves Christianity
using many objectiveindependentlyexisting facts
Certainty is
absolutenothing issubjective orvolitional
Figure (continued)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1435
10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
be purely a gif rom God Fideists who tilt toward a Calvinistic view o salvation
(according to which God predestines individuals or salvation) may see the
action o the mind as irrelevant Because the ultimate cause o belie is divinechoice God bypasses the intellect
Fideism is thus a denial o apologetics which makes it different rom other
views All the views to the right hold that there is at least some overlap between
aith and reason that there are reasons o some kind or belie
On the ar right o the chart is rationalism which claims complete proo or
belie Te classic example is Reneacute Descartes (1048625104862910486331048630ndash1048625104863010486291048624) who lived in the tu-
multuous afermath o the Reormation when the Continent was divided over
religious belie He sought certainty by starting rom something he could not
doubt then building up rom there he used deduction a orm o reasoning that
guarantees the truth o the conclusion i we accept the premises In spite o his
original approach and rigorous effort virtually everyone today sees Descartes
as coming short o providing the level o certainty he offered
So the ar lef and the ar right are opposites aith can have no support and
aith has complete support
Just to the right o fideism is presuppositionalism which says we can have nodirect proo or either God or Christianity Tat means we cannot make either one
the conclusion o a noncircular argument In a traditional argument premises are
known independently o the conclusion and are offered as grounds or the con-
clusion Te problem with this says the ounder o presuppositionalism Cornelius
Van il is that nothing can be known independently o God because ultimately
truth is whatever God says it is God does not ldquoknowrdquo an independently existing
reality rather he determines that reality He knows the lights are on in the room
because he determined that they would be on Adam ell when he tried to become
independent o God determining or himsel what is true and morally right Fallen
humanityrsquos problem is not primarily ignorance but rebellion Te unbeliever does
not need to merely add a ew acts to his worldview but to completely tear it down
and rebuild one that makes God the source and guarantor o every act So to en-
courage the nonbeliever to think he can know premises and determine truth inde-
pendently o God is to inflame the problem Furthermore even i such a process
results in a person affirming the Bible as the Word o God he has in effect passed
judgment on God when God should be passing judgment on him As well things
can be tested only using something higher and more ultimate yet nothing can be
more ultimate than the Word o God Despite all this the presuppositionalist says
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1535
Introduction 10486251048631
we can have absolute proo or the Christian God because only i he exists can we
know anything Only i the Christian God exists and knows everythingmdashas well
as determines everythingmdashis knowledge o any kind about anything possible Allother viewpoints ail because they claim to be true yet cannot properly account or
how we have knowledge So while there is no direct proo there is absolutely
certain indirect proo or Christianity Christianity is a presupposition we cannot
do without It is claimed that even attempts to disprove Christianity must assume
it is true thus we can know Christianity transcendentally as a necessary as-
sumption Also the Bible is sel-attesting Godrsquos sheep hear his voice (Jn 1048625104862410486261048631)
Tis view is next to fideism because it bases knowledge on a presupposition
(roughly a commitment to a oundational assumption) rather than anything
known independently Proponents see their view as akin to rationalism which
offers absolute certainty or knowledge whereas many critics see it as closer to
fideism because it works by presupposing rather than directly proving
Note that there is a wide range among presuppositionalists rom those who
ollow Van il with little or no modification such as Greg Bahnsen to those who
have modified the view considerably such as John Frame Some o Framersquos mod-
ifications such as acceptance o some use o induction o the transcendental ar-gument as a direct as well as an indirect proo and acceptance o the cumulative
orce o arguments would put him on the right side o the chart Tere are also
those who take the label o presuppositionalist who emphasize Van ilrsquos rejection
o traditional direct proo but want little or nothing to do with his indirect proo
I knew one proessor who called himsel both a presuppositionalist and a ldquobiblical
fideistrdquo So on the chart we can have a lef side o presuppositionalism which is
closer to fideism and a right side which sees a robust role or proos o different
kinds In the middle would be Van il and Bahnsen Frame would be on the ar
right ideally on a line that extends to the right side o the chart (which would best
be indicated by an arrow since an actual line might be visually conusing)
Gordon Clark and Carl F H Henry represent a more deductive orm o pre-
suppositionalism in which the Bible is posited as true and what can be deduced
rom it is also true Unlike Van il and Bahnsen they do not try to justiy Christian
presuppositions transcendentally that is as the only basis or reason Herman
Dooyeweerd (DOE-yuh-vaird 1048625104863210486331048628ndash1048625104863310486311048631) took some o the oundations laid by
Abraham Kuyper (104862510486329830911048631ndash1048625104863310486261048624) in a different direction than Van il
John Frame has sought to remain true to Van ilrsquos central insights while
modiying significant aspects o his approach He maintains his ormer teacherrsquos
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1635
10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
convictions that since acts are not independently existing realities we cannot
simply see which interpretation fits best and use them independently to decide
on an interpretation (the view o evidentialism) and there can be no neutralground He emphasizes the important nuance that it is really statements o acts
that are not separate rom interpretation
Frame says that in an argument because the premises commit us to the
conclusion they thereore commit us to what the premises presuppose making
presuppositions a kind o conclusion Presuppositions are commitments that
govern our other belies and as such they are not deeasible (cannot be deeated
by evidence and argument) unless a contrary presupposition is adopted Since
all thought is dependent on God who makes all argument possible we should
not encourage the nonbeliever to think otherwise
Contrary to Van il Frame believes that there can be real agreement between
the believer and nonbeliever induction can be acceptable in apologetics and the
transcendental approach is an overall goal and not a single argumentmdashthere
being no way the Christian God o love justice patience wisdom and more
must be presupposed in order or anyone to understand and talk about anything
He also believes that there is no essential difference between direct and indirectreasoning thereore the major difference between presuppositional and tradi-
tional apologetics may be the intent o the apologist to acknowledge God as
sovereign and the source o all meaning intelligibility and rationality that is
the ultimate authority or human thought
Frame adds the extremely important stipulation that interpretations can be
verified on the basis o acts In other words we can compare the data o the
mind with the data o the external world Interpretations can be verified by
comparing them with acts and acts can be verified by comparing them with
interpretations Neither one is a brute incorrigible standard983092
Tese and other modifications make presuppositionalism much closer to
traditional apologetics and give it access to a large array o more traditional
arguments Frame adds his own highly constructive innovations holding that
as nonomniscient beings we can see things in different perspectives that are
simultaneous and overlapping where each can contain the other Knowledge
or example is a matter o sense experience reason and eeling
o the right o presuppositionalism is the Reormed epistemology o Alvin
4Personal email correspondence with Frame Aug 10486261048628 104862698308810486251048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1735
Introduction 10486251048633
Plantinga He challenges the notion that belie must be proportional to evidence
such that we are entitled to believe only as much as we can prove In answer he
points out that people commonly and rightly believe many things they wouldhave trouble proving such as that the world was not created with apparent age
only a ew minutes ago or that people have minds like us and are not merely
cleverly designed robots So it is rational to believe in God to a degree greater
than we can prove Te level o proo that would be required to justiy a belie
as crucial as Christianity would be very high and we have that level or virtually
no philosophical belies o that magnitude Knowledge o God is the result o
an inner knowing what Calvin called the sensus divinitatis which arises in us
because o how we are made Te catalyst or that knowing can be different or
different people perhaps the grandeur o mountains or the starry sky
Knowledge o Christianity comes by an inner knowing that is a special gif o
the Holy Spirit Te inner knowing o both God and Christianity is not evidence
or a conclusion but an immediate knowing (like knowing we have pain or that
we exist) Plantinga affirms the value o arguments but alone they hold little
promise o being sufficient to truly justiy belie in God or Christianity
Reormed epistemology is to the right o presuppositionalism because it a-firms a role or independent proos but it is on the lef side o the chart because
it is a type o intuition that grounds aith
Next is experientialism especially o the sort where an experience is taken
as grounds or the conclusion that God exists or that Christianity is true In this
type experience is evidence or the conclusion Tis would include such things
as experiences o answered prayers or providential care or an awareness o God
that is the basis or the conclusion that God is there What is unique about this
method is that such experiences are the only basis or belie Other methods to
the right o it accept experience as one proo among many o the lef o the view
fideism accepts no proo presuppositionalism does not regard experience as
proper proo or God or Christianity and Reormed epistemology regards ex-
perience as a direct knowing but not evidence or a conclusion So coming rom
the lef side o the chart experientialism is the first view that accepts something
as independent grounds to justiy belie
Although I have met people who take an experientialist approach to justi-
ying belie in God or Christianity it is difficult to find whole books supporting
the view People who take the view generally regard their experiences as ade-
quate to justiy only their own belies and do not expect mere reports o their
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1835
10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
experiences to be sufficient or someone else thus others would need to have
their own experiences So it is not hard to see why ew would see the value in
writing about their experiences as a way to convince others Tis book does nothave a chapter on the approach but it includes a brie critique by Norman
Geisler Te problem with experientialism is that experiences must be inter-
preted A person can have an experience but that does not mean we mustmdashor
even canmdashtake it at ace value Someonersquos experience o their dead ancestor
appearing to them could be interpreted in a number o ways as could a personrsquos
experience o the Hindu god Shiva Whether such things are regarded as real
imaginary demonic apparitions or whatever depends on what other belies we
hold as true Furthermore how do we resolve conflicts between experiences
Tereore experience is widely regarded as insufficient as the sole means o
proo though it typically appears as one type o evidence in the apologetic
methods to the right o it on the chart
Next we add pragmatism which essentially offers one source o justification
that o workability Tere are both simple and sophisticated orms o this view
but the idea is i it works we can accept a belie as verified to some degree Tere
is a difference between the (more radical) claim that workability equals truthor is what we mean by truth versus workability as an indicator o truth Te
latter view is ofen added into the mix o possible methods o justification
among views to the right o pragmatism on the chart I have chosen not to use
the available space in the book to detail pragmatism because so ar its best-
known philosophical orms have not been as popular as other approaches
among those seeking to know or justiy theism or Christianity Te view has
been developed by C S Peirce (pronounced ldquoPurserdquo 104862510486329830911048633ndash1048625104863310486251048628) William James
(1048625104863210486281048626ndash1048625104863310486251048624) and recently by neopragmatist Richard Rorty (104862510486339830911048625ndash1048626104862410486241048631) I have
included brie criticisms o pragmatism made by Norman Geisler
Moving again to the right on our chart veridicalism developed by Mark
Hanna sees knowledge as grounded in givens983093 which are known intuitively and
with certainty and are not inerred rom other things we know All humans can
benefit rom universal givens some o which cannot be coherently denied (be-
cause denying them would require assuming them) such as our own existence
5ldquoLiterally anything that can be veridically nonpostulationally and nondiscursively grasped by
consciousness is a given And i it is susceptible o apprehension by all human beings in prin-
ciple it is a universal givenrdquo Mark M Hanna Crucial Questions in Apologetics (Grand Rapids
Baker Book House 10486259830979830961048625) p 10486251048625983095
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1935
Introduction 10486261048625
and the principle o noncontradiction Awareness o the existence o the God o
theism is a universal given Christians benefit additionally rom special givens
including awareness that God cares or them that the Bible is Godrsquos Word (whichis sel-attesting only to believers1048630) and that he or she is saved Because universal
givens are knowable independently o a worldview and within any worldview
they orm cognitive neutral ground Tere is however no spiritually neutral
ground since everyone either accepts or rejects what can be universally known
about God1048631 Tere is common ground consisting o human needs such as guilt
and loneliness as well as cultural patterns o thinking and acting1048632 Tough
known immediately givens can be corroborated in different ways or example
by reflection and by their connection to other givens1048633 Some are known because
they are undeniable and others can be supported by evidence and inerence
Some arguments or theism are inductively strong such as the kalam cosmo-
logical argument and the teleological argument rom fine tuning o the universe
or lie9830891048624 In all it can be shown that God is the best explanation A case can also
be made or Christianity Te essential belies o Christianity are givens that can
be corroborated Tey are not arrived at rom nontheological data or premises983089983089
Citing Christrsquos statement that some see without ldquoseeingrdquo (Mt 10486259830911048625983091) Hanna iden-tifies eight kinds o ldquoseeingrdquo only one o which is physical Each has two poles
relating to its reality (metaphysical) and its knowability (epistemological) Tey
are physical intellectual introspective intersubjective (awareness o other
persons and onersquos relationship to them) moral aesthetic (which can grasp ob-
jective beauty) and spiritual (one mode that is common to all humans another
that is unique to Christians) Some orms o seeing overlap and interact or ex-
ample spiritual seeing requires some use o intellectual seeing He argues (in a
orthcoming book) that biblical theism is the only adequate explanation o the
eight modes o seeing and their objective correlates
Next is the view called combinationalism According to the combinationalism983089983090
o E J Carnell and Gordon Lewis traditional proos or the existence o God are
inadequate or the same reason that the empiricism they are implicitly based on
6Ibid p 104862598308810486277Ibid p 104862598308810486298Ibid9Ibid p 10486259830881048625
10Phone conversation with Mark Hanna Oct 1048625983094 10486269830881048625104862711Hanna Crucial Questions p 10486251048626104862512Te name was not chosen by Carnell but it is used in Norman Geislerrsquos widely read Christian
Apologetics 1048626nd ed (Grand Rapids Baker Books 104862698308810486251048627)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2035
10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
is inadequate you can never arrive at what is immutable universal and necessary
rom what is finite I you cannot arrive at God rom experience you must bring
God to experience in the orm o a hypothesis to be tested Tis does not meanour aith is weak or tentative only that to be intellectually honest as God would
have us be we must at least in principle be rational in our aith In this sense we
treat Christianity as a hypothesis and like any hypothesis it must not contradict
itsel Anything sel-contradictory cannot be true but what is noncontradictory
could be true o see i it is true we check it with all relevant acts looking or
contradictions between the hypothesis and the acts Te hypothesis should be
applicable to lie in the sense that it can be lived out without contradiction Tere
is common ground between believer and nonbeliever consisting or example in
the principle o noncontradiction values ethics and the need or love Fur-
thermore worldviews typically overlap in areas that are impersonal and nonmeta-
physical Even science properly practiced can be carried on between believer and
nonbeliever But worldviews diverge as soon as questions o ultimate meaning and
purpose arise We can prove that Christianity is true to the extent that we can
prove any real-world belie is true that is with high probability Yet we can have
complete inner assurance ldquocertituderdquo that it is true Combinationalism is to theright o pragmatism on the chart because it tests belie using an objective standard
that o consistency A hypothesis must be consistent within itsel consistent with
the acts and capable o being lived out consistently
In the next column is classical apologetics which is practiced by people as
diverse as C S Lewis William Lane Craig J P Moreland R C Sproul John
Gerstner and Norman Geisler Tis approach aims first to prove theism the
general belie that God is or example omnipotent omniscient omnipresent
holy creator and sustainer o the universe I theism is not proved first proo
or the resurrection or example would not necessarily be interpreted theisti-
cally by the unbeliever O course i the unbeliever already accepts theism
proving it is unnecessary
Classical apologists use theistic arguments (though they are also used by
some apologists who use other methods) Tey are types or amilies o argu-
ments in that there are a number o variations to each Te cosmological ar-
gument essentially reasons rom the existence o the universe to a creator One
orm argues that God is a necessary being that he must exist in every possible
world Another argues that everything needs an adequate cause thus the uni-
verse needs an adequate cause and that cause is God (he is not a thing and is
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2135
Introduction 1048626983091
uncaused) Te teleological argument reasons rom design in the universe to a
designer Modern science has uncovered intricate design in DNA or example
We are also discovering the amazing extent to which the universe has been finelytuned to allow or lie Te moral argument which is not used as widely as the
cosmological and teleological arguments argues rom the existence o objective
moral obligations to a higher moral being as the grounds o such obligations
Norman Geisler believes we must use a different approach to prove the truth
o a worldview versus truth within a worldview He uses six first principles o
reality which cannot be denied because any attempt to deny them would use
them (similar to Hannarsquos view) We do not need to prove them we simply ldquoseerdquo
that they are true once we understand them One first principle (stated inor-
mally) is that ldquosomething existsrdquo Anyone who attempts to deny that is admitting
they exist Another is the principle o noncontradiction which would also be
assumed by anyone attempting to deny it Once alternatives are eliminated and
theism is proved Geisler shows that Christianity explains all the known acts in
the most consistent way
o the right o classical apologetics and just lef o rationalism (on the ar right)
evidentialism has been popularized in recent decades by Josh McDowell who wasinfluenced by John Warwick Montgomery Gary Habermas has also been influ-
ential and widely known Te view does not require that theism be proved first
While most evidentialists accept theistic arguments and would use them they do
not believe it is necessary to first prove theism Unlike classical apologists eviden-
tialists believe that at least to some extent acts point to their proper interpre-
tation So evidentialists typically work to prove the resurrection afer supporting
the veracity o the Bible (eg John Warwick Montgomery) or at least the believ-
ability o very widely accepted crucial acts (eg Gary Habermas) Many o the
same acts and approaches used by evidentialists are used by classical apologists
in their second step which seeks to prove Christianity
Letrsquos review the chart again this time more briefly For fideism there can be
no proo but there is certitude rom aith in revelation For presupposition-
alism there can be no direct proo o Christianity but we must presuppose it
roughly assume it by conviction and necessity Te case must ultimately be
circular Revelation is known o its own authority but we can have proo be-
cause it must be presupposed For Reormed epistemology noncircular argu-
ments are acceptable in principle and should be developed but they are not
adequate to ground something as crucial as religious aith Belie in God is an
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2235
10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
awareness that can arise in us because o the way we were created and belie
in Christianity is a divine gif Moving right experientialism is the first view
that accepts something as decisive standalone evidence or the conclusion thatChristianity is true Te evidence is internal and subjective Pragmatism deals
with workability which is a more objective orm o experience and is thereore
to the right o experientialism (Note that what ldquoworksrdquo can be defined differ-
ently by different people)
Moving urther right (but not including rationalism on the extreme right nor
combinationalism) we have views that accept induction as an important and e-
ective method o proo or religious belie Tey (including combinationalism)
also accept a cumulative case that is layers o proo adding up to orm a stronger
case overall Religious experience and workability in lie (including giving lie
meaning) also typically play a supporting role in an overall case (whereas with
experientialism experience is the only proo) Veridicalism accepts both givens
that are known intuitively and that are undeniable and effective corroboration
through evidence and reason Everyone can have an immediate awareness o God
and the Christian can have an additional awareness o some essentials o Christi-
anity In its emphasis on direct awareness it is like Reormed epistemology but in veridicalism corroborating evidence can be strong and decisive So like Reormed
epistemology on its lef it has a place or intuition but like views on its right it
has a place or a convincing case based on evidence
As we continue to move right intuition (similar to ldquosel-attestingrdquo or presup-
positionalism) plays less o a role and there is more emphasis on independently
existing objective evidence as grounds or belie983089983091 Tere are also more such
objective criteria until we get to evidentialism which appeals to a multiplicity
o individual acts
Combinationalism accepts livability as a test o a hypothesis but only as one
o three aspects o consistency whereas to the lef pragmatism viewed livability
as the main criteria and to the right o combinationalism livability is viewed
as only one o a number o actors in an overall case
Classical apologetics accepts arguments or theism and or Christianity typ-
ically insisting (like presuppositionalism) that a worldview determines the in-
terpretation o acts But like the views on the right side o the chart that
worldview is established by something other than a necessary assumption (or
13Presuppositionalists would say that the transcendental argument provides objective evidence but
they would not say that it is ldquoindependently existingrdquo since no acts exist independent o God
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2335
Introduction 10486261048629
Geisler it is by undeniable first principles but unlike presuppositionalism they
are necessary in every worldview c Hanna)
Evidentialism is the near polar opposite o presuppositionalism affirmingthat acts can be known independently o the views that interpret them and that
acts can even point to the correct interpretation
I once showed this chart to Greg Bahnsen who not surprisingly said that pre-
suppositionalism should be on the right next to rationalism as offering absolutely
certain proo or belie In response I pointed out that certainty was secondary the
primary order o the chart was appeal to independent evidence or the conclusion
So fideism appeals to no independent evidence Presuppositionalism appeals to a
presupposition but not to independent evidence as grounds or belie (ie no direct
proo) Reormed epistemology appeals to intuition Experientialism appeals to
one subjective criterion as evidence or a conclusion pragmatism to one external
criterion Next is veridicalism which appeals to givens plus external and inde-
pendent evidence Ten comes combinationalism with its appeals to consistency
o hypothesis and fittingness with the acts plus livability Ten classical apologetics
appeals to independent evidence or theism and Christianity And finally eviden-
tialism appeals to a multiplicity o independent actsmdashthe opposite o presupposi-tionalismrsquos view that there are no independent acts Bahnsen thought or a ew
seconds and said ldquoTat could work that could workrdquo983089983092 I then mentioned that I
always tell my students that presuppositionalists see their view as close to
rationalism as ar as both offer certainty I add that they would see their presup-
positionalism as different rom rationalismrsquos method o using independent evi-
dence (Descartes or example amously beginning rom his own thoughtmdashagain
the opposite o presuppositionalism which begins with God as the standard o
truth) I it were not visually too complicated on the chart I might put fideism
presuppositionalism and rationalism each at different points o a triangle so that
presuppositionalism could be equidistant rom the aith o fideism and the absolute
proo o rationalism yet unique But over the years students have generally con-
firmed that it would be too complicated and thus unhelpul
Beore we begin it is worth briefly recounting why fideism which challenges
the legitimacy o apologetics is biblically inadequate Here are just a ew ex-
amples o biblical reasons or belie Moses asks God or signs to show his people
that he has divine authority (Ex 10486281048625) which God grants and later he grants
14Personal conversation afer Bahnsen was a guest speaker in my apologetics class Masterrsquos Col-
lege Newhall Caliornia in the all o 10486259830979830971048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2435
10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
abundant signs in the conrontation with Pharaoh (Ex 1048631ndash10486251048625) In the wilderness
God supernaturally demonstrates his presence his provision or his people and
his backing o Mosesrsquo leadership In the conquest o the Promised Land Goddivides the Jordan (Josh 98309110486251048631) gives victories over superior orces (Josh 10486251048628-1048633
98309110486251048624-10486251048631) and extends daylight (Josh 1048625104862410486251048626-10486251048628) He grants miracles or Gideon
(Judg 104863110486251048630-10486261048626) Samson (Judg 104862510486281048630 10486251048633 1048625104862910486251048629 10486251048630983091) and others Prophets such as
Elijah predict events and perorm miracles Jesusrsquo lie ulfills a number o proph-
ecies and is attested by miracles He points to them as grounds or belie (Lk
1048626104862810486261048631 Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) When John the Baptist doubts Jesus points to evidence that
matches prophecy (Mt 104862510486251048628-1048629 c Is 1048626104863310486251048632) Jesus meets Tomasrsquos doubts with
evidence (Jn 1048626104862410486261048631) Afer the resurrection he gives ldquomany convincing proosrdquo
(Acts 1048625983091 c Lk 104862610486289830911048633) John recounts some o Jesusrsquo supernatural deeds as a way
o inspiring saving aith (Jn 104862610486249830911048624) Te supernatural authority o the Seventy
(Lk 1048625104862410486251048631) and the apostles (1048626 Cor 1048625104862610486251048626) is attested by miracles Paul argues rom
Scripture that Christ had to suffer and rise again (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091) and he regards
the resurrection as ldquoproo to all menrdquo (Acts 104862510486319830911048625 c Rom 10486251048628) Some do believe
because o miracles (Jn 1048625104862610486251048625 Acts 104863310486281048626 104862598309110486251048626)
As mentioned above this does not show that an unproblematic appeal tomiracles and prophecy can be made today but that Scripture uses reasons in
support o aith Just how that should be done is the subject o this book
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 335
B R I A N K M O R L E Y
M A P P I N G
C O M P A R I N G C O N T E M P O R A R Y A P P R O A C H E S
A P O L O G E T I C S
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 435
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 535
CONTENTS
Introduction 983097
Chart o Apologetic Approaches 983089983092
PART ONE FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES
983089 Apologetics in the Bible 983090983097
983090 Apologetics in History A survey 1048627983097
PART TWO APOLOGETIC METHODOLOGIES
Presuppositionalism
1048627 Cornelius Van il Christianity is an intellectual
commitment we cannot do without 983093983097
983092 John Frame We see ultimate truth rom
more than one perspective 983097983088
Reformed Epistemology
983093 Alvin Plantinga Belie in God is an immediate
awareness and belie in Christianity is a git o God 983089983089983096
Combinationalism983094 E J Carnell Gordon Lewis and Francis Schaeer
Christianity is logical actual and viable 983089983092983095
Classical Apologetics
983095 Introduction to Classical Apologetics
Prove theism then Christianity 983089983096983093
983096 Richard Swinburne heism andChristianity are highly probable 983089983097983088
983097 William Lane Craig God is proved by theistic
arguments and Christianity by evidences 983090983089983097
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 635
983089983088 Norman Geisler heism is proved by
what is undeniable and Christainity is
known rom evidences 983090983093983094
Evidentialism
983089983089 John Warwick Montgomery Facts point to interpretations
and critical acts point to Christianity 983090983097983090
983089983090 Gary Habermas Christianity can be proved by
widely accepted crucial acts 10486271048627983092
Conclusion Putting it all together 1048627983093983089
Name Index 1048627983094983095
Subject Index 1048627983095983089
Scripture Index 1048627983095983093
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 735
INTRODUCTION
On March 1048633 1048625104863310486311048628 Japanese lieutenant Hiroo Onoda walked out o the jungle
on a remote island in the Philippines finally convinced that World War II was
overmdashtwenty-nine years afer it had ended rained as an intelligence officer in
guerilla warare he was told to survive at all costs No matter what happened
his superiors would come or him
Just a ew months afer his arrival in 1048625104863310486281048628 the allies overwhelmed Japanese
deenses and Hiroorsquos band o five hid deep in the jungle surviving on what theycould find When the war ended many attempts were made to find and convince
the remaining soldiers to come out Newspapers and even letters rom relatives
were lef which they ound along with leaflets But how could the war have
ended so quickly And why were there spelling errors in the leaflets Hiroorsquos
own brother even came and attempted to speak to him over a loudspeaker Te
band considered each piece o evidence and always concluded that the enemy
was trying to deceive them One by one they died the last one afer twenty-
seven years in hiding leaving Hiroo alone
Finally a Japanese student tracked Hiroo down and beriended him He
could not surrender Hiroo explained until his commanding officer ordered
him to do so Te student returned to Japan and the government ound his
commander now a bookseller who returned in his tattered uniorm and per-
sonally gave the order Hiroo still in his uniorm with sword on his side and
his working rifle in his hand was relieved o duty and wept Philippine pres-
ident Ferdinand Marcos pardoned him or the approximately thirty people hehad killed over the years because the soldier had believed he was still at war
Hiroo returned to a world vastly changed realizing that his belies had been
completely wrong or nearly thirty years
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 835
10486251048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Hiroo illustrates the problem o belie what to accept as evidence and as
valid explanation how to weigh assumptions and much more We make such
complex decisions in our own lives over both minor belies and major onesAnd we all come to and hold the most crucial belies o our existencemdashour
worldviewmdashentailing whether to believe in a God how to live and what to do
about an aferlie i there is one
Tere could not be a more important question than how we are to decide
what to believe Tat is the subject o this book
S983139983151983152983141
Tere are a number o conflicting approaches as we shall see Some approaches
have been used to support a wide variety o worldviews and some have been
developed and used in a uniquely Christian context I have chosen those most
discussed today the live options as represented by those who have had a major
part in shaping them In a ew cases the choice was difficult and different ones
could have been made I would like to have written much more covering the
work o more apologists in each o the major categories but the bookrsquos total
length would have been dauntingI have tried to represent each thinker airly as they would describe their views
I have had the privilege o meeting and talking to most o the those I have written
about (including the late Greg Bahnsen) and whether by personal contact or
only via their writings I am glad to have been exposed to such brilliant minds
who have worked hard on these complex issues over a lietime I am grateul to
those who despite very busy schedules were able to review what I had written
about them and to offer some input John Frame Alvin Plantinga Mark HannaGordon Lewis (on his views and E J Carnellrsquos) Norman Geisler Richard Swin-
burne John Warwick Montgomery (who also gave helpul input on my con-
cluding chapter) and Gary Habermas James N Anderson983089 kindly went over my
chapter on Cornelius Van il and gave some helpul input Teir input was not
only valuable but also reassuring and encouraging Irsquom also grateul to Inter-
Varsity Pressrsquos anonymous reviewer or detailed thoughtul input
I have tried to be not only air but also clear so as to be accessible to readers who
have no special background in apologetic methodology o that end I have ex-
plained terms and kept specialized words to a minimum I have traded the tech-
1James N Anderson is associate proessor o theology and philosophy at Reormed Teological
Seminary in Charlotte North Carolina and supervises wwwvantilino
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 935
Introduction 10486251048625
nical rigor that characterizes purely academic writing or readability or a wider
audience (and in some cases have rerained rom reerencing more technical
sources) Incidentally I have occasionally used a male pronoun to reer to bothmen and women where my intention is obvious and I sometimes use both a male
and a emale pronoun (ldquohe or sherdquo) to make that clear Where it is not awkward I
use ldquotheirrdquo Biblical quotations are rom the New American Standard Bible
Along the way I repeat a ew things briefly by way o reminder so the reader
does not have to search back through the book and so that the chapters stand
alone better in order to aid the reader who does not go through the book quickly
Te structure o every chapter is not identical Some stop to compare apologetic
approaches and in others more time is spent exploring the criticisms
o benefit the reader with some background in the topic o the book and to
serve the advanced reader I have also sought where possible to bring out the
deeper underlying issues separating the views most o which are philosophical
having to do with issues such as the ollowing how we know how we have cer-
tainty (and how certain we can be) the relation between aith and evidence the
possibilities o reasoning by way o deduction induction and abduction the role
o assumptions and presuppositions the relation between evidence andworldview the validity o intuition as a way o knowing and its possible divine
origin and whether we can know some things without inerring them rom other
things we know (ie oundationalism) Trough all this I hope to bring the issues
into sharper ocus so as to acilitate more constructive dialogue on the subject o
apologetic methods
Te ocus o the book is on understanding the theories and how they see each
other so I have kept my own views to a minimum adding my conclusions and
constructive insights in a final chapter (Perhaps Irsquoll have the opportunity to
expand those into a book) Where I have made my own brie addition that could
be mistaken or the view o the eatured apologist I usually precede it with some-
thing like ldquoWe could add that rdquo In a ew places I have added the thoughts o
others to the material about the eatured apologist in order to broaden the
readerrsquos knowledge a bit (the longest addition being a section on miracles in the
chapter on evidentialism) In a ew sections in which I develop the thinking o
the eatured apologist I include a brie criticism rom another thinker in order
to save the reader rom having to go back rom the criticism section and search
to connect the criticism with the apologistrsquos view
My twenty-five years o experience as a proessor led me to add a list o terms
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1035
10486251048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
discussion questions and suggestions or urther reading Tat teaching expe-
rience has shown me too that complex issues are best understood i they can be
viewed rom different angles and more than onceIn order to increase understanding o where the approaches lead I have in-
cluded something o how they would actually be used ocusing on some o the
best insights that each has to offer Some approaches require a bit more detail
to show what the apologist is doing and how it all fits with their method For
example I summarize Norman Geislerrsquos rationale or selecting the right test or
truth review his criteria or selecting a worldview and finally show how he ap-
plies this method to arrive at theism It requires some detail to see the systematic
nature and rigor o his approach So at the end o the book the reader will come
away with not only the theories but also their application
As I mentioned at the beginning o this introduction I have ocused on those
who are currently influential which is why I have chosen or example Van il
over Abraham Kuyper I have also ocused on those whose work in the field has
been sustained original and extensive Tat entails choosing or example Gary
Habermas over Josh McDowell even though as a popular writer the latter has had
enormous influence My only regret is that the purpose o this book and the con-straints on its length do not permit more attention to those who have made very
worthy contributions in the past such as Gordon Clark and C S Lewis and more
recently John Feinberg the late Paul Feinberg Douglas Groothuis Ravi Zacharias
and K Scott Oliphint to name just a ew It is regrettable that only a ew pages can
be given to Francis Schaeffer who had an enormous influence in his day but is
not as well-known to younger people and shied away rom discussions on apolo-
getic theory most notably with Van il who was eager to engage him
Each apologist can be unique but can also in some ways resemble the char-
acteristics o someone representing a different approach William Lane Craig or
example is not ar rom Alvin Plantinga in his emphasis on the personal inward
awareness o God yet he is thoroughly classical in how he makes his case to
others John Warwick Montgomery a staunch evidentialist regards C S Lewis
as something o a mentor Tey are similar in the breadth o their interests pio-
neering the use o literature to communicate the gospel and it seems similar in
their personalities983090 But in overall approach C S Lewis is in the classical camp
One o my hopes or this book is that more people will gain a good grasp o
2o me they both seem expressive creative and interested in all o liersquos possibilities
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1135
Introduction 1048625983091
this crucial field o apologetic methods When the subject is taught ofen only
one approach is presented and students are lef with little or no grasp o any-
thing elsemdashand donrsquot really even understand the approach they are supposed toaccept and use Tose who are introduced to the issues outside o a classroom
tend to read only apologists rom their own camp
I progress is to made on a subject so vital we will need a new generation o
people who are interested in doing serious work Most o those who have la-
bored in this field in modern times are at or past retirement or have already
passed on My real hope is that this book will help motivate some people to take
up this work and carry it orward
I canrsquot thank InterVarsity Press enough (especially Andy Le Peau and Al Hsu)
or their great patience and encouragement as I struggled with a hellacious
onslaught o challenges that greatly slowed progress on the book I canrsquot imagine
a better publisher and I am honored they are doing this book I am also grateul
or Mark Hanna who first introduced me to this topic when I was a seminary
student Not only was he kind and encouraging but his grasp o all things apol-
ogetic has also always been inspiring I owe thanks to the sabbatical committee
which granted me time to work on this book and on God in the Shadows Evilin Godrsquos World 983091 I also want to thank my wonderul wie Donna or her con-
tinual support as well as her example o discipline and passion in the research
and writing o her own books
O983158983141983154983158983145983141983159
Tis book is organized according to a schema represented in the chart below
that I have used through much o my twenty-five years o teaching this subjectIt is not perect but I have ound that it aids understanding the relationships
among the views
On the ar lef is fideism (rom the Latin or ldquoaithrdquo) according to which
belie cannot or should not be supported by evidence o any kind On this view
aith and reason are in separate nonoverlapping circles I we have aith we have
no reasons to believe i we have reasons to believe we do not need aith Some
people are fideists because o such convictions about the nature o aith others
believe that the allen mind is incapable o processing reasons or that the
subject is simply beyond the mindrsquos grasp Te resulting view is that aith must
3Brian Morley God in the Shadows Evil in Godrsquos World (Geanies House Fearn Ross-shire Scot-
land Christian Focus 1048626983088983088983094)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1235
10486251048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Approach Fideism Presuppositionalism Reformed
epistemologyExperien-tialism
Pragmatism
rarr Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence rarr
Definingcharacteristics
bullFaithunsupportedbullFaith and
reason donrsquotoverlapbullOr reason isbeyond themindrsquos graspbullOr the mindis too fallen
bullStarting pointsare necessarypresuppositionsunprovable byindependent evidencebullNo independentlyknown factsbullldquoBorrowed capitalrdquo
bullAutonomy is theproblembullNo common ldquonotionsrdquobullReasoning must becircular deductiveindirect from
ChristianitybullTranscendentalargumentbullRange ofpresuppositionalistsfrom Van Til to Frame
bull Awareness of God( sensus divinitatus) isgrounded in howwe are made andtriggered
bullChristian faith agiftbullClassicalfoundationalismtoo narrowbullGod is properlybasicbullFaith can exceedreasons
bullExperiencealone
bullExperience isonly proof wecan have oronly proof weneed
bullAccept whatworksbullHas a widevariety of forms
Adherentsbull(Pascal)bullKierkegaardbullBarth
bullVan TilbullBahnsenbullFrame (modified keypoints)
bullAlvin Plantinga mdash
bullC S PeircebullWilliam JamesbullJohn DeweybullRichard Rorty
CriticismsbullSubjective
bullUnbiblical
bullAmounts to fideismbullTranscendental
argument cannot provethe Christian God
bullCannot rule outother beliefs likethe Great Pumpkin
bullExperiencesmust beinterpreted
bullWhatworks ne truth
bullWhat works isvague
Epistemo-logical startingpoint
Faith PresuppositionImmediateawareness
Experience Workability
Summary
No reasons or
certaintyentirelysubjectiveand volitional
No independent facts asreasons
Intuitions plusancillary reasons
One type ofevidence butsubjective
One type of
evidence thatlinks internaland external
Figure Chart of Apologetic Approaches
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1335
Introduction 10486251048629
Veridicalism Combinationalism Classical
apologetics Evidentialism Rationalism
Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence Cumulative case common ground
bullGivens + corroborationbullGivens are knownintuitively and certainlycan be corroboratedbullUniversal givens can beknown by all andconstitute cognitive
neutral groundbullGod is a universal givenbullSpecial givens areknown by ChristiansbullCommon ground =human needs commonexperiencesbullNo spiritually neutralgroundbullEight kinds of ldquoseeingrdquo
bullChristianity ahypothesis to be tested
bullThree-aspect testrational (self-consistent) empirical(fits relevant facts)existential (can belived)
bullProve theism thenChristianitybullProve theism usingtheistic proofs
cosmologicalargumentteleologicalargument moralargumentbullProve Christianity(same asevidentialists)
bullEvidence points toChristianitybullTheistic argumentsuseful but notnecessary
bullFacts point to bestinterpretationbullProphecy andresurrection provethe BiblebullUse universallyaccepted facts(Habermas)
bullAbsolutecertaintybullStart from
indubitablepointbullReason usingdeductionbullBuild up toworldview
bullMark HannahbullE J CarnellbullGordon LewisbullFrancis Schaeffer
bullNorman GeislerbullWilliam Lane CraigbullJ P MorelandbullR C SproulbullRichard Swinburne
bullJohn WarwickMontgomerybullJosh McDowellbullGary Habermas
bullDescartes
bullGivens cannot rationally
ground belief
bullThree tests are
unworkable
bullMain critics arepresuppositionalistsbullThere is no common
groundbullMust reason from
Christianity
bullFacts must beinterpreted
bullFacts cannot point totheir interpretation
bullIndubitablestarting pointscannot lead to a
worldviewwithout addingalong the way
Givens and corroboration Three-aspect test Two-step argumentFacts pointing tointerpretation
Deduction fromcertain startingpoint
Internal givens andobjective corroboration
Hypothesis tested
internal to theoryexternally with factsand existentially
Uses cosmos and order
to prove interpretiveframework (theism)then uses facts ofhistory
Proves Christianity
using many objectiveindependentlyexisting facts
Certainty is
absolutenothing issubjective orvolitional
Figure (continued)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1435
10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
be purely a gif rom God Fideists who tilt toward a Calvinistic view o salvation
(according to which God predestines individuals or salvation) may see the
action o the mind as irrelevant Because the ultimate cause o belie is divinechoice God bypasses the intellect
Fideism is thus a denial o apologetics which makes it different rom other
views All the views to the right hold that there is at least some overlap between
aith and reason that there are reasons o some kind or belie
On the ar right o the chart is rationalism which claims complete proo or
belie Te classic example is Reneacute Descartes (1048625104862910486331048630ndash1048625104863010486291048624) who lived in the tu-
multuous afermath o the Reormation when the Continent was divided over
religious belie He sought certainty by starting rom something he could not
doubt then building up rom there he used deduction a orm o reasoning that
guarantees the truth o the conclusion i we accept the premises In spite o his
original approach and rigorous effort virtually everyone today sees Descartes
as coming short o providing the level o certainty he offered
So the ar lef and the ar right are opposites aith can have no support and
aith has complete support
Just to the right o fideism is presuppositionalism which says we can have nodirect proo or either God or Christianity Tat means we cannot make either one
the conclusion o a noncircular argument In a traditional argument premises are
known independently o the conclusion and are offered as grounds or the con-
clusion Te problem with this says the ounder o presuppositionalism Cornelius
Van il is that nothing can be known independently o God because ultimately
truth is whatever God says it is God does not ldquoknowrdquo an independently existing
reality rather he determines that reality He knows the lights are on in the room
because he determined that they would be on Adam ell when he tried to become
independent o God determining or himsel what is true and morally right Fallen
humanityrsquos problem is not primarily ignorance but rebellion Te unbeliever does
not need to merely add a ew acts to his worldview but to completely tear it down
and rebuild one that makes God the source and guarantor o every act So to en-
courage the nonbeliever to think he can know premises and determine truth inde-
pendently o God is to inflame the problem Furthermore even i such a process
results in a person affirming the Bible as the Word o God he has in effect passed
judgment on God when God should be passing judgment on him As well things
can be tested only using something higher and more ultimate yet nothing can be
more ultimate than the Word o God Despite all this the presuppositionalist says
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1535
Introduction 10486251048631
we can have absolute proo or the Christian God because only i he exists can we
know anything Only i the Christian God exists and knows everythingmdashas well
as determines everythingmdashis knowledge o any kind about anything possible Allother viewpoints ail because they claim to be true yet cannot properly account or
how we have knowledge So while there is no direct proo there is absolutely
certain indirect proo or Christianity Christianity is a presupposition we cannot
do without It is claimed that even attempts to disprove Christianity must assume
it is true thus we can know Christianity transcendentally as a necessary as-
sumption Also the Bible is sel-attesting Godrsquos sheep hear his voice (Jn 1048625104862410486261048631)
Tis view is next to fideism because it bases knowledge on a presupposition
(roughly a commitment to a oundational assumption) rather than anything
known independently Proponents see their view as akin to rationalism which
offers absolute certainty or knowledge whereas many critics see it as closer to
fideism because it works by presupposing rather than directly proving
Note that there is a wide range among presuppositionalists rom those who
ollow Van il with little or no modification such as Greg Bahnsen to those who
have modified the view considerably such as John Frame Some o Framersquos mod-
ifications such as acceptance o some use o induction o the transcendental ar-gument as a direct as well as an indirect proo and acceptance o the cumulative
orce o arguments would put him on the right side o the chart Tere are also
those who take the label o presuppositionalist who emphasize Van ilrsquos rejection
o traditional direct proo but want little or nothing to do with his indirect proo
I knew one proessor who called himsel both a presuppositionalist and a ldquobiblical
fideistrdquo So on the chart we can have a lef side o presuppositionalism which is
closer to fideism and a right side which sees a robust role or proos o different
kinds In the middle would be Van il and Bahnsen Frame would be on the ar
right ideally on a line that extends to the right side o the chart (which would best
be indicated by an arrow since an actual line might be visually conusing)
Gordon Clark and Carl F H Henry represent a more deductive orm o pre-
suppositionalism in which the Bible is posited as true and what can be deduced
rom it is also true Unlike Van il and Bahnsen they do not try to justiy Christian
presuppositions transcendentally that is as the only basis or reason Herman
Dooyeweerd (DOE-yuh-vaird 1048625104863210486331048628ndash1048625104863310486311048631) took some o the oundations laid by
Abraham Kuyper (104862510486329830911048631ndash1048625104863310486261048624) in a different direction than Van il
John Frame has sought to remain true to Van ilrsquos central insights while
modiying significant aspects o his approach He maintains his ormer teacherrsquos
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1635
10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
convictions that since acts are not independently existing realities we cannot
simply see which interpretation fits best and use them independently to decide
on an interpretation (the view o evidentialism) and there can be no neutralground He emphasizes the important nuance that it is really statements o acts
that are not separate rom interpretation
Frame says that in an argument because the premises commit us to the
conclusion they thereore commit us to what the premises presuppose making
presuppositions a kind o conclusion Presuppositions are commitments that
govern our other belies and as such they are not deeasible (cannot be deeated
by evidence and argument) unless a contrary presupposition is adopted Since
all thought is dependent on God who makes all argument possible we should
not encourage the nonbeliever to think otherwise
Contrary to Van il Frame believes that there can be real agreement between
the believer and nonbeliever induction can be acceptable in apologetics and the
transcendental approach is an overall goal and not a single argumentmdashthere
being no way the Christian God o love justice patience wisdom and more
must be presupposed in order or anyone to understand and talk about anything
He also believes that there is no essential difference between direct and indirectreasoning thereore the major difference between presuppositional and tradi-
tional apologetics may be the intent o the apologist to acknowledge God as
sovereign and the source o all meaning intelligibility and rationality that is
the ultimate authority or human thought
Frame adds the extremely important stipulation that interpretations can be
verified on the basis o acts In other words we can compare the data o the
mind with the data o the external world Interpretations can be verified by
comparing them with acts and acts can be verified by comparing them with
interpretations Neither one is a brute incorrigible standard983092
Tese and other modifications make presuppositionalism much closer to
traditional apologetics and give it access to a large array o more traditional
arguments Frame adds his own highly constructive innovations holding that
as nonomniscient beings we can see things in different perspectives that are
simultaneous and overlapping where each can contain the other Knowledge
or example is a matter o sense experience reason and eeling
o the right o presuppositionalism is the Reormed epistemology o Alvin
4Personal email correspondence with Frame Aug 10486261048628 104862698308810486251048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1735
Introduction 10486251048633
Plantinga He challenges the notion that belie must be proportional to evidence
such that we are entitled to believe only as much as we can prove In answer he
points out that people commonly and rightly believe many things they wouldhave trouble proving such as that the world was not created with apparent age
only a ew minutes ago or that people have minds like us and are not merely
cleverly designed robots So it is rational to believe in God to a degree greater
than we can prove Te level o proo that would be required to justiy a belie
as crucial as Christianity would be very high and we have that level or virtually
no philosophical belies o that magnitude Knowledge o God is the result o
an inner knowing what Calvin called the sensus divinitatis which arises in us
because o how we are made Te catalyst or that knowing can be different or
different people perhaps the grandeur o mountains or the starry sky
Knowledge o Christianity comes by an inner knowing that is a special gif o
the Holy Spirit Te inner knowing o both God and Christianity is not evidence
or a conclusion but an immediate knowing (like knowing we have pain or that
we exist) Plantinga affirms the value o arguments but alone they hold little
promise o being sufficient to truly justiy belie in God or Christianity
Reormed epistemology is to the right o presuppositionalism because it a-firms a role or independent proos but it is on the lef side o the chart because
it is a type o intuition that grounds aith
Next is experientialism especially o the sort where an experience is taken
as grounds or the conclusion that God exists or that Christianity is true In this
type experience is evidence or the conclusion Tis would include such things
as experiences o answered prayers or providential care or an awareness o God
that is the basis or the conclusion that God is there What is unique about this
method is that such experiences are the only basis or belie Other methods to
the right o it accept experience as one proo among many o the lef o the view
fideism accepts no proo presuppositionalism does not regard experience as
proper proo or God or Christianity and Reormed epistemology regards ex-
perience as a direct knowing but not evidence or a conclusion So coming rom
the lef side o the chart experientialism is the first view that accepts something
as independent grounds to justiy belie
Although I have met people who take an experientialist approach to justi-
ying belie in God or Christianity it is difficult to find whole books supporting
the view People who take the view generally regard their experiences as ade-
quate to justiy only their own belies and do not expect mere reports o their
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1835
10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
experiences to be sufficient or someone else thus others would need to have
their own experiences So it is not hard to see why ew would see the value in
writing about their experiences as a way to convince others Tis book does nothave a chapter on the approach but it includes a brie critique by Norman
Geisler Te problem with experientialism is that experiences must be inter-
preted A person can have an experience but that does not mean we mustmdashor
even canmdashtake it at ace value Someonersquos experience o their dead ancestor
appearing to them could be interpreted in a number o ways as could a personrsquos
experience o the Hindu god Shiva Whether such things are regarded as real
imaginary demonic apparitions or whatever depends on what other belies we
hold as true Furthermore how do we resolve conflicts between experiences
Tereore experience is widely regarded as insufficient as the sole means o
proo though it typically appears as one type o evidence in the apologetic
methods to the right o it on the chart
Next we add pragmatism which essentially offers one source o justification
that o workability Tere are both simple and sophisticated orms o this view
but the idea is i it works we can accept a belie as verified to some degree Tere
is a difference between the (more radical) claim that workability equals truthor is what we mean by truth versus workability as an indicator o truth Te
latter view is ofen added into the mix o possible methods o justification
among views to the right o pragmatism on the chart I have chosen not to use
the available space in the book to detail pragmatism because so ar its best-
known philosophical orms have not been as popular as other approaches
among those seeking to know or justiy theism or Christianity Te view has
been developed by C S Peirce (pronounced ldquoPurserdquo 104862510486329830911048633ndash1048625104863310486251048628) William James
(1048625104863210486281048626ndash1048625104863310486251048624) and recently by neopragmatist Richard Rorty (104862510486339830911048625ndash1048626104862410486241048631) I have
included brie criticisms o pragmatism made by Norman Geisler
Moving again to the right on our chart veridicalism developed by Mark
Hanna sees knowledge as grounded in givens983093 which are known intuitively and
with certainty and are not inerred rom other things we know All humans can
benefit rom universal givens some o which cannot be coherently denied (be-
cause denying them would require assuming them) such as our own existence
5ldquoLiterally anything that can be veridically nonpostulationally and nondiscursively grasped by
consciousness is a given And i it is susceptible o apprehension by all human beings in prin-
ciple it is a universal givenrdquo Mark M Hanna Crucial Questions in Apologetics (Grand Rapids
Baker Book House 10486259830979830961048625) p 10486251048625983095
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1935
Introduction 10486261048625
and the principle o noncontradiction Awareness o the existence o the God o
theism is a universal given Christians benefit additionally rom special givens
including awareness that God cares or them that the Bible is Godrsquos Word (whichis sel-attesting only to believers1048630) and that he or she is saved Because universal
givens are knowable independently o a worldview and within any worldview
they orm cognitive neutral ground Tere is however no spiritually neutral
ground since everyone either accepts or rejects what can be universally known
about God1048631 Tere is common ground consisting o human needs such as guilt
and loneliness as well as cultural patterns o thinking and acting1048632 Tough
known immediately givens can be corroborated in different ways or example
by reflection and by their connection to other givens1048633 Some are known because
they are undeniable and others can be supported by evidence and inerence
Some arguments or theism are inductively strong such as the kalam cosmo-
logical argument and the teleological argument rom fine tuning o the universe
or lie9830891048624 In all it can be shown that God is the best explanation A case can also
be made or Christianity Te essential belies o Christianity are givens that can
be corroborated Tey are not arrived at rom nontheological data or premises983089983089
Citing Christrsquos statement that some see without ldquoseeingrdquo (Mt 10486259830911048625983091) Hanna iden-tifies eight kinds o ldquoseeingrdquo only one o which is physical Each has two poles
relating to its reality (metaphysical) and its knowability (epistemological) Tey
are physical intellectual introspective intersubjective (awareness o other
persons and onersquos relationship to them) moral aesthetic (which can grasp ob-
jective beauty) and spiritual (one mode that is common to all humans another
that is unique to Christians) Some orms o seeing overlap and interact or ex-
ample spiritual seeing requires some use o intellectual seeing He argues (in a
orthcoming book) that biblical theism is the only adequate explanation o the
eight modes o seeing and their objective correlates
Next is the view called combinationalism According to the combinationalism983089983090
o E J Carnell and Gordon Lewis traditional proos or the existence o God are
inadequate or the same reason that the empiricism they are implicitly based on
6Ibid p 104862598308810486277Ibid p 104862598308810486298Ibid9Ibid p 10486259830881048625
10Phone conversation with Mark Hanna Oct 1048625983094 10486269830881048625104862711Hanna Crucial Questions p 10486251048626104862512Te name was not chosen by Carnell but it is used in Norman Geislerrsquos widely read Christian
Apologetics 1048626nd ed (Grand Rapids Baker Books 104862698308810486251048627)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2035
10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
is inadequate you can never arrive at what is immutable universal and necessary
rom what is finite I you cannot arrive at God rom experience you must bring
God to experience in the orm o a hypothesis to be tested Tis does not meanour aith is weak or tentative only that to be intellectually honest as God would
have us be we must at least in principle be rational in our aith In this sense we
treat Christianity as a hypothesis and like any hypothesis it must not contradict
itsel Anything sel-contradictory cannot be true but what is noncontradictory
could be true o see i it is true we check it with all relevant acts looking or
contradictions between the hypothesis and the acts Te hypothesis should be
applicable to lie in the sense that it can be lived out without contradiction Tere
is common ground between believer and nonbeliever consisting or example in
the principle o noncontradiction values ethics and the need or love Fur-
thermore worldviews typically overlap in areas that are impersonal and nonmeta-
physical Even science properly practiced can be carried on between believer and
nonbeliever But worldviews diverge as soon as questions o ultimate meaning and
purpose arise We can prove that Christianity is true to the extent that we can
prove any real-world belie is true that is with high probability Yet we can have
complete inner assurance ldquocertituderdquo that it is true Combinationalism is to theright o pragmatism on the chart because it tests belie using an objective standard
that o consistency A hypothesis must be consistent within itsel consistent with
the acts and capable o being lived out consistently
In the next column is classical apologetics which is practiced by people as
diverse as C S Lewis William Lane Craig J P Moreland R C Sproul John
Gerstner and Norman Geisler Tis approach aims first to prove theism the
general belie that God is or example omnipotent omniscient omnipresent
holy creator and sustainer o the universe I theism is not proved first proo
or the resurrection or example would not necessarily be interpreted theisti-
cally by the unbeliever O course i the unbeliever already accepts theism
proving it is unnecessary
Classical apologists use theistic arguments (though they are also used by
some apologists who use other methods) Tey are types or amilies o argu-
ments in that there are a number o variations to each Te cosmological ar-
gument essentially reasons rom the existence o the universe to a creator One
orm argues that God is a necessary being that he must exist in every possible
world Another argues that everything needs an adequate cause thus the uni-
verse needs an adequate cause and that cause is God (he is not a thing and is
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2135
Introduction 1048626983091
uncaused) Te teleological argument reasons rom design in the universe to a
designer Modern science has uncovered intricate design in DNA or example
We are also discovering the amazing extent to which the universe has been finelytuned to allow or lie Te moral argument which is not used as widely as the
cosmological and teleological arguments argues rom the existence o objective
moral obligations to a higher moral being as the grounds o such obligations
Norman Geisler believes we must use a different approach to prove the truth
o a worldview versus truth within a worldview He uses six first principles o
reality which cannot be denied because any attempt to deny them would use
them (similar to Hannarsquos view) We do not need to prove them we simply ldquoseerdquo
that they are true once we understand them One first principle (stated inor-
mally) is that ldquosomething existsrdquo Anyone who attempts to deny that is admitting
they exist Another is the principle o noncontradiction which would also be
assumed by anyone attempting to deny it Once alternatives are eliminated and
theism is proved Geisler shows that Christianity explains all the known acts in
the most consistent way
o the right o classical apologetics and just lef o rationalism (on the ar right)
evidentialism has been popularized in recent decades by Josh McDowell who wasinfluenced by John Warwick Montgomery Gary Habermas has also been influ-
ential and widely known Te view does not require that theism be proved first
While most evidentialists accept theistic arguments and would use them they do
not believe it is necessary to first prove theism Unlike classical apologists eviden-
tialists believe that at least to some extent acts point to their proper interpre-
tation So evidentialists typically work to prove the resurrection afer supporting
the veracity o the Bible (eg John Warwick Montgomery) or at least the believ-
ability o very widely accepted crucial acts (eg Gary Habermas) Many o the
same acts and approaches used by evidentialists are used by classical apologists
in their second step which seeks to prove Christianity
Letrsquos review the chart again this time more briefly For fideism there can be
no proo but there is certitude rom aith in revelation For presupposition-
alism there can be no direct proo o Christianity but we must presuppose it
roughly assume it by conviction and necessity Te case must ultimately be
circular Revelation is known o its own authority but we can have proo be-
cause it must be presupposed For Reormed epistemology noncircular argu-
ments are acceptable in principle and should be developed but they are not
adequate to ground something as crucial as religious aith Belie in God is an
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2235
10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
awareness that can arise in us because o the way we were created and belie
in Christianity is a divine gif Moving right experientialism is the first view
that accepts something as decisive standalone evidence or the conclusion thatChristianity is true Te evidence is internal and subjective Pragmatism deals
with workability which is a more objective orm o experience and is thereore
to the right o experientialism (Note that what ldquoworksrdquo can be defined differ-
ently by different people)
Moving urther right (but not including rationalism on the extreme right nor
combinationalism) we have views that accept induction as an important and e-
ective method o proo or religious belie Tey (including combinationalism)
also accept a cumulative case that is layers o proo adding up to orm a stronger
case overall Religious experience and workability in lie (including giving lie
meaning) also typically play a supporting role in an overall case (whereas with
experientialism experience is the only proo) Veridicalism accepts both givens
that are known intuitively and that are undeniable and effective corroboration
through evidence and reason Everyone can have an immediate awareness o God
and the Christian can have an additional awareness o some essentials o Christi-
anity In its emphasis on direct awareness it is like Reormed epistemology but in veridicalism corroborating evidence can be strong and decisive So like Reormed
epistemology on its lef it has a place or intuition but like views on its right it
has a place or a convincing case based on evidence
As we continue to move right intuition (similar to ldquosel-attestingrdquo or presup-
positionalism) plays less o a role and there is more emphasis on independently
existing objective evidence as grounds or belie983089983091 Tere are also more such
objective criteria until we get to evidentialism which appeals to a multiplicity
o individual acts
Combinationalism accepts livability as a test o a hypothesis but only as one
o three aspects o consistency whereas to the lef pragmatism viewed livability
as the main criteria and to the right o combinationalism livability is viewed
as only one o a number o actors in an overall case
Classical apologetics accepts arguments or theism and or Christianity typ-
ically insisting (like presuppositionalism) that a worldview determines the in-
terpretation o acts But like the views on the right side o the chart that
worldview is established by something other than a necessary assumption (or
13Presuppositionalists would say that the transcendental argument provides objective evidence but
they would not say that it is ldquoindependently existingrdquo since no acts exist independent o God
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2335
Introduction 10486261048629
Geisler it is by undeniable first principles but unlike presuppositionalism they
are necessary in every worldview c Hanna)
Evidentialism is the near polar opposite o presuppositionalism affirmingthat acts can be known independently o the views that interpret them and that
acts can even point to the correct interpretation
I once showed this chart to Greg Bahnsen who not surprisingly said that pre-
suppositionalism should be on the right next to rationalism as offering absolutely
certain proo or belie In response I pointed out that certainty was secondary the
primary order o the chart was appeal to independent evidence or the conclusion
So fideism appeals to no independent evidence Presuppositionalism appeals to a
presupposition but not to independent evidence as grounds or belie (ie no direct
proo) Reormed epistemology appeals to intuition Experientialism appeals to
one subjective criterion as evidence or a conclusion pragmatism to one external
criterion Next is veridicalism which appeals to givens plus external and inde-
pendent evidence Ten comes combinationalism with its appeals to consistency
o hypothesis and fittingness with the acts plus livability Ten classical apologetics
appeals to independent evidence or theism and Christianity And finally eviden-
tialism appeals to a multiplicity o independent actsmdashthe opposite o presupposi-tionalismrsquos view that there are no independent acts Bahnsen thought or a ew
seconds and said ldquoTat could work that could workrdquo983089983092 I then mentioned that I
always tell my students that presuppositionalists see their view as close to
rationalism as ar as both offer certainty I add that they would see their presup-
positionalism as different rom rationalismrsquos method o using independent evi-
dence (Descartes or example amously beginning rom his own thoughtmdashagain
the opposite o presuppositionalism which begins with God as the standard o
truth) I it were not visually too complicated on the chart I might put fideism
presuppositionalism and rationalism each at different points o a triangle so that
presuppositionalism could be equidistant rom the aith o fideism and the absolute
proo o rationalism yet unique But over the years students have generally con-
firmed that it would be too complicated and thus unhelpul
Beore we begin it is worth briefly recounting why fideism which challenges
the legitimacy o apologetics is biblically inadequate Here are just a ew ex-
amples o biblical reasons or belie Moses asks God or signs to show his people
that he has divine authority (Ex 10486281048625) which God grants and later he grants
14Personal conversation afer Bahnsen was a guest speaker in my apologetics class Masterrsquos Col-
lege Newhall Caliornia in the all o 10486259830979830971048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2435
10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
abundant signs in the conrontation with Pharaoh (Ex 1048631ndash10486251048625) In the wilderness
God supernaturally demonstrates his presence his provision or his people and
his backing o Mosesrsquo leadership In the conquest o the Promised Land Goddivides the Jordan (Josh 98309110486251048631) gives victories over superior orces (Josh 10486251048628-1048633
98309110486251048624-10486251048631) and extends daylight (Josh 1048625104862410486251048626-10486251048628) He grants miracles or Gideon
(Judg 104863110486251048630-10486261048626) Samson (Judg 104862510486281048630 10486251048633 1048625104862910486251048629 10486251048630983091) and others Prophets such as
Elijah predict events and perorm miracles Jesusrsquo lie ulfills a number o proph-
ecies and is attested by miracles He points to them as grounds or belie (Lk
1048626104862810486261048631 Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) When John the Baptist doubts Jesus points to evidence that
matches prophecy (Mt 104862510486251048628-1048629 c Is 1048626104863310486251048632) Jesus meets Tomasrsquos doubts with
evidence (Jn 1048626104862410486261048631) Afer the resurrection he gives ldquomany convincing proosrdquo
(Acts 1048625983091 c Lk 104862610486289830911048633) John recounts some o Jesusrsquo supernatural deeds as a way
o inspiring saving aith (Jn 104862610486249830911048624) Te supernatural authority o the Seventy
(Lk 1048625104862410486251048631) and the apostles (1048626 Cor 1048625104862610486251048626) is attested by miracles Paul argues rom
Scripture that Christ had to suffer and rise again (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091) and he regards
the resurrection as ldquoproo to all menrdquo (Acts 104862510486319830911048625 c Rom 10486251048628) Some do believe
because o miracles (Jn 1048625104862610486251048625 Acts 104863310486281048626 104862598309110486251048626)
As mentioned above this does not show that an unproblematic appeal tomiracles and prophecy can be made today but that Scripture uses reasons in
support o aith Just how that should be done is the subject o this book
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 435
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 535
CONTENTS
Introduction 983097
Chart o Apologetic Approaches 983089983092
PART ONE FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES
983089 Apologetics in the Bible 983090983097
983090 Apologetics in History A survey 1048627983097
PART TWO APOLOGETIC METHODOLOGIES
Presuppositionalism
1048627 Cornelius Van il Christianity is an intellectual
commitment we cannot do without 983093983097
983092 John Frame We see ultimate truth rom
more than one perspective 983097983088
Reformed Epistemology
983093 Alvin Plantinga Belie in God is an immediate
awareness and belie in Christianity is a git o God 983089983089983096
Combinationalism983094 E J Carnell Gordon Lewis and Francis Schaeer
Christianity is logical actual and viable 983089983092983095
Classical Apologetics
983095 Introduction to Classical Apologetics
Prove theism then Christianity 983089983096983093
983096 Richard Swinburne heism andChristianity are highly probable 983089983097983088
983097 William Lane Craig God is proved by theistic
arguments and Christianity by evidences 983090983089983097
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 635
983089983088 Norman Geisler heism is proved by
what is undeniable and Christainity is
known rom evidences 983090983093983094
Evidentialism
983089983089 John Warwick Montgomery Facts point to interpretations
and critical acts point to Christianity 983090983097983090
983089983090 Gary Habermas Christianity can be proved by
widely accepted crucial acts 10486271048627983092
Conclusion Putting it all together 1048627983093983089
Name Index 1048627983094983095
Subject Index 1048627983095983089
Scripture Index 1048627983095983093
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 735
INTRODUCTION
On March 1048633 1048625104863310486311048628 Japanese lieutenant Hiroo Onoda walked out o the jungle
on a remote island in the Philippines finally convinced that World War II was
overmdashtwenty-nine years afer it had ended rained as an intelligence officer in
guerilla warare he was told to survive at all costs No matter what happened
his superiors would come or him
Just a ew months afer his arrival in 1048625104863310486281048628 the allies overwhelmed Japanese
deenses and Hiroorsquos band o five hid deep in the jungle surviving on what theycould find When the war ended many attempts were made to find and convince
the remaining soldiers to come out Newspapers and even letters rom relatives
were lef which they ound along with leaflets But how could the war have
ended so quickly And why were there spelling errors in the leaflets Hiroorsquos
own brother even came and attempted to speak to him over a loudspeaker Te
band considered each piece o evidence and always concluded that the enemy
was trying to deceive them One by one they died the last one afer twenty-
seven years in hiding leaving Hiroo alone
Finally a Japanese student tracked Hiroo down and beriended him He
could not surrender Hiroo explained until his commanding officer ordered
him to do so Te student returned to Japan and the government ound his
commander now a bookseller who returned in his tattered uniorm and per-
sonally gave the order Hiroo still in his uniorm with sword on his side and
his working rifle in his hand was relieved o duty and wept Philippine pres-
ident Ferdinand Marcos pardoned him or the approximately thirty people hehad killed over the years because the soldier had believed he was still at war
Hiroo returned to a world vastly changed realizing that his belies had been
completely wrong or nearly thirty years
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 835
10486251048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Hiroo illustrates the problem o belie what to accept as evidence and as
valid explanation how to weigh assumptions and much more We make such
complex decisions in our own lives over both minor belies and major onesAnd we all come to and hold the most crucial belies o our existencemdashour
worldviewmdashentailing whether to believe in a God how to live and what to do
about an aferlie i there is one
Tere could not be a more important question than how we are to decide
what to believe Tat is the subject o this book
S983139983151983152983141
Tere are a number o conflicting approaches as we shall see Some approaches
have been used to support a wide variety o worldviews and some have been
developed and used in a uniquely Christian context I have chosen those most
discussed today the live options as represented by those who have had a major
part in shaping them In a ew cases the choice was difficult and different ones
could have been made I would like to have written much more covering the
work o more apologists in each o the major categories but the bookrsquos total
length would have been dauntingI have tried to represent each thinker airly as they would describe their views
I have had the privilege o meeting and talking to most o the those I have written
about (including the late Greg Bahnsen) and whether by personal contact or
only via their writings I am glad to have been exposed to such brilliant minds
who have worked hard on these complex issues over a lietime I am grateul to
those who despite very busy schedules were able to review what I had written
about them and to offer some input John Frame Alvin Plantinga Mark HannaGordon Lewis (on his views and E J Carnellrsquos) Norman Geisler Richard Swin-
burne John Warwick Montgomery (who also gave helpul input on my con-
cluding chapter) and Gary Habermas James N Anderson983089 kindly went over my
chapter on Cornelius Van il and gave some helpul input Teir input was not
only valuable but also reassuring and encouraging Irsquom also grateul to Inter-
Varsity Pressrsquos anonymous reviewer or detailed thoughtul input
I have tried to be not only air but also clear so as to be accessible to readers who
have no special background in apologetic methodology o that end I have ex-
plained terms and kept specialized words to a minimum I have traded the tech-
1James N Anderson is associate proessor o theology and philosophy at Reormed Teological
Seminary in Charlotte North Carolina and supervises wwwvantilino
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 935
Introduction 10486251048625
nical rigor that characterizes purely academic writing or readability or a wider
audience (and in some cases have rerained rom reerencing more technical
sources) Incidentally I have occasionally used a male pronoun to reer to bothmen and women where my intention is obvious and I sometimes use both a male
and a emale pronoun (ldquohe or sherdquo) to make that clear Where it is not awkward I
use ldquotheirrdquo Biblical quotations are rom the New American Standard Bible
Along the way I repeat a ew things briefly by way o reminder so the reader
does not have to search back through the book and so that the chapters stand
alone better in order to aid the reader who does not go through the book quickly
Te structure o every chapter is not identical Some stop to compare apologetic
approaches and in others more time is spent exploring the criticisms
o benefit the reader with some background in the topic o the book and to
serve the advanced reader I have also sought where possible to bring out the
deeper underlying issues separating the views most o which are philosophical
having to do with issues such as the ollowing how we know how we have cer-
tainty (and how certain we can be) the relation between aith and evidence the
possibilities o reasoning by way o deduction induction and abduction the role
o assumptions and presuppositions the relation between evidence andworldview the validity o intuition as a way o knowing and its possible divine
origin and whether we can know some things without inerring them rom other
things we know (ie oundationalism) Trough all this I hope to bring the issues
into sharper ocus so as to acilitate more constructive dialogue on the subject o
apologetic methods
Te ocus o the book is on understanding the theories and how they see each
other so I have kept my own views to a minimum adding my conclusions and
constructive insights in a final chapter (Perhaps Irsquoll have the opportunity to
expand those into a book) Where I have made my own brie addition that could
be mistaken or the view o the eatured apologist I usually precede it with some-
thing like ldquoWe could add that rdquo In a ew places I have added the thoughts o
others to the material about the eatured apologist in order to broaden the
readerrsquos knowledge a bit (the longest addition being a section on miracles in the
chapter on evidentialism) In a ew sections in which I develop the thinking o
the eatured apologist I include a brie criticism rom another thinker in order
to save the reader rom having to go back rom the criticism section and search
to connect the criticism with the apologistrsquos view
My twenty-five years o experience as a proessor led me to add a list o terms
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1035
10486251048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
discussion questions and suggestions or urther reading Tat teaching expe-
rience has shown me too that complex issues are best understood i they can be
viewed rom different angles and more than onceIn order to increase understanding o where the approaches lead I have in-
cluded something o how they would actually be used ocusing on some o the
best insights that each has to offer Some approaches require a bit more detail
to show what the apologist is doing and how it all fits with their method For
example I summarize Norman Geislerrsquos rationale or selecting the right test or
truth review his criteria or selecting a worldview and finally show how he ap-
plies this method to arrive at theism It requires some detail to see the systematic
nature and rigor o his approach So at the end o the book the reader will come
away with not only the theories but also their application
As I mentioned at the beginning o this introduction I have ocused on those
who are currently influential which is why I have chosen or example Van il
over Abraham Kuyper I have also ocused on those whose work in the field has
been sustained original and extensive Tat entails choosing or example Gary
Habermas over Josh McDowell even though as a popular writer the latter has had
enormous influence My only regret is that the purpose o this book and the con-straints on its length do not permit more attention to those who have made very
worthy contributions in the past such as Gordon Clark and C S Lewis and more
recently John Feinberg the late Paul Feinberg Douglas Groothuis Ravi Zacharias
and K Scott Oliphint to name just a ew It is regrettable that only a ew pages can
be given to Francis Schaeffer who had an enormous influence in his day but is
not as well-known to younger people and shied away rom discussions on apolo-
getic theory most notably with Van il who was eager to engage him
Each apologist can be unique but can also in some ways resemble the char-
acteristics o someone representing a different approach William Lane Craig or
example is not ar rom Alvin Plantinga in his emphasis on the personal inward
awareness o God yet he is thoroughly classical in how he makes his case to
others John Warwick Montgomery a staunch evidentialist regards C S Lewis
as something o a mentor Tey are similar in the breadth o their interests pio-
neering the use o literature to communicate the gospel and it seems similar in
their personalities983090 But in overall approach C S Lewis is in the classical camp
One o my hopes or this book is that more people will gain a good grasp o
2o me they both seem expressive creative and interested in all o liersquos possibilities
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1135
Introduction 1048625983091
this crucial field o apologetic methods When the subject is taught ofen only
one approach is presented and students are lef with little or no grasp o any-
thing elsemdashand donrsquot really even understand the approach they are supposed toaccept and use Tose who are introduced to the issues outside o a classroom
tend to read only apologists rom their own camp
I progress is to made on a subject so vital we will need a new generation o
people who are interested in doing serious work Most o those who have la-
bored in this field in modern times are at or past retirement or have already
passed on My real hope is that this book will help motivate some people to take
up this work and carry it orward
I canrsquot thank InterVarsity Press enough (especially Andy Le Peau and Al Hsu)
or their great patience and encouragement as I struggled with a hellacious
onslaught o challenges that greatly slowed progress on the book I canrsquot imagine
a better publisher and I am honored they are doing this book I am also grateul
or Mark Hanna who first introduced me to this topic when I was a seminary
student Not only was he kind and encouraging but his grasp o all things apol-
ogetic has also always been inspiring I owe thanks to the sabbatical committee
which granted me time to work on this book and on God in the Shadows Evilin Godrsquos World 983091 I also want to thank my wonderul wie Donna or her con-
tinual support as well as her example o discipline and passion in the research
and writing o her own books
O983158983141983154983158983145983141983159
Tis book is organized according to a schema represented in the chart below
that I have used through much o my twenty-five years o teaching this subjectIt is not perect but I have ound that it aids understanding the relationships
among the views
On the ar lef is fideism (rom the Latin or ldquoaithrdquo) according to which
belie cannot or should not be supported by evidence o any kind On this view
aith and reason are in separate nonoverlapping circles I we have aith we have
no reasons to believe i we have reasons to believe we do not need aith Some
people are fideists because o such convictions about the nature o aith others
believe that the allen mind is incapable o processing reasons or that the
subject is simply beyond the mindrsquos grasp Te resulting view is that aith must
3Brian Morley God in the Shadows Evil in Godrsquos World (Geanies House Fearn Ross-shire Scot-
land Christian Focus 1048626983088983088983094)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1235
10486251048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Approach Fideism Presuppositionalism Reformed
epistemologyExperien-tialism
Pragmatism
rarr Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence rarr
Definingcharacteristics
bullFaithunsupportedbullFaith and
reason donrsquotoverlapbullOr reason isbeyond themindrsquos graspbullOr the mindis too fallen
bullStarting pointsare necessarypresuppositionsunprovable byindependent evidencebullNo independentlyknown factsbullldquoBorrowed capitalrdquo
bullAutonomy is theproblembullNo common ldquonotionsrdquobullReasoning must becircular deductiveindirect from
ChristianitybullTranscendentalargumentbullRange ofpresuppositionalistsfrom Van Til to Frame
bull Awareness of God( sensus divinitatus) isgrounded in howwe are made andtriggered
bullChristian faith agiftbullClassicalfoundationalismtoo narrowbullGod is properlybasicbullFaith can exceedreasons
bullExperiencealone
bullExperience isonly proof wecan have oronly proof weneed
bullAccept whatworksbullHas a widevariety of forms
Adherentsbull(Pascal)bullKierkegaardbullBarth
bullVan TilbullBahnsenbullFrame (modified keypoints)
bullAlvin Plantinga mdash
bullC S PeircebullWilliam JamesbullJohn DeweybullRichard Rorty
CriticismsbullSubjective
bullUnbiblical
bullAmounts to fideismbullTranscendental
argument cannot provethe Christian God
bullCannot rule outother beliefs likethe Great Pumpkin
bullExperiencesmust beinterpreted
bullWhatworks ne truth
bullWhat works isvague
Epistemo-logical startingpoint
Faith PresuppositionImmediateawareness
Experience Workability
Summary
No reasons or
certaintyentirelysubjectiveand volitional
No independent facts asreasons
Intuitions plusancillary reasons
One type ofevidence butsubjective
One type of
evidence thatlinks internaland external
Figure Chart of Apologetic Approaches
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1335
Introduction 10486251048629
Veridicalism Combinationalism Classical
apologetics Evidentialism Rationalism
Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence Cumulative case common ground
bullGivens + corroborationbullGivens are knownintuitively and certainlycan be corroboratedbullUniversal givens can beknown by all andconstitute cognitive
neutral groundbullGod is a universal givenbullSpecial givens areknown by ChristiansbullCommon ground =human needs commonexperiencesbullNo spiritually neutralgroundbullEight kinds of ldquoseeingrdquo
bullChristianity ahypothesis to be tested
bullThree-aspect testrational (self-consistent) empirical(fits relevant facts)existential (can belived)
bullProve theism thenChristianitybullProve theism usingtheistic proofs
cosmologicalargumentteleologicalargument moralargumentbullProve Christianity(same asevidentialists)
bullEvidence points toChristianitybullTheistic argumentsuseful but notnecessary
bullFacts point to bestinterpretationbullProphecy andresurrection provethe BiblebullUse universallyaccepted facts(Habermas)
bullAbsolutecertaintybullStart from
indubitablepointbullReason usingdeductionbullBuild up toworldview
bullMark HannahbullE J CarnellbullGordon LewisbullFrancis Schaeffer
bullNorman GeislerbullWilliam Lane CraigbullJ P MorelandbullR C SproulbullRichard Swinburne
bullJohn WarwickMontgomerybullJosh McDowellbullGary Habermas
bullDescartes
bullGivens cannot rationally
ground belief
bullThree tests are
unworkable
bullMain critics arepresuppositionalistsbullThere is no common
groundbullMust reason from
Christianity
bullFacts must beinterpreted
bullFacts cannot point totheir interpretation
bullIndubitablestarting pointscannot lead to a
worldviewwithout addingalong the way
Givens and corroboration Three-aspect test Two-step argumentFacts pointing tointerpretation
Deduction fromcertain startingpoint
Internal givens andobjective corroboration
Hypothesis tested
internal to theoryexternally with factsand existentially
Uses cosmos and order
to prove interpretiveframework (theism)then uses facts ofhistory
Proves Christianity
using many objectiveindependentlyexisting facts
Certainty is
absolutenothing issubjective orvolitional
Figure (continued)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1435
10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
be purely a gif rom God Fideists who tilt toward a Calvinistic view o salvation
(according to which God predestines individuals or salvation) may see the
action o the mind as irrelevant Because the ultimate cause o belie is divinechoice God bypasses the intellect
Fideism is thus a denial o apologetics which makes it different rom other
views All the views to the right hold that there is at least some overlap between
aith and reason that there are reasons o some kind or belie
On the ar right o the chart is rationalism which claims complete proo or
belie Te classic example is Reneacute Descartes (1048625104862910486331048630ndash1048625104863010486291048624) who lived in the tu-
multuous afermath o the Reormation when the Continent was divided over
religious belie He sought certainty by starting rom something he could not
doubt then building up rom there he used deduction a orm o reasoning that
guarantees the truth o the conclusion i we accept the premises In spite o his
original approach and rigorous effort virtually everyone today sees Descartes
as coming short o providing the level o certainty he offered
So the ar lef and the ar right are opposites aith can have no support and
aith has complete support
Just to the right o fideism is presuppositionalism which says we can have nodirect proo or either God or Christianity Tat means we cannot make either one
the conclusion o a noncircular argument In a traditional argument premises are
known independently o the conclusion and are offered as grounds or the con-
clusion Te problem with this says the ounder o presuppositionalism Cornelius
Van il is that nothing can be known independently o God because ultimately
truth is whatever God says it is God does not ldquoknowrdquo an independently existing
reality rather he determines that reality He knows the lights are on in the room
because he determined that they would be on Adam ell when he tried to become
independent o God determining or himsel what is true and morally right Fallen
humanityrsquos problem is not primarily ignorance but rebellion Te unbeliever does
not need to merely add a ew acts to his worldview but to completely tear it down
and rebuild one that makes God the source and guarantor o every act So to en-
courage the nonbeliever to think he can know premises and determine truth inde-
pendently o God is to inflame the problem Furthermore even i such a process
results in a person affirming the Bible as the Word o God he has in effect passed
judgment on God when God should be passing judgment on him As well things
can be tested only using something higher and more ultimate yet nothing can be
more ultimate than the Word o God Despite all this the presuppositionalist says
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1535
Introduction 10486251048631
we can have absolute proo or the Christian God because only i he exists can we
know anything Only i the Christian God exists and knows everythingmdashas well
as determines everythingmdashis knowledge o any kind about anything possible Allother viewpoints ail because they claim to be true yet cannot properly account or
how we have knowledge So while there is no direct proo there is absolutely
certain indirect proo or Christianity Christianity is a presupposition we cannot
do without It is claimed that even attempts to disprove Christianity must assume
it is true thus we can know Christianity transcendentally as a necessary as-
sumption Also the Bible is sel-attesting Godrsquos sheep hear his voice (Jn 1048625104862410486261048631)
Tis view is next to fideism because it bases knowledge on a presupposition
(roughly a commitment to a oundational assumption) rather than anything
known independently Proponents see their view as akin to rationalism which
offers absolute certainty or knowledge whereas many critics see it as closer to
fideism because it works by presupposing rather than directly proving
Note that there is a wide range among presuppositionalists rom those who
ollow Van il with little or no modification such as Greg Bahnsen to those who
have modified the view considerably such as John Frame Some o Framersquos mod-
ifications such as acceptance o some use o induction o the transcendental ar-gument as a direct as well as an indirect proo and acceptance o the cumulative
orce o arguments would put him on the right side o the chart Tere are also
those who take the label o presuppositionalist who emphasize Van ilrsquos rejection
o traditional direct proo but want little or nothing to do with his indirect proo
I knew one proessor who called himsel both a presuppositionalist and a ldquobiblical
fideistrdquo So on the chart we can have a lef side o presuppositionalism which is
closer to fideism and a right side which sees a robust role or proos o different
kinds In the middle would be Van il and Bahnsen Frame would be on the ar
right ideally on a line that extends to the right side o the chart (which would best
be indicated by an arrow since an actual line might be visually conusing)
Gordon Clark and Carl F H Henry represent a more deductive orm o pre-
suppositionalism in which the Bible is posited as true and what can be deduced
rom it is also true Unlike Van il and Bahnsen they do not try to justiy Christian
presuppositions transcendentally that is as the only basis or reason Herman
Dooyeweerd (DOE-yuh-vaird 1048625104863210486331048628ndash1048625104863310486311048631) took some o the oundations laid by
Abraham Kuyper (104862510486329830911048631ndash1048625104863310486261048624) in a different direction than Van il
John Frame has sought to remain true to Van ilrsquos central insights while
modiying significant aspects o his approach He maintains his ormer teacherrsquos
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1635
10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
convictions that since acts are not independently existing realities we cannot
simply see which interpretation fits best and use them independently to decide
on an interpretation (the view o evidentialism) and there can be no neutralground He emphasizes the important nuance that it is really statements o acts
that are not separate rom interpretation
Frame says that in an argument because the premises commit us to the
conclusion they thereore commit us to what the premises presuppose making
presuppositions a kind o conclusion Presuppositions are commitments that
govern our other belies and as such they are not deeasible (cannot be deeated
by evidence and argument) unless a contrary presupposition is adopted Since
all thought is dependent on God who makes all argument possible we should
not encourage the nonbeliever to think otherwise
Contrary to Van il Frame believes that there can be real agreement between
the believer and nonbeliever induction can be acceptable in apologetics and the
transcendental approach is an overall goal and not a single argumentmdashthere
being no way the Christian God o love justice patience wisdom and more
must be presupposed in order or anyone to understand and talk about anything
He also believes that there is no essential difference between direct and indirectreasoning thereore the major difference between presuppositional and tradi-
tional apologetics may be the intent o the apologist to acknowledge God as
sovereign and the source o all meaning intelligibility and rationality that is
the ultimate authority or human thought
Frame adds the extremely important stipulation that interpretations can be
verified on the basis o acts In other words we can compare the data o the
mind with the data o the external world Interpretations can be verified by
comparing them with acts and acts can be verified by comparing them with
interpretations Neither one is a brute incorrigible standard983092
Tese and other modifications make presuppositionalism much closer to
traditional apologetics and give it access to a large array o more traditional
arguments Frame adds his own highly constructive innovations holding that
as nonomniscient beings we can see things in different perspectives that are
simultaneous and overlapping where each can contain the other Knowledge
or example is a matter o sense experience reason and eeling
o the right o presuppositionalism is the Reormed epistemology o Alvin
4Personal email correspondence with Frame Aug 10486261048628 104862698308810486251048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1735
Introduction 10486251048633
Plantinga He challenges the notion that belie must be proportional to evidence
such that we are entitled to believe only as much as we can prove In answer he
points out that people commonly and rightly believe many things they wouldhave trouble proving such as that the world was not created with apparent age
only a ew minutes ago or that people have minds like us and are not merely
cleverly designed robots So it is rational to believe in God to a degree greater
than we can prove Te level o proo that would be required to justiy a belie
as crucial as Christianity would be very high and we have that level or virtually
no philosophical belies o that magnitude Knowledge o God is the result o
an inner knowing what Calvin called the sensus divinitatis which arises in us
because o how we are made Te catalyst or that knowing can be different or
different people perhaps the grandeur o mountains or the starry sky
Knowledge o Christianity comes by an inner knowing that is a special gif o
the Holy Spirit Te inner knowing o both God and Christianity is not evidence
or a conclusion but an immediate knowing (like knowing we have pain or that
we exist) Plantinga affirms the value o arguments but alone they hold little
promise o being sufficient to truly justiy belie in God or Christianity
Reormed epistemology is to the right o presuppositionalism because it a-firms a role or independent proos but it is on the lef side o the chart because
it is a type o intuition that grounds aith
Next is experientialism especially o the sort where an experience is taken
as grounds or the conclusion that God exists or that Christianity is true In this
type experience is evidence or the conclusion Tis would include such things
as experiences o answered prayers or providential care or an awareness o God
that is the basis or the conclusion that God is there What is unique about this
method is that such experiences are the only basis or belie Other methods to
the right o it accept experience as one proo among many o the lef o the view
fideism accepts no proo presuppositionalism does not regard experience as
proper proo or God or Christianity and Reormed epistemology regards ex-
perience as a direct knowing but not evidence or a conclusion So coming rom
the lef side o the chart experientialism is the first view that accepts something
as independent grounds to justiy belie
Although I have met people who take an experientialist approach to justi-
ying belie in God or Christianity it is difficult to find whole books supporting
the view People who take the view generally regard their experiences as ade-
quate to justiy only their own belies and do not expect mere reports o their
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1835
10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
experiences to be sufficient or someone else thus others would need to have
their own experiences So it is not hard to see why ew would see the value in
writing about their experiences as a way to convince others Tis book does nothave a chapter on the approach but it includes a brie critique by Norman
Geisler Te problem with experientialism is that experiences must be inter-
preted A person can have an experience but that does not mean we mustmdashor
even canmdashtake it at ace value Someonersquos experience o their dead ancestor
appearing to them could be interpreted in a number o ways as could a personrsquos
experience o the Hindu god Shiva Whether such things are regarded as real
imaginary demonic apparitions or whatever depends on what other belies we
hold as true Furthermore how do we resolve conflicts between experiences
Tereore experience is widely regarded as insufficient as the sole means o
proo though it typically appears as one type o evidence in the apologetic
methods to the right o it on the chart
Next we add pragmatism which essentially offers one source o justification
that o workability Tere are both simple and sophisticated orms o this view
but the idea is i it works we can accept a belie as verified to some degree Tere
is a difference between the (more radical) claim that workability equals truthor is what we mean by truth versus workability as an indicator o truth Te
latter view is ofen added into the mix o possible methods o justification
among views to the right o pragmatism on the chart I have chosen not to use
the available space in the book to detail pragmatism because so ar its best-
known philosophical orms have not been as popular as other approaches
among those seeking to know or justiy theism or Christianity Te view has
been developed by C S Peirce (pronounced ldquoPurserdquo 104862510486329830911048633ndash1048625104863310486251048628) William James
(1048625104863210486281048626ndash1048625104863310486251048624) and recently by neopragmatist Richard Rorty (104862510486339830911048625ndash1048626104862410486241048631) I have
included brie criticisms o pragmatism made by Norman Geisler
Moving again to the right on our chart veridicalism developed by Mark
Hanna sees knowledge as grounded in givens983093 which are known intuitively and
with certainty and are not inerred rom other things we know All humans can
benefit rom universal givens some o which cannot be coherently denied (be-
cause denying them would require assuming them) such as our own existence
5ldquoLiterally anything that can be veridically nonpostulationally and nondiscursively grasped by
consciousness is a given And i it is susceptible o apprehension by all human beings in prin-
ciple it is a universal givenrdquo Mark M Hanna Crucial Questions in Apologetics (Grand Rapids
Baker Book House 10486259830979830961048625) p 10486251048625983095
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1935
Introduction 10486261048625
and the principle o noncontradiction Awareness o the existence o the God o
theism is a universal given Christians benefit additionally rom special givens
including awareness that God cares or them that the Bible is Godrsquos Word (whichis sel-attesting only to believers1048630) and that he or she is saved Because universal
givens are knowable independently o a worldview and within any worldview
they orm cognitive neutral ground Tere is however no spiritually neutral
ground since everyone either accepts or rejects what can be universally known
about God1048631 Tere is common ground consisting o human needs such as guilt
and loneliness as well as cultural patterns o thinking and acting1048632 Tough
known immediately givens can be corroborated in different ways or example
by reflection and by their connection to other givens1048633 Some are known because
they are undeniable and others can be supported by evidence and inerence
Some arguments or theism are inductively strong such as the kalam cosmo-
logical argument and the teleological argument rom fine tuning o the universe
or lie9830891048624 In all it can be shown that God is the best explanation A case can also
be made or Christianity Te essential belies o Christianity are givens that can
be corroborated Tey are not arrived at rom nontheological data or premises983089983089
Citing Christrsquos statement that some see without ldquoseeingrdquo (Mt 10486259830911048625983091) Hanna iden-tifies eight kinds o ldquoseeingrdquo only one o which is physical Each has two poles
relating to its reality (metaphysical) and its knowability (epistemological) Tey
are physical intellectual introspective intersubjective (awareness o other
persons and onersquos relationship to them) moral aesthetic (which can grasp ob-
jective beauty) and spiritual (one mode that is common to all humans another
that is unique to Christians) Some orms o seeing overlap and interact or ex-
ample spiritual seeing requires some use o intellectual seeing He argues (in a
orthcoming book) that biblical theism is the only adequate explanation o the
eight modes o seeing and their objective correlates
Next is the view called combinationalism According to the combinationalism983089983090
o E J Carnell and Gordon Lewis traditional proos or the existence o God are
inadequate or the same reason that the empiricism they are implicitly based on
6Ibid p 104862598308810486277Ibid p 104862598308810486298Ibid9Ibid p 10486259830881048625
10Phone conversation with Mark Hanna Oct 1048625983094 10486269830881048625104862711Hanna Crucial Questions p 10486251048626104862512Te name was not chosen by Carnell but it is used in Norman Geislerrsquos widely read Christian
Apologetics 1048626nd ed (Grand Rapids Baker Books 104862698308810486251048627)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2035
10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
is inadequate you can never arrive at what is immutable universal and necessary
rom what is finite I you cannot arrive at God rom experience you must bring
God to experience in the orm o a hypothesis to be tested Tis does not meanour aith is weak or tentative only that to be intellectually honest as God would
have us be we must at least in principle be rational in our aith In this sense we
treat Christianity as a hypothesis and like any hypothesis it must not contradict
itsel Anything sel-contradictory cannot be true but what is noncontradictory
could be true o see i it is true we check it with all relevant acts looking or
contradictions between the hypothesis and the acts Te hypothesis should be
applicable to lie in the sense that it can be lived out without contradiction Tere
is common ground between believer and nonbeliever consisting or example in
the principle o noncontradiction values ethics and the need or love Fur-
thermore worldviews typically overlap in areas that are impersonal and nonmeta-
physical Even science properly practiced can be carried on between believer and
nonbeliever But worldviews diverge as soon as questions o ultimate meaning and
purpose arise We can prove that Christianity is true to the extent that we can
prove any real-world belie is true that is with high probability Yet we can have
complete inner assurance ldquocertituderdquo that it is true Combinationalism is to theright o pragmatism on the chart because it tests belie using an objective standard
that o consistency A hypothesis must be consistent within itsel consistent with
the acts and capable o being lived out consistently
In the next column is classical apologetics which is practiced by people as
diverse as C S Lewis William Lane Craig J P Moreland R C Sproul John
Gerstner and Norman Geisler Tis approach aims first to prove theism the
general belie that God is or example omnipotent omniscient omnipresent
holy creator and sustainer o the universe I theism is not proved first proo
or the resurrection or example would not necessarily be interpreted theisti-
cally by the unbeliever O course i the unbeliever already accepts theism
proving it is unnecessary
Classical apologists use theistic arguments (though they are also used by
some apologists who use other methods) Tey are types or amilies o argu-
ments in that there are a number o variations to each Te cosmological ar-
gument essentially reasons rom the existence o the universe to a creator One
orm argues that God is a necessary being that he must exist in every possible
world Another argues that everything needs an adequate cause thus the uni-
verse needs an adequate cause and that cause is God (he is not a thing and is
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2135
Introduction 1048626983091
uncaused) Te teleological argument reasons rom design in the universe to a
designer Modern science has uncovered intricate design in DNA or example
We are also discovering the amazing extent to which the universe has been finelytuned to allow or lie Te moral argument which is not used as widely as the
cosmological and teleological arguments argues rom the existence o objective
moral obligations to a higher moral being as the grounds o such obligations
Norman Geisler believes we must use a different approach to prove the truth
o a worldview versus truth within a worldview He uses six first principles o
reality which cannot be denied because any attempt to deny them would use
them (similar to Hannarsquos view) We do not need to prove them we simply ldquoseerdquo
that they are true once we understand them One first principle (stated inor-
mally) is that ldquosomething existsrdquo Anyone who attempts to deny that is admitting
they exist Another is the principle o noncontradiction which would also be
assumed by anyone attempting to deny it Once alternatives are eliminated and
theism is proved Geisler shows that Christianity explains all the known acts in
the most consistent way
o the right o classical apologetics and just lef o rationalism (on the ar right)
evidentialism has been popularized in recent decades by Josh McDowell who wasinfluenced by John Warwick Montgomery Gary Habermas has also been influ-
ential and widely known Te view does not require that theism be proved first
While most evidentialists accept theistic arguments and would use them they do
not believe it is necessary to first prove theism Unlike classical apologists eviden-
tialists believe that at least to some extent acts point to their proper interpre-
tation So evidentialists typically work to prove the resurrection afer supporting
the veracity o the Bible (eg John Warwick Montgomery) or at least the believ-
ability o very widely accepted crucial acts (eg Gary Habermas) Many o the
same acts and approaches used by evidentialists are used by classical apologists
in their second step which seeks to prove Christianity
Letrsquos review the chart again this time more briefly For fideism there can be
no proo but there is certitude rom aith in revelation For presupposition-
alism there can be no direct proo o Christianity but we must presuppose it
roughly assume it by conviction and necessity Te case must ultimately be
circular Revelation is known o its own authority but we can have proo be-
cause it must be presupposed For Reormed epistemology noncircular argu-
ments are acceptable in principle and should be developed but they are not
adequate to ground something as crucial as religious aith Belie in God is an
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2235
10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
awareness that can arise in us because o the way we were created and belie
in Christianity is a divine gif Moving right experientialism is the first view
that accepts something as decisive standalone evidence or the conclusion thatChristianity is true Te evidence is internal and subjective Pragmatism deals
with workability which is a more objective orm o experience and is thereore
to the right o experientialism (Note that what ldquoworksrdquo can be defined differ-
ently by different people)
Moving urther right (but not including rationalism on the extreme right nor
combinationalism) we have views that accept induction as an important and e-
ective method o proo or religious belie Tey (including combinationalism)
also accept a cumulative case that is layers o proo adding up to orm a stronger
case overall Religious experience and workability in lie (including giving lie
meaning) also typically play a supporting role in an overall case (whereas with
experientialism experience is the only proo) Veridicalism accepts both givens
that are known intuitively and that are undeniable and effective corroboration
through evidence and reason Everyone can have an immediate awareness o God
and the Christian can have an additional awareness o some essentials o Christi-
anity In its emphasis on direct awareness it is like Reormed epistemology but in veridicalism corroborating evidence can be strong and decisive So like Reormed
epistemology on its lef it has a place or intuition but like views on its right it
has a place or a convincing case based on evidence
As we continue to move right intuition (similar to ldquosel-attestingrdquo or presup-
positionalism) plays less o a role and there is more emphasis on independently
existing objective evidence as grounds or belie983089983091 Tere are also more such
objective criteria until we get to evidentialism which appeals to a multiplicity
o individual acts
Combinationalism accepts livability as a test o a hypothesis but only as one
o three aspects o consistency whereas to the lef pragmatism viewed livability
as the main criteria and to the right o combinationalism livability is viewed
as only one o a number o actors in an overall case
Classical apologetics accepts arguments or theism and or Christianity typ-
ically insisting (like presuppositionalism) that a worldview determines the in-
terpretation o acts But like the views on the right side o the chart that
worldview is established by something other than a necessary assumption (or
13Presuppositionalists would say that the transcendental argument provides objective evidence but
they would not say that it is ldquoindependently existingrdquo since no acts exist independent o God
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2335
Introduction 10486261048629
Geisler it is by undeniable first principles but unlike presuppositionalism they
are necessary in every worldview c Hanna)
Evidentialism is the near polar opposite o presuppositionalism affirmingthat acts can be known independently o the views that interpret them and that
acts can even point to the correct interpretation
I once showed this chart to Greg Bahnsen who not surprisingly said that pre-
suppositionalism should be on the right next to rationalism as offering absolutely
certain proo or belie In response I pointed out that certainty was secondary the
primary order o the chart was appeal to independent evidence or the conclusion
So fideism appeals to no independent evidence Presuppositionalism appeals to a
presupposition but not to independent evidence as grounds or belie (ie no direct
proo) Reormed epistemology appeals to intuition Experientialism appeals to
one subjective criterion as evidence or a conclusion pragmatism to one external
criterion Next is veridicalism which appeals to givens plus external and inde-
pendent evidence Ten comes combinationalism with its appeals to consistency
o hypothesis and fittingness with the acts plus livability Ten classical apologetics
appeals to independent evidence or theism and Christianity And finally eviden-
tialism appeals to a multiplicity o independent actsmdashthe opposite o presupposi-tionalismrsquos view that there are no independent acts Bahnsen thought or a ew
seconds and said ldquoTat could work that could workrdquo983089983092 I then mentioned that I
always tell my students that presuppositionalists see their view as close to
rationalism as ar as both offer certainty I add that they would see their presup-
positionalism as different rom rationalismrsquos method o using independent evi-
dence (Descartes or example amously beginning rom his own thoughtmdashagain
the opposite o presuppositionalism which begins with God as the standard o
truth) I it were not visually too complicated on the chart I might put fideism
presuppositionalism and rationalism each at different points o a triangle so that
presuppositionalism could be equidistant rom the aith o fideism and the absolute
proo o rationalism yet unique But over the years students have generally con-
firmed that it would be too complicated and thus unhelpul
Beore we begin it is worth briefly recounting why fideism which challenges
the legitimacy o apologetics is biblically inadequate Here are just a ew ex-
amples o biblical reasons or belie Moses asks God or signs to show his people
that he has divine authority (Ex 10486281048625) which God grants and later he grants
14Personal conversation afer Bahnsen was a guest speaker in my apologetics class Masterrsquos Col-
lege Newhall Caliornia in the all o 10486259830979830971048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2435
10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
abundant signs in the conrontation with Pharaoh (Ex 1048631ndash10486251048625) In the wilderness
God supernaturally demonstrates his presence his provision or his people and
his backing o Mosesrsquo leadership In the conquest o the Promised Land Goddivides the Jordan (Josh 98309110486251048631) gives victories over superior orces (Josh 10486251048628-1048633
98309110486251048624-10486251048631) and extends daylight (Josh 1048625104862410486251048626-10486251048628) He grants miracles or Gideon
(Judg 104863110486251048630-10486261048626) Samson (Judg 104862510486281048630 10486251048633 1048625104862910486251048629 10486251048630983091) and others Prophets such as
Elijah predict events and perorm miracles Jesusrsquo lie ulfills a number o proph-
ecies and is attested by miracles He points to them as grounds or belie (Lk
1048626104862810486261048631 Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) When John the Baptist doubts Jesus points to evidence that
matches prophecy (Mt 104862510486251048628-1048629 c Is 1048626104863310486251048632) Jesus meets Tomasrsquos doubts with
evidence (Jn 1048626104862410486261048631) Afer the resurrection he gives ldquomany convincing proosrdquo
(Acts 1048625983091 c Lk 104862610486289830911048633) John recounts some o Jesusrsquo supernatural deeds as a way
o inspiring saving aith (Jn 104862610486249830911048624) Te supernatural authority o the Seventy
(Lk 1048625104862410486251048631) and the apostles (1048626 Cor 1048625104862610486251048626) is attested by miracles Paul argues rom
Scripture that Christ had to suffer and rise again (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091) and he regards
the resurrection as ldquoproo to all menrdquo (Acts 104862510486319830911048625 c Rom 10486251048628) Some do believe
because o miracles (Jn 1048625104862610486251048625 Acts 104863310486281048626 104862598309110486251048626)
As mentioned above this does not show that an unproblematic appeal tomiracles and prophecy can be made today but that Scripture uses reasons in
support o aith Just how that should be done is the subject o this book
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 535
CONTENTS
Introduction 983097
Chart o Apologetic Approaches 983089983092
PART ONE FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES
983089 Apologetics in the Bible 983090983097
983090 Apologetics in History A survey 1048627983097
PART TWO APOLOGETIC METHODOLOGIES
Presuppositionalism
1048627 Cornelius Van il Christianity is an intellectual
commitment we cannot do without 983093983097
983092 John Frame We see ultimate truth rom
more than one perspective 983097983088
Reformed Epistemology
983093 Alvin Plantinga Belie in God is an immediate
awareness and belie in Christianity is a git o God 983089983089983096
Combinationalism983094 E J Carnell Gordon Lewis and Francis Schaeer
Christianity is logical actual and viable 983089983092983095
Classical Apologetics
983095 Introduction to Classical Apologetics
Prove theism then Christianity 983089983096983093
983096 Richard Swinburne heism andChristianity are highly probable 983089983097983088
983097 William Lane Craig God is proved by theistic
arguments and Christianity by evidences 983090983089983097
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 635
983089983088 Norman Geisler heism is proved by
what is undeniable and Christainity is
known rom evidences 983090983093983094
Evidentialism
983089983089 John Warwick Montgomery Facts point to interpretations
and critical acts point to Christianity 983090983097983090
983089983090 Gary Habermas Christianity can be proved by
widely accepted crucial acts 10486271048627983092
Conclusion Putting it all together 1048627983093983089
Name Index 1048627983094983095
Subject Index 1048627983095983089
Scripture Index 1048627983095983093
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 735
INTRODUCTION
On March 1048633 1048625104863310486311048628 Japanese lieutenant Hiroo Onoda walked out o the jungle
on a remote island in the Philippines finally convinced that World War II was
overmdashtwenty-nine years afer it had ended rained as an intelligence officer in
guerilla warare he was told to survive at all costs No matter what happened
his superiors would come or him
Just a ew months afer his arrival in 1048625104863310486281048628 the allies overwhelmed Japanese
deenses and Hiroorsquos band o five hid deep in the jungle surviving on what theycould find When the war ended many attempts were made to find and convince
the remaining soldiers to come out Newspapers and even letters rom relatives
were lef which they ound along with leaflets But how could the war have
ended so quickly And why were there spelling errors in the leaflets Hiroorsquos
own brother even came and attempted to speak to him over a loudspeaker Te
band considered each piece o evidence and always concluded that the enemy
was trying to deceive them One by one they died the last one afer twenty-
seven years in hiding leaving Hiroo alone
Finally a Japanese student tracked Hiroo down and beriended him He
could not surrender Hiroo explained until his commanding officer ordered
him to do so Te student returned to Japan and the government ound his
commander now a bookseller who returned in his tattered uniorm and per-
sonally gave the order Hiroo still in his uniorm with sword on his side and
his working rifle in his hand was relieved o duty and wept Philippine pres-
ident Ferdinand Marcos pardoned him or the approximately thirty people hehad killed over the years because the soldier had believed he was still at war
Hiroo returned to a world vastly changed realizing that his belies had been
completely wrong or nearly thirty years
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 835
10486251048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Hiroo illustrates the problem o belie what to accept as evidence and as
valid explanation how to weigh assumptions and much more We make such
complex decisions in our own lives over both minor belies and major onesAnd we all come to and hold the most crucial belies o our existencemdashour
worldviewmdashentailing whether to believe in a God how to live and what to do
about an aferlie i there is one
Tere could not be a more important question than how we are to decide
what to believe Tat is the subject o this book
S983139983151983152983141
Tere are a number o conflicting approaches as we shall see Some approaches
have been used to support a wide variety o worldviews and some have been
developed and used in a uniquely Christian context I have chosen those most
discussed today the live options as represented by those who have had a major
part in shaping them In a ew cases the choice was difficult and different ones
could have been made I would like to have written much more covering the
work o more apologists in each o the major categories but the bookrsquos total
length would have been dauntingI have tried to represent each thinker airly as they would describe their views
I have had the privilege o meeting and talking to most o the those I have written
about (including the late Greg Bahnsen) and whether by personal contact or
only via their writings I am glad to have been exposed to such brilliant minds
who have worked hard on these complex issues over a lietime I am grateul to
those who despite very busy schedules were able to review what I had written
about them and to offer some input John Frame Alvin Plantinga Mark HannaGordon Lewis (on his views and E J Carnellrsquos) Norman Geisler Richard Swin-
burne John Warwick Montgomery (who also gave helpul input on my con-
cluding chapter) and Gary Habermas James N Anderson983089 kindly went over my
chapter on Cornelius Van il and gave some helpul input Teir input was not
only valuable but also reassuring and encouraging Irsquom also grateul to Inter-
Varsity Pressrsquos anonymous reviewer or detailed thoughtul input
I have tried to be not only air but also clear so as to be accessible to readers who
have no special background in apologetic methodology o that end I have ex-
plained terms and kept specialized words to a minimum I have traded the tech-
1James N Anderson is associate proessor o theology and philosophy at Reormed Teological
Seminary in Charlotte North Carolina and supervises wwwvantilino
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 935
Introduction 10486251048625
nical rigor that characterizes purely academic writing or readability or a wider
audience (and in some cases have rerained rom reerencing more technical
sources) Incidentally I have occasionally used a male pronoun to reer to bothmen and women where my intention is obvious and I sometimes use both a male
and a emale pronoun (ldquohe or sherdquo) to make that clear Where it is not awkward I
use ldquotheirrdquo Biblical quotations are rom the New American Standard Bible
Along the way I repeat a ew things briefly by way o reminder so the reader
does not have to search back through the book and so that the chapters stand
alone better in order to aid the reader who does not go through the book quickly
Te structure o every chapter is not identical Some stop to compare apologetic
approaches and in others more time is spent exploring the criticisms
o benefit the reader with some background in the topic o the book and to
serve the advanced reader I have also sought where possible to bring out the
deeper underlying issues separating the views most o which are philosophical
having to do with issues such as the ollowing how we know how we have cer-
tainty (and how certain we can be) the relation between aith and evidence the
possibilities o reasoning by way o deduction induction and abduction the role
o assumptions and presuppositions the relation between evidence andworldview the validity o intuition as a way o knowing and its possible divine
origin and whether we can know some things without inerring them rom other
things we know (ie oundationalism) Trough all this I hope to bring the issues
into sharper ocus so as to acilitate more constructive dialogue on the subject o
apologetic methods
Te ocus o the book is on understanding the theories and how they see each
other so I have kept my own views to a minimum adding my conclusions and
constructive insights in a final chapter (Perhaps Irsquoll have the opportunity to
expand those into a book) Where I have made my own brie addition that could
be mistaken or the view o the eatured apologist I usually precede it with some-
thing like ldquoWe could add that rdquo In a ew places I have added the thoughts o
others to the material about the eatured apologist in order to broaden the
readerrsquos knowledge a bit (the longest addition being a section on miracles in the
chapter on evidentialism) In a ew sections in which I develop the thinking o
the eatured apologist I include a brie criticism rom another thinker in order
to save the reader rom having to go back rom the criticism section and search
to connect the criticism with the apologistrsquos view
My twenty-five years o experience as a proessor led me to add a list o terms
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1035
10486251048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
discussion questions and suggestions or urther reading Tat teaching expe-
rience has shown me too that complex issues are best understood i they can be
viewed rom different angles and more than onceIn order to increase understanding o where the approaches lead I have in-
cluded something o how they would actually be used ocusing on some o the
best insights that each has to offer Some approaches require a bit more detail
to show what the apologist is doing and how it all fits with their method For
example I summarize Norman Geislerrsquos rationale or selecting the right test or
truth review his criteria or selecting a worldview and finally show how he ap-
plies this method to arrive at theism It requires some detail to see the systematic
nature and rigor o his approach So at the end o the book the reader will come
away with not only the theories but also their application
As I mentioned at the beginning o this introduction I have ocused on those
who are currently influential which is why I have chosen or example Van il
over Abraham Kuyper I have also ocused on those whose work in the field has
been sustained original and extensive Tat entails choosing or example Gary
Habermas over Josh McDowell even though as a popular writer the latter has had
enormous influence My only regret is that the purpose o this book and the con-straints on its length do not permit more attention to those who have made very
worthy contributions in the past such as Gordon Clark and C S Lewis and more
recently John Feinberg the late Paul Feinberg Douglas Groothuis Ravi Zacharias
and K Scott Oliphint to name just a ew It is regrettable that only a ew pages can
be given to Francis Schaeffer who had an enormous influence in his day but is
not as well-known to younger people and shied away rom discussions on apolo-
getic theory most notably with Van il who was eager to engage him
Each apologist can be unique but can also in some ways resemble the char-
acteristics o someone representing a different approach William Lane Craig or
example is not ar rom Alvin Plantinga in his emphasis on the personal inward
awareness o God yet he is thoroughly classical in how he makes his case to
others John Warwick Montgomery a staunch evidentialist regards C S Lewis
as something o a mentor Tey are similar in the breadth o their interests pio-
neering the use o literature to communicate the gospel and it seems similar in
their personalities983090 But in overall approach C S Lewis is in the classical camp
One o my hopes or this book is that more people will gain a good grasp o
2o me they both seem expressive creative and interested in all o liersquos possibilities
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1135
Introduction 1048625983091
this crucial field o apologetic methods When the subject is taught ofen only
one approach is presented and students are lef with little or no grasp o any-
thing elsemdashand donrsquot really even understand the approach they are supposed toaccept and use Tose who are introduced to the issues outside o a classroom
tend to read only apologists rom their own camp
I progress is to made on a subject so vital we will need a new generation o
people who are interested in doing serious work Most o those who have la-
bored in this field in modern times are at or past retirement or have already
passed on My real hope is that this book will help motivate some people to take
up this work and carry it orward
I canrsquot thank InterVarsity Press enough (especially Andy Le Peau and Al Hsu)
or their great patience and encouragement as I struggled with a hellacious
onslaught o challenges that greatly slowed progress on the book I canrsquot imagine
a better publisher and I am honored they are doing this book I am also grateul
or Mark Hanna who first introduced me to this topic when I was a seminary
student Not only was he kind and encouraging but his grasp o all things apol-
ogetic has also always been inspiring I owe thanks to the sabbatical committee
which granted me time to work on this book and on God in the Shadows Evilin Godrsquos World 983091 I also want to thank my wonderul wie Donna or her con-
tinual support as well as her example o discipline and passion in the research
and writing o her own books
O983158983141983154983158983145983141983159
Tis book is organized according to a schema represented in the chart below
that I have used through much o my twenty-five years o teaching this subjectIt is not perect but I have ound that it aids understanding the relationships
among the views
On the ar lef is fideism (rom the Latin or ldquoaithrdquo) according to which
belie cannot or should not be supported by evidence o any kind On this view
aith and reason are in separate nonoverlapping circles I we have aith we have
no reasons to believe i we have reasons to believe we do not need aith Some
people are fideists because o such convictions about the nature o aith others
believe that the allen mind is incapable o processing reasons or that the
subject is simply beyond the mindrsquos grasp Te resulting view is that aith must
3Brian Morley God in the Shadows Evil in Godrsquos World (Geanies House Fearn Ross-shire Scot-
land Christian Focus 1048626983088983088983094)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1235
10486251048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Approach Fideism Presuppositionalism Reformed
epistemologyExperien-tialism
Pragmatism
rarr Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence rarr
Definingcharacteristics
bullFaithunsupportedbullFaith and
reason donrsquotoverlapbullOr reason isbeyond themindrsquos graspbullOr the mindis too fallen
bullStarting pointsare necessarypresuppositionsunprovable byindependent evidencebullNo independentlyknown factsbullldquoBorrowed capitalrdquo
bullAutonomy is theproblembullNo common ldquonotionsrdquobullReasoning must becircular deductiveindirect from
ChristianitybullTranscendentalargumentbullRange ofpresuppositionalistsfrom Van Til to Frame
bull Awareness of God( sensus divinitatus) isgrounded in howwe are made andtriggered
bullChristian faith agiftbullClassicalfoundationalismtoo narrowbullGod is properlybasicbullFaith can exceedreasons
bullExperiencealone
bullExperience isonly proof wecan have oronly proof weneed
bullAccept whatworksbullHas a widevariety of forms
Adherentsbull(Pascal)bullKierkegaardbullBarth
bullVan TilbullBahnsenbullFrame (modified keypoints)
bullAlvin Plantinga mdash
bullC S PeircebullWilliam JamesbullJohn DeweybullRichard Rorty
CriticismsbullSubjective
bullUnbiblical
bullAmounts to fideismbullTranscendental
argument cannot provethe Christian God
bullCannot rule outother beliefs likethe Great Pumpkin
bullExperiencesmust beinterpreted
bullWhatworks ne truth
bullWhat works isvague
Epistemo-logical startingpoint
Faith PresuppositionImmediateawareness
Experience Workability
Summary
No reasons or
certaintyentirelysubjectiveand volitional
No independent facts asreasons
Intuitions plusancillary reasons
One type ofevidence butsubjective
One type of
evidence thatlinks internaland external
Figure Chart of Apologetic Approaches
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1335
Introduction 10486251048629
Veridicalism Combinationalism Classical
apologetics Evidentialism Rationalism
Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence Cumulative case common ground
bullGivens + corroborationbullGivens are knownintuitively and certainlycan be corroboratedbullUniversal givens can beknown by all andconstitute cognitive
neutral groundbullGod is a universal givenbullSpecial givens areknown by ChristiansbullCommon ground =human needs commonexperiencesbullNo spiritually neutralgroundbullEight kinds of ldquoseeingrdquo
bullChristianity ahypothesis to be tested
bullThree-aspect testrational (self-consistent) empirical(fits relevant facts)existential (can belived)
bullProve theism thenChristianitybullProve theism usingtheistic proofs
cosmologicalargumentteleologicalargument moralargumentbullProve Christianity(same asevidentialists)
bullEvidence points toChristianitybullTheistic argumentsuseful but notnecessary
bullFacts point to bestinterpretationbullProphecy andresurrection provethe BiblebullUse universallyaccepted facts(Habermas)
bullAbsolutecertaintybullStart from
indubitablepointbullReason usingdeductionbullBuild up toworldview
bullMark HannahbullE J CarnellbullGordon LewisbullFrancis Schaeffer
bullNorman GeislerbullWilliam Lane CraigbullJ P MorelandbullR C SproulbullRichard Swinburne
bullJohn WarwickMontgomerybullJosh McDowellbullGary Habermas
bullDescartes
bullGivens cannot rationally
ground belief
bullThree tests are
unworkable
bullMain critics arepresuppositionalistsbullThere is no common
groundbullMust reason from
Christianity
bullFacts must beinterpreted
bullFacts cannot point totheir interpretation
bullIndubitablestarting pointscannot lead to a
worldviewwithout addingalong the way
Givens and corroboration Three-aspect test Two-step argumentFacts pointing tointerpretation
Deduction fromcertain startingpoint
Internal givens andobjective corroboration
Hypothesis tested
internal to theoryexternally with factsand existentially
Uses cosmos and order
to prove interpretiveframework (theism)then uses facts ofhistory
Proves Christianity
using many objectiveindependentlyexisting facts
Certainty is
absolutenothing issubjective orvolitional
Figure (continued)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1435
10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
be purely a gif rom God Fideists who tilt toward a Calvinistic view o salvation
(according to which God predestines individuals or salvation) may see the
action o the mind as irrelevant Because the ultimate cause o belie is divinechoice God bypasses the intellect
Fideism is thus a denial o apologetics which makes it different rom other
views All the views to the right hold that there is at least some overlap between
aith and reason that there are reasons o some kind or belie
On the ar right o the chart is rationalism which claims complete proo or
belie Te classic example is Reneacute Descartes (1048625104862910486331048630ndash1048625104863010486291048624) who lived in the tu-
multuous afermath o the Reormation when the Continent was divided over
religious belie He sought certainty by starting rom something he could not
doubt then building up rom there he used deduction a orm o reasoning that
guarantees the truth o the conclusion i we accept the premises In spite o his
original approach and rigorous effort virtually everyone today sees Descartes
as coming short o providing the level o certainty he offered
So the ar lef and the ar right are opposites aith can have no support and
aith has complete support
Just to the right o fideism is presuppositionalism which says we can have nodirect proo or either God or Christianity Tat means we cannot make either one
the conclusion o a noncircular argument In a traditional argument premises are
known independently o the conclusion and are offered as grounds or the con-
clusion Te problem with this says the ounder o presuppositionalism Cornelius
Van il is that nothing can be known independently o God because ultimately
truth is whatever God says it is God does not ldquoknowrdquo an independently existing
reality rather he determines that reality He knows the lights are on in the room
because he determined that they would be on Adam ell when he tried to become
independent o God determining or himsel what is true and morally right Fallen
humanityrsquos problem is not primarily ignorance but rebellion Te unbeliever does
not need to merely add a ew acts to his worldview but to completely tear it down
and rebuild one that makes God the source and guarantor o every act So to en-
courage the nonbeliever to think he can know premises and determine truth inde-
pendently o God is to inflame the problem Furthermore even i such a process
results in a person affirming the Bible as the Word o God he has in effect passed
judgment on God when God should be passing judgment on him As well things
can be tested only using something higher and more ultimate yet nothing can be
more ultimate than the Word o God Despite all this the presuppositionalist says
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1535
Introduction 10486251048631
we can have absolute proo or the Christian God because only i he exists can we
know anything Only i the Christian God exists and knows everythingmdashas well
as determines everythingmdashis knowledge o any kind about anything possible Allother viewpoints ail because they claim to be true yet cannot properly account or
how we have knowledge So while there is no direct proo there is absolutely
certain indirect proo or Christianity Christianity is a presupposition we cannot
do without It is claimed that even attempts to disprove Christianity must assume
it is true thus we can know Christianity transcendentally as a necessary as-
sumption Also the Bible is sel-attesting Godrsquos sheep hear his voice (Jn 1048625104862410486261048631)
Tis view is next to fideism because it bases knowledge on a presupposition
(roughly a commitment to a oundational assumption) rather than anything
known independently Proponents see their view as akin to rationalism which
offers absolute certainty or knowledge whereas many critics see it as closer to
fideism because it works by presupposing rather than directly proving
Note that there is a wide range among presuppositionalists rom those who
ollow Van il with little or no modification such as Greg Bahnsen to those who
have modified the view considerably such as John Frame Some o Framersquos mod-
ifications such as acceptance o some use o induction o the transcendental ar-gument as a direct as well as an indirect proo and acceptance o the cumulative
orce o arguments would put him on the right side o the chart Tere are also
those who take the label o presuppositionalist who emphasize Van ilrsquos rejection
o traditional direct proo but want little or nothing to do with his indirect proo
I knew one proessor who called himsel both a presuppositionalist and a ldquobiblical
fideistrdquo So on the chart we can have a lef side o presuppositionalism which is
closer to fideism and a right side which sees a robust role or proos o different
kinds In the middle would be Van il and Bahnsen Frame would be on the ar
right ideally on a line that extends to the right side o the chart (which would best
be indicated by an arrow since an actual line might be visually conusing)
Gordon Clark and Carl F H Henry represent a more deductive orm o pre-
suppositionalism in which the Bible is posited as true and what can be deduced
rom it is also true Unlike Van il and Bahnsen they do not try to justiy Christian
presuppositions transcendentally that is as the only basis or reason Herman
Dooyeweerd (DOE-yuh-vaird 1048625104863210486331048628ndash1048625104863310486311048631) took some o the oundations laid by
Abraham Kuyper (104862510486329830911048631ndash1048625104863310486261048624) in a different direction than Van il
John Frame has sought to remain true to Van ilrsquos central insights while
modiying significant aspects o his approach He maintains his ormer teacherrsquos
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1635
10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
convictions that since acts are not independently existing realities we cannot
simply see which interpretation fits best and use them independently to decide
on an interpretation (the view o evidentialism) and there can be no neutralground He emphasizes the important nuance that it is really statements o acts
that are not separate rom interpretation
Frame says that in an argument because the premises commit us to the
conclusion they thereore commit us to what the premises presuppose making
presuppositions a kind o conclusion Presuppositions are commitments that
govern our other belies and as such they are not deeasible (cannot be deeated
by evidence and argument) unless a contrary presupposition is adopted Since
all thought is dependent on God who makes all argument possible we should
not encourage the nonbeliever to think otherwise
Contrary to Van il Frame believes that there can be real agreement between
the believer and nonbeliever induction can be acceptable in apologetics and the
transcendental approach is an overall goal and not a single argumentmdashthere
being no way the Christian God o love justice patience wisdom and more
must be presupposed in order or anyone to understand and talk about anything
He also believes that there is no essential difference between direct and indirectreasoning thereore the major difference between presuppositional and tradi-
tional apologetics may be the intent o the apologist to acknowledge God as
sovereign and the source o all meaning intelligibility and rationality that is
the ultimate authority or human thought
Frame adds the extremely important stipulation that interpretations can be
verified on the basis o acts In other words we can compare the data o the
mind with the data o the external world Interpretations can be verified by
comparing them with acts and acts can be verified by comparing them with
interpretations Neither one is a brute incorrigible standard983092
Tese and other modifications make presuppositionalism much closer to
traditional apologetics and give it access to a large array o more traditional
arguments Frame adds his own highly constructive innovations holding that
as nonomniscient beings we can see things in different perspectives that are
simultaneous and overlapping where each can contain the other Knowledge
or example is a matter o sense experience reason and eeling
o the right o presuppositionalism is the Reormed epistemology o Alvin
4Personal email correspondence with Frame Aug 10486261048628 104862698308810486251048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1735
Introduction 10486251048633
Plantinga He challenges the notion that belie must be proportional to evidence
such that we are entitled to believe only as much as we can prove In answer he
points out that people commonly and rightly believe many things they wouldhave trouble proving such as that the world was not created with apparent age
only a ew minutes ago or that people have minds like us and are not merely
cleverly designed robots So it is rational to believe in God to a degree greater
than we can prove Te level o proo that would be required to justiy a belie
as crucial as Christianity would be very high and we have that level or virtually
no philosophical belies o that magnitude Knowledge o God is the result o
an inner knowing what Calvin called the sensus divinitatis which arises in us
because o how we are made Te catalyst or that knowing can be different or
different people perhaps the grandeur o mountains or the starry sky
Knowledge o Christianity comes by an inner knowing that is a special gif o
the Holy Spirit Te inner knowing o both God and Christianity is not evidence
or a conclusion but an immediate knowing (like knowing we have pain or that
we exist) Plantinga affirms the value o arguments but alone they hold little
promise o being sufficient to truly justiy belie in God or Christianity
Reormed epistemology is to the right o presuppositionalism because it a-firms a role or independent proos but it is on the lef side o the chart because
it is a type o intuition that grounds aith
Next is experientialism especially o the sort where an experience is taken
as grounds or the conclusion that God exists or that Christianity is true In this
type experience is evidence or the conclusion Tis would include such things
as experiences o answered prayers or providential care or an awareness o God
that is the basis or the conclusion that God is there What is unique about this
method is that such experiences are the only basis or belie Other methods to
the right o it accept experience as one proo among many o the lef o the view
fideism accepts no proo presuppositionalism does not regard experience as
proper proo or God or Christianity and Reormed epistemology regards ex-
perience as a direct knowing but not evidence or a conclusion So coming rom
the lef side o the chart experientialism is the first view that accepts something
as independent grounds to justiy belie
Although I have met people who take an experientialist approach to justi-
ying belie in God or Christianity it is difficult to find whole books supporting
the view People who take the view generally regard their experiences as ade-
quate to justiy only their own belies and do not expect mere reports o their
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1835
10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
experiences to be sufficient or someone else thus others would need to have
their own experiences So it is not hard to see why ew would see the value in
writing about their experiences as a way to convince others Tis book does nothave a chapter on the approach but it includes a brie critique by Norman
Geisler Te problem with experientialism is that experiences must be inter-
preted A person can have an experience but that does not mean we mustmdashor
even canmdashtake it at ace value Someonersquos experience o their dead ancestor
appearing to them could be interpreted in a number o ways as could a personrsquos
experience o the Hindu god Shiva Whether such things are regarded as real
imaginary demonic apparitions or whatever depends on what other belies we
hold as true Furthermore how do we resolve conflicts between experiences
Tereore experience is widely regarded as insufficient as the sole means o
proo though it typically appears as one type o evidence in the apologetic
methods to the right o it on the chart
Next we add pragmatism which essentially offers one source o justification
that o workability Tere are both simple and sophisticated orms o this view
but the idea is i it works we can accept a belie as verified to some degree Tere
is a difference between the (more radical) claim that workability equals truthor is what we mean by truth versus workability as an indicator o truth Te
latter view is ofen added into the mix o possible methods o justification
among views to the right o pragmatism on the chart I have chosen not to use
the available space in the book to detail pragmatism because so ar its best-
known philosophical orms have not been as popular as other approaches
among those seeking to know or justiy theism or Christianity Te view has
been developed by C S Peirce (pronounced ldquoPurserdquo 104862510486329830911048633ndash1048625104863310486251048628) William James
(1048625104863210486281048626ndash1048625104863310486251048624) and recently by neopragmatist Richard Rorty (104862510486339830911048625ndash1048626104862410486241048631) I have
included brie criticisms o pragmatism made by Norman Geisler
Moving again to the right on our chart veridicalism developed by Mark
Hanna sees knowledge as grounded in givens983093 which are known intuitively and
with certainty and are not inerred rom other things we know All humans can
benefit rom universal givens some o which cannot be coherently denied (be-
cause denying them would require assuming them) such as our own existence
5ldquoLiterally anything that can be veridically nonpostulationally and nondiscursively grasped by
consciousness is a given And i it is susceptible o apprehension by all human beings in prin-
ciple it is a universal givenrdquo Mark M Hanna Crucial Questions in Apologetics (Grand Rapids
Baker Book House 10486259830979830961048625) p 10486251048625983095
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1935
Introduction 10486261048625
and the principle o noncontradiction Awareness o the existence o the God o
theism is a universal given Christians benefit additionally rom special givens
including awareness that God cares or them that the Bible is Godrsquos Word (whichis sel-attesting only to believers1048630) and that he or she is saved Because universal
givens are knowable independently o a worldview and within any worldview
they orm cognitive neutral ground Tere is however no spiritually neutral
ground since everyone either accepts or rejects what can be universally known
about God1048631 Tere is common ground consisting o human needs such as guilt
and loneliness as well as cultural patterns o thinking and acting1048632 Tough
known immediately givens can be corroborated in different ways or example
by reflection and by their connection to other givens1048633 Some are known because
they are undeniable and others can be supported by evidence and inerence
Some arguments or theism are inductively strong such as the kalam cosmo-
logical argument and the teleological argument rom fine tuning o the universe
or lie9830891048624 In all it can be shown that God is the best explanation A case can also
be made or Christianity Te essential belies o Christianity are givens that can
be corroborated Tey are not arrived at rom nontheological data or premises983089983089
Citing Christrsquos statement that some see without ldquoseeingrdquo (Mt 10486259830911048625983091) Hanna iden-tifies eight kinds o ldquoseeingrdquo only one o which is physical Each has two poles
relating to its reality (metaphysical) and its knowability (epistemological) Tey
are physical intellectual introspective intersubjective (awareness o other
persons and onersquos relationship to them) moral aesthetic (which can grasp ob-
jective beauty) and spiritual (one mode that is common to all humans another
that is unique to Christians) Some orms o seeing overlap and interact or ex-
ample spiritual seeing requires some use o intellectual seeing He argues (in a
orthcoming book) that biblical theism is the only adequate explanation o the
eight modes o seeing and their objective correlates
Next is the view called combinationalism According to the combinationalism983089983090
o E J Carnell and Gordon Lewis traditional proos or the existence o God are
inadequate or the same reason that the empiricism they are implicitly based on
6Ibid p 104862598308810486277Ibid p 104862598308810486298Ibid9Ibid p 10486259830881048625
10Phone conversation with Mark Hanna Oct 1048625983094 10486269830881048625104862711Hanna Crucial Questions p 10486251048626104862512Te name was not chosen by Carnell but it is used in Norman Geislerrsquos widely read Christian
Apologetics 1048626nd ed (Grand Rapids Baker Books 104862698308810486251048627)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2035
10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
is inadequate you can never arrive at what is immutable universal and necessary
rom what is finite I you cannot arrive at God rom experience you must bring
God to experience in the orm o a hypothesis to be tested Tis does not meanour aith is weak or tentative only that to be intellectually honest as God would
have us be we must at least in principle be rational in our aith In this sense we
treat Christianity as a hypothesis and like any hypothesis it must not contradict
itsel Anything sel-contradictory cannot be true but what is noncontradictory
could be true o see i it is true we check it with all relevant acts looking or
contradictions between the hypothesis and the acts Te hypothesis should be
applicable to lie in the sense that it can be lived out without contradiction Tere
is common ground between believer and nonbeliever consisting or example in
the principle o noncontradiction values ethics and the need or love Fur-
thermore worldviews typically overlap in areas that are impersonal and nonmeta-
physical Even science properly practiced can be carried on between believer and
nonbeliever But worldviews diverge as soon as questions o ultimate meaning and
purpose arise We can prove that Christianity is true to the extent that we can
prove any real-world belie is true that is with high probability Yet we can have
complete inner assurance ldquocertituderdquo that it is true Combinationalism is to theright o pragmatism on the chart because it tests belie using an objective standard
that o consistency A hypothesis must be consistent within itsel consistent with
the acts and capable o being lived out consistently
In the next column is classical apologetics which is practiced by people as
diverse as C S Lewis William Lane Craig J P Moreland R C Sproul John
Gerstner and Norman Geisler Tis approach aims first to prove theism the
general belie that God is or example omnipotent omniscient omnipresent
holy creator and sustainer o the universe I theism is not proved first proo
or the resurrection or example would not necessarily be interpreted theisti-
cally by the unbeliever O course i the unbeliever already accepts theism
proving it is unnecessary
Classical apologists use theistic arguments (though they are also used by
some apologists who use other methods) Tey are types or amilies o argu-
ments in that there are a number o variations to each Te cosmological ar-
gument essentially reasons rom the existence o the universe to a creator One
orm argues that God is a necessary being that he must exist in every possible
world Another argues that everything needs an adequate cause thus the uni-
verse needs an adequate cause and that cause is God (he is not a thing and is
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2135
Introduction 1048626983091
uncaused) Te teleological argument reasons rom design in the universe to a
designer Modern science has uncovered intricate design in DNA or example
We are also discovering the amazing extent to which the universe has been finelytuned to allow or lie Te moral argument which is not used as widely as the
cosmological and teleological arguments argues rom the existence o objective
moral obligations to a higher moral being as the grounds o such obligations
Norman Geisler believes we must use a different approach to prove the truth
o a worldview versus truth within a worldview He uses six first principles o
reality which cannot be denied because any attempt to deny them would use
them (similar to Hannarsquos view) We do not need to prove them we simply ldquoseerdquo
that they are true once we understand them One first principle (stated inor-
mally) is that ldquosomething existsrdquo Anyone who attempts to deny that is admitting
they exist Another is the principle o noncontradiction which would also be
assumed by anyone attempting to deny it Once alternatives are eliminated and
theism is proved Geisler shows that Christianity explains all the known acts in
the most consistent way
o the right o classical apologetics and just lef o rationalism (on the ar right)
evidentialism has been popularized in recent decades by Josh McDowell who wasinfluenced by John Warwick Montgomery Gary Habermas has also been influ-
ential and widely known Te view does not require that theism be proved first
While most evidentialists accept theistic arguments and would use them they do
not believe it is necessary to first prove theism Unlike classical apologists eviden-
tialists believe that at least to some extent acts point to their proper interpre-
tation So evidentialists typically work to prove the resurrection afer supporting
the veracity o the Bible (eg John Warwick Montgomery) or at least the believ-
ability o very widely accepted crucial acts (eg Gary Habermas) Many o the
same acts and approaches used by evidentialists are used by classical apologists
in their second step which seeks to prove Christianity
Letrsquos review the chart again this time more briefly For fideism there can be
no proo but there is certitude rom aith in revelation For presupposition-
alism there can be no direct proo o Christianity but we must presuppose it
roughly assume it by conviction and necessity Te case must ultimately be
circular Revelation is known o its own authority but we can have proo be-
cause it must be presupposed For Reormed epistemology noncircular argu-
ments are acceptable in principle and should be developed but they are not
adequate to ground something as crucial as religious aith Belie in God is an
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2235
10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
awareness that can arise in us because o the way we were created and belie
in Christianity is a divine gif Moving right experientialism is the first view
that accepts something as decisive standalone evidence or the conclusion thatChristianity is true Te evidence is internal and subjective Pragmatism deals
with workability which is a more objective orm o experience and is thereore
to the right o experientialism (Note that what ldquoworksrdquo can be defined differ-
ently by different people)
Moving urther right (but not including rationalism on the extreme right nor
combinationalism) we have views that accept induction as an important and e-
ective method o proo or religious belie Tey (including combinationalism)
also accept a cumulative case that is layers o proo adding up to orm a stronger
case overall Religious experience and workability in lie (including giving lie
meaning) also typically play a supporting role in an overall case (whereas with
experientialism experience is the only proo) Veridicalism accepts both givens
that are known intuitively and that are undeniable and effective corroboration
through evidence and reason Everyone can have an immediate awareness o God
and the Christian can have an additional awareness o some essentials o Christi-
anity In its emphasis on direct awareness it is like Reormed epistemology but in veridicalism corroborating evidence can be strong and decisive So like Reormed
epistemology on its lef it has a place or intuition but like views on its right it
has a place or a convincing case based on evidence
As we continue to move right intuition (similar to ldquosel-attestingrdquo or presup-
positionalism) plays less o a role and there is more emphasis on independently
existing objective evidence as grounds or belie983089983091 Tere are also more such
objective criteria until we get to evidentialism which appeals to a multiplicity
o individual acts
Combinationalism accepts livability as a test o a hypothesis but only as one
o three aspects o consistency whereas to the lef pragmatism viewed livability
as the main criteria and to the right o combinationalism livability is viewed
as only one o a number o actors in an overall case
Classical apologetics accepts arguments or theism and or Christianity typ-
ically insisting (like presuppositionalism) that a worldview determines the in-
terpretation o acts But like the views on the right side o the chart that
worldview is established by something other than a necessary assumption (or
13Presuppositionalists would say that the transcendental argument provides objective evidence but
they would not say that it is ldquoindependently existingrdquo since no acts exist independent o God
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2335
Introduction 10486261048629
Geisler it is by undeniable first principles but unlike presuppositionalism they
are necessary in every worldview c Hanna)
Evidentialism is the near polar opposite o presuppositionalism affirmingthat acts can be known independently o the views that interpret them and that
acts can even point to the correct interpretation
I once showed this chart to Greg Bahnsen who not surprisingly said that pre-
suppositionalism should be on the right next to rationalism as offering absolutely
certain proo or belie In response I pointed out that certainty was secondary the
primary order o the chart was appeal to independent evidence or the conclusion
So fideism appeals to no independent evidence Presuppositionalism appeals to a
presupposition but not to independent evidence as grounds or belie (ie no direct
proo) Reormed epistemology appeals to intuition Experientialism appeals to
one subjective criterion as evidence or a conclusion pragmatism to one external
criterion Next is veridicalism which appeals to givens plus external and inde-
pendent evidence Ten comes combinationalism with its appeals to consistency
o hypothesis and fittingness with the acts plus livability Ten classical apologetics
appeals to independent evidence or theism and Christianity And finally eviden-
tialism appeals to a multiplicity o independent actsmdashthe opposite o presupposi-tionalismrsquos view that there are no independent acts Bahnsen thought or a ew
seconds and said ldquoTat could work that could workrdquo983089983092 I then mentioned that I
always tell my students that presuppositionalists see their view as close to
rationalism as ar as both offer certainty I add that they would see their presup-
positionalism as different rom rationalismrsquos method o using independent evi-
dence (Descartes or example amously beginning rom his own thoughtmdashagain
the opposite o presuppositionalism which begins with God as the standard o
truth) I it were not visually too complicated on the chart I might put fideism
presuppositionalism and rationalism each at different points o a triangle so that
presuppositionalism could be equidistant rom the aith o fideism and the absolute
proo o rationalism yet unique But over the years students have generally con-
firmed that it would be too complicated and thus unhelpul
Beore we begin it is worth briefly recounting why fideism which challenges
the legitimacy o apologetics is biblically inadequate Here are just a ew ex-
amples o biblical reasons or belie Moses asks God or signs to show his people
that he has divine authority (Ex 10486281048625) which God grants and later he grants
14Personal conversation afer Bahnsen was a guest speaker in my apologetics class Masterrsquos Col-
lege Newhall Caliornia in the all o 10486259830979830971048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2435
10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
abundant signs in the conrontation with Pharaoh (Ex 1048631ndash10486251048625) In the wilderness
God supernaturally demonstrates his presence his provision or his people and
his backing o Mosesrsquo leadership In the conquest o the Promised Land Goddivides the Jordan (Josh 98309110486251048631) gives victories over superior orces (Josh 10486251048628-1048633
98309110486251048624-10486251048631) and extends daylight (Josh 1048625104862410486251048626-10486251048628) He grants miracles or Gideon
(Judg 104863110486251048630-10486261048626) Samson (Judg 104862510486281048630 10486251048633 1048625104862910486251048629 10486251048630983091) and others Prophets such as
Elijah predict events and perorm miracles Jesusrsquo lie ulfills a number o proph-
ecies and is attested by miracles He points to them as grounds or belie (Lk
1048626104862810486261048631 Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) When John the Baptist doubts Jesus points to evidence that
matches prophecy (Mt 104862510486251048628-1048629 c Is 1048626104863310486251048632) Jesus meets Tomasrsquos doubts with
evidence (Jn 1048626104862410486261048631) Afer the resurrection he gives ldquomany convincing proosrdquo
(Acts 1048625983091 c Lk 104862610486289830911048633) John recounts some o Jesusrsquo supernatural deeds as a way
o inspiring saving aith (Jn 104862610486249830911048624) Te supernatural authority o the Seventy
(Lk 1048625104862410486251048631) and the apostles (1048626 Cor 1048625104862610486251048626) is attested by miracles Paul argues rom
Scripture that Christ had to suffer and rise again (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091) and he regards
the resurrection as ldquoproo to all menrdquo (Acts 104862510486319830911048625 c Rom 10486251048628) Some do believe
because o miracles (Jn 1048625104862610486251048625 Acts 104863310486281048626 104862598309110486251048626)
As mentioned above this does not show that an unproblematic appeal tomiracles and prophecy can be made today but that Scripture uses reasons in
support o aith Just how that should be done is the subject o this book
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 635
983089983088 Norman Geisler heism is proved by
what is undeniable and Christainity is
known rom evidences 983090983093983094
Evidentialism
983089983089 John Warwick Montgomery Facts point to interpretations
and critical acts point to Christianity 983090983097983090
983089983090 Gary Habermas Christianity can be proved by
widely accepted crucial acts 10486271048627983092
Conclusion Putting it all together 1048627983093983089
Name Index 1048627983094983095
Subject Index 1048627983095983089
Scripture Index 1048627983095983093
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 735
INTRODUCTION
On March 1048633 1048625104863310486311048628 Japanese lieutenant Hiroo Onoda walked out o the jungle
on a remote island in the Philippines finally convinced that World War II was
overmdashtwenty-nine years afer it had ended rained as an intelligence officer in
guerilla warare he was told to survive at all costs No matter what happened
his superiors would come or him
Just a ew months afer his arrival in 1048625104863310486281048628 the allies overwhelmed Japanese
deenses and Hiroorsquos band o five hid deep in the jungle surviving on what theycould find When the war ended many attempts were made to find and convince
the remaining soldiers to come out Newspapers and even letters rom relatives
were lef which they ound along with leaflets But how could the war have
ended so quickly And why were there spelling errors in the leaflets Hiroorsquos
own brother even came and attempted to speak to him over a loudspeaker Te
band considered each piece o evidence and always concluded that the enemy
was trying to deceive them One by one they died the last one afer twenty-
seven years in hiding leaving Hiroo alone
Finally a Japanese student tracked Hiroo down and beriended him He
could not surrender Hiroo explained until his commanding officer ordered
him to do so Te student returned to Japan and the government ound his
commander now a bookseller who returned in his tattered uniorm and per-
sonally gave the order Hiroo still in his uniorm with sword on his side and
his working rifle in his hand was relieved o duty and wept Philippine pres-
ident Ferdinand Marcos pardoned him or the approximately thirty people hehad killed over the years because the soldier had believed he was still at war
Hiroo returned to a world vastly changed realizing that his belies had been
completely wrong or nearly thirty years
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 835
10486251048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Hiroo illustrates the problem o belie what to accept as evidence and as
valid explanation how to weigh assumptions and much more We make such
complex decisions in our own lives over both minor belies and major onesAnd we all come to and hold the most crucial belies o our existencemdashour
worldviewmdashentailing whether to believe in a God how to live and what to do
about an aferlie i there is one
Tere could not be a more important question than how we are to decide
what to believe Tat is the subject o this book
S983139983151983152983141
Tere are a number o conflicting approaches as we shall see Some approaches
have been used to support a wide variety o worldviews and some have been
developed and used in a uniquely Christian context I have chosen those most
discussed today the live options as represented by those who have had a major
part in shaping them In a ew cases the choice was difficult and different ones
could have been made I would like to have written much more covering the
work o more apologists in each o the major categories but the bookrsquos total
length would have been dauntingI have tried to represent each thinker airly as they would describe their views
I have had the privilege o meeting and talking to most o the those I have written
about (including the late Greg Bahnsen) and whether by personal contact or
only via their writings I am glad to have been exposed to such brilliant minds
who have worked hard on these complex issues over a lietime I am grateul to
those who despite very busy schedules were able to review what I had written
about them and to offer some input John Frame Alvin Plantinga Mark HannaGordon Lewis (on his views and E J Carnellrsquos) Norman Geisler Richard Swin-
burne John Warwick Montgomery (who also gave helpul input on my con-
cluding chapter) and Gary Habermas James N Anderson983089 kindly went over my
chapter on Cornelius Van il and gave some helpul input Teir input was not
only valuable but also reassuring and encouraging Irsquom also grateul to Inter-
Varsity Pressrsquos anonymous reviewer or detailed thoughtul input
I have tried to be not only air but also clear so as to be accessible to readers who
have no special background in apologetic methodology o that end I have ex-
plained terms and kept specialized words to a minimum I have traded the tech-
1James N Anderson is associate proessor o theology and philosophy at Reormed Teological
Seminary in Charlotte North Carolina and supervises wwwvantilino
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 935
Introduction 10486251048625
nical rigor that characterizes purely academic writing or readability or a wider
audience (and in some cases have rerained rom reerencing more technical
sources) Incidentally I have occasionally used a male pronoun to reer to bothmen and women where my intention is obvious and I sometimes use both a male
and a emale pronoun (ldquohe or sherdquo) to make that clear Where it is not awkward I
use ldquotheirrdquo Biblical quotations are rom the New American Standard Bible
Along the way I repeat a ew things briefly by way o reminder so the reader
does not have to search back through the book and so that the chapters stand
alone better in order to aid the reader who does not go through the book quickly
Te structure o every chapter is not identical Some stop to compare apologetic
approaches and in others more time is spent exploring the criticisms
o benefit the reader with some background in the topic o the book and to
serve the advanced reader I have also sought where possible to bring out the
deeper underlying issues separating the views most o which are philosophical
having to do with issues such as the ollowing how we know how we have cer-
tainty (and how certain we can be) the relation between aith and evidence the
possibilities o reasoning by way o deduction induction and abduction the role
o assumptions and presuppositions the relation between evidence andworldview the validity o intuition as a way o knowing and its possible divine
origin and whether we can know some things without inerring them rom other
things we know (ie oundationalism) Trough all this I hope to bring the issues
into sharper ocus so as to acilitate more constructive dialogue on the subject o
apologetic methods
Te ocus o the book is on understanding the theories and how they see each
other so I have kept my own views to a minimum adding my conclusions and
constructive insights in a final chapter (Perhaps Irsquoll have the opportunity to
expand those into a book) Where I have made my own brie addition that could
be mistaken or the view o the eatured apologist I usually precede it with some-
thing like ldquoWe could add that rdquo In a ew places I have added the thoughts o
others to the material about the eatured apologist in order to broaden the
readerrsquos knowledge a bit (the longest addition being a section on miracles in the
chapter on evidentialism) In a ew sections in which I develop the thinking o
the eatured apologist I include a brie criticism rom another thinker in order
to save the reader rom having to go back rom the criticism section and search
to connect the criticism with the apologistrsquos view
My twenty-five years o experience as a proessor led me to add a list o terms
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1035
10486251048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
discussion questions and suggestions or urther reading Tat teaching expe-
rience has shown me too that complex issues are best understood i they can be
viewed rom different angles and more than onceIn order to increase understanding o where the approaches lead I have in-
cluded something o how they would actually be used ocusing on some o the
best insights that each has to offer Some approaches require a bit more detail
to show what the apologist is doing and how it all fits with their method For
example I summarize Norman Geislerrsquos rationale or selecting the right test or
truth review his criteria or selecting a worldview and finally show how he ap-
plies this method to arrive at theism It requires some detail to see the systematic
nature and rigor o his approach So at the end o the book the reader will come
away with not only the theories but also their application
As I mentioned at the beginning o this introduction I have ocused on those
who are currently influential which is why I have chosen or example Van il
over Abraham Kuyper I have also ocused on those whose work in the field has
been sustained original and extensive Tat entails choosing or example Gary
Habermas over Josh McDowell even though as a popular writer the latter has had
enormous influence My only regret is that the purpose o this book and the con-straints on its length do not permit more attention to those who have made very
worthy contributions in the past such as Gordon Clark and C S Lewis and more
recently John Feinberg the late Paul Feinberg Douglas Groothuis Ravi Zacharias
and K Scott Oliphint to name just a ew It is regrettable that only a ew pages can
be given to Francis Schaeffer who had an enormous influence in his day but is
not as well-known to younger people and shied away rom discussions on apolo-
getic theory most notably with Van il who was eager to engage him
Each apologist can be unique but can also in some ways resemble the char-
acteristics o someone representing a different approach William Lane Craig or
example is not ar rom Alvin Plantinga in his emphasis on the personal inward
awareness o God yet he is thoroughly classical in how he makes his case to
others John Warwick Montgomery a staunch evidentialist regards C S Lewis
as something o a mentor Tey are similar in the breadth o their interests pio-
neering the use o literature to communicate the gospel and it seems similar in
their personalities983090 But in overall approach C S Lewis is in the classical camp
One o my hopes or this book is that more people will gain a good grasp o
2o me they both seem expressive creative and interested in all o liersquos possibilities
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1135
Introduction 1048625983091
this crucial field o apologetic methods When the subject is taught ofen only
one approach is presented and students are lef with little or no grasp o any-
thing elsemdashand donrsquot really even understand the approach they are supposed toaccept and use Tose who are introduced to the issues outside o a classroom
tend to read only apologists rom their own camp
I progress is to made on a subject so vital we will need a new generation o
people who are interested in doing serious work Most o those who have la-
bored in this field in modern times are at or past retirement or have already
passed on My real hope is that this book will help motivate some people to take
up this work and carry it orward
I canrsquot thank InterVarsity Press enough (especially Andy Le Peau and Al Hsu)
or their great patience and encouragement as I struggled with a hellacious
onslaught o challenges that greatly slowed progress on the book I canrsquot imagine
a better publisher and I am honored they are doing this book I am also grateul
or Mark Hanna who first introduced me to this topic when I was a seminary
student Not only was he kind and encouraging but his grasp o all things apol-
ogetic has also always been inspiring I owe thanks to the sabbatical committee
which granted me time to work on this book and on God in the Shadows Evilin Godrsquos World 983091 I also want to thank my wonderul wie Donna or her con-
tinual support as well as her example o discipline and passion in the research
and writing o her own books
O983158983141983154983158983145983141983159
Tis book is organized according to a schema represented in the chart below
that I have used through much o my twenty-five years o teaching this subjectIt is not perect but I have ound that it aids understanding the relationships
among the views
On the ar lef is fideism (rom the Latin or ldquoaithrdquo) according to which
belie cannot or should not be supported by evidence o any kind On this view
aith and reason are in separate nonoverlapping circles I we have aith we have
no reasons to believe i we have reasons to believe we do not need aith Some
people are fideists because o such convictions about the nature o aith others
believe that the allen mind is incapable o processing reasons or that the
subject is simply beyond the mindrsquos grasp Te resulting view is that aith must
3Brian Morley God in the Shadows Evil in Godrsquos World (Geanies House Fearn Ross-shire Scot-
land Christian Focus 1048626983088983088983094)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1235
10486251048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Approach Fideism Presuppositionalism Reformed
epistemologyExperien-tialism
Pragmatism
rarr Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence rarr
Definingcharacteristics
bullFaithunsupportedbullFaith and
reason donrsquotoverlapbullOr reason isbeyond themindrsquos graspbullOr the mindis too fallen
bullStarting pointsare necessarypresuppositionsunprovable byindependent evidencebullNo independentlyknown factsbullldquoBorrowed capitalrdquo
bullAutonomy is theproblembullNo common ldquonotionsrdquobullReasoning must becircular deductiveindirect from
ChristianitybullTranscendentalargumentbullRange ofpresuppositionalistsfrom Van Til to Frame
bull Awareness of God( sensus divinitatus) isgrounded in howwe are made andtriggered
bullChristian faith agiftbullClassicalfoundationalismtoo narrowbullGod is properlybasicbullFaith can exceedreasons
bullExperiencealone
bullExperience isonly proof wecan have oronly proof weneed
bullAccept whatworksbullHas a widevariety of forms
Adherentsbull(Pascal)bullKierkegaardbullBarth
bullVan TilbullBahnsenbullFrame (modified keypoints)
bullAlvin Plantinga mdash
bullC S PeircebullWilliam JamesbullJohn DeweybullRichard Rorty
CriticismsbullSubjective
bullUnbiblical
bullAmounts to fideismbullTranscendental
argument cannot provethe Christian God
bullCannot rule outother beliefs likethe Great Pumpkin
bullExperiencesmust beinterpreted
bullWhatworks ne truth
bullWhat works isvague
Epistemo-logical startingpoint
Faith PresuppositionImmediateawareness
Experience Workability
Summary
No reasons or
certaintyentirelysubjectiveand volitional
No independent facts asreasons
Intuitions plusancillary reasons
One type ofevidence butsubjective
One type of
evidence thatlinks internaland external
Figure Chart of Apologetic Approaches
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1335
Introduction 10486251048629
Veridicalism Combinationalism Classical
apologetics Evidentialism Rationalism
Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence Cumulative case common ground
bullGivens + corroborationbullGivens are knownintuitively and certainlycan be corroboratedbullUniversal givens can beknown by all andconstitute cognitive
neutral groundbullGod is a universal givenbullSpecial givens areknown by ChristiansbullCommon ground =human needs commonexperiencesbullNo spiritually neutralgroundbullEight kinds of ldquoseeingrdquo
bullChristianity ahypothesis to be tested
bullThree-aspect testrational (self-consistent) empirical(fits relevant facts)existential (can belived)
bullProve theism thenChristianitybullProve theism usingtheistic proofs
cosmologicalargumentteleologicalargument moralargumentbullProve Christianity(same asevidentialists)
bullEvidence points toChristianitybullTheistic argumentsuseful but notnecessary
bullFacts point to bestinterpretationbullProphecy andresurrection provethe BiblebullUse universallyaccepted facts(Habermas)
bullAbsolutecertaintybullStart from
indubitablepointbullReason usingdeductionbullBuild up toworldview
bullMark HannahbullE J CarnellbullGordon LewisbullFrancis Schaeffer
bullNorman GeislerbullWilliam Lane CraigbullJ P MorelandbullR C SproulbullRichard Swinburne
bullJohn WarwickMontgomerybullJosh McDowellbullGary Habermas
bullDescartes
bullGivens cannot rationally
ground belief
bullThree tests are
unworkable
bullMain critics arepresuppositionalistsbullThere is no common
groundbullMust reason from
Christianity
bullFacts must beinterpreted
bullFacts cannot point totheir interpretation
bullIndubitablestarting pointscannot lead to a
worldviewwithout addingalong the way
Givens and corroboration Three-aspect test Two-step argumentFacts pointing tointerpretation
Deduction fromcertain startingpoint
Internal givens andobjective corroboration
Hypothesis tested
internal to theoryexternally with factsand existentially
Uses cosmos and order
to prove interpretiveframework (theism)then uses facts ofhistory
Proves Christianity
using many objectiveindependentlyexisting facts
Certainty is
absolutenothing issubjective orvolitional
Figure (continued)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1435
10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
be purely a gif rom God Fideists who tilt toward a Calvinistic view o salvation
(according to which God predestines individuals or salvation) may see the
action o the mind as irrelevant Because the ultimate cause o belie is divinechoice God bypasses the intellect
Fideism is thus a denial o apologetics which makes it different rom other
views All the views to the right hold that there is at least some overlap between
aith and reason that there are reasons o some kind or belie
On the ar right o the chart is rationalism which claims complete proo or
belie Te classic example is Reneacute Descartes (1048625104862910486331048630ndash1048625104863010486291048624) who lived in the tu-
multuous afermath o the Reormation when the Continent was divided over
religious belie He sought certainty by starting rom something he could not
doubt then building up rom there he used deduction a orm o reasoning that
guarantees the truth o the conclusion i we accept the premises In spite o his
original approach and rigorous effort virtually everyone today sees Descartes
as coming short o providing the level o certainty he offered
So the ar lef and the ar right are opposites aith can have no support and
aith has complete support
Just to the right o fideism is presuppositionalism which says we can have nodirect proo or either God or Christianity Tat means we cannot make either one
the conclusion o a noncircular argument In a traditional argument premises are
known independently o the conclusion and are offered as grounds or the con-
clusion Te problem with this says the ounder o presuppositionalism Cornelius
Van il is that nothing can be known independently o God because ultimately
truth is whatever God says it is God does not ldquoknowrdquo an independently existing
reality rather he determines that reality He knows the lights are on in the room
because he determined that they would be on Adam ell when he tried to become
independent o God determining or himsel what is true and morally right Fallen
humanityrsquos problem is not primarily ignorance but rebellion Te unbeliever does
not need to merely add a ew acts to his worldview but to completely tear it down
and rebuild one that makes God the source and guarantor o every act So to en-
courage the nonbeliever to think he can know premises and determine truth inde-
pendently o God is to inflame the problem Furthermore even i such a process
results in a person affirming the Bible as the Word o God he has in effect passed
judgment on God when God should be passing judgment on him As well things
can be tested only using something higher and more ultimate yet nothing can be
more ultimate than the Word o God Despite all this the presuppositionalist says
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1535
Introduction 10486251048631
we can have absolute proo or the Christian God because only i he exists can we
know anything Only i the Christian God exists and knows everythingmdashas well
as determines everythingmdashis knowledge o any kind about anything possible Allother viewpoints ail because they claim to be true yet cannot properly account or
how we have knowledge So while there is no direct proo there is absolutely
certain indirect proo or Christianity Christianity is a presupposition we cannot
do without It is claimed that even attempts to disprove Christianity must assume
it is true thus we can know Christianity transcendentally as a necessary as-
sumption Also the Bible is sel-attesting Godrsquos sheep hear his voice (Jn 1048625104862410486261048631)
Tis view is next to fideism because it bases knowledge on a presupposition
(roughly a commitment to a oundational assumption) rather than anything
known independently Proponents see their view as akin to rationalism which
offers absolute certainty or knowledge whereas many critics see it as closer to
fideism because it works by presupposing rather than directly proving
Note that there is a wide range among presuppositionalists rom those who
ollow Van il with little or no modification such as Greg Bahnsen to those who
have modified the view considerably such as John Frame Some o Framersquos mod-
ifications such as acceptance o some use o induction o the transcendental ar-gument as a direct as well as an indirect proo and acceptance o the cumulative
orce o arguments would put him on the right side o the chart Tere are also
those who take the label o presuppositionalist who emphasize Van ilrsquos rejection
o traditional direct proo but want little or nothing to do with his indirect proo
I knew one proessor who called himsel both a presuppositionalist and a ldquobiblical
fideistrdquo So on the chart we can have a lef side o presuppositionalism which is
closer to fideism and a right side which sees a robust role or proos o different
kinds In the middle would be Van il and Bahnsen Frame would be on the ar
right ideally on a line that extends to the right side o the chart (which would best
be indicated by an arrow since an actual line might be visually conusing)
Gordon Clark and Carl F H Henry represent a more deductive orm o pre-
suppositionalism in which the Bible is posited as true and what can be deduced
rom it is also true Unlike Van il and Bahnsen they do not try to justiy Christian
presuppositions transcendentally that is as the only basis or reason Herman
Dooyeweerd (DOE-yuh-vaird 1048625104863210486331048628ndash1048625104863310486311048631) took some o the oundations laid by
Abraham Kuyper (104862510486329830911048631ndash1048625104863310486261048624) in a different direction than Van il
John Frame has sought to remain true to Van ilrsquos central insights while
modiying significant aspects o his approach He maintains his ormer teacherrsquos
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1635
10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
convictions that since acts are not independently existing realities we cannot
simply see which interpretation fits best and use them independently to decide
on an interpretation (the view o evidentialism) and there can be no neutralground He emphasizes the important nuance that it is really statements o acts
that are not separate rom interpretation
Frame says that in an argument because the premises commit us to the
conclusion they thereore commit us to what the premises presuppose making
presuppositions a kind o conclusion Presuppositions are commitments that
govern our other belies and as such they are not deeasible (cannot be deeated
by evidence and argument) unless a contrary presupposition is adopted Since
all thought is dependent on God who makes all argument possible we should
not encourage the nonbeliever to think otherwise
Contrary to Van il Frame believes that there can be real agreement between
the believer and nonbeliever induction can be acceptable in apologetics and the
transcendental approach is an overall goal and not a single argumentmdashthere
being no way the Christian God o love justice patience wisdom and more
must be presupposed in order or anyone to understand and talk about anything
He also believes that there is no essential difference between direct and indirectreasoning thereore the major difference between presuppositional and tradi-
tional apologetics may be the intent o the apologist to acknowledge God as
sovereign and the source o all meaning intelligibility and rationality that is
the ultimate authority or human thought
Frame adds the extremely important stipulation that interpretations can be
verified on the basis o acts In other words we can compare the data o the
mind with the data o the external world Interpretations can be verified by
comparing them with acts and acts can be verified by comparing them with
interpretations Neither one is a brute incorrigible standard983092
Tese and other modifications make presuppositionalism much closer to
traditional apologetics and give it access to a large array o more traditional
arguments Frame adds his own highly constructive innovations holding that
as nonomniscient beings we can see things in different perspectives that are
simultaneous and overlapping where each can contain the other Knowledge
or example is a matter o sense experience reason and eeling
o the right o presuppositionalism is the Reormed epistemology o Alvin
4Personal email correspondence with Frame Aug 10486261048628 104862698308810486251048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1735
Introduction 10486251048633
Plantinga He challenges the notion that belie must be proportional to evidence
such that we are entitled to believe only as much as we can prove In answer he
points out that people commonly and rightly believe many things they wouldhave trouble proving such as that the world was not created with apparent age
only a ew minutes ago or that people have minds like us and are not merely
cleverly designed robots So it is rational to believe in God to a degree greater
than we can prove Te level o proo that would be required to justiy a belie
as crucial as Christianity would be very high and we have that level or virtually
no philosophical belies o that magnitude Knowledge o God is the result o
an inner knowing what Calvin called the sensus divinitatis which arises in us
because o how we are made Te catalyst or that knowing can be different or
different people perhaps the grandeur o mountains or the starry sky
Knowledge o Christianity comes by an inner knowing that is a special gif o
the Holy Spirit Te inner knowing o both God and Christianity is not evidence
or a conclusion but an immediate knowing (like knowing we have pain or that
we exist) Plantinga affirms the value o arguments but alone they hold little
promise o being sufficient to truly justiy belie in God or Christianity
Reormed epistemology is to the right o presuppositionalism because it a-firms a role or independent proos but it is on the lef side o the chart because
it is a type o intuition that grounds aith
Next is experientialism especially o the sort where an experience is taken
as grounds or the conclusion that God exists or that Christianity is true In this
type experience is evidence or the conclusion Tis would include such things
as experiences o answered prayers or providential care or an awareness o God
that is the basis or the conclusion that God is there What is unique about this
method is that such experiences are the only basis or belie Other methods to
the right o it accept experience as one proo among many o the lef o the view
fideism accepts no proo presuppositionalism does not regard experience as
proper proo or God or Christianity and Reormed epistemology regards ex-
perience as a direct knowing but not evidence or a conclusion So coming rom
the lef side o the chart experientialism is the first view that accepts something
as independent grounds to justiy belie
Although I have met people who take an experientialist approach to justi-
ying belie in God or Christianity it is difficult to find whole books supporting
the view People who take the view generally regard their experiences as ade-
quate to justiy only their own belies and do not expect mere reports o their
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1835
10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
experiences to be sufficient or someone else thus others would need to have
their own experiences So it is not hard to see why ew would see the value in
writing about their experiences as a way to convince others Tis book does nothave a chapter on the approach but it includes a brie critique by Norman
Geisler Te problem with experientialism is that experiences must be inter-
preted A person can have an experience but that does not mean we mustmdashor
even canmdashtake it at ace value Someonersquos experience o their dead ancestor
appearing to them could be interpreted in a number o ways as could a personrsquos
experience o the Hindu god Shiva Whether such things are regarded as real
imaginary demonic apparitions or whatever depends on what other belies we
hold as true Furthermore how do we resolve conflicts between experiences
Tereore experience is widely regarded as insufficient as the sole means o
proo though it typically appears as one type o evidence in the apologetic
methods to the right o it on the chart
Next we add pragmatism which essentially offers one source o justification
that o workability Tere are both simple and sophisticated orms o this view
but the idea is i it works we can accept a belie as verified to some degree Tere
is a difference between the (more radical) claim that workability equals truthor is what we mean by truth versus workability as an indicator o truth Te
latter view is ofen added into the mix o possible methods o justification
among views to the right o pragmatism on the chart I have chosen not to use
the available space in the book to detail pragmatism because so ar its best-
known philosophical orms have not been as popular as other approaches
among those seeking to know or justiy theism or Christianity Te view has
been developed by C S Peirce (pronounced ldquoPurserdquo 104862510486329830911048633ndash1048625104863310486251048628) William James
(1048625104863210486281048626ndash1048625104863310486251048624) and recently by neopragmatist Richard Rorty (104862510486339830911048625ndash1048626104862410486241048631) I have
included brie criticisms o pragmatism made by Norman Geisler
Moving again to the right on our chart veridicalism developed by Mark
Hanna sees knowledge as grounded in givens983093 which are known intuitively and
with certainty and are not inerred rom other things we know All humans can
benefit rom universal givens some o which cannot be coherently denied (be-
cause denying them would require assuming them) such as our own existence
5ldquoLiterally anything that can be veridically nonpostulationally and nondiscursively grasped by
consciousness is a given And i it is susceptible o apprehension by all human beings in prin-
ciple it is a universal givenrdquo Mark M Hanna Crucial Questions in Apologetics (Grand Rapids
Baker Book House 10486259830979830961048625) p 10486251048625983095
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1935
Introduction 10486261048625
and the principle o noncontradiction Awareness o the existence o the God o
theism is a universal given Christians benefit additionally rom special givens
including awareness that God cares or them that the Bible is Godrsquos Word (whichis sel-attesting only to believers1048630) and that he or she is saved Because universal
givens are knowable independently o a worldview and within any worldview
they orm cognitive neutral ground Tere is however no spiritually neutral
ground since everyone either accepts or rejects what can be universally known
about God1048631 Tere is common ground consisting o human needs such as guilt
and loneliness as well as cultural patterns o thinking and acting1048632 Tough
known immediately givens can be corroborated in different ways or example
by reflection and by their connection to other givens1048633 Some are known because
they are undeniable and others can be supported by evidence and inerence
Some arguments or theism are inductively strong such as the kalam cosmo-
logical argument and the teleological argument rom fine tuning o the universe
or lie9830891048624 In all it can be shown that God is the best explanation A case can also
be made or Christianity Te essential belies o Christianity are givens that can
be corroborated Tey are not arrived at rom nontheological data or premises983089983089
Citing Christrsquos statement that some see without ldquoseeingrdquo (Mt 10486259830911048625983091) Hanna iden-tifies eight kinds o ldquoseeingrdquo only one o which is physical Each has two poles
relating to its reality (metaphysical) and its knowability (epistemological) Tey
are physical intellectual introspective intersubjective (awareness o other
persons and onersquos relationship to them) moral aesthetic (which can grasp ob-
jective beauty) and spiritual (one mode that is common to all humans another
that is unique to Christians) Some orms o seeing overlap and interact or ex-
ample spiritual seeing requires some use o intellectual seeing He argues (in a
orthcoming book) that biblical theism is the only adequate explanation o the
eight modes o seeing and their objective correlates
Next is the view called combinationalism According to the combinationalism983089983090
o E J Carnell and Gordon Lewis traditional proos or the existence o God are
inadequate or the same reason that the empiricism they are implicitly based on
6Ibid p 104862598308810486277Ibid p 104862598308810486298Ibid9Ibid p 10486259830881048625
10Phone conversation with Mark Hanna Oct 1048625983094 10486269830881048625104862711Hanna Crucial Questions p 10486251048626104862512Te name was not chosen by Carnell but it is used in Norman Geislerrsquos widely read Christian
Apologetics 1048626nd ed (Grand Rapids Baker Books 104862698308810486251048627)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2035
10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
is inadequate you can never arrive at what is immutable universal and necessary
rom what is finite I you cannot arrive at God rom experience you must bring
God to experience in the orm o a hypothesis to be tested Tis does not meanour aith is weak or tentative only that to be intellectually honest as God would
have us be we must at least in principle be rational in our aith In this sense we
treat Christianity as a hypothesis and like any hypothesis it must not contradict
itsel Anything sel-contradictory cannot be true but what is noncontradictory
could be true o see i it is true we check it with all relevant acts looking or
contradictions between the hypothesis and the acts Te hypothesis should be
applicable to lie in the sense that it can be lived out without contradiction Tere
is common ground between believer and nonbeliever consisting or example in
the principle o noncontradiction values ethics and the need or love Fur-
thermore worldviews typically overlap in areas that are impersonal and nonmeta-
physical Even science properly practiced can be carried on between believer and
nonbeliever But worldviews diverge as soon as questions o ultimate meaning and
purpose arise We can prove that Christianity is true to the extent that we can
prove any real-world belie is true that is with high probability Yet we can have
complete inner assurance ldquocertituderdquo that it is true Combinationalism is to theright o pragmatism on the chart because it tests belie using an objective standard
that o consistency A hypothesis must be consistent within itsel consistent with
the acts and capable o being lived out consistently
In the next column is classical apologetics which is practiced by people as
diverse as C S Lewis William Lane Craig J P Moreland R C Sproul John
Gerstner and Norman Geisler Tis approach aims first to prove theism the
general belie that God is or example omnipotent omniscient omnipresent
holy creator and sustainer o the universe I theism is not proved first proo
or the resurrection or example would not necessarily be interpreted theisti-
cally by the unbeliever O course i the unbeliever already accepts theism
proving it is unnecessary
Classical apologists use theistic arguments (though they are also used by
some apologists who use other methods) Tey are types or amilies o argu-
ments in that there are a number o variations to each Te cosmological ar-
gument essentially reasons rom the existence o the universe to a creator One
orm argues that God is a necessary being that he must exist in every possible
world Another argues that everything needs an adequate cause thus the uni-
verse needs an adequate cause and that cause is God (he is not a thing and is
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2135
Introduction 1048626983091
uncaused) Te teleological argument reasons rom design in the universe to a
designer Modern science has uncovered intricate design in DNA or example
We are also discovering the amazing extent to which the universe has been finelytuned to allow or lie Te moral argument which is not used as widely as the
cosmological and teleological arguments argues rom the existence o objective
moral obligations to a higher moral being as the grounds o such obligations
Norman Geisler believes we must use a different approach to prove the truth
o a worldview versus truth within a worldview He uses six first principles o
reality which cannot be denied because any attempt to deny them would use
them (similar to Hannarsquos view) We do not need to prove them we simply ldquoseerdquo
that they are true once we understand them One first principle (stated inor-
mally) is that ldquosomething existsrdquo Anyone who attempts to deny that is admitting
they exist Another is the principle o noncontradiction which would also be
assumed by anyone attempting to deny it Once alternatives are eliminated and
theism is proved Geisler shows that Christianity explains all the known acts in
the most consistent way
o the right o classical apologetics and just lef o rationalism (on the ar right)
evidentialism has been popularized in recent decades by Josh McDowell who wasinfluenced by John Warwick Montgomery Gary Habermas has also been influ-
ential and widely known Te view does not require that theism be proved first
While most evidentialists accept theistic arguments and would use them they do
not believe it is necessary to first prove theism Unlike classical apologists eviden-
tialists believe that at least to some extent acts point to their proper interpre-
tation So evidentialists typically work to prove the resurrection afer supporting
the veracity o the Bible (eg John Warwick Montgomery) or at least the believ-
ability o very widely accepted crucial acts (eg Gary Habermas) Many o the
same acts and approaches used by evidentialists are used by classical apologists
in their second step which seeks to prove Christianity
Letrsquos review the chart again this time more briefly For fideism there can be
no proo but there is certitude rom aith in revelation For presupposition-
alism there can be no direct proo o Christianity but we must presuppose it
roughly assume it by conviction and necessity Te case must ultimately be
circular Revelation is known o its own authority but we can have proo be-
cause it must be presupposed For Reormed epistemology noncircular argu-
ments are acceptable in principle and should be developed but they are not
adequate to ground something as crucial as religious aith Belie in God is an
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2235
10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
awareness that can arise in us because o the way we were created and belie
in Christianity is a divine gif Moving right experientialism is the first view
that accepts something as decisive standalone evidence or the conclusion thatChristianity is true Te evidence is internal and subjective Pragmatism deals
with workability which is a more objective orm o experience and is thereore
to the right o experientialism (Note that what ldquoworksrdquo can be defined differ-
ently by different people)
Moving urther right (but not including rationalism on the extreme right nor
combinationalism) we have views that accept induction as an important and e-
ective method o proo or religious belie Tey (including combinationalism)
also accept a cumulative case that is layers o proo adding up to orm a stronger
case overall Religious experience and workability in lie (including giving lie
meaning) also typically play a supporting role in an overall case (whereas with
experientialism experience is the only proo) Veridicalism accepts both givens
that are known intuitively and that are undeniable and effective corroboration
through evidence and reason Everyone can have an immediate awareness o God
and the Christian can have an additional awareness o some essentials o Christi-
anity In its emphasis on direct awareness it is like Reormed epistemology but in veridicalism corroborating evidence can be strong and decisive So like Reormed
epistemology on its lef it has a place or intuition but like views on its right it
has a place or a convincing case based on evidence
As we continue to move right intuition (similar to ldquosel-attestingrdquo or presup-
positionalism) plays less o a role and there is more emphasis on independently
existing objective evidence as grounds or belie983089983091 Tere are also more such
objective criteria until we get to evidentialism which appeals to a multiplicity
o individual acts
Combinationalism accepts livability as a test o a hypothesis but only as one
o three aspects o consistency whereas to the lef pragmatism viewed livability
as the main criteria and to the right o combinationalism livability is viewed
as only one o a number o actors in an overall case
Classical apologetics accepts arguments or theism and or Christianity typ-
ically insisting (like presuppositionalism) that a worldview determines the in-
terpretation o acts But like the views on the right side o the chart that
worldview is established by something other than a necessary assumption (or
13Presuppositionalists would say that the transcendental argument provides objective evidence but
they would not say that it is ldquoindependently existingrdquo since no acts exist independent o God
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2335
Introduction 10486261048629
Geisler it is by undeniable first principles but unlike presuppositionalism they
are necessary in every worldview c Hanna)
Evidentialism is the near polar opposite o presuppositionalism affirmingthat acts can be known independently o the views that interpret them and that
acts can even point to the correct interpretation
I once showed this chart to Greg Bahnsen who not surprisingly said that pre-
suppositionalism should be on the right next to rationalism as offering absolutely
certain proo or belie In response I pointed out that certainty was secondary the
primary order o the chart was appeal to independent evidence or the conclusion
So fideism appeals to no independent evidence Presuppositionalism appeals to a
presupposition but not to independent evidence as grounds or belie (ie no direct
proo) Reormed epistemology appeals to intuition Experientialism appeals to
one subjective criterion as evidence or a conclusion pragmatism to one external
criterion Next is veridicalism which appeals to givens plus external and inde-
pendent evidence Ten comes combinationalism with its appeals to consistency
o hypothesis and fittingness with the acts plus livability Ten classical apologetics
appeals to independent evidence or theism and Christianity And finally eviden-
tialism appeals to a multiplicity o independent actsmdashthe opposite o presupposi-tionalismrsquos view that there are no independent acts Bahnsen thought or a ew
seconds and said ldquoTat could work that could workrdquo983089983092 I then mentioned that I
always tell my students that presuppositionalists see their view as close to
rationalism as ar as both offer certainty I add that they would see their presup-
positionalism as different rom rationalismrsquos method o using independent evi-
dence (Descartes or example amously beginning rom his own thoughtmdashagain
the opposite o presuppositionalism which begins with God as the standard o
truth) I it were not visually too complicated on the chart I might put fideism
presuppositionalism and rationalism each at different points o a triangle so that
presuppositionalism could be equidistant rom the aith o fideism and the absolute
proo o rationalism yet unique But over the years students have generally con-
firmed that it would be too complicated and thus unhelpul
Beore we begin it is worth briefly recounting why fideism which challenges
the legitimacy o apologetics is biblically inadequate Here are just a ew ex-
amples o biblical reasons or belie Moses asks God or signs to show his people
that he has divine authority (Ex 10486281048625) which God grants and later he grants
14Personal conversation afer Bahnsen was a guest speaker in my apologetics class Masterrsquos Col-
lege Newhall Caliornia in the all o 10486259830979830971048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2435
10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
abundant signs in the conrontation with Pharaoh (Ex 1048631ndash10486251048625) In the wilderness
God supernaturally demonstrates his presence his provision or his people and
his backing o Mosesrsquo leadership In the conquest o the Promised Land Goddivides the Jordan (Josh 98309110486251048631) gives victories over superior orces (Josh 10486251048628-1048633
98309110486251048624-10486251048631) and extends daylight (Josh 1048625104862410486251048626-10486251048628) He grants miracles or Gideon
(Judg 104863110486251048630-10486261048626) Samson (Judg 104862510486281048630 10486251048633 1048625104862910486251048629 10486251048630983091) and others Prophets such as
Elijah predict events and perorm miracles Jesusrsquo lie ulfills a number o proph-
ecies and is attested by miracles He points to them as grounds or belie (Lk
1048626104862810486261048631 Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) When John the Baptist doubts Jesus points to evidence that
matches prophecy (Mt 104862510486251048628-1048629 c Is 1048626104863310486251048632) Jesus meets Tomasrsquos doubts with
evidence (Jn 1048626104862410486261048631) Afer the resurrection he gives ldquomany convincing proosrdquo
(Acts 1048625983091 c Lk 104862610486289830911048633) John recounts some o Jesusrsquo supernatural deeds as a way
o inspiring saving aith (Jn 104862610486249830911048624) Te supernatural authority o the Seventy
(Lk 1048625104862410486251048631) and the apostles (1048626 Cor 1048625104862610486251048626) is attested by miracles Paul argues rom
Scripture that Christ had to suffer and rise again (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091) and he regards
the resurrection as ldquoproo to all menrdquo (Acts 104862510486319830911048625 c Rom 10486251048628) Some do believe
because o miracles (Jn 1048625104862610486251048625 Acts 104863310486281048626 104862598309110486251048626)
As mentioned above this does not show that an unproblematic appeal tomiracles and prophecy can be made today but that Scripture uses reasons in
support o aith Just how that should be done is the subject o this book
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 735
INTRODUCTION
On March 1048633 1048625104863310486311048628 Japanese lieutenant Hiroo Onoda walked out o the jungle
on a remote island in the Philippines finally convinced that World War II was
overmdashtwenty-nine years afer it had ended rained as an intelligence officer in
guerilla warare he was told to survive at all costs No matter what happened
his superiors would come or him
Just a ew months afer his arrival in 1048625104863310486281048628 the allies overwhelmed Japanese
deenses and Hiroorsquos band o five hid deep in the jungle surviving on what theycould find When the war ended many attempts were made to find and convince
the remaining soldiers to come out Newspapers and even letters rom relatives
were lef which they ound along with leaflets But how could the war have
ended so quickly And why were there spelling errors in the leaflets Hiroorsquos
own brother even came and attempted to speak to him over a loudspeaker Te
band considered each piece o evidence and always concluded that the enemy
was trying to deceive them One by one they died the last one afer twenty-
seven years in hiding leaving Hiroo alone
Finally a Japanese student tracked Hiroo down and beriended him He
could not surrender Hiroo explained until his commanding officer ordered
him to do so Te student returned to Japan and the government ound his
commander now a bookseller who returned in his tattered uniorm and per-
sonally gave the order Hiroo still in his uniorm with sword on his side and
his working rifle in his hand was relieved o duty and wept Philippine pres-
ident Ferdinand Marcos pardoned him or the approximately thirty people hehad killed over the years because the soldier had believed he was still at war
Hiroo returned to a world vastly changed realizing that his belies had been
completely wrong or nearly thirty years
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 835
10486251048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Hiroo illustrates the problem o belie what to accept as evidence and as
valid explanation how to weigh assumptions and much more We make such
complex decisions in our own lives over both minor belies and major onesAnd we all come to and hold the most crucial belies o our existencemdashour
worldviewmdashentailing whether to believe in a God how to live and what to do
about an aferlie i there is one
Tere could not be a more important question than how we are to decide
what to believe Tat is the subject o this book
S983139983151983152983141
Tere are a number o conflicting approaches as we shall see Some approaches
have been used to support a wide variety o worldviews and some have been
developed and used in a uniquely Christian context I have chosen those most
discussed today the live options as represented by those who have had a major
part in shaping them In a ew cases the choice was difficult and different ones
could have been made I would like to have written much more covering the
work o more apologists in each o the major categories but the bookrsquos total
length would have been dauntingI have tried to represent each thinker airly as they would describe their views
I have had the privilege o meeting and talking to most o the those I have written
about (including the late Greg Bahnsen) and whether by personal contact or
only via their writings I am glad to have been exposed to such brilliant minds
who have worked hard on these complex issues over a lietime I am grateul to
those who despite very busy schedules were able to review what I had written
about them and to offer some input John Frame Alvin Plantinga Mark HannaGordon Lewis (on his views and E J Carnellrsquos) Norman Geisler Richard Swin-
burne John Warwick Montgomery (who also gave helpul input on my con-
cluding chapter) and Gary Habermas James N Anderson983089 kindly went over my
chapter on Cornelius Van il and gave some helpul input Teir input was not
only valuable but also reassuring and encouraging Irsquom also grateul to Inter-
Varsity Pressrsquos anonymous reviewer or detailed thoughtul input
I have tried to be not only air but also clear so as to be accessible to readers who
have no special background in apologetic methodology o that end I have ex-
plained terms and kept specialized words to a minimum I have traded the tech-
1James N Anderson is associate proessor o theology and philosophy at Reormed Teological
Seminary in Charlotte North Carolina and supervises wwwvantilino
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 935
Introduction 10486251048625
nical rigor that characterizes purely academic writing or readability or a wider
audience (and in some cases have rerained rom reerencing more technical
sources) Incidentally I have occasionally used a male pronoun to reer to bothmen and women where my intention is obvious and I sometimes use both a male
and a emale pronoun (ldquohe or sherdquo) to make that clear Where it is not awkward I
use ldquotheirrdquo Biblical quotations are rom the New American Standard Bible
Along the way I repeat a ew things briefly by way o reminder so the reader
does not have to search back through the book and so that the chapters stand
alone better in order to aid the reader who does not go through the book quickly
Te structure o every chapter is not identical Some stop to compare apologetic
approaches and in others more time is spent exploring the criticisms
o benefit the reader with some background in the topic o the book and to
serve the advanced reader I have also sought where possible to bring out the
deeper underlying issues separating the views most o which are philosophical
having to do with issues such as the ollowing how we know how we have cer-
tainty (and how certain we can be) the relation between aith and evidence the
possibilities o reasoning by way o deduction induction and abduction the role
o assumptions and presuppositions the relation between evidence andworldview the validity o intuition as a way o knowing and its possible divine
origin and whether we can know some things without inerring them rom other
things we know (ie oundationalism) Trough all this I hope to bring the issues
into sharper ocus so as to acilitate more constructive dialogue on the subject o
apologetic methods
Te ocus o the book is on understanding the theories and how they see each
other so I have kept my own views to a minimum adding my conclusions and
constructive insights in a final chapter (Perhaps Irsquoll have the opportunity to
expand those into a book) Where I have made my own brie addition that could
be mistaken or the view o the eatured apologist I usually precede it with some-
thing like ldquoWe could add that rdquo In a ew places I have added the thoughts o
others to the material about the eatured apologist in order to broaden the
readerrsquos knowledge a bit (the longest addition being a section on miracles in the
chapter on evidentialism) In a ew sections in which I develop the thinking o
the eatured apologist I include a brie criticism rom another thinker in order
to save the reader rom having to go back rom the criticism section and search
to connect the criticism with the apologistrsquos view
My twenty-five years o experience as a proessor led me to add a list o terms
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1035
10486251048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
discussion questions and suggestions or urther reading Tat teaching expe-
rience has shown me too that complex issues are best understood i they can be
viewed rom different angles and more than onceIn order to increase understanding o where the approaches lead I have in-
cluded something o how they would actually be used ocusing on some o the
best insights that each has to offer Some approaches require a bit more detail
to show what the apologist is doing and how it all fits with their method For
example I summarize Norman Geislerrsquos rationale or selecting the right test or
truth review his criteria or selecting a worldview and finally show how he ap-
plies this method to arrive at theism It requires some detail to see the systematic
nature and rigor o his approach So at the end o the book the reader will come
away with not only the theories but also their application
As I mentioned at the beginning o this introduction I have ocused on those
who are currently influential which is why I have chosen or example Van il
over Abraham Kuyper I have also ocused on those whose work in the field has
been sustained original and extensive Tat entails choosing or example Gary
Habermas over Josh McDowell even though as a popular writer the latter has had
enormous influence My only regret is that the purpose o this book and the con-straints on its length do not permit more attention to those who have made very
worthy contributions in the past such as Gordon Clark and C S Lewis and more
recently John Feinberg the late Paul Feinberg Douglas Groothuis Ravi Zacharias
and K Scott Oliphint to name just a ew It is regrettable that only a ew pages can
be given to Francis Schaeffer who had an enormous influence in his day but is
not as well-known to younger people and shied away rom discussions on apolo-
getic theory most notably with Van il who was eager to engage him
Each apologist can be unique but can also in some ways resemble the char-
acteristics o someone representing a different approach William Lane Craig or
example is not ar rom Alvin Plantinga in his emphasis on the personal inward
awareness o God yet he is thoroughly classical in how he makes his case to
others John Warwick Montgomery a staunch evidentialist regards C S Lewis
as something o a mentor Tey are similar in the breadth o their interests pio-
neering the use o literature to communicate the gospel and it seems similar in
their personalities983090 But in overall approach C S Lewis is in the classical camp
One o my hopes or this book is that more people will gain a good grasp o
2o me they both seem expressive creative and interested in all o liersquos possibilities
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1135
Introduction 1048625983091
this crucial field o apologetic methods When the subject is taught ofen only
one approach is presented and students are lef with little or no grasp o any-
thing elsemdashand donrsquot really even understand the approach they are supposed toaccept and use Tose who are introduced to the issues outside o a classroom
tend to read only apologists rom their own camp
I progress is to made on a subject so vital we will need a new generation o
people who are interested in doing serious work Most o those who have la-
bored in this field in modern times are at or past retirement or have already
passed on My real hope is that this book will help motivate some people to take
up this work and carry it orward
I canrsquot thank InterVarsity Press enough (especially Andy Le Peau and Al Hsu)
or their great patience and encouragement as I struggled with a hellacious
onslaught o challenges that greatly slowed progress on the book I canrsquot imagine
a better publisher and I am honored they are doing this book I am also grateul
or Mark Hanna who first introduced me to this topic when I was a seminary
student Not only was he kind and encouraging but his grasp o all things apol-
ogetic has also always been inspiring I owe thanks to the sabbatical committee
which granted me time to work on this book and on God in the Shadows Evilin Godrsquos World 983091 I also want to thank my wonderul wie Donna or her con-
tinual support as well as her example o discipline and passion in the research
and writing o her own books
O983158983141983154983158983145983141983159
Tis book is organized according to a schema represented in the chart below
that I have used through much o my twenty-five years o teaching this subjectIt is not perect but I have ound that it aids understanding the relationships
among the views
On the ar lef is fideism (rom the Latin or ldquoaithrdquo) according to which
belie cannot or should not be supported by evidence o any kind On this view
aith and reason are in separate nonoverlapping circles I we have aith we have
no reasons to believe i we have reasons to believe we do not need aith Some
people are fideists because o such convictions about the nature o aith others
believe that the allen mind is incapable o processing reasons or that the
subject is simply beyond the mindrsquos grasp Te resulting view is that aith must
3Brian Morley God in the Shadows Evil in Godrsquos World (Geanies House Fearn Ross-shire Scot-
land Christian Focus 1048626983088983088983094)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1235
10486251048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Approach Fideism Presuppositionalism Reformed
epistemologyExperien-tialism
Pragmatism
rarr Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence rarr
Definingcharacteristics
bullFaithunsupportedbullFaith and
reason donrsquotoverlapbullOr reason isbeyond themindrsquos graspbullOr the mindis too fallen
bullStarting pointsare necessarypresuppositionsunprovable byindependent evidencebullNo independentlyknown factsbullldquoBorrowed capitalrdquo
bullAutonomy is theproblembullNo common ldquonotionsrdquobullReasoning must becircular deductiveindirect from
ChristianitybullTranscendentalargumentbullRange ofpresuppositionalistsfrom Van Til to Frame
bull Awareness of God( sensus divinitatus) isgrounded in howwe are made andtriggered
bullChristian faith agiftbullClassicalfoundationalismtoo narrowbullGod is properlybasicbullFaith can exceedreasons
bullExperiencealone
bullExperience isonly proof wecan have oronly proof weneed
bullAccept whatworksbullHas a widevariety of forms
Adherentsbull(Pascal)bullKierkegaardbullBarth
bullVan TilbullBahnsenbullFrame (modified keypoints)
bullAlvin Plantinga mdash
bullC S PeircebullWilliam JamesbullJohn DeweybullRichard Rorty
CriticismsbullSubjective
bullUnbiblical
bullAmounts to fideismbullTranscendental
argument cannot provethe Christian God
bullCannot rule outother beliefs likethe Great Pumpkin
bullExperiencesmust beinterpreted
bullWhatworks ne truth
bullWhat works isvague
Epistemo-logical startingpoint
Faith PresuppositionImmediateawareness
Experience Workability
Summary
No reasons or
certaintyentirelysubjectiveand volitional
No independent facts asreasons
Intuitions plusancillary reasons
One type ofevidence butsubjective
One type of
evidence thatlinks internaland external
Figure Chart of Apologetic Approaches
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1335
Introduction 10486251048629
Veridicalism Combinationalism Classical
apologetics Evidentialism Rationalism
Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence Cumulative case common ground
bullGivens + corroborationbullGivens are knownintuitively and certainlycan be corroboratedbullUniversal givens can beknown by all andconstitute cognitive
neutral groundbullGod is a universal givenbullSpecial givens areknown by ChristiansbullCommon ground =human needs commonexperiencesbullNo spiritually neutralgroundbullEight kinds of ldquoseeingrdquo
bullChristianity ahypothesis to be tested
bullThree-aspect testrational (self-consistent) empirical(fits relevant facts)existential (can belived)
bullProve theism thenChristianitybullProve theism usingtheistic proofs
cosmologicalargumentteleologicalargument moralargumentbullProve Christianity(same asevidentialists)
bullEvidence points toChristianitybullTheistic argumentsuseful but notnecessary
bullFacts point to bestinterpretationbullProphecy andresurrection provethe BiblebullUse universallyaccepted facts(Habermas)
bullAbsolutecertaintybullStart from
indubitablepointbullReason usingdeductionbullBuild up toworldview
bullMark HannahbullE J CarnellbullGordon LewisbullFrancis Schaeffer
bullNorman GeislerbullWilliam Lane CraigbullJ P MorelandbullR C SproulbullRichard Swinburne
bullJohn WarwickMontgomerybullJosh McDowellbullGary Habermas
bullDescartes
bullGivens cannot rationally
ground belief
bullThree tests are
unworkable
bullMain critics arepresuppositionalistsbullThere is no common
groundbullMust reason from
Christianity
bullFacts must beinterpreted
bullFacts cannot point totheir interpretation
bullIndubitablestarting pointscannot lead to a
worldviewwithout addingalong the way
Givens and corroboration Three-aspect test Two-step argumentFacts pointing tointerpretation
Deduction fromcertain startingpoint
Internal givens andobjective corroboration
Hypothesis tested
internal to theoryexternally with factsand existentially
Uses cosmos and order
to prove interpretiveframework (theism)then uses facts ofhistory
Proves Christianity
using many objectiveindependentlyexisting facts
Certainty is
absolutenothing issubjective orvolitional
Figure (continued)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1435
10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
be purely a gif rom God Fideists who tilt toward a Calvinistic view o salvation
(according to which God predestines individuals or salvation) may see the
action o the mind as irrelevant Because the ultimate cause o belie is divinechoice God bypasses the intellect
Fideism is thus a denial o apologetics which makes it different rom other
views All the views to the right hold that there is at least some overlap between
aith and reason that there are reasons o some kind or belie
On the ar right o the chart is rationalism which claims complete proo or
belie Te classic example is Reneacute Descartes (1048625104862910486331048630ndash1048625104863010486291048624) who lived in the tu-
multuous afermath o the Reormation when the Continent was divided over
religious belie He sought certainty by starting rom something he could not
doubt then building up rom there he used deduction a orm o reasoning that
guarantees the truth o the conclusion i we accept the premises In spite o his
original approach and rigorous effort virtually everyone today sees Descartes
as coming short o providing the level o certainty he offered
So the ar lef and the ar right are opposites aith can have no support and
aith has complete support
Just to the right o fideism is presuppositionalism which says we can have nodirect proo or either God or Christianity Tat means we cannot make either one
the conclusion o a noncircular argument In a traditional argument premises are
known independently o the conclusion and are offered as grounds or the con-
clusion Te problem with this says the ounder o presuppositionalism Cornelius
Van il is that nothing can be known independently o God because ultimately
truth is whatever God says it is God does not ldquoknowrdquo an independently existing
reality rather he determines that reality He knows the lights are on in the room
because he determined that they would be on Adam ell when he tried to become
independent o God determining or himsel what is true and morally right Fallen
humanityrsquos problem is not primarily ignorance but rebellion Te unbeliever does
not need to merely add a ew acts to his worldview but to completely tear it down
and rebuild one that makes God the source and guarantor o every act So to en-
courage the nonbeliever to think he can know premises and determine truth inde-
pendently o God is to inflame the problem Furthermore even i such a process
results in a person affirming the Bible as the Word o God he has in effect passed
judgment on God when God should be passing judgment on him As well things
can be tested only using something higher and more ultimate yet nothing can be
more ultimate than the Word o God Despite all this the presuppositionalist says
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1535
Introduction 10486251048631
we can have absolute proo or the Christian God because only i he exists can we
know anything Only i the Christian God exists and knows everythingmdashas well
as determines everythingmdashis knowledge o any kind about anything possible Allother viewpoints ail because they claim to be true yet cannot properly account or
how we have knowledge So while there is no direct proo there is absolutely
certain indirect proo or Christianity Christianity is a presupposition we cannot
do without It is claimed that even attempts to disprove Christianity must assume
it is true thus we can know Christianity transcendentally as a necessary as-
sumption Also the Bible is sel-attesting Godrsquos sheep hear his voice (Jn 1048625104862410486261048631)
Tis view is next to fideism because it bases knowledge on a presupposition
(roughly a commitment to a oundational assumption) rather than anything
known independently Proponents see their view as akin to rationalism which
offers absolute certainty or knowledge whereas many critics see it as closer to
fideism because it works by presupposing rather than directly proving
Note that there is a wide range among presuppositionalists rom those who
ollow Van il with little or no modification such as Greg Bahnsen to those who
have modified the view considerably such as John Frame Some o Framersquos mod-
ifications such as acceptance o some use o induction o the transcendental ar-gument as a direct as well as an indirect proo and acceptance o the cumulative
orce o arguments would put him on the right side o the chart Tere are also
those who take the label o presuppositionalist who emphasize Van ilrsquos rejection
o traditional direct proo but want little or nothing to do with his indirect proo
I knew one proessor who called himsel both a presuppositionalist and a ldquobiblical
fideistrdquo So on the chart we can have a lef side o presuppositionalism which is
closer to fideism and a right side which sees a robust role or proos o different
kinds In the middle would be Van il and Bahnsen Frame would be on the ar
right ideally on a line that extends to the right side o the chart (which would best
be indicated by an arrow since an actual line might be visually conusing)
Gordon Clark and Carl F H Henry represent a more deductive orm o pre-
suppositionalism in which the Bible is posited as true and what can be deduced
rom it is also true Unlike Van il and Bahnsen they do not try to justiy Christian
presuppositions transcendentally that is as the only basis or reason Herman
Dooyeweerd (DOE-yuh-vaird 1048625104863210486331048628ndash1048625104863310486311048631) took some o the oundations laid by
Abraham Kuyper (104862510486329830911048631ndash1048625104863310486261048624) in a different direction than Van il
John Frame has sought to remain true to Van ilrsquos central insights while
modiying significant aspects o his approach He maintains his ormer teacherrsquos
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1635
10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
convictions that since acts are not independently existing realities we cannot
simply see which interpretation fits best and use them independently to decide
on an interpretation (the view o evidentialism) and there can be no neutralground He emphasizes the important nuance that it is really statements o acts
that are not separate rom interpretation
Frame says that in an argument because the premises commit us to the
conclusion they thereore commit us to what the premises presuppose making
presuppositions a kind o conclusion Presuppositions are commitments that
govern our other belies and as such they are not deeasible (cannot be deeated
by evidence and argument) unless a contrary presupposition is adopted Since
all thought is dependent on God who makes all argument possible we should
not encourage the nonbeliever to think otherwise
Contrary to Van il Frame believes that there can be real agreement between
the believer and nonbeliever induction can be acceptable in apologetics and the
transcendental approach is an overall goal and not a single argumentmdashthere
being no way the Christian God o love justice patience wisdom and more
must be presupposed in order or anyone to understand and talk about anything
He also believes that there is no essential difference between direct and indirectreasoning thereore the major difference between presuppositional and tradi-
tional apologetics may be the intent o the apologist to acknowledge God as
sovereign and the source o all meaning intelligibility and rationality that is
the ultimate authority or human thought
Frame adds the extremely important stipulation that interpretations can be
verified on the basis o acts In other words we can compare the data o the
mind with the data o the external world Interpretations can be verified by
comparing them with acts and acts can be verified by comparing them with
interpretations Neither one is a brute incorrigible standard983092
Tese and other modifications make presuppositionalism much closer to
traditional apologetics and give it access to a large array o more traditional
arguments Frame adds his own highly constructive innovations holding that
as nonomniscient beings we can see things in different perspectives that are
simultaneous and overlapping where each can contain the other Knowledge
or example is a matter o sense experience reason and eeling
o the right o presuppositionalism is the Reormed epistemology o Alvin
4Personal email correspondence with Frame Aug 10486261048628 104862698308810486251048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1735
Introduction 10486251048633
Plantinga He challenges the notion that belie must be proportional to evidence
such that we are entitled to believe only as much as we can prove In answer he
points out that people commonly and rightly believe many things they wouldhave trouble proving such as that the world was not created with apparent age
only a ew minutes ago or that people have minds like us and are not merely
cleverly designed robots So it is rational to believe in God to a degree greater
than we can prove Te level o proo that would be required to justiy a belie
as crucial as Christianity would be very high and we have that level or virtually
no philosophical belies o that magnitude Knowledge o God is the result o
an inner knowing what Calvin called the sensus divinitatis which arises in us
because o how we are made Te catalyst or that knowing can be different or
different people perhaps the grandeur o mountains or the starry sky
Knowledge o Christianity comes by an inner knowing that is a special gif o
the Holy Spirit Te inner knowing o both God and Christianity is not evidence
or a conclusion but an immediate knowing (like knowing we have pain or that
we exist) Plantinga affirms the value o arguments but alone they hold little
promise o being sufficient to truly justiy belie in God or Christianity
Reormed epistemology is to the right o presuppositionalism because it a-firms a role or independent proos but it is on the lef side o the chart because
it is a type o intuition that grounds aith
Next is experientialism especially o the sort where an experience is taken
as grounds or the conclusion that God exists or that Christianity is true In this
type experience is evidence or the conclusion Tis would include such things
as experiences o answered prayers or providential care or an awareness o God
that is the basis or the conclusion that God is there What is unique about this
method is that such experiences are the only basis or belie Other methods to
the right o it accept experience as one proo among many o the lef o the view
fideism accepts no proo presuppositionalism does not regard experience as
proper proo or God or Christianity and Reormed epistemology regards ex-
perience as a direct knowing but not evidence or a conclusion So coming rom
the lef side o the chart experientialism is the first view that accepts something
as independent grounds to justiy belie
Although I have met people who take an experientialist approach to justi-
ying belie in God or Christianity it is difficult to find whole books supporting
the view People who take the view generally regard their experiences as ade-
quate to justiy only their own belies and do not expect mere reports o their
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1835
10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
experiences to be sufficient or someone else thus others would need to have
their own experiences So it is not hard to see why ew would see the value in
writing about their experiences as a way to convince others Tis book does nothave a chapter on the approach but it includes a brie critique by Norman
Geisler Te problem with experientialism is that experiences must be inter-
preted A person can have an experience but that does not mean we mustmdashor
even canmdashtake it at ace value Someonersquos experience o their dead ancestor
appearing to them could be interpreted in a number o ways as could a personrsquos
experience o the Hindu god Shiva Whether such things are regarded as real
imaginary demonic apparitions or whatever depends on what other belies we
hold as true Furthermore how do we resolve conflicts between experiences
Tereore experience is widely regarded as insufficient as the sole means o
proo though it typically appears as one type o evidence in the apologetic
methods to the right o it on the chart
Next we add pragmatism which essentially offers one source o justification
that o workability Tere are both simple and sophisticated orms o this view
but the idea is i it works we can accept a belie as verified to some degree Tere
is a difference between the (more radical) claim that workability equals truthor is what we mean by truth versus workability as an indicator o truth Te
latter view is ofen added into the mix o possible methods o justification
among views to the right o pragmatism on the chart I have chosen not to use
the available space in the book to detail pragmatism because so ar its best-
known philosophical orms have not been as popular as other approaches
among those seeking to know or justiy theism or Christianity Te view has
been developed by C S Peirce (pronounced ldquoPurserdquo 104862510486329830911048633ndash1048625104863310486251048628) William James
(1048625104863210486281048626ndash1048625104863310486251048624) and recently by neopragmatist Richard Rorty (104862510486339830911048625ndash1048626104862410486241048631) I have
included brie criticisms o pragmatism made by Norman Geisler
Moving again to the right on our chart veridicalism developed by Mark
Hanna sees knowledge as grounded in givens983093 which are known intuitively and
with certainty and are not inerred rom other things we know All humans can
benefit rom universal givens some o which cannot be coherently denied (be-
cause denying them would require assuming them) such as our own existence
5ldquoLiterally anything that can be veridically nonpostulationally and nondiscursively grasped by
consciousness is a given And i it is susceptible o apprehension by all human beings in prin-
ciple it is a universal givenrdquo Mark M Hanna Crucial Questions in Apologetics (Grand Rapids
Baker Book House 10486259830979830961048625) p 10486251048625983095
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1935
Introduction 10486261048625
and the principle o noncontradiction Awareness o the existence o the God o
theism is a universal given Christians benefit additionally rom special givens
including awareness that God cares or them that the Bible is Godrsquos Word (whichis sel-attesting only to believers1048630) and that he or she is saved Because universal
givens are knowable independently o a worldview and within any worldview
they orm cognitive neutral ground Tere is however no spiritually neutral
ground since everyone either accepts or rejects what can be universally known
about God1048631 Tere is common ground consisting o human needs such as guilt
and loneliness as well as cultural patterns o thinking and acting1048632 Tough
known immediately givens can be corroborated in different ways or example
by reflection and by their connection to other givens1048633 Some are known because
they are undeniable and others can be supported by evidence and inerence
Some arguments or theism are inductively strong such as the kalam cosmo-
logical argument and the teleological argument rom fine tuning o the universe
or lie9830891048624 In all it can be shown that God is the best explanation A case can also
be made or Christianity Te essential belies o Christianity are givens that can
be corroborated Tey are not arrived at rom nontheological data or premises983089983089
Citing Christrsquos statement that some see without ldquoseeingrdquo (Mt 10486259830911048625983091) Hanna iden-tifies eight kinds o ldquoseeingrdquo only one o which is physical Each has two poles
relating to its reality (metaphysical) and its knowability (epistemological) Tey
are physical intellectual introspective intersubjective (awareness o other
persons and onersquos relationship to them) moral aesthetic (which can grasp ob-
jective beauty) and spiritual (one mode that is common to all humans another
that is unique to Christians) Some orms o seeing overlap and interact or ex-
ample spiritual seeing requires some use o intellectual seeing He argues (in a
orthcoming book) that biblical theism is the only adequate explanation o the
eight modes o seeing and their objective correlates
Next is the view called combinationalism According to the combinationalism983089983090
o E J Carnell and Gordon Lewis traditional proos or the existence o God are
inadequate or the same reason that the empiricism they are implicitly based on
6Ibid p 104862598308810486277Ibid p 104862598308810486298Ibid9Ibid p 10486259830881048625
10Phone conversation with Mark Hanna Oct 1048625983094 10486269830881048625104862711Hanna Crucial Questions p 10486251048626104862512Te name was not chosen by Carnell but it is used in Norman Geislerrsquos widely read Christian
Apologetics 1048626nd ed (Grand Rapids Baker Books 104862698308810486251048627)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2035
10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
is inadequate you can never arrive at what is immutable universal and necessary
rom what is finite I you cannot arrive at God rom experience you must bring
God to experience in the orm o a hypothesis to be tested Tis does not meanour aith is weak or tentative only that to be intellectually honest as God would
have us be we must at least in principle be rational in our aith In this sense we
treat Christianity as a hypothesis and like any hypothesis it must not contradict
itsel Anything sel-contradictory cannot be true but what is noncontradictory
could be true o see i it is true we check it with all relevant acts looking or
contradictions between the hypothesis and the acts Te hypothesis should be
applicable to lie in the sense that it can be lived out without contradiction Tere
is common ground between believer and nonbeliever consisting or example in
the principle o noncontradiction values ethics and the need or love Fur-
thermore worldviews typically overlap in areas that are impersonal and nonmeta-
physical Even science properly practiced can be carried on between believer and
nonbeliever But worldviews diverge as soon as questions o ultimate meaning and
purpose arise We can prove that Christianity is true to the extent that we can
prove any real-world belie is true that is with high probability Yet we can have
complete inner assurance ldquocertituderdquo that it is true Combinationalism is to theright o pragmatism on the chart because it tests belie using an objective standard
that o consistency A hypothesis must be consistent within itsel consistent with
the acts and capable o being lived out consistently
In the next column is classical apologetics which is practiced by people as
diverse as C S Lewis William Lane Craig J P Moreland R C Sproul John
Gerstner and Norman Geisler Tis approach aims first to prove theism the
general belie that God is or example omnipotent omniscient omnipresent
holy creator and sustainer o the universe I theism is not proved first proo
or the resurrection or example would not necessarily be interpreted theisti-
cally by the unbeliever O course i the unbeliever already accepts theism
proving it is unnecessary
Classical apologists use theistic arguments (though they are also used by
some apologists who use other methods) Tey are types or amilies o argu-
ments in that there are a number o variations to each Te cosmological ar-
gument essentially reasons rom the existence o the universe to a creator One
orm argues that God is a necessary being that he must exist in every possible
world Another argues that everything needs an adequate cause thus the uni-
verse needs an adequate cause and that cause is God (he is not a thing and is
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2135
Introduction 1048626983091
uncaused) Te teleological argument reasons rom design in the universe to a
designer Modern science has uncovered intricate design in DNA or example
We are also discovering the amazing extent to which the universe has been finelytuned to allow or lie Te moral argument which is not used as widely as the
cosmological and teleological arguments argues rom the existence o objective
moral obligations to a higher moral being as the grounds o such obligations
Norman Geisler believes we must use a different approach to prove the truth
o a worldview versus truth within a worldview He uses six first principles o
reality which cannot be denied because any attempt to deny them would use
them (similar to Hannarsquos view) We do not need to prove them we simply ldquoseerdquo
that they are true once we understand them One first principle (stated inor-
mally) is that ldquosomething existsrdquo Anyone who attempts to deny that is admitting
they exist Another is the principle o noncontradiction which would also be
assumed by anyone attempting to deny it Once alternatives are eliminated and
theism is proved Geisler shows that Christianity explains all the known acts in
the most consistent way
o the right o classical apologetics and just lef o rationalism (on the ar right)
evidentialism has been popularized in recent decades by Josh McDowell who wasinfluenced by John Warwick Montgomery Gary Habermas has also been influ-
ential and widely known Te view does not require that theism be proved first
While most evidentialists accept theistic arguments and would use them they do
not believe it is necessary to first prove theism Unlike classical apologists eviden-
tialists believe that at least to some extent acts point to their proper interpre-
tation So evidentialists typically work to prove the resurrection afer supporting
the veracity o the Bible (eg John Warwick Montgomery) or at least the believ-
ability o very widely accepted crucial acts (eg Gary Habermas) Many o the
same acts and approaches used by evidentialists are used by classical apologists
in their second step which seeks to prove Christianity
Letrsquos review the chart again this time more briefly For fideism there can be
no proo but there is certitude rom aith in revelation For presupposition-
alism there can be no direct proo o Christianity but we must presuppose it
roughly assume it by conviction and necessity Te case must ultimately be
circular Revelation is known o its own authority but we can have proo be-
cause it must be presupposed For Reormed epistemology noncircular argu-
ments are acceptable in principle and should be developed but they are not
adequate to ground something as crucial as religious aith Belie in God is an
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2235
10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
awareness that can arise in us because o the way we were created and belie
in Christianity is a divine gif Moving right experientialism is the first view
that accepts something as decisive standalone evidence or the conclusion thatChristianity is true Te evidence is internal and subjective Pragmatism deals
with workability which is a more objective orm o experience and is thereore
to the right o experientialism (Note that what ldquoworksrdquo can be defined differ-
ently by different people)
Moving urther right (but not including rationalism on the extreme right nor
combinationalism) we have views that accept induction as an important and e-
ective method o proo or religious belie Tey (including combinationalism)
also accept a cumulative case that is layers o proo adding up to orm a stronger
case overall Religious experience and workability in lie (including giving lie
meaning) also typically play a supporting role in an overall case (whereas with
experientialism experience is the only proo) Veridicalism accepts both givens
that are known intuitively and that are undeniable and effective corroboration
through evidence and reason Everyone can have an immediate awareness o God
and the Christian can have an additional awareness o some essentials o Christi-
anity In its emphasis on direct awareness it is like Reormed epistemology but in veridicalism corroborating evidence can be strong and decisive So like Reormed
epistemology on its lef it has a place or intuition but like views on its right it
has a place or a convincing case based on evidence
As we continue to move right intuition (similar to ldquosel-attestingrdquo or presup-
positionalism) plays less o a role and there is more emphasis on independently
existing objective evidence as grounds or belie983089983091 Tere are also more such
objective criteria until we get to evidentialism which appeals to a multiplicity
o individual acts
Combinationalism accepts livability as a test o a hypothesis but only as one
o three aspects o consistency whereas to the lef pragmatism viewed livability
as the main criteria and to the right o combinationalism livability is viewed
as only one o a number o actors in an overall case
Classical apologetics accepts arguments or theism and or Christianity typ-
ically insisting (like presuppositionalism) that a worldview determines the in-
terpretation o acts But like the views on the right side o the chart that
worldview is established by something other than a necessary assumption (or
13Presuppositionalists would say that the transcendental argument provides objective evidence but
they would not say that it is ldquoindependently existingrdquo since no acts exist independent o God
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2335
Introduction 10486261048629
Geisler it is by undeniable first principles but unlike presuppositionalism they
are necessary in every worldview c Hanna)
Evidentialism is the near polar opposite o presuppositionalism affirmingthat acts can be known independently o the views that interpret them and that
acts can even point to the correct interpretation
I once showed this chart to Greg Bahnsen who not surprisingly said that pre-
suppositionalism should be on the right next to rationalism as offering absolutely
certain proo or belie In response I pointed out that certainty was secondary the
primary order o the chart was appeal to independent evidence or the conclusion
So fideism appeals to no independent evidence Presuppositionalism appeals to a
presupposition but not to independent evidence as grounds or belie (ie no direct
proo) Reormed epistemology appeals to intuition Experientialism appeals to
one subjective criterion as evidence or a conclusion pragmatism to one external
criterion Next is veridicalism which appeals to givens plus external and inde-
pendent evidence Ten comes combinationalism with its appeals to consistency
o hypothesis and fittingness with the acts plus livability Ten classical apologetics
appeals to independent evidence or theism and Christianity And finally eviden-
tialism appeals to a multiplicity o independent actsmdashthe opposite o presupposi-tionalismrsquos view that there are no independent acts Bahnsen thought or a ew
seconds and said ldquoTat could work that could workrdquo983089983092 I then mentioned that I
always tell my students that presuppositionalists see their view as close to
rationalism as ar as both offer certainty I add that they would see their presup-
positionalism as different rom rationalismrsquos method o using independent evi-
dence (Descartes or example amously beginning rom his own thoughtmdashagain
the opposite o presuppositionalism which begins with God as the standard o
truth) I it were not visually too complicated on the chart I might put fideism
presuppositionalism and rationalism each at different points o a triangle so that
presuppositionalism could be equidistant rom the aith o fideism and the absolute
proo o rationalism yet unique But over the years students have generally con-
firmed that it would be too complicated and thus unhelpul
Beore we begin it is worth briefly recounting why fideism which challenges
the legitimacy o apologetics is biblically inadequate Here are just a ew ex-
amples o biblical reasons or belie Moses asks God or signs to show his people
that he has divine authority (Ex 10486281048625) which God grants and later he grants
14Personal conversation afer Bahnsen was a guest speaker in my apologetics class Masterrsquos Col-
lege Newhall Caliornia in the all o 10486259830979830971048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2435
10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
abundant signs in the conrontation with Pharaoh (Ex 1048631ndash10486251048625) In the wilderness
God supernaturally demonstrates his presence his provision or his people and
his backing o Mosesrsquo leadership In the conquest o the Promised Land Goddivides the Jordan (Josh 98309110486251048631) gives victories over superior orces (Josh 10486251048628-1048633
98309110486251048624-10486251048631) and extends daylight (Josh 1048625104862410486251048626-10486251048628) He grants miracles or Gideon
(Judg 104863110486251048630-10486261048626) Samson (Judg 104862510486281048630 10486251048633 1048625104862910486251048629 10486251048630983091) and others Prophets such as
Elijah predict events and perorm miracles Jesusrsquo lie ulfills a number o proph-
ecies and is attested by miracles He points to them as grounds or belie (Lk
1048626104862810486261048631 Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) When John the Baptist doubts Jesus points to evidence that
matches prophecy (Mt 104862510486251048628-1048629 c Is 1048626104863310486251048632) Jesus meets Tomasrsquos doubts with
evidence (Jn 1048626104862410486261048631) Afer the resurrection he gives ldquomany convincing proosrdquo
(Acts 1048625983091 c Lk 104862610486289830911048633) John recounts some o Jesusrsquo supernatural deeds as a way
o inspiring saving aith (Jn 104862610486249830911048624) Te supernatural authority o the Seventy
(Lk 1048625104862410486251048631) and the apostles (1048626 Cor 1048625104862610486251048626) is attested by miracles Paul argues rom
Scripture that Christ had to suffer and rise again (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091) and he regards
the resurrection as ldquoproo to all menrdquo (Acts 104862510486319830911048625 c Rom 10486251048628) Some do believe
because o miracles (Jn 1048625104862610486251048625 Acts 104863310486281048626 104862598309110486251048626)
As mentioned above this does not show that an unproblematic appeal tomiracles and prophecy can be made today but that Scripture uses reasons in
support o aith Just how that should be done is the subject o this book
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 835
10486251048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Hiroo illustrates the problem o belie what to accept as evidence and as
valid explanation how to weigh assumptions and much more We make such
complex decisions in our own lives over both minor belies and major onesAnd we all come to and hold the most crucial belies o our existencemdashour
worldviewmdashentailing whether to believe in a God how to live and what to do
about an aferlie i there is one
Tere could not be a more important question than how we are to decide
what to believe Tat is the subject o this book
S983139983151983152983141
Tere are a number o conflicting approaches as we shall see Some approaches
have been used to support a wide variety o worldviews and some have been
developed and used in a uniquely Christian context I have chosen those most
discussed today the live options as represented by those who have had a major
part in shaping them In a ew cases the choice was difficult and different ones
could have been made I would like to have written much more covering the
work o more apologists in each o the major categories but the bookrsquos total
length would have been dauntingI have tried to represent each thinker airly as they would describe their views
I have had the privilege o meeting and talking to most o the those I have written
about (including the late Greg Bahnsen) and whether by personal contact or
only via their writings I am glad to have been exposed to such brilliant minds
who have worked hard on these complex issues over a lietime I am grateul to
those who despite very busy schedules were able to review what I had written
about them and to offer some input John Frame Alvin Plantinga Mark HannaGordon Lewis (on his views and E J Carnellrsquos) Norman Geisler Richard Swin-
burne John Warwick Montgomery (who also gave helpul input on my con-
cluding chapter) and Gary Habermas James N Anderson983089 kindly went over my
chapter on Cornelius Van il and gave some helpul input Teir input was not
only valuable but also reassuring and encouraging Irsquom also grateul to Inter-
Varsity Pressrsquos anonymous reviewer or detailed thoughtul input
I have tried to be not only air but also clear so as to be accessible to readers who
have no special background in apologetic methodology o that end I have ex-
plained terms and kept specialized words to a minimum I have traded the tech-
1James N Anderson is associate proessor o theology and philosophy at Reormed Teological
Seminary in Charlotte North Carolina and supervises wwwvantilino
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 935
Introduction 10486251048625
nical rigor that characterizes purely academic writing or readability or a wider
audience (and in some cases have rerained rom reerencing more technical
sources) Incidentally I have occasionally used a male pronoun to reer to bothmen and women where my intention is obvious and I sometimes use both a male
and a emale pronoun (ldquohe or sherdquo) to make that clear Where it is not awkward I
use ldquotheirrdquo Biblical quotations are rom the New American Standard Bible
Along the way I repeat a ew things briefly by way o reminder so the reader
does not have to search back through the book and so that the chapters stand
alone better in order to aid the reader who does not go through the book quickly
Te structure o every chapter is not identical Some stop to compare apologetic
approaches and in others more time is spent exploring the criticisms
o benefit the reader with some background in the topic o the book and to
serve the advanced reader I have also sought where possible to bring out the
deeper underlying issues separating the views most o which are philosophical
having to do with issues such as the ollowing how we know how we have cer-
tainty (and how certain we can be) the relation between aith and evidence the
possibilities o reasoning by way o deduction induction and abduction the role
o assumptions and presuppositions the relation between evidence andworldview the validity o intuition as a way o knowing and its possible divine
origin and whether we can know some things without inerring them rom other
things we know (ie oundationalism) Trough all this I hope to bring the issues
into sharper ocus so as to acilitate more constructive dialogue on the subject o
apologetic methods
Te ocus o the book is on understanding the theories and how they see each
other so I have kept my own views to a minimum adding my conclusions and
constructive insights in a final chapter (Perhaps Irsquoll have the opportunity to
expand those into a book) Where I have made my own brie addition that could
be mistaken or the view o the eatured apologist I usually precede it with some-
thing like ldquoWe could add that rdquo In a ew places I have added the thoughts o
others to the material about the eatured apologist in order to broaden the
readerrsquos knowledge a bit (the longest addition being a section on miracles in the
chapter on evidentialism) In a ew sections in which I develop the thinking o
the eatured apologist I include a brie criticism rom another thinker in order
to save the reader rom having to go back rom the criticism section and search
to connect the criticism with the apologistrsquos view
My twenty-five years o experience as a proessor led me to add a list o terms
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1035
10486251048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
discussion questions and suggestions or urther reading Tat teaching expe-
rience has shown me too that complex issues are best understood i they can be
viewed rom different angles and more than onceIn order to increase understanding o where the approaches lead I have in-
cluded something o how they would actually be used ocusing on some o the
best insights that each has to offer Some approaches require a bit more detail
to show what the apologist is doing and how it all fits with their method For
example I summarize Norman Geislerrsquos rationale or selecting the right test or
truth review his criteria or selecting a worldview and finally show how he ap-
plies this method to arrive at theism It requires some detail to see the systematic
nature and rigor o his approach So at the end o the book the reader will come
away with not only the theories but also their application
As I mentioned at the beginning o this introduction I have ocused on those
who are currently influential which is why I have chosen or example Van il
over Abraham Kuyper I have also ocused on those whose work in the field has
been sustained original and extensive Tat entails choosing or example Gary
Habermas over Josh McDowell even though as a popular writer the latter has had
enormous influence My only regret is that the purpose o this book and the con-straints on its length do not permit more attention to those who have made very
worthy contributions in the past such as Gordon Clark and C S Lewis and more
recently John Feinberg the late Paul Feinberg Douglas Groothuis Ravi Zacharias
and K Scott Oliphint to name just a ew It is regrettable that only a ew pages can
be given to Francis Schaeffer who had an enormous influence in his day but is
not as well-known to younger people and shied away rom discussions on apolo-
getic theory most notably with Van il who was eager to engage him
Each apologist can be unique but can also in some ways resemble the char-
acteristics o someone representing a different approach William Lane Craig or
example is not ar rom Alvin Plantinga in his emphasis on the personal inward
awareness o God yet he is thoroughly classical in how he makes his case to
others John Warwick Montgomery a staunch evidentialist regards C S Lewis
as something o a mentor Tey are similar in the breadth o their interests pio-
neering the use o literature to communicate the gospel and it seems similar in
their personalities983090 But in overall approach C S Lewis is in the classical camp
One o my hopes or this book is that more people will gain a good grasp o
2o me they both seem expressive creative and interested in all o liersquos possibilities
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1135
Introduction 1048625983091
this crucial field o apologetic methods When the subject is taught ofen only
one approach is presented and students are lef with little or no grasp o any-
thing elsemdashand donrsquot really even understand the approach they are supposed toaccept and use Tose who are introduced to the issues outside o a classroom
tend to read only apologists rom their own camp
I progress is to made on a subject so vital we will need a new generation o
people who are interested in doing serious work Most o those who have la-
bored in this field in modern times are at or past retirement or have already
passed on My real hope is that this book will help motivate some people to take
up this work and carry it orward
I canrsquot thank InterVarsity Press enough (especially Andy Le Peau and Al Hsu)
or their great patience and encouragement as I struggled with a hellacious
onslaught o challenges that greatly slowed progress on the book I canrsquot imagine
a better publisher and I am honored they are doing this book I am also grateul
or Mark Hanna who first introduced me to this topic when I was a seminary
student Not only was he kind and encouraging but his grasp o all things apol-
ogetic has also always been inspiring I owe thanks to the sabbatical committee
which granted me time to work on this book and on God in the Shadows Evilin Godrsquos World 983091 I also want to thank my wonderul wie Donna or her con-
tinual support as well as her example o discipline and passion in the research
and writing o her own books
O983158983141983154983158983145983141983159
Tis book is organized according to a schema represented in the chart below
that I have used through much o my twenty-five years o teaching this subjectIt is not perect but I have ound that it aids understanding the relationships
among the views
On the ar lef is fideism (rom the Latin or ldquoaithrdquo) according to which
belie cannot or should not be supported by evidence o any kind On this view
aith and reason are in separate nonoverlapping circles I we have aith we have
no reasons to believe i we have reasons to believe we do not need aith Some
people are fideists because o such convictions about the nature o aith others
believe that the allen mind is incapable o processing reasons or that the
subject is simply beyond the mindrsquos grasp Te resulting view is that aith must
3Brian Morley God in the Shadows Evil in Godrsquos World (Geanies House Fearn Ross-shire Scot-
land Christian Focus 1048626983088983088983094)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1235
10486251048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Approach Fideism Presuppositionalism Reformed
epistemologyExperien-tialism
Pragmatism
rarr Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence rarr
Definingcharacteristics
bullFaithunsupportedbullFaith and
reason donrsquotoverlapbullOr reason isbeyond themindrsquos graspbullOr the mindis too fallen
bullStarting pointsare necessarypresuppositionsunprovable byindependent evidencebullNo independentlyknown factsbullldquoBorrowed capitalrdquo
bullAutonomy is theproblembullNo common ldquonotionsrdquobullReasoning must becircular deductiveindirect from
ChristianitybullTranscendentalargumentbullRange ofpresuppositionalistsfrom Van Til to Frame
bull Awareness of God( sensus divinitatus) isgrounded in howwe are made andtriggered
bullChristian faith agiftbullClassicalfoundationalismtoo narrowbullGod is properlybasicbullFaith can exceedreasons
bullExperiencealone
bullExperience isonly proof wecan have oronly proof weneed
bullAccept whatworksbullHas a widevariety of forms
Adherentsbull(Pascal)bullKierkegaardbullBarth
bullVan TilbullBahnsenbullFrame (modified keypoints)
bullAlvin Plantinga mdash
bullC S PeircebullWilliam JamesbullJohn DeweybullRichard Rorty
CriticismsbullSubjective
bullUnbiblical
bullAmounts to fideismbullTranscendental
argument cannot provethe Christian God
bullCannot rule outother beliefs likethe Great Pumpkin
bullExperiencesmust beinterpreted
bullWhatworks ne truth
bullWhat works isvague
Epistemo-logical startingpoint
Faith PresuppositionImmediateawareness
Experience Workability
Summary
No reasons or
certaintyentirelysubjectiveand volitional
No independent facts asreasons
Intuitions plusancillary reasons
One type ofevidence butsubjective
One type of
evidence thatlinks internaland external
Figure Chart of Apologetic Approaches
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1335
Introduction 10486251048629
Veridicalism Combinationalism Classical
apologetics Evidentialism Rationalism
Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence Cumulative case common ground
bullGivens + corroborationbullGivens are knownintuitively and certainlycan be corroboratedbullUniversal givens can beknown by all andconstitute cognitive
neutral groundbullGod is a universal givenbullSpecial givens areknown by ChristiansbullCommon ground =human needs commonexperiencesbullNo spiritually neutralgroundbullEight kinds of ldquoseeingrdquo
bullChristianity ahypothesis to be tested
bullThree-aspect testrational (self-consistent) empirical(fits relevant facts)existential (can belived)
bullProve theism thenChristianitybullProve theism usingtheistic proofs
cosmologicalargumentteleologicalargument moralargumentbullProve Christianity(same asevidentialists)
bullEvidence points toChristianitybullTheistic argumentsuseful but notnecessary
bullFacts point to bestinterpretationbullProphecy andresurrection provethe BiblebullUse universallyaccepted facts(Habermas)
bullAbsolutecertaintybullStart from
indubitablepointbullReason usingdeductionbullBuild up toworldview
bullMark HannahbullE J CarnellbullGordon LewisbullFrancis Schaeffer
bullNorman GeislerbullWilliam Lane CraigbullJ P MorelandbullR C SproulbullRichard Swinburne
bullJohn WarwickMontgomerybullJosh McDowellbullGary Habermas
bullDescartes
bullGivens cannot rationally
ground belief
bullThree tests are
unworkable
bullMain critics arepresuppositionalistsbullThere is no common
groundbullMust reason from
Christianity
bullFacts must beinterpreted
bullFacts cannot point totheir interpretation
bullIndubitablestarting pointscannot lead to a
worldviewwithout addingalong the way
Givens and corroboration Three-aspect test Two-step argumentFacts pointing tointerpretation
Deduction fromcertain startingpoint
Internal givens andobjective corroboration
Hypothesis tested
internal to theoryexternally with factsand existentially
Uses cosmos and order
to prove interpretiveframework (theism)then uses facts ofhistory
Proves Christianity
using many objectiveindependentlyexisting facts
Certainty is
absolutenothing issubjective orvolitional
Figure (continued)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1435
10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
be purely a gif rom God Fideists who tilt toward a Calvinistic view o salvation
(according to which God predestines individuals or salvation) may see the
action o the mind as irrelevant Because the ultimate cause o belie is divinechoice God bypasses the intellect
Fideism is thus a denial o apologetics which makes it different rom other
views All the views to the right hold that there is at least some overlap between
aith and reason that there are reasons o some kind or belie
On the ar right o the chart is rationalism which claims complete proo or
belie Te classic example is Reneacute Descartes (1048625104862910486331048630ndash1048625104863010486291048624) who lived in the tu-
multuous afermath o the Reormation when the Continent was divided over
religious belie He sought certainty by starting rom something he could not
doubt then building up rom there he used deduction a orm o reasoning that
guarantees the truth o the conclusion i we accept the premises In spite o his
original approach and rigorous effort virtually everyone today sees Descartes
as coming short o providing the level o certainty he offered
So the ar lef and the ar right are opposites aith can have no support and
aith has complete support
Just to the right o fideism is presuppositionalism which says we can have nodirect proo or either God or Christianity Tat means we cannot make either one
the conclusion o a noncircular argument In a traditional argument premises are
known independently o the conclusion and are offered as grounds or the con-
clusion Te problem with this says the ounder o presuppositionalism Cornelius
Van il is that nothing can be known independently o God because ultimately
truth is whatever God says it is God does not ldquoknowrdquo an independently existing
reality rather he determines that reality He knows the lights are on in the room
because he determined that they would be on Adam ell when he tried to become
independent o God determining or himsel what is true and morally right Fallen
humanityrsquos problem is not primarily ignorance but rebellion Te unbeliever does
not need to merely add a ew acts to his worldview but to completely tear it down
and rebuild one that makes God the source and guarantor o every act So to en-
courage the nonbeliever to think he can know premises and determine truth inde-
pendently o God is to inflame the problem Furthermore even i such a process
results in a person affirming the Bible as the Word o God he has in effect passed
judgment on God when God should be passing judgment on him As well things
can be tested only using something higher and more ultimate yet nothing can be
more ultimate than the Word o God Despite all this the presuppositionalist says
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1535
Introduction 10486251048631
we can have absolute proo or the Christian God because only i he exists can we
know anything Only i the Christian God exists and knows everythingmdashas well
as determines everythingmdashis knowledge o any kind about anything possible Allother viewpoints ail because they claim to be true yet cannot properly account or
how we have knowledge So while there is no direct proo there is absolutely
certain indirect proo or Christianity Christianity is a presupposition we cannot
do without It is claimed that even attempts to disprove Christianity must assume
it is true thus we can know Christianity transcendentally as a necessary as-
sumption Also the Bible is sel-attesting Godrsquos sheep hear his voice (Jn 1048625104862410486261048631)
Tis view is next to fideism because it bases knowledge on a presupposition
(roughly a commitment to a oundational assumption) rather than anything
known independently Proponents see their view as akin to rationalism which
offers absolute certainty or knowledge whereas many critics see it as closer to
fideism because it works by presupposing rather than directly proving
Note that there is a wide range among presuppositionalists rom those who
ollow Van il with little or no modification such as Greg Bahnsen to those who
have modified the view considerably such as John Frame Some o Framersquos mod-
ifications such as acceptance o some use o induction o the transcendental ar-gument as a direct as well as an indirect proo and acceptance o the cumulative
orce o arguments would put him on the right side o the chart Tere are also
those who take the label o presuppositionalist who emphasize Van ilrsquos rejection
o traditional direct proo but want little or nothing to do with his indirect proo
I knew one proessor who called himsel both a presuppositionalist and a ldquobiblical
fideistrdquo So on the chart we can have a lef side o presuppositionalism which is
closer to fideism and a right side which sees a robust role or proos o different
kinds In the middle would be Van il and Bahnsen Frame would be on the ar
right ideally on a line that extends to the right side o the chart (which would best
be indicated by an arrow since an actual line might be visually conusing)
Gordon Clark and Carl F H Henry represent a more deductive orm o pre-
suppositionalism in which the Bible is posited as true and what can be deduced
rom it is also true Unlike Van il and Bahnsen they do not try to justiy Christian
presuppositions transcendentally that is as the only basis or reason Herman
Dooyeweerd (DOE-yuh-vaird 1048625104863210486331048628ndash1048625104863310486311048631) took some o the oundations laid by
Abraham Kuyper (104862510486329830911048631ndash1048625104863310486261048624) in a different direction than Van il
John Frame has sought to remain true to Van ilrsquos central insights while
modiying significant aspects o his approach He maintains his ormer teacherrsquos
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1635
10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
convictions that since acts are not independently existing realities we cannot
simply see which interpretation fits best and use them independently to decide
on an interpretation (the view o evidentialism) and there can be no neutralground He emphasizes the important nuance that it is really statements o acts
that are not separate rom interpretation
Frame says that in an argument because the premises commit us to the
conclusion they thereore commit us to what the premises presuppose making
presuppositions a kind o conclusion Presuppositions are commitments that
govern our other belies and as such they are not deeasible (cannot be deeated
by evidence and argument) unless a contrary presupposition is adopted Since
all thought is dependent on God who makes all argument possible we should
not encourage the nonbeliever to think otherwise
Contrary to Van il Frame believes that there can be real agreement between
the believer and nonbeliever induction can be acceptable in apologetics and the
transcendental approach is an overall goal and not a single argumentmdashthere
being no way the Christian God o love justice patience wisdom and more
must be presupposed in order or anyone to understand and talk about anything
He also believes that there is no essential difference between direct and indirectreasoning thereore the major difference between presuppositional and tradi-
tional apologetics may be the intent o the apologist to acknowledge God as
sovereign and the source o all meaning intelligibility and rationality that is
the ultimate authority or human thought
Frame adds the extremely important stipulation that interpretations can be
verified on the basis o acts In other words we can compare the data o the
mind with the data o the external world Interpretations can be verified by
comparing them with acts and acts can be verified by comparing them with
interpretations Neither one is a brute incorrigible standard983092
Tese and other modifications make presuppositionalism much closer to
traditional apologetics and give it access to a large array o more traditional
arguments Frame adds his own highly constructive innovations holding that
as nonomniscient beings we can see things in different perspectives that are
simultaneous and overlapping where each can contain the other Knowledge
or example is a matter o sense experience reason and eeling
o the right o presuppositionalism is the Reormed epistemology o Alvin
4Personal email correspondence with Frame Aug 10486261048628 104862698308810486251048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1735
Introduction 10486251048633
Plantinga He challenges the notion that belie must be proportional to evidence
such that we are entitled to believe only as much as we can prove In answer he
points out that people commonly and rightly believe many things they wouldhave trouble proving such as that the world was not created with apparent age
only a ew minutes ago or that people have minds like us and are not merely
cleverly designed robots So it is rational to believe in God to a degree greater
than we can prove Te level o proo that would be required to justiy a belie
as crucial as Christianity would be very high and we have that level or virtually
no philosophical belies o that magnitude Knowledge o God is the result o
an inner knowing what Calvin called the sensus divinitatis which arises in us
because o how we are made Te catalyst or that knowing can be different or
different people perhaps the grandeur o mountains or the starry sky
Knowledge o Christianity comes by an inner knowing that is a special gif o
the Holy Spirit Te inner knowing o both God and Christianity is not evidence
or a conclusion but an immediate knowing (like knowing we have pain or that
we exist) Plantinga affirms the value o arguments but alone they hold little
promise o being sufficient to truly justiy belie in God or Christianity
Reormed epistemology is to the right o presuppositionalism because it a-firms a role or independent proos but it is on the lef side o the chart because
it is a type o intuition that grounds aith
Next is experientialism especially o the sort where an experience is taken
as grounds or the conclusion that God exists or that Christianity is true In this
type experience is evidence or the conclusion Tis would include such things
as experiences o answered prayers or providential care or an awareness o God
that is the basis or the conclusion that God is there What is unique about this
method is that such experiences are the only basis or belie Other methods to
the right o it accept experience as one proo among many o the lef o the view
fideism accepts no proo presuppositionalism does not regard experience as
proper proo or God or Christianity and Reormed epistemology regards ex-
perience as a direct knowing but not evidence or a conclusion So coming rom
the lef side o the chart experientialism is the first view that accepts something
as independent grounds to justiy belie
Although I have met people who take an experientialist approach to justi-
ying belie in God or Christianity it is difficult to find whole books supporting
the view People who take the view generally regard their experiences as ade-
quate to justiy only their own belies and do not expect mere reports o their
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1835
10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
experiences to be sufficient or someone else thus others would need to have
their own experiences So it is not hard to see why ew would see the value in
writing about their experiences as a way to convince others Tis book does nothave a chapter on the approach but it includes a brie critique by Norman
Geisler Te problem with experientialism is that experiences must be inter-
preted A person can have an experience but that does not mean we mustmdashor
even canmdashtake it at ace value Someonersquos experience o their dead ancestor
appearing to them could be interpreted in a number o ways as could a personrsquos
experience o the Hindu god Shiva Whether such things are regarded as real
imaginary demonic apparitions or whatever depends on what other belies we
hold as true Furthermore how do we resolve conflicts between experiences
Tereore experience is widely regarded as insufficient as the sole means o
proo though it typically appears as one type o evidence in the apologetic
methods to the right o it on the chart
Next we add pragmatism which essentially offers one source o justification
that o workability Tere are both simple and sophisticated orms o this view
but the idea is i it works we can accept a belie as verified to some degree Tere
is a difference between the (more radical) claim that workability equals truthor is what we mean by truth versus workability as an indicator o truth Te
latter view is ofen added into the mix o possible methods o justification
among views to the right o pragmatism on the chart I have chosen not to use
the available space in the book to detail pragmatism because so ar its best-
known philosophical orms have not been as popular as other approaches
among those seeking to know or justiy theism or Christianity Te view has
been developed by C S Peirce (pronounced ldquoPurserdquo 104862510486329830911048633ndash1048625104863310486251048628) William James
(1048625104863210486281048626ndash1048625104863310486251048624) and recently by neopragmatist Richard Rorty (104862510486339830911048625ndash1048626104862410486241048631) I have
included brie criticisms o pragmatism made by Norman Geisler
Moving again to the right on our chart veridicalism developed by Mark
Hanna sees knowledge as grounded in givens983093 which are known intuitively and
with certainty and are not inerred rom other things we know All humans can
benefit rom universal givens some o which cannot be coherently denied (be-
cause denying them would require assuming them) such as our own existence
5ldquoLiterally anything that can be veridically nonpostulationally and nondiscursively grasped by
consciousness is a given And i it is susceptible o apprehension by all human beings in prin-
ciple it is a universal givenrdquo Mark M Hanna Crucial Questions in Apologetics (Grand Rapids
Baker Book House 10486259830979830961048625) p 10486251048625983095
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1935
Introduction 10486261048625
and the principle o noncontradiction Awareness o the existence o the God o
theism is a universal given Christians benefit additionally rom special givens
including awareness that God cares or them that the Bible is Godrsquos Word (whichis sel-attesting only to believers1048630) and that he or she is saved Because universal
givens are knowable independently o a worldview and within any worldview
they orm cognitive neutral ground Tere is however no spiritually neutral
ground since everyone either accepts or rejects what can be universally known
about God1048631 Tere is common ground consisting o human needs such as guilt
and loneliness as well as cultural patterns o thinking and acting1048632 Tough
known immediately givens can be corroborated in different ways or example
by reflection and by their connection to other givens1048633 Some are known because
they are undeniable and others can be supported by evidence and inerence
Some arguments or theism are inductively strong such as the kalam cosmo-
logical argument and the teleological argument rom fine tuning o the universe
or lie9830891048624 In all it can be shown that God is the best explanation A case can also
be made or Christianity Te essential belies o Christianity are givens that can
be corroborated Tey are not arrived at rom nontheological data or premises983089983089
Citing Christrsquos statement that some see without ldquoseeingrdquo (Mt 10486259830911048625983091) Hanna iden-tifies eight kinds o ldquoseeingrdquo only one o which is physical Each has two poles
relating to its reality (metaphysical) and its knowability (epistemological) Tey
are physical intellectual introspective intersubjective (awareness o other
persons and onersquos relationship to them) moral aesthetic (which can grasp ob-
jective beauty) and spiritual (one mode that is common to all humans another
that is unique to Christians) Some orms o seeing overlap and interact or ex-
ample spiritual seeing requires some use o intellectual seeing He argues (in a
orthcoming book) that biblical theism is the only adequate explanation o the
eight modes o seeing and their objective correlates
Next is the view called combinationalism According to the combinationalism983089983090
o E J Carnell and Gordon Lewis traditional proos or the existence o God are
inadequate or the same reason that the empiricism they are implicitly based on
6Ibid p 104862598308810486277Ibid p 104862598308810486298Ibid9Ibid p 10486259830881048625
10Phone conversation with Mark Hanna Oct 1048625983094 10486269830881048625104862711Hanna Crucial Questions p 10486251048626104862512Te name was not chosen by Carnell but it is used in Norman Geislerrsquos widely read Christian
Apologetics 1048626nd ed (Grand Rapids Baker Books 104862698308810486251048627)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2035
10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
is inadequate you can never arrive at what is immutable universal and necessary
rom what is finite I you cannot arrive at God rom experience you must bring
God to experience in the orm o a hypothesis to be tested Tis does not meanour aith is weak or tentative only that to be intellectually honest as God would
have us be we must at least in principle be rational in our aith In this sense we
treat Christianity as a hypothesis and like any hypothesis it must not contradict
itsel Anything sel-contradictory cannot be true but what is noncontradictory
could be true o see i it is true we check it with all relevant acts looking or
contradictions between the hypothesis and the acts Te hypothesis should be
applicable to lie in the sense that it can be lived out without contradiction Tere
is common ground between believer and nonbeliever consisting or example in
the principle o noncontradiction values ethics and the need or love Fur-
thermore worldviews typically overlap in areas that are impersonal and nonmeta-
physical Even science properly practiced can be carried on between believer and
nonbeliever But worldviews diverge as soon as questions o ultimate meaning and
purpose arise We can prove that Christianity is true to the extent that we can
prove any real-world belie is true that is with high probability Yet we can have
complete inner assurance ldquocertituderdquo that it is true Combinationalism is to theright o pragmatism on the chart because it tests belie using an objective standard
that o consistency A hypothesis must be consistent within itsel consistent with
the acts and capable o being lived out consistently
In the next column is classical apologetics which is practiced by people as
diverse as C S Lewis William Lane Craig J P Moreland R C Sproul John
Gerstner and Norman Geisler Tis approach aims first to prove theism the
general belie that God is or example omnipotent omniscient omnipresent
holy creator and sustainer o the universe I theism is not proved first proo
or the resurrection or example would not necessarily be interpreted theisti-
cally by the unbeliever O course i the unbeliever already accepts theism
proving it is unnecessary
Classical apologists use theistic arguments (though they are also used by
some apologists who use other methods) Tey are types or amilies o argu-
ments in that there are a number o variations to each Te cosmological ar-
gument essentially reasons rom the existence o the universe to a creator One
orm argues that God is a necessary being that he must exist in every possible
world Another argues that everything needs an adequate cause thus the uni-
verse needs an adequate cause and that cause is God (he is not a thing and is
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2135
Introduction 1048626983091
uncaused) Te teleological argument reasons rom design in the universe to a
designer Modern science has uncovered intricate design in DNA or example
We are also discovering the amazing extent to which the universe has been finelytuned to allow or lie Te moral argument which is not used as widely as the
cosmological and teleological arguments argues rom the existence o objective
moral obligations to a higher moral being as the grounds o such obligations
Norman Geisler believes we must use a different approach to prove the truth
o a worldview versus truth within a worldview He uses six first principles o
reality which cannot be denied because any attempt to deny them would use
them (similar to Hannarsquos view) We do not need to prove them we simply ldquoseerdquo
that they are true once we understand them One first principle (stated inor-
mally) is that ldquosomething existsrdquo Anyone who attempts to deny that is admitting
they exist Another is the principle o noncontradiction which would also be
assumed by anyone attempting to deny it Once alternatives are eliminated and
theism is proved Geisler shows that Christianity explains all the known acts in
the most consistent way
o the right o classical apologetics and just lef o rationalism (on the ar right)
evidentialism has been popularized in recent decades by Josh McDowell who wasinfluenced by John Warwick Montgomery Gary Habermas has also been influ-
ential and widely known Te view does not require that theism be proved first
While most evidentialists accept theistic arguments and would use them they do
not believe it is necessary to first prove theism Unlike classical apologists eviden-
tialists believe that at least to some extent acts point to their proper interpre-
tation So evidentialists typically work to prove the resurrection afer supporting
the veracity o the Bible (eg John Warwick Montgomery) or at least the believ-
ability o very widely accepted crucial acts (eg Gary Habermas) Many o the
same acts and approaches used by evidentialists are used by classical apologists
in their second step which seeks to prove Christianity
Letrsquos review the chart again this time more briefly For fideism there can be
no proo but there is certitude rom aith in revelation For presupposition-
alism there can be no direct proo o Christianity but we must presuppose it
roughly assume it by conviction and necessity Te case must ultimately be
circular Revelation is known o its own authority but we can have proo be-
cause it must be presupposed For Reormed epistemology noncircular argu-
ments are acceptable in principle and should be developed but they are not
adequate to ground something as crucial as religious aith Belie in God is an
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2235
10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
awareness that can arise in us because o the way we were created and belie
in Christianity is a divine gif Moving right experientialism is the first view
that accepts something as decisive standalone evidence or the conclusion thatChristianity is true Te evidence is internal and subjective Pragmatism deals
with workability which is a more objective orm o experience and is thereore
to the right o experientialism (Note that what ldquoworksrdquo can be defined differ-
ently by different people)
Moving urther right (but not including rationalism on the extreme right nor
combinationalism) we have views that accept induction as an important and e-
ective method o proo or religious belie Tey (including combinationalism)
also accept a cumulative case that is layers o proo adding up to orm a stronger
case overall Religious experience and workability in lie (including giving lie
meaning) also typically play a supporting role in an overall case (whereas with
experientialism experience is the only proo) Veridicalism accepts both givens
that are known intuitively and that are undeniable and effective corroboration
through evidence and reason Everyone can have an immediate awareness o God
and the Christian can have an additional awareness o some essentials o Christi-
anity In its emphasis on direct awareness it is like Reormed epistemology but in veridicalism corroborating evidence can be strong and decisive So like Reormed
epistemology on its lef it has a place or intuition but like views on its right it
has a place or a convincing case based on evidence
As we continue to move right intuition (similar to ldquosel-attestingrdquo or presup-
positionalism) plays less o a role and there is more emphasis on independently
existing objective evidence as grounds or belie983089983091 Tere are also more such
objective criteria until we get to evidentialism which appeals to a multiplicity
o individual acts
Combinationalism accepts livability as a test o a hypothesis but only as one
o three aspects o consistency whereas to the lef pragmatism viewed livability
as the main criteria and to the right o combinationalism livability is viewed
as only one o a number o actors in an overall case
Classical apologetics accepts arguments or theism and or Christianity typ-
ically insisting (like presuppositionalism) that a worldview determines the in-
terpretation o acts But like the views on the right side o the chart that
worldview is established by something other than a necessary assumption (or
13Presuppositionalists would say that the transcendental argument provides objective evidence but
they would not say that it is ldquoindependently existingrdquo since no acts exist independent o God
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2335
Introduction 10486261048629
Geisler it is by undeniable first principles but unlike presuppositionalism they
are necessary in every worldview c Hanna)
Evidentialism is the near polar opposite o presuppositionalism affirmingthat acts can be known independently o the views that interpret them and that
acts can even point to the correct interpretation
I once showed this chart to Greg Bahnsen who not surprisingly said that pre-
suppositionalism should be on the right next to rationalism as offering absolutely
certain proo or belie In response I pointed out that certainty was secondary the
primary order o the chart was appeal to independent evidence or the conclusion
So fideism appeals to no independent evidence Presuppositionalism appeals to a
presupposition but not to independent evidence as grounds or belie (ie no direct
proo) Reormed epistemology appeals to intuition Experientialism appeals to
one subjective criterion as evidence or a conclusion pragmatism to one external
criterion Next is veridicalism which appeals to givens plus external and inde-
pendent evidence Ten comes combinationalism with its appeals to consistency
o hypothesis and fittingness with the acts plus livability Ten classical apologetics
appeals to independent evidence or theism and Christianity And finally eviden-
tialism appeals to a multiplicity o independent actsmdashthe opposite o presupposi-tionalismrsquos view that there are no independent acts Bahnsen thought or a ew
seconds and said ldquoTat could work that could workrdquo983089983092 I then mentioned that I
always tell my students that presuppositionalists see their view as close to
rationalism as ar as both offer certainty I add that they would see their presup-
positionalism as different rom rationalismrsquos method o using independent evi-
dence (Descartes or example amously beginning rom his own thoughtmdashagain
the opposite o presuppositionalism which begins with God as the standard o
truth) I it were not visually too complicated on the chart I might put fideism
presuppositionalism and rationalism each at different points o a triangle so that
presuppositionalism could be equidistant rom the aith o fideism and the absolute
proo o rationalism yet unique But over the years students have generally con-
firmed that it would be too complicated and thus unhelpul
Beore we begin it is worth briefly recounting why fideism which challenges
the legitimacy o apologetics is biblically inadequate Here are just a ew ex-
amples o biblical reasons or belie Moses asks God or signs to show his people
that he has divine authority (Ex 10486281048625) which God grants and later he grants
14Personal conversation afer Bahnsen was a guest speaker in my apologetics class Masterrsquos Col-
lege Newhall Caliornia in the all o 10486259830979830971048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2435
10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
abundant signs in the conrontation with Pharaoh (Ex 1048631ndash10486251048625) In the wilderness
God supernaturally demonstrates his presence his provision or his people and
his backing o Mosesrsquo leadership In the conquest o the Promised Land Goddivides the Jordan (Josh 98309110486251048631) gives victories over superior orces (Josh 10486251048628-1048633
98309110486251048624-10486251048631) and extends daylight (Josh 1048625104862410486251048626-10486251048628) He grants miracles or Gideon
(Judg 104863110486251048630-10486261048626) Samson (Judg 104862510486281048630 10486251048633 1048625104862910486251048629 10486251048630983091) and others Prophets such as
Elijah predict events and perorm miracles Jesusrsquo lie ulfills a number o proph-
ecies and is attested by miracles He points to them as grounds or belie (Lk
1048626104862810486261048631 Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) When John the Baptist doubts Jesus points to evidence that
matches prophecy (Mt 104862510486251048628-1048629 c Is 1048626104863310486251048632) Jesus meets Tomasrsquos doubts with
evidence (Jn 1048626104862410486261048631) Afer the resurrection he gives ldquomany convincing proosrdquo
(Acts 1048625983091 c Lk 104862610486289830911048633) John recounts some o Jesusrsquo supernatural deeds as a way
o inspiring saving aith (Jn 104862610486249830911048624) Te supernatural authority o the Seventy
(Lk 1048625104862410486251048631) and the apostles (1048626 Cor 1048625104862610486251048626) is attested by miracles Paul argues rom
Scripture that Christ had to suffer and rise again (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091) and he regards
the resurrection as ldquoproo to all menrdquo (Acts 104862510486319830911048625 c Rom 10486251048628) Some do believe
because o miracles (Jn 1048625104862610486251048625 Acts 104863310486281048626 104862598309110486251048626)
As mentioned above this does not show that an unproblematic appeal tomiracles and prophecy can be made today but that Scripture uses reasons in
support o aith Just how that should be done is the subject o this book
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 935
Introduction 10486251048625
nical rigor that characterizes purely academic writing or readability or a wider
audience (and in some cases have rerained rom reerencing more technical
sources) Incidentally I have occasionally used a male pronoun to reer to bothmen and women where my intention is obvious and I sometimes use both a male
and a emale pronoun (ldquohe or sherdquo) to make that clear Where it is not awkward I
use ldquotheirrdquo Biblical quotations are rom the New American Standard Bible
Along the way I repeat a ew things briefly by way o reminder so the reader
does not have to search back through the book and so that the chapters stand
alone better in order to aid the reader who does not go through the book quickly
Te structure o every chapter is not identical Some stop to compare apologetic
approaches and in others more time is spent exploring the criticisms
o benefit the reader with some background in the topic o the book and to
serve the advanced reader I have also sought where possible to bring out the
deeper underlying issues separating the views most o which are philosophical
having to do with issues such as the ollowing how we know how we have cer-
tainty (and how certain we can be) the relation between aith and evidence the
possibilities o reasoning by way o deduction induction and abduction the role
o assumptions and presuppositions the relation between evidence andworldview the validity o intuition as a way o knowing and its possible divine
origin and whether we can know some things without inerring them rom other
things we know (ie oundationalism) Trough all this I hope to bring the issues
into sharper ocus so as to acilitate more constructive dialogue on the subject o
apologetic methods
Te ocus o the book is on understanding the theories and how they see each
other so I have kept my own views to a minimum adding my conclusions and
constructive insights in a final chapter (Perhaps Irsquoll have the opportunity to
expand those into a book) Where I have made my own brie addition that could
be mistaken or the view o the eatured apologist I usually precede it with some-
thing like ldquoWe could add that rdquo In a ew places I have added the thoughts o
others to the material about the eatured apologist in order to broaden the
readerrsquos knowledge a bit (the longest addition being a section on miracles in the
chapter on evidentialism) In a ew sections in which I develop the thinking o
the eatured apologist I include a brie criticism rom another thinker in order
to save the reader rom having to go back rom the criticism section and search
to connect the criticism with the apologistrsquos view
My twenty-five years o experience as a proessor led me to add a list o terms
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1035
10486251048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
discussion questions and suggestions or urther reading Tat teaching expe-
rience has shown me too that complex issues are best understood i they can be
viewed rom different angles and more than onceIn order to increase understanding o where the approaches lead I have in-
cluded something o how they would actually be used ocusing on some o the
best insights that each has to offer Some approaches require a bit more detail
to show what the apologist is doing and how it all fits with their method For
example I summarize Norman Geislerrsquos rationale or selecting the right test or
truth review his criteria or selecting a worldview and finally show how he ap-
plies this method to arrive at theism It requires some detail to see the systematic
nature and rigor o his approach So at the end o the book the reader will come
away with not only the theories but also their application
As I mentioned at the beginning o this introduction I have ocused on those
who are currently influential which is why I have chosen or example Van il
over Abraham Kuyper I have also ocused on those whose work in the field has
been sustained original and extensive Tat entails choosing or example Gary
Habermas over Josh McDowell even though as a popular writer the latter has had
enormous influence My only regret is that the purpose o this book and the con-straints on its length do not permit more attention to those who have made very
worthy contributions in the past such as Gordon Clark and C S Lewis and more
recently John Feinberg the late Paul Feinberg Douglas Groothuis Ravi Zacharias
and K Scott Oliphint to name just a ew It is regrettable that only a ew pages can
be given to Francis Schaeffer who had an enormous influence in his day but is
not as well-known to younger people and shied away rom discussions on apolo-
getic theory most notably with Van il who was eager to engage him
Each apologist can be unique but can also in some ways resemble the char-
acteristics o someone representing a different approach William Lane Craig or
example is not ar rom Alvin Plantinga in his emphasis on the personal inward
awareness o God yet he is thoroughly classical in how he makes his case to
others John Warwick Montgomery a staunch evidentialist regards C S Lewis
as something o a mentor Tey are similar in the breadth o their interests pio-
neering the use o literature to communicate the gospel and it seems similar in
their personalities983090 But in overall approach C S Lewis is in the classical camp
One o my hopes or this book is that more people will gain a good grasp o
2o me they both seem expressive creative and interested in all o liersquos possibilities
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1135
Introduction 1048625983091
this crucial field o apologetic methods When the subject is taught ofen only
one approach is presented and students are lef with little or no grasp o any-
thing elsemdashand donrsquot really even understand the approach they are supposed toaccept and use Tose who are introduced to the issues outside o a classroom
tend to read only apologists rom their own camp
I progress is to made on a subject so vital we will need a new generation o
people who are interested in doing serious work Most o those who have la-
bored in this field in modern times are at or past retirement or have already
passed on My real hope is that this book will help motivate some people to take
up this work and carry it orward
I canrsquot thank InterVarsity Press enough (especially Andy Le Peau and Al Hsu)
or their great patience and encouragement as I struggled with a hellacious
onslaught o challenges that greatly slowed progress on the book I canrsquot imagine
a better publisher and I am honored they are doing this book I am also grateul
or Mark Hanna who first introduced me to this topic when I was a seminary
student Not only was he kind and encouraging but his grasp o all things apol-
ogetic has also always been inspiring I owe thanks to the sabbatical committee
which granted me time to work on this book and on God in the Shadows Evilin Godrsquos World 983091 I also want to thank my wonderul wie Donna or her con-
tinual support as well as her example o discipline and passion in the research
and writing o her own books
O983158983141983154983158983145983141983159
Tis book is organized according to a schema represented in the chart below
that I have used through much o my twenty-five years o teaching this subjectIt is not perect but I have ound that it aids understanding the relationships
among the views
On the ar lef is fideism (rom the Latin or ldquoaithrdquo) according to which
belie cannot or should not be supported by evidence o any kind On this view
aith and reason are in separate nonoverlapping circles I we have aith we have
no reasons to believe i we have reasons to believe we do not need aith Some
people are fideists because o such convictions about the nature o aith others
believe that the allen mind is incapable o processing reasons or that the
subject is simply beyond the mindrsquos grasp Te resulting view is that aith must
3Brian Morley God in the Shadows Evil in Godrsquos World (Geanies House Fearn Ross-shire Scot-
land Christian Focus 1048626983088983088983094)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1235
10486251048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Approach Fideism Presuppositionalism Reformed
epistemologyExperien-tialism
Pragmatism
rarr Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence rarr
Definingcharacteristics
bullFaithunsupportedbullFaith and
reason donrsquotoverlapbullOr reason isbeyond themindrsquos graspbullOr the mindis too fallen
bullStarting pointsare necessarypresuppositionsunprovable byindependent evidencebullNo independentlyknown factsbullldquoBorrowed capitalrdquo
bullAutonomy is theproblembullNo common ldquonotionsrdquobullReasoning must becircular deductiveindirect from
ChristianitybullTranscendentalargumentbullRange ofpresuppositionalistsfrom Van Til to Frame
bull Awareness of God( sensus divinitatus) isgrounded in howwe are made andtriggered
bullChristian faith agiftbullClassicalfoundationalismtoo narrowbullGod is properlybasicbullFaith can exceedreasons
bullExperiencealone
bullExperience isonly proof wecan have oronly proof weneed
bullAccept whatworksbullHas a widevariety of forms
Adherentsbull(Pascal)bullKierkegaardbullBarth
bullVan TilbullBahnsenbullFrame (modified keypoints)
bullAlvin Plantinga mdash
bullC S PeircebullWilliam JamesbullJohn DeweybullRichard Rorty
CriticismsbullSubjective
bullUnbiblical
bullAmounts to fideismbullTranscendental
argument cannot provethe Christian God
bullCannot rule outother beliefs likethe Great Pumpkin
bullExperiencesmust beinterpreted
bullWhatworks ne truth
bullWhat works isvague
Epistemo-logical startingpoint
Faith PresuppositionImmediateawareness
Experience Workability
Summary
No reasons or
certaintyentirelysubjectiveand volitional
No independent facts asreasons
Intuitions plusancillary reasons
One type ofevidence butsubjective
One type of
evidence thatlinks internaland external
Figure Chart of Apologetic Approaches
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1335
Introduction 10486251048629
Veridicalism Combinationalism Classical
apologetics Evidentialism Rationalism
Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence Cumulative case common ground
bullGivens + corroborationbullGivens are knownintuitively and certainlycan be corroboratedbullUniversal givens can beknown by all andconstitute cognitive
neutral groundbullGod is a universal givenbullSpecial givens areknown by ChristiansbullCommon ground =human needs commonexperiencesbullNo spiritually neutralgroundbullEight kinds of ldquoseeingrdquo
bullChristianity ahypothesis to be tested
bullThree-aspect testrational (self-consistent) empirical(fits relevant facts)existential (can belived)
bullProve theism thenChristianitybullProve theism usingtheistic proofs
cosmologicalargumentteleologicalargument moralargumentbullProve Christianity(same asevidentialists)
bullEvidence points toChristianitybullTheistic argumentsuseful but notnecessary
bullFacts point to bestinterpretationbullProphecy andresurrection provethe BiblebullUse universallyaccepted facts(Habermas)
bullAbsolutecertaintybullStart from
indubitablepointbullReason usingdeductionbullBuild up toworldview
bullMark HannahbullE J CarnellbullGordon LewisbullFrancis Schaeffer
bullNorman GeislerbullWilliam Lane CraigbullJ P MorelandbullR C SproulbullRichard Swinburne
bullJohn WarwickMontgomerybullJosh McDowellbullGary Habermas
bullDescartes
bullGivens cannot rationally
ground belief
bullThree tests are
unworkable
bullMain critics arepresuppositionalistsbullThere is no common
groundbullMust reason from
Christianity
bullFacts must beinterpreted
bullFacts cannot point totheir interpretation
bullIndubitablestarting pointscannot lead to a
worldviewwithout addingalong the way
Givens and corroboration Three-aspect test Two-step argumentFacts pointing tointerpretation
Deduction fromcertain startingpoint
Internal givens andobjective corroboration
Hypothesis tested
internal to theoryexternally with factsand existentially
Uses cosmos and order
to prove interpretiveframework (theism)then uses facts ofhistory
Proves Christianity
using many objectiveindependentlyexisting facts
Certainty is
absolutenothing issubjective orvolitional
Figure (continued)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1435
10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
be purely a gif rom God Fideists who tilt toward a Calvinistic view o salvation
(according to which God predestines individuals or salvation) may see the
action o the mind as irrelevant Because the ultimate cause o belie is divinechoice God bypasses the intellect
Fideism is thus a denial o apologetics which makes it different rom other
views All the views to the right hold that there is at least some overlap between
aith and reason that there are reasons o some kind or belie
On the ar right o the chart is rationalism which claims complete proo or
belie Te classic example is Reneacute Descartes (1048625104862910486331048630ndash1048625104863010486291048624) who lived in the tu-
multuous afermath o the Reormation when the Continent was divided over
religious belie He sought certainty by starting rom something he could not
doubt then building up rom there he used deduction a orm o reasoning that
guarantees the truth o the conclusion i we accept the premises In spite o his
original approach and rigorous effort virtually everyone today sees Descartes
as coming short o providing the level o certainty he offered
So the ar lef and the ar right are opposites aith can have no support and
aith has complete support
Just to the right o fideism is presuppositionalism which says we can have nodirect proo or either God or Christianity Tat means we cannot make either one
the conclusion o a noncircular argument In a traditional argument premises are
known independently o the conclusion and are offered as grounds or the con-
clusion Te problem with this says the ounder o presuppositionalism Cornelius
Van il is that nothing can be known independently o God because ultimately
truth is whatever God says it is God does not ldquoknowrdquo an independently existing
reality rather he determines that reality He knows the lights are on in the room
because he determined that they would be on Adam ell when he tried to become
independent o God determining or himsel what is true and morally right Fallen
humanityrsquos problem is not primarily ignorance but rebellion Te unbeliever does
not need to merely add a ew acts to his worldview but to completely tear it down
and rebuild one that makes God the source and guarantor o every act So to en-
courage the nonbeliever to think he can know premises and determine truth inde-
pendently o God is to inflame the problem Furthermore even i such a process
results in a person affirming the Bible as the Word o God he has in effect passed
judgment on God when God should be passing judgment on him As well things
can be tested only using something higher and more ultimate yet nothing can be
more ultimate than the Word o God Despite all this the presuppositionalist says
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1535
Introduction 10486251048631
we can have absolute proo or the Christian God because only i he exists can we
know anything Only i the Christian God exists and knows everythingmdashas well
as determines everythingmdashis knowledge o any kind about anything possible Allother viewpoints ail because they claim to be true yet cannot properly account or
how we have knowledge So while there is no direct proo there is absolutely
certain indirect proo or Christianity Christianity is a presupposition we cannot
do without It is claimed that even attempts to disprove Christianity must assume
it is true thus we can know Christianity transcendentally as a necessary as-
sumption Also the Bible is sel-attesting Godrsquos sheep hear his voice (Jn 1048625104862410486261048631)
Tis view is next to fideism because it bases knowledge on a presupposition
(roughly a commitment to a oundational assumption) rather than anything
known independently Proponents see their view as akin to rationalism which
offers absolute certainty or knowledge whereas many critics see it as closer to
fideism because it works by presupposing rather than directly proving
Note that there is a wide range among presuppositionalists rom those who
ollow Van il with little or no modification such as Greg Bahnsen to those who
have modified the view considerably such as John Frame Some o Framersquos mod-
ifications such as acceptance o some use o induction o the transcendental ar-gument as a direct as well as an indirect proo and acceptance o the cumulative
orce o arguments would put him on the right side o the chart Tere are also
those who take the label o presuppositionalist who emphasize Van ilrsquos rejection
o traditional direct proo but want little or nothing to do with his indirect proo
I knew one proessor who called himsel both a presuppositionalist and a ldquobiblical
fideistrdquo So on the chart we can have a lef side o presuppositionalism which is
closer to fideism and a right side which sees a robust role or proos o different
kinds In the middle would be Van il and Bahnsen Frame would be on the ar
right ideally on a line that extends to the right side o the chart (which would best
be indicated by an arrow since an actual line might be visually conusing)
Gordon Clark and Carl F H Henry represent a more deductive orm o pre-
suppositionalism in which the Bible is posited as true and what can be deduced
rom it is also true Unlike Van il and Bahnsen they do not try to justiy Christian
presuppositions transcendentally that is as the only basis or reason Herman
Dooyeweerd (DOE-yuh-vaird 1048625104863210486331048628ndash1048625104863310486311048631) took some o the oundations laid by
Abraham Kuyper (104862510486329830911048631ndash1048625104863310486261048624) in a different direction than Van il
John Frame has sought to remain true to Van ilrsquos central insights while
modiying significant aspects o his approach He maintains his ormer teacherrsquos
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1635
10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
convictions that since acts are not independently existing realities we cannot
simply see which interpretation fits best and use them independently to decide
on an interpretation (the view o evidentialism) and there can be no neutralground He emphasizes the important nuance that it is really statements o acts
that are not separate rom interpretation
Frame says that in an argument because the premises commit us to the
conclusion they thereore commit us to what the premises presuppose making
presuppositions a kind o conclusion Presuppositions are commitments that
govern our other belies and as such they are not deeasible (cannot be deeated
by evidence and argument) unless a contrary presupposition is adopted Since
all thought is dependent on God who makes all argument possible we should
not encourage the nonbeliever to think otherwise
Contrary to Van il Frame believes that there can be real agreement between
the believer and nonbeliever induction can be acceptable in apologetics and the
transcendental approach is an overall goal and not a single argumentmdashthere
being no way the Christian God o love justice patience wisdom and more
must be presupposed in order or anyone to understand and talk about anything
He also believes that there is no essential difference between direct and indirectreasoning thereore the major difference between presuppositional and tradi-
tional apologetics may be the intent o the apologist to acknowledge God as
sovereign and the source o all meaning intelligibility and rationality that is
the ultimate authority or human thought
Frame adds the extremely important stipulation that interpretations can be
verified on the basis o acts In other words we can compare the data o the
mind with the data o the external world Interpretations can be verified by
comparing them with acts and acts can be verified by comparing them with
interpretations Neither one is a brute incorrigible standard983092
Tese and other modifications make presuppositionalism much closer to
traditional apologetics and give it access to a large array o more traditional
arguments Frame adds his own highly constructive innovations holding that
as nonomniscient beings we can see things in different perspectives that are
simultaneous and overlapping where each can contain the other Knowledge
or example is a matter o sense experience reason and eeling
o the right o presuppositionalism is the Reormed epistemology o Alvin
4Personal email correspondence with Frame Aug 10486261048628 104862698308810486251048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1735
Introduction 10486251048633
Plantinga He challenges the notion that belie must be proportional to evidence
such that we are entitled to believe only as much as we can prove In answer he
points out that people commonly and rightly believe many things they wouldhave trouble proving such as that the world was not created with apparent age
only a ew minutes ago or that people have minds like us and are not merely
cleverly designed robots So it is rational to believe in God to a degree greater
than we can prove Te level o proo that would be required to justiy a belie
as crucial as Christianity would be very high and we have that level or virtually
no philosophical belies o that magnitude Knowledge o God is the result o
an inner knowing what Calvin called the sensus divinitatis which arises in us
because o how we are made Te catalyst or that knowing can be different or
different people perhaps the grandeur o mountains or the starry sky
Knowledge o Christianity comes by an inner knowing that is a special gif o
the Holy Spirit Te inner knowing o both God and Christianity is not evidence
or a conclusion but an immediate knowing (like knowing we have pain or that
we exist) Plantinga affirms the value o arguments but alone they hold little
promise o being sufficient to truly justiy belie in God or Christianity
Reormed epistemology is to the right o presuppositionalism because it a-firms a role or independent proos but it is on the lef side o the chart because
it is a type o intuition that grounds aith
Next is experientialism especially o the sort where an experience is taken
as grounds or the conclusion that God exists or that Christianity is true In this
type experience is evidence or the conclusion Tis would include such things
as experiences o answered prayers or providential care or an awareness o God
that is the basis or the conclusion that God is there What is unique about this
method is that such experiences are the only basis or belie Other methods to
the right o it accept experience as one proo among many o the lef o the view
fideism accepts no proo presuppositionalism does not regard experience as
proper proo or God or Christianity and Reormed epistemology regards ex-
perience as a direct knowing but not evidence or a conclusion So coming rom
the lef side o the chart experientialism is the first view that accepts something
as independent grounds to justiy belie
Although I have met people who take an experientialist approach to justi-
ying belie in God or Christianity it is difficult to find whole books supporting
the view People who take the view generally regard their experiences as ade-
quate to justiy only their own belies and do not expect mere reports o their
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1835
10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
experiences to be sufficient or someone else thus others would need to have
their own experiences So it is not hard to see why ew would see the value in
writing about their experiences as a way to convince others Tis book does nothave a chapter on the approach but it includes a brie critique by Norman
Geisler Te problem with experientialism is that experiences must be inter-
preted A person can have an experience but that does not mean we mustmdashor
even canmdashtake it at ace value Someonersquos experience o their dead ancestor
appearing to them could be interpreted in a number o ways as could a personrsquos
experience o the Hindu god Shiva Whether such things are regarded as real
imaginary demonic apparitions or whatever depends on what other belies we
hold as true Furthermore how do we resolve conflicts between experiences
Tereore experience is widely regarded as insufficient as the sole means o
proo though it typically appears as one type o evidence in the apologetic
methods to the right o it on the chart
Next we add pragmatism which essentially offers one source o justification
that o workability Tere are both simple and sophisticated orms o this view
but the idea is i it works we can accept a belie as verified to some degree Tere
is a difference between the (more radical) claim that workability equals truthor is what we mean by truth versus workability as an indicator o truth Te
latter view is ofen added into the mix o possible methods o justification
among views to the right o pragmatism on the chart I have chosen not to use
the available space in the book to detail pragmatism because so ar its best-
known philosophical orms have not been as popular as other approaches
among those seeking to know or justiy theism or Christianity Te view has
been developed by C S Peirce (pronounced ldquoPurserdquo 104862510486329830911048633ndash1048625104863310486251048628) William James
(1048625104863210486281048626ndash1048625104863310486251048624) and recently by neopragmatist Richard Rorty (104862510486339830911048625ndash1048626104862410486241048631) I have
included brie criticisms o pragmatism made by Norman Geisler
Moving again to the right on our chart veridicalism developed by Mark
Hanna sees knowledge as grounded in givens983093 which are known intuitively and
with certainty and are not inerred rom other things we know All humans can
benefit rom universal givens some o which cannot be coherently denied (be-
cause denying them would require assuming them) such as our own existence
5ldquoLiterally anything that can be veridically nonpostulationally and nondiscursively grasped by
consciousness is a given And i it is susceptible o apprehension by all human beings in prin-
ciple it is a universal givenrdquo Mark M Hanna Crucial Questions in Apologetics (Grand Rapids
Baker Book House 10486259830979830961048625) p 10486251048625983095
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1935
Introduction 10486261048625
and the principle o noncontradiction Awareness o the existence o the God o
theism is a universal given Christians benefit additionally rom special givens
including awareness that God cares or them that the Bible is Godrsquos Word (whichis sel-attesting only to believers1048630) and that he or she is saved Because universal
givens are knowable independently o a worldview and within any worldview
they orm cognitive neutral ground Tere is however no spiritually neutral
ground since everyone either accepts or rejects what can be universally known
about God1048631 Tere is common ground consisting o human needs such as guilt
and loneliness as well as cultural patterns o thinking and acting1048632 Tough
known immediately givens can be corroborated in different ways or example
by reflection and by their connection to other givens1048633 Some are known because
they are undeniable and others can be supported by evidence and inerence
Some arguments or theism are inductively strong such as the kalam cosmo-
logical argument and the teleological argument rom fine tuning o the universe
or lie9830891048624 In all it can be shown that God is the best explanation A case can also
be made or Christianity Te essential belies o Christianity are givens that can
be corroborated Tey are not arrived at rom nontheological data or premises983089983089
Citing Christrsquos statement that some see without ldquoseeingrdquo (Mt 10486259830911048625983091) Hanna iden-tifies eight kinds o ldquoseeingrdquo only one o which is physical Each has two poles
relating to its reality (metaphysical) and its knowability (epistemological) Tey
are physical intellectual introspective intersubjective (awareness o other
persons and onersquos relationship to them) moral aesthetic (which can grasp ob-
jective beauty) and spiritual (one mode that is common to all humans another
that is unique to Christians) Some orms o seeing overlap and interact or ex-
ample spiritual seeing requires some use o intellectual seeing He argues (in a
orthcoming book) that biblical theism is the only adequate explanation o the
eight modes o seeing and their objective correlates
Next is the view called combinationalism According to the combinationalism983089983090
o E J Carnell and Gordon Lewis traditional proos or the existence o God are
inadequate or the same reason that the empiricism they are implicitly based on
6Ibid p 104862598308810486277Ibid p 104862598308810486298Ibid9Ibid p 10486259830881048625
10Phone conversation with Mark Hanna Oct 1048625983094 10486269830881048625104862711Hanna Crucial Questions p 10486251048626104862512Te name was not chosen by Carnell but it is used in Norman Geislerrsquos widely read Christian
Apologetics 1048626nd ed (Grand Rapids Baker Books 104862698308810486251048627)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2035
10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
is inadequate you can never arrive at what is immutable universal and necessary
rom what is finite I you cannot arrive at God rom experience you must bring
God to experience in the orm o a hypothesis to be tested Tis does not meanour aith is weak or tentative only that to be intellectually honest as God would
have us be we must at least in principle be rational in our aith In this sense we
treat Christianity as a hypothesis and like any hypothesis it must not contradict
itsel Anything sel-contradictory cannot be true but what is noncontradictory
could be true o see i it is true we check it with all relevant acts looking or
contradictions between the hypothesis and the acts Te hypothesis should be
applicable to lie in the sense that it can be lived out without contradiction Tere
is common ground between believer and nonbeliever consisting or example in
the principle o noncontradiction values ethics and the need or love Fur-
thermore worldviews typically overlap in areas that are impersonal and nonmeta-
physical Even science properly practiced can be carried on between believer and
nonbeliever But worldviews diverge as soon as questions o ultimate meaning and
purpose arise We can prove that Christianity is true to the extent that we can
prove any real-world belie is true that is with high probability Yet we can have
complete inner assurance ldquocertituderdquo that it is true Combinationalism is to theright o pragmatism on the chart because it tests belie using an objective standard
that o consistency A hypothesis must be consistent within itsel consistent with
the acts and capable o being lived out consistently
In the next column is classical apologetics which is practiced by people as
diverse as C S Lewis William Lane Craig J P Moreland R C Sproul John
Gerstner and Norman Geisler Tis approach aims first to prove theism the
general belie that God is or example omnipotent omniscient omnipresent
holy creator and sustainer o the universe I theism is not proved first proo
or the resurrection or example would not necessarily be interpreted theisti-
cally by the unbeliever O course i the unbeliever already accepts theism
proving it is unnecessary
Classical apologists use theistic arguments (though they are also used by
some apologists who use other methods) Tey are types or amilies o argu-
ments in that there are a number o variations to each Te cosmological ar-
gument essentially reasons rom the existence o the universe to a creator One
orm argues that God is a necessary being that he must exist in every possible
world Another argues that everything needs an adequate cause thus the uni-
verse needs an adequate cause and that cause is God (he is not a thing and is
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2135
Introduction 1048626983091
uncaused) Te teleological argument reasons rom design in the universe to a
designer Modern science has uncovered intricate design in DNA or example
We are also discovering the amazing extent to which the universe has been finelytuned to allow or lie Te moral argument which is not used as widely as the
cosmological and teleological arguments argues rom the existence o objective
moral obligations to a higher moral being as the grounds o such obligations
Norman Geisler believes we must use a different approach to prove the truth
o a worldview versus truth within a worldview He uses six first principles o
reality which cannot be denied because any attempt to deny them would use
them (similar to Hannarsquos view) We do not need to prove them we simply ldquoseerdquo
that they are true once we understand them One first principle (stated inor-
mally) is that ldquosomething existsrdquo Anyone who attempts to deny that is admitting
they exist Another is the principle o noncontradiction which would also be
assumed by anyone attempting to deny it Once alternatives are eliminated and
theism is proved Geisler shows that Christianity explains all the known acts in
the most consistent way
o the right o classical apologetics and just lef o rationalism (on the ar right)
evidentialism has been popularized in recent decades by Josh McDowell who wasinfluenced by John Warwick Montgomery Gary Habermas has also been influ-
ential and widely known Te view does not require that theism be proved first
While most evidentialists accept theistic arguments and would use them they do
not believe it is necessary to first prove theism Unlike classical apologists eviden-
tialists believe that at least to some extent acts point to their proper interpre-
tation So evidentialists typically work to prove the resurrection afer supporting
the veracity o the Bible (eg John Warwick Montgomery) or at least the believ-
ability o very widely accepted crucial acts (eg Gary Habermas) Many o the
same acts and approaches used by evidentialists are used by classical apologists
in their second step which seeks to prove Christianity
Letrsquos review the chart again this time more briefly For fideism there can be
no proo but there is certitude rom aith in revelation For presupposition-
alism there can be no direct proo o Christianity but we must presuppose it
roughly assume it by conviction and necessity Te case must ultimately be
circular Revelation is known o its own authority but we can have proo be-
cause it must be presupposed For Reormed epistemology noncircular argu-
ments are acceptable in principle and should be developed but they are not
adequate to ground something as crucial as religious aith Belie in God is an
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2235
10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
awareness that can arise in us because o the way we were created and belie
in Christianity is a divine gif Moving right experientialism is the first view
that accepts something as decisive standalone evidence or the conclusion thatChristianity is true Te evidence is internal and subjective Pragmatism deals
with workability which is a more objective orm o experience and is thereore
to the right o experientialism (Note that what ldquoworksrdquo can be defined differ-
ently by different people)
Moving urther right (but not including rationalism on the extreme right nor
combinationalism) we have views that accept induction as an important and e-
ective method o proo or religious belie Tey (including combinationalism)
also accept a cumulative case that is layers o proo adding up to orm a stronger
case overall Religious experience and workability in lie (including giving lie
meaning) also typically play a supporting role in an overall case (whereas with
experientialism experience is the only proo) Veridicalism accepts both givens
that are known intuitively and that are undeniable and effective corroboration
through evidence and reason Everyone can have an immediate awareness o God
and the Christian can have an additional awareness o some essentials o Christi-
anity In its emphasis on direct awareness it is like Reormed epistemology but in veridicalism corroborating evidence can be strong and decisive So like Reormed
epistemology on its lef it has a place or intuition but like views on its right it
has a place or a convincing case based on evidence
As we continue to move right intuition (similar to ldquosel-attestingrdquo or presup-
positionalism) plays less o a role and there is more emphasis on independently
existing objective evidence as grounds or belie983089983091 Tere are also more such
objective criteria until we get to evidentialism which appeals to a multiplicity
o individual acts
Combinationalism accepts livability as a test o a hypothesis but only as one
o three aspects o consistency whereas to the lef pragmatism viewed livability
as the main criteria and to the right o combinationalism livability is viewed
as only one o a number o actors in an overall case
Classical apologetics accepts arguments or theism and or Christianity typ-
ically insisting (like presuppositionalism) that a worldview determines the in-
terpretation o acts But like the views on the right side o the chart that
worldview is established by something other than a necessary assumption (or
13Presuppositionalists would say that the transcendental argument provides objective evidence but
they would not say that it is ldquoindependently existingrdquo since no acts exist independent o God
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2335
Introduction 10486261048629
Geisler it is by undeniable first principles but unlike presuppositionalism they
are necessary in every worldview c Hanna)
Evidentialism is the near polar opposite o presuppositionalism affirmingthat acts can be known independently o the views that interpret them and that
acts can even point to the correct interpretation
I once showed this chart to Greg Bahnsen who not surprisingly said that pre-
suppositionalism should be on the right next to rationalism as offering absolutely
certain proo or belie In response I pointed out that certainty was secondary the
primary order o the chart was appeal to independent evidence or the conclusion
So fideism appeals to no independent evidence Presuppositionalism appeals to a
presupposition but not to independent evidence as grounds or belie (ie no direct
proo) Reormed epistemology appeals to intuition Experientialism appeals to
one subjective criterion as evidence or a conclusion pragmatism to one external
criterion Next is veridicalism which appeals to givens plus external and inde-
pendent evidence Ten comes combinationalism with its appeals to consistency
o hypothesis and fittingness with the acts plus livability Ten classical apologetics
appeals to independent evidence or theism and Christianity And finally eviden-
tialism appeals to a multiplicity o independent actsmdashthe opposite o presupposi-tionalismrsquos view that there are no independent acts Bahnsen thought or a ew
seconds and said ldquoTat could work that could workrdquo983089983092 I then mentioned that I
always tell my students that presuppositionalists see their view as close to
rationalism as ar as both offer certainty I add that they would see their presup-
positionalism as different rom rationalismrsquos method o using independent evi-
dence (Descartes or example amously beginning rom his own thoughtmdashagain
the opposite o presuppositionalism which begins with God as the standard o
truth) I it were not visually too complicated on the chart I might put fideism
presuppositionalism and rationalism each at different points o a triangle so that
presuppositionalism could be equidistant rom the aith o fideism and the absolute
proo o rationalism yet unique But over the years students have generally con-
firmed that it would be too complicated and thus unhelpul
Beore we begin it is worth briefly recounting why fideism which challenges
the legitimacy o apologetics is biblically inadequate Here are just a ew ex-
amples o biblical reasons or belie Moses asks God or signs to show his people
that he has divine authority (Ex 10486281048625) which God grants and later he grants
14Personal conversation afer Bahnsen was a guest speaker in my apologetics class Masterrsquos Col-
lege Newhall Caliornia in the all o 10486259830979830971048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2435
10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
abundant signs in the conrontation with Pharaoh (Ex 1048631ndash10486251048625) In the wilderness
God supernaturally demonstrates his presence his provision or his people and
his backing o Mosesrsquo leadership In the conquest o the Promised Land Goddivides the Jordan (Josh 98309110486251048631) gives victories over superior orces (Josh 10486251048628-1048633
98309110486251048624-10486251048631) and extends daylight (Josh 1048625104862410486251048626-10486251048628) He grants miracles or Gideon
(Judg 104863110486251048630-10486261048626) Samson (Judg 104862510486281048630 10486251048633 1048625104862910486251048629 10486251048630983091) and others Prophets such as
Elijah predict events and perorm miracles Jesusrsquo lie ulfills a number o proph-
ecies and is attested by miracles He points to them as grounds or belie (Lk
1048626104862810486261048631 Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) When John the Baptist doubts Jesus points to evidence that
matches prophecy (Mt 104862510486251048628-1048629 c Is 1048626104863310486251048632) Jesus meets Tomasrsquos doubts with
evidence (Jn 1048626104862410486261048631) Afer the resurrection he gives ldquomany convincing proosrdquo
(Acts 1048625983091 c Lk 104862610486289830911048633) John recounts some o Jesusrsquo supernatural deeds as a way
o inspiring saving aith (Jn 104862610486249830911048624) Te supernatural authority o the Seventy
(Lk 1048625104862410486251048631) and the apostles (1048626 Cor 1048625104862610486251048626) is attested by miracles Paul argues rom
Scripture that Christ had to suffer and rise again (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091) and he regards
the resurrection as ldquoproo to all menrdquo (Acts 104862510486319830911048625 c Rom 10486251048628) Some do believe
because o miracles (Jn 1048625104862610486251048625 Acts 104863310486281048626 104862598309110486251048626)
As mentioned above this does not show that an unproblematic appeal tomiracles and prophecy can be made today but that Scripture uses reasons in
support o aith Just how that should be done is the subject o this book
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1035
10486251048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
discussion questions and suggestions or urther reading Tat teaching expe-
rience has shown me too that complex issues are best understood i they can be
viewed rom different angles and more than onceIn order to increase understanding o where the approaches lead I have in-
cluded something o how they would actually be used ocusing on some o the
best insights that each has to offer Some approaches require a bit more detail
to show what the apologist is doing and how it all fits with their method For
example I summarize Norman Geislerrsquos rationale or selecting the right test or
truth review his criteria or selecting a worldview and finally show how he ap-
plies this method to arrive at theism It requires some detail to see the systematic
nature and rigor o his approach So at the end o the book the reader will come
away with not only the theories but also their application
As I mentioned at the beginning o this introduction I have ocused on those
who are currently influential which is why I have chosen or example Van il
over Abraham Kuyper I have also ocused on those whose work in the field has
been sustained original and extensive Tat entails choosing or example Gary
Habermas over Josh McDowell even though as a popular writer the latter has had
enormous influence My only regret is that the purpose o this book and the con-straints on its length do not permit more attention to those who have made very
worthy contributions in the past such as Gordon Clark and C S Lewis and more
recently John Feinberg the late Paul Feinberg Douglas Groothuis Ravi Zacharias
and K Scott Oliphint to name just a ew It is regrettable that only a ew pages can
be given to Francis Schaeffer who had an enormous influence in his day but is
not as well-known to younger people and shied away rom discussions on apolo-
getic theory most notably with Van il who was eager to engage him
Each apologist can be unique but can also in some ways resemble the char-
acteristics o someone representing a different approach William Lane Craig or
example is not ar rom Alvin Plantinga in his emphasis on the personal inward
awareness o God yet he is thoroughly classical in how he makes his case to
others John Warwick Montgomery a staunch evidentialist regards C S Lewis
as something o a mentor Tey are similar in the breadth o their interests pio-
neering the use o literature to communicate the gospel and it seems similar in
their personalities983090 But in overall approach C S Lewis is in the classical camp
One o my hopes or this book is that more people will gain a good grasp o
2o me they both seem expressive creative and interested in all o liersquos possibilities
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1135
Introduction 1048625983091
this crucial field o apologetic methods When the subject is taught ofen only
one approach is presented and students are lef with little or no grasp o any-
thing elsemdashand donrsquot really even understand the approach they are supposed toaccept and use Tose who are introduced to the issues outside o a classroom
tend to read only apologists rom their own camp
I progress is to made on a subject so vital we will need a new generation o
people who are interested in doing serious work Most o those who have la-
bored in this field in modern times are at or past retirement or have already
passed on My real hope is that this book will help motivate some people to take
up this work and carry it orward
I canrsquot thank InterVarsity Press enough (especially Andy Le Peau and Al Hsu)
or their great patience and encouragement as I struggled with a hellacious
onslaught o challenges that greatly slowed progress on the book I canrsquot imagine
a better publisher and I am honored they are doing this book I am also grateul
or Mark Hanna who first introduced me to this topic when I was a seminary
student Not only was he kind and encouraging but his grasp o all things apol-
ogetic has also always been inspiring I owe thanks to the sabbatical committee
which granted me time to work on this book and on God in the Shadows Evilin Godrsquos World 983091 I also want to thank my wonderul wie Donna or her con-
tinual support as well as her example o discipline and passion in the research
and writing o her own books
O983158983141983154983158983145983141983159
Tis book is organized according to a schema represented in the chart below
that I have used through much o my twenty-five years o teaching this subjectIt is not perect but I have ound that it aids understanding the relationships
among the views
On the ar lef is fideism (rom the Latin or ldquoaithrdquo) according to which
belie cannot or should not be supported by evidence o any kind On this view
aith and reason are in separate nonoverlapping circles I we have aith we have
no reasons to believe i we have reasons to believe we do not need aith Some
people are fideists because o such convictions about the nature o aith others
believe that the allen mind is incapable o processing reasons or that the
subject is simply beyond the mindrsquos grasp Te resulting view is that aith must
3Brian Morley God in the Shadows Evil in Godrsquos World (Geanies House Fearn Ross-shire Scot-
land Christian Focus 1048626983088983088983094)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1235
10486251048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Approach Fideism Presuppositionalism Reformed
epistemologyExperien-tialism
Pragmatism
rarr Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence rarr
Definingcharacteristics
bullFaithunsupportedbullFaith and
reason donrsquotoverlapbullOr reason isbeyond themindrsquos graspbullOr the mindis too fallen
bullStarting pointsare necessarypresuppositionsunprovable byindependent evidencebullNo independentlyknown factsbullldquoBorrowed capitalrdquo
bullAutonomy is theproblembullNo common ldquonotionsrdquobullReasoning must becircular deductiveindirect from
ChristianitybullTranscendentalargumentbullRange ofpresuppositionalistsfrom Van Til to Frame
bull Awareness of God( sensus divinitatus) isgrounded in howwe are made andtriggered
bullChristian faith agiftbullClassicalfoundationalismtoo narrowbullGod is properlybasicbullFaith can exceedreasons
bullExperiencealone
bullExperience isonly proof wecan have oronly proof weneed
bullAccept whatworksbullHas a widevariety of forms
Adherentsbull(Pascal)bullKierkegaardbullBarth
bullVan TilbullBahnsenbullFrame (modified keypoints)
bullAlvin Plantinga mdash
bullC S PeircebullWilliam JamesbullJohn DeweybullRichard Rorty
CriticismsbullSubjective
bullUnbiblical
bullAmounts to fideismbullTranscendental
argument cannot provethe Christian God
bullCannot rule outother beliefs likethe Great Pumpkin
bullExperiencesmust beinterpreted
bullWhatworks ne truth
bullWhat works isvague
Epistemo-logical startingpoint
Faith PresuppositionImmediateawareness
Experience Workability
Summary
No reasons or
certaintyentirelysubjectiveand volitional
No independent facts asreasons
Intuitions plusancillary reasons
One type ofevidence butsubjective
One type of
evidence thatlinks internaland external
Figure Chart of Apologetic Approaches
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1335
Introduction 10486251048629
Veridicalism Combinationalism Classical
apologetics Evidentialism Rationalism
Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence Cumulative case common ground
bullGivens + corroborationbullGivens are knownintuitively and certainlycan be corroboratedbullUniversal givens can beknown by all andconstitute cognitive
neutral groundbullGod is a universal givenbullSpecial givens areknown by ChristiansbullCommon ground =human needs commonexperiencesbullNo spiritually neutralgroundbullEight kinds of ldquoseeingrdquo
bullChristianity ahypothesis to be tested
bullThree-aspect testrational (self-consistent) empirical(fits relevant facts)existential (can belived)
bullProve theism thenChristianitybullProve theism usingtheistic proofs
cosmologicalargumentteleologicalargument moralargumentbullProve Christianity(same asevidentialists)
bullEvidence points toChristianitybullTheistic argumentsuseful but notnecessary
bullFacts point to bestinterpretationbullProphecy andresurrection provethe BiblebullUse universallyaccepted facts(Habermas)
bullAbsolutecertaintybullStart from
indubitablepointbullReason usingdeductionbullBuild up toworldview
bullMark HannahbullE J CarnellbullGordon LewisbullFrancis Schaeffer
bullNorman GeislerbullWilliam Lane CraigbullJ P MorelandbullR C SproulbullRichard Swinburne
bullJohn WarwickMontgomerybullJosh McDowellbullGary Habermas
bullDescartes
bullGivens cannot rationally
ground belief
bullThree tests are
unworkable
bullMain critics arepresuppositionalistsbullThere is no common
groundbullMust reason from
Christianity
bullFacts must beinterpreted
bullFacts cannot point totheir interpretation
bullIndubitablestarting pointscannot lead to a
worldviewwithout addingalong the way
Givens and corroboration Three-aspect test Two-step argumentFacts pointing tointerpretation
Deduction fromcertain startingpoint
Internal givens andobjective corroboration
Hypothesis tested
internal to theoryexternally with factsand existentially
Uses cosmos and order
to prove interpretiveframework (theism)then uses facts ofhistory
Proves Christianity
using many objectiveindependentlyexisting facts
Certainty is
absolutenothing issubjective orvolitional
Figure (continued)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1435
10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
be purely a gif rom God Fideists who tilt toward a Calvinistic view o salvation
(according to which God predestines individuals or salvation) may see the
action o the mind as irrelevant Because the ultimate cause o belie is divinechoice God bypasses the intellect
Fideism is thus a denial o apologetics which makes it different rom other
views All the views to the right hold that there is at least some overlap between
aith and reason that there are reasons o some kind or belie
On the ar right o the chart is rationalism which claims complete proo or
belie Te classic example is Reneacute Descartes (1048625104862910486331048630ndash1048625104863010486291048624) who lived in the tu-
multuous afermath o the Reormation when the Continent was divided over
religious belie He sought certainty by starting rom something he could not
doubt then building up rom there he used deduction a orm o reasoning that
guarantees the truth o the conclusion i we accept the premises In spite o his
original approach and rigorous effort virtually everyone today sees Descartes
as coming short o providing the level o certainty he offered
So the ar lef and the ar right are opposites aith can have no support and
aith has complete support
Just to the right o fideism is presuppositionalism which says we can have nodirect proo or either God or Christianity Tat means we cannot make either one
the conclusion o a noncircular argument In a traditional argument premises are
known independently o the conclusion and are offered as grounds or the con-
clusion Te problem with this says the ounder o presuppositionalism Cornelius
Van il is that nothing can be known independently o God because ultimately
truth is whatever God says it is God does not ldquoknowrdquo an independently existing
reality rather he determines that reality He knows the lights are on in the room
because he determined that they would be on Adam ell when he tried to become
independent o God determining or himsel what is true and morally right Fallen
humanityrsquos problem is not primarily ignorance but rebellion Te unbeliever does
not need to merely add a ew acts to his worldview but to completely tear it down
and rebuild one that makes God the source and guarantor o every act So to en-
courage the nonbeliever to think he can know premises and determine truth inde-
pendently o God is to inflame the problem Furthermore even i such a process
results in a person affirming the Bible as the Word o God he has in effect passed
judgment on God when God should be passing judgment on him As well things
can be tested only using something higher and more ultimate yet nothing can be
more ultimate than the Word o God Despite all this the presuppositionalist says
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1535
Introduction 10486251048631
we can have absolute proo or the Christian God because only i he exists can we
know anything Only i the Christian God exists and knows everythingmdashas well
as determines everythingmdashis knowledge o any kind about anything possible Allother viewpoints ail because they claim to be true yet cannot properly account or
how we have knowledge So while there is no direct proo there is absolutely
certain indirect proo or Christianity Christianity is a presupposition we cannot
do without It is claimed that even attempts to disprove Christianity must assume
it is true thus we can know Christianity transcendentally as a necessary as-
sumption Also the Bible is sel-attesting Godrsquos sheep hear his voice (Jn 1048625104862410486261048631)
Tis view is next to fideism because it bases knowledge on a presupposition
(roughly a commitment to a oundational assumption) rather than anything
known independently Proponents see their view as akin to rationalism which
offers absolute certainty or knowledge whereas many critics see it as closer to
fideism because it works by presupposing rather than directly proving
Note that there is a wide range among presuppositionalists rom those who
ollow Van il with little or no modification such as Greg Bahnsen to those who
have modified the view considerably such as John Frame Some o Framersquos mod-
ifications such as acceptance o some use o induction o the transcendental ar-gument as a direct as well as an indirect proo and acceptance o the cumulative
orce o arguments would put him on the right side o the chart Tere are also
those who take the label o presuppositionalist who emphasize Van ilrsquos rejection
o traditional direct proo but want little or nothing to do with his indirect proo
I knew one proessor who called himsel both a presuppositionalist and a ldquobiblical
fideistrdquo So on the chart we can have a lef side o presuppositionalism which is
closer to fideism and a right side which sees a robust role or proos o different
kinds In the middle would be Van il and Bahnsen Frame would be on the ar
right ideally on a line that extends to the right side o the chart (which would best
be indicated by an arrow since an actual line might be visually conusing)
Gordon Clark and Carl F H Henry represent a more deductive orm o pre-
suppositionalism in which the Bible is posited as true and what can be deduced
rom it is also true Unlike Van il and Bahnsen they do not try to justiy Christian
presuppositions transcendentally that is as the only basis or reason Herman
Dooyeweerd (DOE-yuh-vaird 1048625104863210486331048628ndash1048625104863310486311048631) took some o the oundations laid by
Abraham Kuyper (104862510486329830911048631ndash1048625104863310486261048624) in a different direction than Van il
John Frame has sought to remain true to Van ilrsquos central insights while
modiying significant aspects o his approach He maintains his ormer teacherrsquos
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1635
10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
convictions that since acts are not independently existing realities we cannot
simply see which interpretation fits best and use them independently to decide
on an interpretation (the view o evidentialism) and there can be no neutralground He emphasizes the important nuance that it is really statements o acts
that are not separate rom interpretation
Frame says that in an argument because the premises commit us to the
conclusion they thereore commit us to what the premises presuppose making
presuppositions a kind o conclusion Presuppositions are commitments that
govern our other belies and as such they are not deeasible (cannot be deeated
by evidence and argument) unless a contrary presupposition is adopted Since
all thought is dependent on God who makes all argument possible we should
not encourage the nonbeliever to think otherwise
Contrary to Van il Frame believes that there can be real agreement between
the believer and nonbeliever induction can be acceptable in apologetics and the
transcendental approach is an overall goal and not a single argumentmdashthere
being no way the Christian God o love justice patience wisdom and more
must be presupposed in order or anyone to understand and talk about anything
He also believes that there is no essential difference between direct and indirectreasoning thereore the major difference between presuppositional and tradi-
tional apologetics may be the intent o the apologist to acknowledge God as
sovereign and the source o all meaning intelligibility and rationality that is
the ultimate authority or human thought
Frame adds the extremely important stipulation that interpretations can be
verified on the basis o acts In other words we can compare the data o the
mind with the data o the external world Interpretations can be verified by
comparing them with acts and acts can be verified by comparing them with
interpretations Neither one is a brute incorrigible standard983092
Tese and other modifications make presuppositionalism much closer to
traditional apologetics and give it access to a large array o more traditional
arguments Frame adds his own highly constructive innovations holding that
as nonomniscient beings we can see things in different perspectives that are
simultaneous and overlapping where each can contain the other Knowledge
or example is a matter o sense experience reason and eeling
o the right o presuppositionalism is the Reormed epistemology o Alvin
4Personal email correspondence with Frame Aug 10486261048628 104862698308810486251048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1735
Introduction 10486251048633
Plantinga He challenges the notion that belie must be proportional to evidence
such that we are entitled to believe only as much as we can prove In answer he
points out that people commonly and rightly believe many things they wouldhave trouble proving such as that the world was not created with apparent age
only a ew minutes ago or that people have minds like us and are not merely
cleverly designed robots So it is rational to believe in God to a degree greater
than we can prove Te level o proo that would be required to justiy a belie
as crucial as Christianity would be very high and we have that level or virtually
no philosophical belies o that magnitude Knowledge o God is the result o
an inner knowing what Calvin called the sensus divinitatis which arises in us
because o how we are made Te catalyst or that knowing can be different or
different people perhaps the grandeur o mountains or the starry sky
Knowledge o Christianity comes by an inner knowing that is a special gif o
the Holy Spirit Te inner knowing o both God and Christianity is not evidence
or a conclusion but an immediate knowing (like knowing we have pain or that
we exist) Plantinga affirms the value o arguments but alone they hold little
promise o being sufficient to truly justiy belie in God or Christianity
Reormed epistemology is to the right o presuppositionalism because it a-firms a role or independent proos but it is on the lef side o the chart because
it is a type o intuition that grounds aith
Next is experientialism especially o the sort where an experience is taken
as grounds or the conclusion that God exists or that Christianity is true In this
type experience is evidence or the conclusion Tis would include such things
as experiences o answered prayers or providential care or an awareness o God
that is the basis or the conclusion that God is there What is unique about this
method is that such experiences are the only basis or belie Other methods to
the right o it accept experience as one proo among many o the lef o the view
fideism accepts no proo presuppositionalism does not regard experience as
proper proo or God or Christianity and Reormed epistemology regards ex-
perience as a direct knowing but not evidence or a conclusion So coming rom
the lef side o the chart experientialism is the first view that accepts something
as independent grounds to justiy belie
Although I have met people who take an experientialist approach to justi-
ying belie in God or Christianity it is difficult to find whole books supporting
the view People who take the view generally regard their experiences as ade-
quate to justiy only their own belies and do not expect mere reports o their
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1835
10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
experiences to be sufficient or someone else thus others would need to have
their own experiences So it is not hard to see why ew would see the value in
writing about their experiences as a way to convince others Tis book does nothave a chapter on the approach but it includes a brie critique by Norman
Geisler Te problem with experientialism is that experiences must be inter-
preted A person can have an experience but that does not mean we mustmdashor
even canmdashtake it at ace value Someonersquos experience o their dead ancestor
appearing to them could be interpreted in a number o ways as could a personrsquos
experience o the Hindu god Shiva Whether such things are regarded as real
imaginary demonic apparitions or whatever depends on what other belies we
hold as true Furthermore how do we resolve conflicts between experiences
Tereore experience is widely regarded as insufficient as the sole means o
proo though it typically appears as one type o evidence in the apologetic
methods to the right o it on the chart
Next we add pragmatism which essentially offers one source o justification
that o workability Tere are both simple and sophisticated orms o this view
but the idea is i it works we can accept a belie as verified to some degree Tere
is a difference between the (more radical) claim that workability equals truthor is what we mean by truth versus workability as an indicator o truth Te
latter view is ofen added into the mix o possible methods o justification
among views to the right o pragmatism on the chart I have chosen not to use
the available space in the book to detail pragmatism because so ar its best-
known philosophical orms have not been as popular as other approaches
among those seeking to know or justiy theism or Christianity Te view has
been developed by C S Peirce (pronounced ldquoPurserdquo 104862510486329830911048633ndash1048625104863310486251048628) William James
(1048625104863210486281048626ndash1048625104863310486251048624) and recently by neopragmatist Richard Rorty (104862510486339830911048625ndash1048626104862410486241048631) I have
included brie criticisms o pragmatism made by Norman Geisler
Moving again to the right on our chart veridicalism developed by Mark
Hanna sees knowledge as grounded in givens983093 which are known intuitively and
with certainty and are not inerred rom other things we know All humans can
benefit rom universal givens some o which cannot be coherently denied (be-
cause denying them would require assuming them) such as our own existence
5ldquoLiterally anything that can be veridically nonpostulationally and nondiscursively grasped by
consciousness is a given And i it is susceptible o apprehension by all human beings in prin-
ciple it is a universal givenrdquo Mark M Hanna Crucial Questions in Apologetics (Grand Rapids
Baker Book House 10486259830979830961048625) p 10486251048625983095
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1935
Introduction 10486261048625
and the principle o noncontradiction Awareness o the existence o the God o
theism is a universal given Christians benefit additionally rom special givens
including awareness that God cares or them that the Bible is Godrsquos Word (whichis sel-attesting only to believers1048630) and that he or she is saved Because universal
givens are knowable independently o a worldview and within any worldview
they orm cognitive neutral ground Tere is however no spiritually neutral
ground since everyone either accepts or rejects what can be universally known
about God1048631 Tere is common ground consisting o human needs such as guilt
and loneliness as well as cultural patterns o thinking and acting1048632 Tough
known immediately givens can be corroborated in different ways or example
by reflection and by their connection to other givens1048633 Some are known because
they are undeniable and others can be supported by evidence and inerence
Some arguments or theism are inductively strong such as the kalam cosmo-
logical argument and the teleological argument rom fine tuning o the universe
or lie9830891048624 In all it can be shown that God is the best explanation A case can also
be made or Christianity Te essential belies o Christianity are givens that can
be corroborated Tey are not arrived at rom nontheological data or premises983089983089
Citing Christrsquos statement that some see without ldquoseeingrdquo (Mt 10486259830911048625983091) Hanna iden-tifies eight kinds o ldquoseeingrdquo only one o which is physical Each has two poles
relating to its reality (metaphysical) and its knowability (epistemological) Tey
are physical intellectual introspective intersubjective (awareness o other
persons and onersquos relationship to them) moral aesthetic (which can grasp ob-
jective beauty) and spiritual (one mode that is common to all humans another
that is unique to Christians) Some orms o seeing overlap and interact or ex-
ample spiritual seeing requires some use o intellectual seeing He argues (in a
orthcoming book) that biblical theism is the only adequate explanation o the
eight modes o seeing and their objective correlates
Next is the view called combinationalism According to the combinationalism983089983090
o E J Carnell and Gordon Lewis traditional proos or the existence o God are
inadequate or the same reason that the empiricism they are implicitly based on
6Ibid p 104862598308810486277Ibid p 104862598308810486298Ibid9Ibid p 10486259830881048625
10Phone conversation with Mark Hanna Oct 1048625983094 10486269830881048625104862711Hanna Crucial Questions p 10486251048626104862512Te name was not chosen by Carnell but it is used in Norman Geislerrsquos widely read Christian
Apologetics 1048626nd ed (Grand Rapids Baker Books 104862698308810486251048627)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2035
10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
is inadequate you can never arrive at what is immutable universal and necessary
rom what is finite I you cannot arrive at God rom experience you must bring
God to experience in the orm o a hypothesis to be tested Tis does not meanour aith is weak or tentative only that to be intellectually honest as God would
have us be we must at least in principle be rational in our aith In this sense we
treat Christianity as a hypothesis and like any hypothesis it must not contradict
itsel Anything sel-contradictory cannot be true but what is noncontradictory
could be true o see i it is true we check it with all relevant acts looking or
contradictions between the hypothesis and the acts Te hypothesis should be
applicable to lie in the sense that it can be lived out without contradiction Tere
is common ground between believer and nonbeliever consisting or example in
the principle o noncontradiction values ethics and the need or love Fur-
thermore worldviews typically overlap in areas that are impersonal and nonmeta-
physical Even science properly practiced can be carried on between believer and
nonbeliever But worldviews diverge as soon as questions o ultimate meaning and
purpose arise We can prove that Christianity is true to the extent that we can
prove any real-world belie is true that is with high probability Yet we can have
complete inner assurance ldquocertituderdquo that it is true Combinationalism is to theright o pragmatism on the chart because it tests belie using an objective standard
that o consistency A hypothesis must be consistent within itsel consistent with
the acts and capable o being lived out consistently
In the next column is classical apologetics which is practiced by people as
diverse as C S Lewis William Lane Craig J P Moreland R C Sproul John
Gerstner and Norman Geisler Tis approach aims first to prove theism the
general belie that God is or example omnipotent omniscient omnipresent
holy creator and sustainer o the universe I theism is not proved first proo
or the resurrection or example would not necessarily be interpreted theisti-
cally by the unbeliever O course i the unbeliever already accepts theism
proving it is unnecessary
Classical apologists use theistic arguments (though they are also used by
some apologists who use other methods) Tey are types or amilies o argu-
ments in that there are a number o variations to each Te cosmological ar-
gument essentially reasons rom the existence o the universe to a creator One
orm argues that God is a necessary being that he must exist in every possible
world Another argues that everything needs an adequate cause thus the uni-
verse needs an adequate cause and that cause is God (he is not a thing and is
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2135
Introduction 1048626983091
uncaused) Te teleological argument reasons rom design in the universe to a
designer Modern science has uncovered intricate design in DNA or example
We are also discovering the amazing extent to which the universe has been finelytuned to allow or lie Te moral argument which is not used as widely as the
cosmological and teleological arguments argues rom the existence o objective
moral obligations to a higher moral being as the grounds o such obligations
Norman Geisler believes we must use a different approach to prove the truth
o a worldview versus truth within a worldview He uses six first principles o
reality which cannot be denied because any attempt to deny them would use
them (similar to Hannarsquos view) We do not need to prove them we simply ldquoseerdquo
that they are true once we understand them One first principle (stated inor-
mally) is that ldquosomething existsrdquo Anyone who attempts to deny that is admitting
they exist Another is the principle o noncontradiction which would also be
assumed by anyone attempting to deny it Once alternatives are eliminated and
theism is proved Geisler shows that Christianity explains all the known acts in
the most consistent way
o the right o classical apologetics and just lef o rationalism (on the ar right)
evidentialism has been popularized in recent decades by Josh McDowell who wasinfluenced by John Warwick Montgomery Gary Habermas has also been influ-
ential and widely known Te view does not require that theism be proved first
While most evidentialists accept theistic arguments and would use them they do
not believe it is necessary to first prove theism Unlike classical apologists eviden-
tialists believe that at least to some extent acts point to their proper interpre-
tation So evidentialists typically work to prove the resurrection afer supporting
the veracity o the Bible (eg John Warwick Montgomery) or at least the believ-
ability o very widely accepted crucial acts (eg Gary Habermas) Many o the
same acts and approaches used by evidentialists are used by classical apologists
in their second step which seeks to prove Christianity
Letrsquos review the chart again this time more briefly For fideism there can be
no proo but there is certitude rom aith in revelation For presupposition-
alism there can be no direct proo o Christianity but we must presuppose it
roughly assume it by conviction and necessity Te case must ultimately be
circular Revelation is known o its own authority but we can have proo be-
cause it must be presupposed For Reormed epistemology noncircular argu-
ments are acceptable in principle and should be developed but they are not
adequate to ground something as crucial as religious aith Belie in God is an
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2235
10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
awareness that can arise in us because o the way we were created and belie
in Christianity is a divine gif Moving right experientialism is the first view
that accepts something as decisive standalone evidence or the conclusion thatChristianity is true Te evidence is internal and subjective Pragmatism deals
with workability which is a more objective orm o experience and is thereore
to the right o experientialism (Note that what ldquoworksrdquo can be defined differ-
ently by different people)
Moving urther right (but not including rationalism on the extreme right nor
combinationalism) we have views that accept induction as an important and e-
ective method o proo or religious belie Tey (including combinationalism)
also accept a cumulative case that is layers o proo adding up to orm a stronger
case overall Religious experience and workability in lie (including giving lie
meaning) also typically play a supporting role in an overall case (whereas with
experientialism experience is the only proo) Veridicalism accepts both givens
that are known intuitively and that are undeniable and effective corroboration
through evidence and reason Everyone can have an immediate awareness o God
and the Christian can have an additional awareness o some essentials o Christi-
anity In its emphasis on direct awareness it is like Reormed epistemology but in veridicalism corroborating evidence can be strong and decisive So like Reormed
epistemology on its lef it has a place or intuition but like views on its right it
has a place or a convincing case based on evidence
As we continue to move right intuition (similar to ldquosel-attestingrdquo or presup-
positionalism) plays less o a role and there is more emphasis on independently
existing objective evidence as grounds or belie983089983091 Tere are also more such
objective criteria until we get to evidentialism which appeals to a multiplicity
o individual acts
Combinationalism accepts livability as a test o a hypothesis but only as one
o three aspects o consistency whereas to the lef pragmatism viewed livability
as the main criteria and to the right o combinationalism livability is viewed
as only one o a number o actors in an overall case
Classical apologetics accepts arguments or theism and or Christianity typ-
ically insisting (like presuppositionalism) that a worldview determines the in-
terpretation o acts But like the views on the right side o the chart that
worldview is established by something other than a necessary assumption (or
13Presuppositionalists would say that the transcendental argument provides objective evidence but
they would not say that it is ldquoindependently existingrdquo since no acts exist independent o God
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2335
Introduction 10486261048629
Geisler it is by undeniable first principles but unlike presuppositionalism they
are necessary in every worldview c Hanna)
Evidentialism is the near polar opposite o presuppositionalism affirmingthat acts can be known independently o the views that interpret them and that
acts can even point to the correct interpretation
I once showed this chart to Greg Bahnsen who not surprisingly said that pre-
suppositionalism should be on the right next to rationalism as offering absolutely
certain proo or belie In response I pointed out that certainty was secondary the
primary order o the chart was appeal to independent evidence or the conclusion
So fideism appeals to no independent evidence Presuppositionalism appeals to a
presupposition but not to independent evidence as grounds or belie (ie no direct
proo) Reormed epistemology appeals to intuition Experientialism appeals to
one subjective criterion as evidence or a conclusion pragmatism to one external
criterion Next is veridicalism which appeals to givens plus external and inde-
pendent evidence Ten comes combinationalism with its appeals to consistency
o hypothesis and fittingness with the acts plus livability Ten classical apologetics
appeals to independent evidence or theism and Christianity And finally eviden-
tialism appeals to a multiplicity o independent actsmdashthe opposite o presupposi-tionalismrsquos view that there are no independent acts Bahnsen thought or a ew
seconds and said ldquoTat could work that could workrdquo983089983092 I then mentioned that I
always tell my students that presuppositionalists see their view as close to
rationalism as ar as both offer certainty I add that they would see their presup-
positionalism as different rom rationalismrsquos method o using independent evi-
dence (Descartes or example amously beginning rom his own thoughtmdashagain
the opposite o presuppositionalism which begins with God as the standard o
truth) I it were not visually too complicated on the chart I might put fideism
presuppositionalism and rationalism each at different points o a triangle so that
presuppositionalism could be equidistant rom the aith o fideism and the absolute
proo o rationalism yet unique But over the years students have generally con-
firmed that it would be too complicated and thus unhelpul
Beore we begin it is worth briefly recounting why fideism which challenges
the legitimacy o apologetics is biblically inadequate Here are just a ew ex-
amples o biblical reasons or belie Moses asks God or signs to show his people
that he has divine authority (Ex 10486281048625) which God grants and later he grants
14Personal conversation afer Bahnsen was a guest speaker in my apologetics class Masterrsquos Col-
lege Newhall Caliornia in the all o 10486259830979830971048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2435
10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
abundant signs in the conrontation with Pharaoh (Ex 1048631ndash10486251048625) In the wilderness
God supernaturally demonstrates his presence his provision or his people and
his backing o Mosesrsquo leadership In the conquest o the Promised Land Goddivides the Jordan (Josh 98309110486251048631) gives victories over superior orces (Josh 10486251048628-1048633
98309110486251048624-10486251048631) and extends daylight (Josh 1048625104862410486251048626-10486251048628) He grants miracles or Gideon
(Judg 104863110486251048630-10486261048626) Samson (Judg 104862510486281048630 10486251048633 1048625104862910486251048629 10486251048630983091) and others Prophets such as
Elijah predict events and perorm miracles Jesusrsquo lie ulfills a number o proph-
ecies and is attested by miracles He points to them as grounds or belie (Lk
1048626104862810486261048631 Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) When John the Baptist doubts Jesus points to evidence that
matches prophecy (Mt 104862510486251048628-1048629 c Is 1048626104863310486251048632) Jesus meets Tomasrsquos doubts with
evidence (Jn 1048626104862410486261048631) Afer the resurrection he gives ldquomany convincing proosrdquo
(Acts 1048625983091 c Lk 104862610486289830911048633) John recounts some o Jesusrsquo supernatural deeds as a way
o inspiring saving aith (Jn 104862610486249830911048624) Te supernatural authority o the Seventy
(Lk 1048625104862410486251048631) and the apostles (1048626 Cor 1048625104862610486251048626) is attested by miracles Paul argues rom
Scripture that Christ had to suffer and rise again (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091) and he regards
the resurrection as ldquoproo to all menrdquo (Acts 104862510486319830911048625 c Rom 10486251048628) Some do believe
because o miracles (Jn 1048625104862610486251048625 Acts 104863310486281048626 104862598309110486251048626)
As mentioned above this does not show that an unproblematic appeal tomiracles and prophecy can be made today but that Scripture uses reasons in
support o aith Just how that should be done is the subject o this book
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1135
Introduction 1048625983091
this crucial field o apologetic methods When the subject is taught ofen only
one approach is presented and students are lef with little or no grasp o any-
thing elsemdashand donrsquot really even understand the approach they are supposed toaccept and use Tose who are introduced to the issues outside o a classroom
tend to read only apologists rom their own camp
I progress is to made on a subject so vital we will need a new generation o
people who are interested in doing serious work Most o those who have la-
bored in this field in modern times are at or past retirement or have already
passed on My real hope is that this book will help motivate some people to take
up this work and carry it orward
I canrsquot thank InterVarsity Press enough (especially Andy Le Peau and Al Hsu)
or their great patience and encouragement as I struggled with a hellacious
onslaught o challenges that greatly slowed progress on the book I canrsquot imagine
a better publisher and I am honored they are doing this book I am also grateul
or Mark Hanna who first introduced me to this topic when I was a seminary
student Not only was he kind and encouraging but his grasp o all things apol-
ogetic has also always been inspiring I owe thanks to the sabbatical committee
which granted me time to work on this book and on God in the Shadows Evilin Godrsquos World 983091 I also want to thank my wonderul wie Donna or her con-
tinual support as well as her example o discipline and passion in the research
and writing o her own books
O983158983141983154983158983145983141983159
Tis book is organized according to a schema represented in the chart below
that I have used through much o my twenty-five years o teaching this subjectIt is not perect but I have ound that it aids understanding the relationships
among the views
On the ar lef is fideism (rom the Latin or ldquoaithrdquo) according to which
belie cannot or should not be supported by evidence o any kind On this view
aith and reason are in separate nonoverlapping circles I we have aith we have
no reasons to believe i we have reasons to believe we do not need aith Some
people are fideists because o such convictions about the nature o aith others
believe that the allen mind is incapable o processing reasons or that the
subject is simply beyond the mindrsquos grasp Te resulting view is that aith must
3Brian Morley God in the Shadows Evil in Godrsquos World (Geanies House Fearn Ross-shire Scot-
land Christian Focus 1048626983088983088983094)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1235
10486251048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Approach Fideism Presuppositionalism Reformed
epistemologyExperien-tialism
Pragmatism
rarr Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence rarr
Definingcharacteristics
bullFaithunsupportedbullFaith and
reason donrsquotoverlapbullOr reason isbeyond themindrsquos graspbullOr the mindis too fallen
bullStarting pointsare necessarypresuppositionsunprovable byindependent evidencebullNo independentlyknown factsbullldquoBorrowed capitalrdquo
bullAutonomy is theproblembullNo common ldquonotionsrdquobullReasoning must becircular deductiveindirect from
ChristianitybullTranscendentalargumentbullRange ofpresuppositionalistsfrom Van Til to Frame
bull Awareness of God( sensus divinitatus) isgrounded in howwe are made andtriggered
bullChristian faith agiftbullClassicalfoundationalismtoo narrowbullGod is properlybasicbullFaith can exceedreasons
bullExperiencealone
bullExperience isonly proof wecan have oronly proof weneed
bullAccept whatworksbullHas a widevariety of forms
Adherentsbull(Pascal)bullKierkegaardbullBarth
bullVan TilbullBahnsenbullFrame (modified keypoints)
bullAlvin Plantinga mdash
bullC S PeircebullWilliam JamesbullJohn DeweybullRichard Rorty
CriticismsbullSubjective
bullUnbiblical
bullAmounts to fideismbullTranscendental
argument cannot provethe Christian God
bullCannot rule outother beliefs likethe Great Pumpkin
bullExperiencesmust beinterpreted
bullWhatworks ne truth
bullWhat works isvague
Epistemo-logical startingpoint
Faith PresuppositionImmediateawareness
Experience Workability
Summary
No reasons or
certaintyentirelysubjectiveand volitional
No independent facts asreasons
Intuitions plusancillary reasons
One type ofevidence butsubjective
One type of
evidence thatlinks internaland external
Figure Chart of Apologetic Approaches
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1335
Introduction 10486251048629
Veridicalism Combinationalism Classical
apologetics Evidentialism Rationalism
Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence Cumulative case common ground
bullGivens + corroborationbullGivens are knownintuitively and certainlycan be corroboratedbullUniversal givens can beknown by all andconstitute cognitive
neutral groundbullGod is a universal givenbullSpecial givens areknown by ChristiansbullCommon ground =human needs commonexperiencesbullNo spiritually neutralgroundbullEight kinds of ldquoseeingrdquo
bullChristianity ahypothesis to be tested
bullThree-aspect testrational (self-consistent) empirical(fits relevant facts)existential (can belived)
bullProve theism thenChristianitybullProve theism usingtheistic proofs
cosmologicalargumentteleologicalargument moralargumentbullProve Christianity(same asevidentialists)
bullEvidence points toChristianitybullTheistic argumentsuseful but notnecessary
bullFacts point to bestinterpretationbullProphecy andresurrection provethe BiblebullUse universallyaccepted facts(Habermas)
bullAbsolutecertaintybullStart from
indubitablepointbullReason usingdeductionbullBuild up toworldview
bullMark HannahbullE J CarnellbullGordon LewisbullFrancis Schaeffer
bullNorman GeislerbullWilliam Lane CraigbullJ P MorelandbullR C SproulbullRichard Swinburne
bullJohn WarwickMontgomerybullJosh McDowellbullGary Habermas
bullDescartes
bullGivens cannot rationally
ground belief
bullThree tests are
unworkable
bullMain critics arepresuppositionalistsbullThere is no common
groundbullMust reason from
Christianity
bullFacts must beinterpreted
bullFacts cannot point totheir interpretation
bullIndubitablestarting pointscannot lead to a
worldviewwithout addingalong the way
Givens and corroboration Three-aspect test Two-step argumentFacts pointing tointerpretation
Deduction fromcertain startingpoint
Internal givens andobjective corroboration
Hypothesis tested
internal to theoryexternally with factsand existentially
Uses cosmos and order
to prove interpretiveframework (theism)then uses facts ofhistory
Proves Christianity
using many objectiveindependentlyexisting facts
Certainty is
absolutenothing issubjective orvolitional
Figure (continued)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1435
10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
be purely a gif rom God Fideists who tilt toward a Calvinistic view o salvation
(according to which God predestines individuals or salvation) may see the
action o the mind as irrelevant Because the ultimate cause o belie is divinechoice God bypasses the intellect
Fideism is thus a denial o apologetics which makes it different rom other
views All the views to the right hold that there is at least some overlap between
aith and reason that there are reasons o some kind or belie
On the ar right o the chart is rationalism which claims complete proo or
belie Te classic example is Reneacute Descartes (1048625104862910486331048630ndash1048625104863010486291048624) who lived in the tu-
multuous afermath o the Reormation when the Continent was divided over
religious belie He sought certainty by starting rom something he could not
doubt then building up rom there he used deduction a orm o reasoning that
guarantees the truth o the conclusion i we accept the premises In spite o his
original approach and rigorous effort virtually everyone today sees Descartes
as coming short o providing the level o certainty he offered
So the ar lef and the ar right are opposites aith can have no support and
aith has complete support
Just to the right o fideism is presuppositionalism which says we can have nodirect proo or either God or Christianity Tat means we cannot make either one
the conclusion o a noncircular argument In a traditional argument premises are
known independently o the conclusion and are offered as grounds or the con-
clusion Te problem with this says the ounder o presuppositionalism Cornelius
Van il is that nothing can be known independently o God because ultimately
truth is whatever God says it is God does not ldquoknowrdquo an independently existing
reality rather he determines that reality He knows the lights are on in the room
because he determined that they would be on Adam ell when he tried to become
independent o God determining or himsel what is true and morally right Fallen
humanityrsquos problem is not primarily ignorance but rebellion Te unbeliever does
not need to merely add a ew acts to his worldview but to completely tear it down
and rebuild one that makes God the source and guarantor o every act So to en-
courage the nonbeliever to think he can know premises and determine truth inde-
pendently o God is to inflame the problem Furthermore even i such a process
results in a person affirming the Bible as the Word o God he has in effect passed
judgment on God when God should be passing judgment on him As well things
can be tested only using something higher and more ultimate yet nothing can be
more ultimate than the Word o God Despite all this the presuppositionalist says
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1535
Introduction 10486251048631
we can have absolute proo or the Christian God because only i he exists can we
know anything Only i the Christian God exists and knows everythingmdashas well
as determines everythingmdashis knowledge o any kind about anything possible Allother viewpoints ail because they claim to be true yet cannot properly account or
how we have knowledge So while there is no direct proo there is absolutely
certain indirect proo or Christianity Christianity is a presupposition we cannot
do without It is claimed that even attempts to disprove Christianity must assume
it is true thus we can know Christianity transcendentally as a necessary as-
sumption Also the Bible is sel-attesting Godrsquos sheep hear his voice (Jn 1048625104862410486261048631)
Tis view is next to fideism because it bases knowledge on a presupposition
(roughly a commitment to a oundational assumption) rather than anything
known independently Proponents see their view as akin to rationalism which
offers absolute certainty or knowledge whereas many critics see it as closer to
fideism because it works by presupposing rather than directly proving
Note that there is a wide range among presuppositionalists rom those who
ollow Van il with little or no modification such as Greg Bahnsen to those who
have modified the view considerably such as John Frame Some o Framersquos mod-
ifications such as acceptance o some use o induction o the transcendental ar-gument as a direct as well as an indirect proo and acceptance o the cumulative
orce o arguments would put him on the right side o the chart Tere are also
those who take the label o presuppositionalist who emphasize Van ilrsquos rejection
o traditional direct proo but want little or nothing to do with his indirect proo
I knew one proessor who called himsel both a presuppositionalist and a ldquobiblical
fideistrdquo So on the chart we can have a lef side o presuppositionalism which is
closer to fideism and a right side which sees a robust role or proos o different
kinds In the middle would be Van il and Bahnsen Frame would be on the ar
right ideally on a line that extends to the right side o the chart (which would best
be indicated by an arrow since an actual line might be visually conusing)
Gordon Clark and Carl F H Henry represent a more deductive orm o pre-
suppositionalism in which the Bible is posited as true and what can be deduced
rom it is also true Unlike Van il and Bahnsen they do not try to justiy Christian
presuppositions transcendentally that is as the only basis or reason Herman
Dooyeweerd (DOE-yuh-vaird 1048625104863210486331048628ndash1048625104863310486311048631) took some o the oundations laid by
Abraham Kuyper (104862510486329830911048631ndash1048625104863310486261048624) in a different direction than Van il
John Frame has sought to remain true to Van ilrsquos central insights while
modiying significant aspects o his approach He maintains his ormer teacherrsquos
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1635
10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
convictions that since acts are not independently existing realities we cannot
simply see which interpretation fits best and use them independently to decide
on an interpretation (the view o evidentialism) and there can be no neutralground He emphasizes the important nuance that it is really statements o acts
that are not separate rom interpretation
Frame says that in an argument because the premises commit us to the
conclusion they thereore commit us to what the premises presuppose making
presuppositions a kind o conclusion Presuppositions are commitments that
govern our other belies and as such they are not deeasible (cannot be deeated
by evidence and argument) unless a contrary presupposition is adopted Since
all thought is dependent on God who makes all argument possible we should
not encourage the nonbeliever to think otherwise
Contrary to Van il Frame believes that there can be real agreement between
the believer and nonbeliever induction can be acceptable in apologetics and the
transcendental approach is an overall goal and not a single argumentmdashthere
being no way the Christian God o love justice patience wisdom and more
must be presupposed in order or anyone to understand and talk about anything
He also believes that there is no essential difference between direct and indirectreasoning thereore the major difference between presuppositional and tradi-
tional apologetics may be the intent o the apologist to acknowledge God as
sovereign and the source o all meaning intelligibility and rationality that is
the ultimate authority or human thought
Frame adds the extremely important stipulation that interpretations can be
verified on the basis o acts In other words we can compare the data o the
mind with the data o the external world Interpretations can be verified by
comparing them with acts and acts can be verified by comparing them with
interpretations Neither one is a brute incorrigible standard983092
Tese and other modifications make presuppositionalism much closer to
traditional apologetics and give it access to a large array o more traditional
arguments Frame adds his own highly constructive innovations holding that
as nonomniscient beings we can see things in different perspectives that are
simultaneous and overlapping where each can contain the other Knowledge
or example is a matter o sense experience reason and eeling
o the right o presuppositionalism is the Reormed epistemology o Alvin
4Personal email correspondence with Frame Aug 10486261048628 104862698308810486251048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1735
Introduction 10486251048633
Plantinga He challenges the notion that belie must be proportional to evidence
such that we are entitled to believe only as much as we can prove In answer he
points out that people commonly and rightly believe many things they wouldhave trouble proving such as that the world was not created with apparent age
only a ew minutes ago or that people have minds like us and are not merely
cleverly designed robots So it is rational to believe in God to a degree greater
than we can prove Te level o proo that would be required to justiy a belie
as crucial as Christianity would be very high and we have that level or virtually
no philosophical belies o that magnitude Knowledge o God is the result o
an inner knowing what Calvin called the sensus divinitatis which arises in us
because o how we are made Te catalyst or that knowing can be different or
different people perhaps the grandeur o mountains or the starry sky
Knowledge o Christianity comes by an inner knowing that is a special gif o
the Holy Spirit Te inner knowing o both God and Christianity is not evidence
or a conclusion but an immediate knowing (like knowing we have pain or that
we exist) Plantinga affirms the value o arguments but alone they hold little
promise o being sufficient to truly justiy belie in God or Christianity
Reormed epistemology is to the right o presuppositionalism because it a-firms a role or independent proos but it is on the lef side o the chart because
it is a type o intuition that grounds aith
Next is experientialism especially o the sort where an experience is taken
as grounds or the conclusion that God exists or that Christianity is true In this
type experience is evidence or the conclusion Tis would include such things
as experiences o answered prayers or providential care or an awareness o God
that is the basis or the conclusion that God is there What is unique about this
method is that such experiences are the only basis or belie Other methods to
the right o it accept experience as one proo among many o the lef o the view
fideism accepts no proo presuppositionalism does not regard experience as
proper proo or God or Christianity and Reormed epistemology regards ex-
perience as a direct knowing but not evidence or a conclusion So coming rom
the lef side o the chart experientialism is the first view that accepts something
as independent grounds to justiy belie
Although I have met people who take an experientialist approach to justi-
ying belie in God or Christianity it is difficult to find whole books supporting
the view People who take the view generally regard their experiences as ade-
quate to justiy only their own belies and do not expect mere reports o their
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1835
10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
experiences to be sufficient or someone else thus others would need to have
their own experiences So it is not hard to see why ew would see the value in
writing about their experiences as a way to convince others Tis book does nothave a chapter on the approach but it includes a brie critique by Norman
Geisler Te problem with experientialism is that experiences must be inter-
preted A person can have an experience but that does not mean we mustmdashor
even canmdashtake it at ace value Someonersquos experience o their dead ancestor
appearing to them could be interpreted in a number o ways as could a personrsquos
experience o the Hindu god Shiva Whether such things are regarded as real
imaginary demonic apparitions or whatever depends on what other belies we
hold as true Furthermore how do we resolve conflicts between experiences
Tereore experience is widely regarded as insufficient as the sole means o
proo though it typically appears as one type o evidence in the apologetic
methods to the right o it on the chart
Next we add pragmatism which essentially offers one source o justification
that o workability Tere are both simple and sophisticated orms o this view
but the idea is i it works we can accept a belie as verified to some degree Tere
is a difference between the (more radical) claim that workability equals truthor is what we mean by truth versus workability as an indicator o truth Te
latter view is ofen added into the mix o possible methods o justification
among views to the right o pragmatism on the chart I have chosen not to use
the available space in the book to detail pragmatism because so ar its best-
known philosophical orms have not been as popular as other approaches
among those seeking to know or justiy theism or Christianity Te view has
been developed by C S Peirce (pronounced ldquoPurserdquo 104862510486329830911048633ndash1048625104863310486251048628) William James
(1048625104863210486281048626ndash1048625104863310486251048624) and recently by neopragmatist Richard Rorty (104862510486339830911048625ndash1048626104862410486241048631) I have
included brie criticisms o pragmatism made by Norman Geisler
Moving again to the right on our chart veridicalism developed by Mark
Hanna sees knowledge as grounded in givens983093 which are known intuitively and
with certainty and are not inerred rom other things we know All humans can
benefit rom universal givens some o which cannot be coherently denied (be-
cause denying them would require assuming them) such as our own existence
5ldquoLiterally anything that can be veridically nonpostulationally and nondiscursively grasped by
consciousness is a given And i it is susceptible o apprehension by all human beings in prin-
ciple it is a universal givenrdquo Mark M Hanna Crucial Questions in Apologetics (Grand Rapids
Baker Book House 10486259830979830961048625) p 10486251048625983095
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1935
Introduction 10486261048625
and the principle o noncontradiction Awareness o the existence o the God o
theism is a universal given Christians benefit additionally rom special givens
including awareness that God cares or them that the Bible is Godrsquos Word (whichis sel-attesting only to believers1048630) and that he or she is saved Because universal
givens are knowable independently o a worldview and within any worldview
they orm cognitive neutral ground Tere is however no spiritually neutral
ground since everyone either accepts or rejects what can be universally known
about God1048631 Tere is common ground consisting o human needs such as guilt
and loneliness as well as cultural patterns o thinking and acting1048632 Tough
known immediately givens can be corroborated in different ways or example
by reflection and by their connection to other givens1048633 Some are known because
they are undeniable and others can be supported by evidence and inerence
Some arguments or theism are inductively strong such as the kalam cosmo-
logical argument and the teleological argument rom fine tuning o the universe
or lie9830891048624 In all it can be shown that God is the best explanation A case can also
be made or Christianity Te essential belies o Christianity are givens that can
be corroborated Tey are not arrived at rom nontheological data or premises983089983089
Citing Christrsquos statement that some see without ldquoseeingrdquo (Mt 10486259830911048625983091) Hanna iden-tifies eight kinds o ldquoseeingrdquo only one o which is physical Each has two poles
relating to its reality (metaphysical) and its knowability (epistemological) Tey
are physical intellectual introspective intersubjective (awareness o other
persons and onersquos relationship to them) moral aesthetic (which can grasp ob-
jective beauty) and spiritual (one mode that is common to all humans another
that is unique to Christians) Some orms o seeing overlap and interact or ex-
ample spiritual seeing requires some use o intellectual seeing He argues (in a
orthcoming book) that biblical theism is the only adequate explanation o the
eight modes o seeing and their objective correlates
Next is the view called combinationalism According to the combinationalism983089983090
o E J Carnell and Gordon Lewis traditional proos or the existence o God are
inadequate or the same reason that the empiricism they are implicitly based on
6Ibid p 104862598308810486277Ibid p 104862598308810486298Ibid9Ibid p 10486259830881048625
10Phone conversation with Mark Hanna Oct 1048625983094 10486269830881048625104862711Hanna Crucial Questions p 10486251048626104862512Te name was not chosen by Carnell but it is used in Norman Geislerrsquos widely read Christian
Apologetics 1048626nd ed (Grand Rapids Baker Books 104862698308810486251048627)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2035
10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
is inadequate you can never arrive at what is immutable universal and necessary
rom what is finite I you cannot arrive at God rom experience you must bring
God to experience in the orm o a hypothesis to be tested Tis does not meanour aith is weak or tentative only that to be intellectually honest as God would
have us be we must at least in principle be rational in our aith In this sense we
treat Christianity as a hypothesis and like any hypothesis it must not contradict
itsel Anything sel-contradictory cannot be true but what is noncontradictory
could be true o see i it is true we check it with all relevant acts looking or
contradictions between the hypothesis and the acts Te hypothesis should be
applicable to lie in the sense that it can be lived out without contradiction Tere
is common ground between believer and nonbeliever consisting or example in
the principle o noncontradiction values ethics and the need or love Fur-
thermore worldviews typically overlap in areas that are impersonal and nonmeta-
physical Even science properly practiced can be carried on between believer and
nonbeliever But worldviews diverge as soon as questions o ultimate meaning and
purpose arise We can prove that Christianity is true to the extent that we can
prove any real-world belie is true that is with high probability Yet we can have
complete inner assurance ldquocertituderdquo that it is true Combinationalism is to theright o pragmatism on the chart because it tests belie using an objective standard
that o consistency A hypothesis must be consistent within itsel consistent with
the acts and capable o being lived out consistently
In the next column is classical apologetics which is practiced by people as
diverse as C S Lewis William Lane Craig J P Moreland R C Sproul John
Gerstner and Norman Geisler Tis approach aims first to prove theism the
general belie that God is or example omnipotent omniscient omnipresent
holy creator and sustainer o the universe I theism is not proved first proo
or the resurrection or example would not necessarily be interpreted theisti-
cally by the unbeliever O course i the unbeliever already accepts theism
proving it is unnecessary
Classical apologists use theistic arguments (though they are also used by
some apologists who use other methods) Tey are types or amilies o argu-
ments in that there are a number o variations to each Te cosmological ar-
gument essentially reasons rom the existence o the universe to a creator One
orm argues that God is a necessary being that he must exist in every possible
world Another argues that everything needs an adequate cause thus the uni-
verse needs an adequate cause and that cause is God (he is not a thing and is
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2135
Introduction 1048626983091
uncaused) Te teleological argument reasons rom design in the universe to a
designer Modern science has uncovered intricate design in DNA or example
We are also discovering the amazing extent to which the universe has been finelytuned to allow or lie Te moral argument which is not used as widely as the
cosmological and teleological arguments argues rom the existence o objective
moral obligations to a higher moral being as the grounds o such obligations
Norman Geisler believes we must use a different approach to prove the truth
o a worldview versus truth within a worldview He uses six first principles o
reality which cannot be denied because any attempt to deny them would use
them (similar to Hannarsquos view) We do not need to prove them we simply ldquoseerdquo
that they are true once we understand them One first principle (stated inor-
mally) is that ldquosomething existsrdquo Anyone who attempts to deny that is admitting
they exist Another is the principle o noncontradiction which would also be
assumed by anyone attempting to deny it Once alternatives are eliminated and
theism is proved Geisler shows that Christianity explains all the known acts in
the most consistent way
o the right o classical apologetics and just lef o rationalism (on the ar right)
evidentialism has been popularized in recent decades by Josh McDowell who wasinfluenced by John Warwick Montgomery Gary Habermas has also been influ-
ential and widely known Te view does not require that theism be proved first
While most evidentialists accept theistic arguments and would use them they do
not believe it is necessary to first prove theism Unlike classical apologists eviden-
tialists believe that at least to some extent acts point to their proper interpre-
tation So evidentialists typically work to prove the resurrection afer supporting
the veracity o the Bible (eg John Warwick Montgomery) or at least the believ-
ability o very widely accepted crucial acts (eg Gary Habermas) Many o the
same acts and approaches used by evidentialists are used by classical apologists
in their second step which seeks to prove Christianity
Letrsquos review the chart again this time more briefly For fideism there can be
no proo but there is certitude rom aith in revelation For presupposition-
alism there can be no direct proo o Christianity but we must presuppose it
roughly assume it by conviction and necessity Te case must ultimately be
circular Revelation is known o its own authority but we can have proo be-
cause it must be presupposed For Reormed epistemology noncircular argu-
ments are acceptable in principle and should be developed but they are not
adequate to ground something as crucial as religious aith Belie in God is an
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2235
10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
awareness that can arise in us because o the way we were created and belie
in Christianity is a divine gif Moving right experientialism is the first view
that accepts something as decisive standalone evidence or the conclusion thatChristianity is true Te evidence is internal and subjective Pragmatism deals
with workability which is a more objective orm o experience and is thereore
to the right o experientialism (Note that what ldquoworksrdquo can be defined differ-
ently by different people)
Moving urther right (but not including rationalism on the extreme right nor
combinationalism) we have views that accept induction as an important and e-
ective method o proo or religious belie Tey (including combinationalism)
also accept a cumulative case that is layers o proo adding up to orm a stronger
case overall Religious experience and workability in lie (including giving lie
meaning) also typically play a supporting role in an overall case (whereas with
experientialism experience is the only proo) Veridicalism accepts both givens
that are known intuitively and that are undeniable and effective corroboration
through evidence and reason Everyone can have an immediate awareness o God
and the Christian can have an additional awareness o some essentials o Christi-
anity In its emphasis on direct awareness it is like Reormed epistemology but in veridicalism corroborating evidence can be strong and decisive So like Reormed
epistemology on its lef it has a place or intuition but like views on its right it
has a place or a convincing case based on evidence
As we continue to move right intuition (similar to ldquosel-attestingrdquo or presup-
positionalism) plays less o a role and there is more emphasis on independently
existing objective evidence as grounds or belie983089983091 Tere are also more such
objective criteria until we get to evidentialism which appeals to a multiplicity
o individual acts
Combinationalism accepts livability as a test o a hypothesis but only as one
o three aspects o consistency whereas to the lef pragmatism viewed livability
as the main criteria and to the right o combinationalism livability is viewed
as only one o a number o actors in an overall case
Classical apologetics accepts arguments or theism and or Christianity typ-
ically insisting (like presuppositionalism) that a worldview determines the in-
terpretation o acts But like the views on the right side o the chart that
worldview is established by something other than a necessary assumption (or
13Presuppositionalists would say that the transcendental argument provides objective evidence but
they would not say that it is ldquoindependently existingrdquo since no acts exist independent o God
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2335
Introduction 10486261048629
Geisler it is by undeniable first principles but unlike presuppositionalism they
are necessary in every worldview c Hanna)
Evidentialism is the near polar opposite o presuppositionalism affirmingthat acts can be known independently o the views that interpret them and that
acts can even point to the correct interpretation
I once showed this chart to Greg Bahnsen who not surprisingly said that pre-
suppositionalism should be on the right next to rationalism as offering absolutely
certain proo or belie In response I pointed out that certainty was secondary the
primary order o the chart was appeal to independent evidence or the conclusion
So fideism appeals to no independent evidence Presuppositionalism appeals to a
presupposition but not to independent evidence as grounds or belie (ie no direct
proo) Reormed epistemology appeals to intuition Experientialism appeals to
one subjective criterion as evidence or a conclusion pragmatism to one external
criterion Next is veridicalism which appeals to givens plus external and inde-
pendent evidence Ten comes combinationalism with its appeals to consistency
o hypothesis and fittingness with the acts plus livability Ten classical apologetics
appeals to independent evidence or theism and Christianity And finally eviden-
tialism appeals to a multiplicity o independent actsmdashthe opposite o presupposi-tionalismrsquos view that there are no independent acts Bahnsen thought or a ew
seconds and said ldquoTat could work that could workrdquo983089983092 I then mentioned that I
always tell my students that presuppositionalists see their view as close to
rationalism as ar as both offer certainty I add that they would see their presup-
positionalism as different rom rationalismrsquos method o using independent evi-
dence (Descartes or example amously beginning rom his own thoughtmdashagain
the opposite o presuppositionalism which begins with God as the standard o
truth) I it were not visually too complicated on the chart I might put fideism
presuppositionalism and rationalism each at different points o a triangle so that
presuppositionalism could be equidistant rom the aith o fideism and the absolute
proo o rationalism yet unique But over the years students have generally con-
firmed that it would be too complicated and thus unhelpul
Beore we begin it is worth briefly recounting why fideism which challenges
the legitimacy o apologetics is biblically inadequate Here are just a ew ex-
amples o biblical reasons or belie Moses asks God or signs to show his people
that he has divine authority (Ex 10486281048625) which God grants and later he grants
14Personal conversation afer Bahnsen was a guest speaker in my apologetics class Masterrsquos Col-
lege Newhall Caliornia in the all o 10486259830979830971048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2435
10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
abundant signs in the conrontation with Pharaoh (Ex 1048631ndash10486251048625) In the wilderness
God supernaturally demonstrates his presence his provision or his people and
his backing o Mosesrsquo leadership In the conquest o the Promised Land Goddivides the Jordan (Josh 98309110486251048631) gives victories over superior orces (Josh 10486251048628-1048633
98309110486251048624-10486251048631) and extends daylight (Josh 1048625104862410486251048626-10486251048628) He grants miracles or Gideon
(Judg 104863110486251048630-10486261048626) Samson (Judg 104862510486281048630 10486251048633 1048625104862910486251048629 10486251048630983091) and others Prophets such as
Elijah predict events and perorm miracles Jesusrsquo lie ulfills a number o proph-
ecies and is attested by miracles He points to them as grounds or belie (Lk
1048626104862810486261048631 Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) When John the Baptist doubts Jesus points to evidence that
matches prophecy (Mt 104862510486251048628-1048629 c Is 1048626104863310486251048632) Jesus meets Tomasrsquos doubts with
evidence (Jn 1048626104862410486261048631) Afer the resurrection he gives ldquomany convincing proosrdquo
(Acts 1048625983091 c Lk 104862610486289830911048633) John recounts some o Jesusrsquo supernatural deeds as a way
o inspiring saving aith (Jn 104862610486249830911048624) Te supernatural authority o the Seventy
(Lk 1048625104862410486251048631) and the apostles (1048626 Cor 1048625104862610486251048626) is attested by miracles Paul argues rom
Scripture that Christ had to suffer and rise again (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091) and he regards
the resurrection as ldquoproo to all menrdquo (Acts 104862510486319830911048625 c Rom 10486251048628) Some do believe
because o miracles (Jn 1048625104862610486251048625 Acts 104863310486281048626 104862598309110486251048626)
As mentioned above this does not show that an unproblematic appeal tomiracles and prophecy can be made today but that Scripture uses reasons in
support o aith Just how that should be done is the subject o this book
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1235
10486251048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Approach Fideism Presuppositionalism Reformed
epistemologyExperien-tialism
Pragmatism
rarr Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence rarr
Definingcharacteristics
bullFaithunsupportedbullFaith and
reason donrsquotoverlapbullOr reason isbeyond themindrsquos graspbullOr the mindis too fallen
bullStarting pointsare necessarypresuppositionsunprovable byindependent evidencebullNo independentlyknown factsbullldquoBorrowed capitalrdquo
bullAutonomy is theproblembullNo common ldquonotionsrdquobullReasoning must becircular deductiveindirect from
ChristianitybullTranscendentalargumentbullRange ofpresuppositionalistsfrom Van Til to Frame
bull Awareness of God( sensus divinitatus) isgrounded in howwe are made andtriggered
bullChristian faith agiftbullClassicalfoundationalismtoo narrowbullGod is properlybasicbullFaith can exceedreasons
bullExperiencealone
bullExperience isonly proof wecan have oronly proof weneed
bullAccept whatworksbullHas a widevariety of forms
Adherentsbull(Pascal)bullKierkegaardbullBarth
bullVan TilbullBahnsenbullFrame (modified keypoints)
bullAlvin Plantinga mdash
bullC S PeircebullWilliam JamesbullJohn DeweybullRichard Rorty
CriticismsbullSubjective
bullUnbiblical
bullAmounts to fideismbullTranscendental
argument cannot provethe Christian God
bullCannot rule outother beliefs likethe Great Pumpkin
bullExperiencesmust beinterpreted
bullWhatworks ne truth
bullWhat works isvague
Epistemo-logical startingpoint
Faith PresuppositionImmediateawareness
Experience Workability
Summary
No reasons or
certaintyentirelysubjectiveand volitional
No independent facts asreasons
Intuitions plusancillary reasons
One type ofevidence butsubjective
One type of
evidence thatlinks internaland external
Figure Chart of Apologetic Approaches
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1335
Introduction 10486251048629
Veridicalism Combinationalism Classical
apologetics Evidentialism Rationalism
Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence Cumulative case common ground
bullGivens + corroborationbullGivens are knownintuitively and certainlycan be corroboratedbullUniversal givens can beknown by all andconstitute cognitive
neutral groundbullGod is a universal givenbullSpecial givens areknown by ChristiansbullCommon ground =human needs commonexperiencesbullNo spiritually neutralgroundbullEight kinds of ldquoseeingrdquo
bullChristianity ahypothesis to be tested
bullThree-aspect testrational (self-consistent) empirical(fits relevant facts)existential (can belived)
bullProve theism thenChristianitybullProve theism usingtheistic proofs
cosmologicalargumentteleologicalargument moralargumentbullProve Christianity(same asevidentialists)
bullEvidence points toChristianitybullTheistic argumentsuseful but notnecessary
bullFacts point to bestinterpretationbullProphecy andresurrection provethe BiblebullUse universallyaccepted facts(Habermas)
bullAbsolutecertaintybullStart from
indubitablepointbullReason usingdeductionbullBuild up toworldview
bullMark HannahbullE J CarnellbullGordon LewisbullFrancis Schaeffer
bullNorman GeislerbullWilliam Lane CraigbullJ P MorelandbullR C SproulbullRichard Swinburne
bullJohn WarwickMontgomerybullJosh McDowellbullGary Habermas
bullDescartes
bullGivens cannot rationally
ground belief
bullThree tests are
unworkable
bullMain critics arepresuppositionalistsbullThere is no common
groundbullMust reason from
Christianity
bullFacts must beinterpreted
bullFacts cannot point totheir interpretation
bullIndubitablestarting pointscannot lead to a
worldviewwithout addingalong the way
Givens and corroboration Three-aspect test Two-step argumentFacts pointing tointerpretation
Deduction fromcertain startingpoint
Internal givens andobjective corroboration
Hypothesis tested
internal to theoryexternally with factsand existentially
Uses cosmos and order
to prove interpretiveframework (theism)then uses facts ofhistory
Proves Christianity
using many objectiveindependentlyexisting facts
Certainty is
absolutenothing issubjective orvolitional
Figure (continued)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1435
10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
be purely a gif rom God Fideists who tilt toward a Calvinistic view o salvation
(according to which God predestines individuals or salvation) may see the
action o the mind as irrelevant Because the ultimate cause o belie is divinechoice God bypasses the intellect
Fideism is thus a denial o apologetics which makes it different rom other
views All the views to the right hold that there is at least some overlap between
aith and reason that there are reasons o some kind or belie
On the ar right o the chart is rationalism which claims complete proo or
belie Te classic example is Reneacute Descartes (1048625104862910486331048630ndash1048625104863010486291048624) who lived in the tu-
multuous afermath o the Reormation when the Continent was divided over
religious belie He sought certainty by starting rom something he could not
doubt then building up rom there he used deduction a orm o reasoning that
guarantees the truth o the conclusion i we accept the premises In spite o his
original approach and rigorous effort virtually everyone today sees Descartes
as coming short o providing the level o certainty he offered
So the ar lef and the ar right are opposites aith can have no support and
aith has complete support
Just to the right o fideism is presuppositionalism which says we can have nodirect proo or either God or Christianity Tat means we cannot make either one
the conclusion o a noncircular argument In a traditional argument premises are
known independently o the conclusion and are offered as grounds or the con-
clusion Te problem with this says the ounder o presuppositionalism Cornelius
Van il is that nothing can be known independently o God because ultimately
truth is whatever God says it is God does not ldquoknowrdquo an independently existing
reality rather he determines that reality He knows the lights are on in the room
because he determined that they would be on Adam ell when he tried to become
independent o God determining or himsel what is true and morally right Fallen
humanityrsquos problem is not primarily ignorance but rebellion Te unbeliever does
not need to merely add a ew acts to his worldview but to completely tear it down
and rebuild one that makes God the source and guarantor o every act So to en-
courage the nonbeliever to think he can know premises and determine truth inde-
pendently o God is to inflame the problem Furthermore even i such a process
results in a person affirming the Bible as the Word o God he has in effect passed
judgment on God when God should be passing judgment on him As well things
can be tested only using something higher and more ultimate yet nothing can be
more ultimate than the Word o God Despite all this the presuppositionalist says
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1535
Introduction 10486251048631
we can have absolute proo or the Christian God because only i he exists can we
know anything Only i the Christian God exists and knows everythingmdashas well
as determines everythingmdashis knowledge o any kind about anything possible Allother viewpoints ail because they claim to be true yet cannot properly account or
how we have knowledge So while there is no direct proo there is absolutely
certain indirect proo or Christianity Christianity is a presupposition we cannot
do without It is claimed that even attempts to disprove Christianity must assume
it is true thus we can know Christianity transcendentally as a necessary as-
sumption Also the Bible is sel-attesting Godrsquos sheep hear his voice (Jn 1048625104862410486261048631)
Tis view is next to fideism because it bases knowledge on a presupposition
(roughly a commitment to a oundational assumption) rather than anything
known independently Proponents see their view as akin to rationalism which
offers absolute certainty or knowledge whereas many critics see it as closer to
fideism because it works by presupposing rather than directly proving
Note that there is a wide range among presuppositionalists rom those who
ollow Van il with little or no modification such as Greg Bahnsen to those who
have modified the view considerably such as John Frame Some o Framersquos mod-
ifications such as acceptance o some use o induction o the transcendental ar-gument as a direct as well as an indirect proo and acceptance o the cumulative
orce o arguments would put him on the right side o the chart Tere are also
those who take the label o presuppositionalist who emphasize Van ilrsquos rejection
o traditional direct proo but want little or nothing to do with his indirect proo
I knew one proessor who called himsel both a presuppositionalist and a ldquobiblical
fideistrdquo So on the chart we can have a lef side o presuppositionalism which is
closer to fideism and a right side which sees a robust role or proos o different
kinds In the middle would be Van il and Bahnsen Frame would be on the ar
right ideally on a line that extends to the right side o the chart (which would best
be indicated by an arrow since an actual line might be visually conusing)
Gordon Clark and Carl F H Henry represent a more deductive orm o pre-
suppositionalism in which the Bible is posited as true and what can be deduced
rom it is also true Unlike Van il and Bahnsen they do not try to justiy Christian
presuppositions transcendentally that is as the only basis or reason Herman
Dooyeweerd (DOE-yuh-vaird 1048625104863210486331048628ndash1048625104863310486311048631) took some o the oundations laid by
Abraham Kuyper (104862510486329830911048631ndash1048625104863310486261048624) in a different direction than Van il
John Frame has sought to remain true to Van ilrsquos central insights while
modiying significant aspects o his approach He maintains his ormer teacherrsquos
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1635
10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
convictions that since acts are not independently existing realities we cannot
simply see which interpretation fits best and use them independently to decide
on an interpretation (the view o evidentialism) and there can be no neutralground He emphasizes the important nuance that it is really statements o acts
that are not separate rom interpretation
Frame says that in an argument because the premises commit us to the
conclusion they thereore commit us to what the premises presuppose making
presuppositions a kind o conclusion Presuppositions are commitments that
govern our other belies and as such they are not deeasible (cannot be deeated
by evidence and argument) unless a contrary presupposition is adopted Since
all thought is dependent on God who makes all argument possible we should
not encourage the nonbeliever to think otherwise
Contrary to Van il Frame believes that there can be real agreement between
the believer and nonbeliever induction can be acceptable in apologetics and the
transcendental approach is an overall goal and not a single argumentmdashthere
being no way the Christian God o love justice patience wisdom and more
must be presupposed in order or anyone to understand and talk about anything
He also believes that there is no essential difference between direct and indirectreasoning thereore the major difference between presuppositional and tradi-
tional apologetics may be the intent o the apologist to acknowledge God as
sovereign and the source o all meaning intelligibility and rationality that is
the ultimate authority or human thought
Frame adds the extremely important stipulation that interpretations can be
verified on the basis o acts In other words we can compare the data o the
mind with the data o the external world Interpretations can be verified by
comparing them with acts and acts can be verified by comparing them with
interpretations Neither one is a brute incorrigible standard983092
Tese and other modifications make presuppositionalism much closer to
traditional apologetics and give it access to a large array o more traditional
arguments Frame adds his own highly constructive innovations holding that
as nonomniscient beings we can see things in different perspectives that are
simultaneous and overlapping where each can contain the other Knowledge
or example is a matter o sense experience reason and eeling
o the right o presuppositionalism is the Reormed epistemology o Alvin
4Personal email correspondence with Frame Aug 10486261048628 104862698308810486251048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1735
Introduction 10486251048633
Plantinga He challenges the notion that belie must be proportional to evidence
such that we are entitled to believe only as much as we can prove In answer he
points out that people commonly and rightly believe many things they wouldhave trouble proving such as that the world was not created with apparent age
only a ew minutes ago or that people have minds like us and are not merely
cleverly designed robots So it is rational to believe in God to a degree greater
than we can prove Te level o proo that would be required to justiy a belie
as crucial as Christianity would be very high and we have that level or virtually
no philosophical belies o that magnitude Knowledge o God is the result o
an inner knowing what Calvin called the sensus divinitatis which arises in us
because o how we are made Te catalyst or that knowing can be different or
different people perhaps the grandeur o mountains or the starry sky
Knowledge o Christianity comes by an inner knowing that is a special gif o
the Holy Spirit Te inner knowing o both God and Christianity is not evidence
or a conclusion but an immediate knowing (like knowing we have pain or that
we exist) Plantinga affirms the value o arguments but alone they hold little
promise o being sufficient to truly justiy belie in God or Christianity
Reormed epistemology is to the right o presuppositionalism because it a-firms a role or independent proos but it is on the lef side o the chart because
it is a type o intuition that grounds aith
Next is experientialism especially o the sort where an experience is taken
as grounds or the conclusion that God exists or that Christianity is true In this
type experience is evidence or the conclusion Tis would include such things
as experiences o answered prayers or providential care or an awareness o God
that is the basis or the conclusion that God is there What is unique about this
method is that such experiences are the only basis or belie Other methods to
the right o it accept experience as one proo among many o the lef o the view
fideism accepts no proo presuppositionalism does not regard experience as
proper proo or God or Christianity and Reormed epistemology regards ex-
perience as a direct knowing but not evidence or a conclusion So coming rom
the lef side o the chart experientialism is the first view that accepts something
as independent grounds to justiy belie
Although I have met people who take an experientialist approach to justi-
ying belie in God or Christianity it is difficult to find whole books supporting
the view People who take the view generally regard their experiences as ade-
quate to justiy only their own belies and do not expect mere reports o their
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1835
10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
experiences to be sufficient or someone else thus others would need to have
their own experiences So it is not hard to see why ew would see the value in
writing about their experiences as a way to convince others Tis book does nothave a chapter on the approach but it includes a brie critique by Norman
Geisler Te problem with experientialism is that experiences must be inter-
preted A person can have an experience but that does not mean we mustmdashor
even canmdashtake it at ace value Someonersquos experience o their dead ancestor
appearing to them could be interpreted in a number o ways as could a personrsquos
experience o the Hindu god Shiva Whether such things are regarded as real
imaginary demonic apparitions or whatever depends on what other belies we
hold as true Furthermore how do we resolve conflicts between experiences
Tereore experience is widely regarded as insufficient as the sole means o
proo though it typically appears as one type o evidence in the apologetic
methods to the right o it on the chart
Next we add pragmatism which essentially offers one source o justification
that o workability Tere are both simple and sophisticated orms o this view
but the idea is i it works we can accept a belie as verified to some degree Tere
is a difference between the (more radical) claim that workability equals truthor is what we mean by truth versus workability as an indicator o truth Te
latter view is ofen added into the mix o possible methods o justification
among views to the right o pragmatism on the chart I have chosen not to use
the available space in the book to detail pragmatism because so ar its best-
known philosophical orms have not been as popular as other approaches
among those seeking to know or justiy theism or Christianity Te view has
been developed by C S Peirce (pronounced ldquoPurserdquo 104862510486329830911048633ndash1048625104863310486251048628) William James
(1048625104863210486281048626ndash1048625104863310486251048624) and recently by neopragmatist Richard Rorty (104862510486339830911048625ndash1048626104862410486241048631) I have
included brie criticisms o pragmatism made by Norman Geisler
Moving again to the right on our chart veridicalism developed by Mark
Hanna sees knowledge as grounded in givens983093 which are known intuitively and
with certainty and are not inerred rom other things we know All humans can
benefit rom universal givens some o which cannot be coherently denied (be-
cause denying them would require assuming them) such as our own existence
5ldquoLiterally anything that can be veridically nonpostulationally and nondiscursively grasped by
consciousness is a given And i it is susceptible o apprehension by all human beings in prin-
ciple it is a universal givenrdquo Mark M Hanna Crucial Questions in Apologetics (Grand Rapids
Baker Book House 10486259830979830961048625) p 10486251048625983095
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1935
Introduction 10486261048625
and the principle o noncontradiction Awareness o the existence o the God o
theism is a universal given Christians benefit additionally rom special givens
including awareness that God cares or them that the Bible is Godrsquos Word (whichis sel-attesting only to believers1048630) and that he or she is saved Because universal
givens are knowable independently o a worldview and within any worldview
they orm cognitive neutral ground Tere is however no spiritually neutral
ground since everyone either accepts or rejects what can be universally known
about God1048631 Tere is common ground consisting o human needs such as guilt
and loneliness as well as cultural patterns o thinking and acting1048632 Tough
known immediately givens can be corroborated in different ways or example
by reflection and by their connection to other givens1048633 Some are known because
they are undeniable and others can be supported by evidence and inerence
Some arguments or theism are inductively strong such as the kalam cosmo-
logical argument and the teleological argument rom fine tuning o the universe
or lie9830891048624 In all it can be shown that God is the best explanation A case can also
be made or Christianity Te essential belies o Christianity are givens that can
be corroborated Tey are not arrived at rom nontheological data or premises983089983089
Citing Christrsquos statement that some see without ldquoseeingrdquo (Mt 10486259830911048625983091) Hanna iden-tifies eight kinds o ldquoseeingrdquo only one o which is physical Each has two poles
relating to its reality (metaphysical) and its knowability (epistemological) Tey
are physical intellectual introspective intersubjective (awareness o other
persons and onersquos relationship to them) moral aesthetic (which can grasp ob-
jective beauty) and spiritual (one mode that is common to all humans another
that is unique to Christians) Some orms o seeing overlap and interact or ex-
ample spiritual seeing requires some use o intellectual seeing He argues (in a
orthcoming book) that biblical theism is the only adequate explanation o the
eight modes o seeing and their objective correlates
Next is the view called combinationalism According to the combinationalism983089983090
o E J Carnell and Gordon Lewis traditional proos or the existence o God are
inadequate or the same reason that the empiricism they are implicitly based on
6Ibid p 104862598308810486277Ibid p 104862598308810486298Ibid9Ibid p 10486259830881048625
10Phone conversation with Mark Hanna Oct 1048625983094 10486269830881048625104862711Hanna Crucial Questions p 10486251048626104862512Te name was not chosen by Carnell but it is used in Norman Geislerrsquos widely read Christian
Apologetics 1048626nd ed (Grand Rapids Baker Books 104862698308810486251048627)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2035
10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
is inadequate you can never arrive at what is immutable universal and necessary
rom what is finite I you cannot arrive at God rom experience you must bring
God to experience in the orm o a hypothesis to be tested Tis does not meanour aith is weak or tentative only that to be intellectually honest as God would
have us be we must at least in principle be rational in our aith In this sense we
treat Christianity as a hypothesis and like any hypothesis it must not contradict
itsel Anything sel-contradictory cannot be true but what is noncontradictory
could be true o see i it is true we check it with all relevant acts looking or
contradictions between the hypothesis and the acts Te hypothesis should be
applicable to lie in the sense that it can be lived out without contradiction Tere
is common ground between believer and nonbeliever consisting or example in
the principle o noncontradiction values ethics and the need or love Fur-
thermore worldviews typically overlap in areas that are impersonal and nonmeta-
physical Even science properly practiced can be carried on between believer and
nonbeliever But worldviews diverge as soon as questions o ultimate meaning and
purpose arise We can prove that Christianity is true to the extent that we can
prove any real-world belie is true that is with high probability Yet we can have
complete inner assurance ldquocertituderdquo that it is true Combinationalism is to theright o pragmatism on the chart because it tests belie using an objective standard
that o consistency A hypothesis must be consistent within itsel consistent with
the acts and capable o being lived out consistently
In the next column is classical apologetics which is practiced by people as
diverse as C S Lewis William Lane Craig J P Moreland R C Sproul John
Gerstner and Norman Geisler Tis approach aims first to prove theism the
general belie that God is or example omnipotent omniscient omnipresent
holy creator and sustainer o the universe I theism is not proved first proo
or the resurrection or example would not necessarily be interpreted theisti-
cally by the unbeliever O course i the unbeliever already accepts theism
proving it is unnecessary
Classical apologists use theistic arguments (though they are also used by
some apologists who use other methods) Tey are types or amilies o argu-
ments in that there are a number o variations to each Te cosmological ar-
gument essentially reasons rom the existence o the universe to a creator One
orm argues that God is a necessary being that he must exist in every possible
world Another argues that everything needs an adequate cause thus the uni-
verse needs an adequate cause and that cause is God (he is not a thing and is
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2135
Introduction 1048626983091
uncaused) Te teleological argument reasons rom design in the universe to a
designer Modern science has uncovered intricate design in DNA or example
We are also discovering the amazing extent to which the universe has been finelytuned to allow or lie Te moral argument which is not used as widely as the
cosmological and teleological arguments argues rom the existence o objective
moral obligations to a higher moral being as the grounds o such obligations
Norman Geisler believes we must use a different approach to prove the truth
o a worldview versus truth within a worldview He uses six first principles o
reality which cannot be denied because any attempt to deny them would use
them (similar to Hannarsquos view) We do not need to prove them we simply ldquoseerdquo
that they are true once we understand them One first principle (stated inor-
mally) is that ldquosomething existsrdquo Anyone who attempts to deny that is admitting
they exist Another is the principle o noncontradiction which would also be
assumed by anyone attempting to deny it Once alternatives are eliminated and
theism is proved Geisler shows that Christianity explains all the known acts in
the most consistent way
o the right o classical apologetics and just lef o rationalism (on the ar right)
evidentialism has been popularized in recent decades by Josh McDowell who wasinfluenced by John Warwick Montgomery Gary Habermas has also been influ-
ential and widely known Te view does not require that theism be proved first
While most evidentialists accept theistic arguments and would use them they do
not believe it is necessary to first prove theism Unlike classical apologists eviden-
tialists believe that at least to some extent acts point to their proper interpre-
tation So evidentialists typically work to prove the resurrection afer supporting
the veracity o the Bible (eg John Warwick Montgomery) or at least the believ-
ability o very widely accepted crucial acts (eg Gary Habermas) Many o the
same acts and approaches used by evidentialists are used by classical apologists
in their second step which seeks to prove Christianity
Letrsquos review the chart again this time more briefly For fideism there can be
no proo but there is certitude rom aith in revelation For presupposition-
alism there can be no direct proo o Christianity but we must presuppose it
roughly assume it by conviction and necessity Te case must ultimately be
circular Revelation is known o its own authority but we can have proo be-
cause it must be presupposed For Reormed epistemology noncircular argu-
ments are acceptable in principle and should be developed but they are not
adequate to ground something as crucial as religious aith Belie in God is an
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2235
10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
awareness that can arise in us because o the way we were created and belie
in Christianity is a divine gif Moving right experientialism is the first view
that accepts something as decisive standalone evidence or the conclusion thatChristianity is true Te evidence is internal and subjective Pragmatism deals
with workability which is a more objective orm o experience and is thereore
to the right o experientialism (Note that what ldquoworksrdquo can be defined differ-
ently by different people)
Moving urther right (but not including rationalism on the extreme right nor
combinationalism) we have views that accept induction as an important and e-
ective method o proo or religious belie Tey (including combinationalism)
also accept a cumulative case that is layers o proo adding up to orm a stronger
case overall Religious experience and workability in lie (including giving lie
meaning) also typically play a supporting role in an overall case (whereas with
experientialism experience is the only proo) Veridicalism accepts both givens
that are known intuitively and that are undeniable and effective corroboration
through evidence and reason Everyone can have an immediate awareness o God
and the Christian can have an additional awareness o some essentials o Christi-
anity In its emphasis on direct awareness it is like Reormed epistemology but in veridicalism corroborating evidence can be strong and decisive So like Reormed
epistemology on its lef it has a place or intuition but like views on its right it
has a place or a convincing case based on evidence
As we continue to move right intuition (similar to ldquosel-attestingrdquo or presup-
positionalism) plays less o a role and there is more emphasis on independently
existing objective evidence as grounds or belie983089983091 Tere are also more such
objective criteria until we get to evidentialism which appeals to a multiplicity
o individual acts
Combinationalism accepts livability as a test o a hypothesis but only as one
o three aspects o consistency whereas to the lef pragmatism viewed livability
as the main criteria and to the right o combinationalism livability is viewed
as only one o a number o actors in an overall case
Classical apologetics accepts arguments or theism and or Christianity typ-
ically insisting (like presuppositionalism) that a worldview determines the in-
terpretation o acts But like the views on the right side o the chart that
worldview is established by something other than a necessary assumption (or
13Presuppositionalists would say that the transcendental argument provides objective evidence but
they would not say that it is ldquoindependently existingrdquo since no acts exist independent o God
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2335
Introduction 10486261048629
Geisler it is by undeniable first principles but unlike presuppositionalism they
are necessary in every worldview c Hanna)
Evidentialism is the near polar opposite o presuppositionalism affirmingthat acts can be known independently o the views that interpret them and that
acts can even point to the correct interpretation
I once showed this chart to Greg Bahnsen who not surprisingly said that pre-
suppositionalism should be on the right next to rationalism as offering absolutely
certain proo or belie In response I pointed out that certainty was secondary the
primary order o the chart was appeal to independent evidence or the conclusion
So fideism appeals to no independent evidence Presuppositionalism appeals to a
presupposition but not to independent evidence as grounds or belie (ie no direct
proo) Reormed epistemology appeals to intuition Experientialism appeals to
one subjective criterion as evidence or a conclusion pragmatism to one external
criterion Next is veridicalism which appeals to givens plus external and inde-
pendent evidence Ten comes combinationalism with its appeals to consistency
o hypothesis and fittingness with the acts plus livability Ten classical apologetics
appeals to independent evidence or theism and Christianity And finally eviden-
tialism appeals to a multiplicity o independent actsmdashthe opposite o presupposi-tionalismrsquos view that there are no independent acts Bahnsen thought or a ew
seconds and said ldquoTat could work that could workrdquo983089983092 I then mentioned that I
always tell my students that presuppositionalists see their view as close to
rationalism as ar as both offer certainty I add that they would see their presup-
positionalism as different rom rationalismrsquos method o using independent evi-
dence (Descartes or example amously beginning rom his own thoughtmdashagain
the opposite o presuppositionalism which begins with God as the standard o
truth) I it were not visually too complicated on the chart I might put fideism
presuppositionalism and rationalism each at different points o a triangle so that
presuppositionalism could be equidistant rom the aith o fideism and the absolute
proo o rationalism yet unique But over the years students have generally con-
firmed that it would be too complicated and thus unhelpul
Beore we begin it is worth briefly recounting why fideism which challenges
the legitimacy o apologetics is biblically inadequate Here are just a ew ex-
amples o biblical reasons or belie Moses asks God or signs to show his people
that he has divine authority (Ex 10486281048625) which God grants and later he grants
14Personal conversation afer Bahnsen was a guest speaker in my apologetics class Masterrsquos Col-
lege Newhall Caliornia in the all o 10486259830979830971048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2435
10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
abundant signs in the conrontation with Pharaoh (Ex 1048631ndash10486251048625) In the wilderness
God supernaturally demonstrates his presence his provision or his people and
his backing o Mosesrsquo leadership In the conquest o the Promised Land Goddivides the Jordan (Josh 98309110486251048631) gives victories over superior orces (Josh 10486251048628-1048633
98309110486251048624-10486251048631) and extends daylight (Josh 1048625104862410486251048626-10486251048628) He grants miracles or Gideon
(Judg 104863110486251048630-10486261048626) Samson (Judg 104862510486281048630 10486251048633 1048625104862910486251048629 10486251048630983091) and others Prophets such as
Elijah predict events and perorm miracles Jesusrsquo lie ulfills a number o proph-
ecies and is attested by miracles He points to them as grounds or belie (Lk
1048626104862810486261048631 Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) When John the Baptist doubts Jesus points to evidence that
matches prophecy (Mt 104862510486251048628-1048629 c Is 1048626104863310486251048632) Jesus meets Tomasrsquos doubts with
evidence (Jn 1048626104862410486261048631) Afer the resurrection he gives ldquomany convincing proosrdquo
(Acts 1048625983091 c Lk 104862610486289830911048633) John recounts some o Jesusrsquo supernatural deeds as a way
o inspiring saving aith (Jn 104862610486249830911048624) Te supernatural authority o the Seventy
(Lk 1048625104862410486251048631) and the apostles (1048626 Cor 1048625104862610486251048626) is attested by miracles Paul argues rom
Scripture that Christ had to suffer and rise again (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091) and he regards
the resurrection as ldquoproo to all menrdquo (Acts 104862510486319830911048625 c Rom 10486251048628) Some do believe
because o miracles (Jn 1048625104862610486251048625 Acts 104863310486281048626 104862598309110486251048626)
As mentioned above this does not show that an unproblematic appeal tomiracles and prophecy can be made today but that Scripture uses reasons in
support o aith Just how that should be done is the subject o this book
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1335
Introduction 10486251048629
Veridicalism Combinationalism Classical
apologetics Evidentialism Rationalism
Increasing emphasis on objective independently existing evidence Cumulative case common ground
bullGivens + corroborationbullGivens are knownintuitively and certainlycan be corroboratedbullUniversal givens can beknown by all andconstitute cognitive
neutral groundbullGod is a universal givenbullSpecial givens areknown by ChristiansbullCommon ground =human needs commonexperiencesbullNo spiritually neutralgroundbullEight kinds of ldquoseeingrdquo
bullChristianity ahypothesis to be tested
bullThree-aspect testrational (self-consistent) empirical(fits relevant facts)existential (can belived)
bullProve theism thenChristianitybullProve theism usingtheistic proofs
cosmologicalargumentteleologicalargument moralargumentbullProve Christianity(same asevidentialists)
bullEvidence points toChristianitybullTheistic argumentsuseful but notnecessary
bullFacts point to bestinterpretationbullProphecy andresurrection provethe BiblebullUse universallyaccepted facts(Habermas)
bullAbsolutecertaintybullStart from
indubitablepointbullReason usingdeductionbullBuild up toworldview
bullMark HannahbullE J CarnellbullGordon LewisbullFrancis Schaeffer
bullNorman GeislerbullWilliam Lane CraigbullJ P MorelandbullR C SproulbullRichard Swinburne
bullJohn WarwickMontgomerybullJosh McDowellbullGary Habermas
bullDescartes
bullGivens cannot rationally
ground belief
bullThree tests are
unworkable
bullMain critics arepresuppositionalistsbullThere is no common
groundbullMust reason from
Christianity
bullFacts must beinterpreted
bullFacts cannot point totheir interpretation
bullIndubitablestarting pointscannot lead to a
worldviewwithout addingalong the way
Givens and corroboration Three-aspect test Two-step argumentFacts pointing tointerpretation
Deduction fromcertain startingpoint
Internal givens andobjective corroboration
Hypothesis tested
internal to theoryexternally with factsand existentially
Uses cosmos and order
to prove interpretiveframework (theism)then uses facts ofhistory
Proves Christianity
using many objectiveindependentlyexisting facts
Certainty is
absolutenothing issubjective orvolitional
Figure (continued)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1435
10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
be purely a gif rom God Fideists who tilt toward a Calvinistic view o salvation
(according to which God predestines individuals or salvation) may see the
action o the mind as irrelevant Because the ultimate cause o belie is divinechoice God bypasses the intellect
Fideism is thus a denial o apologetics which makes it different rom other
views All the views to the right hold that there is at least some overlap between
aith and reason that there are reasons o some kind or belie
On the ar right o the chart is rationalism which claims complete proo or
belie Te classic example is Reneacute Descartes (1048625104862910486331048630ndash1048625104863010486291048624) who lived in the tu-
multuous afermath o the Reormation when the Continent was divided over
religious belie He sought certainty by starting rom something he could not
doubt then building up rom there he used deduction a orm o reasoning that
guarantees the truth o the conclusion i we accept the premises In spite o his
original approach and rigorous effort virtually everyone today sees Descartes
as coming short o providing the level o certainty he offered
So the ar lef and the ar right are opposites aith can have no support and
aith has complete support
Just to the right o fideism is presuppositionalism which says we can have nodirect proo or either God or Christianity Tat means we cannot make either one
the conclusion o a noncircular argument In a traditional argument premises are
known independently o the conclusion and are offered as grounds or the con-
clusion Te problem with this says the ounder o presuppositionalism Cornelius
Van il is that nothing can be known independently o God because ultimately
truth is whatever God says it is God does not ldquoknowrdquo an independently existing
reality rather he determines that reality He knows the lights are on in the room
because he determined that they would be on Adam ell when he tried to become
independent o God determining or himsel what is true and morally right Fallen
humanityrsquos problem is not primarily ignorance but rebellion Te unbeliever does
not need to merely add a ew acts to his worldview but to completely tear it down
and rebuild one that makes God the source and guarantor o every act So to en-
courage the nonbeliever to think he can know premises and determine truth inde-
pendently o God is to inflame the problem Furthermore even i such a process
results in a person affirming the Bible as the Word o God he has in effect passed
judgment on God when God should be passing judgment on him As well things
can be tested only using something higher and more ultimate yet nothing can be
more ultimate than the Word o God Despite all this the presuppositionalist says
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1535
Introduction 10486251048631
we can have absolute proo or the Christian God because only i he exists can we
know anything Only i the Christian God exists and knows everythingmdashas well
as determines everythingmdashis knowledge o any kind about anything possible Allother viewpoints ail because they claim to be true yet cannot properly account or
how we have knowledge So while there is no direct proo there is absolutely
certain indirect proo or Christianity Christianity is a presupposition we cannot
do without It is claimed that even attempts to disprove Christianity must assume
it is true thus we can know Christianity transcendentally as a necessary as-
sumption Also the Bible is sel-attesting Godrsquos sheep hear his voice (Jn 1048625104862410486261048631)
Tis view is next to fideism because it bases knowledge on a presupposition
(roughly a commitment to a oundational assumption) rather than anything
known independently Proponents see their view as akin to rationalism which
offers absolute certainty or knowledge whereas many critics see it as closer to
fideism because it works by presupposing rather than directly proving
Note that there is a wide range among presuppositionalists rom those who
ollow Van il with little or no modification such as Greg Bahnsen to those who
have modified the view considerably such as John Frame Some o Framersquos mod-
ifications such as acceptance o some use o induction o the transcendental ar-gument as a direct as well as an indirect proo and acceptance o the cumulative
orce o arguments would put him on the right side o the chart Tere are also
those who take the label o presuppositionalist who emphasize Van ilrsquos rejection
o traditional direct proo but want little or nothing to do with his indirect proo
I knew one proessor who called himsel both a presuppositionalist and a ldquobiblical
fideistrdquo So on the chart we can have a lef side o presuppositionalism which is
closer to fideism and a right side which sees a robust role or proos o different
kinds In the middle would be Van il and Bahnsen Frame would be on the ar
right ideally on a line that extends to the right side o the chart (which would best
be indicated by an arrow since an actual line might be visually conusing)
Gordon Clark and Carl F H Henry represent a more deductive orm o pre-
suppositionalism in which the Bible is posited as true and what can be deduced
rom it is also true Unlike Van il and Bahnsen they do not try to justiy Christian
presuppositions transcendentally that is as the only basis or reason Herman
Dooyeweerd (DOE-yuh-vaird 1048625104863210486331048628ndash1048625104863310486311048631) took some o the oundations laid by
Abraham Kuyper (104862510486329830911048631ndash1048625104863310486261048624) in a different direction than Van il
John Frame has sought to remain true to Van ilrsquos central insights while
modiying significant aspects o his approach He maintains his ormer teacherrsquos
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1635
10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
convictions that since acts are not independently existing realities we cannot
simply see which interpretation fits best and use them independently to decide
on an interpretation (the view o evidentialism) and there can be no neutralground He emphasizes the important nuance that it is really statements o acts
that are not separate rom interpretation
Frame says that in an argument because the premises commit us to the
conclusion they thereore commit us to what the premises presuppose making
presuppositions a kind o conclusion Presuppositions are commitments that
govern our other belies and as such they are not deeasible (cannot be deeated
by evidence and argument) unless a contrary presupposition is adopted Since
all thought is dependent on God who makes all argument possible we should
not encourage the nonbeliever to think otherwise
Contrary to Van il Frame believes that there can be real agreement between
the believer and nonbeliever induction can be acceptable in apologetics and the
transcendental approach is an overall goal and not a single argumentmdashthere
being no way the Christian God o love justice patience wisdom and more
must be presupposed in order or anyone to understand and talk about anything
He also believes that there is no essential difference between direct and indirectreasoning thereore the major difference between presuppositional and tradi-
tional apologetics may be the intent o the apologist to acknowledge God as
sovereign and the source o all meaning intelligibility and rationality that is
the ultimate authority or human thought
Frame adds the extremely important stipulation that interpretations can be
verified on the basis o acts In other words we can compare the data o the
mind with the data o the external world Interpretations can be verified by
comparing them with acts and acts can be verified by comparing them with
interpretations Neither one is a brute incorrigible standard983092
Tese and other modifications make presuppositionalism much closer to
traditional apologetics and give it access to a large array o more traditional
arguments Frame adds his own highly constructive innovations holding that
as nonomniscient beings we can see things in different perspectives that are
simultaneous and overlapping where each can contain the other Knowledge
or example is a matter o sense experience reason and eeling
o the right o presuppositionalism is the Reormed epistemology o Alvin
4Personal email correspondence with Frame Aug 10486261048628 104862698308810486251048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1735
Introduction 10486251048633
Plantinga He challenges the notion that belie must be proportional to evidence
such that we are entitled to believe only as much as we can prove In answer he
points out that people commonly and rightly believe many things they wouldhave trouble proving such as that the world was not created with apparent age
only a ew minutes ago or that people have minds like us and are not merely
cleverly designed robots So it is rational to believe in God to a degree greater
than we can prove Te level o proo that would be required to justiy a belie
as crucial as Christianity would be very high and we have that level or virtually
no philosophical belies o that magnitude Knowledge o God is the result o
an inner knowing what Calvin called the sensus divinitatis which arises in us
because o how we are made Te catalyst or that knowing can be different or
different people perhaps the grandeur o mountains or the starry sky
Knowledge o Christianity comes by an inner knowing that is a special gif o
the Holy Spirit Te inner knowing o both God and Christianity is not evidence
or a conclusion but an immediate knowing (like knowing we have pain or that
we exist) Plantinga affirms the value o arguments but alone they hold little
promise o being sufficient to truly justiy belie in God or Christianity
Reormed epistemology is to the right o presuppositionalism because it a-firms a role or independent proos but it is on the lef side o the chart because
it is a type o intuition that grounds aith
Next is experientialism especially o the sort where an experience is taken
as grounds or the conclusion that God exists or that Christianity is true In this
type experience is evidence or the conclusion Tis would include such things
as experiences o answered prayers or providential care or an awareness o God
that is the basis or the conclusion that God is there What is unique about this
method is that such experiences are the only basis or belie Other methods to
the right o it accept experience as one proo among many o the lef o the view
fideism accepts no proo presuppositionalism does not regard experience as
proper proo or God or Christianity and Reormed epistemology regards ex-
perience as a direct knowing but not evidence or a conclusion So coming rom
the lef side o the chart experientialism is the first view that accepts something
as independent grounds to justiy belie
Although I have met people who take an experientialist approach to justi-
ying belie in God or Christianity it is difficult to find whole books supporting
the view People who take the view generally regard their experiences as ade-
quate to justiy only their own belies and do not expect mere reports o their
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1835
10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
experiences to be sufficient or someone else thus others would need to have
their own experiences So it is not hard to see why ew would see the value in
writing about their experiences as a way to convince others Tis book does nothave a chapter on the approach but it includes a brie critique by Norman
Geisler Te problem with experientialism is that experiences must be inter-
preted A person can have an experience but that does not mean we mustmdashor
even canmdashtake it at ace value Someonersquos experience o their dead ancestor
appearing to them could be interpreted in a number o ways as could a personrsquos
experience o the Hindu god Shiva Whether such things are regarded as real
imaginary demonic apparitions or whatever depends on what other belies we
hold as true Furthermore how do we resolve conflicts between experiences
Tereore experience is widely regarded as insufficient as the sole means o
proo though it typically appears as one type o evidence in the apologetic
methods to the right o it on the chart
Next we add pragmatism which essentially offers one source o justification
that o workability Tere are both simple and sophisticated orms o this view
but the idea is i it works we can accept a belie as verified to some degree Tere
is a difference between the (more radical) claim that workability equals truthor is what we mean by truth versus workability as an indicator o truth Te
latter view is ofen added into the mix o possible methods o justification
among views to the right o pragmatism on the chart I have chosen not to use
the available space in the book to detail pragmatism because so ar its best-
known philosophical orms have not been as popular as other approaches
among those seeking to know or justiy theism or Christianity Te view has
been developed by C S Peirce (pronounced ldquoPurserdquo 104862510486329830911048633ndash1048625104863310486251048628) William James
(1048625104863210486281048626ndash1048625104863310486251048624) and recently by neopragmatist Richard Rorty (104862510486339830911048625ndash1048626104862410486241048631) I have
included brie criticisms o pragmatism made by Norman Geisler
Moving again to the right on our chart veridicalism developed by Mark
Hanna sees knowledge as grounded in givens983093 which are known intuitively and
with certainty and are not inerred rom other things we know All humans can
benefit rom universal givens some o which cannot be coherently denied (be-
cause denying them would require assuming them) such as our own existence
5ldquoLiterally anything that can be veridically nonpostulationally and nondiscursively grasped by
consciousness is a given And i it is susceptible o apprehension by all human beings in prin-
ciple it is a universal givenrdquo Mark M Hanna Crucial Questions in Apologetics (Grand Rapids
Baker Book House 10486259830979830961048625) p 10486251048625983095
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1935
Introduction 10486261048625
and the principle o noncontradiction Awareness o the existence o the God o
theism is a universal given Christians benefit additionally rom special givens
including awareness that God cares or them that the Bible is Godrsquos Word (whichis sel-attesting only to believers1048630) and that he or she is saved Because universal
givens are knowable independently o a worldview and within any worldview
they orm cognitive neutral ground Tere is however no spiritually neutral
ground since everyone either accepts or rejects what can be universally known
about God1048631 Tere is common ground consisting o human needs such as guilt
and loneliness as well as cultural patterns o thinking and acting1048632 Tough
known immediately givens can be corroborated in different ways or example
by reflection and by their connection to other givens1048633 Some are known because
they are undeniable and others can be supported by evidence and inerence
Some arguments or theism are inductively strong such as the kalam cosmo-
logical argument and the teleological argument rom fine tuning o the universe
or lie9830891048624 In all it can be shown that God is the best explanation A case can also
be made or Christianity Te essential belies o Christianity are givens that can
be corroborated Tey are not arrived at rom nontheological data or premises983089983089
Citing Christrsquos statement that some see without ldquoseeingrdquo (Mt 10486259830911048625983091) Hanna iden-tifies eight kinds o ldquoseeingrdquo only one o which is physical Each has two poles
relating to its reality (metaphysical) and its knowability (epistemological) Tey
are physical intellectual introspective intersubjective (awareness o other
persons and onersquos relationship to them) moral aesthetic (which can grasp ob-
jective beauty) and spiritual (one mode that is common to all humans another
that is unique to Christians) Some orms o seeing overlap and interact or ex-
ample spiritual seeing requires some use o intellectual seeing He argues (in a
orthcoming book) that biblical theism is the only adequate explanation o the
eight modes o seeing and their objective correlates
Next is the view called combinationalism According to the combinationalism983089983090
o E J Carnell and Gordon Lewis traditional proos or the existence o God are
inadequate or the same reason that the empiricism they are implicitly based on
6Ibid p 104862598308810486277Ibid p 104862598308810486298Ibid9Ibid p 10486259830881048625
10Phone conversation with Mark Hanna Oct 1048625983094 10486269830881048625104862711Hanna Crucial Questions p 10486251048626104862512Te name was not chosen by Carnell but it is used in Norman Geislerrsquos widely read Christian
Apologetics 1048626nd ed (Grand Rapids Baker Books 104862698308810486251048627)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2035
10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
is inadequate you can never arrive at what is immutable universal and necessary
rom what is finite I you cannot arrive at God rom experience you must bring
God to experience in the orm o a hypothesis to be tested Tis does not meanour aith is weak or tentative only that to be intellectually honest as God would
have us be we must at least in principle be rational in our aith In this sense we
treat Christianity as a hypothesis and like any hypothesis it must not contradict
itsel Anything sel-contradictory cannot be true but what is noncontradictory
could be true o see i it is true we check it with all relevant acts looking or
contradictions between the hypothesis and the acts Te hypothesis should be
applicable to lie in the sense that it can be lived out without contradiction Tere
is common ground between believer and nonbeliever consisting or example in
the principle o noncontradiction values ethics and the need or love Fur-
thermore worldviews typically overlap in areas that are impersonal and nonmeta-
physical Even science properly practiced can be carried on between believer and
nonbeliever But worldviews diverge as soon as questions o ultimate meaning and
purpose arise We can prove that Christianity is true to the extent that we can
prove any real-world belie is true that is with high probability Yet we can have
complete inner assurance ldquocertituderdquo that it is true Combinationalism is to theright o pragmatism on the chart because it tests belie using an objective standard
that o consistency A hypothesis must be consistent within itsel consistent with
the acts and capable o being lived out consistently
In the next column is classical apologetics which is practiced by people as
diverse as C S Lewis William Lane Craig J P Moreland R C Sproul John
Gerstner and Norman Geisler Tis approach aims first to prove theism the
general belie that God is or example omnipotent omniscient omnipresent
holy creator and sustainer o the universe I theism is not proved first proo
or the resurrection or example would not necessarily be interpreted theisti-
cally by the unbeliever O course i the unbeliever already accepts theism
proving it is unnecessary
Classical apologists use theistic arguments (though they are also used by
some apologists who use other methods) Tey are types or amilies o argu-
ments in that there are a number o variations to each Te cosmological ar-
gument essentially reasons rom the existence o the universe to a creator One
orm argues that God is a necessary being that he must exist in every possible
world Another argues that everything needs an adequate cause thus the uni-
verse needs an adequate cause and that cause is God (he is not a thing and is
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2135
Introduction 1048626983091
uncaused) Te teleological argument reasons rom design in the universe to a
designer Modern science has uncovered intricate design in DNA or example
We are also discovering the amazing extent to which the universe has been finelytuned to allow or lie Te moral argument which is not used as widely as the
cosmological and teleological arguments argues rom the existence o objective
moral obligations to a higher moral being as the grounds o such obligations
Norman Geisler believes we must use a different approach to prove the truth
o a worldview versus truth within a worldview He uses six first principles o
reality which cannot be denied because any attempt to deny them would use
them (similar to Hannarsquos view) We do not need to prove them we simply ldquoseerdquo
that they are true once we understand them One first principle (stated inor-
mally) is that ldquosomething existsrdquo Anyone who attempts to deny that is admitting
they exist Another is the principle o noncontradiction which would also be
assumed by anyone attempting to deny it Once alternatives are eliminated and
theism is proved Geisler shows that Christianity explains all the known acts in
the most consistent way
o the right o classical apologetics and just lef o rationalism (on the ar right)
evidentialism has been popularized in recent decades by Josh McDowell who wasinfluenced by John Warwick Montgomery Gary Habermas has also been influ-
ential and widely known Te view does not require that theism be proved first
While most evidentialists accept theistic arguments and would use them they do
not believe it is necessary to first prove theism Unlike classical apologists eviden-
tialists believe that at least to some extent acts point to their proper interpre-
tation So evidentialists typically work to prove the resurrection afer supporting
the veracity o the Bible (eg John Warwick Montgomery) or at least the believ-
ability o very widely accepted crucial acts (eg Gary Habermas) Many o the
same acts and approaches used by evidentialists are used by classical apologists
in their second step which seeks to prove Christianity
Letrsquos review the chart again this time more briefly For fideism there can be
no proo but there is certitude rom aith in revelation For presupposition-
alism there can be no direct proo o Christianity but we must presuppose it
roughly assume it by conviction and necessity Te case must ultimately be
circular Revelation is known o its own authority but we can have proo be-
cause it must be presupposed For Reormed epistemology noncircular argu-
ments are acceptable in principle and should be developed but they are not
adequate to ground something as crucial as religious aith Belie in God is an
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2235
10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
awareness that can arise in us because o the way we were created and belie
in Christianity is a divine gif Moving right experientialism is the first view
that accepts something as decisive standalone evidence or the conclusion thatChristianity is true Te evidence is internal and subjective Pragmatism deals
with workability which is a more objective orm o experience and is thereore
to the right o experientialism (Note that what ldquoworksrdquo can be defined differ-
ently by different people)
Moving urther right (but not including rationalism on the extreme right nor
combinationalism) we have views that accept induction as an important and e-
ective method o proo or religious belie Tey (including combinationalism)
also accept a cumulative case that is layers o proo adding up to orm a stronger
case overall Religious experience and workability in lie (including giving lie
meaning) also typically play a supporting role in an overall case (whereas with
experientialism experience is the only proo) Veridicalism accepts both givens
that are known intuitively and that are undeniable and effective corroboration
through evidence and reason Everyone can have an immediate awareness o God
and the Christian can have an additional awareness o some essentials o Christi-
anity In its emphasis on direct awareness it is like Reormed epistemology but in veridicalism corroborating evidence can be strong and decisive So like Reormed
epistemology on its lef it has a place or intuition but like views on its right it
has a place or a convincing case based on evidence
As we continue to move right intuition (similar to ldquosel-attestingrdquo or presup-
positionalism) plays less o a role and there is more emphasis on independently
existing objective evidence as grounds or belie983089983091 Tere are also more such
objective criteria until we get to evidentialism which appeals to a multiplicity
o individual acts
Combinationalism accepts livability as a test o a hypothesis but only as one
o three aspects o consistency whereas to the lef pragmatism viewed livability
as the main criteria and to the right o combinationalism livability is viewed
as only one o a number o actors in an overall case
Classical apologetics accepts arguments or theism and or Christianity typ-
ically insisting (like presuppositionalism) that a worldview determines the in-
terpretation o acts But like the views on the right side o the chart that
worldview is established by something other than a necessary assumption (or
13Presuppositionalists would say that the transcendental argument provides objective evidence but
they would not say that it is ldquoindependently existingrdquo since no acts exist independent o God
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2335
Introduction 10486261048629
Geisler it is by undeniable first principles but unlike presuppositionalism they
are necessary in every worldview c Hanna)
Evidentialism is the near polar opposite o presuppositionalism affirmingthat acts can be known independently o the views that interpret them and that
acts can even point to the correct interpretation
I once showed this chart to Greg Bahnsen who not surprisingly said that pre-
suppositionalism should be on the right next to rationalism as offering absolutely
certain proo or belie In response I pointed out that certainty was secondary the
primary order o the chart was appeal to independent evidence or the conclusion
So fideism appeals to no independent evidence Presuppositionalism appeals to a
presupposition but not to independent evidence as grounds or belie (ie no direct
proo) Reormed epistemology appeals to intuition Experientialism appeals to
one subjective criterion as evidence or a conclusion pragmatism to one external
criterion Next is veridicalism which appeals to givens plus external and inde-
pendent evidence Ten comes combinationalism with its appeals to consistency
o hypothesis and fittingness with the acts plus livability Ten classical apologetics
appeals to independent evidence or theism and Christianity And finally eviden-
tialism appeals to a multiplicity o independent actsmdashthe opposite o presupposi-tionalismrsquos view that there are no independent acts Bahnsen thought or a ew
seconds and said ldquoTat could work that could workrdquo983089983092 I then mentioned that I
always tell my students that presuppositionalists see their view as close to
rationalism as ar as both offer certainty I add that they would see their presup-
positionalism as different rom rationalismrsquos method o using independent evi-
dence (Descartes or example amously beginning rom his own thoughtmdashagain
the opposite o presuppositionalism which begins with God as the standard o
truth) I it were not visually too complicated on the chart I might put fideism
presuppositionalism and rationalism each at different points o a triangle so that
presuppositionalism could be equidistant rom the aith o fideism and the absolute
proo o rationalism yet unique But over the years students have generally con-
firmed that it would be too complicated and thus unhelpul
Beore we begin it is worth briefly recounting why fideism which challenges
the legitimacy o apologetics is biblically inadequate Here are just a ew ex-
amples o biblical reasons or belie Moses asks God or signs to show his people
that he has divine authority (Ex 10486281048625) which God grants and later he grants
14Personal conversation afer Bahnsen was a guest speaker in my apologetics class Masterrsquos Col-
lege Newhall Caliornia in the all o 10486259830979830971048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2435
10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
abundant signs in the conrontation with Pharaoh (Ex 1048631ndash10486251048625) In the wilderness
God supernaturally demonstrates his presence his provision or his people and
his backing o Mosesrsquo leadership In the conquest o the Promised Land Goddivides the Jordan (Josh 98309110486251048631) gives victories over superior orces (Josh 10486251048628-1048633
98309110486251048624-10486251048631) and extends daylight (Josh 1048625104862410486251048626-10486251048628) He grants miracles or Gideon
(Judg 104863110486251048630-10486261048626) Samson (Judg 104862510486281048630 10486251048633 1048625104862910486251048629 10486251048630983091) and others Prophets such as
Elijah predict events and perorm miracles Jesusrsquo lie ulfills a number o proph-
ecies and is attested by miracles He points to them as grounds or belie (Lk
1048626104862810486261048631 Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) When John the Baptist doubts Jesus points to evidence that
matches prophecy (Mt 104862510486251048628-1048629 c Is 1048626104863310486251048632) Jesus meets Tomasrsquos doubts with
evidence (Jn 1048626104862410486261048631) Afer the resurrection he gives ldquomany convincing proosrdquo
(Acts 1048625983091 c Lk 104862610486289830911048633) John recounts some o Jesusrsquo supernatural deeds as a way
o inspiring saving aith (Jn 104862610486249830911048624) Te supernatural authority o the Seventy
(Lk 1048625104862410486251048631) and the apostles (1048626 Cor 1048625104862610486251048626) is attested by miracles Paul argues rom
Scripture that Christ had to suffer and rise again (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091) and he regards
the resurrection as ldquoproo to all menrdquo (Acts 104862510486319830911048625 c Rom 10486251048628) Some do believe
because o miracles (Jn 1048625104862610486251048625 Acts 104863310486281048626 104862598309110486251048626)
As mentioned above this does not show that an unproblematic appeal tomiracles and prophecy can be made today but that Scripture uses reasons in
support o aith Just how that should be done is the subject o this book
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1435
10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
be purely a gif rom God Fideists who tilt toward a Calvinistic view o salvation
(according to which God predestines individuals or salvation) may see the
action o the mind as irrelevant Because the ultimate cause o belie is divinechoice God bypasses the intellect
Fideism is thus a denial o apologetics which makes it different rom other
views All the views to the right hold that there is at least some overlap between
aith and reason that there are reasons o some kind or belie
On the ar right o the chart is rationalism which claims complete proo or
belie Te classic example is Reneacute Descartes (1048625104862910486331048630ndash1048625104863010486291048624) who lived in the tu-
multuous afermath o the Reormation when the Continent was divided over
religious belie He sought certainty by starting rom something he could not
doubt then building up rom there he used deduction a orm o reasoning that
guarantees the truth o the conclusion i we accept the premises In spite o his
original approach and rigorous effort virtually everyone today sees Descartes
as coming short o providing the level o certainty he offered
So the ar lef and the ar right are opposites aith can have no support and
aith has complete support
Just to the right o fideism is presuppositionalism which says we can have nodirect proo or either God or Christianity Tat means we cannot make either one
the conclusion o a noncircular argument In a traditional argument premises are
known independently o the conclusion and are offered as grounds or the con-
clusion Te problem with this says the ounder o presuppositionalism Cornelius
Van il is that nothing can be known independently o God because ultimately
truth is whatever God says it is God does not ldquoknowrdquo an independently existing
reality rather he determines that reality He knows the lights are on in the room
because he determined that they would be on Adam ell when he tried to become
independent o God determining or himsel what is true and morally right Fallen
humanityrsquos problem is not primarily ignorance but rebellion Te unbeliever does
not need to merely add a ew acts to his worldview but to completely tear it down
and rebuild one that makes God the source and guarantor o every act So to en-
courage the nonbeliever to think he can know premises and determine truth inde-
pendently o God is to inflame the problem Furthermore even i such a process
results in a person affirming the Bible as the Word o God he has in effect passed
judgment on God when God should be passing judgment on him As well things
can be tested only using something higher and more ultimate yet nothing can be
more ultimate than the Word o God Despite all this the presuppositionalist says
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1535
Introduction 10486251048631
we can have absolute proo or the Christian God because only i he exists can we
know anything Only i the Christian God exists and knows everythingmdashas well
as determines everythingmdashis knowledge o any kind about anything possible Allother viewpoints ail because they claim to be true yet cannot properly account or
how we have knowledge So while there is no direct proo there is absolutely
certain indirect proo or Christianity Christianity is a presupposition we cannot
do without It is claimed that even attempts to disprove Christianity must assume
it is true thus we can know Christianity transcendentally as a necessary as-
sumption Also the Bible is sel-attesting Godrsquos sheep hear his voice (Jn 1048625104862410486261048631)
Tis view is next to fideism because it bases knowledge on a presupposition
(roughly a commitment to a oundational assumption) rather than anything
known independently Proponents see their view as akin to rationalism which
offers absolute certainty or knowledge whereas many critics see it as closer to
fideism because it works by presupposing rather than directly proving
Note that there is a wide range among presuppositionalists rom those who
ollow Van il with little or no modification such as Greg Bahnsen to those who
have modified the view considerably such as John Frame Some o Framersquos mod-
ifications such as acceptance o some use o induction o the transcendental ar-gument as a direct as well as an indirect proo and acceptance o the cumulative
orce o arguments would put him on the right side o the chart Tere are also
those who take the label o presuppositionalist who emphasize Van ilrsquos rejection
o traditional direct proo but want little or nothing to do with his indirect proo
I knew one proessor who called himsel both a presuppositionalist and a ldquobiblical
fideistrdquo So on the chart we can have a lef side o presuppositionalism which is
closer to fideism and a right side which sees a robust role or proos o different
kinds In the middle would be Van il and Bahnsen Frame would be on the ar
right ideally on a line that extends to the right side o the chart (which would best
be indicated by an arrow since an actual line might be visually conusing)
Gordon Clark and Carl F H Henry represent a more deductive orm o pre-
suppositionalism in which the Bible is posited as true and what can be deduced
rom it is also true Unlike Van il and Bahnsen they do not try to justiy Christian
presuppositions transcendentally that is as the only basis or reason Herman
Dooyeweerd (DOE-yuh-vaird 1048625104863210486331048628ndash1048625104863310486311048631) took some o the oundations laid by
Abraham Kuyper (104862510486329830911048631ndash1048625104863310486261048624) in a different direction than Van il
John Frame has sought to remain true to Van ilrsquos central insights while
modiying significant aspects o his approach He maintains his ormer teacherrsquos
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1635
10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
convictions that since acts are not independently existing realities we cannot
simply see which interpretation fits best and use them independently to decide
on an interpretation (the view o evidentialism) and there can be no neutralground He emphasizes the important nuance that it is really statements o acts
that are not separate rom interpretation
Frame says that in an argument because the premises commit us to the
conclusion they thereore commit us to what the premises presuppose making
presuppositions a kind o conclusion Presuppositions are commitments that
govern our other belies and as such they are not deeasible (cannot be deeated
by evidence and argument) unless a contrary presupposition is adopted Since
all thought is dependent on God who makes all argument possible we should
not encourage the nonbeliever to think otherwise
Contrary to Van il Frame believes that there can be real agreement between
the believer and nonbeliever induction can be acceptable in apologetics and the
transcendental approach is an overall goal and not a single argumentmdashthere
being no way the Christian God o love justice patience wisdom and more
must be presupposed in order or anyone to understand and talk about anything
He also believes that there is no essential difference between direct and indirectreasoning thereore the major difference between presuppositional and tradi-
tional apologetics may be the intent o the apologist to acknowledge God as
sovereign and the source o all meaning intelligibility and rationality that is
the ultimate authority or human thought
Frame adds the extremely important stipulation that interpretations can be
verified on the basis o acts In other words we can compare the data o the
mind with the data o the external world Interpretations can be verified by
comparing them with acts and acts can be verified by comparing them with
interpretations Neither one is a brute incorrigible standard983092
Tese and other modifications make presuppositionalism much closer to
traditional apologetics and give it access to a large array o more traditional
arguments Frame adds his own highly constructive innovations holding that
as nonomniscient beings we can see things in different perspectives that are
simultaneous and overlapping where each can contain the other Knowledge
or example is a matter o sense experience reason and eeling
o the right o presuppositionalism is the Reormed epistemology o Alvin
4Personal email correspondence with Frame Aug 10486261048628 104862698308810486251048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1735
Introduction 10486251048633
Plantinga He challenges the notion that belie must be proportional to evidence
such that we are entitled to believe only as much as we can prove In answer he
points out that people commonly and rightly believe many things they wouldhave trouble proving such as that the world was not created with apparent age
only a ew minutes ago or that people have minds like us and are not merely
cleverly designed robots So it is rational to believe in God to a degree greater
than we can prove Te level o proo that would be required to justiy a belie
as crucial as Christianity would be very high and we have that level or virtually
no philosophical belies o that magnitude Knowledge o God is the result o
an inner knowing what Calvin called the sensus divinitatis which arises in us
because o how we are made Te catalyst or that knowing can be different or
different people perhaps the grandeur o mountains or the starry sky
Knowledge o Christianity comes by an inner knowing that is a special gif o
the Holy Spirit Te inner knowing o both God and Christianity is not evidence
or a conclusion but an immediate knowing (like knowing we have pain or that
we exist) Plantinga affirms the value o arguments but alone they hold little
promise o being sufficient to truly justiy belie in God or Christianity
Reormed epistemology is to the right o presuppositionalism because it a-firms a role or independent proos but it is on the lef side o the chart because
it is a type o intuition that grounds aith
Next is experientialism especially o the sort where an experience is taken
as grounds or the conclusion that God exists or that Christianity is true In this
type experience is evidence or the conclusion Tis would include such things
as experiences o answered prayers or providential care or an awareness o God
that is the basis or the conclusion that God is there What is unique about this
method is that such experiences are the only basis or belie Other methods to
the right o it accept experience as one proo among many o the lef o the view
fideism accepts no proo presuppositionalism does not regard experience as
proper proo or God or Christianity and Reormed epistemology regards ex-
perience as a direct knowing but not evidence or a conclusion So coming rom
the lef side o the chart experientialism is the first view that accepts something
as independent grounds to justiy belie
Although I have met people who take an experientialist approach to justi-
ying belie in God or Christianity it is difficult to find whole books supporting
the view People who take the view generally regard their experiences as ade-
quate to justiy only their own belies and do not expect mere reports o their
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1835
10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
experiences to be sufficient or someone else thus others would need to have
their own experiences So it is not hard to see why ew would see the value in
writing about their experiences as a way to convince others Tis book does nothave a chapter on the approach but it includes a brie critique by Norman
Geisler Te problem with experientialism is that experiences must be inter-
preted A person can have an experience but that does not mean we mustmdashor
even canmdashtake it at ace value Someonersquos experience o their dead ancestor
appearing to them could be interpreted in a number o ways as could a personrsquos
experience o the Hindu god Shiva Whether such things are regarded as real
imaginary demonic apparitions or whatever depends on what other belies we
hold as true Furthermore how do we resolve conflicts between experiences
Tereore experience is widely regarded as insufficient as the sole means o
proo though it typically appears as one type o evidence in the apologetic
methods to the right o it on the chart
Next we add pragmatism which essentially offers one source o justification
that o workability Tere are both simple and sophisticated orms o this view
but the idea is i it works we can accept a belie as verified to some degree Tere
is a difference between the (more radical) claim that workability equals truthor is what we mean by truth versus workability as an indicator o truth Te
latter view is ofen added into the mix o possible methods o justification
among views to the right o pragmatism on the chart I have chosen not to use
the available space in the book to detail pragmatism because so ar its best-
known philosophical orms have not been as popular as other approaches
among those seeking to know or justiy theism or Christianity Te view has
been developed by C S Peirce (pronounced ldquoPurserdquo 104862510486329830911048633ndash1048625104863310486251048628) William James
(1048625104863210486281048626ndash1048625104863310486251048624) and recently by neopragmatist Richard Rorty (104862510486339830911048625ndash1048626104862410486241048631) I have
included brie criticisms o pragmatism made by Norman Geisler
Moving again to the right on our chart veridicalism developed by Mark
Hanna sees knowledge as grounded in givens983093 which are known intuitively and
with certainty and are not inerred rom other things we know All humans can
benefit rom universal givens some o which cannot be coherently denied (be-
cause denying them would require assuming them) such as our own existence
5ldquoLiterally anything that can be veridically nonpostulationally and nondiscursively grasped by
consciousness is a given And i it is susceptible o apprehension by all human beings in prin-
ciple it is a universal givenrdquo Mark M Hanna Crucial Questions in Apologetics (Grand Rapids
Baker Book House 10486259830979830961048625) p 10486251048625983095
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1935
Introduction 10486261048625
and the principle o noncontradiction Awareness o the existence o the God o
theism is a universal given Christians benefit additionally rom special givens
including awareness that God cares or them that the Bible is Godrsquos Word (whichis sel-attesting only to believers1048630) and that he or she is saved Because universal
givens are knowable independently o a worldview and within any worldview
they orm cognitive neutral ground Tere is however no spiritually neutral
ground since everyone either accepts or rejects what can be universally known
about God1048631 Tere is common ground consisting o human needs such as guilt
and loneliness as well as cultural patterns o thinking and acting1048632 Tough
known immediately givens can be corroborated in different ways or example
by reflection and by their connection to other givens1048633 Some are known because
they are undeniable and others can be supported by evidence and inerence
Some arguments or theism are inductively strong such as the kalam cosmo-
logical argument and the teleological argument rom fine tuning o the universe
or lie9830891048624 In all it can be shown that God is the best explanation A case can also
be made or Christianity Te essential belies o Christianity are givens that can
be corroborated Tey are not arrived at rom nontheological data or premises983089983089
Citing Christrsquos statement that some see without ldquoseeingrdquo (Mt 10486259830911048625983091) Hanna iden-tifies eight kinds o ldquoseeingrdquo only one o which is physical Each has two poles
relating to its reality (metaphysical) and its knowability (epistemological) Tey
are physical intellectual introspective intersubjective (awareness o other
persons and onersquos relationship to them) moral aesthetic (which can grasp ob-
jective beauty) and spiritual (one mode that is common to all humans another
that is unique to Christians) Some orms o seeing overlap and interact or ex-
ample spiritual seeing requires some use o intellectual seeing He argues (in a
orthcoming book) that biblical theism is the only adequate explanation o the
eight modes o seeing and their objective correlates
Next is the view called combinationalism According to the combinationalism983089983090
o E J Carnell and Gordon Lewis traditional proos or the existence o God are
inadequate or the same reason that the empiricism they are implicitly based on
6Ibid p 104862598308810486277Ibid p 104862598308810486298Ibid9Ibid p 10486259830881048625
10Phone conversation with Mark Hanna Oct 1048625983094 10486269830881048625104862711Hanna Crucial Questions p 10486251048626104862512Te name was not chosen by Carnell but it is used in Norman Geislerrsquos widely read Christian
Apologetics 1048626nd ed (Grand Rapids Baker Books 104862698308810486251048627)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2035
10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
is inadequate you can never arrive at what is immutable universal and necessary
rom what is finite I you cannot arrive at God rom experience you must bring
God to experience in the orm o a hypothesis to be tested Tis does not meanour aith is weak or tentative only that to be intellectually honest as God would
have us be we must at least in principle be rational in our aith In this sense we
treat Christianity as a hypothesis and like any hypothesis it must not contradict
itsel Anything sel-contradictory cannot be true but what is noncontradictory
could be true o see i it is true we check it with all relevant acts looking or
contradictions between the hypothesis and the acts Te hypothesis should be
applicable to lie in the sense that it can be lived out without contradiction Tere
is common ground between believer and nonbeliever consisting or example in
the principle o noncontradiction values ethics and the need or love Fur-
thermore worldviews typically overlap in areas that are impersonal and nonmeta-
physical Even science properly practiced can be carried on between believer and
nonbeliever But worldviews diverge as soon as questions o ultimate meaning and
purpose arise We can prove that Christianity is true to the extent that we can
prove any real-world belie is true that is with high probability Yet we can have
complete inner assurance ldquocertituderdquo that it is true Combinationalism is to theright o pragmatism on the chart because it tests belie using an objective standard
that o consistency A hypothesis must be consistent within itsel consistent with
the acts and capable o being lived out consistently
In the next column is classical apologetics which is practiced by people as
diverse as C S Lewis William Lane Craig J P Moreland R C Sproul John
Gerstner and Norman Geisler Tis approach aims first to prove theism the
general belie that God is or example omnipotent omniscient omnipresent
holy creator and sustainer o the universe I theism is not proved first proo
or the resurrection or example would not necessarily be interpreted theisti-
cally by the unbeliever O course i the unbeliever already accepts theism
proving it is unnecessary
Classical apologists use theistic arguments (though they are also used by
some apologists who use other methods) Tey are types or amilies o argu-
ments in that there are a number o variations to each Te cosmological ar-
gument essentially reasons rom the existence o the universe to a creator One
orm argues that God is a necessary being that he must exist in every possible
world Another argues that everything needs an adequate cause thus the uni-
verse needs an adequate cause and that cause is God (he is not a thing and is
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2135
Introduction 1048626983091
uncaused) Te teleological argument reasons rom design in the universe to a
designer Modern science has uncovered intricate design in DNA or example
We are also discovering the amazing extent to which the universe has been finelytuned to allow or lie Te moral argument which is not used as widely as the
cosmological and teleological arguments argues rom the existence o objective
moral obligations to a higher moral being as the grounds o such obligations
Norman Geisler believes we must use a different approach to prove the truth
o a worldview versus truth within a worldview He uses six first principles o
reality which cannot be denied because any attempt to deny them would use
them (similar to Hannarsquos view) We do not need to prove them we simply ldquoseerdquo
that they are true once we understand them One first principle (stated inor-
mally) is that ldquosomething existsrdquo Anyone who attempts to deny that is admitting
they exist Another is the principle o noncontradiction which would also be
assumed by anyone attempting to deny it Once alternatives are eliminated and
theism is proved Geisler shows that Christianity explains all the known acts in
the most consistent way
o the right o classical apologetics and just lef o rationalism (on the ar right)
evidentialism has been popularized in recent decades by Josh McDowell who wasinfluenced by John Warwick Montgomery Gary Habermas has also been influ-
ential and widely known Te view does not require that theism be proved first
While most evidentialists accept theistic arguments and would use them they do
not believe it is necessary to first prove theism Unlike classical apologists eviden-
tialists believe that at least to some extent acts point to their proper interpre-
tation So evidentialists typically work to prove the resurrection afer supporting
the veracity o the Bible (eg John Warwick Montgomery) or at least the believ-
ability o very widely accepted crucial acts (eg Gary Habermas) Many o the
same acts and approaches used by evidentialists are used by classical apologists
in their second step which seeks to prove Christianity
Letrsquos review the chart again this time more briefly For fideism there can be
no proo but there is certitude rom aith in revelation For presupposition-
alism there can be no direct proo o Christianity but we must presuppose it
roughly assume it by conviction and necessity Te case must ultimately be
circular Revelation is known o its own authority but we can have proo be-
cause it must be presupposed For Reormed epistemology noncircular argu-
ments are acceptable in principle and should be developed but they are not
adequate to ground something as crucial as religious aith Belie in God is an
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2235
10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
awareness that can arise in us because o the way we were created and belie
in Christianity is a divine gif Moving right experientialism is the first view
that accepts something as decisive standalone evidence or the conclusion thatChristianity is true Te evidence is internal and subjective Pragmatism deals
with workability which is a more objective orm o experience and is thereore
to the right o experientialism (Note that what ldquoworksrdquo can be defined differ-
ently by different people)
Moving urther right (but not including rationalism on the extreme right nor
combinationalism) we have views that accept induction as an important and e-
ective method o proo or religious belie Tey (including combinationalism)
also accept a cumulative case that is layers o proo adding up to orm a stronger
case overall Religious experience and workability in lie (including giving lie
meaning) also typically play a supporting role in an overall case (whereas with
experientialism experience is the only proo) Veridicalism accepts both givens
that are known intuitively and that are undeniable and effective corroboration
through evidence and reason Everyone can have an immediate awareness o God
and the Christian can have an additional awareness o some essentials o Christi-
anity In its emphasis on direct awareness it is like Reormed epistemology but in veridicalism corroborating evidence can be strong and decisive So like Reormed
epistemology on its lef it has a place or intuition but like views on its right it
has a place or a convincing case based on evidence
As we continue to move right intuition (similar to ldquosel-attestingrdquo or presup-
positionalism) plays less o a role and there is more emphasis on independently
existing objective evidence as grounds or belie983089983091 Tere are also more such
objective criteria until we get to evidentialism which appeals to a multiplicity
o individual acts
Combinationalism accepts livability as a test o a hypothesis but only as one
o three aspects o consistency whereas to the lef pragmatism viewed livability
as the main criteria and to the right o combinationalism livability is viewed
as only one o a number o actors in an overall case
Classical apologetics accepts arguments or theism and or Christianity typ-
ically insisting (like presuppositionalism) that a worldview determines the in-
terpretation o acts But like the views on the right side o the chart that
worldview is established by something other than a necessary assumption (or
13Presuppositionalists would say that the transcendental argument provides objective evidence but
they would not say that it is ldquoindependently existingrdquo since no acts exist independent o God
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2335
Introduction 10486261048629
Geisler it is by undeniable first principles but unlike presuppositionalism they
are necessary in every worldview c Hanna)
Evidentialism is the near polar opposite o presuppositionalism affirmingthat acts can be known independently o the views that interpret them and that
acts can even point to the correct interpretation
I once showed this chart to Greg Bahnsen who not surprisingly said that pre-
suppositionalism should be on the right next to rationalism as offering absolutely
certain proo or belie In response I pointed out that certainty was secondary the
primary order o the chart was appeal to independent evidence or the conclusion
So fideism appeals to no independent evidence Presuppositionalism appeals to a
presupposition but not to independent evidence as grounds or belie (ie no direct
proo) Reormed epistemology appeals to intuition Experientialism appeals to
one subjective criterion as evidence or a conclusion pragmatism to one external
criterion Next is veridicalism which appeals to givens plus external and inde-
pendent evidence Ten comes combinationalism with its appeals to consistency
o hypothesis and fittingness with the acts plus livability Ten classical apologetics
appeals to independent evidence or theism and Christianity And finally eviden-
tialism appeals to a multiplicity o independent actsmdashthe opposite o presupposi-tionalismrsquos view that there are no independent acts Bahnsen thought or a ew
seconds and said ldquoTat could work that could workrdquo983089983092 I then mentioned that I
always tell my students that presuppositionalists see their view as close to
rationalism as ar as both offer certainty I add that they would see their presup-
positionalism as different rom rationalismrsquos method o using independent evi-
dence (Descartes or example amously beginning rom his own thoughtmdashagain
the opposite o presuppositionalism which begins with God as the standard o
truth) I it were not visually too complicated on the chart I might put fideism
presuppositionalism and rationalism each at different points o a triangle so that
presuppositionalism could be equidistant rom the aith o fideism and the absolute
proo o rationalism yet unique But over the years students have generally con-
firmed that it would be too complicated and thus unhelpul
Beore we begin it is worth briefly recounting why fideism which challenges
the legitimacy o apologetics is biblically inadequate Here are just a ew ex-
amples o biblical reasons or belie Moses asks God or signs to show his people
that he has divine authority (Ex 10486281048625) which God grants and later he grants
14Personal conversation afer Bahnsen was a guest speaker in my apologetics class Masterrsquos Col-
lege Newhall Caliornia in the all o 10486259830979830971048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2435
10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
abundant signs in the conrontation with Pharaoh (Ex 1048631ndash10486251048625) In the wilderness
God supernaturally demonstrates his presence his provision or his people and
his backing o Mosesrsquo leadership In the conquest o the Promised Land Goddivides the Jordan (Josh 98309110486251048631) gives victories over superior orces (Josh 10486251048628-1048633
98309110486251048624-10486251048631) and extends daylight (Josh 1048625104862410486251048626-10486251048628) He grants miracles or Gideon
(Judg 104863110486251048630-10486261048626) Samson (Judg 104862510486281048630 10486251048633 1048625104862910486251048629 10486251048630983091) and others Prophets such as
Elijah predict events and perorm miracles Jesusrsquo lie ulfills a number o proph-
ecies and is attested by miracles He points to them as grounds or belie (Lk
1048626104862810486261048631 Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) When John the Baptist doubts Jesus points to evidence that
matches prophecy (Mt 104862510486251048628-1048629 c Is 1048626104863310486251048632) Jesus meets Tomasrsquos doubts with
evidence (Jn 1048626104862410486261048631) Afer the resurrection he gives ldquomany convincing proosrdquo
(Acts 1048625983091 c Lk 104862610486289830911048633) John recounts some o Jesusrsquo supernatural deeds as a way
o inspiring saving aith (Jn 104862610486249830911048624) Te supernatural authority o the Seventy
(Lk 1048625104862410486251048631) and the apostles (1048626 Cor 1048625104862610486251048626) is attested by miracles Paul argues rom
Scripture that Christ had to suffer and rise again (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091) and he regards
the resurrection as ldquoproo to all menrdquo (Acts 104862510486319830911048625 c Rom 10486251048628) Some do believe
because o miracles (Jn 1048625104862610486251048625 Acts 104863310486281048626 104862598309110486251048626)
As mentioned above this does not show that an unproblematic appeal tomiracles and prophecy can be made today but that Scripture uses reasons in
support o aith Just how that should be done is the subject o this book
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1535
Introduction 10486251048631
we can have absolute proo or the Christian God because only i he exists can we
know anything Only i the Christian God exists and knows everythingmdashas well
as determines everythingmdashis knowledge o any kind about anything possible Allother viewpoints ail because they claim to be true yet cannot properly account or
how we have knowledge So while there is no direct proo there is absolutely
certain indirect proo or Christianity Christianity is a presupposition we cannot
do without It is claimed that even attempts to disprove Christianity must assume
it is true thus we can know Christianity transcendentally as a necessary as-
sumption Also the Bible is sel-attesting Godrsquos sheep hear his voice (Jn 1048625104862410486261048631)
Tis view is next to fideism because it bases knowledge on a presupposition
(roughly a commitment to a oundational assumption) rather than anything
known independently Proponents see their view as akin to rationalism which
offers absolute certainty or knowledge whereas many critics see it as closer to
fideism because it works by presupposing rather than directly proving
Note that there is a wide range among presuppositionalists rom those who
ollow Van il with little or no modification such as Greg Bahnsen to those who
have modified the view considerably such as John Frame Some o Framersquos mod-
ifications such as acceptance o some use o induction o the transcendental ar-gument as a direct as well as an indirect proo and acceptance o the cumulative
orce o arguments would put him on the right side o the chart Tere are also
those who take the label o presuppositionalist who emphasize Van ilrsquos rejection
o traditional direct proo but want little or nothing to do with his indirect proo
I knew one proessor who called himsel both a presuppositionalist and a ldquobiblical
fideistrdquo So on the chart we can have a lef side o presuppositionalism which is
closer to fideism and a right side which sees a robust role or proos o different
kinds In the middle would be Van il and Bahnsen Frame would be on the ar
right ideally on a line that extends to the right side o the chart (which would best
be indicated by an arrow since an actual line might be visually conusing)
Gordon Clark and Carl F H Henry represent a more deductive orm o pre-
suppositionalism in which the Bible is posited as true and what can be deduced
rom it is also true Unlike Van il and Bahnsen they do not try to justiy Christian
presuppositions transcendentally that is as the only basis or reason Herman
Dooyeweerd (DOE-yuh-vaird 1048625104863210486331048628ndash1048625104863310486311048631) took some o the oundations laid by
Abraham Kuyper (104862510486329830911048631ndash1048625104863310486261048624) in a different direction than Van il
John Frame has sought to remain true to Van ilrsquos central insights while
modiying significant aspects o his approach He maintains his ormer teacherrsquos
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1635
10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
convictions that since acts are not independently existing realities we cannot
simply see which interpretation fits best and use them independently to decide
on an interpretation (the view o evidentialism) and there can be no neutralground He emphasizes the important nuance that it is really statements o acts
that are not separate rom interpretation
Frame says that in an argument because the premises commit us to the
conclusion they thereore commit us to what the premises presuppose making
presuppositions a kind o conclusion Presuppositions are commitments that
govern our other belies and as such they are not deeasible (cannot be deeated
by evidence and argument) unless a contrary presupposition is adopted Since
all thought is dependent on God who makes all argument possible we should
not encourage the nonbeliever to think otherwise
Contrary to Van il Frame believes that there can be real agreement between
the believer and nonbeliever induction can be acceptable in apologetics and the
transcendental approach is an overall goal and not a single argumentmdashthere
being no way the Christian God o love justice patience wisdom and more
must be presupposed in order or anyone to understand and talk about anything
He also believes that there is no essential difference between direct and indirectreasoning thereore the major difference between presuppositional and tradi-
tional apologetics may be the intent o the apologist to acknowledge God as
sovereign and the source o all meaning intelligibility and rationality that is
the ultimate authority or human thought
Frame adds the extremely important stipulation that interpretations can be
verified on the basis o acts In other words we can compare the data o the
mind with the data o the external world Interpretations can be verified by
comparing them with acts and acts can be verified by comparing them with
interpretations Neither one is a brute incorrigible standard983092
Tese and other modifications make presuppositionalism much closer to
traditional apologetics and give it access to a large array o more traditional
arguments Frame adds his own highly constructive innovations holding that
as nonomniscient beings we can see things in different perspectives that are
simultaneous and overlapping where each can contain the other Knowledge
or example is a matter o sense experience reason and eeling
o the right o presuppositionalism is the Reormed epistemology o Alvin
4Personal email correspondence with Frame Aug 10486261048628 104862698308810486251048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1735
Introduction 10486251048633
Plantinga He challenges the notion that belie must be proportional to evidence
such that we are entitled to believe only as much as we can prove In answer he
points out that people commonly and rightly believe many things they wouldhave trouble proving such as that the world was not created with apparent age
only a ew minutes ago or that people have minds like us and are not merely
cleverly designed robots So it is rational to believe in God to a degree greater
than we can prove Te level o proo that would be required to justiy a belie
as crucial as Christianity would be very high and we have that level or virtually
no philosophical belies o that magnitude Knowledge o God is the result o
an inner knowing what Calvin called the sensus divinitatis which arises in us
because o how we are made Te catalyst or that knowing can be different or
different people perhaps the grandeur o mountains or the starry sky
Knowledge o Christianity comes by an inner knowing that is a special gif o
the Holy Spirit Te inner knowing o both God and Christianity is not evidence
or a conclusion but an immediate knowing (like knowing we have pain or that
we exist) Plantinga affirms the value o arguments but alone they hold little
promise o being sufficient to truly justiy belie in God or Christianity
Reormed epistemology is to the right o presuppositionalism because it a-firms a role or independent proos but it is on the lef side o the chart because
it is a type o intuition that grounds aith
Next is experientialism especially o the sort where an experience is taken
as grounds or the conclusion that God exists or that Christianity is true In this
type experience is evidence or the conclusion Tis would include such things
as experiences o answered prayers or providential care or an awareness o God
that is the basis or the conclusion that God is there What is unique about this
method is that such experiences are the only basis or belie Other methods to
the right o it accept experience as one proo among many o the lef o the view
fideism accepts no proo presuppositionalism does not regard experience as
proper proo or God or Christianity and Reormed epistemology regards ex-
perience as a direct knowing but not evidence or a conclusion So coming rom
the lef side o the chart experientialism is the first view that accepts something
as independent grounds to justiy belie
Although I have met people who take an experientialist approach to justi-
ying belie in God or Christianity it is difficult to find whole books supporting
the view People who take the view generally regard their experiences as ade-
quate to justiy only their own belies and do not expect mere reports o their
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1835
10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
experiences to be sufficient or someone else thus others would need to have
their own experiences So it is not hard to see why ew would see the value in
writing about their experiences as a way to convince others Tis book does nothave a chapter on the approach but it includes a brie critique by Norman
Geisler Te problem with experientialism is that experiences must be inter-
preted A person can have an experience but that does not mean we mustmdashor
even canmdashtake it at ace value Someonersquos experience o their dead ancestor
appearing to them could be interpreted in a number o ways as could a personrsquos
experience o the Hindu god Shiva Whether such things are regarded as real
imaginary demonic apparitions or whatever depends on what other belies we
hold as true Furthermore how do we resolve conflicts between experiences
Tereore experience is widely regarded as insufficient as the sole means o
proo though it typically appears as one type o evidence in the apologetic
methods to the right o it on the chart
Next we add pragmatism which essentially offers one source o justification
that o workability Tere are both simple and sophisticated orms o this view
but the idea is i it works we can accept a belie as verified to some degree Tere
is a difference between the (more radical) claim that workability equals truthor is what we mean by truth versus workability as an indicator o truth Te
latter view is ofen added into the mix o possible methods o justification
among views to the right o pragmatism on the chart I have chosen not to use
the available space in the book to detail pragmatism because so ar its best-
known philosophical orms have not been as popular as other approaches
among those seeking to know or justiy theism or Christianity Te view has
been developed by C S Peirce (pronounced ldquoPurserdquo 104862510486329830911048633ndash1048625104863310486251048628) William James
(1048625104863210486281048626ndash1048625104863310486251048624) and recently by neopragmatist Richard Rorty (104862510486339830911048625ndash1048626104862410486241048631) I have
included brie criticisms o pragmatism made by Norman Geisler
Moving again to the right on our chart veridicalism developed by Mark
Hanna sees knowledge as grounded in givens983093 which are known intuitively and
with certainty and are not inerred rom other things we know All humans can
benefit rom universal givens some o which cannot be coherently denied (be-
cause denying them would require assuming them) such as our own existence
5ldquoLiterally anything that can be veridically nonpostulationally and nondiscursively grasped by
consciousness is a given And i it is susceptible o apprehension by all human beings in prin-
ciple it is a universal givenrdquo Mark M Hanna Crucial Questions in Apologetics (Grand Rapids
Baker Book House 10486259830979830961048625) p 10486251048625983095
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1935
Introduction 10486261048625
and the principle o noncontradiction Awareness o the existence o the God o
theism is a universal given Christians benefit additionally rom special givens
including awareness that God cares or them that the Bible is Godrsquos Word (whichis sel-attesting only to believers1048630) and that he or she is saved Because universal
givens are knowable independently o a worldview and within any worldview
they orm cognitive neutral ground Tere is however no spiritually neutral
ground since everyone either accepts or rejects what can be universally known
about God1048631 Tere is common ground consisting o human needs such as guilt
and loneliness as well as cultural patterns o thinking and acting1048632 Tough
known immediately givens can be corroborated in different ways or example
by reflection and by their connection to other givens1048633 Some are known because
they are undeniable and others can be supported by evidence and inerence
Some arguments or theism are inductively strong such as the kalam cosmo-
logical argument and the teleological argument rom fine tuning o the universe
or lie9830891048624 In all it can be shown that God is the best explanation A case can also
be made or Christianity Te essential belies o Christianity are givens that can
be corroborated Tey are not arrived at rom nontheological data or premises983089983089
Citing Christrsquos statement that some see without ldquoseeingrdquo (Mt 10486259830911048625983091) Hanna iden-tifies eight kinds o ldquoseeingrdquo only one o which is physical Each has two poles
relating to its reality (metaphysical) and its knowability (epistemological) Tey
are physical intellectual introspective intersubjective (awareness o other
persons and onersquos relationship to them) moral aesthetic (which can grasp ob-
jective beauty) and spiritual (one mode that is common to all humans another
that is unique to Christians) Some orms o seeing overlap and interact or ex-
ample spiritual seeing requires some use o intellectual seeing He argues (in a
orthcoming book) that biblical theism is the only adequate explanation o the
eight modes o seeing and their objective correlates
Next is the view called combinationalism According to the combinationalism983089983090
o E J Carnell and Gordon Lewis traditional proos or the existence o God are
inadequate or the same reason that the empiricism they are implicitly based on
6Ibid p 104862598308810486277Ibid p 104862598308810486298Ibid9Ibid p 10486259830881048625
10Phone conversation with Mark Hanna Oct 1048625983094 10486269830881048625104862711Hanna Crucial Questions p 10486251048626104862512Te name was not chosen by Carnell but it is used in Norman Geislerrsquos widely read Christian
Apologetics 1048626nd ed (Grand Rapids Baker Books 104862698308810486251048627)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2035
10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
is inadequate you can never arrive at what is immutable universal and necessary
rom what is finite I you cannot arrive at God rom experience you must bring
God to experience in the orm o a hypothesis to be tested Tis does not meanour aith is weak or tentative only that to be intellectually honest as God would
have us be we must at least in principle be rational in our aith In this sense we
treat Christianity as a hypothesis and like any hypothesis it must not contradict
itsel Anything sel-contradictory cannot be true but what is noncontradictory
could be true o see i it is true we check it with all relevant acts looking or
contradictions between the hypothesis and the acts Te hypothesis should be
applicable to lie in the sense that it can be lived out without contradiction Tere
is common ground between believer and nonbeliever consisting or example in
the principle o noncontradiction values ethics and the need or love Fur-
thermore worldviews typically overlap in areas that are impersonal and nonmeta-
physical Even science properly practiced can be carried on between believer and
nonbeliever But worldviews diverge as soon as questions o ultimate meaning and
purpose arise We can prove that Christianity is true to the extent that we can
prove any real-world belie is true that is with high probability Yet we can have
complete inner assurance ldquocertituderdquo that it is true Combinationalism is to theright o pragmatism on the chart because it tests belie using an objective standard
that o consistency A hypothesis must be consistent within itsel consistent with
the acts and capable o being lived out consistently
In the next column is classical apologetics which is practiced by people as
diverse as C S Lewis William Lane Craig J P Moreland R C Sproul John
Gerstner and Norman Geisler Tis approach aims first to prove theism the
general belie that God is or example omnipotent omniscient omnipresent
holy creator and sustainer o the universe I theism is not proved first proo
or the resurrection or example would not necessarily be interpreted theisti-
cally by the unbeliever O course i the unbeliever already accepts theism
proving it is unnecessary
Classical apologists use theistic arguments (though they are also used by
some apologists who use other methods) Tey are types or amilies o argu-
ments in that there are a number o variations to each Te cosmological ar-
gument essentially reasons rom the existence o the universe to a creator One
orm argues that God is a necessary being that he must exist in every possible
world Another argues that everything needs an adequate cause thus the uni-
verse needs an adequate cause and that cause is God (he is not a thing and is
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2135
Introduction 1048626983091
uncaused) Te teleological argument reasons rom design in the universe to a
designer Modern science has uncovered intricate design in DNA or example
We are also discovering the amazing extent to which the universe has been finelytuned to allow or lie Te moral argument which is not used as widely as the
cosmological and teleological arguments argues rom the existence o objective
moral obligations to a higher moral being as the grounds o such obligations
Norman Geisler believes we must use a different approach to prove the truth
o a worldview versus truth within a worldview He uses six first principles o
reality which cannot be denied because any attempt to deny them would use
them (similar to Hannarsquos view) We do not need to prove them we simply ldquoseerdquo
that they are true once we understand them One first principle (stated inor-
mally) is that ldquosomething existsrdquo Anyone who attempts to deny that is admitting
they exist Another is the principle o noncontradiction which would also be
assumed by anyone attempting to deny it Once alternatives are eliminated and
theism is proved Geisler shows that Christianity explains all the known acts in
the most consistent way
o the right o classical apologetics and just lef o rationalism (on the ar right)
evidentialism has been popularized in recent decades by Josh McDowell who wasinfluenced by John Warwick Montgomery Gary Habermas has also been influ-
ential and widely known Te view does not require that theism be proved first
While most evidentialists accept theistic arguments and would use them they do
not believe it is necessary to first prove theism Unlike classical apologists eviden-
tialists believe that at least to some extent acts point to their proper interpre-
tation So evidentialists typically work to prove the resurrection afer supporting
the veracity o the Bible (eg John Warwick Montgomery) or at least the believ-
ability o very widely accepted crucial acts (eg Gary Habermas) Many o the
same acts and approaches used by evidentialists are used by classical apologists
in their second step which seeks to prove Christianity
Letrsquos review the chart again this time more briefly For fideism there can be
no proo but there is certitude rom aith in revelation For presupposition-
alism there can be no direct proo o Christianity but we must presuppose it
roughly assume it by conviction and necessity Te case must ultimately be
circular Revelation is known o its own authority but we can have proo be-
cause it must be presupposed For Reormed epistemology noncircular argu-
ments are acceptable in principle and should be developed but they are not
adequate to ground something as crucial as religious aith Belie in God is an
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2235
10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
awareness that can arise in us because o the way we were created and belie
in Christianity is a divine gif Moving right experientialism is the first view
that accepts something as decisive standalone evidence or the conclusion thatChristianity is true Te evidence is internal and subjective Pragmatism deals
with workability which is a more objective orm o experience and is thereore
to the right o experientialism (Note that what ldquoworksrdquo can be defined differ-
ently by different people)
Moving urther right (but not including rationalism on the extreme right nor
combinationalism) we have views that accept induction as an important and e-
ective method o proo or religious belie Tey (including combinationalism)
also accept a cumulative case that is layers o proo adding up to orm a stronger
case overall Religious experience and workability in lie (including giving lie
meaning) also typically play a supporting role in an overall case (whereas with
experientialism experience is the only proo) Veridicalism accepts both givens
that are known intuitively and that are undeniable and effective corroboration
through evidence and reason Everyone can have an immediate awareness o God
and the Christian can have an additional awareness o some essentials o Christi-
anity In its emphasis on direct awareness it is like Reormed epistemology but in veridicalism corroborating evidence can be strong and decisive So like Reormed
epistemology on its lef it has a place or intuition but like views on its right it
has a place or a convincing case based on evidence
As we continue to move right intuition (similar to ldquosel-attestingrdquo or presup-
positionalism) plays less o a role and there is more emphasis on independently
existing objective evidence as grounds or belie983089983091 Tere are also more such
objective criteria until we get to evidentialism which appeals to a multiplicity
o individual acts
Combinationalism accepts livability as a test o a hypothesis but only as one
o three aspects o consistency whereas to the lef pragmatism viewed livability
as the main criteria and to the right o combinationalism livability is viewed
as only one o a number o actors in an overall case
Classical apologetics accepts arguments or theism and or Christianity typ-
ically insisting (like presuppositionalism) that a worldview determines the in-
terpretation o acts But like the views on the right side o the chart that
worldview is established by something other than a necessary assumption (or
13Presuppositionalists would say that the transcendental argument provides objective evidence but
they would not say that it is ldquoindependently existingrdquo since no acts exist independent o God
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2335
Introduction 10486261048629
Geisler it is by undeniable first principles but unlike presuppositionalism they
are necessary in every worldview c Hanna)
Evidentialism is the near polar opposite o presuppositionalism affirmingthat acts can be known independently o the views that interpret them and that
acts can even point to the correct interpretation
I once showed this chart to Greg Bahnsen who not surprisingly said that pre-
suppositionalism should be on the right next to rationalism as offering absolutely
certain proo or belie In response I pointed out that certainty was secondary the
primary order o the chart was appeal to independent evidence or the conclusion
So fideism appeals to no independent evidence Presuppositionalism appeals to a
presupposition but not to independent evidence as grounds or belie (ie no direct
proo) Reormed epistemology appeals to intuition Experientialism appeals to
one subjective criterion as evidence or a conclusion pragmatism to one external
criterion Next is veridicalism which appeals to givens plus external and inde-
pendent evidence Ten comes combinationalism with its appeals to consistency
o hypothesis and fittingness with the acts plus livability Ten classical apologetics
appeals to independent evidence or theism and Christianity And finally eviden-
tialism appeals to a multiplicity o independent actsmdashthe opposite o presupposi-tionalismrsquos view that there are no independent acts Bahnsen thought or a ew
seconds and said ldquoTat could work that could workrdquo983089983092 I then mentioned that I
always tell my students that presuppositionalists see their view as close to
rationalism as ar as both offer certainty I add that they would see their presup-
positionalism as different rom rationalismrsquos method o using independent evi-
dence (Descartes or example amously beginning rom his own thoughtmdashagain
the opposite o presuppositionalism which begins with God as the standard o
truth) I it were not visually too complicated on the chart I might put fideism
presuppositionalism and rationalism each at different points o a triangle so that
presuppositionalism could be equidistant rom the aith o fideism and the absolute
proo o rationalism yet unique But over the years students have generally con-
firmed that it would be too complicated and thus unhelpul
Beore we begin it is worth briefly recounting why fideism which challenges
the legitimacy o apologetics is biblically inadequate Here are just a ew ex-
amples o biblical reasons or belie Moses asks God or signs to show his people
that he has divine authority (Ex 10486281048625) which God grants and later he grants
14Personal conversation afer Bahnsen was a guest speaker in my apologetics class Masterrsquos Col-
lege Newhall Caliornia in the all o 10486259830979830971048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2435
10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
abundant signs in the conrontation with Pharaoh (Ex 1048631ndash10486251048625) In the wilderness
God supernaturally demonstrates his presence his provision or his people and
his backing o Mosesrsquo leadership In the conquest o the Promised Land Goddivides the Jordan (Josh 98309110486251048631) gives victories over superior orces (Josh 10486251048628-1048633
98309110486251048624-10486251048631) and extends daylight (Josh 1048625104862410486251048626-10486251048628) He grants miracles or Gideon
(Judg 104863110486251048630-10486261048626) Samson (Judg 104862510486281048630 10486251048633 1048625104862910486251048629 10486251048630983091) and others Prophets such as
Elijah predict events and perorm miracles Jesusrsquo lie ulfills a number o proph-
ecies and is attested by miracles He points to them as grounds or belie (Lk
1048626104862810486261048631 Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) When John the Baptist doubts Jesus points to evidence that
matches prophecy (Mt 104862510486251048628-1048629 c Is 1048626104863310486251048632) Jesus meets Tomasrsquos doubts with
evidence (Jn 1048626104862410486261048631) Afer the resurrection he gives ldquomany convincing proosrdquo
(Acts 1048625983091 c Lk 104862610486289830911048633) John recounts some o Jesusrsquo supernatural deeds as a way
o inspiring saving aith (Jn 104862610486249830911048624) Te supernatural authority o the Seventy
(Lk 1048625104862410486251048631) and the apostles (1048626 Cor 1048625104862610486251048626) is attested by miracles Paul argues rom
Scripture that Christ had to suffer and rise again (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091) and he regards
the resurrection as ldquoproo to all menrdquo (Acts 104862510486319830911048625 c Rom 10486251048628) Some do believe
because o miracles (Jn 1048625104862610486251048625 Acts 104863310486281048626 104862598309110486251048626)
As mentioned above this does not show that an unproblematic appeal tomiracles and prophecy can be made today but that Scripture uses reasons in
support o aith Just how that should be done is the subject o this book
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1635
10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
convictions that since acts are not independently existing realities we cannot
simply see which interpretation fits best and use them independently to decide
on an interpretation (the view o evidentialism) and there can be no neutralground He emphasizes the important nuance that it is really statements o acts
that are not separate rom interpretation
Frame says that in an argument because the premises commit us to the
conclusion they thereore commit us to what the premises presuppose making
presuppositions a kind o conclusion Presuppositions are commitments that
govern our other belies and as such they are not deeasible (cannot be deeated
by evidence and argument) unless a contrary presupposition is adopted Since
all thought is dependent on God who makes all argument possible we should
not encourage the nonbeliever to think otherwise
Contrary to Van il Frame believes that there can be real agreement between
the believer and nonbeliever induction can be acceptable in apologetics and the
transcendental approach is an overall goal and not a single argumentmdashthere
being no way the Christian God o love justice patience wisdom and more
must be presupposed in order or anyone to understand and talk about anything
He also believes that there is no essential difference between direct and indirectreasoning thereore the major difference between presuppositional and tradi-
tional apologetics may be the intent o the apologist to acknowledge God as
sovereign and the source o all meaning intelligibility and rationality that is
the ultimate authority or human thought
Frame adds the extremely important stipulation that interpretations can be
verified on the basis o acts In other words we can compare the data o the
mind with the data o the external world Interpretations can be verified by
comparing them with acts and acts can be verified by comparing them with
interpretations Neither one is a brute incorrigible standard983092
Tese and other modifications make presuppositionalism much closer to
traditional apologetics and give it access to a large array o more traditional
arguments Frame adds his own highly constructive innovations holding that
as nonomniscient beings we can see things in different perspectives that are
simultaneous and overlapping where each can contain the other Knowledge
or example is a matter o sense experience reason and eeling
o the right o presuppositionalism is the Reormed epistemology o Alvin
4Personal email correspondence with Frame Aug 10486261048628 104862698308810486251048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1735
Introduction 10486251048633
Plantinga He challenges the notion that belie must be proportional to evidence
such that we are entitled to believe only as much as we can prove In answer he
points out that people commonly and rightly believe many things they wouldhave trouble proving such as that the world was not created with apparent age
only a ew minutes ago or that people have minds like us and are not merely
cleverly designed robots So it is rational to believe in God to a degree greater
than we can prove Te level o proo that would be required to justiy a belie
as crucial as Christianity would be very high and we have that level or virtually
no philosophical belies o that magnitude Knowledge o God is the result o
an inner knowing what Calvin called the sensus divinitatis which arises in us
because o how we are made Te catalyst or that knowing can be different or
different people perhaps the grandeur o mountains or the starry sky
Knowledge o Christianity comes by an inner knowing that is a special gif o
the Holy Spirit Te inner knowing o both God and Christianity is not evidence
or a conclusion but an immediate knowing (like knowing we have pain or that
we exist) Plantinga affirms the value o arguments but alone they hold little
promise o being sufficient to truly justiy belie in God or Christianity
Reormed epistemology is to the right o presuppositionalism because it a-firms a role or independent proos but it is on the lef side o the chart because
it is a type o intuition that grounds aith
Next is experientialism especially o the sort where an experience is taken
as grounds or the conclusion that God exists or that Christianity is true In this
type experience is evidence or the conclusion Tis would include such things
as experiences o answered prayers or providential care or an awareness o God
that is the basis or the conclusion that God is there What is unique about this
method is that such experiences are the only basis or belie Other methods to
the right o it accept experience as one proo among many o the lef o the view
fideism accepts no proo presuppositionalism does not regard experience as
proper proo or God or Christianity and Reormed epistemology regards ex-
perience as a direct knowing but not evidence or a conclusion So coming rom
the lef side o the chart experientialism is the first view that accepts something
as independent grounds to justiy belie
Although I have met people who take an experientialist approach to justi-
ying belie in God or Christianity it is difficult to find whole books supporting
the view People who take the view generally regard their experiences as ade-
quate to justiy only their own belies and do not expect mere reports o their
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1835
10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
experiences to be sufficient or someone else thus others would need to have
their own experiences So it is not hard to see why ew would see the value in
writing about their experiences as a way to convince others Tis book does nothave a chapter on the approach but it includes a brie critique by Norman
Geisler Te problem with experientialism is that experiences must be inter-
preted A person can have an experience but that does not mean we mustmdashor
even canmdashtake it at ace value Someonersquos experience o their dead ancestor
appearing to them could be interpreted in a number o ways as could a personrsquos
experience o the Hindu god Shiva Whether such things are regarded as real
imaginary demonic apparitions or whatever depends on what other belies we
hold as true Furthermore how do we resolve conflicts between experiences
Tereore experience is widely regarded as insufficient as the sole means o
proo though it typically appears as one type o evidence in the apologetic
methods to the right o it on the chart
Next we add pragmatism which essentially offers one source o justification
that o workability Tere are both simple and sophisticated orms o this view
but the idea is i it works we can accept a belie as verified to some degree Tere
is a difference between the (more radical) claim that workability equals truthor is what we mean by truth versus workability as an indicator o truth Te
latter view is ofen added into the mix o possible methods o justification
among views to the right o pragmatism on the chart I have chosen not to use
the available space in the book to detail pragmatism because so ar its best-
known philosophical orms have not been as popular as other approaches
among those seeking to know or justiy theism or Christianity Te view has
been developed by C S Peirce (pronounced ldquoPurserdquo 104862510486329830911048633ndash1048625104863310486251048628) William James
(1048625104863210486281048626ndash1048625104863310486251048624) and recently by neopragmatist Richard Rorty (104862510486339830911048625ndash1048626104862410486241048631) I have
included brie criticisms o pragmatism made by Norman Geisler
Moving again to the right on our chart veridicalism developed by Mark
Hanna sees knowledge as grounded in givens983093 which are known intuitively and
with certainty and are not inerred rom other things we know All humans can
benefit rom universal givens some o which cannot be coherently denied (be-
cause denying them would require assuming them) such as our own existence
5ldquoLiterally anything that can be veridically nonpostulationally and nondiscursively grasped by
consciousness is a given And i it is susceptible o apprehension by all human beings in prin-
ciple it is a universal givenrdquo Mark M Hanna Crucial Questions in Apologetics (Grand Rapids
Baker Book House 10486259830979830961048625) p 10486251048625983095
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1935
Introduction 10486261048625
and the principle o noncontradiction Awareness o the existence o the God o
theism is a universal given Christians benefit additionally rom special givens
including awareness that God cares or them that the Bible is Godrsquos Word (whichis sel-attesting only to believers1048630) and that he or she is saved Because universal
givens are knowable independently o a worldview and within any worldview
they orm cognitive neutral ground Tere is however no spiritually neutral
ground since everyone either accepts or rejects what can be universally known
about God1048631 Tere is common ground consisting o human needs such as guilt
and loneliness as well as cultural patterns o thinking and acting1048632 Tough
known immediately givens can be corroborated in different ways or example
by reflection and by their connection to other givens1048633 Some are known because
they are undeniable and others can be supported by evidence and inerence
Some arguments or theism are inductively strong such as the kalam cosmo-
logical argument and the teleological argument rom fine tuning o the universe
or lie9830891048624 In all it can be shown that God is the best explanation A case can also
be made or Christianity Te essential belies o Christianity are givens that can
be corroborated Tey are not arrived at rom nontheological data or premises983089983089
Citing Christrsquos statement that some see without ldquoseeingrdquo (Mt 10486259830911048625983091) Hanna iden-tifies eight kinds o ldquoseeingrdquo only one o which is physical Each has two poles
relating to its reality (metaphysical) and its knowability (epistemological) Tey
are physical intellectual introspective intersubjective (awareness o other
persons and onersquos relationship to them) moral aesthetic (which can grasp ob-
jective beauty) and spiritual (one mode that is common to all humans another
that is unique to Christians) Some orms o seeing overlap and interact or ex-
ample spiritual seeing requires some use o intellectual seeing He argues (in a
orthcoming book) that biblical theism is the only adequate explanation o the
eight modes o seeing and their objective correlates
Next is the view called combinationalism According to the combinationalism983089983090
o E J Carnell and Gordon Lewis traditional proos or the existence o God are
inadequate or the same reason that the empiricism they are implicitly based on
6Ibid p 104862598308810486277Ibid p 104862598308810486298Ibid9Ibid p 10486259830881048625
10Phone conversation with Mark Hanna Oct 1048625983094 10486269830881048625104862711Hanna Crucial Questions p 10486251048626104862512Te name was not chosen by Carnell but it is used in Norman Geislerrsquos widely read Christian
Apologetics 1048626nd ed (Grand Rapids Baker Books 104862698308810486251048627)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2035
10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
is inadequate you can never arrive at what is immutable universal and necessary
rom what is finite I you cannot arrive at God rom experience you must bring
God to experience in the orm o a hypothesis to be tested Tis does not meanour aith is weak or tentative only that to be intellectually honest as God would
have us be we must at least in principle be rational in our aith In this sense we
treat Christianity as a hypothesis and like any hypothesis it must not contradict
itsel Anything sel-contradictory cannot be true but what is noncontradictory
could be true o see i it is true we check it with all relevant acts looking or
contradictions between the hypothesis and the acts Te hypothesis should be
applicable to lie in the sense that it can be lived out without contradiction Tere
is common ground between believer and nonbeliever consisting or example in
the principle o noncontradiction values ethics and the need or love Fur-
thermore worldviews typically overlap in areas that are impersonal and nonmeta-
physical Even science properly practiced can be carried on between believer and
nonbeliever But worldviews diverge as soon as questions o ultimate meaning and
purpose arise We can prove that Christianity is true to the extent that we can
prove any real-world belie is true that is with high probability Yet we can have
complete inner assurance ldquocertituderdquo that it is true Combinationalism is to theright o pragmatism on the chart because it tests belie using an objective standard
that o consistency A hypothesis must be consistent within itsel consistent with
the acts and capable o being lived out consistently
In the next column is classical apologetics which is practiced by people as
diverse as C S Lewis William Lane Craig J P Moreland R C Sproul John
Gerstner and Norman Geisler Tis approach aims first to prove theism the
general belie that God is or example omnipotent omniscient omnipresent
holy creator and sustainer o the universe I theism is not proved first proo
or the resurrection or example would not necessarily be interpreted theisti-
cally by the unbeliever O course i the unbeliever already accepts theism
proving it is unnecessary
Classical apologists use theistic arguments (though they are also used by
some apologists who use other methods) Tey are types or amilies o argu-
ments in that there are a number o variations to each Te cosmological ar-
gument essentially reasons rom the existence o the universe to a creator One
orm argues that God is a necessary being that he must exist in every possible
world Another argues that everything needs an adequate cause thus the uni-
verse needs an adequate cause and that cause is God (he is not a thing and is
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2135
Introduction 1048626983091
uncaused) Te teleological argument reasons rom design in the universe to a
designer Modern science has uncovered intricate design in DNA or example
We are also discovering the amazing extent to which the universe has been finelytuned to allow or lie Te moral argument which is not used as widely as the
cosmological and teleological arguments argues rom the existence o objective
moral obligations to a higher moral being as the grounds o such obligations
Norman Geisler believes we must use a different approach to prove the truth
o a worldview versus truth within a worldview He uses six first principles o
reality which cannot be denied because any attempt to deny them would use
them (similar to Hannarsquos view) We do not need to prove them we simply ldquoseerdquo
that they are true once we understand them One first principle (stated inor-
mally) is that ldquosomething existsrdquo Anyone who attempts to deny that is admitting
they exist Another is the principle o noncontradiction which would also be
assumed by anyone attempting to deny it Once alternatives are eliminated and
theism is proved Geisler shows that Christianity explains all the known acts in
the most consistent way
o the right o classical apologetics and just lef o rationalism (on the ar right)
evidentialism has been popularized in recent decades by Josh McDowell who wasinfluenced by John Warwick Montgomery Gary Habermas has also been influ-
ential and widely known Te view does not require that theism be proved first
While most evidentialists accept theistic arguments and would use them they do
not believe it is necessary to first prove theism Unlike classical apologists eviden-
tialists believe that at least to some extent acts point to their proper interpre-
tation So evidentialists typically work to prove the resurrection afer supporting
the veracity o the Bible (eg John Warwick Montgomery) or at least the believ-
ability o very widely accepted crucial acts (eg Gary Habermas) Many o the
same acts and approaches used by evidentialists are used by classical apologists
in their second step which seeks to prove Christianity
Letrsquos review the chart again this time more briefly For fideism there can be
no proo but there is certitude rom aith in revelation For presupposition-
alism there can be no direct proo o Christianity but we must presuppose it
roughly assume it by conviction and necessity Te case must ultimately be
circular Revelation is known o its own authority but we can have proo be-
cause it must be presupposed For Reormed epistemology noncircular argu-
ments are acceptable in principle and should be developed but they are not
adequate to ground something as crucial as religious aith Belie in God is an
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2235
10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
awareness that can arise in us because o the way we were created and belie
in Christianity is a divine gif Moving right experientialism is the first view
that accepts something as decisive standalone evidence or the conclusion thatChristianity is true Te evidence is internal and subjective Pragmatism deals
with workability which is a more objective orm o experience and is thereore
to the right o experientialism (Note that what ldquoworksrdquo can be defined differ-
ently by different people)
Moving urther right (but not including rationalism on the extreme right nor
combinationalism) we have views that accept induction as an important and e-
ective method o proo or religious belie Tey (including combinationalism)
also accept a cumulative case that is layers o proo adding up to orm a stronger
case overall Religious experience and workability in lie (including giving lie
meaning) also typically play a supporting role in an overall case (whereas with
experientialism experience is the only proo) Veridicalism accepts both givens
that are known intuitively and that are undeniable and effective corroboration
through evidence and reason Everyone can have an immediate awareness o God
and the Christian can have an additional awareness o some essentials o Christi-
anity In its emphasis on direct awareness it is like Reormed epistemology but in veridicalism corroborating evidence can be strong and decisive So like Reormed
epistemology on its lef it has a place or intuition but like views on its right it
has a place or a convincing case based on evidence
As we continue to move right intuition (similar to ldquosel-attestingrdquo or presup-
positionalism) plays less o a role and there is more emphasis on independently
existing objective evidence as grounds or belie983089983091 Tere are also more such
objective criteria until we get to evidentialism which appeals to a multiplicity
o individual acts
Combinationalism accepts livability as a test o a hypothesis but only as one
o three aspects o consistency whereas to the lef pragmatism viewed livability
as the main criteria and to the right o combinationalism livability is viewed
as only one o a number o actors in an overall case
Classical apologetics accepts arguments or theism and or Christianity typ-
ically insisting (like presuppositionalism) that a worldview determines the in-
terpretation o acts But like the views on the right side o the chart that
worldview is established by something other than a necessary assumption (or
13Presuppositionalists would say that the transcendental argument provides objective evidence but
they would not say that it is ldquoindependently existingrdquo since no acts exist independent o God
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2335
Introduction 10486261048629
Geisler it is by undeniable first principles but unlike presuppositionalism they
are necessary in every worldview c Hanna)
Evidentialism is the near polar opposite o presuppositionalism affirmingthat acts can be known independently o the views that interpret them and that
acts can even point to the correct interpretation
I once showed this chart to Greg Bahnsen who not surprisingly said that pre-
suppositionalism should be on the right next to rationalism as offering absolutely
certain proo or belie In response I pointed out that certainty was secondary the
primary order o the chart was appeal to independent evidence or the conclusion
So fideism appeals to no independent evidence Presuppositionalism appeals to a
presupposition but not to independent evidence as grounds or belie (ie no direct
proo) Reormed epistemology appeals to intuition Experientialism appeals to
one subjective criterion as evidence or a conclusion pragmatism to one external
criterion Next is veridicalism which appeals to givens plus external and inde-
pendent evidence Ten comes combinationalism with its appeals to consistency
o hypothesis and fittingness with the acts plus livability Ten classical apologetics
appeals to independent evidence or theism and Christianity And finally eviden-
tialism appeals to a multiplicity o independent actsmdashthe opposite o presupposi-tionalismrsquos view that there are no independent acts Bahnsen thought or a ew
seconds and said ldquoTat could work that could workrdquo983089983092 I then mentioned that I
always tell my students that presuppositionalists see their view as close to
rationalism as ar as both offer certainty I add that they would see their presup-
positionalism as different rom rationalismrsquos method o using independent evi-
dence (Descartes or example amously beginning rom his own thoughtmdashagain
the opposite o presuppositionalism which begins with God as the standard o
truth) I it were not visually too complicated on the chart I might put fideism
presuppositionalism and rationalism each at different points o a triangle so that
presuppositionalism could be equidistant rom the aith o fideism and the absolute
proo o rationalism yet unique But over the years students have generally con-
firmed that it would be too complicated and thus unhelpul
Beore we begin it is worth briefly recounting why fideism which challenges
the legitimacy o apologetics is biblically inadequate Here are just a ew ex-
amples o biblical reasons or belie Moses asks God or signs to show his people
that he has divine authority (Ex 10486281048625) which God grants and later he grants
14Personal conversation afer Bahnsen was a guest speaker in my apologetics class Masterrsquos Col-
lege Newhall Caliornia in the all o 10486259830979830971048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2435
10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
abundant signs in the conrontation with Pharaoh (Ex 1048631ndash10486251048625) In the wilderness
God supernaturally demonstrates his presence his provision or his people and
his backing o Mosesrsquo leadership In the conquest o the Promised Land Goddivides the Jordan (Josh 98309110486251048631) gives victories over superior orces (Josh 10486251048628-1048633
98309110486251048624-10486251048631) and extends daylight (Josh 1048625104862410486251048626-10486251048628) He grants miracles or Gideon
(Judg 104863110486251048630-10486261048626) Samson (Judg 104862510486281048630 10486251048633 1048625104862910486251048629 10486251048630983091) and others Prophets such as
Elijah predict events and perorm miracles Jesusrsquo lie ulfills a number o proph-
ecies and is attested by miracles He points to them as grounds or belie (Lk
1048626104862810486261048631 Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) When John the Baptist doubts Jesus points to evidence that
matches prophecy (Mt 104862510486251048628-1048629 c Is 1048626104863310486251048632) Jesus meets Tomasrsquos doubts with
evidence (Jn 1048626104862410486261048631) Afer the resurrection he gives ldquomany convincing proosrdquo
(Acts 1048625983091 c Lk 104862610486289830911048633) John recounts some o Jesusrsquo supernatural deeds as a way
o inspiring saving aith (Jn 104862610486249830911048624) Te supernatural authority o the Seventy
(Lk 1048625104862410486251048631) and the apostles (1048626 Cor 1048625104862610486251048626) is attested by miracles Paul argues rom
Scripture that Christ had to suffer and rise again (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091) and he regards
the resurrection as ldquoproo to all menrdquo (Acts 104862510486319830911048625 c Rom 10486251048628) Some do believe
because o miracles (Jn 1048625104862610486251048625 Acts 104863310486281048626 104862598309110486251048626)
As mentioned above this does not show that an unproblematic appeal tomiracles and prophecy can be made today but that Scripture uses reasons in
support o aith Just how that should be done is the subject o this book
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1735
Introduction 10486251048633
Plantinga He challenges the notion that belie must be proportional to evidence
such that we are entitled to believe only as much as we can prove In answer he
points out that people commonly and rightly believe many things they wouldhave trouble proving such as that the world was not created with apparent age
only a ew minutes ago or that people have minds like us and are not merely
cleverly designed robots So it is rational to believe in God to a degree greater
than we can prove Te level o proo that would be required to justiy a belie
as crucial as Christianity would be very high and we have that level or virtually
no philosophical belies o that magnitude Knowledge o God is the result o
an inner knowing what Calvin called the sensus divinitatis which arises in us
because o how we are made Te catalyst or that knowing can be different or
different people perhaps the grandeur o mountains or the starry sky
Knowledge o Christianity comes by an inner knowing that is a special gif o
the Holy Spirit Te inner knowing o both God and Christianity is not evidence
or a conclusion but an immediate knowing (like knowing we have pain or that
we exist) Plantinga affirms the value o arguments but alone they hold little
promise o being sufficient to truly justiy belie in God or Christianity
Reormed epistemology is to the right o presuppositionalism because it a-firms a role or independent proos but it is on the lef side o the chart because
it is a type o intuition that grounds aith
Next is experientialism especially o the sort where an experience is taken
as grounds or the conclusion that God exists or that Christianity is true In this
type experience is evidence or the conclusion Tis would include such things
as experiences o answered prayers or providential care or an awareness o God
that is the basis or the conclusion that God is there What is unique about this
method is that such experiences are the only basis or belie Other methods to
the right o it accept experience as one proo among many o the lef o the view
fideism accepts no proo presuppositionalism does not regard experience as
proper proo or God or Christianity and Reormed epistemology regards ex-
perience as a direct knowing but not evidence or a conclusion So coming rom
the lef side o the chart experientialism is the first view that accepts something
as independent grounds to justiy belie
Although I have met people who take an experientialist approach to justi-
ying belie in God or Christianity it is difficult to find whole books supporting
the view People who take the view generally regard their experiences as ade-
quate to justiy only their own belies and do not expect mere reports o their
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1835
10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
experiences to be sufficient or someone else thus others would need to have
their own experiences So it is not hard to see why ew would see the value in
writing about their experiences as a way to convince others Tis book does nothave a chapter on the approach but it includes a brie critique by Norman
Geisler Te problem with experientialism is that experiences must be inter-
preted A person can have an experience but that does not mean we mustmdashor
even canmdashtake it at ace value Someonersquos experience o their dead ancestor
appearing to them could be interpreted in a number o ways as could a personrsquos
experience o the Hindu god Shiva Whether such things are regarded as real
imaginary demonic apparitions or whatever depends on what other belies we
hold as true Furthermore how do we resolve conflicts between experiences
Tereore experience is widely regarded as insufficient as the sole means o
proo though it typically appears as one type o evidence in the apologetic
methods to the right o it on the chart
Next we add pragmatism which essentially offers one source o justification
that o workability Tere are both simple and sophisticated orms o this view
but the idea is i it works we can accept a belie as verified to some degree Tere
is a difference between the (more radical) claim that workability equals truthor is what we mean by truth versus workability as an indicator o truth Te
latter view is ofen added into the mix o possible methods o justification
among views to the right o pragmatism on the chart I have chosen not to use
the available space in the book to detail pragmatism because so ar its best-
known philosophical orms have not been as popular as other approaches
among those seeking to know or justiy theism or Christianity Te view has
been developed by C S Peirce (pronounced ldquoPurserdquo 104862510486329830911048633ndash1048625104863310486251048628) William James
(1048625104863210486281048626ndash1048625104863310486251048624) and recently by neopragmatist Richard Rorty (104862510486339830911048625ndash1048626104862410486241048631) I have
included brie criticisms o pragmatism made by Norman Geisler
Moving again to the right on our chart veridicalism developed by Mark
Hanna sees knowledge as grounded in givens983093 which are known intuitively and
with certainty and are not inerred rom other things we know All humans can
benefit rom universal givens some o which cannot be coherently denied (be-
cause denying them would require assuming them) such as our own existence
5ldquoLiterally anything that can be veridically nonpostulationally and nondiscursively grasped by
consciousness is a given And i it is susceptible o apprehension by all human beings in prin-
ciple it is a universal givenrdquo Mark M Hanna Crucial Questions in Apologetics (Grand Rapids
Baker Book House 10486259830979830961048625) p 10486251048625983095
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1935
Introduction 10486261048625
and the principle o noncontradiction Awareness o the existence o the God o
theism is a universal given Christians benefit additionally rom special givens
including awareness that God cares or them that the Bible is Godrsquos Word (whichis sel-attesting only to believers1048630) and that he or she is saved Because universal
givens are knowable independently o a worldview and within any worldview
they orm cognitive neutral ground Tere is however no spiritually neutral
ground since everyone either accepts or rejects what can be universally known
about God1048631 Tere is common ground consisting o human needs such as guilt
and loneliness as well as cultural patterns o thinking and acting1048632 Tough
known immediately givens can be corroborated in different ways or example
by reflection and by their connection to other givens1048633 Some are known because
they are undeniable and others can be supported by evidence and inerence
Some arguments or theism are inductively strong such as the kalam cosmo-
logical argument and the teleological argument rom fine tuning o the universe
or lie9830891048624 In all it can be shown that God is the best explanation A case can also
be made or Christianity Te essential belies o Christianity are givens that can
be corroborated Tey are not arrived at rom nontheological data or premises983089983089
Citing Christrsquos statement that some see without ldquoseeingrdquo (Mt 10486259830911048625983091) Hanna iden-tifies eight kinds o ldquoseeingrdquo only one o which is physical Each has two poles
relating to its reality (metaphysical) and its knowability (epistemological) Tey
are physical intellectual introspective intersubjective (awareness o other
persons and onersquos relationship to them) moral aesthetic (which can grasp ob-
jective beauty) and spiritual (one mode that is common to all humans another
that is unique to Christians) Some orms o seeing overlap and interact or ex-
ample spiritual seeing requires some use o intellectual seeing He argues (in a
orthcoming book) that biblical theism is the only adequate explanation o the
eight modes o seeing and their objective correlates
Next is the view called combinationalism According to the combinationalism983089983090
o E J Carnell and Gordon Lewis traditional proos or the existence o God are
inadequate or the same reason that the empiricism they are implicitly based on
6Ibid p 104862598308810486277Ibid p 104862598308810486298Ibid9Ibid p 10486259830881048625
10Phone conversation with Mark Hanna Oct 1048625983094 10486269830881048625104862711Hanna Crucial Questions p 10486251048626104862512Te name was not chosen by Carnell but it is used in Norman Geislerrsquos widely read Christian
Apologetics 1048626nd ed (Grand Rapids Baker Books 104862698308810486251048627)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2035
10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
is inadequate you can never arrive at what is immutable universal and necessary
rom what is finite I you cannot arrive at God rom experience you must bring
God to experience in the orm o a hypothesis to be tested Tis does not meanour aith is weak or tentative only that to be intellectually honest as God would
have us be we must at least in principle be rational in our aith In this sense we
treat Christianity as a hypothesis and like any hypothesis it must not contradict
itsel Anything sel-contradictory cannot be true but what is noncontradictory
could be true o see i it is true we check it with all relevant acts looking or
contradictions between the hypothesis and the acts Te hypothesis should be
applicable to lie in the sense that it can be lived out without contradiction Tere
is common ground between believer and nonbeliever consisting or example in
the principle o noncontradiction values ethics and the need or love Fur-
thermore worldviews typically overlap in areas that are impersonal and nonmeta-
physical Even science properly practiced can be carried on between believer and
nonbeliever But worldviews diverge as soon as questions o ultimate meaning and
purpose arise We can prove that Christianity is true to the extent that we can
prove any real-world belie is true that is with high probability Yet we can have
complete inner assurance ldquocertituderdquo that it is true Combinationalism is to theright o pragmatism on the chart because it tests belie using an objective standard
that o consistency A hypothesis must be consistent within itsel consistent with
the acts and capable o being lived out consistently
In the next column is classical apologetics which is practiced by people as
diverse as C S Lewis William Lane Craig J P Moreland R C Sproul John
Gerstner and Norman Geisler Tis approach aims first to prove theism the
general belie that God is or example omnipotent omniscient omnipresent
holy creator and sustainer o the universe I theism is not proved first proo
or the resurrection or example would not necessarily be interpreted theisti-
cally by the unbeliever O course i the unbeliever already accepts theism
proving it is unnecessary
Classical apologists use theistic arguments (though they are also used by
some apologists who use other methods) Tey are types or amilies o argu-
ments in that there are a number o variations to each Te cosmological ar-
gument essentially reasons rom the existence o the universe to a creator One
orm argues that God is a necessary being that he must exist in every possible
world Another argues that everything needs an adequate cause thus the uni-
verse needs an adequate cause and that cause is God (he is not a thing and is
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2135
Introduction 1048626983091
uncaused) Te teleological argument reasons rom design in the universe to a
designer Modern science has uncovered intricate design in DNA or example
We are also discovering the amazing extent to which the universe has been finelytuned to allow or lie Te moral argument which is not used as widely as the
cosmological and teleological arguments argues rom the existence o objective
moral obligations to a higher moral being as the grounds o such obligations
Norman Geisler believes we must use a different approach to prove the truth
o a worldview versus truth within a worldview He uses six first principles o
reality which cannot be denied because any attempt to deny them would use
them (similar to Hannarsquos view) We do not need to prove them we simply ldquoseerdquo
that they are true once we understand them One first principle (stated inor-
mally) is that ldquosomething existsrdquo Anyone who attempts to deny that is admitting
they exist Another is the principle o noncontradiction which would also be
assumed by anyone attempting to deny it Once alternatives are eliminated and
theism is proved Geisler shows that Christianity explains all the known acts in
the most consistent way
o the right o classical apologetics and just lef o rationalism (on the ar right)
evidentialism has been popularized in recent decades by Josh McDowell who wasinfluenced by John Warwick Montgomery Gary Habermas has also been influ-
ential and widely known Te view does not require that theism be proved first
While most evidentialists accept theistic arguments and would use them they do
not believe it is necessary to first prove theism Unlike classical apologists eviden-
tialists believe that at least to some extent acts point to their proper interpre-
tation So evidentialists typically work to prove the resurrection afer supporting
the veracity o the Bible (eg John Warwick Montgomery) or at least the believ-
ability o very widely accepted crucial acts (eg Gary Habermas) Many o the
same acts and approaches used by evidentialists are used by classical apologists
in their second step which seeks to prove Christianity
Letrsquos review the chart again this time more briefly For fideism there can be
no proo but there is certitude rom aith in revelation For presupposition-
alism there can be no direct proo o Christianity but we must presuppose it
roughly assume it by conviction and necessity Te case must ultimately be
circular Revelation is known o its own authority but we can have proo be-
cause it must be presupposed For Reormed epistemology noncircular argu-
ments are acceptable in principle and should be developed but they are not
adequate to ground something as crucial as religious aith Belie in God is an
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2235
10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
awareness that can arise in us because o the way we were created and belie
in Christianity is a divine gif Moving right experientialism is the first view
that accepts something as decisive standalone evidence or the conclusion thatChristianity is true Te evidence is internal and subjective Pragmatism deals
with workability which is a more objective orm o experience and is thereore
to the right o experientialism (Note that what ldquoworksrdquo can be defined differ-
ently by different people)
Moving urther right (but not including rationalism on the extreme right nor
combinationalism) we have views that accept induction as an important and e-
ective method o proo or religious belie Tey (including combinationalism)
also accept a cumulative case that is layers o proo adding up to orm a stronger
case overall Religious experience and workability in lie (including giving lie
meaning) also typically play a supporting role in an overall case (whereas with
experientialism experience is the only proo) Veridicalism accepts both givens
that are known intuitively and that are undeniable and effective corroboration
through evidence and reason Everyone can have an immediate awareness o God
and the Christian can have an additional awareness o some essentials o Christi-
anity In its emphasis on direct awareness it is like Reormed epistemology but in veridicalism corroborating evidence can be strong and decisive So like Reormed
epistemology on its lef it has a place or intuition but like views on its right it
has a place or a convincing case based on evidence
As we continue to move right intuition (similar to ldquosel-attestingrdquo or presup-
positionalism) plays less o a role and there is more emphasis on independently
existing objective evidence as grounds or belie983089983091 Tere are also more such
objective criteria until we get to evidentialism which appeals to a multiplicity
o individual acts
Combinationalism accepts livability as a test o a hypothesis but only as one
o three aspects o consistency whereas to the lef pragmatism viewed livability
as the main criteria and to the right o combinationalism livability is viewed
as only one o a number o actors in an overall case
Classical apologetics accepts arguments or theism and or Christianity typ-
ically insisting (like presuppositionalism) that a worldview determines the in-
terpretation o acts But like the views on the right side o the chart that
worldview is established by something other than a necessary assumption (or
13Presuppositionalists would say that the transcendental argument provides objective evidence but
they would not say that it is ldquoindependently existingrdquo since no acts exist independent o God
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2335
Introduction 10486261048629
Geisler it is by undeniable first principles but unlike presuppositionalism they
are necessary in every worldview c Hanna)
Evidentialism is the near polar opposite o presuppositionalism affirmingthat acts can be known independently o the views that interpret them and that
acts can even point to the correct interpretation
I once showed this chart to Greg Bahnsen who not surprisingly said that pre-
suppositionalism should be on the right next to rationalism as offering absolutely
certain proo or belie In response I pointed out that certainty was secondary the
primary order o the chart was appeal to independent evidence or the conclusion
So fideism appeals to no independent evidence Presuppositionalism appeals to a
presupposition but not to independent evidence as grounds or belie (ie no direct
proo) Reormed epistemology appeals to intuition Experientialism appeals to
one subjective criterion as evidence or a conclusion pragmatism to one external
criterion Next is veridicalism which appeals to givens plus external and inde-
pendent evidence Ten comes combinationalism with its appeals to consistency
o hypothesis and fittingness with the acts plus livability Ten classical apologetics
appeals to independent evidence or theism and Christianity And finally eviden-
tialism appeals to a multiplicity o independent actsmdashthe opposite o presupposi-tionalismrsquos view that there are no independent acts Bahnsen thought or a ew
seconds and said ldquoTat could work that could workrdquo983089983092 I then mentioned that I
always tell my students that presuppositionalists see their view as close to
rationalism as ar as both offer certainty I add that they would see their presup-
positionalism as different rom rationalismrsquos method o using independent evi-
dence (Descartes or example amously beginning rom his own thoughtmdashagain
the opposite o presuppositionalism which begins with God as the standard o
truth) I it were not visually too complicated on the chart I might put fideism
presuppositionalism and rationalism each at different points o a triangle so that
presuppositionalism could be equidistant rom the aith o fideism and the absolute
proo o rationalism yet unique But over the years students have generally con-
firmed that it would be too complicated and thus unhelpul
Beore we begin it is worth briefly recounting why fideism which challenges
the legitimacy o apologetics is biblically inadequate Here are just a ew ex-
amples o biblical reasons or belie Moses asks God or signs to show his people
that he has divine authority (Ex 10486281048625) which God grants and later he grants
14Personal conversation afer Bahnsen was a guest speaker in my apologetics class Masterrsquos Col-
lege Newhall Caliornia in the all o 10486259830979830971048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2435
10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
abundant signs in the conrontation with Pharaoh (Ex 1048631ndash10486251048625) In the wilderness
God supernaturally demonstrates his presence his provision or his people and
his backing o Mosesrsquo leadership In the conquest o the Promised Land Goddivides the Jordan (Josh 98309110486251048631) gives victories over superior orces (Josh 10486251048628-1048633
98309110486251048624-10486251048631) and extends daylight (Josh 1048625104862410486251048626-10486251048628) He grants miracles or Gideon
(Judg 104863110486251048630-10486261048626) Samson (Judg 104862510486281048630 10486251048633 1048625104862910486251048629 10486251048630983091) and others Prophets such as
Elijah predict events and perorm miracles Jesusrsquo lie ulfills a number o proph-
ecies and is attested by miracles He points to them as grounds or belie (Lk
1048626104862810486261048631 Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) When John the Baptist doubts Jesus points to evidence that
matches prophecy (Mt 104862510486251048628-1048629 c Is 1048626104863310486251048632) Jesus meets Tomasrsquos doubts with
evidence (Jn 1048626104862410486261048631) Afer the resurrection he gives ldquomany convincing proosrdquo
(Acts 1048625983091 c Lk 104862610486289830911048633) John recounts some o Jesusrsquo supernatural deeds as a way
o inspiring saving aith (Jn 104862610486249830911048624) Te supernatural authority o the Seventy
(Lk 1048625104862410486251048631) and the apostles (1048626 Cor 1048625104862610486251048626) is attested by miracles Paul argues rom
Scripture that Christ had to suffer and rise again (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091) and he regards
the resurrection as ldquoproo to all menrdquo (Acts 104862510486319830911048625 c Rom 10486251048628) Some do believe
because o miracles (Jn 1048625104862610486251048625 Acts 104863310486281048626 104862598309110486251048626)
As mentioned above this does not show that an unproblematic appeal tomiracles and prophecy can be made today but that Scripture uses reasons in
support o aith Just how that should be done is the subject o this book
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1835
10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
experiences to be sufficient or someone else thus others would need to have
their own experiences So it is not hard to see why ew would see the value in
writing about their experiences as a way to convince others Tis book does nothave a chapter on the approach but it includes a brie critique by Norman
Geisler Te problem with experientialism is that experiences must be inter-
preted A person can have an experience but that does not mean we mustmdashor
even canmdashtake it at ace value Someonersquos experience o their dead ancestor
appearing to them could be interpreted in a number o ways as could a personrsquos
experience o the Hindu god Shiva Whether such things are regarded as real
imaginary demonic apparitions or whatever depends on what other belies we
hold as true Furthermore how do we resolve conflicts between experiences
Tereore experience is widely regarded as insufficient as the sole means o
proo though it typically appears as one type o evidence in the apologetic
methods to the right o it on the chart
Next we add pragmatism which essentially offers one source o justification
that o workability Tere are both simple and sophisticated orms o this view
but the idea is i it works we can accept a belie as verified to some degree Tere
is a difference between the (more radical) claim that workability equals truthor is what we mean by truth versus workability as an indicator o truth Te
latter view is ofen added into the mix o possible methods o justification
among views to the right o pragmatism on the chart I have chosen not to use
the available space in the book to detail pragmatism because so ar its best-
known philosophical orms have not been as popular as other approaches
among those seeking to know or justiy theism or Christianity Te view has
been developed by C S Peirce (pronounced ldquoPurserdquo 104862510486329830911048633ndash1048625104863310486251048628) William James
(1048625104863210486281048626ndash1048625104863310486251048624) and recently by neopragmatist Richard Rorty (104862510486339830911048625ndash1048626104862410486241048631) I have
included brie criticisms o pragmatism made by Norman Geisler
Moving again to the right on our chart veridicalism developed by Mark
Hanna sees knowledge as grounded in givens983093 which are known intuitively and
with certainty and are not inerred rom other things we know All humans can
benefit rom universal givens some o which cannot be coherently denied (be-
cause denying them would require assuming them) such as our own existence
5ldquoLiterally anything that can be veridically nonpostulationally and nondiscursively grasped by
consciousness is a given And i it is susceptible o apprehension by all human beings in prin-
ciple it is a universal givenrdquo Mark M Hanna Crucial Questions in Apologetics (Grand Rapids
Baker Book House 10486259830979830961048625) p 10486251048625983095
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1935
Introduction 10486261048625
and the principle o noncontradiction Awareness o the existence o the God o
theism is a universal given Christians benefit additionally rom special givens
including awareness that God cares or them that the Bible is Godrsquos Word (whichis sel-attesting only to believers1048630) and that he or she is saved Because universal
givens are knowable independently o a worldview and within any worldview
they orm cognitive neutral ground Tere is however no spiritually neutral
ground since everyone either accepts or rejects what can be universally known
about God1048631 Tere is common ground consisting o human needs such as guilt
and loneliness as well as cultural patterns o thinking and acting1048632 Tough
known immediately givens can be corroborated in different ways or example
by reflection and by their connection to other givens1048633 Some are known because
they are undeniable and others can be supported by evidence and inerence
Some arguments or theism are inductively strong such as the kalam cosmo-
logical argument and the teleological argument rom fine tuning o the universe
or lie9830891048624 In all it can be shown that God is the best explanation A case can also
be made or Christianity Te essential belies o Christianity are givens that can
be corroborated Tey are not arrived at rom nontheological data or premises983089983089
Citing Christrsquos statement that some see without ldquoseeingrdquo (Mt 10486259830911048625983091) Hanna iden-tifies eight kinds o ldquoseeingrdquo only one o which is physical Each has two poles
relating to its reality (metaphysical) and its knowability (epistemological) Tey
are physical intellectual introspective intersubjective (awareness o other
persons and onersquos relationship to them) moral aesthetic (which can grasp ob-
jective beauty) and spiritual (one mode that is common to all humans another
that is unique to Christians) Some orms o seeing overlap and interact or ex-
ample spiritual seeing requires some use o intellectual seeing He argues (in a
orthcoming book) that biblical theism is the only adequate explanation o the
eight modes o seeing and their objective correlates
Next is the view called combinationalism According to the combinationalism983089983090
o E J Carnell and Gordon Lewis traditional proos or the existence o God are
inadequate or the same reason that the empiricism they are implicitly based on
6Ibid p 104862598308810486277Ibid p 104862598308810486298Ibid9Ibid p 10486259830881048625
10Phone conversation with Mark Hanna Oct 1048625983094 10486269830881048625104862711Hanna Crucial Questions p 10486251048626104862512Te name was not chosen by Carnell but it is used in Norman Geislerrsquos widely read Christian
Apologetics 1048626nd ed (Grand Rapids Baker Books 104862698308810486251048627)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2035
10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
is inadequate you can never arrive at what is immutable universal and necessary
rom what is finite I you cannot arrive at God rom experience you must bring
God to experience in the orm o a hypothesis to be tested Tis does not meanour aith is weak or tentative only that to be intellectually honest as God would
have us be we must at least in principle be rational in our aith In this sense we
treat Christianity as a hypothesis and like any hypothesis it must not contradict
itsel Anything sel-contradictory cannot be true but what is noncontradictory
could be true o see i it is true we check it with all relevant acts looking or
contradictions between the hypothesis and the acts Te hypothesis should be
applicable to lie in the sense that it can be lived out without contradiction Tere
is common ground between believer and nonbeliever consisting or example in
the principle o noncontradiction values ethics and the need or love Fur-
thermore worldviews typically overlap in areas that are impersonal and nonmeta-
physical Even science properly practiced can be carried on between believer and
nonbeliever But worldviews diverge as soon as questions o ultimate meaning and
purpose arise We can prove that Christianity is true to the extent that we can
prove any real-world belie is true that is with high probability Yet we can have
complete inner assurance ldquocertituderdquo that it is true Combinationalism is to theright o pragmatism on the chart because it tests belie using an objective standard
that o consistency A hypothesis must be consistent within itsel consistent with
the acts and capable o being lived out consistently
In the next column is classical apologetics which is practiced by people as
diverse as C S Lewis William Lane Craig J P Moreland R C Sproul John
Gerstner and Norman Geisler Tis approach aims first to prove theism the
general belie that God is or example omnipotent omniscient omnipresent
holy creator and sustainer o the universe I theism is not proved first proo
or the resurrection or example would not necessarily be interpreted theisti-
cally by the unbeliever O course i the unbeliever already accepts theism
proving it is unnecessary
Classical apologists use theistic arguments (though they are also used by
some apologists who use other methods) Tey are types or amilies o argu-
ments in that there are a number o variations to each Te cosmological ar-
gument essentially reasons rom the existence o the universe to a creator One
orm argues that God is a necessary being that he must exist in every possible
world Another argues that everything needs an adequate cause thus the uni-
verse needs an adequate cause and that cause is God (he is not a thing and is
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2135
Introduction 1048626983091
uncaused) Te teleological argument reasons rom design in the universe to a
designer Modern science has uncovered intricate design in DNA or example
We are also discovering the amazing extent to which the universe has been finelytuned to allow or lie Te moral argument which is not used as widely as the
cosmological and teleological arguments argues rom the existence o objective
moral obligations to a higher moral being as the grounds o such obligations
Norman Geisler believes we must use a different approach to prove the truth
o a worldview versus truth within a worldview He uses six first principles o
reality which cannot be denied because any attempt to deny them would use
them (similar to Hannarsquos view) We do not need to prove them we simply ldquoseerdquo
that they are true once we understand them One first principle (stated inor-
mally) is that ldquosomething existsrdquo Anyone who attempts to deny that is admitting
they exist Another is the principle o noncontradiction which would also be
assumed by anyone attempting to deny it Once alternatives are eliminated and
theism is proved Geisler shows that Christianity explains all the known acts in
the most consistent way
o the right o classical apologetics and just lef o rationalism (on the ar right)
evidentialism has been popularized in recent decades by Josh McDowell who wasinfluenced by John Warwick Montgomery Gary Habermas has also been influ-
ential and widely known Te view does not require that theism be proved first
While most evidentialists accept theistic arguments and would use them they do
not believe it is necessary to first prove theism Unlike classical apologists eviden-
tialists believe that at least to some extent acts point to their proper interpre-
tation So evidentialists typically work to prove the resurrection afer supporting
the veracity o the Bible (eg John Warwick Montgomery) or at least the believ-
ability o very widely accepted crucial acts (eg Gary Habermas) Many o the
same acts and approaches used by evidentialists are used by classical apologists
in their second step which seeks to prove Christianity
Letrsquos review the chart again this time more briefly For fideism there can be
no proo but there is certitude rom aith in revelation For presupposition-
alism there can be no direct proo o Christianity but we must presuppose it
roughly assume it by conviction and necessity Te case must ultimately be
circular Revelation is known o its own authority but we can have proo be-
cause it must be presupposed For Reormed epistemology noncircular argu-
ments are acceptable in principle and should be developed but they are not
adequate to ground something as crucial as religious aith Belie in God is an
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2235
10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
awareness that can arise in us because o the way we were created and belie
in Christianity is a divine gif Moving right experientialism is the first view
that accepts something as decisive standalone evidence or the conclusion thatChristianity is true Te evidence is internal and subjective Pragmatism deals
with workability which is a more objective orm o experience and is thereore
to the right o experientialism (Note that what ldquoworksrdquo can be defined differ-
ently by different people)
Moving urther right (but not including rationalism on the extreme right nor
combinationalism) we have views that accept induction as an important and e-
ective method o proo or religious belie Tey (including combinationalism)
also accept a cumulative case that is layers o proo adding up to orm a stronger
case overall Religious experience and workability in lie (including giving lie
meaning) also typically play a supporting role in an overall case (whereas with
experientialism experience is the only proo) Veridicalism accepts both givens
that are known intuitively and that are undeniable and effective corroboration
through evidence and reason Everyone can have an immediate awareness o God
and the Christian can have an additional awareness o some essentials o Christi-
anity In its emphasis on direct awareness it is like Reormed epistemology but in veridicalism corroborating evidence can be strong and decisive So like Reormed
epistemology on its lef it has a place or intuition but like views on its right it
has a place or a convincing case based on evidence
As we continue to move right intuition (similar to ldquosel-attestingrdquo or presup-
positionalism) plays less o a role and there is more emphasis on independently
existing objective evidence as grounds or belie983089983091 Tere are also more such
objective criteria until we get to evidentialism which appeals to a multiplicity
o individual acts
Combinationalism accepts livability as a test o a hypothesis but only as one
o three aspects o consistency whereas to the lef pragmatism viewed livability
as the main criteria and to the right o combinationalism livability is viewed
as only one o a number o actors in an overall case
Classical apologetics accepts arguments or theism and or Christianity typ-
ically insisting (like presuppositionalism) that a worldview determines the in-
terpretation o acts But like the views on the right side o the chart that
worldview is established by something other than a necessary assumption (or
13Presuppositionalists would say that the transcendental argument provides objective evidence but
they would not say that it is ldquoindependently existingrdquo since no acts exist independent o God
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2335
Introduction 10486261048629
Geisler it is by undeniable first principles but unlike presuppositionalism they
are necessary in every worldview c Hanna)
Evidentialism is the near polar opposite o presuppositionalism affirmingthat acts can be known independently o the views that interpret them and that
acts can even point to the correct interpretation
I once showed this chart to Greg Bahnsen who not surprisingly said that pre-
suppositionalism should be on the right next to rationalism as offering absolutely
certain proo or belie In response I pointed out that certainty was secondary the
primary order o the chart was appeal to independent evidence or the conclusion
So fideism appeals to no independent evidence Presuppositionalism appeals to a
presupposition but not to independent evidence as grounds or belie (ie no direct
proo) Reormed epistemology appeals to intuition Experientialism appeals to
one subjective criterion as evidence or a conclusion pragmatism to one external
criterion Next is veridicalism which appeals to givens plus external and inde-
pendent evidence Ten comes combinationalism with its appeals to consistency
o hypothesis and fittingness with the acts plus livability Ten classical apologetics
appeals to independent evidence or theism and Christianity And finally eviden-
tialism appeals to a multiplicity o independent actsmdashthe opposite o presupposi-tionalismrsquos view that there are no independent acts Bahnsen thought or a ew
seconds and said ldquoTat could work that could workrdquo983089983092 I then mentioned that I
always tell my students that presuppositionalists see their view as close to
rationalism as ar as both offer certainty I add that they would see their presup-
positionalism as different rom rationalismrsquos method o using independent evi-
dence (Descartes or example amously beginning rom his own thoughtmdashagain
the opposite o presuppositionalism which begins with God as the standard o
truth) I it were not visually too complicated on the chart I might put fideism
presuppositionalism and rationalism each at different points o a triangle so that
presuppositionalism could be equidistant rom the aith o fideism and the absolute
proo o rationalism yet unique But over the years students have generally con-
firmed that it would be too complicated and thus unhelpul
Beore we begin it is worth briefly recounting why fideism which challenges
the legitimacy o apologetics is biblically inadequate Here are just a ew ex-
amples o biblical reasons or belie Moses asks God or signs to show his people
that he has divine authority (Ex 10486281048625) which God grants and later he grants
14Personal conversation afer Bahnsen was a guest speaker in my apologetics class Masterrsquos Col-
lege Newhall Caliornia in the all o 10486259830979830971048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2435
10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
abundant signs in the conrontation with Pharaoh (Ex 1048631ndash10486251048625) In the wilderness
God supernaturally demonstrates his presence his provision or his people and
his backing o Mosesrsquo leadership In the conquest o the Promised Land Goddivides the Jordan (Josh 98309110486251048631) gives victories over superior orces (Josh 10486251048628-1048633
98309110486251048624-10486251048631) and extends daylight (Josh 1048625104862410486251048626-10486251048628) He grants miracles or Gideon
(Judg 104863110486251048630-10486261048626) Samson (Judg 104862510486281048630 10486251048633 1048625104862910486251048629 10486251048630983091) and others Prophets such as
Elijah predict events and perorm miracles Jesusrsquo lie ulfills a number o proph-
ecies and is attested by miracles He points to them as grounds or belie (Lk
1048626104862810486261048631 Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) When John the Baptist doubts Jesus points to evidence that
matches prophecy (Mt 104862510486251048628-1048629 c Is 1048626104863310486251048632) Jesus meets Tomasrsquos doubts with
evidence (Jn 1048626104862410486261048631) Afer the resurrection he gives ldquomany convincing proosrdquo
(Acts 1048625983091 c Lk 104862610486289830911048633) John recounts some o Jesusrsquo supernatural deeds as a way
o inspiring saving aith (Jn 104862610486249830911048624) Te supernatural authority o the Seventy
(Lk 1048625104862410486251048631) and the apostles (1048626 Cor 1048625104862610486251048626) is attested by miracles Paul argues rom
Scripture that Christ had to suffer and rise again (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091) and he regards
the resurrection as ldquoproo to all menrdquo (Acts 104862510486319830911048625 c Rom 10486251048628) Some do believe
because o miracles (Jn 1048625104862610486251048625 Acts 104863310486281048626 104862598309110486251048626)
As mentioned above this does not show that an unproblematic appeal tomiracles and prophecy can be made today but that Scripture uses reasons in
support o aith Just how that should be done is the subject o this book
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 1935
Introduction 10486261048625
and the principle o noncontradiction Awareness o the existence o the God o
theism is a universal given Christians benefit additionally rom special givens
including awareness that God cares or them that the Bible is Godrsquos Word (whichis sel-attesting only to believers1048630) and that he or she is saved Because universal
givens are knowable independently o a worldview and within any worldview
they orm cognitive neutral ground Tere is however no spiritually neutral
ground since everyone either accepts or rejects what can be universally known
about God1048631 Tere is common ground consisting o human needs such as guilt
and loneliness as well as cultural patterns o thinking and acting1048632 Tough
known immediately givens can be corroborated in different ways or example
by reflection and by their connection to other givens1048633 Some are known because
they are undeniable and others can be supported by evidence and inerence
Some arguments or theism are inductively strong such as the kalam cosmo-
logical argument and the teleological argument rom fine tuning o the universe
or lie9830891048624 In all it can be shown that God is the best explanation A case can also
be made or Christianity Te essential belies o Christianity are givens that can
be corroborated Tey are not arrived at rom nontheological data or premises983089983089
Citing Christrsquos statement that some see without ldquoseeingrdquo (Mt 10486259830911048625983091) Hanna iden-tifies eight kinds o ldquoseeingrdquo only one o which is physical Each has two poles
relating to its reality (metaphysical) and its knowability (epistemological) Tey
are physical intellectual introspective intersubjective (awareness o other
persons and onersquos relationship to them) moral aesthetic (which can grasp ob-
jective beauty) and spiritual (one mode that is common to all humans another
that is unique to Christians) Some orms o seeing overlap and interact or ex-
ample spiritual seeing requires some use o intellectual seeing He argues (in a
orthcoming book) that biblical theism is the only adequate explanation o the
eight modes o seeing and their objective correlates
Next is the view called combinationalism According to the combinationalism983089983090
o E J Carnell and Gordon Lewis traditional proos or the existence o God are
inadequate or the same reason that the empiricism they are implicitly based on
6Ibid p 104862598308810486277Ibid p 104862598308810486298Ibid9Ibid p 10486259830881048625
10Phone conversation with Mark Hanna Oct 1048625983094 10486269830881048625104862711Hanna Crucial Questions p 10486251048626104862512Te name was not chosen by Carnell but it is used in Norman Geislerrsquos widely read Christian
Apologetics 1048626nd ed (Grand Rapids Baker Books 104862698308810486251048627)
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2035
10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
is inadequate you can never arrive at what is immutable universal and necessary
rom what is finite I you cannot arrive at God rom experience you must bring
God to experience in the orm o a hypothesis to be tested Tis does not meanour aith is weak or tentative only that to be intellectually honest as God would
have us be we must at least in principle be rational in our aith In this sense we
treat Christianity as a hypothesis and like any hypothesis it must not contradict
itsel Anything sel-contradictory cannot be true but what is noncontradictory
could be true o see i it is true we check it with all relevant acts looking or
contradictions between the hypothesis and the acts Te hypothesis should be
applicable to lie in the sense that it can be lived out without contradiction Tere
is common ground between believer and nonbeliever consisting or example in
the principle o noncontradiction values ethics and the need or love Fur-
thermore worldviews typically overlap in areas that are impersonal and nonmeta-
physical Even science properly practiced can be carried on between believer and
nonbeliever But worldviews diverge as soon as questions o ultimate meaning and
purpose arise We can prove that Christianity is true to the extent that we can
prove any real-world belie is true that is with high probability Yet we can have
complete inner assurance ldquocertituderdquo that it is true Combinationalism is to theright o pragmatism on the chart because it tests belie using an objective standard
that o consistency A hypothesis must be consistent within itsel consistent with
the acts and capable o being lived out consistently
In the next column is classical apologetics which is practiced by people as
diverse as C S Lewis William Lane Craig J P Moreland R C Sproul John
Gerstner and Norman Geisler Tis approach aims first to prove theism the
general belie that God is or example omnipotent omniscient omnipresent
holy creator and sustainer o the universe I theism is not proved first proo
or the resurrection or example would not necessarily be interpreted theisti-
cally by the unbeliever O course i the unbeliever already accepts theism
proving it is unnecessary
Classical apologists use theistic arguments (though they are also used by
some apologists who use other methods) Tey are types or amilies o argu-
ments in that there are a number o variations to each Te cosmological ar-
gument essentially reasons rom the existence o the universe to a creator One
orm argues that God is a necessary being that he must exist in every possible
world Another argues that everything needs an adequate cause thus the uni-
verse needs an adequate cause and that cause is God (he is not a thing and is
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2135
Introduction 1048626983091
uncaused) Te teleological argument reasons rom design in the universe to a
designer Modern science has uncovered intricate design in DNA or example
We are also discovering the amazing extent to which the universe has been finelytuned to allow or lie Te moral argument which is not used as widely as the
cosmological and teleological arguments argues rom the existence o objective
moral obligations to a higher moral being as the grounds o such obligations
Norman Geisler believes we must use a different approach to prove the truth
o a worldview versus truth within a worldview He uses six first principles o
reality which cannot be denied because any attempt to deny them would use
them (similar to Hannarsquos view) We do not need to prove them we simply ldquoseerdquo
that they are true once we understand them One first principle (stated inor-
mally) is that ldquosomething existsrdquo Anyone who attempts to deny that is admitting
they exist Another is the principle o noncontradiction which would also be
assumed by anyone attempting to deny it Once alternatives are eliminated and
theism is proved Geisler shows that Christianity explains all the known acts in
the most consistent way
o the right o classical apologetics and just lef o rationalism (on the ar right)
evidentialism has been popularized in recent decades by Josh McDowell who wasinfluenced by John Warwick Montgomery Gary Habermas has also been influ-
ential and widely known Te view does not require that theism be proved first
While most evidentialists accept theistic arguments and would use them they do
not believe it is necessary to first prove theism Unlike classical apologists eviden-
tialists believe that at least to some extent acts point to their proper interpre-
tation So evidentialists typically work to prove the resurrection afer supporting
the veracity o the Bible (eg John Warwick Montgomery) or at least the believ-
ability o very widely accepted crucial acts (eg Gary Habermas) Many o the
same acts and approaches used by evidentialists are used by classical apologists
in their second step which seeks to prove Christianity
Letrsquos review the chart again this time more briefly For fideism there can be
no proo but there is certitude rom aith in revelation For presupposition-
alism there can be no direct proo o Christianity but we must presuppose it
roughly assume it by conviction and necessity Te case must ultimately be
circular Revelation is known o its own authority but we can have proo be-
cause it must be presupposed For Reormed epistemology noncircular argu-
ments are acceptable in principle and should be developed but they are not
adequate to ground something as crucial as religious aith Belie in God is an
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2235
10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
awareness that can arise in us because o the way we were created and belie
in Christianity is a divine gif Moving right experientialism is the first view
that accepts something as decisive standalone evidence or the conclusion thatChristianity is true Te evidence is internal and subjective Pragmatism deals
with workability which is a more objective orm o experience and is thereore
to the right o experientialism (Note that what ldquoworksrdquo can be defined differ-
ently by different people)
Moving urther right (but not including rationalism on the extreme right nor
combinationalism) we have views that accept induction as an important and e-
ective method o proo or religious belie Tey (including combinationalism)
also accept a cumulative case that is layers o proo adding up to orm a stronger
case overall Religious experience and workability in lie (including giving lie
meaning) also typically play a supporting role in an overall case (whereas with
experientialism experience is the only proo) Veridicalism accepts both givens
that are known intuitively and that are undeniable and effective corroboration
through evidence and reason Everyone can have an immediate awareness o God
and the Christian can have an additional awareness o some essentials o Christi-
anity In its emphasis on direct awareness it is like Reormed epistemology but in veridicalism corroborating evidence can be strong and decisive So like Reormed
epistemology on its lef it has a place or intuition but like views on its right it
has a place or a convincing case based on evidence
As we continue to move right intuition (similar to ldquosel-attestingrdquo or presup-
positionalism) plays less o a role and there is more emphasis on independently
existing objective evidence as grounds or belie983089983091 Tere are also more such
objective criteria until we get to evidentialism which appeals to a multiplicity
o individual acts
Combinationalism accepts livability as a test o a hypothesis but only as one
o three aspects o consistency whereas to the lef pragmatism viewed livability
as the main criteria and to the right o combinationalism livability is viewed
as only one o a number o actors in an overall case
Classical apologetics accepts arguments or theism and or Christianity typ-
ically insisting (like presuppositionalism) that a worldview determines the in-
terpretation o acts But like the views on the right side o the chart that
worldview is established by something other than a necessary assumption (or
13Presuppositionalists would say that the transcendental argument provides objective evidence but
they would not say that it is ldquoindependently existingrdquo since no acts exist independent o God
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2335
Introduction 10486261048629
Geisler it is by undeniable first principles but unlike presuppositionalism they
are necessary in every worldview c Hanna)
Evidentialism is the near polar opposite o presuppositionalism affirmingthat acts can be known independently o the views that interpret them and that
acts can even point to the correct interpretation
I once showed this chart to Greg Bahnsen who not surprisingly said that pre-
suppositionalism should be on the right next to rationalism as offering absolutely
certain proo or belie In response I pointed out that certainty was secondary the
primary order o the chart was appeal to independent evidence or the conclusion
So fideism appeals to no independent evidence Presuppositionalism appeals to a
presupposition but not to independent evidence as grounds or belie (ie no direct
proo) Reormed epistemology appeals to intuition Experientialism appeals to
one subjective criterion as evidence or a conclusion pragmatism to one external
criterion Next is veridicalism which appeals to givens plus external and inde-
pendent evidence Ten comes combinationalism with its appeals to consistency
o hypothesis and fittingness with the acts plus livability Ten classical apologetics
appeals to independent evidence or theism and Christianity And finally eviden-
tialism appeals to a multiplicity o independent actsmdashthe opposite o presupposi-tionalismrsquos view that there are no independent acts Bahnsen thought or a ew
seconds and said ldquoTat could work that could workrdquo983089983092 I then mentioned that I
always tell my students that presuppositionalists see their view as close to
rationalism as ar as both offer certainty I add that they would see their presup-
positionalism as different rom rationalismrsquos method o using independent evi-
dence (Descartes or example amously beginning rom his own thoughtmdashagain
the opposite o presuppositionalism which begins with God as the standard o
truth) I it were not visually too complicated on the chart I might put fideism
presuppositionalism and rationalism each at different points o a triangle so that
presuppositionalism could be equidistant rom the aith o fideism and the absolute
proo o rationalism yet unique But over the years students have generally con-
firmed that it would be too complicated and thus unhelpul
Beore we begin it is worth briefly recounting why fideism which challenges
the legitimacy o apologetics is biblically inadequate Here are just a ew ex-
amples o biblical reasons or belie Moses asks God or signs to show his people
that he has divine authority (Ex 10486281048625) which God grants and later he grants
14Personal conversation afer Bahnsen was a guest speaker in my apologetics class Masterrsquos Col-
lege Newhall Caliornia in the all o 10486259830979830971048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2435
10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
abundant signs in the conrontation with Pharaoh (Ex 1048631ndash10486251048625) In the wilderness
God supernaturally demonstrates his presence his provision or his people and
his backing o Mosesrsquo leadership In the conquest o the Promised Land Goddivides the Jordan (Josh 98309110486251048631) gives victories over superior orces (Josh 10486251048628-1048633
98309110486251048624-10486251048631) and extends daylight (Josh 1048625104862410486251048626-10486251048628) He grants miracles or Gideon
(Judg 104863110486251048630-10486261048626) Samson (Judg 104862510486281048630 10486251048633 1048625104862910486251048629 10486251048630983091) and others Prophets such as
Elijah predict events and perorm miracles Jesusrsquo lie ulfills a number o proph-
ecies and is attested by miracles He points to them as grounds or belie (Lk
1048626104862810486261048631 Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) When John the Baptist doubts Jesus points to evidence that
matches prophecy (Mt 104862510486251048628-1048629 c Is 1048626104863310486251048632) Jesus meets Tomasrsquos doubts with
evidence (Jn 1048626104862410486261048631) Afer the resurrection he gives ldquomany convincing proosrdquo
(Acts 1048625983091 c Lk 104862610486289830911048633) John recounts some o Jesusrsquo supernatural deeds as a way
o inspiring saving aith (Jn 104862610486249830911048624) Te supernatural authority o the Seventy
(Lk 1048625104862410486251048631) and the apostles (1048626 Cor 1048625104862610486251048626) is attested by miracles Paul argues rom
Scripture that Christ had to suffer and rise again (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091) and he regards
the resurrection as ldquoproo to all menrdquo (Acts 104862510486319830911048625 c Rom 10486251048628) Some do believe
because o miracles (Jn 1048625104862610486251048625 Acts 104863310486281048626 104862598309110486251048626)
As mentioned above this does not show that an unproblematic appeal tomiracles and prophecy can be made today but that Scripture uses reasons in
support o aith Just how that should be done is the subject o this book
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2035
10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
is inadequate you can never arrive at what is immutable universal and necessary
rom what is finite I you cannot arrive at God rom experience you must bring
God to experience in the orm o a hypothesis to be tested Tis does not meanour aith is weak or tentative only that to be intellectually honest as God would
have us be we must at least in principle be rational in our aith In this sense we
treat Christianity as a hypothesis and like any hypothesis it must not contradict
itsel Anything sel-contradictory cannot be true but what is noncontradictory
could be true o see i it is true we check it with all relevant acts looking or
contradictions between the hypothesis and the acts Te hypothesis should be
applicable to lie in the sense that it can be lived out without contradiction Tere
is common ground between believer and nonbeliever consisting or example in
the principle o noncontradiction values ethics and the need or love Fur-
thermore worldviews typically overlap in areas that are impersonal and nonmeta-
physical Even science properly practiced can be carried on between believer and
nonbeliever But worldviews diverge as soon as questions o ultimate meaning and
purpose arise We can prove that Christianity is true to the extent that we can
prove any real-world belie is true that is with high probability Yet we can have
complete inner assurance ldquocertituderdquo that it is true Combinationalism is to theright o pragmatism on the chart because it tests belie using an objective standard
that o consistency A hypothesis must be consistent within itsel consistent with
the acts and capable o being lived out consistently
In the next column is classical apologetics which is practiced by people as
diverse as C S Lewis William Lane Craig J P Moreland R C Sproul John
Gerstner and Norman Geisler Tis approach aims first to prove theism the
general belie that God is or example omnipotent omniscient omnipresent
holy creator and sustainer o the universe I theism is not proved first proo
or the resurrection or example would not necessarily be interpreted theisti-
cally by the unbeliever O course i the unbeliever already accepts theism
proving it is unnecessary
Classical apologists use theistic arguments (though they are also used by
some apologists who use other methods) Tey are types or amilies o argu-
ments in that there are a number o variations to each Te cosmological ar-
gument essentially reasons rom the existence o the universe to a creator One
orm argues that God is a necessary being that he must exist in every possible
world Another argues that everything needs an adequate cause thus the uni-
verse needs an adequate cause and that cause is God (he is not a thing and is
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2135
Introduction 1048626983091
uncaused) Te teleological argument reasons rom design in the universe to a
designer Modern science has uncovered intricate design in DNA or example
We are also discovering the amazing extent to which the universe has been finelytuned to allow or lie Te moral argument which is not used as widely as the
cosmological and teleological arguments argues rom the existence o objective
moral obligations to a higher moral being as the grounds o such obligations
Norman Geisler believes we must use a different approach to prove the truth
o a worldview versus truth within a worldview He uses six first principles o
reality which cannot be denied because any attempt to deny them would use
them (similar to Hannarsquos view) We do not need to prove them we simply ldquoseerdquo
that they are true once we understand them One first principle (stated inor-
mally) is that ldquosomething existsrdquo Anyone who attempts to deny that is admitting
they exist Another is the principle o noncontradiction which would also be
assumed by anyone attempting to deny it Once alternatives are eliminated and
theism is proved Geisler shows that Christianity explains all the known acts in
the most consistent way
o the right o classical apologetics and just lef o rationalism (on the ar right)
evidentialism has been popularized in recent decades by Josh McDowell who wasinfluenced by John Warwick Montgomery Gary Habermas has also been influ-
ential and widely known Te view does not require that theism be proved first
While most evidentialists accept theistic arguments and would use them they do
not believe it is necessary to first prove theism Unlike classical apologists eviden-
tialists believe that at least to some extent acts point to their proper interpre-
tation So evidentialists typically work to prove the resurrection afer supporting
the veracity o the Bible (eg John Warwick Montgomery) or at least the believ-
ability o very widely accepted crucial acts (eg Gary Habermas) Many o the
same acts and approaches used by evidentialists are used by classical apologists
in their second step which seeks to prove Christianity
Letrsquos review the chart again this time more briefly For fideism there can be
no proo but there is certitude rom aith in revelation For presupposition-
alism there can be no direct proo o Christianity but we must presuppose it
roughly assume it by conviction and necessity Te case must ultimately be
circular Revelation is known o its own authority but we can have proo be-
cause it must be presupposed For Reormed epistemology noncircular argu-
ments are acceptable in principle and should be developed but they are not
adequate to ground something as crucial as religious aith Belie in God is an
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2235
10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
awareness that can arise in us because o the way we were created and belie
in Christianity is a divine gif Moving right experientialism is the first view
that accepts something as decisive standalone evidence or the conclusion thatChristianity is true Te evidence is internal and subjective Pragmatism deals
with workability which is a more objective orm o experience and is thereore
to the right o experientialism (Note that what ldquoworksrdquo can be defined differ-
ently by different people)
Moving urther right (but not including rationalism on the extreme right nor
combinationalism) we have views that accept induction as an important and e-
ective method o proo or religious belie Tey (including combinationalism)
also accept a cumulative case that is layers o proo adding up to orm a stronger
case overall Religious experience and workability in lie (including giving lie
meaning) also typically play a supporting role in an overall case (whereas with
experientialism experience is the only proo) Veridicalism accepts both givens
that are known intuitively and that are undeniable and effective corroboration
through evidence and reason Everyone can have an immediate awareness o God
and the Christian can have an additional awareness o some essentials o Christi-
anity In its emphasis on direct awareness it is like Reormed epistemology but in veridicalism corroborating evidence can be strong and decisive So like Reormed
epistemology on its lef it has a place or intuition but like views on its right it
has a place or a convincing case based on evidence
As we continue to move right intuition (similar to ldquosel-attestingrdquo or presup-
positionalism) plays less o a role and there is more emphasis on independently
existing objective evidence as grounds or belie983089983091 Tere are also more such
objective criteria until we get to evidentialism which appeals to a multiplicity
o individual acts
Combinationalism accepts livability as a test o a hypothesis but only as one
o three aspects o consistency whereas to the lef pragmatism viewed livability
as the main criteria and to the right o combinationalism livability is viewed
as only one o a number o actors in an overall case
Classical apologetics accepts arguments or theism and or Christianity typ-
ically insisting (like presuppositionalism) that a worldview determines the in-
terpretation o acts But like the views on the right side o the chart that
worldview is established by something other than a necessary assumption (or
13Presuppositionalists would say that the transcendental argument provides objective evidence but
they would not say that it is ldquoindependently existingrdquo since no acts exist independent o God
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2335
Introduction 10486261048629
Geisler it is by undeniable first principles but unlike presuppositionalism they
are necessary in every worldview c Hanna)
Evidentialism is the near polar opposite o presuppositionalism affirmingthat acts can be known independently o the views that interpret them and that
acts can even point to the correct interpretation
I once showed this chart to Greg Bahnsen who not surprisingly said that pre-
suppositionalism should be on the right next to rationalism as offering absolutely
certain proo or belie In response I pointed out that certainty was secondary the
primary order o the chart was appeal to independent evidence or the conclusion
So fideism appeals to no independent evidence Presuppositionalism appeals to a
presupposition but not to independent evidence as grounds or belie (ie no direct
proo) Reormed epistemology appeals to intuition Experientialism appeals to
one subjective criterion as evidence or a conclusion pragmatism to one external
criterion Next is veridicalism which appeals to givens plus external and inde-
pendent evidence Ten comes combinationalism with its appeals to consistency
o hypothesis and fittingness with the acts plus livability Ten classical apologetics
appeals to independent evidence or theism and Christianity And finally eviden-
tialism appeals to a multiplicity o independent actsmdashthe opposite o presupposi-tionalismrsquos view that there are no independent acts Bahnsen thought or a ew
seconds and said ldquoTat could work that could workrdquo983089983092 I then mentioned that I
always tell my students that presuppositionalists see their view as close to
rationalism as ar as both offer certainty I add that they would see their presup-
positionalism as different rom rationalismrsquos method o using independent evi-
dence (Descartes or example amously beginning rom his own thoughtmdashagain
the opposite o presuppositionalism which begins with God as the standard o
truth) I it were not visually too complicated on the chart I might put fideism
presuppositionalism and rationalism each at different points o a triangle so that
presuppositionalism could be equidistant rom the aith o fideism and the absolute
proo o rationalism yet unique But over the years students have generally con-
firmed that it would be too complicated and thus unhelpul
Beore we begin it is worth briefly recounting why fideism which challenges
the legitimacy o apologetics is biblically inadequate Here are just a ew ex-
amples o biblical reasons or belie Moses asks God or signs to show his people
that he has divine authority (Ex 10486281048625) which God grants and later he grants
14Personal conversation afer Bahnsen was a guest speaker in my apologetics class Masterrsquos Col-
lege Newhall Caliornia in the all o 10486259830979830971048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2435
10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
abundant signs in the conrontation with Pharaoh (Ex 1048631ndash10486251048625) In the wilderness
God supernaturally demonstrates his presence his provision or his people and
his backing o Mosesrsquo leadership In the conquest o the Promised Land Goddivides the Jordan (Josh 98309110486251048631) gives victories over superior orces (Josh 10486251048628-1048633
98309110486251048624-10486251048631) and extends daylight (Josh 1048625104862410486251048626-10486251048628) He grants miracles or Gideon
(Judg 104863110486251048630-10486261048626) Samson (Judg 104862510486281048630 10486251048633 1048625104862910486251048629 10486251048630983091) and others Prophets such as
Elijah predict events and perorm miracles Jesusrsquo lie ulfills a number o proph-
ecies and is attested by miracles He points to them as grounds or belie (Lk
1048626104862810486261048631 Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) When John the Baptist doubts Jesus points to evidence that
matches prophecy (Mt 104862510486251048628-1048629 c Is 1048626104863310486251048632) Jesus meets Tomasrsquos doubts with
evidence (Jn 1048626104862410486261048631) Afer the resurrection he gives ldquomany convincing proosrdquo
(Acts 1048625983091 c Lk 104862610486289830911048633) John recounts some o Jesusrsquo supernatural deeds as a way
o inspiring saving aith (Jn 104862610486249830911048624) Te supernatural authority o the Seventy
(Lk 1048625104862410486251048631) and the apostles (1048626 Cor 1048625104862610486251048626) is attested by miracles Paul argues rom
Scripture that Christ had to suffer and rise again (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091) and he regards
the resurrection as ldquoproo to all menrdquo (Acts 104862510486319830911048625 c Rom 10486251048628) Some do believe
because o miracles (Jn 1048625104862610486251048625 Acts 104863310486281048626 104862598309110486251048626)
As mentioned above this does not show that an unproblematic appeal tomiracles and prophecy can be made today but that Scripture uses reasons in
support o aith Just how that should be done is the subject o this book
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2135
Introduction 1048626983091
uncaused) Te teleological argument reasons rom design in the universe to a
designer Modern science has uncovered intricate design in DNA or example
We are also discovering the amazing extent to which the universe has been finelytuned to allow or lie Te moral argument which is not used as widely as the
cosmological and teleological arguments argues rom the existence o objective
moral obligations to a higher moral being as the grounds o such obligations
Norman Geisler believes we must use a different approach to prove the truth
o a worldview versus truth within a worldview He uses six first principles o
reality which cannot be denied because any attempt to deny them would use
them (similar to Hannarsquos view) We do not need to prove them we simply ldquoseerdquo
that they are true once we understand them One first principle (stated inor-
mally) is that ldquosomething existsrdquo Anyone who attempts to deny that is admitting
they exist Another is the principle o noncontradiction which would also be
assumed by anyone attempting to deny it Once alternatives are eliminated and
theism is proved Geisler shows that Christianity explains all the known acts in
the most consistent way
o the right o classical apologetics and just lef o rationalism (on the ar right)
evidentialism has been popularized in recent decades by Josh McDowell who wasinfluenced by John Warwick Montgomery Gary Habermas has also been influ-
ential and widely known Te view does not require that theism be proved first
While most evidentialists accept theistic arguments and would use them they do
not believe it is necessary to first prove theism Unlike classical apologists eviden-
tialists believe that at least to some extent acts point to their proper interpre-
tation So evidentialists typically work to prove the resurrection afer supporting
the veracity o the Bible (eg John Warwick Montgomery) or at least the believ-
ability o very widely accepted crucial acts (eg Gary Habermas) Many o the
same acts and approaches used by evidentialists are used by classical apologists
in their second step which seeks to prove Christianity
Letrsquos review the chart again this time more briefly For fideism there can be
no proo but there is certitude rom aith in revelation For presupposition-
alism there can be no direct proo o Christianity but we must presuppose it
roughly assume it by conviction and necessity Te case must ultimately be
circular Revelation is known o its own authority but we can have proo be-
cause it must be presupposed For Reormed epistemology noncircular argu-
ments are acceptable in principle and should be developed but they are not
adequate to ground something as crucial as religious aith Belie in God is an
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2235
10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
awareness that can arise in us because o the way we were created and belie
in Christianity is a divine gif Moving right experientialism is the first view
that accepts something as decisive standalone evidence or the conclusion thatChristianity is true Te evidence is internal and subjective Pragmatism deals
with workability which is a more objective orm o experience and is thereore
to the right o experientialism (Note that what ldquoworksrdquo can be defined differ-
ently by different people)
Moving urther right (but not including rationalism on the extreme right nor
combinationalism) we have views that accept induction as an important and e-
ective method o proo or religious belie Tey (including combinationalism)
also accept a cumulative case that is layers o proo adding up to orm a stronger
case overall Religious experience and workability in lie (including giving lie
meaning) also typically play a supporting role in an overall case (whereas with
experientialism experience is the only proo) Veridicalism accepts both givens
that are known intuitively and that are undeniable and effective corroboration
through evidence and reason Everyone can have an immediate awareness o God
and the Christian can have an additional awareness o some essentials o Christi-
anity In its emphasis on direct awareness it is like Reormed epistemology but in veridicalism corroborating evidence can be strong and decisive So like Reormed
epistemology on its lef it has a place or intuition but like views on its right it
has a place or a convincing case based on evidence
As we continue to move right intuition (similar to ldquosel-attestingrdquo or presup-
positionalism) plays less o a role and there is more emphasis on independently
existing objective evidence as grounds or belie983089983091 Tere are also more such
objective criteria until we get to evidentialism which appeals to a multiplicity
o individual acts
Combinationalism accepts livability as a test o a hypothesis but only as one
o three aspects o consistency whereas to the lef pragmatism viewed livability
as the main criteria and to the right o combinationalism livability is viewed
as only one o a number o actors in an overall case
Classical apologetics accepts arguments or theism and or Christianity typ-
ically insisting (like presuppositionalism) that a worldview determines the in-
terpretation o acts But like the views on the right side o the chart that
worldview is established by something other than a necessary assumption (or
13Presuppositionalists would say that the transcendental argument provides objective evidence but
they would not say that it is ldquoindependently existingrdquo since no acts exist independent o God
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2335
Introduction 10486261048629
Geisler it is by undeniable first principles but unlike presuppositionalism they
are necessary in every worldview c Hanna)
Evidentialism is the near polar opposite o presuppositionalism affirmingthat acts can be known independently o the views that interpret them and that
acts can even point to the correct interpretation
I once showed this chart to Greg Bahnsen who not surprisingly said that pre-
suppositionalism should be on the right next to rationalism as offering absolutely
certain proo or belie In response I pointed out that certainty was secondary the
primary order o the chart was appeal to independent evidence or the conclusion
So fideism appeals to no independent evidence Presuppositionalism appeals to a
presupposition but not to independent evidence as grounds or belie (ie no direct
proo) Reormed epistemology appeals to intuition Experientialism appeals to
one subjective criterion as evidence or a conclusion pragmatism to one external
criterion Next is veridicalism which appeals to givens plus external and inde-
pendent evidence Ten comes combinationalism with its appeals to consistency
o hypothesis and fittingness with the acts plus livability Ten classical apologetics
appeals to independent evidence or theism and Christianity And finally eviden-
tialism appeals to a multiplicity o independent actsmdashthe opposite o presupposi-tionalismrsquos view that there are no independent acts Bahnsen thought or a ew
seconds and said ldquoTat could work that could workrdquo983089983092 I then mentioned that I
always tell my students that presuppositionalists see their view as close to
rationalism as ar as both offer certainty I add that they would see their presup-
positionalism as different rom rationalismrsquos method o using independent evi-
dence (Descartes or example amously beginning rom his own thoughtmdashagain
the opposite o presuppositionalism which begins with God as the standard o
truth) I it were not visually too complicated on the chart I might put fideism
presuppositionalism and rationalism each at different points o a triangle so that
presuppositionalism could be equidistant rom the aith o fideism and the absolute
proo o rationalism yet unique But over the years students have generally con-
firmed that it would be too complicated and thus unhelpul
Beore we begin it is worth briefly recounting why fideism which challenges
the legitimacy o apologetics is biblically inadequate Here are just a ew ex-
amples o biblical reasons or belie Moses asks God or signs to show his people
that he has divine authority (Ex 10486281048625) which God grants and later he grants
14Personal conversation afer Bahnsen was a guest speaker in my apologetics class Masterrsquos Col-
lege Newhall Caliornia in the all o 10486259830979830971048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2435
10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
abundant signs in the conrontation with Pharaoh (Ex 1048631ndash10486251048625) In the wilderness
God supernaturally demonstrates his presence his provision or his people and
his backing o Mosesrsquo leadership In the conquest o the Promised Land Goddivides the Jordan (Josh 98309110486251048631) gives victories over superior orces (Josh 10486251048628-1048633
98309110486251048624-10486251048631) and extends daylight (Josh 1048625104862410486251048626-10486251048628) He grants miracles or Gideon
(Judg 104863110486251048630-10486261048626) Samson (Judg 104862510486281048630 10486251048633 1048625104862910486251048629 10486251048630983091) and others Prophets such as
Elijah predict events and perorm miracles Jesusrsquo lie ulfills a number o proph-
ecies and is attested by miracles He points to them as grounds or belie (Lk
1048626104862810486261048631 Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) When John the Baptist doubts Jesus points to evidence that
matches prophecy (Mt 104862510486251048628-1048629 c Is 1048626104863310486251048632) Jesus meets Tomasrsquos doubts with
evidence (Jn 1048626104862410486261048631) Afer the resurrection he gives ldquomany convincing proosrdquo
(Acts 1048625983091 c Lk 104862610486289830911048633) John recounts some o Jesusrsquo supernatural deeds as a way
o inspiring saving aith (Jn 104862610486249830911048624) Te supernatural authority o the Seventy
(Lk 1048625104862410486251048631) and the apostles (1048626 Cor 1048625104862610486251048626) is attested by miracles Paul argues rom
Scripture that Christ had to suffer and rise again (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091) and he regards
the resurrection as ldquoproo to all menrdquo (Acts 104862510486319830911048625 c Rom 10486251048628) Some do believe
because o miracles (Jn 1048625104862610486251048625 Acts 104863310486281048626 104862598309110486251048626)
As mentioned above this does not show that an unproblematic appeal tomiracles and prophecy can be made today but that Scripture uses reasons in
support o aith Just how that should be done is the subject o this book
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2235
10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
awareness that can arise in us because o the way we were created and belie
in Christianity is a divine gif Moving right experientialism is the first view
that accepts something as decisive standalone evidence or the conclusion thatChristianity is true Te evidence is internal and subjective Pragmatism deals
with workability which is a more objective orm o experience and is thereore
to the right o experientialism (Note that what ldquoworksrdquo can be defined differ-
ently by different people)
Moving urther right (but not including rationalism on the extreme right nor
combinationalism) we have views that accept induction as an important and e-
ective method o proo or religious belie Tey (including combinationalism)
also accept a cumulative case that is layers o proo adding up to orm a stronger
case overall Religious experience and workability in lie (including giving lie
meaning) also typically play a supporting role in an overall case (whereas with
experientialism experience is the only proo) Veridicalism accepts both givens
that are known intuitively and that are undeniable and effective corroboration
through evidence and reason Everyone can have an immediate awareness o God
and the Christian can have an additional awareness o some essentials o Christi-
anity In its emphasis on direct awareness it is like Reormed epistemology but in veridicalism corroborating evidence can be strong and decisive So like Reormed
epistemology on its lef it has a place or intuition but like views on its right it
has a place or a convincing case based on evidence
As we continue to move right intuition (similar to ldquosel-attestingrdquo or presup-
positionalism) plays less o a role and there is more emphasis on independently
existing objective evidence as grounds or belie983089983091 Tere are also more such
objective criteria until we get to evidentialism which appeals to a multiplicity
o individual acts
Combinationalism accepts livability as a test o a hypothesis but only as one
o three aspects o consistency whereas to the lef pragmatism viewed livability
as the main criteria and to the right o combinationalism livability is viewed
as only one o a number o actors in an overall case
Classical apologetics accepts arguments or theism and or Christianity typ-
ically insisting (like presuppositionalism) that a worldview determines the in-
terpretation o acts But like the views on the right side o the chart that
worldview is established by something other than a necessary assumption (or
13Presuppositionalists would say that the transcendental argument provides objective evidence but
they would not say that it is ldquoindependently existingrdquo since no acts exist independent o God
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2335
Introduction 10486261048629
Geisler it is by undeniable first principles but unlike presuppositionalism they
are necessary in every worldview c Hanna)
Evidentialism is the near polar opposite o presuppositionalism affirmingthat acts can be known independently o the views that interpret them and that
acts can even point to the correct interpretation
I once showed this chart to Greg Bahnsen who not surprisingly said that pre-
suppositionalism should be on the right next to rationalism as offering absolutely
certain proo or belie In response I pointed out that certainty was secondary the
primary order o the chart was appeal to independent evidence or the conclusion
So fideism appeals to no independent evidence Presuppositionalism appeals to a
presupposition but not to independent evidence as grounds or belie (ie no direct
proo) Reormed epistemology appeals to intuition Experientialism appeals to
one subjective criterion as evidence or a conclusion pragmatism to one external
criterion Next is veridicalism which appeals to givens plus external and inde-
pendent evidence Ten comes combinationalism with its appeals to consistency
o hypothesis and fittingness with the acts plus livability Ten classical apologetics
appeals to independent evidence or theism and Christianity And finally eviden-
tialism appeals to a multiplicity o independent actsmdashthe opposite o presupposi-tionalismrsquos view that there are no independent acts Bahnsen thought or a ew
seconds and said ldquoTat could work that could workrdquo983089983092 I then mentioned that I
always tell my students that presuppositionalists see their view as close to
rationalism as ar as both offer certainty I add that they would see their presup-
positionalism as different rom rationalismrsquos method o using independent evi-
dence (Descartes or example amously beginning rom his own thoughtmdashagain
the opposite o presuppositionalism which begins with God as the standard o
truth) I it were not visually too complicated on the chart I might put fideism
presuppositionalism and rationalism each at different points o a triangle so that
presuppositionalism could be equidistant rom the aith o fideism and the absolute
proo o rationalism yet unique But over the years students have generally con-
firmed that it would be too complicated and thus unhelpul
Beore we begin it is worth briefly recounting why fideism which challenges
the legitimacy o apologetics is biblically inadequate Here are just a ew ex-
amples o biblical reasons or belie Moses asks God or signs to show his people
that he has divine authority (Ex 10486281048625) which God grants and later he grants
14Personal conversation afer Bahnsen was a guest speaker in my apologetics class Masterrsquos Col-
lege Newhall Caliornia in the all o 10486259830979830971048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2435
10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
abundant signs in the conrontation with Pharaoh (Ex 1048631ndash10486251048625) In the wilderness
God supernaturally demonstrates his presence his provision or his people and
his backing o Mosesrsquo leadership In the conquest o the Promised Land Goddivides the Jordan (Josh 98309110486251048631) gives victories over superior orces (Josh 10486251048628-1048633
98309110486251048624-10486251048631) and extends daylight (Josh 1048625104862410486251048626-10486251048628) He grants miracles or Gideon
(Judg 104863110486251048630-10486261048626) Samson (Judg 104862510486281048630 10486251048633 1048625104862910486251048629 10486251048630983091) and others Prophets such as
Elijah predict events and perorm miracles Jesusrsquo lie ulfills a number o proph-
ecies and is attested by miracles He points to them as grounds or belie (Lk
1048626104862810486261048631 Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) When John the Baptist doubts Jesus points to evidence that
matches prophecy (Mt 104862510486251048628-1048629 c Is 1048626104863310486251048632) Jesus meets Tomasrsquos doubts with
evidence (Jn 1048626104862410486261048631) Afer the resurrection he gives ldquomany convincing proosrdquo
(Acts 1048625983091 c Lk 104862610486289830911048633) John recounts some o Jesusrsquo supernatural deeds as a way
o inspiring saving aith (Jn 104862610486249830911048624) Te supernatural authority o the Seventy
(Lk 1048625104862410486251048631) and the apostles (1048626 Cor 1048625104862610486251048626) is attested by miracles Paul argues rom
Scripture that Christ had to suffer and rise again (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091) and he regards
the resurrection as ldquoproo to all menrdquo (Acts 104862510486319830911048625 c Rom 10486251048628) Some do believe
because o miracles (Jn 1048625104862610486251048625 Acts 104863310486281048626 104862598309110486251048626)
As mentioned above this does not show that an unproblematic appeal tomiracles and prophecy can be made today but that Scripture uses reasons in
support o aith Just how that should be done is the subject o this book
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2335
Introduction 10486261048629
Geisler it is by undeniable first principles but unlike presuppositionalism they
are necessary in every worldview c Hanna)
Evidentialism is the near polar opposite o presuppositionalism affirmingthat acts can be known independently o the views that interpret them and that
acts can even point to the correct interpretation
I once showed this chart to Greg Bahnsen who not surprisingly said that pre-
suppositionalism should be on the right next to rationalism as offering absolutely
certain proo or belie In response I pointed out that certainty was secondary the
primary order o the chart was appeal to independent evidence or the conclusion
So fideism appeals to no independent evidence Presuppositionalism appeals to a
presupposition but not to independent evidence as grounds or belie (ie no direct
proo) Reormed epistemology appeals to intuition Experientialism appeals to
one subjective criterion as evidence or a conclusion pragmatism to one external
criterion Next is veridicalism which appeals to givens plus external and inde-
pendent evidence Ten comes combinationalism with its appeals to consistency
o hypothesis and fittingness with the acts plus livability Ten classical apologetics
appeals to independent evidence or theism and Christianity And finally eviden-
tialism appeals to a multiplicity o independent actsmdashthe opposite o presupposi-tionalismrsquos view that there are no independent acts Bahnsen thought or a ew
seconds and said ldquoTat could work that could workrdquo983089983092 I then mentioned that I
always tell my students that presuppositionalists see their view as close to
rationalism as ar as both offer certainty I add that they would see their presup-
positionalism as different rom rationalismrsquos method o using independent evi-
dence (Descartes or example amously beginning rom his own thoughtmdashagain
the opposite o presuppositionalism which begins with God as the standard o
truth) I it were not visually too complicated on the chart I might put fideism
presuppositionalism and rationalism each at different points o a triangle so that
presuppositionalism could be equidistant rom the aith o fideism and the absolute
proo o rationalism yet unique But over the years students have generally con-
firmed that it would be too complicated and thus unhelpul
Beore we begin it is worth briefly recounting why fideism which challenges
the legitimacy o apologetics is biblically inadequate Here are just a ew ex-
amples o biblical reasons or belie Moses asks God or signs to show his people
that he has divine authority (Ex 10486281048625) which God grants and later he grants
14Personal conversation afer Bahnsen was a guest speaker in my apologetics class Masterrsquos Col-
lege Newhall Caliornia in the all o 10486259830979830971048627
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2435
10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
abundant signs in the conrontation with Pharaoh (Ex 1048631ndash10486251048625) In the wilderness
God supernaturally demonstrates his presence his provision or his people and
his backing o Mosesrsquo leadership In the conquest o the Promised Land Goddivides the Jordan (Josh 98309110486251048631) gives victories over superior orces (Josh 10486251048628-1048633
98309110486251048624-10486251048631) and extends daylight (Josh 1048625104862410486251048626-10486251048628) He grants miracles or Gideon
(Judg 104863110486251048630-10486261048626) Samson (Judg 104862510486281048630 10486251048633 1048625104862910486251048629 10486251048630983091) and others Prophets such as
Elijah predict events and perorm miracles Jesusrsquo lie ulfills a number o proph-
ecies and is attested by miracles He points to them as grounds or belie (Lk
1048626104862810486261048631 Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) When John the Baptist doubts Jesus points to evidence that
matches prophecy (Mt 104862510486251048628-1048629 c Is 1048626104863310486251048632) Jesus meets Tomasrsquos doubts with
evidence (Jn 1048626104862410486261048631) Afer the resurrection he gives ldquomany convincing proosrdquo
(Acts 1048625983091 c Lk 104862610486289830911048633) John recounts some o Jesusrsquo supernatural deeds as a way
o inspiring saving aith (Jn 104862610486249830911048624) Te supernatural authority o the Seventy
(Lk 1048625104862410486251048631) and the apostles (1048626 Cor 1048625104862610486251048626) is attested by miracles Paul argues rom
Scripture that Christ had to suffer and rise again (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091) and he regards
the resurrection as ldquoproo to all menrdquo (Acts 104862510486319830911048625 c Rom 10486251048628) Some do believe
because o miracles (Jn 1048625104862610486251048625 Acts 104863310486281048626 104862598309110486251048626)
As mentioned above this does not show that an unproblematic appeal tomiracles and prophecy can be made today but that Scripture uses reasons in
support o aith Just how that should be done is the subject o this book
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2435
10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
abundant signs in the conrontation with Pharaoh (Ex 1048631ndash10486251048625) In the wilderness
God supernaturally demonstrates his presence his provision or his people and
his backing o Mosesrsquo leadership In the conquest o the Promised Land Goddivides the Jordan (Josh 98309110486251048631) gives victories over superior orces (Josh 10486251048628-1048633
98309110486251048624-10486251048631) and extends daylight (Josh 1048625104862410486251048626-10486251048628) He grants miracles or Gideon
(Judg 104863110486251048630-10486261048626) Samson (Judg 104862510486281048630 10486251048633 1048625104862910486251048629 10486251048630983091) and others Prophets such as
Elijah predict events and perorm miracles Jesusrsquo lie ulfills a number o proph-
ecies and is attested by miracles He points to them as grounds or belie (Lk
1048626104862810486261048631 Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) When John the Baptist doubts Jesus points to evidence that
matches prophecy (Mt 104862510486251048628-1048629 c Is 1048626104863310486251048632) Jesus meets Tomasrsquos doubts with
evidence (Jn 1048626104862410486261048631) Afer the resurrection he gives ldquomany convincing proosrdquo
(Acts 1048625983091 c Lk 104862610486289830911048633) John recounts some o Jesusrsquo supernatural deeds as a way
o inspiring saving aith (Jn 104862610486249830911048624) Te supernatural authority o the Seventy
(Lk 1048625104862410486251048631) and the apostles (1048626 Cor 1048625104862610486251048626) is attested by miracles Paul argues rom
Scripture that Christ had to suffer and rise again (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091) and he regards
the resurrection as ldquoproo to all menrdquo (Acts 104862510486319830911048625 c Rom 10486251048628) Some do believe
because o miracles (Jn 1048625104862610486251048625 Acts 104863310486281048626 104862598309110486251048626)
As mentioned above this does not show that an unproblematic appeal tomiracles and prophecy can be made today but that Scripture uses reasons in
support o aith Just how that should be done is the subject o this book
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2535
PA R T O N E
Foundational
Issues
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2635
ndash ndash
APOLOGETICS IN THE BIBLE
Some have claimed that the Bible contains no apologetics and that we look in
vain or any attempt to prove the existence o God It simply assumes the exis-
tence o God and we should do the same But this view overlooks the act that
the Bible was written mostly or the benefit o believers not or unbelievers And
looking or answers to atheistsmdasho which there were very ew in Israel and not
that many in the classical worldmdashoverlooks the way believers dealt with the
challenges o the day Te main question in ancient times reflected in the Oldestament was not whether God exists but which God should be obeyed and
served A major issue in the New estament was who is the person o Christ
O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Much more work needs to be done on the subject o apologetics in the Bible
especially in the Old estament We can however identiy some general themes
Godrsquos power to act is given throughout the Old estament as a reason to be-
lieve and trust in him He supports those who obey honor and trust him confi-
dently expecting him to act (eg Is 104862810486331048626983091) He also provides or them guides and
protects them and even cares or their descendants (Deut 104862610486321048625-10486251048628) Tose who
oppose him he will oppose in a myriad o ways (eg 1048625 Sam 10486269830911048624 Ps 1048625104863210486261048630) Tere
are anomalies such as Job but in general there is a sharp contrast between the
well-being o those who love and serve him versus those who oppose him
Tough the people might not have thought o it primarily as a source o confir-
mation there is some explanatory power and thus confirmation in the corre-lation between personal and national aithulness to Yahweh and well-being in
the past and present and as a predictor o the uture and conversely or corre-
lation between lack o aithulness with trouble in the past present and uture
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2735
9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Godrsquos actions had understandably more apologetic impact on the ancient
peoples who witnessed them and in the case o Israel passed down the mem-
ories o them For example many o those who saw Israel deeat powerul en-emies became convinced o Yahwehrsquos reality (Josh 10486261048633-10486251048625) Te persuasiveness o
an argument rom events to the God behind them is elt less today since it de-
pends on accepting the Bible as an accurate historical record oday owing to
several centuries o attacks on the historical credibility o the Bible many un-
believers doubt its historical accuracy (what the Christian should do about that
doubt is partly the subject o this book)
Isaiah exemplifies an important type o Old estament apologetic reasoning
o make it vivid he offers a courtroom proceeding with evidence and witnesses
challenging opponents
ldquoPresent your caserdquo the L983151983154983140 says
ldquoBring orward your strong argumentsrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048625 c Is 104862898309110486261048630 1048628104862910486261048625)
Te proceedings contrast Yahweh the true God with idols which are made by
very human crafsmen rom ordinary materials (Is 1048628104862410486251048632-10486261048624 104862810486251048630-1048631 104862810486281048633-10486261048624)
Whereas idols cannot save Yahweh can vanquish enemies (Is 1048628104862510486251048625-10486251048626) sustainlie (Is 1048628104862510486251048631-10486251048632) and ructiy the land (1048628104862510486251048633) He does it in order
that they may see and recognize
And consider and gain insight as well
Tat the hand o the L983151983154983140 has done this
And the Holy One o Israel has created it (Is 1048628104862510486261048624)
Idols are mere ldquowind and emptinessrdquo (Is 1048628104862510486261048633) that can neither answer nor deliver
(Is 104862810486301048631 1048628104862910486261048624)mdashin act the idols themselves have gone into captivity (Is 104862810486301048626)In similar reasoning the psalmist says that idols are merely ldquothe work o
manrsquos handsrdquo Tey cannot speak see hear smell eel or move Tose who make
and trust them ldquowill become like themrdquo (Ps 1048625104862510486291048628-1048632 c Ps 1048625983091104862910486251048629-10486251048632) Habakkuk
also contrasts trusting in something one has made rather than God (Hab 104862610486251048632)
Jeremiah emphasizes that only the true God not idols can give rain (essential
to lie in a desert Jer 1048625104862810486261048626)mdasha point that Elijah dramatically demonstrates in
his showdown with the alse prophets and their idols (1048625 Kings 10486251048631ndash10486251048632)Tis type o reasoning was well understood by other ancient peoples When
the Assyrians go against Israel the spokesperson says to Hezekiah that it is utile
to trust that Yahweh will deliver them No other gods have delivered their people
rom Assyria and Yahweh will be no different Hezekiah prays that God will show
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2835
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048625
he is superior to the idols and God responds by giving them victory (Is 9830911048631) When
the Syrians invade Israel in the hill country and suffer deeat they suppose it is
because Yahweh is a God o the hills I they fight on the plains they reason theirown gods will be stronger and will deeat Israel Yahweh makes sure the Syrians
are deeated on the plain as well to show he is Lord over all (1048625 Kings 104862610486241048626983091 10486261048632)
Ancient societies had many supposed gods and prophets speaking or them
Even Israel at times had prophets representing other gods as well as prophets
who spoke alsely in the name o the Lord Te genuine prophets o the true God
were at times validated by perorming miracles Te woman o Zarephath un-
derstands this when Elijah raises her son She says ldquoNow I know that you are a
man o God and that the word o the L983151983154983140 in your mouth is truthrdquo (1048625 Kings
1048625104863110486261048628) One o the most dramatic miracles in the Old estament is Elijahrsquos
showdown with the alse prophets on Mt Carmel when their god cannot cause
their sacrifice to spontaneously burn up whereas Elijahrsquos God can ldquoWhen all
the people saw it they ell on their aces and they said lsquoTe L983151983154983140 He is God
the L983151983154983140 He is Godrsquordquo (1048625 Kings 104862510486329830911048633) Additionally one o the most memorable
events in Israelrsquos history one that defines them as a nation is the miracle o the
exodus Te clear implication reiterated throughout the Old estament is thatthey could have come orth only i their God was real
In the Old estament the ability to oretell the uture is also a clear mark o
the true God himsel Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh alone can predict the uture
(Is 104862810486251048626983091) ldquodeclaring the end rom the beginningrdquo (Is 1048628104863010486251048624) God explicitly iden-
tifies this ability as a way to discern between one who speaks or him and one
who does not ldquolsquoHow will we know the word which the L983151983154983140 has not spokenrsquo
When a prophet speaks in the name o the L983151983154983140 i the thing does not come about
or come true that is the thing which the L983151983154983140 has not spoken Te prophet has
spoken it presumptuously you shall not be araid o himrdquo (Deut 1048625104863210486261048625-10486261048626)
Te prophetic tradition that was validated ormed a cohesive whole in that
each contribution constructed a harmonious message In many cases they knew
their contemporaries and even validated their message (eg Elijahrsquos mantle
passed to Elisha 1048626 Kings 10486261048625983091)
N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156
Te New estament reflects important apologetic themes ound in the Old For
example Christ clearly and repeatedly appeals to prophecy to show that he
represents the true God He came as the ulfillment o the predictions
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 2935
9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
Christ also uses miracles as an additional way to demonstrate that he speaks or
the living God He goes so ar as to say ldquoI I do not do the works o My Father do
not believe Me but i I do them though you do not believe Me believe the worksso that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Fatherrdquo
(Jn 104862510486249830911048631-9830911048632) Nicodemus is one who clearly grasps the significance o Christrsquos
miracles saying ldquoRabbi we know that You have come rom God as a teacher or
no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with himrdquo (Jn 9830911048626) John closes
his Gospel by saying that he has recorded some o Jesusrsquo miracles in order that
people might come to believe in him and thereby have salvation (Jn 104862610486249830911048624-9830911048625)
Acts also records numerous miraculous events perormed by or on behal o
the apostles (eg Acts 9830911048631 1048625104862810486251048624) Miracles as divine credentials will be used
again by the two witnesses in Revelation 104862510486251048629-1048630
It is common to hearmdasheven rom pulpitsmdashthat miracles never change the
mind o anyone they merely confirm the aith o believers and harden the dis-
belie o nonbelievers But the idea is simply not biblical When Jesus raises
Lazarus ldquomany o the Jews who came to Mary and saw what He had done be-
lieved in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048629) Te Pharisees become concerned that i Jesus goes on
perorming such miracles ldquoall men will believe in Himrdquo (Jn 1048625104862510486281048632) When Peterraises Aeneas ldquoall who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him and they turned to
the Lordrdquo (Acts 10486339830911048629) When Peter raises abitha ldquoit became known all over
Joppa and many believed in the Lordrdquo (Acts 104863310486281048626) When Paul blinds Elymas the
magician ldquothe proconsul believed when he saw what had happenedrdquo (Acts 104862598309110486251048626)
Jesus expects that miracles will convince people and condemns Chorazin Beth-
saida and Capernaum (Mt 1048625104862510486261048625 1048626983091) or ailing to respond to them (Tis is not
to say that citing the miracles o the Bible will have the same apologetic effect
today that it had in biblical times or reasons we will mention briefly when we
discuss David Hume) Tere is a sense in which or some people their response
to a miracle may have merely maniested the underlying condition o their heart
such that those who were open responded whereas those who were already
hardened rejected the miracle and the message But that is different rom the
miracle itsel always and only either confirming people in belie or hardening
them in unbelie but never convincing
Jesus also deends his message with scriptural arguments For example he
conronts his opponents with the act that the Messiah will be the son o David
and yet David can also call him ldquoLordrdquo (Mk 104862510486269830911048629-9830911048631) And he deends his
message logically When his opponents claim that he casts out demons by the
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3035
Apologetics in the Bible 983091983091
power o Satan Jesus points out the absurdity o the idea that Satan would fight
his own orces It is a move in logic called a reductio ad absurdum in which
you show that your opponentrsquos position leads to an absurdity (Mt 1048625104862610486261048629-10486261048630 Mk1048625104862610486261048630 Lk 1048625104862510486251048631-10486251048632)
Like Jesus the apostles seek to convince people o the truth In his Pentecost
sermon Peter reasons with his Jewish audience rom Scripture appealing also
to Jesusrsquo miracles (Acts 104862610486261048626) and the resurrection (Acts 104862610486261048628) Paul customarily
goes to synagogues and ldquoreason[s] with them rom the Scriptures explaining
and giving evidencerdquo (Acts 104862510486311048626-983091 c Acts 104862510486321048628 10486251048633 104862510486331048632) Acts notes with approval
those who were powerul at deending the truth o the gospel and reuting ob-
jections (Stephen Acts 104863010486251048624 Paul Acts 104863310486261048626 Apollos Acts 1048625104863210486261048632) Paul includes
the ability to reute those nonbelievers who contradict sound doctrine as a
qualification o an elder (it 10486251048633 nonbelievers c it 104862510486251048624-10486251048630)
In Galatians Paul answers what was no doubt an objection rom some Jews
How could Jesus be the Messiah or even be sent rom God i he was hanged on a
cross and died Paul acknowledges that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed but
explains that Christ died a substitutionary death or sin taking the curse or our
sin on himsel (Gal 9830911048625983091 see Deut 104862610486251048626983091) He also deends salvation by grace throughaith in the ace o Jewish and Judaizing tendencies to depend on works (Gal 9830911048630-10486251048626)
Paul changes his approach when talking to non-Jewish audiences Afer
healing a man at Lystra he conronts the peoplesrsquo devotion to the Greek deities
He says that God ldquodid not leave Himsel without witness in that He did good
and gave you rains rom heaven and ruitul seasons satisying your hearts with
ood and gladnessrdquo (Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) All the while God had been showing people his
true nature through his providential care and the beneficent regularities o
nature Tis echoes the words o Psalm 10486251048633 ldquoTe heavens are telling o the glory
o Godrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048625) Te regularities o the universe (Ps 104862510486331048626 ldquoday to dayrdquo ldquonight to
nightrdquo) give clear nonverbal testimony (Ps 10486251048633983091 ldquono speech nor are there wordsrdquo)
that reaches ldquothrough all the earthrdquo (Ps 104862510486331048628)
Paulrsquos most extensive recorded presentation to Gentiles is his remarkable
sermon in Acts 10486251048631 to some o the intelligentsia o the day Discussion o the
sermon could fill a chapter o its own but we could say briefly that he first gets
their attention (Acts 1048625104863110486261048626-1048626983091) then says things that agree with their views (Acts
1048625104863110486261048628-10486261048633) and goes on to raise issues that conflict with their views (Acts 104862510486319830911048624-9830911048625)
o those unamiliar with the relevant Greek philosophical views it appears that
Paul is conronting them rom start to finish But actually he is showing some
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3135
9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
agreement He no doubt was well acquainted with the views o the Stoics in part
because his hometown arsus was a major Stoic center Stoics held that God is
not confined to temples and idols (Acts 1048625104863110486261048628) nor is he like the mythic godswho have needs (Acts 1048625104863110486261048629) He is much bigger than that (Acts 1048625104863110486261048633) He is
immanent in the world (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631) Furthermore (in contrast to much Greek
cultural chauvinism) Stoics held that humanity is a unity 983089 (Acts 1048625104863110486261048631-10486261048632) But
just when his audience would have elt like standing and cheering Paul con-
ronts both the Stoics and Epicureans with those parts o the gospel that would
have been oreign to any Greek He mentions judgment through Christ and the
resurrection (Acts 104862510486319830911048625) Te Greeks held that the body imprisons the soul so
the idea o rejoining onersquos body in the aferlie would have made no sense And
thatrsquos when the meeting breaks up (Acts 104862510486319830911048626)
Some Christians regard Paul as having erred in his Acts 10486251048631 presentation
Some also regard 1048625 Corinthians 10486261048625-1048629 as a statement o conession and resolve
not to dabble in philosophical talk again but instead to give a straightorward
presentation o the gospel However those who hold the sermon to be no less
exemplary than Paulrsquos other evangelistic speeches point out that Paul gives no
indication to the Corinthians that he is thinking about his speech in Athens Nordo the passages necessarily conflict He says to the believing Corinthians that
he wants their aith to rest on the power o God rather than human wisdom and
he ocuses on Christ o the unbelieving Athenians he compares and contrasts
their views with Christianity and talks about Christ
Tere is no indication in either context that Paul does anything wrong It
would be hard to imagine Luke leaving out any such indication since the
speech is so important It is the most detailed o the apostlersquos encounters with
Gentiles and it is in no less than Athens the center o thought in the ancient
world Furthermore the supposedly errant eatures o the speech are also in
his brie address at Lystra (Acts 1048625104862810486251048629-10486251048631) he quotes no Scripture and does not
ocus on Jesus as Messiah (incidentally he also mentions Godrsquos patience Acts
1048625104862810486251048630 c Acts 104862510486319830911048624) It is here that he appeals to natural revelation (beneficent
order Acts 1048625104862810486251048631) So i Paul is wrong in Acts 10486251048631 he is also wrong in Acts 10486251048628 yet
neither context indicates he is
Luke ends his account o the speech with its results Some reject the
message some want to hear more and ldquosome men joined him and believedrdquo
1Michelle V Lee Paul the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge Cambridge University Press
1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3235
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048629
(Acts 104862510486319830911048628) One convert is no less than Dionysius the Areopagite who tra-
dition says became important in the early church So i the speech was a
ailure it had a remarkable effectTough Paul appeals to natural revelation and quotes no Scripture he does
present scriptural ideas It seems he expects certain things to be clear to people
even apart rom Scripturemdashwhich fits what he says in Romans 1048625 Tere he explains
that all people are accountable and without excuse because they can have some
basic knowledge o God and his moral law (Rom 104862510486251048633 9830911048626 c Rom 104862610486251048628-10486251048629) ldquoFor
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes His eternal power and divine
nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuserdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624 [emphasis added]) He does not go into
detail but it seems that everyone can make a simple inerence to the existence o
God Creation allows people to clearly see ldquoHis invisible attributes His eternal
power and divine naturerdquo (Rom 104862510486261048624) Tose who worship some demeaning and
idolatrous distortion o God are denying that basic awareness available to every
human (Rom 104862510486261048625 1048626983091) Tere is an alternate view that in Romans Paul is reerring
to a noninerential or nondiscursive awareness o God that we simply become
aware o God without it being a conclusion (which as we shall see is held by AlvinPlantinga and is considered possible by William Lane Craig)
Whatever is available about God through inerence or immediate awareness
is however not specific enough to include the gospel Paul says that the contents
o the gospel come only through a human messenger ldquoHow will they hear
without a preacherrdquo (Rom 1048625104862410486251048628)
Luke weaves into his writings his own deense o Christianity though it is
rarely recognized as such by modern readers because he was responding to the
first-century situation Christianity looked like a troublemakerrsquos religion be-
cause it was ofen associated with conflict riots and imprisonment Even its
ounder was executed as a common criminal Te Roman writer acitus says
that afer Christrsquos execution ldquoa most mischievous superstition thus checked or
the moment again broke out not only in Judaea the first source o the evil but
even in Rome where all things hideous and shameul rom every part o the
world find their centre and become popularrdquo983090
2acitus Annals 1048625104862910486281048628 Complete Works of acitus trans Alred John Church William Jackson
Brodribb and Sara Bryant (New York Random House 104862598309710486281048626) edited or Perseus Digital Library
httpwwwperseustufseduhoppertextdoc=Perseus9830771048627Atext9830771048627A104862598309798309798309798308810486269830889830889830959830969830771048627Abook9830771048627
D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3335
9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
In response Luke documents how the proceedings against Jesus were illegal983091
He was not convicted in a bona fide court Pilate declares his innocence three
times (Lk 10486269830911048628 10486251048628 10486261048626) and so does the Roman centurion attending his cruci-fixion (Lk 104862698309110486281048631 Matthew even includes a statement by Pilatersquos wie about Jesusrsquos
innocence Mt 1048626104863110486251048633) Luke includes that the hostility toward this innocent and
once popular man came rom jealous and hypocritical religious leaders As to
how the Son o Man could be the victim o scheming people the answer is that
he was no mere victim but everything was ollowing a divine plan John even
includes a prophetic explanation as to how Jesus could have chosen a traitor or
a disciple (Jn 98309110486251048632 see Ps 104862810486251048633)983092 Te Gospels show Jesus in confident submission
during the trials and crucifixion
As or trouble encountered later by Christrsquos ollowers Luke shows in Acts
how much o it came rom jealous leaders (eg Acts 104862598309110486281048629 104862510486281048626 10486251048633 104862510486311048629 1048625983091 1048626104862510486261048631)
o counteract them he records how many officials were avorable toward the
disciples One proconsul was avorable and even believed (Acts 10486259830911048631 10486251048626) At
Philippi the chie magistrate apologized to Paul and Silas or the illegal beatings
(Acts 104862510486309830911048631-9830911048632) Te proconsul o Achaia ruled that accusations against Paul
were merely internal to Judaism they were guiltless as ar as the government(Acts 104863210486251048626-1048625983091) In Ephesus civic leaders were riendly to Paul and publicly ab-
solved him o wrongdoing (Acts 104862510486331048625983091-10486251048628) Te Roman commander at Jerusalem
Claudius Lysias reported to Governor Felix that Paul had done nothing de-
serving death or imprisonment (Acts 104862698309110486261048633) Afer hearing Paulrsquos case Felix kept
him in prison an inordinate amount o time in hopes o receiving a bribe and
wishing to curry avor with the Jews (Acts 1048626104862810486261048629-10486261048631) Festus and Agrippa heard
his case and declared that he had done nothing deserving death or impris-
onment (Festus Acts 1048626104862910486261048629-10486261048631 Agrippa Acts 104862610486309830911048625-9830911048626)
Luke also records illegal proceedings against Paul that end with Paul graciously
overlooking the offenses (Acts 104862510486301048626983091-10486281048624 1048626104862610486261048628-10486261048633) Acts closes with Paul carrying
on his ull missionary activity rom prison right under the watchul eye o the
guard Had anything illegal been going on he would certainly have been stopped
As to the argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah because the Jews rejected
him Luke records Stephenrsquos speech in detail according to which Israel had a long
history o rejecting the prophets so this was nothing different (Acts 104863110486291048625-10486291048626) Mark
3F F Bruce Te Defense of the Gospel in the New estament rev ed (Grand Rapids Eerdmans
1048625983097983095983095) I am indebted to Bruce or pointing out the various elements included by Luke4Avery Dulles A History of Apologetics (10486259830979830951048625 repr Eugene OR Wip amp Stock 1048625983097983097983097) p 1048629
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3435
Apologetics in the Bible 9830911048631
also makes a point o Israelrsquos rejection o God and his messengers (Is 10486301048633 in Mk 104862810486251048626
Is 104862610486331048625983091 in Mk 10486311048630-1048631 Ps 10486251048625104863210486261048626-1048626983091 in Mk 1048625104862610486251048624-10486251048625) In act the theme o divinely super-
intended hardening appears in all our Gospels (Mt 104862598309110486251048628-10486251048629 Lk 104863210486251048624 Jn 1048625104862610486281048624) andActs (Acts 1048626104863210486261048630-10486261048631) Paul develops the theme in relation to God using that hard-
ening in order to bring Gentiles into his plan o salvation (Rom 104862510486251048632-10486251048624 10486261048629)
Te theme o Israelrsquos rejection o truth is given prophetic implications when
Mark and Luke record the astounding prediction that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Mk 10486259830911048626 Lk 1048625104863310486281048628) which was ulfilled in 983137983140 10486311048624
Te early church also began deending the resurrection Matthew answers
the charge which was apparently circulating that the disciples stole Jesusrsquo body
He explains that the story was concocted by the chie priests with the cooper-
ation o the soldiers (Mt 1048626104863210486251048625-10486251048629) Paul offers the eyewitness accounts o Peter
the welve James ldquoall the apostlesrdquo five hundred people and himsel (1048625 Cor
104862510486291048629-1048632) Luke records Paulrsquos deense beore authorities in which he offers his
encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 1048633983091-1048630) as the reason or his own
remarkable conversion (Acts 10486261048626983091-10486251048628 104862610486301048633-10486251048632)
Matthew includes a ull exposure o the deficiencies Jesus opposed in the
Judaism o his time and that gave him and the disciples so much trouble Acts1048626983091 charges the leaders with obsessive outward conormity and the desire or at-
tention while being inwardly ungodly missing the entire essence o a righteous
lie and persecuting those who are truly serving God Far rom pleasing God
they incur his wrath and lead ollowers disastrously astray Tey will in no way
enter heaven it is said (Acts 10486269830911048625983091 c Acts 104862910486261048624)
A more philosophical challenge seems to have arisen late in the first century
as what appears to be early orms o Gnosticism began to emerge (Paul seemed
to be opposing an early orm o Gnosticism in Colossians) In keeping with a
major theme in Asian thought Gnosticism held that the physical realm is bad
and the spiritual realm is good Tis entailed that Christ could not have been ully
physical and that his incarnation must have been only apparent In answer to this
John begins his epistle with an affirmation that Christ was physical ldquoWhat we
have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have looked at and touched
with our hands concerning the Word o Lierdquo (1048625 Jn 10486251048625 [emphasis added])
So understood in context the Bible is rich in apologetic content Tere are also
verses that moderate the importance o evidence Afer giving Tomas the proo he
requests Christ says ldquoBlessed are they who did not see and yet believedrdquo (Jn 1048626104862410486261048633)
And Paul tells the Corinthians he does not want to speak with ldquopersuasive wordsrdquo
Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
8102019 Mapping Apologetics by Brian Morley - EXCERPT
httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmapping-apologetics-by-brian-morley-excerpt 3535
9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
lest peoplersquos aith rest on ldquothe wisdom o menrdquo (1048625 Cor 10486261048628-1048629 c 1048625 Cor 104862510486251048631 10486261048625)
Te various approaches to apologetics seek to give a coherent account o
these and other biblical passages
top related