mapping apologetics by brian morley - excerpt

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







M A P P I N G



Copyrighted Material wwwivpresscompermissions





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




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




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




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




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




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





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)




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





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)




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





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




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





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




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





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)




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





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




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





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




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




PA R T O N E

Foundational

Issues




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




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




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




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





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




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





(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




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





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




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






M A P P I N G








CONTENTS

Introduction 983097






Presuppositionalism






















Evidentialism






Name Index 1048627983094983095

Subject Index 1048627983095983089





INTRODUCTION



























10486251048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155








S983139983151983152983141

















































apologetic methods

















10486251048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

























































O983158983141983154983158983145983141983159



among the views













10486251048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155



Pragmatism










bullExperiencealone








bullUnbiblical










Summary

No reasons or





One type of























bullDescartes


ground belief

bullThree tests are

unworkable



Christianity








Hypothesis tested




Proves Christianity


Certainty is


Figure (continued)




10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155









































































10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
























o individual acts




















































10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






















PA R T O N E

Foundational

Issues




ndash ndash










O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156

















9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

































































N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156







9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155


































1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629






































D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628




9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155








CONTENTS

Introduction 983097






Presuppositionalism






















Evidentialism






Name Index 1048627983094983095

Subject Index 1048627983095983089





INTRODUCTION



























10486251048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155








S983139983151983152983141

















































apologetic methods

















10486251048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

























































O983158983141983154983158983145983141983159



among the views













10486251048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155



Pragmatism










bullExperiencealone








bullUnbiblical










Summary

No reasons or





One type of























bullDescartes


ground belief

bullThree tests are

unworkable



Christianity








Hypothesis tested




Proves Christianity


Certainty is


Figure (continued)




10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155









































































10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
























o individual acts




















































10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






















PA R T O N E

Foundational

Issues




ndash ndash










O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156

















9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

































































N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156







9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155


































1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629






































D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628




9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155









Evidentialism






Name Index 1048627983094983095

Subject Index 1048627983095983089





INTRODUCTION



























10486251048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155








S983139983151983152983141

















































apologetic methods

















10486251048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

























































O983158983141983154983158983145983141983159



among the views













10486251048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155



Pragmatism










bullExperiencealone








bullUnbiblical










Summary

No reasons or





One type of























bullDescartes


ground belief

bullThree tests are

unworkable



Christianity








Hypothesis tested




Proves Christianity


Certainty is


Figure (continued)




10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155









































































10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
























o individual acts




















































10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






















PA R T O N E

Foundational

Issues




ndash ndash










O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156

















9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

































































N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156







9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155


































1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629






































D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628




9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






INTRODUCTION



























10486251048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155








S983139983151983152983141

















































apologetic methods

















10486251048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

























































O983158983141983154983158983145983141983159



among the views













10486251048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155



Pragmatism










bullExperiencealone








bullUnbiblical










Summary

No reasons or





One type of























bullDescartes


ground belief

bullThree tests are

unworkable



Christianity








Hypothesis tested




Proves Christianity


Certainty is


Figure (continued)




10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155









































































10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
























o individual acts




















































10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






















PA R T O N E

Foundational

Issues




ndash ndash










O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156

















9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

































































N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156







9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155


































1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629






































D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628




9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






10486251048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155








S983139983151983152983141

















































apologetic methods

















10486251048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

























































O983158983141983154983158983145983141983159



among the views













10486251048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155



Pragmatism










bullExperiencealone








bullUnbiblical










Summary

No reasons or





One type of























bullDescartes


ground belief

bullThree tests are

unworkable



Christianity








Hypothesis tested




Proves Christianity


Certainty is


Figure (continued)




10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155









































































10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
























o individual acts




















































10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






















PA R T O N E

Foundational

Issues




ndash ndash










O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156

















9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

































































N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156







9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155


































1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629






































D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628




9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155



























apologetic methods

















10486251048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

























































O983158983141983154983158983145983141983159



among the views













10486251048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155



Pragmatism










bullExperiencealone








bullUnbiblical










Summary

No reasons or





One type of























bullDescartes


ground belief

bullThree tests are

unworkable



Christianity








Hypothesis tested




Proves Christianity


Certainty is


Figure (continued)




10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155









































































10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
























o individual acts




















































10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






















PA R T O N E

Foundational

Issues




ndash ndash










O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156

















9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

































































N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156







9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155


































1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629






































D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628




9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






10486251048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

























































O983158983141983154983158983145983141983159



among the views













10486251048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155



Pragmatism










bullExperiencealone








bullUnbiblical










Summary

No reasons or





One type of























bullDescartes


ground belief

bullThree tests are

unworkable



Christianity








Hypothesis tested




Proves Christianity


Certainty is


Figure (continued)




10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155









































































10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
























o individual acts




















































10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






















PA R T O N E

Foundational

Issues




ndash ndash










O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156

















9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

































































N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156







9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155


































1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629






































D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628




9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155


























O983158983141983154983158983145983141983159



among the views













10486251048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155



Pragmatism










bullExperiencealone








bullUnbiblical










Summary

No reasons or





One type of























bullDescartes


ground belief

bullThree tests are

unworkable



Christianity








Hypothesis tested




Proves Christianity


Certainty is


Figure (continued)




10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155









































































10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
























o individual acts




















































10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






















PA R T O N E

Foundational

Issues




ndash ndash










O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156

















9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

































































N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156







9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155


































1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629






































D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628




9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






10486251048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155



Pragmatism










bullExperiencealone








bullUnbiblical










Summary

No reasons or





One type of























bullDescartes


ground belief

bullThree tests are

unworkable



Christianity








Hypothesis tested




Proves Christianity


Certainty is


Figure (continued)




10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155









































































10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
























o individual acts




















































10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






















PA R T O N E

Foundational

Issues




ndash ndash










O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156

















9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

































































N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156







9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155


































1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629






































D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628




9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155























bullDescartes


ground belief

bullThree tests are

unworkable



Christianity








Hypothesis tested




Proves Christianity


Certainty is


Figure (continued)




10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155









































































10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
























o individual acts




















































10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






















PA R T O N E

Foundational

Issues




ndash ndash










O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156

















9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

































































N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156







9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155


































1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629






































D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628




9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






10486251048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155









































































10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
























o individual acts




















































10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






















PA R T O N E

Foundational

Issues




ndash ndash










O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156

















9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

































































N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156







9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155


































1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629






































D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628




9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































10486251048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155









































































10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
























o individual acts




















































10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






















PA R T O N E

Foundational

Issues




ndash ndash










O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156

















9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

































































N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156







9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155


































1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629






































D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628




9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































10486261048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155









































































10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
























o individual acts




















































10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






















PA R T O N E

Foundational

Issues




ndash ndash










O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156

















9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

































































N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156







9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155


































1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629






































D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628




9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155









































10486261048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
























o individual acts




















































10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






















PA R T O N E

Foundational

Issues




ndash ndash










O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156

















9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

































































N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156







9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155


































1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629






































D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628




9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































10486261048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155
























o individual acts




















































10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






















PA R T O N E

Foundational

Issues




ndash ndash










O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156

















9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

































































N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156







9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155


































1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629






































D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628




9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































10486261048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






















PA R T O N E

Foundational

Issues




ndash ndash










O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156

















9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

































































N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156







9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155


































1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629






































D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628




9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






PA R T O N E

Foundational

Issues




ndash ndash










O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156

















9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

































































N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156







9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155


































1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629






































D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628




9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






ndash ndash










O983148983140 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156

















9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

































































N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156







9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155


































1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629






































D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628




9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






9830911048624 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155

































































N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156







9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155


































1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629






































D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628




9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155




































N983141983159 T983141983155983156983137983149983141983150983156







9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155


































1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629






































D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628




9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






9830911048626 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































































9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155


































1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629






































D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628




9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































9830911048628 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155


































1048626983088983088983096) pp 983096983096ndash9830971048629






































D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628




9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155








































D104862510486299830771048627Achapter9830771048627D10486281048628




9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155






9830911048630 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155











































































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155












































9830911048632 M983137983152983152983145983150983143 A983152983151983148983151983143983141983156983145983139983155




mapping apologetics by brian morley - excerpt

Documents