An Institute for Training In Ministry Course ·  · 2018-03-27A 12 lesson study of Christian apologetics ... Introduction to Apologetics 1 Why Apologetics? ... fact, if you are outspoken

An Institute for Training In Ministry Course

CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH:

APOLOGETICS IN ACTION

A 12 lesson study of Christian apologetics to equip learners to defend and share their faith

in an intellectual environment.

November, 2017

© 2017 by Discipleship Overseas, Inc.

To purchase copies of this book, or its Leader’s Guide, log on to:

TRAININGINMINISTRY.COM Locate the title, then click on:

2

INTRODUCING iTIM

Jesus gave one final command to his disciples, to “make disciples”. The Institute for Training in Ministry (iTIM) will help your church to “equip the saints” and so help build up the body of Christ. (Eph. 4:12). To get started, log on to traininginministry.com and view the video, then purchase the Operations Manual. These two steps will help assure success in using iTIM. Learning Approach iTIM incorporates a Head, Heart, and Hands approach to learning. Head represents the content to be learned in every iTIM course. Heart represents the application of this content to the learner’s personal life. And Hands represents using this content to minister to others. Group Meeting Approach The weekly group meeting features a discussion of the lesson, with integrative and application type questions asked in the leader’s guide. Time Involvement Learners need to commit to one hour of preparation in advance of each group session. Group leaders must commit to an additional hour weekly to prepare to lead the group session. Curriculum Tracks iTIM consists of 5 ministry tracks: Discipleship, Church Ministry, Church Leadership, Bible Teaching, and Pastoral Ministry. See the Operations Manual for more details. Ministry Involvement The goal of iTIM is that learners become involved in actual ministry, based on the iTIM course they have completed. The result will be that the body of Christ will be built up and your church will grow!

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introducing iTIM ........................................................................ 2

Introduction to Apologetics

1 Why Apologetics? ............................................................... 5

2 Evaluating Claims to Truth ............................................. 14

The Defensive Task: Demonstrating the Truth of Christianity

3 The Historical Reliability of the Bible ............................ 24

4 The Existence of God ........................................................ 33

5 The Nature of God ............................................................ 42

6 Jesus as God and Man ...................................................... 52

7 The Historicity of Christ’s Resurrection ........................ 62

8 Responding to Common Objections about Christianity 73

The Offensive Task: Responding to Other World-views

9 The Absence of God: Atheistic Materialism ................. 83

10 The Absence of Absolutes: Relativism .......................... 93

11 “God” as an Impersonal Force: Pantheism ................. 103

12 Putting it all Together: Apologetics in Action ............ 113

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Don Fairbairn holds an A.B. degree in English Literature from Princeton University and an MDiv. from Denver Conservative Baptist Seminary, and a PhD. From the University of Cambridge. He has been on the international staff of Campus Crusade for Christ and has served as an apologist/evangelist in Soviet Georgia. He is retired Professor of Historical Theology at Erskine Theological Seminary.

BIBLE TRANSLATION: Scripture quotations are taken from the Holy Bible:

4

English Standard Version, Copyright 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, Illinois.

5

INTRODUCTION TO APOLOGETICS

6

Chapter 1

WHY APOLOGETICS?

“Do you mind if I sit here?” Jenny dropped her lab coat on the back of a chair, took a seat in the cafeteria with a group of her colleagues, and picked up the thread of the small talk as she began eating her lunch.

“Say Jenny,” David spoke up during a lull in the conversation, “I heard that you became one of those born-again Christians a couple of months ago.”

“Well, yes, I have become a Christian. I’ve been thinking about it for a while now.”

“You know, it always seemed to me that Christianity was just a bunch of worn-out superstitions. I mean, you’re a physicist, Jenny. How could anyone as brilliant as you ever buy into something like that?”

The small talk was over for now. Craig commented, “Yeah, I’ve been wondering about that too. I have nothing against religion and all, but it really bothers me how Christians are so exclusive. Why can’t you just accept the fact that all religions are basically the same?”

From across the table Mary chimed in as well: “I can appreciate the moral teachings of Christianity, but Jenny, you don’t really believe that Jesus was God, do you?”

Before responding, Jenny sighed to herself. That she was being criticized didn’t really bother her so much. In fact, her friends were more incredulous than hostile. But what upset her was that she didn’t know how to begin answering her colleagues, and maybe she wondered whether there even were any answers to their questions.

Sound familiar? This conversation is fictional, but with a few changes in details it could have taken place thousands of times. In fact, if you are outspoken about your faith, you may have found

7

yourself in a similar situation on occasion. Perhaps you can remember a few times when you have felt the frustration of hearing your faith questioned, without knowing how to respond to the critic. If so, list one or two of these incidents here.

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

Sometimes criticisms do more than frustrate a believer who is unable to respond. They can also lead to doubt about the truth of Christianity. Perhaps you have sometimes felt a tension between what you know you are supposed to believe and a sense that those beliefs may not be credible.

If you have felt this kind of frustration or doubt, then this course is for you! Over the next twelve weeks, we will be examining the reasonableness of Christian faith. As you and your group work through the lessons, you will

• Discover important criteria for evaluating truth claims.

• See that the central features of Christianity stand up very well to careful examination (much better, in fact, than do other world-views which are popular today).

• Become a lot more confident of your ability to defend Christianity in a persuasive way.

• Be able to dispel some nagging doubts that may have been plaguing your own faith.

With this in mind, let’s take a look at what apologetics is and why it is important.

What is Apologetics?

In English, the word “apologize” has decidedly negative connotations. To apologize is to admit that we have been in the wrong. One might think that to engage in apologetics is to apologize for Christianity, to confess that there is apparently something wrong with being a Christian. But this negative idea of “apologizing” is not

15

Chapter 2

EVALUATING CLAIMS TO TRUTH

In order for people to come to an agreement about what is true, it is necessary to have a common understanding of how to determine the truth or falsity of a world-view. This immediately presents us with a major problem because our ultimate standard for truth is not one that non-believers share. As Christians, we believe that the Bible, God’s inspired Word, is the ultimate authority for establishing truth. Consequently, the truth of other ideas is determined by their consistency with Scripture. What would likely be the result of a discussion with non-believers in which you set forth the Bible as the standard for determining what is true?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

It is necessary to seek standards for truth that to some degree we share with non-believers. Notice that doing this does not constitute relinquishing our belief in the authority of Scripture. It consists simply in a willingness to discuss truth in a meaningful way with those who have different convictions regarding the source of truth. Remember what was said last week: things are not true only because they are in the Bible; they are also in the Bible because they are true. And because they are true, the core ideas and events of Christianity are accessible by other methods of evaluating truth claims.

Through the centuries Christian scholars have sought to establish criteria for evaluating truth claims in order to convince skeptics that Christianity is true. Many of these scholars concentrated on a single criterion in the belief that it could validate Christianity alone. (For example, some demonstrated the truth of Christianity only from reasoning based on observable data in the world, others only by examining the presuppositions that underlie Christianity and other world-views.) Many apologists believe that no single criterion is adequate to demonstrate the truth of a world-view convincingly.

16

These people argue that various criteria for truth need to be combined in order to engage in apologetics effectively.

Think about the objections non-believers you know have to Christianity. Would a single criterion of truth be likely to appeal to all of them? If so, what one? If not, why not?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

In this course, we will adopt three broad criteria by which one can evaluate the truth of a world-view. During this lesson, we will examine each of these criteria and attempt to understand both why each is inadequate by itself and how they can be combined into a convincing test for truth. Then in the subsequent lessons we will apply these criteria to various facets of Christianity, as well as to other world-views that are popular today. These criteria are rational consistency, factual adequacy, and viability for life.2

Rational Consistency

Briefly stated, the criterion of rational consistency is this: If a world-view is true, it will be consistent in what it asserts. That is, none of its statements will be self-contradictory, nor will any of its assertions contradict other statements. In addition, the various assertions of a world-view will fit together in a reasonable fashion; they will logically relate to each other.

This criterion is based upon the validity of one of the categories of human thought, called the law of non-contradiction. The law states that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. If a world-view affirms and denies the same thing at the same time and in the same respect, it is inconsistent and therefore not true.

When using the law of non-contradiction, it is very important to remember the qualifiers “at the same time” and “in the same

2These criteria are explained in David L. Wolfe’s book Epistemology: The Justification of Belief (InterVarsity Press, 1982). They have been elaborated into a system of apologetics by Charles Moore, former apologetics professor at Denver Seminary.

36

Chapter 4

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

During a conversation with his brother Ivan, Alyosha (the hero of Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s last novel, The Brothers Karamazov) says, “Indeed, this is the real Russian question: is there a God, and is there immortality?”3 Although Dostoyevsky wrote these words in the 1880’s, the question rises with, if anything, greater poignancy now than when Alyosha first posed it.

Today, many people feel adrift in a sea of uncertainty, a world devoid of anything permanent. They yearn for stability, for the anchor in a storm-tossed world which belief in God could provide. To such people, Alyosha’s question is the supreme question: Does God exist? Perhaps a number of your friends are seriously asking this question, but are at a loss to know how they might gain certainty regarding whether God exists or not.

For the Christian, the answer to this question is obvious: we know God exists because He has revealed Himself to us in history, as recorded in Scripture. But few agnostics are likely to be convinced by this assertion. Even if they accept the reliability of the Bible, they could easily disagree that its events constitute God’s action. Thus in this lesson we will look at several other lines of reasoning which help substantiate our belief in God’s existence.

Rational Indications that God Exists

Ever since the Middle Ages, Christian theologians have sought to prove that God exists, but such proof has always been elusive. As modern theologian Thomas Oden puts it,

God does not, for our convenience, become a direct object of scientific investigation, since God by definition is not finite and thus not subject to the measurements required by empirical sciences.4

3Thomas C. Oden, The Living God, Systematic Theology: Volume One (San Francisco:

37

Nevertheless, rational “proofs” can serve as food for thought to those who are puzzling over the question of God’s existence. The most sophisticated of these rational arguments is called the Kalam argument and consists of three major parts.

FIRST, GIVEN THE FACT OF THE UNIVERSE’S EXISTENCE, IT MUST HAVE EITHER EXISTED FOREVER OR HAD A BEGINNING. However, the universe cannot have existed forever because no entity that exists in time can be infinite. There are two reasons for this. The first has to do with the concept of entropy, or randomness and disorder. The universe is known to be moving toward total entropy; it is changing from an ordered state with high energy to a disordered, low-energy state. The universe cannot have been moving in this direction forever or it would have already reached total disorder.

The second reason is that if something is to be infinite, it must be so “all at once.” An entity cannot exist for an infinite length of time by successively adding time to the length of its existence; it will never reach infinite existence by this means. But the universe is adding time to the length of its existence, a fact that shows that it has not existed forever. Therefore, the universe had a beginning.

A notion that agnostics commonly hold is that matter is itself eternal. What problems with this notion does the Kalam argument expose?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

SECOND, THIS BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE MUST HAVE BEEN EITHER CAUSED OR NOT CAUSED. But all events that we can observe in the universe are caused, and therefore it is reasonable to assume that there was some cause to the existence of the universe as a whole.

One could object to this logic by asserting that many events are the result of random processes and thus do not seem to have causes. For example, chemical reactions are driven by random collisions of ions or molecules when the reacting agents are placed in proximity to each other. However, to say that something is the result of random

Harper & Row, Publishers, 1987), p. 3.

45

Chapter 5

THE NATURE OF GOD

Have you ever heard anyone say something like “The God I believe in would never let that happen” or “My God isn’t like that”? The word “God” can convey very different ideas to different people. To some, God is a being who created the world but then left it to run its own course. To others, God is an impersonal force present within each of us. Many people regard God as a benign grandfather who looks lovingly on all people and wants us to be happy and love each other. Others see Him as a harsh judge whom we must at all costs avoid displeasing.

Because of these great differences in ideas of God, a critical task of apologetics is to demonstrate that the Christian concept of God corresponds to the way He truly is. We will do this by: 1) discovering implications about God’s nature from arguments for His existence which we covered in the previous lesson; 2) evaluating biblical aspects of God’s character to determine whether they are consistent with what we know of reality; and 3) considering the feasibility of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity.

Implications Drawn from God’s Existence

In the previous lesson, we considered various lines of reasoning that suggests that God exists. These arguments, if valid, do more than simply demonstrate the presence of God; they also imply certain things about His nature. Let’s take another look at these arguments.

The Kalam argument includes the idea that the universe cannot be infinite because it exists in time and is adding time to the length of its existence. What does this imply about the God who caused the universe? Does He exist in time or outside of time?

___________________________________________________________

What does this indicate about God’s relationship to the universe—is He a part of it or separate from it?

46

___________________________________________________________

What does God’s separateness from the finite universe indicate about His spatial extent? Is He finite or not?

___________________________________________________________

What does God’s separateness from the changing universe imply about His ability to change?

___________________________________________________________

The conclusion of the Kalam argument is that a personal God must have caused the universe. What does this “personhood” indicate about God’s ability to interact with the universe and creatures He made?

___________________________________________________________

From the Kalam argument we conclude not only that God exists, but also that He is eternal, transcendent, infinite, and unchangeable. Because He is personal, God is able to interact with creatures even though He is separate from us and unchangeable.

Some of the facts that suggest God’s existence are the order and purposefulness of the universe. What does the complexity of this order imply about God’s intelligence?

___________________________________________________________

What does it indicate about His power?

___________________________________________________________

What does the design or purposefulness of the universe suggest about God’s purposefulness?

____________________________________________________________

In the viability argument for God’s existence we saw that there seems to be a universal standard of morality. What does this imply about God’s moral nature and holiness?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

These arguments indicate that God possesses enormous intelligence and power. He is also purposeful in His actions and possesses a

55

Chapter 6

JESUS AS GOD AND MAN

The great Hindu statesman Mahatma Gandhi held tremendous respect for the life and teachings of Jesus. In fact, he declared that were it not for Christ’s claim to be God, he could have called himself a devout follower of Jesus. Because of this claim, however, Gandhi believed he had no choice but to reject Jesus, and he remained a committed Hindu his entire life.

For Gandhi, as well as for many other people, the deity of Christ is the great stumbling block of Christianity. We saw in the previous lesson that the Christian idea of God, while distinctive, is not beyond the realm of plausibility. But the idea that God could become a man while remaining divine apparently oversteps the bounds of what people are capable of believing. Hence, perhaps no aspect of Christian doctrine has suffered more criticism than its understanding of the Person of Jesus Christ. In fact, some critics have gone as far as to suggest that there never was such a person as Jesus at all.

But does the deity of Christ actually overstep the bounds of what one may reasonably believe? To answer this question, we will first consider evidence from non-Christian ancient writers suggesting that Jesus was a man with tremendous influence on the first-century world. Then we will examine the internal consistency of Christ’s claims to be God with His life and teachings. Finally, we will reflect on the value of the deity and humanity of Christ for viability in life.7

Non-Christian Testimony about Jesus

In his Annals (section 15.44), written early in the second century,

6Notice that this plan involves changing the order of the criteria for truth. The reason for this is that the question of whether Jesus actually existed is logically prior to that of the rationality of his claim to be God.

56

Roman historian Tacitus described Nero’s attempts to blame the great Roman fire on Christians. He wrote,

Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also.

Roman historians very rarely mention Jewish figures in their accounts. In light of this fact and the fact that Roman procurators executed thousands of people, what does Tacitus’ mention of Christ indicate about His influence on the first-century world?

___________________________________________________________

An early second century Roman governor named Pliny the Younger wrote to the Emperor Trajan to ask advice concerning how to deal with Christians in his region. In the letter, Pliny described the Christians’ practice of singing hymns “to Christ as if to a god” (Letters 10:96.7).

Since the Romans had many gods, singing hymns to one god or another would have been nothing unusual. But the phrase “as if to a god” suggests that Pliny was reluctant to ascribe deity to Christ. What happened in Christ’s life that might have made it difficult for Pliny to believe He was really a god?

___________________________________________________________

This passage shows that the Romans (at least Pliny) knew that Jesus was an earthly person whom many believed to be a god as well.

The most striking reference to Jesus from the pen of a non-believer comes from the Jewish historian Josephus. Toward the end of the first century, Josephus wrote in his Antiquities (18:63-64),

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous

65

Chapter 7

THE HISTORICITY OF CHRIST’S RESURRECTION

In May of 1985, during a debate over Jesus’ literal, bodily resurrection, atheistic philosopher Antony Flew said,

The question whether, in that literal understanding, Jesus did rise from the dead is of supreme theoretical and practical importance. For the knowable fact that he did, if indeed it is a knowable fact, is the best, if not the only, reason for accepting that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel.9

In the last few lessons, we have examined several distinctive features of the Christian world-view and have found them to be reasonable. But an agnostic may admit that a belief is reasonable without also accepting it for him or herself. On the question of Christ’s resurrection, there is no room for such indecision. As Dr. Flew makes clear, if it can be established that Jesus did bodily rise from the dead, then the entire Christian system of belief is rendered not merely reasonable, but inescapably true.

On the other hand, if it can be demonstrated that He did not rise, no amount of redefining can retain for Christianity any credibility. The entire belief system fails. Nearly two thousand years before Flew, Paul wrote, “if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (I Corinthians 15:17).

In order to gain an appreciation for the centrality of the resurrection, spend a few minutes pondering an “Easter-less” Christianity. Why can Paul declare in the verse above that we would have no forgiveness of sins without the resurrection?

___________________________________________________________

8Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate (San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1987), p. 3.

66

___________________________________________________________

Why would the message of Christianity have no force as a truth claim without the resurrection?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

In the quotation above, Flew refers to “that literal understanding” of the resurrection. Why was it so important that Jesus be raised in a body continuous with His previous existence, instead of simply surviving in spirit?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

With the importance of the issue in mind, we now turn to the question itself: Did Jesus rise bodily from the dead?

The Rational Possibility of the Resurrection

Many people reject Jesus’ resurrection from the outset because a bodily resurrection is clearly miraculous and they believe that the very idea of a miracle is rationally contradictory. The reasoning behind this charge goes like this: The laws of nature are, by definition, constant and uniform; they cannot be broken. A miracle is, by definition, God’s direct action in the world in violation of a law of nature. Thus, a miracle is a violation of an inviolable law and is therefore a rational impossibility.

This argument assumes definitions of both the laws of nature and miracles. How could you criticize the assumption that the laws of nature are unbreakable?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

Natural laws are discovered by experimental observation of what normally happens in the natural world. It is a mistake of logic to assume that what normally takes place must always take place. In this sense, natural laws are statistical descriptions of the actual, not necessarily prescriptions about what is or is not possible.

In fact, if there is a God and He is the One who has established the

76

Chapter 8

RESPONDING TO COMMON OBJECTIONS

ABOUT CHRISTIANITY

We have seen in the last five lessons that Christianity’s claim to truth is extremely strong. Its internal consistency, the viability for life it offers, and its ability to stand up to the evidence of history, all virtually demand that a person seeking truth take the Christian faith seriously.

If this is true, then we need to ask why so few people do take Christianity seriously. Part of the answer lies in the reality that many people have only a limited knowledge of Christianity. Most have never seriously examined the faith to determine whether it is true. Further, their opinions about the Bible’s trustworthiness and the claims Christians make are based more on popular sentiment than on actual investigation of the Christian faith.

Our responsibility to such people is to bring them lovingly to the heart of true Christianity, encouraging them to consider the claims of Christ more carefully than they have before.

Still other people refuse to take Christianity seriously because they object to some of its major features. These objections frequently center around the way a claim of Christianity apparently conflicts with an obvious fact of our experience. In this lesson, we will consider three of the objections non-believers most commonly raise.

The Problem of Evil

The cover of Time magazine’s June 10, 1991 issue consisted of a dark gray background with the single word “Evil” written in large black letters across the page. The cover and the article accompanying it illustrate how prominent in the modern mind is this most perplexing of all questions: how can we explain (and more important, live with) the enormous amount of evil in our world?

77

This question constitutes perhaps the most common objection to Christianity. It runs as follows: Christianity asserts that God is all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing. If this understanding is consistent, God is able to destroy evil, wants to do so, and knows how to do so. We observe however that evil is commonplace.

According to this reasoning, what could one conclude about God’s actual power, love, and knowledge?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

What would then be a logical conclusion about the validity of the Christian understanding of God?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

This is a very serious objection, one that no Christian can afford to take lightly. However, there are two major problems with it. First, it assumes that the presence of evil in the world implies God is not combating it. Instead, God may be fighting evil and may in time eliminate it.

This in fact, is exactly what Christianity asserts God is doing. Read Revelation 21:1-5. What indications does this passage give that God will ultimately destroy evil altogether?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

Now turn to Revelation 22:1-5. What does the reference to the lack of a curse (v. 3) indicate about the presence of evil in the eternal kingdom?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

Scripture completely answers the problem of God’s apparent impotence and ignorance concerning how to fight evil. However, what might a non-believer infer about God’s love from the fact that He has not yet overcome evil?

87

Chapter 9

THE ABSENCE OF GOD: ATHEISTIC MATERIALISM

In a well-known essay entitled “A Free Man’s Worship,” early twentieth-century philosopher Bertrand Russell writes that the scientific view of the universe is so firmly established as to be virtually indisputable. By the scientific view, Russell means the idea that the universe has arisen by chance processes and will eventually be destroyed by these same processes. Life, including human life, is a cosmic accident, and there is no higher intelligence than humanity. From this assumption, Russell attempts to argue for the value of human life on its own terms, apart from any reference to a divine being or an afterlife.11

Russell’s words aptly capture the spirit that has pervaded much of the world in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It has been (and in many cases, still is) widely believed that science alone is the foundation for all knowledge and that religious belief is merely superstition, a vestige of a pre-scientific age. The only genuine option for “a humanity come of age” is to discard the shackles of belief in God and to pursue meaningful human existence without any supernatural help.

This spirit has been felt not only in the scientific mentality of the Western world, but also in the aggressive atheistic propaganda that the former Soviet Union and its allies disseminated. Through the rise of both secular capitalism and atheistic communism, this spirit has found its way into many countries of the Developing World as well. As a result, atheistic materialism (also called naturalism or even secular humanism) has become a pervasive view that one will encounter in most parts of the world. Even though its influence in

10Bertrand Russell, “A Free Man’s Worship,” in Why I am not a Christian (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957), p. 107.

88

the United States declined somewhat in the 1970’s and 1980’s, this world-view is still very influential and is of great importance to the apologist. In this lesson, we will examine the central premises of atheistic materialism and consider some of the problems with its claim to be true.

Major Elements of Atheistic Materialism

The central feature of this world-view is that the cosmos is a closed system with no external forces (such as a divine being) acting upon it. This means that the physical universe accessible to scientific investigation is all that exists and consequently, that science is the foundation of all truth. Naturally, the idea that the universe is a closed system implies that all alleged knowledge that cannot be verified scientifically (such as religious belief) is false.

To evangelicals, this central idea would seem to lead to an incredibly hopeless and negative world-view. It is important to remember that to many people, atheistic materialism holds out great promise as a positive view of life. How might a belief that nothing exists beyond the material world make people proud to be human?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

Why might the view that science is the source of all knowledge offer people hope for the future of the world?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

Atheistic materialism’s strength lies primarily in its view of the dignity of humankind. People hold the supreme place in the universe. We are the crowning result of the processes that led to the evolution of the present world. Therefore value and purpose in life do not come to us arbitrarily from some external power; they are the product of what we as human beings create. Morals are behaviors that people determine are beneficial to the human race. The hope for a better world depends solely on our ability (with the help of scientific investigation) to resolve the problems of our present existence.

What is attractive about the belief that our destiny as people lies

98

Chapter 10

THE ABSENCE OF ABSOLUTES: RELATIVISM

In 1791, the new United States ratified ten amendments to its constitution in order to guarantee its citizens a number of rights. The first of these amendments began with what was then a shocking statement: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”12 With these words, the American people gave formal expression to a new idea, that of toleration within a country for different religious beliefs.

In the intervening two hundred years, the idea of religious tolerance has come to be associated with more than simply respecting people’s right to disagree in their world-views. It has become associated with a widespread belief that many religions and philosophies are equally valid, that there is no one world-view that is true for all people. This belief has given rise to a specifically modern way of looking at the world, namely relativism. In fact relativism, the uncritical acceptance of numerous world-views, has become a kind of world-view in its own right.

In the last lesson, we saw that atheistic materialism is a direct attack on Christianity (and on all forms of spirituality). Its fundamental premises are diametrically opposed to those we profess. In contrast, relativism claims not to attack Christianity at all but to embrace it. In fact, many people who consider themselves Christians are actually relativists: these people hold that Christianity is true for them, but that other creeds are genuinely valid for other people.

What major feature of Christianity makes it completely inconsistent to hold this attitude?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

Despite its uncritical stance toward our faith, relativism constitutes just as great a hindrance to genuine trust in Christ as atheism does.

99

Further, relativism is much more common than strict atheistic materialism is, and therefore it is a very important outlook for us as apologists to understand.

Major Elements of Relativism

Unlike atheism, relativism is not a specifically articulated world-view. Thus, its major elements usually find expression through attitudes of uncritical tolerance and acceptance, rather than through explicit statements of belief. But if we are to engage in meaningful dialogue with relativists, we need to examine the ideas that underlie these attitudes.

The central idea behind relativism is that there is no absolute truth. What is true for one group of people in a particular time and situation may not be true for other people in other circumstances. This idea has arisen largely because of increased contact between cultures in recent centuries. People desire to acknowledge the value of other cultures’ world-views while still justifying continued adherence to their own. Moreover, relativists argue that it is the act of believing itself that gives meaning to life, not so much the content of the belief.

What does this central idea of relativism imply about the reason for accepting people of other world-views?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

In contrast, what is the Christian’s basis for acceptance and tolerance of others?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

As believers, we show acceptance to others with the genuine hope that our interaction will lead them to recognize and accept the truth of Christianity. How is this hope different from the relativist’s goal in accepting people of other world-views?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

This difference highlights the alleged strength of relativism: its

108

Chapter 11

“GOD” AS AN IMPERSONAL FORCE: PANTHEISM

“May the force be with you.” In 1977, George Lucas’ movie Star Wars burst upon the entertainment world with an other-worldly cast of characters and award-winning special effects, setting new records in box office receipts and shaping the future course of the film industry. But the movie’s importance was hardly limited to its entertainment value.

The main “character” in Star Wars and its two sequels was not Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, or even Princess Leia. The most important “character” was “the force,” a universal entity pervading the entire cosmos. Those who were in touch with the force gained extraordinary power. This force was impersonal and neither good nor evil. (Darth Vader gained just as much power from “the dark side of the force” as Luke did from the bright side.)

Through its emphasis on “the force,” Star Wars reflected (and in many ways helped to shape) American society’s shift away from materialistic and relativistic world-views to one with a greater spiritual dimension. In this shift, Lucas and many others began taking their cue not from Judeo-Christian spirituality, but from the ancient religions of the East that are lumped together under the term “pantheism.”

At one time encountered largely by missionaries and scholars of Asian culture, Eastern pantheism has now become a prominent view throughout the West as well as East. Thus, as apologists we are likely to encounter its ideas frequently. In this lesson, we will consider the features common to all pantheistic world-views, the distinctives of the two major Eastern forms, Hinduism and Buddhism, and the Western form known as New Age consciousness.

Features Common to all of Pantheism

The word “pantheism” comes from the Greek words for “all” and “god.” This world-view asserts that all things in the universe are

109

actually one and that this oneness of everything is ultimate reality or “God.” (We shall see that not all varieties of pantheism use the word “God” to describe this reality.) This one is impersonal and eternal; it is all that ever has existed or ever will exist.

What are some ways the pantheistic idea of ultimate reality is different from the Christian one?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

Because all of reality is one, according to pantheists, the soul of each person (called Atman) is identical to the soul of the entire universe (called Brahman). However, it is possible for some things to be more one than others, and humanity’s problem is that most people do not fully realize the oneness of Atman and Brahman. Accordingly, each person’s quest is to realize or actualize his or her oneness with the universe, which is one. When a person does this, he or she passes into a state of perfection that is beyond personality, beyond knowledge, and beyond the distinction between good and evil. It also transcends time, since in Eastern thought time is cyclical and virtually meaningless.

In John 17:22, Jesus prays that believers would be one, just as He and the Father are one. What is the difference between the kind of unity we are to have with God and with each other, and the unity that is the goal of a pantheist?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

Pantheism asserts that realizing union with the oneness of the universe is a matter of technique, not of knowledge. As a result, all religions or philosophies ultimately lead to such union, although of course some ways are better and faster than others. (In this way, pantheism has similarities to relativism.) Regardless of one’s path, however, actualizing union with the cosmos takes many lifetimes to

118

Chapter 12

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER: APOLOGETICS IN ACTION

Once while I was in the early stages of writing this course, I was talking with a good friend of mine about apologetics. During our conversation, he commented, “Apologetics is not something you can learn from a book. It’s something you have to learn by doing it.”

To a large degree, my friend was right. You have now spent twelve weeks working through this book: learning facts and principles, answering questions, and discussing information with other members of your group. But you have not learned apologetics from this book, nor will you learn it from any other book on the subject you might read. If you are learning apologetics, you are learning it by doing it: by taking the initiative to talk to non-Christians about your faith, by putting into practice the information in this course, and by gaining experience and confidence in your ability to discuss various world-views intelligently and to defend Christianity.

It is my prayer (and the prayer of others connected with this project) that you are learning apologetics through the process of taking this course. This is the reason a number of the assignments in the course have concentrated on your actually doing apologetics: you’re defending elements of Christianity to which your friends object and responding to world-views which your acquaintances hold. Now, as we conclude the course, we will look back at the progress you’ve made at putting apologetics into action and will make a few suggestions that might be of benefit as you go on from here.

Gauging Progress in Apologetics

Spend several minutes thinking about the people with whom you have talked about the material covered in this course. (You may want to look back at the assignments in which you have listed their names.) Choose one person with whom you have talked several times about different topics related to Christianity and other world-views. As best you can, answer the following questions about this

119

person. (If you have not talked with anyone at much length about Christianity, it is certainly not too late to begin now. Resolve to do so, and this assignment will be more meaningful to you at a later time.)

What is the person’s name? _________________________________

How close of a friendship do you have? _______________________

___________________________________________________________

What was the person’s world-view at the time you began taking this course?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

What changes (if any) have you seen in this person’s world-view as you have talked with him or her?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

What arguments seem to have been most effective in leading this person to consider Christianity seriously?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

What setbacks have you experienced which seem to have led this person farther away from faith in Christ?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

If there have been times when things you have said have made this person hostile toward Christianity, what has prompted this hostility?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

If you think it would be helpful, you may want to answer these