Tag Archives: Apologetics

Podcasts

Jim Wallace reports on his mission trip to UC Berkeley

Leave a comment

Jim Wallace at Please Convince Me has a new podcast up. This is worth listening to if you want to understand atheists.

The MP3 file is here. (75 minutes, 34 Mb)

Normally, I would write a summary of this, but suffice to say that he goes over the thoughts of a few prominent atheists, and what is valuable is that you can see what they think of Christians, and what they really believe. I always enjoy finding out what atheists believe and then taking a look at how well they can ground their “values” based on their view of an accidental, materialist universe.

UPDATE: I just got this in the mail from Jim’s mailing list.

Hello

What a great February! We just got back from a wonderful trip to Berkeley with 30 high school students who spent time studying atheism and philosophical naturalism and talking to students on the campus about the existence of God. It was part of our annual Berkeley Missions Trip and it resulted in 30 young warriors who are now equipped to defend their faith and change their world. We want to help you do the same thing, so here is this month’s “Three Minute Truth Training” responding to yet another objection to the truth of the Christian Worldview:

OBJECTION: Christians believe Christianity is true simply because they were raised in a Christian culture. If they were raised in a Muslim culture, they would believe that Islam is true with the same passion and certainty.

RESPONSE: The answer to this objection lies in Christian history. While it is true that cultural and geographic influences often favor a particular point of view or behavior, our personal experience demonstrates that individuals often make private, independent choices in spite of the accepted beliefs of their culture. As an example, many of us are vegetarians in spite of the fact the culture is predominantly carnivorous. The history of Christianity also confirms that the vast majority of Christian converts concluded that Christianity was true in spite of their geographic location or cultural background. You can demonstrate this by helping the skeptic recognize the facts of history:

The History of the Ancient World
Christianity emerged in a culture that was largely Jewish or Pagan (a polytheistic mix of religious beliefs within the Roman Empire) and completely hostile to the claims of Christianity. History records the hardship that was faced by 1st Century Christians who concluded that Christianity was true and devoted their lives to Jesus. These believers did not become Christians because Christianity was the default religion of the time.

The History of China
China also has a history of religious suppression related to Christianity. The native culture of China has historically embraced some version of Shenism or Taoism. While Christian missionaries labored in China for centuries, their efforts were often suppressed by governmental regimes (like the Communist Party of China). In spite of this suppression and the cultural inclination toward Shenism or Taoism, Christianity has continued to grow as a underground movement, with some reporting as many as 130 million Christians now living in China. These believers did not become Christians because Christianity was the default religion of their region or culture.

The History of Persecution
History has demonstrated the fact that Christianity continues to grow in spite of intense persecution. Christians have historically come to faith in regions where Christianity is NOT the default religion. For this reason, Christians are still the most persecuted religious group in the world, particularly in places like North Korea, Muslim countries, India, China, Vietnam, and the Philippines. These suffering believers did not become Christians because Christianity was the default religion of their region or culture.

The History of Many of Us Here In America
While America is clearly a Christian nation, our principles of freedom have allowed our citizens to embrace a number of competing religious worldviews without restriction. In fact, a recent Pew Forum poll revealed that Muslims and those who do not affiliate themselves with any religious belief system are the two fastest growing groups in America. Many Christians have come to faith in homes that were hostile or benign to theistic beliefs. In spite of their familial “micro-culture”, they converted to Christianity. These believers did not become Christians because Christianity was the default religion of their family.

Millions of Christians have historically demonstrated that they embrace the truth of the Christian worldview because they believe it is true, not because it happens to be the default position of their family, culture, region or era in history.

Polemics

Dealing with objections to Christian apologetics

3 Comments

I found this post on the Possible Worlds blog. (H/T Apologetics 315)

He deals with the following five objections:

  1. You can never argue anyone into the kingdom.
  2. Doesn’t the Bible say to stay away from philosophy?
  3. We should do apologetics from the Word of God only.
  4. Apologetics removes the faith component.
  5. Only the select few can get involved in apologetics, therefore I have no reason to do it.

The fifth one, “not everyone has to do apologetics”, is the one I hear the most often from people:

That is simply not true! As Christians we have an obligation to engage in apologetics! 1 Peter 3:15 says, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.”

Peter’s message, in context, is that even in the face of persecution, we may suffer for our good lifestyle in Christ. If this is the case, give every man an answer for why you are doing that. I’m willing to bet Peter’s apologetic went along the lines of his sermon in Acts 2. In this sermon, Peter appealed to fulfilled Old Testament prophecy as well as eyewitness testimony of the Resurrection. Sounds like apologetics to me!

But what about those whose intellectual talents are somewhat lacking? Did Peter really expect them to be able to give a reason? Yes. Inasmuch as one is able, he must present an apologetic for Christ. Suppose one cannot follow complex philosophical arguments. What can he do? He may argue from personal experience or a changed life. He may point someone who is interested in the direction of apologetic resources. In essence, any Christian should learn as much as he is able to learn. Almost every Christian I know is capable of presenting the common-sense cosmological argument (“whatever begins to exist had a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe had a cause”).

Not only is apologetics defensible and important in bringing certain types of people to Christ, it is also commanded of every believer. The Bible never commands the level of skill of an apologist, just that the believer holds and expresses a reason for his hope. The more I study the stronger in faith I become. There are always questions I will be unable to answer, but God has answered so many more in such wonderful ways I just have to trust him!

I hear that objection most from people who think that the Christian life consists of being happy and having the feeling that God does really appreciate you caring about him and trying to serve him effectively. I don’t think that is the right way to have a relationship with another person. You have to get to know them and incorporate their character and goals into your decision making. You accommodate them. You serve them.

I found some more reasons why people don’t do apologetics:

  1. Christians don’t seem to care that Christianity is routinely ridiculed
  2. Christians think that faith means belief in the absence of evidence and argument
  3. Christians are not aware of the tremendous intellectual resources available
  4. Christians are more concerned about being “nice” and “tolerant”
  5. Christians don’t want to take the time to study issues thoroughly

The post has my comments on those reasons.

The fact of the matter is that God’s existence and character are under attack, and what works is reason and evidence. Not feelings, not stories, and not being nice. Anyone can be nice. Christianity needs to be presented as TRUE, (by nice people).

My thoughts on this question are here. This is one of my favorite posts.

I’ve noticed that Christian women are often complaining about how to make men take an interest in them. I think the two best things to do to fix that is to get really good at fiscal conservatism and really good at apologetics. Men want women who are marriage-friendly (fiscally conservative) and who put their own happiness second to defend others (apologetics). That’s what fiscal conservatism and apologetics tells a man about your character. If a woman advocates for redistributing wealth to the poor through government, then she is opposed to traditional male rols (provider/protector) and has no idea how marriage is supposed to work in practice. If a woman makes excuses about why she does not have to know how to defend God’s existence and character, then she doesn’t have the ability to care about the needs and goals of others in relationships. Just because a woman says she wants marriage and to be a mother, it doesn’t mean she actually wants that. She may just want people (big and small) to make her happy but without having to care about what they want.

Commentary

Why Christians should focus on cultural issues as well as evangelism

1 Comment

Scott Klusendorf linked me this article on Facebook, in which he gives five reasons why Christians should not JUST focus on the gospel, but should instead be good at promoting goodness and opposing evil.

Excerpt:

First, it does not follow that because cultural reformers cannot make a culture blameless before God, we shouldn’t try to make it better for the weak and oppressed. I do not know of a single pro-life leader, for example, who argues that cultural reform can save souls eternally; only the gospel does that. The fact that cultural reform cannot get a man to heaven, however, does not mean that it cannot (in many cases through political means) save him from injustice here on earth. In short, pro-life advocates like me do not work for change in culture to save the world from spiritual death, but to save the most vulnerable members of the human family, the unborn, from physical death.

Second, the goal of cobelligerent cultural reform is not necessarily to change the hearts of individuals (whether saved or lost), but to restrain their evil acts. Martin Luther King, Jr., put it well: “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.”3 The purpose of government, according to Scripture, is not to ensure salvation, but to promote justice (Rom. 13:1‑4). The primary purpose of the church, of course, is to preach the gospel of Christ, but if Christians, collectively, do not also challenge government to fulfill its duty to protect the weak and defenseless, who will?

Third, the notion that “there can be no real cultural impact apart from the transforming power of the gospel of Jesus Christ” sounds good, but it is simply incorrect. Consider the moral evil of slavery in America, which did not end because of mass conversions to Christ. It ended when believers and nonbelievers joined forces to stand against it—and paid for it with the lives of 360,000 Union soldiers. Was the abolition of slavery not a “real” cultural improvement? True, it did not make those who participated right with God, but it did take the physical whips off the backs of oppressed people. That is moral and cultural improvement by any reasonable standard.

Fourth, it is not spiritually unacceptable for Christians to mobilize with non-Christians for causes other than preaching the gospel. Prior to the Civil War, Protestant clergy worked with non-Christians and organized the Underground Railroad to free black slaves. Anyone who thinks that God’s people are wasting their time pursuing social justice may want to take a look at how important it is to God: Jeremiah 5:26‑28; 9:24; Isaiah 1:16‑17, 21‑23; 58:6‑7; 61:8; Psalm 94:1‑23; Proverbs 24:1‑12; Matthew 25:41‑46.

Fifth, why should anyone suppose that pro-life advocacy detracts from the discipline responsibilities of the local church as outlined in Matthew 28? Simply put, the answer to a lack of evangelical fervor for the Gospel is not to withdraw our political advocacy for the weak and vulnerable; it’s to encourage Christians to do a better job presenting the gospel. We don’t have to stop rescuing the innocent to do that.

This is why I try to have a balance of apologetics with other issues. And not just social policy, but fiscal policy and foreign policy. We need to have complete, comprehensive, coherent Christian worldviews. One obvious benefit of this is that we can connect Christianity with any topic when we are talking to others in the workplace, or anywhere that normal conversations occur. And if we study everything very well, people will link our intelligence to our faith. They’ll say “if you’ve put this much thought into economics, then you must have a well-thought-out faith, too”. Being well-rounded makes you more convincing, more influential on moral and cultural issues, and more effective at turning conversations to the gospel.