1

Apologetics
Defending the Faith

I. Introduction
A. Apologetics: The branch of theology which seeks to provide a
rational justification for the truth claims of the Christian faith
and present Christian doctrine clearly and convincingly.
B. Apologetics is the systematic defense of the Christian faith. It
seeks to define, establish, defend, and vindicate the
presuppositions of Christian theology in the areas of
metaphysics, epistemology, and axiology. It also seeks to
defend and vindicate the Christian system of truth in every
area of thought or investigation.
1. Apologetics comes from the Greek word apologia,
meaning “answer,” “defense” or “account.”1
2. The purpose of Christian apologetics is to remove
intellectual barriers that prevent a person from accepting
the gospel.
3. Good apologetics focuses not so much on giving answers
to questions, but providing rational ideas to stimulate
thinking.
a) There is no obligation to answer every question.
b) One of our tasks is to be “prepared to give an answer.”
4. The apologist’s goal is not to win debates, but to reason
with others to help them come to the conclusion that
Christianity is correct.
C. There are three good reasons to engage in apologetics.2
1. The Scriptures command it (1 Pet 3:15, 16).
2. You are provided with the opportunity to engage in the
overall purpose of apologetics, which is to remove
intellectual and emotional barriers from someone coming
to faith.
3. It strengthens your faith.
a) Confidence in your beliefs leads to confidence in your
Christian walk.
b) Looking deeply into these issues should give you a
greater love for and appreciation for the Lord. Looking
at a starry sky to some people is like looking at a
1
J. P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd ed. (United Bible Societies, 1999).
2
J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Baker
Academic, 1987), Introduction.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 2

bunch of lights, but to others it is an exciting

adventure—why? One has knowledge and the other
does not. Do you enjoy listening to an orchestra play?
Those who have trained their ears for it enjoy it to a
much greater extent. It is the same with paintings and
other art forms. In the same way, when we come to
know the philosophical depths of God’s world, we
appreciate the Creator even more. Rationality is an art
form, and God’s reason is beautiful. My hope is that in
this class you will recognize patterns of God’s working
in the world you have never recognized before. In
doing so, you will appreciate Him more.

II. Apologetics and Philosophy

A. Definition:
1. The word philosophy comes from the two Greek words
phileo (love) and sophia (wisdom); thus it means “the love
of wisdom.”
2. Philosophy is the study of life and the world as a whole; it
examines and criticizes assumptions and ideas, and seeks
to construct a unified view of the world and our experience.
B. There are three primary areas of study in philosophy:
1. Metaphysics, the study of reality and existence
a) Primary questions:
(1) What is the nature of being? (ontology)
(2) What is the nature of the universe? (cosmology)
(3) What is the nature of man, in terms of human
personality or consciousness? (psychology)
(4) What is the nature of God if such a being exists?
(theology)
b) Secondary questions:
(1) Can the existence of God be proved?
(2) What is the value of the theistic proofs?
(3) Can the created nature of the universe be proved?
(4) How is the created universe related to God?
(5) What is natural law? Can miracles be defended?
(6) What is sin? How does it relate to man’s will and
God’s will?
(7) How can both God and evil exist?
2. Epistemology, the study of knowledge and how it is
obtained
a) What is knowledge?
(1) How do our ideas refer to reality?
(2) What is the source of knowledge?

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 3

(3) Are our sense perceptions and mental operations

trustworthy?
(4) Is it possible to obtain knowledge?
(a) What is the source of knowledge?
(b) What is the instrument of receiving
knowledge?
(c) What are the limits of knowledge?
b) What is truth?
(1) Can truth be tested?
(2) How can one proceed from one truth to another?
(a) What kind of certainty is arrived at by
deduction?
(b) What kind of certainty is arrived at by
induction?
(3) Are there such things as innate truths? Can they
be proved?
c) Is epistemology prior to all other philosophical
questions?
d) An important part of epistemology is logic, the study of
validity and invalidity and of truth and falsity and the
relation of ideas to each other
e) Can ultimate reality be known? If so, how?
f) What is faith? What is faith’s relation to reason?
(1) What is the effect of sin on man’s ability to know?
(2) Is there common ground between believer and
unbeliever?
(3) What methods can or should a believer use when
dealing with an unbeliever?
(4) Can Christianity, either in whole or in part, be
proved to be rational?
(5) Can Christianity, either in whole or in part, be
proved to be the most, or only, rational world view?
C. Axiology, the study of values
a) An important part of axiology is ethics, the study of
human obligation: morals, right and wrong, good and
evil.
(1) What are values?
(a) Are values rooted in objective reality or only in
the mind of the observer?
(b) What are the criteria by which value is judged?
(c) What are the important values which are to be
desired in life?
(d) How can the important values be realized in
our experience?

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 4

(2) Is there an absolute standard or criterion of value?

(a) Are there any legitimate relative values?
(b) Is there an ethical hierarchy?
(3) Is sin ever not avoidable in a given situation?
(4) What is man’s summum bonum?
(5) Can cultural norms be morally neutral?
b) This is primarily the field of Ethics, and that is another
class.
D. Kinds of Knowledge
1. Knowledge
a) Ultimately knowledge is that which is known to be true
for legitimate reasons and is indeed true.
b) Christians believe that the only absolute knowledge is
that which is revealed by God.
c) Knowledge also includes those truths that can be
logically deduced from revealed truth.
2. Opinion
a) What some people commonly call knowledge can
more properly be called opinion.
b) Opinion represents the beliefs people have based on
their experience or observation.
c) Opinion consists of conclusions reached after
examining individual examples. These conclusions are
not absolute, since it is impossible to observe all
possible relevant examples, and since no observation
is perfectly precise.
d) Conclusions formed from inductive observations are
necessarily tentative.
(1) They might be changed when more evidence
becomes available.
(2) For example, since science is basically inductive,
its conclusions are properly stated as scientific
opinion, not scientific knowledge. The scientific
method, involving hypothesis, experiment,
observation, and theory, produces many practical
benefits and useful ways of organizing our thinking
about the world. However, it should be
remembered that what has been called scientific
knowledge has radically changed over the history
of science.
e) There is a distinction between knowledge and opinion,
even when the opinion is true. It is possible to come to
a true conclusion by fallible means. It certainly is

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 5

common that people believe something that is true for

the wrong reasons.
f) The idea of probability is difficult to apply to
knowledge.
(1) Many say that, while scientific knowledge is not
absolute, it at least is probably true.
(2) However, probability is hard to determine when the
absolute truth is unknown.
(3) We must live in the practical world, and we order
our daily lives and make innumerable decisions on
the basis of our understanding of probabilities.
3. Belief
a) Belief is a flexible term, which can include both
knowledge and opinion.
b) The Bible speaks of belief or faith as the firm
conviction of the truth of God and his Word.
c) On the other hand belief may be based on observation
or induction, which may or may not be true, or it may
be simply based on fancy or wishful thinking.
E. Fields of Apologetics
1. Science
a) Evolution
b) Intelligent Design Movement
2. History
a) Historical accuracy of the Scriptures
b) Historical reality of the Son of God, reality of the
resurrection, reality of the Jewish people
c) Archaeological evidence
3. Philosophy
a) Who made God?
b) How does the infinite relate to the finite?
c) How does an eternal Being relate to time?
d) Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?
4. Theology
a) How can God be three in one?
b) How can Christ be fully God, yet fully man?
c) How can God be unchanging, yet say that He changes
His mind?
5. The vastness of the discipline
a) Apologetics is a vast discipline that covers every fact in
the world.
b) We need believers in every realm of life who make
apologetics their passion. We cannot afford to only
have apologists who sit in ivory towers, but we must

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 6

have apologists who are engaged in every realm of

life—science, history, philosophy, etc.
c) The “professional” apologist should be generally
familiar with each of these fields, but he must depend
on others to dig deeply into these issues. These
believers will provide the primary work, which the
apologist will seek to popularize to Christianity as a
whole.

III. Importance of Apologetics

A. Common Excuses
1. Philosophy is not for me.
2. The Bible can defend itself.
3. Apologists don’t agree with each other.
4. I don’t know enough.
5. People aren’t interested in these arguments.
B. The Biblical command – 1 Pet 3:15-16
1. Christ occupies your heart first.
2. You have the hope (resurrection, kingdom).
3. People know you have this hope.
4. You have a reason for this hope which you can verbalize.
5. You must be ready to give this reason to non-believers.
6. Sanctify—Set the Lord apart as holy
7. Be ready—Presumes that Christians should be actively
engaged in learning how to respond
8. Reason for the hope that lies in you
a) Why does Paul not use “faith” here?3
b) In the context, believers are being persecuted for their
faith. Thus, their lifestyles of faithfulness in the midst of
persecution provided opportunity for people to ask why
they had hope.
9. You must answer with “gentleness and respect” (NIV and
ESV); NASB has “reverence”; NKJV has “meekness and
fear.”
a) Respect for God, not pride
b) Respect for person
(1) This person is in God’s image.
(2) This person may become a Christian some day.
(3) You were once unconverted.
c) Respect even if you are mistreated

3
Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, New American Commentary 37
(Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003).

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 7

10. You must have clear conscience (a life backs up our

words).
C. Titus 1:9-11
1. Enemies of Christianity have base motives and false
doctrines, and cause much damage to the church.
2. Enemies of Christianity must be refuted and silenced.
3. Church leaders must have sufficient knowledge and
steadfastness to do two things:
a) Encourage the church through sound doctrine
b) Refute those who oppose sound doctrine
D. Relation to other disciplines in Christianity
1. Relation to theology
a) Theology is the setting forth of biblical doctrines in a
systematic core.
b) Apologetics is the defense of the doctrines expressed
in theology
c) Thus, apologetics is dependent on theology. That is,
apologetics looks to Christian theology for the
doctrines which must be expressed and defended.
2. Relation to philosophy
a) Philosophy is the investigation of truth claims through
use of reason.
b) Apologetics is the expression of Christian theism in a
rationally persuasive manner.
c) Because of the similarity in the end goal, some
apologists would like to call the discipline Philosophy of
Religion.
d) However, there are significant differences between
professional philosophers and Christian apologists.
(1) Source of authority
(2) Bounds of possibility
(3) Goal of the work
3. Relation to evangelism
a) Evangelism is the clear presentation of the gospel to
sinners.
b) Apologetics, then, has been called pre-evangelism.
(1) There is danger in this terminology, because
apologetics is a necessary part of evangelization.
(2) Nevertheless, apologetics is often used as the
means to eliminate the rational blockades
preventing one from coming to faith in Christ.
c) Is apologetics necessary for evangelism?
d) In conclusion, apologetics is a useful but sometimes
unnecessary aid to evangelism.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 8

4. Relation to counseling
a) Counseling is the application of the Scriptures to
human problems.
b) Often, there is an intellectual component to counseling
issues. That is, many of the core issues of counseling
deal with an unbelieving heart. Sometimes apologetics
can help here, because unbelief often presents itself
as intellectual difficulties.4

IV. Apologetics and the Bible

A. Biblical approaches
1. Gen 1:1 – The Old Testament writers simply assumed the
existence of God; they made no attempt to prove His
existence (see also Ps 19:1-6).
2. In the New Testament era, Christians had to defend the
faith:
a) Judaism rejected the deity of Christ.
b) Proto-Gnosticism denied the human nature of Christ.
c) Gentiles had to be convinced that there is only one
God.
d) Young Christians faced overwhelming persecution.
e) The Roman government linked Christianity to Judaism.
3. Matt 7:6 – a warning not to cast pearls before swine
4. Mark 12:30 – Christians are to love the Lord with the mind.
a) In one’s love for God, the mind plays a crucial role.
b) Commitment to God is not merely an emotional
response, nor is it merely rituals and duties; one must
also think and think well.
c) Apologetics (along with disciplined Bible study) is one
way to “love the Lord with all your mind.”
5. Luke 12:11; 21:14 – Jesus’ disciples were going to have to
defend themselves.
6. Acts 19:33, 22:1; 24:10, 25:8, 16; 26:1-2, 26:24; 2 Tim 4:16
– Paul made a defense of himself and his role in
propagating the Gospel.
7. 1 Cor 9:3 – Paul defended himself
8. 2 Cor 10:5
a) This verse is used in arguments against the use of
apologetics.
b) However, this verse mentions “casting down”
(demolishing) arguments and taking thoughts “captive,”

4
This is a very difficult topic, since unbelief is more than intellectual—it is
also moral. When someone does not believe, it very often is due to the will not to
believe. This is especially the case in counseling issues.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 9

which indicates that even though the Christian’s

weapons are not the weapons of this world (2 Cor.
10:4), they are to challenge the presuppositions and
arguments in order to lead people to faith in Christ,
when necessary.
9. 2 Cor 12:19 – The Corinthians mistakenly thought that
Paul was defending himself.
10. Phil 1:7, 17 – Paul defended and confirmed the Gospel.
11. 1 Thes 5:21 – “Test everything. Hold on to the good.”
a) This verse exhorts the Christian to a life of “testing” for
truth.
b) Prove, in this context, means “to try to learn the
genuineness of something by examination and testing,
often through actual use—’to test, to examine, to try to
determine the genuineness of, testing.’”5
c) Testing seems to include the idea of testing with
intellectual rigor the prophecies placed before the
church. If a prophecy does not meet the standard of
Scripture or reason (as informed by Scripture), it must
be discarded.
d) Both Paul and John are telling Christians to use their
heads as well as their hearts.
e) There are many con artists, frauds and phonies in the
world.
12. 2 Timothy 2:14-15 – do not quarrel, but correctly handle
the Word of truth
13. 2 Timothy 3:16 – think biblically, because apologetics must
integrate with Scripture, not vice versa.
14. 1 Peter 3:15 – “. . . be ready always to give an answer
[apologia] to every man that asketh you a reason of the
hope that is in you. . . .”
15. 1 John 4:1 – “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the
spirits whether they are of God. . . .”
16. Jude 3 – “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto
you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write
unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend
for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
a) “Earnestly contend” means to “exert intense effort on
behalf of something—’to struggle for.”6
b) This specifically expresses the task of defensive
apologetics.

5
Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon.
6
Ibid.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 10

c) The word “faith” in this text refers to the body of

essential Christian doctrine.
d) Jude is calling believers to uphold and maintain sound
doctrine in the face of those who seek to “turn the
grace of our God into lasciviousness, and deny the
only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 4).
B. An examination of alleged anti-apologetics texts
1. Luke 12:11-12
a) Jesus is not telling us to never prepare or study.
b) In this passage, Jesus is speaking directly to his
disciples. His words are stated directly to them for a
specific time, not to us.
c) We can learn a valuable lesson here, however: The
Holy Spirit who is with us will guide us, help us, and
teach us.
d) But we still have the responsibility of being good
students of the Word (2 Tim.2:15).
2. 1 Cor 1:17-25
a) Paul is not teaching anti-intellectualism.
b) Paul himself was an intellectual.
c) The knowledge of the perishing will not bring them to
Christ.
d) The work of the cross baffled the conventional wisdom
of the Jews and the Greeks.
e) God’s understanding and wisdom far exceed the
understanding and wisdom of man.
f) There is no condemnation of intellectualism (or
apologetics) here.
3. 2 Cor 10:3-5
a) The question is, what “spiritual weapons” do we have?
b) Truth is a weapon.
c) The fact that we do not “wage war as the world does”
does not imply that we do not reason.
d) Critics of apologetics will argue that logic is a “weapon
of the world,” but there is little rational or biblical
evidence to support this.
4. Col 2:8
a) This verse is not a condemnation of philosophy per se,
but rather a warning against any thoughts or ideas that
are “hollow and deceptive.”
b) One purpose of apologetics is to combat false
ideologies.
C. Apologetic key words in Scripture
1. “Therefore”

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 11

a) The Bible assumes the validity of logic, and like any

other document, it depends on the organon of logic for
intelligible discourse.
b) The word “therefore” occurs often (1237 times in the
KJV), indicating a conclusion which follows logically
from the premises.
2. “Reason”
a) On numerous occasions, the apostle Paul engaged in
rational dialogue with non-Christians. Paul “reasoned
with them out of the scriptures, opening and alleging”
(Acts 17:2-3).
b) “Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the
Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market
daily with them that met with him” (Acts 17:17).
c) “And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath,
and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks” (Acts 18:4).
d) This is apologetics at work.
D. Various apologetic methods in use in Scripture
1. Genesis
a) Genesis presumes the existence of God without trying
to justify the position rationally.
b) The first chapter is a bold monotheistic declaration set
against the polytheistic beliefs of Israel’s neighbors.
c) Genesis 1 declares resolutely that there is one God,
and this one God is above all, including (and
especially) those entities worshipped by the polytheists
(the sun, the moon, the stars, et al.).
2. Ecclesiastes
a) The book of Ecclesiastes reads like a work of
philosophic existentialism, and in fact employs an
existential apologetic.
b) The writer does not defend the truth of theism on the
basis of rational argumentation, but rather on the
meaninglessness of life.
c) Ecclesiastes contains honest confessions of doubts,
struggles with faith and disillusionment. In the book we
are forced to wrestle with suffering, evil, injustice, and
ultimately, death. Is there any meaning in all this?
d) The writer of Ecclesiastes argues for spiritual
significance in a life that is otherwise meaningless
(Ecclesiastes. 12:8, 13).
3. Luke-Acts (Evidentialist Arguments)

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 12

a) Doctor Luke’s two-volume work (the gospel of Luke

and the book of Acts) is “an apologetic treatise par
excellence for the Christian faith.”7
b) Luke-Acts presents the claims of Christ against a
background of hostility, contention, and persecution,
which accounts for the large place given to juridical
terminology and ideas drawn from the law court. The
operative question for Luke is: On what grounds or
evidence can people have faith?8
c) Luke used the historical material for the Book of Acts
according to the standards of his time as they are
expressed by such ancient historians as Herodotus,
Polybius, Thucydides and Josephus, and certainly
intends to offer evidence that will stand the test of the
closest scrutiny.9
d) Luke shares with his readers the real fruits of careful
research.
(1) Luke worked as a detective and a journalist,
piecing together the data to support the conclusion
that Christianity is true.
(2) Luke explains that he carefully investigated
everything from the beginning, to offer certainty
that the Christian teaching is true (Luke 1:3-4).
(3) Luke explains that Jesus gave many convincing
proofs that he was alive (Acts 1:3).
(a) According to Luke, Jesus himself was
somewhat of an evidentialist apologist.
(b) Luke’s use of the word “proofs” matches with
Aristotelian logic.
(c) Luke meant that, to those to whom Jesus
appeared, the resurrection of Christ was
undeniable.
4. John
a) Like Luke, John focuses on the evidences for Christ’s
resurrection.
b) John also wrote about the many miraculous deeds of
Christ; his Gospel centers on seven miraculous signs.
c) The apologetic method used in John’s Gospel
resembles evidential apologetics.

7
William Lane Craig, “Classical Apologetics,” in Five Views on Apologetics
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 43.
8
Ibid.
9
Allison Trites, The New Testament Concept of Witness (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1977), 135; cf. 128, 138.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 13

d) John’s purpose in writing is clear: “But these are

written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life
through his name” (John 20:31).
5. Romans (Classical or Presuppositional Arguments)
a) Chapter 1 of the book of Romans has been used as
biblical support for the doctrine of general revelation –
and indeed it should be used as such.
(1) This has led many to use Romans 1 as a “proof
text” for natural theology, since natural theology is
derived from general revelation.
(2) Thus, for many apologists, Paul’s explanation that
what may be known about God is plain to men,
because God has made it plain to them. God’s
invisible qualities have been clearly seen, being
understood from what has been made (Romans
1:19-20). In other words, people understand God
by drawing inferences from his creation.
(a) This points to the need for a “first cause” and
the apparent design in the universe, which, the
apologist argues, requires a designer.
(b) Paul uses both the Teleological argument and
the Cosmological Argument
(3) Such an understanding of Romans 1 makes Paul
appear to be a classical apologist
(a) However, while Romans 1 may support the
classical arguments for God’s existence, the
concept of becoming aware of God through his
creation may also give credence to the sensus
divinitatis taught by the reformed
epistemologists.
(b) Noted reformed epistemologists Kelly James
Clark and Alvin Plantinga have made a
connection between creation and the innate
sense of the divine.
b) In chapter 2 of Romans, Paul explains that the
requirements of the law are written on their hearts
(Romans 2:14-16).
(1) Paul argues that all people are aware of a
transcendent moral code.
(2) “These, then, are the two points I want to make.
First, that human beings, all over the earth, have
this curious idea that they ought to behave in a
certain way, and cannot really get rid of it.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 14

Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that

way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it.
These two facts are the foundation of all clear
thinking about ourselves and the universe we live
in.”10
(3) Paul points to the existence of the conscience
points as an indication of the centrality of morality
to mankind.
(4) While Paul does not explicitly make the moral
argument for God’s existence, he does suggest
that the conscience points to the existence of a
sovereign and authoritative Creator. Unbelievers,
because of their moral contact with God in the
conscience, will be judged by the moral standard
they inherently know they are accountable to.
c) Paul in Acts 17
(1) 17:1-2
(a) This text suggests that Paul’s apologetic
strategy consisted of reasoning with the Jews
out of the Scriptures.
(b) Alleging in this text means “to prove.”11 Paul
was not merely expressing doctrine, but he
was seeking to persuade his hearers of the
truth.
(2) 17:22-31—In Athens
(a) Paul accepts that the Athenians have some
knowledge (i.e., that there is a unknown God),
but that their knowledge is faulty.
(b) He reasons with them by arguing for the true
attributes of God, which they already know
(Romans 1).
(c) He points out that their poets knew some of
the truth, but they did not apply the knowledge
correctly.
(d) Presuppositionalists will say that Paul is
speaking to their suppressed knowledge, while
Evidentialists will say Paul is simply arguing
that their conception of God is irrational.

10
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1952), 7.
11
Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 15

6. Other Texts
a) John 20:30-31 – The signs Jesus performed were
written down for the express purpose of giving people
reasons to believe
b) 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 – Paul seems to be arguing that
the resurrection is an established fact. If someone
doubts its occurrence, they need only ask the
hundreds of people who saw Jesus alive after His
crucifixion.
c) Acts 1:3 – Luke seems to suggest that part of Jesus’
purpose in remaining forty days was to firmly establish
the reality of his resurrection. This suggests that the
disciples of Jesus were to use His resurrection as an
apologetic tool for evangelism.
d) Does the evidential centrality of the resurrection mean
the biblical writers were rational apologists (in the
broad sense that includes classical, evidential, and
cumulative case apologists)?
(1) At the very least, there is Scriptural warrant for
employing the use of evidences.
(2) But remember that their audience already held a
particular set of presuppositions—theism being
among them. Further, it seems that their
contention is to establish that Jesus was the One
predicted from the OT.
(3) Working from a theistic presupposition, the writers,
with evidence for the resurrection of Christ, built
the case for Christian theism.
(4) So there is ample room for presuppositionalists as
well.
7. The Role of Reason in Biblical Faith
a) There are those who think that having faith and
utilizing evidences are not compatible.
(1) The idea that matters of faith (religious belief) are
not (or should not be) supported by reason and
argument is a form of fideism.
(a) The idea is that evidences do not apply to
belief in God.
(b) Proponents of this concept included Søren
Kierkegaard and Karl Barth.
(2) Some presuppositionalists are classed as fideists,
though many use some form of argument to
support their belief in God.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 16

(3) It is true that the Bible begins with the assumption

of God, without going through a detailed argument
for His existence.
(4) However, throughout Scripture, one can find where
reasoned arguments are used in support of God,
especially in opposition to idols (e.g., Isaiah 44).
(a) God is often compared to idols to show the
distinctions between them.
(b) The “evidence” was reasonable, and it pointed
to Yahweh as the true and living God.
(5) When it comes to the New Testament, none were
expected to believe in Jesus based only upon the
claims that he made.
(a) The signs he performed were written down for
the express purpose of giving people reason to
believe (John 20:30-31).
(b) Later, when the apostles preached Christ, they
would regularly argue the resurrection of
Jesus.
(c) Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, made it a point to
say that Jesus had appeared to many as proof
of the resurrection. This was an all out plea to
examine the evidence.
8. Conclusion: Is there one biblical apologetic?
a) John Frame, a student of Van Til, represents a
balanced approach that can helpfully be emulated.12
(1) He suggests that rational based apologists need to
further understand
(a) The depravity of the mind and its effect on
apologetic encounters
(b) The absolute authority of God and how that
regulates how we should confront believers
(c) The role of presuppositions in man’s reasoning
process
(d) The central role of Scripture in any apologetic
engagement
(2) He suggests that presuppositionalists need to
understand
(a) The traditional arguments can be based on
Scripture

12
John M. Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction
(Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1994).

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 17

(b) The traditional arguments can be expressed in

such a way that God is honored as the only
possibility.
(3) If his balanced approach is correct, there is a place
for the historic arguments for God’s existence.
These, when framed in such a way that they honor
the authority of God, stand as monuments
declaring the guilt of man in not accepting the
existence of his Creator.
b) The resurrection is central
(1) The resurrection is at the heart of Christianity, and
that Christ gave compelling evidence of his
resurrection is at the heart of the writers’ defense
of Christianity.
(2) This is evident in Luke’s description of “many
convincing proofs” Christ gave for his resurrection
and Paul’s account of those who witnessed the
resurrected Christ (1 Cor 15:6).
(3) Does this mean the biblical writers were
evidentialists (in the broad sense that includes
classical, evidential, and cumulative case
apologists)?
(a) At the very least, there is Scriptural warrant for
employing the use of evidences.
(b) But remember that their audience already held
a particular set of presuppositions—theism
being among them.
(c) Working from a theistic presupposition, the
writers, with evidence for the resurrection of
Christ, built the case for Christian theism.
(d) So there is room for presuppositionalism as
well.
c) The role of the Holy Spirit is crucial
(1) Whichever apologetic method one adopts,
Scripture is clear that the Holy Spirit’s role in
apologetics is indispensable.
(2) The apologist must allow for the work of the Holy
Spirit.
(3) The Spirit’s job is to “convince the world
concerning sin and righteousness and judgment”
(John 16:7-11).
d) Apologetics and epistemology
(1) The Bible does not necessarily advocate a
particular epistemology; thus, the Bible does not

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 18

necessarily advocate a particular apologetic

method either.
(2) Apologetics and epistemology go hand-in-hand;
what can be shown depends on what can be
known.
e) While each method has its own strengths and
weaknesses, the Bible allows for a variety of
apologetic methods. Regardless of which method an
apologist employs, a biblical apologetic will eventually
defend the historicity of the resurrection of Christ and
the reasonability of having faith.

V. Types of Apologetics
A. Positive (offensive)
1. This makes the case that Christianity is true.
2. It provides reasons to believe.
3. Offensive apologetics does not seek to offend (though it
often does – 1 Cor 1), but rather it attacks unbelieving
ideas and systems of thought.
4. Sometimes apologetics is called the ‘Defense of the
Faith.’13 This is accurate to an extent, but God has called
us to something more than mere defense.
a) In 2 Cor 10:5, Paul says, “Casting down imaginations,
and every high thing that exalteth itself against the
knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every
thought to the obedience of Christ.”
(1) Casting down has the idea of “tearing down” and
“destroying” a house or physical structure.14
(2) “High things” refers to prideful, baseless opinions.
In other words, Paul says that we must destroy
groundless assertions that are defended as though
they are obviously correct.15
(3) The goal of offensive apologetics is to bring every
thought captive into the obedience to Christ.16
b) We must recognize that we live in God’s world. As
such, we must live by God’s rules. When we fail to do

13
See Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R
Publishing, 2008); Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God, 2.
14
Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, 10th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977).
15
Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon.
16
“Bringing into captivity” is a powerful phrase used in war terminology. This
text is describing our intellectual discussions with the world as a battle in which we
must take every thought over by force and wrestle it into subjectivity to Christ. Ibid.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 19

so, we should expect that things do not make logical

sense. Further, we should expect that this can be
shown to be true. Offensive apologetics recognizes
this fact and takes confidence in the fact that only
Christian theism provides an avenue for living fruitfully
in this world. All other attempts will be foolish (1 Cor 1-
2), and we can show them to be so.
5. If offensive apologetics succeeds—by eliminating all
competitors to the Christian faith—Christianity is
established.
6. Examples:
a) Arguments for God’s existence
b) Historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ
B. Negative (defensive)
1. This makes the case that Christianity is not false.
2. Paul describes his own ministry as the work of defense
and confirmation of the gospel (Phil 1:7).
3. It defends Christianity from criticism and opposing
arguments.
4. If defensive apologetics succeeds—by eliminating all
objections to the Christian faith—Christianity is
established.
5. Examples
a) Responding to the problem of evil
b) Dealing with claims of biblical contradictions
C. Proving
1. When most people hear the word apologetics they think of
apologetics as proof. That is, apologetics as putting forth a
rational case for the Christian theistic position.
2. Apologetics as proof in Scripture Let me first ask—where
in Scripture do you think we find apologetics as proof?
a) 1 Cor 15:1-8
b) John 20:24-31
c) John 14:11
3. Obviously, if apologetics as proof succeeds—by
establishing the truth statements of Scripture—Christianity
is established.
D. Relation of the three disciplines of apologetics (offensive,
defensive, and proving)
1. These three are related as perspectives on one another.
That is, each necessarily includes elements of the others.17

17
Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God, 3.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 20

2. In other words, when seeking to defend the gospel

(defensive), one must give both a positive construction of
the Christian truth (proving) and attack the philosophy
underlying the assertion (offensive).
3. Likewise, when one is attacking unbelief (offensive), he is
also defending the validity of the Christian faith (defensive)
and providing a basis on which the antagonist can rebuild
his life (proving).
4. The relationship between these perspectives provides the
reason why success in one field automatically means
success in the other.
5. Because of this relation, it is usually helpful to ask yourself
whether your argument for the faith (proving) is also taking
into account the unbelievers worldview in such a way that
you are attacking their belief structure (offensive) and
anticipating their questions beforehand (defensive) at the
same time. Many arguments can be strengthened by
running them through all of the categories of apologetics.
6. For this reason, our organization of the course is
somewhat artificial. One cannot divide apologetics, as
each time we interact with unbelief we should be engaged
in all three. Nevertheless, there are different phases in
which we defend the gospel. Therefore, these categories
help us organize our thoughts and apologetic actions.
E. Areas of Apologetics
1. Scientific Apologetics
a) Scientific apologetics is concerned primarily with
issues of science.
b) It deals with general revelation, natural theology and
the components of the natural world in which the
general revelation of God can be found.
c) This includes the argument from design and
cosmology, as well as discussions concerning
evolution.
2. Historical Apologetics
a) This focuses on historical evidences, the use of
archeology and manuscript evidence.
b) It includes the defense of the historicity of the
resurrection of Christ and the trustworthiness of
Scripture.
3. Philosophical Apologetics
a) Philosophical questions and concerns are addressed
by philosophical apologetics.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 21

b) This deals with the problem of evil, the possibility of

miracles, questions of theology (such as, “How can a
good God send people to hell for eternity?”) and other
abstract questions (such as, “Can God create a rock
so heavy he can’t lift it?”) are area of focus for
philosophical apologetics.
4. Theological Apologetics
a) This focuses on answering questions and criticism
concerning Christian doctrine
b) It develops doctrine positions that are both logically
consistent and biblically accurate.
c) This refers to questions concerning the nature of
Scripture’s inspiration, bloodshed in the Old
Testament, whether a good God would send someone
to hell, the Trinity.
5. Cultural Apologetics
a) The focus in Cultural apologetics concerns Christianity
or the church in society. It is the study of our current
culture for the sake of evangelism.
b) Cultural apologetics seeks to understand the direction
of the world as expressed through various philosophies
and art forms. While it is not evident on the surface,
these two are intricately connected.
(1) Has apologetics changed focus since the dawn of
Christianity? If so, why?
(2) Modern cultural apologetics is currently dealing
with both modernism and postmodernism.
(3) This seeks to answers questions like, “Why are
there so many hypocrites in the Church?” “Isn’t
Christianity a crutch for the weak-minded?” and “Is
Christianity intolerant?”
c) This area of apologetics also deals with issues
pertaining to church and state, abortion, euthanasia,
etc.
6. Personal Apologetics
a) This area of focus involves showing how faith in Christ
has benefited the believer.
b) Personal apologetics is literally to give “a reason of the
hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15).

VI. Methods of Apologetics

A. Methodology in apologetics is based on the relationship
between faith and reason
1. Kierkegaardian Fideism is on one extreme.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 22

2. Deistic Rationalism is on the other.

B. Classical Apologetics
1. Introduction
a) This school is called “classical” because this method
was used by the leading apologists of earlier centuries.
b) Proponents of this school include:
(1) R.C. Sproul, Classical Apologetics
(2) Norman Geisler, When Skeptics Ask
(3) Stephen T. Davis, God, Reason, and Theistic
Proofs
(4) William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith
(5) This was also the approach of Thomas Aquinas
and Hugo Grotius (the father of modern
apologetics)
2. Classical apologetics is a “two-step” method.
3. The first step is to demonstrate that God exists.
a) Before one can discuss historical evidences for a God,
one should establish that there is even a God at all.
(1) The first step of the classical method is an appeal
to natural theology and the traditional arguments
for God’s existence.
(2) Norman Geisler refers to this process as
“Reasoning to Christianity from Ground Zero.”18
b) The Ontological Argument
(1) This was initially argued by Anselm.
(2) God must be conceived as “a being that which
nothing greater can be conceived.”
(3) Since necessary existence is greater than possible
existence, this idea must include the idea of
absolute existence.
(4) The non-existence of God would create a
contradiction in thought.
(5) Aquinas and others argued that the non-existence
of God may be a logical contradiction, but that
does not necessarily prove his non-existence in
reality.
c) The Innate Knowledge Argument
(1) This was suggested by Augustine.
(2) This argues that everyone has a natural
knowledge or understanding of God’s existence.

18
Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton: Victor
Books, 1990), 291. “Ground Zero” begins with the realization that there are self-
evident truths and that truth is knowable, which, through the traditional arguments,
leads one to the truth of theism, and then ultimately to the truth of Christian theism.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 23

(3) Evidence is seen in the nearly universal belief in

some sort of a god.
d) The Teleological Argument
(1) This is also called the argument from design.
(a) Telos means “purpose” or “goal.”
(b) Random chance cannot account for the
complexity of nature.
(c) The current Intelligent Design movement is
based on this.
(2) This was promoted by Aquinas and is currently
held by some creationists.19
(3) Example: If you found a watch outside the church
some Sunday morning, would you:
(a) Assume someone had dropped it?
(b) Assume that it had evolved during the week?
(4) Syllogism:
(a) Design implies a designer.
(b) The universe gives evidence of design.
(c) Therefore, the universe was created.
(d) God is the designer.
e) The Cosmological Argument
(1) This was argued by Augustine and is still argued
by some modern creationists and Lane Craig, a
modern apologist.
(2) Many arguments fall under this rubric, but the main
version of the argument claims that the universe
must have a beginning.
(a) Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its
coming into being.
(b) The universe began to exist.
(c) Therefore, the universe has a cause for its
coming into being.
(3) Finite events cannot go back into the past ad
infinitum, so there must be an “uncaused cause”
(or “first cause”) of the universe, to account for all
the finite events that exist.
(a) The “big bang” requires that the universe, at
least as we know it, is finite, thus having a
beginning and presumably an end.

19
See Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biomedical Challenge to
Evolution (New York: Free Press, 1996) and The Edge of Evolution (New York: Free
Press, 2007). Also see Fuzale Rana, The Cell’s Design: How Chemistry Reveals the
Creator’s Artistry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008).

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 24

(b) The unanswered question for evolutionists is

what caused the “big bang.”20
(4) If anything now exists, something must be eternal.
(5) This leaves three possibilities:
(a) What exists is eternal (matter is eternal).
(b) What exists created itself from nothing.
(c) What exists was created from something that
already existed.
(6) This already existing, eternal being is God.
f) The Moral Argument
(1) This has most recently been argued by C. S.
Lewis.
(2) The categories of “right” and “wrong” are based on
the existence of some moral standard outside
ourselves.
(3) A variation is Pascal’s Wager: It is better to bet on
Christianity, with its resulting goodness, holiness,
happiness, and hope, than to bet against
Christianity, with a resultant discord,
meaninglessness, and death.
4. Step two moves to historical evidences to show the truth of
Jesus.
a) Once “God’s existence is at least more probable than
not,”21 the second step is to demonstrate that
Christianity is the correct theistic system.
b) An appeal to historical evidences is employed, and
specifically an appeal to evidences which focus on
demonstrating that the resurrection of Christ is an
actual historical event.22
c) According to the classical method, historical evidences
are impotent until the truth of theism has been
accepted. Miracles cannot be utilized as evidence to
prove God’s existence, because God is a necessary
condition for any miracle to be possible.
5. Basic Tenets
a) The experience of the Holy Spirit is unmistakable,
since He is capable of overwhelming contrary
arguments and evidence.

20
See R. C. Sproul, Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science
and Cosmology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994).
21
Craig, “Classical Apologetics,” 48.
22
This “second step” of the classical apologist is much like the “one step”
approach of the evidentialist. More attention is given to the historical evidences for
the resurrection in the Evidential Apologetics outline.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 25

b) A believer needs no external arguments or proofs to

confirm his relationship with God or the truth of
Christianity.
c) This implies the intellectual acceptance of the basic
truths of Christianity.
d) There is “common ground” between believer and non-
believer.
(1) Sproul, Gerstner and Lindsley offer three “common
assumptions . . . held by theists and nontheists
alike.”23
(2) These three assumptions are “non-negotiable”
because all denials of these assumptions are
forced and temporary, and acceptance of these
assumptions is necessary for knowledge and for
life itself.24
(3) The three basic, non-negotiable assumptions are:
(a) The validity of the law of noncontradiction
(i) Two contradicting statements cannot both
be true.
(a) It is raining outside.
(b) It is not raining outside.
(ii) This is how one distinguishes truth from
lies.
(b) The validity of the law of causality
(i) All finite things require a cause.
(ii) If God is infinite, then he is causeless.
(iii) If the universe is infinite, then it is
causeless.
(c) The basic reliability of sense perception
e) This results in a subjective assurance of Christianity
and an objective knowledge of that truth.
f) Arguments and evidence contrary to faith are
overwhelmed by the witness of the Spirit (the Spirit is
the Defeater of the defeaters).
6. Concerns with the Classical Method
a) The classical method relies heavily on natural
theology.
(1) The Classical Apologist believes that man is
ignorant of God, but can come to know Him by
way of natural revelation.

23
R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley, Classical Apologetics
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 71-72.
24
Ibid., 72.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 26

(2) Romans 1:18ff, on the other hand, argues that

mankind already and unavoidably knows God.
Natural revelation is a perpetual reminder of the
knowledge they already maintain.
b) The classical apologist still places a high value on
reason and believes that, through reason, we can
acquire information about God.
c) Paul said that non-believers “suppress the truth in
unrighteousness.”
(1) This may mean that the believer and the non-
believer do not have as much “common ground” as
the classical apologist presumes.
(2) This also means that the role of the Holy Spirit
includes more than this method allows.
d) Not all people are the same.
(1) Not everyone will respond to the same evidence or
argumentation.
(2) To enforce this “two-step” method as the “best”
way to defend Christian faith seems contrary to the
biblical concept of “becoming all things to all
people” (1 Cor 9:22).
(3) Some may respond favorably to an appeal to
Scripture or to the historical evidences, seeing in
them the existence of God and the truth of
Christianity.
e) There is the danger of removing the element of God’s
revelation to mankind.
(1) General revelation is but one means of
communication God uses.
(2) The classical method presumes that special
revelation is practically useless by itself.
f) The classical apologist presumes that the non-believer
has the same (or similar) view of the natural world as a
Christian.
(1) This is obviously false.
(a) A Hindu views creation as maya, or illusion.
(b) Thus, all the arguments of natural theology
would be futile in discussion with a Hindu.
(2) In using an argument from creation, one may very
well need an argument for the reality of creation
itself.
7. A question with which classical apologists must wrestle is:
What, exactly, do the arguments of natural theology prove?

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 27

a) Kelly James Clark asks in reply to Craig’s kalam25

cosmological argument, “…if the kalam cosmological
argument is sound, what exactly has been proved?
That an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good creator of
the universe exists?”26
b) The question remains as to the definition of “God,” as
well as how much evidence we need to show that
there is a being who fits this definition of “God.”
C. Evidential Apologetics
1. Introduction
a) Evidentialist apologists rely on a “one-step” method to
demonstrate Christian theism as the correct worldview.
b) The evidentialist employs historical evidences to
demonstrate both the truth of theism and the truth of
Christianity.
c) The distinction between the Classical and Evidential
apologists is one of emphasis. Classical apologists rely
on the tools of philosophy primarily and history
secondarily. Evidential apologists focus on historical
evidences primarily and philosophical secondarily.
2. Proponents of this school include:
a) Gary Habermas, In Defense of Miracles
b) John W. Montgomery, Evidence for Faith: Deciding the
God Question
c) Clark Pinnock, Reason Enough
d) J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of
Christianity
e) On the popular level, Josh McDowell, Evidence That
Demands a Verdict and More Evidence That Demands
a Verdict; Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A
Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for
Jesus.
3. General Apologetic Strategy
a) The evidentialist apologetic strategy relies heavily on
historical evidences; in particular, the evidences
supporting the resurrection of Christ.
b) Others use science to demonstrate the existence of
God and the validity of His Word.

25
Kalam appeals to philosophy and science to show that (1) the universe
began to exist (i.e. it is not eternally existent), (2) the beginning of the universe was
caused, and (3) the cause of the universe was God.
26
Kelly James Clark, “A Reformed Epistemologist’s Response [to Craig],”
Five Views on Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 86.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 28

c) Another use of evidence is to demonstrate the

trustworthiness of the Bible.
d) Evidentialists believe that the use of such evidence
can make for a powerful argument supporting Christian
faith.
e) Habermas describes the “minimal facts” approach,27
which is utilizing data that have two characteristics:
(1) The data must be well documented.
(2) The data is admitted by critical scholars who
research this particular area.
4. An Evidentialist Example
a) Jesus died. Numerous ancient historical sources
record Jesus’ death.28 Very few scholars today doubt
that Jesus died by crucifixion.
b) There were reports of post-crucifixion appearances of
Jesus.
“The most widely discussed New Testament text on
the subject of the historical Jesus is 1 Corinthians
15:3-8. . . . Virtually all scholars, whatever their
theological persuasion, agree that Paul here records a
primitive Jewish tradition that is not his.”29
c) Jesus’ tomb was empty. This in itself does not prove
the resurrection, but the empty tomb does add
credibility to the claim, especially in light of the fact that
alternative explanations (e.g., “swoon theory,” “stolen
body theory”) fail to account for all the facts of the case
and thus are not satisfactory explanations for the
empty tomb.
d) Christianity began in the immediate location where
Jesus Christ had been executed and buried.
(1) Christ’s disciples, less than two months after the
crucifixion, told the crowd on the day of Pentecost
that Jesus was alive again.
(2) This was not done years later in some remote
location; the resurrection was preached in the
place where Christ died and was buried.
(3) Furthermore, the resurrection was preached very
soon after Christ’s death.
e) Christ’s disciples were willing to (and most did) die for
their faith.

27
Gary R. Habermas, “Evidential Apologetics,” in Five Views on Apologetics
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 100.
28
Ibid., 107.
29
Ibid., 108.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 29

(1) Few people deny that Christ’s disciples at least

believed that Jesus had been raised from the
dead.30
(2) These men died for what they believed about
Jesus.
(3) They believed sincerely that they had seen Jesus
– alive and glorified.
f) The Minimal Facts
“In my opinion, the strongest case for the resurrection
appearances of Jesus involves the use of those data
that are both well grounded and that receive the
support of the critical community. . . . The strength of
this [minimal] core [of facts] is that these few facts are
capable, in themselves, of both disproving the
naturalistic hypotheses, as well as providing the best
arguments for the resurrection.”31
5. The general rules and application of inference
a) Evidentialists emphasize that the Holy Spirit may work
through the use of evidences. Furthermore, the Holy
Spirit may convict someone of the truth of Christian
theism apart from the evidences.
b) Evidentialists have an eclectic attitude toward
apologetics. Most evidentialists view their method as
an effective option, but not necessary the only option.
c) Even though evidentialists already admit that
evidentiary coercion is impossible, they, like their
intellectual cousins the classical apologists, must
confront and explain the Apostle Paul’s explanation
that non-believers “suppress the truth in
unrighteousness.”
d) The evidentialist must confront the accusations of the
classical apologists (and others) who claim that any
appeal to the miraculous without first demonstrating
the truth of theism is futile.
e) If the evidentialist justifies the possibility (or plausibility)
of miracles by appealing to the existence of God, and
then if the evidentialist appeals to the evidence of
miracles to demonstrate the existence of God, there is
the danger of circular reasoning. Does the existence of
the miraculous justify the existence of God, or does
God justify the miraculous?

30
Ibid., 108.
31
Ibid., 115.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 30

f)
One criticism of evidential apologetics is that it does
not appear to be able to respond to the declaration,
“extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
g) “In our experience, when somebody claims to have
observed a miracle (e.g., a green elephant flying two
hundred feet above a seminary chapel building), we
usually believe that the witness is deceived or
deceiving, rather than that his report is true. . . . The
attitude of many people today is that, whatever
Habermas and other apologists may say, there must
be some explanation of the data other than the
traditional Christian explanation.”32
6. Concerns with the Evidential Method
a) Is all historical Evidence equal?
(1) One criticism of evidential apologetics is that it
does not appear to be able to respond to the
declaration, “extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence.”
(2) “In our experience, when somebody claims to have
observed a miracle (e.g., a green elephant flying
two hundred feet above a seminary chapel
building), we usually believe that the witness is
deceived or deceiving, rather than that his report is
true. . . . The attitude of many people today is that,
whatever Habermas and other apologists may say,
there must be some explanation of the data other
than the traditional Christian explanation.”33
b) Is Historical Evidence Persuasive?
(1) Historical facts are always subject to the writer’s
bias.
(2) Historical facts are subject to the transmitter’s bias.
(3) Finally, historical facts are often interpreted
differently.
(4) Building an entire case for Christianity on historical
evidences is not persuasive to a vast majority.
c) So what if you prove the resurrection?
(1) The unbeliever who is convinced by the evidence
that Jesus rose from the dead does not have to
embrace Christianity.

32
John M. Frame, “A Presuppositionalist’s Response [to Habermas],” in Five
Views on Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 136-137.
33
Ibid., 136–137.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 31

(2) Some people might be willing to admit that Jesus

rose from the dead, but they might also say that all
sorts of strange things have happened in the past.
d) The Problem of Probability
(1) No matter how many historical documents are
examined, the case for theism will remain a mere
probability in Evidentialism.
(2) Edward Carnell stated, “[P]roof for the Christian
faith, as proof for any world-view that is worth
talking about, cannot rise above rational
probability.… The first reason why Christianity
cannot—and does not want to—rise to
demonstration is that it is founded on historical
facts, which by their very nature, cannot be
demonstrated with geometric certainty…. If the
scientist cannot rise above rational probability in
his empirical investigation, why should the
Christian claim more?”34
e) It is based on the primacy of historical evidences.
f) It is based on the necessity of critical analysis.
(1) Historical facts are interpreted.
(2) Interpretation is affected by human factors.
(3) For this reason, critical analysis of historical data is
necessary.
g) Evidentialists engage freely in “negative” apologetics.
h) The evidence for Christian theism is not coercive.
(1) The evidential method relies heavily on inductive
reasoning and the “power of probability.”
(2) While the evidence may be convincing, no one will
be “forced” to become a Christian after examining
the evidence.
i) The evidential apologist believes that there is some
“common ground” between believer and non-believer.
(1) Habermas lists some areas of commonality
between believer and non-believer.35
(2) There is epistemological common ground in:
(a) Sensory data (perception)
(b) Scientific theories

34
As quoted in Greg Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics Stated and
Defended (American Vision, 2010), 224.
35
Ibid., 97.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 32

D. Cumulative Case Apologetics (Inference to the Best

Explanation)
1. Introduction
a) The cumulative case apologist argues that the biblical
view is the best explanation of all of the data taken
together.
b) The cumulative case method uses abductive reasoning
primarily.36
(1) He does not seek to rely upon one or two
arguments, but instead takes all of the evidence as
a whole unit, and says that biblical theism best
explains it all.
(2) One may start with any element of the case, and
depending on the response, appeal may be made
to some other element to support or reinforce the
claim that Christianity is true.37
c) The argument for Christian theism is an informal one,
not a formal one.
d) None of the arguments has any priority over any other.
e) It is not merely a defense of God’s existence or theism;
it is an apologetic for Christianity.
2. Proponents
a) G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
b) C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
c) Richard Swinburne, Faith and Reason
3. Basic characteristics
a) The cumulative approach entails a pulling together of
different pieces of evidence, with Christian theism
being defended as “the most plausible explanation” of
the data.38
b) No elements are more significant than any others.
c) One may start with any element of the case, and
depending on the response, appeal may be made to
some other element to support or reinforce the claim
that Christianity is true.39
d) The goal is not merely to establish theism but Christian
theism.

36
Abductive reasoning is neither inductive nor deductive. It uses arguments
similar to a legal brief or a literary discussion.
37
Ibid., 152.
38
Paul Feinberg, “Cumulative Case Apologetics,” in Five Views on
Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 166.
39
Ibid., 152.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 33

4. Methodology
a) Claims for truth are handled by subjecting them to a
series of “tests for truth.”
(1) Test of consistency, that is, a test to see if a
system is internally consistent
(2) Test of correspondence, in which a belief is
evaluated to see if it corresponds with known
reality
(3) Test of comprehensiveness, where a theory is
better able to explain the evidence than competing
theories; and other tests as well.
(4) Test of simplicity (Ockham’s razor), which argues
that if the explanation is both simple and adequate,
it is to be preferred.
(5) Test of livability, which says that for a belief to be
true, it must be livable.
(6) Test of fruitfulness, which asks which system
results in the best results.
(7) Test of conservation, which says that when a
problem arises in our worldview, the solution which
requires the least radical revision is to be chosen.
b) It also depends greatly on the witness of the Spirit.
(1) Subjective (i.e., the work of the Spirit within
individual persons)
(a) For the believer, the Holy Spirit produces
illumination and assurance.
(b) For the unbeliever, the Holy Spirit produces
conviction.
(2) Objective aspects (i.e., the work of the Spirit in
convincing people of the elements external to
them)
(a) This includes philosophical arguments
(ontological, cosmological, and teleological).
(b) This also includes religious experiences, moral
behavior, and knowledge of God’s revelation.
5. Considerations with Cumulative Case Apologetics
a) Cumulative case apologetics has a sense of
reasonableness to it. Such a view makes sense in a
pluralistic society, a world in which people come from
many different backgrounds and maintain various
religious assumptions.
b) It is important to “recognize that the non-Christian may
be using logic, empirical data, comprehensiveness,

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 34

and so on rather differently from the way we do.”40 It

would be helpful to consider the subject of non-
Christian presuppositions and then formulate ways to
communicate with those who hold them.
c) Because many of these arguments, by themselves, are
unconvincing, this theory is often accused of being ten
leaky buckets (i.e., ten buckets that all leak water
cannot in combination hold water)
d) Since this is a form of evidentialism, many of the
arguments against evidentialism could be leveled
against this theory as well.
E. Presuppositional Apologetics
1. Introduction
a) This defends Christianity by presupposing the truth of
Christian theism and then arguing from that
perspective to demonstrate the validity of the Christian
position.
b) Presuppositionalism is a direct challenge to the
evidentialist apologetic methods.41
(1) According to evidential methods, the apologist
should initially put to one side the existence of
God, the identity of Christ, and the authority of the
Bible and build a defense for Christianity upon the
“common ground” of reason held by both Christian
and non-Christian.42
(2) The presuppositional position is that one should
not set aside God, Christ and Scripture in a quest
for common ground with the skeptic, nor should
one grant the possibility of a world independent of
God that can successfully function and be
successfully understood in terms of the axioms of
logic and science.

40
Ibid., 198.
41
“Evidentialist apologetic methods” here includes not only the evidential
apologetic method per se, but also the classical method and the cumulative case
method, as all three rely on particular evidences and a common ground between
believer and non-believer. This applies to all further references to “evidential
methods” in this outline.
42
For the classical apologist, this “common ground” is the validity of the law
of noncontradiction, the validity of the law of causality, and the basic reliability of
sense perception. For the evidentialist apologist, the common ground consists of
sensory data (perception), scientific theories, and the general rules and application of
inference.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 35

(3) The evidential apologetic method is encapsulated

in the declaration associated with Thomas
Aquinas: “I believe because I understand.”
(4) The fideistic apologetic is encapsulated in the
declaration associated with Tertullian: “I believe
what is absurd.”
(5) The presuppositional apologetic is encapsulated in
the declaration associated with St. Augustine: “I
believe; therefore, I understand.”
c) According to the presuppositionalist, the revelation in
the Scriptures must be the framework through which all
experience is interpreted and any truth is known.
d) “By demonstrating that unbelievers cannot argue,
think, or live without presupposing God,
presuppositionalists try to show unbelievers that their
own worldview is inadequate to explain their
experience of the world and to get unbelievers to see
that Christianity alone can make sense of their
experience.”43
2. Proponents of this school include:
a) Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith
b) John M. Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God
c) Gordon Clark, Clark Speaks from the Grave
d) Greg Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions for
Defending the Faith
3. Explanation of the Presuppositional Method
a) Presuppositionalists seek to be explicitly biblical.
Therefore, to understand their method, we must know
their theology (usually a Reformed theology).
(1) Doctrine of God
(a) His character—Exodus 3: 14
(i) God is independent of everything else in
creation (aseity). He is not dependent on
any other being.
(ii) God is above all other creation. Therefore,
He has authority over all of creation.
Where His voice is heard, He must be
obeyed.
(b) His presence—Psalm 139
(i) There is no place where man can hide
from God.

43
Steven B. Cowan, “Introduction,” in Five Views on Apologetics (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 19.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 36

(ii) Calvin began His institutes by saying that

he does not know whether man knows
himself or God first.44
(2) Doctrine of Man’s Knowledge
(a) Psalm 19
(i) The language of the passage indicates
that the knowledge given through creation
is verbal. This indicates that it is more than
an intuition—it is genuine knowledge.
(ii) The Psalmists takes pains to express that
there is no place where the knowledge of
God is absent.
(a) This knowledge is translated into
every language.
(b) Where the sun reaches, so the
knowledge of God reaches.
(b) Romans 1
(i) What can be known of God is manifest “in
them.”
(a) Taken as a dative of local (ev) means
that this knowledge is inherent to
them.
(b) This indicates that the knowledge of
God is not merely inferred from
creation, but is given directly by God.
Indeed, this is what the next line
indicates: “for God has showed it to
them.”
(ii) The content of this knowledge is “His
eternal power and Godhead.”
(a) Charles Hodge argues that this
includes all of the divine attributes.
(b) This indicates that a true knowledge of
God—not some mere general and
vague idea of a transcendent being—
is given to all of mankind.
(iii) The clarity of the revelation
(a) No one can escape this knowledge
because it is given by the infallible
hand of God (v 19).
(b) The knowledge given is described as
“being understood.”
(3) Doctrine of the Scripture
44
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.1.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 37

(a) Genesis: Divine revelation was always

necessary.
(i) Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden
walked and talked with God. Without His
instruction they would have been
incapable of living in God’s world.
(ii) Man today likewise needs God’s verbal
revelation in order to live in this world. The
only change from the Garden to today is
the way that God speaks to His creatures.
(b) The Bible does not need to be defended, since
it is the presence of God to man. In it, the
voice of God—resident with His unique
authority—is clearly perceived.
(c) Only through the “spectacles of Scripture” can
general revelation be helpful. Therefore,
natural theology is useless.
(4) Doctrine of man’s sinful suppression
(a) Romans 1:21-32
(i) Because of man’s fallen condition (which
affects his intellect as well as his moral
character), he continually suppresses the
truth.
(ii) Suppression can be described as the futile
attempt to keep the knowledge of God
from surfacing. It is like attempting to keep
a beach ball under the water.
(iii) Calvin argued that unbelievers who seek
to “find God” without the guide of Scripture
will be led into idolatry every time. This is
because their depravity naturally leads
them to twist the truth into a lie.
(iv) Argument with an unbeliever, then, will
only lead to fruitlessness. They cannot
believe without being confronted with
divine revelation, which just is the
presence of God (Rom 3; 1 Cor 1; Eph 2).
(b) Genesis 3:1-7
(i) The first sin of man was not eating the
fruit, but rather it was seeking to think
autonomously.
(ii) Eve sinned when she determined that she
could determine her own truth.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 38

(iii) The continual (and foundational) sin of the

world is the attempt to think and act
autonomously from the commands and
presence of God.
(iv) If our apologetic method does not demand
unbelievers abandon their autonomous
thinking, then it is not biblical.
b) In sum, presuppositionalists believe that God created
the world in such a way that man is continually
confronted with the presence and knowledge of God.
(1) Men, however, suppress this knowledge because
of their sinfulness. For this reason, presenting
rational arguments is fruitless.
(2) First, they will not hear them since they will
suppress the truth.
(3) Second, the apologist is encouraging the
unbeliever to remain in autonomy from God.
Instead, Christians should challenge unbelievers to
submit their reason to the authority of God. To do
this they must present Scripture—which is the
authoritative voice of God—and demand that the
unbeliever abandon autonomy.
4. Characteristics of the Presuppositional Method
a) Presuppositionalism starts with the Christian
worldview.
b) It focuses heavily on the noetic effects of sin.
(1) The presuppositionalist sees very little (if any)
common ground between believer and non-
believer.
(2) “Of course human reasoning in the present age is
never completely free from the influence of sin. . . .
Those who deny God do so, not because they lack
evidence, but because their hearts are rebellious. .
. . From unbelief, then, comes the ‘wisdom of the
world’ that Paul contrasts so sharply with the
wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:18-2:16; 3:18-23; 8:1-3),
the foolishness that the author of Proverbs sets
over against true wisdom. The wisdom of the world
tends to dominate human cultures as they unite in
defiance of God. . . . To such ‘wise’ people,
Christianity appears foolish and weak. But to God,
the opposite is the case. It is the secular wisdom

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 39

that is foolish and weak, and the worldly wise will

learn that in God’s time.”45
c) Generally, presuppositionalists are Calvinists, and
presuppositionalism depends greatly on Reformed
theology.
(1) To the presuppositionalist, no matter how strong
the evidence or arguments, an unbeliever cannot
come to the faith because his fallen nature will
distort his perception of the truth. Only
regeneration can save him.
(2) To this end, the presuppositionalist seeks to
change a person’s worldview so that it conforms
with Scripture.
(3) Presuppositionalists believe one’s argument
should be transcendental; it should present the
biblical God, not merely as the conclusion to an
argument, but as the one who makes argument
possible. We should present him as the source of
all meaningful communication, since he is the
author of all order, truth, beauty, goodness, logical
validity, and empirical fact.46
5. It uses the transcendental method, whereby it shows the
unbeliever that the world only makes sense if you take
Christian theism as a whole.
a) [Step one] In order to do this, one must, for the sake of
argument, step into the unbeliever’s worldview and
show them how it is irrational. He can do this by
showing that the unbeliever’s worldview would destroy
morality, logic, rationality, etc.
b) [Step two] Having done so, the apologist should
encourage the unbeliever to step into the Christian
worldview. At this point, the apologist can show that
only in Christian theism is morality, logic, rationality,
etc., possible.
c) The purpose is to have the unbeliever be confronted
with the truth that is already resident in the unbelievers
mind and heart.
d) Through this process, the apologist has not abandoned
the objective truth of the Christian theism. Further, God
has been presented not merely as the conclusion to an
argument, but as the One who makes argument

45
John M. Frame, “Presuppositional Apologetics,” in Five Views on
Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 210-211.
46
Ibid., 220.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 40

possible. The apologist has presented Him as the

source of all meaningful communication, since He is
the author of all order, truth, beauty, goodness, logical
validity, and empirical fact.47
e) It is for this reason that presuppositionalists argue that
every fact in the universe is evidence for God. That is,
the existence of any fact presupposes the existence of
God who is the only possibility for that fact.
6. Benefits of the Presuppositional Method
a) It shows clearly the role that worldviews have in
apologetics.
(1) In order to speak to people we have to get behind
mere facts and get to the philosophy behind the
facts.
(2) In other words, we need to look beyond singular
ideas to what makes people think the way they
think. Until we get to that level, we will never be
able to speak to them “in their language.”
(3) Further, because of man’s sinful nature we cannot
simply assume that all men hold the same
epistemology (view of knowledge) as Christians
hold.
b) It takes Scripture seriously.
(1) Some apologetic methods do not take the noetic
(knowledge) effects of sin seriously.
(2) Very few apologetic methods focus on what it
means that men already have a knowledge of God
(Rom 1).
(3) Presuppositionalists have developed their entire
method from theological positions. Even if you
disagree with their doctrinal positions, we should
be thankful for believers who take Scripture
seriously.
c) It emphasizes the role of the Holy Spirit in evangelism.
(1) Every orthodox apologetic method holds the
necessity of the Holy Spirit in evangelism.
Nevertheless, some methods merely assume He
will work as they express rational proofs and
historical evidences.
(2) Presuppositionalism gives a centrality to God’s
Word as the mode in which the Spirit will convince
unbelievers.
7. Concerns with the Presuppositional Method
47
Ibid., 220.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 41

a) Does presuppositionalism allow for evangelism?

(1) Van Til, who founded the Presuppositional school,
learned the basic tenets of the system from
Abraham Kuyper. Kuyper believed evangelism
was useless, since the distance between
unbelievers and believers was infinitely vast.
(2) Kuyper believed people could be saved, but not by
any argument. Instead, they would be saved solely
from the working of the Spirit of God.
(3) Modern day presuppositionalists believe that
arguing for the Christian faith is appropriate as
long as one remains faithful to biblical
presuppositions (i.e., they never assume the non-
existence of God and continually call unbelievers
to abandon their autonomous thought). But if, as
Calvin argued, man is totally depraved, will he not
merely suppress that truth?
(4) The central struggle many reformed believers have
to struggle with concerns the relationship of
arguments and faith. If regeneration precedes
faith, and if everyone is dead in their intellect
before regeneration, then what point is there in
argumentation? Should one not simply wait until
the Spirit regenerates?48
b) The Apostle Paul in Acts 17 did not begin his message
to the Greek philosophers by appealing first to a
biblical worldview.
(1) Had Paul been applying presuppositional methods,
he would have simply assumed the truth of
Christian theism and then challenged the non-
Christian philosophers to consider the world in light
of the Christian worldview.
(2) Instead, Paul chooses what appears to be a more
“classical” approach, beginning with creation and
then moving into major tenets of Christian theism.
c) Scripture frequently encourages the use of evidences,
and the New Testament especially employs evidences
in support of the resurrection of Christ, upon which
Christian faith rests. The New Testament writers
appear to employ a more evidential approach to
apologetics than a presuppositional approach.49

48
The answer would be as follows: God does the work but He uses means.
49
The resurrection is at the heart of Christianity, and that Christ gave
compelling evidence of his resurrection is at the heart of the writers’ defense of
Central Africa Baptist College
PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 42

d) Presuppositionalism appears to beg the question. “As

commonly understood, presuppositionalism is guilty of
a logical howler: it commits the informal fallacy of
petitio principii, or begging the question, for it
advocates presupposing the truth of Christian theism in
order to prove Christian theism. Frame himself says
that we are forced to say, ‘God exists (presupposition),
therefore God exists (conclusion),’ even though such
reasoning is ‘clearly circular.’ It is difficult to imagine
how anyone could with a straight face think to show
theism to be true by reasoning, ‘God exists. Therefore,
God exists.’”50
8. Strengths of Presuppositionalism
a) Just as various accumulations of arguments and
evidence (both for and against Christian theism) are
“indestructible,” so it seems are differing
presuppositions. At least, the competing worldviews
seem equal in logical weight.51
b) Immanuel Kant concluded that we can have
knowledge of the phenomenal world (the world
perceived with the senses) through reason, but we
can’t have knowledge of the noumenal world (i.e., the
metaphysical world).
(1) When we try to use reason to discover any truth
about the noumenal world, we end up with
antinomies.
(2) In the “Antinomy of Pure Reason” Kant set out the
“antinomies” as four pairs of propositions, each

Christianity. This is evident in Luke’s description of “many convincing proofs” Christ

gave for his resurrection (Acts 1:3) John’s use of the evidences for Christ’s
resurrection and miracles to lead people to faith in Christ (John 20:31), and Paul’s
account of those who witnessed the resurrected Christ (1 Corinthians 15:6). Does this
mean the biblical writers were evidentialists (in the broad sense that includes
classical, evidential, and cumulative case apologists)? At the very least, there is
Scriptural warrant for employing the use of evidences. But remember that their
audience already held a particular set of presuppositions – theism being among them.
Working from a theistic presupposition, the writers, with evidence for the resurrection
of Christ, built the case for Christian theism. So while presuppositional apologetic
methodology is not excluded, it is certainly not exclusive.
50
William Lane Craig, “A Classical Apologist’s Response [to Frame],” in Five
Views on Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 232-233.
51
Presuppositionalists and cumulative case apologists have much in
common in that both contend that Christian theism makes more sense than any
competing worldview. The cumulative case apologist gathers as much evidence and
argumentation as possible, and argues that Christianity is the best explanation for the
data we have. The presuppositionalist simply begins with the assumption of the truth
of Christianity and argues that viewing the world through Christian “worldview eyes”
makes the most sense of the world around us.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 43

consisting of a thesis, and its supposed

contradictory, or antithesis.
(a) The First Antinomy (of Space and Time)
(i) Thesis: The world has a beginning in time,
and is also limited as regards space.
(ii) Anti-thesis: The world has no beginning,
and no limits in space; it is infinite as
regards both time and space.
(b) The Second Antinomy (of Atomism)
(i) Thesis: Every composite substance in the
world is made up of simple parts, and
nothing anywhere exists save the simple
or what is composed of the simple.
(ii) Anti-thesis: No composite thing in the
world is made up of simple parts, and
there nowhere exists in the world anything
simple.
(c) The Third Antinomy (of Freedom)
(i) Thesis: Causality in accordance with laws
of nature is not the only causality from
which the appearances of the world can
one and all be derived. To explain these
appearances it is necessary to assume
that there is also another causality, that of
freedom.
(ii) Anti-thesis: There is no freedom;
everything in the world takes place solely
in accordance with laws of nature.
(d) The Fourth Antinomy (of God)
(i) Thesis: There belongs to the world, either
as its part or as its cause, a being that is
absolutely necessary.
(ii) Anti-thesis: An absolutely necessary being
nowhere exists in the world, nor does it
exist outside the world as its cause.
(3) In each case there are, he thinks, compelling
reasons for accepting both thesis and antithesis.
(4) For example, it is equally logical to believe that
God exists and that God doesn’t exist. We can find
reasons to believe either, because our reason
cannot penetrate the noumenal world.52

52
Paul Edwards, ed., The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: Macmillan,
1967), 4: 316.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 44

(5) The presuppositionalist would argue that because

reason cannot penetrate the noumenal world, we
should not use reason as our starting point in
reference to God. But the presuppositionalist is not
immune to this critique.
(6) A question remains for the presuppositionalist to
answer: How should one decide which
presupposition is best? By reason? If not by
reason, then how does one choose?
c) Presuppositionalism reminds us that everything is
subject to one’s interpretation (there is no such thing
as “facts only”), and one’s ability to interpret facts is not
infallible.
d) Furthermore, everyone comes from a certain context
and has been influenced and conditioned to accept
certain views of the world as true.
(1) What “rings true” to one person will not have that
same ring to another.
(2) By presupposing the truth of Christianity, an
apologist can help a non-believer see the world
through his frame of reference, which can lead to
an experience similar to St. Augustine’s: belief
leading to understanding.
F. Reformed Epistemology Apologetics
1. Introduction
a) It is perfectly reasonable to believe many things
without evidence.
(1) We believe in the existence of other minds without
evidence.
(2) We believe in our memories without evidence.
(3) We believe that the world continues to exist even
when we close our eyes. How do we know?
b) Belief in God does not require the support of evidence
or argument in order for it to be rational, because belief
in God is “properly basic.”
c) God has given us an awareness of himself that can be
awakened in many ways (a sensus divinitatis).
d) This method does not exclude the use of arguments
and evidence, but argues that one can believe in God
rationally apart from them.
e) Reformed epistemology is a direct challenge to
evidentialism.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 45

(1) Reformed epistemologists argue that it is

reasonable for a person to hold certain beliefs
without evidence.
(2) Belief in God, because it is a properly basic belief,
is one of those beliefs that does not require
evidence or argument in order to be rational.
2. Proponents of this school include:
a) Kelly James Clark, Return to Reason
b) Alvin Plantinga, God and Other Minds: A Study of the
Rational Justification of Belief in God
c) George Mavrodes, The Rationality of Belief in God
d) William Alston, A Realist Conception of Truth
3. Tenets of the Reformed Epistemological Method
a) This school is founded on Reformed theology,
particularly Calvin’s notion of a sensus divinitatis, an
immediate or non-inferential knowledge of God that
arises spontaneously in the human mind.
b) Such beliefs are formed in a basic way.
(1) Basic beliefs are those not derived from logical
inference. Rather, basic beliefs are immediately
evident.53
(2) For instance, sensory perception (seeing red) is an
immediate belief. One does not logically derive
sense perception.
(3) In this way, theistic belief shares an important
similarity to beliefs based on sensory perception,
testimony, memory and a priori ideas.
(4) In sum, Reformed Epistemologists believe that
some people know God by way of immediate
knowledge through the Sense of Divinity as they
interact with creation. For those who receive this
knowledge, to doubt it would be akin to doubting
that the objects in their immediate vision do not
exist.
c) “If Calvin is right that human beings are born with an
innate sensus divinitatis (sense of the divine), then
53
Thomas Reid popularized a philosophy called Common Sense Philosophy.
It claimed there were only two kinds of beliefs: foundational and non-foundational.
Foundational beliefs were the bedrock beliefs that were certain, and non-foundational
were the beliefs that built off those beliefs (imagine a pyramid). In this system, all
justified beliefs must trace back to foundational beliefs. The criteria for foundational
beliefs are incorrigibility (not able to be doubted [i.e., I exist]), self-evident [all
bachelor’s are married], and evident to the senses [I see red]. Any piece of
information meeting any of these three requirements is considered a basic belief.
Plantinga challenges this whole structure by noting that memory, the existence of
other minds, and other simple truths are not able to be defended on this model.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 46

people may rightly and rationally come to have a belief

in God immediately without the aid of evidence.”54
d) Belief in God as properly basic does not commit one to
the relativistic view that virtually any belief can be
properly basic.
(1) Belief in God as properly basic is not a form of
fideism.
(a) Reformed epistemologists argue that their
position is not fideistic.
(i) Fideism is a leap in the dark without any
conviction of truth
(ii) Reformed Epistemologists claim that those
who experience the Sense of Divinity have
true knowledge, but not the kind that can
be defended with evidence.
(b) There are circumstances which make belief in
God a properly basic belief.
(2) Reformed epistemology does not discount the use
of evidence and argumentation to defend Christian
theism.
(3) Reformed epistemology appears to be more of an
apologetic for the belief than that which is
believed. The primary focus seems to be placed
on clearing the theist of all charges of irrationality
rather than demonstrating that (Christian) theism is
true.
e) Reformed epistemology forces us to consider the basis
for beliefs we hold. Should we ever believe something
without sufficient evidence? There are times when we
must.
(1) “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for any one,
to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”
(a) At first, this quote seems reasonable. If one
does not have sufficient evidence, then one
should not believe.
(b) But this statement cannot satisfy its own
standard.
(i) Do we really have sufficient evidence to
believe that it is always wrong to believe
anything upon insufficient evidence?
(ii) What is that evidence?
(iii) And what does “sufficient” mean?
(iv) What are the criteria for sufficiency?
54
Cowan, “Introduction,” 20.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 47

(v) And is there sufficient evidence to support

belief in those criteria?
(2) Evidentialist epistemology is the view that beliefs
are justified only if one has conclusive evidence for
them.
(a) Any proposition or claim must have sufficient
evidence before we can believe it.
(b) But any piece of evidence we use is, itself, a
proposition or claim that we believe. And being
such, we must have sufficient evidence before
we can believe them. And, again, any piece of
evidence we use is a proposition or claim that
we believe. So, again, sufficient evidence is
required for belief.
(c) In other words, to believe X, we need
evidence. To believe that evidence, we need
evidence for that evidence. To believe the
evidence for the evidence for X, we need
evidence. To believe the evidence for the
evidence for the evidence of X, we need
evidence. And so on and so on. Notice the
regress. Where does it stop?
(3) This does not mean all beliefs require no evidence.
There are certainly many things that require
evidence in order to be believed rationally. But that
there are certain basic beliefs that we must accept
apart from having “sufficient evidence” to support
those beliefs seems intuitive. According to
Reformed epistemology, theism is one of those
beliefs.
4. Concerns with Reformed Epistemology
a) The entire system is built on foundationalism (i.e., the
idea that there are some indubitable truths that are the
foundation for other truths).
b) If the epistemological system falls, so will the entire
edifice of Reformed Epistemology
c) The problem with foundationalism is that there is
nothing supporting the foundational truths. What
establishes the truth of foundational beliefs?
d) Is it True?
(1) It appears that we have been tasked with much
more than merely defending people’s right to
believe. Rather, we are called to make a defense
of the objective validity of Christian theism.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 48

(2) As it stands, Reformed Epistemology is malleable

to Islam and a number of other theistic faiths. Are
we accomplishing God’s task if we defend belief in
Islam?
G. Postmodern Apologetics
1. Its adherents adopt certain aspects of a postmodernist
paradigm and defend Christian theism from that epistemic
foundation.
2. This method proposes a model of truth in which truth
claims are inseparably bound up with human language and
are, therefore, inextricably linked to matters of discernment
and judgment, which means they are irreducibly social or
communal affairs.
3. In this model, there is no room for talk about “objective”
truth (“out there”) or “subjective” truth (“for me”).
4. Truth “becomes internal to a web of beliefs; there is no
standard truth independent of a set of beliefs and
practices.”
H. Summary of the Key issues dividing the groups
1. Starting point for conversation
a) Do we appeal to their knowledge of God?
(Presuppositionalism)
b) Do we appeal to their rational nature? (Reason based
approaches)
2. Nature of God
a) Does God command absolute authority?
(Presuppositionalism)
b) Does God expect that man must come to recognize
His authority? (Reason based approaches)
3. Man’s nature
a) Does the fall prevent man from understanding
argumentation before regeneration?
(Presuppositionalism)
b) Does the fall merely hinder clear thinking so that we
must present persuasive argumentation? (Reason
based approaches)
4. Role of presuppositions
a) Do we need to argue from the vantage point of
worldview? (Presuppositionalism)
b) Do we need to change their worldview one fact at a
time? (Reason based approaches)
5. Relationship between faith and reason
a) Do we have Faith to establish Reason?
(Presuppositionalism)

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 49

b) Do we Reason up to Faith? (Reason based

approaches)
6. Epistemology
a) Classical apologists align with the rationalist tradition
(Plato)
b) Evidentialist apologists align with the empiricist
tradition (Aristotle)
c) Cumulative Case apologists align with attempts to
combine rationalism and empiricism (Kant)
d) Presuppositionalists claim to have a distinct biblically
derived epistemology (Calvin)

VII. Worldviews
A. Definition
1. A worldview is a general view of the universe and man’s
place in it which affects one’s conduct.
2. It is one’s system of beliefs, his ideology; it is how one
sees the world.
3. Worldviews are the means by which one answers the most
important questions of life
a) Who am I?
b) How did I get here?
c) What am I supposed to do?
d) Where am I going?
e) Why do I even care?
4. Everyone has a worldview, whether they can describe it or
not – and even if they do not know they have one.
5. “Human beings have a deep-seated need to form some
general picture of the total universe in which they live, in
order to be able to relate their own fragmentary activities to
the universe as a whole, in a way meaningful to them.”55
6. As Christians, we have a Christian worldview.
B. Worldviews and apologetics
1. In order to critique most worldviews one must show the
inconsistencies inherent within the unbeliever’s view of life.
2. Christianity is the only system that will logically cohere and
rationally satisfy, because Christianity is the worldview that
appropriately recognizes the Creator and His revelation.
3. Worldviews can be compared to eyeglasses. The right
choice makes everything come into proper focus. The
wrong ones, however, will distort everything that is viewed.

55
William P. Alston, Religious Belief and Philosophical Thought: Readings in
the Philosophy of Religion (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1963), 13.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 50

4. Our task is partly to let people see with our glasses on.
When you first wear glasses that are the right prescription,
you recognize that this is how things are supposed to look.
In the same way, we need to show the world what reality
truly looks like. We can do this by expressing the Christian
worldview.
C. Worldviews and Interpretation
1. One’s Worldview significantly affects the way he
understand the events of life.56
2. Albert Wolters notes that “worldview functions as a guide
to our life. A worldview, even when it is half unconscious
and unarticulated, functions like a compass or a road map.
It orients us in the world at large, gives us a sense of what
is up and what is down, what is right and what is wrong in
the confusion of events and phenomena that confronts us.
Our worldview shapes, to a significant degree, the way we
assess the events, issues, and structures of our civilization
and our times.”57
a) Notice how worldview functions in the following
significant events:
(1) The Exodus from Egypt
(a) To a Christian, this event is a clear evidence of
God’s powerful love in interacting with His
creation.
(b) To a naturalist, this event is one of the strange
anomalies of history.
(2) The Resurrection of Christ
(a) To the Christian, this is the center point of
human history.
(b) To the naturalist, this is the greatest hoax ever
pulled on mankind. Despite the massive
amounts of evidence for its historical veracity,
the naturalist cannot allow for the miraculous.
(3) Gay Marriage
(a) To the Christian, homosexual unions are
unnatural and contrary to all of creation.
(b) To the naturalist, those against homosexual
unions are simply repressing the free actions
of rational creatures.
D. Worldview and Practice
56
Norman L. Geisler and William D. Watkins, Worlds Apart: A Handbook on
World Views; Second Edition (Nashville: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 12.
57
Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational
Worldview, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 5.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 51

1. Often people fail to live up to their worldview.

a) This is often because their worldview has internal
conflicts that prevent them from living consistently.
b) This is also seen when people are living out their
suppressed knowledge. That is, most people live better
than their worldview. This is because they are God’s
creatures living in God’s world with God’s knowledge.
Often one cannot live consistently with knowledge that
rubs against their inherent knowledge of God.
2. Christians also fail to live up to their worldview.
a) This is usually not out of ignorance.
b) This is clearly expressed in Romans 7 as the remnants
of our sin nature.
c) Because salvation includes the substitution of an entire
worldview (from autonomy to creaturely dependence),
sin is a betrayal of the unity of God’s creation.
d) Christian sin provides an argument against the
Christian position. The Christian, by engaging in sin, is
testifying to the world that there is something lacking in
the Christian worldview.58

Theism Naturalism Pantheism

Christianity Modernism Postmodernism New Age
Non-
God Personal Non-existent Impersonal
existent
World Creation Physical Physical Spiritual
Human Like
Like God Like Animals Is God
Nature Animals
Body/Soul Unity Body Only Body Only Soul Only
Immortality Resurrection Annihilation Annihilation

58
Remember the Christian worldview is a comprehensive system. It is the
means by which we answer every question posed to us. It is the means by which we
interpret every fact exposed to us. God has provided an entire worldview in which the
believer ought to live. Sin can be defined, therefore, as the unwillingness to submit in
mind and action to the Christian worldview.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 52

Destiny Glorification Extinction Extinction Absorption

Source of Divine Human
Culture Spiritual
Authority Revelation Reason
Truth Absolute Relative Culturally Based Personal
Jesus A Product of His
Son of God Good Man Enlightenment
Christ Culture
Whatever is
Salvation Redemption Education Meditation
Effective
Culturally
Evil Rebellion Ignorance Illusion
Defined
God- Man- Culturally World -
Ethics
centered centered Centered centered
Culturally
History Linear Chaotic Cyclical
Defined
God
ordained/ Man- Language- World-
Culture
Man’s centered Centered centered
stewardship

3. Naturalism – The World is Eternal

a) Three types of Western naturalists
(1) Skepticism—No one can ever know there is a
God.59
(2) Agnosticism—I am not sure whether there is a
God.60
(3) Atheism—There is no God.61
b) Major worldview positions
(1) Metaphysics
(a) Naturalism assumes that God does not exist.
(b) The world is eternal and self-generating.
(c) Chance + Time = Universe.
(d) Man is equal in value to an ant or a rock.

59
Skepticism as an entire philosophy of life is self-defeating. That is, one who
says that we cannot come to knowledge is assuming the validity of knowledge as he
denies knowledge. Most who call themselves skeptics today are actually agnostics.
60
Most agnostics are really atheists in that they would argue there is no God.
They couch their terms in agnosticism so that they are not responsible for proving
that there is no God. For instance, Dawkins recently said that on a scale of 1-7, he is
6.9 sure that God does not exist.
61
As Scripture indicates, there are no true atheists (Rom 1). No doubt they
psychologically believe they are atheists, but they constantly assume and live in light
of the existence of God.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 53

(e) Everything that happens is a product of natural

forces.
(i) Man is only a physical being—there is no
spiritual nature.
(ii) Because everything in nature can be
understood in relation to natural forces,
mankind has no freedom.
(iii) Miracles—defined as events that
transcend the natural laws—are
impossible.
(2) Epistemology
(a) Knowledge is possible, because we have
knowledge.
(b) Knowledge is a product of evolutionary
development. It is a development that provided
a means of survival for our ancestors.
(c) Rational laws are merely human inventions.
(d) Probability is the best knowledge man can
ever hope to gain.
(3) Ethics
(a) Ethics are social customs and sin is merely
disobeying social expectations.
(b) We care about life, because we are a product
of evolution. In other words, we care for our
ultimate survival, because it is what nature has
wrought in us.
c) Worldview critique
(1) In naturalism knowledge is impossible.
(a) There is no foundation for knowledge. For
instance, only one who knows everything
could establish scientific laws (inductive
knowledge), but no one knows everything.
(b) There is no absolute reason to believe human
reason will lead to truth.
(2) In naturalism ethics is impossible.
(a) Humans know a natural ethic (Rom. 2), and
naturalism cannot explain its origin.
(b) Based on the metaphysic of naturalism,
human ethics should be orientated solely to
survival.
(c) In naturalistic ethics, no one is accountable for
their own actions, since there is no freedom of
the will.
(3) Naturalism cannot explain metaphysics.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 54

(a) Why there is something rather than nothing?

(b) Naturalism, entropy, and the 2nd law of
thermodynamics
(i) Evolutionists claim that entropy is a law
and disorder is happening. Nevertheless,
they claim that the world is in constant
supply of energy from the sun. Thus, the
world is not a closed system.
(ii) However, if we were to broaden the
system to the universe, we have no
indication that entropy does not work in the
exact same way on macro-scale.
(iii) In the end, scientists have to ascribe
infinity and omnipotence to the universe in
order to get beyond this problem.
(iv) Notice how naturalists are being forced to
ascribe theistic characteristics to their
“god,” creation. This should not be
surprising since they are seeking to make
their position rational.
(v) Truly, the Eternal One is infinite,
omnipotent, and eternal.
(c) How can the personal arise from the
impersonal?
d) Naturalism and Worldview Tests
(1) Test of Reason – Self-defeating in that naturalism
denies the validity of truth
(2) Test of Experience – Does not account for the
universality of ethics
(3) Test of Practice – Naturalists deny their own
system when they act in the interest of others; they
deny their own system when they prefer humans
over animals and plants.
(4) In sum, naturalism is against reason, experience,
and the history of human activity. Nevertheless, it
continues to be a dominant force in much of the
world because people do not think of it as a
comprehensive worldview.
(a) They do not recognize that one’s belief in God
determines their belief in ethics.
(b) They also do not recognize that eliminating
God from the equation is equal to eliminating
the possibility of truth itself.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 55

(c) We would do well to allow people to see the

logical result of their belief system.
4. Monistic Religions – God, who is the world, is Eternal
a) Panentheism
(1) God is in the world (universe) the way a soul or
mind is in a body.
(a) Panentheism is also known as:
(i) Process theology, because it views God
as a changing being.
(ii) Bi-polar theism, because it believes God
has two poles, the actual and the potential.
(iii) Organicism, because it views all that is as
a gigantic organism.
(b) God has two poles, the actual and potential.
(i) The world is God’s body, which is one
pole, known as his actual pole, which is
finite, temporal and changing.
(ii) Beyond the world is God’s mind, which is
his other pole, known as his potential pole,
which is eternal and unchanging.
(iii) God is not identical with the world nor is
He actually distinct from it.
(c) Creation is ex hulas (out of existing material).
(i) Matter and mind are eternal.
(ii) Matter is eternally directed by God.
(d) God and the world are interdependent.
(i) God is continually growing in perfections.
(ii) Human efforts can and do increase God’s
value and perfection.
(e) Evil will not ultimately be defeated and
destroyed. Since God is finite, only evil that
can be defeated with our cooperation will be
defeated.
(2) Criticisms
(a) This system is based on pure speculation.
Why assume the world is like this?
(b) Potentialities cannot actualize themselves.
This is the most serious problem with
Panentheism.
(c) Change makes no sense unless there is an
unchanging basis by which change is
measured. Everything cannot be relative;
there must be a standard to which things
relate.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 56

(d) The Panentheist conception of evil

(i) God includes evil as a necessity.
(ii) Panentheists further claim that humans
must help God overcome evil—which just
is part of God!
(iii) What guarantee is there that this God can
finally overcome evil? Why use humans in
the process?
(iv) In other words, there are serious concerns
with the moral nature and character of
God.
b) Pantheism
(1) Defined
(a) Pantheism is the belief that all of creation is
God (i.e., the book on the table, the table itself,
and even the person looking at the book on
the table is God).
(b) Many Eastern religions hold to this worldview,
but it is becoming more intellectually
acceptable in the West
(c) Pantheistic language often utilizes the analogy
that every person is simply a drop of water in
the vast ocean of reality.
(2) Central tenets of pantheism
(a) It depends on mystical intuition for an
understanding of God and transcends the law
of non-contradiction.
(b) God transcends being and rational knowing
and, therefore, cannot be expressed in positive
terms, but only in terms of what he is not.
(c) God is absolute oneness or unity and absolute
transcendence.
(d) “Creation” is ex deo (out of God), not ex nihilo.
(e) Both good and evil flow necessarily from God.
(f) Creation is a necessity.
(g) God is not a “he,” but an “it.” Personality is an
attribute of a lower level.
(h) Unity is the ultimate reality of the universe.
Multiplicity flows from it.
(3) Criticisms of pantheism
(a) Pantheism is unaffirmable, because ultimately,
it reduces to “God is, but I am not.”
(b) If God is all, and, therefore, I am God, fellow-
ship and worship are impossible.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 57

(c) If evil is part of God, then God is both good

and evil. Thus, if God is both good and evil,
then they cannot be distinguished.
(d) God is incomplete without creation.
(i) There is essentially no difference between
pantheism and atheism.
(ii) The pantheist and atheist both attribute
ultimate significance to the universe.
(e) Creation ex deo is self-contradictory. How can
something be both infinite and finite?
5. Theism – God is Eternal
a) Deism
(1) Deism may appropriately be called the half-way
house between theism and naturalism.
(a) It is theistic because it claims there is a God.
(b) It is naturalistic, because it claims that God is
no longer involved in His creation.
(c) If naturalism is a closed box with nothing
outside, deism is a closed box with a God
outside who made the box and never opens
the box.
(d) In sum, they claim God created the world with
its natural laws and stepped away from it,
allowing it to run without His assistance.
(2) Historical significance
(a) Deism arose in the 17th century, flourished in
the 18th, and died out in the 19th.
(b) Deism arose because of the scientific
revolution. The world was awakening from the
mysterious to the known. That is, most of what
had been explained as the direct intervention
of God (i.e., making it rain, etc.) was now
being explained as the natural order. This—to
many people—made the personal interaction
of God with nature unnecessary.
(c) Deism flourished because the sin nature of
man (Rom 1) will latch onto any concept that
will drive them away from the sovereign God of
Scripture.
(d) Deism killed itself. When deism claimed that
God was unnecessary to explain the
continuation of the natural order, it was only a
matter of time before someone (i.e., Darwin)
would show that the concept of God was

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 58

altogether unnecessary to explain the

existence and continuation of the world.
(e) Some of American founders were deists—
Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and Thomas
Paine.
(3) Tenets of deism
(a) There is a Creator.
(b) Only God is eternal.
(c) The supernatural is impossible, since creation
is a closed box.
(d) Any “revelation” from Scripture—Trinity,
incarnation, salvation, etc.—is actually the
creation of man.
(4) Critique
(a) What is the basis for morality without God’s
personality?
(b) Is God personal?
(i) If so, why does God treat creation
impersonally by abandoning it?
(ii) If not, what distinguishes God from
creation itself (pantheism)?
(c) Using only the tools of reason without divine
revelation, mankind has no foundation for
knowledge.

b) Open Theism
(1) Introduction
(a) Open Theists claim that God does not know
the future and is not immutable.
(b) Open Theism is an openly accepted belief
within the Evangelical Theological Society.62
(i) There was a rather large debate
concerning the evangelical status of open
theists.
(ii) Some information was not taken into
consideration in the determination of the
orthodoxy of the main proponent, Clark
Pinnock.

62
See some of the historical notes in Geisler’s account here: Norman
Geisler, “Why I Resigned from the Evangelical Theological Society,”
NormanGeisler.net, 2003, http://www.normangeisler.net/etsresign.htm (accessed
January 23, 2012).

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 59

(iii) Norman Geisler, who was once the

president of the organization, resigned
citing the loss of doctrinal integrity.
(iv) By a vote of 388 to 231 Pinnock, and by
implication Open Theism, was allowed to
remain in the ETS.
(2) Tenets
(a) God does not know the future.
(i) This does not mean He is not
omniscient—He is, but the future is simply
unknowable.
(ii) He cannot know the future, since the
future does not yet exist.
(iii) He does not know the future, because that
would eliminate the freedom of the will.
(iv) He does not know the future, for that
would make Him impersonal.
(b) God repents, reforms, and changes as He
interacts with creation.
(c) God can make predictions quite accurately,
since He is all wise. Boyd compares God to
the ultimate chess player: One who knows all
possibilities and is prepared for all variables.
(d) Scripture shows that God changes, which
indicates that He is unaware of some aspects
of the future.
(i) God repents decisions and their
consequences (Gen 6:6; I Samuel 15:11,
29, 35).
(ii) God gets frustrated (Exodus 4:10-15;
Ezekiel 22:30, 31).
(iii) God is surprised (Jeremiah 3:19-20; 19:5).
(iv) God asks question (Gen 3:9; 18:20, 21).
(3) Critique
(a) Open Theism is a totally restructured belief in
God.
(i) C. S. Lewis once said, “Everyone who
believes in God at all believes that He
knows what you and I are going to do
tomorrow.”63
(ii) Once omniscience is denied, the other
attributes begin to fall quickly.

63
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001),
170.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 60

(b) Impossibility of predictive prophecy

(i) “The Old Testament predicted that the
Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, He
would be betrayed for thirty pieces of
silver, His body would be pierced, but His
bones would not be broken. Virtually all of
the Messianic prophecies of the Old
Testament would have to be discounted if
human freedom made it impossible for
God to know the future.”64
(ii) How could God accurately predict the
future in light of His free creatures? It
appears He would have to eliminate their
freedom in order to accomplish this goal.
Think of how many decisions He would
have to force in order to ensure His
desired result. In the end, is there any
freedom left if there are predictive
prophecies?
(c) In the Scripture, God is distinguished from the
gods by His ability to accurately predict the
future (Isaiah 41:21-22a).
(d) Open Theism does not answer the problem of
evil.
(i) Though this is touted as one of the most
significant elements of the position, in the
end, the answer to evil remains as
problematic as before.
(ii) Now, instead of recognizing God’s
sovereignty over evil, Open Theists say
that God had a pretty good idea what
might happen. However, God cannot be
Ruler over all.
(iii) Man has no confidence to face tomorrow.
If God does not know what will happen to
you tomorrow, how do you face the world?
(iv) Further, coming to God in light of your
problems may be a bad idea. As one of
the main proponents of Open Theism

64
Charles T. Grant, “Our Heavenly Father,” Emmaus Journal 11 (Winter
2002): 242.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 61

acknowledges, God could give bad

advice.65
(e) Open Theism destroys the authority of
Scripture.
(i) “One could not [while holding to open
theism] make the affirmation that Scripture
is inerrant since there would be no way to
know until the eschaton whether God and
the biblical authors just happened to get it
right.”66
(ii) In other words, if God does not operate
with sovereignty based on His knowledge,
it appears there may be circumstances
where things do not work out the way
planned.
6. Islam
a) History
(1) Muhammad began Islam in 570 AD.
(a) He heard some voices when meditating in a
cave.
(b) His wife informed him that the voice was not a
demon, though he initially was concerned that
it might be.
(c) Muhammad probably had access to both the
Old Testament and New Testament
Scriptures, because of his travelling as a
merchant. For this reason, much of his
doctrine of God sounds biblical (monotheistic,
omniscient, sovereign, etc.)
(2) Muhammad and Christianity
(a) Muhammad considered himself in the line of
prophets from Abraham through Jesus.
(b) Islam claims that the Bible speaks of
Muhammad’s coming (Deut 18:15-18; Psalm
45:3-5; Hab 3:3).
(c) Muhammad claimed that both Christianity and
Judaism were corrupted versions of Islam.
b) Tenets
(1) Revelation
(a) Quran

65
Gregory A. Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open
View of God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 103–106.
66
Stephen Wellum, “Divine Sovereignty –Omniscience, Inerrancy, and Open
Theism: An Evaluation,” Journal of the Evangelical Society 45 (June 2002): 277.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 62

(i) The Quran is not a book, but a recitation,

which is only authoritative in Arabic.
(ii) Only one edition is available since the rest
were destroyed.
(b) Hadith
(i) The Hadith are stories of the life and
sayings of Muhammad.
(ii) These are considered to be divine
revelation, but in a secondary manner to
the Quran.
(iii) These are often contradictory and are
highly subject to critical evaluation.
(iv) In order to be “acceptable” a Hadith must
have a direct line of descent from one of
the people who personally knew
Muhammad
(c) Prophets
(i) Jesus
(a) He was born of virgin –but this does
not mean from God. Instead, He was
born just like Adam.
(b) He did not die on the cross. Instead
He was whisked away to heaven—
Judas was crucified.
(c) He will probably return at the end of
days and live out the rest of His life.
(ii) Other prophets
(a) There is a prophet for every people
group.
(b) There are special prophets that have a
revelation for mankind (i.e., Moses,
Jesus, etc.).
(c) Abraham is said to be the direct
forerunner to Muhammad.
(d) Both were from the same geographical
area.
(e) Both were called to reformulate
corrupted worship.
(d) Trinity
(i) There is no Trinity, since Allah is tawhid
(one).
(a) “They do blaspheme who say: God is
one of three in a Trinity: for there is no
god except One God. If they desist not

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 63

from their word (of blasphemy), verily

a grievous penalty will befall the
blasphemers among them.”67
(b) “Say: He is God, the One and Only;
God, the Eternal, Absolute; He
begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And
there is none like unto Him.”68
(ii) The Holy Spirit is actually Gabriel who was
sent to give revelation to Muhammad.
(e) Salvation
(i) Salvation is based on works.
(a) Upon dying, two angels will come and
ask you about Muhammad.
(b) “There is not one among you who
shall not pass through hell; such is the
absolute decree of your Lord. We will
deliver those who fear Us, and leave
the wrongdoers there, on their
knees.”69
(c) “To those who believe and do deeds
of righteousness hath Allah promised
forgiveness and a great reward.”70
(d) As to those who believe and work
righteousness, verily We shall not
suffer to perish the reward of any who
do a (single) righteous deed.71
(f) Sin
(i) There is no such thing as original sin.
(ii) All men sin because they deceive
themselves or are deceived by Satan.
(iii) By nature all men know God. In fact they
know the first part of the shahadah (“The
Testimony of Faith”). The shahadah is the
first of the five pillars of Islam and is the
profession of faith – “There is no God but
Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet.”
(2) Critique
(a) Scripture
67
“The Noble Quran,” 5:73. http://www.thenoblequran.com/sps/nbq/
68
“The Noble Quran,” 112:1-4.
69
Sura 19:71-72.
70
Sura 5:9.
71
Sura 18:30.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 64

(i) Muslims argue that the Scripture cannot

be corrupted, yet they claim the Old and
New Testament have been corrupted.
(ii) “Satanic Verses” are statements that
Muhammad originally made, but later
recanted, saying they were inspired by
Satan.
(b) Concept of God
(i) Their monistic concept of God does not
account for the existence of unity and
diversity.
(ii) Their monistic concept of God eliminates
the Trinitarian relationship, which provides
the means for understanding God’s
relation to creation.
(iii) Their scripture teaches that God is holy
and just, yet is simply willing to overlook
sin.
(c) Historical – The accumulated historical
evidence for the death and resurrection of
Jesus Christ counts against Islam.
7. Christian Theism – The Trinity is Eternal
a) Christian Theism finds itself alone in the realm of
worldviews. Every other system fails one of the
worldview tests (proof by elimination). Further, only
Christianity can explain the entirety of data given in
creation (proof by positive evaluation).
b) Francis Schaeffer, a twentieth century apologist,
recognized this point well. In fact, he made it the center
of his extremely successful ministry in France.72 “Only
the presuppositions of historic Christianity both
adequately explain and correspond with the two
environments in which every man must live: the
external world with its form and complexity; and the
internal world of the man’s own characteristics as a
human being … such qualities as a desire for
significance, love, and meaning, and fear of nonbeing,
among others.”73
E. Means of Examining World Views

72
Schaeffer is a historic figure in apologetics. He opened his home to
seekers of the Christian faith. Throughout the year, people would live with him
discussing their own views and being challenged by Schaeffer’s views.
73
Thomas V. Morris, Francis Schaeffer’s Apologetics: A Critique (Chicago:
Moody, 1976), 21.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 65

1. Rationalism
a) Characteristics
(1) Rationalism exalts human reason.
(2) It stresses the innate a priori ability of the mind to
know truth.
(3) Rationalism emphasizes the mind (with its innate
ideas or principles), while empiricism emphasizes
the senses (the mind is tabula rasa or a blank
slate).
b) Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
(1) He wanted to bring certainty to philosophy.
(2) He is best known for his declaration, “dubito to
cogito to sum”: “I doubt, therefore I think, therefore
I am.”
(3) He offered two rationalistic proofs for God.
(a) The a posteriori argument
(i) I doubt, therefore I am imperfect. If I know
what is imperfect, I have knowledge of the
perfect. Knowledge of the perfect cannot
come from an imperfect mind. Therefore,
there is a perfect Mind (God).
(b) The a priori ontological argument
(i) Whatever is necessary to the essence of a
thing cannot be absent from that thing.
The
idea of an absolutely perfect Being cannot
be devoid of any perfection. Existence is a
necessary element. Hence, an absolutely
perfect Being exists.
(c) Note: These two arguments depend totally on
the mind.
(4) Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677)
(a) Descartes began with an indubitable idea.
Spinoza began with “the absolutely perfect
idea of an absolutely perfect Being.
(b) He identified four causes of error.
(i) Partial Nature of our minds
(ii) Imagination
(iii) Our reasoning
(iv) The failure to begin with the perfect Idea of
God
(c) His rationalism ended in pantheism: the world
must be viewed as a whole, and the whole is
both good and God.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 66

(5) Gottfried Leibnitz (1646-1716)

(a) Leibnitz based his thinking about God around
the sufficient idea or reason.
(b) His ontological argument – If a perfect being
can exist, it (He) must exist. By definition, an
absolutely perfect being cannot lack anything,
including existence.
(c) His cosmological argument – There must be a
sufficient first cause/reason of the world which
is its own sufficient reason for existing.
(d) Thus, God is self-caused, not un-caused.
c) Christian rationalists
(1) Stuart Hackett – Empirical rationalism or rational
empiricism
(a) Hackett maintained a correspondence
between the categories of the mind and reality.
(b) Empiricism bases knowledge on experience.
He claims rational certainty for God’s
existence from sense experience.
(c) His approach:
(i) You cannot deny the existence of
everything.
(ii) What exists is either an effect or it is not
an effect.
(iii) If not an effect, then we have arrived at an
absolutely perfect Being.
(iv) If it is an effect, then it is caused by
something antecedent. But an infinite
number of causes and effects is rationally
inconceivable. There must be a first cause.
(2) Gordon Clark – Revelational rationalism
(a) There are no rationally inescapable
arguments.
(b) He maintained that:
(i) Philosophy is not possible without some
sort of presupposition (a priori thought).
(ii) Secular philosophy picked the wrong
presuppositions. They do not furnish a
consistent set of universal principles
(theory) and they cannot give guidance in
everyday living (practical).
(iii) Revelation is our only acceptable axiom.
(iv) All non-Christian world views ultimately are
self-contradictory.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 67

(c) He placed a heavy emphasis on logic.

d) Analysis of rationalism
(1) Positively:
(a) It recognizes and utilizes the basic laws of
thought.
(b) It recognizes that there is an a priori dimension
to knowledge.
(c) It maintains that reality is knowable.
(2) Negatively:
(a) It seems to invariably move from the possible
to the actual, from thought to reality. This is
invalid; just become we can think of something
does not make it real (Star Trek).
(b) The rationally inescapable is not the same as
the real. It merely assumes it to be real.
(c) Undeniability is not the same as logical
necessity. A triangle must have three sides,
but a triangle does not have to exist.
(d) The principle of sufficient reason is not a
universal. Some things may not need a reason
to exist, such as God.
(e) There is no rational way of establishing
rationalism.
(f) Logic is only a negative test of truth.
(g) There are no rationally inescapable arguments
for the existence of God.
2. Fideism or Faith in Faith
a) Whereas rationalism urges us to trust in reason,
fideism
urges us to trust in faith.
b) Proponents and their beliefs
(1) Blaise Pascal.
(a) He desired to destroy faith in reason.
(b) He maintained that truth is tested in the heart,
not the mind.
(c) The Great Wager – “You can wager for God or
against Him. If you wager for Him and lose,
you lose nothing. If you wager for Him and win,
you win everything.”
(d) Soren Kierkegaard
(i) He divided life into three stages:
(a) The aesthetic
(b) The ethical
(c) The religious

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 68

(ii) These are separated by despair and

spanned by a leap of faith.
(iii) Truth is subjectivity.
(a) “Objectively Christianity has absolutely
no existence.”
(b) Faith is an act of the will exercised
without reason or objective guides.
(c) Truths of human reason are rational,
while those of Divine revelation are
paradoxical (contradictory, opposed to
common sense) or supra-rational.
(d) Faith is not irrational, but “anti-
rational.”
(i) God cannot be known
intellectually by reason, but only
existentially by faith.
(ii) Existentialism--the most
meaningful point of reference for
anyone is his own immediate
consciousness.
(e) There are no objective, historical or
rational tests for religious truth.

(2) Karl Barth

(a) The Bible is God’s Word in the sense that He
speaks through it.
(b) God’s image in man was completely destroyed
by sin.
(c) Man encounters God subjectively.
(3) Cornelius Van Til
(a) Presuppositions cannot be avoided.
(b) Unless the truth of Christianity is presupposed,
nothing is capable of proof.
(c) Apart from a Christian world-view, nothing
makes sense.
(d) Unbelievers not only ought to know there is a
God, they do know – they cannot deny the
revelational activity of God.
(e) The problem with VanTil, according to Geisler,
is that he assumes the truth of the Bible to
prove the Bible.
c) Conclusion
(1) Positive contributions
(a) Ultimately, God does transcend our reason.
Central Africa Baptist College
PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 69

(b) Faith in God is based on Who He is, not in

evidence about Him.
(c) Evidence/reason does not produce a religious
response.
(d) Faith involves the will, not just the intellect.
(e) Truth is personal, not just propositional.
(f) Ultimately, outside of Christian theism, all
beliefs are contradictory.
(g) Man’s sinful nature affects his response to
God.
(2) In general, fideism fails to distinguish between:
(a) Epistemology (the order of knowing) and
ontology (the order of being).
(b) The fideist may be right about the fact that
there is a God, but he cannot know how he
knows.
(i) Belief in God and belief that God.
(ii) The basis of belief in God and the support
(warrant) for that belief.
(iii) The fact that presuppositions are
unavoidable and that they are justifiable.
(We may have these presuppositions, but
are they the right ones?)
(3) Finally, fideism is self-defeating.
(a) If it is a claim to truth, then it must have a truth
test, which it rejects.
(b) If it is not a claim to truth, then it is merely a
psychological exercise.
3. Experientialism
In Experientialism, there is an explicit appeal to
experience.
a) Plotinian Mysticism
(1) God is the One beyond all knowing and being. He
has neither knowledge, being or personality. He is
only absolute unity.
(2) He developed a hierarchy of being, with unity at
the peak and non-unity at the bottom. Mind has
greater unity; matter has the least unity. The more
unity, the more good; the less unity, the more evil.
(3) God cannot be known; he can only be felt. You
must become one with the One to experience the
One, but this experience is unknowable and
inexpressible. One has had it or one has not. The

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 70

experience is not demonstrable by reason or

evidence. The emphasis is mystical union.
(4) This view is pantheistic and holds that matter is in
some way evil.
b) Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834)
(1) He began with an emphasis on the total
dependency of man on God for his existence.
(2) Religious experience is the “stuff” of religion;
religious language and ritual is only the “structure”
of religion.
(3) He distinguished between science, ethics and
religion.
(4) Science deals with the intellectual (knowing).
(5) Ethics deals with the practical (acting).
(6) Religion deals with the intuitional (being).
(7) The basic religious experience is the same for all
men. All religions are good and true.
(8) There is no true or false in religion.
(9) The only possible proof is found in one’s own
consciousness.
c) Rudolf Otto (1869-1937)
(1) Otto continued in Schleiermacher’s basic
philosophy.
(2) He emphasized the Holy in religious experience.
(3) He gave these characteristics for a religious
experience.
(a) The Tremendum – the wrath of God
(b) Awefulness – a sense of awe or dread
(c) Overpoweringness – the unapproachable
majesty of God
(d) Urgency – emotion or force
(e) The mysterium – grace of God
(f) Consciousness of the Wholly Other – the one
beyond intelligibility and causes blank wonder
(g) Fascination – “the attraction of man to the
Holy”
(4) Rationalism is ruled out because religion springs
from the experience of the nonrational.
d) Characteristic tenets of experientialism
(1) Experience is the final court of appeals for
religious truth.
(2) Religious experience is self-verifying.
(3) God is actually indescribable, inexpressible.
(4) God can be felt, but not really thought.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 71

e) Postive features of experientialism.

(1) Experience is important in religion.
(2) Experience is, in the broad sense, the final court of
appeal for man.
f) Criticism of experientialism
(1) An experience is not true or false. Statements and
expressions about it are.
(2) An experience cannot support or prove its own
truth. You cannot claim truth or validity for an
experience merely because you had it.
(3) No experience is self-interpreting (John 12:28, 29).
(4) Experiences are capable of different
interpretations. Therefore, different
systems/worldviews have conflicting truth claims
(when based on experience) and no way (apart
from experience) to judge between them.
(5) An experience is meaningful only in light of its
interpretation or meaning, but its interpretation or
meaning is not based on experience.
Consequently, there must be a more basic test of
truth.
g) Conclusion
(1) Experientialism is meaningless. There are
conflicting claims of truth built on experience, but
no experiential way to decide between them.
(2) It is self-defeating. No one can describe the
indescribable or even recognize it unless it is
describable. Some justification is necessary for
why the experience was interpreted one way and
not another.
(3) It begs the issue. The experience is the verification
of the truth of the experience.
4. Evidentialism
Evidentialism is the appeal to evidence as the test of
Christianity.
a) There are two main forms of evidentialism:
(1) One appeals to the evidence of history.
(2) One appeals to the evidence of nature.
b) Appeal to the evidence of history
(1) History consists of:
(a) Fact
(b) Interpretation
(2) History has been divided into:
(a) Sacred

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 72

(i) Teleological – history has one universal

divine purpose
(ii) Begins with God
(b) Secular
(i) Empirical
(ii) Still on-going
(3) Historical evidence (especially the crucifixion and
resurrection) is the basis and test of the truth of
one’s worldview.
(a) Early Christian apologists especially appealed
to the historical evidence of the miraculous
events of the first century.
(b) These historical events provide the crucial test
for Christian truth.
c) Appeal to the evidence of nature
(1) The most common appeal is some form of the
teleological argument.
(2) William Paley’s “Watchmaker”
(a) This argument assumes a similarity between
effect and its cause.
(b) A. E. Taylor modified this proof by stating that
nature revealed anticipated design that chance
cannot account for.
(3) F. R. Tennant has argued effectively against the
idea of chance producing order. Instead, nature is
adapted to man.
(4) Bishop Butler argued for probability as the very
guide of life. The existence of God is provable by
analogy with nature. Creatures live in different
states of perfection. By analogy there is no reason
to believe that man does not continue on after
death.
d) Appeal to the Evidence of the Future
(1) John Hick and Eschatalogical Verification
(2) It is meaningful to believe in God since this can be
verified upon death, if one has an experience of
meeting God.
e) Characteristic tenets of evidentialism
(1) Truth is based in facts or events that are empirical
(experientially based).
(2) Evidentialism distinguishes between fact and
interpretation of fact.
(3) The interpretation of facts is not an arbitrary thing,
but grows out of the facts themselves.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 73

(4) There is usually an appeal to some specific or

unique fact(s) for determining truth.
(5) A strong emphasis is placed on the objective and
public nature of facts.
f) Positive Contributions of Evidentialism
(1) True evidence is objective and public.
(2) Truth is based on facts and theories grow from
facts.
(3) Facts, when viewed in their context, cannot be
arbitrarily interpreted.
g) Criticisms of evidentialism
(1) The meaning of facts is determined to large extent
by one’s worldview.
(2) Meaning is not inherent in facts. (Cf. the voice of
God in John 12.)
(3) Evidentialism does not solve the problem of how to
determine which facts have special significance.
(4) An even more significant issue is the need for
justifying the interpretation of facts theistically.
(5) In Evidentialism the order and design of nature are
read into it, not out of it.
5. Pragmatism
Pragmatism says something is true if it works out in every
day experience.
a) Pragmatism is an “all American” philosophy.
b) Proponents
(1) C. S. Peirce offered a pragmatic (“scientific” as he
termed it) theory of meaning. According to Peirce,
the meaning of some activity or thought is found in
its practical results. The evidence for this is four-
fold.
(a) The method produces no doubt; no one really
doubts reality.
(b) Everyone uses the scientific method for
something.
(c) This method alone presents a distinction
between right and wrong.
(d) What we believe or think is truth if it will or
would, when acted on, cause or help us to
accomplish our goal(s).
(2) William James was an extremely influential
proponent of pragmatic philosophy.
(a) He believed in two kinds of conversion–
gradual (natural) and sudden (supernatural).

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 74

(b) Religious experience is both subjective (our

feeling) and objective (intellectual).
(c) Religion is hither and thither.
(i) Hither is the subconscious self.
(ii) Thither is the over-belief (God).
(d) He maintained that ideas are not inherently
true or false, but that truth happens to an idea.
(e) The true is only the expedient in the way of our
thinking, just as the “right” is only the
expedient in the way of our behaving.
(3) Francis Schaeffer
(a) He claimed no one can live a chance
philosophy of pure materialism.
(b) Only the Christian view is consistent and
livable. Experience confirms this.
c) Common characteristics of pragmatism
(1) Experience is the test of truth.
(2) Ultimately, truth is decided on the basis of general,
continual long-run experience.
(3) All conclusions about truth are in the final analysis
tentative, or at best, probable.
d) Evaluation
(1) Positively
(a) Truth is or ought to be practical, i.e. it has
practical application.
(b) Truth is confirmed in our personal experience.
(c) We are reminded that much of our knowledge
is tentative or probable. We are, after all, finite.
(d) Do we have a pragmatic approach to life and
truth? Is it wrong to be pragmatic about
everything? What was the meaning of Jesus’
statement: “By their fruits ye shall know them”?
(2) Negatively
(a) Things that work are not necessarily true/right,
and things that fail are not necessarily
false/wrong.
(b) Truth works, at least in the long run, but what
works is not necessarily true.
(c) Long-term consequences are not known or
predictable.
(d) Truth may be unrelated to results. The results
could be accidental.
(e) Truth is more than the useful—it is moral.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 75

(f) On a purely pragmatic basis, opposing or

contradictory worldviews may work equally
well.
(g) Truth is not determined by personal
experience. A thing is not true just because it
is “true for you.”
(h) Truth is more than the expedient.
(i) On a purely pragmatic basis, opposing or
contradictory world views may work equally
well.
(j) Truth is not determined by personal
experience. A thing is not true just because it
is “true for you.”
(k) A significant problem with the pragmatic theory is
that a falsehood can be useful or practical at a
specific time and place, but that does not make it
true. If you do not believe that, just ask yourself,
men, how you’ve answered this question when
asked by your wife or mother or girlfriend: “Does
this dress make me look fat?”
6. Combinationalism
Combinationalism is the combining of several tests of truth
in the attempt to establish the truth of a world view.
a) E. J. Carnell (Systematic Consistency)
(1) Carnell utilized three basic tests for truth.
(a) Consistency – i.e., no facts or truths within a
belief system can contradict each other.
(b) Coherence – i.e., the ability of the belief
system to account for all the facts of history
and human experience.
(c) Existential (personal) relevance – i.e., the
truths of the belief system must be livable or
practical.
(2) Christianity cannot rise above probability because:
(a) It is founded on historical facts which cannot
be totally confirmed.
(b) It is based on moral values.
(3) His system starts with internal effable experiences
– universal and necessary principles which are
independent of sense perception.
(a) Carnell further maintained that it was
necessary to presuppose God (in the same
way we presuppose logic) and that this is the

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 76

only way we can make sense out of our

experience.
(b) He also defended both the fact and necessity
of special revelation.
b) Central tenets of combinationalism
(1) No one test of truth is adequate by itself.
(a) Some starting point is usually presupposed.
(b) Since experience is not self-interpreting, an
interpretive framework (=presupposition) is
necessary for meaning.
(2) Truth is modeled after a scientific hypothesis. The
proposed hypothesis must be tested by
consistency and its ability to fit the facts.
c) Evaluation of combinationalism
(1) Positively
(a) An interpretive framework, i.e., a pre-supposed
world view is necessary. Bare facts apart from
the framework are meaningless.
(b) Combinationalists move toward a world view
that is comprehensive.
(c) Within a given world view, combinationalism
(systematic consistency) serves as an
adequate test of truth, but the world view itself
must be adopted on other bases.
(2) Negatively
(a) There is the problem of presupposing the
world view you seek to test. It involves circular
reasoning. The issue/problem is, why
presuppose that world view instead of some
other.
(b) There is the problem of the “leaky bucket.”
Several leaky buckets combined will still not
hold water.
(c) There is the problem of “empirical fit.” If within
several given world views (i.e., pre-supposed
interpretive frameworks) all the facts can be
made to “fit”, then how do you judge between
them?
(d) Combinationalism then, like rationalism, is at
its best a test for the falsity of a world view. It
is able to show those that are not consistent
and adequate.
F. What is the Christian worldview?

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 77

1. Nietzsche, who was no friend of Christianity, noted

something some Christians never realize: “Christianity is a
system, a whole view of things thought out together. By
breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one
breaks the whole.”74
2. Metaphysics (Ontology)
a) Who is God?
(1) God is the Sovereign Creator of all that exists
(Gen 1).
(2) God is the holy standard and goal of all His
creation.
(3) God is personal and desires to relate with
mankind.
(4) God is a Trinity.
(5) God is immanent and transcendent.
b) Who is man?
(1) Man is a creation of God.
(2) Man is the image of God.
(3) Man is called to live as God would on the earth.
(4) Man was created perfect, but is now totally
depraved.
c) What is the world?
(1) The world is a creation of God and is not an
extension of His being.
(2) The world was created in six 24-hour days.
(3) The world is created for the benefit and use of
man.
3. Epistemology
a) Can we know?
(1) We have access to knowledge because all men
know God.
(2) We can know because we are made in the image
of God.
b) How do we gain knowledge?
(1) We gain knowledge by coming to know God’s
thoughts.
(2) The world is a creation of God’s thought, which
means that truth is a reflection of what God knows.
(3) God has given man access to His knowledge
(while not exhaustive or even equivalent) through
revelation—both natural (through senses and
mind) and special (through Scripture).
4. Ethics (Axiology)
74
As quoted in Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 77.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 78

a) What is our purpose (i.e., Why am I here?)?

(1) A comprehensive, Christian view of history75
(a) Creation—the way things were supposed to be
(b) Fall –the way things have become
(c) Redemption—the way God is redeeming
things back to His purpose
(2) Example: Image of God
(a) Creation—Man is created in the image of God
(Gen. 1:27)
(b) Fall—Man is fallen from the perfection of the
image (Ps. 51:5)
(c) Redemption—God, through Christ, is restoring
the image to regenerate mankind (Col. 3:9, 10)
(3) The overarching plan of God provides the telos
(purpose) for mankind’s existence.
b) Why do we care?
(1) We care because God made us as moral
creatures.
(2) We care because God created us to be satisfied in
Him alone (John 15:11).
(3) As Augustine said, “You have made us for
yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until
they rest in you.” (Ecclesiastes 3:11)
c) Ultimate presupposition
(1) An ultimate presupposition is the guiding principle
by which all reality (every fact, thought, etc.) is
interpreted.
(2) The guiding presupposition in Christian theism is
the following: “Human beings and the universe in
which they reside are the creation of God who has
revealed himself in Scripture.”76
5. Harmony between the three major propositions
(Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics)
a) One cannot extract any one concept of the Christian
system. If he does, the entire edifice crumbles, and the
fact they extracted becomes untenable.
b) Each of the various concepts—when examined in
full—leads to the other concepts.

75
For an excellent treatment of worldview from a Christian historical
perspective see, Wolters, Creation Regained.
76
Nash is quoting from Wiliam Halverson. See Ronald H. Nash, Worldviews
in Conflict: Choosing Christianity in the World of Ideas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1992), 52.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 79

(1) The existence of God leads to ethics, for the One

who made us has a purpose.
(2) The fact that we can know pushes us back to ask
why we know—a question that can only be
answered by the existence of God.
G. Worldview Comparison
1. Creationism
a) The biblical account of creation – Gen 1:1, 11, 20, 24,
26, 2:2
b) Biogenesis – The principle that a living organism can
only arise from other living organisms similar to itself.
God created the first organisms and biogenesis
proceeded (before the fall OEC, after the fall YEC.)
c) What is old-earth creationism (OEC) and young-earth
creationism (YEC)?
(1) Old Earth Creationism
(a) The universe (heavens and earth) are billions
of years old in line with current scientific views
and big bang cosmology.
(b) The Genesis account of “days” is not to be
taken as “24 hour” days.
(c) Another approach is that there are vast time
gaps between each of the six day events when
God supernaturally created.
(d) This view requires a less literal view to be
taken of the Genesis account.
(2) Young Earth Creationism
(a) A literal interpretation of the Genesis account
where “days” are contiguous and refer to 24
hour periods and that the Earth is about 6000
years old.
(b) The “Flood” is responsible for the appearance
of long geological histories (e.g. fossils,
sedimentary layers, etc.).
(c) Dating methods and big bang cosmology are
viewed as currently wrong or inaccurate.
2. (Biological) Naturalism
a) A worldview combining materialism, neo-Darwinism
and abiogenesis77
b) Naturalism

77
Abiogenesis is the development of living organisms from non-living matter.
When combined with a nontheistic worldview, the process implies that chance + time
+ natural processes are the sufficient cause of the first life on Earth rising from non-
living matter.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 80

(1) Everything is natural, i.e. that everything there is

belongs to the world of nature.
(2) In metaphysics it is akin to materialism (everything
is matter).
(3) What it insists on is that the world of nature should
form a single sphere without incursions from the
outside by souls or spirits, divine or human, and
without having to accommodate strange entities
like non-natural values or substantive abstract
universals.
c) Neo-Darwinism
(1) The theory of evolution was initially formulated in
1920. Modern evolutionary thought updates
classical Darwinism by including modern
information about genes and chromosomes that
was unavailable to Darwin.
(2) This has enabled the source of genetic variation
upon which natural selection works to be explained
in great detail.
(3) Implication of neo-Darwinism: If the neo-Darwinian
claim is true and all creatures great and small are
here on earth as a result of a long chain of
improbable accidents, then we have little reason to
believe that God exists or that life has any
meaning whatever.
d) Panspermia
(1) The word literally means “widespread seeding.”
(2) The Earth was (or is being) seeded by cosmic
spores, bacteria or other bio-components.
(3) These bio-components are delivered by cosmic
debris, meteors, solar winds and even alien
spacecraft.
(4) Life can only descend from ancestors that were at
least as highly evolved as itself.
e) Directed Evolution
(1) The initial conditions at the big bang were so finely
tuned as to allow for the development of the
universe complete with human life through solely
naturalistic mechanisms (i.e. no supernatural
interference).
(2) This is very much in line with the concept of
theistic evolution (but replacing God with some
sort of unknown super-designer).
3. Intelligent Design (or Design Argument)

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 81

a) Intelligent design argues that nature shows tangible

signs of having been designed by a preexisting
intelligence.
b) This view has been around, in one form or another,
since the time of ancient Greece.
H. Meta-worldviews
1. Introduction
a) While normal worldview studies seek to find the
expressions of individuals or specific groups, meta-
worldview study seeks to have a comprehensive grasp
of the general direction societies’ worldview beliefs are
heading.
b) Not everyone is influenced to the same degree by the
overall meta-narrative functioning within a society.
Nevertheless, each individual or group is influenced by
these shifts.
(1) The Amish—perhaps the clearest example of
individuals seeking to remain uninfluenced by
cultural shifts— are still influenced. This can be
seen from the steady defection of individuals from
their ranks. In the end, there is no impregnable
fortress from the general philosophical shifts of
society at large.
(2) For this reason, it is vastly important that
Christians be aware of the shifts. Often, like a
swimmer who has unconsciously drifted from the
shore, we can be pulled away from the center of
the Christian worldview. Knowing the general
trends inherent to our generation allows us to be
vigilant to weed out every thought that is not
subject to the Lordship of Christ.
(3) Knowing the worldview shifts also allows for better
apologetic engagement. Being aware of the
general worldview prepares us for the unique
obstacles our present world presents.
c) The following is the meta-worldview study of Western
civilization from the advent of Christendom to today.
2. Pre-modernism
a) What is pre-modern man?
(1) A few years ago a pilot believed he had found a
tribe of people who appeared to have no contact
with the outside world. They were living in the
twenty-first century, but they were pre-modern

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 82

people. This is because pre-modernism is not

based on chronology, but on various other factors.
(2) Characteristics of pre-moderns78
(a) No or very little cultural and religious diversity
(b) Primitive scientific knowledge
(c) Prescribed social roles
(d) Little experience that challenges their social,
cultural, or religious values
(e) Walter Anderson describes pre-moderns as
those who are “relatively free from the ‘culture
shock’ experiences of coming into contact with
people with entirely different values and
beliefs—the kind of experience in
contemporary urban life, you’re likely to have a
couple of times before lunch.”79
b) The Christian West from the period of Constantinian
Christianity until the reformation was a model of pre-
modernity.
(1) Pre-modernism was clearly expressed in the
governmental systems of the period.
(a) The most common form of government was
the monarchy. People believed there should
be one person in complete authority. This
authoritarian figure could (and should) legislate
morality to the general populace.
(b) While the monarchs held much power, they
were never separated from the power of the
church. Even the monarch was limited in his
work by the church, because the church
represented an even higher Monarch.
(2) Though there were orthodox Jews, Muslims, and
some unbelieving philosophies at the time, the
period was overall one of pervasive Christian
assumptions.80
(a) Even unbelievers were theistic unbelievers.
(b) The possibility that God did not exist was not
an option.
c) The downfall of pre-modernism

78
Ibid.
79
As quoted in Ibid.
80
It should be noted that much that passed as the name of Christianity was in
fact not Christianity. This expresses the indubitable truth that man will suppress the
truth in whatever environment he is in—even when the Scripture is—at least in
name—upheld as the cultural standard.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 83

(1) The Renaissance was the first seismic shift that

broke the unity of pre-modernism.
(a) The renaissance was not a direct attack on
Christianity. Rather, it was a movement that
sought to get back to the historic documents of
humanity—particularly the documents from the
ancient Greeks.
(b) As the West exposed itself to Greek culture
through the ancient writings, the ideas
contained in the documents brought
challenges to its own pre-modern
assumptions.
(c) As a result, the scholars of the era (scholars
tend to lead societies cultural shifts) began to
embrace pre-Christian thought. The most
important element, however, was that they
began to be exposed to thinking that did not
use the Scripture (Higher Authority) as the
starting point of all rational thought.
(2) The Reformation brought the second seismic shift
that finally unsettled the pre-modern foundation.
(a) The Reformation can be said to be a product
of the renaissance.81 The Renaissance broke
the soil that allowed the seed of the
reformation to be planted.
(b) The authority of the Roman Catholic Church
was unquestioned for over a thousand years.
The Renaissance, which challenged the basic
structures of pre-modern thought, did not leave
this monolith alone. Had Martin Luther
attempted to produce a reformation a hundred
years before, he would have been crushed by
the power of the authoritarian church.
(c) The Reformation further divided the once
unified people.
3. Modernism
a) The rise of modernism
(1) The Renaissance (challenge to cultural beliefs)
and Reformation (challenge to religious beliefs)
joined together to make a whole new world.
(2) The Renaissance had provided the Western world
with a deep focus on philosophy and the life of the

81
Certainly the Lord was the primary factor. Nevertheless, God uses
secondary means to accomplish His goals.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 84

mind, which had previously passed away with

Greek civilization.
(3) The Reformation provided the general populace
with the critical reasoning necessary to discard the
role the Roman Catholic Church had played in
their lives. Unfortunately, the tidal wave could not
be stopped. Having eliminated the need for the
Catholic Church, modern man then asked whether
there was any need for a church at all.
(4) Modern man fell to the error of overcorrection. He
rightly threw off the authoritarian role of
Catholicism, but he also threw off all authority in
the process. The biblical position would have been
the median position; namely, recognize the
priesthood of the believer (thereby throwing off
Catholicism) and yet stand under the authority of
God.
b) The Enlightenment
(1) “To enlighten” means “to give knowledge to.”
(2) This period is aptly named the Enlightenment,
since mankind gave itself to rational inquiry into
every matter—especially the things which had
been taken for granted in previous generations.
(3) The expanse of science
(a) In premodernism, scientific events were often
described as direct theistic intervention. For
instance, the volcanic eruptions was due to
God’s anger and judgment. While they may
have been slightly aware of the natural
causes, premoderns rarely looked beyond
theistic explanations for events.
(b) Modernism reversed this trend. Rather than
positing God as the primary cause and nature
as the secondary cause, modernism argued
that nature is the primary cause and God—if
He exists at all—was a mere spectator to the
events He had long ago set in motion (i.e.,
deism).
(c) Darwin, in his Origin of the Species, merely put
words to the idea that had slowly taken root in
the Western world. Science was sufficient to
explain the existence of all things. If science
cannot explain everything now, it will be able
to do so at some point. Stephen Hawking, one

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 85

of the foremost atheists, still holds firmly to this

position.
(4) The dramatic shift in Philosophy
(a) Alongside science, philosophy was being
revolutionized. In pre-modernism (and the
beginning of modernism), philosophy was
based on theology. In fully blossomed
modernism theism was ejected from
philosophy altogether.
(b) Logical positivists are the most lucid example
of this shift
(i) They held to the Verification principle,
which argues that only scientifically
verifiable statements are meaningful.
(a) One could verify by means of the five
senses
(b) One could verify by means of an
analytic or tautological truth (truths
that were self-evident). [i.e., “all
bachelor’s are unmarried” is
tautological. That is because the idea
of unmarried is contained in the idea
bachelor.]
(c) Anything not verifiable by the sense or
by analytical truth was literally
meaningless.
(ii) Statements concerning God were neither
verifiable by the sense or by tautological
truth. Therefore, they had no meaning at
all. According to their philosophy, to speak
of God was to utter “blah, blah, blah.” No
one could understand what you were
saying.
(iii) Logical Positivists were attempting to
make an entire philosophy without
reference to anything outside of the world.
(iv) Positivists were incredibly popular and
influential in the United States and Europe
until 1950. The Achilles’ Heel that
eventually dismantled the Logical
Positivists was that the verification
principle was self-destructive. That is, the
verification principle could not be proved
by sense perception or by tautology.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 86

Therefore, the verification principle—on its

own standard—was meaningless!
(5) The Apologetic Response to Modernism
(a) Previous to modernism few outwardly
questioned the central elements of the
Christian faith. The monolithic culture
produced a situation where people did not
doubt the tenets of theism. After the cultural
shift, it was necessary to develop an answer to
the many philosophical issues being raised.82
(b) Modern man demands answers to every
question—even while he ignores the most
central problems of his own philosophy and
science. Therefore, we must show him that his
own philosophy is erroneous. He is in many
ways blind to his own blindness. The Christian
must show that the unbelieving modernist is
irrational at many levels.
(c) Further, we must ask the unbelieving
modernist to think biblically. That is, challenge
him to think with Christian presuppositions.
Having done so, he will see that Christianity
makes the most sense and is indeed the most
rational explanation in life.
4. Postmodernism
a) Characteristics of Postmodernism
(1) Truth is not fixed and objective, but variable and
relative
(a) Personal—something can be true for one but
not for another
(b) Societal—truth is determined by society, not
by individuals Rorty says, “Truth is what your
contemporaries let you get away with.”83
(2) It is a reaction against pure rationalism; it is an
attempt to express the artistic side of humanity.
(3) Morality is not objective, but simply conventional
for the sake of the society.
(4) It includes a suspicion that anyone claiming
objective truth is striving for power.
82
I would argue that the situation returned to the way it was pre-Constantine.
That is, there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes). Therefore, we should
recognize that what we are facing today has already been dealt with in history, and, if
the Lord tarries, will come around again.
83
Simon Blackburn, Truth: A Guide (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005),
31.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 87

(5) It rejects any meta-narrative (big story) that seeks

to explain all of reality.
(6) It substitutes factual history with dramatic
imitation.84
b) Relation to modernism
(1) Some elements are reactions against modernism
(a) Reaction against undue scientific optimism
(b) Reaction against trying to objectify all of reality
(c) Reaction against individualism for a
community approach
(d) Reaction against the failed attempt to bring
equality through individual achievement. Now
equality should be achieved through social
reform
(e) Reaction against the spoken and written word
towards images and media85
(2) Some scholars do not believe postmodernism
should be separated from modernism. Rather, they
would say that postmodernism is ultramodernism,
supermodernism, or modernism come to its own.
(3) In all reality, some elements of the Western culture
have retained modernism and other elements have
embraced postmodernism86
(a) In religion, ethics, and art culture has become
postmodern
(b) In science, economics, and related fields,
Western culture is as modern as it ever has
been.
(4) Postmodernism in religion and ethics is intricately
tied to modernism’s deicide.
(a) Friedrich Nietzsche famously said, “God is
dead. God remains dead. And we have killed
him.”87
(b) He recognized that no one actually killed God,
but he was expressing the idea that for the
culture at large the idea of God had died.

84
Veith develops this point fully. Gene Edward Veith Jr and Marvin Olasky,
Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture
(Wheaton: Crossway, 1994), 121–142.
85
Groothuis, Truth Decay, 54.
86
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (3rd Edition): Christian Truth and
Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).
87
As quoted in R. J. Hollingdale, Nietzsche: The Man and His Philosophy
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 139.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 88

(c) “Nietzsche hails this ‘deicide’ as the greatest of

all deeds, but he knew—before many of his
time—what the philosophical consequences
would be. All sense of objective orientation, of
fixed meaning, of divine illumination, of
providential destiny would be irretrievably
lost.”88
(d) In other words, Nietzsche saw that society was
merely holding on to outdated customs such
as objective truth,89 ethical values, and
personal value. Indeed, these things cannot
exist without God.
(e) “The idea that one species of organisms is,
unlike all the others, orientated not just
towards its own increased prosperity but Truth,
is as un-Darwinian as the idea that every
human being has a built-in moral compass—a
conscience that swings free of both social
history and individual luck.”
(f) Postmodernism, then, in rejecting these things
is merely finishing the task modernism began.
(g) Further, modernism made man a physical
being only. Eliminating the spiritual realm
allowed every thought and belief to be
understood from causal effects. That is, every
belief and thought we develop is determined
by society, culture, and brain waves. There is
no objectivity. Rather, everything can be
explained in naturalistic terms.
c) The major societal motivation towards postmodernism
is cultural diversity.
(1) Only in melting pot civilizations do we find
postmodern elements
(a) Isolated areas of the world believe
postmodernism is entirely irrational (as it
indeed is!).
(b) Europe and America are the centers of
postmodernism.
(2) Without the conception of objective truth (because
there is no God for postmoderns), one cannot pass
judgment on another’s belief system. Rather, we

88
Groothuis, Truth Decay, 37.
89
Ibid., 43.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 89

must embrace their belief system as equal to our

own.
d) The apologetic response to Postmodernism
(1) Weed out the unbiblical elements of postmodern in
ourselves.
(a) It is sometimes hard to recognize, but we
cannot escape being influenced by culture.
(b) According to a 2009 Barna poll only 46% of
evangelical, born again Christians believe
there is absolute truth.90
(c) This is anecdotal, but if you ask almost any
older Christian they will see the trend towards
postmodern acceptance in Christian youth.
(2) The Scripture and early church history is a guide
here.
(a) Imperial Rome was a melting pot of various
civilizations. As such, it was as postmodern as
our society today.
(b) The persecution of Christians was done
primarily because Christians claimed to have
exclusive truth.91 Had Christianity opened up
to other religions, it would not have been
persecuted. In many ways, the Western world
is heading back to this Roman ideal.
(c) The encouragement we can derive from a
return to Rome’s worldview is that Christianity
exploded in a postmodern culture. As such,
there is much hope and trust that the Lord will
do the same today.
(3) Veith offers a few helpful tips in speaking to
postmoderns.92
(a) As much as possible, avoid difficult concepts
and focus on narratives when expressing the
gospel. Keeping attention is crucial to being
heard, but it is not easy in this generation.

90
George Barna, “Changes in Worldview Among Christians over the Past 13
Years,” The Barna Group, 2009, http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/21-
transformation/252-barna-survey-examines-changes-in-worldview-among-christians-
over-the-past-13-years (accessed January 18, 2012). Note: “born again Christians”
were defined as people who said they had made a personal commitment to Jesus
Christ that was still important in their life today and who also indicated they believed
that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and
had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.”
91
Jr and Olasky, Postmodern Times, 229–230.
92
Ibid., 225–234.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 90

(b) Focus on community. Bible study groups can

be helpful in expressing the communal aspect
of Christianity.
(4) Be a true neighbor to a postmodern
(a) As he sees you live in opposition to the
direction of the world, you give him the
opportunity to ask you the hope that lies within
you (1 Peter 3:15).
(b) Postmoderns are often willing to listen to your
story if you are willing to listen to theirs. Since
they are open to other people’s positions, they
will most likely let you share your faith with
them. What they are unaware of is the power
of the Holy Spirit to accomplish His will through
His Word (Isa. 55:10).
VIII.What is Truth?
A. A thinker should have a passion for truth. With this said, the
question that demands an answer is, “What is truth?” A
critical thinker wants to know the truth about the truth.
B. There are three criteria for defining truth:
1. Truth is defined in terms of language.
2. Truth is defined in terms of sentences, not of individual
words.
3. Truth is defined in terms of that which corresponds with
reality.
4. Concerning the first criterion for defining truth, understand
that the words “true” and “false” describe statements and
propositions.
a) For example, saying “This rock on the ground is true”
makes no sense. A rock on the ground can be real or
fake, or it can exist or not exist, but it cannot be true or
false.
b) The claim, “There is a rock on the ground,” can either
be true or false.
5. Concerning the second criterion for defining truth,
understand that only phrases that express a complete idea
are true or false.
a) Shouting “God!” from a mountaintop tells us nothing
about God.
b) A word may have a certain meaning, but only when
something is said of that word (e.g., “There is a God”
or “God is all-powerful”) can one determine whether
what is said (i.e., the proposition) is true or false.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 91

6. Concerning the third criterion for defining truth, “true” is the

name of a relation between the sentence and the world.
a) This ties “truth” to observable “reality.”
b) The statement “There is an armadillo on my head” is
true if and only if there is an armadillo on my head.
C. There are three basic theories of truth:
1. Coherence Theory
a) A statement is true if it “coheres” with other
statements.
b) According to the coherence theory of truth, a statement
is true if it satisfies two conditions.
(1) First, the statements must be logically consistent
with other beliefs that are held to be true.
(a) A belief is false if it runs contrary to other
beliefs that are held to be true.
(b) For example, according to the coherence
theory, people should not believe in
solipsism93 because it is contrary to so many
of our other accepted beliefs.
(2) Second, the statements must be mutually
supporting, so that the whole system fails when
some statements turn out to be false or are
missing.
c) There are problems with the coherence theory:
(1) How many beliefs must a statement be consistent
with before we should consider it true?
(2) How do we know these other accepted beliefs are
true? With what other beliefs do they cohere?
(3) If the claims of the coherence theory are true, then
they must be true if and only if they cohere with
other accepted beliefs.
(a) But what if the accepted beliefs of the people
are contrary to the claims of the coherence
theory?
(b) In such a situation, if the claims of the
coherence theory are true, then they must be
false. This is a contradiction.
2. Correspondence Theory
a) A sentence (or proposition) is true if and only if that
which the sentence expresses corresponds to the facts
or to reality.

93
The belief that all the self is all that can be known to exist.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 92

b) The idea is that truth consists in a relation between

language and reality (“words and the world”).
c) The word “true” is the name of a relation between a
linguistic expression and its referent (i.e., the sentence
and the world).
d) Problems with this theory
(1) Some ask, “What degree of correspondence must
be held in order for a statement to be true?”
(2) A main issue is defining correspondence. What is
meant by “correspondence”? The term is vague.
(3) Furthermore, how is correspondence to be
determined?
e) The correspondence theory is the “default” theory of
truth.
(1) It is the one people think is most obvious.
(2) Most scientists and philosophers adhere to some
version of the correspondence theory
(3) Truth is a property of language, and language is
used to describe reality. “The grass is green” if and
only if the grass is in reality green.
3. Pragmatic Theory
a) Truth is to be understood in terms of practice.
b) A proposition is true when acting upon it yields
pleasing practical results.
c) Simply stated, a true statement “works.”
(1) “Working” is a test of correspondence.
(2) The pragmatic theory says there should be
correspondence between a statement and its
results when put into practice in reality.
4. Principles to be learned from these theories
a) From the coherence theory one can be reminded of
the importance of having logical consistency in his
beliefs. Wherever there is an inconsistency or
contradiction, some part of a person’s belief system is
incorrect.
b) From the pragmatic theory one can be reminded that
the livableness of a claim, while not a litmus test for
truth, can be a helpful guide to lead us closer to truth
(or at least further away from falsity).
D. Is truth relative or absolute?
1. Some truth is relative.
a) There is truth that is relative to time (e.g., “Ronald
Reagan is the President of the United States” was true
in 1981 but not in the 21st century).

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 93

b) There is truth that is relative to location (e.g., “The

weather is lovely today” may be true in Palm Springs
but not in Detroit).
c) There is truth that is relative to personal preference
(e.g., “Driving in rain is much easier than driving in
snow” may be true for one person but not true for
another).
d) There is also truth relative to one’s linguistic
constructions of reality (e.g., when I say “I am a pilot,”
that is not sufficient information for the pilot of a 747).
2. There are absolute truths.
a) In fact, the claim “There is relative truth” is a claim of
absolute truth. Either there is relative truth or there is
not.
b) Many (if not most) statements must be either true or
false.
(1) For example, the statement “God exists” is either
true or not true.
(2) Either there is a God or there is not a God.
(3) Either “God exists” is true and “God does not exist”
is false, or vice versa. Both cannot be true at the
same time and in the same way.
(4) The truth value of these statements does not
depend on what a person believes or desires.
(5) Saying that the existence of God is “true for you
but not necessarily true for me” is nonsense.
3. If truth corresponds to reality in some way (and I think it
does), then the only thing truth is really “relative” to is
reality.
a) When someone argues for “absolute truth,” what is
usually implied is the idea that reality is not “one way
for this person” and “another way for another person.”
b) Reality is what it is, regardless of what we believe or
want.
c) Think of the story of the blind men and the elephant.
(1) The first blind man touches the elephant’s leg and
thinks that an elephant must look like a tree.
(2) The next person touches the trunk and thinks that
the elephant must look like a snake.
(3) The third
feels the
elephant’s
side and
says an

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 94

elephant is like a wall.

(4) This is sometimes used to defend relative truth –
what the elephant looked like depended on the
relative position of the “observer.”
(5) The reality is that there is an elephant. It remained
an elephant regardless of what each blind man
believed it to be.
4. Relativism does have one redeeming quality
a) It teaches us tolerance, which is a quality every thinker
should desire.
(1) By tolerance we do not mean “accepting all views
as equally true.”
(2) Tolerance as the word ought to be used (and as it
once was used in society) means that, while a
person may not agree with the beliefs of others, he
respects those people.
(3) This is a good thing. All of us should respect other
persons, even (and especially) when we disagree
with them.
b) Any interpretation of reality a person formulates can be
inaccurate or false.
(1) No one can reason perfectly, and no one has “all
the answers.”
(2) In the search for truth, one must continue to create
and re-create his paradigm, but with the
understanding that all of us are (ideally) trying to
understand our world better.
(3) A thinker should understand that there is no
perfect interpretation of things (Perhaps there is,
but how would we know it if we saw it? Our
interpretation of this perfect interpretation would
have to be perfect as well!), so that he will be more
tolerant of others.
(4) A thinker is a truthseeker – a pilgrim on a journey
towards truth.
E. Determining What is True
The systems or tests that have been discussed thus far are
inadequate. No one of them establishes itself while eliminating
the others.
1. An adequate test of truth or means of formulating a world
view will include two levels:
a) A basis for testing the truth of an over-all world view
b) The means for testing the truth of competing views
within a world view

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 95

2. Problems with views studied thus far

a) Skepticism – I know I cannot know.
b) Agnosticism – I cannot know about God. But I stated
something I know about God.
c) Rationalism fails since there is no way of rationally
demonstrating its own first principle.
d) Fideism fails since it is not a test of truth, but merely a
claim to truth without support or basis.
e) Experientialism fails since it is not self-justifying or self-
interpreting. It is private, not public.
f) Evidentialism fails since facts are not self-interpreting,
but have meaning only in a given context and
worldview.
g) Pragmatism fails since it wrongly identifies workability
with truth.
h) Combinationalism fails since several inadequate tests
do not add up to one adequate test.
i) If no adequate test for truth exists, then we are in
trouble.
3. An adequate test of truth
a) Test of Reason
(1) Comprehensiveness
(a) Does it answer all the questions that should be
answered?
(b) Does it rely on paradox or mystery in
explanation?
(2) Coherence
(a) Does it adhere to the Law of Non-
Contradiction?
(i) Law stated: A cannot be both B and not B
at same time in same way.
(ii) Fido (A) cannot be a dog (B) and not be a
dog (B).
(iii) This is an essential element of all thought,
for if the law of non-contradiction is false,
then we cannot distinguish any object in
reality from any other object.
(iv) “If contradictory statements are true of the
same subject at the same time, evidently
all things will be the same thing. Socrates
will be a ship, a house, as well as a man.
But if precisely the same attributes attach
to Crito that attach to Socrates it follows
that Socrates is Crito. Not only so, but the

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 96

ship in the harbor, since it has the same

list of attributes too, will be identified with
this Socrates-Crito person. In fact,
everything will be the same thing. All
differences among things will vanish and
all will be one.”94
(v) It is impossible to deny the law of non-
contradiction. Saying, “I believe the law of
non-contradiction is false” assumes (1)
that the one who hears you is a different
person than you, (2) that there is a
difference between truth and falsity, and
(3) that one can have intelligent
conversation. All three of these
assumptions depend on the law of non-
contradiction for their existence.
(vi) Worldviews break the law of non-
contradiction when they hold one position
which contradicts another element of the
established worldview.
(b) In other words, do parts of the system
contradict other parts?
b) Test of Experience
(1) External (does it conform to knowledge I have
about the world?)
(a) Science
(b) History
(2) Internal (does it conform to the knowledge I have
about myself?)
(a) Does it account for the source of human
desire?
(b) Does it account for morality?
c) Test of Practice
(1) Livability—Can one who holds this position live it
without hypocrisy?
(2) Fruitfulness—Does living this worldview lead to
cultural and intellectual productivity?95

94
Gordon Haddon Clark, Thales to Dewey: A History of Philosophy (New
York: Houghton Mifflin, 1957), 103.
95
Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 56–57.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 97

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 98

F. The Landscape of Ideas

1. How do we come to know things? – a Christian
perspective:
a) Why does it matter?
(1) Because it’s a “noisy” world out there and we need
to know how to tune into the Truth and tune out the
rest.
(2) It is helpful to know what sources and channels of
belief are influencing our worldview.
b) What are the sources and channels of propositions96
from which we form beliefs and how reliable are those
sources?

96
A proposition is something offered for consideration.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 99

Note: The Reality God created, “General Revelation,” is a

“reliable source.” Reality is objective and as Christians, we are
“realists.” God is not in the business of playing tricks on us –
reality is not like a house of mirrors. Now whether or not we can
reliably tune in to His creation to form true belief is another
matter.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 100

c) What are noumena and phenomena?

(1) Noumena – things that are thought
(2) Phenomena – things that appear
d) How are the arts a source of belief?
“I said I knew a very wise man so much of Sir Chr—s
sentiment, that he believed if a man were permitted
to make all the Ballads he need not care who
should make the laws of a Nation. And we find that
most of the ancient legislators thought that they could
not well reform the manners of any City without the
help of a Lyric, and sometimes of a Dramatic Poet. But
in this City the Dramatic Poet no less than the Ballad-
maker has been almost wholly employed to corrupt the
People, in which they have had most unspeakable and
deplorable success.”97
e) How does the Christian “filter” the channels?
(1) How do we tune in correctly?
(2) “Bringing into captivity every thought to the
obedience of Christ” (2 Cor 10:3-5)
f) What is faith and how does it relate to cognitive
function?
(1) “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the
evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).
(2) If the Word made flesh is the cornerstone of our
foundational beliefs, then our entire perspective on
the world will be shaped very differently than if He
is not.
2. What is logic?
a) Overview
(1) Logic attempts to distinguish between correct and
incorrect arguments.
(2) Some aspects of logic are widely accepted, sound
and useful for discernment.
(3) Other aspects are not universally accepted and
are of questionable value to Christian apologetics.
b) Why is logic useful?
(1) In some circumstances logic can be used to
reliably reach a true belief that you were uncertain
of

97 th
Andrew Fletcher (18 Century Scottish political thinker), An Account of a
Conversation Concerning a right Regulation of Governments for the Common Good
of Mankind. In a Letter to the Marquiss of Montrose, the Earls of Rothes, Roxburg
and Haddington, From London the 1st of December, 1703 (Edinburgh: 1704), 10.
Available on Google Books.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 101

(2) Logic can also reject a false belief that you might
have previously accepted.
c) God is rational!
(1) Logic is not something man invented as much as
discovered.
(2) As God’s image bearers, we are rational beings as
well, and we are called to be reasonable:
(a) Isaiah 1:18 – Come now, let us reason
together, says the Lord.
(b) Acts 17:17 – Therefore disputed he [Paul] in
the synagogue . . . and in the market daily.
d) What principles or methods of logic are most relevant
to apologetics?
(1) First Principles:
(a) Law of Identity: A is A.
(i) Dr. Oats is the Dean of the Seminary.
(ii) This also means that the Dean of the
Seminary is Dr. Oats
(a) Non-Contradiction: A cannot be B and not B.
(i) Dr. Oats cannot be the Dean of the
Seminary and not be the Dean of the
Seminary at the same time.
(ii) Dr. Oats cannot be Mr. Washer and not be
Mr. Washer at the same time.
(b) Excluded Middle: Either A is true or not A is
true.
(i) Either Dr. Oats is the Dean of the
Seminary or he is not.
(ii) Either Dr. Oats is Mr. Washer or he is not.
(2) Deductive reasoning (syllogistic logic)
(3) Fallacies – formal, informal and inductive – invalid
argument forms

IX. Is it Reasonable to be a Christian?

A. Has Science rendered Christianity outmoded and outdated?
1. What is Science?
a) It is knowledge differentiated from ignorance; the
correction of errors from common sense.
b) Scientific knowledge is obtained by “scientific
methods.”
c) Science is in the game of “what works” and discovering
the “hows” of our world – it does not pursue absolutes
or the deep truths of life.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 102

d) Science never “arrives” at the truth, it claims to

progress towards it.
e) There is no precise and widely accepted definition of
science.
f) Scientific methodologies have yet to effectively tackle
the deep questions of life: ultimate origins; meaning
and purpose; morality and destiny.
2. Science first flourished under a Christian worldview.
a) It may be considered to have started to flourish in
western culture during the era of Sir Isaac Newton who
was a devout Christian.
b) Under the influence of the Christian worldview people
began to understand that the forces of nature are not
the whims and caprices of spirits or demons. They are
the orderly decrees of the creator and as such they
can be understood by men made in His image.
3. Where is Science today?
a) Modern man is like a child who sees and knows
everything in his new world, everything except himself.
b) We have grown tremendously technologically, but
have made no progress in understanding the deep
truths of life outside of what the Bible teaches.
4. Are Science and Christianity incompatible?
a) From a Christian perspective, science reveals a true
proposition when it correlates correctly to God’s
creation.
b) As Christians we should welcome the advancement of
scientific knowledge as it will point more and more to
the Creator.
c) Where science can shed some light it often gels nicely
with the Christian worldview.
5. Should we base our faith on Science?
a) We should not rely on the current body of scientific
knowledge to ground our faith because science is a
moving target.
b) Today’s working theories may be overridden by new
discoveries tomorrow.
c) More importantly, our faith is grounded in the Word
which oftentimes is out of the reach of scientific inquiry.
6. Do extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence?
a) You might hear that claims from faith demand
extraordinary evidence (citing “Occam’s Razor” or the

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 103

principle of parsimony98) and that scientific methods

shun such intellectual sloppiness. How can we
respond?
b) Scientific methods cannot deal with non-science –
ultimate origins, morality, purpose and meaning, and
ultimate destiny are areas outside the boundaries of
science.
c) Faith is rationally justifiable – it is warranted.
B. Are there compelling arguments for the theistic position?
1. Why is there something rather than nothing? – a profound
question posed by the great mathematician and Christian
philosopher G. W. Leibniz
2. Principle of Sufficient Reason – “there can be found no fact
that is true or existent, or any true proposition, without
there being a sufficient reason for its being so and not
otherwise, although we cannot know these reasons in most
cases.” (Leibniz). In short, the principle is that nothing is
without a reason for its being.
a) Contingent Being – the reason for its existence lies
outside of itself and it may to cease to exist (e.g. the
Earth)
b) Necessary Being – there is no reason for its existence
that lies outside of itself and it cannot cease to exist
(e.g. God)
3. The universe either exists contingently or necessarily:
People must choose a necessary being, the First Cause: it
is either God or the Universe. There are no other
reasonable choices.
a) “I should say the universe is just there, and that’s all”
(atheist Bertrand Russell).
b) “The Cosmos is all there is, ever was or ever will be”
(atheist Carl Sagan).
c) “In the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth” (Genesis 1:1).
4. What is the argument from causation? (Cosmological)
a) Things that begin to exist have a cause.
b) The universe began to exist.
c) Therefore the universe has a cause.

98
Occam’s razor (or Ockham’s razor) is named after William of Ockham. The
Latin term is lex parsimoniae. It is a principle of succinctness used in logic and
problem-solving. It argues that among competing positions, the hypothesis with the
fewest assumptions should be selected.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 104

d) The cause of the universe must transcend the universe

(exist outside of time and space), and have immense
creative power. This rules out Pantheism.
e) The cause must be a personal agent who chooses to
create or there must exist a “hyper-universe” a
universe outside of our universe spawning new
universes eternally (but why believe in this hypothetical
entity that cannot be scientifically verified over a belief
in God who created the universe?).
5. What is the argument from design? (Teleological)
a) Things that are designed have a designer.
b) The universe was designed.
c) Therefore the universe has a designer.
d) The universe is “fine-tuned” and this may be taken as
evidence of design or not. If it is not, then what
explanations can be offered for the fine-tuning that is
recognized by both theist and nontheist alike?

X. The Top Five Questions (what students ask about Christianity,

taken from the Veritas forum in 1997 with Ravi Zacharias and
William Lane Craig on the campus of the University of Iowa)
A. What is the meaning of life?
1. “Man is not the center. God does not exist for the sake of
man. Man does not exist for his own sake. ‘Thou hast
created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were
created.’ [Rev. 4:11] We were made not primarily that we
may love God (although we were made for that too) but
that God may love us, that we may become objects in
which the divine love may rest ‘well pleased.’”99
2. We have a mission:
a) “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and
all these things will be given to you as well.” (Matthew
6:33)
b) Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your
heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
This is the first and greatest commandment. And the
second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
(Matthew 22:37-39)
c) The Great Commission – Therefore go and make
disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
(Matthew 28:19)

99
C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: Macmillan, 1944).

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 105

d) Westminster Catechism’s first question, “What is the

chief purpose of man?” Answer: “To glorify God and to
serve him forever.”
3. Wonder; truth; love and a sense of belonging; security –
the four stages of life.100 Only God can satisfy our hungers;
our sense of wonder; our desire for truth; and our need for
love and security. “Our hearts are restless till they find rest
in Thee.”101
4. Purpose, Immortality and Destiny – without objective
purpose in life now and beyond the grave, life has no
meaning. Even if life is eternal, without God it would lack
objective purpose.
B. How do I know God exists?
1. Origin of the universe – The Cosmological argument
2. Complex order, design and fine-tuning of the universe –
The Teleological argument
3. Argument from objective moral values
a) Objective moral values require an object moral law
giver (i.e. God.)
(1) Objective moral values exist.
(2) Therefore God exists.
b) What is objective moral value or moral law? –
Objective values are “recognized and discovered, not
invented by humans.”102
(1) “Objective moral law” in this context has the
attribute of absoluteness or unconditional
existence; not relative or dependant.
(2) It is independent of human consciousness,
consequence or interpretation.
(3) It also includes the notion of obligation, or a duty to
comply.
(4) It is universal in that it is not subject to a particular
localization of space and time.
C. How can I believe in God when there is the problem of evil?
1. The Problem of Evil
a) Definition
(1) Evil is a term that is nearly impossible to define,
yet everyone knows what it is.

100
Ravi Zacharias, Can Man live without God? (Nashville: W Publishing
Group), 1994.
101
Augustine, Confessions 1.
102
Paul Copan, True For You But not for Me (Grand Rapids: Bethany House,
1998).

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 106

(2) In some ways evil can be defined as, “Things the

way they were not designed to be.”
(3) The previous definition tips the scale in favor of
theism. On a naturalistic basis, what is evil?
(4) One of Merriam Webster’s definitions is “To cause
harm.”103
b) Two types of evil
(1) Natural Evil
(a) Natural evil is harm done by the operation of
the physical world.
(b) Tsunamis, earthquakes, floods, diseases, and
other “natural” processes are included in this
category.
(2) Moral Evil
(a) Moral evil is harm produced by moral agents.
Therefore, all evil that result from human acts
or failure to act is moral evil.
(b) Later, we will see that some do not make a
marked distinction between moral and natural
evil. Nevertheless, as we will see in discussing
the solutions below, there is a slight distinction,
which helps us see the issue more clearly.
c) Historical Expressions of the Problem
(1) Epicurus (341 BC—270 BC)
(a) “God either wishes to take away evil, and is
unable; or He is able and unwilling; or He is
neither willing nor able, or He is both willing
and able.”
(b) He clearly expresses the issues as he
develops his argument:
(i) If God is unwilling and is unable, He is
feeble, which is not in accordance with the
character of God.
(ii) If He is able and unwilling, He is evil,
which is equally at variance with God.
(iii) If He is neither willing nor able He is both
evil and feeble, and therefore not God.
(iv) If He is both willing and able, which alone
is suitable to God, from what source then

103
“Evil,” Merriam-Webster, n.d., http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/evil, (accessed February 25, 2012).

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 107

are evils or why does He not remove

them?104
(2) Modern
(a) Ronald Nash, “Every philosopher I know
believes that the most serious challenge to
theism was, is, and will continue to be the
problem of evil.”105
(b) Walter Kaufmann, who had lost his family in
the holocaust, said that evil is a “complete
refutation of popular theism.”106
2. Deductive (Logical)
a) The deductive approach seeks to prove that the
existence of the biblical God is incompatible with the
existence of evil. Therefore, God does not exist.
b) Deductive argument expressed:

c) J. L. Mackie stated the problem this way: “In its

simplest form the problem is this: God is omnipotent;
God is wholly good; and yet evil exists. There seems to
be some contradiction between these three
propositions, so that if any two of them were true the
third would be false. But at the same time all three are
essential parts of most theological positions: the
theologian, it seems, at once must adhere and cannot
consistently adhere to all three.”107
3. Inductive (Evidential)
a) This approach seeks to prove that the existence of the
biblical God is entirely improbable because of the
widespread existence of evil.
b) Inductive argument expressed:

104
As quoted from, Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A
Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011), 616.
105
Ronald H. Nash, Faith and Reason (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994),
177.
106
Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God, 150.
107
J. L. Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence,” Mind 64 (1955): 200–212.
Central Africa Baptist College
PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 108

4. Existential (Personal)
a) This seeks to prove that the existence of the biblical
God cannot be believed because of a personal
experience of evil.
b) This argument is not a rational argument against belief
in God. For this reason, I have refrained from placing it
in a logical way. This argument is much more
emotionally charged than the others. People who have
suffered loss emotionally argue, “If a God like that
exists, I don’t want anything to do with Him!”
5. Two kinds of solutions to the problem of evil
a) Defense
(1) A defense simply seeks to show the compatibility
of the various propositions. This does not seek to
prove that the propositions are true. Rather, it only
shows that there is a way of rationally reconciling
the seeming contradiction.
(2) Alvin Plantinga developed the Free Will Defense of
Christian theism. What is interesting about his
defense is that it was written while he was
teaching at Calvin College—a Calvinistic bastion
that would deny the existence of the type of free
will necessary for the Free Will defense to
succeed. This shows that Plantinga’s purpose was
not necessarily to show the precise way one could
reconcile the propositions in Christian theism.
Instead, his purpose was to refute the logical claim
that these beliefs were incompatible.
b) Theodicy
(1) A theodicy (Theos=God Dike=Justice) is a
justification of God in the face of evil.
(2) Theodicy goes beyond a mere defense, because a
theodicy is not satisfied with merely showing
possibility but actuality. That is, it does not want to
say that the three
propositions are
compatible, it wants to

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 109

show definitively how they are compatible.

6. Insufficient Solutions to the Problem of Evil
a) One way to solve the problem of evil is to make some
modifications to our understanding of three significant
truths.
(1) In other words, we can solve the problem in the
following ways:
(a) God does not want to stop evil (i.e.,
questioning His goodness).
(b) God is not capable of stopping evil (i.e.,
questioning His power).
(c) God does not know how to stop evil (i.e.,
questioning His knowledge).
(2) Nash summarizes, “In short, the existence of evil
seems inconsistent with our belief in God’s
goodness or omniscience or power.”108
(3) Few people are bold enough to make the
statements mentioned above. Nevertheless, the
following answers to the problem of evil—in one
way or another—seek to redefine the character of
God in a way that Scripture does not allow.
b) Evil does not exist.
(1) Some have wanted to solve the problem of evil by
simply denying its presence.
(2) Types of this theodicy
(a) Eastern Theodicy (Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.)
(i) Evil is only an illusion. All of reality is
merely an illusion. There is no problem of
evil.
(ii) The ridiculousness of this view is shown in
the following quote: “One day I was talking
to a group of people in the room of a
young South African in Cambridge
University. Among others, there was
present a young Indian who was of Sikh
background but a Hindu by religion. He
started to speak strongly against
Christianity, but did not really understand
the problems of his own beliefs. So I said,
‘Am I not correct in saying that on the
basis of your system, cruelty and
noncruelty are ultimately equal, that there
is no intrinsic difference between them?’
108
Nash, Faith and Reason, 178.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 110

He agreed. The people who listened and

knew him as a delightful person, an
‘English gentleman’ of the very best kind,
looked up in amazement. But the student
in whose room we met, who had clearly
understood the implications of what the
Sikh had admitted, picked up his kettle of
boiling water with which he was about to
make tea, and stood with it steaming over
the Indian’s head. The man looked up and
asked him what he was doing, and he said
with a cold yet gentle finality, ‘There is no
difference between cruelty and noncruelty.’
Thereupon the Hindu walked out into the
night.”109
(iii) John Frame also critiques this position by
saying, “If evil is an illusion, it is a terribly
troublesome illusion, an illusion that brings
pain, misery, suffering, and death. If it is
said that the pain also is illusory, I reply
that there is no difference between illusory
and real pain… The problem just backs up
a step and asks, ‘How could a good God
give us such a terrible illusion of pain?’”110
(b) Privation Theodicy
(i) This theodicy says that evil is not real;
rather, evil is simply the absence
(“privation”) of good.
(ii) In this light, evil is the hole in the roof.111 It
cannot be classified among things; rather it
is the lack of something.
(iii) Problems
(a) First, even if evil were only a lack of
good, it is nevertheless a significant
experience of life. Simply naming it a
lack does not minimize its devastating
effects and consequences.112

109
Francis A. Schaeffer, The Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy (Wheaton:
Crossway, 1990), 110.
110
Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God, 156.
111
Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 618.
112
Later in the notes we will see that some argue that the existence of good
coupled with the freedom of man provides the possibility of a lack of good (evil).

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 111

(b) Second, what makes love more real

than hate? Cursing than blessing?
Killing than saving life? It does not
appear possible to give these
concepts a different metaphysical
position. Hate may be the absence of
all strains of love, but love is also the
absence of any strain of hate.
c) God is not all-powerful
(1) There are multiple ways this has been expressed
in the past. One of the most common is the Best
of All Possible Worlds Theodicy.
(2) Leibniz, who originally designed the theodicy,
argued that God’s perfection required that He
create a perfect creation. Unfortunately, the best
possible world (perfect world) was one that
contained evil.113 While it may have been possible
to create a world without evil, this would not have
been perfect, since it would have been a world
without the freedom of the will (and many of the
most precious characteristics of humanity i.e.,
those characteristics that can only be gained by
experiencing difficulty).
(3) Problems
(a) First, in Scripture, the best things actually do
not contain evil (God Himself, original creation,
future creation, etc.). If a sinless environment
can be made “better” by evil, maybe the new
heavens and the new earth could be made
better in the same way.
(b) Second, Leibniz began with the philosophical
assumption that a perfect being must create a
perfect world (best of all possible worlds). But
does God always have to create the
best/perfect? Adam was originally created
alone, which was not perfect (Gen 2:18).
d) God is not all-knowing (Open Theism Theodicy)
(1) Similar to those above, people in this camp argue
that God has given man a libertarian free will.
(2) People in this camp believe that God does not
know the future. He is unaware of the evil that is

113
Notice that the world we now live in can be called a perfect world, because
it is the one God created. It can also be called imperfect, because it has sin. Leibniz,
and those who follow him, means the first when he says God created a perfect world.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 112

coming to pass. As a consequence of this view,

theists have also denied God’s omniscience.114
(3) Major Problems
(a) While a finite God would solve some issues, it
raises many more. Namely, this God is not the
perfect God of Scripture (see previous critique
of open theism above).
(b) Frame notes the central problem with a God
who is not omnipotent nor omniscient. He says
that the one who proposes such a God “may
thereby get a solution to the problem of evil,
but he loses any sure hope for the overcoming
of evil. He gains intellectual satisfaction at the
cost of having to face the horrible possibility
that evil may triumph after all. Surely there is
something ironic about calling this a ‘solution’
to the problem of evil.”115
e) Clean Hands Theodicy
(1) Many reformed defenders of Scripture use this
theodicy (Van Til, Gordon Clark).
(2) This theodicy claims that though God ordained
evil, He is not responsible for evil. This is because
God did not commit the action. Differentiating
between primary (one who acted) and secondary
causation (one who commanded), this theodicy
claims that God is not culpable for human sin.
(3) The major problem with this theodicy is that it
requires us to believe God is not responsible in the
same way that man is. Man would be guilty of a
crime whether he committed a murder (primary
causation) or ordered someone else to commit the
murder (secondary causation). Frame notes the
problem clearly, “If that were the only solution to
the problem of evil, it would be a inadequate one.
For it would picture God as some kind of giant
Mafia boss who keeps His hands legally clean by
forcing His underlings to carry out His nasty
designs.”116

114
We will note that they do not deny omniscience, but redefine it. In the end,
it looks so different than the historic understanding that it can be called a denial.
115
Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God, 157.
116
Ibid., 166.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 113

f)No-Law Theodicy
(1) Some reformed thinkers claim that God is so
different than His creation that He is not under the
laws of creation. Man can kill and be evil, but God
can kill and be righteous. The difference is not in
the act, but in the One committing the act.
(2) This position fails because it does not recognize
that we are designed to model our ethics after
God’s ethics. We are to be holy as God is holy. But
if God’s righteousness is distinct from the
righteousness we are to express, how can we
model His actions? This seems to betray the very
first purpose of man—to image God (Ex 20:11; Lev
11:44-45; Matt 5:45; I Peter 1:15-16)
7. The Christian’s argument:
a) If good and evil exist, then there is an objective moral
law in which to differentiate between them.
b) Good and evil exist.
c) Therefore, an objective moral law exists.
d) If there is an object moral law, then there is an object
moral law giver (i.e. God).
8. The Origin of Evil
a) “Where did evil come from?”
(1) When one inquires about the origin of something,
what he is actually asking is, “What is the cause of
X?”
(2) Philosophers have distinguished among various
types of causes:
(a) Material cause: That out of which something is
made (e.g., the stone out of which a statue is
carved)
(b) Formal cause: The design or idea followed in
the process of making something (e.g., a
sketch made by the sculptor as a pattern for
the sculpture)
(c) Final cause: The purpose for which something
is made (e.g., the reason why the sculptor is
doing the sculpture)
(d) Instrumental cause: The means or instrument
by which something is made (e.g., the
sculptor’s chisel)
(e) Efficient cause: The chief agent causing
something to be made (e.g., the sculptor)

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 114

(f) Sufficient cause: A cause equal to the task of

causing the thing to be made (e.g., a person
capable of sculpting)
b) “God created everything, so God created evil.”
(1) When critics present this argument they are
usually referring to God as the efficient cause of
evil (whether they realize it or not). But should all
evil be attributed to God? To answer this question,
we must first address another question: “Did God
create everything?”
(2) Consider John 1:1-3.
(a) Instead of saying “God created everything,” it
is more accurate to say “all things were
created through God.”
(b) Similarly, “through” my great grandmother, my
family (I am referring to those who are blood
relatives descended from my great
grandmother) was “created” or birthed. My
great grandmother did not give birth to each
one of my aunts, uncles, or cousins, nor did
she give birth to my mother, sister, or me. Yet,
without her, no one in my family would have
been born.
(c) God did not specifically create the computer I
am using now; but without him, it would not
have been made.
(3) God often supplies the material causes and
instrumental causes for many of the created
entities we see today (like my computer). Scripture
does not affirm that God is the efficient cause of
everything that exists.
(a) “What about evil?”
(b) Let me suggest that, through God, evil was
made.
(i) Did God create evil?
(ii) No, just as God did not specifically create
my computer; however, God did set in
place the “ingredients” that allow evil to
come into existence (i.e., the material and
instrumental causes).117
9. Responses to the Problem of Evil (theodocy)

117
Also, God created the sufficient causes of evil; namely, humans. This is
explored further in the “Freedom to Choose” theodicy, as is an answer to why God
would create the potential for evil in the world.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 115

a) The argument from volition:

(1) Man can love God only if there is the freedom to
choose or reject Him.
(2) Man can love God.
(3) Therefore the freedom to choose or reject God
exists.
(4) The freedom to reject God allows for the possibility
for evil.
(5) Therefore, the possibility for evil exists.
(a) Happiness is not the primary goal of life (a
common misconception)
(b) In demographic areas where the most
gratuitous suffering and evil exists, the gospel
is flourishing the most. In the west, the church
is flat – where we are comfortable.
b) The Freedom to Choose Theodicy. Also called the
“free will” defense, this theodicy claims that evil exists
because God created people with the freedom to
choose. Humans have wills, and therefore the potential
to sin and create evil.
(1) In other words, God created man as the sufficient
cause of evil (God did not create humans so they
would sin – if one is to be free to choose, then evil
must be one of the possibilities). When man
commits evil, he becomes an efficient cause of
evil.
(2) God created mankind so that he could share his
love with them. Man was created to receive that
love, and worship God and love him in return. In
order for this relationship to exist, a decision must
be made by both parties to love, trust, and be
faithful to each other. God cannot have that with
machines or puppets.
(3) “But God is omnipotent. That means he can do
anything, including create a world where people
have freedom to choose and yet don’t sin, right?”
(a) This is a classic case of the God of the Bible
vs. the God of the philosophers.
(b) He could have, but had he done so, we would
not have freedom of choice. We would be
robots, or “talking dolls” that always speak the
same thing when someone pulls the string or
pushes the button. We would not be human.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 116

(c) “If you choose to say ‘God can give a creature

free-will and at the same time withhold free-will
from it,’ you have not succeeded in saying
anything about God: meaningless
combinations of words do not suddenly
acquire meaning because we prefix to them
the two other words: ‘God can.’ It remains true
that all things are possible with God: the
intrinsic impossibilities are not things but
nonentities. It is no more possible for God than
for the weakest of his creatures to carry out
both of two mutually exclusive alternatives, not
because his power meets an obstacle, but
because nonsense remains nonsense, even
when we talk it about God.”118
(4) “Why doesn’t God intervene every time someone
is going to misuse his freedom and hurt another
person?”
(a) A freedom which was prevented from being
exercised whenever it was going to be
misused simply would not be freedom.
(b) That was the point of God’s putting the “tree of
the knowledge of good and evil” in the garden
in Eden.
(c) According to Scripture, God created the world,
and he said it was “very good.” That was, I
think, the intention.
(5) “Is freedom worth all the risk?”
(a) Some people wonder whether this freedom to
choose good or evil is worth the problems it
causes.
(b) Is life worth living when we must endure
suffering and evil?
(c) I argue that it is. Indeed, just as humans are
sufficient causes of evil, so also they are
sufficient causes of good. Dr. Gregory Boyd
explains it this way: “The fact that we humans
have such an incredible amount of potential for
evil, then, is to my mind indicative of the fact
that we also have an incredible amount of
potential for good... Yes, there are Hitlers and
Stalins in the world. But there are also the
Ralph Walenbergs, the Mother Teresas, the
118
Lewis, Problem of Pain, 16.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 117

Martin Luther King, Jrs. And I don’t see how

you could have the latter without at least
risking the possibility of the former.”119
(d) The potential we have for love, goodness, and
eternal fellowship with the Creator is certainly
worth the risk of experiencing evil. God gives
each of us a chance to make the best of our
situations in life. We can either choose good or
evil.
(6) “Why do bad things happen to good people?”
(a) The question should be, “Why do good things
happen to anyone at all?”
(b) God must work within the confines of a fallen
world.
(c) The world is far from perfect. The world is
fallen and corrupted. Evil is a reality in our
world.
(d) God, to accomplish his plans for humanity,
must work with flawed humanity living in a
chaotic world.
(e) The cross is a perfect example of this.
(i) For God to bring salvation to the world,
Jesus had to come to earth as a human,
so he could be executed for our sake.
(ii) Jesus accepted the consequences of
humanity’s shortcomings.
(iii) His blood was shed as payment for our
sin.
(iv) In Jesus, we see God working within the
context of a messed up world to redeem it.
(7) The benefits of the Free Will Theodicy
(a) On the surface, it seems to exonerate God
from any charge of evil.
(b) It seems to accord with God’s character in that
He would only create the “best.”
(c) It adequately describes how evil came into
God’s Good Creation.
(8) Reservations of accepting the Free Will Theodicy
alone
(a) It does not seem to explain the existence of
natural evil (earthquakes, tornadoes,
landslides, cancer, downs syndrome, etc.)

119
Dr. Gregory A. Boyd and Edward K. Boyd, Letters From a Skeptic
(Colorado Springs: Victor Books, 1994), 26.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 118

(b) It does not explain why God does not stop

some evil now. That is, couldn’t God prevent
many large cases of evil, and if He is good,
wouldn’t He want to do that?
c) Natural Law Theodicy
(1) A Free Will Theodocy demands a Natural Law
Theodicy
(a) This theodicy joins the Free Will Theodocy by
noting that God had to create the world in an
ordered way in order to make morally
responsible creatures.
(b) “Moral freedom could not exist apart from an
orderly environment. If the world were totally
unpredictable, if we could never know from
one moment to the next, what to expect from
nature, both science and meaningful moral
conduct would be impossible.”120
(c) Further, this orderly environment places man
in a context where he can either do good or
evil.
(d) The opportunity to be kind presumes the
opportunity to be unkind. The opportunity to
love necessarily implies the opportunity to
hate. In other words, when God created an
orderly environment where we could be
morally praiseworthy, it necessarily meant we
were placed in a context where we could be
morally blameworthy.
(e) “The very same framework which allows free
will to be exercised in acts of respect,
courtesy, modesty, charity, and love also
allows free will to be expressed in acts of
hostility, greed, cruelty, and hate.”121
(f) “The same water which sustains and refreshes
can also drown; the same drug which relieves
suffering can cause crippling psychological
addiction; the same sun which gives light and
life can parch fields and bring famine; the
same neural arrangements which transmit

120
Ibid., 201.
121
Michael Peterson, Evil and the Christian God (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1982), 110/ See also http://members.core.com/~tony233/Evil-and-the-Christian-
God.htm (accessed February 27, 2012).

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 119

intense pleasure and ecstasy can also bring

extreme pain and agony.”122
(2) Natural evils are explained by the assertion that
God had to create nature as unchanging.
(a) Earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc. are
natural results of God’s created order. Much
like God’s perfect creation included the
freedom of man such that he would be able to
sin, so God’s perfect creation included the
operation of natural laws that would lead to
natural disasters.
(b) While we may not be able to explain how
natural disasters are required in light of the
natural order, we should be able to see that
they are, since they were included in God’s
perfect design.123
(3) Problem: God does miracles, so why doesn’t God
do a new miracle previous to each natural
disaster?
(a) First, the laws of nature are complex and
interweave.
(i) Changing one event inevitably leads to
modifying the entire natural order.
(ii) Asking God to prevent a volcanic eruption
means enormous changes to the entire
ecological and natural system.
(b) Second, modifying the natural order would
make morality meaningless
(i) If the natural order were destabilized by
God’s constant interaction, man would be
unaware of how his actions will be
followed through. In other words, if there
were no regularity, one would not know
what the effect of his causes would be.
(ii) Bassinger defends this position when he
says, “Continuous, widespread divine
intervention into our present natural

122
Ibid., 111.
123
Nash tries to remove all mystery from his position; however, he is left with
mystery here. After pointing out the problem of natural evils, he says, “If it makes
sense to believe that God created the universe with the kind of regularity and order
that makes the formulation of scientific laws possible, if it makes sense to think that
this kind of orderly universe would be better overall than chaotic unpredictable
universe, we might be wise to think twice before cursing some particular outcome of
that order [i.e., hurricane, earthquake, etc.].” Nash, Faith and Reason, 201.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 120

system would make meaningful human

choice impossible (or at least greatly
lessen its meaningfulness).”124
(c) Third, changing the natural order to prevent
natural evil would change the dynamics of
God’s relationship to man
(i) If God always prevented natural evils, man
would never know that they should be
thankful to God for His deliverance.
(ii) If God always negated the effect of natural
evils after they happened, man would
believe he lived in an environment where
nothing can go wrong.
(iii) Nash concludes, “Any request, then, for
continuing divine intervention with the
natural order in order to prevent every
possible instance of natural evil appears to
exceed the bounds of rationality.”125
(d) Problem: If God is omnipotent, why didn’t He
create a world with different laws that allow for
good, but disallow natural evils?
(i) Again, note that omnipotence does not
mean the ability to do anything. God
cannot lie, deny Himself, or do the illogical.
Logic comes from God, and God cannot
deny Himself.
(ii) It appears impossible to have a world
where there is only good and no evil. For
instance, imagine fire. How could fire,
which provides heat and burns waste, not
hurt human flesh when contact is made? It
appears that the same properties that
make fire useful are the same qualities
that make it dangerous.
(iii) Fire is just one of a multitude of things in
nature that would have to be changed to
be effective in a world where there is no
natural evil.
d) The Soul-Making Theodicy
(1) SMT is the reason God does not stop evil
(a) The Free Will Theodicy explains the origin of
moral evil.
124
As quoted in Ibid., 202.
125
Ibid.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 121

(b) The Natural Law Theodicy explains the origin

of natural evil.
(c) The Soul Making Theodicy explains the reason
God allows all evil to continue.
(2) John Stuart Mill recognized that human beings
with refined faculties seek the higher pleasures of
the mind. “It is better to be a human being
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be
Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”126
(3) Certainly, God could have made us all pigs – we
could wallow in the mud carefree and “happy.” But,
Mill would note, we would only be enjoying the
pleasures associated with a “lower level of
existence.”127
(4) Enduring suffering and evil can help us achieve a
higher level of existence.
(5) The soul-making defense goes a step further by
stating that God allows suffering and evil to
continue in order to develop character and virtues
in humans – James 1:2-4.
(6) While God does not cause evil, Scripture explains
that he can produce positive results from evil that
exists.
“According to Jesus, a terrible act of group
murder and a natural disaster resulting from an
earthquake were reminders for each one of the
necessity to repent and escape a tragic
destiny (Luke 13:1-5). Likewise, hardships
should be interpreted as disciplinary training
that produces increased maturity and
development of character in God’s children
(Heb. 12:3-17) through the purging of power of
pain (1 Pet. 4:1). Even a persistent, lifelong
affliction can become the means of producing
greater dependency on God and of
discovering the sufficiency of his grace (2 Cor.
12:7-10). The Bible teaches that, although God
abhors evil, he sometimes utilizes it for
beneficial purposes.”128

126
Harold H. Titus, Marilyn S. Smith, and Richard T. Nolan, Living Issues in
Philosophy, Seventh Edition (New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1979), 129.
127
Titus, Living Issues, 129.
128
Gilbert Bilezikian, Christianity 101 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 42,
43.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 122

(7) Again, it is important to stress this point: God

works within the confines of a fallen world.
(a) His temporary tolerance of evil may be to
accomplish a greater good we cannot yet see.
(b) Fyodor Dostoyevsky, the great Russian writer
of the nineteenth century, argued that innocent
suffering may perfect character and bring one
into a closer relationship with God.129
e) The Crucifixion – An Example
(1) Jesus Christ came to earth to suffer and die for our
sake.
(2) Christ endured much suffering, evil and injustice in
order to save mankind from the consequences of
evil.
(3) “The second answer provided by Scripture to the
startling concept of divine responsibility in regard
to the existence of evil is that God, lovingly and
servant-like, accepted that responsibility and
assumed it upon himself. An arrogant and unholy
god could have turned his back on a rebellious and
corrupted planet, forsaking it to its self-destructive
plight. But the same giving love that caused God to
create the world also compelled him to save it. For
God so loved the world that he gave his Son. God
took it upon himself to enter the world – he
became flesh and lived among us. . . . The God
who created beings who chose evil and brought
into the world sin, suffering, and death, also took it
upon himself to defeat sin through the
righteousness of the Son, to bear our suffering on
the cross, and to overcome death in the victory of
the resurrection. . . . As a result, God is able to
offer those who submit to him access to new
personhood in Christ, inclusion in God’s new
community, and deliverance from the eternal
consequences of evil.”130
(4) Because of Christ, evil is not permanent.
(a) Evil will eventually be destroyed.
(b) The prosperity of evil is only temporary.
(c) There will be a Day of Judgment, and in the
end, justice will prevail.

129
Craig, Reasonable Faith, 55.
130
Bilezikian, Christianity 101, 46.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 123

f) Critical Questions for those who hold to the Soul

Making Theodicy
(1) Does all evil end in maturing a soul?
(a) No. Some souls are eternally lost.
Nevertheless, this is the real risk of making a
world with free creatures in the first place.
(b) In order for a Soul Making Theodicy to work,
there must be the genuine possibility of failure.
The athlete who always runs against those
who are slower than he is will not develop
speed, since there is no competition. The
athlete who runs against those who are
quicker, however, learns to develop his speed,
for there is a real possibility of failure.
(2) Are all evils intended to produce maturity or are
there some evils that are senseless?
(a) Because of free will and natural law, it is
impossible to avoid some evils that are
completely senseless.
(b) In other words, there will be some evils that
have no redeeming value at all. They are
simply the result of creating a world where
man is morally responsible. Examples might
be the destruction of an entire city by a flood,
the genocide of an entire people group by a
dictator, etc.
g) Conclusion
(1) The problem of evil is not an issue that should be
taken lightly.
(2) Our first goal should be to comfort and care for
those who are suffering, and strive to do good in
the world. Our job is not to merely sit back and do
nothing more than think about the problem of evil.
(3) We should be sensitive to the needs of those
around us.
(a) In times of crisis, a person needs to be loved,
and he needs a person who will listen.
(b) It is hard to be rational when enduring great
suffering.
(c) However, we must still put aside our emotions,
as raw as they may be, and seek after the
truth. It is easy to blame God for our difficulties
when we are being dominated by our

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 124

emotions; it is much more difficult to search for

the answers in spite of our emotional state.
D. How can I accept the exclusive claims of the Christian gospel?
How can Christianity be the only path to God when there are
so many good and sincere believers of other faiths out there?
1. Every major world religion has a point of exclusion – the
law of Non-Contradiction is applicable
2. Harshness and retribution factor – Christianity is accused
of this but it applies to other major world religions as well:
Islam, you never know; Hinduism and Karmic law, you pay
back in the next life
3. Christianity offers forgiveness: This is a shock to the
sensitivities of pantheistic religions and is unique to
Christianity.
4. If God had offered us a 1000 ways to come to Him, we
would have wanted 1001. One way to God is not unfair.
E. How do I know the Resurrection of Jesus occurred?
1. Importance of the resurrection
a) Rudolf Bultmann said, “If the bones of the dead Jesus
were discovered tomorrow in a Palestinian tomb, all
the essentials of Christianity would remain
unchanged.”
b) Bultmann is not correct because the resurrection is the
ground for:
(1) Forgiveness (1 Cor 15:17)
(2) Hope (1 Peter 1:3b; John 11:25-26; 2 Cor 4:14)
(3) Power (Phil 3:10; Romans 1:4, 8:11)
2. Theories against the Resurrection
a) Swoon theory
(1) This theory says that Christ did not die on the
cross. He was unconscious and the cold tomb
awoke Him.
(2) Problems with this theory
(a) Christ could not have survived the crucifixion.
(b) His pierced side made sure He was dead.
(c) If Christ did not die, He would not have been
able to escape the tomb.
(d) The disciples would not have followed that
kind of Jesus.
(e) What happened to Him—did He just
disappear?
b) Hallucination theory
(1) This theory says that the disciples merely
imagined that they saw a resurrected Christ.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 125

(2) Problems with this theory

(a) Hallucinations occur one at a time.
(b) Hallucinations do not respond the way Jesus
did (eat a meal, for instance).
(c) There is still an empty tomb.
c) Conspiracy theory
(1) This theory says that the disciples concocted a
diabolical plan where they fooled the world into
believing Jesus was a resurrected God. Often this
is combined with the idea that the disciples stole
Jesus’ body.
(2) Problems with this theory
(a) Where is Christ’s body?
(b) The disciples were going to steal the body
from a trained guard of soldiers?
(c) There was no motive for the disciples to lie.
(d) The changed lives of the disciples.
d) Mistaken Identity Theory
(1) The disciples, on various occasions, did see
someone, but that person was not Jesus (John 20;
Luke 24; Mark 16:12).
(a) The lack of recognition at first is a sign of
authenticity in the document.
(b) The disciples actually did recognize Him in all
those instances and walked away believing
they had seen Him.
(c) It is more miraculous to believe that over 500
people were fooled during a 40 day period
than it is to believe Jesus was raised.
(d) The tomb is still empty.
(e) The lives of the disciples were changed.
e) Myth theory
(1) This theory says that the writings concerning the
resurrection were never meant to be taken as fact.
(2) Problems with this theory
(a) New Testament writing is vastly different than
myth writing of the first century.
(b) There was not enough time for a myth to
develop.
(c) The Scripture writers said that what they were
writing was not myth.
(d) The death of the disciples proved it was not a
myth.
f) Wrong Tomb theory

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 126

(1) The women went to the wrong tomb and found it

empty. This false witness spread and people
believed Jesus was resurrected
(2) Problems with this theory
(a) Why did the authorities forget where Jesus’
tomb/body was?
(b) This does not explain the later appearances of
Christ.
3. Case for Biblical Resurrection
a) This view says that Jesus Christ was crucified, died,
buried, and rose again three days after His death. His
resurrection was a literal physical resurrection.
b) Reason to accept this view
(1) It is supported by historical literary reliability.
(2) Jesus’ first appearance was to a woman (Mary
Magdalene); a woman’s testimony was never
accepted in court.
(3) The empty tomb is best explained by this view.
(4) The changed lives of the disciples is best
explained by this view.
(a) Paul
(b) James and Jude
(c) My changed life
4. Does this prove the resurrection?
a) If the historical Jesus actually walked the earth, died,
and rose again, then we would expect evidence of this
event.
b) Certainly someone could argue that the resurrection
never happened, but they will have to wrestle with and
dispose of vast amounts of historical evidence.
c) In the end, none of this information will make them a
believer, but it might make them read the Scriptures
and introduce them to Him who can make them a
believer.
d) This is the role of all logical and historical proofs. None
will save; only the Spirit can do that. Nevertheless, the
Spirit can use these proofs in unity with His Word to
draw people to Himself.
5. Inference to the best explanation: The best explanation
among all competing explanations is that God raised Jesus
from the dead.

XI. Are Miracles Possible?

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 127

A. One may think miracles could not happen if one accepted this
argument:
1. Premise 1: An event is a miracle only if it violates natural
laws.
2. Premise 2: Natural laws are exceptionless regularities
which cannot be violated.
3. Conclusion: If an event is a miracle, then the event cannot
be possible.
B. There are problems with the above argument.
1. Premise 1 is false.
a) The definition of miracle is not accurate.
b) An event does not necessarily need to defy
established laws of nature to be a miracle.
(1) Consider the miracles of Jesus as recorded in
Scripture.
(2) Some miracles were events that run contrary to
what usually occurs in nature (e.g., walking on
water, feeding the 5000, and the resurrection). We
give the title “law of nature” to continually repeated
occurrences we observe in nature (like gravity).
So, some biblical miracles do run contrary to
certain “laws of nature.”
(3) Other miracles performed by Jesus were not direct
“violations” of natural laws; these miracles could
have been caused by natural causes that were
guided by God’s providence and occurred at just
the right time. The time Jesus calmed the storm
(Luke 8:22-25) and the time he used the coin from
the fish’s mouth to pay the tax (Matthew 17:24-27)
are both examples of miracles which could have
been caused by God’s providential work using
purely natural causes.
c) So how does one define “miracle”? While one
definition of miracle which explicates every miracle is
quite difficult to formulate, a good working definition is:
A miracle is an unusual event that runs contrary to our
perception of the natural order. A miracle occurs when
the world is not left to itself.
2. Premise 2 is also false.
a) The definition of natural laws is not accurate.
b) What scientists call “natural laws” are merely
descriptions given to the repeated phenomena that
scientists observe and study.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 128

c) We do not have the evidence to suggest that there are

things in the universe called “natural laws” which
mandate how the universe must function all the time.
(1) Paul Little refers to this notion as “deifying natural
law.”131
(2) Contrary to this false notion, natural laws describe
the ways in which the world works when left to
itself.
(3) Thus, we should view “natural laws” as descriptive,
not prescriptive.
d) Further, physicist Sir George Stokes said, “It may be
that the event which we call a miracle was brought on
not by suspension of the laws in ordinary operation,
but by the super addition of something not ordinarily in
operation.”132 In other words, there is the usual order of
the universe (what we label the “laws of nature”), and
there may be events that occur in the universe which
are unusual. There is no contradiction here.
C. How does one determine whether miracles are possible?
1. Something is logically possible if and only if it is not
contradictory.
2. The existence of miracles does not lead to a contradiction.
D. Can we know a miracle has occurred?
1. Even if everyone accepts that miracles are possible, the
objection that we are not able to know that a miracle has
occurred must still be addressed.
a) The question now is, What evidence would be enough
to show that a miracle has actually happened?
b) Winfried Corduan has written that “many of [the
questions of miracles] are meaningless if it is in
principle impossible ever to recognize a miracle when
one has occurred.”133
2. How do we weigh the evidence for and against a miracle?
a) First, the abundant evidence of natural order at most
suggests that miracles are the exception (which, of
course, has already been established here).

131
Paul Little, Know Why You Believe (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1968),
60.
132
Cited in Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 101.
133
R. Douglas Geivett and Gary R. Habermas, ed., In Defense of Miracles
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997), 99.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 129

(1) The proper evaluation of evidence includes being

open to new evidence, including those of unusual
occurrences.
(2) Because philosopher David Hume had already
decided that miracles do not occur, he gave no
credence at all to evidence for them.
(3) Be a true free thinker who won’t allow his thoughts
to be stymied by preconceived notions and/or
prejudices.
b) Second, evidences should be weighed, not just
counted. The quality of the evidence is what counts.
3. Hume believed that it would be more likely that, for
example, all the witnesses lied than that a person was
raised from the dead.
a) How was Hume so certain of this? “Because,” he said,
“that has never been observed in any age or
country.”134
b) Hume is guilty of adding evidences, not weighing them.
c) Five poor arguments are not better than one sound
argument; likewise, one strong piece of evidence is
better than five weak pieces of evidence.
d) Alleged miraculous events can and should be
investigated the same way a detective would
investigate a murder or a reporter would investigate a
story, by means of historical research, weighing the
testimony of witnesses, and forensic examination.
These are proper methods for weighing evidence for
miracles.
E. Are miracles compatible with the concept of God?
1. The question is whether it is rational to believe in God and
at the same time believe in the miraculous.
a) Most people view God and miracles as inseparable.
b) If a being exists who transcends our world and is
responsible for bringing it into existence, then one can
conclude that this being has the ability to perform that
which we call “miracles” in our understanding of the
world.
c) However, some argue against the idea that God needs
or wants to perform miracles.
2. If God created the world “just right,” then why would he
need to go against the natural order?

134
Geivett, In Defense of Miracles, 33.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 130

a) This question borrows from the teleological argument,

which argues that there is design in the universe that
points ultimately to a designer of the universe.
b) Theists argue that the universe displays this great
order and function, yet God has to continually
intervene by disrupting the “great order” he created.
c) If miracles are necessary, then God must not have
created the universe as well as many believe.
d) A defense:
(1) The argument is based on the idea that since God
needs to perform miracles to heal the sick, raise
the dead, calm fierce storms, etc., the world must
have been created with at least a few flaws.
(2) Not all miracles are meant to “fix flaws.”
(a) Many miracles serve other functions (such as
turning water to wine, walking on water, and
prophecy).
(b) God created a universe that was “very good,”
but became flawed by mankind’s sin.
(c) Miracles are not God’s way of correcting his
own mistakes, but at times are the response
by God to humanity’s flaws.
(3) The order and design of the universe serve a
general purpose and function, whereas miracles
serve a specific purpose and function.
(a) The specific purpose of any single miracle
does not take anything away from the general
purpose of the created order
(b) For example, the parting of the Red Sea does
not mean that the regular laws of physics are
useless. Rather, the function of the world
serves a general purpose (maintaining order),
while the parting of the sea serve a specific
purpose (rescuing the Israelites).
F. Summary
1. We have discussed the possibility of miracles, the
evidence used to determine whether a miracle occurred,
and the logical consistency of the co-existence of God and
the miraculous.
2. The conclusions are that miracles are possible, there are
good methods for investigating miracle claims, and it is
rational to accept that God may be able to work miracles in
the world he created.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 131

XII. Using Apologetics

A. What is in it for me?
1. A more confident Christian walk by knowing that it is
rationally justifiable – we need not check our brains out at
the door when we come to church
2. Increased confidence in our ability to share the Gospel in a
secular world – secular society has marginalized the
person of faith.
3. A new way to witness – challenge the unsaved to rethink
the Christian stereotype.
4. Obedience to God’s Word – we are called to be
disciplined. “Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and
instruction, and understanding” (Proverbs 23:23).
5. Have you encountered a situation where your faith was
tried or challenged by an acquaintance, friend, or family
member or by worldly wisdom?
B. Under what conditions is an apologetic best applied?
1. Openness of heart
a) You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
b) Statistically we are far less likely to change our
fundamental religious belief as we age.
c) A Barna Research study showed that the vast majority
of those who are saved experience the conversion
during childhood—before the age of 14. A person who
is unsaved at the age of 14 only has a 10% chance of
being “saved” later in life. The survey also showed that
about 40% of all American adults consider themselves
as having been saved during their lifetime. This
number agrees with previous surveys.

% who experience
Age range salvation within
that age range
5 to 13 years 32%
14 to 18 years 4%
over 19 years 6%

Only 4% of believers were saved when they were over

the age of 30.
2. Conviction of the Holy Spirit versus a purely rational
approach

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 132

a) Apologetics is a tool to help remove roadblocks caused

by false ideas.
b) Apologetics does not do the work of the Holy Spirit.
3. Persuasion and winning souls, versus winning arguments
a) It is easy to fall into the pitfalls of argumentation.
b) It is easy to slip into a defensive posture.
c) It is easy to turn an apologetic into a force that drives
people further from God. (We don’t want to do that! –
Romans 12:16-19)
4. The better the apologist, the better one is able to discern
when not to engage someone at that level. Look for those
who are sincere and honestly seeking the truth.
C. Rules of Engagement
1. Deal with people “…with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter
3:15b).
a) If no one likes you, no one will listen to you.
b) You may win a debate here and there, but such a
victory does not lead a person to faith in Christ.
2. Know your audience! Work hard to understand other
peoples’ beliefs completely, without offering any criticism.
a) The apostle Paul, in his sermon to the philosophers of
Mars Hill, understood their mindset, their beliefs, and
their customs.
b) To establish a point of contact, Paul referred to one of
their religious statues – one dedicated “to an unknown
God.”
c) From there, Paul moved into a discussion of creation,
followed by a proclamation of Christian theism (Acts
17:18-34).
d) Paul’s attitude was to meet his audience at their level.
e) In 1 Corinthians 9:22, Paul writes: “I have become all
things to all men so that by all possible means I might
save some.”
f) “Jesus’ preaching thus begins where people actually
are—in the everyday world of rural Galilee.”135 Jesus
met people where they were, and so should we.
3. “Bracket” your judgment. In other words, suspend making
judgments about another person’s beliefs until you
understand it completely.
4. Be able to say their beliefs back to them in their own
words. Then you will know you have a complete
understanding of their perspective. Furthermore, they will
135
Alister McGrath, Intellectuals Don’t Need God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1993), 27.

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011
 133

see that you respect them because you’ve taken the time
to learn about them and their perspective.
5. Learn the questions they are asking. People are different.
The concerns you have, and the issues you feel are
important will not always be the same as the concerns
others have and the issues others feel are important. We
must work hard to understand other people in order to
have a meaningful and productive dialogue with them.
6. Ask yourself those questions they are asking.
7. Gently challenge their beliefs.
8. Let them challenge your beliefs. This is important! They will
trust you more if you are open with them and you make
yourself “vulnerable” by exposing your beliefs for criticism.
9. Find common ground. In other words, find areas where you
and the other person(s) agree, and build from those points
of commonality. Also, when you find common ground, you
will see the points of disagreement more clearly, and thus
you will be able to address those concerns more precisely.

Larry R. Oats
Maranatha Baptist Seminary
Watertown, WI 53094

Central Africa Baptist College

PO BOX 21891 KITWE, ZAMBIA [email protected]
Tel 26-097-741-5011