• Wright, J. Stafford. Interpreting the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977. 34 page booklet.

• Stott, John R. Culture and the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1979. 48 page booklet.

• Sproul, R.C. Knowing Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1979. 125 pages.

• Carson, D.A. Exegetical Fallacies. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Co., 1984. 153 pages.

• Kuhatschek, Jack. Taking the Guesswork Out of Applying the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990. 163 pages.

• Sire, James W. Scripture Twisting. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980. 180 pages.

• Carson, D.A. and John D. Woodbridge, ed. Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986. 468 pages.

• Kaiser, Walter C. Jr. “Legitimate Hermeneutics.” Norman Geisler, ed. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979. 32 page essay. 516 page book.

• Osborne, Grant. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992. 499 pages.

• Terry, Milton S. Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d. 782 pages.

Revision Date: 05/30/00
Copyright ©2000 Craig S. Hawkins. All Rights Reserved.

* McRay, John. Archaeology & the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991.

* Thompson, J.A. The Bible and Archaeology. Rev. 3d ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987.
o Luke, the Historian. Melbourne: The Australian Institute of Archaeology, 1954.

* Wilson, Clifford A. Rocks, Relics and Biblical Reliability. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977.

* Yamauchi, Edwin. The Stones and the Scriptures. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972.

THE HISTORICITY OF CHRIST:

* Bruce, F.F. Jesus & Christian Origins Outside the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974.

* Habermas, Gary R. The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996.

* McDowell, Josh, and Bill Wilson. He Walked Among Us. San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, 1988.

THE HISTORICITY OF THE BIBLE

* Archer, Gleason. Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Rev. ed. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1974.

* Barnett, Paul. Is the Testament Reliable? A Look at the Historical Evidence. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986.

* Blomberg, Craig. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987.

* Bruce, F.F. The New Testament Documents: are They Reliable?. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978.

* Geisler, Norman, and William Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Rev. and exp. ed. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1986.

* Harrison, Roland Kenneth. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969.

* McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Arrowhead Springs, CA: Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972.

* Montgomery, John. History and Christianity. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1965.
o Where is History Going? Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship, 1972.

* Sherwin-White, A.N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978.

Revision Date: 8/27/97

* Arndt, William. Eds. Robert Hoerber and Walter R. Roehrs. Bible Difficulties & Seeming Contradictions. Rev. ed. St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1987.

* Brauch, Manfred T. Hard Sayings of Paul. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989.

* Bruce, F.F. The Hard Sayings of Jesus. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983.

* Cheney, Johnston M. The Life of Christ in Stereo: The Four Gospels Speak in Harmony. Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1969.

* Geisler, Norman and Thomas Howe. When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1992.

* Haley, John W. Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977.

* Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

* Kaiser, Walter C. Jr. Hard Sayings of the Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988.

* More Hard Sayings of the Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992.

* Newsome, James D. Jr. A Synoptic Harmony of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1986.

* Richards, Larry. Bible Difficulties Solved. Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell, 1993.

* Robertson, A.T. Bible Difficulties Solved A Harmony of the Gospels. New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1922.

* Stein, Robert H. Difficult Passages in the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990.

* Thiele, Edwin R. The Mysterious Number of the Hebrew Kings. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983.

INTRODUCTORY

* Ankerberg, John, and John Weldon. Ready with an Answer. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1997.

* Beisner, E. Calvin. Thoughtful Skeptics: Dialogs About Christian Faith and Life. Rev. ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993.

* Craig, William Lane. The Existence of God & the Beginning of the Universe. San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, 1979.

* Greenleaf, Simon. The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence. Grand Rapids, Kregel, 1995.

* Hawkins, Craig. Apologetics: An Apologetic for Apologetics. Rev. ed. Santa Ana, CA: Apologetics Information Ministry, 1/25/99.

* _____. Faith and Knowledge, Evidence, and Reason: Their Role and Relationship to One Another. Rev. ed. Santa Ana, CA: Apologetics Information Ministry, 1/25/99.

* _____. God and Logic. Rev. ed. Santa Ana, CA: Apologetics Information Ministry, 1/25/99.

* Hunt, Angela Elwell. If God is Real, Where on Earth is He? San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, 1991.

* Little, Paul. Know Why You Believe. Rev. ed. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1987.

* Linton, Irwin H. A Lawyer Examines the Bible: A Defense of the Christian Faith. Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1943, 1977.

* McDowell, Josh. Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Volume I: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith. Rev. ed. San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, 1979.

* Miethe, Terry L. Living Your Faith: Closing the Gap Between Mind and Heart. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993.

* Montgomery, John Warwick. How do We Know There is a God? Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship, 1973.

* _____. Sensible Christianity. Audiocassettes. 3 Vols. Newport Beach, CA: Institute for Law and Theology, 1981.

* Purtill, Richard L. C.S. Lewis’s Case for the Christian Faith. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985.

* Ross, Clifford, ed. The Case for the Empty Tomb: Leading Lawyers Look at the Resurrection. Claremont, CA: Albatross Books, 1991.

* Story, Dan. Christianity on the Offense: Responding to the Beliefs and Assumptions of Spiritual Seekers. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998.

* _____. Defending Your Faith: Reliable Answers for a New Generation of Seekers and Skeptics. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1997.

* Wilder-Smith, A.E. He who Thinks has to Believe. Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1981.

INTERMEDIATE

* Bahnsen, Greg L. Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1998.

* Beckwith, Francis J., and Stephen E. Parrish. See the Gods Fall: Four Rivals to Christianity. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1997.

* _____, and Gregory Koukl. Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998.

* Boyd, Robert T. Boyd’s Handbook of Practical Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1997.

* Bush, L. Russ, ed. Classical Readings in Christian Apologetics: A.D. 100-1800. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.

* Carnell, Edward John. An Introduction to Christian Apologetics: A Philosophic Defense of the Trinitarian-Theistic Faith. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948.

* Clark, Gordon H. Religion, Reason and Revelation. Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1978.

* Clark, Kelly James. Return to Reason. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

* _____, ed. Philosophers who Believe: The Spiritual Journeys of 11 Leading Thinkers. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

* Corduan, Winfried. No Doubt About It: The Case for Christianity. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1997.

* Craig, William Lane. The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1980.

* _____. “Philosophical and Scientific Pointers to Creatio Ex Nihilo.” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation. 32 (March 1980): 5-13.

* _____. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Rev. ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994.

* _____, and Q. Smith. Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.

* Dembski, William A., ed. Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

* Frame, John M. Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1994.

* _____. Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1995.

* Geehan, E.R., ed. Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Philosophy and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971.

* Geisler, Norman. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1999.

* _____. Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976.

* _____, and Ron Brooks. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990.

* Hackett, Stuart C. The Resurrection of Theism: Prolegomena to Christian Apology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982.

* Lewis, Gordon R. Testing Christianity’s Truth Claims: Approaches to Christian Apologetics. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990.

* Mayers, Ronald B. Balanced Apologetics: Using Evidences and Presuppositions in Defense of the Faith. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1984.

* McDowell, Josh. Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Volume II: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith. Rev. ed. San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, 1981.

* McGrath, Alister E. Intellectuals Don’t Need God & Other Modern Myths. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.

* Miethe, Terry L., and Gary R. Habermas. Why Believe? God Exists! Rethinking the Case for God and Christianity. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993.

* Montgomery, John Warwick. Defending the Gospel Through the Centuries: A History of Christian Apologetics. Audiocassettes. Newport Beach, CA: Institute for Law and Theology, 1981.

* _____. Faith Founded on Fact: Essays in Evidential Apologetics. Nashville, TN:, Thomas Nelson, 1978.

* _____, ed. Christianity for the Tough Minded. Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1973.

* _____, ed. Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God Question. Dallas: Probe Books, 1991.

* Moreland, J.P. Love Your God with All Your Mind. Colorado Springs, CO: 1997.

* _____. Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.

* _____, ed. The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994.

* Nash, Ronald. Faith & Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988.

* Purtill, Richard L. Reason to Believe. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1974.

* Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Christian Evidences. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954.

* _____. Types of Apologetic Systems: An Introductory Study to the Christian Philosophy of Religion. Wheaton, IL: Van Kampen Press, 1953.

* _____. Varieties of Christian Apologetics: An Introduction to the Christian Philosophy of Religion. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1961.

* Ross, Hugh. The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1993.

* Schaeffer, Francis A. Escape from Reason. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1968.

* _____. The God Who is There. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1968.

* _____. He is There and He is Not Silent. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1972.

* Smith, Wilbur M. Therefore Stand: Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976.

* Sproul, R.C., John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley. Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and A Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

* Van Til, Cornelius. Christian Apologetics. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1975.

* _____. A Christian Theory of Knowledge. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969.

* _____. The Defense of the Faith. 3d ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1967.

* Zuck, Roy B., gen. ed. Vital Apologetic Issues: Examining Reason and Revelation in Biblical Perspective. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1995.

ADVANCED

* Dembski, William A. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

* Craig, William Lane. The Kalam Cosmological Argument. New York: Macmillan, 1979.

* Geisler, Norman, and Winfried Corduan. Philosophy of Religion. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988.

* Plantinga, Alvin. God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.

* _____. God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967.

* _____. The Nature of Necessity. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1974.

* Plantinga, Alvin, and Nicholas Wolterstorff, eds. Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983.

* Swinburne, Richard. The Coherence of Theism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1977.

* _____. The Existence of God. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.

* _____. Faith and Reason. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.

* Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen. The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories. New York: Philosophical Library, 1984.

*Works from the evidential, presuppositional, and combinational perspectives are included in this bibliography.
Revision Date: 05/22/98
Copyright ©1999 Craig S. Hawkins. All Rights Reserved.

This volume of the Zondervan Guide to Cults and Religious Movements discusses Goddess Worship and the impact native religious traditions of Europe and tribal traditions from North America have on Neo-paganism.Fast, informed answers to the challenges of false religions This is an age when countless groups and movements, new and old, mark the religious landscape in our culture. As a result, many people are confused or uncertain in their search for spiritual truth and meaning. Because few people have the time or opportunity to research these movements fully, the Zondervan Guide to Cults and Religious Movements series provides essential information and insights for their spiritual journeys. The second wave of books in this series addresses a broad range of spiritual beliefs, from non-Trinitarian Christian sects to witchcraft and neo-paganism to classic non-Christian religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism. All books but the summary volume, Truth and Error, contain five sections: A concise introduction to the group being surveyed An overview of the group’s theology–in its own words Tips for witnessing effectively to members of the group A bibliography with sources for further study A comparison chart that shows the essential differences between biblical Christianity and the group Truth and Error, the last book in the series, consists of parallel doctrinal charts compiled from all the other volumes. Three distinctives make this series especially useful to readers: Information is carefully distilled to bring out truly essential points, rather than requiring readers to sift their way through a sea of secondary details. Information is presented in a clear, easy-to-follow outline form with menu bar running heads. This format greatly assists the reader in quickly locating topics and details of interest. Each book meets the needs and skill levels of both nontechnical and technical readers, providing an elementary level of refutation and progressing to a more advanced level using arguments based on the biblical text. The writers of these volumes are well qualified to present clear and reliable information and help readers to discern truth from falsehood.

Hawkins book on witchcraft and pagan religions grows out of a resurgence of occult practices in America and Western Europe in recent years. The author believes these are perilous times for Christians, but that the prepared Christian who knows what he believes can effectively combat this revival of darkness.

by Craig S. Hawkins

The Critical Issue

Since F.C. Baur proposed his thesis in the mid-nineteenth century and the corresponding rise of the infamous Tubingen school of radical higher critical thought of the New Testament, the book of Acts has fallen upon hard times concerning its value as a historical work. That is, Acts was no longer viewed by many as a theological-historical work composed in the latter part of the first century A.D., by Luke who was a friend, disciple, travelling companion of the apostle Paul, and an eye witness of much of what he wrote (from 16:11 onward).

According to Baur and his disciples, reasoning under the influence of Hegelian, evolutionary, and anti-supernaturalistic a priori presuppositions, Acts was seen as a product of a highly skillful and imaginatively creative writer of the latter part of the second century A.D. The author was an artful and captivating story teller who weaved together tales of intrigue and suspense into a theological tapestry.  In other words, the author was not writing history but “theology.”

This writer, whomever he might have been, was attempting to synthesis the Pauline (thesis) school of Christianity with the Petrine devotees (antithesis). Acts was the result of such an effort (synthesis). Thus, the work now known as Acts was not intended to be a historical account proper of the early church. Indeed, it is quite unhistorical in many accounts and details. Hence, we should not expect it to be a “history book” of earliest Christianity, as that was not the author’s intention. Arising out of the speculations of the Tubingen school have come a multitude of radical higher critical views. Utilizing literary/source, form, and/or redaction criticism, these theories have proposed that a redactor or redactors composed the book of Acts out of numerous, more or less independent oral and/or written traditions or sources. From these traditions they patched together a theological quilt–the book of Acts.

With either of the above schemes, and with all the views between these two extremes, is the common thread of Acts not being historically reliable.⁽¹⁾  All these radical higher critical views have in common the notion that the book of Acts is a late second century work at best, and is unreliable, and therefore, untrustworthy as a historical source for the earliest years of the church, or for that matter most of the topics it touches upon.

Therefore, obviously Acts can not be relied on for accurate data of the formation and history of the early church, let alone does this second century literary piece correctly convey geographical, topographical, societal, political, religious, etc., data. It was not meant to. Its primary purpose was to fulfill a didactic function; that is, to express the
religious experiences, feelings, world view, and struggles of Christians (primarily from the 2nd century), and not to portray the first century church’s development and interaction with the world. As such it is “theological” literature, and not an attempt at history proper. Thus, we should not be surprised at the many and often glaring historical inaccuracies of this book, since is was written at such a late date, and too far removed from the actual events, culture, and concerns of first century Christianity. It follows that Acts not only is not, but cannot, be read has reliable history, as for example, as one would read Herodotus, let alone Thucydides or Polybius.

Our Critical View and Method

To scrutinize these theories pertaining to the historicity of Acts and see if they fit the facts, we want to examine them in the light of archaeology. Ergo, we shall examine some of the archaeological data as it pertains to the book of Acts. Our primary sources will include literature from private and public correspondence, records, civil law codes and proclamations. Also, we shall consider epigraphical data, obtained from the study of diverse types of inscriptions, found on various kinds of objects, such as buildings, monuments, steles, etc., from the time around the period in question that relates directly or indirectly to our topic.

It logically follows that by comparing and contrasting the internal details (from within the book of Acts itself) with the information derived from external and independent sources (e.g., the archaeological sources listed above), we should be able to reasonably conclude if he book of Acts is historically reliable or not. To the point, if the radical higher critical views of Acts being basically unreliable and their framework for dating Acts in the latter part of the second century is correct, then the preponderance of evidence should bear this out with collaborating testimony from archaeology. On the other hand, if Acts is historically reliable, and thus probably having been written within the perimeters of the orthodox view, sometime in the latter part of the first century, the archaeological evidence should support this thesis. Either way our understanding can and should be expanded by the insights archaeology has to offer.

Furthermore, the appeal to the bar of archaeology not only should, but must be made given the radical higher critics preconceived ideas which disallow what the Scriptures state about themselves, that is, that the book of Acts was compiled from trustworthy sources where Luke was not present at a given event, or that he was a literal eyewitness
to the rest of what he reports. The radical critics flatly deny these claims! Therefore, we shall appeal to the court of archaeology.

The orthodox viewpoint has nothing to fear and everything to gain from such an investigation. If Acts was written at an early date by Luke the physician, is reliable history, and not just in “religious” matters, then the witness of archaeology will affirm this verdict.

It is my contention that when the archaeological evidence is consulted, it clearly decides in the favor of the orthodox view of Acts, and that it is extremely reliable, not only on things theological, but “secular” history as well! In other words, although the book of Acts is not primarily concerned with history qua history, or in and of itself, it is nonetheless accurate when it comments upon historical events or issues that lay within its purview.

Accordingly, I will argue, and hope to show that because radical higher critical views of Acts cannot withstand the cross-examination of archaeology, these views are deserving of radical skepticism themselves. Yea, to be rejected and banished from the halls of higher learning in particular and the kingdom of academia and truth universally. The cold hard facts refute the speculations of the radical higher critics In short, it’s the classic case of a gang of brute facts beating up a nice theory.

Thus, my view is that the book of Acts is an extremely reliable historical source, contra the opinions of radical higher critics. In fact, this writer holds the book of Acts to not only be reliable, but the infallible and inerrant Word of God. However, due to constraints of space and scope I cannot address this issue in our present discussion.

To accomplish our task we shall examine the findings from archaeology in five major areas of study. We will compare and contrast what is stated in the book of Acts with what we presently know to actually be the case in the areas of knowledge under discussion. This will be conducted in a thematic manner, and chronologically within each individual
category according to the chapters in the book of Acts. These topics are (1) cultural milieus, (2) nautical concerns, (3) judicial knowledge, (4) geopolitical statements, and lastly (5) titles of governmental officials.

It needs to be noted that I make no pretensions at presenting an exhaustive study of the issue at hand. Unfortunately, we can only offer a brief treatment of each topic and must pass by a copious amount of pertinent information. Due to the dearth of available data we will only be surveying select examples from the pool of possible passages to
establish our thesis. These shall have to suffice to illustrate and vindicate our point. (However, in addition to the bibliography, a large number of direct references have been cited throughout out the paper for further study.) Moreover, we will only be looking at archaeology and the book of Acts alone, not the gospel of Luke or any other sections of the New Testament.

Furthermore, we cannot deal with many of the problematic or disputed passages of Acts that are in question in light of archaeological findings. As yet most of these findings are ambiguous regarding the conclusions that should be drawn from them. In essence, the jury is still out, and rather than work from what we do not know, we will work with what we do know and can with reasonable confidence draw valid conclusions there from. On issues that we have inconclusive or no archaeological data, we will more than likely only reach inconclusive conclusions at best, and idle speculation at worst.

Our citing of the evidence that appears to support our thesis, and not treating that which does not, is not to selectively cite in order to “stack the deck” in our favor and only deal with what suits our views. This is not the case. Our approach is in accord with the “principle of charity,” that teaches that in disputable matters, the benefit of the doubt is to be granted to the document in question, unless compelling and studied evidence warrants conclusions otherwise (Montgomery p. 29). In short, we are not to assume that the text is in error unless the evidence clearly merits such a view. And if a document proves truthful in every area that we are able to check its claims, then
it is reasonable to grant that it is correct in areas or subjects which we are not able to directly verify.

This is especially true in our case when the text of Acts has been variously assumed to have erred, but has proven time and time again that it was not in err, but in fact, possessed correct and extremely precise data. Thus, if a writer such as Luke proves himself correct over and over again (as we shall see below), and conversely his critics
prove wrong over and over again, we are justified in suspending judgment (assuming the writer is in error), and giving the benefit of the doubt to the normally trustworthy writer on moot points (see Bruce, AAGT, p. 17; Ramsay, BRD, p. 80).

Ironically, as we shall presently see, there has been so much information gathered from archaeology to confirm the accuracy and historicity of Acts, that the radical higher critic are the ones who ought to be doubted, not the text! The evidence decidedly does not warrant the historical berating Acts has received. In fact, it demands just the opposite!
That is, the document is at least a reliable work of theological and historical literature.

The Cultural Milieus in the Book of Acts

If the book of Acts is historically reliable when it discuss various cultural settings and locations, archaeological findings that pertain to a given setting should verify the comments. Furthermore, if the book was written in the first (or second) century, then it should relate the facts and local color appropriate to that time period. We can reasonably
discern both of these questions by noting the events, society norms, customs, beliefs, practices, vocations, institutions, buildings, nomenclature, topography, etc., which are mentioned in Acts. Hence, we now turn our attention to the sitz em leben of some of the communities reported in Acts.

First, we cite Acts 14:11-13, where Luke not only records simple events, but enlivens his narrative with the feel of Lystra, a small “back woods” and relatively insignificant town (see Ramsay, BRD, pp. 45-50, CSP, pp. 407-418, SPT, pp. 114-119). Luke notes that the native populace of Lystra spoke their own language, Lycaonian, in this encounter, and not Greek as we might expect from a Greek city that became a Roman colony. This fact suggests that the worshippers in question were not Roman coloni, but the less educated natives. Pottery found from the first century period in the vicinity of Lystra contains a few fragments of Roman pottery, with the majority of the fragments being
Hellenistic (Greek) (Thompson, LH, p. 11). It seems that the local populace was stratified into two basic levels: the educated Greek portion with corresponding Greek manners and language, and the uneducated natives who retained their own language. Additionally, we are told that these people worshipped gods they called Zeus and Hermes. An inscriptions located near Lystra from around 250 A.D. records a dedication to Zeus and Hermes, by men
with Lycaonian names (ibid. p. 12). Thus, there is good reason to believe that Luke passed on to us not only correct facts regarding the native populace of an unimportant city at this time, but that he did it in a manner that also gives us a glimpse into the ambiance of the Lycaonian culture.

Second, the author of Acts tells us in 16:12-39 many specific details about this Roman colony, Philippi. For example, he informs us about the market place where the magistrates convened court, that there is a city gate by a river etc., (see Thompson, BA, p. 395). All these facts have been verified by archaeological, historical, and topographical studies (Thompson, LH, p. 14-15).

Third, Athens is mentioned in Acts 17:16-34. Our writer brings to our attention numerous details about the city in his narrative (see Ramsay, SPT, pp. 237-253). Paul was provoked by an inscription he read that was dedicated “to the unknown god.” He debated moral questions with some Athenian philosophers in the market place before the
Areopagus council. It has been established that metaphysical and ethical discussions were routinely carried on at the Athenian market place. The ancient court and most venerable of Athenian institutions, the Areopagus, held control over lectures. This important council named after the hill, Areopagus, meet in the days of Paul in the Royal Colonnade in the market place just as Luke states (see Ramsay, BRD, pp. 102-105; SPT, pp. 243-245; and
Thompson, LH, pp. 16-18,).

Another particularly interesting tidbit is the disdainful Athenian retort in 17:18 by the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers of Paul being a “babbler” (spermologos). This is an authentic touch of characteristic Athenian social slang (Ramsay, SPT, pp. 241-243).

Athens was indeed a “very religious” city. We know that Athens had a large number of temples, and religious statues and images. Josephus and other early writers were similarly impressed, as Paul was, regarding the Athenian preoccupation with the gods (Bruce, CBA, p. 355). Still yet, we know that there were numerous inscriptions on alters
in Athens dedicated to “to an unknown god.” Pausanias, of the second century A.D., and Diogenes Laertes, from the third century, both mentioned such alters to these anonymous deities (ibid., p. 355; Yamauchi, p.116). Thompson informs us that “Philostratus in the early third century spoke of Athens `where even unknown divinities have alters erected to them’” (Thompson, BA, p. 399). The writer of Acts again accurately records cultural facts of a society.

Finally, on our list of cities, we will consider some of Luke’s comments on the city and of Ephesus. In Acts 19:18-41 a host of significantly verifiable items are brought to our attention. (1) The city allegedly possessed a considerable number of inhabitant who practiced sorcery (2) A rather large trade existed in the city that derived its income
from the manufacture and distribution of silver idols of the alleged goddess Artemis (Diana). (3) The alleged goddess had a temple in Ephesus. (4) There was some type of theater in the city.

The archaeological facts are such that all of the above observations by Luke have been confirmed (Thompson, LH, p. 19-23). Ephesus in ancient times was known for its sorcery and occultic practices, so much so that the phrase Ephesia grammata or “Ephesian scripts or writings” became a common term in the Greco-Roman world for magical texts (Bruce, CBA, p. 391-392; Unger, ANT, p.260). Some fairly early magical papyrus texts of this type are still extant today (see Deissmann, pp. 254, 302-305, 453, etc.). Many of these idols mentioned above have been found, as well as the remains of the temple (its dimensions were 160 feet by 340 feet). The remains of the theater have also been located. It was approximately 495 feet in diameter, and is estimated to have been able to seat 24,500 persons. Within the theater was discovered an inscription describing numerous gold and silver images of Artemis, weighing from three to seven pounds each (Thompson, LH, p. 21).

These findings (especially when conjoined with further findings numerated below), reveal Luke’s apparent eyewitness descriptions (either his own or that of Paul’s) of the events and places cited above by his vivid portrayals of life and the social matrix of the communities Paul visited.

Acts not only is teaming with minute details of the “stuff of civilizations,” but contains comments on external environmental factors which effected these communities as well. For instance, Luke takes note of a severe famine, during the rule of emperor Claudius, that plagued large parts of the Roman empire (Acts 11:27-30). The accuracy of
this account was challenged by various scholars, who fancied this as an “imaginative” invention of Luke, because they were not aware of independent confirmation of it.

However, historical evidence, independent of Acts, has supplemented our previously famished diet of knowledge on this topic (see Ramsay, SPT, pp. 48-52, 68-69; and Bruce, CBA, p. 243, for further information on the time and extent of the famine[s]). Suetonius, the Roman historian who lived at the end of the first century and into the second,
referred to austere conditions at the time of Claudius caused by “…a scarcity of provisions, occasioned by bad crops for several years” (as cited in Thompson, LH, p. 7). Dion Cassius, a statesman and writer, along with Tacitus, a Roman historian (55-120 A.D.), both refer to two famines in Rome in the first century (ibid. p. 7). Eusebius, the
great Christian historian, and the Jewish historian, Josephus (37-95 A.D.), also mentions a severe famine in Asia Minor and Judea respectively in the first century (ibid. p. 7). Thus, we have independent and secular writers who attest to the fact of Luke’s statement.

Acts not only demonstrates a throughout and extremely reliable account of the communities Paul interacted with, and environmental factors, but additionally, the role and importance of Roman citizenship in the first century.

During the first century A.D. Roman citizens were an especially privileged class of individuals throughout the Roman empire. They had special rights and privileges, such as unique legal rights and exemption from the taxes of local communities, etc., which non-Romans did not share (see Sherwin-White, RSRL, pp. 144-171).

In Acts 16:37-38 and other passages, Paul makes much of his Roman citizenship relative to certain rights this gave him. This and many other comments found in Acts harmonizes beautifully with what we know regarding these issues in the first century A.D. For example, we have a parallel case to Paul’s in Acts 16, from Cicero’s writings where he
talks about one C. Servilius, who was beaten and abused by governmental officials. Cicero rhetorically asks “is there any legal reason why this should happen to any Roman citizen?” (as cited in Sherwin-White, RSRL, p. 172). The style and circumstances differ in the above two cases, but the tone, the alarm, the concern about how a Roman
citizens should, or should not in these cases, be treated is the same.

However, there were major Roman societal and judicial changes pertaining to the rights of Roman citizenship that began early in the second century A.D. (ibid., pp. 68-70, 172-175, and 179-185). But, Acts evidences none of these substantial societal changes. It accurately mirrors the value and role of local governments and Roman citizenship from the first century, not those of the second or latter centuries (ibid., pp. 179-185). As Sherwin-White says, “Acts breathes the climate of the earlier phase” (ibid., p.173).

Therefore, the value and place of Roman citizenship in Acts properly represents the culture during the first century A.D., and conversely not according to its social evolution in the second.

Thus, to conclude this part of our discussion, we observe that the writer of Acts, based upon our discussion so far, not only is historically reliable, but he has far more to offer us. He accurately captures and vividly portrays intimate and precise information as he paints a picture for us, that is, a lifelike and authentic first century mood and feel of the local-color and societal and religious practices, customs, and institutions of the locales it mentions. He demonstrates apparent eye witness experiences (his own or Paul’s) that explain his keen and penetrating knowledge and insights of the places and events he writes about. In short, it has the ring of truth in describing the places Paul visited and historical events that occurred (see Ramsay, BRD, pp. 79-89; SPT. pp. 8-9). To sum up this section of our discussion we quote Sherwin-White and Ramsay respectively:

In Acts or in that part of Acts which is concerned with the adventures of Paul in Asia
Minor and Greece, one is aware all the time of the Hellenistic and Roman setting. The
historical framework is exact. In terms of time and place the details are precise and
correct. One walks the streets and market-places, the theatres and assemblies of
first-century Ephesus or Thessalonica, Corinth or Philippi, with the author of Acts.
…The feel and tone of city life is the same as in the descriptions of Strabo and Dio of
Prusa…In all these ways Acts takes us on a conducted tour of the Greco-Roman world. The
detail is so interwoven with the narrative of the mission as to be inseparable. (RSRL,
pp.120, 121)

In Ephesus Paul taught `in the school of Tyrannus’; in the city of Socrates he
discussed moral questions in the market-place. How incongruous it would seem if the
methods were transposed! But the narrative never makes a false step amid all the many
details, as the scene changes from city to city; and that is the conclusive proof that it
is a picture of real life. (SPT, p. 238)

Nautical Knowledge and Acts

The writer of Acts knowledge of the Greco-Roman cultural milieus in the first century is matched by understanding of nautical matters. Rackham says regarding Acts 27 that “the story is told with such a wealth of detail that in all classical literature there is no passage which gives us so much information about the working of an ancient
ship” (as cited in Robertson, LH, p. 206). Luke has an appreciation for the sea and this comes through in the relevant passages (primarily in Acts 27:1-41). Again, we can undertake only a cursory survey of our topic. (For further study on this subject see Ramsay, SPT, pp. 331-339; Robertson, LH, pp. 206-216; and Smith’s entire work, VSSP.)

Luke’s recital of the type of ships used and some of their features, their courses charted, the winds they sailed under or were hindered by, storms encountered, the Islands named, sailing techniques, and much more squares with our knowledge of ancient and modern navigation, having been verified by external and independent evidence (Robertson, p.216). A few examples will have to suffice for our purposes.

Luke uses very precise terminology in discussing some of the details of their journeys. Smith and Ramsay list some specifics (see Robertson, p. 214; Ramsay, SPT, p. 328). For instance, “…They sailed under [hyperleusamen] the lee of Cyprus, keeping northwards with a westerly wind on the beam” (Acts 27:4); “here they ran before a wind under [hypodramontes] the lee of Clauda” (Acts 27:14). Likewise, in 27:14 we are told of a wind of typhonic force, the “northeaster” (euraquilo), which swept down from an island (Crete). At its height the Cretan mountains in question
are over 7000 feet. It is the case even today that quite suddenly and unexpectedly near hurricane strength winds can flow down the mountains and create havoc for sailing vessels in the underlying waters (Ramsay, SPT, p. 327).

Robinson, sums up Luke’s contribution and the value and accuracy of his sea-voyages when he stated: “it is to Luke that we owe the most vivid as well as the most accurate account of sea-voyaging that has come down to us from antiquity. Experts in navel science agree that it is without a parallel” (as cited in Robertson, LH, p. 207).

Acts on Trial

Luke’s portrayal of the legal system within the Roman empire in the first century, as already briefly cited, is as informed as the other areas we have already discussed. Thus, whether Paul is being confronted by mobs and their demagogish rulers, the seething Sanhedrin, local Jewish tribunals, hauled before civil magistrates, the arrogant Areopagus council, proconsuls, prefects, later known as procurators (after A.D.44), such as Felix and Festus, or a vassal king like Agrippa, Luke’s narratives coincide with what we know of the first century judicial processes. Charges and proceedings are written in contemporary and accurate language. Let’s examine a few note worthy cases of Luke’s accurate court reporting.

Acts 25:16 records the statement that “…it is not the Roman custom to hand over any man before he has faced his accusers and has had opportunity to defend himself against their charges.” This remark by procurator Festus, written down by Luke, accords perfectly with Roman jurisprudence of the first century (see Sherwin-White, RSRL, p.48).

Or in 25:18 we read that the governor remarked “The accusers brought no charges against him which I could take cognizance.” The Greek word rendered by “take cognizance” or “understand” (NIV “expected,” KJV “supposed”) has a technical meaning (Sherwin-White, TC, p. 101). The Greek phrase in question, on ego hypenooun, in its strongest sense means “suspect” (Sherwin-White, RSRL, p.50). In a legal context, it does not mean that Festus literally could not understand the issues, but that the issue brought before him to adjudicate was a religious issue, which fell out side the normal domain of the law. Therefore, it fits naturally, given the unusual charges brought against Paul, for Festus, to request King Agrippa’s help as an assessor (legal advisor), a common practice of the day, in order to draft the formal charges against Paul to send along with him to Rome (see Sherwin-White, TC, pp. 100-101; and RSRL, p. 51). Furthermore, we are aware of other indictments against different parties parallel to the one in Acts leveled at Paul
(Sherwin-White, p. 51). In short, the whole proceeding, as are the rest mentioned in Acts, accurately represents the legal procedures of the day in the first century A.D. (Sherwin-White, TC, p. 101).

Based upon his through studies of the legal accounts recorded in Acts, the renowned Roman and legal historian Sherwin-White pronounces his verdict on the case before us in the following statement: “The accounts of these trials in Acts is so technically correct that Roman historians since Mommsen have often judged them as the best
illustration of Roman provincial jurisdiction in this particular period” (TC, p. 101). And in circumscribing our topic of the historicity of Acts from its presentation of judicial concerns he declared: “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is
overwhelming….any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken if for granted” (RSRL, p. 189). (For further study on this subject consult Ramsay, BRD, pp. 90-105; Robertson, LH, pp. 190-205; and Sherwin-White’s TC, and RSRL.)

Acts on the Geopolitical Map

The writer of Acts excels in his geopolitical knowledge of the day in realms that Paul transversed, and later he and Paul visited together (Acts 16:6 onward) on their various missionary journeys. As we shall currently see Luke is no less precise in these details than in any other concern his book treats. (To help keep the many cities, regions,
provinces, etc., straight in one’s mind, consult the map on the following page.)

First, on our tour is Acts 13:49, where we are told regarding the Antiochian territory that “the word of the Lord spread through the whole region.” We know from archaeological findings, an inscription, that Antioch, which was in the province of Galatia, was the center of a Roman region, Galatic Phrygia, during the time of Paul’s visits and travels (Ramsay, SPT, p. 103; Thompson, BA, p. 393; LH,p. 10). Hence, Antioch was the center of the region called Phrygia (or the Phrygian Region) within the province of Galatia (Ramsay SPT, p. 102). Thus, it is a simple, but quite telling and accurate comment to note that the word spread through the region, of which Antioch was the chief military and civil center (Ramsay, SPT, pp. 102-105).

Second on our stop is Acts 14:6 and the “…cites of Lycaonia, and unto the region that lieth round about.” The above was a special region, within the province of Galatia, composed of two cities and a tract of cityless territory, from 37 to 72 A.D. only (see Ramsay, SPT, pp. 110-113). Although Iconium and Lystra were quite close to each other
speaking merely geographically, and carried on commercial trade and social intercourse, they were nonetheless in different political regions, (but within the same province). Iconium belonged to the region of Phrygia Galatica, while Lystra belonged to the Lycaonia Galatica region (see Bruce, CBA, pp. 288-289; Ramsay, BRD, 39-63; Thompson,
BA, p. 393). Numerous radical and moderate scholars have assumed that Acts 14:6 was just another case of Luke being wrong about the facts. But objective archaeological evidence once again has vindicated Acts, and not the armchair critics. Luke thus gives us not only correct, but a precise piece of geopolitical information.

Third, Luke further instructs us on geopolitical items in Acts 16:6-8. In Roman times Phrygia, a large area in Asia Minor, was divided. Part of it went to the Roman province of Asia, being titled Phrygia Asiana, while the other part of Phrygia went into the Roman province of Galatia (referred to above), and was called Phrygia Galatica (Thompson, LH,
p.13). Sir William Ramsay found an inscription in 1911 that proved that Luke’s geographical terminology of the passage under consideration was not only correct, but quite acutely at that (see Bruce, CBA, pp. 324-326; and Thompson, LH, p. 13).

Fourth, Luke speaks of Philippi in Acts 16:12 being a Roman colony and the leading or first city of its region or part. These three points have been proven to be correct. Philippi was a Roman colony, founded by Roman veterans (Yamauchi, SS, p. 115) Also, the title of “first” or “leading” was used by some to describe Philippi (see Sherwin-White, RSRL, pp. 93-96). While it is true that scholars debate exactly what this title (”first”) meant, the fact remains that it was nevertheless used for Philippi (see Bruce, CBA, p. 330; Thompson, BA. p.395) Lastly, papyri from Egypt have been discovered that substantiate Luke’s usage of the Greek word meris to mean region (Yamauchi, SS, p. 115). Apparently colonists from Macedonia used this word as an idiom. Through these and other details, once again, Acts demonstrates its historicity and firsthand knowledge of a city and germane geopolitical factors by sharing
with us insightful comments, such as local idioms and the title that the Philippians liked to proudly appropriate for their community, that give us not only a reliable, but a larger than life profile of Philippi. (For further study on Philippi see Ramsay, SPT, pp. 201-226; and Unger, pp. 218-219.)

The bottom line of the above discussion of geopolitical accounts of Acts is that they were not only correct, but uncannily precise. In each of the above cases and more that could be cited, Acts was believed to be in error and hence disputed. However, archaeological evidence has again and again confirmed its accuracy. The radical critics,
on the other hand have been disproved time land time again. Acts has been acquitted by objective testimony and evidence of the serous charges of errors in the geopolitical sphere and conversely has shown itself to be an extremely trustworthy document on the geopolitical landscape of the first century communities it mentions. (For further study on
this topic in general, see Ramsay’s CSP and SPT.)

Judging a Book by its Titles

Acts affords us with yet another opportunity to measure its historical reliability by external and independent sources. By cross-checking the wide variety of titles employed for various religious and governmental officials in it with archaeological data from the corresponding time period, Acts historical worth can be discerned. (For a brief
explanation of the major types of rulers within the Roman empire from A.D. 14 onward, see Sherwin-White, TC, p. 98-102.) You may not be able to accurately judge a book by its cover, but in our case we can certainly judge Acts by it titles.

Acts 13:7 mentions one Sergius Paulus, the proconsul (or the Greek anthupatos, that translates the Latin proconsul) of the island of Cyprus, who was ruling from the seat of the provincial government in Paphos at the time of Paul’s visit. This passage has been greatly contested since is was believed that this area during the time of Paul was not governed by a proconsul, but by an imperial legate. Thus, Acts was thought to be in error. What are the facts?

Cyprus, to which Paphos belonged, became a Senatorial province in 22 B.C. Therefore, from that date onward it was, at least throughout the time of the apostle Paul, governed by a proconsul. Thus, up until 22 B.C. it had been an Imperial province, and was ruled by a imperial legate (Robertson, LH, p. 182). But, at the time of Paul’s visit it was
a senatorial province and was governed by a proconsul. In fact, an inscription has been found at Soloi (in Cyprus) that states “in the Proconsulship of Paulus” (see Ramsay SPT, pp. 74-76). It is not my contention that this is necessarily the very Sergius Paulus of Acts 13, but merely that archaeological findings have confirmed that Luke used the correct title for the governor in Cyprus during the time of Paul’s missionary activity in this area (Thompson, LH, p.8). (For further study on this issue see Ramsay, BRD, pp. 150-172; and Thompson, BA, pp. 390-392.)

Recounting Paul’s arrest and imprisonment at Philippi in Acts 16:20-39, Luke calls the legal officials magistrates (Greek strategois or the Latin praetors), and their officers, sergeants (the Greek is rabdouchoi, and the Latin is lictors). Since, as noted earlier, Philippi was a Roman colony, its magistrates were called “duumvirs,” not praetors, which was a more dignified title. Again it seemed that Luke was incorrect. However, we know, of at least one parallel case from the Roman colony of Capua, where the “duumvirs” were, or at least preferred to be, called praetors
(Thompson, BA, p. 396; LH, p.14). Cicero writes: “Although they are called duumvirs in the other colonies, these men wish to be called praetors.” Therefore, it is possible, indeed highly probable given Luke’s usual precise and seemly firsthand information, that the Philippian magistrates did not use their official titles, but opted for the more respectable one (see Bruce, CBA, p. 335; Unger, ANT, p. 223).

Moving along we arrive at Thessalonica, and Paul’s run in with its authorities (Acts 17:6-9). Here, Luke calls the city officials politarchoi. Since this title is not found in any extant classical literature, it should come as no surprise that is was assumed that Acts had erred again. However, Act is correct (Sherwin-White, RSRL, p. 96-97). Inscriptions have been discovered, from Macedonian towns, including Thessaloncia, that verify Luke’s usage of this unusual term (see Bruce, ACNT, p.325). For example, the Roman road entered the city by a Roman arch called the Vardar Gate. On this arch is an inscription: “In the time of Politarchs….” The inscription is dated from 30 B.C. to 143 A.D. (Thompson, LH, p. 15).

From Acts 18:12 we read of Gallio, proconsul of Achaia, who Paul appeared before on spurious charges. It was believed that Luke was mistaken in referring to Gallio as a proconsul, since it was believed that Achaia at this time was governed by a procurator, not a proconsul. But, the literary and archaeological evidence supports Acts, not its critics. Achaia was governed by a proconsul from the time of 27 B.C. to 15 A.D. However, in 15 A.D. it reverted back to being under the control of the emperor; thus, it was governed by a procurator during this time period. Nonetheless, from 44 A.D. onwards it came again under the control of the Roman Senate, and thus was governed by a proconsul (see Ramsay, SPT, p. 258; Robertson, LH, p. 182; and Thompson, LH, p. 19).

Furthermore, the Gallio in question was the brother of the great Stoic philosopher, Seneca, who mentions that his brother “Gallio caught fever in Achaia” (Bruce, CBA, pp. 373-374; Thompson, LH, p. 19). Additionally, a Delphian inscription states a proclamation of emperor Claudius that Gallio became proconsul of Achaia in July, 51 A.D. (Bruce, ACNT, p. 324; CBA, p. 374; Thompson, BA, p. 401; LH, p. 19). This is remarkable confirmation of Luke’s accuracy in Acts 18:12., of not only stating the proper title of the governor, but the name of the actual person himself.

Next we want to examine Acts 19:31, 35, and 38. In these versus Luke mentions the “chief men,” or “officials (asiarchon), who were friends of Paul, the “town clerk” (grammateus), and Ephesus being the “temple keeper” or “guardian” (neokoros) of the temple of Artemis. All of these titles and offices have been verified by archaeological finds, namely, inscriptions, as having been used in Ephesus in the time frame that Paul journeyed to the city (see
Bruce, CBA, pp.400-402; NTDR, pp. 83-84; Sherwin-White, RSRL, pp. 85-91; Thompson, BA, p. 408; LH, p. 24-25).

In Acts 25:26 Festus is said to have applied the title of lord (kyrios) to the emperor. This was supposed to have been a blunder by Luke in attributing these words to Festus, since this title was not used for the emperor. Deissmann cites sources (pp. 351-354) that show that in fact the term was at times used for the Roman emperors in Paul’s days (and some before Paul’s time), even giving several parallel cases. One is where a Boeotian town referred to Nero as “lord of the whole world” (p. 354). This and other evidence for the usage of the term moved Deissmann to write:

The fact that a New Testament writer well acquainted with this period makes Festus the
Procurator speak of Nero simply as `the lord’ now acquires its full significance in this
connexion. The insignificant detail, questioned by various commentators, who, seated at
their writing-tables in Tubingen or Berlin, vainly imagined that they knew the period
better than St. Luke, now appears thoroughly credible. (p. 354.)

Lastly, we cite Acts 28:7. Luke calls the head official on the island of Malta, the “chief” or “first” (protos) official. This title is vouched for by both Greek and Latin inscriptions as the proper title for the Roman governor of Malta during this time period (Bruce, CBA, p. 523; Thompson, LH, p. 25).

Perhaps Luke’s accuracy in correctly naming religious and governmental officials can be better appreciated by citing two observations of Bruce:

The student of Roman history is aware of the bewildering variety in the titles held by these men, and he cannot fail to be struck by the confident accuracy with which Luke uses them. (ACNT, p. 325)

A writer who thus relates his story to the wider context of world history is courting trouble if he is not careful; he affords his critical readers so many opportunities for testing his accuracy. Luke takes this risk, and stands the test admirably. One of the most remarkable tokens of his accuracy is his sure familiarity with the proper titles of all the notable persons who are mentioned in his pages. This was by no means such an easy feat in his days as it is in ours, when it is so simple to consult convenient books of reference. The accuracy of Luke’s use of the various titles in the Roman Empire has been
compared to the ease and confident way in which an Oxford man in ordinary conversation will refer to the Heads of Oxford colleges by their proper titles–the Provost of Oriel, the Master of Balloil, the Rector of Exeter, the President of Magdalen, and so on…But Luke had a further difficulty in that the titles sometimes did not remain the same for any great length of time; a province might pass from senatorial
government to administration by a district representative of the emperor, and would then be governed no longer by a proconsul but by an imperial legate… (NTDR, p. 82).

Thus, to conclude this segment of our discussion and to bring into clearer relief the significance of Luke’s lucid and apparent eyewitness insights, it should be plain to see that Luke demonstrates in Acts a remarkable familiarity and accuracy in his appropriation of titles for various officials. (For further study consult Bruce, NTDR, pp. 82-83; and
Robertson, LH, p. 179-189.

Acts and History

Despite all the facts, all the details, attesting to the historical reliability and trustworthiness of Acts that we have seen in our survey, radical and moderate higher critics could (and some do) suggest two possibilities for this phenomena. First, the author(s) who wrote Acts late in the second century A.D. was not only a truly great writer and story teller who “breathed the breath of life” into his creation, but no doubt, was a world traveller (or the collective group of redactors were), and thus had access to the precise facts communicated to us relating to first century life via Acts.

Or, second, Acts was simply the result of a well educated redactor (or redactors) who possessed a wide breath of knowledge, and preformed a “cut and paste job” with the best oral and written traditions extant (form criticism), creating a literary master piece of church history and dogma.

However, even if we were to grant for the sake of argument either of these scenarios as being true, nonetheless, neither of them refutes the rock solid accuracy and historicity of the book of Acts. At worst even if he (they) only used early traditions, they were sound traditions; therefore, he presented us with first rate historical reporting. Either
scenario cannot explain away the plain facts. The information contained therein is reliable, and were possible, has been verified by external and objective evidence.

As plausible, consistent, and complete as these theories of Acts origin might seem (see Ramsay, SPT, p. 7-8), when Ockham’s razor is applied to them, they are cut into pieces They are possible but not probable. Indeed, they are extremely unlikely! To the point, why should we postulate elaborate and complex theories to account for the accuracy of Acts, when there is a much simpler explanation, and one that is in accord with history what the text itself states. Namely, Acts was written by Luke sometime in the first century. Those events to which he was not an eyewitness, he obtained reliable reports from those who themselves were (see e.g., Luke 1:1-3; Acts 1:1). Thus, since as we have seen, Acts is a trustworthy source, why should we “fly in the face” of the evidence and
postulate complex theories to explain this accuracy? Why propose a redactor or redactors in the late second century with this incredible and trustworthy knowledge, and such vivid accounts, and the claim to have been an eyewitness to many of the events described, and then at the same time propose that he (they) lied about being an eyewitness. This is go directly against what an otherwise trustworthy text states. This maneuvering is not only unnecessary, but wrong in view of the facts. The critical surgical edge of Ockham’s razor needs to be applied to the myopic vision of our higher critical patient to remove their improbable speculations and restore clear sight to see the facts correctly.

It is my belief that radical or moderate higher critical views of the book of Acts can only continue to be held by their adherents being ignorant of, or simply ignoring, the overwhelming archaeological, historical, and literary data that argues for the accuracy and early date of the writing of Acts.⁽²⁾ As such these views not only ignore the historical and literary evidence for Acts, but are pre-archaeological in orientation. That is, they derive form antiquated idealogies of
Hegelian religio-evolutionarism, and an anti-supernaturalistic world view, and not from archaeological investigation. They were formed before the development of modern archaeology, hence, are pre-archaeological. The modern theories have no such excuse, but simply survive because of sheer ignorance or blatant rejection of objective evidence for the sake of subjective speculations. Thus, higher critical view were and are built as W.F.
Albright stated “in der luft” (p. 29 ["in the air"]) on the dreams of arm chair theologians, and not the careful evaluations of archeological and literary informed historical-theological thinkers (see Gasque, SWRA, pp. 28, 61-63). Such
fanciful dreaming needs to be brought back to the ground by facts, cold hard archaeological facts.

In conclusion I submit that it has been reasonably demonstrated that the book of Acts is a reliable and trustworthy, indeed is quite a reliable and trustworthy, historical document. Therefore, grounded on the facts, the conclusions of moderate and radical higher critics are to be rejected because they are incorrect. Worse yet, they are touted as being the conclusions of learned, critical, and informed scholars, when in actuality their opinions are quite uninformed, uncritical, and naive. Thus, they are not to be accepted.

Acts should be respected and regarded as a first-rate work of history in the matters it speaks about, both theological and historical. It has been confirmed over and over again by independent and objective findings. To end our discussion we will appropriately let Sir William Ramsay have the last word:

The present writer takes the view that Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness… You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian’s. and they will stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment, provided always that the critic knows the subject and does not go beyond the limits of science and of justice…

…Acts may be quoted as a trustworthy historical authority….Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense; he fixes his mind on the idea and plan that rules in the evolution of history; and proportions the scale of his treatment to the importance of each incident. He seizes the important and critical events and shows their true nature at great length, while he touches lightly or omits entirely much that was valueless for his purposes. In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. (BRD, pp.
81, 89, 222.)

Endnotes

 

Select Bibliography

After the bibliographical data will be found in parenthesis the abbreviated forms of the work’s titles referenced in the footnotes. The selections marked with an asterisk (*) at the end of the entrance are works actually consulted for this paper. The rest are listed because they are important references pertaining to the issues we have discussed, and thus are helpful for further study.

Albright, W.F. Eds. Vardaman, E. Jerry; Garrett, James Leo; and Adair, J.B.

1964 “Retrospect and Prospect in New Testament Archaeology.” THE TEACHER’S YOKE: STUDIES IN MEMORY OF HENRY TRANTHAM. Waco: Baylor University Press.*

Blaiklock, E.M. 1959 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. London: Tyndale Press.

. Eds. Gasque, W.W., and Martin, Ralph P.

1970 “The Acts of the Apostles as a Document of First Century History.”
APOSTOLIC HISTORY AND THE GOSPEL: BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL ESSAYS PRESENTED TO F.F. BRUCE
ON HIS 60TH BIRTHDAY. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co. pp. 41-54. (AADF) *

_______. 1979 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House. (ANT) *

Bruce, F.F. 1960 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES: THE GREEK TEXT WITH INTRODUCTION AND
COMMENTARY. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. (AAGT)*

. Ed. Henry, Carl F.H. 1958 “Archaeological Confirmation of the New Testament.” REVELATION AND THE BIBLE. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. pp. 319-331. (ACNT) *

_______. 1979 COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF ACTS. THE NEW INTERNATIONAL COMMENTARY ON THE
NEW TESTAMENT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co. (CBA) *

_______. 1978 THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS: ARE THEY RELIABLE? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Co. Fifth revised edition. (NTDR) *

Cadbury, H.J. 1955 THE BOOK OF ACTS IN HISTORY. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Deissmann, Adolf. Trans. Strachan, Lionel. 1980 LIGHT FROM THE ANCIENT EAST. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House; German edition, 1978.*

Foakes Jackson, F.J., Lake, Kirsopp, Cadbury, H.J., eds.

1920-1933 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY. 5 Vol. London: Macmillan Co.

Gasque, W.W. 1969 “The Historical Value of the Book of Acts.” EVANGELICAL QUARTERLY, XLI., 1969. pp. 69-88. (HVBC)*

_______. 1967 SIR WILLIAM M. RAMSAY: ARCHAEOLOGIST AND NEW TESTAMENT SCHOLAR. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House. (SWMR) *

Harnack, A.(br> 1911 DATE OF THE ACTS AND OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. London. German edition, 1911.

Hengel, Martin. Trans. Bowden, John. 1985 ACTS AND THE HISTORY OF EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY. Philadelphia: Fortress Press; German edition, 1979. (AHEC) *

. Trans. Bowden, John. 1983 BETWEEN JESUS AND PAUL. Philadelphia: Fortress Press; German edition, 1983. (BJP) *

Marshall, I.H. 1978 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, A COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK TEXT. Exeter:
Paternoster Press.

_______. 1982 LUKE: HISTORIAN AND THEOLOGIAN. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House

Metzger, Bruce 1956 ST. PAUL’S JOURNEYS IN THE GREEK ORIENT. London: SCM.

Montgomery, John W. 1976 HISTORY AND CHRISTIANITY. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.*

Ramsay, Sir William M. 1979 THE BEARING OF RECENT DISCOVERY ON THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF
THE NEW TESTAMENT. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Reprinted from the 1915 edition. (BRD)
*

_______. 1979 THE CITIES OF ST. PAUL: THEIR INFLUENCE ON HIS LIFE AND THOUGHT. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Reprinted from the 1907 edition. (CSP) *

_______. 1979 A HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Reprinted from the 1900 edition.

_______. 1979 LUKE THE PHYSICIAN AND OTHER STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Reprinted from the 1908 edition. (LP) *

_______. 1979 PAULINE AND OTHER STUDIES IN THE EARLY CHURCH HISTORY. Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House. Reprinted from the 1906 edition. (POS) *

_______. 1979 ST. PAUL THE TRAVELLER AND ROMAN CITIZEN. Grand Rapids: Baker Book house.
Reprinted from the 1897 edition. (SPT) *

Robertson, A.T. 1920 LUKE THE HISTORIAN IN THE LIGHT OF RESEARCH. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. (LH) *

Sherwin-White, A.N. 1978 ROMAN SOCIETY AND ROMAN LAW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. (RSRL) *

. Ed. Nineham, D.E. 1965 “The Trial of Christ.” HISTORICITY AND CHRONOLOGY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. London: S.P.C.K. pp. 97-116. (TC) *

Smith, James. 1880 THE VOYAGE AND SHIPWRECK OF ST. PAUL. London. (VSSP) *

Stonehouse, N.B. 1957 PAUL BEFORE THE AREOPAGUS: AND OTHER NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957.

Thompson, J.A. 1987 THE BIBLE AND ARCHAEOLOGY. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co, Third edition. (LH)*

_______. 1954 LUKE THE HISTORIAN. Melbourne: The Australian Institute of Archaeology. (BA) *

Unger, Merill. 1962 ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House. (ANT) *

Van Elderen, Bastiaan. Eds. Gasque, W.W., and Martin, Ralph P. 1970 “Some Archaeological Observations on Paul’s First Missionary Journey.” APOSTOLIC HISTORY AND THE GOSPEL: BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL ESSAYS PRESENTED TO F.F. BRUCE ON HIS 60TH BIRTHDAY. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co. PP. 151-161.*

Wilson, Clifford A. 1977 ROCKS, RELICS AND BIBLICAL RELIABILITY. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.*

Yamauchi, Edwin. 1981 THE STONES AND THE SCRIPTURES: AN INTRODUCTION TO BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. (SS)*

• Bajema, Clifford E. Abortion and the Meaning of Personhood. Grand Rapids, Baker, 1974.

• Beckwith, Francis J. Politically Correct Death: Answering Arguments for Abortion Rights. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.

• _____, and Norman L. Geisler. Matters of Life and Death: Calm Answers to Tough Questions about Abortion and Euthanasia. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

• Garton, Jean Staker. Who Broke the Baby. Minneapolis, Bethany, 1979.

• Gorman, Michael J. Abortion and the Early Church. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982.

• Hoffmeier, James K., ed. Abortion: A Christian Understanding and Response. Grand Rapids, Baker, 1987.

• Lee, Patrick. Abortion and Unborn Human Life. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1996.

• Montgomery, John W. Slaughter of the Innocents. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1981.

• Moreland, J.P., and Norman L. Geisler. The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues of Our Time. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1990.

• Rae, Scot B. Brave New Families: Biblical Ethics and Reproductive Technologies. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.

Revision Date: 05/30/00
Copyright ©2000 Craig S. Hawkins. All Rights Reserved.

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord.
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you
to give the reason for the hope that you have.
But do this with gentleness and respect.
- 1 Peter 3:15 NIV

1. What is apologetics?
1. Our English word “apologetics” derives from the Greek word (noun) apologia (or verb apologeomai).
2. It is found in many New Testament passages. See, for example, 1 Corinthians 9:3; 2 Corinthians 7:11; Acts19:33; 22:1; 24:10; 25:8, 16; 26:1, 2, 24; 2 Timothy 4:16; Philippians 1:7, 16; 1 Peter 3:15.
3. Apologia was a Greek legal term, meaning among other things: an answer, a defense, a verbal defense, a speech in defense, (BAG) a speech of defense, a reply.
4. In Acts 24:10; 25:8, 16; 26:1, 2, and 24, the word is used in both a legal sense, and in the Christian sense–as an “answer” as to why Paul believed in Jesus.
5. An apologetic is a well-reasoned or thought out defense, or an answer or reply and presentation of a position one holds or wants to defend or prove. In this case the cause is Christ–Christianity.
6. As used in the Bible, an apologetic does not mean an excuse or “apologizing” for what you believe. That is, it is not saying “excuse me” or “I’m sorry.”
7. Apologetics is a subdivision of Christian theology.
8. Apologetics is the presenting of evidence and logical arguments or reasons why a person ought to believe in Christ. This includes the whole gamut or types of apologetics and related concerns.
1. For example, God’s existence, the incarnation, the deity, and resurrection of Christ
2. Also falsifying non-Christian beliefs
2. Why should the Christian engage in apologetics?
1. See Philippians 1:7, 16; Colossians 4:6; 1 Peter 3:15; Jude 3, and so forth
2. Because we see Christianity boldly proclaimed and defended in apologetic style in the Scriptures (see e.g., Acts 2:22-32-41; 17; 2-3, 17, 22-31; 18:4, 19, 28).
3. To preach the Gospel today effectively, we must also defend it
1. Luther: “Unless the gospel is preached with contemporary relevance, it has not been preached.”
2. We live in a post-Christian and pluralistic world today (multiculturalism, pluralism, postmodernism, relativism, etc).
3. Who should be involved in apologetics?
1. Just theologians?
2. No! All Christians, to one degree or another, should be involved (1 Pet. 3:15). Just as in one sense all Christians are to be evangelists (see 2 Tim. 4:5), so all Christians are called to give an answer….
4. What types of evidences should we use?
1. Objectively Verifiable Evidence or Reasons
1. For Example, the Resurrection of Christ
2. See, for example, Acts 2:22-37-41; 26:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, and so forth.

1. The Supreme Example of Christ:
1. The use of objective evidence:
1. If Jesus, God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, used objective evidence to validate His claims, a fortiori, how much more so for you and me!
2. Mark 2:1-5-12
3. John 2:18-21
4. John 10:30-31-32-33, 37-38
5. John 15:24-25
6. John 20:24-29
2. The use of reason (argumentation):
1. Matthew 12:24-30
2. Argument from analogy (vv. 25-26)
3. The law of logical or rational inference (v. 26)
4. Reductio ad absurdum (vv. 25-26)
5. Argument from analogy (v. 27)
6. The law of logical or rational inference (vv. 28, 29)
7. Argument from analogy (v. 29)
8. The law of contradiction (v. 30)
9. The law of excluded middle (v. 30)
3. The Apostles:
1. The use of objective evidence:
2. Peter: Acts 2:14-22,32-39; 3:6-16; 4:8-14-20
3. Paul: Acts 26:26; 1 Corinthians 15:1-8
4. The appeal to Objective Eyewitness Testimony: Luke 1:2-4; John 1:14; 19:31-35-36; 20:24, 30-31; Acts 1:1-3;2:32; 3:6-16; 4:8-14-20; 9:3-8; 14:8-14,20; 17; 22:6-9, 14; 26:12-18, 26; 1 Corinthians 15:1-8; 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1-3, and so forth
5. The use of reason–rationality:
1. Paul: Acts 17:2-3, 11, 17, 22-31; 18:4, 19; 19:8-9; 26:25; 1 Timothy 6:20
2. Apollos: Acts 18:27-28
Note: Commended by God!
6. Dialegomai is the Greek word used in the above passages.
7. Dialegomai: to argue, dispute, or reason. BAG: “discuss, conduct a discussion…of lectures which were likely to end in disputations….” Vine’s: “`to think different things with oneself, to ponder’; then, with other persons, `to converse, argue, dispute’”… “`to dispute with others…’” (see Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8-9; Jude 9).
8. Like Considering or Weighing the Evidence of the Worth of One Truck against Another: Feature by Feature (4 vs 5 speed, horsepower, seats, stereo, dollar per dollar)
4. Subjective “Proofs”
1. My Testimony
1.   Problems with mere testimony
1. The third eye experience
2. Mormons: “the burning in the bosom”
3. Hare Krishnas, J.W.s, etc., all have one….
4. If we only talk about or appeal to our feelings or what Christianity has done for us, others will all claim the same….
5. Why is it important to establish the objective truth of the historical life, death, and resurrection of Christ?
1. 1 Cor. 15:12-19!
1. Because, God’s word says so.
2. Christianity stands or falls based upon the truthfulness or falseness of the above events.
3. Christianity’s truthfulness is contingent on its historical veracity in the most unique sense of all religions.
6. What is the purpose of apologetics?
1. To Obey What God has Commanded Us to Do!
1. e.g., Colossians 4:6; 1 Peter 3:15; Jude 3
2. We are to obey what God has commanded us to do irrespective of the results.
3. We are to do this whether we feel like it or not.
4. “Pre-Evangelism”:
1. To Refute False Objections to Christianity
2. This is done so that a way will be cleared to preach the Gospel itself (e.g., answering alleged contradictions in the Bible).
3. To Refute non-Christian Worldviews or Philosophies or Idealogies (e.g., Such as Pantheism)
4. This is done, for among other reasons, to show people that the views they have been trusting or believing in are not true and cannot help or save them.
5. To Clarify the Faith to non-Christians
1. That is, apologetics is used to help clarify to the non-Christian what Christianity does and does not believe or teach, or what Christianity does and does not entail.
2. For example, we do not believe in three gods (as the Muslim or Jehovah’s Witness would accuse us of).
1. We are trinitarians!
2. We are not tritheists. We do not believe in “three gods.”
6. To Offer Sound Evidence and Reasons Why One Ought to Consider the Claims of Christ
1. For example, we should present the evidence for the resurrection of Christ Jesus from the dead (Acts 17:16-31).
2. To Strengthen the Faith of Those who are Already Christians
3. The purpose of apologetics is not to give people (Christian or not) questions they do not already have.
7. How do you “do” apologetics?
1. Know the Bible and the Gospel well!
2. See Psalm 126:5-6; Isaiah 55:10-11; Hebrews 4:12; and 1 Peter 1:23-25 (cf. Isa. 40:6-8).
1. You do not have to be an expert on cults, the occult, world religions, philosophy, or otherwise. But, you are called to be an “expert” on the Bible and the Gospel (1 Tim. 4:16; 2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Peter 3:15; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 3:18).
3. Pray
1. Prayer should be a priority–when witnessing and otherwise!
2. Prayer should not be an after-thought or seen as a last resort: “Oh well, there is nothing else that I can do, I guess I could pray.”
3. Bathe your witnessing in prayer!
1. See Luke 18:1-2; John 14:13-14; 15:7-8; 16:23-24; Ephesians 6:18; Philippians 4:6-7; Colossians 4:2-4; 1 Thessalonians 5:17; and 1 John 5:14-15.
4. We also should pray for a heart for those who do not know Christ, a genuine love for the lost.
4. Spiritual Warfare
1. Always remember that you are involved in spiritual warfare!
2. See Acts 26:17-18; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4; Ephesians 6:10-18; Colossians 1:13 and 1 Thessalonians 2:18.
3. Non-Christians are spiritually dead.
4. See 1 Corinthians 2:14; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4; and Ephesians 2:1-2, 4-10.
5. Thus, it is not just an issue of reading the Bible and being logical–of simple persuasion.
6. Giving a minimal amount of information, evidence, and reason are necessary but not sufficient conditions for salvation.
7. Never, never, never forget this!
1. Do not present or deal with difficulties or objections to Christianity that a person has not mentioned.
2. Do answer to the best of your abilities questions they do have.
8. The Apologetic “Sliding Scale”
1. Start where the person is in their thinking about Christianity and proceed from that point. (Note: start from where they are, not where you are!)
1. For example, find out if they are they an atheist, agnostic, pantheist, theist….
2. Whatever the case, begin with appropriate scriptural references and argumentation.
3. For instance, if they already believe in the existence of God, Jesus Christ as an historical person, and/or that the Bible is God’s revelation to us, do not try to “prove” these to them, since obviously, they already believe such.
2. The goal is to locate where an individual is along the spectrum or “scale” of unbelief or objections to Christianity, whether holding to the most extreme or “milder” objections, and move them, by the grace and working of God, towards and ultimately to belief in Christ as Lord and Savior.
5. Ask God Questions:  Ask God (first and foremost)–James 1:5
1. “What should I say to or share with them?”
2. “What shouldn’t I say to them?”
3. “Relative to the Law/Gospel continuum, God where are they; what do they need to hear?”
4. “What passages or scriptural truths will have the most impact on them?”
1. For example, Mormonism helped them out financially….
1. They should trust in God vs. rely on Mormonism for the family finances.
2. See Matthew 6:25-34 and Luke 12:22-34.
5. They are afraid what there family or others will think. See Matthew 10:24-40; Luke 12:4-10; and 14:25-26.
6. Also ask God, for example:
1. “Where are they coming from?” “What are their issues that I need to address the most.” “How do you want me to interact with this person?”
7. Ask Them:
1. Like a good medical doctor you should ask questions. In this case we are getting a profile of the person’s spiritual history and health.
A good doctor does not just start treating a patient–proscribing medication or “cutting.” They ask questions first (such as…). They obtain the necessary
2. information–the patients medical history first.
1. “Why do you believe (or not believe) this?”
2. “How long have you believed (or not) this?”
3. “When did you change your mind on this?”
4. “What do you like about it?”
5. “Why are (or how did) you involved in ?” (e.g. Mormonism financially taking care of their family: counter Matt. 6:25-34; Luke 12:22-34–truth; or family, Matt. 10:32-40; Luke 14:25-27).
6. “What do you derive from it, or what need(s) do you believe that it fulfills for you?”
7. Ask them to please define their words or ideas, that is, what they do and do not mean by certain words or ideas. For example:
1. “Who is Jesus Christ? Who or what do you mean by the name `Jesus’?”
2. “What is your understanding of salvation?” (if they believe in any type of salvation at all).
3. What do you mean by ? Definition
4. “What do you or your group mean by that term (x)?”
5. “Would you please explain if for me?”
8. Also Ask Them:
1. “Are you stating a mere opinion or preference, or are you making some kind of (objective) truth claim?”
2. “How do you know that is right or true?”
3. “What, if anything, would it take to show or prove (or disprove) to you?”
4. “What, if anything, would constitute evidence for you that was true?” (or false, as the case may be).
5. “What would or should you accept as evidence?”
6. “Would anything convince you, or is your mind already made-up?”
7. “Why do you ?”
8. “Why should I (we) believe ?”
8. Define your terms.
1. We as well need to always define our terms or ideas and do not assume that those to whom we are speaking (1) understand the word or concept, (2) or are using it in the same way.
2. We need to carefully define our terms!
9. There is no “sure-fire” combination of Scriptures.
1. That is, there is no “sure-fire” way that is guaranteed to produce converts every time one witnesses. There is no “just-right” combination of, or usage of, passages and/or arguments that works every time for everybody–with guaranteed instant conversions.
1. Trust God. He is working, whether you feel like He is or not, or see any “visible” signs that He is (Isa. 55:11; John 16:8-11).
2. Thus, be patient and do not despair (2 Pet. 3:9).
10. Do not speak Christianese to non-Christians!
1. Like any good missionary (1) learn what is important to the person or people you are trying to reach, and (2) how to best communicate what you want to convey to them by learning their language.
1. Washed in the Blood…
2. In the Flesh…
3. Die to Self…
4. Walking in the Spirit…
5. These are great Christian truths but will not be understood by non-Christians. Thus, watch your language when speaking to non-Christians.
11. It’s not up to you.
1. God draws people to Himself (see John 1:13; 6:44, 65; Rom. 9:16; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:8-10).
2. Trust God. Relax. The work or “burden” is not yours or on you. You cannot save anyone. You’re not a salesperson closing a sale or deal, or having to meet your “soul quota” or else (or God will be upset with you if you don’t “produce”).
3. Again, relax and enjoy as you watch God at work.
1. Start with and share what you do know about the gospel.
2. It’s fun sensing and seeing God working through us.
3. God is pleased with you that you are sharing the gospel.
12. Do not take it so personal.
1. If a person “rejects” you (unless you’re really obnoxious or offensive) it is because they are rejecting the One you represent (see Matt. 10:24-40; John 15:18-25; 17:14-15; 1 John 4:5-6).
2. If they reject Jesus it is not per se a personal referendum on you or your personhood.
3. See if for what it really is–the ultimate spiritual contest (Mat. 13:1-23) and do not retaliate or strike back in anger because you are offended or hurt (remember Matt. 10:24-25).
13. The resurrection of Christ and His atoning work for us is the touchstone of apologetics.
1. In the above process we must never lose sight of the goal–belief in Christ.
2. Do not get involved with superfluous apologetic issues (side or rabbit trails) which detract or simply lose sight of the real issue, that is, why the individual person does not believe in the veracity of Christianity–in Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
3. Where possible begin with Christ’s resurrection from the dead and atonement for us (dispense with your other arguments), since in order to preach the Gospel you must finally arrive at presenting and explaining this to them, that is, Christ’s atoning work for them.
14. Go for it!
1. See Ephesians 6:10-18; Philippians 4:13; Hebrews 13:20-21 and Philemon 1:6.
8. Biblical Apologetics
1. In order of their most frequent occurrence in the New Testament (qualitatively and quantitatively), the following apologetics are found. (Notice that most are objective apologetics.)
2. Miracles
1. See Matthew 11:2-6; Mark 2:10-12; John 10:32, 37-38; 11:11-14, 40-44; 14:10-11; 15:22-25; 19:35; 20:30-32; Acts 2:22; Hebrews 2:3-4.
2. The supreme miracle is Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
3. See John 2:18-22; Acts (Peter) 2:22-32; (Paul) 17:31.
3. Fulfilled Prophecy
1. The book of Matthew is a prime example of fulfilled prophecy as an apologetic for the claims of Christ. See, for example, Matthew 1:2-23; 2:6, 15, 17-18, and so forth.
2. Also see Luke 24:25-27, 44; and Acts 10:43.
4. Subjective Testimony
1. This is the use of one’s personal experience with God (e.g., feelings, experiences, and/or what one believes that God has done for them) as evidence for the truthfulness of Christianity.
1. Although testimony (subjective experience) is used in the New Testament as a witness or evidence for the truth of Christianity, it is not the most used one (quantitatively), nor the primary proof (qualitatively).
2. This is contrary to what many evangelicals think.
3. Furthermore, most of the times when someone gives their “testimony” in the New Testament, it is in conjunction with one or more of the objective apologetics. See Acts 9:1-19; 22:6-21; 26:12-20.
2. Natural Theology from General Revelation
1. See Psalms 19; Job 38-41; Romans 1:18-23; 2:12-16; and so forth.
3. Thus, the Bible places a high value on the objective nature of the evidence for the truthfulness of Christianity.
1. For example, the New Testament places a high value on the eyewitness testimony of the apostles and other disciples.
2. See Luke 1:2-4; John 1:14; 19:31-35-36; 20:24, 30-31; Acts 1:1-3; 3:6-16; 4:8-14-20; 9:3-8, 17; 22:6-9, 14; 26:12-18, 26; 1 Corinthians 15:1-8; 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1-3, and so forth.
5. Saved by God’s Grace by Believing the Truth
1. We are saved because we believe the truth. See 2 Thessalonians 2:13
2. Conversely, for those who are not saved it is due, to among other factors, their refusal to believe the truth, which corresponds to reality. See, for example, Acts 19:8-9; 28:23-24; 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12.
3. Christianity is true.
1. See John 18:37 and Titus 1:1-3.
2. Therefore, we challenge Christians and non-Christians alike to examine the evidence regarding the truthfulness of the claims of Christ Jesus (Isa. 1:18; John 10:37-38; 14:11; Acts 17:11; 26:25-26; 1 John 1:1-3; 5:9-13)!
6. The Role of the Holy Spirit and Knowledge, Evidence, and Reason in Biblical Apologetics
1. Do we merely “argue” or “reason” people into the kingdom of God? Is this just like the issue of whether one car is a better buy than another?
1. No! Only the Holy Spirit can enable a person to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. We are clearly told in Scripture that one can only believe the Gospel message if and only God calls and enables them to believe through the work of Holy Spirit testifying to the truthfulness of the Gospel message.
2. See John 1:13; 6:44, 65; 16:8-11; Romans 9:16; Ephesians 2:8-10; 1 Corinthians 2:14 and so forth.
3. This is necessary due to man’s fallen and corrupt nature (1 Cor. 2:13-14; 2 Cor 4:4; Eph. 4:18).
4. The very ability to “hear,” consider, and respond to the Gospel is from first to last the gift of God (Rom. 1:17; Eph. 2:8-10). No one can believe or even begin “looking” for the gift of salvation through the Gospel, save by the gracious calling of God (Rom. 3:10-13).
5. However, the Holy Spirit does not do this independent of knowledge, evidence, and solid reason(s).
2. The role of the Holy Spirit, and knowledge, evidence, and reason are not opposed to each other.
1. The Holy Spirit uses the word of God and knowledge, evidence, and reason from it to draw or lead people to trust in Christ as Lord and Savior.
2. See Acts 17:22-31-34.
3. See 1 Peter 3:15.
4. God ordains both the means and the ends (analogously see, e.g., Acts 27:22-26 and 29-34).
3. It is not a case of either having evidence and being reasonable, or being “spiritual.”
1. They are not “at each other’s throats.”
2. They are not contradictory but complementary.
4. Thus, it is a false dichotomy to juxtapose knowledge, evidence and logic/rationality, versus the work of the Holy Spirit.
1. The past (Old) Princeton great J. Gresham Machen states:
2. What the Spirit does in the new birth is not to make a man a Christian regardless of the evidence, but on the contrary to clear away the mists from his eyes and enable him to attend to the evidence.
3. Dr. Kim Riddlebarger rightly remarks:
1. A man cannot acquiesce to the truth of the Gospel apart from the enabling of the Holy Spirit. But, a man cannot acquiesce to that which he either does not know or believe to be true. It is thus an illegitimate separation of faith into either a “mind or heart,” “faith or reason” dichotomy. Biblically understood, faith and reason are intimately, completely and inseparably involved in one another.
4. Thus, while it is true that no one using human reasoning, unassisted by the Holy Spirit, is going to reason their way into the kingdom, it is equally true that saving faith is not independent from evidence and reason either.
5. In the last analysis you can not divorce the mind from the work of the Holy Spirit in conversion.
1. The Holy Spirit enables one to properly attend to the clear evidence for the truth of Christianity (John 16:8-11).
5. Therefore, we are not usurping the role and work of the Holy Spirit by using knowledge, historical evidences, and logic/reason in apologetics.
1. In fact, we are being obedient to what He has called us to do when we do this.
2. See 1 Peter 3:15!
6. Again, you can not by using only “evidence or reason and argumentation,” that is, in and of themselves, lead a person into the kingdom, but neither can they believe unless they are given at least a minimal amount of information or answers.
1. See 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 and Ephesians 2:1-2.
2. See Romans 10:9-14-15.
3. Recall the above quotes (Machen and Riddlebarger).
7. Thus, the working of the Holy Spirit and His use knowledge, evidence, and reason are necessary preconditions for salvation.
1. See Romans 10:9-14-15.
2. B.B. Warfield, another great past theologian of Princeton, comments:
1. Faith is the gift of God: but it does not in the least follow that the faith God gives is an irrational faith, that is, a faith without grounds in right reason….The Holy Spirit does not work a blind, an ungrounded faith in the heart….nor yet new grounds of belief in the object presented; but just a new ability of the heart to respond to the grounds of faith, sufficient in themselves, already present to the understanding.
3. Therefore, by the grace and working of the one true triune God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit we exhort Christians to be confident in the claims of Christ Jesus and “…in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (1 Pet. 3:15).

Revision Date: 04/03/98
Copyright ©1999 Craig S. Hawkins. All Rights Reserved.