1. The Supreme Example of Christ
   1. The Use of Objective Evidence
   2. 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!
      1. Mark 2:1-5-12
      2. John 2:18-21
      3. John 10:30-31-32-33, 37-38
      4. John 15:24-25
      5. John 20:24-29
   3. The Use of Reason (Argumentation)
      1. Matthew 12:24-30
         1. Argument from analogy (vv. 25-26)
         2. The law of logical or rational inference (v. 26)
         3. Reductio ad absurdum (vv. 25-26)
         4. Argument from analogy (v. 27)
         5. The law of logical or rational inference (vv. 28, 29)
         6. Argument from analogy (v. 29)
         7. The law of contradiction (v. 30)
         8. The law of excluded middle (v. 30)
2. The Apostles
   1. The Use of Objective Evidence:
      1. Peter: Acts 2:14-32-39; 3:6-16; 4:8-14-20
      2. Paul: Acts 26:26; 1 Corinthians 15:1-8
      3. The Appeal to Objective Eyewitness Testimony:Luke 1:2-4; John 1:14; 19:35-36; 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
   2. 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!
      3. Dialegomai is the Greek word used in the above passages.
      4. 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).
      5. 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)
3. The Value of the GOD Given Mind
   1. Isaiah 1:18; Mark 12:29-31; Acts 26:25
   2. We are created in the imago Dei–the image of God. This includes, among other attributes, the ability to reason.
   3. Thus, this entails the value of evidence and reason. As Charles Hodge informs us:”If the contents of the Bible did not correspond with the truths which God has revealed in his external works and the constitution of our nature, it could not be received as coming from Him, for God cannot contradict himself. Nothing, therefore, can be more derogatory to the Bible than the assertion that its doctrines are contrary to reason. The assumption that reason and faith are incompatible; that we must become irrational in order to become believers is, however it may be intended, the language of infidelity; for faith in the irrational is of necessity itself irrational….We can believe only what we know, i.e., what we intelligently apprehend.”¹
4. Uses of Logic/Reason
   1. Ministerial Use of Reason. This is the use of logic/reason as a servant or “handmaid” to the Bible and theology. Logic/reason is not put on par with or above the Bible, but stands in a subordinate role to God’s revelation. This is the role of reason that I am advocating.
   2. Magisterial Use of Reason. This is the placing of logic/reason on par with or actually above the Bible. Here logic/reason (that of the individual or a group) is allegedly the final judge, arbitrator, or authority of truth. This is not the role of reason that I am  advocating. This is an incorrect use–abuse–of reason.
   3. Anti-Intellectual. This is the position of depreciating or out-right denying the role of reason/logic in apologetics and other concerns of Christianity. Unfortunately, this is the view that many Christians, intentionally or not, advocate.
5. God gave us a mind and He expects us to use it (Mark 12:29-31)
   1. It is not true that the mind is a terrible thing, “so waste it.”
   2. The emotional nature of mankind is just as fallen as the intellect. Thus, we should not exalt it relating to conversion either.
   3. If we are going to glorify God as Christians and in sharing the Gospel with others,  we must not ignore or in an unscriptural manner down-play the importance of the mind in the preaching of the Gospel.
   4. This is in actuality a form of false humility or false spirituality, and should be denounced for what it is–unscriptural and dishonoring to God!
6. Logic Defined
   1. Before we proceed any further, we should define the term logic.
      1. “Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish good (correct) from bad (incorrect) reasoning.”²
      2. It is the study of the laws or principles of thought or reason, that is not just mere thought or thinking per se, but of the type of thought or thinking we term reasoning. Irving Copi states that “The distinction between correct and incorrect reasoning is the central problem with which logic deals.”³
      3. Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks tell us that “Logic is the study of right reason or valid inferences and the attending fallacies, formal and informal“⁴ (emphasis in original).
7. The Nature and Necessity of Logic. Logic is undeniable, unavoidable, self-evident, or self-explanatory. One cannot not use it. One has to use it to refute it. All such claims are self-contradictory defeating, refuting, or self-stultifying. The four laws or principles of logic/reason are invaluable!  We need to know and correctly use logic. We must train ourselves, our children, and the church to properly use logic.
   1. The Undeniableness of Logic. For all of people’s rhetoric against logic, one cannot not use logic. It is impossible to think or engage in any type of coherent dialogue and not use logic. The laws or principles of logic are what are termed first principles–first principles of epistemology. Logic is indispensable for at least five reasons.
      1. The primary principles or laws of logic/reason are first principles of epistemology.
         1. Peter Angeles states, among other things, that first principles are “Statements (laws, reasons, rules) that are self-evident and/or fundamental to the explanation of a system and upon which the system depends for consistency and coherence.”⁵
         2. That is, there is no getting “behind” or “around them.”
         3. They are axiomatic or self-evident.
         4. That is, we cannot not use them (see points 2 and 3).
      2. Second, the very distinction between true or false or applicable or not only exists or has meaning if logic is true or applicable. Without logic (e.g., the law of non-contradiction) there would be no such thing or concept of true or false. Thus, there could be no true or false statements in the first place, such as logic is not true or it is false that it is applicable to a given topic. This is because the law of (non-)contradiction “…itself draws the line between true and false. So we can’t call it false without assuming that it is true (Geisler and Brooks, 16)” The same holds true with the other laws of logic. As Geisler and Brooks tell us:Logic is built on four undeniable laws. There is no “getting behind” these laws to explain them. They are self-evident and self-explanatory. There is also no way around them. In order to reject any of these statements, one must assume the very principle he seeks to deny. But if you must assume that something is true to say that it is false, you  haven’t got a very good case, have you?For example, the law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A) says that no two contradictory statements can both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Now, if someone tried to deny this and said, “The law of non-contradiction is false,” he would have a problem. Without the law of noncontradiction, there is no such thing as true or false, because this law itself draws the line between true and false. So we can’t call it false without assuming that it is true. The same thing happens when someone tries to deny the other laws: the law of identity (A is A), the law of excluded middle (either A or non-A), and the law of rational inference (emphasis in original).⁶
      3. Third, furthermore, a statement’s meaningfulness (let alone significance or truthfulness) depends upon logic. If logic is not true, or applicable to the topic at hand then the statement is meaningless. A statements very meaning or meaningfulness exists only because logic is true or applicable. Otherwise the statement could or would be both true and not true or applicable and not applicable, since it would no longer be true that statements can not be both true and not true (false) in the same time and sense. Both are now true or applicable since a statement can be both true and not true (false) at the same time and in the same sense. Thus, one could just as well say that “logic is true or applicable to the topic at hand” in the same breath as the previous statement, or “I will see you Wednesday and I will not see you Wednesday,” etc. Thus, to deny logic or state that it is not true or applicable only has meaning if logic does apply to the original statement. But this refutes the original claim. Thus, any statement or claim only have meaning, a fortiori significance or truthfulness, if and only if logic does apply or is true. Thus, the claim that “logic is not true or applicable” is meaningless unless logic is true, but in that case the original claim is false, indeed, self-defeating.
      4. Fourth, to deny or try to disprove the need for, necessity of, or truth of logic one must first utilize it, thus disproving their original assertion. One has to use logic to try to disprove, refute, or even deny it. If one must use logic in the effort to refute it, then the argument is self-evidently not true. One has only proven its truthfulness or applicability (ironically in the very attempt to refute it).
         1. To deny logic or say that it is false or not true or applicable to a certain topic entails the use of logic in the very assertion itself (thus, it is true or applicable). This is like a person who says, “I can not utter a word in English.” But, they just did. They should either quit speaking English or retract the original statement. The original statement is false, indeed self-defeating.
         2. Further examples of these types of claims:
            1. “Logic is not applicable to this topic.”
            2. “This topic, view, or realm is `beyond’ logic.” The idea is that logic’s reach simply does not extend to the topic.
            3. “This is just a case of the Eastern versus Western or Aristotelian bias or perspective on logic.” The idea is that one is insisting on a Western worldview perspective, while ignoring or to the detriment of an Eastern or occultic view.
            4. “This is the mundane versus `spiritual’ perspective.”
            5. “This is merely the emotions versus the realm of rationality or logic.”
            6. “This is the altered versus normal states of consciousness viewpoint.”
            7. “This is a case of this plane versus other planes or levels of reality or existence.”
            8. “This is only a case of this level versus other levels of meaning.”
            9. “Logic is not true.”
            10. This is a modern versus a postmodern perspective.
            11. All these claims are based upon logic in the first place.
         3. Logic is undeniable; one cannot not use it.
         4. Thus, to deny logic or assert that logic is not true (i.e., false) or applicable is itself based upon logic. The statement or distinction itself is built or predicated upon logic. Logic had to be employed to formulate the assertion. The statement “logic does not apply” involves the distinction of “logic does not apply,” versus “logic does apply.” However, it is possible to make this distinction itself only because of the laws of logic. Therefore, logic is–must be–true or does apply. But, this is self-refuting or refutes the original claim.
      5. Fifth, one cannot not use logic in the real world. Try driving to the grocery store while denying the validity of logic. (Indeed, what grocery store? The one that is and is not there?) One can not successfully cross the railroad tracks without it. Next time you’re at the railroad crossing with an apparent train speeding down the line imagine thinking that the train is there and it is not there. Would you? No! Try this in the “real” world. Logic is necessary or indispensable in or for life. One literally can not live (long) without it!
         1. Example: Francis Schaeffer, the Hindu student, and the teapot….
         2. Example: The Christian Scientist who tries to hand you a book that is not there….
         3. Example: the Hindu or Christian Scientist who looks both ways before crossing the street….Why do they look both ways before crossing the street?
   2. Self-Refuting
      1. All attempts to deny or refute logic fail. They are false (indeed, are meaningless or nonsensical), self-contradictory, or self-stultifying assertions.
      2. Terms for a statement or proposition that does not fulfill or satisfy itself–its own criteria or requirements (of acceptability)⁷ include: self-defeating, self-refuting, self-stultifying, self-referential absurdity or self-referentially absurd.
         Examples of self-refuting claims include:
         1. A person saying “I do and do not believe in logic” or “logic is and is not true” (at the same time and in the same sense).
         2. A person “saying I am and am not an atheist.”
         3. A person who claims that they “do and do not hold to postmodernism” or “do and do not believe that postmodernism is true.”
         4. A person saying “I am and am not a New Ager” or “I am and am not a neopagan.
         5. A person saying “I am and am not a Christian.”
         6. A person saying “Jesus is and is not God” (the second person of the Trinity).
      3. The previous absurd claims are logically and ontologically equivalent to the following ones:
         1. A person who believes in “square circles.”
         2. A person writing “I cannot write a word in English.”
         3. A person saying “all the statements I make are false.”
         4. A person claiming that “all sentences that contain over five words are false.”
         5. A person stating that “I will only believe what can be proved by the scientific method!”
         6. A person saying “my brother is an only child.”
      4. Ronald Nash notes: “…a denial of logic has consequences not only for epistemology and metaphysics, but for ethics as well. If all predications are true, there is no difference between walking to a nearby city and walking over a cliff; there is no difference between drinking milk and imbibing arsenic. But obviously there is a difference.”⁸
      5. Thus, if logic is not true or transculturally applicable then now A can be non-A at the same time and in the same sense and hence, for example, the postmodern’s position is now the same as the orthodox Christian’s. Or, the postmodernist does not hold to postmodernism. But, even the postmodernist does believe this. They, in this case rightly, would assert, that their view is not our view–that is why we would be having a discussion with them in the first place. Nor would they affirm that they do and do not hold to the premises of postmodernism. This is absurd, but this is what follows if one denies the universal applicability and truthfulness of logic. By God’s grace, we must try and help the postmodernist and others who deny the universal validity of logic see the implications of their views.
   3. Logic is the straitjacket of life for those who argue insanely or, at least mentally, refuse to live in the real world!
   4. One can not even cross the street, let alone the metaphysical highway without using logic.
   5. Logic is indispensable–period. Moreover, it is an invaluable tool for dismantling non-Christian views. We must know logic and become competent in using it.
   6. The Three Cs of Logic:We cannot comprehend, let alone confirm, let alone conform our thoughts and lives to God’s revelation without the use of Logic.
      1. Comprehension (or to Apprehend)If a person can not apprehend the content of the Gospel, then certainly they can not
         understand it, and a fortiori they can not believe in it!
         1. Illogical or self-contradictory statements and beliefs are incomprehensible in the sense that they are nonsensical. Nonsensical assertion are not to be believed, whether religious or “secular.” They are to be seen and rejected for what they are–nonsense.
         2. It follows therefore that reason and logic are necessary for intelligible and reasonable propositions, which are a necessary precondition for the communication of truth to individuals. Truth must be logical so as to presented to a person’s mind as intelligible thoughts, so that they might be embraced or rejected. As Charles Hodge so precisely stated it: In the first place, reason is necessarily presupposed in every revelation. Revelation is the communication of truth to the mind. But the communication of truth supposes the capacity to receive it. Revelation cannot be made to brutes or idiots. Truths, to be received as objects of faith, must be intellectually apprehended…The first and indispensable office of reason, therefore, in matters of faith, is the cognition, or
            intelligent apprehension of the truths proposed for our reception.⁹
      2. Confirmation:
         1. Since God does not contradict Himself, or ask us to believe contradictions or that which is inherently self-contradictory (see e.g., 1 Tim. 6:20), revelations from Him will not contradict previously given revelations, or the sound reasoning processes necessary to even comprehend these revelations. Hodge informs us: “If the contents of the Bible did not correspond with the truths which God has revealed in his external works and the constitution of our nature, it could not be received as coming from Him, for God cannot contradict himself. Nothing, therefore, can be more derogatory to the Bible than the assertion that its doctrines are contrary to reason. The assumption
            that reason and faith are incompatible; that we must become irrational in order to become believers is, however it may be intended, the language of infidelity; for faith in the irrational is of necessity itself irrational….We can believe only what we know, i.e., what we intelligently apprehend.”¹⁰
         2. Thus, in one sense, reason is accorded the purgative to judge the trustworthiness of an alleged revelation. That is, before an alleged revelation from God should be accepted, we need to first discern that it is in fact from Him. Again, Hodge has written definitively on the topic:It is impossible that He should require us to believe what contradicts any of the laws of belief which He has impressed upon our nature [i.e., the laws of thought or logic¹¹]…Faith includes an affirmation of the mind that a thing is true. But it is a contradiction to say that the mind can affirm that to be true which it sees cannot possibility be true. This would be to affirm and deny, to believe and disbelieve, at the same time….The ultimate ground of faith and knowledge is confidence in God. We can neither believe or know anything unless we confide in those laws of belief which God implanted in our nature. If we can be required to believe what contradicts those laws, then the foundations are broken up. All distinction between right and wrong, would disappear…and we should become the victims of every adroit deceiver, or minister of Satan, who, by lying wonders, should call upon us to believe a lie.¹²
         3. It should be evident that faith is inherently reasonable. Its very nature demands such.¹³ Moreover, since faith in Christ is self-commitment to the truth, necessarily, its content or what is believed corresponds to reality, as well as is consistent or non-contradictory.
            Thus, it fulfills the requirements of the two primary truth tests (the correspondence and coherence theories of truth). Remember, we are told that we are saved because we believe the truth (see e.g., John 18:37; 2 Th. 2:13), and that conversely those who will not believe the truth are lost (see e.g., 2 Th. 2:10-11).
      3. Conform: We are to conform our thoughts and lives to God’s revelation. But we cannot do this without the use of logic. For example, we cannot say that “Christ is both God and not God” or that “we are and are not to sin.”
   7. Christian Thinkers Addressing the Biblical Position Regarding Logic
      1. A number of influential Christian thinkers have well summarized the biblical teaching regarding logic. I would like to quote some of them (in addition to the previous quotes from Charles Hodge) for further conformation.
      2. For instance, Carl F.H. Henry remarks: “…Scripture affirms that God is the source and ground of reason and truth and that the imago Dei in which He created and preserves humanity includes rational and moral capacities.”¹⁴ Henry also insightfully writes: The laws of logic are not a speculative prejudice imposed at a given moment of history as a transient philosophical development. Neither do they involve a Western way of thinking, even if Aristotle may have stated them in an orderly way. The laws of valid inference are universal; they are elements of the imago Dei. In the Bible, reason has ontological significance. God is Himself truth and the source of truth. Biblical Christianity honors  the Logos of God as the source of all meaning and considers the laws of thought an aspect of the imago….The pluralistic approach to world religions now often champions the need to recast the gospel in other than “Western thought forms” and in non-Western “logics,” as if logic were an Aristotelian invention. Such emphases often relativize Christian theology and replace it with non-Biblical philosophy under the guise of Christian mission.¹⁵
      3. R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley likewise note: “Biblically the contradiction is the hallmark of the lie. Without this formal test of falsification, the Scriptures (and any other writings) would have no means to distinguish between truth and falsehood, righteousness and unrighteousness, obedience and disobedience, Christ and Antichrist.”¹⁶ Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley also rightly state (contra post-modernism): “The law of noncontradiction as a necessary presupposition or prerequisite for thought and life is neither arbitrary nor subjectivistic. It is universal and objective. What is subjective and arbitrary is the forced and temporary denial of it.”¹⁷
      4. Arthur Holmes responds: “…the law of noncontradiction is a universal condition of intelligible thought. Aristotle’s famous `negative proof’ shows this by asking that one who denies the law practice his denial in speaking. Unintelligible utterances may be possible without it, like talk of a square circle, but unintelligible utterances hardly qualify as intelligible thought or speech. Where this law of logic is ignored, all logic and intelligibility are gone.”¹⁸ Holmes also remarks: “Thinking is subject to logical laws, for I cannot contradict myself and talk sense, yet alone construct a valid line of argument. Good logic is one of God’s good gifts, and it is essential to thinking in this and any world.”¹⁹
      5. Lastly, we note the view of Augustine: “The true nature of logical conclusions has not been arranged by men; rather they studied and took notice of it so that they might be able to learn or to teach it. It is perpetual in the order of things and divinely ordained.”²⁰
8. The Four Primary Laws of Logic.  While many people talk about logic (and often as if they could do without), at least the five letter word in English, logic, however not very many really know or understand what logic is, or what are termed by some, the four primary principles or laws of logic. Thus, to help us comprehend and better understand the nature and necessity of logic I want to at least briefly examine the four primary principles or laws of logic.
   1. The Law of (non-)Contradiction
      1. The first of the primary principles of logic is the law of (non-)contradiction. It states that no statement (proposition, assertion, etc.) can be both true and not true–false–(e.g., A can not be non-A) at the same time and in the same sense.
         For example, it cannot both be true and not true (in the same time and sense) that a person is and is not a Christian. All such statements are false.
      2. Thus, any statement or proposition that asserts that it is (both) true and not true (false) at the same time and in the same sense is itself false. A cannot be non-A at the same time and in the exact same sense; or any statement that states A is not-A (or p &~p) at the same time and in the same sense is false.
         1. It is a first (or self-evident) principle of thought or epistemology. One has to use it to refute it.
         2. To deny it is like saying “I cannot utter a word in English.”
         3. One cannot not use it (logically or ontologically).
         4. The distinction between it applying to a statement, view, person, or group and not applying to them is itself based on this law.
         5. All statements are meaningless unless the law is true.
         6. The distinction between true and false is based on this principle.
         7. Practically speaking, one cannot live in the real world without it. Try crossing the street while denying it (e.g., the Mack truck that is there and is not there!).
   2. The Law of Excluded Middle
      1. The second primary law of logic is the principle of excluded middle.
      2. The law of (non-)contradiction simply states that A cannot equal non-A (or p & non-p) at the same time and in the same sense. But both could be, say, “quip,” that is, neither true or false–simply not both–but not necessarily true or false.
      3. But, the law of excluded middle states “A or non-A,” that is, a proposition or statement is either true or false–it must be one or the other (and not quip)!
         Thus, a proposition or statement must be true or false.
      4. Example: Matthew 12:30
   3. The Law of Identity
      1. The third primary law of logic is called the law of identity.
      2. It states that A=A or that “if any statement is true, then it is true.”²¹
      3. Example: Christ is Christ (and not non-Christ)
      4. Importance: Sound Doctrine Versus the Cults/Occult: Christ is Christ (i.e., the Christ of the Bible: fully divine–God the Son, the second person of the Trinity–and fully human) and not non-Christ (e.g., the Christ of the Bible is not the  “Christ[s]” of the cults and/or the occult).
      5. Thus, we can see the importance of the law of identity.
      6. While this law should seem very obvious, and not even have to be mentioned because it is so obvious, nonetheless, this basic law of logic is often violated (e.g., by people committing what is called the four-term fallacy or by other equivocation fallacies).
   4. The Law of Logical or Rational Inference
      1. The fourth primary law of logic is the law of logical or rational inference.
      2. An example of it or one way it is expressed is: “if A=B, and B=C, then A=C.”
      3. Importance: All Discursive or non-Axiomatic Knowledge
      4. Key Example: The Trinity
         1. While the word Trinity (from Latin) is not found in the Bible, the concept clearly is!
         2. See, for example, Deuteronomy 6:4; Ephesians 1:3; John 1:1; 20:28; Acts 5:3-4; and Mark 12:29-30.
         3. Also see John 2:19-21; Romans 8:11; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; and Acts 2:24, 32; 4:10 and 17:30-31.
   5. These four primary laws of logic are the essence of logic and are vital to all coherent or intelligible discussions or arguments. Try as one may one cannot–in any intelligent sense–not use them (e.g., even when trying to argue against the laws of logic).
9. Examples of the Importance of Logic (and Not Being Illogical)
   1. The Reductio ad Absurdum Technique
      1. John 1:1-3
      2. Philippians 2:5-11
   2. Equivocation Fallacies: This is the use of a word (term) or phrase with two or more different meanings.
      1. Example: Read Jesus Daily:
      2. Example: Jesus is Triune:
      3. Example: The Skeptical Skeptics:
10. Examples of Self-Refuting Claims
    1. Charles Kraft: Culturally Conditioned Conclusions
       1. Charles Kraft comments: …there is always a difference between reality and human culturally conditioned understandings (models) of that reality. We assume that there is a reality “out there” but it is the mental constructs (models) of that
          reality inside our head that are the most real to us. God, the author of reality, exists outside any culture. Human beings, on the other hand, are always bound by cultural, subcultural (including disciplinary), and psychological conditioning to perceive and interpret what they see of reality in ways appropriate to these conditionings. Neither the absolute God nor the reality [God] created is perceived absolutely by culture-bound human beings.²²
       2. If we take Kraft’s claims seriously, then they would also apply to his own understanding(s) of reality, which is culturally conditioned. Thus, why should we listen to him? His views here are self-refuting.
    2. The Verification Principle
       1. What is by now fairly well-known, but is nonetheless a classic example of a self-referentially refuting claim, is the so-called verification principle of the philosophical logical positivist movement which was held to by many leading intellectuals of this century. As Carl F.H. Henry succinctly states it: “Logical positivists postulate that only premises verifiable by sense data can be meaningful or true. But in that case this very premise–itself empirically unverifiable–cannot be considered meaningful or true.”²³ Thus came about the eventual discarding of the verification principle.
    3. W.V.O. Quine: “[N]o statement is immune to revision.”
       1. The famous philosopher of science, W.V.O. Quine, with his theory of “pragmatic holism” claimed that “no statement is immune to revision.” However, if this statement is true then it too is not immune to or from revision. One revision of it is that “some statements are immune to revision.” But, this contradicts the original claim of Quine. Quine’s claim is self-refuting.
    4. Larry Laudan’s Nonself-correcting Views
       1. Larry Laudan, author of among other works, Progress and Its Problems and Science and Values espouses a number of self-refuting ideas. For instance, Laudan claims that Charles Sanders Peirce’s view that science is self-correcting is “simply incorrect” and uses examples from the history of science in an attempt to prove that Peirce is wrong.²⁴ However, Laudan has stated that: “Determinations of truth and falsity are irrelevant to the acceptability or the pursuitability of [scientific] theories and research traditions.”²⁴ But, based on his own theory, Laudan blatantly contradicts himself. That is, if the issue of truth or falseness is irrelevant to scientific theories, then according to Laudan’s own theory, Peirce cannot be “simply incorrect,” nor can any of the other individuals or theories that Laudan corrects be incorrect.²⁶ In fact, much of Laudan’s writings are “correcting” what he sees as incorrect or (dare I say it?) false
          scientific theories. Thus, some of Laudan’s key views are self-refuting.
    5. William Lane Craig shares an insightful instance of self-refuting claims:Or consider the claim that “God cannot be described by propositions governed by the Law of Contradiction.” If this proposition is true, then, since it describes God, it is not itself governed by the Law of Contradiction. Therefore, it is equally true that “God can be described by propositions governed by the Law of Contradiction.” But then which propositions are these? There must be some, for the Eastern mystic is committed
       to the truth of this claim. But if he produces any, then they immediately refute his original claim that there are no such propositions. His claim thus commits him to the existence of counterexamples which serve to refute that very claim….²⁷
    6. Some of the views of B.F. Skinner, Sigmund Freud, Ludwig Feuerbach, and many other well-known thinkers are self-refuting.
11. Other Fun Fallacies
    1. Aidan Kelly: “all truths are merely metaphors.”
       1. The previous statement is a believed truth (or Kelly would not have stated it). Is it only or merely a metaphor? That is, it is not to be understood literally. Therefore, it is not literally true that “all truths are merely metaphors”? But, this
          contracts the original assertion.
       2. Is Kelly’s claim to be understood metaphorically, non-metaphorically, or both, or neither?
          1. If it is only metaphorically true, then it is not literally true that “all truths are merely metaphors.” Therefore the statement is false. Worse yet it is self-defeating, indeed, nonsensical.
          2. If it is non-metaphorically (literally) true, then the statement itself is merely a metaphor. Therefore, it is not literally true that “all truths are merely metaphors.” Thus, again, the statement is false.
          3. To say it was both metaphorically and non-metaphorically true (I present this option not because it is really possible, but some Neo-pagans think so), it would still be false, in fact, self-refuting.
          4. Just for the sake of argument, if the statement was intended neither metaphorically or non-metaphorically true then why would anyone state it?
          5. These types of claims are at best false, at worse nonsense because they are self-defeating. Aidan Kelly’s comments regarding reality result in absurdity.
    2. “All truth is relative” or “there are no absolute truths.” “There are absolutely no absolutes!”
       1. Joseph Campbell, Postmodernism, and Many Others
       2. “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative” (Alan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind, 25).
       3. “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.” Isaiah 5:20-21
       4. Edgar Sheffield Brightman (a past professor of philosophy at Boston University) said “In a universe where Christianity and Christian Science are both true, we do not have a universe, but a cosmic nut-house!”
       5. Joseph Campbell:Joseph Campbell in The Power of Myth states, “…The person who thinks he has found the ultimate truth is wrong” (55). Yet he repeatedly propounds what he believes to be ultimate truth, such as his belief in an impersonal and amoral divinity. This is kind of like “He who thinks they know doesn’t.” Hum?
       6. “There is no one or ultimate truth.”Then is this statement true? How could it be? It would contradict itself. Besides if all
          truths are relative then this statement too would be relative. Thus, it would also mean that “There is one or an ultimate truth,” (at least sometimes). Ooops!
    3. Not Either OrFirst, for instance, some neo-pagans oppose either/or statements (e.g., A or not-A), preferring both/and propositions (e.g., A and not-A). An example is either Sue believes in witchcraft or she does not.
       1. However, the distinction or preference between either/or as opposed to both/and propositions is itself an either/or proposition. It is an either/or proposition which in effect says do not use either/or propositions, but do use both/and ones. Thus, people who promulgate this idea are using the very distinction they allegedly oppose.
       2. Second, if we tried to consistently apply this advice then we should and should not use either/or statements since all propositions, including “do not use either/or statements,” must be turned into both/and propositions. Therefore, we should and should not use either/or statements. Ooops!
       3. Second, two more examples come from William Dyrness in his Learning about Theology from the Third World²⁸. Dyrness remarks that: “In general, Indian thinkers point out, Western thought patterns are fundamentally dualistic [i.e., based on the law of (non-) contradiction], therefore analysis is the primary mode of critical thought. Eastern patterns favor nondualistic modes, therefore thinking tends to be synthetic.”²⁹ Dyrness proceeds to mention S.J. Samartha and his book, The Hindu Response to the Unbound Christ as an example of this. Dyrness also writes:There are those who argue that these Eastern patterns of thought are inviolable and Christianity must adapt to them completely. Jung Young Lee has argued that in Asia we must get out of the habit of thinking in terms of either/or; we must be able to think of both/and. Change, he believes, may be the key to the universe, and ambiguity and differences merely the reflection of aspects of reality. In traditional Chinese thought, yin and yang are believed to be complementary modes of being….[H]e seeks to apply this to his view of God….³⁰
    4. “All truths are half-truths.”Another example of a supposed revelatory truth which is self-defeating is quoted by Laurie Cabot: “…all truths are half-truths; everything contains its opposite; extremes meet; and every pair of opposites can be reconciled. Knowing this is the key to making the universe work for you….”
       1. If all truths are half-truths, this would include the previous statement which is an alleged truth. It too would be a half-truth. Thus, is it only half-true? Or, is it both true and false? Which half of the proposition is true?
       2. Or, is it false half of the time, but true the other half? Thus, fifty percent of the time the proposition is not true. This would entail that about fifty percent of the time all truths are not half-truths. But, this contradicts the original statement that “all truths are half-truths.”
       3. Furthermore, if “everything contains its opposite” as well as “extremes meet,” this would include the above statement. Therefore, truly, “all truths are half-truths” and “all truths are not half-truths.” Ooops!
    5. These assertions are self-contradictory, self-defeating, or self-refuting. They are nonsensical!
12. The Challenge for You and Me
    1. 1 Corinthians 10:31 (NIV)”So whether you eat or drink [or think] or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.”
    2. 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 (NIV)”For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to
       Christ.”
    3. Mark 12:29-31!

ENDNOTES

Copyright ©1999 Craig S. Hawkins. All Rights Reserved.  

Faith and Knowledge, Evidence and Reason:
Their Role and Relationship to One Another

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” – Mark 12:30

1. The Supreme Example of Christ
   • The Use of Objective Evidence
   • 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!
     • Mark 2:1-5-12
     • John 2:18-21
     • John 10:30-31-32-33, 37-38
     • John 15:24-25
     • John 20:24-29
   • The Use of Reason (Argumentation)
   • Matthew 12:24-30
     • Argument from analogy (vv. 25-26)
     • The law of logical or rational inference (v. 26)
     • Reductio ad absurdum (vv. 25-26)
     • Argument from analogy (v. 27)
     • The law of logical or rational inference (vv. 28, 29)
     • Argument from analogy (v. 29)
     • The law of contradiction (v. 30)
     • The law of excluded middle (v. 30)
2. The Apostles
   • The Use of Objective Evidence:
     • Peter: Acts 2:14-32-39; 3:6-16; 4:8-14-20
     • Paul: Acts 26:26; 1 Corinthians 15:1-8
     • The Appeal to Objective Eyewitness Testimony:
     • Luke 1:2-4; John 1:14; 19:35-36; 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
   • The Use of Reason–Rationality:
     • Paul: Acts 17:2-3, 11, 17, 22-31; 18:4, 19; 19:8-9; 26:25; 1 Timothy 6:20
3. Apollos: Acts 18:27-28
   1. Dialegomai is the Greek word used in the above passages.
   2. 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).
   3. 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)

   Note: commended by God! 

    

4. The Value of the GOD Given Mind
   • A. Isaiah 1:18; Mark 12:29-31; Acts 26:25
   • We are created in the imago Dei–the image of God. This includes, among other
     attributes, the ability to reason.
   • Thus, this entails the value of evidence and reason. As Charles Hodge informs us:
     • If the contents of the Bible did not correspond with the truths which God has revealed in his external works and the constitution of our nature, it could not be received as coming from Him, for God cannot contradict himself. Nothing, therefore, can be more derogatory to the Bible than the assertion that its doctrines are contrary to reason. The assumption that reason and faith are incompatible; that we must become irrational in order to become believers is, however it may be intended, the language of infidelity; for faith in the irrational is of necessity itself irrational….We can believe only what we know, i.e., what we intelligently apprehend.
5. Uses of Logic/Reason
   • Ministerial Use of Reason
     • This is the use of logic/reason as a servant or “handmaid” to the Bible and
       theology. Logic/reason is not put on par with or above the Bible, but stands in a subordinate role to God’s revelation.
   • Magisterial Use of Reason
     • This is the placing of logic/reason on par with or actually above the Bible. Here logic/reason (that of the individual or a group) is allegedly the final judge, arbitrator, or authority of truth.
   • Anti-Intellectual
     • This is the position of depreciating or out-right denying the role of reason/logic in apologetics and other concerns of Christianity.
6. God gave us a mind and He expects us to use it (Mark 12:29-31).
   • It is not true that the mind is a terrible thing, “so waste it.”
   • The emotional nature of mankind is just as fallen as the intellect. Thus, we should not exalt it relating to conversion either.
   • If we are going to glorify God as Christians and in sharing the Gospel with others, we
     must not ignore or in an unscriptural manner down-play the importance of the mind in the preaching of the Gospel.
7. Faith: A Biblical Definition
   • This is opposed to false definitions that are often given.
     • The Greek terms in the New Testament have a number of meanings.
   • The Greek pistis (noun) in the context of our discussion means (see e.g. BAG):
     belief, faith, confidence, commitment, conviction, or trust.
   • The Greek pisteuo (verb) in the context of our study means (see e.g. BAG): to
     believe, belief (in), confidence (in), conviction, commitment, to have faith, faith in, or trust (in).
   • In the context of our discussion, faith is a self-commitment or surrender to,
     confidence in, and reliance on what one knows to be true.
   • It is a confident conviction of and commitment to truth–what one believes to be true.
   • It manifests itself, or is seen in action, by acting or living one’s life in accord with
     what one knows, or at least thinks, to be true. In essence, one will live their life or
     govern their actions by their belief that what Christ said and did is true.
     • It is not the action per se, but the cause of (what causes) the action.
     • For example, moving because of a belief that you are in imminent danger.
     • Luther: “Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is never alone.”
     • Saving faith always produces action(s) or work(s).
8. Faith is the instrumental cause, it is not what saves us, but it is how we
   appropriate what does save us–God’s grace as expressed through the finished work of Jesus for us (Eph. 2:8-9). See the Warfield quote.
   • The “object” of faith (truth) in Christianity that one commits themselves to
     is Christ as their personal Lord and Savior (Rom. 10:9).
   • The New Testament word “faith” and the phrase “to believe” are
     technical terms that express reliance on Christ alone for salvation (see, e.g, John 3:16, 36; 1 John 5:13).
9. The Correct and Incorrect Correlatives or Implications of Faith
   • Faith does not mean or entail “believing” what you know in your “heart of
     hearts” not to be true or “flying in the face” of reason.
   • C.S. Lewis, who among other accomplishments was a classical language scholar states regarding faith that it is not “the intention to believe what you want to
     believe in the face of evidence to the contrary” or “the power of believing what
     we know to be untrue.”
   • Charles Hodge tells us “…faith involves assent, and assent is conviction produced
     by evidence, it follows that faith without evidence is either irrational or impossible.
   • Hodge also comments: God requires nothing irrational of his creatures. He does not require faith without evidence. Christianity is equally opposed to superstition and Rationalism. The one is faith without appropriate evidence, the other refuses to believe what it does not understand, inspite of evidence which should command belief.
   • B.B. Warfield writes: 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. We believe in Christ because it is rational to believe in Him, not though it be irrational….We are arguing that faith is, in all its exercises alike [religious or secular], a form of conviction, and is, therefore, necessarily grounded in evidence. And we are arguing that evidence accordingly has its part to play in the conversion of the soul.
   • J. Greshem Machen notes: “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.”
   • Kim Riddlebarger remarks: 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.
   • Thus, true biblical saving faith is not synonymous with credulity or having “blind
     faith.”
     • Calvin: “It is the height of absurdity to call ignorance tempered by humility
       faith.”
     • Therefore, neither ignorance nor credulity are Christian virtues!
     • Note previous quote from Warfield.
   • Faith is:
     • Lewis: “Now I define faith as the power of continuing to believe what we once honestly thought to be true until cogent reasons for honestly changing our minds are brought before us.”
     • We continue to believe it because of, not in spite of, the evidence.
     • We hold this view because of the evidence and sound reason, by the grace of God, and will continue to until evidence and sound reason convinces us otherwise.
     • “[T]he conflict is not between faith and reason, but faith and sight.”
     • Reason may win truths, but only faith retains them.
     • Coupled with the concept of appropriating what one knows to be true, is the additional aspect of persevering in the truth one has embraced. With this perspective in mind, C.S. Lewis furthers our understanding of biblical saving faith, and for that matter any exercise of faith (e.g., in the realm of “secular” concerns), in his own inimitable style with his reflections on faith:
       • When we exhort people to Faith as a virtue, to the settled intention of continuing to believe certain things, we are not exhorting them to fight against reason. The intention of continuing to believe is required because though Reason is divine, human reasoners are not. When once passion takes part in the game, the human reason, unassisted by Grace, has about as much chance of retaining it hold on truths already gained as a snowflake has of retaining its consistency in the mouth of a blast furnace.
     • Lewis goes on to say: If we wish to be rational, not now and then, but constantly, we must pray for the gift of Faith, for the power to go on believing not in the teeth of reason but in the teeth of lust and terror and jealousy and boredom and indifference that which reason, authority, or experience, or all three, have once delivered to us for truth.
     • Christianity is true, is reality, but is held on to through faith.
     • Although biblical faith is not blind it certainly is nonetheless tenacious!
     • This is a radically different understanding than most have of faith–but it is the correct understanding!
10. Faith (Sacred and Secular) and Reason
    • Key point: this is true of all matters, sacred or secular, religious or irreligious.
    • Faith is what bridges the gap between the evidence or “probability” (whatever
      percentage it may be) versus certainty.
      • 1%, 10%, 20%, 30%-70%, 80%, 90-99.99999%–to 100% certain or certainty, or apodictic certainty (“absolutely certain”)
      • For Example:
        • Crossing the street
        • Starting your car
        • Driving today (really risky–faith!)
        • Sitting on a chair
        • Being (sitting) in this building
        • All of these are exercises of faith!
    • Faith is the bridge between x percent probability and certainty. Since we can not
      have objective apodictic certainty about anything–sacred or secular–faith is what let’s
      us commit (e.g., crossing the street). We do not have 100% certainty, but we (100% of us) cross the street nonetheless. How can we? We do not have certainty that we will make it. Note we do not just take part of ourselves across the street (corresponding to the percentage of probability we have). We take all of ourselves across the street. Faith is involved in all that we do.
    • Faith is what lets anyone do anything at all in the real world–act in spite of the fact that we do not have objective certainty for our actions–such as getting home safely today!
    • Faith is not opposed to logic/reason and evidence (see above)
    • Faith, sacred or secular, is the same! It is the same for the Christian or
      non-Christian, the religious or non-religious!
    • This is true of all matters, sacred or secular, religious or irreligious.
      • Note Warfield’s quote below.
    • Thus even an agnostic or the most ardent atheist daily exercises faith. In fact the
      atheist has the “blind faith,” that is against or in the face of the overwhelming evidence and sound reason, that God does not exist. They are gambling–to say
      the least against the odds that God does not exist….Talk about a credulity quotient, the atheist has more “faith” than the Christian!
    • Biblical saving faith is trust in the finished and atoning work of Christ for us by
      knowing that it is true and appropriating it for ourselves.
      • See, for example, Romans 10:9.
11. The Reformation–Biblical Understanding of True Saving Faith
    • Saving faith is composed of three elements, which together constitute its essence. They are necessary in the sense that they comprise the very essence or nature of true biblical saving faith.
      • Thus, all three must be present in an individual or they do not–can not–possess saving faith.
    • Notitia: the Data, Evidence, or Knowledge
      • This is where one has knowledge or is cognizant of a given claim or event or other alleged fact.
      • In our case it is knowledge of the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 10:14-17). It is “the actual content of the gospel and the promises of God.”
      • If a person is not familiar with the historical personage of Christ and His life, death, resurrection, and teachings, then not only do they not have knowledge of Him, but self-evidently can not consider, let alone believe or trust in Him for salvation (Rom. 10:14-17).
      • Simply stated, how can one believe in Christ unless they have heard of Him in the first place? At least a minimum of knowledge is required to believe in Christ.
      • As essential as notitia or knowledge is to saving faith, nevertheless, in and of itself, it is not saving faith (see Heb.4:2-4).
    • Assensus: to Intellectually Acknowledge as True the Claim(s) Statement(s) or
      Proposition(s) Put before You
      • It involves assenting to the veracity (truthfulness) of the knowledge or information in question as worthy of being received as fact.
      • In our case it is to intellectually assent to the events of Christ’s life as described in the New Testament as true, and hence His teaching’s as worthy of acceptance. One assents to the reality of the content (orthodoxy) of the Gospel message.
    • The Gospel message is true.
      • Assensus is the act of the intellect acknowledging the truth of the notitia,
        but, “apart from any personal trust or saving appropriation of that knowledge.”
    • Now, one has not only heard the Gospel message or is just acquainted with the
      information, but they grant that it is true.
    • However, as important as the above two are, indeed are necessary preconditions for true saving faith to exist, in and of themselves they are not sufficient.
    • Even assensus in conjunction with notitia is not sufficient for saving
      faith to be present. This type of belief is termed fides historica or (mere)
      historical faith, as opposed to fides salvifica (saving faith).
      • See, for example, James 2:19.
      • Assensus and notitia are necessary but not sufficient (pre-)conditions.
      • An example is having completed classes that one must take in order to earn a given degree–that are prerequisites, but not having completed all the classes that are necessary to obtain the degree. The former are necessary but not sufficient for the desired state to obtain–you receive the degree.
      • Thus, as essential as notitia and assensus are in order to possess saving
        faith, there is still an additional element that is required–fiducia.
    • Fiducia: to Appropriate what One Knows to be True for Themselves
      • Fiducia is the third and final necessary component of saving faith.
      • Fiducia is the Latin word for trust, “the essence of fides”
        (faith), “which appropriates savingly, by an act of the will, the true knowledge of the promises of God in Christ.”
      • Saving faith is not mere intellectual assent, but it requires it as a precondition or prerequisite.
      • Fiducia entails a self-surrender, commitment, and reliance upon what one knows to be true–here–the Gospel message. It pertains to the volition or will.
      • What is accomplished in this final element of faith is the moving of the individual’s will or volition, enabled by the Holy Spirit, to truly trust and thus to live in accord with what they know to be true. Fiducia primarily concerns the will or volition of an individual.
      • In saving faith the will is freed by the Holy Spirit to submit to what it is familiar with and knows to be true–the Gospel message–to commit oneself and trust in Christ as Lord and Savior.
      • Only the Holy Spirit can enable or move an individual to appropriate the gift of life through Christ by faith.
      • Fiducia is the (saving) appropriation of the knowledge or information–what one knows to be true. In the case of the Gospel it appropriating the saving work of Christ.
        The key idea is to appropriate, not merely “know.”
      • J.I. Packer grasps the essence of this point when he writes that faith is “an
        appropriating instrument, an empty hand outstretched to receive the free gift of God’s righteousness in Christ….”
      • Hence, one lives their life as if they really believe that the Gospel message is true.
        • A bomb scare
        • The analogy of a curative medicine: seven (7) scenarios
      • The genuineness of someone’s faith is not predicated on how sincere they are or how much they believe something, but only on the content of what they believe. This alone decides whether their belief is orthodox (correct belief), or a false gospel.
      • Genuine saving faith entails orthodoxy.
      • Even the most sincere and/or tenacious, but nonetheless misplaced faith or trust only leads to ruin (Prov. 14:12).
        • Orange County investors
        • People who thought they could fly
        • Heaven’s Gate group
      • Thus, B.B. Warfield rightly remarks: It is, accordingly, solely from its object that faith derives its value. This object is uniformly the God of grace….Jesus Christ, God the Redeemer, is accordingly the one object of saving faith….The saving power of faith resides thus not in itself, but in the Almighty Saviour on whom it rests…It is not faith that saves, but faith in Jesus Christ…faith in any other saviour…brings not salvation but a curse. It is not, strictly speaking, even faith in Christ that saves, but Christ that saves through faith. The saving power resides exclusively, not in the act of
        faith or the attitude of faith or the nature of faith, but in the object of faith….
      • Although fiducia is a volitional act, it can only occur (in saving faith), when
        conjoined with knowledge and assent to this knowledge as true.
      • Only with all three components (notitia, assensus, and fiducia)
        present, can biblical saving faith exist. Any other belief is a counterfeit and therefore is unbelief.
      • Thus, all three components (notitia, assensus, and fiducia) are
        necessary, and when found together are sufficient for saving faith to exist. But, if any one of the three is missing in an individual, then so is saving faith.
      • The essence of faith itself refutes the idea that faith is blind or can be possessed independent of knowledge acquired via evidence and reason.
      • Faith is founded on fact. Biblical saving faith is commitment to the truth–Jesus Christ, truth incarnate.
12. The Role of the Holy Spirit and Knowledge, Evidence, and Reason in Saving
    Faith and Biblical Apologetics
    • 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?
      • 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.
      • See John 1:13; 6:44, 65; 16:8-11; Romans 9:16; Ephesians 2:8-10; 1 Corinthians 2:14 and so forth.
      • This is necessary due to man’s fallen and corrupt nature (1 Cor. 2:13-14; 2 Cor 4:4; Eph. 4:18).
      • 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).
      • However, the Holy Spirit does not do this independent of knowledge, evidence, and solid reason(s).
    • The role of the Holy Spirit, and knowledge, evidence, and reason are not opposed to each other.
      • 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.
      • See Acts 17:22-31-34.
      • See 1 Peter 3:15.
      • God ordains both the means and the ends (analogously see, e.g., Acts 27:22-26 and 29-34).
    • It is not a case of either having evidence and being reasonable, or being
      “spiritual.”
      • They are not “at each other’s throats.”
      • They are not contradictory but complementary.
    • Thus, it is a false dichotomy to juxtapose knowledge, evidence and logic/rationality, versus the work of the Holy Spirit.
      • The past (Old) Princeton great J. Gresham Machen states: 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.
      • Dr. Kim Riddlebarger rightly remarks: 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.
      • 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.
      • In the last analysis you can not divorce the mind from the work of the Holy
        Spirit in conversion.
      • The Holy Spirit enables one to properly attend to the clear evidence for the truth of Christianity (John 16:8-11).
    • Therefore, we are not usurping the role and work of the Holy Spirit by using knowledge, historical evidences, and logic/reason in apologetics.
      • In fact, we are being obedient to what He has called us to do when we do this.
      • See 1 Peter 3:15!
    • 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.
      • See 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 and Ephesians 2:1-2.
      • See Romans 10:9-14-15.
      • Recall the above quotes (Machen and Riddlebarger).
    • Thus, the working of the Holy Spirit and His use knowledge, evidence, and reason are necessary preconditions for salvation.
      • See Romans 10:9-14-15.
      • B.B. Warfield, another great past theologian of Princeton, comments: 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.
      • 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).

 

 

 

 

]]> http://thecollegeoftheology.com/2009/06/faith-reason/feed/ 0 http://thecollegeoftheology.com/2009/05/essentials-of-the-christian-faith/ http://thecollegeoftheology.com/2009/05/essentials-of-the-christian-faith/#comments Wed, 13 May 2009 06:37:51 +0000 admin http://thecollegeoftheology.com/?p=138  

 

 THE ESSENTIALS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

1. Prologue: Why is this issue important?
   1. Because God Says So!
   2. 1 Timothy 4:11, 13, 15-16!
   3. Also see Deuteronomy 6:1-9; 8:3; 11:18-21!
   4. “Do I have to believe?” Do I have to believe in the right–as Opposed to the
      wrong or false–Jesus or Gospel? Does it really matter?
      1. Yes! See, for example, Matthew 7:21-23; John 8:24.
      2. You believe in Jesus? “No Creed but Christ!” Which One (see, e.g., 2 Cor.
         11:3-4)?
      1. Just want to “love Jesus”?
         1. Which One?
   5. How can you if you don’t really know or even care who He is or what others think or say
      about Him?
      1. Example: Your Spouse, Boyfriend or Girlfriend….
      2. Would it matter? You bet!
   6. It is a false dilemma
      1. pitting a person vs. truths about them or in this instance doctrines. It is not
         either/or….
   7. You believe in the Gospel? Which One (see, e.g., Gal 1:6-9)?
   8. “Creed” is from the Latin verb credo: “I believe.” Thus,
      “no creed but Christ” is itself a creed!
   9. Sound doctrine is essential (1 Tim 4:11, 13, 16; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:1-2; 4:1-5; Titus 1:9;
      2:1)! It is not optional (unless you want to directly disobey God?)!
2. The Foundation
   1. We need a standard!
      1. 1 Corinthians 3:9-17; Ephesians 2:19-22; 2 Timothy 3:16-4:5; Jude 3!
      2. We must have a standard, a measuring device, a rule or canon to measure and judge.
      3. For Example
         1. to Build a Building.
         2. To build on shaky ground is foolish (Matthew 7:26).
         3. One needs a standard or measuring method; otherwise, one will make a mess. It is the
            same with Christianity!
   2. The Standard is Scripture–The Canon (Rule)!
      1. See Matthew 5:17-18; 1Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Timothy 4:6, 11, 13, 15-16; 2
         Timothy 2:1-2!
3. The Gospel
   1. The Euangelion
      1. It is the good news, the Gospel (Evangel), the message of salvation, eternal
         life, and all that it entails.
      2. John 3:16
   2. Levels of Doctrines
      1. There are at least two (Essentials and nonessentials: see 1 Cor. 15:3)
      2. –we believe four–levels of, or priority levels of doctrine within the Gospel (Christianity):
         Essentials, Cardinals, Tertiaries, and Peripherals.
   3. Five (Minimally) Essential Doctrines
      1. There are at least five Essential doctrines of the Gospel. To be an
         Essential doctrine or teaching, it must be explicitly (clearly) taught in a verse or
         passage of Scripture–and stated as such–and/or be entailed or inferred directly
         from a verse, verses, passage, or passages of Scripture alone. They are not simply
         the opinion or view of a given Christian denomination, pastor, teacher, theologian, etc.
      2. All five must be held or believed in order to be a Christian. Some include the Virgin
         Birth, and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ as Essentials as well. While we certainly
         believe in the Virgin Birth and  Christ’s Second Coming–they are both clearly taught
         in Scripture– we are not convinced from Scripture, the Bible God’s Word, alone that
         they are Essential doctrines. By “Essential” doctrines we mean that if a person
         denies one or more of them he or she is not saved (born-again).
      3. Essential doctrines are such that if one or more of them is not believed, then a person
         is not–cannot be–a Christian (i.e., born-again, go to heaven, or be saved)! The question
         to keep in mind is whether one can deny the teachings in question and still be saved?
      4. Nonessential doctrines (e.g., Cardinals, Tertiaries) are such, that while they are (or
         may be) clearly taught in Scripture, and should be believed by those who want to be
         faithful to Scripture, and there are serious consequences–in this life and the
         next–for not believing, teaching, and living our lives in light of these doctrines (see,
         e.g., Matt. 5:19), nonetheless, people who deny or are confused on them can be born-again,
         a Christian, go to heaven, saved…. They are saved despite their being confused or
         outright denial of these doctrines.
   4. Warning!Please do not misunderstand! While people who are confused on or deny nonessential
      doctrines can be saved, they themselves and those influenced by them (e.g., their
      families, friends, congregations, those they teach, and so forth) will suffer the effects
      or reap the onsequences, in this life and the next, for their false teachings.  
      Moreover, and most importantly, it is our view that they will have to give an account of
      their incorrect (false) teaching(s) to the LORD, and will suffer the loss of eternal
      rewards (see, e.g., Matt. 5:19; 1 Cor. 3:10-15; James 3:1)! No one dare add, change,
      distort, ignore, subtract, tamper, twist, or otherwise pervert God’s holy word! To do so
      is to one’s own peril (Deut. 4:2; 8:3; Prov. 30:5-6; Matt. 5:17-19; 2 Pet. 3:16; Rev.
      22:18-19)!
   5. Essential Doctrines:
      1. Salvation by Grace Alone Through Faith Alone
      2. Christ’s Vicarious Atonement (The Penal Substitutionary View)
      3. The Bodily Resurrection of Christ Jesus from the Dead
      4. The Unique Deity (and Humanity) of Jesus ChristChrist is fully divine and fully human. He has two complete natures.
      5. The TrinityWithin the nature of the one eternal God there are three persons (Gk. prosopon, L. persona):
         the Father, the Son, and the HolySpirit. They are coequal and coeternal. Moreover, they
         are of thesame substance or essence (i.e., their nature being divine), and share the same
         glory.
   6. Cardinal Doctrines (Examples of):
      1. The Inerrancy of Scripture
      2. The Second Coming of Christ
      3. The Virgin Birth of Christ
      4. The Church
      5. Sin
      6. The Material World
   7. Tertiaries–Third Level–Doctrines (Examples of):
      1. Church Government
      2. Eschatology
      3. Hell
   8. Peripheral Doctrines (Examples of)
      1. Pastoral Robes
      2. Sports Program
      3. Choirs
4. The Essentials of the Gospel
   1. Salvation by Grace Alone Through Faith Alone
      1. John 6:28-29; Romans 1:17; 3:27-28; 4:1-6-12, 16, 23-25 [cf. Rom. 2:28-29; Gal.
         3:15-16]; 5:1-11; 6:23; 9:30-32; 11:6; Galatians 2:15-16, 21; 3:6-12; 23-29; 5:4;
         Ephesians 2:4-5, 8-10; 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 3:5; James 2:10-11; 1 John 3:23
      2. 1. Counter: James 2:14-22
      3. Counter-Counter: James 2:23 (Context!). James 2:21, 23–Genesis 15:6–22:1-19 (Some
         Thirty Years Later)–Romans 4:3; Rom. 4:1-11, 16, 23-25; Gal. 2:15-16, 3:6-12; 5:4
      4. Genesis 15:6 (in the LXX); Romans 4:3-11, 23-24; Galatians 3:6:
      5. The Greek verb logizomai, means to account, credit, reckon, impute.
      6. John Owens: “True Vs. False Faith”
      7. Martin Luther: “Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is never alone.”
         Separate grace and works as far as heaven is from hell until one can distinguish the
         difference. Remember Ephesians 2:8-9-10!
      8. Grace/faith produces good works. But good works are not the cause or condition(s) of
         salvation, but the consequence(s).
      9. The Three Uses of The Law:
         1. Civil
         2. Pedagogical: Romans 3:19-20; 5:20; 7:7, 13; Galatians 3:19-25
         3. Sanctification: (Luther/Calvin)
         4. The Three Functions of the Law:
            1. Civil
            2. Ceremonial
            3. Moral
   2. The Vicarious Atonement (The Penal Substitutionary View)
      1. John 1:29, 36; 3:16; Acts 2:38; 16:31; Romans 3:22-26; 4:24-25; 2 Corinthians
         5:21; 1 Timothy 4:10; Hebrews 9:26-28; 10:10, 12, 14; 1 John 2:2; 4:10
      2. Justification, Justified (Past Tense): External, Alien, Forensic, Declaratory, Given to
         You, Imputed
      3. vb. dikaioo; n., dikaiosis; adj., dikaios; adv., dikaios
      4. You are declared righteous by the Supreme Court of the universe: the Father, Son, and
         Holy Spirit
      5. We are not only declared not guilty, not just merely innocent, but  righteous!
      6. Positionally, God views us as if we had completely or perfectly obeyed Him–as Jesus
         did!
      7. Romans 5:1-2,*9,*11, 16, 18; Titus 3:7*: Aorist* (Past Tense) Passive Participle
      8. Luther: The Great Exchange (Phil. 3:9)!
   3. The Bodily Resurrection
      1. Luke 24:37-39; John 2:19-21; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 12-19, 32; Philippians
         3:20-21; 1 John 4:2 (Perfect Participle); 2 John 7
      2. (Present Participle) Romans 10:9
   4. The Deity of Christ
      1. John 1:1; 5:18; 23; 8:24 (cf. Ex. 3:14); 8:58; 20:28; Romans 9:5-6; 10:9
         “Jesus is LORD (Gk. kyrios)”; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 2:9; Titus
         2:13; 2 Peter 2:1-2
      2. Note: 1 John 2:21-23; 4:15; 5:10-12
      3. Note: 2 Corinthians 11:3-4
      4. Point: one must believe in the right Jesus!
         1. See Matthew 7:21-23; John 8:24; Galatians 1:7-9; 1 John 2:21-23; 4:15; 5:1, 5, 9-13; 2
            John 9
   5. The Trinity
      1. Isaiah 48:16-17; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14
      2. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all called God: the Father  (Eph. 1:3); the
         Son (John 20:28); the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4)
      3. There is only one God (Deut. 6:4; Mk. 12:29-30).
      4. Therefore, the three: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the one true God.
      5. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (1 Th. 1:10; John 2:19-21;
         Rom. 8:11; 1 Pet. 3:18).
      6. God raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:24, 32; 4:10; 17:30-31).
         1. Therefore, the three are the one God.
      7. While the Holy Spirit glorifies the Father and the Son, and bears witness to the Son’s
         claims, the Holy Spirit is nonetheless not confused about their, nor his own identity!
      8. It brings no glory or honor to God (the Father and the Son) if the Holy Spirit messes up
         their identity.
         1. For example, what if you or someone else misrepresents or misconceives the
            identity of your family members? Would that be honoring to them? No!
      9. The Holy Spirit is “the Spirit of Truth” (John 14:17; 1 John 4:6).
      10. The Holy Spirit is the believer’s teacher of truth (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:12-15; 1 John
          2:20, 26-27).
      11. The Holy Spirit indwells believers (Rom. 5:5; 8:9, 14-16; 1 Cor. 3:16; Eph. 1:13-14; 1
          John 4:13).
      12. The Holy Spirit guides believers (all people for that matter) into truth–only
          truth–never falsehood (see 5).
      13. How can a genuine believer, who is indwelled by the Holy Spirit, cling to false
          doctrine? It is an oxymoron.
          1. This is like those that say they are Christians, but live in sin
          2. (Titus 1:16; 1 John 3:6-10).
          3. This is like those who claim to be Christians and claim they have not sinned or never
             sin now (1 John 1:8, 10).
          4. This is like the person who claims to be saved but does not obey Jesus (1 John 2:3-6).
          5. This is like the person who claims to be saved but hates people (1 John 2:9-11; 3:11;
             14-15; 4:20-21).
          6. This is like it being light and dark, or wet and dry, etc., in the  same sense, at
             the same time, and at the same place.
          7. Impossible! These situations do not exist.
      14. So it is with those who claim to be saved yet deny the deity of the Father, the Son, or
          the Holy Spirit!
5. The Gospel
   1. Implications
      1. If anyone denies one or more of the previous five truths, we are talking about
         who is not a Christian (or born-again or saved).
      2. These truths are the Essentials–the heart and soul (essence) of the Gospel itself!
      3. Augustine’s Maximum: “In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things
         charity.”
   2. The Gospel entails right belief–orthodoxy–or content.
      1. See J.I. Packer’s article, “Faith,” in Elwell’s  Evangelical
         Dictionary of Theology.
      2. There are people who are sincere, but sincerely wrong (Prov. 14:12).
      3. For Example, the Illustration of Taking Medicine to Save One’s Life
      4. That Is Not in Fact Helpful
      5. Even though the person sincerely believed…they died!
   3. Confusion Versus Straight-Out-Denial or Denunciation
      1. A Sincere Believer Versus a William Branham
      2. The Theology 101 test at the Pearly Gates Story
      3. Quality Vs. Quantity: a Five Year Old Vs. a Ninety-Five Year Old Spiritual
         “Einstein”
      4. It is nonetheless the same Faith.
      5. Parent Illustration: Your Child’s Knowledge of You Vs. Your spouse, Peers, Employee(s),
         Employer, Etc.
6. Heresy, Heretic, Heretical
   1. Heresy (Gk. Hairesis)
      1. Hairesis is a choice or opinion contrary to and in spite of the truth,
         which leads to false teaching(s), divisions, ruin.
      2. Heretic, Heretical (Gk. Hairetikos)
      3. Hairetikos: a heretic, heretical. There are two types:
      4. One type of heretic is a person who denies one or more of the Essentials. This type is a
         non-Christian (see, e.g., 2 Pet 2:1).
      5. The second type is a person who confuses and/or denies one or more Cardinal and/or
         Tertiary doctrines.
      6. This type is heterodox (as opposed to orthodox), but still a Christian (see, e.g., Gal.
         5:20).
   2. Either Way or Type of Heresy or Heretic
      1. The biblical counsel is the same: Romans 16:17; 1 Timothy 1:3-4, 7; Titus 1:10;
         3:10.
7. Know What You Believe and Why!
   1. The Stakes
      1. The stakes are this life and eternity for you and everyone else:
         1. everyone you have known, know, or will know, have seen, see, or will  see
            (1 Tim. 3:16)!
      2. John 10:10 or…?
      3. Do you care? Think/pray about it (James 2:22-25)! Timothy 4:16; 2 Peter 3:18; Jude 3!

Copyright ©1999 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.