Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics Chapter 7: Is the New Testament Reliable?

Until the 1450 when Johannes Gutenberg made the practice obsolete, all books were handwritten. So for 1400 years the New Testament was vulnerable to corruption. The New Testament was written by the church. Not all churches had all of the books. When a church received a document from an apostle, they wrote copies of it and sent it to other churches, who in turn did the same thing. They also highly valued the books, so great care was made to transmit them word for word. With that said, mistakes were still made.

There were two general ways to copy books. One way had a scribe who would take the book he wanted to copy, sit it in front of him, then copy it word for word. The other way used a text with several scribes writing while someone read aloud the text. This way was much quicker, but there was a problem with the second method that the first method did not have. Some words sound very similar yet contain different meanings, such as to and too or pare, pair and pear.

To deal with the issues of differences in texts, textual criticism was developed. In this, all extant copies of a manuscript are compared to each other. From there they use various techniques to identify which of the texts are the oldest. If differences are found in the text, then earliest texts are preferred. There is another method, which looks at what text the majority of the copies uses and adopt that.

Needless to say, the more copies of manuscripts we have the more accurately we can decipher the original text. With the New Testament, if we only were to use original language manuscripts we would have over 5,300 copies. Some of them date from as early as 125-130 AD, less than 50 years after the book was written. The Magdalen Papyri is dated to 70 AD and 7Q5, a Qumran fragment, has been dated between 50 BC and 50 AD.

To compare, the writings of Aristotle date 1400 years later and the total number of any one book is 49. Tetralogy by Plato has an earliest dated copy 1300 after he wrote it and there are only 7 manuscripts. The New Testament has 5,300 copies in original language, another 8,000 Latin Vulgate from the 4^th Century and 9,300 earlier version in Coptic, Armenian, Nubian and Syriac.

There are about 200,000 variants in 10,000 different places. Most of these are misspellings, interpolation of words or orthographical. Orthographical differences would be theater and theatre, where both are correct. There are the previously mentioned textual criticism methods to sort out differences, but there are about 400 words comprising 40 verses where the original writing is just not known. They contain no essential Christian doctrine.

Archeology and non-Christian writings have also been helpful. Archeology has consistently and repeatedly confirmed the New Testament. There are also the Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman historian Tacitus, Pliny the Younger (governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor) and the Greek satirist Lucian who speak of Christians, Jesus, the crucifixion, John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus.

As for the word being inspired by God, Mr. Powell looks at the claim by other books to be divine. To decipher which is, we must first determine which is a reliable historical document. The Bible is backed up by archeology, non-Christian writings as well as a remarkable number of ancient copies. Then we look to Jesus claiming to be God. If the resurrection arguments are compelling, t hen we must take Jesus at his word. If Jesus in turn considered the Old Testament to be the Word of God, and what we have just discussed above in this paragraph is true, we have good reason to accept it as well.

Thanks for reading, hope to see you next time when we look at Chapter 8, which addresses if the Old Testament is reliable.

Holman's Quicksource Guide to Apologetics Chapter 6: Where Did the New Testament Come From?

Today we will look at the 27 books that make up the New Testament. They are the bedrock that Christianity is built upon, and knowing more about them allows us to better defend our faith. We need to have answers to questions that are often raised when people have doubts: Who wrote the books? Are the authors trustworthy? Are the books of the Bible historically accurate? Why were these 27 chosen? Why were there some books that were rejected?

Who Chose the Books

The councils of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397 fixed the list of books the New Testament contains. There were certain criteria that  needed to be met in order for them to be included. They had to have apostolic origin, meaning they were either written by apostles or an associate who kpet the apostle's teachings. Exceptions were made for Jude and James because they were brothers to Jesus.

They had to be written during the apostolic age, meaning while the disciples were still alive. They had to have been accepted and in use by the church. They also had to agree with accepted Scripture. Last and most important, they had to have been inspired by God  and have the power to transform lives. That last part is the hardest part to define.

As early as 115 AD Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, referred to "The Gospel." Marcion created a canon that contained 10 of Paul's Letters and the Gospel of Luke in 135 AD. The oldest known list of the New Testament  canon books was compiled around 180 to 200 AD. It contained 23 books. Tertullian, who lived from 120-220 AD quotes from 23 of the 27 canonical books. The reason these books were used was because they preserved the teaching of the disciples, who were comimissioned by Jesus to spread His teaching.

Who Wrote the Books

Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John. The bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus, was a student of Polycarp. Irenaeus passed on the following in AD 180, which was directly given to him by Polycarp who had been told by John himself. He said that Matthew published his gospel, Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome, Mark wrote what Peter had preached and Luke recorded what Paul had declared. John the disciple of the Lord published his own Gospel in Ephesus.

Clement wrote a  letter to the Corinthians that quoted from 10 different New Testament books in 95 AD and recorded how the book of Mark was written. It is thought by some scholars that Matthew was written relying on Mark. If this is true, than Mark myst have accurately preserved the teachings of Christ or why would it have been copied.

The best explanation for the names given the four Gospels is that those men were the authors. Otherwise, why affix Matthew to one since he was seldom mentioned in the Gospels? Even more so with Mark and Luke since they were not apostles at all. Peter knew about Mark's writing and gave it his blessing, and Paul was known to refer to Luke's writing as "my Gospel" in Eusebius church history.

Dating the Gospels

According to Clement, John wrote his Gospel after the other 3 were written. In his writing he talks about the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem as if it still existed. It was razed in 70 AD, which would put his works as well as the other gospels pre-70 AD. Also the ommission of the destruction of Jerusalem in all of the gospels further supports the books being written before 70 AD.

Acts ends with Paul in a Roman prison. His beheading is not mentioned, so that puts the writing of Acts a nd Luke at the latest in the 60s.The other gospels also have landmarks and customs that would not have existed after  the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Dating Paul's Writings

Since Paul died during the persecution of Nero around 64-67 AD, his works had to have been written earlier than that. Acts 18:12 is used to date the book. It mentions Gallis as the proconsul of Achiai, who was discovered through a letter found in 1905 that was dated to 52 AD. There is also a famine mentioned  that was dated by the historian Josephys to 45-46 AD. Using this information, Paul's conversion is dated to 32-35 AD with his letters written after that.

What About the Books That Were Left Out?

The Acts of Paul were written by an elder at Carthage while the Didache was of unlikely authorship.The epistle of Barnabas was believed to have been written by an early church father and not Barnabas. The Sheperd of Hermas was also likely written by an early church father. The Apocalypse of Peter was written in the first half of the second century, far to late to have a connection to Peter himself.

Although there are dozens of other books bearing names such as "the Gospel of Peter" and "the Acts of Pilate" they did not meet the criteria for inclusion. Most of these were writtten beyong the apostolic age and some as late as the Middle Ages.

To close, it is curious that the New Testament standards made it more likely to exclude authentic Scripture than to include false writings. Therefore, we see that the New Testament has a very strong case for the information it contains to have been events recorded by those who could reliably document them. Join us next month when we look at the reliability of the New Testament.

Holman Quicksource Guide to Christian Apologetics Chapter 5: Which God Exists?

I often hear people say this, "Basically, all religions are the same" and "Isn't it possible you are all right?" First, all religions are not the same. We will cover that in the rest of the blog today, as that is what this chapter is about. Secondly, if I play a game of golf with you and you say that scored a 78 and I say I scored an 80 on the course, are we both right? That would be impossible. We may not be that far apart in our beliefs about what I scored, but that closeness does not make us both right. Either I am right, you are right or we are both wrong. Those are the only options we have to chose from!

As we have seen, the cosmological and design arguments show that "God is necessary, powerful, transcendent, non-contingent, intelligent and personal. The moral argument shows that God has a moral will, a purpose for how we are to live, that he is engaged in the world and that the motives and actions of human beings matter to Him. Lastly, God is unique. If God as described above does exist, then there is nothing outside of Himself that He did not create; no other God could exist."

So now we are left with a glass slipper to fill. We have the requirements, and if a religious view does not fit one of these requirements than it gets cast out.

Atheism

Atheism posits that God does not exist. All that exists is the physical universe. The problem here is that there are no good explanations for how the appearance of design in the universe exists or how/why said universe came into existence to begin with. Atheism also lacks a reason for why morality exists. There is only one religion that really has aspects of atheism in it, and that is Buddhism, where God is really irrelevant. The hardest concept to prove in atheism is that God does not exist. To know something does not exist requires exhaustive and complete knowledge of everything that exists. To get around this some atheists say that if God were to exist we could know nothing about Him. This again, knowing for certainty that we could not know anything about Him, requires that someone know without certainty that there might exist an unknowable thing.

Agnosticism

Agnostic simply means lacking/having no knowledge. This view basically states that an individual does not currently have the knowledge to know whether or not a God exists or they have some knowledge but not enough to actually make a decision one way or another. I was an agnostic for most of my life, and my premise was that you could not empirically prove or disprove the existence of a God to me so therefore I would not commit either way.

Pantheism

In Pantheism, there are no opposites. Things either exist or they do not exist. That translates to there being no good or evil, no right or wrong and no true or false. There is no difference between malevolence and benevolence. Reason and logic don't exist, because they too deal with things that are either true or false. Pantheism also believes the universe to be eternal and unchanging, without an end or a beginning. That requires actual infinites, which are false based on the Kalam cosmological argument we looked at in Chapter 2.

Pantheism says when we die, we are all taken back into the impersonal whole. Everyone shares the same fate, Adolph Hitler and Mother Teresa. Further, we are all part of God, and God is unchanging. Yet if we realize we are part of God, is that not a change? To answer this, pantheism states that we cannot know because logic and reason don't exist. Of course, that could not be known without the use of logic and reason so it refutes itself.

Panentheism

Panentheism sees God as both distinct from and dependent on the world at the same time. God comes from the world and the world comes from God. It says that the universe/God has always existed will always exist, but it is always changing. If it is always changing, then moral values are also changing or they can change. There are  no grounds for morality given by Panentheism. If morals change, then there is no reason to have moral behavior because the laws could change and make the moral behavior immoral. Bottom line, panentheism does not account for the reality found in the design, moral and cosmological arguments.

Finite Godism

Finite Godism sees God as loving, personal and good but says that since evil exists, God must not be able to control or destroy it. With that being seen as true, God cannot be all-powerful. It further looks at the imperfections in the universe and reasons that God must be imperfect. God therefore is finite so we do not know where God comes from or what the source of morality is. And if God is the source of morality then morals are limited because God is limited.

Polytheism

Polytheism is the view that there are more than one god. Said gods either came from nature or where at one time men and women who became gods. Gods are thus finite and contingent. Polytheism states that the universe has always existed. In the case of Mormonism, there has to be infinites since gods came from gods that came from previous gods. In polytheism there is no accounting for the creation of the universe. All things come from the  universe, even Gods. Gods don't exist apart from the universe, and the beings that do exist all have limited power which causes polytheism to not meet all the requirements.

Deism

Deism basically asserts that God cannot be known through religion because the only way to know God is through nature and reason. Because we can only know God through nature and reason there is no miracles. The only way God has revealed Himself is through what He has created. Because there are no miracles we are missing the creation of the world, which was a miraculous act. If the world was able to exist without God, God would not be all-powerful since He could not step it, He would not be necessary and He would have no moral authority since there could be no  purpose for what He didn't create.

Monotheism

  Monotheism sees God as the creator and sustainor of all things. He interacts with creation numerous ways and reveals Himself to us through reason, nature, morality, etc. Thus, monotheism fulfills every part of the requirements stated at the top.This in turn would reduce our search to three religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

All three of these religions believe in the same God. Islam says the Old Testament is now corrupted. Christianity sees the promises of the Old Tesament fulfilled in Jesus. Judaism says that both of these stances are false. All 3 also believe Jesus existed. Judaism sees Him as a pretender, claiming to be the Messiah. Islam believes Him to be a great prophet, and  the gospels are corrupted accounts. Christians believe Christ to be the Messiah.

To begin seeing which of these claims is the correct one, we need to see whether or not the New Testament is trustworthy and accurate. If the New Testament is not reliable, then we can narrow down the choices to Judaism and Islam. If it is reliable, then we can discount Islam and narrow it down to Christianity and Judaism. From there we can look at the Old Testament and its veracity. If it is trustworthy, then we look at what it says about Jesus and see whether we embrace Christianity or Judaism.  In chapter 6 we will begin to investigate the New Testament.

Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics Chapter 4: Does God Exist The Moral Argument

In chapter 4 Doug Powell looks at whether or not God exists through axiology, or the study of morality and values. He posits the question, "Are right and wrong objective realities with claims on all people at all times, or are they subjective realities only - matters of opinion?" Today we see how moral argument attempts to show that if moral values are to make any sense, they must be both universal and objective. Further, if they are objective then there must be a source that is "a transcendent, personal being for whom human actions and motives are not a matter of indifference."

Relativism

In our culture, the most popular moral view is relativism. It says that individuals and societies decide right and wrong and that right and wrong vary from person to person and from culture to culture. People create values and they are subject to change instead of being universal and objective moral truths. Relativism comes in three flavors, cultural relativism, conventionalism and ethical subjectivism.

Cultural Relativism

Cultural relativism sees different cultures that appear to have different values. Because of that, there can be no right system of morality or they would be shared by all. For example, the United States allows abortions as a legal option, China actually requires abortions under certain circumstances and Mexico has laws that prohibit abortion. Since these countries all appear to have different morals, there can be no objective reality.

Morals are viewed through observation. So, at best these observations are statements of what is factually observed.  Just because something SEEMS to be a certain way does not mean that they SHOULD be that way. Also, just because there are different answers to the same question does not meant a right answer doesn't exist. If golfers argue over the strokes one of  them took on a hole, they are either both wrong or one of them is right. They cannot both be right.

Lastly, cultural relativism refutes itself. If a cultural relativist claims he has the correct view of moral theory and other views are wrong he is not abiding by his own claims. If he claims there is no universal right view of moral theory, he cannot say that other views are incorrect. Due to that cultural relativism cannot be a proper explanation for morality.

Conventionalism

Conventionalism says morals are decided by each society. Morality is simply what is legal, which can differ from society to society. There is a right and a wrong, which makes it different from cultural relativism. In this instance, if a society said blues eyes were illegal and that those possessing blue eyes would die, there would be nothing immoral about the law. The immoral thing in that society would be those born with blue eyes.

This may sound crazy, but it is exactly what Germany did in the 30's and 40's. Jews were declared to be both subhuman and deserving of death. Since law is law, the concentration camps were not only filled with Jews but with German criminals. The crime the Germans committed was pretesting Nazi policies and laws.

Conventionalism is not about morality, but instead power. The will of the majority defines morality and forces  into submission or imprisons any who oppose. Due to this, people like Abraham Lincoln, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were criminals. By the sheer moral bankruptcy of conventionalism, it lacks much needed to explain morality.

Ethical Subjectivism

Ethical subjectivism says that individuals decide wrong and right for themselves, and only themselves. "What's true for you is true for you, and what 's true for me is true for me." Another common refrain is, "Who are you to judge me?" No longer does nayone have the right to say what anyone does in either right or wrong. Saving a drowning baby can no longer be praised, and drowning a baby could no longer be reviled.

This view is self-refuting. If all truth is relative, than what are we to do with this universal statement? And if ethical subjectivism is not true for everybody, than why would someone who holds that view attempt to push it onto others? Paul Copan says that claiming a statement holds true for all but you is called the "self-excepting fallacy."

"Torturing babies for fun is wrong," is a great way to expose what is wrong with ethical subjectivism. Obviously, that statement would not be correct as it is stating a universal that others may not agree with. Someone thinking torturing babies for fun is okay behavior has to have their feelings validated by an ethical subjectivist. Beckwith and Koukl state, "The quintessential relativist is a sociopath, one with no conscience."

Objective Morality

Morals are not descriptions of behavior, but instead are prescriptions for behavior. Morals aren't opinions, but instead they contain a sense of obligation and rightness to them. Moral relativism turns out to simply be sets of opinions. Morals are universal and they transcend society, time, and people. Therefore the source must be transcendent and universal. Since morals are authoritative, not telling us what we should do but what we ought to do, they musc come from an authority. This authoritative, transcendent and universal entity we call God.

We have looked at the validity of a God existing through morals, design and cosmological arguments in the past few chapters. In chapter 5 we will sort out which God exists by looking at various existing religions.

Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics Chapter 3: Does God Exist The Design Argument

The chapter starts with the Watchmaker analogy. The watchmaker analogy asks a nonsensical question, and here it is: If you are walking through the woods and stumble upon a watch, what do you think? Do you wonder how, over time, bits of metal came together by chance, springs and gears were formed with no apparent purpose, yet over time they all joined accidentally, eventually formed a fully accurate functioning machine that measures time?

The answer to the question above is, of course no. No one stumbles upon a watch and thinks that it evolved. They assume someone must have dropped it. Due to the intentionality and precision of the watch one assumes there must have been an intelligence that first conceived of the watch and how it would work then created it. Yet when some look at nature, with all of its intentionality and precision, they see chance. The Watchmaker analogy is used to argue for design.

The design argument is also called the teleological argument. Telos is Greek for purpose, or ultimate ending. Teleology is the study of a thing's design, or purpose. Plato and Aristotle first used the design argument to argue for the existence of God based on what they observed of the stars. Thomas Aquinas used it as one of his 5 arguments to prove God exists. Today it is called intelligent design, and there are many ways to argue it. Today we will look at 3 of them.

Fine Tuning as Design: The Anthropic Principle

Over time and a lot of study and research, scientists have found the universe to have a great deal of precision. In fact, to alter any of the multiple parameters would destroy the universe. This has led some scientists to argue that for life to exist, their had to be a designer. There are two classes of these parameters: one for the sun-planet-moon system and the other for the universe.

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross, in The Creator and the Cosmos, says that in order for life to be possible there are 35 parameters that must fall within a narrow range. One of those is the expansion rate of the universe. If it is slower than one part in 10 to the 55th power, the universe would collapse before galaxies could form; if it was faster than one part in 10 to the 55th power galaxies could not have formed. Without galaxies we have no starts, with no stars we have no planets forming and without planets we have no life. 

Some of the other parameters are: velocity of light, ration of protons to electrons, ration of electron to proton mass, mass density of the universe, gravitational force constant, electromagnetic force constant, weak nuclear force constant, strong nuclear force constant, ration of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant, velocity of light, fine structure constant and a lot more. Everything falls into an extraordinary balance in order for the whole to exist. 

The second set has 66 parameters to do with our sun-planet-moon system. They are all vital for life to exist on the planet. If the distance from Earth to Sun is any greater, the earth is too cool for a stable water cycle. If it is any closer to the Sun, it is too warm for a stable water cycle. If gravity was weaker, our atmosphere would lose too much water, but if it was stronger it would retain too much ammonia and methane, which are poisonous. If the day was greater, temperature differences would be too great to sustain life. If the day is shorter atmospheric wind velocities would be too great to survive.

Looking at just a couple of the parameters Mr. Ross identified in his book, we begin to realize just how exact things had to be in order for life to exist on Earth. Add to that all of the constants needed for the universe to exist and you begin to see that there may have to be a master's hand behind the creation of it all. It is all much more complex than any watch in existence, and we would never suppose the watch was accidently created so why would we suppose that about life on Earth?

Information as Design: Information Theory and DNA 

To understand this argument we must first understand that there are different kinds of order:

1. Specified Order is a string of repeating information. This is a natural occurring kind of order. Examples of this are crystals and snowflakes. 
2. Unspecified Complexity is non-repetitive and random. This is also a naturally occurring type of order. Examples are the shape of a rock and the wind howling. 
3. Specified Complexity is non-repetitive and non-random. These are not naturally occurring. Examples are the sentence you are reading as well as statues.

A specified complexity is contingent and an unspecified complexity is not. The sentence takes an author and the sculpture needs a sculptor. The sculpture can be any shape the sculptor imagines. Information, on the other hand is communication between two minds that share a common language. That language must exist and be understood prior to any ability to communicate. Every language is a set of tokens and a set of conventions for the use of the tokens.

DNA is an agent housing a set of tokens used to store and convey information the body needs to develop and function. Before the DNA could be useful, there had to be a language that already existed. Genetic code had to exist prior to the existence of DNA. It also had to come from outside of the DNA. It didn't come from the DNA any more than a bowl of alphabet soup can say "I love you." It may spell it out but there is no intentionality.

The easiest way to explain the information contained in DNA is that it was imposed on the DNA by a mind, with intentionality. Naturalism claims that all things are produced by non-directed, random forces. This would seem a moot argument when used to explain how information was included in DNA and how a genetic code language exists at all. You must first have an informer to have information. 

Complexity as Design: Irreducible Complexity

Irreducible complexity says there are some things that are at the simplest level they could be and still function. Biochemist Michael Behe says, "An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional." Basically he is saying that there are things that had to be created, because they could not have by chance or through undirected forces have evolved.

Behe uses a mousetrap to make his point. He asks which part of the mousetrap can be removed and still leave a functioning mousetrap? The answer is nothing. You could not have first a piece of steel that caught a mouse, than added a piece of wood which caught a few more, than added a spring to catch ore. A mousetrap is made of individual pieces that when separated are useless at catching mice. The mousetrap could therefore not have evolved, but had to first have been conceived by an intelligent mind with the will and power to act. 

In Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box,  he looks at various cases of irreducible complexity, such as the cilium, bacterial flagellum, antibodies, animal cells and blood clotting. All of these, he argues, are irreducibly complex. They are basic biological machines, but they are each useless if apart from the whole. 

In conclusion, the design argument doesn't prove that Christianity is the only truth. Rather, it looks at the God we find in the Bible being consistent with the intelligent designer defined by these arguments. There are several religions that describe an intelligent designer. As we have seen, the way things are precise and exact, from life on Earth to the balance of the universe, point us to a designer. Next time we will look at Chapter 4, which is the moral argument for the existence of God.

As featured on the Poached Egg: http://www.thepoachedegg.net/the-poached-egg/2013/01/holman-quicksource-guide-to-christian-apologetics-chapter-3-the-design-argument.html

Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics Chapter 2: Does God Exist? The Cosmological Argument

The word cosmos is a Greek word that refers to everything that exists. Not just the universe, but all its constituents. This argument for God says that because everything exists, there must be a God who brought it into existence. The proposition of this argument is that nothing could or would exist without God. God's existence is possible without the universe, but the reverse is not true. God is a necessary being. The universe cannot exist without God, for the universe in not a necessary being and therefore cannot account for its own existence.

There are 3 different philosophical arguments and a scientific example that are used to support the cosmological argument. We will first look at the philosophical arguments; Kalam, Thomist and Leibnizian.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam argument attempts to show that the universe had to have a beginning and is therefore not eternal. In order to comprehend this argument we must first understand the two types of infinities, which are concrete (actual) infinities and abstract (potential) infinities.

Potential infinites are numbers that increase by adding another number, such as seconds on a stopwatch. Once the time starts, it will add numbers until it is stopped. If never stopped, it could potentially go forever. That said, it can't be infinite. A potential infinite is always a finite set to which another increment can be added. Therefore, it is not infinite.

Actual infinites are sets of numbers to which nothing can be added because by their very nature they are infinite. They already contain all numbers do nothing can be added. If that is difficult to grasp it is for a good reason. Actual infinites do not and cannot exist in a physical world. If they did it would create absurdities.

So we know that time cannot be infinite. If time were infinite than now would not exist. Imagine now is a destination and you are at that destination. If you are awaiting a train at your destination and the train tracks are infinitely long, how long would it take for the train to get to you. Obviously, never since the train cannot reach the end of its track. Infinite time/numbers can never become finite and finite numbers/time can never be infinite.

So if time is finite it had to have a beginning. If it had a beginning than something had to initiate it. An effect MUST have a cause. The Kalam argument lets us know that the universe had a beginning and the beginning was caused by an uncaused cause. The question is, "Is the cause personal or impersonal?" The cause must be able to create. It cannot rely on anything for its own existence. It must be transcendent, or exist apart from creation. It also requires an intention or will to create. Could an impersonal being have these attributes? Of course not, and if that is the case then the universe was caused by a powerful, transcendent and personal being. That being is God.

The Thomist Cosmological Argument

Thomas Aquinas utilized 3 forms to prove his cosmological argument in Summa Theologica. The first way was from motion. He noted that since motion is an effect and needs a cause, than you could not have a infinite chain of one thing moving another. Without an agent to open the music box, although it the box may be wound it would remain closed, silent and motionless. Further, to say it needs no one to open the box would in turn lead us to believe the music box used wood and metal to create itself. Because a builder is needed, the builder would be God. 

The second form was called "efficient cause." Nothing in existence does not owe its existence to nothing. Everything owes its existence to something. Nothing creates or causes itself. Existence is then an effect of some cause that was an effect of a cause, etc. But that cannot be an infinite loop. There must be a first cause that was self-existent (not relying on anything for existence) to explain any cause existing. That first cause is God. 

Third was the possibility of existence. Nothing we see has to exist. All we know could have just as well not existed. That leads all we see to be possible but not necessary. But for everything to exist, there must be one thing that is necessary. A necessary being must exist to account for all the possible beings in existence. That necessary being is called God. 

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

The famous philosopher G.W.F. von Leibniz asked, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" His answer was found a bit differently than the others we have talked about. Cause was not the basis of his argument. Instead he argued that there must be a sufficient reason for the universe or it would not exist. Caused things only happen with a reason. He said that all caused things, before they existed and outside of their existence, had a prior reason. As his contemporaries saw that there could be no infinite chain of causes, he said that there could no infinite chain of reasons. The universe couldn't explain its existence. Instead, the reason must be found in a being outside of the universe who is both logically necessary and self-explanatory. That being is God.

Science: The Big Bang

Edwin Hubble discovered light from galaxies distant from ours appeared differently than expected. He found the light was shifted to the red side of the spectrum. The Doppler effect was then applied, which explained the red shift in the light spectrum occurring because the stars are all moving away from each other. If the wavelengths are shorter, which would represent an object moving towards you, there is a blue shift in light. If they are moving away from you, this causes the wavelengths to lengthen which causes the red shift.

So if the universe is expanding as the red shift represents, then surely it has a point of origin. And other discoveries were made that pointed to the expansion occurring slower now than it did at its inception which could have happened due to an explosion. That explosion is how the universe was began, and it all started with a  big bang according to this theory. There are a couple of challenges to this theory.

Steady state theory says that the universe will and has always existed. This runs into several problems. For starters the observations supporting the big bang theory argue against steady state. Secondly, this would require actual infinites. is the fact there is a now, which makes an infinite number of preceding moments an impossibility as described earlier. 

The oscillating theory supposes the universe will stop expanding and recede back to a singularity which will explode and begin the cycle again. It says that the cycle has and will repeat forever. This theory also requires a series that has always been and always will be, or actual infinites. It is also limited by the second law of thermodynamics, which states that a closed system always decrease in energy and be less than it was at its beginning. So, the universe must have had a beginning and the energy it began with cannot be recreated unless acted upon by an outside force.

So the big bang appears to be the best theory we have. But if it was an explosion (or expansion), what caused it to explode? What exploded and where did that come from? An explosion is an effect and effects need a cause. They cannot cause themselves. So the matter that exploded needs a creator and the bang needs a banger. The cause must be found outside of the universe because the universe didn't cause itself. What does the cause need?

It needs to be transcendent in order to be outside of the universe. It must be powerful to cause all that exists to come into being out of nothing. The cause has to be uncaused, for if it is an effect we then have a chain of infinite regress which is nonsensical. Finally, it must be non-contingent, or relying on nothing for its existence.

Even if we have an entity that has all of the above requirements, we are still missing one ingredient. Just because it exists doesn't mean the universe has to exist. It still has to have a will to make the universe happen, an intentionality. A car that is in perfect  operating order, good battery, working engine, full of gas and properly connected electrical system has all of the conditions to run but yet will sit silent forever. It has one more need, a driver.

A driver is not part of the car, does not rely on the car to exist, has the will to start and direct the car, power to start the car and may have even create the car. But the driver is separate. So too does our universe need a driver, an agent who was capable of either creating or not creating our universe. That is what we call God. The Cosmological Theory does not identify what or who God is, only that He exists. In the Cosmological Theory we see that God is necessary!

Join me next time as we look at the Design Argument from the Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Aplogetics.

Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics Chapter 1 - What is Apologetics?

For this series we will be looking at Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics by Doug Powell. Each week we will examine a chapter of the book and look at what I have learned. My hope is that you will receive a little education and at the same time want to learn more. That thirst for knowledge will lead you to purchasing not only this book, but many more and through studying them and the Bible you will become an Apologist. That is my hope!

You may be wondering what is an Apologist. An apologist is one who delivers a defense. A Christian Apologist is one who delivers a defense of Christianity through Apologetics. What is Apologetics? That is the question of Chapter 1, which tackles that very question. 

Imagine you are in an emergency room seriously ill. The doctor says that unless you get the right antidote, it is always fatal. He than says that all who receive the antidote have a perfect recovery. Perhaps you do not like to take pills or get shots. Your preference is not relevant. The doctor is telling you that the sickness you have only has one remedy and only one way to administer said remedy. Your only choice is whether you live or die, based on your answer to the doctor.

Being misdiagnosed here is deadly. Getting the wrong medication is fatal. Not liking the treatment is not going to change anything. I had a colonoscopy because they I was having some internal issues. It was painful, inconvenient and quite offensive. That said, it was what I needed. Just because it was uncomfortable and drinking the stuff the day before was a huge inconvenience made it no less necessary. 

Christianity is an antidote if it is properly understood. It is not a life style choice or a religious view, but an antidote. It may be inconvenient, socially unacceptable, offensive and even painful at times. But above all if these, it is necessary. Whether you choose to believe it or not, the truth is the truth. You do not have to believe it to make it true. That is why we need to gain an understanding of the situation to understand the antidote's necessity. Doug says, "Jesus is not a cherry flavored cough syrup that works just as well as the lemon flavored Buddha. Belief in Jesus is an extremely invasive heart procedure that brings people to life. And it is the only procedure that will work."

As humans, we have trouble sometimes going to the emergency room. We may have misconceptions, barriers, biases, preconceived notions and objections. "It is the goal of Christian apologetics to remove the hindrances that stand between a person and the cross of Christ." Apologetics is seen by some as pre-evangelism preparing the soil for the gospel and others see it as deeply entwined with the gospel. Regardless of how it is seen, apologetics is a great way to equip the Christian with the tools to answer the tough questions about Christianity. Listed below are a few assumptions you can argue with apologetics:

1. Jesus never lived.
2. Miracles don't exist.
3. There is no proof Jesus was resurrected.
4. Why were books left out of the Bible?
5. Christianity is not reasonable.
6. All religions basically teach the same things.
7. If God is love how can He allow evil?

These are several of the myriad of assumptions and arguments that apologetics will equip you to answer. There are two things that need to be clear about apologetics. First, the goal is not to win at all costs. It is possible to win yet lose by behaving badly. We are to speak truth yet speak it with love. Second, the Holy Spirit saves people, not us. We are to bear witness. The Spirit can then use our witness to open the mind and heart of those who listen. 

To begin our apologetics training, we start by making no assumptions. We can't even talk about Christianity yet. We must first be able to PROVE the existence of God. If we can prove God exists, then we can begin to see which religion has the most accurate description of Him. That is where we will pick up next.  

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 14 More Sweat Less Blood

In going through this book, you have looked at multiple tactics to help you effectively have conversations that aim to put a rock in the other person's shoe. That is, you give them something to think about that will hopefully stay with them long after the conversation is over. It is not about winning, but planting a seed. That said, this book and this blog on it do not guarantee that the conversations you have will be different.

There is a huge difference between application and knowledge. Greg states an old training maxim he heard from a former marine, "The more you sweat in practice, the less you bleed in battle." That means that you need to look at not only the tactics you have learned. You also need to practice those tactics as well as learn when and how to apply them in actual conversations. Following are his 8 quick tips:

1. Be ready - always be willing to talk to the people you come in contact with and see if there is interest
2. Keep it simple - Stick to salvation. If other issues don't come up, why bring them up?
3. Avoid religious language and spiritual pretense
4. Focus on the truth of Christianity, not merely its personal benefits - Focus on truth, not only experience
5. Give reasons - Don't make assertions without giving evidence. Remember, the roof needs supports to hold it up 
6. Stay calm - Don't get mad, don't get frustrated. Always stay composed
7. If they want to go, let them leave - You don't have to close the sale every time. That is God's job
8. Don't let them leave empty-handed - Offer a business card, a Christian web site or something to read

Also, gather on a regular basis with people who have the same interests in apologetics and/or sharing salvation with others that you do. They may not yet be as advanced as you are, they may have more wisdom and knowledge than you. Commit to meeting together on a regular basis. It could be monthly, weekly or biweekly. Just be consistent. Get together and study with open discussion. Build each other up and don't be surprised to see your passion spread to others. 

As ambassadors you need to welcome opposing views. If you are confident in your beliefs you will be committed to truth and gathering knowledge. I had a philosophy professor who gave me a great definition for intelligence. He said, "An intelligent man can discuss both sides of the argument." How can you combat what you don't know? Furthermore, how can you know that you are right if you don't listen to all of the facts? 

If you are truly interested in the salvation of others you will not run from opposing viewpoints. Instead, you will strive to find out why they believe as they do and share the truth with them. If you are committed to truth instead of an organization, you will be open to refining your own beliefs and views. You should be open to correction in how you think. Someone who disagrees with you may actually have the right view. You may have the right view. Either way, an evangelist is willing to engage in argument that goes against what he/she believes. That allows you to develop better answers to defend how you believe or make corrections if you find your thinking to be faulty. 

Bottom line, don't retreat under fire. Remember, it is all of eternity you are fighting for. If you were trying to save someone's life, would you just give up and walk away or would you be willing to fight for it? Having courage in the face of adversity allows you to gain the respect of others. Never be afraid to share your side; always be willing to hear the others side. Over time this will allow you to develop faith that is rock solid!

In closing, remember the traits of an ambassador. Always be:

• Ready - Be on the alert for chances to represent Christ
• Patient - Don't quarrel, listen so you can understand their side, then respectfully engage
• Reasonable - Have informed convictions, not feelings, give reasons, ask questions, seek answers
• Tactical - Learn to adapt to different situations and people, present the truth so they understand
• Clear - Don't use Christian lingo and jargon 
• Fair - Be sympathetic and understanding of the others views 
• Honest - Don't misrepresent the facts of your view or someone else's, don't understate the gospels demands
• Humble - Know that you are fallible and that your understanding is never perfect
• Attractive - Always act with kindness and grace so that you may honor Christ with your conduct
• Dependent - Always rely on God in all that you do. That is the most important key to being successful not only in conversations but in life!

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 13 Just the Facts, Ma'am

This chapter is named after a quote by Detective Joe Friday in the old television police drama, Dragnet. It was used frequently by him when questioning a witness. Detective Friday meant that he did not want to hear assumptions or other people's statements. He only wanted to hear the facts as the person knew them. This is exactly what we should want from others, too.

In order to do this, we must only demand two things. First, is to be aware that many challenges to Christianity are simply supported by bad information and spurious claims. Second is that you know the facts yourself. The last is not a necessity, since most of us have the internet on our phones and can look up the information itself. So, let's take a look at two examples Mr Koukl uses.

The first is, "More wars have been fought and more blood shed in the name of God  than any other cause. Religion is the greatest source of evil in the world." For starters, since chaos and oppression are not duties Christians have nor do they come from apply Christ's teachings logically you cannot blame violence done in the name of Christianity. Also, if you find an older Guinness Book of World Records and go to category "Judicial" under the subheading "Crimes: Mass Killings" you find carnage of horrific proportions. YOu find 66 million murdered under Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev; 32-61 million Chinese under the communist parties since 1949; 1/3 of the Khmers (2.7 million) in a 4 year period in the 70's under communist Khmer Rouge.

Dennis Prager says that in the 20th century alone, "more innocent people have been murdered, tortured and enslaved by secular ideologies - Nazism and communism - than by all religions in history." It would appear that the greatest evil and atrocities come not from people who follow gods, but instead from people who believe there is no God to answer to.

The next claim is, "The country of America was not founded by Christians but deists." The Founding Father's is a proper noun that is used to identify the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Thre were 55 people that made up the core. There were "28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown and ONLY 3 DEISTS - Williamson, Wilson and Franklin." The caps are mine. So 93% of our Founding Fathers were Christian. Hard to dispute those facts!

Spotting faulty facts can be difficult at times. In order to have Just the Facts Ma'am work, you need to follow a two-step plan. Step one is to ask yourself, "What is the claim?" Take a few seconds and pinpoint the point being made by the other person. Write it down, if need be. Remember that assertions and opinions are frequently hidden under clever verbiage. For instance, saying that one has no right to oppose abortion unless they were willing to care for the babies. For starters, that is comparable to saying that you cannot oppose someone beating their wife unless you are willing to marry them. Look at the claim being made and see if it is valid.

Once we have identified the claim, we can then put step 2 into action. "Is the claim factually accurate?" Using the example about pro-lifers needing to care for the babies. A quick internet check will reveal over 4,000 national and international service providers that are pro-life who are founded on insuring the well-being of mothers in crisis and insuring they and the babies have housing, clothing, access to medical providers, food, adoption services and even counseling for women who are post-abortion. All at no cost.

A final example is when we are told, "Do not judge others. The bible says that if you judge others, you will be judged likewise." The Bible verse Matthew 7:1 is called upon by Christians and non-Christians alike. A closer look will show that Jesus was against hypocritical and arrogant judgements, but not all judgements. In fact, He says that we must first remove the plank from our own eye so that we can see clearly to take the mote out of your brother's eye.

So, in closing this week we have found that we should do two things when we hear a challenge. Ask ourselves, "What is the claim?" and once identified we ask ourselves, "Is the claim factually accurate?" If we do these two things we will better be able to see whether or not the claim is based on shoddy facts, opinions or if it is truly valid. From there, we can continue the discussion. See you in two weeks as we conclude the book Tactics. 

Tactics By Gregory Koukl Chapter 12 Rhodes Scholar

Recently there have been a rash of articles, generally right before Christmas and Easter, that look at the history of Christianity and it's events. They tend to have juicy titles, like "What really happened (fill in the holiday title here)" or "The untold truth about (impending holiday belief here)." The authors take a "what-scholars-say-that-your-pastor-does-not-want-you-to-know approach." Then there are various academics cited who have used the historical scientific approach to debunk all of the false thoughts held by those poor, sad, foolish faith having few.

These stories tend to sell a lot of magazines while discouraging Christians. People look at the big picture and large font on the cover and wonder how did they never hear of these "facts?" Suddenly, some of those who have faith are suddenly unsure of what to believe and those without faith feel justified. After all, how can you argue with the consensus of academic opinion?

Gregory Koukl calls this tactic the "Rhodes Scholar." This is a way of knowing if the academic is a legitimate authority or not. What we do here is look at the difference between educating and informing. You are informed when the article tells you the belief of the author. You are educated by the article when you are let in on why the particular view is held. This is a very important difference. Remember chapter 4, the reason why a belief is held supports the beliefs of the person. If the walls are weak, the whole house collapses.

Most articles inform while not educating. Without the education piece, you can't evaluate the conclusion of the author. How do we know? For starters, no matter the credentials of the author, never be satisfied with the conclusion without first asking for the reasons. NEVER SETTLE FOR OPINIONS!!

Don't be victimized by the "fallacy of expert witness." Appealing to authority is okay, but it has to be done right. Always ask, "Why should I believe this person's opinion?" This question can be answered in two ways.

First, the scholar could know the facts due to a special position. IF he possesses that special info he must be able to use that evidence to convince you. For example, imagine an economics professor discussing the ethics of stem cell research and a cancer researcher who tells us about the dangers of the middle East. They may have degrees and intelligence in their field, but is outside their realm of expertise. Might as well let your mechanic remove your gall bladder and the mailman give you a hair cut and manicure. A Nobel Prize in biology hardly makes one an expert in economics.

Even if the scholar is speaking in their field of expertise, we still have the right to see how they came to their conclusion. Norm Giesler says, "All appeals to authority ultimately rest on the evidence the authority has. The letters after his name don't mean a thing without the evidence to back up his position."

Second, on occasion a scholar can be in a unique position to give judgement. They have the facts but then have the expertise to render judgement. Here we face another issue. Their judgement could be clouded by "philosophical considerations that are not always on the table" for you to see. Sometimes the scholar already knows where he will end up and looks for the "facts" that will allow him to reach his destination. If I am already convinced for or against something it makes it difficult for me to see otherwise. This is particularly a problem seen in science.

Science itself has two completely different definitions. The first is the most know. It is a method that involves observing, experimenting and testing with an open mind to discover facts. If the view doesn't follow this method, it is not science. Second is the philosophy of naturalistic materialism. Phenomena has to be explained within the parameters of energy and matter that natural law is governed by. If it doesn't fit into this second definition it is also, not science.

Using these two methods, we generally reach non-conflicting conclusions. Answers that are consistent with these two definitions are produced through good methods. Sometimes they aren't compatible. Evolution is that way. Koukl says, "When there is a conflict between methodology and materialism, the philosophy always trumps facts. Modern science does not conclude from the evidence that design is not tenable. It assumes it prior to the evidence. Any scientific methodology (first definition of science) that points to creation is summarily disqualified by scientific philosophy (second definition of science) as religion disguised as science."

You don't always have to see forces to acknowledge they are there. If a dead body is discovered, there  is generally an unbiased investigation. That investigation may rule that it wasn't an accidental death but was instead a homicide. If there are multiple bullet holes in the body, the investigator may come to the conclusion that it was indeed foul play. This is the same way that unbiased scientific evidence could find that chance is not how life came about, but instead had "an agent in creation This is not faith vs evidence but evidence vs evidence."

In closing, a scholarly opinion may be a great way to make a point. But this is sometimes not the case. First, we must always insure that the scholar is talking about their field of expertise. Second, remember that WHAT they believe is not what you are after. You want to know WHY they believe that way. You want to hear the scholars reasons, not their opinions.

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 11 - Steamroller

Are you ready to learn more ways to deal with people who hold different beliefs than you do? If so, then this has been a great series for you. We have been looking at ways to help explain to others our opinion when we disagree. Sometimes, no matter how reasonable our points are people will not listen. They have their minds made up and nothing you can tell them is going to change their minds today, not matter how rational your argument it.

Believe it or not, rational reasons keep people from seeing the truth. A rational reason can bring up more questions, and until those question are answered, you are at an impasse. So what are those reasons?

1. Emotional reasons - They have had bad experiences with the church, or with Christians, or because if they accept Christ that means that _________ (Fill in blank with name of deceased loved one) died without forgiveness and they may be in suffering for all of eternity.
2. Prejudice - As soon as they see you or find out you are a Christian, they have already made value judgments against you and are shut down. They are only interested in their position, not yours.
3. Rebellion - Some people fight against Christ and Christianity because they are stubborn. They will fight that fight until the day they die

Those reasons may all be going on with the person you are talking to. Every once in a while you will run into someone who uses one of the above reasons. They will try to verbally overpower you. It is not facts or even arguments that they throw at you, but the force of their own will. This is the person known as the steamroller. So, how do we know a steamroller?

A steamroller always interrupts. A lot like the interrupting cow, they will constantly throw questions at you, not allowing you to answer the original question that they asked. They will change subjects, fire question after question, interrupt and never allow you to be on the offensive. Nothing you say will matter to them, because they generally aren't listening anyway. After all, they are not interested in learning or even getting their questions answered. The steamroller is only interested in winning.

Because they are aggressive, you have to be aggressive with them. There are several steps to being aggressive enough to have a conversation with the steamroller:

1. STOP HIM
2. SHAME HIM
3. LEAVE HIM

You have to stop the steamroller if you can. Once he knows that you are intimidated, he has already won. Because of this, you need to act quickly. One way to stop the intrusion is to nicely ask for courtesy. You might hold up your hand or a finger, and when they pause say, "I'm not quite finished answering your question yet. You asked a good question and I would like to give you a good answer. If you have another question or comment I will give you the chance as soon as I am done to respond. Will that work?"

If they break their agreement to wait until you are done, or if they will not give you an opportunity to talk you move to step 2. Shaming is a little more aggressive. You will shame them for their bad behavior. This is done by getting their attention, looking them in the eye and calmly talking to them. You could say something like, "Can I ask a quick question? So you really want a response from me? I thought that you did at first, now I get the impression from your continuing to interrupt me that all you really want is an audience. If that is true, I can just listen to you. If you want an answer, you'll need to give me time to respond. Tell me what you want. I need to know before I go on."

Hopefully that will work. They will see that you are their equal and they cannot steamroll you, or they continue to be rude and interrupt. Never lose your calm. Remember the saying, "Never get into an argument with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level then beat you with experience." If you cannot get them to stop, you leave. Plain and simple. When the first two methods have failed you need to just walk away. They can have the satisfaction of having the last word. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone deserves an answer.

Once again, don't forget what the Bible says about this very thing in Mark 4. You are told that some of the seeds you plant will fall by the thorns and not grow, some will sprout fast but wither and die and still others will be gobbled up by birds. All you can do is plant the seeds. Then your job is done. Remember, if it falls on deaf ears you should not take it personally. This is not about you, this is about Christ!

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 10 - Taking the Roof Off

Not all points of view commit suicide such as the ones we have looked at in the past couple of chapters. Some of them work against themselves by leading to absurd conclusions if they are broken down. These will not work against themselves as those that commit suicide will, but if we use just a little bit of our brain power we can relate how these points too just do not pass the muster test.

To do this you first must take the other person's point of view. Reduce it to it's most basic assertion. Then you try the idea out and determine if you were to use that view to guide you, where would it take you. Mentally take their view for a test drive. Finally, if it takes you to a place that seems a bit unusual, you point that out to whoever is using that viewpoint.

This method is called Taking the Roof Off by Mr. Koukl. Another way this is know by is reductio ad absurdum. This is a phrase in Latin that means reducing a point to its furthest conclusion. If when doing this you see that the outcome is incoherent or absurd, then you help the person who has that point of view see the faulty logic it ends in.

Take moral relativism, for example. Most who believe in moral relativism don't mind practicing it as long as it is not practiced on them. To believe that cruelty and non cruelty are equal in Hinduism would mean that there is no difference between evil and good, ultimately. How is someone helping your wife broke down on the side of the road the same as someone killing her intentionally? Obviously, that is an extreme example, but those tend to work best to make the point.

Someone who "denies God is living on borrowed capital. He enjoys living as if the world is filled with morality, meaning, order and beauty, yet he denies that God whose existence make such things possible."

There are several different examples given in the book of ideas that are ripe for having their roof taken off. He hits on two very hot topics here, one of them being homosexuality and the other being abortion. These are two very hard topics for many to broach, and he does it well in the book by looking at the arguments given today for these two topics.

In homosexuality it is currently popular to say, "I was born this way." That is all that many feel is needed in order to stem the moral criticisms for homosexuality. The basic argument is that since homosexuality is natural it must be moral. What if scientists some day found a racism gene. Would these same people who reason that homosexuality is natural so it must be  moral feel the same way about gay bashers if that too proved to be a naturally occurring gene. Instead, they would probably argue that they should fight the influence of that gene.

Just because an impulse is natural does not mean it's moral. Substance abuse has been found to be genetic. There are many of us who are hardwired to be addicts and alcoholics. That does not give me the right to inject methamphetamine and drive drunk for the rest of my life. I know that it is morally wrong and due to that I have been clean and sober for over 3 years (by the Grace of God!).

Next Greg talked about "Trotting out the Toddler." He said that almost every argument that supports abortion could be used to justify the killing of children that are newly born as well, if taken to their conclusion. How can a 7 inch journey magically transform tissue into a living human being? If someone says that "women have the right to choose" ask if, for the same reason given, she should have the same right to kill her 1 year old? Both are human beings, so the same rule should morally apply to them.

If you should kill a fetus to save it from future abuse or neglect, should you not also kill a two year old to save them from the same thing? After all, that is the logical implication that abortion has. Modified pro-choice is even worse.This is when someone says "I think that it is wrong for me to kill my baby. I would never do that, but it is okay for other women to do what they want." All you have to do is so, "So in effect, you feel that it is okay for women to kill babies?" Just like that, the roof is off, although it can be taken even further using the toddler line of deroofing their argument.

Greg also has many other great examples of how to take the roof off of the arguments of many more arguments in this chapter. If you want to read those, I would highly recommend that you buy the book. I know for me it has been an interesting and informing read so far. I look forward to reading chapter 11 and writing about it. Til then, have a blessed week!

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 9: Sibling Rivalry and Infanticide

Ther are many reasons that someone point of view can self-destruct. So far, you have covered two of them: Formal suicide and Practical Suicide. Today we will talk about two more self-defeating views: Sibling Rivalry and Infanticide. When someone has two objections that conflict, you have the Sibling Rivalry. If, on the other hand, someone's view is built upon a previous concept that disqualifies their view, then you have Infanticide.

In conversation sometimes, you will hear something that sounds strange. You will hear objections used by the same person that are not consistent with each other. Since they cannot both be valid, you only have to do half the work. A reasonable person will concede on at least one of their arguments, when they are pointed out to them. Sometimes they will silence both of their arguments when they are shown to be in conflict.

An example of Sibling Rivalry would be someone who looks at the world today and is angered. They read about someone who has abused children or a dictator killing innocent people and say, "A good, loving God would never let this happen." Yet when those same people hear that some will be judged by God say, "A good, loving God would never send anyone to hell." By their very arguments, if God does not act against evil, He cannot be good and loving. Yet when he does act to punish sin, his goodness and love are put into question.

Sibling Rivalry is also the issue moral relativists run into when objecting to evil. A relativist will argue that we all have our own morality. Right and wrong are the business of the individual, who are we to judge. Therefore, they cannot really define evil. Evil only means that something is wrong for them to do. If you label something as evil, that means that it is not the way it is supposed to be. Unless things are meant to be different, this is a senseless word. If the world is unjust, than there must be a higher justice.

What the moral relativist is saying is, "If God were really good and loving, He would only allow things that I like and wouldn't allow things I find displeasing." Gregory says, "The belief that objective good and evil do not exist (relativism) is i conflict (rivalry) with a rejection of God based on the existence of objective evil."
Infanticide is harder to understand. Imagine a father ending a letter with; "Son, if you didn't get this letter, please let me know, and I'll send you another. I made a copy." This is illogical because the son would have to receive the letter if he knew to ask for a copy, but if he got the letter he would not need the copy. There is a dependency here that is the very heart of Infanticide. Another example is saying "vocal chords do not exist." That statement in and of itself is not contradictory internally, but it requires vocal chords to speak the statement. So the parent concept (vocal chords) invalidates the child (claim there is no vocal chords).

The best example of Infanticide is when objectivists argue that God cannot exist because of evil. The atheist must first answer the question, "What do you mean by evil?" They will probably give examples: rape, murder, racism, child abuse. Those are good answers, but they miss the point. Where does their concept of evil come from. Before you can give examples of evil, you must know what evil is.

So, how do you know the difference between good and bad? Let's look at bowling. In bowling, good and bad can be measured by pin count. A 300 is supremely good, and rolling all gutter balls is supremely bad. Even in sports that you cannot be perfect in, such as golf, we still keep score. When we use the word evil we have a moral scoring system that we depend on. Evil means that when put on the goodness scale, we are on the low end. C.S. Lewis saw this same problem:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I gotten this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call something crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.

This is the problem atheists will run into. Where have they gotten their concept of good that allows them to label something as evil? How can there be a moral scoring system if morals are nothing more than a product of chance. In fact, why obey them at all if that is the case. Who is it that establishes how things are supposed to be? In the movie The Quarrel, Rabbi Hersh says:

If there's nothing in the universe that's higher than human beings, then what's morality? Well, it's a matter of opinion. I like milk; you like meat. Hitler likes to kill people; I like to save them. Who's to say which is better? Do you begin to see the horror of this? If there's no master of the universe, then who's to say that Hitler did anything wrong? If there is no God, then the people that murdered your wife and children did nothing wrong.

So why do we need a God? What purpose does God serve in the argument about morals and morality? A morally perfect God is the only plausible standard for a moral scoring system that contains at the bottom end evil. If God's existence makes evil intelligible, then evil cannot be evidence against God. In fact, it is great evidence for God. So morals actually prove that God exists!

When it comes to morals, sometimes people think that atheists can't be moral. That is very untrue. They can be very moral, but they generally canot make sense of morality without God. Just because you can't explain gravity does not mean it does not work. The question for them is what grounds morality? Atheism creates a physicalist universe and morality is a nonphysical thing.

I would get into scientism as he does and how it commits suicide now, but that will take an entire blog. Look for a blog entitled Scientism Self-Destructs coming in the next week or so. See you next time when we look at Chapter 10!

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 8: Practical Suicide.

Last chapter you learned that some people's objections you do not have to defend. Instead, you show that their point commits suicide, meaning all you have to do is ask questions about the point that is being made and it will fail. Some views can also be self-defeating, just in a different way. One of those ways is practical suicide.

In this type of suicidal view, "you can hold the view, but you can't promote it." I used to say that I could not stand prejudiced people. In saying that about a certain type of people, I was showing myself to be prejudiced. So although I may dislike prejudice, saying that I do not like prejudiced people made me a prejudiced person.

Others say that apologetics is not adequate, because it uses reason to discover truth. "In fact, I will give you three good reasons why you can't use logic to find truth." Another view that commits practical suicide is  "condemning condemnation." This is where you state your belief that someone is wrong for doing something. In turn, someone tells you that you are wrong for condemning people like you just did. All you have to do now is ask them why they are condemning you.

When you share with others about Christ, you are following the command that Christ gave us with the Great Commission. You may have others of a different faith tell you that it is wrong to try and change their religious views. In saying this, they are telling you to change your religious views. They want you to abandon your views of evangelism and instead adopt their views.

A moral relativist will push their morals on you, whilst telling you that it is wrong to push your morality on them. Greg Koukl says: The only consistent response for a relativist is, "Pushing morality is wrong for me, but that's just my personal opinion and has nothing to do with you. Please ignore me."

Hopefully through these examples you can see exactly what a practical suicide view is. It is another view point that will self-destruct. It will not self-destruct due to internal contradiction. Instead, it is a view that one can believe, but they cannot promote it or act on it because they will violate their own convictions, for example, "It is wrong to say people are wrong."

See you next time when we introduce a couple more self-destructing points of view.

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 7: Suicide: Views that Self-Destruct

The first 6 chapters of Tactics looked at the game plan. This week begins part 2, Finding the Flaws. You will begin to identify different flaws in the arguments that people use against you. The first flaw Greg discusses in his book is the suicidal view. These views are self-refuting and will defeat themselves. You don't need to waste much time on these. They will literally destroy themselves. My personal favorite is, "My brother is an only child."

That statement is easily proven wrong by itself. If he is my brother, than he cannot be an only child. The problem with these views is simple. They fail to meet their own criteria of validity. Here are some examples that he lists:

• There is no truth. (Is this statement true?)
• There are no absolutes. (Is this an absolute?)
• No one can know any truth about religion. (How precisely, did you come to know this truth about religion?)
• You can't know anything for sure. (Are you sure about that?)

Basically, the suicide tactic can only work due to a rule of logic called the law of noncontradiction. That law states that two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time. All views that are suicidal make claims that are at odds with each other. "A" cannot be the case if "A" is the case.

Imagine someone tells you, "You should never impose you values on other people." Has he not just imposed his values on you? That is why your very next question should be, "Are those your values." When he says yes then ask, "Why are you imposing your values on other people?"

Another example is the following conversation Greg gives in Tactics:
 "You think that God is on your side but you are wrong. God doesn't take sides."
"Let me ask you a question. In this disagreement that we are having on whether or not God takes sides, what do you think God's opinion is?"
"I just told you. God is against taking sides."
"Right. So in our dispute God would agree with you, not me."
"That is right."
"He would side with you in this issue, then. I guess God takes sides after all."

Simply by stating that God does not take sides implies that he has taken sides. The same is true when someone says that the Bible is flawed because people make mistakes. Could they not be mistaken themselves, about the Bible being flawed? If people don't always make mistakes, then the Bible can not be ruled out just because people wrote it.

Another common argument is that religion cannot be true as follows:
"I don't believe in religion."
"Why not?"
"There is no scientific evidence for it."
"Then you should not believe in science either."
"Why not?"
"Because there is no scientific evidence for it."

In this instance, people feel that only science can give reliable truth. If that were to be true, then were is the scientific evidence that proves only science can prove the truth? This is not a testable scientific claim. Instead, it is a philosophical statement about science that is unreliable because it cannot be proven by the scientific method.

Anyone that states all religions are true can be no more right than someone who states all religion is false. When someone dies they may go to Hell, they may go to Heaven, they may go to Valhalla, they might go back in the ground simply turning to dust, they might even be reincarnated but the last thing that they can do is all of these choices at once.

Next you have the pseudo-questions. It would be a question such as "Can God's power defeat His power?" I have heard this asked  before as, "Can God make a rock so big He can't pick it up?" Of course that is a nonsensical question. How can omnipotence defeat omnipotence. Can you ever win a fight against yourself? Logic would tell us no. W can only use the phrase "stronger than" when there are two subjects, not one. Asking if God is stronger than himself is at best an incoherent question.

In closing, Suidical Views are awesome. We have to do very little work to refute them, we need only do several things. First, listen to the claim or premise. Then ask if the claim applies to itself. If it does, does it meet it's own criteria or is there a conflict. IF there is a conflict, rather than pointing that out in a statement use a question to point it out (The Columbo Approach).

Thanks for reading, see you next time when we delve into Practical Suicide!

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 6: Perfecting Columbo

So you are wanting to be able to defend your faith rationally and well, right? When you have tried that in the past you have probably noticed that it is hard to be successful in discussions that you have had. You tend to be unable to do anything that you are unprepared for. If you are faced with new problems you generally have trouble coming up with well thought out solutions on the fly. The reason for that is simple. It takes time and practice to develop any new skill, let alone perfect it.

At first, you will not be able to come up with responses rapidly. Due to that there are 3 specific things that you can do to better prepare yourself:

1. Anticipate in advance what could come up in conversations
2. Reflect after the discussion on what took place
3. Practice the different responses that you are able to think of when you reflect to better prepare you for the next time

Anticipate  ways that the conversations you might get into could go. Look at common themes and/or questions that people tend to ask or use. You will want to look up information on the questions that you have had issues with in the past. The you can come up with several good responses for each of those scenarios. Give yourself several different ways to insure you are in the driver's seat when you have future conversations.

Reflect on each conversation after it happens. Make sure to ask yourself several questions each time. Could I have asked better questions? Could I have steered the conversation in a more beneficial direction? Did I plant a decent sized rock in their shoe? Where did I make mistakes? What could I have done differently? Did I represent myself as a good ambassador for Christ? Do I need to learn more about the topic we discussed? Did I act with enough kindness and grace?

Practice the new information that you find and ideas that you come up with out loud. If you can think of things that someone might possibly use to combat what you say, practice what you will say back. And do it out loud. Work on repeating comebacks, and if you have a friend to help you can even role play the conversations. Remember, do it out loud and often. If you want to get better at anything, the only way is to rehearse it and practice, practice, practice.

There are two things that must happen in order to meet a challenge. You must be prepared and then take action. Preparation gives you the confidence you need, but only through interaction with others will you truly be able to improve your abilities to the level they should be for you to truly be an ambassador for Christ.

Occasionally you may run into someone who tries to use the Columbo on you. Always remember that you  control your side of the discussion. If they are asking leading questions, don't answer them. Ask them why they are using questions to explain their points. Let them know that you want to know their views.

Sometimes you may also be asked a question that is not a question and you must always be prepared for it. It will sound like, "What gives you the right to .....?" or "Who are you to say?" If this happens, let them know that you are confused by the questions. "I get the impression that you think that I've made a mistake. Where did I go wrong?" That, or you can ask them to clarify their question so that you can understand it.

Today we took a look at what we have discussed in the earlier blogs as well as how we can begin to get better and prepare ourselves to be not only ambassadors for Christ, but apologists. This is done by remembering 3 words: anticipate, reflect and practice. Join me next week when we begin the second section of the Tactics and start learning how to find the flaws in others arguments.

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 5 Step Three: Using Columbo to Lead the Way

You are beginning to use the Columbo tactic in a different way in this chapter. In the past chapters you have not had to have knowledge, but instead have asked for the knowledge of the person you are talking to. You have also not been on the offensive, but have played the conversation defensively by insuring they were responsible for the burden of proof and your views might not even have been known yet. That all changes today!

Today you begin to ask a different type of question, a "leading question." You want to have the other person begin to talk in the direction that you want them to go. This can be done by asking questions. These questions will get the person you are in discussion with to take steps forward towards your way of thinking. You are not forcing your opinions, but are attempting to persuade them.

As you begin to let others know that you are Ambassadors for Christ you will get asked "the question." One where a simple yes will cause you to appear conceited, prejudice and fundamental in the worst sense of the word. That question is, "So you are saying that people who don't believe what you believe are going to Hell?"

That question is not meant to do anything other than discredit you. It is asked to paint you as the worst type of person who is right and every one else is wrong. There is a way to answer this question, but it takes having knowledge. Unless you know why Jesus matters, you will fail. Simply knowing that they need to believe isn't enough. Here is how Greg used his knowledge in a conversation with Guy X:
"Let me ask you a question,"he said. "Do you think that people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished?"
"I guess I do," Guy X replied.
"Good. So do I." Greg said, to agree with Guy X. "Now, a second question: Have you ever committed any moral crimes?"
"Yes, I guess I have."
"So have I," Greg said. "That puts us in a pretty tight spot, doesn't it? We both believe people who do bad things should be punished, and we both believe that we're guilty on that score. Do you know what I call that? I call that bad news. This is were Jesus comes in. WE both know we are guilty. That's the problem. So God offers a solution: a pardon, free of charge. That clemency is on His terms, not ours. Jesus is God's means of pardon. He personally paid the penalty in our place. He took the wrap for our crimes. No one else did that. Only Jesus. Now we have a choice to make. Either we take the pardon and go free, or we turn it down and pay for our crimes ourselves."

In this conversation Greg used the Columbo tactic coupled with his knowledge of what Christ did on the cross and why it was significant for all people. Using the same two things, knowledge and the Columbo tactic will allow you to answer a lot of hard questions, once you learn how to effectively use them.

On occasion you may need to use questions to make conversations that you are in more favorable for you. When it is a controversial issue, begin by saying, "You know, this is actually a very personal question that you're asking. I don't mind answering, but before I do, I want to know if it's safe to offer my views. So let me ask you a question: Do you consider yourself a tolerant or intolerant person on issues like this? Is it safe to give my opinion, or are you going to judge me for my point of view? Do you respect diverse points of view, or do you condemn others for convictions that differ from your own?"

This covers you from being seen as the intolerant one. If they judge you, then by their own admission they are intolerant. Someone who calls you intolerant generally does so because you do not believe as they do. Them disagreeing with you based on their own beliefs makes them intolerant towards you. If this happens to you, there is a simple solution. You can ask them to explain to you why when you think you're right it is intolerance, but when they think they are right it just means that they are right.

In this method, you are using questions to expose flaws/weaknesses and to expose difficulties and problems you see in their views. Unless you know the shortcomings in their arguments, you will not see them. This is why knowledge is the number one requirement for ambassadors of Christ. That said, remember that you are not trying to knock one out of the park every time you have a conversation. Sometimes, simply asking "What do you mean by that?" and "How did you come to that conclusion?" is enough. Just getting off the bench and into the game is often a great start.

There is one flaw that can occur when you begin this step. You run the chance when you go on the offensive as coming across as offensive. Remember what Jesus said in Matthew 10:16, "Be shrewd as serpents, and innocent as doves." This means that you must have the ability to look at someone's view and point out the weaknesses without begin smug or pushy. This can be a difficult task, especially at first.

In order to achieve the inoffensive offensive, you can use the following 3 questions:

1. Have you considered?
2. Can you clear this up for me?
3. Can you help me understand this?

These questions allow you to show respect for the person that you disagree with. You already showed effort with the first two questions. Then you asked for further clarification with, "Do you mind if I ask you a few questions about what you told me?" Finally, you can use a statement such as "It's my understanding that...."
and then explain your position and ask them to share a response. That let's them know that you have a belief, but it is open to discussion.

So know not only can you gather information, but you can also lead people in the direction you want them to go in, all by asking questions. You do need to be informed about the direction you want them to go in, or when they get there you will not be able to find the errors in their way of thinking. PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT!! See you next week when you will learn how to begin perfecting the Columbo techniques.