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 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.