Reaching the Lost: Apologetics and More

Hi, my name is David and I am a Christian. It was a hard process for me to become a Christian, because of various factors. I would like to talk about the things that kept me away from God for so many years, discuss what we can do to help people come to Christ. Some things are beyond our control because of the world we live in. Those should not be your focus. Instead, look at the things under your control. I know you can impact lives positively, because there were people who impacted mine.

I lost my faith at a very young age. My parents were hypocrites and although they were respected in the church, it was because nobody saw who they really were. Then I went through sexual, physical and emotional abuse from the age of 4 through the 6th grade and I became Agnostic. I did not know whether or not there was a God. I only knew that if there was one, He obviously did not care about me. If He cared none of the abuse would have happened.

I met kids at school that went to church, or at least I thought they did. I would hear them talk about seeing each other in church, or hear them talk about God. Then I would hear them cussing, picking on a less popular kid or see them fighting. As I grew up these are the kids I would go out drinking and chasing women with. In dealing with the Christians around me I only knew one thing; they were just like me. 

As I continued drinking and then moved into drugs, the people that I would hear talk about God became fewer and fewer. They were still in my life, though. I remember one of my friends would get high on meth and then spend hours telling me how worried he was for me, because I was going to go to hell because I was not saved like him. I continued to see the hypocrisy that I associated with Christians.

Over the course of my life, I would try to belittle Christians by asking those questions they never had answers to. I used my Agnosticism to feel intellectually and emotionally superior to them. I would ask them why they believed in God and the answer was usually because that was how they grew up, because they were afraid of going to hell or it was what the Bible said.

I would argue scientifically or historically and they never had any answers, instead leaning on faith and dogma. In my depression I would ask them even harder questions, like why would a God who loved me allow me to be brutalized as a youth and they never could answer with anything other than, “God has a plan.”

His plan sucked, in my opinion. I knew several things about Christians in my youth:

1.       Christians were hypocrites

2.       Christians were judgmental

3.       Christians believed in God out of blind faith

4.       Christians believed in God out of fear of going to hell

5.       The only difference between me and a Christian was they had been dunked in some water and believed in a God. They lived their lives no differently than I did: drinking, drugs, lying, fighting and sleeping around.   

I think if you were to talk to most non-Christians about their feelings on Christians, you would get most if not all of what I just listed above. Christians are called by God to do many things. Because we are not doing them, this is the opinion that many secularists/Atheists/Agnostics/Seekers have of us. There is no difference between Christians and the people outside of the church, so why believe in God? He obviously makes no difference in people’s lives.

My life was changed because of several things. I encountered people who represented Christianity well. They lived their lives morally and were incessantly hopeful and optimistic. They were the polar opposite of the people we both worked with. They loved me even though I was a wreck. They cared even though I was an Agnostic, criminal and addict. They lived their lives well and wanted to see the people around them living better lives, too.

When I had questions they could not answer, they admitted they didn’t know. Then they introduced me to someone that did. He could answer the hard questions I asked. He was able to tell me scientific, historical and philosophical reasons for his faith. For example, I was introduced to Lee Strobel’s book, The Case for Christ and Doug Powell,s book Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics.

Finally, I was introduced to Paul and heard about his struggles and how he overcame them. I heard Christian songs in church talking about the same struggles I had and how Christ was the answer. I heard testimonies through Celebrate Recovery that started with the hopeless and ended with hopeful thanks to the Holy Spirit.

What does this mean for you personally? What can we do to change how the world sees us?

1.       Let people see Christ by representing Him. Live your life as an agent of change by being different than the people around you. Don’t cuss, lie, gossip, have premarital sex, overeat, be lazy at work and quit doing drugs and smoking cigarettes. Your body is the temple of God and you are turning it into an amusement park.

2.       Instead of seeing the worst in people, talk to them and show concern and compassion for them. Care about people, even those who don’t care about themselves. You may be the first person to show interest in them or to have faith that their lives can get better. That is a powerful thing, it gives hope!!

3.       Be able to explain why you believe in God from several different angles. Make sure that one of them is personal experience and then have a couple of others after you study a couple of books on apologetics. Discuss those books with an accountability partner and be prepared to defend your reasons.  Better yet, start an apologetics small group at your church.

4.       Realize that fear of hell is not a reason to believe in God. I know the difference that my heavenly father made in my life. Because of that, I want Him to be proud of me. I don’t live my life the way I do out of fear of hell. I have lived through hell. I do it out of respect and because I want God to one day tell me, “Well done!”

5.       If we are saved, we are different. We should be proud of that difference. We have a message of hope that can save lives. Shout it from the roof tops. I know that you don’t want to offend people, but it will happen. You have no problem offending people that feel differently about politics or the economy. Why are you scared now?

In closing, remember that you may be the only Christian someone comes in contact with. What impression are they left with after they spend time with you? Your attitude, actions and language may be all that stand between someone being a victim or a victory!

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 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.