I’m a big fan of apologetics (the defense of the Christian faith), but I don’t think we should always treat it as a separate enterprise. It is good to have whole sessions on apologetics, especially because it is so often ignored in churches, and I’m a huge fan of sites like Apologetics315 and people like the Wintery Knight. But I prefer to integrate it into most of my lessons so people can grasp the basics and see that it is part of the fabric of our message.
We may not all have the job of evangelist, but as 1 Peter 3:15-16 notes, all Christians are to be apologists.
but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
But that doesn’t mean apologetics can’t be a regular part of our lessons and sermons. For example, when teaching anything in church, or even in general conversations as appropriate, I aim to reflexively weave in basic apologetic themes.
- The minimal facts: “Virtually all historians agree on key facts about Jesus and his followers, such as Jesus death on a Roman cross, his followers’ belief that He rose from the dead, and Paul’s conversion and his authorship of key books attributed to him such as Romans. We have good reasons to infer that Jesus rising from the dead is the best explanation for these facts.”
- Distinctions about biblical faith: We don’t have blind faith; we have a faith grounded in evidence. See how the Gospel was shared in the book of Acts. Over and over it was based on references to Jesus’ resurrection, not appeals to believe without evidence or reason.”
- The robust transmission process of the texts: “Even atheist textual critics will concede that we know what the original writings of the Bible said to 99%+ accuracy, and 100% on major doctrines.”
- Our simple claim: “The original writings of the Bible turned out exactly the way God and the writers wanted them to. Yes, men can make mistakes, but they don’t always make mistakes. Our biblical claim is that God directed the process.” You can go on at length about the Bible being inerrant, infallible and inspired — and I agree with all of those — but I’ve found that the simple summation gets people to realize that if God can do anything He can surely communicate his original texts to us the way He wanted to.
Note how simple and brief those are. They can lead to deeper conversations, but those alone can help change people from the errant “blind faith” mindset and get them to think more carefully about apologetics.
I do the same thing with the basic Gospel message. No matter what I’m teaching, I try to note how we are saved by grace, through faith, and not by works. This needs to be a constant reminder.
I urge you to weave these simple apologetic and Gospel concepts into your lessons and conversations. Even if it doesn’t lead the hearers to deeper apologetics studies, at least they will have clear reminders of the basics and will hopefully keep them from saying incorrect things.
What simple themes do you seek to work into lessons and conversations?
Eternity Matters 
Really?
First: The notion that “virtually all historians agree on key facts about Jesus” is, in addition to being a basic appeal to authority fallacy, simply not true. It’s probably true to say that most Christian Biblical scholars agree on those key facts, but that’s a pretty unremarkable statement – like saying 9 out of 10 Muslim scholars affirm the historicity of the Koran. There is no shortage of secular scholars who do not think those ‘key facts’ are sufficiently established.
Second: It’s impossible to know the degree to which the original manuscripts were accurately copied, since they do not exist. In the manuscripts that do exist (which are copies of copies of copies) there are abundant errors, contradictions, omissions and additions – all of which are well-documented.
Third: What you have with the New Testament is a book devoid of contemporaneous support for its claims. According to Wikipedia, the earliest epistle was written around 51 ad, nearly two decades after Christ purportedly died. The earliest gospel is Mark, dating to some forty years after the fact. That massive gap is filled with supposed eye-witness testimony, which has two problems: One, there is no reason to assume the gospels are based on eye-witness accounts since there are several events in which Jesus is said to be alone, yet we’re somehow privy to his conversations (the temptation in the desert, for example). The other problem is that even if the gospel were based on eye-witness accounts, modern research has shown eye-witness testimony to be notoriously unreliable.
So, with these kinds of apologetics, I don’t think you’re doing anything more than appeasing the flock. It’s not answering the questions that skeptics are really interested in, like Why should we think this book was divinely inspired when it bears all the hallmarks of being made-up by ordinary people? It’s filled with historical and scientific errors, mythology, and internal contradictions. This, the one book supposedly given to us by the all-powerful creator and lord of the universe. That’s the best he could do? Really?
LikeLike
For starters, go find 5 Phd historians for that time period that deny that Jesus lived and died on a Roman cross.
Re. appealing to authority — I’m sure you lodge the same objection against Darwinists and Climate alarmists as well (“The science is settled! So we’re taking away your tenure if you disagree! The fact that we get profit from this is irrelevant!”). Appeals to authority aren’t always fallacious. When you want to point to a fact of history, to whom should you turn? It is possible that the same historians are wrong about George Washington living and dying, but if we believe anything about history we’re going to go with those conclusions (absent contradictory data).
Also note that unlike Darwinian shills, the authorities in question here are typically hostile to the topic.
That’s a straw man, because it wasn’t my claim. Since there is no shortage of these scholars, please find 5 mainstream scholars that deny that Jesus existed and died on a Roman cross.
That’s not what atheist textual critic Bart Ehrman (and others) conclude. As pettily hostile as he is to the faith, he’ll argue strenuously about what certain passages really said. When you have thousands of manuscripts from many locations from different centuries it is easy to discern what the originals said.
And you miss the point about how our knowledge of omissions and additions proves our point. Since we know what was probably added (e.g., the “long ending” of Mark and the account of the woman caught in adultery, it shows we know what was really in the originals.
First, you rely on eyewitness testimony all day, every day. Or do you personally create your own test equipment from scratch and replicate the results of every scientific experiment you rely on?
If you really want to know about the reliability of the Gospels, I encourage you to read Can We Trust the Gospels?: Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John by Mark Roberts — http://www.amazon.com/Can-Trust-Gospels-Investigating-Reliability/dp/1581348665/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1322744127&sr=8-1 .
Wikipedia does list dates held to by liberal scholars (and hey — aren’t you appealing to authorities there?! 😉 ). Even if they are correct is doesn’t mean the Gospels aren’t accurate. And there are many good reasons to believe they were written much earlier — see http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2006/06/29/when-was-the-new-testament-written/
That sounds like someone quoting from the Big Book O’ Atheist Sound Bites. If you are really interested in the truth, I’d do more study on apologetics. Spend some time at http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/ or apologetics315.com and carefully listen to the debates listed there. Read about how other skeptics have changed their minds — http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/a-look-at-how-a-former-skeptic-changed-his-mind-about-gods-existence/ .
The Bible doesn’t claim to be a science textbook. But consider all the things we find there that atheists ignore! Start with the opening sentence: It declares that the universe came into being at a point in time. Just a lucky coin flip, eh?
It gets better: In Genesis, it claims multiple times that the number of stars in the sky is similar to the number of grains of sand. Yet it was thousands of years until people learned that there were more than roughly 1,100 stars. Again, how lucky of this bronze age book!
And look at the claims about constellations in Job 38. The writer knew about very specific properties of constellations — one that is bound together, and one that is drifting — that we couldn’t confirm until recently.
—–
Eternity is a mighty long time. I encourage you to take your study of the Bible and God more seriously. The evidence points to Jesus rising from the dead, and everything falls into place from there.
Also remember that if your worldview is true then it is 100.00% responsible for my conversion from atheism to believing in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Why are you wasting your precious moments of life trying to convince me of something that Darwinian evolution has led me to believe is false?
I noticed on your blog that you were rightfully thankful for many things. The only problem is that giving thanks requires a person to give thanks to. You reflexively know that there is someone to thank, but are in active denial about it.
I deleted your links. Sorry, no trolling allowed here. Before you object remember that Darwinian evolution is the root cause of everything I do and that in a godless universe you have no grounding to make any moral claims at any time. Oh, you can make them all you like, but it is irrational of you to expect others to care.
Romans 1:18-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
I hope you reconsider your views. No matter how much you try and deny it, you are a sinner against your creator, a perfect and holy God. You will die one day and face judgment for all your sins. Just because you rationalize away their magnitude and eternal significance doesn’t mean that God does. You have to abide by his terms and conditions. You don’t get to tell him how things work any more than you can make your boss triple your pay and give you 50 weeks vacation. The great news is that his terms and conditions are wildly generous: Trusting in Jesus as Lord and believing that He rose from the dead means that not only are your sins forgiven and your slate wiped clean, but that you are adopted as a child of God and eternally blessed to live in his kingdom. It is the ultimate deal, one which too many people mock and ignore out of selfish pride.
Cheers,
Neil
LikeLike