Apologetics

“Christians, along with their hats, have to check their brains at the door when they go to church, because that’s the only way they can believe all that junk they're being told.” Has that sentiment every crossed your mind? Do you have serious doubts that the Bible can endure real scientific scrutiny? If you do, you’re not alone.

Quite frankly, the only reason you should believe the Bible is if it PROVES itself to be true. To place your trust in the God of the Bible that Bible needs to be reliable, not just spiritually, but scientifically and historically, as well. If it’s not, you’re better off sleeping-in on Sundays.

The good news is that there are good and satisfying answers to the hard and honest questions being asked. If you’re asking that kind of questions, you’ve come to the right place. Read on.

Isn't God just a projection of our desire to have a cosmic “Father” figure to watch over us?

This has been a popular objection to belief in God since at least the time of Freud, although its roots go back to the German philosopher Feuerbach. It is important to notice that this is not an argument for atheism; it is just a declaration that something is true.

Freud never based this theory on scientific studies; he just made observations consistent with his experience and his world view. There is no clinical evidence to support his view. In fact there has been some evidence that seems to indicate it is wrong.

However, assuming that Freud is right on his assumption, the premise still doesn't affect the truth or falsity of belief in God. Freud's argument in brief is: God is the fulfillment of our wishes—therefore he is just a projection. He can't exist in reality if he is an answer to our wishes.

But is this a valid way to argue? Of course it isn’t. To apply the argument in another form, let's imagine that you are running short on money and desperately wish for Friday to come so that you can get your paycheck. Does your desperate wish mean that Friday will not come? Friday will come whether or not you wish it. Put in those terms, we can clearly see that the fact of my wish or desire tells us nothing about the reality of its fulfillment.

Looking at the original argument, even if one wishes for God to exist, this indicates nothing about whether God exists or not; it only points to ones wish. God’sd existence or non-existence is not dependent upon our wishes.

Further, we could argue that the God revealed in the Bible is not the sort we would expect of a wishful creation. He demands that we live according to His standards and reject evil impulses, rather than freely do as we please. And He judges us. This is no grandfatherly being who indulges our every whim.

An interesting aside: A case could be made that atheism is the wish fulfillment of Freud's Oedipus complex. Freud pointed to the supposed psychological desire of every male child to “kill off” their fathers, as they mature and wish to assume the role for themselves. Atheism, then, would be our psychological desire to “kill off” the heavenly father. If we are picking or choosing psychological theories to explain belief or disbelief in God, surely this one would be preferable.

This objection does nothing to explain the evidence in favor of God's existence. There are good reasons scientifically, historically and rationally for belief in God's existence. To sustain atheism requires examination and refutation of these positive evidences. One cannot get by with just dubious declarations about the origin of belief; the evidence must be dealt with.

For further study, we recommend If There's a God, Why are There Atheists by R. C. Sproul.

Why believe? Just look at all the hypocrites in churches everywhere.

It is true that the church is full of hypocrites. In fact, the county club, the schools, the PTA, government and even biker gangs are all full of hypocrites. The world itself is full of hypocrites. While this does tell us a lot about the state of humans in the world, the only thing it tells us about God is that we don't live up to His standard. He is gracious to let us go on.

Now this may sound like a clever manipulation of words, but listen carefully. In a certain sense, the church is not full of hypocrites. A hypocrite is a person who holds a standard for others that he secretly doesn't apply to himself. Hypocrites don't practice what they preach. All sound Christians, however, teach that we are all sinners; we all fall short of perfect lives. Our status as believers doesn't require us to be perfect, try though we might. It demands that we admit our sin, and depend on God to take care of our guilt through the work of Jesus.

Our condemnation of sin always includes the humility of one who sins himself. It is not a case of perfect saints condemning the action of others while exempting themselves. So, in a strange way, Christians are living what they are proclaiming, even as they strive humbly to do better themselves. In that sense, they are not hypocrites.

Yet, most importantly, you cannot judge the truth or falsity of the Christian faith by how perfectly certain people live up to an ideal standard. The real issue is whether or not Christianity is true. Only an examination of the teachings of the faith and the evidence for them can answer that question.

For further study, we recommend The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.

Isn't Jesus just a legendary figure? Is there any evidence that he even existed?

We know of no reputable scholar of history, Christian or otherwise, who denies the existence of Jesus as a figure in history. The evidence is too great.

The primary sources of evidence are the works contained in the New Testament. These were all written within a relatively short time of Jesus' death while there were still living witnesses. Paul started writing about 16 years after Jesus' death. His epistles contain material about Jesus that was already well-known to Christians of the time from the early preaching.

That may seem like a long time for us, but most written biographies about ancient historical figures usually have very large gaps (often hundreds of years) between the life of the person and when the material was written. This realization is important, because the shorter the gap, the less likely there is to be an accrual of legendary stories.

These New Testament accounts do not stand alone. By the time they were recorded on papyrus, they had already been the core of teachings about Jesus in established churches all over the Roman Empire. Any late changes in the stories would have had to appear, unchallenged, to groups of Christians over a wide geographic area.

Secondary testimonies also appear fairly early on. Late in the first century the Jewish historian, Josephus, writes about Jesus, the historical figure. Additionally, in the early second century material by Roman historians, Suetonius and Tacitus, as well as the Roman legate, Pliny the Younger, support the historicity of the early accounts.

The real question is not Jesus’ existence, but His identity. For if the historical evidence is correct, His life is the pivotal point of all human history. How you respond to Him is the issue of ultimate importance, certainly worthy of the time to investigate further.

For further study, we recommend Making Sense of the New Testament by Craig L. Blomberg.

Are there not dozens of other Gospels the church excluded because they contain contradictions to the original story?

This position poses the objection that there were many competing Gospels from the earliest times portraying very different pictures of Jesus. After early power struggles, the “victors” suppressed the Gospels that didn't agree with their image of Jesus and therefore altered the record of his teachings.

This position has become popular today primarily through conspiracy fiction such as The DaVinci Code and others of that ilk. In addition, there are some radically liberal scholars, like Elaine Pagels and John Dominic Crossan, who have argued in a similar vein.

Yet the evidence is not on their side. The fact is that the Gospels included in the New Testament all date from the first century, in the lifetime of people who were eyewitnesses to the events themselves.

The gnostic gospels, championed by the fringe as being suppressed alternatives, all appear to be written from the mid-second century and later, by people geographically and culturally removed from any eyewitness testimony and advocating a different religion. In addition, by the time these false Gospels appeared, the church had already been established in many locations all over the known world. They adhered to over a hundred years of consistent teaching passed down by the eyewitnesses. These late-comers clearly contained new material not based in any eyewitness testimony.

The actual process of establishing the canon of the New Testament involved collecting all of the books that had an authoritative role in the church over the centuries. The idea was to find those books that could be reasonably traced to the apostolic circle that were used from those times on, books that were widely attested to by writings of known Christian leaders across the world, books that agreed with what had been taught from the first by those who were eyewitnesses.

For further study, we suggest Fabricating Jesus by Craig Evans.

Didn't the Discovery Channel show that Jesus’ bones were found in a tomb in Jerusalem? Doesn't this show the resurrection to be a made up story?

If the bones of Jesus of Nazareth were found, it would disprove the resurrection. This pseudo-documentary, however, offers no evidence about the Jesus of the Bible at all. In fact, the case made by the documentary is such nonsense that virtually all archaeologists, including many in the program, have spoken out against it.

The tomb in the documentary has been known in scholarly circles since 1980. This information was not suppressed; nobody saw it as more than another early tomb. The fact that one of the ossuaries bore the name “Jesus” is not big news. It was among the most popular names of the time. The Jewish historian of the first century, Josephus, mentions 21 different men named Jesus, and these are just the men who were well-known enough to be recorded in history books. Archaeologists have found two or three tombs bearing the name Jesus, son of Joseph; it is a very common name.

The documentary makes much of the combination of names contained within the tomb: Jesus, son of Joseph, Maria, Jose, and Judah, son of Jesus. The argument is that these combinations of names are too much like the family of Jesus of Nazareth to be coincidence. But, almost all of these names are among the most frequently used names of the time period. In addition, several of the names are disputed translations. This is why no one thought it significant at all until the recent spate of publicity.

Most of the conjured up “evidence” in the documentary is just non-evidence. They identify one ossuary as that of Mary Magdalene and through DNA testing prove that she is not related to anyone else in the tomb. Therefore, the documentary concludes, she must be Jesus' wife. However, most scholars believe the name in the tomb is better translated “Mary also called Mara,” not “Mary Magdalene.” In addition, the DNA only proves that she was probably married to one of the men in the tomb, only conjecture could tell us which one.

This “Discovery Channel” documentary is simply a non-story hyped and manipulated by the media. The evaluation of the documentary by Amos Kloner, the Jewish archaeologist who first examined the tomb, is the best response: “completely impossible . . . nonsense.”

Can you prove there is a God?

It depends on what you mean by “prove.” If you ask for proof of the existence of a God that is mathematically certain, the answer is no. There are very few things that can be proved that way. But, if by “prove” you desire substantial
reasons and evidence that point to the existence of God, the answer is yes.

There are lengthy and detailed arguments for the existence of God. In the brief space available here, we will briefly examine three areas of evidence.

1. The existence of the universe. Why is there something rather than nothing?

One of the most basic forms of the argument runs like this:

If something now exists,
either something came from nothing,
or something has always existed.

Modern cosmology points to the beginning of the physical universe some 15 billion years ago in a big bang or cosmic singularity. So, it doesn't appear that the physical universe has always existed. We are left with two options: either the universe popped into existence out of nothing or a non-physical (spiritual) entity caused the universe. The discussion is certainly more complicated and involved than this; but, even in this simplistic form, it encourages more investigation.

2. The existence of morals. If there is an objective right or wrong, then this requires a universal law-giver.

Consider an immoral act such as the random killing of an individual or perhaps child molestation. How do we know it is immoral? If it is wrong because of a social contract—we all agreed it would be wrong in society—then there is no reason to assume it is universally wrong to engage in such action. We could easily have taken the opposite position or may change our minds later. Perhaps there could even be societies where the social contract is different, allowing such actions. Who is to decide between social norms?

Also consider Hitler's final solution. Is it objectively wrong to kill an entire race of people simply because of their race? The German leaders at the time thought it was permissible. Who are we to judge—unless there is a higher law?

A more recent approach is to argue that morals are genetic disposition; we are wired to believe certain things are wrong. But what of those sociopaths who appear to have different dispositions? And what if our genetic make-up evolved and we are then predisposed to practice those acts once considered immoral?

It would seem that any basis for morals are either arbitrary or changing, unless there is a God beyond the ebb and flow of circumstance or time.

3. The Resurrection of Jesus

A collection of first century writings that later came to be the New Testament tell a remarkable story of a Jewish man claiming to be God. This was hard to believe, so many people asked him for proof. When pressed for evidence, this man claimed he would rise from the dead.

Later, his enemies executed him as a criminal by public crucifixion. Within days of his death, a movement began based upon the belief that he had come back to life and vindicated his claim to divinity. How did this movement flourish and grow based on this claim?

Three points are worth noticing. First, the adherents did not claim he rose in their hearts and minds, or that his teachings live on in them. Instead, they made the extraordinary claim that he had come back to life. Two, both governments involved in his execution could not produce a body nor persuade people it was a hoax. Third, enemies began torturing and killing these witnesses. Despite not having anything to personally gain from having fabricated such a story, the witnesses maintained their story even to the point of death.

Now, in this brief space, we have not provided a conclusive case, but we have provided some good leads for further research. If you doubt God's existence, we urge you to pursue the evidence and see how compelling it is. It is the most important quest of your life.

For further study, we recommend Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.

Wasn't the idea that Jesus was God the invention of the church council in Nicea in 325 A.D.?

A number of recent books give this conclusion, including the ever popular The DaVinci Code. Such a claim is entirely without foundation for several several reasons.

First, the Council at Nicea did meet to discuss, among other issues, the nature of Jesus’ divinity. All parties recognized him as divine in some sense; they just disagreed on the relationship of Jesus' divine nature and that of God the Father. To portray the council as suddenly voting and elevating Jesus to godhood is simply false.

Second, the godhood of Jesus was not a drastic change. The church taught that Jesus was God since its foundation. Indeed, the historical evidence demonstrates that Jesus himself claimed to be God and both his enemies and his followers knew he had made such claims.

If history was better known, this revisionist falsehood would never have succeeded.

For further study, we recommend Making Sense of the Trinity by Millard Erickson.

Aren't all religions the same?

Only if one defines the essence of religion as a vague feeling of something bigger and grander than the physical universe, coupled with a set of moral principles, could all religions be the same. There are very few advocates of any religion, however, that would be satisfied with such a definition of their faith.

In fact, the current conflict between radical Islamic groups and Christianity highlights that some religions aren't saying the same thing. Religions differ on views of ultimate reality, the nature of the world, the nature of persons and what is moral, among other things. To reduce the differences by defining them in nebulous terms trivializes all religions.

If God really exists, it is not a matter of making him up in your imagination and then worshiping that God. That would simply be a 21st century form of idol worship: using ideas, rather than stone, to carve an idol.

No, if God really exists, then we need knowledge of who He is. For example, suppose you were asked to describe the person J. Randall Brown. Without any information, you could make up a description of this person. But what are the chances that the made up description would correctly match up to the real person?

Christians believe God has revealed Himself to us. He became man and subjected Himself to the microscope of human history. This God-Man, Jesus, claimed not to just teach about God, or to be a prophet of God, but to actually be God. When those around Jesus asked for proof, he pointed to his future rising from the dead. He also said something else extraordinary: he claimed to be the only way to God!

All religions are not the same. If what Christianity says is true, this eliminates all other religions. The question becomes, “Is what Jesus said true?” That is the question you must answer. If Jesus is God (and the only way to God) as he claimed to be, it would be foolish to reject Christianity. If it is not true, then let’s prove it is not and get on with other things. It is important that you investigate the claims. All rests upon it.

For further study, we recommend Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.

How can an omnipotent, all-good God be reconciled with the evil in the world?

The first thing to note in discussing this question is the way it introduces the concept of evil. The question assumes that there is actual evil in the world and that it is not good. This is crucial because if you look at the two major worldviews in major competition to Theism (Christianity), you see that neither one provides a solid base to consider evil something abnormal and inherently bad.

In western materialism, for example, we have no reason to believe that evil is not just part of what is and has always been. There is no reason to expect anything to get better; in fact, there is really no philosophical basis to oppose it. Nature knows only what is; there is no inherent "ought." What is, is right.

In eastern pantheism, there is no way to distinguish evil and to eliminate it. All is part of “the one.” Therefore, it would again be philosophically impossible to commit evil against a person; individuality is just an illusion. We are one.

In Christianity, man is created in a perfect world and given the responsibility of making significant decisions about the universe and its future. To be significant, these decisions must have consequences beyond the individual. Other people—even the universe itself—are affected by the decisions of mankind.
Therefore, in the Christian worldview, the introduction of evil is an abnormality not originally part of the good creation. This evil is something to be overcome. Further, God provides a way for us to overcome evil, for evils of the past to be redressed, and for a future world where evil will have no place.
Yet, we cannot afford to choose our worldview simply by what it promises. The real question is always, “Is it true?” Christianity offers solid evidence that it is true. Because it offers a solution and a basis for recognizing evil, Christianity is a promising place to start. Because Christianity is based on examinable evidence, it must be dealt with.

For further study, we suggest Unspeakable: Facing Up to Evil in an Age of Genocide and Terror by Os Guinness.

Hasn't science disproved the Bible?

This is a common argument often repeated, but seldom demonstrated. In fact, in many ways science and the Bible assist each other. For example, many philosophers of science, including major non-Christian philosophers, argue that modern science came out of the Christian worldview. According to the philosophers, the Christian worldview explains why science rose to its current prominance in the western world. Although other cultures made significant progress in specific areas, they all stalled at some point. Christianity provided belief in a real, ordered creation capable of being understood. It also provided in its cultural mandate the impetus to explore and subdue.

In addition, the discipline of scientific archaeology provides many confirmations of Bible history, although there are still areas where further knowledge is needed. Two broad examples of supportive evidence are the discovery of the powerful Hittite empire and the antiquity of writing, both of which were doubted in the 19th century by Biblical skeptics.

Three areas most often pointed to as examples of disagreements between science and the Bible are origin of the universe, biological evolution, and miracles. Let's briefly consider each.

First, in terms of the origin of the universe, scientific cosmology and the Bible are closer than ever. In the late 20th century, the Bible’s account of the universe coming out of nothing became the dominant scientific view through the big bang theory and its various offspring. All scientific evidence points to a temporal universe, not an eternal physical universe. In many ways, this catapults the Biblical account into the discussion in the modern world.

Second, in modern times, biological evolution is the area of most contention. Yet, even here the conflict is often misrepresented. The question often boils down to whether one accepts macro evolution. Did all life originate by accident and evolve from the simplest form to the most complex, without any intervention by God or any design? On this, science has many problems. How does something come from nothing? Does life come from non-life and an impersonal universe without reason put forth reasoning, personal beings? Some scientists claim that happened, but they have yet to nail down the mechanism to explain it.

The problem here is: should the believer embrace what the Bible actually says on this issue, instead of adding additional facts not in evidence. In response, many in the scientific community, with naturalist assumptions, assume all Christians have the same views as presented by the wildest adherents of creation. In reality, more responsible voices on both sides have more in common than generally presented.

Finally, it is no surprise that when it comes to miracles, there are often wide disagreements between the community of faith and the world of science. Science is based on the assumption of inviolable nature law. Miracles, by definition, are an exception to these laws. It would seem that the place for investigation of miraculous claims is in the area of historical investigation. What evidence is there for the historical occurrence of a miracle and how good is that evidence?  On this front, Christianity is clear: the best evidence for the Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus rose from the dead, he has been vindicated. If not, we are fools to believe.

For further study, we recommend The Kalam Cosmological Argument by William Lane Craig, The Resurrection of the Son of God by N. T. Wright, and The Son Rises by William Lane Craig.