Introduction to Apologetics

By

Peter Hsin

2/6/04

Part I:  Theology and Philosophy

 

Introduction to Apologetics

By

Peter Hsin

2/6/04   More Sermony  V2.0

I.  Introductory Remarks

A.     Introduction

1.  3 Part series

2.  Part I on the Theology, Philosophy

3.  Part II on Science

4.  Part III on History

B.  Theology of Apologetics

Why study apologetics?

1.  Obedience to direct command

1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

a.  “Answer” Gr= Apology.  A logical defense

b.  reason Gr = Logos.  Logical

c.  Always being prepared

d.  Heart of submission to Christ as Lord

e.  An attitude of gentleness and respect

2.  Direct Evangelism to Unbelievers: remove obstacles to the gospel

a.  1 Cor 1,2 are clear that the heart of evangelism is through the Holy Spirit and not good argumentation.

1cor 214 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned

b.  Col 2:8 warns against bad philosophy

COL 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

c.  But the HS can use apologetics to bring people to saving faith

d.  Modeling: Logical argumentation from shared premises

-explain shared premises

-Jesus himself always answered objectors sharply.  He frequently argued from the evidence of his miracles or the testimony from a legal standpoint. 

-Mt 22:31 But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you, 32 `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

-As a last resort, he even gave doubting Thomas strong evidence so that he would believe.

-Paul’s ordinary method of evangelism was argue and reason with proofs

(Acts 17-20.)  To the Jews he used scriptures.  To the philosophers in Athens, he argued from general revelation. 

-AC 26:24 At this point Festus interrupted Paul's defense. "You are out of your mind, Paul!" he shouted. "Your great learning is driving you insane."

-Personal experience with Pat and Chris

e.  Personal experience with Jay, Dave, Justin: the combination of prayer, the miracle of a changed life, and apologetics.

3.  Edification of Believers

a.  MT 22:37 Jesus replied: " `Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'

b.  Apologetics helps us to see more of God in the world.  We can see more of God in truth, goodness, science, and history.  Integrated worldview.

c.  Understanding the Bible: Logos, Doctrine (Trinity), historical background

d.  Knowing that Christianity is rational and there is evidence to support its claims can strengthen the believer’s convictions. 

     -boldness in witness regardless of success. 

-boldness in obedience.  No hedging.

4.  Cultural Effects

a.  “Even a bad shot is dignified when he shows up at a duel.”  -G.K. Chesterton

b.  Christianity is struggling to remain a valid contender as a reasonable point of view in our culture.  Failing to engage in the intellectual marketplace forfeits the legitimacy of our claims on the personal level.

“To be ignorant and simple now- not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground-would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen.  Good philosophy must exist for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.”  C.S. Lewis

c.  Power of Ideas and the Church’s Trojan Horse

-Ideas and their effects:  Aristotle/Alexander, Nietzsche/Hitler,

-Existentialism/Fideism, Subjectivism and the loss of influence

     -until the 1800 the minister was the intellectual center of society

-philosophically, the error began with Descartes, and the loss began with Hume

d.  Why I was not a Christian: the failure of the church and escaping the spirit of the age.

II.  Theology of Natural Theology

A.  Biblical basis of Natural Theology –General Revelation

1.  Natural Theology is the use of reason and evidence to come to conclusions about the existence and attributes of God from general revelation.

2.  General revelation refers to God’s revelation apart from scripture: that is from basic observations of the world around us.

 

Rom 1:18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For 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.

3.  Therefore, Natural Theology should be able to argue for God’s “eternal power” and his “divine nature.”

4.  The Cosmological Argument argues for a creator with eternal power

5.  The Moral argument points to God’s divine nature.

III.  Kalaam Cosmological Argument

P1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause

P2.  The universe began to exist

Conclusion:  The universe has a cause

A.  Defense of P1.  It is a very intuitive principle upon reflection.

1.  Ex nihilo, nihil fit!  Out of nothing, nothing comes

2.  The world would not make sense, much less science.

Illus:  Imagine a wife coming home to her husband to find him sleeping next to some strange woman.  Waking her husband up, she demand to know, “who is this lady!”  Her husband replies, “I don’t know.  She must have just come into existence next to me.”  Shocked by his brazen defense, his wife asks, “how could she have just come into existence next to you?!”  Indignantly, the man replies, “I don’t have to answer that.  You only assume that anything that begins to exist has a cause.”

B.  Defense of P2

1.  Impossibility of Actual infinities  -not covered

2.  Impossibility of traversing an actual infinity by successive addition

R1.  The nature of causal sequences requires that for an event to take place, the entire chain of causal antecedents must have already occurred and be actual.  (The rest of R1 is question-begging, but the stated claim is used in R2 and R3.) 

R2.  The present is the last member of a series of past events formed by successive addition.  A series formed by successive addition is a potential infinite and is therefore always finite.  (An actual infinite would require the series of past events was formed all at once)

R3.  It is impossible to count from negative infinity and reach zero (the present.)  This is because it is impossible to even start counting. 

3.  Scientific Support

 The Big Bang Cosmology

Argument

Feature1.  The universe began from a large explosion about 15 billion years ago and has continued to expand ever since.

Feature2. The original configuration of the big bang was a state of maximum density where all of the mass, energy, space, and time were contained in a single mathematical point with no dimensions. 

Implies.  The universe sprang into existence from nothing a finite time ago.

-Red shift, sky black at night, homogeneity, etc… lots of evidence outside of my ken

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

1.  The universe has a finite stock of order

2.  The second law of thermodynamics means it is irreversably decreasing in order.

L1.  Given enough time, the universe will eventually reach a state of maximum entropy.

L2.  If the universe had existed forever, that would be enough time to reach maximum entropy.  However, we are not at that state. (1.)

Conclusion:  The universe has not existed forever.

C.  Nature of the Cause

Conclusion: there is a creator with eternal power.

1.  As the cause for the universe beginning to exist, we can call it the Creator

2.  It existed ontologically prior to t=0, the first moment of time, therefore the cause is eternal.

3.  Anything capable of creating the universe is extremely powerful. 

4.  Uncaused cause, prime mover.  “I AM” / Aseity.

Rom 11:35"Who has ever given to God,
       that God should repay him?"[11]
    36For from him and through him and to him are all things.
       To him be the glory forever! Amen.

IV.  Moral Argument:  Inferring God’s Divine Nature.

A.  C.S. Lewis’ Argument for a Divine Lawgiver:  evidence from within

1.  O1.  Morality exists: called by Lewis: Law of Right and Wrong, the Law of Nature, and the Law of Decent Behavior

2.  Those who deny P1 are hypocrites when they argue or complain “that’s not fair,” “that’s mine,” or “I was here first,” since they are implicitly appealing to some sort of moral law.  Lewis considers differences in moral opinion minor.

3.  O2.  Morality is non-physical.  It is not like the laws of physics.  It is prescriptive, not descriptive. 

4.  It is also non-descriptive in that we do things we know we should not do all the time.  (We lie, cheat, steal.  We are selfish, lazy, and greedy.)

5.  O3.  Our knowledge of morality does not come from observation of behavior alone, but from within. 

6.  We were created with the capacity for moral understanding.  The goal of this must be to have an impact on our behavior/character.

7.  Therefore, this hints that the origin of our moral understanding is a being that has a non-physical component (“divine mind”) that is interested in our character/behavior… A Divine Lawgiver.

8.  Immanuel Kant argued for a Divine Judge:

9.  It’s not fair that really, really evil people die before they receive what’s due to them.

10.  So there must be an afterlife of sorts otherwise the story ends too soon.

11.  It would take an omniscient being of divine power to be able to fairly know a person’s intention and properly dole out proportionate punishments.

B.  Anti-Dualism of Good/Evil

Reductio ad absurdum

1.  This is another argument C.S. Lewis uses.  It had a profound impact on St. Augustine who was once followed Manicheism –who believed in a moral dualism.  The origin of the argument actually goes back to Plato.

2.  Lewis argues that Good must exist in a way that Evil does not.  Good must be better than evil is bad.  The existence of Good must come logically prior to the existence of Evil.

3.  If Good and Evil existed only as polar opposites, then it would be arbitrary to choose one over the other (ie Good over Evil.)  But if it is arbitrary, then there would be no reason to believe “We should do what we know is good.”  This is absurd.

4.  Therefore, in order for Good to exist at all.  It must exist in a way Evil does not.

5.  Therefore, the proper view is that Evil does not exist on its own, but as a privation/perversion of good.

6.  Analogy of Truth / Lies, Light / darkness.  Lies do not exist on their own.  They come about by straying from what is.  E.g. Truth exists on its own.

7.  Consequence: in order for something to be really evil, it must have a lot of good… polluted.

8.  The opposite of Satan is the archangel Michael, not God.

9.  The conclusion of Plato, Lewis is that of a Perfect Good of supreme existence.

9.  Only God is good (Lk 18:19).