Title: A Concise Overview of Apologetic Arguments

In any dialogue with non-Christians, whether cultists or secularists, the thinking Christian must be able, according to 1 Peter 3:15, to make a defense or give a sound reason for his Christian hope, speaking with both "humility and fear." Humility, surely, regarding his own shortcomings and weaknesses, and fear or awe of the great God whom he represents.

This essay is a quick overview of some of the classic arguments used to demonstrate the existence of God and the validity of the Christian truth-claim. It assumes that the reader has previously encountered most or all of these arguments, and their major proponents, so that this will be more of a refresher than an introduction. We believe the approach which confronts the listener with the biblical text (point 6, below) is the strongest; nevertheless we also main tain that presenting the cumulative case from _all_ these arguments is the best means of demonstrating the unique super- iority of the Christian worldview over all other religious systems.

1. The Cosmological Argument

_An argument for God's existence as Creator and Sustainer, based on the origin of the cosmos._

Relying on the fact that every finite effect is caused, it affirms that since the universe itself had a beginning and/or requires a sufficient cause to explain it, there must be an uncaused cause or first cause (hence, God). Thomas Aquinas developed several forms of this argument (e.g., God must be the uncaused, Prime Mover of all physical motion and First Cause of all that now exists). In more recent times, Norman Geisler has drawn heavily on this line of defense for theism. His work _Christian Apologetics_ is an excellent text for showing the weaknesses of nontheistic and non-Christian systems faced with this powerful argument.

This general argument seems logical, but has been critic ized. Although it's highly unlikely, some hold that matter _could_ be eternal with an infinite regression of causes and effects. Naturalists are often disposed toward this view, and some posit an oscillating universe with an initial Big Bang for _this_ one. Many Hindus also seem to affirm an eternal universe with limitless eons of karmic processes. A Christian rejoinder might be that an actually infinite series of events in the past (an eternal universe) is impossible, or that even a timeless, beginningless universe requires a sufficient cause to explain its continuation.

2. The Ontological Argument

_An argument for the existence of a perfect God, based upon being (ontology) and necessary existence._

Obviously, we conceive of and believe in a supreme and perfect Being. The greatest being we can conceive of is, by definition, God. Being perfect, actual existence must be one of its attributes, and being necessary, it _must_ exist (not "may exist"). Moreover, we cannot conceive of the non- existence of a perfect and necessarily existing Being--this would be self-contradictory. In fact, without God we cannot even account for the _idea_ of perfection or necessity.

A critic of this argument might object that we can imagine a winged flying horse as the most perfect of all horses, but that doesn't mean that such horses _necessarily_ exist. (Thanks to Paul Feinberg for this illustration.) And even granting that the hypothetical Pegasus isn't the "most perfect Being" by a long shot, why should the idea of necessary existence require the actualization of such existence? The ontological argument is fascinating but does not seem the entire proof its advocates hope for.

3. The Teleological Argument

_An argument for an intelligent, purposive Creator, based on design._

The evidences of complexity, beauty, functionality, and design in nature indicate a master Designer. Classic examples include the eye, the hand, the brain, and the coordinated organs and systems of the biological world. A modern illustration would point to the sophisticated chemical code which forms the DNA molecule, which is replicated, decoded, and selectively activated as the organism matures.

William Paley presented this argument several generations ago: Just as a watch found in a forest would require us to infer the existence of a watchmaker, even if the watch didn't work properly or if we had never seen one before, so also the myriads of purposive, sophisticated mechanisms in the natural world (which Paley described in lengthy and persuasive detail) require us to infer an purposive Designer. Published several years after David Hume's critique of the teleological argument, Paley's defense in _Natural Theology_ remained a source of questioning for Hume and other opponents of the biblical theism.

This argument is still compelling, but not decisive for all. The schemes propounded by many evolutionists have increased our propensity for believing the absurd. In effect, we are told that Paley's watch could have been generated accidentally, given enough time and chance. (And one anti theistic, evolutionist book is entitled _The Blind Watchmaker_.) However, if the nuclear submarine guidance system required years of design and engineering, why should we believe that the porpoise, whose guidance system is more accurate than that of the submarine, simply "happened"? The case for design appears several times in Scripture (Ps.8:3-4, 19:1-4, 94:8-9, etc.), and can still be used successfully today.

4. The Moral Argument

_An argument for God's existence as a righteous Lawgiver, based on the existence of universal and absolute moral laws._

This appeal is masterfully developed in the opening chapters of C.S. Lewis's _Mere Christianity_, where it forms his D-Day assault against naturalism. Even the most adamant moral relativist will squawk about the "oughtness" of a matter if you cut in line in front of him, fail her in a course for no reason, or senselessly attack one of their loved ones. Universal moral imperatives do not exist simply as personal opinion or social consensus, nor do they stand naked and alone in outer (or inner) space; moral law can only come from a moral Mind, i.e., a personal Creator who sets standards for right and wrong.

Some naturalists claim that moral obligations are simply learned from our parents; but this is the genetic fallacy (a source of our education is used to negate the validity of moral values themselves). Many anthropologists have pointed out anomolies in a few cultures where certain extremities are tolerated and even encouraged. But can a people survive where moral relativism prevails? Not the infant girls of India nor the unborn children in the United States. Not the victims of Hitler, Stalin, or the Khmer Rouge. If ethical relativism is true and there are no absolutes transcending cultural and national boundaries, on what moral basis can we justify the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal? Ultimately, the moral absolutes by which men, nations, and civilizations are to be judged can exist only if there is a moral Judge who has defined those absolutes (cf. Matt. 25:31-33).

5. The Argument from Christian Experience

_An argument for the existence of the God and Christ of the Bible, based on the uniform conversion and post- conversion experiences of Christians worldwide._

In an experience-centered age, this defense may have significant impact. It notes that millions of people--regard less of time of birth, age, race, gender, language or national background--have testified to a common life-changing experience, wrought by the same Cause and followed by the same effects. Namely, that by a faith-commitment in Jesus Christ, they received immediate contact with and perception of God; profound assurance of forgiveness and life after death; a completely new value system; spiritual and moral renewal (regeneration); and other observable experiential benefits. This experience was so convincing that it has sustained believers through torture and death, from the first-century eyewitnesses who became food for Nero's lions on to the present day (see _Foxe's Book of Martyrs_ and Hefley's _By Their Blood_ for ancient and modern case histories).

McDowell's _Evidence That Demands a Verdict_, vol. 1, gives nearly sixty testimonies of wide disparity attesting to the same transformative experience; but such cases are merely illustrative and could be multiplied a thousandfold. There is no good reason to believe all these experiences must be delusional or necessarily false. There is also no adequate way to account for the same phenomenon occurring among widely divergent climes, times, and cultures other than to accept the explanation offered by the converts: they have met God. The Bible also states that people may be won to Christ through the changed life of the believer (1 Pet. 2:12, 3:1-2, 16).

The critic rightly observes that every religion has personal testimony. Disciples of Guru Maharaj Ji, Krishna devotees, and followers of Joseph Smith also claim direct contact with their god(s). Shouldn't these claims be granted equal plausibility?

If all claims to having "met God" went no further than mere affirmation, perhaps so; but since spiritual claims ought to be anchored by physical evidence, we need not grant each claimant equal status. Jesus said "a tree is known by its fruit." The God-claims of the Hare Krishnas can be rejected since Krishna's very existence is ahistorical. The God-claims of the Mormons can be rejected on the basis of internal contradiction in Mormon scriptures and external contradiction with history. The Christian revelation claim, on the other hand, fits the facts of history and internal consist ency, and should be given greater credence than other religious options, based on its good fruit personally and socially (see the section on "liveability," below).

Skeptics may protest that sufficient faith in anything will produce observable results; but the question isn't whether other religions may have persuaded adherents--they do--but whether this persuasion comes from God, self-deception, or an "angel of light" masquereding as God.

6. Arguments from Special Revelation

_Arguments for the supernatural God and Messiah of the Bible, based on the fundamental reliability of the biblical/historic records._

Rather than listing these separately, they are grouped under a single heading because they hinge on the validity of God's revelation in Scripture. Attention should be focused on these four themes:

(1) The case for biblical miracles

(2) The fulfillment of biblical prophecy

(3) The deity of Jesus Christ

(4) The resurrection of Jesus Christ

The case for biblical miracles, or the biblical concept of the miraculous, is essential to overcome the skeptic's opposition to the supernatural. Obviously, a person must first admit the possibility of miracles if our evangelism is to have any effect. Though this argument may begin on philosophical grounds (e.g., "closed" universe vs. "open" universe), we should ultimately direct the person toward the credibility of the biblical record where it speaks of miracles. Jesus cited His own miracles as valid reason to put faith in Him (Matt. 11:2-6, 12:28, Mark 2:10-12, John 10: 37-38, 14:11, etc.).

Against David Hume's attack on miracles, C.S. Lewis's response in _Miracles_ is must reading. Helpful recent works include Geisler's _Miracles and Modern Thought_ and Colin Brown's _Miracles and the Critical Mind_. (Peripherally related to this is the "apologetic" of healing and answered prayer, when used by the Church today. Seeing evidence that God still answers prayer has converted many people.)

The fulfillment of biblical prophecy is powerful when carefully presented. This apologetic is employed by the writers of Scripture: Matthew's gospel repeatedly refers to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy to authenticate the mission and person of Jesus (see also Isa. 41:21-23, 42:9, 44:7-8). McDowell's _Evidence_, vol. 1, explores a dozen cases from Scripture and assigns each a probability factor against chance fulfillment. Biblical prophecy has been misused by date-setters, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others; nonetheless, we should not neglect this line of argument.

The case for the deity of Christ and His resurrection from the dead are the two apologetic arguments that most closely cross over into pure evangelism. And for this reason they are understandably preferred. On several occasions when the validity of our faith in God, moral values, or Christian truth was being questioned, we have found that centering the discussion on Jesus Christ brought hazy philosophical meanderings into sharp focus. Just as there is no way to explain the origin of the universe if there is no God (cosmological argument), there is also no way to explain the life and ministry of Jesus Christ if there is no God (christological argument).

The classic trilemma (Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?) can be used here, and followed up with evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. The physical resurrection of Jesus was keystone proof of the apostolic message (Acts 1:3, 2:29-32, 3:15, 10:39-42, 17:31, and passim); it should remain central to our apologetics today. Frank Morison's _Who Moved the Stone?_ is still excellent; other solid references include McDowell's _The Resurrection Factor_ and William Lane Craig's _Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection_.

7. The "Internal" Argument

_An argument for God, sin, and judgment, based on the conscience of the unbeliever._

The name of Cornelius Van Til is associated with this defense, but it originated far earlier. According to Romans 1:18-32, the unbeliever "knew God" but has rejected Him and now "suppresses the truth." Relying on the convicting role of the Holy Spirit (without Whom all our arguments are in vain anyway), the evangelist may appeal to the questioner's own innate knowledge of God's existence and nature. The seeker can be told, in effect, that he knows full well that there is a God and that sin now rules his life. He may reject the gospel, but he knows the truth intuitively regardless.

Some Christians have said Romans 1 is a generalization which applies to the unregenerate world overall, but is not meant to apply to each unbeliever individually. One may honestly question whether an enculturated Hindu, for instance, necessarily finds moral absolutes and monotheism intuitively inescapable. In any case, the evangelist need not assume that the innate knowledge of God is always absent in the unbeliever.

There are many other arguments which have been developed, but this covers the main ones. Remember that no apologetic argument is invincibly unanswerable. The skeptic can always find a reason (or excuse) for rejecting anything the Christian might put forth. Many people rejected the testimony and proof of Jesus Himself, and certainly "the disciple is not above his Master" (Matt. 10:24).

The late Dr. Francis Schaeffer used the test of what we will call "liveability." Can one live consistently by the beliefs he holds? Schaeffer says that if a person's religious presuppositions cannot account for or are in flat contradiction to the way he lives out his life in the real world, the legitimacy of that system may be ruled out. Someone who believes matter is an illusion nonetheless will not walk in front of a speeding bus. Existentialists and atheists look for meaningful existence and loving relation ships, contradicting their lipservice (explicit or implied) that neither love nor meaning can absolutely exist. They deny any basis for believing in them, yet they moralize and scorn bigots and find suicide unthinkable.

Implied in this liveability case is another test, fruitfulness. If a person or nation lives consistently with one's worldview, what sort of benefits would it offer humanity? This test asks, for example, "What would equating good and evil, love and hate, do for mankind?" In more concrete terms, what are the social and moral fruits of belief in karma and reincarnation? Conversely, it appears that the Christian worldview has fostered an environment for the development of love, science, education, a concern for truth, human rights, etc. (in this regard, consider John 15:1-17). We can see the St. Mark's Memorial Hospitals, the Christian schools, orphanages, leprosariums, relief projects, Salvation Army shelters, Crisis Pregnancy Centers and food programs, for people who cannot possibly repay the donors. Where are the memorial hospitals erected in the name of "Saint" Karl Marx, or leprosariums run by Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witness orphanages, or tribal medical clinics founded by Wiccans, Sikhs, or pro-abortion coalitions?

Personal liveability and fruitfulness are helpful tests to decide between competing religious claims. C.S. Lewis may have had this in mind in an episode in _The Silver Chair_ from the "Chronicles of Narnia." If we transpose his analogy to the real world, we see that even the pessimist ("Puddleglum") can be wise enough to know that life is more fruitful and meaningful when lived with faith in a Perfect Being than living the dismal alternative of a cave-like existence in barren, stony universe.

These two tests are by no means sufficient in themselves. Mormons, for example, believe in moral absolutes and have shown a social concience for others beyond their own boundaries. To obtain adequate standards for testing religious truth-claims, we need additional criteria. Internal consistency is essential; that is, a religious system's various doctrines and propositions must be coherent among themselves and may not be contradictory. Moreover, there must be a broad scope of external evidence which fits the claims and predictions of its internal propositions. To illustrate with Mormonism again, if Jesus never historically visited America (as the Book of Mormon claims), then Mormonism fails this test.

CONCLUSION

According to Dr. Paul Feinberg, one of the more modest advocates of the "cumulative case" approach in apologetics, alternative worldviews must present as rational a defense as possible, also accounting for a broad range of evidence (cosmology, anthropology, teleology, ethics, human history, etc.), if their proposals are to be considered seriously.

The new religions and cults frequently have a disdain for history. However, apologists like Dr. John Warwick Montgomery have made a splendid defense of the Christian faith on the basis of historiography and the historical accuracy of the Scriptures. This approach seems far superior to that of the Nichiren Shoshu Buddhists, many of whom are not seriously concerned even about the historicity of Gautama Buddha.

When the cumulative case for the Christian message is compared with any other religious or philosophical alternative, its superiority can clearly be seen. Dr. Gordon Lewis seems to agree with this approach: he endorses a three-part test for religious truth-claims, consisting of systematic internal consistency, factual adequacy (the external test), and existential viability (combining liveability and fruitfulness as a single category).

In closing, we must include one final, indispensible element for successful apologetics. In addition to sound methodology (which we have attempted to outline above), in addition to orthodox content (the essentials of the Christian gospel), our words and deeds must exhibit the authentic spirit of genuine love. Many would-be apologists have won their case but lost the man or woman with whom they spoke. Why?

There is a profoundly authenticating apologetic in Christian love, as John's first epistle makes clear. This presence of love--a love that compels, motivates, seeks, listens, and yes, offers correction--is truly, in the words of the late Francis Schaeffer, the mark of the Christian. When we reread this great man's works in the coming decade, may our apologetics and personal relationships be marked by this same confirming sign.

Sounds like a tall order, but are we willing to live with the consequences of "contentious contending"? We hope not: the sorry results would be neither liveable nor fruitful. May God bring Christian evangelists and apologists to their knees, seeking His aid in cultivating and transplanting this fruit of His Spirit.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brown, Colin. _Miracles and the Critical Mind._ Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.

Craig, William Lane. _Apologetics: An Introduction._ Chicago: Moody Press, 1984.

______. _Knowing the Truth about the Resurrection._ Ann Arbor: Servant Books, 1988 (rev. ed. of _The Son Rises_ [Chicago: Moody Press, 1981]).

Dawkins, Richard. _The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design._ New York: W. W. Norton, 1986.

Geisler, Norman L. _Christian Apologetics._ Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976.

______. _Miracles and Modern Thought._ Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House; Dallas: Probe Ministries International, 1982.

______. _The Battle for the Resurrection._ Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989.

Habermas, Gary R. _The Verdict of History: Conclusive Evidence for the Life of Jesus._ Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.

Habermas, Gary R., and Antony G. N. Flew. _Did Jesus Rise >From the Dead?_ Terry L. Miethe, ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1987.

Hefley, James and Marti. _By Their Blood: Christian Martyrs of the 20th Century._ Milford, Mich.: Mott Media, 1979.

Lewis, C. S. _Mere Christianity._ New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1952.

______. _Miracles: A Preliminary Study._ New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1947.

______. _The Problem of Pain._ New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1962.

Lewis, Gordon R. _Testing Christianity's Truth Claims._ Chicago: Moody Press, 1976.

______. "Schaeffer's Apologetic Method." Chap. 3 in _Reflections on Francis Schaeffer,_ Ronald W. Ruegsegger, ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986.

Mayer, Ronald B. _Both/And: A Balanced Apologetic._ Chicago: Moody Press, 1984.

McDowell, Josh. _Evidence That Demands a Verdict._ Vol. 1, rev. ed. San Bernardino: Here's Life Publishers, 1979.

______. _Evidence That Demands a Verdict._ Vol. 2, rev. ed. San Bernardino: Here's Life Publishers, 1981 (previously published as _More Evidence That Demands a Verdict_ [1975]).

______. _The Resurrection Factor._ San Bernardino: Here's Life Publishers, 1981.

McDowell, Josh, and Bill Wilson. _He Walked Among Us: Evidence for the Historical Jesus._ San Bernardino: Here's Life Publishers, 1988.

Montgomery, John Warwick. _History and Christianity._ Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1971.

______. _The Shape of the Past._ 2d ed. Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1975.

Moreland, J. P. _Scaling the Secular City._ Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.

Morison, Frank. _Who Moved the Stone?_ 1930: rpt. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

Nash, Ronald H. _Faith and Reason_. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988.

Paley, William. _Natural Theology._ 1800: rpt. Charlottes- ville, Va.: Ibis Publishing, 1986.

Riss, Richard. _The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ._ Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1977.

Schaeffer, Francis A. _The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview._ 5 vols. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1982.

See especially _The God Who is There_ (1968, rev. 1981), _Escape From Reason_ (1968), and _He Is There and He Is Not Silent_ (1972) in vol. 1; and _The Mark of the Christian_ (1970) in vol. 4.

Sproul, R. C., John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley. _Classical Apologetics._ Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

END

This is the end of the above document. Subsequent to publication of this chapter, three books have affected Joe Whitchurch pretty profoundly, the first is "Making Sense of Suffering" by Peter Kreeft, the second is Dr. Jim Sire's new book on InterVarsity Press, "Why Should Anyone Believe Anything at All?" And last but not least is "The Handbook of Christian Apologetics" by Kreeft and Tacelli, on IVP. [end-of-file]

Use the back arrow to return to apologetics.