Apologetics Workshop

Introduction

Greet and Endear

*Will need to split people into groups of 5 or so people - and assign a leader of the group*

ILLUSTRATION: Story of how I learned apologetics

(Questioned in High school and University)

My entrance into the world of apologetics was not by choice, but by necessity. For some reason I found myself getting questions on the regular in high school (even though I was in a Christian school - many people struggled genuinely with their belief).

But perhaps moreso - when I entered university I studied Biomedical Science in UWA, and was known for being a Christian within this course by virtue of the fact that I was also leading a youth group. And almost because of this on a regular basis I was getting questioned by my friends who were all athiests - and that’s how I had to learn, very quickly to be able to defend my faith.

But here’s the thing - I wasn’t the only Christian in uni, but I watched as so many of my friends who were Christian not only get obliterated by the most basic questions that they were being asked, but that they eventually also learned how to run from the questioners. And it just made the faith look completely ridiculous. It made it look like we really didn’t have any answers to the tough questions, that Christians were just people who really did believe in fairytales to that extent.

But the greatest challenge came to me when in 2008 my mum passed away from cancer. She was a God fearing, church going, bible reading Christian. And for the first time - I wasn’t arguing with anyone else about my faith - I was arguing against myself, and that is when the toughest questions come out. And you really have to ask whether the faith that you profess on the mountain is sturdy enough to survive the valley.

And that’s how I ended up delving in to this topic. I don’t like arguing with peope about faith, I don’t really like picking fights with people about faith - I’d much rather lean into pastoring, teaching and preaching.

But I came to a realisation which I hope all of you can catch today. Which is that A faith that cannot be challenged, is a faith that is not worth holding on to.

And the thing is that apologetics, traditionally, is thought of as a defense from a logical perspective. But that’s not always the case, alot of the time people put up what they think are logical arguments but they are to cover what are more EMOTIONAL arguments and issues against the faith. Emotional trauma against God or the church. And that’s what makes this field so nuanced.

And yet despite this Peter writes in 1 Peter 3:15 “15 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,”

The word DEFENSE is apologia, where we get the word Apologetics from.

Today’s session isn’t going to be easy - but we’re going to just throw ourselves at it and see how we go. You ready?

Pray

Segment 1: Logic

I want to make a quick mention of what forms a worldview to start us off.

A worldview is a view of the world that offers answers relating to these four main questions: Origin, Meaning, Morality and Destiny.

And these answers can’t just be any answers or we’d just be able to invent any worldview up. Every answer to these questions must pass these three tests:

Logical Consistency

Empirical Adequacy

Experiential Relevancy

That’s another workshop in itself, but today I want to open up by talking about Logic.

The use of logic and reason in apologetics is of the utmost importance. The truth is that most of the major questions surrounding Christianity have always been the same, they just adopt different phrasing.

It’s so important to be able to use logic and reasoning because you’ll find that some questions you’ll be asked don’t actually make sense; and others are logically far easier than they may sound.

Can we think about this statement as an example: Logic cannot tell us anything about God.

What’s the issue here? The problem is that the statement is self-defeating since it RELIES on logic as the basis for its claim.

Logic is just the way we state facts and make claims - it is impossible to say anything about God or ANYTHING ELSE without employing logic.

Now, logic alone cannot definitively prove the existence of anything - but what it CAN do is point us toward what is possible, impossible and what is probable.

For example: in relationships, logic can help us decide WHETHER we are loved but it cannot PROVE love - love must be experienced.

In the same way, apologetics helps to bring people to a point where they can ENTER into a relationship with Christ.

Segment 2: War and Religion (PRACTICE)

The Question: How can you believe your God is good and a peace maker when there have been so many wars caused and so much violence inflicted in the name of religion?

Now when you are asked any question in apologetics - what you have to do is always try to understand the UNDERLYING implications behind the question.

This is where I say the use of logic is important - what are they REALLY trying to ask. Is this question really about wars and violence? Well yes - but not entirely.

The implication behind this question is that if people would leave their religious convictions behind - the world would be a much better, more peaceful place. Is this true? Discuss.

It’s far too simple to say that religion causes war and violence. As an explanation we see on the news - this is an inadequate response.

Because people don’t reflect on the fact that the complete opposite was demonstrated in the 20th century which saw secular athiest idealogues kill more people than the previous 19 centuries put together.

In fact the secular beliefs of Stalin or Mao Tse Tung who killed the most people in the 20th century need to be challenged EVEN MORE than religion according to that assessment.

Of course - it’s true that violence has been committed in the name of religion as well. However, now we’ve put that in to context - we just have to settle with the fact that violence seems to just be a fundamental part of the human condition.

In other words it’s not the leverage point that people think it is over religion.

But at this point it’s worth noting that if you have a problem with violence - then Christanity has very clear teachings on violence; while secular athiest ideologies don’t really. And that what has historically happened in the world (the crusades, the inquisition) is a prime example of what happens when power and politics enter and corrupt religion. True christians at the time such as Francis of Assisi and John Wycliffe roundly condemned killing or warfare in the name of Christ.

Segment 3: All Religions Are The Same

The Question: How do you know all religions aren’t just all pathways to the same place and Christianity is just one of the pathways people can take?

This question is usually given in the form of an illustration: Many blind men feeling an elephant - one feels the trunk and says an elephant is long and thin, another feels the leg and says it’s short and thick, another feels the body and says it is large and flat. And this is meant to illustrate modern religion.

But here’s one problem - this story is told from a point of view of someone who is not actually blind because it ASSUMES that they can see the entire elephant and thus arrive at this conclusion. I mean how could you know that each blind man only sees a section of the elphant unless you’re claiming that you can see the entire elephant?

People claim that all doctrine is the same between all religions and that they all lead to the same path; but in declaring that doctrine makes no difference, you are in fact - inventing your own doctrine.

Segment 4: Cultural Conditioning

How do you know that Christianity hasn’t been so culturally conditioned from what it once was that it is now no longer relevant? In other words how do you know that the Christianity you practise is now the same as the one that was practised thousands of years ago? How do you know that it hasn’t been changed by modern culture etc.?

There’s a problem with this statement and question though, because if all belief is conditioned by social settings then no belief can be held as universally true for everyone.

And moreso - your belief must therefore also apply to your OWN statement. So that means you MUST ASSUME your statement is also culturally and socially conditioned.

So if we can’t trust our beliefs because they have all been socially and culturally conditioned then why should we trust YOUR belief (which says that religious beliefs can’t be trusted?) Your beliefs must also have been influenced by social settings, making them just as untrustworthy.

The solution to this is to do a proper search for truth without this nonsensical assumption using the criteria which we talked about earlier. If we believe that there IS absolute truth - then it will out.

Segment 5: The Bible

The Authenticity of Scripture

The Question: is the bible even trustworthy as a historical document? How do we know that it was not just written by a bunch of random people after Jesus died?

Can we start of with the statistic that I just provided you with? The bible was written over a period of 1500 years, in 3 different languages by over 40 different authors and yet remarkably retains the same theological unity throughout its entire composition?

Recent studies such as Shlomo Argamon et al. 2010 and Moshe Koppel & Jonathan Schler 2004 used computational analysis to study stylistic patterns and confirmed that different books of the bible do indeed reflect distinct authorial voices. Making the above statistic even more incredible.

But let’s get some concrete statistics behind this.

The NT was written in the 1st Century AD (50-100AD) and first copied in the 2nd Century AD (130AD) - leaving less than 100 years between copies, of which 5600 were found. The originality rating (the similarity between copies) is a whopping 99.5%. With difference coming down to basic syntax, nothing doctrinal.

To give you an idea of how insane this figure is for an ancient text. The next most accurate historical document would be something like Homer’s Illiad which was written in 900BC, found in 400BC which is a 500 YEAR window in between them, and only 643 copies were found. Of which there was a 95% originality rating.

And the next one after that would be Artistotle who wrote in around 384-322BC, and the copies were found in 1100AD - leaving 1400 years in between the date written and the copy - of which only 49 were found. The originality rating can’t even be calculated because of a lack of comparable material.

As you can see - Scripture is in a league of its own. With the time span between the original and the copies being less than 100 years apart, and the sheer volume of copies that were found - the originality rating is at over 99.5% with differences accounted being small things like use of conjunctions and errors in grammar.

There can be no doubt cast on the originality and authentic transcription of Scripture without casting doubt on any one of these other famous historical writings or more.

To further confirm this we have the advent of the dead sea scrolls which were discovered only in 1947. Which provide powerful evidence for the authenticity of the Old Testament because they contained some of the oldest known copies of biblical texts which dated as far back as 3rd century BC. When these manuscripts were compared to much later copies such as the Masoretic texts from the 10th century AD they were found to be remarkably consistent, again with the minor differences not affecting meaning or doctrine at all. This demonstrates that the Old Testament was transmitted with exceptional care over centuries, reinforcing the confidence that the Scriptures we have today closely reflect original writings.

Historical Accuracy of Scripture

But just because a document has been transcribed through the ages accurately and preserved it’s originality - does not necessarily mean that what is contained within it is factual. However Scripture has that covered too because it is inherentely a book about history - which can be made subject to tests of whether it aligns with world documented history.

You will find that the bible describes places, people and events in various degrees of detail. Much of these can be verified from archaeology and historical archives.

For example - the Bible records in Luke’s gospel that a man called Lysanias was the tetrarch (a ruler of a province) of Abilene in around AD 27 (Luke 3:1 “1 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene,” ). Now for years scholars would use this factual error to prove that Luke was wrong because it was common knowledge that Lysanias was not a tetrarch but a ruler of Chalcis about 50 years earlier than what Luke described. However an archaeological inscription was found that said that Lysanias was in fact a Tetrarch in Abila near Damascus at the time Luke had said - and it turns out that there had been multiple people named Lysanias.

At Ephesus parts of the temple of Artemis have been uncovered as is mentioned in Acts 19:28 “28 When they heard this they were enraged and were crying out, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!””

Taxation-census procedures were common and people were in fact required to return to their home city in order to fulfill the requirements of the process and these procedures were employed during the reign of Augustus which puts it well within the general time frame of Jesus birth (37BC-AD14)

The walls of Jericho have been found, destroyed - just as Scripture records.

Critics used to doubt that Nazareth existed and yet archaeologists have found a first-centry inscription at Caesarea that verifies its existence.

The Apostle Peter’s house has been found at Capernaum

High Priest Caiaphas’ bones have been discovered in an ossuary (a box to store bones).

A host of ancient cities such as Bethsaida, Bethany, Caesarea Philippi, Capernaum, Cyprus, Galatia, Berea, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus etc. have been either found or archaologically acknowledged.

There have been scholarly studies done notably by Richard Bauckham called onomastic (name based) studies which looks at what is called “onomastic congruence” which demonstrated that the naming patterns in the biblical gospels match what would be the historical frequency of names accounted for by other historical documents at the time.

For example the most common names in 1st century palestine were Simon, Joseph, Lazarus, Judas and John.

Not only do the names match - but the frequency in which they even appear in the gospels is closely aligned to the suggested historical frequency which is something no biblical author could have fabricated even if they wanted to.

Segment 6: Theodicy

The Question: If God is so good then why is there so much meaningless suffering in this world?

What’s the logical angle behind this?

The logic behind this sentence is this: If God is all good and all powerful, He would eliminate all evil and suffering in the world. Since there is so much evil and suffering God must either not be all good or not be all powerful.

WARNING: This question usually comes from a very personal place - so be wary of not addressing an emotional question with a purely logical answer, you may win the argument but you will almost definitely lose the battle for their soul.

There are actually multiple angles to answer this question.

FIRSTLY: If you are going to assume that God exists you must play by the rules of the God whom you assume exists. Which means subscribing to biblical beliefs. And if that’s the case - we can draw the bible into the defense (turning this from classical to evidential apologetics)

Scripture says that evil and suffering did not come from God - even though he might permit it. When God created us, everything was good (Genesis 1:31 “31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.” )

God created us with free will because He created us with the to love. You cannot love without free will, otherwise it would be coercion. Sin, evil and suffering entered the world because Adam and Even used their free will to choose sin. God cannot intervene in this since He chose to give us free will.

When sin entered into creation - the natural world fell as well - Earth was cursed (Genesis 3:17 “17 And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;” ) and we are now subject to natural disasters, sickness, disease that would otherwise have been avoided.

SECONDLY: You are assuming that God can just “remove evil” from the world. But the problem is - God is perfect, and so ALL evil is evil to Him. There is no such thing as “acceptable evil” and “unacceptable evil”. So if God removed evil from the world tonight, He would wipe out the whole of humanity with it because it says in Romans 3:23 “23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” God is giving us time to repent and to turn back to Him (Ezekiel 18:23 “23 Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?” )

THIRDLY: In your question there is an assumption that evil is meaningless and pointless - because if there was a greater purpose behind the suffering, you would not have a real problem with it.

In other words just because something is pointless to YOU does not mean it is ACTUALLY pointless.

You are assuming that suffering has to MAKE SENSE to you for it to have purpose - which is an arrogant thought.

Because if you have a God who is big and powerful enough to get angry at for not stopping evil, perhaps He is big and powerful enough to have reasons for the suffering that you just haven’t perceived yet?

FINALLY: Only someone coming from a Judeo-Christian worldview would be asking this question. The muslim believes in Sha’Allah, Hindus think it’s Karma, even Athiests think it’s fate. Only a Christian would see an “EVIL” in suffering.

This raises an even bigger problem - because if there is evil, then there must be good too. And if there is evil and good, then there must be an absolute moral law somewhere And if there is an absolute moral law then there must be an absolute moral law GIVER too! But since a person doesn’t believe in God, we must remove the moral lawgiver Which removes the moral law Which removes the problem of evil Which invalidates the question; so what are you even asking about evil in the first place?

This poses an even bigger problem for the athiest asking the question. Because where did they get their definition of good from?

How can you rely on the Christian worldview of suffering and evil while simultaneously trying to debunk it? You are literally shooting a hole in the boat that you’re standing in.

If you take a relativistic stance towards goodness then your moral argument against God’s goodness collapses immediately.

Segment 7: Theism

The Question: Why does God have to exist? Are there any arguments for the existence of God?

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

1) Everything that has a beginning needs a cause 2) The universe had a beginning 3) The universe needs a cause 4) There cannot be an infinite number of causes 5) There must be a cause for all else that has no beginning and needs no cause for its own existence

Regarding 2) The universe had a beginning:

The second law of thermodynamics shows that usable energy is running down, which means there has to be a time when the process started - if there was an infinite amount of time before now, all energy in the universe would have been used up, and we wouldn’t be here.

The universe is exapnding. Traced backward, there would have to be a place it started to expand.

If the universe were eternal, time would also be eternal. But that means that time would also not be able to progress because there would be an infinite amount of time between point A and point B, meaning that you would never be able to reach point B.

The laws of entropy mean that we observe matter continually degrading rather than becoming more complex. If things fall apart when left to themselves, the world could not be infinite. It would already be destroyed.

Regarding 4) There cannot be an infinite number of causes

One cannot posit an unending string of caused causes. If the causes of the universes itself needed a cause, and THAT cause needed a cause etc. etc. ad infinitum, then the string of causes could never be put into motion.

An infinite series is impossible because one more moment could always be added. but it is impossible to add to an infinite. Plus, if there were an infinite number of causes, there would be an infinite number of moments in which the act of causation took place - making it impossible to traverse timewise.

Quantitative infinity is a convention of mathematics - it has no metaphysical counterpart. Without a first cause, there is no causality in the series.

The Teleological Argument

1) Human Artifacts (houses, watches, machines) are products of intelligent design 2) The universe resembles human artifacts - both exhibit parts adjusted to fit a specific purpose 3) Like effects have like causes 4) Therefore the cause of the universe resembles the cause of human artifacts - an intelligence 5) Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent designer

The Moral Argument

1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist 2) Objective moral values and duties do exist 3) Therefore God exists

REBUTTALS

The primary objection to this argument is to claim that moral values don’t actually exist - they claim that morality is nothing more than a social construct. A useful human tool and social device but there is nothing objective or real about morality beyond what we make. Nothing is ACTUALLY good or evil.

I don’t take this rebuttal too seriously because in a sense - we can’t prove that objective moral values do exist but we ALSO can’t prove that external reality outside our minds exist. If someone were to come up and tell you that you were existing in a dream, how would you rebuff them? Even the fact that it seems very real doesn’t prove anything as a dream could feel very real. But yet it is perfectly rational to conclude that the world really does exist and those who try to deny it must still live as if it’s true. The same is with morality.

Secondly - people point out that different cultures have different moralities and claim that this is evidence that objective morality doesn’t exist and is just a cultural construct. But this objection is not logically valid.

Many cultures around the world have fundamentally different ideas of why people get sick - but that does not make germ theory invalid nor render sickness a mere social construct. The fac tthat cultures today still do not believe in germs, and that most cultures throughout histroy did not - doesn’t change the fact that germs exist and that they cause sickness. In the same way - just because a few cultures get morality partially wrong, does not mean that morality doesn’t exist. Morality is very real - and most of us are quite sure of it because of core universal principles that all cultures affirm at a base level. This is the more rational position.

Thirdly - The other major objection is that morality can exist on its own without God. Things like rape and murder are really wrong whether God exists or not.

The problem is that there is no clear reason why this would be so. Biology cannot ground it, if morality is a mere instinct, then it is not objective. Morality is reduced back to mere human perception - which can be changed or done away with entirely. A belief which anybody would struggle to actually live with.

Morality also distinguishes humans from animals in a way that biology can’t explain. In nature a trout that eats another trout’s young is not evil, but a man who eats his neighbours daughter is very evil. Clearly there is a difference between humans and animals - why do we hold ourselves to a different level if there is nothing special about us? Can that be explained outside of the imago dei placed inside a person?

Segment 8: Jesus

The Question: Why believe that Jesus is the only way? Couldn’t he just be a wise man, or one way to heaven?

Here’s the thing - Jesus Himself never suggested that He was just another prophet or mystic who tapped into spiritual power. When he was involved in a dispute about the Sabbath, He explained that He was “Lord of the sabbath”. In another dispute He said “before Abraham was born, I am” - a clear reference to the time God declared Himself to Moses as “I am who I am”.

Many claim that Jesus does not differ much from other religious leaders such as Buddha, but Jesus’ claim to be God in the flesh singles Him out of the crowd. The Buddha claimed no such thing, nor did Mohammad, or Confucious.

And even then His claims were not spoken in a vacuum like some lunatic - they were backed by a host of prophecies and miracles (His divinity, atoning work on the cross, His resurrection from the dead, His righteous life).

On top of this there are clear records that point to the existence of a man named Jesus, so we know that He’s not some fictional character.

However, in order to fully answer this question we must focus on the resurrection. The resurrection lies at the heart of the Christian faith and who Jesus is - if one can prove the resurrection did not occur then they can debunk Christendom in one sweep and Jesus becomes a liar. Here are some arguments that show the resurrection was not a fake event:

1) JERUSALEM FACTOR - The disciples preached the gospel in Jerusalem in the midst of adversity. Remember - this was the city that just voted for Jesus to be CRUCIFIED. It would be literally impossible for Christianity to not only SURVIVE but to EXPAND in Jerusalem if the body was still in the tomb. All the opponents of Jesus would have to do is produce the body -a nd the Christian movement would have ended immediately.

2) ENEMY TESTIMONY - Early enemies of Christianity never disputed that the tomb was empty - instead they argued that the disciples STOLE the body (indicating that it was gone).

The disiples stole the body? Unlikely - this doesn’t seem plausible that a group of scared disciples overpowered the armed Roman guards, stole the body and then later when faced with torture - refused to admit it. This goes against the character of what we know of the disciples.

Maybe the authorities removed the body? - but we have to remember that the authorities were violently opposed to Christianity; if either of them had the body, they would have pleasantly responded to the Apostle’s bold preaching by parading Jesus’ body through the streets.

Maybe Jesus didn’t actually die but fainted and was later revived? This one is hilarious - can you imagine a man who was nearly beaten and whipped to death, who had not eaten in days - roll away a few tonnes of stone, beat up a legion of armed guards and then in his distraught state present himself as Lord? The American Medical Association said that it was virtually impossible that Jesus did not die on the cross.

3) TESTIMONY OF WOMEN - The first witnesses to the empty tomb were women. Women at the time were not highly regarded - evidence from a woman was roughly equivalent to that of a thief. However, in the gospels - the apostles are the ones who are cowardly hiding from the Jews and the women bring them news of the empty tomb. If Christians were going to invest the tomb story from scratch - they would most certainly not have used women as primary witnesses.

Segment 9: Athiesm

The Statement: There is no God or divine purpose behind the universe. Humans are purely physical beings - biological machines without souls or spirits.

Here’s the thing though - if athiesm is true then ALL of our thoughts and values, ALL of our deepest convictions, our belief in logic and the existence of mathematical and scientific truth are simply an ACCIDENTAL by-product of our cerebral biochemistry and the mindless movement of atoms.

In other words - ALL our reasoning and conclusions are nothing more than the unplanned result of a long chain of ENTIRELY RANDOM non-rational physical causes over which we have no control.

Because if we have no souls and no spiritual connection to God as the ultimate source of reason and truth, it follows that all our mental activitiy (meaning thoughts, purpose, desire etc) are imprisoned within the process of physical determinism that discredits all thinking.

We cannot be sure that any of our thoughts correspond to reality since we are biologically conditioned to think them regardless of whether they are true or not.

By discrediting all thinking, including their own, athiests cut their own throats philosophically. This view of ultimate reality is therefore self-refuting.

But what if life was just meant to be meaningless?

In short - does my answer need to make sense for you? What if I just gave you an incoherent answer? Without meaning and coherence we wouldn’t even be able to search for coherence, let alone desire it.

If life is truly meant to be meaningless then there is no value whatsoever in human life; why then are there so many laws to protect it? To stop anarchy from breaking out? Why would anarchy even matter - nothing would matter!

People say life is meaningless but they live as though it still has meaning. They cannot bear to live a meaningless life so they have to pretend to give it meaning - but this is utterly hypocritical and fails the test of experiential relevancy.

If God gives life meaning - then how do you explain those who find meaning in life for themselves without God?

Here’s the thing - everyone can find “meaning” in life for themselves without God - this has never been in contention. The difference is that these things that people find “meaning” in do not provide an adequate worldview to explain their belief system.

For example - one of the things people find meaning in is their significant relationship - the person they love/marry. But that relationship can’t explain the origin of life, the definition of morality, the truth behind meaning, or solve the mystery of destiny. It can barely answer any of these questions.

But the fact that it FEELS like it gives us meaning blinds us to our search for truth. It’s the same with virtually anything else no matter how noble it seems - social justice, equality, poverty, even religion. These are all things that blind us to the fact that “meaning” is not the same as “truth”.

Just because we discover A meaning in life does not mean that we have discovered THE meaning of life.