Tag Archives: apologetics

5 Reasons Why We Should Still Read The Book of Leviticus Today

27 Replies
Studying the Book of Leviticus

Studying the Book of Leviticus

I just finished reading the Book of Leviticus this morning for the second time this year on my quest to finish two canonical readings for 2012. In honor of that reading, I have finally published my next list page (see my list of lists), called the 613 Mitzvot Laws or Commandments of the Old Testament, many of which are found in the book of Leviticus.

Leviticus is one of those books that Christians tend to want to ignore, while those in the opposite camp tear it apart Hebrew letter by Hebrew letter. About a year ago I actually debated with another Christian about the worth of even reading this book, and he was convinced there was nothing of importance or worthy in Leviticus for us to read today. This was no uninformed, unintelligent Christian, he has a PhD, is a leading scientist in his field, and has a heart for important social justice issues, but Leviticus was not for him (nor really any of the Pentateuch). At that time I did a lousy job at explaining why this book, and every one of the 66 books of the canon, are all still very important and relevant to read in the 21st century. Since that conversation I’ve never really been able to rectify my lack of knowledge in Leviticus and reasons why it is important to read.

This second go-round I started reading Leviticus back on August 14th and finished up today, August 21st, so reading the entire book does not take that long if you read a little bit each day. I will say, Leviticus is not a very difficult book to read, but it is a difficult book to understand, especially in light of our culture today. We are so far removed from the customs of the sacrificial systems and just overall life during the 13th-15th century B.C., it’s very hard for us to understand, within the proper context, how to apply Leviticus to our life today without reading, study, contemplation, and meditation on these 24 chapters.

So here are a few reasons why all Christians should still read this book today. I’m going to skip the obvious reason of because it is part of the canonical Bible, and go on to others, but this is first and foremost. We should read it, because it is part of the writings given to us by God himself through Moses.

Reasons We Should Still Read Leviticus Today

1. It’s the Enemy’s Favorite Book to Tear Apart (Think Shellfish, Polyester, Tattoos, and Homosexuality)
They, the enemies of Truth, call it a book full of contradictions and hypocritical living. This is generally because they don’t understand the book in context any more than we do, but they can read the obvious to make stupid arguments like Christians still eat pork and wear polyester, therefore homosexuality is not a sin (see Homosexuality, Polyester, and Shellfish for reasoning behind this tired debate).

Apologetically speaking, we should know what this book says, because it is used as an excuse for everything under the sun in the 21st century. The book has a great narrative that is often overlooked by the fact that it is a list of laws. These “laws” range from capital punishment for adultery, to not cutting your hair, to laws on homosexuality, to not getting a tattoo because it follows the evil Canaanite tribal practices. Why is it acceptable for Christians to get a tattoo, or eat pork, but not put adulterers to death? Understanding this book in proper context shows exactly why some laws are historically customary for their culture and time, and why some are moral obligations that transcend time.

2. The Theological Holiness Code Developed in Leviticus is Still Used Today
In 1 Peter 1.15-16 the Apostle Peter says, “but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” That is a direct quote from Leviticus 11.44, which is then repeated several times such as in Leviticus 19.2. In seminary circles this is called the “Levitical Holiness Code” from chapters 17-27. It mainly deals with the idea of sanctification, the idea of holiness affecting how one lives in the covenant community.

For Christians today living in the 21st Century, the New Testament applies to Christians using the same principles of life stated in 11:44, and many of the “holiness codes” still show us what is displeasing to God (cf., 19:11-18, 35-36). On the other hand, as noted above, there are also symbolic aspects of the holiness code we no longer follow such as prohibiting garments of two different kinds etc.

3. To Understand How the Work of Christ Saves the Soul
Studying Leviticus today gives us an extremely important understanding of the sacrifice that Jesus made as the Christ when he died on the cross. The animal sacrificial system may be totally foreign to us now, but this enables the 21st century reader to understand why Christ’s sacrifice is one of salvation.

4. The Festal Calendar of Israel in Leviticus Shaped the Christian Calendar We Still Use
The three main festivals, or sometimes called the national pilgrim feasts of Israel, are the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Harvest, and the Feast of Booths. Most of our modern day church denominations from Baptist to Catholic still follow these festivals. These celebrations today find their climax in the corresponding days known as Good Friday, Easter, and Pentecost.

5. Because Without Leviticus the Other 65 Books Don’t Make Any Sense
Every book is intertwined with every other book. This is a huge reason to me. If you are reading Kings or Nehemiah, or one of those other “important” books, you are reading part 11 or part 16, but you never read part 3. Knowing and understanding Leviticus is crucial to understanding any of the other books, just the same as reading and studying Kings is important to reading Matthew.

What sense does Christ being crucified on the cross make without knowing how the sacrificial system works? I understand you can watch the Lord of the Rings or the Star Wars movies out of order and you can still understand them individually, but don’t they make a whole lot more sense as a whole?

So there you have it. Five reasons why Leviticus is important for us to read today. I know these points aren’t developed very extensively, but it that wasn’t really the point.[1]

[1] Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008).

Is True Christianity Represented on CNN, Discovery, and History Channel?

Leave a reply

CNN Belief Blog

Can we really know the true meaning of Christianity today? The answer of course, is an emphatic yes, of course we can, but the answer always seems to change depending on who you ask. Our culture is filled with blogs and news articles like the CNN “Belief Blog” and the Washington Post “On Faith” section, which constantly adjust the meaning of Christianity to suit their own needs, mostly to be politically correct. Make no mistake, these are secular institutions, writing for a single collective purpose and goal in mind, to make a monetary profit. These are businesses, and in business to make money (nothing wrong with that).

These news blogs ask good theological questions like Are Mormons Christians?, because they are hot-button topics, but they often give politically correct answers, ones rarely correct to true Christianity. The Mormon question is a great example, where the press wants to find some way for Christianity to accept Mormons as Christians. If they knew the differences between Christianity and what the Mormon’s say they believe, they would understand why this is just never going to happen (see a good article A Comparison Between Christian Doctrine and Mormon Doctrine). To a learned Christian, Mormons will never be considered “Christians,” even if the Mormon’s say they are, and that is just one small hot topic today of thousands.

I love the Discovery Channel series “Who is Jesus,” and the History Channel’s The Shroud of Turin, but taking serious Christian spiritual or doctrinal advise from these places would be like determining the true meaning of Christianity via the Discovery Channel and History Channel. Sadly, I’m guessing this is where many people in our culture today decide what true Christianity is and isn’t.

The truth of Christianity of course is only found from Scripture, period. If that’s so can a true biblical view also be presented to our culture by means of a secular for-profit company? I think Charles Schultz was one of the first to try and answer that question in our current day when he had Linus read from the book of Luke. After reading another blog post this morning asking “Can we really know the true meaning of Christianity today?”, it made me think… how quickly could you/we/me answer the question? Would the answer come from our deep seeded bias’ we all carry, or would it be a Biblical answer?

There are almost countless ways to answer that question in truth, but here are two quick ways to explain the true and real meaning of Christianity. It’s simple… we make it complex.

  • John 13:35 Jesus says :: “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (something also expanded on by Paul in Romans 12:9-21)
  • Romans 10:9-10 Paul says: That is the outpouring of our decision for Christ… “because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved”

Those are just two quick ways to answer that question, there are many more.

Do We Hide Our Testimony While the Faithless Share Their’s?

Leave a reply

I’m not sure where we modern evangelicals get the idea that our personal testimony is a “private” thing. We may not actually say that out loud, but by not sharing our personal testimony with others that is in essence what we are saying. It’s my testimony, something between me and my God. No where in scripture does it say this, so in light of hoping to be a doer of the Word and not just a reader of the Word, I went ahead and posted my own personal testimony on my blog today.

The Story of the Woman and the Well

I don’t know how many times I have read through the story in John 4:39-42 about Jesus and this “despised and immoral” woman at the well, but today, as I contemplated the reaction of the woman I thought about my own personal testimony and how many times (or I should say how few times) I have done what this woman did in verse 4:28-29. She left her water jar (her purpose for being at the well), went into town and gave her testimony to anyone who would listen.

This story is contrasted by the story of Nicodemus in chapter 3 who was a “religious” person of faith in that day, compared to the woman who was a despised by society, an immoral Samaritan. But look at the end result from the BKC chart below (click pic to see full chart), the woman was converted, she gave her personal testimony to others, and then others came to believe in Jesus Christ.

The “Faithless” in our Culture Today

Putting it in post-modern terminology we can understand, it was recently presented to me like looking at a modern church-goer (the Jew) and the homosexual or atheist (the Samaritan) of our twenty-first century society. While we evangelicals are quick to point out the sins of homosexuals and argue with the atheists who possibly represent to us the antithesis of faith and religion, it was this person who received the call of Jesus, and then proclaimed it to the world, not the church-goer.

When you look at our culture today the two groups I mentioned above probably know more about Christianity than evangelicals do, and they give their testimony loud and clear to whoever will listen. Those two minority groups in particular have educated themselves well in the arguments for their way of life, and how to oppose Christianity. Evangelicals though often stumble and fumble with what to say when asked simple questions about their own faith. Many today will not respond to apologetical arguments because they know their talking points so well they can refute all those common points of contention, but it’s hard to argue with a truly changed and transformed life. That’s the point of your personal testimony.

During part of my time in seminary it was required for us to actually write down our personal testimony. That exercise alone was an eye opener to me. I had to take a real look at what actually is my testimony, and until then, I’m not sure I was prepared defend my faith or give a proper testimony when needed.

True Faith Moves to Confrontation with Jesus Christ

Look what happened when she shared her faith with the town. “Many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony”, but the key to this verse is understanding the next set of verses in 40-41 where the “witness of the woman led to the Samaritans’ personal confrontation with Jesus”, giving them true and lasting faith in Jesus.[1] Jesus didn’t need the testimony of this woman (John 5:34) but because of the rejection of Israel in chapter 3 her testimony was more effective than the “religious” person.

As we move into verse 42 we see that ultimately the person coming to faith solely based on the testimony of an individual is secondary. These Samaritans proclaimed for themselves “for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this [Jesus] is indeed the Savior of the world.” Moving from the personal testimony of an individual, true faith then moves to it’s own experience and the “confrontation” with Jesus Himself.

If We Claim a Saving Faith We are Called to Share It

While this isn’t one of those traditional “share your faith” set of verses for the modern church-goer, it was a call to me to make sure we don’t just play “religion” and end up totally missing the point. This post could head in so many different directions from here but it really was meant to be a simple straight forward post. If we claim to be believers in Christ, we are called to share our faith with others.

[1] John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, , The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, Vol. 2, 2 vols. (Chicago, IL: David C Cook Publishers, 1983), 284-288.

A Look at the Correspondence Theory of Truth

4 Replies

After recent comments on my blog lately I once again was reminded how so many people in this world are actually seeking a reality of their own making, not the real truths that are actually real. This post-modern time we live in lends itself more and more to an absolute void of real objective truth and more to the relative nature of truth, which means truth is really just what you make it out to be. So below is part of how we studied “truth” in seminary, with something called the Correspondence Theory of Truth, which is almost better illustrated by the graphic above. If this doesn’t interest you then please head over to The Fillmer Photo Daily blog where I post mostly pictures (and few words), there is always something new to see there as well.

The Correspondence Theory of Truth is actually a tiny little worldly example at the bottom of this post so we have something to compare to what really is the way we get to Biblical truth, but you get the idea.

How Do We Arrive at What is True

This isn’t something new to us, even though we love to think it is with all our modern computer equipment and knowledge. Ling before we appeared, Pilate asked Jesus the rhetorical question, “What is Truth?”

Truth appears to be a property, that is an aspect of certain statements. 2+2=4 is obviously true. 7×5=15 is obviously not. Giraffes have long necks is obviously true. Hippos have red spots is not. The question though for the Correspondence Theory of Truth is, what is truth a property? In this case, there are three candidates: Truth is a property of sentences. Truth is a property of statements. Truth is a property of propositions.

What’s the difference between these?
A sentence is a group of written words, that contain a subject and a verb.
A statement is the occasion of the use of a sentence by someone.
A proposition is what is asserted when a statement is made, the content of the statement.

One may assert the same proposition with two different statements:

  1. George is a fine fellow who can be trusted.
  2. Mr. Shannon is a man of integrity who can be relied upon.

Both statements are about George Shannon, and both are true because they assert the same proposition.

One may use the same sentence to assert two different propositions:

  1. This is really cool!
  2. This is really cool!

In this instance the same sentence refers once to a dish of ice cream and then to a new car.

We also speak of beliefs as being true or false. Beliefs are basically propositions. They may be stated in sentences. Again the same belief may be stated in different sentences stating the same proposition:

Christ died for our sins.

  • Jesus Saves.
  • We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
  • There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Every truth may be represented as a proposition. Don’t be misled by those (postmodernists) who speak of “non-propositional truth.” If it is a truth it may be stated in a proposition—that is as a sentence which expresses the truth. Some thinkers see truth as a property of representations, linguistic representations or mental ones. They are mistaken. Others see truth as a property of propositions which are represented or expressed in thought or speech.

The best known theory of truth is the Correspondence theory of truth goes something like this:  Whether what is said about the world is true or not depends on how the world is. In other words, a proposition is true if it corresponds to the way things really are.

Let’s label a proposition with the letter P. P may stand for any proposition you want. Under the correspondence theory of truth, P is true if two conditions are met:

  1. It is a fact that P
  2. The proposition corresponds to that fact.

For each true proposition, there must be a fact.

The association of truth with fact entails the association of words with world. In other words, it is possible to use words in ways that accurately describe the way the world is, even if some this this is impossible. This is absolutely essential if the proposition “The Bible is the Word of God” is to have any meaning at all. Conservative, Bible-believing Christians assert that the Bible gives, in words, an accurate, inerrant, description of the way the world is, of what has happened, and of what will happen. The sentences in the Bible, understood in context, accurately portray reality. That is, the propositions expressed in the Bible correspond to the way the world really is.

The Correspondence theory of Truth

This is the “scientific” definition, which serves less of a purpose here but it does have an important place.

The coherence theory of truth states the following: A statement is true if it coheres with other statements. The test of truth is internal. The system of statements one makes must cohere, must be consistent. If one proposition in a group is not consistent with the others, we know that the whole system is not true.

Propositions are truth-bearers. Those who hold to the coherence theory say that truth cannot consist in the relationship between truth-bearers and that which is not a truth bearer (such as a fact). Here is a problem with the theory already. It divorces truth from facts. Truth, these theorists say, consists in the relationship which truth-bearers have to one another. This may be a relation of mutual support among a set of beliefs or non-contradiction between them, or they may together support an overall concept..

We should point out that this theory leads to a relativism, since contradictory systems may be internally consistent. Moral relativists say that there is no external morality, nothing for moral statements to correspond to. If a moral standard makes sense to you that is all that we need.

Religious pluralists—those who believe that all religions are equally valid, that all of them lead to God, depend on the coherence theory of truth. Since all the different religions make sense in terms of their own system, then all are equally true. (It may be argued, however, that not all religions are even coherent within their own system, but this is another matter.

The important thing for us to remember is that the coherence theory separates “truth” from “facts” and seeks only internal consistency. Postmodernists like this theory.

Is the coherence theory of truth useless then for Christians? Not at all. God is consistent and rational. He has created a consistent world for us to live in. Coherence is helpful to us as a negative test—no set of propositions can be true if there is a contradiction within them. The truth will always be internally consistent. By itself, however, that is not enough. True propositions must be consistent with other true propositions, and together, all true propositions must correspond to the way the world is.

Some who defend the Christian faith do so on the basis that the Bible offers a coherent view of reality, and that it corresponds to the world as we actually live in it. No other religion or philosophy offers the same kind of benefit. Even coherent philosophies break down when we try to actually live by them. They just don’t correspond to the way the world really is. Francis Schaefer (The God Who is There) defends the truth of Christianity on this basis.

In conclusion the graph at the top really says it all. There actually are truths in this world, but they are surrounded by false propositions and we only gain knowledge when our beliefs overlap the truth.

Reflections on Religious Pluralism in our Culture

Leave a reply

Truth is something that is a main theme around my blog and encompasses much of what I write about as well. Truth, or lack of it, can take many forms and many arguments, but there is an ultimate truth, or deception of the ultimate truth prevailing in our society today about salvation. This ultimately goes to answer the question, “is Jesus the only way of Salvation?” There are basically three options recognized by theologians today. Only one of them is found in the Bible, that of Exclusivism, the other two are heretical.

The two main heresies about salvation that run pervasively throughout our culture, are those terms referred to as Pluralism and Inclusivism. Below is a quick explanation of all three, then a brief reflection on the heresy called Pluralism (I will individually address the other two in posts at a later date).

Brief Explanation of Exclusivism

Exclusivism (when dealing with Salvation) is that eternal salvation of the soul found only through faith in Jesus Christ. Only those who are called and have trusted Christ are saved. They are declared to be right with God, and all their sins are forgiven through Jesus Christ’s death on the cross. No one, who does not trust in Jesus Christ has any hope of salvation, but may only expect to be judged and condemned to everlasting Hell.

Brief Explanation of Pluralism

Pluralism can be defined as saying “all religions lead to God”, at least all of the higher ones, for they are all in touch with the same spiritual realities. Each religion merely describes these realities differently. Thus, anyone who follows any of the “higher” religions may be assured that he really is in touch with God. This is the position of many Americans today. It is the unofficial position of most television networks and programs being produced, and is represented as the only morally sound position in many venues of public life.

Since this is so prevailing it needs no further explanation, but here are a couple of examples: “We [Muslims, Jews, and Christians] all worship the same God.” as said by Walter Abdur Ra’uf Declerck (quoted in The Fort Worth Star Telegram, Oct. 25, 2003). You can find quotes like this in hundreds of places all over local or national media, and the Internet is overrun with the same sentiment.

One of the leading voices in theological circles is from John Hick, a British Theologian who gives a very good example of this type of thought process.

The great religious traditions are to be regarded as alternative [salvational] “spaces” within which, or “ways” along which, men and women can find salvation/liberation/enlightenment/fulfillment.. . . The great world traditions have in fact all proved to be realms within which, or routes along which people are enabled to advance in the transition from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness. . . . Accordingly, by attending to other traditions than one’s own, one may become aware of other aspects or dimensions of the Real, and of other possibilities of response to the Real. . .

Brief Explanation of Inclusivism

This, in some sense, is more damaging to the ultimate truth, giving someone a false sense of their eternal salvation when it just doesn’t follow what Christ teaches in scripture. Satan’s best work sometimes can be seen taking truth and falsity and mixing them together into a lethal combination of false doctrine and incorrect theology. The danger here is that this comes from so far inside “the church” that many people are led astray.

Inclusivism says that Jesus is the only Savior, but He will save some who have never trusted Him. We can affirm that Salvation is only in Christ, without affirming the need to tell others about Him as they need not have faith in Him anyway. This is the position of some Catholics, who believe that other religions are more or less able to save depending on how similar they are to Catholicism. Thus, other denominations, and religions which teach that there is one God, or those which teach a high view of ethics will lead their followers to salvation. This is the view of many mainline denominations, and most theologians today as well.

An example is seen in the Catholic Theologian Karl Rahner when he says:

It is. . . quite possible to suppose that there are supernatural, grace-filled elements in non-Christian religions.. . . A lawful religion. . . can be regarded on thye whole as a positive means of gaining the right relationship to God and thus for the attaining of salvation. . . The member of an extra-Christian religion. . . [is] an anonymous Christian.

Reflections on Religious Pluralism

Pluralism as described by John Hick, is now the mainstream of most media outlets and continues to invade our daily life, even in the church.  My personal experience with a pluralistic worldview has been mostly limited to the current media forms of our culture like the Internet, satellite broadcasting, and social networking entities, but more and more you can see this view prevailing in our government as well.  One can now see how easily a person can make the transition from the Truth of an exclusivist worldview, to being more inclusivistic, and then to pluralistic without perhaps knowing the transition has taken place.

Many who carry a pluralistic worldview today are not even aware that this is indeed the worldview that consumes their life, but it is the worldview that engulfs their life.  Just the fact that we live in a society where this view prevails puts many, if not most, of us in some type of pluralistic camp.  Author Ronald H. Nash wrote an excellent book on this topic titled Is Jesus the Only Savior? At the end of his section on pluralism Nash quotes John Hick from Jesus and the World Religions with the following propositions:

“If Jesus was literally God incarnate, and if it is by his death alone that men can be saved, and by their response to him alone that they can appropriate that salvation, then the only doorway to eternal life is Christian faith.  It would follow from this that the large majority of the human race so far have not been saved.”[1]

And Nash concludes the section on pluralism by saying

If I am a Christian exclusivist and discover after death that Hick’s version of pluralism really is true, I will have lost nothing except Hick’s good will during the life.  But if I am a pluralist and it turns out that Christian exclusivism is true, then the consequences for me will be very serious.

These two statements are fundamental to the pluralism argument today and the last statement shows how deficient pluralism can be.  In the media, where I have my personal experience with pluralism, I contend, is where most people in our culture have such a problem with an exclusivistic worldview when Hick says, “it would follow… a majority of the human race have not been saved. “

The media views what is or is not fair in two ways.  One, what is socially fair to all (they insist and desire that all roads lead to the same God), and two, how some said worldview of fair effects the profit margin of the product or service they are selling (if they don’t say all roads lead to the same God, or wide is the road to salvation, they will immediately exclude some potential sales to those who don’t agree, which we have said is most in the world today).  Exclusivism in the media’s eyes is not fair to all; therefore they will always tend to push their efforts to the pluralistic worldview.

A pluralistic worldview can be discussed or defended when dealing with a person or group one on one, but when dealing with an entity as large as a new media outlet or a prime time network program where pluralism is so ingrained in the essence of the production, you can not simply converse about Matthew 7:13-14.  In the case of the media, your only recourse in the end may be to refer to what drives the business, and that is profit (for the most part).  The sometimes not-so-simple task of refusing to do business with the group or funding them in any way would be one way of removing yourself from their pluralistic worldview, although it may not make a substantial difference.  Another way, as could be the case when dealing with the government, is to voice your argument to the appropriate person.

Unfortunately, Hick’s view that eventually all human beings will ultimately be saved from Hitler to Stalin and everyone in between is the prevailing view of our culture, even among Believers, and changing their mind will mean changing their hearts to see the saving grace of God Himself.

[1] Ronald H. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savoir (Grand Rapids, MI: Zonervan Publishing, 1994), 69-92.

Reasons Why Apologetics is Important in Ministry Today

Leave a reply

In this particular article I was asked to choose the three most important reasons for including apologetics in my own personal ministry.  The answer is the following post.  Originally published on May 13, 2009 and republished for this blog on June 4, 2010. Although it is very important to understand the differences between religions like Jews, Christians, and Muslims (which is what the Coexist campaign seems to be trying to do), it is more important to me as a follower of Christ to understand our own reasons behind what we believe.

The three most important reasons for including apologetics as a part of my ministry, and to me any ministry, are personal truth, cultural relativism, and discipleship.  More specifically, apologetics, to my ministry and to me is:

  1. For personal truth: To know the salvation I seek and trust is the actual Truth.  To know why I believe what I believe to be true and not just to believe because I feel It to be true.
  2. Cultural relativism: To be able to defend the perceived truths of our highly relativistic culture, as we are commanded by scripture, in being able to lead others to a relationship with Christ and to do this through truth in scripture, knowledge, and love, not through a blended Christian worldview of the truth as we know it.
  3. Discipleship: To eventually be able to disciple, mentor, or lead other Believers to the truth in scripture so as not to be deceived by a cultural blending of Christian truths and worldviews.

For many years after I became a Christian I went through the motions of being a Christian.  Not questioning the truth but accepting all known teachings from others as truth without understanding why.  Taking a more apathetic approach to the truth of Christian philosophy, I became a lazy Christian believing the truth as truth, but not ever testing or seeking out the truth beyond an emotional basis.  Similar to how it is said in No Doubt About It, “He is real to me. …So I cannot doubt His existence, and you don’t need to prove it to me”.[1]

I took God as self-evident, and although no one in more than 15 years as a Christian introduced me to an apologetic view of my faith, I didn’t need one either.  Just because I hold God and Jesus as self-evident doesn’t mean everyone else does, and if I don’t have an apologetic understanding of my own faith, how can I effectively explain it to someone else.

It seems our understanding of truth in our culture today is relative.  This may be a trend that started in America many centuries ago, but in the age of information everything seems to be on an accelerated course.  Our society is constantly bombarded with inaccurate statements, reports, other media and information of all kinds and it seems goes unchecked.  Unchecked so much so that one person can look at a door, call it red, another call it blue, and both agree the contradiction is true.  Mis-information is bad, but one of Satan’s best weapons is to blend truth and falsities into one and make people believe it to be truth and fact without question.

According to Kinnaman in UnChristian, most outsiders see Christians as too hypocritical, too antihomosexual, too sheltered, too political, too judgmental[2] and most of what the outsiders perceive to be true about Christians is a blending of truth according to what scripture says and truth according to what our culture says is true.  For these reasons, apologetics plays an important role in cultural relativism.

To be a disciple of Jesus is something as Believers we all strive towards as we grow and mature in our walk in Christianity.  To become a disciple, Jesus poured truth into the original 12 during his ministry so they could in turn do the same to others when Jesus was physically absent.  At any point in a Believers life they will be pouring into some other Believer, or will be poured into by a Believer, or possibly both at the same time.  To achieve this we can and should follow the example Jesus gave during his ministry on earth and be ready to learn, and teach apologetically when called.

[1] Winfried Corduan, No Doubt About It: the Case for Christianity, 1st Edition (Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997). 45.

[2] David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, Unchristian : what a new generation really thinks about Christianity… and why it matters, 1st Edition (Baker Books, 2007).

Claims We as Christians are Called to Defend and Refute

Leave a reply

I began a new journey in my walk this summer, 2009, one I have felt a long time calling to pursue but just never could figure out how and when.  That is probably because the how and when should have been left up to God, not me trying to figure it out but non-the-less, after many years, I have decided to start my academic pursuit of work in ministry, whatever that comes to mean in the future, in seminary.

For some reason, I decided to start off my 2009 class year at Liberty with Apologetics, probably because I knew so little about the subject.  As an introduction we were given seventeen claims we as Christians are called to defend and fifteen we are called to refute, all of which I have listed below.

It was interesting that I should start my seminary work with this class.  These point below are probably an overview of what is in the years ahead of me.  I see many things I know I believe are true, but many I can not begin to explain in logical terms.  Makes me look forward to the times ahead of me.

All of us as Christians are called to share and defend our faith.  We don’t have to be experts in all these areas below, but we should know, the rest of the world expects us to be, or at least expects us to be able to explain to them, in common terms, the points below.

Seventeen claims we are called upon to defend as Christians in our Time:

The following are in no particular order, but all are important and all are challenged by the modern secularist mindset.

  1. God exists
  2. The Lordship of Jesus Christ—He was fully God and fully man.
  3. Christ died for our sins
  4. Christ rose from the dead
  5. God is all knowing and all powerful
  6. God is all goodness, in spite of the fact of evil in the world
  7. The Bible is the inerrant Word of God
  8. Events recorded in the Bible really happened and tell us something significant about God, about life, and about morals
  9. God will judge the world on the basis of the moral behavior of mankind
  10. Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven, to peace with God
  11. Faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for one to be right with God
  12. The churches have the freedom and right to preach and teach God’s truth in God’s way.
  13. The teachings of God’s word exemplify a moral “high ground”
  14. A life lived so as to please God is better than a secular lifestyle
  15. The historic truths of the Christian faith are objectively true, in the same sense that scientific truths or other secular truths are true.
  16. We are responsible to God for our moral behavior.
  17. Mankind is a special creation of God, not the product of evolution or of impersonal forces in the universe

Fifteen worldly claims we are called upon to refute as Christians:

Some of these may appear to overlap, but each is a separate issue, and each has adherents in the world.  You will discover that there are people even in our churches who believe at least some of these, according to research done by George Barna.

  1. All Religions lead to the same god
  2. It doesn’t matter what your religion is as long as you are sincere—God understands
  3. Jesus is merely a great teacher or prophet
  4. God is too loving to ever send anyone to Hell
  5. A god who would send any of his “Children” to Hell is not a god worthy of our worship
  6. Morality is relative.  You have to decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong.
  7. We are the end product of evolution, the crowning achievement of the forces of nature.
  8. Man is the measure of all things.  What is good is what benefits the human race.
  9. The individual is all that matters—what’s good is what is good for you!
  10. Religion and Science are different realms—religious truths are different from scientific truths.
  11. “I know what’s best for me! I don’t need anyone else running my life!”
  12. Don’t worry about doctrine!  Religion is about what you feel!  If I have peace in my heart, then that’s all I need.
  13. The Bible is a human book, a product of the religious experiences of one people.
  14. The Bible is an old book—it was fine for back then but it has nothing to say to our time, to people today.
  15. Muslims worship one god too!  So it must all be the same God.

This post was originally created on May 11 2009 and updated in June 2010.