Category Archives: Apologetics

August 31, 2019

Are the “End Times” About the Future…. Or Partially About the Past?

By Clarke Morledge

As yet another major Christian denomination, the Evangelical Free Church of America, changes it doctrinal statement, to back away from its historic commitment to premillennialism, it bears reflecting upon how much Christians are rethinking the “End Times,” in the 21st century.

Dick Woodward, the late pastor emeritus of my church, and founder of the Mini Bible College, always described himself as a “pan-millennialist,” when it came to the “End Times.” When asked, what is a “pan-millennialist?,” Dick would always say that he believed that everything would simply “pan-out” in the end.

That made for a very humorous joke, but it cut across the grain of what passed for the so-called biblically “inerrant,” premillennialist view of the “End Times,” that dominated American evangelical theology, in the latter half of the 20th century. Today, many core doctrines of the Christian faith are under attack, by the surrounding culture. Surely, Christians are compelled to defend the faith, against the onslaught of these attacks. So, is the doctrine of premillennialism, one of those core doctrines?

The main problem with asserting premillennialism as a core doctrine, is historical. Premillennialism, the belief that Jesus’ Second Coming will occur prior to establishing a 1,000 year millennial kingdom on earth, has reigned supreme in many American evangelical church circles, despite being historically a minority position, within the 2,000 year tradition of the Christian church as a whole. When pressed, my pastor, Dick Woodward, would describe himself as a progressive dispensational premillennialist, but he was never dogmatic about it. But was there any other genuine alternative, that took the Bible seriously?

When I was a young Christian, any mention of the “End Times” brought up ideas about the Rapture, a 7-year Great Tribulation, the nation of Israel, the Antichrist, and, of course, the Book of Revelation. In short, the “End Times” were all about events yet to happen in the future. But what if some of, if not most of, what we read in the Book of Revelation, is about events that have already happened in the past?

Such a question might make some Christians ill at ease. After all, many Christians still hold firmly to futuristic view of prophecy, that includes premillennialism. But a recent book I read, by Christian film maker Brian Godawa, suggests that there might be a better way to read the Bible, when it comes to biblical prophecy.

Filmwriter and author Brian Godawa encourages Christians to rethink biblical prophecy, by…. get this…. actually reading and studying the Bible.

Brian Godawa is perhaps best known from writing the screenplay for To End All Wars, a movie about life as a prisoner of war, under the Japanese during World War II. Based on a true story about Ernest Gordon, a Scottish soldier, this prisoner moved from being an agnostic to becoming a Christian, in the midst of the horrific trials he faced. After the war, Gordon became a Presbyterian chaplain at Princeton University.

But Godawa is also a book writer, and I listened to the audiobook version of End Times Bible Prophecy: It’s Not What They Told You. Godawa grew up in a Christian home, where he was taught the idea of a pre-tribulational “Rapture” of the church, followed by a 7-year Great Tribulation, to be then followed by Jesus’ Second Coming.

The problem was that Godawa was confused by all of the various speculations about the End Times, and how he was frustrated by the fact that all of the supposed prophecy predictions would continually fail.

I was reminded of the confusion that Godawa addresses by a recent statement made by Anne Graham Lotz, a daughter of the late evangelist Billy Graham, who believes that Jesus will return within her lifetime (listen at the 8:25 time mark). In keeping with Scripture, as she interprets it, Anne Graham Lots believes that her generation; that is, “this generation” will be the generation that sees the return of Jesus Christ. As she explained to the Christian Broadcasting Network, ” Israel was born in a day, May 14, 1948….Jesus said the generation that sees that take place is the generation that will be the last. And for me it’s meaningful. I was born May 21, 1948 so I believe it’s my generation.”

Now, I have always had great respect for Billy Graham, and his family. But what Anne Graham Lotz says here bothers me: Have not other Christians made the same type of predictions of Jesus’ expected return, only to be disappointed when such predictions fail to pan out? In other words, is Anne Graham Lotz’ view strictly based on firm biblical teaching, or is it simply speculation?

Anne Graham Lotz, daughter of the late evangelist Billy Graham, believes that her generation will live to see the Rapture of the Church. As her generation is entering their twilight years, is her speculation on the timing, cutting it rather close?

After doing years of research, Brian Godawa adopted what most theologians call a partial preterist view of the End Times. His view is “preterist,” in the sense that the word “preterist” means “past,” believing that many prophecies have already been fulfilled in the past, namely in the first century of the church. Yet his view is “partial,” in that Godawa believes that at least some of the End Times prophecies are still yet to happen in the future, such as the Second Coming of Jesus and the Resurrection of the Dead.

One of the top things that changed Godawa’s mind was that verse quoted by Anne Graham Lotz, in Matthew 24:34, where Jesus says to his listeners, “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” The standard futurist way of interpreting this verse is to say that “this generation” actually applies to events at least 2,000 years into the future.

Many Christians accept this interpretation as valid, but the vast majority of scholars, and many other curious non-specialists in the Bible, are not so convinced. After all, if Jesus was speaking to his contemporaries, in the 1st century, why would he refer to “this generation,” if he really was talking about Anne Graham Lotz’ generation, some 2,000 years later? I continually meet skeptics, and other critics of the Bible, who are convinced that Jesus was predicting the end of the world, within the period of the first century, and that Jesus was simply wrong.

A partial preterist view of the End Times, on the other hand, addresses the skeptics’ criticisms, while still affirming the trustworthiness of Jesus and the Scriptures, informed by evangelical biblical scholarship. In other words, Jesus, in Matthew 24, is indeed predicting something, that historically did come to pass, in the 1st century of the Christian era, thus adding confirmation to the New Testament claim, that Jesus truly was and is the Son of God. If Jesus did acccurately predict future events, that can be confirmed historically, then this would be consistent with the biblical claim that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. Brian Godwa argues that many Christians have failed to see this as being taught in the Bible, so they are unable to effectively defend the Bible, when the critics press upon the Bible-believing Christian.

Strictly futurist views of the End Times are deeply ingrained in the minds of many Christians, so Godawa goes to great lengths, even in this popular level book, to substantiate his argument. Godawa goes through the Bible, building his case that many of the biblical prophecies are actually metaphorical in nature, and that they should be not be taken in a non-metaphorical way. Concepts such as the “Day of the Lord,” “all the nations,” and cosmic catastrophes, such as “Blood Moons,” are explained within their original context, as the original biblical writer intended.

Christians who are reticent to believe that God would make heavy use of metaphorical language, to describe prophetic events, will probably be skeptical of Godawa’s book. Yet every Christian believes that there is at least some metaphorical language in the Bible; such as, Jesus’ description that you must “hate” your family, in order to be a disciple, or that the “sign of Jonah” refers to “three days and three nights,” in the belly of a great fish, as an idiomatic expression corresponding to the three days and two nights Jesus was dead, between his Crucifixion and Resurrection. Most Christians even agree that there are at least some metaphorical elements found in the Creation story in Genesis.

The key is to evaluate the contextual evidence, found within the text itself, from the perspective of the original writers of Scripture, in order to determine the correct interpretation of any particular passage of Scripture. Only in this manner can we responsibly understand what is metaphorical and what is non-metaphorical in the Bible.

What is the point of application of Godawa’s view? While we still await Jesus’ future Second Coming, looking at the original context of a great deal of biblical prophecy, including much of the Book of Revelation, the Bible was still addressing the situation of persecution, for that first generation of believers in the first century church. For Christians living in a world today, where persecution is more prevalent than ever, the example of first century Christians under stress can provide great comfort to believers undergoing current trials for their faith.

Has Brian Godawa made his case convincingly? At this point, I am not sure. The jury is still out, in my view (UPDATE: November, 2021. The more that I have studied the Scriptures, since I have read Godawa’s book, the more that I am convinced that Godawa has it right. See my post on 2 Peter).

What I am sure about is that Brian Godawa has made his case, in a very thorough manner, citing Scripture all the way through his book, and illustrating where the original context, that the biblical authors had in mind, actually makes a big difference in how biblical prophecy should be interpreted. Godawa still has a healthy measure of hermeneutical humility, acknowledging that he could be wrong in a number of the details of interpretation, that he presents. Nevertheless, he does find partial preterism to be convincing. Otherwise, he would not have written a book about it.

Many Christians have grown up, like Godawa, being taught about a pre-tribulational Rapture of the church, as an event separate from the Second Coming of Jesus, for example, with a central role for national Israel being within that divine plan. I can not categorically rule out that scenario as a possibility. Many of my dear Christian friends strongly hold to a futurist type of view. So if Anne Graham Lotz’ prediction comes true, then God will still get the glory, no matter what!

On the other side, Brian Godawa’s case for partial preterism is certainly within the range of acceptable bounds of theological orthodoxy. Is it the best and most accurate way to interpret difficult passages in the Bible? Well, the curious reader will need to pick up a copy of Brian Godawa’s book to find out.

Godawa’s book stands as a perfect complement to something like the late R.C. Sproul’s book The Last Days According to Jesus, reviewed a year ago here at Veracity. Sproul’s argument is mainly about the apologetic concerns, that partial preterism addresses forcefully, in which more futurist approaches to Bible prophecy, tend to wobble on. Godawa’s book digs more into the exegetical details, addressing particular interpretation issues found in difficult prophecy passages.

In addition to premillennial futurism and partial preterism, there are other views about the “End Times,” that Christians throughout church history have thoughtfully considered (See these prior posts at Veracity regarding amillennialism, the most well-known view taught within Christianity, promoted by the 5th. century, Saint Augustine, and historic premillenialism, defended recently by popular prophecy blogger, Joel Richardson). Christians should not be dogmatic about timing issues, concerning the Rapture or other specific End Time chronologies. Our ultimate landing point, is that Jesus is truly coming back. The other details will sort themselves out, over time.

Granted, the establishment of the modern state of Israel, is a strong point of evidence, in favor of a futurist perspective on biblical prophecy. Nevertheless, the delay of the Rapture, now some 71 years after the founding of the Middle Eastern Jewish state, leaves many people, Christian and non-Christian alike, wondering. I can not claim absolute confidence here, but if I had to pick a particular viewpoint, that is easier to defend with a non-believer, then the partial preterism view advocated by Brian Godwa carries with it the best overall argument.

9 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in Apologetics

August 24, 2019

When “Flat/Young” Earth Apologetics Run Off the Rails

By Clarke Morledge

Conspiracy theories never make for good arguments in favor of the Bible.

Here is a case in point: As I learned about a year ago, apparently, the Flat Earth movement, that is alarmingly growing in some corners of evangelical Christianity, is starting to make in-roads into the Young Earth Creationist movement. As a result, some Young Earth Creationists are treating the Flat Earth movement as though it were a conspiracy theory, but this apologetic tactic is not working very well.

Now, let me be clear. I have no problem with someone believing that God created the universe within six-24-hour days, citing the Creation as a miracle. God can create the world any way He wants. However, I DO have a problem if someone bases their argument for a Young Earth Creation on the idea that the current scientific evidence leads us to conclude that we should accept a 6,000 year old earth.

This is conspiracy thinking through-and-through. The current scientific consensus overwhelming confirms that the earth is 4.34 billion years old. Not 6,000. And such conspiracy logic only turns Bible-believing Christians into either skeptics of the Bible, or it turns people the other way, to double-down on the conspiracy, and then become something like Flat-Earthers, to reinforce their convictions. Sadly, critical thinking appears to be a commodity in short supply, in the age of social media, and endless YouTube videos, promoting the most wildest ideas possible.

Very briefly, Flat Earth believers base much of thinking on the idea expressed in the King James Version of the Bible:

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. (Genesis 1:6-8 KJV)

They take the word firmament, highlighted above, in a hyper-literal fashion, to mean something like a firm, metal dome, that separated the waters above, from the waters below, during the Creation week. Regardless of what one concludes as to how the ancient Hebrews understood this, biblical scholars today, including Young Earth Creationists, regard this as a metaphor. Most modern translations, like the ESV, translate the KJV word firmament as “expanse.” In other words, that blue sky you see above you is not some hardened surface, that keeps water from dripping down on your head, during a sunny day.

The so-called “logic” of Flat Earthers is severe. Flat Earthers therefore conclude that all other Christians, including other fellow Young Earth Creationists, are compromising Scripture, by not holding to a “literal” interpretation of the Bible.

 

Many evangelical Bible scholars accept that the ancient Hebrews viewed the world as a disk floating on the waters, supported by pillars. But does this mean that God’s Word is teaching us today to believe in a “flat earth?”…. Apparently some people think so. (credit: Logos Bible Software, the FaithLife Bible).

Ken Ham, the president of Answers in Genesis, who runs the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter, in Kentucky, has become alarmed about the growing popularity of the Flat Earth movement. But how does Answers in Genesis respond to this increasing threat to Bible-believing Christianity?

Danny Faulkner, an astronomer with Answers in Genesis, has taken up the challenge to try to beat some sense into those who might be drawn to Flat Earth thinking. The popularity of the Flat Earth, among some evangelical Christians, through a growing number of Internet websites and YouTube channels, has even led to the  making of a documentary movie, featuring Danny Faulkner, and Hebrew scholar, Stephen Boyd, featured in Is Genesis History?, to try to refute the Flat Earth. Here is the trailer:

The Flat Earthers have a 2 1/2 hour critical review of the documentary film. Danny Faulkner wrote an article, at the Answers in Genesis website, refuting the Flat Earth movement. It is actually quite a very good, informative article. The problem is that by making some minor adjustments, the adjusted article could also be used to refute Young Earth Creationism.

According to journalist Jay Johnson, at the Naturalis Historia blog, Johnson took Faulkner’s article and did a simple find-and-replace of key words in Faulkner’s article, replacing “flat” with “young,” “shape” with “age,” “a sphere” with “old,” “a globe” with “old,” and “astronomy” with “geology.” The results were startling.

Anyone with a computer, with a program having a find-and-replace feature, can do this themselves.

Seriously.

It is that easy.

Here is a sample of Danny Faulkner’s original article (you can read it in full at Answers in Genesis), with Jay Johnson’s find-and-replace, tweaked version of Faulkner’s article (read most of that here). To make it easier to compare, I am just quoting portions of paragraphs, with the changed words in bold:

(Faulkner)….if one becomes convinced that the earth is flat rather than being spherical, that is a major change in one’s worldview. If the earth truly is flat, then we have been lied to about the earth’s shape our entire lives. One must ask how and why this lie was created and perpetuated. Ultimately, this line of thinking leads to the conclusion that there must be a vast conspiracy about the earth’s shape that has been going on for a long time….
(Johnson)…if one becomes convinced that the earth is young rather than being old, that is a major change in one’s worldview. If the earth truly is young, then we have been lied to about the earth’s age our entire lives. One must ask how and why this lie was created and perpetuated. Ultimately, this line of thinking leads to the conclusion that there must be a vast conspiracy about the earth’s age that has been going on for a long time…

Another section, after Danny Faulkner encourages Flat-Earthers to rethink their approach, of thinking that their view is found in the Bible:

(Faulkner)….But flat-earthers typically are undeterred by such advice. They dismiss it as the mere teaching of a man. They proudly proclaim that they want to stick solely with what the Bible says. They fail to understand the importance of sound teaching taught in the very Bible they profess to uphold. God has ordained the church for several purposes, including instruction in the Scriptures. 1 Timothy 3:2 says that an overseer must be able to teach. But flat-earthers frequently dismiss instruction from Godly men, insisting that they know more about what the Bible says than men who have devoted many decades to prayerful study of the Scriptures. It never occurs to flat-earthers that they may be wrong in their understanding of the Bible. Nor does it occur to them that they have set themselves up as authorities on the meaning of the Bible, but their approach completely undermines the possibility of such an authority in the first place….Some flat-earthers also fashion themselves to be experts on science and the methodology of science. Consequently, they think of themselves as competent to dictate to scientists, both godly and ungodly, on how science ought to be conducted. But their definitions and practice of science appear to be formulated to make science as generally understood impossible.
(Johnson)…But young-earthers typically are undeterred by such advice. They dismiss it as the mere teaching of a man. They proudly proclaim that they want to stick solely with what the Bible says. They fail to understand the importance of sound teaching taught in the very Bible they profess to uphold. God has ordained the church for several purposes, including instruction in the Scriptures. 1 Timothy 3:2 says that an overseer must be able to teach. But young-earthers frequently dismiss instruction from Godly men, insisting that they know more about what the Bible says than men who have devoted many decades to prayerful study of the Scriptures. It never occurs to young-earthers that they may be wrong in their understanding of the Bible. Nor does it occur to them that they have set themselves up as authorities on the meaning of the Bible, but their approach completely undermines the possibility of such an authority in the first place. … Some young-earthers also fashion themselves to be experts on science and the methodology of science. Consequently, they think of themselves as competent to dictate to scientists, both godly and ungodly, on how science ought to be conducted. But their definitions and practice of science appear to be formulated to make science as generally understood impossible.

This really stood out to me:

(Faulkner)….It is intellectually lazy for Christians in their fear to insist on a strictly literal approach to all of Scripture. Sadly, flat-earthers who demand this hyper-literal approach to the Bible readily abandon it when it suits them. Ultimately, flat-earthers place themselves in a position of authority while simultaneously deconstructing the idea that there can’t be any authority other than Scripture. They are blind to the fact that they have equated their understanding of Scripture with what the Bible says…..
(Johnson)…It is intellectually lazy for Christians in their fear to insist on a strictly literal approach to all of Scripture. Sadly, young-earthers who demand this hyper-literal approach to the Bible readily abandon it when it suits them. Ultimately, young-earthers place themselves in a position of authority while simultaneously deconstructing the idea that there can’t be any authority other than Scripture. They are blind to the fact that they have equated their understanding of Scripture with what the Bible says.…

And finally, here is Faulkner’s conclusion:

(Faulkner)….So, I continue to battle this threat to biblical Christianity. I’m not interested in debating flat-earthers. I don’t even try to convince them. Instead, my target audience is those who are true seekers, not those who think that they’ve already found truth in the falsity of flat earth, without doing the proper research. I also provide answers to those who have seen the unfortunate effects of the flat-earth movement in people that they know and love.
(Johnson)…So, I continue to battle this threat to biblical Christianity. I’m not interested in debating young-earthers. I don’t even try to convince them. Instead, my target audience is those who are true seekers, not those who think that they’ve already found truth in the falsity of young earth, without doing the proper research. I also provide answers to those who have seen the unfortunate effects of the young-earth movement in people that they know and love.

If you follow the whole line of thought, it is pretty amazing. So, after reading this, do you feel more drawn to the Flat-Earth movement, as the most faithful expression of biblical Christianity? Do you feel more drawn to the Young-Earth Creationist movement? Or are you skeptical about the whole business?

My purpose here is not to pick on Danny Faulkner. He is a legitimate astronomer, and a sincerely devout Christian man. I think he really wants to help people to have a love for the Bible, and a love for Jesus. But it becomes apparent that when you take the same type of anti-conspiracy apologetic logic, that Danny Faulkner uses against the Flat-Earth, and then apply it towards the Young-Earth, the results are quite unsettling, for those who advocate for a Young-Earth. To those who are not convinced of a Young-Earth, who hold to a more Old-Earth view, the whole thing is quite exasperating. There are better ways to approach the Flat-Earth nonsense.

If Young Earth Creationists are to make their case for their interpretation of the Bible, it would probably better serve their cause to try a different tactic. As I will report, in a future Veracity blog post, coming soon to a web browser near you, there are Young Earth Creationists who do take different approaches (the appearance of age, or a hope for a testable Young Earth model to be found in the future), and such apologists do their best to try to stay away from conspiratorial type of thinking. Whether such Young Earth Creationists succeed or not, in making their case, with a different approach, is an entirely different question. But it would better serve the entire Body of Christ for apologists to completely distance themselves from the conspiratorial quagmire, that tends to engulf Christians who do not bother to think things through more critically.

4 Comments   |  tags: , , | posted in Apologetics

August 20, 2019

Is It OK For Christians to Doubt?

By Clarke Morledge

“Everybody’s” talking about it. Marty Sampson, a songwriter for Hillsong, announced on social media that he is seriously questioning his faith.

Well, if by “everybody,” you mean, those who pay attention to what is going on in the Christian music world, then sure.

Me? So, I really do not know that much about Marty Sampson’s role in Hillsong. But I get why such news can bother some people.

As someone who has helped to lead music in Christian worship settings for years, I have enjoyed Hillsong’s music. But I am also quite aware that Hillsong has its detractors, by those Christians who dismiss Hillsong as “theologically shallow.”

Either way, I am always disturbed and disappointed when I learn that an influential Christian leader has turned out to be somebody different, from who I thought that person was.

It gets even more grieving when otherwise sincere Christians inappropriately criticize doubters, like Marty, by saying some really insensitive things, like “You must not have been a true Christian,” or “You reject God because you want to justify your sin,” or “Satan has taken control of your life.”

The fact of the matter is that a lot of Christians wrestle with doubt. Not everyone, though. Like Marty, there have been a number of times in my life where I have wrestled with doubt. Some people are more prone to doubt than others. I just happen to be in that group more prone to doubt. Perhaps Marty Sampson is there, too.

Apologist Michael Licona, and his wife Debbie, who is a Christian music worship leader, put out the following video. The Licona’s do an excellent job addressing the question of doubt, for Christians, showing that it is OK to doubt, while encouraging those who doubt to explore resources, that help believers work through their doubts. Here are a few takeaways I had with the half-hour video:

  • There is a difference between intellectual doubts and emotional doubts. Discerning the difference is essential.
  • Do your research. There are competent Christian scholars addressing practically every area where doubts can trouble us (digging into the archives here on Veracity might be a good place to start!!!).
  • Evangelical churches are not doing enough to help fellow Christians deal with their doubts. Christian apologetics are sadly neglected in many churches today, and does not receive a high enough priority.

Enjoy!! There is life to be found in God’s Word!!

1 Comment   |  tags: , , | posted in Apologetics

July 1, 2019

Apologetics: Norman Geisler

By Clarke Morledge

Norman Geisler.

Evangelical apologist Norman Geisler died today, at the age of 86. The author of over a hundred books on Christian apologetics, theology, and philosophy, Norman Geisler has left a dramatic footprint upon the evangelical Christian world.  Dr. Geisler was critically instrumental in founding two evangelical seminaries, Veritas International Seminary and Southern Evangelical Seminary, and taught classes at other well-known evangelical institutions, including Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Dallas Theological Seminary. His influence has been felt all over American evangelicalism, ranging from preachers like Andy Stanley to popular apologists like Lee Strobel and Frank Turek.

As the Veracity blog has been principally focused on apologetics, we would be remiss not to recall Dr. Geisler’s contributions. According to his testimony, Dr. Geisler had grown up in a mostly ex-Roman Catholic home, stemming from his father’s bitterness against the local Roman Catholic priest. Norman Geisler’s father had approached the priest, about marrying a Lutheran woman, asking the priest to officiate the marriage. The priest responded that this was against the rules of the church, but that he would gladly accept a bribe of $500, to ignore the rules. Norman Geisler’s father left the church with disgust.

As a young kid, Norman Geisler did not know the difference between Jesus and Santa Claus. At age 9, a persistent local Bible church shared the Gospel with this young boy, by taking him to church every Sunday, but he consistently and stubbornly refused to receive Christ, until he finally made a confession of faith, eight years later, at the age of 17.  His interest in apologetics was born from subsequent years of being unable to answer questions posed to him, by those he conversed with, when doing door-to-door evangelism, doing jail ministry, and serving in rescue missions.

As a young man, despite not being able to read during most of his years in high school, Norman Geisler knew that either he had to get some answers to these questions, or else, he should stop witnessing. So, he decided to go and find some answers.

Amazingly, after years of getting a theological education, including getting a doctorate in philosophy, focusing on the thought of Thomas Aquinas, Dr. Geisler rose as a leader in the evangelical Christian movement of the 1960s and 1970s, serving as one of the original authors of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. He also help to lead the burgeoning Evangelical Theological Society, the primary intellectual and scholarly think-tank for American evangelicalism, until departing the society in 2003, over what he saw as theological drift in the society.

I first encountered Norman Geisler upon thumbing through his When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences, that helped me to answer some of the tougher questions fielded to me, when I worked in youth ministry. I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Geisler at the National Conference on Christian Apologetics, about five years ago. There was twinkle in his eye and a passion in his energy to communicate the Gospel with others, by clearing away intellectual difficulties, that might be spiritual roadblocks for skeptics and seekers. It was easy for me see how Dr. Geisler was able to winsomely make the sometimes intimidating world of Christian apologetics accessible to youth ministry leaders, hard-working evangelists, and normal, everyday people, who have questions about faith in God.

Dr. Geisler’s unbridled passion for truth was encouraging, but it could also get him into trouble, and cause deep seated frustration with other fellow Christian apologists and theologians. Dr. Geisler, who excelled as a classical or philosophical apologist, was not always as proficient in other realms, such as evidentialist apologetics, presuppositionalist apologetics, or New Testament studies.

Dr. Geisler at times sought to defend certain beleaguered, troubled Christian leaders, whom he should have never defended. At other times, he would drive verbal and written attacks against other Christian scholars, that were sadly unwarranted, undeservingly tarnishing their reputations. There were moments where reading Norman Geisler was like feeling a sense of confident relief, “Yes, there are answers!” But there have been other times in reading Dr. Geisler, where I wanted to either scream or cringe. Alas, sometimes, an interest in defending the truth can lead even the best of Christians to become needlessly defensive, missing opportunities for learned engagement with more nuanced and accurate expressions of truth. I have done the same myself, over the years.

But in recalling Dr. Geisler’s years of faithful service for the cause of Christ, it would not be fitting to focus on particular deficiencies of certain apologetic blunders, here and there. Rather, it would be better to reflect on the greater picture of Dr. Geisler’s remarkable legacy, namely his desire to uphold the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We should consider the ways that God used this man, whom a local Bible church at one point probably thought of as being an “unreachable” teenager. Nevertheless, God saw to it to empower Norman Geisler to help several generations of believers and non-believers, to gain a greater sense of confidence in the tremendous and awesome glory of God, through the power of His Word.

Norman Geisler’s most popular, and perhaps best book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be Atheist, a popular outline to his classical/philosophical approach to apologetics, has been on my reading list for a few years now. I continually encounter other Christians who have been strengthened in their faith by this book, and other similar works by him. My fellow co-blogger, John Paine, did a three-part blog series (#1, #2, and #3) on “How We Got the Bible,” a few years ago, based largely on another book co-authored by Dr. Geisler, From God To Us Revised and Expanded: How We Got Our Bible.

In a time when skepticism and unbelief are growing more than ever, in our secular world, it is encouraging to know that there have been Christians, such as Norman Geisler, who have sought passionately and intelligently to reach out to others with the Good News of Eternal Life, through Jesus Christ. I am grateful that God has used Norman Geisler to help stir that same passion within me.

 

1 Comment   |  tags: | posted in Apologetics

June 5, 2019

Andy Stanley and Jeff Durbin: An “Unbelievable” Discussion About Apologetics

By Clarke Morledge

Veracity readers will know that I have posted several times about Andy Stanley, pastor of one of the largest churches in America. Last month, my wife and I attended the Buckhead branch of Andy Stanley’s church in Atlanta, Georgia. Though pastor Stanley was not preaching that week, it was eye-opening to experience how Stanley’s NorthPoint community network of churches function, to reach a large city like Atlanta.

Andy Stanley has become rather “infamous” for coining the phrase that Christians should “unhitch” their faith from the Old Testament, a theme present in his bestselling book Irresistible. Despite what one might think of this controversy, Andy Stanley is more fundamentally known as a preacher who engages in what is called evidentialist apologetics, in an attempt to reach the non-believer with the Gospel. Evidentialist apologetics is a way of establishing common ground with a skeptical non-believer, seeking to share the Truth of Christ, by making an appeal to scientific and historical evidences that support the validity of the Christian faith. Some good examples of Christian apologists who make use of evidentialist apologetics include J. Warner Wallace, Frank Turek, Michael Licona, and the most well-known of them all, William Lane Craig.

In Andy Stanley’s particular approach, Andy Stanley says we should not start with the Bible, but rather start with the Resurrection of Jesus. We build our case for Christ by making a series of arguments in sequence, beginning with the reality of Christ’s resurrection, which leads to establishing the divine authority of Jesus, which then leads to the authority of the Bible, and its salvation message. The simplest way to put it is that it is the event of the Resurrection that gives us the text of the Bible, as we have it today, and not the other way around.

So, I was really excited to learn that Justin Brierley, of the British apologetics podcast, Unbelievable?, was able to get Andy Stanley together with presuppositionalist apologist Jeff Durbin, in order to discuss the nature of apologetics. In contrast with evidentialist apologetics, presuppositional apologetics takes a different approach, whereby you begin with the self-attestation of the truthfulness of Scripture first, and only then speak of the various doctrinal claims of the Christian faith, including Christ’s resurrection. Jeff Durbin himself is a pastor in Phoenix, Arizona, who has been mentored by perhaps the most influential presuppositional apologist, of a Calvinist persuasion, of our day, James White, of Alpha Omega Ministries, also headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. Durbin, a popular YouTube Reformed apologist, has the unique distinction of being cast in several martial arts movies.

While I do believe that presuppositionalist apologetics does have its place, I am more of an evidentialist. Perhaps that is because that is how God reached me with the Gospel. I tend to differ with Durbin’s brand of apologetics, as presuppositionalist apologetics often begs the question: How do you build a case for Jesus, based on the Bible, when the non-believer does not believe the Bible to be trustworthy in the first place?

Sure, you could begin an evangelistic discussion by asking your listener to pretend that the Bible is reliable and true. But there is a big gap between pretending to believe the Bible, versus actually believing the evidence that exists, to support the authenticity of its message.

Even Christians often come to the Bible with their own negative judgments. An evidentialist approach seeks to build a bridge, that can help the skeptic or puzzled Christian to rethink their own reason for looking down at the Bible, or certain parts of the Bible. A presuppositional approach works great, if the person shares the same presuppositions. But a purely presuppositional approach tends to lead people to talk right past one another. In the worst cases, the presuppositional approach blows up bridges instead of building bridges, in our evangelistic or discipleship conversations.

A more troublesome question for presuppositional apologetics is this: Why start with the Bible? Why not the Book of Mormon? Or the Koran? Or the Bhagavad Gita?

Even if you start with the Bible, as opposed to starting with the evidence for the Resurrection, you still have to figure out which systematic view of the Bible you plan to go with: A Calvinist view? An Arminian view? A dispensationalist view? A charismatic view? Which one?

Andy Stanley’s particular approach does have some problems, as I have discussed before, so it is great to have someone like a Jeff Durbin, with whom I still have more disagreements with, on the other side of the debate, to challenge him. In the end, it is quite clear that there is no “one size fits all” approach to Christian apologetics that works for everyone. The discussion between Stanley and Durbin is great way to figure out where you stand, with respect to how you defend your faith, when engaging a skeptical non-believer. A riveting 90-minutes. This really is an amazing discussion!!

2 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Apologetics