An Encapsulated View of the Best from Christian Publishers

Order this book NOW!

Volume 5 . Issue 15 September 2009

COUNCIL OF REFERENCE

Dr. Richard Averbeck Rev. D. Stuart Briscoe Dr. Paul Cedar Mr. Dave Coleman Dr. & Mrs. Larry Crabb Mr. Roger Cross Dr. Kenneth O. Gangel Rev. Samuel Farina Rev. & Mrs. Lud Golz Dr. Kenneth O. Gangel Dr. Howard G. Hendricks Rev. & Mrs. Lud Golz Dr.Mr. OlanG. Hendricks Howard Hendrix Dr. David Hendrix Mr. Olan Jeremiah Rev. Knute Larson Dr. David Jeremiah Dr. John C. Maxwell Rev. Knute Larson Dr. Bruce Maxwell Dr. John C.McNicol Mr. Dean Merrill Dr. Bruce McNicol Mrs. Dean Morgan Mr. Elisa Merrill Dr. Luis Palau Mrs. Elisa Morgan Dr. Dr. Ray Ortlund Gilbert A. Peterson Rev. Wes Roberts Dr. Luis Palau Rev. & Mrs. Jamie Dr. Gilbert A. Peterson Rassmussen Rev. Wes Roberts Mr. Jim Warren Rev. & Mrs. Jamie Dr. Rick Warren Rassmussen Mr. Jim Warren Dr. Rick Warren

Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics

A Quick Focus

The Book's Purpose

Model a practical, workable apologetics Review the history of attacks against and defenses of the Christian faith Present, in a form accessible to the thinking layperson, the main philosophical arguments for the existence of God and for the truth of scriptural accounts Explain and rebut the main objectives to Christian theism
The Books Message
What rational warrant can be given for the Christian faith? Answering this question is the core purpose of apologetics. As we seek to love God with all our minds, we use apologetics to show unbelievers the truth of our faith, to confirm the faith of believers, and to compare Christian doctrines with other truth. We can know that Christianity is true because of the self-authenticating witness of Gods Holy Spirit and we can show it to be true by means of rational argumentation and evidence.

by William Lane Craig

Crossway Books ISBN: 1433501155

Nine Main Points

Why Study Apologetics? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 How Do I Know Christianity Is True? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 The Absurdity of Life Without God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Existence of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The Problem of Historical Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 The Problem of Miracles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 The Self-Understanding of Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 The Resurrection of Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 The Ultimate Apologetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Publishers Catherine & David Publishers Martin Catherine & David Martin Editors
Cheryl & Michael Chiapperino Editors Cheryl & Michael Chiapperino

2 2
Offensive apologetics is usually subdivided into two categories: natural theology and Christian evidences. Natural theology provides arguments to support theism in general; Christian evidences provide arguments to support a speciApologetics is that branch of Christian theology which seeks to provide fically Christian theism. Defensive a rational justification for the truth claims of the Christian faith. Like apologetics has two subdivisions that correspond roughly to those other branches of theology, apologetics is a way of loving God with our minds. It helps demonstrate to unbelievers that the Christian faith is true, of offensive apologetics. The first subdivision addresses objections to it confirms the faith of believers, and it shows the connections between theism; the second defends against Christian beliefs and other truths. objections to biblical theism. What it is not is training in the art of answering questions about the We will focus here on offensive faith, debating with nonbelievers, or evangelizing, even though it might apologetics. contribute to these endeavors. CBS The discipline of apologetics plays three vital roles in todays world:

Why Study Apologetics?

Before we can deal with specific arguments for Christianity, we ask some foundational questions about The second role that can be played by apologetics is the strengthening the relationship of faith and reason. of believers. We are in a spiritual war. When the pronouncements of scientists We will begin by reviewing what some of the significant thinkers and other leading intellectuals seem to erode the foundational truths of Christianity, an emotional commitment to the faith may not be enough to have said about this issue. weather the opposition. God has used apologetics to help many Christians Augustine (354430) held that persevere in the faith. Christians who have been close to denying their faith because they didnt see how it could stand up to competing faith systems the ground for faith was authority: the authority of the Scriptures and have become recommitted to the Christian truths through apologetics. the Church. However, he also beChristians who have been too timid to talk about their faith in academic or other settings have found new boldness after learning that Christianity lieved that faith and reason cooperated to bring a person to faith. For is intellectually defensible. Thomas Aquinas (12241274), many truths about God were accessiThe third role apologetics can play is in evangelizing unbelievers. Though ble by human reason, but some apologetics is different from evangelism, it can equip evangelists to counter truths surpassed the ability of human objections raised by unbelievers. The apostle Paul used apologetics extensively reason to grasp. Aquinas considered in the book of Acts; the exact form of his argumentation varied with his faith a way of knowing that was audience, but the fact is that he was not shy about showing that believing complementary to reason. John the gospel is reasonable. Locke (16321704) argued that There are two main types of apologetics: offensive or positive apologetics religious belief must have an evidential foundation and that where and defensive or negative apologetics. such a foundation is absent, religious belief is unwarranted. He used a cosmological argument in an attempt to prove the existence of God by reason. Another Enlightenment figure, Henry Dodwell (17001784) took the opposite position, insisting that theological rationalism was antithetical to Christianity.

First, it has the potential to shape culture. We are living in a post-Christian age, an age that began with the Enlightenment. Secularism has permeated all of society. The prevailing view is that the only reliable knowledge is that which can be verified through the physical sciences, which apply human reason to the material world. Other areas of study~including religion and ethics~are not considered legitimate objects of knowledge. The truths of Christianity are studied from a relativistic, pluralistic perspective. The discipline of apologetics, by applying logic and rationality to Christian doctrines, can help make the case that the truths of the gospel are a viable option for thinking people.

How Do I Know Christianity Is True?

Offensive apologetics seeks to present a positive case for Christian truth claims. Defensive apologetics seeks to nullify objections to those claims.

continued on page 3

3
HOW DO I KNOW CHRISTIANITY IS TRUE?
continued from page 2

Twentieth-century theologians Karl Barth (18861968) and Rudolf Bultmann (18841976) proposed authoritarian epistemologies and devalued the role of reason in spiritual knowledge. Contemporary thinker Wolfhart Pannenberg attempts to make a case for the possibility of spiritual knowledge aside from direct appeals to divine authority, and Alvin Plantinga appeals to both an inner sense of the divine and to the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. So how do we know that Christianity is true? First, we must consider the role of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit indwells the believer and teaches the believer the basic, universal truths about God, truths that are common to all Christians everywhere. The Holy Spirit also affects the unbeliever; He convicts the unbeliever of his own sin, of Gods righteousness, and of his condemnation before God. Second, we must consider the role of argument and evidence in knowing that Christianity is true. Reason does not stand over the gospel and judge it; rather, it submits to and serves the gospel.

he illustrated that if God does not exist, then all morality is relative, and no act~no matter how heinous~can be condemned. For the atheist, the logical answer to life is suicide. Danish existentialist Sren Kierkegaard (18131855) presented his Christian apologetic by picturing life as being lived on three different planes or stages. First is the aesthetic stage~sensual, selfcentered, and pleasure-centered. The end of this life is boredom. Boredom can sometimes lead to the second stage: the ethical stage. On this stage, life is lived according to higher values that transcend personal interest; however, the ethical life ends in guilt and despair because no one can be consistently ethical. In his guilt, man can enter the religious stage, where he finds forgiveness of sins and a personal relationship with God. It takes a great leap to transition from one stage to the next, but only in this third stage can man find authentic existence and true fulfillment. Francis Schaeffer (19121984) is probably the best known proponent of this apologetic approach. He traced the deterioration of Western civilization along a line of despair that has affected every area of human endeavor, including philosophy, politics, ethics, and the arts.

Philosophy is rightly the handmaid of theology. Reason is a tool to help us better understand and defend our faith.
Though the Holy Spirit may sometimes convict a person directly, He may also work through arguments and reason. However, reason alone cannot bring a person to faith in Jesus.
CBS

The Absurdity of Life Without God

A rather recent development in Christian apologetics has been called the argument from the human predicament. It has also been called cultural apologetics. Its main premise is that if we ignore the possibility that theism is true, the consequences are disastrous. Man is doomed to a meaningless and futile existence. Blaise Pascal (16231662) was one of the early practitioners of this kind of apologetics. He began with two Christian truths: that there is a God whom men are capable of knowing, and that there is an element of corruption in men that renders them unworthy of God. According to Pascal, only Christianity can resolve the enigma that is man and relieve man of the misery of his existence. Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky (18211881) was consumed with the problem of evil. How can a good God exist if there is such evil in the world? Through the development of the characters in his novels,

This denial of absolutes has gradually made its way through Western culture. In each case, it results in despair, because without absolutes mans endeavors degenerate into absurdity.
continued on page 4

4
THE ABSURDITY OF LIFE WITHOUT GOD
continued from page 3

Only belief in the God of Christianity can enable man to avoid ultimate meaninglessness. When human beings rejected God and attempted to find meaning in reason alone, they lost the prospect of immortality, a loss that led to ultimate absurdity. Without God and immortality, life has no ultimate meaning, no ultimate value, and no ultimate purpose. Yet man continues to act as if life does have meaning, value, and purpose. Life as a logically consistent atheist is a practical impossibility. This apologetics approach cannot prove the truths of Christianitys claims. However, it can help show that the claims of atheism and secularism are self-contradictory and absurd. And it can lay the groundwork for presenting Christianity as a meaningful alternative. CBS

infinite number of things is impossible. (A number is by definition not infinite.) Therefore, there cannot be an infinite series of things without a beginning. In earlier times, the universe was assumed to be eternal, without beginning. But the discovery that the universe is expanding provides scientific evidence for a beginning point. A number of attempts have been made to explain the expansion of the universe in such a way that a beginning point (and hence a First Cause) is required. Some of these are the Steady State Model, oscillating models, the Vacuum Fluctuation model, the Chaotic Inflationary Model, quantum gravity models, and various string scenarios; however, none of these alternate explanations is more plausible than the standard model that says the universe had a beginning. Additional scientific evidence is implied by the thermodynamic properties of the universe. According to the second law of thermodynamics, processes taking place in a closed system always tend toward a state of equilibrium. According to the atheistic view, the universe is a gigantic closed system. But if it is a closed system and if it has existed for an infinite time, it should now be in a state of equilibrium~a state of heat death~in which no further change is possible. However, that state of equilibrium clearly does not exist. This fact indicates that the universe has existed for only a finite time. There is another implication of an expanding universe: the way it all will end. As the universe expands and particles become farther away from each other, the time will come when the whole universe will collapse into a massive black hole from which it can never emerge. The fact that this has not happened is further evidence that the universes beginning happened at a finite point in time. Alternative explanations that have been proposed include oscillating models, baby universes, or inflationary multiple universes, but none of these adequately replaces the reasonable notion that the universe had a beginning.
continued on page 5

The Existence of God

Ever since Plato, philosophers and theologians have tried to provide a rational basis for belief in God.
We will identify and summarize the major arguments for the existence of God, along with some objections that have been leveled against each argument. The cosmological argument argues that since something exists, there must be a First Cause or a Sufficient Reason to explain the existence of the cosmos. This argument was expressed by Plato and Aristotle and was further developed by medieval Islamic, Christian, and Jewish thinkers. Al-Ghazali (10581111), the most well-known Islamic theologian, expressed the argument this way: Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning. Thomas Aquinas (12251274) described five ways of proving Gods existence; the first three ways are variations on the cosmological argument. The first way argues that the existence of motion in the world requires an Unmoved Mover. The second way argues that causation, as seen in a series of causes, requires the existence of a First Cause. The third way argues that the existence of contingent beings requires the existence of an Absolutely Necessary Being. German mathematician and philosopher G. W. F. Leibniz (16461716) argued not for an Uncaused Cause but for the existence of a Sufficient Reason for the universe. His beginning question was, Why is there something rather than nothing? He then stated that since something does exist, there must be a Sufficient Reason for its existence. Did the universe begin to exist? This fact can be established through several arguments and observations. A series of things without a beginning would require an actually infinite number of things; however, an actually

5
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
continued from page 4

After exploring a number of alternatives to the basic cosmological argument, we conclude that because the universe did have a beginning, it had a cause. That cause must be both before and outside the universe. Historically, that First Cause has been identified as God. The teleological argument is the argument from design. Both Plato and Aristotle were impressed with the order evident in the universe. The fifth way of Thomas Aquinas was a form of the teleological argument. He observed that everything has an end to which it aims; such an end requires the existence of an intelligent and conscious being to direct each thing to its end. Perhaps the most famous explanation of the teleological argument was given by William Paley, who in 1804 gave his famous watchmaker illustration. If we were to find a watch and examine it, we would conclude that it did not occur by natural chance but that it had been designed and built for a specific purpose. By analogy, when we examine the order in the universe, we also conclude that the cosmos had a Designer and Maker. Recent scientific studies demonstrate that the universe has been finetuned to produce the delicate balance needed to maintain its existence and to sustain life. There are three possible explanations for this finetuning: physical necessity, chance, or design. Physical necessity doesnt explain this fine-tuning because it is clear that other universes (for instance, a life-prohibiting universe) are theoretically possible. There is nothing within the currently known quantities and constants in the universe that requires the present arrangement and excludes other arrangements. In the scientific community, the search is on for a comprehensive Theory of Everything (T.O.E.): a unified theory of the four fundamental forces of nature, to reduce gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force to one fundamental force carried by one fundamental particle. The most promising possibility for a T.O.E. may be string theory, but so far that possibility has proved inadequate. Chance, the second possible explanation, is eliminated on purely mathematical grounds. If any universe is as equally probable as any other, the proper lottery analogy to the fine-tuning of the universe is a lottery in which a single white ball is mixed into a billion billion billion black balls, and a ball is then selected randomly from the collection. Two attempts to make the chance explanation more probable, the Anthropic Principle and the Many Worlds Hypothesis, have not been convincing. In light of the shortcomings of the first two explanations, the design explanation is the most plausible. The moral argument begins with the observation of objective moral values in the world. The argument can be traced back to Plato. The fourth way of Aquinas is a form of the moral argument. The moral argument for the existence of God may be outlined as follows: (1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. (2) Objective moral values do exist. (3) Therefore, God exists. The first premise does not mean that one must believe in God in order to hold that objective moral values and duties exist; it means that if God does not exist, there are no grounds for calling any behavior good or evil. Atheists will often claim that what we call morals are merely the product of random evolution; however, atheists speak and act as if some things are demonstrably evil and others good. This leads to the second premise. If we claim that certain things are good or evil in themselves, we are obligated to explain the origin of such a claim. The existence of God offers a more plausible explanation than does random selection.

The ontological argument was first formulated by Anselm (10331109). He wanted to prove not only that God exists but also that God possesses all the superlative attributes Christian doctrine ascribes to Him. Anselm laid out the argument as follows:

God is the greatest conceivable being. This is true by definition, for if we could conceive of something greater than God, then that would be God. So nothing greater than God can be conceived. It is greater to exist in reality than merely in the mind ... If God existed only in the mind, then something greater than him could be conceived, namely, his existing not only in the mind, but in reality as well.
continued on page 6

6
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
continued from page 5

The ontological argument eventually fell out of favor, but it has been resurrected in recent years by a number of prominent philosophers. Alvin Plantinga uses the concept of possible worlds in his formulation of the argument: (1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists. (2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. (3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. (4) If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. (5) If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists. (6) Therefore, a maximally great being exists. If we take all the above arguments together, we may not approach mathematical certainty that God exists~certainly not the sort of proof that would convince an unbeliever. However, we can say that it is reasonable to believe that God exists. The assertion that God exists is not an irrational claim. CBS

A historical apologetics must confront and overcome two main objections raised by historical relativists: the lack of direct access to historical events and the lack of neutrality on the part of the historian. However, through analysis, we can see that even though historical events are not directly accessible to us, we can say something intelligible about history and can even learn from it. CBS

The academic discipline of historiography began to develop during the Renaissance, sparked by the discovery of ancient documents and the study of ancient languages. Erasmus, who translated many ancient works into Latin and edited the Greek New Testament, was one of the leading figures of this movement. Reformers also gravitated toward ancient documents as they sought evidence that the Roman Catholic Church had departed from the teachings of the Fathers. Catholic Counter-Reformers of necessity began to study ancient texts more diligently in order to counter the claims of the Reformers. Christian apologists such as Juan Luis Vives, Philippe de Mornay, and Hugo Grotius used the skills of historiography to defend the Christian faith. The nineteenth century saw the rise of historicism, propounded most prominently by Leopold von Ranke. This approach aimed at the clear objective facts of history. In the twentieth century, however, historical relativism arose in reaction to von Ranke. Historical relativists claimed that a historian, as a product of a particular place and time, could not be a neutral observer of historical events; therefore, the task of the historian is to reconstruct the past on the basis of the present. In the 1970s, postmodernist relativists claimed that it is impossible to arrive at a knowledge of historical facts because all historical descriptions are themselves the constructs of people writing narratives. It is therefore meaningless to ask whether historical descriptions are true. As the status of historical study declined, so did the attempts to do apologetics using historical methods. The historical-critical method rejected miracles out of hand and severed any links between Christian theological truths and information about the historical Jesus. Not until the late twentieth century did scholars begin to pursue anew~this time more cautiously~ a historical apologetics.

The Problem of Historical Knowledge

Skepticism about the possibility of miracles arose during the Enlightenment, led by the Deists. In their view, though they asserted that God had created and continued to preserve the world, He did not intervene in its day-to-day operations. This view seemed to be strengthened by the mechanical worldview of Newtonian physics ... In regarding the world in terms of masses, motions, and forces operating according to these laws, Newtons Principia seemed to eliminate the need for Gods providence and gave rise to a picture of the universe appropriately characterized as the Newtonian world-machine. Theologians accepted the smoothrunning universe as a proof of the existence of God, but at the same time the Newtonian model suggested to others that miracles were either impossible or unnecessary. In 1670, Benedict de Spinoza argued against the possibility of miracles, claiming that what God wills is characterized by eternal necessity and truth. Second, a proof of Gods existence must be based on what is absolutely certain; however, since miracles introduce an element of uncertainty into the universe, their existence can actually lead people away from the knowledge of God. Philosopher David Hume argued that it is impossible in principle to prove that an event is a miracle,
continued on page 7

The Problem of Miracles

7
THE PROBLEM OF MIRACLES
continued from page 6

and he maintained that whatever evidence for miracles may exist, the evidence is insufficient to provide a full proof. Christians responded with counterarguments. French theologian Jean Le Clerc argued that the empirical evidence for miracles was more convincing than Spinozas philosophical arguments against miracles. He also raised the possibility of the existence of as-yet-unknown natural laws that would make miracles possible. English philosopher and theologian Samuel Clarke said that anything that matters has the possibility of only motion or rest; anything that is done is caused by Intelligent Beings~God, angels, or human beings. Therefore, a miracle is not contrary to nature since it is the product of an intelligent being, God. Jean Alphonse Turretin and Jacob Vernet wrote a 10-volume work to establish the truth of Christianity. They argued the so-called course or order of nature is really composed of incidental states or events, not necessary states. They depend on the will of God, and it is only the constant and uniform procession of events that leads us to think the course of nature is invariable. But God can make exceptions to the general order of things when he deems it important. Other significant counterarguments were raised by thinkers such as Claude Franois Houtteville, Thomas Sherlock, Gottfried Less, and William Paley. Together, these and other apologists successfully defended biblical theism against their Deist opponents. However, remnants of Deist presuppositions are still present today, in the work of the Jesus Seminar and popular critics of Christianity. Though showing the possibility of miracles is probably of little use in evangelism, biblical theologians should not hesitate to assert the truth of miracles against the popular myths of critics.
CBS

On a number of occasions, Jesus identified Himself with Old Testament references to the Messiah. For the early Church, the Greek word Christos (Messiah) became so closely associated with Jesus and was used so frequently in conjunction with His name that many people treat Christ as part of Jesus name. The historical details in the Gospel accounts have been proven time and time again to be accurate; there is no credible reason for believing that the Gospel writers were accurate in other details but inaccurate in their recording of Jesus words. Jesus not only accept-ed the disciple calling Him the Messiah but also saw Himself as the Son of God, Gods unique Son (John 3:16), different from the prophets of old. He talked about God as His Father, in an intimate relationship. Another significant title for Jesus is Son of Man. This title links Him to the figure in Daniels vision (Daniel 7), a ruler to whom all dominion and power were given. Though scholars have differences of opinion regarding the exact meaning of Gods kingdom, it is clear that Jesus saw Himself as key to the fulfillment of kingdom prophecies. Both the content and manner of His teaching differed from the teaching of other rabbis. Jesus taught with authority. His miracles were enactments of His authority, and in some cases He claimed authority that belongs only to God. And in several passages He refers to Himself as the final Judge who will decide the destiny of all people. When we consider all these factors, it is clear that the Gospels were not mere inventions of Jesus followers. The Jesus presented in the Gospels is the real Jesus, and this Jesus is much more credible than the speculations of modern-day skeptics.
CBS

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, scholars began a lengthy quest for the historical Jesus. In attempting to find out what Jesus was really like, investigators usually began with the premise that the Gospel accounts were so shaped by tradition and the beliefs of Jesus followers that the accounts are almost completely unreliable. Some scholars attempted to demythologize the accounts, eliminating any references to supernatural activity or to Jesus claims of messianic or divine status. This investigation has gone through several quests, each with slightly different emphases. The most current such quest is represented by the Jesus Seminar, which explicitly rejects out of hand anything of the miraculous or supernatural in the Gospel accounts as the starting point of their discussions. Such studies, which many people find convincing, have difficulty accounting for the fact that within twenty years of the crucifixion a fullblown Christology proclaiming Jesus as God incarnate existed. There are a number of items in the Gospel accounts that can give us clues to the self-perception of Jesus.

The SelfUnderstanding of Jesus

8
From the beginning, Christians have considered Jesus resurrection a core doctrine. The resurrection not only authenticated the claims of Jesus about Himself but also is the source of the believers hope of eternal life. The traditional apologetic, used by Theists to counter the arguments of the Deists, relied on three main assertions. First, the Gospels are authentic; they were written by those who claimed to write them, and the authors were eyewitnesses or (in the case of Luke) had access to eyewitnesses. Second, the text of the Gospels is pure; quotations from early Church Fathers bolster the claim that we have the correct text. Third, the Gospel accounts are reliable; the authors were neither deceivers nor were they deceived. As biblical criticism advanced in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (and as they continue to this day), the claims of the traditional apologetic were discounted and dismissed. The Gospels were considered to be human fabrications. In spite of such high-level criticism, there are three strong evidences for the Resurrection. First is the indisputable fact of the empty tomb. Even Jesus enemies admitted the tomb was empty; thats why they had to invent an explanation for the fact the Jesus body was missing. Throughout the centuries, skeptics have become more and more creative in trying to explain how the tomb can be empty without the fact of the Resurrection, but the more credible explanation is that the tomb was empty because Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. The second fact is the post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus. There are too many of them to be explained as hallucinations or as wish fulfillment. If any other historical event had this level of attestation, it would be accepted as fact. The third fact is the origin of Christianity. If the Resurrection did not occur, then the first followers of Jesus were willing to die for what they knew to be a lie. The people who witnessed the events of Jesus crucifixion and burial and who later witnessed Jesus post-Resurrection appearances literally staked their lives on the truth of these facts.
CBS

The Resurrection of Jesus

Volume 5, Issue 15
Publishers

Catherine & David Martin

Editors

Cheryl & Michael Chiapperino

Published on the World Wide Web at ChristianBookSummaries.com.

The mission of Christian Book Summaries is to enhance the ministry of thinking Christians by providing thorough and readable summaries of noteworthy books from Christian publishers. The opinions expressed are those of the original writers and are not necessarily those of Christian Book Summaries or its Council of Reference.

Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics by William Lane Craig. Copyright 2008 by William Lane Craig. Summarized by permission of publisher, Crossway Books, a division of Good News Publishing, Wheaton, Illinois. $26 US. 406 pages. ISBN:1433501155. Available at your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. The author: William Lane Craig (PhD, University of Birmingham, England; DTheol, University of Munich, Germany) is a research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. The summarizer: John Conaway is a writer and an editor with over 30 years of experience in publishing and product development. He and his wife, MaryEllen, live in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Their daughter, son-in-law, and two grandsons live nearby. John studied at Moody Bible Institute and Roosevelt University and graduated from Loyola University Chicago.

We can know Christianity is true because of the witness of the Holy Spirit and we can demonstrate its truthfulness through reason and evidence. But the most effective apologetic, the evidence that will convince people more persuasively than any argument, is relational. Jesus summed up the duty of man in terms of two relationships: our relationship to God and our relationships to each other. To love God with all ones being brings about a deep transformation. We see ourselves and others differently. And as we love other people as we love ourselves, the world will be drawn to the faith that produces such love.

The Ultimate Apologetic

This, then, is the ultimate apologetic. For the ultimate apologetic is your life.