In the previous article, “The Main Course,” we discussed the various philosophical presuppositions people tend to bring to the table when reading Scripture.   How someone approaches the Text is the first critical step to getting the correct objective meaning out of the Text.  But once we have the Text in front of us, we must now first engage hermeneutically then semantically.  So that we are on the same page, hermeneutics is “the study of principles and methods of interpretation” and exegesis is “the explanation of a text” (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. and Moises Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007], 334-35); there’s a difference.  Without question, along with our presuppositions in mind, hermeneutics and exegesis will allow us to reach our ultimate goal: the objective meaning of the text, specifically the objective meaning of Scripture.  Indeed, if an absolute Mind (God) objectively spoke to man via an objective Text (Scripture), then we need to find (not determine) that objective meaning.

From a hermeneutical standpoint, one of the most common mistakes is the reader asks the following question: “What does it mean to me?”  To get objective meaning out of the Text, this is truly the wrong question to ask (even though most people do this).  The right question to ask is this: “What did he mean?”  When a person starts out asking what the Text means to himself, subjectivism and relativism necessarily follow.  Remember, we are interested in what the author meant, not what it means to the reader.  Incidentally, how many times have you heard someone say, “Well, what parable means to me is…”?  Probably countless.  We should instead be asking what Jesus meant by the parable, not what it means to us, the reader.

Secondly, we need to first find out what the Author said before we start speculating why He said it.  Looking for the Author’s purpose before finding out what He said is speculative and dangerous.  For example, let’s say your boss says, “John, please come into my office.”  At this point you don’t know why he has summoned you into his office.  It could be that you’re gonna get fired or it could be that he will give you a raise.  But for right now, it’s quite clear that you understand what he wants you to do (come into his office).  You’ll figure out the why later.  In other words, the “what” is the meaning (e.g., come into his office) and the “why” is the significance (e.g., a raise or termination).  The same with Scripture.  “Meaning is found in what the author has affirmed, not in why he affirmed it” (Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology: Prolegomena and Bible, vol. 1 [Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2002], 173).  If we are looking for the purpose of the Text rather than the meaning of the Text (and the human author is dead as a door nail or otherwise unavailable to clarify), we would never be able to ascertain the objective meaning.  In other words, look for the Author’s meaning first and then (if possible) the purpose of the Text or how the meaning is significant or should be applied in practical terms.

Thirdly, trying to “read between the lines” is detrimental to understanding what the Author meant.  Again, most married couples know that “reading between the lines” is dangerous in deciding whether the trash should be taken out tonight or before going to work the next morning.  It’s always safer to just say, “Take out the trash tonight [the what] because the trash truck picks up before you go to work [the why].”  Indeed, all we have to work with is the actual Text.  This means that the meaning of the Text is in the Text itself.  We can’t ascertain beyond the Text (i.e., in God’s mind since we aren’t God), nor beneath the Text (i.e., in the mystic’s mind since he isn’t God either) nor even behind the Text (i.e., in God’s unexpressed intention).  Nope, since the Text is all we legitimately have to work with, we can and should only use the Text itself, nothing more.  To do otherwise is to import meaning into the Text, which is a major no-no.  Like points one and two, that would be guilty of eisegesis: “a reading into the text something that was not there but was imported from later or external texts” (Kaiser and Silva, 334).

Fourthly, always look for meaning in the statement or assertion itself, not the implication.  Like point number two in the what/why relationship, we should strive to find the” what” first and then look for the implications of the “what” second.  Trying to figure out what the Author actually meant takes enough work as it is, but to try to find out what He implied would be precarious at best.  Let’s do the easy stuff first – take what the Author says at face value and leave what He may have implied as secondary.  Now don’t get me wrong.  There are many implications that can be garnered from a particular text (i.e., sensus plenum).  But the particular Text has one and only one meaning (sensus unum).

Take the following example: a basic sentence.  Understanding the various causes will help keep us from getting derailed in figuring out and erring how meaning is derived from the sentence (Geisler, 174).

1. The efficient cause – that by which something comes to be (i.e., the writer)
2. The final cause – that for which something comes to be (i.e., the purpose of the writing)
3. The formal cause – that of which something comes to be (i.e., the writing)
4. The material cause – that out of which something comes to be (i.e., the individual words)
5. The exemplar cause – that after which something comes to be (i.e., the writer’s ideas)
6. The instrumental cause – that through which something comes to be (i.e., the laws of thought)

Note well that the meaning is not found in the writer (the efficient cause) or the writer’s purpose (the final cause) but in the formal cause (the writing or Text itself).  This analysis of causes now helps us understand exegesis and its place in discovering the objective meaning of a Text.

Now, from a semantic standpoint and in conjunction with the above framework of causes, there are three ways to obtain an objective understanding of the Text: conventionalism, essentialism, or realism.  In other words, we’re after the objective meaning of the Text, correct?  If so, we now must consider the three options to finding objective meaning of the Text with essentialism being first.

Essentialism is the belief that language doesn’t change in essence or form.  The relationship between meaning and expression is a strict one-to-one relationship (1-1).  Plato believed that this was the only way for a meaningful thought to be communicated – one and only one way.  But this is not true.  A simple example with suffice.  We know that “four plus one equals five.”  But I can express that same meaningful and objective thought with different symbols: “4+1=5.”  Hence, essentialism is false.

Conventionalism is the extreme response to essentialism – all meaning is relative.  That is, the relationship between meaning and expression is many-to-one (m-1).  While this may sound kinda technical, it’s more prevalent that you realize.  For example, how often have you heard someone say, “Well, what the Text means to me is…?”  Or, “Well, I’m sure that’s what it means to you, but to me it means…”  This is conventionalism at its best.  A guy named Ludwig Wittgenstein championed this idea, and it’s still quite prevalent today.  But it’s also false primarily because (among other reasons) it’s self-defeating.  For example, to claim that “all meaning is relative” is true would necessarily make that very same statement false!  But on a more practical level, if conventionalism were true then there would be no universal statements like “all triangles have three sides” despite the various languages (i.e., symbols).

Realism, on the other hand, is the belief that a single meaning can be expressed several different ways (1-m).  Anyone who speaks two languages or translates from one language to another knows this is true.  The symbols change but the meaning of the author stays the same.  Sometimes this phenomenon even happens in the same language.  For example, in the King James Version of Matthew 19:14 we read, “But Jesus said, ‘Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me; for of such is the kingdom of heaven’.”  In contrast, the New American Standard renders the same verse like this: “But Jesus said, ‘Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these’.”  The single objective meaning of the original Koine Greek is expressed in 17^th century English as well as in 20^th century English (e.g., “Suffer” vs. “Let”).  In other words, the single objective meaning of the Koine Greek is expressed in various English ways – a one-to-many relationship (1-m).

So, we must now make a decision.  Let’s do it syllogistically.

1. Either conventionalism or essentialism or realism is true (disjunctive syllogism).
2. Conventionalism and essentialism are both false (denying 2 of the 3 alternants from #1).
3. Therefore, realism is true.

Our quest for understanding God’s revelation is based on several factors (Geisler, 171).  First, an absolute Mind exists (God).  Second, the absolute nature of meaning also exists (as proven further above).  Third, it is logically possible for an infinite Mind to communicate via Text a meaningful and objective thought to a finite mind.  Fourth, it is also logically possible for the finite mind to discover and correctly understand the objective and meaningful thought of the infinite Mind (as shown above via Realism).  Remember, meaning is found in the formal cause (i.e., the Text itself), not in the efficient Cause (i.e., the Author) or the final cause (i.e., the reason for the Text).  Lastly, again, relativism is absolutely false.  Remembering these things definitely keeps us out of trouble, literally.

When we put all this stuff together, we are now able to legitimately find objective meaning in the Text (e.g., exegesis) without importing our meaning into the Text (i.e., eisegesis).  In other words, we should let the Text “speak” for itself and take it at “face value,” nothing more and nothing less.  And when we do exactly that, neither of us wind up saying, “What do you mean, ‘What do I mean?’”  Know what I mean?

By David Diaz Sonnen

Without question, some of the most ancient philosophies permeate theology even today.  For example, both Plato and Aristotle believed that matter is eternal.  The Mormon Church of today also believes that matter is eternal (cf. Doctrine and Covenants 93:33).  And if matter is eternal, then it’s not too far of a jump to say that man is also eternal (cf. D&C 93:29).  What’s the logical conclusion?  Because man is eternal, then there must not only be many gods (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:333) but the Mormon Elohim must also have a body of flesh and bones (cf. D&C 130:22).  With these philosophies firmly in place, the Mormon goal of becoming a god makes sense (cf. Joseph Smith, Jr., Journal of Discourses 6:4).

Let’s fast forward a millennium or so to modern philosophical presuppositions, like that of Francis Bacon and his inductivism.  It is true that there are two ways to find a conclusion: induction and deduction.  This is called argumentation.  The difference between the two is whether the conclusion is definitive or not.  “A deductive argument involves the claim that its premises provide conclusive grounds” whereas an inductive argument via its premises “only provide some support for it [the conclusion]” (Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic, 6^th ed. [New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1982], 51).  In other words, deduction is definitive but induction is only probable in their respective conclusions.  Bacon argued that inductive experience was the best way to find a conclusion, not necessarily deduction.  At best, man can be probably sure of what he knows but not absolutely sure.  This makes sense in that what we experience can sometimes not be true (e.g., a mirage in the desert).  Bacon went on further to say that faith and religion have nothing to do with science and reason; that is, the Bible is only pertinent or relevant in matters of faith, not science.  Thus the Creation account can be false!  So, Bacon brings to the table two things: (1) experience as the basis for truth, and (2) the assertion the Bible is used for faith matters only.  This consequently set the stage for Hobbes.

Thomas Hobbes said that the ideas we have in our heads is reducible to sensations (ala Bacon).  In other words, only those things that can be sensed (e.g., the five senses) are what is real.  The result?  If we cannot hear, touch, smell, taste or see God (the supernatural realm), then maybe all this God-talk is nonsense.  But now that we’re on the subject, maybe these so-called miracles aren’t true either.  I guess we should just take the stories of the Bible on blind faith.  Thus the only thing left to do (according to Hobbes) is to just completely separate faith and religion from matters of reason and science.  Leave the Bible to the Church and leave reason and science to those who can see and touch the real world.

So, what is the result of combining Bacon and Hobbes?  Let’s take a few contemporary examples.

“As science altered the traditional world view, the desire to reconstruct Biblical history in conformity with the current understanding of reality was irrepressible.  The Documentary Hypothesis [which is based on the idea of evolution] concerning the origins of the Pentateuch and the Two Source Hypothesis concerning the origins of the synoptic Gospels became the ostensible victors of more than a half century of literary criticism” (Richard N. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism [Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1976], 27, s.v. “Biblical Criticism”).

“Indeed one can say with some justification that the beginnings of biblical criticism are initially far more a philosophical than a theological problem – philosophy here being understood…as it was at the time: as the sum of all natural knowledge, including scientific knowledge” (Klaus Scholder, The Birth of Modern Critical Theology: Origins and Problems of Biblical Criticism in the 17^th Century [Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1990], 5).

“The crisis that came with the rise of historical criticism was different, for it [biblical criticism] had more philosophic and cultural overtones.  It introduced into biblical interpretation a new method based on a secular understanding of history” (Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975], 1).

Now, from a rationalist perspective, the pantheist Spinoza set the table without apology.  He flatly said that the Bible contained errors and (like Hobbes and Bacon) the Bible should be authoritative only on matters of faith.  As a pantheist, it wasn’t surprising that he also flatly denied miracles and that the Bible contains the Word of God but is not the actual Word of God.  He further asserted that only what can be deduced mathematically is actually true, and that moral criteria should be used to determine what is true in the Bible.  In other words, if God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, and murder is wrong, then it stands to reason that the narrative is untrue which includes the Voice from heaven!

David Hume now takes the “main course” and says that truth is known only by the senses first and then secondly by the mind.  Again, what can only be known can indeed be only known by the five senses (ala Bacon and Hobbes).  So, naturally, supernaturalism must be false!  This is classic skeptical empiricism.

But now Immanuel Kant combines all the ingredients to make the “final dish“.  He synthesized rationalism (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz) and empiricism (Locke, Berkeley, Hume) into the main course meal: agnosticism.  He built on Spinoza’s morality side-dish: morality is the essence of true religion which means that miracles are no longer necessarily part of the faith.  What a person must now do is live (e.g., the five senses) as if God exists even though it’s not possible to really think (reason) that God exists.  Kant labeled this the fact/value dichotomy.  In other words, live one way but think another!

Again, what could possibly be the result of Spinoza, Hume and Kant?

“[Richard] Simon’s idea that the biblical writers had assembled their narrative out of old sources at their disposal was an important step on the way to discovering who wrote the Bible” (Richard Elliott, Who Wrote the Bible? [New York: Harper Collins, 1987], 22).

“How were these [Pentateuch] texts preserved before they were canonized?  How did an ancient text address a later audience?  These questions are crucial to understanding the complexity of the Pentateuch.  They lead one to conclude that it was not written by one person in a given decade [i.e., Moses].  Rather it is the product of the believing community through many centuries” (Willam LaSor, David Hubbard and Frederic Bush, Old Testament Survey, 2^nd ed. [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing, 1996], 22).

“The attempt to understand the Old Testament through a study of its literary and oral genres is not new.  The first man to study these types systematically was Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932).  Gunkel was influenced by the studies of folklore initiated by Jakob and Wilhelm Grimm, who had collected the folk traditions of the German people and classified them as fairy tales, myths, sagas and legends” (Gene M. Tucker, Form Criticism of the Old Testament [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974], 4-5).

When you add on Soren Kierkegaard’s existentialism of truth being subjective and not objective, it’s not surprising for him to assert that truth is not necessary for Christianity.  In fact, propositional truth is subordinate or relative to the person speaking it.  Thus we come full circle in Kierkegaard to dispensing with absolute and objective truth (ala Bacon).  So, when a person says that he “simply does not know whether creationism or theistic evolution is true,” it’s understandable given all the philosophical assumptions clouding the issue.  Trying to sort through the maze and layers of presumed philosophies can justifiably overload the mind.  And if someone says, “I don’t really care which one turns out to be true,” the person’s philosophical predispositions are quite apparent – agnostic relativism.  Moreover, if the person says that the Text may have multiple meanings, one divine and one human, his philosophical presupposition is also exposed – God has “libertarian free will” which means that God created in man free will but that free will, nonetheless, cannot be ultimately controlled by God Himself (Norman Geisler, Creating God in the Image of Man? [Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997], 74).  In other words, God is not sovereign in controlling what He meant in Scripture via human free will.

To be fair, people don’t go around thinking about what presuppositions they bring to the table.  For example, how often have you actually read what the ingredients are in a cake mix?  Sure, we know that the mix, eggs and water/oil are needed to make a cake, but it is those base ingredients (that we don’t read) that actually make up the bulk and foundation of the cake.  It may sound strange, but our presuppositions are the base ingredients in how we approach Scripture.  If we believe that God created ex nihilo but subsequently does not intervene in the universe (i.e., deism), then theistic evolution sounds pretty plausible.  If we believe that every effect (e.g., the Bible) in the universe must necessarily have only a natural cause (i.e., materialism, naturalism), then the Bible is nothing but a human book and the Documentary Hypothesis isn’t so far-fetched.  If faith and reason have nothing to do with each other, then the Bible is logically relegated to matters of faith…blind faith on top of that!  Yep, the actual ingredients (i.e., presuppositions) that we use to make a meal (i.e., the Text of Scripture) definitely determines the outcome of the menu (i.e., how we interpret Scripture).  So, anyone hungry for objective truth?  I am.  The objective table of truth is set and the main course is definitely served.

By David Diaz Sonnen

Without question, predestination is firmly rooted in God’s providence (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Q23, A2) where the providence of God means that He governs His creation with an infinite goodness to or for some desired end.  In other words, “the type of things ordered [e.g., man] towards an end” is called providence (Aquinas, Q22, A1).  It’s true that predestination presupposes a goal or an end, specifically a good goal or a good end (i.e., prudence).  But what is that goal or end?  That is, why was man created?  What is the purpose of life?  “The purpose of creation is twofold: to honor the Creator and to enjoy His creation” (Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology: God and Creation, vol. 2 [Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2003], 456).  We were made to glorify our Creator, and in that very act of glorifying Him we are thus able to fully enjoy not only Him but also His creation.  Indeed, it is only in a glorified (redeemed) body that we will be able to see God face-to-face (Rev. 22:3-4; 1 Cor. 13:10-12).  This is called the beatific vision, which is the good goal or the good end of man – his purpose in life.  Yet if we are fully glorified in our resurrected bodies and can see God face-to-face we have, in fact, obtained eternal life by God’s gracious providence (assumed for now but proven further down).  But, again, what is the order of reason that would manifest this thing called predestination and how does that contrast with a works-based salvation theology?

In general, if something is predestined it means that it is ordained to some determinate end (Fr. Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange, Predestination, trans. Dom Bede Rose [Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, 1989], 183).  But to determine a person to some particular good goal (i.e., eternal life) presupposes an intellect.  That is, you gotta know before you can do (good), right?  This makes perfect sense.  But before you can know in order to do (good), you must have the will or desire first in order to know and ultimately do (good).  But why would someone want to know something in order to do something (good)?  Why would God want to know something in order to do something good (e.g., destine man for eternal life/beatific vision)?  To answer this, we must consider the Deity Himself and His self-view.  That is, what is the relationship between the Persons in the Trinity?  How do the Persons relate to each other?  Consider what the Son said about the Father and vice versa.

The Son of God said, “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again” (John 10:17; cf. John 3:35; 5:20; 10:17).  God the Father likewise said, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!” (Matt. 17:5).  Similarly, the Son of Man said, “but so that the world may know that I love the Father, I do exactly as the Father commanded Me” (John 14:31).  It is abundantly clear that there is a deep infinite love in the Godhead (granted the doctrine of the Trinity is true).  In other words, God loves Himself infinitely and perfectly from all eternity (cf. Stephen Charnock, Existence and Attributes of God, vol. 2 [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979], 210-11).  From this, it is quite reasonable that God would want to show or manifest His love.  This should not be surprising to us.  We do the same thing – when we are happy we naturally want to share that happiness with someone; not that we have to but that we want to, correct?  In the same way and from the divine perspective, the way to express or manifest this divine internal love within the Godhead is to create; again, not that God had to create, but that God wanted to create.  And thus He did (cf. the cosmological argument).  So how does God’s love tie into predestination and the topic of a works-based salvation?

In short, the love that internally exists in the Godhead is the root of all actions that manifests externally to the Godhead (e.g., creation of the universe).  Said differently, the will to know something in order to do something (good) is ultimately rooted first and foremost in God’s own love of Himself (Garrigou-LaGrange, 185).  So, the order of reason in predestination, for example, is this: (1) Love, (2) Will, (3) Intellect, and thus (4) action.  It is precisely because of love that God prudently wills to eternal life (i.e., election; cf. Rom. 9:15-16; Ex. 33:19).  For an orthodox Christian, this is no great surprise – God’s love is the cause of His action(s).  But the cultist doesn’t necessary believe this.  In fact, the cultist errs in the order of (divine) reason.  Why is this true?

The Mormon, for example, believes that “eternal life is the reward for ‘obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2^nd ed. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1979], 62).  The key word is “reward.”  Salvation for a Mormon is an earned salvation, not a free gift, something that Mormons will readily admit.  To be fair, though, this is reasonable theology if love is last in the order of reason (e.g., (1) Will, (2) Intellect, (3) Action, and thus (4) Love).  For the Mormon, love is the response, not the cause, of eternal life.  As McConkie said, the love of God (expressed as eternal life) is given only after good works are done by the person.  God’s love is relegated to the last position in the reason of order, not the first. For example, the Mormon Elohim of the planet Kolob first wills creation into existence but will subsequently only love his creation (e.g., man) if and only if man is worthy (e.g., works-based salvation) of that action. The fallacy of this logic resides in the fact that prudence and predestination reside in the Intellect (Aquinas, Q22, A1; Q23, A2).  That is, it must be remembered that prudence (which is wishing someone good) and predestination (which is the ordering of that good to the person) are, in fact, based on love.  Thus love must logically precede predestination not follow.  Otherwise predestination to eternal life is illogical.  This is the proverbial “cart before the horse.”  If God’s love is last in the order of reason, then, naturally, God’s love is conditional, not foundational. Mormons are quick to tell a prospect that eternal life is one of three kingdoms of glory: (1) celestial, (2) terrestrial, and (3) telestial (McConkie, 420).  But reticently they will also admit that one of these Mormon kingdoms is indeed only obtained “by grace…after all we can do” (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 25:23; emphasis mine).

This same principle applies to all works-based gospels.  For example, the Oneness Pentecostal must abstain from “smoking and dancing, drinking alcoholic beverages, and attending movie theaters.”  Moreover, they should “avoid wearing makeup, jewelry, and pants and are not to cut their hair.  Men, by contrast, are to wear their hair very short” (Rhodes, 261).    Ask yourself why Oneness Pentecostals do this.

Another example is rabbinic Judaism where Judaism is a religion of deed, not creed.  That is, rabbinic Judaism is a works-based salvation.  To the rabbinic Jew, salvation can only be realized with the coming of the prophesied Messiah.  But what is the catalyst that prods the Messiah to come?  Obedience and good works.  The Code of Jewish Law is case in point (Rabbi Solomon Ganzfried, 2^nd ed. trans. Hyman E. Goldin (New York: Hebrew Publishing Company, 1961).  The book is dedicated to instructing the Jew how to live a righteous life.  This is not necessarily a bad thing; if anything, it’s actually very good.  But why is the Jew trying living a righteous life?  Simply put – to cause the Messiah to come establish His kingdom on earth sooner rather than later.  Succinctly and logically, in Rabbinic theology God will only love (i.e., send the Messiah) if the person or world is actually worthy.  Contrast this with John 3:16.

Islam is another works-based salvation.  Many Muslims point out what Mohammed said: “O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls!  Despair not of the Mercy of God, for God forgives all sins, for He is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful” (Sura 39:53), and “If ye do love God, follow me [Mohammed].  God will love you and forgive you your sins; for God is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful” (Sura 3:31).  So why is mercy given to the Muslim?    Allah via Mohammed said, “Then those whose balance (of good deeds) is heavy – they will attain salvation.  But those whose balance is light, will be those who have lost their souls; in Hell will they abide” (Sura 23:102-3; trans. Abdullah Yusuf Ali; insert of “good deeds” in original).  In other words, Allah’s love is a conditional response to the Muslim’s works (i.e., the cart before the horse).  If this is true, then we should not be surprised at all that the extreme jihadist believes “Martyrdom is reassurance that the ultimate sacrifice [i.e., suicide] receives the ultimate reward [i.e., Paradise]” (Mark A. Gabriel, Journey Into the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist [Lake Mary, FL: Front Line, 2006], 109f).  In contrast, in Christianity the horse is rightfully in front of the cart (i.e., God loved first).  Paul of Tarsus writes, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ [Messiah] died for us” (Rom. 5:8).  But it was John the Evangelist who said it best: “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10).  The Evangelist squarely affirms that the ultimate root of salvation (i.e., eternal life) is God’s love, not man’s works.  Indeed, God is love (1 John 4:8).

Garrigou-LaGrange said, “The will in loving does not cause good, but we are incited to love by the good that already exists, and therefore we choose someone to love.  In God, however, it is the reverse.  For His will, by which in loving He wishes good to someone, is the cause of that good possessed by some in preference to others” (186).  This makes sense.  For example, we love someone who is nice to us.  In contrast, it’s harder to love someone who is not nice to us.  In fact, the more someone is nice to us the easier it is to “love” that person.  Indeed, this is the human concept of love, and it is (sadly) reflected in a works-based salvation (e.g., Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Freemasonry, etc.); the cultist erringly has the cart in front of the horse.  But in God’s case, He rightfully has the horse in front of the cart – He first loves and then prudently and providentially acts to and for the benefit of His creation (e.g., man destined to eternal life within the confines of free will).

“God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 5:9).  If God omnisciently, omnipotently and providentially gave man the tool (i.e., faith) to receive the free gift of salvation from heaven, then why work to earn what is already freely given?  To do so would be illogical.

Though certainly not the first, the Greek philosopher, Parmenides of Elea (b. 515 B.C.), was well known for asserting that all reality is one, that there is only one being.  This is known as monism – there cannot be more than one thing.  But why would Parmenides argue this?  He figured that the only distinguishing feature of all reality is the idea of existence – either something exists (i.e., being) or something does not exist (i.e., non-being).  Look at it this way: if there are two or more things in the universe (e.g., you and me), then they would have to differ in some aspect.  But, according to Parmenides, the only way for two things to differ is either by existence or non-existence (being or non-being).  Now, if they differ in being (existence), then there is no difference at all because being (existence) is what makes them identical.  And if they differ by non-being (non-existence), there’s still no real difference because two non-existent things can’t differ.  So, if two things exist and they share the commonality of existence, then those two things are the same.  Hence, it follows that God created out of himself (ex Deo is true) and monism is true.  (Technically speaking, ex Deo is not creation “out of god” but emanates or radiates from god since all is one.)

Now, there are four ways to counter monism: Atomism, Platonism, Aristoteleanism, and Thomism.  Atomism was championed by Democritus (c. 460-370 B.C.) who asserted that things actually differed by the space in between them.  He called this the Void.  That is, one atom (H) is different from another atom (O) because the hydrogen atom occupies a different space than the oxygen atom.  But this doesn’t necessarily solve the problem.  To counter Atomism, Parmenides could have simply said, “If the space in between the atoms is Void (nothing), then you are distinguishing the hydrogen atom from the oxygen atom based on nothing!”  Parmenides has a valid point – two things cannot be distinguished based on nothing.

Plato steps up to the plate and offers his own solution: things differ by relative non-being.  Say what?  OK, let’s take it slow.  Here’s the deal.  Plato believed that what we saw and experienced in the physical world was based on some other Form or Idea in the metaphysical world (Parmenides and Theaeteus).  For example, the chair we see has an archetype or Form in the metaphysical realm.  That is, the chair is not really real; rather the Form (or archetype or the Idea) is what’s actually real.  Plato then reasoned that if these Forms (or Ideas or archetypes) are actually distinct from each other, then monism must be false.  But why would he believe this?  Within the physical world, he figured, in order to know what a dinner plate is you first have to negate all the other things in front of you (e.g., the spoon, fork, glass, mashed potatoes and the steak itself).  The same holds true for the Forms in the metaphysical world.  If you say Form B, C, D, etc. is not Form A then this will prove monism false; kinda like a sculptor who chips away at his statue all the pieces of rock he doesn’t want.  In other words, Plato tried to answer monism by way of negation, which is the belief that Form A differs from all other Forms by what it is not.  Plato simply pushed the problem back one step, to the metaphysical realm rather than keeping it in the physical realm.  That’s why Parmenides would have probably asked Plato, “OK, Plato, I got your point on the Forms thing, but do the Forms themselves differ in being (i.e., existence)?  If not, then we’re still at square one – monism must be true.

Aristotle approached Parmenides’ problem from a different angle.  Rather than focus on non-being as the foundation for differentiation, he sought to see differences in things by their very existence (i.e., being).  Keep in mind Aristotle was Plato’s student; so it’s not surprising that he started with the idea of some metaphysical realm in which these beings existed.  He called these 47 or so beings “unmoved movers” because they caused all the motion in the universe (Metaphysics, XII).  Granted, these 47 simple beings had their own cosmos or domain but the fact remained, according to Aristotle, that they were different from each other.  The reason Aristotle and Plato believed these metaphysical beings were simple (meaning not composed or composite) is because they were not physical; rather they were simple beings simply because they are not physical.  Thus, according to Aristotle, these metaphysical simple beings differed by their very existence.  But Parmenides wouldn’t let Aristotle off the hook that easy!  No, Parmenides would simply ask Aristotle, “OK, Ari, how can simple beings (meaning not composed) be different?  If being A is simple and being B is simple, then there’s no differentiation!”  Parmenides asked Aristotle the right question to which Aristotle didn’t have an answer.

Aquinas, the dumb ox (as C.S. Lewis so affectionately called him), now enters the foray to give a fourth alternative: Things differ as being by complexity, not simplicity.  Like Aristotle, Aquinas believed that things differ by existence, but where he parts ways with Ari is that Thom adds another dimension: the possibility that some things are complex or composed in their very nature as well as some things are actually simple in their very nature.  What Aquinas did was to build on Plato’s and Aristotle’s idea of simple beings existing in the metaphysical world but also positing that complex being also exist in the physical world.  Why would this be true?

Aquinas reasoned that an uncaused Cause (who caused the universe into existence via the cosmogony argument) is a supremely simple Being.  In other words, as the uncaused Cause, God has no potentiality for non-existence and whatever has no potentiality cannot be divided, and what cannot be divided is not composed but is rather simple.  So, this uncaused Cause must be 100% the opposite of whatever has the potential to not exist.  And the opposite of 100% potential?  100% Pure Actuality or pure Act.  Said differently, because the uncaused Cause is Pure Act, this same Being must necessarily be simple.  Incidentally, this also proves why there is only one Supreme Being or God.  Thus polytheism is false (e.g., Mormonism).

But Aquinas, like the rest of us, sees from verifiable experience that created things are composed.  Philosophically, whatever is composed has a composer.  Likewise, whatever has a beginning has a beginner.  Thus it is no great secret that if we see things as composite beings that have a beginning, these same composite beings have the potential to not exist; they are part potential and part act(uality).  So, a created being is similar to an uncreated Being in that the created being shares in the quality of actuality (i.e., actual existence).  But the created being differs from the uncreated Being in that the created being has potentiality (to not exist) whereas the uncreated Being does not have any potentiality (to not exist).  Thus, this Supreme Being differs in its essence by the mere fact that it is Pure Act whereas the creature is characterized in its essence as a combination of act(uality) and potential(ality).  Things differ from one another by the kind of being or actuality they are, and this applies to the creature (potential + act) as well as to the Creator (pure act).  In short, there is differentiation within being. Parmenides used the term being in exactly the same way for everything. Aquinas understood that there is analogy used when referring to different beings.

Table 1 should help clarify the four proposed answers to Monism with Thomism being the only viable and particular solution to Monism.

Table 1

This philosophical debate is important because it is critical to have the correct world view; if you’re gonna wear colored lenses, then you better make sure it’s the right pair.  If a person’s world view is pantheistic, then consequences are associated with that decision.  It is true that beliefs have consequences.  And the consequences of having a pantheistic world view?  Consider Table 2.

Table 2

The logical consequence of pantheism is that a person must save himself. Because he himself is god, how does a person save himself (which is becoming one with Reality) within the context of pantheism?  Take your pick: Transcendental Meditation (TM), Zen Buddhism, Christian Science, the New Age Movement, A Course in Miracles, Hinduism, Eckankar (ECK), Panentheism, and every other religious combination that believes that all is god and god is all!  Yep, these are the various particulars of monism.

“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ” (Col. 2:8).  If Jesus created the world (John 1:1, et. al) and is the uncaused Cause, then our philosophy and world view must be according to Him – theistic.

Overview of changes in American and the West

As Americans today, we live in a nation plagued by a chronic decline in morals, and erosion of the basic values and principles on which our nation was founded.  We have unmistakably moved away from our Judeo-Christian roots and into a world characterized by relativism and corruption.  To understand fully where much of Western culture is today, we must examine changes that brought us to where we are.

Historically, the Enlightenment period was the beginning of the end of the Judeo-Christian worldview in the West.  From the early 1600’s through the 1700’s, society experienced a revolution of sorts.  People began relying on rational thought rather than religious faith to discern truth.  This led to widespread acceptance of empiricism as the ultimate test for truth (the belief that unless something could be tested, it wasn’t real).  As a result, religious truth claims were seen as invalid, merely a matter of personal opinion, because they could not be empirically proven or verified.  Modernism emerged out of this Enlightenment perspective, a viewpoint which holds that rational thought and scientific verification is the only true pathway to knowledge.  The influence of the Enlightenment is still clearly demonstrated in society today.

Some eventually began to find the cold and impersonal nature of modernism undesirable.  As people became disillusioned with rationalism, romanticism emerged in response to this disillusionment.  Romanticism carried with it a shift in the view of humanity.  Not only did Romanticists view nature as the highest good, but they also saw mankind as essentially good, rather than as sinful.  Romanticists attempted to ignore the inconsistency in a society where wide-spread corruption co-existed with “naturally good” humans.  However, eventually people began to understand the discrepancy between romanticism and reality, and people began to feel that a new worldview was needed to explain this discrepancy.

Disillusionment with both romanticism and modernism would ultimately contribute to the emergence of postmodernism. Because neither romanticism nor modernism was able to answer with certainty the answers to the big questions of life, Postmodernists concluded that no answers existed.  Postmodernism asserts that no one answer can be better or more right than another.  According to Postmodernists, claiming that your answer is the right answer is both arrogant and intolerant.  Our postmodern world is one based on constantly shifting standards of right and wrong, in which there is no such thing as absolute truth.  Those setting forth fixed, absolute judgments about reality or morality (such as Christians) are dismissed as being intolerant.

The pervasive postmodern assumes that truth is either non-existent or may, personally defined, pose a serious threat to young people-  particularly if they do not know why they believe what they believe.  For this reason, apologetics continues to grow in it’s scope and relevancy to today’s world.  Apologetics is, in fact, the first step in bringing our society back up out of moral decay.

“No one who knows the world as it is today can deny that it is skeptical and cold, either indifferent to, or furiously antagonistic against the doctrines of the Christian faith… The children in many cases grow up to be ignorant of the creed of the church, and when they go off to college are ready to be swept along by Darwinism, Buddhism, Christian Science, or any other insanity or delusion of the hour.” Charles E. Jefferson, 1908⁵

THE RISE OF APOLOGETICS

Christians (who today would be identified as conservatives or evangelicals) in American and Europe were well aware of developments of the 19^th (and late 18^th) centuries which were seen as intellectual threats to Christianity.  Published in 1799, Frederick Schleiermacher’s (1768-1834) book On Religion defined religion in terms of personal subjective experience over objective, propositional truth.  A later work entitled The Christian Faith further defined authentic Christianity in terms of “consciousness of dependence on God.”  Sometimes referred to as “The father of German liberalism,” Schleiermacher conflicted with Biblical orthodoxy at a number of points, not the least of which was his rejection of Christ’s Deity.  His influence played a significant role in the drift away from Biblical orthodoxy that occurred in the Western world throughout the 1800’s. (6)

Both inside and outside of the church, the view of God as, “communicator” eroded during the 19^th century, as doubts about the Bible grew.  Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species (published, 1859) undermined the view of God as Creator. In the minds of many, there grew an increasing conviction that religious faith and empirical fact were separate, unrelated phenomenon which did not necessarily need to reconcile.  Beginning in the 1800’s, several influential individuals began to popularize the concept that a distinction should be maintained between the Jesus people believe in, and the person who Jesus literally was. Though using similar terminologies in subtly different ways, the influence of individuals like David Strauss (1808-1874), Gotthold Lessing (1729-1781), and Martin Kahler (1835-1912) led many to accept the concept that belief and history are (of necessity) based on different foundations;  distinctions between personal faith and historical realities must consistently be maintained.  In the early 20^th century, books like Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest Of The Historical Jesus (1906) continued to popularize the idea that the “Christ of faith” and the “Jesus of history” are two different persons.(7)  As the 20^th century dawned, Christianity in the Western world was simultaneously being critiqued/assaulted/revised, and such challenges would only intensify in the decades ahead.

The apologetics movement of today may be traced to leaders who, over one hundred years ago, emerged in defense of Christianity. Though liberalism and revisionism were (and are) academically fashionable, those defending key points of Christian orthodoxy certainly made their voices heard.  Charles Hodges defended Genesis and the Biblical account of creation in His 1878 work, What Is Darwinism? Benjamin Warfield (a professor at Princeton Seminary from 1887 until his death in 1921) was a scholarly defender of the Bible, and a vocal critic of liberalism.

In 1909, a project began that would ultimately become a major development for conservative theology and apologetics in America.  Two Christian businessmen funded the research and writing of a series of essays designed to defend the “essentials” of Christian doctrine, and effectively respond to liberalism (then often called, “modernism”).  The articles were written by conservative scholars of the day, including well known names like Benjamin Warfield, C.I. Scofield, G. Campbell Morgan, Scotland’s James Orr, and others. (8)

The resulting 90 articles and essays addressed many topics related to apologetics and Christian orthodoxy.  Topics included the inspiration and preservation of the Bible, the virgin birth and deity of Christ, the reality of Jesus’ miracles and resurrection, and more.  Christian leader Rueben A. Torrey (educated at Yale Divinity School, and later president of Moody Bible Institute) edited the articles into a four volume set, which was title The Fundamentals. Three million free copies of The Fundamentals were printed and sent to ministers and Christian throughout America.

In recent years, a very negative connotation has been attached to the term “fundamentalist.”  Screaming street preachers and Islamic terrorists are each labeled as being “fundamentalists.”  The term has more than lost the meaning it had carried initially (which was actually a complimentary description of one who affirmed the tenets of Biblical orthodoxy).  “Fundamentalist” is now seen as a very negative, pejorative term, and is no longer part of the evangelical world’s “preferred vocabulary.”  But the books which once carried that name initially did much to help people understand that Christianity was reasonable and credible.

Latter 20^th century developments in Christian Apologetics

During the twentieth century, liberal theology, cultural trends, and conservative Christianity clashed on numerous (and often well-publicized) occasions.  In the struggle for (or against) Biblical orthodoxy, lines began to be drawn within colleges, denominations, and within local churches.  The quest for theological purity saw the birth of new colleges and seminaries (such as Westminster Seminary and Dallas Theological Seminary in the 1920’s).  The 1925 “Monkey Trial” (concerning teacher John T. Scopes and his presentation of evolution the Dayton, TN public schools) vividly presented the conflict between Biblical content and emerging culture.

Despite the positive intellectual momentum gathered by Christians during the early 1900s, the Scopes Trial marked the beginning of a period in which conservative Christianity in American was perceived as being “anti-intellectual.”  A marked lack of modern scholarship used in defending creationism (and Christianity as a whole) during the trials led directly to a great deal of negative press, and eventually to a shift of focus from key issues to more peripheral ones.  Liberalism won back lost ground, gained momentum, and evangelical influence in mainline churches fluctuated.  Some evangelicals defeated themselves by reducing their intellectual pursuits and accomplishments to quibbles over nitpicky, secondary issues.

Observations from an apologetics pioneer

“When I entered Bible college in 1950, there were only two books available written by contemporary apologists,” says Dr. Norman Geisler.  “Fortunately, there are now hundreds of good apologetics resources in print.” Geisler speaks authoritatively when recounting the growth of apologetics in the latter 20^th century.  As a speaker, educator, and prolific apologetics writer – Geisler’s influence has been tremendous, from the 1960’s to the present day. Geisler witnessed the emergence of modern apologetics firsthand, and remains a contributing participant:  “When I started in ministry, John Carnell’s book Christian Apologetics (1951), and The Christian View of God and Man by James Orr were the main books available.  Later, Francis Schaeffer’s writings began to cause Christians to think about world-view issues, many for the first time.  We also began to get books written by this guy from England who had spoken on the BBC, and who we had all heard about.  Though they had been written years before, it wasn’t until the early 1960’s that most of us in American apologetics got our first copies of Miracles, The Problem of Pain, and Mere Christianity – and became familiar with C.S. Lewis.” (9)

Of the more than 60 books that Geisler has written, many are standard texts in Christian colleges and graduate programs, and many are considered modern-day apologetics classics.  In 2002, Baker Book House published Geisler’s Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. An unprecedented work of over 800 pages, production of this book alone would have demonstrated Geisler’s impact on modern apologetics.  By the end of 2004, Geisler had also completed and released a 3 volume, apologetically-based systematic theology- devoting over 2000 pages to the subjects of God, the Bible, and creation.

A time of rising visibility for apologetics

By the 1970’s, young Christian leaders like Ravi Zacharias, W. David Beck, Winfried Courduan, David Clark, J. P. Moreland, Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig and others began taking on the mantle of apologetics.

“Josh McDowell deserves credit for taking the message to campuses all over the nation, and popularizing apologetics,” says Geisler. (10)  Christian organizations that specifically focused on apologetics (such as PROBE, Search Ministries, and Dr. David Noebel’s Summit Ministries) began to train many Christians to think in terms of apologetics and a Biblical world view.  By the 1980’s, notable Christian Colleges (such as Wheaton College and Liberty University) were offering courses and degree programs in apologetics.

Since the 1970’s, hundreds of apologetics books have been released in America, ranging from scholarly treatments of specialized subjects to more practical and popular overview-type “handbooks.”  Countless Americans have been introduced to the world of apologetics through books like Josh McDowell’s More Than A Carpenter (with over 10 million copies in print) and Evidence That Demands A Verdict (parts I and II).  More recently, lawyer Lee Strobel’s award-winning books, like The Case For Christ and The Case For A Creator have introduced apologetics to a brand new generation.

THE RELEVANCY OF APOLOGETICS

Why apologetics teaching is important for teens

It seems as if many American teenagers demonstrate a clear lack of knowledge regarding their faith and the issues surrounding it.  Especially in a society where biblical truths and Christian precepts are consistently challenged and even attacked, it is crucial that we address this lack of knowledge, and bring our nation’s youth into a place of understanding, where they are rationally and truthfully able to give a reason for what they believe.

“Teens are largely unprepared for the assault on faith that college will bring. Prepared or not, college students will face questions like, “Is there a God?”, and, “If God exists, what’s Her name? “We know of many students whose faith crumbled during their college years, through doubt, bad decisions, and unwise choices in friendships. I think that all of these situations could have been avoided, if the students were just better equipped to handle life outside of their parents, and life apart from the their church. More and more, when a student graduates from high school, they’ve also graduated from church.” Mark Smith, youth pastor, North Carolina (11)

Sixty two percent of those under age 30 question the ability of religion to influence life in America anymore (12), and almost eighty percent of teens will no longer participate in organized religion / church by the time they reach adulthood. ⁽13)  The sheer numbers of students who are turning from their faith demonstrates their ill-preparedness for living out their Christianity in a hostile society.  Apologetics for teens is the cure, or rather the vaccination, for this growing concern; because it will provide students with the tools and knowledge that they need to defend, explain, and understand their faith.

Because a significant majority of teens aren’t sure that moral absolutes exist (14), or even that you can be sure that any one religion is right ¹⁵_, apologetics continues to grow in its scope and relevancy to teenagers today.  Apologetics for teens is designed to help them understand what it really means to have a Christian worldview, and to equip them to answer the challenges and questions they will undoubtedly face at school, with their friends, and possibly even in the home.

Teaching our teens apologetics alone will not transform their lives – only a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ can accomplish that.  But presentation and explanation of Christian content is vitally important in a culture so full of non-Biblical messages.  Knowledge of apologetics will provide Christian students with the ability to “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks [them] to give the reason for the hope that [they] have” (1 Peter 3:15).

Rob Dennis, a youth minister now serving in Connecticut, began incorporating apologetics teaching into his youth ministry approach shortly after the events of 9-11.  Not long after the attacks, students began to ask Dennis questions about Islam.  He explains, “It’s not enough to just tell youth ‘The Bible says so, and the church says so.’  Teens want to understand their Christian faith and the reasons behind it.” (16)

Dennis is now serving New Life Church in Meriden, Connecticut, along with founding pastor Will Marrotti.  About 350 of New Life’s 400 members are new believers, reached since the church began in 1999.

Dennis says, “We teach basic apologetics, because Christian kids (and many of their non-Christian friends) have questions…so many questions.”¹⁷

Rob Dennis, Mark Smith (quoted above), and many other youth ministers emphasize the importance of maintaining an environment where students feel free to ask questions.  Dennis asserts, “The things that come up in discussions show that they are thinking, and really seeking truth that makes sense.  How do we know that Jesus is the only way to God?  How can we be sure that the Bible is really accurate?  Why is God so against homosexuality if people really love each other?  What if Jesus really didn’t rise from the grave?  How do we know there is a heaven, and what will it be like?  These types of issues are only the tip of the iceberg.” (18)

THE ROLE OF APOLOGETICS

Each believer has been given the assignment of not only presenting the Gospel, but also of explaining and defending the truths of our message.  Fortunately, there is plenty of evidence to support what we believe. Christianity tells us that Jesus loved us, and His authenticity is proven by the fact that He came back to life after dying.  The Bible reminds us that the Good News about Jesus is not just based on human opinion, or on some one’s personal preference.  Christianity is truth. II Peter 1:16 reminds us that the message of Jesus was not based on fables, or myths.  Romans 1:4 says that Jesus’ resurrection shows that He was the unique Son of God. (Think about it. How many other people in history have – under their own power – gone to “the other side” and come back?)  Acts 1:3 says that after His resurrection, Christ showed that He was alive by many undeniable proofs.

Christianity is unique in that it is the only faith system based on facts of history which can be investigated.  Many people today risk eternity by trusting their own opinion about what it means to be in right relation to God.  In contrast to this, Christianity alone is based upon historically verifiable words and events.  When a non-Christian says, “You have no right to judge me,” they are absolutely correct.  But Jesus has evaluated the entire human race, and His Word sums it up for each of us:  “You must be born again.” (See John 3:7.)

Categories of Christian Apologetics include: (1) Textual apologetics – defending the trustworthiness of the Bible, and then sharing the content of what it says;  (2) Evidence-based apologetics – Presenting the many evidences in defense of the Christian faith (such as facts from history or science); and (3) Philosophical apologetics – exposing the flawed reasoning behind many of the popular arguments against Christianity.  Respected Christian thinkers throughout history (such as Thomas Aquinas) have recognized that every argument against Christianity is rooted in faulty logic and incorrect conclusions.

A fourth area of apologetics relates not to external facts or evidences, but to our own personal character and behavior as a believer, and might be termed (4)Practical apologetics.  Christians may know apologetics, and Christians may do apologetics.  But we must also remember that as a new creature in Christ, each believer is an apologetic.

The Limits of Apologetics

We should keep in mind that apologetics must never be simply facts and data stored in our brains; apologetics should also be “truth lived out in consistency and love.” We must turn our apologetics knowledge into what authors Josh McDowell and Dave Bellis term, “relational apologetics.”  Biblical truth, sound reasoning, or compelling data carry little weight unless they are presented by an authentic messenger whose life has been genuinely changed.  Josh McDowell states:  “Human relational connections and deepened convictions about God are intertwined.  Thus, if we are going to deepen our young people’s convictions about a God who is passionate about relationships, we need to form strong, positive relational connections with them.”¹⁹ McDowell explains the caring, consistent Christian example that leaders are challenged to model before teens:

“When I talk about entering their world, I’m not talking about trying to live like preteens or teenagers- dressing like them, talking like them, listening to their music, and so on.  I mean taking an interest and being aware of what’s happening in their lives and then relationally connecting with them as Christ the Incarnate One models for us- accepting them without condition, loving them sacrificially, affirming them in their struggles and victories, and being available to them always.  When you make that kind of connection with the young people in your life, you ready their hearts for the relational connection God wants to have with them through His Son Jesus Christ.”²⁰

Facts and data are important; and among the world’s belief systems, Christianity is unique in its empirical corroboration.  Apologetic evidences can be very potent ministry tools, in terms of both “reaching and teaching.”  But apologetics is no substitute for prayer (we must intercede on behalf of the lost, and not just assume that proofs and evidence will draw the unsaved to Christ).  In terms of evangelism, apologetics do not override God’s Sovereign timetable or human will.  The persuasiveness of a presentation is not the deciding factor in whether or not someone accepts Christ.  The focal points of our evangelistic approach should be the finished work of Christ, the content of the Gospel, and the power of the Holy Spirit to draw and to convert.

Finally, it must be pointed out that apologetics is no substitute for a godly, yielded life.  Ability to “defend the faith” comes with the responsibility to “live the faith.”  Apologist and author David Clark states: “A commitment to defending the faith is not a promise to argue whatever, however, whenever, and with whomever.  It is a commitment to be, to the highest degree possible, what God wants His servants to be- intellectually, relationally, and spiritually.”²⁰ Clark sums it up well by reminding all aspiring apologists, “Who you are counts most.”²¹

The way that we act, react, and daily live should complement the words that we speak.  Christians must truly live out their faith, yielded to the leading of God’s Spirit and the parameters of God’s Word.  Otherwise, we lose the power of our witness, no matter how deeply bolstered by reasoning or facts.

Apologetics in Youth Ministry

Christian apologetics is both a useful and crucial tool for use in student ministry.  Youth will appreciate the growth in their own faith stemming from learning the reasons and truths behind their beliefs.   They would also be grateful for the opportunity to share with their friends what they believe in a rational and reasonable way, particularly because they most likely face peers and teachers who challenge their faith on a consistent basis.  Youth leaders should be equipped to teach their teens to become effective apologists; however, because of the vast scope and depth of Christian beliefs, introducing apologetics to youth can be a daunting undertaking.  It will help to understand the key issues, objectives and functions as related to Christian apologetics.

As a youth pastor or leader, there are several predominant issues and topics which should be addressed, including: the existence, nature, character, and attributes of God; God’s revelation, and the fact that He has shown Himself to the world; truth (and epistemology, which deals with the question of  how we know anything); the Bible, and how we can be sure of it’s veracity;  Jesus Christ, his divinity and humanity, and the evidence which verifies that he rose from the dead;  answering the problem of evil;  the credibility of the Biblical miracles; the Judeo-Christian heritage of both West culture and of the United States;  the absolute (fixed) nature of morality; and responding to non-Christian religions, cults, and the occult.

Rather than simply describing these key issues, youth leaders should address them with an eye toward the fulfillment of several basic objectives.  These objectives include presenting, explaining and defending the Christian message, in order to prove that Christianity is credible, understandable, and urgent (that is, “requires a response”).  Incorporation of apologetics into evangelism and youth ministry is done in light of Christ’s Great Commission, seeking to see the lost masses converted, Biblically literate, and committed to the Lordship of Christ.

Christian teens should be equipped to live out the Biblical injunction of II Peter 1:16 and of Jude 3, being able to defend one’s faith.  Adult leaders must alert teens of their personal responsibilities to present, explain, and defend the faith, and equip them for this.  Finally, apologetics teaching is intended to encourage believers to not only know Christian truth, but also to convey that truth to those around them.

THE RESULT OF APOLOGETICS

Teens in our nation and world hold beliefs that range from the secular to the spiritual. Beliefs and religions include everything from atheism (belief that there is no God), to polytheism (belief that everything is part of God).  But regardless of the label that describes an individual’s view of the world, an effective presentation of the Gospel often requires that we talk to the individual about certain assumptions they may hold.  Before students may be willing to consider what Jesus taught, we may have to help them over some mental barriers that stand in their way.  In a culture known for its rejection of authority and a “prove it to me” attitude, knowledge of apologetics is a vital help in reaching and teaching teens and adults.

Excellent books on apologetics are available by authors like Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Ravi Zacharias, Gary Habermas, Norman Geisler, and many others.  Good resources are essential to the process of becoming equipped for effective Christian witness.  When someone is ready to trust Christ, and appears to have no objections standing in the way, there may be no need to talk about peripheral issues.  But for an increasingly skeptical culture such as ours, Christians should rise to the challenge of I Peter 3:15, and “always be ready.”

Endnotes:

1- Alex McFarland, Interview with Christian teens (Camden, New Jersey, March, 2005).

2-This is the author’s personal definition, developed through personal study and through years of ministry around the nation.

3- W.E. Vine,  Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Word (published 1940, without copyright), p. 53. 

4- Ibid., pp. 924-925.

5- Charles Edward Jefferson, The Minister As Prophet, New York, New York:  Grosset and Dunlap, 1905, p. 178.

6- Cairns, Earle E., Christianity Through The Centuries, Grand Rapids, Michigan:  Zondervan Publishing House, 1996 (pages 419-420).

7-  Kahler, Martin.  The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:  Fortress, 1962 page 43, ibid. 65-66.  See also: Strauss, David.  A New Life of Jesus (Second Edition), London: Williams and Norgate, 1879;  Schweitzer, Albert.  The Quest of the Historical Jesus (First Complete Edition, edited by John Bowden), Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2001;  “Christ of Faith vs. Jesus of History,” in:  Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Michigan:  Baker Books, 1999 (page 141)

8 – Rusten, E. Michael, and Sharon Rusten, ed.  When and Where In The Bible and Throughout History. Wheaton, Illinois:  Tyndale Publishers, 2005 (page 410)

9- Norman L. Geisler, PhD. (observations obtained in a telephone interview with Alex McFarland), (Charlotte, North Carolina, May, 2005).

10- Ibid., Geisler.

11- Mark Smith, Rev. (observations obtained in telephone interviews with Alex McFarland, (Hickory, North Carolina, May, 2005).

12- Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: Post 9-11 Attitudes (December 6, 2001), page 9.

13- Josh McDowell and Dave Bellis,  Beyond Belief: Partnering With the Church to Rebuild the Foundations of the Faith Within This Generation, 2002 (page 4).

14- Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler,  The New Tolerance, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale Publishers, 1998), p. 174.

15- Lee Weeks, Pulpit Helps (Vol. 26, No. 2), “Teens not Sure Christianity is Only Way,” (Jan., 2001), page 1f.

16- Dennis Rob, Rev., (observations obtained in personal conversations and telephone interviews with Alex McFarland), (Meriden, Connecticut, May, 2005).

17-Ibid., Dennis.

18-Ibid., Dennis.

19- Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler,  Beyond Belief To Conviction  (Wheaton, Illinois:  Tyndale Publishers,  2002)  p. 108.

20 – Ibid., p. 114.

21-  David K. Clark,  Dialogical Apologetics:  A Person Centered Approach To Christian Defense, ( Grand Rapids, Michigan:  Baker Books, 1993),  p. 234.

22- Ibid., p. 233.

The simplicity of God is not one of the easier attributes to grasp.  So, we start with the basics and then build from that.  Simplicity, in general, is the opposite of compound or what is composed.  Because there is no division whatsoever in simplicity, it has no different parts.  With respect to God, the divine simplicity “is the absence of all compounding of different parts, the absence of all division” (Fr. Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange, Providence, trans. Dom Bede Rose [Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, 1998), 81); it is the undivided, pure spirit.  That God’s nature is simple is not only true via Scripture (cf. Deut 6:4), it is also true philosophically and logically.

The cosmological argument shows the existence of God and the uncaused Cause of all else that exists.  Now, “what has no cause of its existence is not actualized (caused) by another.  And what is not actualized has no potentiality, for potentiality for actualization is a condition for being actualized” (Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology: God and Creation, vol. 2 [Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2003], 32).  In other words, because God is the uncaused Cause of all else that exists, there is no potentiality in God for either His existence or nonexistence; that is, God does not have the potential to exist (because He’s the uncaused Cause) or the potential to not exist (because He is not actualized by another).  And if God does not have the potential to come into existence or go out of existence, then He simply exists in a pure spiritual state with no potentiality whatsoever.  The corollary is this: whatever has no potential is necessarily 100% actual.  God is 100% spirit with no potential to come into existence and no potential to go out of existence.  And because of this, another way to characterize God is to call Him Pure Act.

Because God is Pure Act (i.e., God has no potential of any kind whatsoever), He cannot be divided since there is nothing in God (as 100% Pure Act) that can be divided.  Thus whatever cannot be divided is necessarily indivisible.  Furthermore, because God is 100% Pure Act there is also no potentiality whatsoever for change.  Why is this so?  Consider the following.  Change implies that the thing went from one state of being or existence to another.  But because God is Pure Act, there is no differentiation simply because, again, there is no composition or division within Him.  In other words, only those things (or beings) that have parts are capable of change.  But God does not have parts because He is 100% Pure Act.  Therefore, God cannot change; He has no potential whatsoever to change which necessarily includes His mind.

What is somewhat difficult to understand is that God does not think discursively (one thought after another) like we do.  There are no successive thoughts in God’s mind.  There is only one unchanging subsistent thought that embraces all truth.  Likewise with His will – no successive acts of will occur simply because He is simple in His nature and essence.  There is but one subsistent and unchanging act of will in God which directs all that He wills, again, because He is simple in His nature and essence.  BTW, have you ever noticed in Scripture that the counsel of God is always in the singular and not the plural (cf. Ps. 33:11; Isa. 28:29; Amos 3:7)?  He may decree multiple edicts but yet they are based on a single counsel.  The reason is because of the simplicity of God – there is no division (plurality) within God.  Thus God has only one (singular) counsel.

With this in mind, it makes perfect sense for Moses to write of God, “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent (i.e., change His mind, Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, s.v. nacham); Has He said, and will He not do it” (Num. 23:19)?  Even David said “Also the Glory of Israel [God] will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind” (1 Sam. 15:29).  Even God said of Himself, “For I, the LORD, do not change” (Mal. 3:6).

But what about Jonah or even Jeremiah?  Didn’t God change His mind in those circumstances?  No, it was man that changed, not God.  Keep in mind what the LORD said to Jeremiah regarding the destruction of Judah because of her sin.  “The whole land shall be a desolation, yet I will not execute a complete desolation….Because I have spoken, I have purposed, and I will not change My mind, nor will I turn from it” (Jer. 4:27-28).  Indeed God must and will punish evil.  Not surprisingly, the people of Judah didn’t like what they heard.  So they plotted to murder Jeremiah (Jer. 26:11) because of the prophesy God gave him concerning them (Jer. 26:12).  Jeremiah then says to Judah, “Now therefore amend your ways and your deeds and obey the voice of the LORD; and the LORD will change His mind about the misfortune which He has pronounced against you” (Jer. 26:13).  It is quite clear that God will “change His mind” about destroying Judah if man first changes his own ways.  God via Jeremiah is giving man a way out – change your ways and your deeds and obey the voice of the LORD!  So why would Jeremiah use the phrase “the LORD will change His mind”?  Jeremiah is using an anthropomorphism, which is “the portrayal of deity in human terms” (Leland Ryken, How To Read the Bible as Literature, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], 102).  In other words, Jeremiah is trying to relate in human terms what God does – it is like or as if God is changing His mind.

The Jonah narrative is another good example.  God sent Jonah to Ninevah and “cry against it” (Jonah 1:2; 3:2).  Jonah went through the city declaring that “Ninevah would be overthrown” (3:4).  “Then the people of Ninevah believed in God; and they called a fast and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least of them” (3:5).  Go to your Bible and read it for yourself.  Jonah declared and then the people repented of their ways.  Even the king “called on God” (3:8).  And what happened next?  “When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them.  And He did not do it” (3:10).  Did God change?  No.  Did Ninevah change?  Yes.  And because Ninevah changed what did God do?  He relented.  This should not be too surprising that God relented.  Why is this so?  Even though God’s righteous nature demands justice, that same divine justice is in line with God’s divine mercy.  In other words, God was merciful because the Ninevites had changed, just like Jeremiah told Judah to do.  Even Jonah, who was angry that God didn’t destroy the Hebrew enemies, said that God was gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning calamity (4:2)!  Ninevah changed whereas Judah didn’t.

Hezekiah’s illness and recovery is probably one of the most difficult passages to consider with respect to God changing His mind (2 Kings 20: 1-11).  In verse 1, God via Isaiah tells Hezekiah that he will die.  This is no different than what God did with Judah (e.g., Jer. 4:27-28) and Ninevah (Jonah 1:2; 3:2).  But keep this in mind: the difference between the former passages (i.e., Jeremiah and Jonah) and this one, is that in the Hezekiah narrative there is no declaration by God of Hezekiah dying because of his sin.  In fact, Hezekiah was actually a king that was characterized as a man who walked in the LORD’s path (e.g., Hezekiah got rid of the pagan practices and led his kingdom to the exclusive worship of the LORD (2 Kings 18:1-8).  What must be asked is whether this disease on Hezekiah was inflicted as judgment by the LORD or whether this was an illness that Hezekiah contracted similar to any other man (much like cancer in today’s terms).  Nowhere in Scripture does it state that God sent this illness, so it would be infinitely unfair to say that God caused this illness as judgment on Hezekiah.  To the contrary, I suggest that it was a merciful thing what the LORD did in telling Hezekiah to get his house in order.  In other words, what the LORD gave to Hezekiah in verse 1 was informational, not judgment.  Isn’t this what a doctor does when he tells his patient that he has terminal cancer?  Do we condemn the doctor or hold him responsible for the disease just because He provides the information?  Of course not!  Why hold the Healer responsible?

Without question, because Hezekiah entreated the LORD for healing, the LORD answered his prayer with healing (1) because Hezekiah had previously walked before the LORD in truth and with a whole heart, and (2) because of God’s promise to prolong the life to those who feared the LORD (cf. Prov. 10:27).  Prayer is definitely effective!  But the illness was not a judgment against Hezekiah like the judgments against Judah and Ninevah.  Again, because God had not decreed to destroy Hezekiah but rather decided to heal him because of his prayer, God, in fact, did not change His mind.  Indeed, when people read meaning into the text, the person is guilty of eisegesis.  What a person should do is let the Text speak for Itself; the person should take meaning out of the Text (exegesis).

God’s simplicity is an unalterable unity.  God could no more change His mind than He could not exist.  It is impossible based on Scripture as well as philosophy and logic (cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Q3 and Summa Contra Gentiles, chs. 16, 18, 21, 22).  If God has no potential whatsoever in His nature, and differentiation requires potentiality, then God cannot differ in Himself; He must be identical to Himself.  And if He is identical to Himself, then He is absolutely simple in His personhood of emotion, will and intellect (i.e., mind).  He can be no other way.  As Stephen Charnock said, “If God were not a Spirit, he could not be Creator” (Discourses Upon the Existence and Attributes of God, vol. 1 [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979], 183).  “If God were not a pure Spirit, he could not be one” (Ibid., 184).  And “If God were not a Spirit, He were not immutable and unchangeable.  His immutability depends upon his simplicity…He is as unchangeable in His essence as in His veracity and faithfulness” (Ibid., 187).  Indeed, God’s mind does not and cannot change, just the way He likes it.  Simple as that.

Jesus’ claim to divinity has always been and will likely always be a hotly contested topic.  In fact, this debate is about as old as Christianity itself.  For example, the Ebionites (or Judaizers) from the 2^nd century argued that Jesus was not genuine deity.  They said Jesus had the Spirit after His baptism but He certainly wasn’t preexistent.  By the way, people like Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen and Eusebius had a serious problem with the Ebionites and their Christology, and rightfully so.  The Arians of the 4^th century were not to be outdone by the Ebionites – they also denied the divinity of Jesus by saying that he was the first and highest created being (homoiousia, not homoousia) which, incidentally, is eerily similar to the theology of the Jehovah’s Witness of today (e.g.., John 1:1c: “and the Word [Jesus] was a god”, New World Translation).  Like Irenaeus and company, Athanasius and Ossius didn’t take too kindly to the theology of the Arians with respect to Jesus’ divinity, nor should they.

To be fair to the Ebionites and Arians, Jesus did make some pretty bold claims.  In fact, He claimed to be God Himself (John 8:58; 10:30; 17:5).  He also accepted divine worship (Matt. 14:33; 28:9; John 20:28-29).  He called Himself the Alpha and the Omega (Rev. 22:13), the Son of God (John 10:36), as well as the Son of Man, able to forgive sin (Matt. 9:2, 6; Luke 7:47) and be LORD over the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8).  Let’s not forget that He said He alone can rightfully judge mankind (John 5:22)!  Yep, Jesus is definitely the Big Kahuna.  And what was Jesus’ ultimate proof to substantiate His outrageous claims?  The Resurrection itself.  Without question, the Gospel is predicated on three main issues: “(1) the deity of Jesus; (2) the death of Jesus in our place; and (3) the resurrection of Jesus” (Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus [Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2004], 25).  But the 1^st century Jewish theologian, Paul of Tarsus, said it best, though: “And if Christ [Messiah] has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:17). Without question, the Gospel hinges on the historical fact of the Resurrection of the Messiah.  No doubt about it.

The question to be considered today is not whether the Resurrection is a historical fact; there is a wide variety of data and arguements that can provide reasonable proof that Jesus historically arose from the dead in the numerically same body.  Incidentally, why would I say the “numerically same body?”  Because

1. the crucifixion scars prove it was the same body (Luke 24:30);
2. the empty tomb shows it was the same body (Matt. 28:6);
3. Jesus said it was the same body (John 2:21-22);
4. the fact that it did not corrupt indicates it was the same body (Acts 2:31);
5. the stress of burial reveals it is the same body (1 Cor. 15:3, 4; Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12);
6. the seed analogy shows it is the same body (1 Cor. 15:35-44); and
7. of the fact that it is “put on” over but doesn’t replace the pre-resurrection body (1 Cor. 15:53) (Norman Geisler, Resurrection PowerPoint, Southern Evangelical Seminary, Charlotte, NC, 2002).

Nonetheless, the topic being considered today is the other claims that Jesus made.  For example, He said:

1. Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female (Matt 19:4; cf. Gen. 1:27; 5:2)?
2. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matt. 12:40; cf. Jonah 1:17; Luke 11:29-32).
3. For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.  For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark (Matt. 24:37-38; Gen. 7:15; Luke 17:26-27).
4. I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 8:11; cf. Gen. 17:5, 21; 25:26; Luke 13:28).
5. Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet… (Matt. 24:15; cf. Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11).
6. Then how does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying, ‘The LORD said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet‘ (Matt. 22:43-45; cf. Ps. 110:1; 1 Sam. 16:13).
7. Yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these (Matt. 6:29; 2 Sam. 12:24; Luke 11:31; 12:27).
8. In their case the prophesy of Isaiah is being fulfilled… (Matt. 13:14; cf. Isa. 6:9, 10; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10).
9. See that you tell no one; but go, show yourself to the priest and present the offering that Moses commanded [in the Torah], as a testimony to them (Matt. 8:4; cf. Lev. 14:1-32; Mark 1:44).

I think you can readily tell where I’m going with this: either Jesus is telling the truth or Jesus is a liar (cf. the Law of Excluded Middle).  In Matthew 19:4, Jesus explicitly chastises his audience for “not reading” what was written in the Torah, which is that God directly made Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27; 5:2).  God did not use theistic evolution to create Adam and Eve; He created them “from the beginning male and female,” not via a primordial soup that evolved into an amphibian that eventually over millennia of time evolved into a man and finally a woman!  An analogy was given last week (see comment here) that God’s divine attribute of omni-sapience is not impugned by using an intermediary method (e.g., evolution) to create man.  It’s true that God is quite able to use any logical means He deems fit to satisfy or reach His goals.  But the analogy of an intermediary (banker) who presents a gift (life) to a beneficiary (man) on behalf of a benefactor (God) does not apply to the Genesis narrative simply because the Text says that God directly created Adam and Eve (which is what Jesus affirmed in Matt. 19:4).  In other words, the analogy is not applicable at all to the context of the Adam and Eve narrative since the Text does not stipulate that God used evolution to create man and woman; in fact, it says just the opposite.  Hence the analogy critically fails because it is assuming “that because two things are alike in one or more respects [e.g., benefactor/beneficiary], they necessarily are alike in some other respect [e.g., intermediary process of evolution/direct creation]” (T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning, 2^nd ed. [Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1980], 63).

The same is true for the Documentary Hypothesis, which is the belief that “the Torah was compiled in the period of the Second Temple from various documents or sources” (Umberto Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis, trans. Israel Abraham [Jerusalem and New York: Shalem Press, 2006], 9), specifically that the P document (Priestly Code or Leviticus) “emanated from priestly circles” which “refrained from mentioning the name YHVH before the generation of Moses” (Ibid., 10).  Either Jesus is telling the truth that Moses wrote Leviticus or He is a liar (again, cf. the Law of Excluded Middle).

Now, the higher critic may chime in and say, “Well, that’s not how the Text is to be taken or read in the Genesis narrative.  The Text is supposed to be taken figuratively, metaphorically or maybe even allegorically but not necessarily literally.”  OK, fine.  If this is true, then I can legitimately take whatever the critic says or writes in a figurative, metaphoric or even allegoric manner but not necessarily in a literal sense.  In other words, the higher critic does not give the same respect to God as an Author that he demands of everyone else. To put it nicely, the higher critic is “inconsistent.”  If the higher critic believes that “the historical grammatical reading is incorrect and direct creation is not the method described in Scripture,” then it follows that Jesus lied (Matt. 19:4) as did God (Gen. 1:27; 5:2), the ultimate Author of Scripture.  Moreover, if the historical grammatical method is incorrect, then I can legitimately

1. Impose my meaning rather than the critic’s meaning in what he says or writes;
2. Look for the critic’s purpose for the writing rather than the meaning of the critic’s writing;
3. Look for meaning of the critic’s writings beyond the critic’s words and text and not necessarily in the text itself.

Yep, if the historical grammatical method is incorrect, I can justifiably do exactly what I described above, and the higher critic would not be able to complain whatsoever.  In short, I can take whatever the higher critic writes and turn it into whatever I want – if the historical grammatical method is indeed false!  In essence, this is what a theistic evolutionist does.  He takes, for example, what is plainly written in Scripture (e.g., God directly created Adam and Eve) and turns it into whatever he wants (for whatever philosophical reasons).  In effect, the critic is actually putting his own words into God’s mouth.  But isn’t this dangerous ground, to speak words that God did not say or authorize (cf. Deut. 18:18-22)?  Indeed to speak “presumptuously” of God is precarious at best (Deut. 18:22); at worst, it makes Jesus, who is God because of the historical fact of the Resurrection, a liar.  Jesus is either (divine) LORD, (certifiable) lunatic or (pathological) liar.  And based on the Law of Excluded Middle, please choose.

So, since the 1^st century Jews rightfully asked Jesus to prove His claims of divinity (Matt. 12:38, 39; 16:1, 4; Mark 8:11, 12; Luke 11:16, 29; John 2:18; 4:54; 6:14, 30; 12:18), the same must also be demanded of the higher critic today.  What sign do you, the higher critic, give to authenticate your assertion?  Jesus’ sign was the “sign of Jonah,” which is the death and burial of the Son of Man along with the Resurrection of the numerically same body on the third day.  So, what sign does the theistic evolutionist or anyone else give to countermand what Jesus explicitly said, for example, regarding Adam and Eve?  What sign does the Documentarian give to support his higher critical assertion, that what Jesus said, for example, about Moses is false?  The only thing I can say is that it had better be something truly greater than rising from the dead, as well as being historical, for me to actually believe you.  That’s only fair, wouldn’t you say?

Dennis Smith (a fifth grade teacher at a Christian school) was rushing in to teach his next class, when he met one of his students lingering in the hallway.

“You’re going to be late for class.”

The student turned away, staring out a window.  The young man was crying as he said to Dennis, “The other guys say I am not cool.  They tell me that constantly.”

The final bell rang as they walked toward the classroom, and Dennis gave the student a parting word of encouragement. “My heart just ached for him,” Smith said.  “Feeling like he didn’t fit in was crushing this kid.”

As a teacher (and parent), Dennis Smith has seen firsthand the emotional and social struggles that youth face.  “Self-esteem is a huge issue for all teens,” he says, “but especially so for guys.  The young man I met in the hallway was only 11 years old, but his buddies had been berating him for not being willing to use profanity and for never having had a sexual experience.”

Teen girls: Trying to see clearly in a Photo-shopped world
Madison Coffee is a ninth-grader who enjoys two social structures known to contribute to positive self-esteem: an affirming family and a healthy church.  But Madison says that even Christian teen girls feel the pressure to appear “beautiful and perfect in every way.”  She said, “From magazine covers, to movies, commercials, at school, even in youth group–for girls my age, everything is about body image.”

Haley Hughes, a high school senior says, “I am perfectly content with my body right now.  But in middle school, no way!  I was so self-conscious.”  She observed, “We tell ourselves that we have to compete with digitally-enhanced magazine covers.”

Beverly Odom is assistant director of 24K, a large student ministry in Georgia.  She says, “Teen girls are constantly comparing themselves to each other and to images they see in the media.  I often see the body obsession thing linger on into adulthood.”

“That’s true,” said Haley.  “Some girls at my school would not be your friend if you are a size four or bigger.  It begins to mess with your mind.  There are girls I know who are the same size as me, yet I look at them, and I feel that I am so much larger.”

Self-esteem:  Developing a sense of how I see me

Whether positive or negative, realistic or not, the views we form of ourselves during adolescence stay with us for years.  Our self-esteem influences mental acuity, emotional health, and behavior.  Odom says, “The pressure on most kids today is just unbelievable.  The quest to be accepted goes on “24-7.”  Even Christian teens can lose sight of all that they have in Christ, and can be pressured to do things that, deep down, they know are wrong.”

How do we help the teens in our lives arrive at a God-honoring, balanced sense of self?  “The kids we’ve seen flourish are the ones who accurately understand who they are in Christ,” says Odom.  “They must draw their identity from Jesus.  Parents should try and steer their kids away from allowing peer-pressure, social posturing, or the media sour their perspective.”

A Christian response in a “world about me”

For a Christian, there are clear and tangible reasons to feel OK about who they are.  Your teen’s understanding of his own worth should be grounded on (and bolstered by) the following realities:

By the fact that they are made in God’s image;

In the awareness that Jesus personally cares about them;

Through the unconditional love present in your home;

Through the accepting haven provided by one’s church;

In their true status as a resident (and heir) of heaven;

In the confidence that God truly has a plan for their life.

These truths can be a great source of encouragement, but we know that emotions don’t automatically “catch up” to the facts that we hold in our mind.  Self-esteem issues often feed on irrationality.  We must vigilantly pursure an honest view of ourselves, of our circumstances, and of our Lord.  Feelings shouldn’t be allowed to “trump’ facts.

Notice that the Christian’s self-esteem is grounded in things outside of themselves.  Of the six realities listed above, none lead us to find our value by comparing ourselves to others.  Somebody will always come along who is prettier, a better athlete, more wealthy, or who has a higher GPA.  In a world of more than six billion people, that’s inevitable.

Approach life as a competition, and it doesn’t take long to realize that we all eventually get left in the dust of the next fastest runner.  The comfort is in knowing that we are a priority to Christ.

A teen’s self-esteem must come from their knowledge of Who Jesus is, and from acceptance of His love and care.  This provides lasting purpose and clear direction– even to those traversing the heady, challenging, and sometimes “tooth-and-claw” years of adolescence.

SOURCES USED:  Clinton, Timothy and George Ohlschager, eds.  Competent Christian Counseling, Volume One. Colorado Springs, Colorado:  Waterbrook Press, 2002.

From the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview

“Theologian George Weigel wrote on Secretary Hillary Clinton’s speech at Georgetown University, “For those with ears to hear in Gaston Hall that day, the promotion of the so-called LGBT (lesbian/gay/bisexual/ transgendered) agenda had just been declared a human rights priority of the United States, in the same sentence in which the secretary of state had offered an anorexic description of religious freedom that even the Saudis could accept.”

Watch Chuck Colson as he reminds the world that religious freedom is God-given, and not a gift from government.

See the  Urgent Alert from Chuck Colson here