California Christian Apologetics Conference (IX)

Well we've made it! I actually got through a whole series! I hope you didn't get too sick of these and that they were encouraging to you and your walk as you seek to obey 1 Pet 3:15. The last session was, as with most conferences, a Q&A session with the all the speakers. For this one I think I'll just post my raw notes and insert some comments here and there. Do enjoy!

Since there will be food in heaven, will we have to go to the bathroom?

• Bill Craig: If the resurrection body has perfect metabolism, there won't be any waste!!
  
• Greg Koukl: Who ever answers that question deserves an applause!
  
• Shawn Hayes: That was totally a made up joke question! (i.e., it was not on a card; Shawn, the host, made it up on the spot)
  

Do you believe the Holy Spirit can use passages that jump out at you?

• Greg Koukl: There is no legitimate way for God to bless the abuse of His text.
  
  • However, it seems clear that HS uses certain verses real to us. When we understand it in truth, the verse applies to our experience, then that certainly is the HS working!
    
  • We can't think that He's changing the meaning for the reader.
    

Based on Rom 1:18-20, is it necessary to try to convince anyone that God exists?

• Greg Koukl: Since we suppress the truth, the awareness is not always at the front of our minds.
  
  • We're simply using apologetics to bring out something that people already know. I count it as a great ally that I can use the knowledge that people already have when I'm arguing.
    
• Doug Beaumont: Apologetics is about affecting the intellect and not necessarily the will, but when people have their intellect changed, their will has a hard time hanging on to that. It shows people what their real problem is: "I know it's true but I still don't want to believe it!"
  

Is all sin equal?

• Bill Craig: I don't think we're committed to that. Distinguishing between "mortal sins" and venial sins. It would be crazy if we were committed to the view that torturing and murdering a child was no worse than j-walking.
  
• Harold Felder: Every sin, although less serious, is enough to send you to hell
  
• If you don't know you're committing it, are you still held accountable?
  
  • Harold Felder: yes, because there are provisions in the OT for atoning for sins you didn't know you committed.
    
  • Neil Mammen: No sin is necessary, but any sin is sufficient (to go to hell).
    

Breaking down the cultural walls of Islam?

• Leeroy Lamar: Show them the love of Christ excessively! They don't experience love.
  

There are many interpretations of the Bible, so how can you say yours is correct?

• Harold Felder: Let's just make sure we understand that there is only one [correct] interpretation.
  
• Greg Koukl: The question seems to put all interpretations on par, but this is not warranted.
  
  • The person who has the best reasons gets to interpret any verse. It's not a crapshoot!
    

Please expound on the belief or disbelief of once saved always saved.

• Doug Beaumont: We could have a whole other conference on this! The belief is that once you are saved, you can never become out of that state. Different views held by different Christians.
  
• Neil Mammen: This is a theological issue, not an apologetics issue.
  

The idea on this one was that we shouldn't discuss internal issues with outsiders. I was actually disappointed that they didn't just answer this question. It's not that hard. You can't lose your salvation. As I heard Greg Koukl say once, "If the cross cancels sin, how can sin subsequently cancel the cross?" Or something like that…

What is the quickest and simplest way to defend my faith with an atheist in a short time?

• Richard Howe: I would prefer to convert atheist to theism first.
  
  • The Kalam argument is so quick and simple.
    
• Sean McDowell: Jesus never had one quick argument that he used with everyone. He tailored the message to his audience. Sometime the gospel has enough power in itself!
  
• Bill Craig: "I don't see any good reason to believe that Atheism is true."
  
• Greg Koukl: The atheist has to be committed to 4 big bangs
  
  • (1) Universe out of nothing, (2) life from non-life, (3) consciousness out of matter, (4) morality from nowhere!
    
  • Any reasonable person not committed to unbelief in God would be able to realize that this is absurd.
    

What is Kharma?

• Origin is Hinduism. The word means "action." Every action is going to have consequence. In a New Age worldview, a spin is put on it: when you die, you will go somewhere and come back, and will have to keep doing that to live out your karma. What you did in previous lives determines your future lives. Past actions and previous lives determine your present life and future lives. The idea is to escape this, you have to stop doing bad actions so that you don't have to keep coming back and suffering.
  
  • Another use: "My car broke down this week, it is bad karma because of what I did last year."
    
• Neil Mammen: If you don't let karma carry out, you'd mess it up for the person, so you'd never see a Hindu orphanage. Bumper sticker: "My karma ran over your dogma!"
  

Natural Desires

Tonight has been a strange night for me. Generally I come up with an idea that I fancy as fairly relevant and useful for people to hear, but quickly forget about it as I am too busy to seriously consider letting anyone know what I'm thinking. Tonight, however, I have actually been taking the time to write down my thoughts, and I thought this one was blog appropriate.

I was pondering an encounter I had with some gentlemen on a train from San Fran. I had handed them some tracts on my way to sit down, but was sitting close enough and couldn't help but overhear their conversation. Let's just say the gist of it had to do with lots of money, and lots of women. My heart was breaking, and I mentioned that I sort of wanted to talk to them, so Julie Logan, activator that she is, would let me do none other than talk to these 4 guys. And that I did.

They were actually quite receptive and eager to talk with even me, a stranger. I began to preach the gospel to them, starting of course with the law in order to bring about the knowledge of sin (Rom 3:20b). As we got to lust, however, these seemingly upstanding and successful gentlemen had some serious objections, one of which I fumbled over in a deceptively composed sort of way. My pride, I believe, wanted to show him that I could take him on head to head with every objection I could come up with. Surely I couldn't admit that I was actually not ready to give a defense (1 Pet 3:15)! Looking back, perhaps that's what I should have done, but nevertheless I believe God used that interaction for His kingdom.


So what was the objection? I forget exactly how it was worded, but it was something along the lines of "God gave me sexual desires, so it's unreasonable for anyone to ask me to postpone fulfilling them when I feel like fulfilling them." A sort of "Why would God torture me like this" kind of objection. I recently thought of an analogy in response to this argument, something that might shed light on the human condition.

First of all, let's just lay the groundwork that we know God is not some sick distant being constantly tempting us and laughing at our plight as we fall in our struggles to please Him. He does not ever tempt anyone to sin (James 1:13). Suppose we have someone who is given to anger, ought he resist unleashing said anger? I would say yes and no. You see, it is not so much the anger that is the issue as is the motivation, the target, and the fruit of his anger. That is, we need to ask three simple questions:

1) Why is he angry?
2) Who/what is the recipient of his anger?
3) What is his anger driving him to do?

We would be hard pressed to make the Biblical case that ALL anger is completely wrong, because Paul implied that you could be angry without sinning (Eph 4:26; Ps 4:4) and because God Himself is angry every day (Ps 7:11). However, just because God created man with the capacity to feel anger, this does not automatically make every misuse of that capacity God's fault! God is not held accountable for the sinful actions any human being decides to commit with one of the gifts given to them. So if someone goes into fits of anger (which is sin, Gal 5:20), it is their sin that condemns them for twisting and abusing God's gift for the sake petty, personal issues rather than eternal, kingdom issues.

In the same way, God has made humans male and female, and made them so that a man would be joined to his wife. The sexual desires the man has are meant for only her (and vice versa). If those desires are directed at anyone else, they become sinful, not because God is a killjoy, but because they are being used in such a way that sends messages such as "God doesn't have the best in mind for me" or "God is out of touch with my needs" or some other utterly irreverent thought. Ultimately this names God a liar, because He has told us clearly what the guidelines are for having that kind of a physical relationship. It also reveals that you are not finding supreme joy in God. God has created us to find our ultimate joy in Him.

So in conclusion, it isn't that God has given us desires that he doesn't want us to fulfill, but that we have twisted those desires in our sinfulness to serve our own purposes and not those for which God has given them to us. We attempt to derive our joy from the gifts, not realizing that the gifts were always meant to direct us to the Giver. If we truly derive our ultimate satisfaction from Christ, then the other issues start to fade into insignificance in light of His worth and His glory.

California Christian Apologetics Conference (VIII)

For the fifth and final plenary session of the California Christian Apologetics Conference we had William Lane Craig. For an introduction, let's just say he's smart. Really, really smart. His workshops were like blow your mind complicated, according to my mom, who attended his session on "The Argument for God's Existence from the Beginning of the Universe" aka "The Cosmological Argument for God's Existence." This lecture was, I would argue, the most important of all those given, because it places Christian apologetics in a proper context and perspective. It was titled Christian Apologetics – Who Needs It? I have to admit that the way he approached the subject was quite surprising and confusing to me, but after he finished, I had to be convinced of his argument.

And his first main point was – remember that this is at a conference devoted to apologetics – that apologetics is not necessary. Bill, are you off your rocker? Why do you people goad me into dropping 40 Washingtons and then laugh as we walk out the door as you taunt "It's all for naught!" Anticipating this sort of reaction, he clarified: apologetics is useful, even if it isn't necessary. For example, it's not necessary to know how to type in order to use a computer, but it's useful! But Apologetics is not necessary in order to know rationally that Christianity is true.

How do we know that apologetics is not necessary? Scripture says that Christ can be justified by the inner witness of the Holy Spirit (1 John 2:27, 5:6-10), and the testimony is greater! This witness is self-authenticating and unmistakable for the one who really has it. Someone experiencing the Holy Spirit needs no evidence that it is indeed the Holy Spirit in him. In certain contexts, this witness with imply certain truths such as that God exists, that I am redeemed, and that Christ died for me. Furthermore, this experience is not just subjective assurance, but also objective knowledge about God and Christianity. Arguments that are incompatible with this experience are overwhelmed by this experience. This truth allows a Christian believer who is uninformed to still be rationally justified in believing Christianity, because it is on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit.

If this argument from Scripture is not enough to convince one of the truth of the effective witness of the Holy Spirit (which it should be, if you believe God's Word is authoritative), there are by contrast powerful arguments against Christian evidentialism (against the argument that people need evidence to be rationally justified in believing Christianity). The Christian evidentialist would deny the right to Christian faith to the one who lacks time, ability, and resources necessary to accept said faith. Are we supposed to say to someone that they must read 4 Lee Strobel books before they should become a Christian? Absolutely not! Today is the day of salvation. Anyone who comes to Christ in humble repentance and faith can enter, because the Spirit testifies to them of the truth of Christianity.

Christian Evidentialism would also imply that those who have been presented with more cogent arguments against Christian theism would be justified in rejecting God and accepting atheism. This is the best evidence I got, and I just followed the evidence, so God can't be angry with me. Does that hold any water? Of course not. This view would create an intellectual elite, a priesthood of philosophers and historians who would dictate to the masses what they ought and ought not to believe concerning Christian matters. In Christian Evidentialism, faith is subjected to the vacillations of human reason. Faith in Christ is then rational in one generation and place, and irrational in another. But with the witness of the spirit, faith in Christ becomes rational in all places at all times.

So we conclude that Apologetics is not necessary, but it does not follow that it is useless! A person who is warranted both by faith and apologetics is simply doubly warranted in his Christian beliefs!

The argument could provide support for the believer when he goes through periods of doubt when the Spirit's witness is not as clear to him. The question then is: does apologetics indeed provide a sufficiently rational basis for Christian belief. The answer? If the arguments are sound, they provide a rational basis, and belief in Christianity is thereby warranted by k';j ;v[ [[[[v apologetics and the Spirit. Apologetics is then not necessary, but it is sufficient.

Bill then went on to argue for three ways in which Apologetics is indeed useful. First, with respect to shaping culture, "Apologetics is useful and may be necessary in order for the gospel to be heard in Western society today." Because of the specifics of historical Western philosophy, Western Individuals do not consider theological knowledge to be possible! Reason and religion are therefore at odds with each other, and the physical sciences are the only sources of truth. For the secularized person, you may as well tell someone to believe in leprechauns. What if someone walked up to you and invited you to believe in Krishna? It just wouldn't be a consideration. The same goes often for the gospel on college campuses. He argued that now is our opportune time to take back lost ground. It is the worst time to be lazy and let Christianity be considered by the masses to be only a harmless delusion! Christianity is experiencing a veritable Renaissance as to philosophical arguments for the existence of God.

He warned also of a danger to rational arguments. People may think that our postmodern society does not accept rational argumentation. But that is completely false. Consistent postmodernism is an unlivable worldview. Nobody is postmodern when it comes to reading the labels on bottles of aspirin. People are only relativistic in matters of religion and ethics. That's not postmodernism, that's just modernism - if you can't verify it with your senses, it's just personal expression. Postmodernism is a crafty deception of Satan. If we follow this suicidal plan of action (of laying down our old arguments and just telling a narrative), the church will face radical consequences. Something in me worried for emergent church people when Bill mentioned this warning. The fact is, if you approach an issue rationally, people will respond in kind, and of course, we always exemplify the biblical virtues of humility, compassion, and respect. One part of 1 Pet 3:15 that I often leave out is the part about "but with gentleness and respect." I have to be honest. That's not my favorite part of the verse, because it means I don't get to dance intellectual circles around them and shoot them down and then walk away smugly knowing that I've destroyed another doubter. That's what my flesh wants to do, but that is not what God wants me to do…

Takeaway point: We need to preserve a culture in which the gospel is an option for intellectual people.

The second way in which apologetics is useful is in the strengthening of believers. He told us a story of Anne Kimmal, a woman he met who doesn't prepare for her talks, but just shares her struggles; and she is totally effective! As he was talking to her he was wondering if all this school and degrees and preparing and notes were just barking up the wrong tree or something. But here's the catch: someday, those people who have been brought to God through Anne Kimmal are going to need to hear what you have to say. This is the beauty of the body of Christ. Each member has a different function. Bill shared stories in which people were prevented from falling away from the faith via apologetics. Apologetics can be the means by which God has providentially ordained that you maintain your faith. And that makes apologetics VERY important. Christian youth need doctrine and Christian apologetics, not just Bible stories that make them feel good about themselves. This is a war. It's a crime to send soldiers out with rubber swords and plastic armor. The time for playing games has long since passed.''

The third way in which apologetics is useful is in evangelizing unbelievers. Christians do not evangelize often because they are afraid they won't be able to answer questions. Of course, he immediately anticipated the common objection that "nobody comes to Christ through arguments," and wasted no time in refuting such a dismissive attitude toward apologetics in evangelism as unbiblical. The apostles always argued for the truth of the gospel! Those who make this objection are simply subject to faulty generalizations. The question is not: "Is apologetics effective," but "Why bother with the minority with whom apologetics is effective?" Like a missionary who is called to some tiny people group, so is the apologist called to the intellectuals, though a small group, and this people group, though small, is extremely influential, which makes them all the more important to reach. The conclusion that apologetics is ineffective is simply false. Biblically and practically. Lee Strobel lost count of how many people came to Christ because of his books! W.L. Craig's dissertation helped to convert a woman who lost faith. A man in Russia converted because of reading of the book on the radio. A woman converted because she heard a debate on the historical Jesus. Salim al Islam, who could have been killed for converting, was converted with apologetics instrumental in that conversion.

Takeaway point: Apologetics + gospel + testimony + humility can certainly be successful!

So the lecture start far differently than you might have expected given that it was an apologetics conference, and it ended far differently than you might have expected given his opening statements about apologetics being unnecessary. It was a great encouragement to me to keep apologetics in its proper context, yet also an encouragement to know that my labor and passion in this area are not in vain.

Closing line? "I am unapologetically enthusiastic about Christian apologetics!"

California Christian Apologetics Conference (VII)

For my third and final elective I opted for "The Case for Pro-Life" with Sean McDowell. Sean is quite skilled at doing presentations in a straightforward, understandable, and logically sound manner. And this one was no different. For those who don't know me, abortion is my pet social issue. There are a lot of things that are noble to fight for, like to end poverty in America or something, but those just seem to be less serious to me. To be sure, homeless people don't exactly have it going for them, but it's WAY better in America than elsewhere. For example, I have heard that 30,000-40,000 people die every day of starvation. That is huge! And dying of starvation is not something that sneaks up on you. Hunger slowly overtakes you and you suffer for a long time. Now you might say, "Well, Evan, then why isn't your pet issue helping those overseas who are starving?" And I'll answer by saying that although it is huge deal that we should be concerned about, it doesn't have quite the same sting to me as millions being heartlessly slaughtered by their parents… LEGALLY. Somehow this just gets to me. It could also be that it is happening in America, so it seems more real and urgent. Anyways, I attended this session mostly to refresh my memory on some of the reasons for believing the unborn is a human person.

Also, I should add that I am so thankful God has saved me. If I were not a Christian, what hope could I give the abortionist? For the woman who has killed her baby, what reconciliation could there be? For the man who has encouraged his girlfriend to go through with murder for the sake of making his own life easier, what comfort could there be? It would be a hopeless case I think, because I would be trying to get them to admit they were a murderer without having a solution to the issue of their guilt and sin. Who is ever going to do that? Who would go so far as to admit that they had taken an innocent human's life for their own comfort when they could hide behind the pro-choice movement? None. No one in their carnal state that is. But those holy who God has set aside will see their sin and be converted. That is what I hope for!

Sean had 3 main cases for the pro-life position that he outlined (I love outlines) for us.

The first was the Biblical background of abortion. This case is important because 1) It's the word of God for crying out loud! And 2) because people are going to use the Bible to further their agenda however they can. We need to make sure that they don't legalize baby-killing with Bible twisting. It is good to be able to explain why the Bible is implicitly against abortion even though it is not explicitly against it. First of all, abortion was unimaginable to Israelite women. I mean, it wasn't even a consideration! Children were considered a blessing from God (Ps 127:3). They knew that God is the sovereign ruler over conception in the womb (Gen 29:33). And furthermore, it was viewed as a curse to remain childless. There was no incentive to kill that which was being "intricately woven in the depths of the earth" (Psalm 139:15).

Also, Scripture makes no distinction between the potential life of the fetus and the actual life of the newborn. In the NT the word "brephos" is often use to describe the unborn, the newborn, and younger children. In the OT, "geber" was used to refer to a person at conception but also to a grown man. They all have the same basic nature: human persons! Therefore, we can see that God views all stages of human development equally in the sense that they all bear His image! Furthermore, the Bible repeatedly refers to conception as the beginning of life (Gen 4:1, Job 3:3, Psalm 51:5), and (this was quite fantastic to ponder) God relates in a personal way to the unborn! For example, Job 31:15 says "Did not he who made me in the womb make him, and the same one fashioned us in the womb?" And Ps 139:13-14 says, "For you formed me in my inward parts, you wove me in my mother's womb."

Secondly, Sean shared the scientific case for pro-life. The question here is, how do you know the unborn is human in scientific terms? Well, first of all, the unborn is clearly alive! There is no period of non-life from mating to birth! The sperm is alive, the egg is alive, and then they join and that conceived child (what they called a fetus) is alive! The unborn is growing biologically; it has metabolism; it has reaction to stimuli. Also, abortion clearly kills something. No one denies this. Of course, this blunt language won't be used. In order to soften the issue, "terminate" is the word of choice. This all seems to make a clear case that the unborn is living. However, even if we're not sure, who gets the benefit of the doubt? Should we risk killing an innocent human being in order to make someone's life more comfortable?

Now that Sean showed clearly that the unborn is alive, the next step is to show that it is separate from the mother. You always hear it, right? "Women should have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Well, if we can show that it actually isn't their body, then such an objection can get tossed out the window. This right is limited when it affects another body! It's illegal to kill someone, even if you're using your own body! Is this making sense? The case for this is pretty straightforward too. All we have to do really is just look at a bunch of ways the woman and her child are different: Gender (A woman can have a boy right?), Blood type, Race (Yes, white women CAN give birth to black babies – or vice versa), and DNA. Incidentally, this last one proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the unborn is human. It's not a dog, or kangaroo. It's human!

Now, how is anyone going to squirm out of this? Sometimes, you could get a confession that the unborn is indeed human, but it's not a person! That's where the philosophical case for pro-life comes in.

The philosophical case for pro-life addresses when exactly the unborn gains personhood and value. Before taking us into the positive case for the personhood of the unborn at conception, Sean presented us with common arguments for personhood coming at different time. The first is viability - the point at which a fetus can naturally survive outside the womb. This might make sense, but viability is changing. It gets earlier and earlier all the time as our technology increases. Therefore this has more to do with medical ability than the essence of a thing. The second proposal is brain waves - a dead person has no brain waves, so since the baby doesn't have them, we don't need to honor their life. But this misses what we've already determined – that the baby is indeed alive! It certainly isn't dead, otherwise you wouldn't be killing anything. A third option is sentience - the moment at which a fetus can feel sensations, specifically pain. But do lepers who cease to feel pain cease to be persons? How about those who are born who NEVER feel pain? Are they not persons? Of course not. This confuses the experience of harm with the reality of harm. The last one, and I think the weakest and least popular, is quickening – when the mother first feels the presence of the fetus inside her womb, then it becomes a person. But what about a mother who is in a coma? She NEVER feels the unborn in her womb. She isn't awake to tell anyone anyways. Besides, why does the baby's essence have anything to do with the mother's awareness of it?? Why should your value be defined by other's notice of you. Are popular people more of persons than people who aren't as well known? Of course not. We can see that all these suggestions fall apart. So what are the reasons we should believe personhood and human value begins at conception?

This argument I have heard before from Scott Klussendorf, a man who is very good at directing the conversation back to the actual issue: What is the unborn? He uses a simple acronym to outline his argument: SLED - the differences between an unborn and a newborn. The main question of the argument is whether any of these have a strong enough bearing on whether we can kill the unborn. S stands for size: The unborn is smaller than a newborn. Is Shaquille O'Neil more valuable than Hillary Clinton? Are men more valuable than women? The funny thing is, Dr. Seuss got it right a long time ago: "A person is a person, no matter how small!" - Dr. Seuss.

Second, L stands for Level of Development. The unborn is less developed than the newborn. But are teens less valuable than adults because they are less developed? Some might say they're less valuable for other reasons… but that's a different story J. The point is: we are always on a continuum of development and your value never changes! So value is not based on development.

The third letter, E, stands for Environment. The unborn is in a different location than the newborn. But this is a terrible reason for anything to gain personhood or value. Does your value as a person change based upon your address? Doubtful. What if you climbed in the swimming pool? Not a person anymore, sorry! Not at all! If a doctor killed a 24-week-old early delivered baby, that would be murder!! Why do we react differently when a mother does the same thing to her baby when it's only 6 inches away? We shouldn't; it's not any different.

The fourth and last letter D stands for degree of dependency. The unborn is dependent on the mother, therefore it's not a person. I don't see the logic there… but a good question to ask here is: Do you lose your value because you're in a coma? You're now dependant on the machines… so you're no longer a person? What if you go in for heart surgery and they plug you into a blood pumping machine. You're certainly dependent there! So we know that your value cannot depend on your dependency!

The force of this argument comes in that these are the only significant differences between the unborn and the newborn. Therefore, since we have proved that all significant differences are not sufficient reasons to believe that the unborn is less valuable than the newborn, we can conclude that they are not, in fact, different!

A final cry you may hear is, "But it doesn't LOOK human!!" …Of course it does! It looks as human as it can at that stage of development. Exactly as God intended it to be. Intricately woven. Knitted together.

So now that you're prepared, go do some pro-life evangelism!