レッスン8：悪の問題、パート2

問題への聖書のソリューション

それは良い神は、彼のコントロール下で宇宙の悪を妨げることと思われるので、悪の存在は、キリスト教の問題です。 しかし、我々はどこにでも悪を見つける。 では、どのようにして悪と神の存在の有無を調和させることができますか？ 神は悪を防ぐことができれば、なぜ彼ではない​​でしょうか？ 前回、我々は問題にいくつか提案されたソリューションを検討し、それらのすべてが満足のいく未満であることがわかった。 今日私たちの目標は、聖書に問題に答えることです。

当初から私たちは悪の問題に完全に満足のいく答えを持っていないことを認めるべきである。 時には悪は単に私たちに意味をなさないようです。 そして、それは神が許すと悪を使用した理由を説明する確かに難しいですが、まだ自分自身の悪に触れていません。 一部の学者は、キリスト教のメッセージに悪"で最も強烈な、苦しそうな、永続的なチャレンジ"の問題を呼んで。これは¹これは、シンプルなソリューションを挑む厄介な謎です。 私たちができることは、聖書はそれについて言うことを見て、我​​々はそこに見つけるものを受け入れます。

1. 神は人間に彼の方法を説明する義務を負いません。

多くの聖書の通路では、悪の問題が発生しますが、テキストがそれを説明することはありません。 例えば、創造の物語で、神がサタンは、彼が悪になったか、どこから来たのか明らかにしていない、彼は庭で許可されたか、なぜ神は全体のシナリオを防ぐことはできませんでしたか。 ジョブの場合には、むしろ仕事に彼の行動を説明するよりも、神は創造主を疑問視する権利を持っていないことを彼に示しています。 彼は神が彼自身の理由があったことを除いて、苦しんだ理由の仕事は、学んだことはありません。 自身を守るかを説明しないことによって、神は、静かに彼らが理解したり、それらの状況を理解していない場合でも、人は神を信じ、信頼するように挑戦されています。

神は慈悲を許可または源泉徴収で主権です。 出エジプト記33:19は、 "私は慈悲を持って人に慈悲を持っているし、私は思いやりの気持ちを持つ人に思いやりを持っています。"と言う神は彼自身の意志に従って選択します。 彼は当てにならない人々の判断に自身を送信しません。 時には、神は彼の行動を説明し、時には彼にはありません。 現代的な信者は、彼らが正しいか、神の方法を理解する能力を持っているジョブ·思考の罪を避けなければなりません。

ブドウ園の労働者のたとえ話（マタイ20:1-16）では、いくつかの他の人がそれは彼らが支払われるものだけを受け取ることが不公平だと思いつつ、公正な取り分より多くを受け取るように見える。 しかしマスターは彼が彼自身の財産を使って好きなように権利を主張している。 彼は支払が不平等であったことを認めているが、彼は物事を行うことを拒否し、 "公正"彼の唯一の説明は、彼が適していると、彼の事務を処理する権利を持っているということです。

ポール、時には神学の彼の説明に非常に詳細に入るNTの作成者は、悪の問題を説明していません。 ローマでパウロは単に神に対してこのような電荷を持った人が正当に非難されると結論付け、不義をもって、神の栄光を充電しようとする者たち（ROM 3:3-8、9:18-24）を責める。 彼が望むように神が行うための主権的権利を有しており、これ以上説明する必要はありません。 したがって、なぜ悪が存在する我々は理解できないかもしれないという事実は、私たちを驚かせてはいけません。

2. 行われ、なぜ邪悪な疑問は、罪深いではありません。 しかし、疑いが非難に変わるときに、その後の質問は罪深いとなります。 我々は、神の善良さに対する疑問を表明するとき、または私達は神が私たちに自身を説明することを要求するときは、我々の創造主を介して自分自身を高揚されています。 我々は、神が特定の物事が起こる理​​由を知るために私たちの欲望を満たすことを要求する権利を有しません。 そうすることで、陶芸家（参照ロム9:20-21）から説明を求めてクレイポットのようなものです。 陶工は、コントロールと権威の両方の粘土上の総電力を持っており、粘土に彼の選択肢を説明する義務を負いません。

神は、主なる神として、彼自身の行動の標準となっています。 彼は人間の判断の対象ではありません。逆に、我々の判断は、御言葉に従うものとします。 我々は我々の状況にもかかわらず、保証することができ、神の善の文字神は、神聖なだけでいいですね。 そのことで神の言葉は明らかである。 神は私たちが神を信頼するように期待して、彼の善意を疑わない。 信仰の本質は、未回答の質問にもかかわらず、辛抱することです。 神の言葉は神の約束をしっかり保持し、疑いを克服することがないようにと私たちを奨励しています。 ²

3. 過去の神の仕事は私たちが解決策を辛抱強く待つことを推奨します。

聖書は私たちに伝え、私達に神の民が神の約束の履行のために、頻繁に長時間、待たなければならない方法の例を示します。 神は最終的に自身をvindicatingと彼の人々の苦しみを終わらせ、最後にこのような待機期間をもたらします。 モーセは人々をリードする準備ができていたまで、たとえば、イスラエルは、400年以上にわたってエジプトで待たなければならなかった。 神はこのタスクに彼を呼ぶ前に、モーセは80歳だった。 人々は約束の地に到着する前に約40年以上待たなければならなかった。 全体OT期間が待っていると期待の時間のように記述することができます。 最終的にはキリストのうちに満たされているアブラハムに与えられた約束し、我々はまだ彼の復帰と神の約束の最終的な履行を待っています。

我々は過去に、神の活動を振り返ってみるならば、我々は、神は常に彼の計画に従って彼の約束と作品の事を満たしていることがわかります。 神は頻繁に（例えば、ジョセフ、ルース、エスター）驚きと予期しない方法で問題を解決します。 神は最終的には悪の存在が何らかの形で彼のプログラムの一部であり、どのように私達を示しています。 私たちのレッスンは、神が過去にそのようなことを行うことができれば、我々は、彼は再びこれを行うには信頼できるということです。 でも、苦しみの真っ只中に、それは神を信頼して従うことは理にかなっています。 苦しみは一時的なものであり、天の栄光は永遠である。

4. 神は、 より良いを生成するために悪使用することができます。

神は現在、彼自身の良い目的のために悪を使用しています。 これは時々より優れた防御と呼ばれています。 私たちは神の最初の優先順位は人がより快適に、幸せにすることであるという考えを拒否する必要があります。 神の究極の目的は、自分自身を美化することである。 何かが神の栄光を進めるために提供している場合、それは悪や悪に関連付けられていると思われる場合であっても、良いと考えることができます。 より大きな善は神の視点からではなく、男です。 たとえば、キリストの死は、それが神の御子の死を必要とするという点で邪悪な男の償還をもたらしたという点で、善と悪、良いもありました。 したがって、明らかに邪悪な何か（殺人）は依然として大​​きい良い（救い）をもたらす可能性があります。 同じことが今日はtrueです。 多くの個人がそれは彼らが悔い改め、キリストを信頼している恐ろしい状況を介してのみであったという事実を立証することができます。 この邪悪な魂のより良い救済をもたらした。 魂が世界全体の値（マット午後04時26分）以上の価値がある場合、それは神が自分自身に人を描くための手段としての苦しみや痛みの多くをもたらすことが合理的です。 イエスは地球とダイに小麦秋のトウモロコシを除いて、それが単独で残る "と述べた。 それが死んだ場合でも、それは（ヨハネ12:24） "などたくさんの果物をもたらします。 死は、しばしば発生する実りのために必要です。

また、神のより大きな善ではない世界のあらゆる人のために、自身のために、神を愛する人たち（ROM 8時28分）のための具体的であることに留意してください。 時には、より大きな善は、特に彼らの永遠の罰を介して神を賛美され邪悪のために、特定の個人のために悪の原因となります。

より大きな善は悪から来るもの、苦しみ、および/または痛み？

• 神の恵みと正義は、苦しみ（; 5：08、20-21、午前9時17分ロム3:26）を通して表示される場合があります。

• 神は邪悪（;ジョン5時14分マット午後01時35分）を判断するために悪を使用します。

• 悪は後悔（;ルカ13:1-5ツェッヒ13:7-9）に不信心者に衝撃を与える可能性があります。

• 神は人（ヘブル12） 懲らしめの手段としての苦しみを使用します。

• 苦しんでいる人は（2コリント1:4）に苦しむ人を慰めることができます。

私たちが神であることを前提とした場合、完全に、完全に良いように聖書は、私たちが、その後ない我々はその真理の光ですべてを評価することを約束されている必要があります。 クリスチャンは世界の悪事象や物事を観察するとき、彼は一貫して神が存在する悪のために道徳的に正当な理由を持っていることを推測することで、神の固有の良さで信頼すべきことができます。 神は確かに宇宙の悪に圧倒されたり、窮地に立たされていません。 彼はいつでもそれに終止符を打つことができます。 神は道徳的に称賛に値すると良好である理由のために邪悪なイベントを計画している。 彼は、通常、それらの理由が何であるかを明らかにしていません。 しかし、クリスチャンは神が存在する悪のために道徳的に十分な理由を持っていることを信頼する必要があります。 ³

我々は悪がより良いことを達成するために必要であることをここで示唆されていませんが、結果として良いが、それを生成悪よりも大きな意義があるかもしれない。 たとえば、キリストのはりつけの結果は彼が耐えている一時的な苦痛よりもはるかに大きい意義がある。

5. 神は完全に悪を廃止すると約束した。

将来的には、神がそれに値するすべての人を罰し、それに値するすべての人に報いるであろう。 歴史の集大成は、神がすべてに沿って正しいされていることを大いに楽しむでしょう。 私たちはキリストを見たとき、すべての私たちの苦情が沈黙されます。 最後に、悪の問題は解決、そこにされない多くの悪ません。 神はそれ以上の勝利でしょう。 我々はこのような時が来ると信じているなら、それは今日の悪に直面して私たちを強化すべきである。 我々は世界のすべての邪悪にもかかわらず、神を信頼して従う保つことができます。

最終的にこの現在の世界秩序を判定し、最後に持ってきて、神の王国は完全に明らかにして確立されますされます。 彼はすべての涙を拭いされ、痛みや悲しみはなくなります。 悲劇に苦しむ人々に来る我々がその救済を祈り続けるべきであるにもかかわらず、私たちは明らかに報われない祈りに心を失うことはありませんしましょう。 代わりに、私たちは祈りましょう"御国が来て、それが天にあるように、あなたは地球上で行われます。"我々が最初に信じたときに私たちの救いは近づいて今よりもです。 ⁴

6. 悪は悪とは必ずしも同義ではありません。

神は、神聖な、正しい、良いです。 彼は属性が矛盾することは不可能です。 時には、神は罪深い男の罪深い行動を使用していますが、したがって、彼は罪の有罪になることはありません。 さらに、時には人々が "悪"と考えるどんな道徳的なコンテンツを持っていないため、実際には邪悪ではありません。 神は彼自身の娯楽のために人々を苦しめるの罪を犯した場合、または神の行動は何とかよこしまであったならば、我々は罪で彼を充電で正確でしょう。 しかし、多くの世界で発生した苦しみと痛みのは、道徳的な意味での悪ではありません。 言い換えれば、苦しみと痛みは必ずしも罪や悪と関連付けられていません。 たとえば、自然災害（竜巻、地震、飢饉など）で、人々はしばしば大きな苦しみ、痛みと死を経験。 まだ神を可能にするためにそのような自然災害に関連付けられている苦しみは悪か邪悪ではありません。 苦しみは本物ですが、神はこのような災害を送信するための罪で起訴することはできません。

7. 悪への神の関係は謎です。

最終的な分析では、我々は神の無限の知恵は私達の理解を超えていると結論しなければなりません。 我々が知っておく必要があるすべては、すべて地球の主はすべてのものが私たちの良い、神の栄光（ROM 8：28）のために一緒に働く権利とそれを行うということです。

悪の問題は簡単にそれを解決するために私たちの試みに屈しない厄介なものであるが、宇宙の悪の存在は誰もがキリスト教を拒否する原因となるべきではありません。 クリスチャン生活の一部にも苦しみと痛みの存在下で、神が聖なる、良いだけ、と全能であることを信頼し、信仰によって歩いている。 彼は、しばしば悪抑えるないことができます。 まだ彼はまた彼自身の属性と矛盾することなく、彼自身の目的のために悪を使用しています。 苦しみと苦難の時代に揺れることなく、神への信仰を保持するとキリスト教の成熟度のマークです。

結論：我々は悪の問題に対する簡単なソリューションは存在しないことを認めなければならない。 聖書は、単に同様に我々は希望として、この問題を説明していません。 聖書は、神がちょうど良いと正義、慈悲深いとの両方であることは明らかである。 彼は彼の属性に違反することはありません。 彼は邪悪使用しますが、罪で起訴することはできません。 信者は、神は彼が何をしているか知っていることを信頼し、すべてのものは確かに神を愛する人のための利益のために一緒にいないこと、信仰によって歩いている必要があります。

ディスカッション：

1. それは、神が苦しみや痛みをもたらした理由に疑問を今まで間違っていますか？ 私たちは不義で、または私達は神が自身を説明することを要求するなら、神を充電するならば、それは罪深いになることができます。

2. ジョブの罪何でしたか？ 神は彼に彼の状況の説明を負っていることを考える。

3. より良い防御を説明します。 神はより大きな善をもたらすために"悪"を使用することができます。 悲劇は、しばしば良い結果をもたらします。

4. なぜ無神論者は、邪悪な文句を言う権利を持っていないのですか？ 彼らの世界観では、それは道徳的な判断を下すことは不可能だからです。 彼らは、倫理的な判断の根拠がない。 さらに、 "ほとんどの人にとって最も幸福"は"良い"定義することはできません。 "幸福"とは何ですか？ 無神論者は何すべきかになるべきではないかを判断する方法がありません。

1 常に準備ができてBahnsen、P。 163。

2フレーム集、pp。178から79。

3 常に準備ができて Bahnsen、P。 172。

4エリック·フランクは、 "なぜ神は何も行いません... 今 ？" 誌 、volをWRS。 3第1号（冬1996）。

レッスン7：悪の問題、パート1

問題に弱い"ソリューション"

我々はすでに、聖書とキリスト教の最も一般的な批判の多くは精査の下に立っていないことを見てきました。 しかし、もう少し実質的かつ厄介ないくつかの批判があります。 我々は1つ今日、悪の問題を見て、世界で苦しみます。 ある学者は、この問題、 "不信心者は、キリスト教に対して提起されていることを異議[の]最も深刻と説得力"と呼んでいます。 ¹ RC Sproulは述べ、同意し、 "問題[悪の]は深刻なものと私は十分な解決策を持たないものの一つです。 。 私はどのように悪が良い神に由来することができるか分からない。 私はそれに困惑し、それは私には面倒な謎のまましています。 " ²無神論学者は有神論の完全な反論を提供し、悪の存在は、神への信仰に対する最強の引数であると主張している。 したがって、悪の問題は確かに面倒なものでなければなりません。

この問題は、さまざまな方法で記述することができます：神は全能であれば、彼は悪を防ぐことができる。 彼は良好であった場合、彼は悪防ぐことができます。 しかし、悪があります。 だから、神は、強力な、または良くない、あるいはどちらも良くも強力ではありません。 または多分に神はありません。

ほとんどの人々が大きな苦しみ、損失や痛みを経験している、とさえ信者は、このような悪が自分たちの生活に入った理由を理解することを望んで、その時点で神に叫ぶ。 "なぜ、主は？"苦しんでほぼ普遍的な応答である。 一見不当な苦しみや痛みは容易に良い、全能​​の神のアイデアと和解されていません。 "ちょうど" "神"のギリシャ語から来ているとどのように神が許可したり、悪の原因となり、まだ正しいことができますこの問題を議論すると、 神義論である場合の神学者が使用する単語、？ どのように神の存在は、悪の存在と調和することができますか？ それが問題なのです。 ³

どのように信者たちはこの問題にアプローチするべきか？ 合理的、聖書の防衛はありますか？ キリスト教の擁護者は、いくつかの応答を構築した。 しかし、今日我々が検討してみましょうそれらはすべて弱いと不満足である。 彼らはキリスト教では一般的であるので、我々はこれらを見てみましょう。 私たちは、批評家や懐疑論者との取引では、これらのアプローチを避ける必要があります。

1. 神は邪悪なことができているので、その上にtriumphingで、神が地球全体に彼のパワーと名前が表示されます。

ファラオに至る聖書言われるためにローマ9:17、であっても、この同じ目的のために私はあなたに私の力を示すかもしれない、あなたを起こしており、私の名前は、すべて地球全体に宣言されるかもしれない。

この詩は彼が彼を倒すには、彼のパワーを表示することがありますように、神は悪の支配者を調達していることを意味します。 これは完全に悪い答えではありませんが、それは実際に上記の提起異議に答えていません。 それは問題をサイドステップ。 問題がまだ残っています：なぜ悪は神の力と栄光を表示するために必要ですか？ 多くの悪がファラオの場合と違って、処罰を受けて行く。 どのように、その悪は罰を免れるように見える場合は特に、神の力を邪悪な表示ですか？ 神の力はファラオのケースではなく、一見、すべてのケースで明らかになった。

2. 悪はただの幻想です。 あなたが正しい態度を持っている場合、それはあなたに害を与えることはできません。

特定の東洋の宗教（例えば仏教）とカルト（例えば、クリスチャン·サイエンス）の信者はこの教義を信じて告白する。 あなたは悪を信じていない場合は、何も悪が発生する可能性があります。 一部のキリスト教徒はまた悪が独立して存在する何よりも良いの欠如以上であることを示唆している。

しかし、悪は本当に存在しています。 唯一の盲目の愚か者は、痛みや苦しみは本物ではないと信じています。 悪はただの幻想である場合、それは非常に強力な一つです。 誰かが簡単に "神は痛みと苦しみのような恐ろしい錯覚される可能性がありますか？"それは悪で存在することができないこと自体、それが良好であることの腐敗に依存するがtrueの場合、言うことができます。 それにもかかわらず、悪は現実と強力です。 それを否定する不合理です。

3. 神はすべての悪を克服することはできません 。

1981年にラビ·ハロルド·クシュナーは、 悪いことがグッド·ピープルに発生したときに権利が人気の本を書いた。 悪の彼の説明は、神は彼ができる最善を尽くしますが、彼 ​​はいくつかのケースでは悪を防ぐことができないということでした。 神は彼ら自身の自由選択の結果に苦しむ人々に来るとき、特に良好であり、彼はできる限りのことをやっているが、時には彼の手は縛られています。

クシュナーは、神の善良さを維持したいが、彼は神の全能、全知、そして主権を犠牲にしてそれを行います。 聖書は繰り返し、神が良いと全能の両方であることを教示している。 一つは、神ご自身を否定することなく、神の属性のいずれかを否定することはできません。 弱い神はこの問題に対する解決策はありません。 クシュナーは不合理である彼自身の創造への服従である弱虫 "神"を発表。 このような弱いと "神、"悪はこれまで克服されることは確実ではありません。 おそらくその場合には悪に対する善のない永遠の勝利はありません。

4. 神は、 可能な限り最高の世界を作成しました。

いくつかの哲学者は神が良好であるため、と主張してきた、と彼は世界にそれがある方法を作成し、それが最善の可能世界でなければなりません。 それが良いされていることができれば、神はそれが良いていただろう。 それが良いではないという事実は、それが可能性として良いことだということを意味しな​​ければなりません。 特定の弊害は、特定の良い目的を達成するために必要です。 たとえば、それは苦しむ人々への思いやりを表示するには良いなので、悪は慈悲の利益のためにできるようにする必要があります。 それは世界に存在するいくつかの悪のために論理的に必要だ。

世界は（ゲン1:31）良い作成されたではなく、おそらくそれはされている可能性が良いように。 創造には何も神ご自身、良いの究極の標準のレベルに上昇しません。 創造は神のように "良好"とすることはできません。 神は完璧ですが、彼は不完全を作成することができます。 アダムは、不完全な彼は一人であった神が造られたすべての動物の間には仲間が見つかりませんでした。 アダムと悪魔の両方が良い作成されますが、罪のための能力とされました。 神は良い目的のために悪使用することができますが、それは悪が本当に良いの目的を達成する必要がないことを妥当に思えます。 悪が存在しなかった場合、はるかに良い存在するであろう。 ⁴

5. 神は、男性が自分の自由な選択を行うことができます。

これは、今日最も一般的な防御策の一つです。 悪は人間、アダムの自由選択によってもたらされました。 その選択はない方法あらかじめ定めであったか、神によって制御されます。 神は良好であり、人々が良い行いたいが、人々が行った選択で任意影響力を行使していません。 選択が行われると、人々はその決定から発生したすべての結果と一緒に暮らす必要があります。 これらの結果は悪かもしれません。 神は、それが悪だか、苦しんで作成した場合でも、私たちがやりたいことができます。 彼が階段を落ちてから私たちを防ぐために、重力の法則を中断していません。 それが我々の親指をヒットしようとしてだとき、彼は奇跡的にハンマーをリダイレクトしません。 私たちの選択肢は他の人に苦しみや痛みを拡張する場合、それはあまりにも残念だ。

聖書は、人間が自由度を持っていません教えています。 彼は、彼らが聖なるまたは邪悪であるかどうか、彼の内面の欲望に従って動作します。 男は状況の無力な被害者ではありません。 遺伝学と背景が自分の人生の結果を決定するわけではありません。 だから男は確かにある程度までは無料です。

しかし、聖書は、神だけでは真に自由であることを教示している。 神は無料です。男は彼の自由が制限されています。 さらに、神は人間の "自由"の選択肢に影響を与えるかforeordainingの完全に可能です。 聖書は頻繁に神の決定の男の選択肢（; 2サム24:1、箴言16時09分、ルカ24:45;行為2時23分、4:27-28定義を考えてのGen 50:20）話す。 でも、救いの問題で、パウロは神がsovereignly男の選択肢（ROM 9:11-15）を制御していると主張している。 邪悪な人々の邪悪な選択肢は、神の計画の妨げにならない。 時には、実際には、神は彼の計画を促進するような男性とその選択肢を使用しています。 この完璧な例では、イエス·キリストのはりつけです。

6. 神は苦しみを通じてキャラクターを作成します 。

この引数は、神が悪と精神的な成熟の状態に人間をもたらすために苦しんで使用されますことを示唆している。 表現 "痛みなし、得るものなし"は精神的な意味で真である。 苦しみは私たちがそうでなければ学べないという重要な教訓を教えています。

我々は、一般的に愛する人が苦しんでいるときにこの説明を聞いて、それがその痛みを知って慰めていると、いくつかの有意義な使用の可能性があります。 聖書は、その痛みが（;ジェームズ1:2-4例えば、ROM 5:3-5）文字を構築することができます教えています。 でも、父親の規律が成熟過程に役立ちます。

信者の成長をもたらした悪のすべてのケースの場合、おそらく、この防御は、より許容できるでしょう。 しかし、ほとんどのケースでは、悪は誰にも助けにはなりません。 人々同様にキリスト教徒と異教徒、世界中には、苦しみ、そこから何を学ぶことはありません。 悪は、多くの場合、無意味なランダム、不合理であると思われる。 また、信者のための成熟度は苦しみ以外の手段を介して開発することができます。 苦しみは、絶対に場所を取るための成長には必要ありません。 さらに、キリスト教の成熟のための究極の原因は、神の恵みではなく、悪の存在である。

7. 神は罪のために直接の責任を負いません。

神は主権であるため、1つはすべての罪と悪が本当に神のせいであると主張する可能性があります。 それは防衛アダムとイブは神を試みている。 しかし、聖書は、神が罪に誰を誘惑しないことを教示している。 蛇ではなく、神はイブを誘惑した。 神は間接的にのみので、すべての物事の究極的な原因ですが、。 二次的な原因は、悪に責任が実際にある。

この "神の許可"方式では、神が何らかの形で悪を行っているものを制御するから離れて悪を制御することを示唆している。 神の影響を受けません神は、受注状況を、彼自身の選択の力に生き物を残し、。

この防御は、単に離れて、神からの非難つのステップをシフトします。 それは法律に彼自身を壊しませんが、コマンドは、彼の子分がこれを行うにはマフィアのボスに神になります。 聖書は、罪に誰かを誘導する（;プロブ1時10 DEUT 13：06 F）は罪であることを私達に警告します。 誰かを殺害するヒット男を雇う人は殺人のために等しく責任があります。 究極の原因は本当に神に落ちるから非難を防ぐことはできませんのではなく、したがって、二次的原因を非難しています。

8. 神は律法の外にある（ 元レックス ）

神は男性のための規定の法律に従う必要はありません。 人間の道徳は神には適用されません。 たとえば、彼は殺人の罪を犯してなくても命を取ることができます。 彼はそれが聖書に矛盾する場合であっても、彼自身の目的に合った何かを行うことができます。

聖書と道徳の法則のいくつかは、神には適用されませんので、いくつかの真実が、このアプローチである。 たとえば、神がないと殺人の罪ではありませんまだ、命を奪うことができます。 彼はクリエイターであり、彼は創造を使って好きな権利を有する。

しかし、神の律法は神の性格を反映しています。 神聖、正義と神の善良さは彼の性格の一部であり、神は、そのような属性に違反することはできない。 神は、大部分は、彼が男性に与えた法律を尊重しません。 神は聖書の規格に従って動作します。 それゆえ、神は不当に人を苦しめることはできません、まだ罪を犯しません。 不義は罪はそれを有罪であるにかかわらずではありません。

9. 我々は理由悪との一時的な地上の経験天国より感謝します。

悪の結果に耐えなくても、信者はそれらなしでは生きてどのように素晴らしい知ることはできません。 信者たちは、苦しみと痛みの彼らの地上の生活を振り返り、より良い天国の生活は悪の存在なしでどの程度実現できるようになりますので、天国の喜びを高めることがあります。 本当に天国の至福を享受するために、信者は悪で苦しむことになった。

再び、そこにこのアイデアにはいくつかの真実があるが、悪天の至福を体験することが必要である理由、それは説明しません。 アダムとイブは、以下の完全に満足して秋の前に庭ででしたか？ 彼らは本当に悪が導入される前に彼らが持っていたものに感謝するために罪とその結果を経験しなければならなかったのか？ 同様に、天国の至福の一つの経験は、彼はまた、悪の痛みを経験することを要求していないようです。 神は悪の以前の経験のない天国の喜びが完了することができませんでした？ 悪が根絶されますが、悪天に感謝するために必要であるという考えは満たしていないため、疑いの信者は天に感謝しません。

10. 悪の存在は、不信者のために意味がありません。 ⁵

信者は約邪悪言う聖書の説明さえあれば彼らは霊的真理を把握することはできませんので、保存されていないがそれを理解できません。 神が存在することを否定する人は良いの絶対的基準がなければ、悪が存在することはできませんので、悪の存在について不満のために根拠がない。 に神が存在しない場合は、道徳は不可能です。

それは不信者の注意にこれを持っておくと便利です。 信者は、神なしに、苦しみには意味や目的を持っていないことを指摘することができます。 それはただ運が悪いです。 さらに、無神論者は、善と悪の両方を説明する付加価値の問題があり、神なしでは生活が有意義である方法について説明します。 彼は信者であるよりもはるかにたちの悪い難問である。

この応答は、いくつかのメリットがありますが、それが直接問題を解決することはありません。 これは単に、彼がどこから来た悪を考え出すよりも大きな問題を持っている不信心者に指示します。 これは、単に問題を議論する拒否です。 それだけでは問題から離れて引数をシフトします。

結論：多分貴重な、しかしそれらのどれもこれらの応答の一部は、悪の問題を離れて説明します。 最終的に、それらはすべて何らかの形で不十分証明しています。 それらのほとんどは神の属性を犠牲にして問題を解決しようとします。 批評家や懐疑論者との取引では、これらのアプローチを使用するときに我々は非常に慎重でなければなりません。

あなたが見ることができるように、悪の問題は確かに素晴らしいものです。 しかし、それは乗り越えられないではありません。 適切な対応の鍵は、聖書の啓示へのコミットメントです。 我々は次のレッスンで見るように聖書は、問題への答えを持っています。

ディスカッション：

1. 悪の問題を記述するために使用される神学的な言葉は？ 神義論

2. それは簡単に離れて説明していないので）2。なぜ神はこのような時代であるほとんどの人は邪悪な、多くの不思議を体験しているので 、これは、1）そのような深刻な問題である。

3. どのように悪はただの幻想ではないことを誰かに証明することができた鼻の中に彼をパンチ;病院や墓地に彼を取る。

4. なぜラビクシュナーの説明はとても満足できるものではない？ それは彼の力の神を奪うため。 それは神の聖書のビューを拒否します。

5. なぜ無神論はキリスト教より悪を説明する大きな問題がありますか？ 彼は悪を定義する方法はありませんので。 神は存在しない限り、善と悪は意味がありません。

1フレームは 、 神の栄光への弁証は、p。 149。 このレッスンのほとんどは、フレームに従います。

2 と信じる理由は、p。 126。

3悪の問題は、弁証に適用する方法の現実的な例については、Bahnsenとシュタインとの間の議論の部分をお読みください。 議論のコピーがhttp://www.popchapel.com/Resources/Bahnsen/GreatDebateでご利用いただけます。 スタインは彼らにこれらの引数のいくつかとBahnsen応答をもたらします。

4有名な懐疑的なヴォルテールは完璧な世界のアプローチの愚かさを示す新たなキャンディーを書きました。

5このアイデアは非常に良い検査については、Bahnsen、 常に準備ができて 、169から170頁を参照してください。

パートII：キリスト教への批判の弱み

レッスン6：一般的な批判

我々は既に、聖書のテキスト（レッスン2）の信頼性を支持する証拠を調べました。 私たちは、聖書は歴史的に、検証可能な正確かつ信頼できるものであることがわかった。 1聖書の歴史的、考古学的、または原稿の証拠を調べているかどうか、彼は聖書の主張を信用することはほとんどあります。 実際にそのような検査は、聖書に大きな信頼性を貸す。

しかし、聖書の多くの批評家が残っています。 今日のレッスンでは、我々は聖書のいくつかの典型的な批判を調べることでしょう、我々は、ほとんどの批判が物質を欠いていることがわかります。

聖書と自分の弱点の一般的な批判

1. 聖書は、 神話や伝説 、古い妻の物語でいっぱいです。

This criticism is brought up because of the Bible's many miracle stories. Such accounts, to the modern mind, are surely mythical and not factual. Miracles like those described in the Bible just don't happen. We see no evidence of them happening today. Further, some Bible stories, like Noah's ark and the flood, are very similar to the fables from other cultures. The stories in the Bible are of the same mythical quality.

Liberals and others who deny the Bible would agree with the above criticism, but suggest that it's not important whether the stories are actually true. The point or moral of the story is what's important. But those who uphold the validity of Scripture deny such a suggestion. There are several reasons to believe that the miraculous stories of the Bible are true, not mere mythical fiction:

• If God exists, it is not irrational to reason that He might occasionally intervene in various ways and upset the normal flow of events. Those who deny the existence of God obviously would also deny miracles. But if God exists, miracles are not out of the question.

• Biblical accounts are usually sober and restrained rather than frivolous and bizarre. If one compares the fables and myths from other sources with biblical stories, he will notice a marked contrast . Biblical stories don't sound like typical myths and legends. We see no half-man, half-beast creatures, no worlds supported on tortoise's backs, or individuals springing from the head of Zeus or the like in the biblical record.

• The biblical writers come from a tradition with a solid commitment to truth . The authors of the Bible are men of profound ethical integrity who were willing to die for the truth of their claims. One would expect the truth from them. It makes no sense to suggest that accurate historians would include myths and legends in their otherwise factual accounts.

• The fact that certain biblical stories share similar themes with mythical stories should not surprise us. For example, if the flood really happened, it's not irrational to suppose that we would find evidence of it in the stories of pagan cultures.

• Christianity is not irrational or absurd. Christians do not believe in things that are patently untrue, mythical or legendary.

Note the Quote: Christian faith does not aim to affirm what is absurd, reveling in irrationality. Such a thought misconstrues the nature of faith as it is presented by the Bible. The Christian notion of faith—unlike most other religions—is not an arbitrary leap of emotion, a blind stab of commitment, a placing of the intellect on hold. For the Christian, faith (or belief) is well-grounded. ¹

2. 科学は真実であることが聖書を実証しています。

二百年前、西洋文化ではほとんどの人は実際のイベントの正確な記録であることが聖書を信じていた。 しかし、今日、啓蒙や思考の主な方法として合理主義と自然主義の台頭した後、ほとんどの西洋人は、聖書を拒否している。 科学技術は神の神秘的な方法として考えられていたほとんどの現象を説明することができました。 私たちはもはや物事が起こる理​​由を説明するために神を必要としません。 聖書は、現代科学の確実な結果と同期していない現実の景色を教えています。

• 科学は反復とテストによって仮説を検証するための能力に依存します。 聖書に記載されたイベントは、非再現性テスト不可能です。 彼らは歴史ではなく、科学の対象となります。 生物学者や古生物学者はあなたのことが生じたのかについての彼のアイデアを与えるかもしれませんが、彼は物事が実際に起こったか言うことは不可能です。 彼はそれらを観察するために周りになかったので、彼は本当に知りません。

• The Scripture describes things as they appear to the naked eye, how they appear on the surface to the casual observer. The Bible is not a science textbook. This is not to suggest that the Bible is inaccurate, but simply that one should not impose modern scientific standards upon the Bible. For example, we know that the sun does not really rise or set. The use of such language does not invalidate the Bible's claims.

• The “assured results of modern science” are not so assured as we are led to believe. Every so often, science experiences a major upheaval which throws out the old ideas and replaces them with new ones. Today there are many scientists who disavow traditional scientific naturalism. Even the venerable theory of Darwinian evolution is not without a significant number of critics within the scientific community.

• Science tells us that miracles simply don't happen. One cannot break the laws of nature. However, such an argument assumes that God does not exist, or that if He does exist, He is unable or unwilling to intervene in nature and suspend the natural order of things. But if God exists, it is not unreasonable to suppose that He could occasionally interrupt natural laws.

• Science may claim to have the answer for everything, but it clearly does not. One of science's major problems is explaining how mindless forces give rise to minds, knowledge, sound reasoning, and moral principles. Further, science cannot tell us how matter arose from nothing, why the big bang (supposedly) happened, or why life is meaningful if random forces are really in control. Science also can say nothing in regard to morality, decency and virtue. A world governed by pure naturalism would be a savage, inhuman place indeed.

3. The Bible is full of contradictions .

Skeptics and critics commonly assert that the Bible is full of contradictions. Not just a few, but hundreds, even thousands. Lengthy books have been written detailing the supposed contradictions in the Bible. In a normal storybook, contradictions wouldn't make much difference. But when a book claims to be inspired and inerrant, the very words of God, contradictions, if genuine, would present a major problem. We would expect there to be no contradictions and no mistakes in God's Word.

How should we respond to this accusation?

• We must from the outset admit that there are a few apparent contradictions and problems that have not yet been satisfactorily resolved. But such are few and far between. To say that the Bible is “full” of contradictions is a serious overstatement.

• Most critics use the word “contradiction” very loosely . Two accounts that seem not to correspond are not necessarily contradictory. A genuine contradiction must assert that something is true and false at the same time and in the same respect. ² For example, the Bible commands, “Thou shalt not kill.” Yet God tells the Israelites to kill the Canaanites and others. The Bible even supports capital punishment, the killing of a guilty criminal. Is this a contradiction? No, because the Fifth Commandment deals with murder, not the killing associated with warfare or capital punishment. The word “kill” is used in a different sense. No genuine contradiction exists here.

• Some supposed contradictions result from two or more different perspectives on events, such as the varying accounts in the Gospels. For example, one writer mentions only one angel at Jesus' tomb while another writer says there were two. There is no contradiction here. Had the first writer said that there was only one, then a genuine contradiction would exist. But he doesn't say that.

• Some supposed contradictions arise from a copyist’s error. Because the Bible was copied by hand for many years before the printing press, it was inevitable that small typographic errors crept into the text. By comparing texts, scholars are able to weed out these mistakes most of the time. Some of the apparent contradictions are likely due to an error of this sort. Such errors are not true contradictions.

• 時間が経つにつれて、聖書の中で優れた不一致の問題は小さくなる。 学者は写本を研究し、中東の周りを掘るように、これらの問題は試験を閉じるには、収量やソリューションが発生します。 そのような過去に何度も起こったし、今日起こることを続けています。 少ない理由は、聖書は教会の歴史の中でいつでもその矛盾に満ちていると信じて今日があります。 ³

4. 我々はもともと書かれたものを確認することはできませんように聖書の写本（MSS）は、長年にわたって破損して変更されています。

The OT was written primarily in Hebrew and the NT in Greek. We have no original MSS, only copies of copies. Sometimes these copies are quite far removed from the time of original writing. Thus, critics assert that many scribal errors and mistaken readings have made the text of the Bible unreliable.

The critics are simply wrong in their contention that scribal errors and multiple copies over many centuries render the text unreliable. Scribes were fully capable of making very accurate copies of manuscripts, and the copying process has not degraded the text to the point that it is no longer trustworthy.

See the two articles on the subject in the Additional Material. Also available at http://www.lbcantigo.org/resources.htm

5. The Bible is full of historical errors.

As we saw in Lesson Two, there is good reason to believe that history as presented in the Bible is accurate and trustworthy. Archaeological discoveries have supported the sequence of events as reported in the Bible. Many of the supposed errors reported in the Bible have proven to be accurate historical accounts. The Christian has nothing to fear from rigorous historical research.

6. Some parts of the Bible are offensive to modern, secular “values.”

There are many statements in the Bible that people find offensive. A God who pours out His wrath upon sinners is simply unacceptable to the modern mind. God should be loving and forgiving, not strict and “terrible” as the Bible makes Him out to be, especially in the OT. Further, it would be narrow-minded and downright mean if God allowed only one way of salvation. For God to prohibit the majority of the people in the world from being saved is reprehensible to our pluralistic culture. God ought to at least give them a chance to be saved. Also, God surely could not have meant for the Israelites to kill all those innocent people when they conquered the Promised Land. And the whole idea of eternal punishment in hell is certainly not acceptable.

All such sentiments are the result of both misunderstanding God and substituting worldly, human “wisdom” for biblical thinking.

• God is the creator; Man is the creature. The ways of God are not subject to the uninformed judgements of sinful man. God is under no obligation to explain His reasoning to man. Man is in no position to judge God.

• God's ways are often unsearchable and beyond man's intellectual grasp (Rom 11:33f). The fact that man cannot understand God's ways should not surprise anyone.

• God and His Word give us the standard by which we judge the morality of any act. There is no higher standard independent of God. God doesn't have to measure up to what unsaved people think is right.

• All sinners rightfully deserve God's wrath and judgement. It is purely an act of mercy and grace that God chooses to spare believers. The fact that God presents people with a means of salvation is a clear display of His lovingkindness.

• The people the Israelites killed when they conquered the Promised Land were by no means innocent. Their cultures were exceedingly inhumane. The Israelites spared many of the Canaanites, who in turn became a major stumbling block for them.

• Eternal punishment is the reasonable and just reward for those who have offended a holy God. If there's a heaven, there must surely be a hell.

7. Christianity, like all religion, is man-made .

Karl Marx, one of the founders of communism, is famous for his statement alleging that “religion is the opiate [ie, drug] of the masses.” He asserted that the rich use religion to exploit the poor and keep them from rebellion. Because it emphasizes virtues such as industry, service, humility and obedience, religion keeps workers in line, thus protecting the interests of the rich minority. Religion promises the oppressed “pie in the sky bye and bye,” milk and honey and streets of gold for those who behave themselves in this life. Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, suggested that man created religion to help him deal with the problems of life. Uncontrollable forces surround man, and religion helps people deal with things they can't understand. According the Freud, religion owes its origin to psychological needs rather than the actual existence of God. People want gods to exist, so they invented them.

Scholars teach us that monotheism evolved from animism (the belief that spirits inhabit all things) and pantheism (the belief in many gods). Ancient people attributed human characteristics to the forces of nature, which led to the belief that spirits inhabited physical things. This led to the belief that many gods existed. Eventually, someone suggested that his god was better than all the rest, and this led to monotheism. Religion evolved just like many other aspects of life.

How should Christians respond to such criticism?

• Christianity does not somehow drug believers into a mindless stupor. As we've already seen, Christianity emphasizes logical, reasonable thought. It's not a blind faith or a leap into the dark.

• The fact that religion meets a psychological need in people does not imply that religion is the result of such a need. While faith does help people psychologically, that is not its primary goal.

• Although Christianity teaches a blessed future existence, it also teaches the necessity of justice and fairness in this life. Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles were very critical of powerful, rich people who were oppressing the poor.

• If man had invented God, he certainly would not have invented the One whom the Scriptures reveal. A man-made god would be much more human-like, less wrathful, less judgmental, and far easier to please than the biblical God. Attributes such as holiness, omniscience, sovereignty, omnipotence, and immutability actually make God more of a threat to man than a “crutch.”

• There is no archaeological or historical evidence suggesting that monotheism evolved from any other religious practice. A fully-formed monotheism is evident from the very beginnings of Judaism.

8. The church is full of hypocrites .

A hypocrite is a play-actor, one who lives a lie. Our culture has had its fill of liars and frauds in positions of authority. The government, education, the military and even organized religion have provided us with many examples of people who say one thing but do another. Critics loudly declare that the church is filled with such people.

We must admit that the church is full of sinners . In fact, the church is one organization that requires its members to admit that they are sinners. But “sin” is not necessarily synonymous with “hypocrisy.” In one sense, the church has fewer hypocrites than other organizations because church members admit their sinfulness. They don't claim to be perfect. Even pastors and other leaders, those who should be the least guilty of hypocrisy, are not perfect. Everyone falls short of the glory of God, including mature believers. One should not expect perfection from anyone. For a pastor to preach a higher level of holiness than he himself has achieved is not hypocrisy. In order to proclaim the whole counsel of God, preachers must exhort people to do what they may fail to do. But such is not hypocrisy.

There is a sense in which all people are somewhat hypocritical. They present an image to the public that is not a true reflection of themselves. However, the assertion that the church is “full” of hypocrites is an inaccurate exaggeration. Every church has a few in it, but there are many good churches “full” of sincere believers who are actively seeking to life holy lives as well. The fact that church members have not achieved perfection does not imply that they are hypocrites. Further, even if it is true that churches are full of hypocrites, that fact should not prevent a sincere seeker of God from participation at church. One should not allow the shortcomings of others to hinder his own spiritual development.

Christians are fortunate in that their Lord was no hypocrite. Jesus is the perfect example for believers to follow. Rather than looking at the failures of believers, critics ought to examine the life of Christ. Christianity must be judged, not on the basis of the lives of Christians, but on the life of Christ. He was no hypocrite.

9. Christianity is a crutch for weak people.

People often state that they feel no need for religion. Everything is running smoothly in their lives without it. Perhaps those who are psychologically weak find it helps them feel better, but well-balanced, educated people don't need it. Such people are indifferent to Christianity—they never think about it and never sense a need for it. Further, some suggest that the virtues that Christianity produces, such as integrity, industry, and kindness, need not be rooted in faith at all. People are basically good, and one need not religious to be virtuous. Given the right set of circumstances, people are fully capable of virtuous living without the threats and rewards of religion.

However, one's sense of need for a certain thing, or a lack of need for it, does not validate or invalidate that thing. Christianity is not based on how people feel about it. God's existence is not determined by whether or not anyone believes in Him. For someone to allege that Christianity is invalid simply because he does not find it personally necessary is the height of arrogance.

Man is not basically good ; he is basically evil . The unsaved person is dead in trespasses and sin, unable and unwilling to please God. Man may reform himself by “turning over a new leaf,” but he cannot redeem himself or restore his relationship to God by self-effort. Man is a fallen creature in need of grace.

Man does need to be religious in a sense. He needs that genuine religion which fully depends upon God's grace. Repentance from sin and faith in Christ are not unnecessary options with God. Christianity is not a crutch; it's the solution to man's primary problem, a problem he cannot solve by himself.

10. Christianity is just one of many legitimate religions.

Our pluralistic society tells us that Christianity is just one option among many. If it “works” for you, then fine. People have the right to believe whatever they want. All religions are equally valid. In fact, all religions are simply different ways of accomplishing the same thing. All religions are basically true even if they differ on the details. One should focus on the similarities instead of the differences. Each religion is like a separate road up a mountain—they all lead to the same place even if they seem to be going in different directions at times. No single religion has all truth locked up within itself. One should not make narrow, exclusive claims for his own faith or criticize the faith of others. God is not so narrow-minded that he provides only one way of salvation.

The problem with such a view is that Christianity is in clear contradiction with other faiths. If what Christianity alleges to be true is indeed true, then all other faiths that contradict it are false. Christ makes many exclusive claims for Himself and His way of salvation (eg, John 14:6; Acts 4:12). If He's right, then all contradictory faiths are invalid.

We've already learned that two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect. So it is with Christianity and other faiths—they cannot all be true. They could all be false, or one true and the others false, but they can't all be true because they contradict each other on many points. One could simply ignore these contradictions, suggesting that they are mere nonessential, minor details, stripping Christianity of its distinctives and watering down its doctrines, but it could no more be called Christianity. To contend that Christianity does not really contradict other religions is to descend into irrationalism. While irrationality is not a problem for some faiths, it definitely is for Christianity. Thus, it's impossible to hold that Christianity and other faiths are equally valid. Such cannot be the case.

If God does not exist, and if all religions are simply man-made traditions, then all religions would indeed be equal—equally empty and futile. But if God exists and if man is able to enter into a positive relationship with Him, there must be appropriate and inappropriate ways to approach Him. Christianity asserts that it is the one and only way to God. Thus, all other ways are invalid.

Conclusion: Christianity has plenty of critics. But many of the criticisms leveled against our faith are quite weak, unreasonable, and empty. Believers must be ready to give an answer to criticisms whenever they have the opportunity.

Discussion:

1. Why is it reasonable that we find similar themes in the Bible and in mythology? 1. In some cases, the Bible and mythology are treating the same event, eg, the flood; 2. Both the Bible and mythology deal with similar issues, eg, life, death, families, tragedy, etc.

2. Why can't science prove that a historical event happened? Science cannot prove history. Science proves things thru observation and replication. History is not the object of science. Historians can gather evidence that a certain thing happened, and they can do so in a scientific way. But the best they can do is to give an educated guess as to what happened.

3. Define a genuine contradiction. You must have two statements that cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Both a and –a must be alleged to be true.

4. Why is it impossible for both Christianity and Islam or Buddhism to be equally valid? Because of the law of non-contradiction. Contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. These religions contradict each other at many points.

1 Greg Bahnsen, “The Problem of Evil” in Always Ready (Covenant Media Press, 1996), p. 196。

2 The Law of Non-Contradiction states “not both A and – A at the same time and in the same sense.” In other words, a statement and its opposite cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect. A genuine contradiction exists only when two statements are both alleged to be true when they cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense.

3 Sproul, Reason to Believe , p. 26。

Lesson 5: The Trinity

The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the great fundamental doctrines of Christianity. Belief or disbelief in the Trinity marks orthodoxy from unorthodoxy. Human reason alone cannot fathom the Trinity, nor can logic explain it fully. ¹ Probably a more descriptive term would be Tri-unity, which suggests the three-in-oneness of God better than the word Trinity. God is trinal, not triple; three in one, not three-parted. [There is no good natural analogy to God's nature—not eggs, 3 states of matter, etc.)

A definition of the Trinity must include the distinctness and equality of the three Persons within the Trinity as well as the unity within the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity asserts that one God exists indivisibly and eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is three persons in one essence . The divine nature subsists in three distinctions—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. ² All three Persons possess the divine attributes, yet the essence of God is undivided. The Persons do not exist or act independently of one another.

One of the great criticisms of the doctrine of the Trinity is that the word is not found in the Bible. Further, there is no uncontested, clear statement of the Trinity in one particular passage in the Bible. Nevertheless, the biblical evidence strongly supports the doctrine.

1. Hints of the Trinity in the Old Testament.

While there is no clear statement of the Trinity in the OT, there is some evidence of it. The OT allows for and implies the existence of the Trinity.

1. Suggestions of plurality in the Godhead

   1. Gen 1:1 God ( Elohim ) is a plural noun.

   2. Gen 1:26 “Let us make man in our image.” Cf also Gen 3:22.

   3. Ps 110:1 God's name is applied to more than one person in the same text.

2. Suggestions of three persons

   1. Isa 48:16 “The Lord God, and his Spirit hath sent me”

   2. Isa 61:1 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me.”

3. The Angel of the Lord

In Ex 3:1-5, the Angel of the Lord is equated with God and worshipped as God. Most likely, this was a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ.

While the OT by itself does not furnish a sufficient basis for the doctrine of the Trinity, it does contain certain suggestions that are consistent with it. It is highly doubtful that OT saints held any true Trinitarian ideas. The OT stressed the unity of God (Deut 6:4-5), and OT saints were strict monotheists. The revelation concerning God the Son and God the Holy Spirit had to await the historical appearance of Christ and the works of the Holy Spirit.

2. New Testament proof of the Tri-Unity of God

   1. Texts mentioning the three Persons

      1. Matt 3:16-17 At the baptism of Christ, the Son was in the water, the Father's voice was heard from heaven, and the Spirit appeared in the form of a dove.

      2. Luke 1:32-35 Persons named: the Lord God, Son of the Most High, the Holy Spirit

      3. Matt 28:19 Baptism formula “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”

      4. 2 Cor 13:14 Apostolic benediction “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.”

      5. Jude 20-21 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

Texts that draw a distinction between the three Persons of the Godhead teach that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are individual, distinct persons. The Father is not the same individual as is the Son, nor is he the same individual as the Spirit.

2. Texts asserting the equality of the three persons

   1. John 6:27, 20:17 – The Father is God.

   2. John 1:1, 5:23; Titus 2:13; Heb 1:8– The Son is God.

   3. Acts 5:3-4 – The Holy Spirit is God.

   4. Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14 – The Persons are associated together in ways denoting equality.

Note: There is no fixed order in the naming of the Godhead. That is, the names Father, Spirit, and Son are given in different orders.

3. Other issues regarding the Trinity

   1. The name “Son of God”

Some suggest the term “son of God” implies a lower stature than God Himself. However, as we saw in Lesson Four, the term “son” as used in the Bible is a Hebraic expression suggesting that one partakes of the qualities of whatever one is said to be a son of. Jesus also called himself the “son of man,” that is, he was a man. Thus the phrase “son of God” implies that Jesus partakes of the qualities of God. The Jews understood this—they were ready to stone him for making himself equal with God (John 5:18).

2. The economic Trinity

Occasionally it appears as if one member of the Trinity is submissive or subservient to another member. For example, Paul states that “the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor 11:3). Jesus repeatedly said that he came to do the Father's will, not his own (Mark 14:36; John 5:19). And since the Holy Spirit is sent by God, He must be of lesser stature than God or Jesus.

An understanding of the functional nature of the Trinity dismisses the idea of essential difference within the Trinity. While the Persons of the Godhead are essentially equal, there is a functional or administrative chain of command. This concerns what they do , not who they are . God the Son and God the Holy Spirit do the will of God the Father. The Father is the source, the Son is the means, and the Spirit is the active agent (Eph 2:18).

This does not imply that the Father is better or superior to the Son or the Spirit, but simply that there is functional differences based on differing roles . Inferiority or superiority is not the idea here. Just as a father is to be head of the household, yet is not essentially different or better than any other persons in it, so God the Father is head of the Trinity without any essential difference between any member of the Trinity.

3. 1 John 5:7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

This verse directly supports the doctrine of the Trinity and is included in most versions of the Bible until the 19 ^th century. But it appears in only three Greek manuscripts, all of which are late and of suspect nature. No church father quotes the verse, which is a significant fact, because had they known the text, they certainly would have used it in the Trinitarian controversies they were engaged in. It's not found in the Latin until the 4 ^th century. Erasmus did not include it in his first two versions of his Greek NT because he couldn't find it in any existing Greek text. He included it reluctantly in his third and following editions, with a lengthy footnote asserting his disbelief in its authenticity. It was included in the KJV because the translators followed Greek manuscripts based on Erasmus' third edition. Thus this text is of limited value in proving the Trinity. Fortunately, the existence of the Trinity can be easily proven from many other texts.

4. Misinterpretations of the Trinity

   1. Tri-theism : three separate gods rather than one God in three persons.

   2. Modalism : three roles or modes of existence. The one God manifests Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

   3. Arianism : the Son is a created being, “a god,” and thus inferior to the Father in nature or essence. Jehovah's Witnesses are Arians.

5. The use of “only begotten” and “first born”

Critics of the doctrine of the Trinity often assert that Christ cannot be equal with the Father because he was begotten and is called the first born. However, the term “only begotten” does not necessarily suggest a beginning point in time, but rather the unique , one-of-a-kind quality of Jesus. The term “only begotten” could be translated “one-and-only.”

The term “first born” is based on the OT idea that the first born son inherits a double portion of the father's estate and other privileges unique to the first born son. Figuratively, the word denotes special privilege, priority and supremacy (cf, Ex 4:22; Col 1:18; Heb 1:6). Christ is the head of the church and supreme over all, and is thus the first born. The word emphasizes Christ's position , not his birth or origin . Read Psalm 89:27.

Conclusion : The Bible clearly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity and Christians have believed it for nearly 2000 years. We may not fully grasp its meaning or understand how three can be one, but we must believe that one God exists eternally and indivisibly as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Discussion:

1. Must we thoroughly understand a doctrine in order to believe it? No.

2. Why is denial of the Trinity such a serious error? Because it denigrates the nature of God. It says that Jesus and the HS are not fully and equally God.

3. What's wrong with this statement:

The Bible calls God by the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That does not mean that He is three persons. Actually, these are the titles of three roles that He has filled. This can be understood in the same way that a man can say, “I am a father, son, and husband.” A man can truly be all three, but he is still a single person. So it is with God.

The Bible teaches 3 persons, not 3 modes of operation. The above idea is called modalism–one God functions in different modes at different times. Refutation: All three members of the Godhead show up simultaneously (eg, Matthew 3:16-17), which would be impossible if modalism was true.

1 Moody Handbook of Theology p. 198。

2 Chafer

Lesson 4: The Deity of Christ

Orthodox Christianity claims that Jesus of Nazareth was God in human flesh. This doctrine is absolutely essential to true Christianity. If it is true, then Christianity is unique and authoritative. If not, then Christianity does not differ in kind from other religions. Thus, this is a vital topic.

The teaching of the Bible and the historic confession ¹ of the Church is:

We believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. He is God of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds, and He is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God, perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who although He be God and Man yet He is not two but one Christ; one however not by conversion of the Godhead in the flesh, but by taking of the Manhood in God; one altogether not by confusion of substance but by unity of Person. For as the reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ.

The Westminster Confession ² puts it a little more simply:

The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.

Christ is, and always has been, 100% God, to which was added a human nature at the incarnation, making Him 100% man and 100% God, without any confusion, intermingling, or overcoming of either the divine or the human natures. While each member of the Godhead is equal in glory, Christ voluntarily took on a subordinate role in order to accomplish the plan of redemption. Each member of the Godhead works in perfect harmony to mercifully bring about the redemption of believers.

Cultists and skeptics commonly misunderstand this vital doctrine. They may believe that Christ is either entirely divine (not really human) and only appears to be human, or that the divine and human natures are somehow combined or mixed. Some cultists assert that Jesus was the first and greatest of God's creation. But any teaching that comes short of acknowledging Christ's full deity is simply incorrect and unbiblical.

How do we know that Jesus is equal with God the Father? Several reasons: ³

1. Christ existed before the birth of Jesus.

Many mistakenly believe that Christ came into existence at the birth of Jesus. However, the Bible teaches that Christ is eternal. As God, there was never a time when He was not.

1. Christ existed prior to Creation .

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The context of this verse clearly indicates that “the Word” here is Jesus.

2. Christ was active in Creation .

All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. (See also Colossians 1:16.)

Note: Since Christ was the Creator, He could not have been part of the creation.

3. Christ appeared in temporary human form in the Old Testament.

Gen 16:7 Now the Angel of the Lord found [Hagar] by a spring of water in the wilderness, by the spring on the way to Shur.

Who Was the Angel of the Lord?

Several facts have led many scholars to identify “the angel of the Lord” with Christ:

• The use of the definite article (“the” angel): appearances of other divine messengers normally do not include the article (Luke 2:9 and Acts 12:7).

• The angel of the Lord is equated with God and worshiped as God (Exodus 3:1-5).

• The angel of the Lord never appears after Jesus is born.

This should not lead us to conclude that Jesus is an angel or any other kind of created being. The word “angel” is simply “messenger.” These were pre-incarnate appearances of God the Son.

4. Christ claimed to have existed prior to Abraham .

Jn 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

Jesus here clearly claims to be the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14, ie, Yahweh, the God of the Israelites. Look at the next few verses to see how the Jews responded to this — they understood that He was equating Himself with God, and they wanted to stone Him for it.

2. Clear statements in Scripture equate Christ with God.

   1. John 1:1 clearly states “the Word was God.” It's unreasonable to deny that this verse is teaching the deity of Christ. Cultists do deny it but Christians have upheld this obvious interpretation for two thousand years.

   2. In John 10:30-33, Jesus states “I and my Father are one.” The Jews understood this assertion and accused Jesus of claiming to be equal with God. They were going to stone him for such a claim. The word that Jesus used suggests oneness in nature or essence.

   3. In John 20:28, Thomas calls Jesus “My Lord and my God.” Jesus accepts such worship.

   4. In Philippians 2:6, Paul asserts that Jesus was “in very nature God” who “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.”

   5. Hebrews 1:8-10 clearly equates the Son with God.

But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.” And: “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands.”

3. Christ is called the “ Son of God .”

In Scripture, “son of” often means “to possess the character qualities of” a person or object. For example, in Genesis 5:32 the original Hebrew literally says that Noah was the “son of 500 years.” Acts 4:36 says that the name “Barnabas” means “Son of Encouragement.” The title “Son of God” indicates that Christ possesses the attributes of God, a fact which even Christ's enemies acknowledged:

Jn 10:33-36 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “… do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?”

4. Christ is fully God.

Col 2:9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;

Heb 1:3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Some cults and/or false religions teach that Christ is “a god” or somehow less than fully equal with God the Father. The Bible teaches that He is fully and equally God.

5. Christ demonstrated that He was God.

   1. Christ demonstrated that He was omnipotent .

Mk 4:39 Then He arose and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, “Peace, be still!” And the wind ceased and there was a great calm.

2. Christ demonstrated that He was omniscient .

Mt 12:25 But Jesus knew their thoughts, …

3. Christ demonstrated that He was sovereign .

Mt 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.”

4. Christ demonstrated that He was holy .

Christ did not yield to Satan's temptations (Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13). Many other texts assert Christ's sinlessness.

Jn 8:46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me?

2 Co 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

1 Pe 2:22 “Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth”;

Arguments often used against the deity of Christ:

1. Jesus denied equality with God the Father when He said, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Paul also denies such equality when he asserts that “the Son also himself be subject unto [God]” (1 Cor 15:28).

Answer : The Father and the Son occupy different offices or function in different roles, but that does not imply a difference in essence or nature. Jesus submits to the Father as part of his role as Son. This is a functional relationship that does not imply a inferior nature.

2. Jesus must have been inferior to God because He was limited . He claimed to be ignorant of some things, which cannot be said of God. So He must be less than God.

Answer : Jesus possessed two natures: God and man. As a man, Jesus was limited in some respects—He got hungry, thirsty, tired, etc. His divine nature was unlimited, but His human nature was limited. Any limitations that He experienced were part of His human nature.

3. Jesus claimed not to be good (Mark 10:18), so He must not be equal with God.

Answer : A careful look at Mark 10:18 shows that Jesus is not saying that He is not good. The man was unwilling to recognize Christ as his master, so Jesus is challenging the man's use of the title “good master.” Jesus is saying, “Don't call me 'good master' if you don't really recognize my authority.” Jesus refuses to accept the flattery of the man and soon points out that this fellow is not as good as he thought he was.

4. On the cross Jesus claimed that God had forsaken Him (Mark 15:34). God could never forsake Himself.

Answer : Jesus took the sin of the world upon Himself on the cross (2 Cor 5:21), which caused God the Father to turn His back temporarily upon the Son.

Many of those who deny the deity of Christ do so because they can't understand the nature of the Trinity. While the three-in-one-ness of God is indeed difficult to comprehend, it is clearly taught in the Bible and Christians have believed it throughout history.

Conclusion: How do we know that Jesus is equal with God the Father? All the biblical evidence points to that conclusion. The Scripture explicitly states that He is divine. Divine names and attributes are ascribed to Christ. He does those things that only God can do. People worship Him as God. And He claimed to be God. As all genuine Christians have always believed, Jesus is the Son of God, the second Person of the Trinity, equal in essence and nature to God the Father.

Almost all cults and other false religions deny the deity of Christ. If you want to know where a person stands, just ask, “What do you think about the deity of Christ?”

ディスカッション：

1. Can you reject the deity of Christ and still be a Christian? No. This is an essential aspect of Jesus' nature that one cannot deny and still claim to be a Christian.

2. With all the Scriptural evidence, why do you think cultists deny the deity of Christ? 1. They are unsaved and cannot comprehend spiritual truth; 2. The Trinity doesn't make sense to them so they want to get around it.

3. How important is it that Christians have historically accepted and taught the deity of Christ? I'd say it's very important. This has been a central doctrinal teaching in all branches of Christianity (RCC, EO, Protestant, independents, etc.) for 2k years.

1 From The Athanasian Creed. Athanasius (269-373 AD), the “Father of Orthodoxy,” was the bishop of Alexandria, Egyt and a great champion of orthodox belief.

2 WCOF VIII.ii

3 Much of this material comes from BFL Lesson 13.

Lesson 3: The Resurrection of Christ

Christianity rises or falls on one historical event: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Jesus rose from the dead, then everything he claimed is true—he is the Son of God, the Savior, the Messiah. If he did not rise from the dead, then all the things he said and taught are worthless. Paul says that if Jesus is not risen from the dead, the Christian faith is empty and meaningless (1 Cor 15:17-19). Christians believe that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. One cannot claim to be a Christian unless he believes this central doctrine (cf. 1 Cor 15:1-4).

Note the Quote: “We need to see clearly that there can be positive theological implications of the resurrection only insofar as its historical reality is affirmed. While many theologians may find such a conviction hopelessly antiquated, the man in the street knows better. His common sense tells him that there is no reason why a dead man should be decisive for his existence today, and I agree with him. Once doctrinal teachings are detached from their historical realities, we have entered the arena of myth. And there is simply no good reason to prefer Christian myths over other myths or, for that matter, secular philosophies. The resurrection is only real for our lives today if it is a real event of history.” ¹

Remember the central aim of the apologetic task: to defend or make highly probable the truth-claims of Christianity. The central truth-claim of Christianity is the resurrection of Christ. Our desire is to show non-believers that it's reasonable to believe that Jesus did rise from the dead. So how do we go about our task?

We must first admit that almost everything we know about this event is based on what the Bible says about it. There is very little extra-biblical information about Jesus' death and resurrection. So what we know is based on the accounts from the Bible. If one does not accept what the Bible says about Jesus' resurrection, then there is no hope of making any headway.

We've already seen (in Lesson 2) that there is good reason to believe that the NT documents are trustworthy. History , archaeology , and manuscript evidence support the authenticity of the NT accounts. So, given that what we find in the NT is true, we can suggest the following in support of Jesus' resurrection. ²

1. The death of Jesus was actual , literal and genuine. He did not just pass out, faint or temporarily lose consciousness. The crucifixion extinguished Jesus' physical life.

Roman soldiers crucified Jesus and finished the execution. To quicken death, they broke the legs of the two criminals crucified on each side of Jesus. But when they came to Jesus they did not break his legs, because from experience they knew he was already dead. As a final precaution, however, they thrust a spear into his side, thus insuring his death. Further, those who handled Jesus' body after removing it from the cross were convinced that he was really dead.

2. The gravesite was secure .

The Jewish leaders met with Pilate to urge him to secure the gravesite. They said Jesus had predicted he would rise in 3 days. To assure that the disciples could not conspire in a resurrection hoax, Pilate ordered the official seal of Rome to be attached to the tomb to prevent any grave robbers from tampering with the tomb. To enforce the order, soldiers stood guard. A huge stone was rolled in front of the tomb as added security.

3. The tomb was found empty .

On the morning after the Sabbath, some of Jesus' followers went to the grave to anoint his body. But when they arrived, they were surprised at what they found: the huge stone had been moved and Jesus' body was gone. As word got out, two disciples rushed to the burial site. The tomb was empty except for Jesus' burial wrappings, which were lying neatly in place. In the meantime, some of the guards had gone into Jerusalem to tell the Jewish officials that they had fainted in the presence of a supernatural being that rolled the stone away. And when they woke up, the tomb was empty. The officials paid the guards a large sum of money to lie and say that the disciples stole the body while the soldiers slept.

4. Many people claimed to have seen the resurrected Christ.

Paul wrote that himself, Peter and the other apostles, James, and more than 500 people at one time had seen the resurrected Christ (1 Cor 15:5-8). By making such a public statement, he gave critics a chance to check out his claims for themselves. In addition, Luke begins his second book (Acts) by saying that Jesus “presented Himself alive after his suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by [the apostles] during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3). Eyewitness testimony is very strong.

5. The apostles changed dramatically after the resurrection.

Jesus' disciples were in a state of panic and utter depression after the crucifixion. Even Peter, who earlier had insisted that he was ready to die for his teacher, lost heart and denied that he even knew Jesus. But the apostles went through a dramatic change after the resurrection. Soon they were courageously standing face to face with the ones who had crucified their leader. Their spirit was like iron. They became unstoppable in their determination to obey the risen Christ. Even threats of imprisonment, torture and death did not stop them (Acts 5:42).

6. The apostles were willing to die for their claims.

While it's not uncommon for people to be willing to die for what they believe to be the truth, few if any will die for what they know to be a lie. That fact is important because the disciples of Christ did not die for deeply held beliefs about which they could have been honestly mistaken. They died for their claims to have seen Jesus alive and well after his resurrection. They never would have willingly gone to their deaths for what they knew to be a lie.

7. Jewish Christians changed their day of worship.

The Sabbath day of rest and worship was basic to the Jewish way of life. Any Jew who did not honor the Sabbath was guilty of breaking the Law of Moses. Yet Jewish followers of Christ began worshiping with Gentile believers on a new day. The first day of the week, the day on which they believed Christ had risen from the dead, replaced the Sabbath. For a Jew, it reflected a major change of life. The new day, along with the Christian conversion rite of baptism, declared that those who believed Christ had risen from the dead were ready for more than a renewal of Judaism. They believed that the death and resurrection of Christ had cleared the way for a new relationship with God.

8. Jesus and the prophets predicted the resurrection.

Jesus repeatedly claimed that it was necessary for him to go to Jerusalem to die and be resurrected from the dead. Isaiah also predicted a suffering servant who would bear the sins of Israel, being led like a lamb to the slaughter (Isaiah 53). David said that God would not allow “thine Holy One to see corruption” (Ps 16:10). Peter, in his famous sermon in Acts 2 referred to this Messianic Psalm and concluded, “This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses” (Ac 2:32).

9. The resurrection is central in the preaching of the Gospel.

The message that the apostles took to the “ends of the earth” was a message of the resurrection of Christ. As one reads through the book of Acts, he finds that the good news always included the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. The resurrection was not added to the message years later. The Gospel without a resurrection is no Gospel at all. Faith in the resurrection is not a side issue; it is the essence of Christianity.

10. The very existence of the Church argues for the reality of the resurrection.

If the resurrection never happened, what explains the transformation of that small band of terrified disciples in to men and women who were willing to suffer and die because of their refusal to renounce Jesus' resurrection? What changed them into bold, confident, courageous witnesses, willing to carry the gospel to every corner of the world? Only the resurrection explains it.

The conclusion to all this evidence strongly suggests that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. Good, honest, trustworthy people who had nothing to gain and everything to lose believed that Jesus rose from the dead. However, skeptics and critics of the Bible suggest the following false theories as to what “really” happened after the crucifixion: ³

• The Swoon Theory

Jesus did not really die, he only fainted ; therefore the disciples saw only a revived or resuscitated Christ. When he was placed in the tomb, he was still alive and the disciples, mistaking him for dead, buried him alive. After several hours, he revived in the coolness of the tomb, arose, and departed.

The absurdity of this theory is apparent. First, the Roman soldiers were convinced that he was dead even before they speared him. Second, the idea that Jesus could revive in the tomb, push away the stone, overcome the soldiers and convince his disciples that he had miraculously risen from the dead is simply beyond belief. [Read Nash's quote of Stott, p. 157.] Third, the linen wrappings that clothed Jesus' dead body were undisturbed in the tomb.

• The Hallucination Theory

Those who claimed to see Jesus after the crucifixion were hallucinating. The apostles so desired and expected to see Jesus that they experienced mass hallucinations.

Again, the impossibility of this is apparent. How could so many people have hallucinations—especially 500 at one time? Hallucinations are not contagious. Furthermore, the appearances happened under different conditions and at different times. And, don't forget, the disciples were reluctant to believe in the resurrection in the first place! Plus, they didn't simply see Jesus; they touched him and spoke to Him. This false theory simply is irrational.

• The Impersonation Theory

This is the view that the appearances were not really Christ at all, but someone impersonating Him. This, the opponents say, is evident because in some cases they did not recognize him at first (or at all). However, several facts show this theory to be implausible.

1. The disciples were reluctant to believe in the resurrection, were doubtful and would have been hard to convince unless it was really him, as was the case with Thomas.

2. It would have been impossible to impersonate Christ's wounds . This was Christ's proof to Thomas that it was really he (cf. John 20:24f).

3. At times their inability to recognize him was a phenomenon of his glorified body brought about by his own purposes as in Luke 24:16, “But their eyes were restricted that they should not recognize Him.”

4. These men had close personal interaction with the Lord for three years. It is highly improbable that an impersonator could have deceived them.

5. They were meeting in locked chambers in some instances, and he suddenly appeared and then vanished. No one could fake such miraculous acts.

• The Spiritual Resurrection Theory

This is the view that Christ's resurrection was not a real physical resurrection. Proponents of this theory assert that Christ's body remained in the grave and his real resurrection was spiritual in nature. The story was told as it was to illustrate the truth of spiritual resurrection. This is what many liberals believe. However, this theory lacks credibility for several reasons.

1. A physical body did disappear from the tomb. If it was only a spiritual resurrection, then what happened to the body? History shows there was a body there and it disappeared.

2. The resurrection accounts are not presented in parabolic or symbolic language, but as hard fact. John 20 is full of what Greek grammarians call vivid historical present tenses to stress the historical reality of the Gospel message.

3. The record states he was touched and handled , that he had a body, and that he even ate with the disciples (Luke 24:30, 41f; John 21:12f).

4. First Corinthians 15 teaches us that Christ not only arose, but that he arose bodily . He possessed a glorified body which had unique capacities. First Corinthians 15:44 calls it a spiritual body, but it was nevertheless a physical body as well. Note the following facts about the body of Christ:

• He could appear in different forms (Mark16:12).

• He could eat , though it was not needed for sustenance (Luke 24:30).

• He could appear and disappear and could pass through solid objects (John 20:19, 26).

• He could pass in a moment from one place to another (Luke 24:31).

Philippians 3:21 shows that his body was glorious and unique, but nevertheless, still a body according to which our bodies will one day be fashioned. So, it was spiritual, glorified, and yet a physical body of flesh and bone.

• The Theft Theory

The disciples or someone else stole the body. Matthew 28:11-15 indicates that the Jewish leaders paid off the soldiers who guarded the tomb, encouraging them to tell the authorities that the disciples stole the body.

Who could and would steal the body under the circumstances?

1. The Romans could have but would not have. Pilate had agreed to have guards watch and seal the tomb in order to prevent such a theft. ⁴

2. The Jewish leaders could not and would not . They were the ones who had requested a guard to protect the tomb against theft (Mt 27:63-66). The presence of the soldiers and the seal over the door made it virtually impossible for anyone to steal the body.

If any of the enemies of Jesus had taken the body, they would have brought it forward as soon as any claims of resurrection were made. The easiest way to end the whole affair would have been to parade the corpse of Jesus through the streets of Jerusalem, proving to everyone that he was still dead. The fact that they didn't do that suggests that they didn't have the body.

3. The women could not and would not , for they were wondering who would remove the stone for them when they went early Sunday morning to finish burial preparations (cf. Mark16:3-4).

4. The disciples could not and would not because they were perplexed and scattered, huddled together in locked rooms. Some had even left town. The likelihood of these timid, anxious, disorganized men stealing the body of Jesus out from under the noses of a guard of highly disciplined and skilled soldiers while they all slept (an offense punishable by death) is ridiculous.

• The Mistaken (or Unknown) Tomb Theory

One of the earliest false theories suggests that the disciples did not know where the tomb was located and probably went to the wrong empty tomb. This theory depends on the belief that those who were crucified were tossed into a common pit and that no one was sure where the authorities put the corpse.

This theory also disregards the straightforward historical narrative about the events surrounding Christ's burial and the post-resurrection scene. The Gospel record indicates that Joseph of Arimathea received permission from Pilate to take the body to his own private tomb, not to a public mass burial ground. According to Scripture, the body of Christ was prepared for burial according to the burial customs of the Jews. Everyone involved knew where the tomb was. It's simply irrational to think that the disciples would all go to the wrong tomb.

None of these theories adequately deals with the evidence of the known facts that surrounded the resurrection of our Lord. In order to believe such theories, one must totally reject the NT record, which there is no good reason to do. The evidence clearly asserts that he arose, and the resurrection marks him out as the Son of God (Rom 1:4), the Savior of the world.

If one comes to the conclusion that the NT records are basically reliable, he would also have to grant that Jesus must have risen from the dead. If so, He is exactly who he claimed to be.

Conclusion: We've seen that there is adequate evidence to believe that the resurrection actually did occur. It's an historical event beyond doubt. All the theories that attempt to explain away the resurrection have proven to be absurd and/or unreasonable. [Read Nash's quote of Craig, p. 162]

ディスカッション：

1. What is the primary source of information about the resurrection? The NT.

2. What makes the resurrection such an important event? Because Christianity is based on it. It's the central doctrine of the faith.

3. What do you think are the strongest lines of evidence that Jesus rose from the dead? The empty tomb, eyewitness testimony, accurate reporting of events.

4. What must skeptics assume in order to discount the resurrection? They have to assume that the NT records are wrong.

5. How can you convince someone that the resurrection is true if he or she does not believe the NT records? You can't. One must trust that the Bible is true because it's the only source of information on the topic. But there's good reason to believe that the NT records are true.

1 William Craig, Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection, Our Response to the Empty Tomb

2 Some of this material from Ten Reasons to Believe, RBC Ministries, http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb

3 From False Theories Against the Resurrection of Christ by J. Hampton Keathley III. The Biblical Studies Foundation, 1997.

4 There is some doubt as to whether the guards were Roman or Jewish Temple guards. The guards may have been the same (Roman) ones who were in charge of the crucifixion. It seems more likely that they were Jewish because they reported to the High Priest rather than to the Roman authorities. In either case they never would have fallen asleep on the job.

Lesson 2: The Reliability of the Bible

One of the purposes of apologetics is to present a rational basis for Christian faith. We want to demonstrate that Christianity is reasonable, logical and sensible. Although we've already shown that Christianity does not rest on man's intellectual ability to prove the claims of the Bible, it is beneficial to examine some of the evidence that supports Christianity. In this lesson we'll endeavor to show the legitimacy of Christianity's foundational documents and basic claims.

Christianity stands or falls with the Bible. Like the old song says, “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.” If the Bible is not trustworthy, then faith based upon the Bible is empty and absurd. If one could find genuine, unquestionable errors and/or contradictions in the Bible, Christianity would come crumbling down. Hence, Christian apologists have for centuries been defending the Bible against the attacks of critics and skeptics. In today's lesson we'll discuss why faith in the record of Scripture is not misplaced.

Scripture's Doctrine of Scripture

What does the Bible say about itself? It claims to be God's book, originating from the very breath of God (2 Tim 3:16). The Bible is God's self-witness; it is God speaking to us. The words “Thus saith the LORD” occur 279 times in the OT. There is no higher authority, no greater ground of certainty than that established as the Holy Spirit enables Christians to believe, understand and use the Scriptures rightly.

Difficulties of the Apologetic Task

The primary source of our knowledge of the events we are concerned about are the Scriptures themselves. While there is some extra-biblical information available, it does not add much to our knowledge of the events we are interested in. Thus we must ask the question, “Are the accounts recorded in the Bible worthy of belief?”

From the outset we should admit that proving that something actually occurred in history is not as easy as one might think. If there's doubt as to what occurred a few years or a few centuries ago, imagine trying to prove that something happened 2,000 or even 3,000 years ago! Today we can go back to newspaper or TV reports to research an event, but in biblical times such technologies did not exist. The events of the Bible occurred before the invention of the printing press, so the texts we have are copies of hand-written documents. Small errors can creep into such texts over time as one copy is made from another. Some copyists and translators were more careful than others, so there are some texts that are admittedly less reliable than others. These are just a few of the challenges facing those who seek to defend the reliability of the Bible. However, none of these difficulties make our task impossible.

Some people argue that the details of the biblical stories are not very important as long as the general teaching comes through. Errors of historical or geographical nature are not all that important, they suggest. However, if the Bible is in error on areas that we can check (like dates and locations), then how do we know that it's not wrong concerning doctrine? The Bible claims to be God's Word, not just a newspaper account or a historical record. If it's truly inspired, we should expect it to be perfect in all that it affirms. And that's exactly what we find—it's perfectly reliable.

The Reliability of OT History

The OT does not read like a standard history book—it's full of miraculous stories. God walks on earth and interacts with man, angels appear, children are born to old people, fire falls from the sky, prophets foretell events, a cloud leads a nation through the wilderness, iron floats, and a host of other fascinating events are recorded in the pages of the OT. There are those who dismiss such accounts immediately simply because they don't believe such miraculous events could have happened. Thus, even if archaeology and related sciences could vouch for all the ordinary data contained in the OT (eg, dates, places, reigns of kings, etc.), it could say nothing about such miraculous events. They are unverifiable. The only reason we know they happened is that those who saw them happen recorded them.

Before tackling the issue of the historical accuracy of the OT accounts, one must first decide upon the issues of the existence of God, revelation and the possibility of miracles. If one admits that God could exist and that He could intervene in the normal flow of events with a miracle, then the contents of the OT are not so ridiculous after all. On the other hand, if one is dead-set against the possibility of miracles, then he'll find much to ridicule in the OT. ¹

With this backdrop, we can still make a good case for the accuracy of the OT account. Here are some factors that argue for the historical accuracy of the OT: ²

1. The text of the Hebrew OT has been preserved with an accuracy unparalleled in any other Near-East literature. The Jews have always held Scripture in very high regard and were exceedingly careful to preserve their texts.

A group of scribes known as the Massoretes (500-900 AD) carefully copied and cared for the Hebrew Bible. They were so meticulous in their work that they successfully transmitted the text with marvelous accuracy. [Read Evidence p. 56]

An example of how well the OT text was preserved over the years is found among the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). Prior to the finding of the DSS, the oldest copy of Isaiah available dated back to about 900 AD. In the DSS was a copy of Isaiah from about 150 BC. Looking at the two copies, scholars found only minor differences, mostly matters of spelling, word order, and word use. The text had been preserved very faithfully during that entire time period (about 1,000 years). This strongly suggests a very careful and faithful preservation work over the years that separate the two copies. And if this is true of Isaiah, it's likely true of the rest of the OT books.

2. Archaeology largely supports biblical dates. Evidence supports the age and origin of Abraham, Moses and many of the other figures in the OT. One scholar asserts that “no archaeological discovery has ever [contradicted] a biblical reference.” ³

3. There are significant similarities between the biblical accounts and the findings of archaeology regarding the social and political patterns of the times. For example, Babylonian legal documents found in 1925 near the Tigris River reflect and confirm the practices mentioned in the Bible.

4. Various people groups mentioned in the OT, once regarded by skeptics as legendary, have been discovered . A good example of this is the Hittite nation. Other than in the Bible, no evidence was found for them until scholars found a huge library full of Hittite cultural items.

5. The Assyrian and Hittite law codes prove that OT laws are had counterparts in other Near Eastern cultures.

6. Excavations of ancient sites have proven that the other religions mentioned in the OT did exist and that some of their rituals and practices were similar to those the Israelites practiced.

7. The story of the Israelite conquest of Canaan and settlement there is confirmed by archaeology. Evidence of the violent destruction of Canaanite cities squares with the OT record of the times.

8. Close parallels exist between the covenants (agreements or treaties) God made with Abraham and those secular kings made with their subjects.

While skeptics and critics would likely take issue with some of the above points, the more scholars dig around and explore in the Middle East, the more evidence comes to light supporting the OT record of events. Archaeology disproves many alleged biblical errors and inaccuracies.

New Testament Accuracy

Perhaps more important to Christians is the issue of how accurate and reliable the text of the NT is. The following facts strongly suggest that the text of the NT is very reliable and accurate.

1. A large amount of manuscript evidence exists supporting the NT.

• There are about 5,600 Greek manuscripts of the NT in existence today. In contrast to this, other books from biblical times may be recorded in only a few manuscripts (MSS) or even a few scraps of MSS. Further, the oldest of these MSS may come from a time many hundreds of years after the book was originally written. ⁴ The oldest NT documents come from a time only 50 years or so after the autographs. So there are no other books like the NT. No other ancient books have so much high quality MSS evidence to back up their claims.

• There are many versions of the NT in other languages. The NT was translated into many languages, such as Latin, Syriac and Egyptian (aka Coptic). These are important because they were translated from the Greek very early on and likely reflect an early (and thus more likely accurate) reading of the Greek.

• The NT has also been preserved in the form of quotations in other works. Some of these writings contain lengthy quotations from the Bible. These are important because they go back to an early form of the Greek NT.

2. Because of the hand-copying process, slight errors were inserted into the text. However, such errors are generally small and insignificant, and can be identified by comparing several texts to each other. And even though there are differences between the various families of Greek MSS, these differences (called variants) are generally minor and do not demand any changes in doctrine or practice. No essential teaching of the NT is greatly affected by any copying errors or variations from one text to another.

3. This historical accuracy of the NT is verifiable. One does not find historical errors in the text of the Bible.

• Luke, the author of Luke and Acts, was a very careful and accurate historian. He includes a great deal of secular history in his accounts—rulers, dates, places, customs and the like (eg, Luke 3:1-2). Luke even is able to accurately record the correct titles of the many Roman government officials mentioned in his books, no small feat in itself. Archaeology has repeatedly vindicated Luke's historical accounts, so that Luke is now considered among the best ancient historians ever.

• Archaeology has confirmed many details from the pages of the NT. Entire books have been written on how archaeology supports NT claims.

• Archaeologists found an inscription warning Gentiles not to enter certain sections of the Temple area. This temple barrier was undoubtedly the source of Paul's statement about the “middle wall of partition” which separated Jews and Gentiles at the Temple (Eph 2:14).

• An inscription by Erastus, the city treasurer in Corinth who Paul mentioned (Rom 16:23) was uncovered in 1929.

• Scholars found the amphitheater where the riot caused by Demetrius took place (Acts 19:23-41).

• Even ancient coins confirm the details related in the NT.

• The Pavement, which the Jews called Gabbatha, was buried for centuries and discovered only recently.

• The Pool of Bethesda, which had no record except in the NT, has been positively identified.

• The ossuary (burial box) of the high priest Caiaphas has been found.

[Teacher: For more info on the reliability of the OT and NT texts, see the two articles in the Additional Material at the end of this curriculum.]

Conclusion: We don't ultimately believe the Bible because of the many proofs and evidences that it is an accurate, reliable book. We believe because God gives us the gift of faith. Nevertheless, the Bible is historically verifiable, accurate and trustworthy. Whether one examines the Bible's historical, archaeological or manuscript evidences, he will find nothing to discredit the Bible's claims. 実際にそのような検査は、聖書に大きな信頼性を貸す。

ディスカッション：

1. What does the Bible claim about itself? That it is the word of God, inspired by God.

2. Does archaeology generally support or disprove the Bible? By far it supports the Bible. Some secular scholars certainly allege that history contradicts some of the biblical account. But no one has ever come up with a certifiable, genuine contradiction between history/archaeology and the Bible.

3. How is the manuscript evidence of the NT different from other books from the same period? There's much more and much earlier support for the NT than any other book of like age.

4. What are the main lines of evidence supporting the validity of the NT? Historical accuracy, archaeological accuracy and manuscript evidence.

1 In a future lesson we'll discuss the possibility of miracles.

2 From Can I Trust the Bible? p. 135f.

3 証拠は、p。 65, quoting archaeologist Nelson Glueck. Biblical scholars recognize that there are still problems harmonizing archaeology with the Biblical account, but none so serious as to bring into question the accuracy of the Bible.

4 For example, Caesar's famous book Gallic War , written about 50 years before Christ, is found in only 9 or 10 MSS, none of which is older than the ninth century AD. So nearly a thousand years separate the original writing and the oldest copies now available.

Part I: Defending the Validity of Christianity

Lesson 1: An Accurate Gospel Presentation

A significant aspect of the apologetic task is presenting the Gospel message to unsaved people with the goal that they would convert to Christ. We commonly call this evangelism. It is critical that we are able to make an accurate presentation of the Gospel. Today the Gospel message is often watered down, misunderstood and misspoken. In our evangelistic efforts we must make sure that we are communicating the true Gospel in an appropriate way. We must strive to present the message of the Gospel clearly and accurately. This lesson will examine what information you must include as you tell others of their need for salvation through Christ.

When you present the gospel, there are certain topics that your audience must understand. You should thoroughly understand each topic yourself and you should be able to discuss the content of each topic with any age group.

Note the progression that follows : God, man, Christ, response (repentance and faith)

1. Who is God? The Creator and sovereign Lord

It's important that you start here because much error and confusion regarding the person of God abounds in our culture and around the world. People need to know who God is and where they stand in relation to Him.

Texts

Ideas

Gen 1:1

God exists. He is the Creator. Because He made us, we are totally dependent upon Him. He can do as He pleases. He is in charge of the universe.

1 Pet 1:15-16

God is holy. He never sins. He always does what's right.

John 3:16; Rom 5:8; 2 Pet 3:9

God loves us. He wants to have a friendly relationship with us. He wants us to be saved and has provided a means of salvation.

Eph 1:11

God is absolutely sovereign. He's the King of kings.

Rev 4:11

As Creator, God is worthy of man's worship.

2. What is man? Utterly sinful and unable to save himself.

Texts

Ideas

Jer 17:9; Rom 5:12, 3:10-23

People are basically sinful. People do bad things because they are sinful. Each person has sinned against a holy God.

Eph 2:1, 4:17-19

Man is dead in trespasses and sin. He has no fellowship with God.

John 3:18, 36

Sinners are separated from and under the wrath of God. This is man's primary problem, and he cannot solve it by himself.

Rom 6:23a; Isa 59:1-2, 64:6

Sin deserves to be punished. That punishment is eternal separation from God and from everything good.

Rev 20:14-15

Those who remain in their sin will spend eternity in hell.

It's critical that your audience understands the nature and severity of their sin and alienation from God. Francis Schaeffer said that, given one hour, he would take 45-50 minutes to show how one has sinned against and offended a holy God, and then 10-15 minutes to preach the gospel. A person must acknowledge his disease before he's ready to take the cure. So make sure your student understands the full meaning and ramifications of his or her sin.

3. Who is Christ? The sacrifice, Savior and Lord

Again, it's critical to take the time to explain exactly what the Bible says about the person and work of Christ. There's much false information floating around about Jesus—don't assume that the student knows who He is and what He did.

Texts

Ideas

Matt 1:21; Luke 19:10; John 1:1; 1 Pet 2:22

He is the Son of God, God in the flesh, and lived a perfect, sinless life. Jesus is the Savior. He came to save us from our sin.

1 Cor 15:3-5

Christ died for our sins, was buried, and arose the third day.

2 Cor 5:21; Isa 53:4-7

Christ took the punishment for our sins. He suffered instead of us. He was our substitute.

John 14:6; Acts 4:12

He is the only way of salvation. There is no other means.

Mt 7:21-23; Luke 6:46; Rom 10:9

Jesus is both Lord and Savior. We must recognize His Lordship.

4. How should I respond to the Gospel? Repent of my sins and trust in Christ.

The gospel message demands a response. Just knowing the facts of the gospel does not mean that one is saved. One must make a personal decision regarding the facts.

Texts

Ideas

John 3:16; Acts 20:21

Salvation occurs when one repents of his sin and believes in the person and work of Christ.

1 Thes 1:9; Acts 20:21, 26:20

Repentance is turning away from and rejecting sin and turning to God. It is being sorry for sin and wanting to be forgiven.

John 3:16, 36, 5:24; Eph 2:8-9

Faith is trusting in Christ to forgive you. It is a trust in and commitment to Him. It is trusting Christ alone to be saved. Belief consists of knowledge, assent, and whole-hearted trust.

Luke 14:33

Discipleship is costly. Following Christ may require a major change in your lifestyle.

Two frequently neglected but essential aspects of salvation are repentance and commitment . Clearly define and emphasize the need for repentance. Simply acknowledging one's sin is not enough (eg, Judas was sorry that he sinned). We must urge people to turn from their sin and seek forgiveness. And when one trusts Christ as Savior, he is also recognizing Him as Lord. We must present Christ as the NT presents him—both Lord and Savior. Make this clear to the student. Unfortunately, much of the material written for evangelism either leaves out or downplays both repentance and commitment. This fact results in many false professions of faith.

Note: People sometimes attempt to make the salvation decision as easy as possible by stripping down the gospel to its bear minimum, and in so doing they leave out important information. Being saved is more than just believing in Jesus. Millions of people who claim to believe in Jesus are not genuinely saved (cf. Mt 7:21-23). So we have to carefully define our terms and express precisely what we mean when we present the gospel to an unbeliever.

Conclusion: An accurate, clear presentation of the Gospel message is an important aspect of the apologetic task. Make sure you can tell others why they need to be saved and what they must do to be saved.

ディスカッション：

1. Shouldn't we first convince people that God exists before launching into a Gospel presentation? No, the Bible teaches that everyone knows that God exists. They need to hear of their alienation from God, of God's wrath against them, and of the means of salvation thru faith in Christ.

2. Shouldn't we first convince our audience that the Bible is trustworthy before telling them what the Bible says? No, we believe the Word of God does the work of God, whether your audience believes it or not. It's God's job to convince unbelievers that the Bible is true. We simply proclaim its message.

3. What if the person you are talking to tells you that he doesn't believe in God or the Bible? Still present the same message as long as he is willing to listen. Remember that faith comes by hearing the Word, not by being convinced intellectually.

4. Why do we need to stress the importance of accuracy and clarity in a Gospel presentation? Because it's so common for people to leave out or add to the message of the Gospel. It's very common today for people to make it as easy and painless as possible for people to accept Christ. Evangelists often say little or nothing about repentance, the Lordship of Christ or the costs of discipleship.

Introduction to Biblical Apologetics, continuation

The Christian View of Knowledge

As we've already learned, the task of biblical apologetics is to spread and defend the Christian message while challenging other non-Christian systems. Before learning how to do so, it's important that we consider some truths about how we know what we know. ¹ Understanding how believers and unbelievers think will help us become better apologists.

A Controlling Text

Paul gives us some important instructions regarding knowledge in 2 Corinthians 10:5 –

Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.

Another translation puts it this way:

We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Note the following conclusions based on this text:

• Christians must strive to “ cast down ” those systems of thought that are contrary to Biblical teaching. This seems to apply most specifically to the thought life of individual Christians. That is, they should not allow any anti-Christian ways of thinking within their own minds. But more broadly speaking, part of the apologetic task is challenging those philosophies and religions that contradict the Bible no matter where one finds them. It's biblical to expose and challenge all anti-Christian ideas, whether within one's own mind or in the broader culture.

• In all our thinking, Christ is to be recognized as Lord . That is, the contents of the Bible, and especially the teachings of Christ and the apostles as found in the NT, should inform all our thinking. One does not try to defend or propagate Christianity from a supposedly neutral standpoint. Instead, biblical teaching should influence all thinking. Believers need to develop a Bible-soaked logic, a way of thinking that is saturated with biblical principles.

The Bible is the Standard

What is the basis for knowledge? How do we determine that something is true or false? Christians believe that the ultimate standard for determining the truth or falsity of anything is God’s Word . Scripture can be judged by no higher authority than Scripture itself. Believers accept a biblical world-view. Unbelievers adopt other grounds for determining truth, like personal or majority opinion, or even whatever works best. But Christians must base their thoughts on the Bible.

We do not judge the Bible on human terms. “It makes sense to me” is not the yardstick for judging the truth of biblical claims. Man's intellect is not the highest standard. We submit to the Bible's teaching; we do not stand in judgment of it.

Communication with Non-Believers

There is no such thing as neutrality when it comes to one's views about the Bible, God, or Christianity. Everyone approaches the Bible with a set of ideas that are already set in place. Such views are called presuppositions . Christians believe that the Bible is true, that God is the creator and sustainer of all things, and that the highest duty of man is to honor and obey God. Christians know this because God has convinced them that such is the case. Non-Christians reject the Christian view and replace it with other ideas. Further, non-believers are blind to spiritual truth, spiritually dead , and under the influence of Satan, all of which prevents them from comprehending biblical truth. They think that the “message of the cross is foolishness” (1 Cor 1:18). So neither believers nor unbelievers approach the Bible from a neutral standpoint.

How can Christians and non-Christians communicate if they reject each other's presuppositions? That is, if Christians believe the Bible and non-Christians reject the Bible, how can a Christian convince a non-Christian that he needs to be saved? The Bible teaches that non-Christians do have some knowledge of God, and that deep down they agree on some basic things even if they claim not to (cf. Rom 1:18-25). So based on this fact, believers can encourage unbelievers to admit what they know to be true—that God exists and that there's a difference between right and wrong. We simply proclaim the message and trust that God will use it to draw people to Himself.

Also, keep in mind that in the evangelism process the believer is not trying to argue a non-believer into submission. He's not trying to win a debate, thereby intellectually convincing the non-believer that the Gospel is true. He's simply announcing the good news, planting the seed. It's God's business to make an unbeliever responsive to the message. In fact, without God's work in the unbelieving heart, no one would respond positively to the Gospel. We can plant and water the seed, but God is the one who brings about a harvest (1 Cor 3:6).

The Danger of “Neutrality”

Some suggest that in defending and propagating the Gospel, believers should take more of a neutral attitude. That is, Christians should encourage unbelievers to take an honest, impartial look at the Bible and Christianity and judge it for themselves. People should not assume anything; they should simply look at the Bible like any other book—honestly and impartially. If the Bible seems to make reasonable sense, if it holds up to critical investigation, then it is acceptable. If not, then disregard it.

The problem with such an approach, as noted above, is that everyone starts with some presuppositions. Those who desire an impartial investigation of the Bible assume that they are qualified to engage in such an investigation. They presuppose that their own intellect is sufficient to judge whether the content of the Bible is reasonable . In fact, the Bible itself claims that the principles contained in it will not make sense to non-believers. The wisdom of God is foolishness to men (1 Cor 1:18f). Hence, from a non-believing, “neutral” point of view, the Bible will never be acceptable. It makes no sense, therefore, to encourage unbelievers to “impartially” judge the Bible. Rather, we must encourage and even demand that unbelievers submit to and obey the Bible whether they recognize its authority or not. We do not hold the Bible up for critical scrutiny. We simply proclaim its truths and let the chips fall where they may.

“You shall not tempt [make trial] of Jehovah your God” (Deut. 6:16). When Satan tempted Jesus to do so—to push God into offering proof of the veracity of His word (as quoted by Satan)—Jesus rebuked Satan, “the accuser,” with these very words from the Old Testament. It is not God whose integrity and veracity and knowledge is somehow suspect. It is that of those who would accuse Him and demand proof to satisfy their own way of thinking or living. ²

In every area of life, the Bible demands submission to its principles. Christians must be committed to biblical thinking in every area. Paul asserts that all wisdom and knowledge are deposited in the person of Christ (Col 2:3-8). Every thought is in some way related to Jesus Christ. Christians must refuse to think like unbelievers. To attempt a supposed neutrality or independence in our thinking would be an act of disloyalty. We are dependent upon God and the Bible and have no right or ability to assert our intellects apart from God. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Prov 1:7). Rational thought is based on a correct understanding of God and His Word.

UNBELIEVING THOUGHT

CHRISTIAN THOUGHT

Vain in their imaginations

Every thought captive to the obedience of Christ

Their foolish heart was darkened

The light of the knowledge of the glory of God

Enemies of God in their minds

Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

“What is truth?” (Pilate)

“Thy Word is truth” (Jesus)

We are not implying in any of this that the Bible is essentially unreasonable , mistaken, full of genuine contradictions and absurdities, or unable to withstand investigation. Christianity is not blind faith that simply believes irrespective of the evidence. Reason is not the enemy of Christian faith. Perhaps no other world-view has as high a regard for logic as Christianity does. ³ Critics have been examining the Bible for centuries in their quest to find fatal flaws or any proof that the Bible is not trustworthy. ⁴ While one must admit that the Bible does contain many things difficult to understand and that there are some problems not easily resolved, there are no obstacles so serious that they destroy or even reduce the Bible's credibility, as we shall see.

Circular Arguments

Those who take a presuppositional approach to apologetics are often charged with circular reasoning. We say the Bible is true because we believe the Bible. We assume what we are trying to prove. But all reasoning starts either with God or with man . Christians are persuaded that the correct starting point is not man's intellect but God's Word. Unbelievers also engage in circular reasoning, assuming what they are trying to prove—that they have the intellectual capacity to sit in judgement of the Bible. They think they are rational because they are rational. So there's no avoiding circularity in reasoning. The question is which circle you want to be in, God's or man's.

The Purpose and Place of Evidence

There is much evidence that supports biblical claims. Christianity is not a house of cards that will come crashing down due to a lack of supporting evidence. Our faith is built on a solid foundation of historical accuracy and verifiable events. Some scholars believe that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the single most well-attested event in all of ancient history. So there is no lack of evidence to back up the claims of the Bible and of Christianity.

People often say they reject Christianity because it fails to offer enough evidence to support its claims. In response, Christian scholars have accumulated a great many reasons to believe. However, we are on shaky ground when we base our faith solely on historical evidences. Historical studies can suggest that events actually happened, but they cannot prove it. They can persuade and remove doubt, but ultimately people do not convert to Christianity because they are intellectually moved by the proofs. God may use such studies to convince people of the truth of His Word, but conversion is not simply intellectual agreement to a series of statements. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Rom 10:17). The Holy Spirit uses the Word to convince people of their need for salvation. A study of the evidences of Christianity may remove some of the obstacles that hinder belief, but evidences alone will never bring about conversion. After all, the devil believes what the Bible says (James 2:19).

Unbelievers often claim that one should not believe anything that doesn't have good evidence. The problem is that we believe countless things without good evidence or proof. If we eliminated all belief in things for which we don't have good evidence, we would get rid of a good many things indeed. It's clear that we do have the right to believe things even without solid proofs in many cases. Even the statement “You must have proof before you believe” is unprovable. Those who make such statements should be shown how absurd such a claim is. A person's beliefs may be perfectly rational even if he cannot prove them to others. This of course does not suggest that Christianity lacks good proofs, only that evidence or lack thereof neither establishes nor destroys Christianity. ⁵

Conclusion:

The Christian view of knowledge seeks to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. There is no such thing as independent, impartial, or neutral thinking. Christians seek to think God's thought after Him; unbelievers rebel against God by asserting their own intellectual independence. All reasoning starts either with God or with man. Christians assert that God and His Word is the correct starting place.

ディスカッション：

1. Why is it so important to consider presuppositions before launching into a study of apologetics? Because Christians need to understand their own viewpoint as well as the unbelieving viewpoint. They further need to know that everyone, even the skeptic, bases his thinking on his own set of presuppositions.

2. Explain the idea of circular reasoning and why all systems of thought are to some degree circular. Circular reasoning is assuming what you are trying to prove. All systems of thought are somewhat circular. Even science and math start with axioms that are presupposed and upon which the whole endeavor is based.

3. When the unbeliever dismisses the Bible, what is he presupposing? That he has the capacity to sit in judgment of the Bible.

4. How important are Christian evidences in one's conversion to Christ? Such may remove obstacles and influence one to study the Bible, but ultimately one is not converted simply because he believed the evidence.

5. What do we mean by a Bible-soaked logic? Thinking biblically, letting the Bible influence all your thoughts and decisions.

1 The technical word for the study of knowledge is epistemology, based on the Greek word epistamai, meaning “to know” or “to understand.”

2 Bahnsen, “Answering Objections”

3 Nash, p. 74。 Many religions include irrationality as a primary aspect of their faith. Christianity does not.

4 Skeptics assert that they have found fatal flaws, but Christian scholars and apologists have discredited such assertions.

5 Nash, p. 88f.

Introduction to Apologetics

We live in an era in which society ridicules both the Bible and those who take its claims seriously. The prominent philosophies of the day have caused most people to view the Bible as a source of myth, fable, and old-wives tales. The Bible is the object of criticism and mockery , especially for those who have been educated in the secular university system. Who today actually believes that Noah built an ark, that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, or that Jesus really walked on the water? Such accounts are for the feeble-minded and weak. Further, everyone knows that the Bible is full of contradictions, false statements and inaccuracies. Science has disproved all the major claims of Scripture. Almost everything we've been taught about the origins of Christianity is false. The manuscripts have been corrupted and corrupt church leaders have imposed their own political agendas.

Christian truth-claims come under attack in many ways today. They are challenged as to their meaningfulness. The possibility of miracles, revelation, and incarnation are questioned. Doubt is cast upon the deity of Christ or the existence of God. The historical or scientific accuracy of the Bible is attacked. Scriptural teaching is rejected for not being logically coherent. Conscious life following physical death, everlasting damnation, and a future resurrection are not readily accepted. The way of salvation is found disgusting or unnecessary. The nature of God and the way of salvation are falsified by heretical schools of thought. Competing religious systems are set over against Christianity—or some try to assimilate it into their own thought forms. The ethics of Scripture is criticized. The psychological or political adequacy of Christianity is looked down upon. ¹

Others suggest that the Bible was never meant to be taken literally. Like most fables and morality tales, the stories of the Bible are rooted in historical reality but point to higher principles that are true. It doesn't matter if Jesus rose from the dead or not. The moral principles Jesus taught are more significant than detailed accuracy of the account. This is the position that most Liberal “Christians” take. ²

Those who do take the Bible seriously are not comfortable letting such criticism pass without comment. Students of the Bible have for many years argued for the truth of Scripture, defending both themselves and the Bible from their critics. If the Bible is what it claims to be, all allegations of error and inaccuracies must prove unfounded. Christianity is not a “ blind ” faith. It is established upon verifiable historical events. If the record of the Bible is found to be genuinely mistaken, especially regarding key elements of the faith, Christianity would instantly lose all credibility. If Jesus did not actually rise from the dead, or if a certified error or contradiction could be proved to exist in the Bible, biblically-based faith would also crumble.

Hence, those who have staked their eternal destiny on the truth of the Bible strive to respond to criticisms. If the Bible is verifiably mistaken or corrupt, no one would retain his commitment to it as the Word of God. Also, believers seek to present logical, reasonable responses to critics to show them that their criticism of the Bible is inaccurate or mistaken. Further, students of the Bible want to be able to give an answer to those who have genuine questions about the Bible or about Christianity.

Apologetics has had a long history going all the way back to the New Testament itself. In the Book of Acts the Christians presented reasoned answers to various charges made against Christianity. To the Jews the church pointed out that Christ was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. To the Gentiles the church argued that God was calling them to turn from superstitious religions to the true God revealed in Jesus Christ. In all of their apologetics the early Church emphasized the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In fact, they called it the central pillar on which all of Christianity either stood or fell.

Key Text: 1 Peter 3:15 Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

All Christians should be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks for the reason for their hope in Jesus Christ. Of course, for some Christians this will be a very special ministry calling, but all Christians should be able to explain what they believe, why they believe it, why others should believe it, and why contradictory systems are inadequate.

Apologetics involves responding to any intellectual challenge to the Christian faith. This means that apologetics deals, first and foremost, with answering the outright denials of Christianity which are found in atheism and in other religions. But apologetics also deals with answering the distortions of Christianity, which are found primarily in the cults, as well as in some professing Christian groups within the Christian community itself. Thus, Christian apologetics must answer all challenges to the orthodox, biblical Christian faith — no matter who the challengers are. ³

THE MEANING AND PURPOSES OF APOLOGETICS

1. Meaning.

   1. The Greek Word apologia is used 20 times in the NT.

Acts 18:4 Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.

Acts 19:8-9 Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God… [and later] reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.

Acts 22:1 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defense which I make now unto you.

Philippians 1:7 It is right for me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my heart; for whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God's grace with me.

Philippians 1:16 I am put here for the defense of the gospel.

1 Peter 3:15 Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

2. Activities synonymous with apologetics

   1. Jude 3 you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

   2. Titus 1:3 he brought his word to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior

“The preaching” is that set of basic truths that constitute the salvation message. This message should include: 1) God; 2) Sin; 3) Jesus; 4) Faith and repentance.

3. Titus 1:9, 11 [Pastors must] encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced , because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach– and that for the sake of dishonest gain.

2. Definition of Apologetics: “A verbal defense ; a reply to a formal charge; an answer .” Apologetics is the justification and defense of biblical Christianity. Biblical apologetics focuses on spreading and defending the Christian philosophy of life while challenging non-Christian philosophies.

The apologist responds to the objections of unbelievers in a way which sets forth the objective truth of Christianity and the exclusive character of the Christian system. He or she offers reasons for belief, vindicating the Christian worldview over against competing systems of thought and living. The appropriate response to critics of the faith is that of reasoning with them, refuting objections, proving conclusions, and offering arguments.

Offering arguments in favor of certain conclusions should not be confused with being argumentative or contentious in one's demeanor. Presenting a reason for the hope that is within us does not demand that we do so in an offensive or arrogant way. ⁴

By the way, apologetics has nothing to do with apologizing (saying you're sorry) for anything.

3. Specific Purposes of Apologetics

   1. to defend or demonstrate the truth-claims of Christianity; to prove that Christianity is true

   2. to answer particular objections and/or criticisms of the Bible and Christianity

   3. to give an account of the foundational concepts of the Christian faith

      1. the existence of God

      2. the reality of divine revelation, the Bible

      3. the ability to know God and truth

   4. 0to reach non-Christian with the gospel (ie, evangelism )

   5. to challenge non-Christian faith systems (eg, Mormonism, Islam); to attack the foolishness of unbelieving or unorthodox thought

Summary: Apologetics consists of:

• Proof: presenting a rational basis for faith

• Defense: answering objections of unbelief

• Offense: exposing the foolishness of unbelief and unorthodoxy

4. Two approaches to Apologetics

   1. Rationalist : setting forth rational, logical arguments defending Christianity with the aim of convincing unbelievers. This approach focuses on reasons to believe and on defending the faith against criticism. This is often called “traditional” or “classical” apologetics because this seems to be the method used by the most prominent apologists of earlier centuries. Rationalists start from “neutral” ground and work toward proofs that the Bible and Christianity are true. Before one can meaningfully discuss historical evidences, one has to establish God's existence. Without a theistic context, no historical event could ever be shown to be a divine miracle. Once God is proven to exist, one can show that the Bible is God's Word, that Jesus is God's Son, and that Christianity is the only valid faith.

The problem with a rationalistic approach to apologetics is that one must assume a standard of truth that exists apart from the Bible. The Bible, in order to be true, must meet this independent standard. The Bible becomes subject to man's ability to reason—one must show the unsaved person that the Bible is truly reasonable. ⁵ Further, rationalists seem to rely on weighty arguments and evidence to bring conversion rather than on a simple declaration of the Gospel message.

2. Presuppositional : starting out with the notion that the Bible is true and that it's God's business to convince unbelievers of this fact. This approach focuses on presenting the truths of Christianity as fact without regard for how unbelievers respond to it.

Presuppositional writer John Frame states, “[We] should present the biblical God, not merely as the conclusion to an argument, but as the one who makes argument possible.” ⁶ By demonstrating that unbelievers cannot argue, think, or live without presupposing God, presupposition-alists try to show unbelievers that their own worldview is inadequate to explain their experience of the world and to get unbelievers to see that Christianity alone can make sense of their experience.

The problem with this approach is that it assumes what it's trying to prove, namely, that the Bible is true. However, this seems to be consistent with Peter's admonition to recognize the Lordship of Christ in the apologetic task (1 Pet 3:15). There is no true neutrality—everyone accepts the authority of God's Word or they do not, and not to do so is sin.

Both the testimony of history and the testimony of God's Word have informed us that the world will not be convinced one whit of the truth of Genesis because of a mountain of creationist evidence or the discovery of Noah's Ark. The world will not be convinced one whit of the truth of Exodus and Joshua because of a mountain of archaeological evidence. The “evidence that demands a verdict” will always return from the world a verdict of unbelief. The “search for the historical Jesus” or for the “historical Paul” will never convince men that Christ died and rose for them or that the New Testament is authentic. These might attract the nod of approval from a humanistic world that operates from a foundation of intellectual autonomy, but they will do nothing to change the heart. The Holy Sprit can change the heart of the enemy of the gospel, but he never stoops to engage the enemy on their terms. He will only engage the enemy on God's terms: the foolishness of the Word preached. Far be it from us to imagine we can improve on his methods. The world may call us “anti-intellectual,” but God will call us wise. ⁷

Why does which apologetic approach you take matter? Imagine this scenario: you are attempting to convince a friend that Jesus really did rise from the dead. You show your friend all the evidence from the Bible that the resurrection is a fact. But your friend does not believe the Bible. He says that you can't use information from the Bible to defend the Bible. The rational apologist would then step back and show that the Bible is indeed trustworthy. The presuppositionalist, on the other hand, would keep preaching the Bible, knowing that God has promised to use the Word to draw unbelievers to Himself in spite of the unbeliever's unbelief. One should not revert to the unbeliever's world-view just because the unbeliever doesn't accept the Christian world-view. ⁸

Note: A third approach to apologetics, experience , is commonly used to defend the faith in many Christian circles. That is, Christians argue for the existence of God and the validity of Christianity based on their own personal experiences of God. This is the argument “I know God is real because I can feel Him in my soul.” ⁹ Feelings of inner peace, confidence, excitement, security or conviction may seem beyond question to the one feeling them, but have little weight with others. Experiences are by nature subjective and personal. While individuals may find such experiences confirm and deepen their own faith, it is unlikely that others will be persuaded based on such experiences. Hence, it is unwise to use personal religious experiences as a primary apologetic resource. Personal testimonies may aid apologetics, but one's experiences should not be the focus of an apologetic encounter.

Another Note : Apologetics follows and presupposes a correct system of theology . One must determine the content of Christianity before he can defend and propagate it. The better you know the Bible and theology, the better you will be able to explain, promote and defend orthodox Christianity. It's obviously counter-productive to defend and propagate false doctrine.

Conclusion: Apologetics is the study of the best ways to 1) explain Christianity to unbelievers; 2) defend Christianity against its critics; and 3) challenge unbelieving and unorthodox ideas about God. In this series we'll follow this general outline, first looking at the validity of what Christianity teaches, then showing that many criticisms of Christianity don't hold up under scrutiny, and finally exposing the weaknesses of unbelief and unorthodox ideas.

ディスカッション：

1. What is apologetics? See conclusion.

2. Why do we need to bother with defending Christianity? Can't God defend Himself? God obviously doesn't need our help to defend Him or His word. Nevertheless, we should be ready to give an answer because we are commanded to do so (1 Pet 3:15), because of biblical examples of doing so (eg, Paul), and because apologetics is part of evangelism.

3. What's the difference between rational/classical apologetics and presuppositional apologetics? Rational apologetics seeks to defend the Bible using external information. It focuses on logical arguments and evidence external to the Bible. Presuppositional apologetics assumes that everyone has a basic understanding of God and that what they need to hear is what the Bible says even if they reject it.

1 Greg Bahnsen “Answering Objections” The Biblical Worldview </span> <span style='font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Arial;color:black'> (VII:2; Feb., 1991) Covenant Media Foundation

2 It's important to use the term “liberal” accurately. A theological liberal is one who does not believe the Bible is literally true. He may see the Bible as a valuable record pointing to God, but he does not believe that the Bible is true in all it affirms. One should not use the term “liberal” in a theological context unless this is his meaning.

3 Christian Research Institute, What Is Apologetics?

4 Bahnsen, “Answering Objections”

5 Terms such as “likelihood” and “plausibility” frequently crop up in rationalist apologetics. The believer seeks to show the unbeliever that the Bible has good potential for being true.

6 From Five Views on Apologetics, Steven B. Cowan, ed.

7 Snoeberger, Mark, “Engaging the Enemy…But on Whose Terms? DBTS Journal , vol. 8 (Fall 2003), p. 84。

8 For example, one does not help a mentally ill person by adopting his (the sick person's) skewed ideas.

9 Another example: “You ask me how I know He lives? He lives within my heart.” He Lives by Alfred H. Ackley, copyright 1961, Rodeheaver.