Brian Auten Interviewed by Backpack Radio

Today's interview is taken from the Backpack Radio show. Vocab Malone interviews Brian Auten about "Online Apologetics Resources." Vocab talks with Brian about the history of Apologetics 315, how to find apologetics resources, apologetics interaction online, evangelism, and more. Subscribe to the Backpack Radio podcast here.

Full Interview MP3 Audio here (42min)

Enjoy.
Subscribe to the Apologetics 315 Interviews podcast here or in iTunes.

Brian Auten Interviewed by Apologetics.com

Today's interview is taken from the Apologetics.com Radio Show. Lindsay Brooks interviews Brian Auten on "How to Begin as an Apologist." Lindsay Brooks talks with Brian about how he got into apologetics, about his many interviews, about how a new apologist might begin, and about the future of apologetics. Subscribe to the Apologetics.com podcast here.

Full Interview MP3 Audio here (1hr 51min)

Enjoy.
Subscribe to the Apologetics 315 Interviews podcast here or in iTunes.

A Quick and Easy Guide to Getting Started in Apologetics

So you want to get into apologetics and you don’t know where to start? There’s a plan for that. And it’s not a difficult plan, but it will require you to get to work.

It’s a common question that people ask me: “What’s your advice for someone just starting out in apologetics?” It might seem like the answer would be complex or deep in some way. However, the answer I give is simple. Here it is, step by step.

THE PERSONAL STUDY PLAN
Here’s what you need to do to get started on your own personal study plan to get started in apologetics.

Tactical Faith: Grassroots Apologetics Movement

Tactical Faith is a non-profit organization that uses donations to bridge the gap between apologetics teachers and local churches. They are big on grassroots apologetics: getting apologetics into the local church. One example of this grassroots apologetics strategy: Tactical Faith Hangouts. These are video conferences hosted on google where an entire group of participants can interact, have lectures, discussions, and online conferences. Matthew Burford heads up this organization, and facilitated an informal apologetics hangout where Brian Auten spoke on the topic: 10 Terms Apologists Should Know. Be sure to follow Tactical Faith for future events with a variety of guests.

Brian Auten Interviewed on EIE Radio

Today's audio is a recent interview on the EIE Radio Podcast. Neill Hess interviews Brian Auten on a variety of topics: Brian's testimony, reasons for getting into apologetics, apologetics training, memorable interviews, critical areas of engagement for Christians, habits for apologists, pitfalls to avoid, being loving when using arguments, the future of apologetics, and how to get started in apologetics. Links mentioned include: 10 Favorite Apologetics Interviews, 10 Pitfalls of the Foolish Apologist.

Full Interview MP3 Audio here (35 min)

Enjoy.

52 Tips for Apologists

This month marks 5 years of blogging at Apologetics 315. With that in mind, I went back to review a guest post I did with Cloud of Witnesses three years ago to see if the advice I offered then still sounded good to me. The question was: "What advice do you have for those who want to learn more about apologetics?  What kinds of attitudes and character traits should Christians adopt as they use apologetics in conversations with skeptics?"

Here was my answer, in 52 Tips for Apologists:

As a learner myself, I am on the lookout for good advice for learning more. My advice to others would vary depending on how involved in apologetics someone wants to get. It is such a wide subject, dealing with theology, philosophy, history, textual criticism, science, culture, evangelism, etc. Everyone is going to have a different level or area of interest, so my advice here is for those who want to learn as much as they can on the subject. Here are the things that I would have told me when I first got interested in apologetics:

1. Be first a person of prayer with a goal to know the Lord.

2. Be a continual reader.

3. Know both sides of the issues.

Will You Help Support Apologetics315?

Dear Reader,

First of all, thank you for being a follower of Apologetics315. I hope and pray that the resources that are provided here have been a great help to you in defending the faith.

Each Monday you'll usually find an interview posted here. But this week I want to point you to two interviews with... me, Brian Auten. The reason? I'd like you to consider supporting the vision behind what Apologetics315 is doing. You can read about the vision here, a bit about me, as well as a few endorsements.

The first interview is about the history and vision of Apologetics315.
The second interview is a bit more about me and my take on apologetics.

I'm passionate about seeing Christians equipped to defend the faith. I'd also like to grow Apologetics315 to be a greater tool for providing free apologetics resources for individuals, groups, and churches. So if you want to know more, please listen to the interviews. If you already know about Ap315 and feel you'd like to help it grow, please consider being a supporter.

Thanks again for being a reader, and I appreciate your prayers as Apologetics315 enters its fifth year.

Tim McGrew Interviews Brian Auten of Apologetics315

Today's interview is with Brian Auten, founder of Apologetics 315. He is interviewed by Dr. Timothy McGrew on the past, present, and future of Apologetics 315. The goal of the interview is to get to know a bit more about Brian, how Apologetics 315 came to be, the vision of the ministry, future goals and projects, and how others can help support its growth. More about Apologetics 315 here.

Full Interview MP3 Audio here. (27 min)

Enjoy.
Subscribe to the Apologetics 315 Interviews podcast here or in iTunes.

Video Interview with Brian Auten on Apologetics

Jeremiah J. Johnston recently interviewed me for a segment of Christian Thinkers Society. He asked questions about Apologetics315, what I've learned from interviewing apologists, disciplines and pitfalls in ministry, strategies for learning apologetics, and more.

Video interview on Vimeo here. (52 min)
Audio MP3 of the interview here.

Enjoy.

Apologist Interview: Brian Auten

Today's interview is with Brian Auten, interviewed by the blogger WinteryKnight about topics and ideas in apologetics. WinteryKnight's blog focuses on worldview, marriage and chastity, politics, and apologetics.

Questions for WK:
• Why not use your real name?
• What's the focus on WinteryKnight.com?
• What's your goal in interviewing Brian?

Questions for Brian:
• How did you come to be in Northern Ireland?
• How did you get interested in apologetics?
• What would you do with unlimited funding to propagate apologetics resources?
• What arguments are the most persuasive for you?
• What arguments should we use with others?
• Do we need a million "one dollar" apologists, or one "million-dollar" apologist?
• How important do you think it is for apologists to focus on scientific evidences?
• How can the lay person get up to speed on these evidences?
• What's the best way to make the case for the resurrection?
• Use a sledgehammer approach, or a velvet glove approach?
• What about psychological reasons for rejecting the arguments ?
• How does apologetics benefit Christians?
• What about dealing with fear when speaking with people?
• What are the unique resources on the blog?

Full Interview MP3 Audio here (55 min)

Thanks to WK for doing the interview!
Enjoy.

Person-Sensitive Apologetics MP3 Audio by Brian Auten

This audio makes the case that the content and conduct of Christian apologetics must be person-sensitive in two ways. First, it must be sensitive to the audience one is interacting with. Second, it must be sensitive to the person of Jesus Christ. Being person-sensitive entails adapting one’s content to the audience, being consistent in one’s conduct as a Christian, being mindful of the response of the individual, being informed by scripture and influenced by the Holy Spirit. Download the PDF Transcript. Feel free to adapt for your own use.
Full MP3 Audio here (20 min)

Enjoy.

Essay: The Wise Man Seeks God by Brian Auten

The Wise Man Seeks God by Brian Auten
Let us imagine that there is no God. Perhaps everything that is came into being out of nothing and for no real reason. The processes of matter coalesced to form chance patterns in an endless collision of atoms and particles. After a certain amount of time, some matter and energy formed self-replicating molecules. By something that cannot even be called luck, what we call life came into existence at the end of a process of materialistic chance. Conscious, self-reflective, thinking beings arose to contemplate, communicate, and populate. So-called morality, society, and humanity came to be.
(MP3 Audio | RSS | iTunes)

Is Christianity True? Introduction by Brian Auten

For every weekday in April 2010, Apologetics 315 will feature an essay contributed by a Christian apologetics blogger in response to the question: Why is Christianity True? The goal of this project is a simple one: to share the reasons that we have found compelling to believe that Christianity is true. This is not intended to prove the Christian worldview beyond all doubt or to counter every objection of those who zealously reject God. Rather, it is intended as a starting point for those sincerely looking for truth – for those wondering if there are good reasons to believe. (MP3 audio here)

A Case for Apologetics MP3 Audio by Brian Auten

What is apologetics? Is it Biblical? What is the purpose of apologetics? In this audio, the listener is introduced to the discipline of defending the faith and presenting reasons to believe Christianity is true. A case is made for apologetics from the New Testament and some common objections to apologetics are addressed. A useful introduction to the subject for those new to apologetics.

Full MP3 Audio here. (20 minutes)

PDF Transcript here (non-copyright, suitable for distribution)

Enjoy.

Can The Christian Know?

by Brian Auten

Christianity claims to be true. Christians believe it to be true. But can the Christian know that it is true? Moreover, can the believer who cannot prove Christianity to be true, legitimately say that he knows that Christianity is true? Our purpose here is twofold: to show that the Christian can legitimately claim to know that Christianity is true, and to explore how the Christian knows.

Truth and Belief
Before exploring the subject of knowledge, we must first define truth and belief. Truth can be defined as “that which corresponds to or adequately expresses what is real.”1 This is most commonly referred to as the correspondence theory of truth, which says that something is true if it comports, or corresponds, with reality. Truth has to do with the real. A proposition or statement is true if it accurately describes reality.

Belief can be described as a positive cognitive acceptance of something to be true. Belief tends to be propositional. That is to say, when a person believes, he is taking a proposition to be true. For example, the proposition “there is a cat in the tree” may be true or false. If a person takes the proposition to be true, then that person holds the belief that the cat is in the tree. Obviously, if there really is a cat in the tree, the belief is true. But if there is no cat in the tree, the belief is false.

Belief that something is true must be distinguished from belief in a person or ideal. Belief in carries a meaning more akin to trust and somewhat similar to faith. Often, belief that must precede belief in. For example, to believe in God, one must first believe that God exists.

With truth and belief properly defined, some distinctions can be made. First and foremost, belief does not make something true. Belief is subjective and independent of the actual state of reality. Second, the basic definition of belief should not be confused with the common religious term of belief (a sort of religious commitment). To mix these terms will create misunderstanding and lead to false conclusions. Belief, in our current use, is cognitive acceptance of a proposition’s truth.

What is Knowledge?
There are various kinds of knowledge, such as knowing how to do something, or knowing a person. For our purposes, we are dealing with knowing that. This kind of propositional knowledge is most commonly defined as “justified true belief.” In other words, knowledge must meet three requirements: 1) the proposition must be believed; 2) the proposition must be true; and 3) the knower must have some degree of justification in their belief. This standard definition of knowledge is what we are dealing with when determining what we know.

To say that a person has good justification for their belief simply means that they have good or adequate reasons to accept that a thing is true. As philosophers William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland explain:

…justification (or warrant) for a belief amounts to something like this: one has sufficient evidence for the belief, one formed and maintained the belief in a reliable way (e.g., on the basis of his senses or expert testimony and not by palm reading), or one’s intellectual and sensory faculties were functioning properly in a good intellectual environment when he formed the belief in question.2

So for something to meet the criteria of knowledge, not only must it be true and believed, but the person must have arrived at that belief not by unthinking happenstance, but by legitimate processes. Craig and Moreland continue: “Because it includes the notion of justification or warrant, [knowledge] involves believing what one epistemically ought to believe, believing what is right to believe, believing what it is intrinsically valuable or warranted to believe from an intellectual standpoint.”3

Knowledge and Certainty
Many may equate knowledge with the idea certainty. However, a very clear distinction must be made between knowledge and certainty. We can know what we are certain of, but certainty is not necessary for one to know. As Craig and Moreland explain:

If someone knows something, it does not necessarily mean that the person has complete certainty about that thing. “Being completely certain” in this context means “is logically impossible to be mistaken about.” This is a pretty high standard for knowledge. It requires it to be logically impossible for someone to be mistaken about
a claim before one can know the claim in question.4

If one requires certainty as a criterion for knowledge, one could soon be crippled in a quick descent into complete skepticism. In that case, one might even begin to doubt mathematical certainties through distrust of one’s own ability to reason. The seventeenth century French philosopher Rene Descartes doubted to the point of knowing only one thing for certain: that he was doubting, or thinking. Hence his dictum, “I think, therefore I am.” However, one need not embark upon a Cartesian quest for certainty in order to know a thing. Knowledge properly defined does not require full certainty.

Some things are known to varying degrees of certainty. As Francis Schaeffer observed, “we do not need to have exhaustive knowledge of a thing in order to know truly.”5 Some things are self-evidently known, such as the fundamental laws of logic. We know that A cannot equal non-A at the same time in the same manner. Mathematical truths are known with mathematical certainty. One could say that these are unquestionably true. One can know with certainty that they themselves exist; a truth that is actually undeniable. Yet other truths are known without any mathematical demonstration, such as certain moral truths. All people know particular things to be right or wrong, not through external proofs, but intuitively. We can know that we love and we can know that we are loved: “…simple knowing is still knowing even if it is not for certain.”6

Still, one may believe something to be true yet not claim to know that thing to be true. In such a case, probability plays a role in one’s process of justification. For example, one may have many good reasons to believe a proposition to be true, yet still have a few reasons to be tentative. In this case, one believes based upon an assessment of probability, but this reasonable probability does not warrant a claim to know. One might say that something is probably true, and therefore believe it without claiming to know.

And finally, all knowledge can be doubted – even certain knowledge. One may know something with certainty, yet doubt it if questioned by another. For example, suppose someone knows the date of his wedding anniversary. A friend questions this fact, causing him to momentarily doubt the specific date. Upon examination, he concludes that his knowledge was correct. Through the process of doubt, his knowing was confirmed through reflection and verification. Still, doubt does not equal lack of knowing.

What Does the Christian Claim to Know?
Christianity presents a comprehensive model of reality: a worldview. At its core, Christianity claims that God exists and Jesus is the savior of all who put their trust in him for salvation. For the believer to make a knowledge claim about Christianity is not to affirm every particular doctrine that could be constructed under a Christian system. Rather, when the believer says he knows Christianity is true, he is claiming to know particular central claims to be true, such as, “God exists,” and, “Jesus has saved me,” while also knowing the worldview as a whole is true. The Christian claims to know the central truths of the Gospel, while simply believing other basics based upon good reason.

How Can the Christian Know?
Depending on what one claims to know, there are different ways of knowing. Not all things are known the same way, through the same method. Knowledge is justified based on the nature of the claim. As Moreland points out, “what counts as adequate grounds will vary from circumstance to circumstance, depending on whether the context is art and beauty, chemistry, the reality of whether an event happened in history, knowledge that God is real, and so forth.”7

Some hurdles seem to appear along the path to knowing that God exists or that Christianity is true. The objections seem substantial enough. One could say that God’s existence cannot be proven; therefore one cannot know that he exists. One could also say that historical evidence is not clear enough to prove the resurrection of Christ without a doubt. In addition, it could be asserted that religious experiences of salvation can simply be reduced to an emotional event. However, the fact remains that just because a thing can be doubted does not mean it cannot be known.

Let us consider a few of the many factors that contribute to the overall case for the truth of Christianity. Factors such as the design and beauty of the universe, eyewitness testimony, historical events, personal experiences, and arguments from reason can give one adequate reasons and justification to believe that Christianity is true. However, even though these may be compelling, they may not be convincing. Christian evidences do not cause someone to know that God exists. They are adequate and reasonable grounds for one to believe that God exists or that Christianity is true, but independently they fall short of furnishing knowledge.

So how can the Christian know that God exists, that Christianity is true, and that Jesus has saved him? This knowledge comes by way of what is referred to as the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. The apostle Paul speaks of the inner knowledge that comes by the Holy Spirit upon conversion:

We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:12-14 NIV)

Paul makes reference to the inner witness of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer again in Romans 8:16: “The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.” Moreover, the apostle John confirms this to be the case: “Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. … And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.” (1 John 5:10-11 NIV) Craig explains the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer:

“Thus, although arguments and evidence may be used to support the believer’s faith, they are never properly the basis of that faith. For the believer, God is not the conclusion of a syllogism; he is the living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob dwelling within us. How then does the believer know that Christianity is true? He knows because of the self-authenticating witness of God’s Spirit who lives within him.”8

At this point one may object that if something cannot be verified to be true, then a knowledge claim cannot be warranted. However, remember that there are different ways of knowing. One way of knowing is by intuition, as is the case with much moral knowledge. Intuitively, we know that rape and child abuse are wrong. Although this cannot be externally proven, nevertheless it counts as valid knowledge. Yet objections may not be raised concerning moral knowledge, because it is often shared to a similar degree.

The problem that Christianity faces in claiming an inner witness of the Holy Spirit is that such knowledge cannot be externally proven. So can a knowledge claim that is not externally demonstrable be considered true knowledge?

Consider an example: suppose a savant (whom we’ll call Chris) is gifted with a profound and unique ability to make mathematical calculations without consciously processing the equations mentally. (Such savants, like British-born Daniel Tammet, are alive today.) And suppose a lengthy mathematical equation is presented to Chris. He immediately knows the answer, as he has a special endowment, or intuitive ability, to see the answer internally.

Now suppose someone without this endowment (whom we’ll call Skip), who knows nothing of this savant’s special ability, hears him claiming to “know” the answer. Instinctively, Skip may say, “You can’t know that.” But the only way Skip could prove Chris’s inner knowing to be illegitimate would be to produce a calculator proving the savant’s answer to be false. However, Chris does know the answer. In fact, the answer is mathematically certain. Surely, Chris is satisfied with knowing the answer, yet there is no external means to legitimize this method of inner knowing to the non-savant. The only resolution in this case would be to describe how this endowment functions.

The Inner Witness of Holy Spirit
So from the above examples we can see that it is not out of the question to suggest that the Christian can have an inner witness of the Holy Spirit. In fact, this seems reasonable. First, Christianity claims that this is how the believer knows he is a child of God. Second, Christians attest to the experiential reality of the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. And finally, not everyone has access to external evidences, compelling arguments, first-hand testimony, and the like. Assuming that God does exist, it seems reasonable for God to provide a sort of universal internal verification for those who are humbly seeking to know Him, yet do not have direct access to undeniable proof. The internal witness satisfies the believer with confident knowing, while not compelling the unbeliever.

In addition to the inner witness of the Holy Spirit for believers, the Bible speaks of the knowledge of God that has been given to all men. That is to say, Christianity claims that all men know that God exists, whether they acknowledge it to be true or not. Paul writes: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20 NIV) This makes it clear that through a combination of inner knowledge and external evidence, men have sufficient means to know that God exists. As Schaeffer put it: “The Bible’s emphasis is that there are good and sufficient reasons to know that Christianity is true, so much so that we are disobedient and guilty if we do not believe it.”9 Craig concludes:

“Therefore, we find that for believers and unbelievers alike it is the self-authenticating work of the Holy Spirit that supplies knowledge of Christianity’s truth. …And because this belief is formed in response to the self-disclosure of God himself, who needs no external authentication, it is not merely rational for us, but constitutes knowledge. We can be confident of Christianity’s truth.”10

Inner knowledge of God has been granted to all men, although Paul indicates that men “...suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.” (Romans 1:18-19 NIV) This knowledge of the truth can be suppressed. Nevertheless, this knowledge serves to “level the playing field,” so to speak, so that all men have equal access to know God, no matter where they may be born or the evidence and information available to them. Not everyone has access to the evidences, but all have access to the Spirit.

Can the Christian Know?
So can the Christian know? Yes, the Christian can know not only that God exists, but that he is saved, and that Christianity is true. Moreover, his mind has been awakened to discern and understand spiritual truths. The Christian who loves the truth seeks to verify and authenticate the truthfulness of Christianity in order to gain confidence and understanding. Although demonstrable certainty is not attainable in this life, inner certitude is, as philosopher Norman Geisler points out:

Certainty…is in principle impossible when we are dealing with matters of experience, a part of which is the resurrection and our experience of saving grace. However, the reason that God demands total and unconditional commitment and that the believer holds so tenaciously to his belief in God and His love is that the believer has certitude concerning these beliefs. Certitude is that added assurance given to the believer by the internal witness or testimony of the Holy Spirit. God’s Spirit bears witness with our spirit to the truth of spiritual matters.11

Conclusion
The unbeliever has an intrinsic knowledge of God. Coupled with the evidence of creation and conscience, the humble man believes that God exists. In response to the Gospel and by the work of the Holy Spirit, he puts his faith (trust) in Jesus Christ for salvation. God regenerates the believer and through the inner witness Holy Spirit, the Christian knows he is saved. As Craig concludes, “We know Christianity is true primarily by the self-authenticating witness of God’s Spirit. We show Christianity is true by demonstrating that it is systematically consistent.”12 Through examination of evidences, the believer finds that Christianity is consistent, coherent, and complete as a worldview. For the Christian, faith is not a leap in the dark. Faith is trusting in that which one does not see, on the basis of what one has good reasons to believe and know to be true.

1 C. Steven Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 118.
2 J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), p. 74.
3 Ibid., p. 83.
4 Ibid., p. 84.
5 Francis Schaeffer, Trilogy: He Is There And He Is Not Silent (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1972), p. 331.
6 Craig and Moreland, p. 85.
7 J. P. Moreland, The Kingdom Triangle (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), p. 130.
8 William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994), p. 34.
9 Francis Schaeffer, Trilogy: The God Who Is There (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1968), p. 178.
10 Craig, p. 36.
11 Norman Geisler and Paul Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1980), p. 131.
12 Craig, p. 48.

Sunday Quote on Apologetics

"Apologetics may bolster faith and dispel doubt, but it cannot bend the will."

- Brian Auten

A Case for Apologetics

by Brian Auten

What is Apologetics?

The word apologetics comes from the Greek word apologia, which is found seventeen times in the New Testament. It can be translated as “a defense,” and is a judicial term implying a reasoned argument, vindication, or defense. In its original use, the term apologia referred to a legal defense given in response to an accusation. In modern usage, the term apologetics takes on a larger scope of meaning. Christian philosopher William Lane Craig presents a concise definition of apologetics in its contemporary form:

Apologetics is that branch of Christian theology which seeks to provide a rational justification for the truth claims of the Christian faith. […] apologetics specifically serves to show to unbelievers the truth of the Christian faith, to confirm that faith to believers, and to reveal and explore the connections between Christian doctrine and other truths.1

Apologetics at its core simply makes a case for the truthfulness of Christianity. As theologian Gordon R. Lewis states: “Apologetics…examines Christianity’s most basic presuppositions. It considers why we should start with Christian presuppositions rather than others.”2 Apologetics answers the question, “Why should I believe that Christianity is true?” Although the answers to this question are manifold, the goal is to convince and persuade the questioner of the truthfulness of Christianity. Apologetics provides reasons to believe, both in defending the Gospel and in proclaiming it.

The purpose of this paper is to present the Biblical mandate for apologetics, refute some common objections to apologetics, and to contend that apologetics is just as relevant today as it was in the formation of the early Christian Church.

Three Basic Functions of Apologetics

First, apologetics is used in a proactive way to prove the truth of Christianity and to persuade unbelievers to believe. This may involve arguments from history, philosophy, science, culture, logic, and testimony, among others. The purpose is simply to build a reasonable case to persuade the unbeliever. Removing intellectual stumbling blocks is a key element. “Apologetic argument may not create belief, but it creates the atmosphere in which belief can come to life.”3

Second, apologetics is used defensively when criticism or attack comes against the Gospel. Inevitably, Christianity will be attacked. However, apologetics defends the faith by providing a rational and reasonable basis for belief and contending for the truth. Defensive apologetics can guard the Church from false doctrine by refuting error and exposing false teaching. The Church has the opportunity to gain a more robust faith when the Gospel is strongly defended against opposition. Martin Luther noted that when the Gospel is attacked, it has an opportunity to gain strength:

If the devil were wise enough and would stand by in silence and let the gospel be preached, he would suffer less harm. For when there is no battle for the gospel it rusts and it finds no cause and no occasion to show its vigor and power. Therefore, nothing better can befall the gospel than that the world should fight it with force and
cunning.4

Third, apologetics strengthens the faith of believers. Just as there are attacks upon the Gospel itself, there are times when the faith of individual believers is tested and tried. This may come from voices of doubt, worldly influences, personal crises, or any number of other sources. However, apologetics can play a key role in anchoring the faith of a Christian when faced with times of doubt. This anchoring also allows for the Christian to be a bolder witness to the world, as he is prepared for all kinds of common objections he may face from unbelievers.

Biblical Examples of Apologetics

The use of apologetics during the formation of the early Church is evident in the preaching of the apostles, and in the history recorded in the New Testament. Various proofs, such as historical evidence and eyewitness testimony, are often used in presenting a rational case for Christianity. In the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 3:15), the apostle Peter appeals to the testimony of those who had been eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus. “God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.” (Acts 2:32 NIV) Peter again appealed to the same evidence when later persecuted (Acts 5:30-32).

The apostle Paul is an example of the use of apologetics in the early Church. The scripture tells us that it was Paul’s custom to go to the synagogue and reason with the Jews from the scriptures (Acts 17:22). In fact, very early after his conversion, Paul (then called Saul) would argue for the truth of Christianity with effectiveness: “Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ.” (Acts 9:22 NIV) Christian persuasion was Paul’s goal. “Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.” (Acts 18:4) Paul argued extensively for Christianity. His apologetics and his evangelism were inseparable.

Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord. (Acts 19:8-10 NIV)

Paul saw it as his role as a messenger of the Gospel to both proclaim it and defend it. He was an apologist, as he made clear to the Philippians: “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.” (emphasis added, Philippians 1:7 NIV) In the same chapter he continues, “…knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. (emphasis added, Philippians 1:16b NIV) In the seventeenth chapter of the book of Acts, Paul engages in more apologetic preaching in Athens:

While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the Godfearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean." (Acts 17:16-20 NIV)

During the sermon that follows, Paul reasons with his listeners regarding creation, he appeals to the words of their own poets, and points to the proof of the resurrection. The outcome involved the conversion of some, continued interest of others, and scoffing from the rest: “When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, ‘We want to hear you again on this subject.’ At that, Paul left the Council. A few men became followers of Paul and believed.” (Acts 17:32-34a NIV)

The Alexandrian Jew Apollos also became an ardent apologist to the Jews. Apollos was a learned man with a thorough knowledge of the scriptures (Acts 18:24). The book of Acts records that “...he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.” (Acts 18:28 NIV)

Not only did the early apostolic preaching contain apologetic elements, but the books of the New Testament themselves are apologetic in many aspects. A large part of the motivation of the authors of New Testament scripture was to make a case for the truthfulness of Christianity. The apostle John explains the purpose of writing his Gospel:

Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:30,31 NIV)

John makes it clear that his intention in writing his Gospel was to present evidence (namely, the accounts of Jesus’ miracles and resurrection) so that the reader may be persuaded to believe. John’s Gospel could be understood as an evangelistic document that employs apologetics in its approach. Luke the physician had similar motives and methods when he authored his Gospel
and the Acts of the Apostles:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4 NIV)

Here Luke states up-front what his motives are for authoring the Gospel that bears his name. His goal is to persuade his readers of the actual reality of the Gospel. His method involved investigation, historical research, and appeal to eyewitness accounts. He also mentions that many have sought to record the actual events that took place regarding the life of Jesus. The Gospel of Luke is a case for the truth of Christianity—an apologetic document. The physician follows the same pattern when recording the Acts of the Apostles:

In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:1-3 NIV)

Again Luke is forthright in his motivation for writing. He appeals to “many convincing proofs” of the resurrection of Jesus, and alludes to the lengthy eyewitness accounts of the resurrected Christ. Indeed, the centrality of the resurrection was and still is a focal point of apologetics. In fact, Jesus himself appealed to his miracles as proof of his divinity:

Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. (John 10:36b-38 NIV)

Jesus pointed to his resurrection as the central proof that his claims were true. He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:39,40 NIV)

As the Gospel was proclaimed and propagated, opposition soon arose. Historian Avery Cardinal Dulles explains apologetics was inseparable from the proclamation of the Gospel message:

As the message concerning Jesus as risen Lord was proclaimed, it gave rise to certain questions and objections from inquirers, from believers, and from adversaries. In answer to such objections, and possibly also in anticipation of foreseen objections, the Christian preachers spoke about the signs and evidences they had found convincing. They insisted, for instance, that Jesus spoke with unique power, that He performed wondrous deeds, that He fulfilled the Old Testament messianic prophecies, and that He had undoubtedly risen from the dead. Factual memories, dogmatic reflections, and apologetic arguments became so intertwined in the apostolic preaching that it would be artificial to try to draw a line between them. ... To some degree, therefore, apologetics was intrinsic to the presentation of the kerygma.5

The Biblical Mandate for Apologetics

Not only does the New Testament show many examples of apologetics, it also commands believers to use apologetics. As the first apologist at Pentecost, the apostle Peter appropriately presents a mandate for apologetics to all believers:

but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. (emphasis added, 1 Peter 3:15,16 NASB)

The command for believers is that we always be ready with apologetics. Christians should be able to give reasons why they believe. Shall a Christian obey the command to sanctify Christ as Lord, but disobey the command to be ready to make a defense? The context of Peter’s command implies that apologetics goes hand-in-hand with a godly character and lifestyle, which are a testimony to unbelievers.

In his exhortation to the Colossian church, the apostle Paul emphasizes the importance of apologetics as part of a godly example to unbelievers: “Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” (Colossians 4:5,6) Giving an answer to those who ask is part or making the most of every opportunity to share the Gospel.

When listing the requirements for church overseers, Paul adds the skills of an apologist to the list. “He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.” (Titus 1:9) Refuting doctrines that oppose the Gospel is part of the apologetic task, as it defends the Gospel from corruption. Jude makes this point plainly in his epistle: “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” (Jude 3 NIV) Jude’s letter continues in a defense against false teaching that was threatening the church.

Common Objections to Apologetics

Although apologetics has been practiced since the birth of the Church and throughout Church history, there still arise some common objections to apologetics from believers. One objection is: “You cannot reason someone into the kingdom.” This objection fails to take into account that the Holy Spirit may use reason to bring someone to faith. To quote Gordon Lewis, “the Holy Spirit alone regenerates; but the Holy Spirit has chosen not to regenerate alone.”6

As we have seen above, the apostles appealed to reason on numerous occasions. The most basic Gospel appeal will involve an element of reason. “‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the LORD. ‘Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.’” (Isaiah 1:18 NIV).

Another objection to apologetics is: “The Bible does not need to be defended.” This objection suggests that the Bible, as the Word of God, is sufficiently powerful in and of itself to do the convincing of the unbeliever. The problem with this objection is that the Bible does need to be defended. If someone believes the Bible is just a book full of myths and stories, they have no cause to submit to it. Lewis points out:

If the Bible expresses God’s eternal truth, of course that needs no support from men. The question has to do with the image of the Bible in the minds of young people who for twelve to sixteen years of public school education have heard the Bible’s authority questioned and its teachings challenged.7

Why should someone obey the Bible if they have no reason to believe that it is true? Therefore, apologetics is necessary as a means of “pre-evangelism.”

Still another objection that may be heard is, “apologetics is an intellectual distraction from the Gospel.” This objection asserts that belief is spiritual and any intellectual activity in an evangelistic encounter is simply a hindrance to the preaching of the Gospel. This objection is not without an element of truth. Discussions with an unbeliever may simply spawn intellectual smoke screens. If the apologist is not discerning, he may be led off into discussions that have no real bearing on the truth of the Gospel.

However, just because apologetics can be used poorly or improperly does not mean that we should abandon its use. On the contrary, apologetics used properly during an evangelistic conversation may be exactly what is needed to clear the intellectual smoke screens and point the encounter back towards the cross. A wise evangelist will use apologetics in a tactful and appropriate manner in order to remove obstacles to belief. As the apostle Paul exhorts us: “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.” (2 Corinthians 10:5 NIV)

Conclusion

Apologetics is a reasoned defense of the Christian faith. It has been used throughout Church history and the Bible commands us to use apologetics. Apologetics makes a positive case for Christianity, removes obstacles to the Gospel, refutes false teaching, and strengthens the faith of believers.

In conclusion, apologetics as a discipline brings glory to God. An expert in the law once came to and asked him a question: “‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’ Jesus replied: ‘“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”’” (emphasis added, Matthew 22:36 NIV) God has blessed all believers with the opportunity to worship Him through the intellectual pursuit of Christ.

1 William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), p. 15.
2 Gordon R. Lewis, Testing Christianity’s Truth Claims (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990), p. 21.
3 Ibid., p. 23.
4 Martin Luther, source unknown.
5 Avery Cardinal Dulles, A History of Apologetics (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2005), p. 2.
6 Lewis, p. 26.
7 Ibid., p.25.

A Case for Gospel Reliability

by Brian Auten

The four New Testament Gospels represent perhaps the most significant historical accounts in all of antiquity: the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. The Gospels are a primary source of Christian faith and tradition. The truth or falsity of these ancient narratives carries significant and far-reaching implications. If the Gospel records are false, Christianity crumbles (1 Cor. 15:16-17). However, if the Gospel records are true, the authority of Jesus Christ is confirmed. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to show that the Gospels we have today are trustworthy historical accounts, and represent an accurate rendering of the original writings. In short, this paper will make a brief case for the reliability of the Gospels.

What Are the Gospels?
The Gospels are written documents that contain historical, biographical, and theological elements. Many scholars find it difficult to classify the Gospels into any particular literary genre, as they do not fit with any specific modern style. However, according to the standards of their day, the Gospels most closely resemble Hellenistic biographies, which were essentially partial biographies that emphasized key parts of the subject’s life. As a literary category, Hellenistic biographies were considered historical narratives with the intention of teaching, exhorting, and improving their readers.1 New Testament Professor Craig Blomberg points out that “The Gospels may well differ from every other piece of literature in the history of writing but that does not permit one to treat them as unhistorical accounts of the events and people they choose to describe.”2

Understanding the literary genre of the Gospels is key if one is to rightly judge their accuracy and reliability. Dr. Mark D. Roberts explains the importance of understanding the nature of the Gospels:

The Gospel writers functioned in the mode of the biography and history writers of their day. This means they were permitted greater freedom in certain matters than would be granted to modern biographers and historians. Paraphrasing or rephrasing statements and speeches was acceptable, as was arranging events in thematic rather than chronological order. When we evaluate the New Testament Gospels in their own literary and cultural context, we can understand how reliable they are and the ways in which they are reliable.3

The Gospels should also be understood as their authors intended them. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John each had their own perspective, audience, and purpose in writing their accounts. If today’s reader were to apply modern biographical standards to the writing, he would be committing the error of anachronism: attributing a custom, event, or object to a period to which it does not belong. New Testament historian Dr. Paul Barnett explains, “…it would be unreasonable to measure [the Gospels] by modern canons of history writing. They are good products of their age and take their place with the best historical writing of that era, in particular the works of Luke in his Gospel and book of Acts.”4

The first-century audience reading the Gospels had no difficulty understanding their literal nature, their historical claims, and the fact that they had a theological message to convey. They did not regard the narratives as myth or legend, as the events that were being reported were recent, with eyewitnesses of the events still alive to vouch for the truth of the accounts. The reader of the Gospels took them as direct historical accounts of real people, places, and events. Because of this, the Gospels were accepted at face value and were highly regarded by their audiences, becoming authoritative documents for the early church. Distinguished Biblical scholar F.F. Bruce explains, “The Gospel collection was authoritative because it preserved the words of Jesus, than whom the church knew no higher authority.”5

Who Wrote the Gospels?
The authors of the Gospels originally wrote their accounts anonymously; the authors did not title their works with, “The Gospel according to…” However, church tradition strongly affirms an early unanimity on the authorship of the Gospels. Around A.D. 130 the Church father Papias refers to Mark as the author of a Gospel. Marcion mentions Luke’s authorship as early as A.D. 130. Around A.D. 180 the Church father Irenaeus refers to Matthew as the author of the Gospel that now bears his name. Internal evidence from the Gospel of John makes a strong case for his authorship. In Against Heresies, Irenaeus mentions all of the Gospel writers:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.6

According to Roberts, “ancient tradition is almost unanimous in attributing the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.”7 The early Church fathers had direct contact with the apostles, and this strongly supports the reliably of their testimony. The early Church father Origen affirmed that “…the Gospels written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John ‘are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven.’”8

It is highly unlikely that the authorship of the Gospels would be falsified. Some would suggest that the authorship was attributed later simply in an attempt to add authority to the writings. However, Roberts shows that this theory falls short:

Two of the biblical Gospels were named after relatively inconsequential characters who did not actually know Jesus in the flesh. If you were some second-century Christian wanting to make up an author for a Gospel, you would never choose Mark, even if he was believed to have been a companion of Peter. And you would never choose Luke because he had no direct connection to Jesus at all… If second-century Christians were fabricating traditional authorship for the canonical Gospels, surely they could have done a better job.9

Although Mark and Luke did not directly know Jesus, they had access to those who did. In addition, it is likely that Matthew and John were actual eyewitnesses of the events they record and knew Jesus personally. Yet, Roberts rightly concludes: “…the reliability of the Gospels does not depend upon who wrote them so much as on the nature and purpose of the writings themselves.”10

Do We Have the Same Gospels?
It is clear that presently we have four Gospels that were considered authoritative for the Christian Church since the time of their writing. Trustworthy sources attest to the genuine authorship of these documents, and their style and literary genre indicate historical accounts of actual people and events. Yet, the question arises: how sure can one be that the Bible one reads today reflects what was originally written? Were the Gospels preserved and copied reliably? This is the question of reliability of transmission. For all ancient writings, the question of reliability of transmission hinges on the quality, quantity, and dating of the documents themselves.

It was the practice of the early Church to meet together for worship, fellowship, celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and for the reading and teaching of scripture. The scripture of the early Church was the Old Testament. Bruce elaborates:

At the beginning of its existence, then, the Christian church found itself equipped with a book, a collection of sacred scriptures which it inherited. It was not based on the book: it was based on a person, Jesus Christ . . . acknowledged by his followers as Lord of all. But the book bore witness to him; in this role they found it indispensable. At the same time they found the record of his life and teaching, his suffering and triumph, indispensable to their understanding of the book.11

Clearly the early Church’s reliance upon the testimony of the Gospels was central to the faith, and in the light of the Gospels, the fulfillment of the Old Testament writings became clear. Bruce adds: “…the perpetuation of the words and deeds of Jesus could not be entrusted indefinitely to oral tradition…”12 The early Church valued the Gospel writings as authoritative, and was particularly concerned with the transmission and preservation of the writings. Because of this, the Gospel texts began to be copied and circulated widely among the early Church. To quote Barnett, “Clearly it was that Christian ‘habit’ of assembling on a ‘fixed day’ to hear the Scriptures read that explains both the multiplicity and the survival of New Testament texts.”13

The majority of scholars date the Gospels between 30 and 70 years after the death of Jesus.14 Scholarly opinion varies on the dating, but the fact of the circulation of the Gospels is not disputed. As Barnett observes, “Although no one can say exactly when the Gospels were written, we can say with certainty the dates by which they were in circulation.”15 The early circulation and authorship make the Gospel documents the earliest historical manuscripts available for events of their period. The time gap between the originals and the first surviving copies is around 25 years.16 Geisler and Turek state that the New Testament documents “have more manuscripts, earlier manuscripts, and more abundantly supported manuscripts than the best ten pieces of classical literature combined.”17

Due to the extensive copying and propagation of the Gospel writings, scholars now have over 5,700 manuscripts that contain some portion of the New Testament. Roberts points out that “Among these manuscripts, a couple thousand contain all or portions of the biblical Gospels.”18 This abundance of manuscripts is astounding when compared to the available manuscripts for other ancient writings of the same period. “The number of Gospel manuscripts in existence is about 20 times larger than the average number of extant manuscripts of comparable writings.”19 Princeton textual critic Bruce Metzger and New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman elaborate on the wealth of New Testament manuscript evidence:

Besides textual evidence derived from the New Testament Greek manuscripts and from early versions, the textual critic has available the numerous scriptural quotations included in the commentaries, sermons, and other treatises written by early Church fathers. Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament.20

The abundance of manuscripts is a key element in testing the reliability of the Gospels. Not all manuscripts are exactly the same. Some manuscripts are complete, while others only contain fragments. Among these manuscripts, some contain variant readings of the texts. These variants, however, rarely affect the meaning of the text. As Roberts points out:

“If you were to take two different teams of text critics and ask them to work independently on a critical edition of the Greek New Testament, they would agree more than 99 percent of the time…having many manuscripts actually increases the likelihood of our getting back to the original text.”21

It is the great quantity of manuscripts that allows for the crosschecking of the manuscripts with one another, filtering out errant readings. According to text critic Daniel Wallace, only about 1% of the textual variants make any substantive difference, with Roberts noting that “few, if any, of these have any bearing on theologically important matters.”22 In other words, the number of manuscripts for the Gospels reveals that any variant readings make no difference in the meaning of the text. The Gospels stand up to the scrutiny of textual criticism.

Were There Other Gospels?
Recent popular fiction and conspiracy documentaries seem to have raised awareness of “alternative Gospels” among the general public. Although it is true that there are other documents that can be called “gospels,” it should be noted that these so-called “gospels” bear little resemblance to the biblical Gospels. These gospels are referred to as the apocryphal gospels, meaning hidden writings. These would include such writings as The Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Thomas, and a number of others. A cursory examination of the apocryphal gospels tends to strengthen the case for the reliability of the biblical Gospels.

First, the apocryphal gospels are dated much later than the biblical Gospels. They came much later – most scholars agreeing on dates in the second or third century. Unlike the biblical Gospels, the apocryphal writings were self-titled – obviously in an attempt to gain credibility, as their writing postdates the death of their purported authors. Roberts tells us “Almost no scholar believes that the extrabiblical Gospels were actually written by their purported authors.”23

Second, the other gospels were not historical narratives like the biblical Gospels. The Gnostics were a contemporaneous sect of mystics professing themselves to be keepers of “special knowledge,” and many of the alternative gospels were clearly written from a Gnostic point of view. With their mystical tone, emphasis on secret sayings, and esoteric nature, the Gnostic writings show no substance of historical narrative. In this regard, they do not match the style and content of the biblical Gospels. What narrative does occur includes stories of Jesus’ mystical boyhood miracles and his secret conversations with the apostles after his resurrection. They rely on the biblical Gospels for their context, often filling in the “untold” stories of Jesus’ life. Whereas the miracles of the biblical Gospels are presented plainly, the apocryphal gospels contain embellished accounts of miracles without any particular purpose.

Finally, the apocryphal gospels failed to edify the church. In the history of the canon of the New Testament, the second-century Christian writer and theologian Tatian authored his Diatessaron. In writing the Diatessaron (from a musical term meaning harmony of four), Tatian’s goal was to combine the four Gospels into one complete whole. As Metzger puts it, “The Diatessaron supplies proof that all four Gospels were regarded as authoritative, otherwise it is unlikely that Tatian would have dared to combine them into one Gospel account.”24 Although Tatian’s Diatessaron was eventually rejected in favor of the original and authoritative four, it should be noted that he didn’t choose among the apocrypha. Metzger continues: “…it is certainly significant that Tatian selected just these four…”25 The four biblical Gospels were accepted immediately; the apocryphal gospels came much later and were considered more heretical than beneficial.

Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, published a list of authoritative writings that contained all of the books of the New Testament. In A.D. 367 he wrote concerning the apocryphal gospels and their shortcomings:

[N]or is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.26

In summary, the other gospels did not prove to be genuine in the eyes of their first audiences. Those closest to the Gospel message and the apostles, the early Church fathers, rejected their authorship and denounced their teachings. These false gospels failed the test of antiquity due to their late authorship. They were not copied due to their lack of impact with Christian believers, and they had no seal of apostolic authority. When compared with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the other gospels pale in comparison. In short, the apocryphal gospels failed to be reliable historical accounts of the life of Jesus.

Conclusion
We see that the Gospels we have today were written very early by trusted sources. Their readers received them as the authoritative account of the life of Jesus Christ. Because of this, they were copied and preserved more than any other ancient writing. The abundance of manuscripts show that there is virtually no difference between what was originally written and what we have today. Other false gospels were rejected because they failed to show themselves to be genuine historical accounts. In conclusion, the New Testament Gospels can be trusted as reliable historical records of Jesus.


1 Mark D. Roberts, Can We Trust the Gospels (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007), pp. 84-86.
2 Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), p. 240.
3 Ibid., pp. 91-92.
4 Paul W. Barnett, Is The New Testament Reliable? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), p. 15.
5 F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), p. 132.
6 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978-1980).
7 Roberts, p. 43.
8 Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), p. 136.
9 Roberts, pp. 48-49.
10 Ibid., p. 49.
11 Bruce, p. 55.
12 Ibid., p. 118.
13 Barnett, p. 45.
14 Ibid., p. 58.
15 Ibid., p. 39.
16 Normal Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), p. 225.
17 Ibid.
18 Roberts, p. 31.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid., p. 32., citing Metzger and Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 126.
21 Roberts, p. 33.
22 Ibid., p. 34., citing Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace, Reinventing Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2006), p. 56.
23 Ibid., p. 40.
24 Metzger, p. 115.
25 Ibid.
26 Roberts, p. 179., citing Athanasius, Festal Letter for Easter 367 A.D., A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978-1979).

A Case for the Lordship of Jesus Christ

by Brian Auten

Christianity makes two astounding claims. First, it claims that its central figure, Jesus Christ, was raised from the dead. Second, it claims that if Jesus was not raised from the dead, then Christianity is false. In fact, the Apostle Paul said “…if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile” (1 Cor. 15:17 NIV). Paul freely admitted that if the resurrection of Jesus from the dead was not an actual historical event, then the Christian faith is pointless. However, if Jesus did rise from the dead, he truly is Lord. No other religion bases its entire truth upon the veracity of an actual historical event. This paper will make a concise case for the Lordship of Jesus Christ based upon the historicity of the resurrection. The thesis is this: if Jesus actually rose from the dead, then he is Lord.

The proper name of God used by the Hebrews was Jehovah (YHWH), which is rendered LORD in the Old Testament. It denotes one with absolute control. In the New Testament the Greek word for Lord is kurios: a supreme master.1 When we speak of Lordship in this paper, we refer to the Biblical understanding of Lord as being one with God and absolute master of all.

The Historical Context of the Resurrection
One could claim that an event like the resurrection of Jesus doesn’t prove anything. If removed from any sort of context, this statement is true. However, within its historical context, the resurrection proves a great deal. If Jesus were no particular person living in no particular time in history, who made no claims, taught and influenced no one, made no predictions, died uneventfully— and then rose from the dead—what could be made of it? There would be no significant context for such an event, rendering it utterly meaningless and lacking any reason to be taken as true. Without any historical context, a resurrection could be reasonably considered an anomaly of some sort—dismissed with skepticism. William Lane Craig pointed out that “a miracle apart from the religio-historical context is inherently ambiguous.”2

However, the resurrection of Jesus is by no means without context. Most people would consider Jesus to be the greatest figure in history. He was not a typical person. He has had an undeniable effect upon the world like no other person in history. By all accounts, Jesus lived a faultless life on earth. His moral teachings are unparalleled in their depth and simplicity. He worked miracles and healed the sick. In addition, he made extreme claims to be equal with God, one with God, Messiah, and Son of God. Jesus even predicted his own death—and moreover—his own resurrection after three days. This is the kind of context that makes the historical account of a resurrection considerably meaningful.

British theologian and scholar N. T. Wright points out the importance of taking all the events surrounding the resurrection into account:

Thus neither Jesus’ life, deeds and teachings on the one hand, nor his resurrection on the other, could by themselves have had the effect of making people say at once, ‘He really was and is the Messiah.’ But put them together – which is what the early Christians did . . . and the result is clear.3

Resurrection historians Gary Habermas and Michael Licona also stress the significance of the resurrection in its context:

The context of Jesus’ life and claims cannot be ignored. For if God exists, there is no reason why the Author of life could not raise the dead. And Jesus was just the sort of person we might expect God to raise.4

The Self-Identity of Jesus
It is important to recognize the fact that the identity of Jesus as Son of God and Messiah was not something attributed to him after his time on earth. During his ministry, Jesus himself made the claims of divinity. First, Jesus referred to himself as the Son of God. During his trial in Matthew 26:63-66, he answered clearly:

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” “Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” “He is worthy of death,” they answered. (NIV)

The reason that Jesus was sent to the cross to be executed was for the charge of blasphemy—making himself out to be God. Jesus agreed to their statements knowing full well what the penalty would be for admitting to such a thing. Second, Jesus referred to himself as Son of Man. In the scripture cited above, Jesus refers to himself not only as the Son of God, but as the Son of Man. This is Jesus’ preferred way of referring to himself, and it occurs in all four Gospels. It appears thirty times in Matthew, fourteen in Mark, twenty-five in Luke, and thirteen in John.

The title “Son of Man” is significant in that it refers to a Messianic prophecy in Daniel 7:13-14:

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. (emphasis added, NIV)

When Jesus used this title, it was clear both to himself and to his listeners that he was referring to himself as the Son of Man spoken of in Daniel’s vision. Third, Jesus spoke and acted as if he was God. Consider John 8:58-59: “‘I tell you the truth,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’ At this, they picked up stones to stone him…” Here Jesus uses the title that God assigned himself when He spoke to Moses. Obviously the Jews understood his meaning and tried to stone him for blasphemy. Christian philosopher Phil Fernandes elaborates:

Christ probably spoke these words in Aramaic (the common language of the Hebrews of his day). Therefore, He probably did not use the Greek words “ego eimi” for “I AM.” Rather, He would have used the Hebrew “YHWH.” This was the title for the eternal God. Out of reverence for God, the Jews never spoke this word. So here, Christ was not only speaking the unspeakable title of God (YHWH), but He was using it to refer to Himself. Properly understood, this was probably Christ’s most unambiguous claim to deity.6

Additionally, Jesus regularly called God his father (John 10:30). He declared himself the only way to God in John 14:6. He forgave sins in Luke 7:48 and Matthew 9:2. He even accepted others’ statements of his deity and also their worship (Matthew 14:33, 28:17). In a very clear way, Jesus identified himself to be God. It was clear to those who worshiped him, and clear to those who crucified him.

The Fulfillment of Prophecy
The Old Testament contains over three hundred references to the Messiah that were fulfilled in Jesus.7 In Isaiah 53 alone, there can be found twelve specific prophetic aspects fulfilled by Jesus:

1) was rejected; 2) was a man of sorrow; 3) lived a life of suffering; 4) was despised by others; 5) carried our sorrow; 6) was smitten and afflicted by God; 7) was pierced for our transgressions; 8) was wounded for our sins; 9) suffered like a lamb; 10) died with the wicked; 11) was sinless; and 12) prayed for others.8

Predictions elsewhere about Christ’s death include the piercing of his hands and feet (Ps. 22:16); the piercing of his side (Zech. 12:10); and the casting of lots for his garments (Ps. 22:18).9 The fact that these prophecies (not to mention over two hundred others) were written hundreds of years before Jesus lived, yet were fulfilled with such accuracy, suggests a divine author. The fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy also places the death and resurrection of Jesus at the heart of a very significant religio-historical context.

The Historicity of the Resurrection
The New Testament Gospels give a very straightforward account of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. However, despite the New Testament’s over five thousand manuscripts, its very early authorship, its astounding accuracy, and its overall historical reliability, some scholars still doubt its report of miracles. This skepticism is due to a naturalistic bias—an underlying view of the world that rejects the supernatural.

However, it must be noted that this bias is not scientific or historical, but based upon philosophical presuppositions that the historian brings to the subject. However, a case can be made for the resurrection based on an appeal to data so strongly evidenced historically that nearly every scholar regards them as reliable facts.10

First, it is almost universally agreed upon among historians that Jesus died by the torturous death of crucifixion. Critical Jesus Seminar scholar John Dominic Crossan admits, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”11 This is attested to by multiple sources, including Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapion, and the Jewish Talmud.12

Second, Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them. Atheistic New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann said, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”13 Because of this belief they both claimed that he rose from the dead, and they went from being fearful to being bold witnesses of their experiences everywhere they went. The lives of the disciples were, undeniably, completely transformed. This is evidenced by the Gospels themselves, ancient creeds and oral traditions, the writings of the Apostle Paul, and the writings of the church fathers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Polycarp, and others.14

Third, the church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed. Paul (formerly Saul) was previously a skeptic who violently opposed Christianity—pursuing Christians to their death and seeking to destroy the faith (Acts 22:4, Gal. 1:13). Yet this same persecutor claims to have seen the risen Jesus. Consequently, Paul changes from a killer of believers to Christianity’s most influential proclaimer. This is supported by Luke, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth, Origen, and Paul’s own testimony.15 Again, this is a fact that is universally agreed to by scholars.

Fourth, the skeptical half-brother of Jesus became a believer. The New Testament records that James, Jesus’ half-brother, was a skeptic during the time of Jesus’ ministry. However, something happened that changed his opinion of Jesus. He later became a believer, and is identified as a leader of the Jerusalem church. Moreover, his belief was so strong that he later died a martyr for the faith, as attested to by Christian and non-Christian sources.16

Fifth, the empty tomb of Jesus is further evidence of Jesus’ resurrection. Habermas has concluded that roughly seventy-five percent of critical scholars agree upon this point.17 The empty tomb is also confirmed by the earliest enemies of Christianity. The Jewish opposition asserted from the beginning that the disciples stole the body—a tacit admission that the tomb was empty. In addition, any talk of the resurrection of Jesus could have been quickly silenced in Jerusalem simply by producing his dead body, but no corpse was produced. Finally, the fact that women were the primary witnesses to the empty tomb strengthens the case for an authentic empty tomb. A counterfeit story of the empty tomb would almost certainly involve men as the primary witnesses, as Habermas and Licona explain:

If the account of the empty tomb had been invented, it would most likely not have listed the women as the primary witnesses, since in that day a woman’s testimony was not nearly as credible as a man’s. Thus, the empty tomb appears to be historically credible in light of the principle of embarrassment.18

Historians often use the method of abduction (inference to the best explanation) to create a historical hypothesis. A hypothesis must adequately account for all the known facts in order to be considered plausible. From these five facts, one can reasonably come to the conclusion that God raised Jesus from the dead. This historical hypothesis accounts for these five facts (not to mention the further New Testament testimony to the resurrection), and the subsequent rise of Christianity.

The Rise of Christianity
One of the most powerful testimonies to the truth of the resurrection is the rise of Christianity. Theologian H.D.A. Major said:

Had the crucifixion of Jesus ended his disciples’ experience of Him, it is hard to see how the Christian church could have come into existence. The church was founded on faith in the Messiahship of Jesus. A crucified messiah was no messiah at all.19

In fact, the disciples based their lives on the truthfulness of the resurrection. When Christ was in the grave, they ran and hid. When he rose, they were transformed. Like the former persecutor Paul and the former skeptic James, the disciples all were willing to go to their deaths defending the truth of the resurrection. They not only died for what they believed to be true (as many people have died for what they believed), they died for what they knew to be true. It has been said that liars don’t make good martyrs. This is what drove the rapid growth of the early church, as noted by Wright:

Why did early Christianity begin, and why did it take this shape? The answer is: because the early Christians believed that something had happened to Jesus after his death, something to which the stories in the four canonical gospels are as close as we are likely to get.20

While Jesus was alive, his followers believed he was the Messiah. But they had no expectation of a Messiah that would die. However, when Jesus rose from the dead, this was undeniable proof to them that Jesus was who he said he was. Indeed, this is exactly what Jesus had predicted in Matthew 20:17-19:

Now as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside and said to them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!”

Had Jesus stayed in the grave, his followers would have no reason to call him Messiah, as Wright again concludes:

…the early Christians [speak] with one voice: we believe that Jesus was and is the Messiah because he was raised bodily from the dead. Nothing else will do. And to this the historian has to say: yes, this belief would produce that result. If the early Christians believed that Israel’s god had raised Jesus from the dead, they would believe that he had been vindicated as Messiah despite his shameful death.21

Only the actual resurrection of Jesus can account for the early church’s belief that Jesus was the Messiah. Only their belief that Jesus was the Messiah can explain the rise of the early church. “If Jesus was the Messiah, he was also the lord of the whole world.”22

Conclusion
This paper has presented a case for the Lordship of Jesus based upon his resurrection. If he rose from the dead, his claims as the Son of God have been authenticated, and therefore he is Lord. His resurrection took place not without historical context, but as the consummation of an extraordinary ministry in which he not only claimed he was God's Son, but he predicted his own death and resurrection. His life and death fulfilled numerous intersecting Messianic prophecies. The facts surrounding Jesus’ death and post-mortem appearances, coupled with the radically changed lives of hostile skeptics and unbelievers all point towards the historical veracity of an actual resurrection from the dead. Indeed, it has been shown that if the resurrection was not genuine, there is no plausible explanation for the subsequent rapid rise and growth of Christianity. All alternative theories have failed to match the explanatory power and scope of this simple hypothesis.

The resurrection of Jesus is one of the most substantiated events in history, and entire books have been written detailing Christ's fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. The stumbling block for the unbeliever is not any lack of historical evidence. Rather, the stumbling block is this: if Jesus is Lord, he is Lord of all men.

1 Easton's Bible Dictionary, Matthew George Easton, www.eastonsbibledictionary.com.
2 William Lane Craig, Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?A Debate
between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman (College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts,
March 28, 2006).
3 N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003),
p. 224.
4 Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), p. 171.
5 Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Publishing Group, 1999), p. 708.
6 Phil Fernandes, No Other Gods (Bremerton, WA: IBD Press, 1998), p. 155.
7 Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1999), p. 168.
8 Geisler, p. 611.
9 Ibid., p. 612.
10 Habermas and Licona, p. 48.
11 Ibid., p. 49, citing John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco,
CA: Harper Collins, 1991), p. 145.
12 Ibid., p. 49.
13 Ibid., p. 60, citing Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus? A Historical Approach to the Resurrection (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995), p. 80.
14 Ibid., pp. 50-62.
15 Ibid., p. 65.
16 Ibid., p. 68.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid., p. 73.
19 McDowell, p. 255.
20 Wright, p. 614.
21 Wright, p. 563.
22 Wright, p. 563.