Category: Apologetics

The Linchpin Of Christianity, Part I

(c)iStockphoto.com/McInich

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve learned to appreciate people who can reduce the complex to the simple. When it comes to discussing ultimate issues like Truth and religion, this is even more important.

Let’s face it, if an idea, argument or truth is not simple enough, you won’t understand it. And if you don’t understand it you won’t remember it. And if you don’t remember it you won’t be able to explain it to others.

Apologetics is the discipline of giving a defense of Christianity. It is the fulfillment of the commandment  of “always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you…”  (I Peter 3:15). In other words, all Kingdom citizens are to be apologists.

There are many different approaches to apologetics, but I prefer the one that is most simple, and interestingly it is the one Jesus and the Apostle Paul used.

When the Jewish religious leaders asked Jesus for proof He was the Messiah, Jesus said that after they had killed Him, He would be resurrected from the dead on the third day. (John 2:18-21).

The Apostle Paul carried Jesus’ claim to its logical conclusion.  Paul said if Jesus’ resurrection did not occur, Christianity is a lie, you (Christians) are still in your sins, and you are lying to the world. (I Corinthians 15:12-19).

Now I’ve heard people say that even if Christianity is not true (if the resurrection did not happen), then they would still be a Christian because the morality of it is so much better than any alternative.

But that’s not what the Apostle Paul says. He says if the resurrection is not an historical fact, “… let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” (I Corinthians 15:32).

The resurrection either happened or didn’t. If it didn’t, Christianity is a lie. If it did, Jesus is who He said He was and He deserves the worship and obedience of all men.

I’m a trial lawyer who makes his living understanding the importance and weight to be given evidence. I’m a Christian because I believe the evidence proves Jesus’ resurrection is an historical fact. GS

The Best Apologetic

For the last couple weeks I and another attorney in my office have been working on a religious discrimination case.  Our clients worked for a company run by members of a religion (many would say a cult) who required our clients submit to their religion’s training and teaching as a condition to advancement in the company.

I’ve been reading a lot about the religion, not so much what others say about it but what their religious texts say.  In the midst of that study I discovered this religion has an opinion about Jesus.  Its founder said Jesus was a pedophile and that Jesus’ death on the cross was not a basis for salvation.

If you’ve been following this blog for a while you know that in August the wife and I were on a Black Sea cruise that took us from Istanbul to Ephesus and ultimately to Athens.  While in Ephesus we had a private tour guide, who was Muslim.  We spent two days with her, and in the course of getting to know each other it came up quite naturally that we were Christians.

At one point, she mentioned that Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet.  She then said, “Well we all worship the same God anyway. Don’t you believe that?”  I then explained to her genuine surprise that Christians cannot believe that because Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and the only way to God and that to believe in Him meant to believe He was who He said He was.

As a Christian, you can spend a lot of time studying comparative religions in preparation for sharing the Gospel with non-Christians, but the best apologetic ultimately is Jesus.  Most religions have some contention about who Jesus is.  Some will say Jesus was a good teacher, others a prophet, some a liar, and apparently one contends He was a pedophile.

This is where Jesus kept the focus during His ministry.  After asking Peter who the people were saying He was, Jesus asked Peter the ultimate question, “But who do you say that I am?” (Luke 9:20).  It’s the question everyone will ultimately have to answer, and it’s a good question to ask now.  GS

Visible Evidence Of The Invisible

As a trial lawyer, I make my living in evidence. So, when I ran across this passage this morning it immediately caught my attention.

Jesus has just told a man his sins are forgiven. The Pharisees, knowing something about theology and realizing only God could forgive sins, quickly understood Jesus had just impliedly claimed to be God. Jesus understanding what the Pharisees were thinking, called them on it and said,

“Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins have been forgiven you’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But, so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins–He said to the paralytic–“I say to you, get up, pick up your stretcher and go home.”

(Luke 5:23-24).

Jesus understood the Pharisees were questioning His authority to forgive sins. Authority is something you cannot see. You can see symbols of it–a badge, a uniform, a seal–but authority itself is unseen.

Jesus could have told the Pharisees to accept on blind faith that He had the authority to forgive sins. Instead, Jesus offered them something more–“But, so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…”–and then gave them visible, tangible evidence of His authority by healing the paralytic.

Pretty good evidence. GS

On Intolerance

(c)iStockphoto.com/focus97

There’s much talk today of the evils of intolerance. It’s the one thing our increasingly post-modern culture agrees is morally wrong. I think they are wrong, which I suppose makes me intolerant of their tolerance.

“Tolerance” means “the capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs of others.” (The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Ed.) “Respect” means “[t]o feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.” Id. So, to be intolerant means to fail to esteem the beliefs of others.

If I affirm some things, I am necessarily rejecting–or being intolerant–of other things. For example, for me to say my iMac mouse is white is to also say it is not black. To esteem the belief that the mouse is black when I know it is white is insanity. Likewise, for me, as a Christian, to esteem a religion that asserts there are many ways to God, or a way other than Jesus, when Jesus said no one comes to God except through Him, is to cut off the branch upon which I sit. Intolerance then is not evil but a logical necessity.

Intolerance is amoral. It is its object that determines in any given situation whether intolerance is good or evil. If I’m intolerant to injustice committed against the poor, my intolerance is good; if I’m intolerant of righteous acts my intolerance is bad.

There is something else wrong with the clarion call to tolerance. Tolerance is utterly impotent to inspire men to great acts. Who has ever laid down his life for tolerance? It is intolerance we have to thank for many of our heroes; it is the fuel of bravery. It was intolerance for Nazi fascism that inspired Americans to volunteer and risk their lives in World War II. It was intolerance for racism and injustice that inspired Martin Luther King, Jr. into the streets to mobilize the peaceful protests that would transform a nation. Tolerance compels no such action.

That is why tolerance will never abide as a virtue. It’s a chimera of a humanistic culture, unable to inspire men to greatness and so devoid of content as to make it useless as a virtue. The answer to bigotry is not tolerance but righteousness, or put another way, intolerance for bigotry.

So, next time someone accuses you of being intolerant just consider it an affirmation of your sanity. GS

On Hell

Courtesy of ©iStockphoto.com/pesky-monkey

It’s become increasingly un-pc to talk about Hell, even in Christian circles. Post-moderns are turned off by it.  Many theologians feel the need to apologize for it, and Universalists have built a religion around the rejection of it. I’ve even seen one of my former pastors go off the reservation over it.

I’ve never been one to get wrapped around the axle on the issue of Hell.  It actually makes a lot of sense to me.

People who reject God during their earthly life, who choose to live for themselves rather than the God who created them, get to do so for eternity. Isn’t it more a matter of free will than punishment?  And if the punishment for rejecting God is separation from Him in the afterlife, doesn’t the punishment fit the crime?  I guess I just don’t see the problem.

And then there are those who believe it’s unfair that people who’ve never heard the Gospel should go to Hell.  But people don’t go to Hell because they don’t hear the Gospel but because they rebel against God.

There’s a bigger problem as well.  If a person’s ignorance of the Gospel exempted him from Hell, who would ever share the Gospel–by doing so you could only make things worse for them.  If a person’s ignorance guaranteed him eternity in Heaven, by sharing the gospel with him you would be taking the chance he would reject the Gospel and, no longer being ignorant, end up in Hell.

If that were the case, no one would ever share the Gospel, and if  no one ever shared the Gospel, no one would ever get to know Jesus during their earthly life. If no one knew Jesus in this earthly life, the world would be in a sorrier state than it is today.  You get the picture.  It really can’t be any other way.

So you see, Hell actually makes sense…at least it does to me, but maybe I’m just not very smart. After all, I am just a simple caveman who became a lawyer. GS