Apologetics

Apologetics

Kunoy Island, Denmark (photo from trekearth.com)

Part 1: Preface from July 6, 2023

Published originally September 27, 2007, well before completing my PhD work, and an early article on this website. This article is revised with significant revisions. A major reason for the significant revising is that once I had done the PhD work, I further realized that although apologetics has is importance; I am personally far more interested in philosophical theology within the Reformed tradition and theistic philosophy of religion. But of course, both are connected to apologetics.

Notably discussed in the also recently revised article

Monday, July 24, 2017 Opines on Philosophy of Religion and Apologetics

Part II: apologian

From New Testament Greek, in First Peter 3:15, the Christian is told to provide an answer to others concerning the hope he/she has in the Christian faith. The word ‘answer’ in the Greek from First Peter is apologian (apologian). The Greek New Testament (1993: 793).

5 versions from New Testament.com

Five versions in New Testament Greek from 1 Peter 3: 15.

ἀπολογία: Blue Letter Bible

The Blue Letter Bible has Strong's G627 cited for the initial version of the word.

This is defined a plea, an answer (for self), clearing of self, defence. Strong (1986: 16). The English word ‘apologetics’ comes from the Greek root word. Hoover (1996: 68). William Barclay writes that a defence of the Christian faith must be reasonable. Barclay (1976: 230-231). What a Christian believes should be stated intelligently and intelligibly. Barclay. (1976: 230-231) The Christian needs to go through the mental and spiritual toil of reasoning out the faith, so he/she can tell others effectively. Barclay (1976: 230-231). 

Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling write that apologetics is the formal defence of the Christian faith, and Christian theologians have often differed on the appropriate way to present this defence. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 13). There have been various appeals to rational argumentation, empirical evidence, fulfilled prophecy, church authorities and mystical experience. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 13-14).

Hoover notes that there are different approaches to apologetics, including the Revelation School of thought which is a part of the Objective School which reasons that objective evidence such as miracles and rational proofs for God are important, but that the unregenerate person cannot be converted by intellectual proofs alone. Hoover (1996: 69-70). A person must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit and the use of truth. Hoover (1996: 69-70). The Natural Theology School which is also part of the Objective School places much emphasis on human reason and philosophy that will persuade the unbeliever to a belief in Christianity. Hoover (1996: 69-70). The Subjective School typically doubts that the unbeliever can be argued into the faith, but places emphasis on personal experience and a subjective encounter with God. Hoover (1996: 69). Sin can be understood to blind human reason and therefore persons are in need of a personal experience with God. Hoover (1996: 69).

I use mainly biblical theology, philosophical theology and philosophy of religion, as opposed to apologetics. However, in agreement with some apologetic approaches, I primarily favour an objective approach within my academic work, to a subjective one. This being stated, I fully acknowledge that God must change a human heart for a person to embrace the Gospel. I reason that God can use reason from philosophical and empirical sources in the regeneration (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1 as examples) process. It is God and not intellectual concepts in themselves that convert a person, but God can use human means to work divine spiritual plans. I reason that intellect and personal experience should work together in order that a Christian has a faith and philosophy within a worldview, that he/she understands reasonably well and can share with others in an effective way. 

As I favour biblical theology, philosophical theology and philosophy of religion, I realize that sometimes my work is controversial, but I also attempt to be respectful and open-minded. I revise my own work regularly. There are plenty of very good and useful ‘lighter’ and more pleasant Christian websites out there, and I am willing to link with many of these, but I reason that a ministry God has given me online is to struggle with some difficult theological and philosophical issues and then present them in written form. This will not always be popular and within academic theology there is often a lack of support from Christian academics for one another, if they differ on secondary issues. But, I reason that Christian academic thinkers and writers should (at least theoretically) unite under the essentials and then respectfully discuss secondary disagreements.

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1975) Philosophy of Religion, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1978) The Roots of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

HOOVER, A.J. (1996) ‘Apologetics’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

MARTIN, WALTER (1985) The Kingdom of The Cults, Minneapolis, Bethany House Publishers.

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (1993) Stuttgart, United Bible Societies.

God reveals himself in the Bible

Chateau Les Halles, France (photo from trekearth.com)

I am working on revising my statistical chapter for my PhD. The chapter received a good review, and God willing, once I pass the dissertation, I would like to share the full results on this blog. Today, I will briefly touch upon the results of one of the questions and discuss some related theology.

For those of you that completed a questionnaire, you may remember that one of the propositions was God reveals himself in the Bible. With this question 97.7% agreed which was an overwhelming acceptance of the idea. As I attend a secular University, I made a strong effort to survey what would be understood as Christian Churches within a Western cultural context. This means that I emailed, mailed and dropped off questionnaires out to evangelical, conservative, and liberal churches. Some of the churches were moderately conservative (my position), some were fundamentalist, and some were liberal progressive churches. I contacted denominations within Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox and non-denominational traditions.

From my findings which are of course limited, as I surveyed 213 persons mainly from Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Western Europe, Australia, and Kenya. It can be deduced that although conservative and liberal Christians can disagree on the nature of Biblical revelation, they do agree that it exists. David A. Pailin explains that since the Enlightenment era the traditional propositional view of revelation has widely, but not completely, been replaced by the understanding that divine revelation comes through events. Pailin (1999: 505). The Bible records these events that are perceived through faith for significance. Pailin (1999: 505). Gene Edward Veith, Jr. explains that Enlightenment age of reason features scientific discovery and the rejection of much of revealed religion in favour of a reliance on reason. Veith (1994: 32-33). This term ‘Enlightenment’ refers to the philosophical movement among seventeenth and eighteenth century Western intellectuals. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 44-45). Enlightenment thinkers tended to reject external sources of knowledge and elevated human reasoning. Biblical doctrines were therefore under suspicion. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 44-45).

Harold Lindsell would support a traditional understanding of Biblical revelation as he states that through special supernatural revelation in Scripture, Jesus Christ is revealed to selected persons. Lindsell (1976: 17). The 97.7% agreement of God revealing himself in Scripture is not necessarily resounding intellectual support for either a traditional or Enlightenment view on revelation. Grenz and Olson explain that Christianity has been changed since the Enlightenment, and it will never be the same. Grenz and Olson (1992: 15-16). The Enlightenment has not only influenced liberal progressive theology, but has affected conservative theology as well. Grenz and Olson point out that the Enlightenment understanding of reason would no longer allow the Church to be the sole teacher of Bible and Christian doctrine. Grenz and Olson (1992: 21). An understanding by individuals of Scripture and theology is an integral part of modern conservative evangelical thought and this can be traced back to Enlightenment thinking, and to the Reformation. Individuals with the use of reason needed to question Church teaching. Grenz and Olson (1992: 21). Enlightenment thought from a Christian perspective has some historical merit, although I do not consider myself a theologian primarily influenced by Enlightenment era reasoning. Christianity and the Enlightenment are not completely antithetical as they are both modernist philosophies, which overlap at points in their pursuit of truth. Veith (1994: 43). Modernity was the dominant worldview of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, heavily influenced by the Enlightenment. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 79-80). Veith writes that in the late twentieth century these views have been replaced by post-modernism, which has less emphasis on absolute truth. Veith (1994: 19). This is not to state that post-modernism completely sets aside the concept of truth, but post-modern philosophies are often less dogmatic in approach than ones from the modern era. Within traditional Christianity, it is believed that God has supernaturally revealed himself through Scripture and therefore what is stated as teaching and doctrine (in proper context) could be dogmatically held to as truth.

I reason that the original Biblical documents were inerrant meaning that were fully truthful in what was affirmed. Erickson (1994: 234) The original texts were inerrant and without error, but this does not extend to copies and to translations. Erickson (1994: 240). Therefore, it can be stated that God has allowed substantial amounts of copies from various regions in the ancient world to exist, in order that the number of Biblical passages where a reading is in doubt is relatively small. Erickson (1994: 240). Scripture is historically and theologically accurate, and the Biblical messages of the Hebrew Bible, and the New Testament gospel can be trusted as revealing God’s plans for humanity.

ERICKSON, MILLARD. (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

GRENZ, STANLEY J. AND ROGER E. OLSON (1992) Twentieth Century Theology, Downer’s Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

LINDSELL, HAROLD (1976) The Battle for the Bible, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Revelation’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

VEITH, GENE EDWARD, JR. (1994) Postmodern Times, Wheaton Illinois, Crossway Books.





I updated the following older article.

http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006/05/arminianism-and-free-will.html

Burn

Burn

Preface

This article was originally published 20070910. Format repair with revisions, July 2022. Revised July 2024, for an entry on academia.edu.

Image: Fire in the sky, New Westminster, BC (photo from trekearth.com) 

Cutting through the social rules

On Sunday (September 2007) my pastor at the time, made a funny comment during the sermon. He was pointing out that God was not all that impressed by us, even though he saves some of us. He mentioned that God was not all that impressed by Russ and his mail order PhD. (My distance learning, University of Wales, PhD. I did have three sessions at campus) Well, my PhD is not mail order, but distance learning from a top United Kingdom University, as was my MPhil. The joke was good, nonetheless. My pastor needed to get back at me since I teased him for looking like someone out of the 1960’s or perhaps 1975, if I was generous.

As well on that Sunday, at the barbecue I was in a discussion with a few men about the singleness issue. I agreed in the discussion that mutual physical attraction was not as important as mutual spiritual and intellectual attraction, but I have not as an adult primarily concentrated on looks in women. We should be careful within the Christian Church not to be too critical of singles, telling them that intellect and physical attraction do not matter in romantic relationship, in the hopes of getting them to conform to age-related norms, for example.

I firmly believe that Christians need to have at least a minimally significant, as opposed to maximally significant, spiritual, intellectual, and physical mutual attraction for a relationship to work well. To tell someone not to expect this, from a Christian perspective, is to expect significant commitment in marriage, without significant attraction, and I reason that this is philosophically flawed. Just because a person is past his/her twenties, should not mean that he/she needs to toss standards aside in order to meet some social standard. 

I personally have on many occasions, through prayer especially, subjected my standards to God for revision, and so I am willing to change if that is God’s guiding will. An argument is sometimes made by pastors and theologians that Biblically speaking, sinful sexual desire must be countered by marriage, and therefore persons should marry if not content being single. 

1 Corinthians 7: 9

First Corinthians 7:9 from the New American Standard Bible states: But if they do not have the self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn. 

Referencing Greek New Testament.com

HTML Bible Software © 2001-2007 by johnhurt.com

Greek New Testament 

The linked website presents five manuscript versions: Only slight manuscript variations from the top three, which are from the majority text and the bottom two from minority texts. Clickable image...

But the root word 'better' and the variants all mean 'better' in context.

Bible Hub

Cited

Copyright © 2021 by Discovery Bible.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon 

STRONGS NT 2909  Original word κρείττων, ον

Defined as 'better'.

___

Englishman's Concordance 

1 Corinthians 7:9 Adj-NNS 

GRK: ἐγκρατεύονται γαμησάτωσαν κρεῖττον γάρ ἐστιν 

NAS: let them marry; for it is better to marry 

KJV: for it is better to marry than 

INT: they have self-control let them marry better indeed it is 

Bible Hub

Copyright © 2021 by Discovery Bible.

γαμέω means to marry with the variants.

___

purousqai (Purousqai) is the New Testament Greek word for ‘burn’ here. The Greek New Testament (1993: 581). Strong defines the root word burn here as purow. He explains that the word burn comes from the Greek word for fire pur. Strong (1986: 84). Strong defines the root word ‘puroo’ in 7:9 as to kindle, to be ignited, glow, be refined, to be inflamed with anger, grief, lust, to burn, fiery, be on fire, try. Strong (1986: 84). Bauer explains that πυροῦσθαι (burn) is figurative and means 'to burn with sexual desire.' Bauer (701).

Bible Hub

Cited

Strong's Greek: 4448. πυρόω (puroó) — 6 Occurrences

1 Corinthians 7:9 V-PNM/P (Verb-Present, Infinitive, Middle or Passive)

GRK: γαμῆσαι ἢ πυροῦσθαι

NAS: to marry than to burn [with passion].

KJV: to marry than to burn. 

INT: to marry than to burn with passion

Fee writes that the use of the word ‘burn’ here is metaphorical, and could refer to either burning with desire or burning in judgment. Fee (1987: 289). Fee thinks the context shows that the meaning is inner desire. Fee (1987: 289). Paul was stating that rather than being consumed by sexual sin, one should marry. Fee (1987: 289). Fee explains that marriage here is the proper alternative for those struggling with desire and sin. Fee (1987: 289). 

Reflections

First Corinthians 7:9 shows that a Christian struggling with sexual sin should pursue marriage, but I must point out that if there is not at least minimal, significant mutual attraction, the ‘burn’ will not be appeased. A person struggling with desire will not very likely overcome the desire to be with someone attractive, by being with someone that he/she does not find attractive, and I am not meaning this in solely or primarily physical terms. Yes, mutual spiritual and intellectual mutual attraction is idealistically and generally, more important than mutual physical attraction. But in the Christian community, people should take caution with potential, romantic, critiques and realize that marriage in itself is not a remedy for sexual sin, but marriage in spiritual, intellectual, physical, mutual attraction can be. 

Men's groups are generally not the solution on this issue, at least for men than actually are motivated to potentially biblically deal with the problem of the 'burn'. For an intellectual, biblical, theological, Christian man of my age and position, meeting more relatable women of marriageable age, is far more beneficial than a men's group, men's retreat etcetera. Men's groups, seems to me are generally more for married men with families that idealistically, at least, have the 'burn' issue realistically dealt with within marriage. With all due respect (not stating my church), but in the evangelical church overall, I am detecting a serious misreading of the situation for many single men that are thirty years old plus in age. Many times biblical, theological Christian single men seeking a wife do not need a male motivational event, etcetera. What they need is more relatable, Christian women, where there is significant, spiritual, intellectual, physical, mutual attraction, to be available.

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

CLINES, DAVID, J. A. (1986), 2 Corinthians, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

FEE, GORDON (1987) The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

MARSH, PAUL, W. (1986) ‘1 Corinthians’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company. 

THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (1993) Stuttgart, United Bible Societies. 

WENHAM, J.W. (1991) The Elements of New Testament Greek, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

Facebook and the Occult

Dublin, Ireland: O'Connell Bridge (photo from trekearth.com)

I decided I would write this article after viewing occult related, Facebook applications.

Firstly, within this article, I am not opposing a person’s right to have a Facebook application, which deals with the occult. Secondly, I am not discussing the use of the occult in fictional context, such as with Marvel or DC comics, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Wizard of Oz, etc. Please pardon my use of words, but I am not on a witch-hunt here. I think that some Christians spend too much time criticizing the use of the occult in fictional works! I am not after those of you who read Harry Potter. Thirdly, I am not an expert in the occult, but I have written on the problem of evil with MPhil and PhD dissertations, and I view the occult as a form of evil that is not compatible with Biblical Christianity. Fourthly, this is not a personal attack against anyone who has an occult based application, or is involved in the occult, but merely a short, non-exhaustive explanation and comparison of world-views. My blogs are not about personal attacks, but are about friendly discussion of world-views. I am, however, using materials written by scholars with some level of expertise.

Definitions (In my own words):

S.A. Nigosian describes occultism as the art of manipulating or counteracting against evil forces or powers. Nigosian (1994: 486). R.M. Enroth explains that the term refers to the ‘hidden’ or ‘secret’ wisdom and knowledge which is beyond normal human understanding, and is mysterious or concealed phenomena. Enroth (1996: 787). Lewis M. Hopfe writes that an aspect of the occult, divination, is the prediction of the future. Hopfe (1991: 29-30) Divination also includes interpreting dreams, discovering the past, and obtaining needed information. Nigosian (1994: 484). The occult can also include fortune telling, spiritism, and magic.

Enroth reasons that the occult has three distinct characteristics.

1. The disclosure and communication of information empirically (through the five senses) unavailable to human beings.

2. For persons to come into contact with supernatural powers, energies, and forces.

3. The acquisition and mastery of power in order to manipulate and influence people and events. Enroth (1996: 787).

Enroth notes that the occult rejects the personal God of the Bible, and promotes the deity of human beings. Enroth (1996: 788). He explains that within the occult, the real human self is considered synonymous with God. This ties into the serpents lie to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:4. Enroth (1996: 788). Pantheism is held to within the occult as in God is everything and monism is expressed, as there is only one reality in existence. It can be stated that the God of the Bible is not pantheistic as the creator is totally independent in nature from his creation. Erickson (1994: 303). God existed before the creation of matter as a purely spiritual being, and was not dependent on matter or anything other than himself for existence. God is not equal to his creation or matter, he is beyond it. God is also not to be considered in a panentheistic context as although the creator does sustain all of his creation through his power he is not the vital force within all he creates. Erickson (1994: 307). God in pantheism may be considered to be equal with a tree. God in panentheism may be considered beyond the tree, but the vital force within it, whereas in my view a traditional Christian understanding would be that God is beyond a tree and sustains it, but is not the vital force within it. If God is the vital force within a tree, it could be argued that the tree’s essence is infinite and eternal and I think that this would be in error. In contrast, I think that God sustains and energizes all of his creation while allowing it existence separate from his own. The tree remains finite although it is sustained by God. When the tree dies so does its essence.

Enroth deduces that within the occult there is no distinction between supernatural and natural, good and evil, God and Satan. Enroth (1996: 788). The occult presents a life purpose of awareness of the divine within. Enroth (1996: 788). It assumes that human beings are basically good, that evil is an illusion, and that ignorance and not sin is the root of human problems. An enlightened person will eventually transcend moral distinctions. Enroth (1996: 788). Within the occult is the idea that self-realization can lead to power and human beings can become the masters of their own reality. Enroth (1996: 788). I do not doubt that some within the occult believe that they are basically good people and usually attempt to do good things, in contrast to evil. I would think that many in the occult do accept a moral distinction between good and evil, but the understanding would have differences from a Biblical world-view. Biblically, God as creator is beyond human beings that are finite creatures that cannot obtain the status of deity (Isaiah 43:10-11, Isaiah 44: 6-7, Isaiah 45: 5). Additionally, the book of Romans makes it clear that human beings are sinful and corrupt and in need of salvation (Romans 3, Romans 6:23). The finite and sinful nature of human beings means they are corrupted creations. They are not deity, and hardly masters of their own reality. Rather human beings are limited, corrupt creatures in a reality ruled by an almighty God, where Satanic forces also exist. Biblically speaking, only the atoning and resurrection work of Christ applied to a believing person can bring salvation.

Enroth reasons that the occult has an ultimate objective to validate the lie of the serpent in Genesis, the lie being that human beings can become like God. Enroth (1996: 788). Occult practice can appear to be validated through supernatural, paranormal experiences. Enroth (1996: 788). Enroth is indicating that in actuality, supernatural Satanic power can counterfeit the supernatural power of God, in order that participants in the occult actually do work within a system, which does at times have power. The occult is not necessarily always fraudulent or just made up of those who use psychological manipulation.

ENROTH, R.M. (1996) ‘The Occult’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

HOPFE, LEWIS M. (1991) Religions of the World, New York, Macmillan Publishing Company.

NIGOSIAN S.A. World Faiths, New York, St. Martin’s Press.