Apologetic Lectures

Is the Christian faith rational? Reasonable? How do we respond to other faiths in this world?

These lectures were originally delivered in the Fall of 2004 on the campus of Denver Seminary, by Dr. Douglas Groothuis (Professor of Philosophy). They are provided here, with permission, to challenge and edify. Provided also are lecture notes supplied to attendees, and relevant books to supplement the lectures.
See also our Companion Page, which provides additional perspective on, and application of, the material given.

This week's lecture, in mp3 format:

23. Questions and Answers--Another short one! Coming off the "God and Moral Meaning" session, a series of questions and answers.

Questions and Answers (20 minutes; 4.5 megs)
Click Here (or right click and select "Save Target As")

No Lecture Notes

Additional Readings Pertinent to the Lectures:

No Doubt About it. Winfried Corduan (Nashville, TN: Broadman, Holman, 1997);

Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism. Douglas Groothuis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000)

On Jesus. Douglas Groothuis (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2003; published June 2002)

Confronting the New Age. Douglas Groothuis (InterVarsity, 1988);

Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity. J.P. Moreland (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987)

The Universe Next Door, 4rd edition. James Sire (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004)

Past Lectures:

i. Introductory Lecture--some words about the nature of the lectures, and it's speaker, Dr. Douglas Groothuis.
Dr. Douglas Groothuis (26 minutes; 6 megs)
Click Here (or right click and select "Save Target As")


1. The Nature of Apologetics--The real meat of the opening lectures. What is the nature of Truth? Discusses the importance of propositional statements and truth claims. Defines "apologetics," and it's relationship to philosophy, theology, and evangelism.
The Nature and Purpose of Apologetics part 1 (1 hour, 21 minutes; 18.5 megs)
Click Here

Lecture Notes (Click Here to download in Word format)

2. The Nature of Apologetics--Why is apologetics important? What's the point--and what are we trying to accomplish?

The Nature and Purpose of Apologetics part 2 (38 minutes; 9 megs)
Click Here (or right click and select "Save Target As")

Lecture Notes (Click Here to download in Word format)

3. Developing an Apologetic Mind--Why are Christians unskilled--and unschooled--in apologetic practices? What can we learn from Jesus' apologetic example?

Developing an Apologetic Mind for the Postmodern World part 1 (1 hour, 9 minutes; 16 megs)
Click Here (or right click and select "Save Target As")

Lecture Notes (Click Here to download in Word format)

4. Developing an Apologetic Mind--How do we deal with the fluid definition of "truth" in today's postmodern world? Is it possible for a thing to be objectively true for one person, but not objectively true for another? Discusses also the challenge that television and media plays for apologetics.

Developing an Apologetic Mind for the Postmodern World part 2 (1 hour, 13 minutes; 17 megs)
Click Here (or right click and select "Save Target As")

Lecture Notes (Click Here to download in Word format)

5. Worldviews, Truth, and Knowledge--What is "knowable," and how do we communicate it? Continues the discussion on the difficulties of making statements of knowledge in a postmodern world (which rejects that certain things can be knowable). Compares the postmodern view of truth to the Christian view.

Worldviews, Truth, and Knowledge part 1 (1 hour, 15 minutes; 17 megs)
Click Here (or right click and select "Save Target As")

Lecture Notes (Click Here to download in Word format)

6. Worldviews, Truth, and Knowledge--Discusses the shortcomings of a relativistic worldview, and the roots of relativism. Discusses also Jesus' worldview.

Worldviews, Truth, and Knowledge part 2 (57 minutes; 13 megs)
Click Here (or right click and select "Save Target As")

Lecture Notes (Click Here to download in Word format)

7. Truth and Knowledge--What does it mean to "know" something? How do you know what you know? What is the difference between belief and knowledge?

Truth and Knowledge (57 minutes; 11.5 megs)
Click Here (or right click and select "Save Target As")

Lecture Notes (Click Here to download in Word format)

8. Conventionalism--A short one! Is it possible to change worldviews? Is it fair to ask people of other cultures to consider Christianity? Some definite food for thought.

Conventionalism (14 minutes; 3.2 megs)
Click Here (or right click and select "Save Target As")

Lecture Notes (Click Here to download in Word format)

9. Testing Worldviews--a discussion on finding common ground in apologetic discussions, and evaluating the worldviews both of others, and ourselves. Also includes a discussion on the tragedy of 9/11: what apologetic evidence is offered up by moral indignation?

Testing Worldviews (47 minutes; 11 megs)
Click Here (or right click and select "Save Target As")

Lecture Notes (Click Here to download in Word format)

10. The Project of Natural Theology--Can we rationally establish the existence of God? Also a discussion on why it is difficult for some people to admit their worldview is in error.

The Project of Natural Theology (26 minutes; 6 megs)
Click Here (or right click and select "Save Target As")

Lecture Notes (Click Here to download in Word format)

11. Atheism--What about those arguments atheists use against Christianity? Can God create a square circle, or a boulder so heavy that even He can't pick it up? Where does atheism fall short?

Atheism (24 minutes; 5.5megs)
Click Here (or right click and select "Save Target As")

Lecture Notes (Click Here to download in Word format)

12. Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God--This is the beginning of the meat of the lectures. Discusses the "cosmological" arguments for God's existence; why God must exist.

Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God part 1 (38 minutes; 8.6 megs)
Click Here (or right click and select "Save Target As")

Lecture Notes (Click Here to download in Word format)

13. Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God--An introduction to the Kalam Cosmological argument, and some of the philosophical difficulties of infinity.

Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God part 2 (34 minutes; 8 megs)
Click Here (or right click and select "Save Target As")

Lecture Notes (Click Here to download in Word format)

14. Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God--Continues the Kalam Cosmological argument, looking at some of the scientific confirmations (somtimes inadvertant!) of the argument. Discusses also, briefly, issues of time and theistic evolution.

Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God part 3 (53 minutes; 12 megs)
Click Here (or right click and select "Save Target As")

Lecture Notes (Click Here to download in Word format)

15. Design Arguments for the Existence of God--What does nature tell us about the existence of God? If the world and universe appears to be designed, does it not follow that there must be a Designer?

Design Arguments for the Existence of God part 1 (51 minutes; 11.5 megs)
Click Here (or right click and select "Save Target As")

Lecture Notes (Click Here to download in Word format)

16. Design Arguments for the Existence of God--What does DNA tell us about the existence of God? As we look at the design of the universe, what is the best interpretation? Touches briefly upon the "Many Worlds" theory, and weakness thereof.

Design Arguments for the Existence of God part 2 (41 minutes; 9.5 megs)
Click Here (or right click and select "Save Target As")

Lecture Notes (Click Here to download in Word format)

17. Design Arguments for the Existence of God--What does the mind tell us about the existence of God? Also addresses some of the criticisms that have been raised about the Design Argument.

Design Arguments for the Existence of God part 3 (51 minutes; 12 megs)
Click Here (or right click and select "Save Target As")

Lecture Notes (Click Here to download in Word format)

18. Design Arguments for the Existence of God--Argument from Mind continued. Is the physical world everything? Or is there something to the mind beyond the physical? Includes a discussion on the Vulcan Mind Meld!

Design Arguments for the Existence of God part 4 (39 minutes; 9 megs)
Click Here (or right click and select "Save Target As")

Lecture Notes (Click Here to download in Word format)

19. God and Moral Meaning--Most everyone has some sort of moral principle. Is this existence of this moral order best explained by a moral God? Includes a digression to comment on politics, abortion, and John Kerry.

God and Moral Meaning part 1 (40 minutes; 9 megs)
Click Here (or right click and select "Save Target As")

Lecture Notes (Click Here to download in Word format)

20. God and Moral Meaning--Naturalism (the denial of the supernatural, or higher powers) eventually leads to Nihilism (the rejection of absolute truth and morality). But what are the consequences of this?

God and Moral Meaning part 2 (29 minutes; 7 megs)
Click Here (or right click and select "Save Target As")

Lecture Notes (Click Here to download in Word format)

21. God and Moral Meaning--What is the foundation of morality? Where does guilt come from? Can morality be explained naturalistically--apart from God?

God and Moral Meaning part 3 (43 minutes; 10 megs)
Click Here (or right click and select "Save Target As")

Lecture Notes (Click Here to download in Word format)

22. Argument from Religious Experience--Thus far we've given arguments for the existence of God from the origin of the universe, tne nature of the universe, morality, ect. How much weight should be given to personal experience?

Argument from Religious Experience (45 minutes; 10.5 megs)
Click Here (or right click and select "Save Target As")

Lecture Notes (Click Here to download in Word format)

23. Questions and Answers--Another short one! Coming off the "God and Moral Meaning" session, a series of questions and answers.

Questions and Answers (20 minutes; 4.5 megs)
Click Here (or right click and select "Save Target As")

No Lecture Notes

Leaning on Jesus (apologetically)

by Dan Phillips

To overgeneralize grossly, there are two respectable approaches to apologetics.

(I say "respectable," because dodging, avoiding, feigning a stroke, pretending not to speak English, copping out, or simply trading insults or slogans don't really count.)

One approach is that of the Triablogue guys, God love 'em. These brothers apparently never met a pagan blurt, no matter how cut-'n'-pasted and hackneyed, that they didn't have the time, patience, energy and smarts to respond to -- line by line, syllable by syllable, punctuation-mark by punctuation-mark. There's a real need for that sort of approach. It's in the same continent as J. Gresham Machen's still-classic Virgin Birth of Christ and John Owen's... well, Owen's anything. ("What time is it? Well, sonny, first men mine ore from the mountains, then they smelt the ore, and from it they form tiny working parts by....")

Another approach is called for on other occasions, for which one might coin the phrase "leaning-on-Jesus" apologetics. It goes something like this.

Bob Unbeliever makes some billowy assertion. It could be any of a million. It's been heard and dealt with a thousand times before lunch last Tuesday. It's always announced with the air of a fresh word from Sinai.

• "I just can't believe that God would send anyone to Hell simply because he doesn't believe this or that dogma"
• "I have a very personal relationship with God, and don't need any books, churches, or saviors"
• "Genesis is a myth borrowed from Chaldean legends"
• "All religions are basically the same"
• "The Bible is a storybook"
• "Jesus was a good man, a moral teacher. No more"
• "You should worship God. Not Jesus"
• "It doesn't matter what anyone believes, so long as he's sincere"
• "The most important thing is how people treat people, not what their doctrine is"
• "There are many paths to God"
• "God speaks in every religion"

...and on and on. Doubtless you could multiply the list by a factor of ten.

Now, there's a real point to going Triablogue on these chestnuts. But the thing is, every one of them has been decisively Triablogued (or the equivalent) a hundred times already. More. And that's good. But sometimes, another approach might be more effective.

Here is my suggestion for that other approach. It can be put in eight words. Are you ready for them? Here they are:

"Why should I believe you instead of Jesus?"

(Alternate nine-word form: "How did you get so much smarter than Jesus?")

Why do I suggest this?

First, it is true that sometimes a fool has to be given a long, complex, wise, devastating tour de force response (Proverbs 26:4). But other times he just has to be set back on his heels (Proverbs 26:5). And anyone who doesn't believe Jesus is some kind of fool (Proverbs 1:7; Romans 1:22; Titus 3:3).

Second, because we should never forget that Jesus is our real focus, and holding Him forth is our real burden. We want (or should want) to preach Christ to our unbelieving friends, relatives, acquaintances (1 Corinthians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 4:3; Colossians 1:27-28).

Our real primary goal isn't to convince everyone that evolution is folly, homosexuality is a sin, paganism is false, there is a god, abortion is murder, or even that the Bible is unique and inspired. There will be a lot of people in Hell who have right opinions on all those subjects. Nobody ever went to Heaven simply because he held a correct view about any or all of them. The correct answer to the question, "What can wash away my sin?" is not "Nothing but the accurate dating of the Pauline corpus."

The correct opinion about human origins, or world religions, or homosexuality, or private property, does not save. Jesus saves. Therefore, we want to preach Jesus.

So why not cut straight to Him? Why not make The issue the issue? After all, isn't it the truth that all these other errors are best addressed, once the matter of Jesus' Lordship is addressed?

Third, because Jesus can carry the weight. I'm convinced of that. You could say that I am a Christian because I am convinced of that fact; you could equally say that I am convinced of that fact because I am a Christian. It goes both ways.

My apologetic point is not that I'm smarter than Wellhausen or Winfrey, Hick or Hawking, Crossan or Campbell, Darwin or Donahue. My apologetic point is that Jesus is literally infinitely smarter than any of them -- or than I, for that matter. I don't primarily want to convince them that Chopra is wrong. I primarily want to convince them (God doing His miraculous work above, beyond, through, and in spite of me) that Jesus is right.

Now, I hasten to add two caveats:

First, though I've tried with my usual pathological obsessiveness to word myself carefully, I know someone is going to say I'm putting the thoroughgoing-type guys down. (Frank Turk: "Food fight! Phillips and Triablogue!") Or someone will suggest that I don't think the issues I've mentioned matter. Neither is even remotely the case. That approach to apologetics is needed, and those issues need to be dealt with. I am only saying that it is neither the only approach, nor always the most effective. And I'm saying, one thing at a time -- and at least sometimes let's start with the linch-pin issue.

Second, let me warn anyone away from thinking, "Oh, Cool! I love that! I just play the Jesus-card, and I'm done! Whew! I don't have to study or think or...." Wrong.

To do this right, you've got to know your Jesus, if I may put it that way. You had better be prepared to give a reasoned defense for the hope you have in Jesus (1 Peter 3;15). You had better be ready to explain what Jesus has to do with the subject at hand. You had better be ready to explain why you place unhesitating and absolutely confidence in Jesus.

In other words, you had better be ready to preach Jesus.

Above all, it will take a knowledge of Jesus as it is gained from Scripture alone. You'll need to know what He said, Himself, about Himself; and what the Holy Spirit said about Him through the prophets; and what He told the Holy Spirit to say about Him through the apostles. It's the word of Christ that brings saving faith (Romans 10:17). Above all, know that word.

But to some degree you should know at least some of the reasons why it is only rational to place confidence in the Gospels. Here's where a book like Reinventing Jesus can be very helpful.

The most important reasoned conviction an apologist/evangelist needs to have is that Jesus is the answer. The suggestion here is simply that it may often be wisest to cut straight to Him, rather than be drawn into a seventeen-movement ballet on the way there.

Because the trouble with these seventeen-movement verbal ballets is that they often break down on the first movement.

And what's the point of that?

AFTERWORD: my little Why I Am (Still) a Christian is one attempt to implement this approach at greater length, apologetically.

Faith vs. Faith: An Apologetic Dialogue-Part 3

By Joseph E. Torres

Tom: The uniformity of nature has nothing to do with God. I don't believe many deductions can be taken as certain by themselves, but when many deductions from differing perspectives come together to the same conclusion, the certainty becomes undeniable. The uniformity of natural law certainly falls under this sort of irrefutable deduction.

Joe: In order for your comments on scientific "deduction" to make sense to me, I'll have to reread it while inserting the word "inductions" where you write "deduction." Science works off of the inductive principle. Deductive conclusions are not 100% certain if built on inductively constructed premises. But read this way, your comments become viciously circular. We can justify belief in induction because induction has never failed us before? But that's an inductive argument! That's the same as saying we can ground the uniformity of nature in the uniformity of nature. It's like saying, "We believe that the future is going to be like the past because it has always been like the past before." This is not a scientific statement; you've made a bold declaration of faith! Your comments are circular in two senses. First, in the sense that I've noted above, and second, because they assume that there's no such thing as miracles that have ever taken place. But, isn't part of the very thing we're arguing over? You're boldly assuming naturalism in order to establish naturalism. I submit to you that you indeed, in your heart, know God. No, this doesn't necessarily mean you're blatantly lying to me, but only that there's a strong possibility of self-deception occurring. You know these things exist because you are created in the image of God, and because his stamp of his creatorhood is clearly impressed into your very nature.

I have attempted to demonstrate that your reason for denying God's right as your King is not rooted in intellectual difficulties. The ultimate issue here is not that you cannot believe in God, but that you will not believe in him.

Reformed Perspectives Magazine, Volume 8, Number 12, March 19 to March 25, 2006

Faith vs. Faith: An Apologetic Dialogue-Part 2

by Joseph E. Torres

Tom: Morals have nothing to do with God. I knew right from wrong long before I had any concept of God, and I continued to hold true to my ideals of reciprocity long after I heard of, and disagreed with, the concept of God.

Logic has nothing to do with God. I will take a bit out of Michael Martin's TANG argument. According to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God (i.e., it is contingent on God). Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of non-contradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian worldview assumes that logic is dependent, it is false. Logic is simply a byproduct of the observable and deductible universe.

Joe: Tom, I'm beginning to think that at some level we're speaking past one another. As I read your replies I continue to think that you're missing my point. I am not saying that non-Christians do not lead moral lives. You explain that you learned morality apart from a conscious belief in God. Fine, I never said, nor do I believe, the opposite. I'm not asking about how we came to learn the details of morality. Rather, I'm asking: What is the ultimate authority behind moral injunctions? I am arguing that it cannot be reduced to personal preferences or societal consensus. You've mentioned examples of people having a moral sense apart from theistic belief, as if this were a refutation of my position. But Tom, it is not. I am not saying that non-Christians do not think rationally. I'm asking the question: What would have to be true of the world in order to justify our everyday assumption regarding morality, logic, science, values, etc?

The TANG argument misunderstands the Christian doctrine of God. God cannot violate his character or change his essential nature1. When logic is properly conceived and applied, it reflects the consistency that has already characterized God's thoughts. We, as creatures created in his image, can thus reflect his thinking on a finite scale. Thus, the example that Dr. Martin provides of God possibly changing things around arbitrarily is a straw man. One cannot go about arguing against a generic concept of God. I defend the biblical God. Thus, arguments against such a God must be familiar with the nature of the biblical God.

1.Num. 23:19; Mal. 3:6; Tit. 1:2; Heb. 1:11-12; 6:12; Jam. 1:17

Reformed Perspectives Magazine, Volume 8, Number 12, March 19 to March 25, 2006

Faith vs. Faith: An Apologetic Dialogue-Part 1

by Joseph E. Torres

Introduction

This conversation is excerpted and adapted from a message board discussion regarding theistic arguments. After I presented the transcendental argument for the existence of God [TAG], another participant [we’ll call him Tom] took issue with my argument.

Dialogue

Joe: The transcendental argument for the existence of God [TAG] is more than an argument for the existence of the triune God of Bible. It is actually an argument for the truth of the entire Christian worldview. As opposed to the traditional arguments, which tend to focus on God being the first cause, the grand designer, or the most perfect being, TAG argues that it is God who makes cause, purpose, design, morality, science, and logic even intelligible in the first place. Without this particular God, nothing is intelligible, meaningful, or valuable.

Tom: I read a small amount of each link you posted before I realized that it was all taken out of the Bible and put into some semi-scientific language, and presented as a model for the history of the universe and the physical world. You are under the impression that without God, there can be no basis for science or morals. Science is observation based on thorough mathematic deduction, which does not appear to require God. Moreover, arguing that morals cannot exist without God sounds like arguing that children who do not learn right from wrong from their parents can never learn right from wrong from anyone. But if one were to live by the law of reciprocity, one would lead a truly moral life without the need for deity. Likewise, the Ten Commandments were not the origin of moral reasoning; they just took common beliefs and put them in the form of a command from God so that they would receive more respect.

To be honest, the only book about Christianity I’ve dabbled in is the Bible, which is marginally factual at best. To believe in Jesus as the Son of God, the Lord and Savior, takes more than blind faith; it takes a blind eye to the process of logical deduction, the scientific process. There is no logical way, through direct or indirect observation, using sound scientific method, to deduce that Jesus Christ was in any way divine. It's just another part of another one of earth’s countless belief systems. It has no basis in fact, it is a belief.

Joe: Thanks, Tom, for your comments. But you seem to miss the transcendental thrust of my arguments. I’m not saying that people cannot live morally, cannot do science, and cannot think rationally if they’re not Christian. What I’m saying is that their worldview cannot account for it. It cannot explain why it is that we can do science. It cannot explain the laws of logic, or human dignity, or the authority of morality. Non-Christians do know, in their heart of hearts, that God exists. I am simply saying that they borrow Christian principles in order to argue against Christianity.

Your reasons for rejecting Christianity are not concrete. In fact, they make tons of assumptions that you are unable to justify. For example, you assume repeatedly that evolutionary theory has discredited the scientific respectability of Christianity. But, as I’ve mentioned earlier, science depends upon the inductive principle; that the future will be like the past. Science needs the uniformity of nature in order for it to proceed with repeatable observation. But science cannot prove induction (because it’s not observable); induction must be established on other grounds. So, on what grounds do you justify induction? According to Darwinism, the universe has no structure that governs exactly how things occur. In a reality of chance, why expect the future to be like the past? After all, anything is possible! Remember, that’s how Darwinists say the world came into being.

I have a question for you. Are you a materialist? Do you think that all that is real is physical? If so, how do you explain the existence of laws of logic? You’ve said many times that Christian belief is sub-rational. But, how do you explain laws of logic? Are they just rules agreed upon by a bunch of people? If they are, why ought we to follow them? If they’re not absolute, what’s the big deal if we think out of accord with them? On the other hand, if they are universal, and binding upon all minds, how do you explain them? Are they physical objects? Do they exist in space somewhere? Do they exist in a world of Platonic forms?

My challenge to you is to account for the uniformity of nature, the authoritative nature of moral absolutes, and laws of rational thinking on a materialistic account. Unless you can justify these things, then it is you, not I, that operates on blind faith.

From:
Reformed Perspectives Magazine, Volume 8, Number 12, March 19 to March 25, 2006