How do I know the Bible is true? Norman Geisler gives sound reasons to trust the scriptures in this 8 page nvrehs.infoad PDF here. Christian Apologetics Norman Geisler. byfdfsdfsdf. Topics dfd, dfsdfsd, dfssdfsdf M. nvrehs.info download · download 2 files · PDF WITH TEXT. £-V3 / Christian Apobgerics NORMAN, GEISLER UT-DAUASllBRARltS BT G43 stax Christian apologetics / III III llli ill! ill 1 1 iiiii mi mm! 3 01 9.
|Language:||English, Spanish, German|
|Genre:||Business & Career|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
Books by Norman nvrehs.info - Free download as Word Doc .doc), PDF File . pdf), Text File .txt) or read online for free. nvrehs.info The Sixth Extinction: Baker Encyclopedia ofChristian Apologetics Norman L. Geisler. to Be an Atheist Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist Download volume (PDF, MB) - Ravi Zacharias.
Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth. With so important a task at hand, we must not neglect obedience to this command. Reason Demands It. God created humans to reason as part of his image Gen. God calls upon his people to use reason Isa.
A fundamental principle of reason is that it should give sufficient grounds for belief. An unjustified belief is just that—unjustified.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon Christians to give a reason for their hope. This is part of the great command to love God with all our mind, as well as our heart and soul Matt.
The World Needs It. People rightly refuse to believe without evidence. God Commands It. The most important reason to do apologetics is that God told us to do so. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect. We may never run across someone who asks tough questions about our faith, but we should still be ready to respond if someone does.
Being ready is not just a matter of hav- ing the right information available, it is also an attitude of readiness and eagerness to share the truth of what we believe. We are to give a reason to those who ask the questions. It is not expected that everyone needs pre-evangelism, but when they do need it, we must be able and willing to give them an answer.
This means we should confront issues in our own minds and in the expressed thoughts of others that prevent us and them from knowing God. That is what apologetics is all about. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth. This conclusion was arrived at with almost total disregard for the internal and external evidence for an earlier first century date for John.
The so-called exegetical conclusions, however massive and scholarly, were largely determined by a prevailing philosophy. Once again, the biblical exegete should have heeded the warning to beware of philosophy. The father of modern existentialism was not a twentiethcentury French atheist but a Danish Christian named Sren Kierkegaard who could have signed a statement subscribing to the historic fundamentals of the faith.
He wrote: On the whole, the doctrine as it is taught [in the church] is entirely sound. Nonetheless, few have done more from within the evangelical fold methodologically to undermine historic orthodoxy than Kierkegaard.
Indeed, it was his philosophical son, Karl Barth, who gave rise to neo-orthodoxy. Kierkegaard concluded that even if we assume that the defenders of Christianity have succeeded in proving about the Bible everything that any learned theologian in his happiest moment has ever wished to prove about the Bible, namely, that these books and no others belong in the canon; they are authentic; they are integral; their authors are trustworthyone may well say, that it is as if every letter were inspired.
Kierkegaard asked: Has anyone who previously did not have faith been brought a single step nearer to its acquisition? No, not a single step. Then Kierkegaard posed the opposite, namely, that the opponents have succeeded in proving what they desire about the Scriptures, with a certainty transcending the most ardent wish of the most passionate hostilitywhat then?
Have the opponents thereby abolished Christianity? By no means. Has the believer been harmed? By no means, not in the least. In fact, it has been biblically disastrous, as Barth, Brunner, and Bultmann demonstrateor whatever other Bs may be buzzing around unorthodox circles. We need only mention the Kierkegaardian inspired beliefs that: 1 Religious truth is located in personal encounter subjectivity ; JETS M arch 10 2 Propositional truth is not essential to the Faith; 3 Higher criticism is not harmful to real Christianity; 4 God is wholly other and essentially unknowable, even through biblical revelation.
These give further significance to the Pauline warning to beware of philosophy. Following the methodology of his mentor Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger set forth the groundwork for the contention that the true meaning of terms is found in etymology. In his works Being and Time and especially Introduction to Metaphysics Heidegger set forth not only the basis for the so-called New Hermeneutic of Ott, Ebeling, Fuchs, Bultmann, and Gadamer but also the foundation for the widely and often naively used Kittels Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.
Among the troubling hidden premises in this massive work are the contentions that: 1 The origin of a term is the key to its meaning; 2 This meaning is non-conceptual and mystical; 3 Language is symbolic, not descriptive. Considering the extensive and often philosophically uncritical use of Kittel even by evangelical scholars, one cannot help but be reminded of Pauls exhortation to beware of philosophyin this case the philosophy of phenomenology.
Few philosophies have penetrated contemporary linguistic studies and biblical interpretation more than that of conventionalism. With roots in Gottlob Frege , Ferdinand de Saussure , and Ludwig Wittgenstein , this philosophy of meaning denies that there are any objective or absolute forms of meaning.
In short, all meaning is relative. If so, then all truth is relative, since all true statements must be meaningful. But if all truth is relative, then there are no absolute truths in the Bible no matter how well one exegetes it. But since this truth claim is itself both self-defeating and incompatible with evangelical theology, then we must beware of the philosophy of conventionalism.
It suffices here simply to note that, like other non-Christian views, the central contention of conventionalism is self-defeating. For the assertion that no meaning is absolute is given as an objective statement about meaning. And the assertion that all truth is relative is offered as absolute truth. Notwithstanding, it is not uncommon to hear evangelical exegetes speak of the cultural relativity of linguistic expressions.
Indeed, much of modern translation is based on this mistaken premise. We hasten to say that this is not to deny that most symbols are culturally relative. With the exception of terms like natural signs and onomatopoeic words, the use of a 7 particular word is culturally relative.
But the meaning expressed by words used in sentences is no more culturally relative than math and morals are culturally relative, for they too are expressed in different terms in different cultures. Furthermore, contrary to the deconstructionists claim, logic is not dependent on language.
Rather, language is dependent on logic.
For the very claim that logic is dependent on language is itself dependent on logical coherence JETS M arch 11 to make any sense. Here again, the biblical exegete must beware of philosophy. Those not trained in the self-defeating claims of the linguistic relativists are an easy prey of their subtlety. When the history of the twentieth century is written, Alfred North Whitehead will probably emerge as one of the two or three most important philosophers of the century.
His works include Religion in the Making and Process and Reality His process view of God and reality has had a disastrous effect on theology in general and, more recently, evangelical theology in particular. And, tragically, in the name of proper biblical exegesis many evangelical theologians have forsaken the absolutely omniscient and unchanging God of historic orthodoxy for a God who not only changes his mind but who does not even know for sure what will happen in the future.
While wrongly chastising other evangelicals who cling to the unchanging God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who claimed I am the Lord and I change not Mal and who, according to Isaiah, sees the end from the beginning Isa , they confess downloading into the processism of Alfred North Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne, and John Cobb. One of the leaders of this movement, Clark Pinnock, correctly positioned his neotheistic view Between Classical and Process Theism.
Indeed, one of their process mentors confessed that, since God does not know the future with certainty, he has to wait with bated breath to see how things will turn out! Few things are a more vivid example of the need to heed the Pauline injunction to beware of philosophy. Platonic Allegorism. Time does not permit comment on numerous other philosophies that have misled otherwise good evangelicals to overthrow doctrines once for all committed to the saints.
I could speak of the platonic allegorism that has been in the church since Origen which, in the mutated form of Jewish Midrash, led one of our own members to defect from our ranks, claiming that whole sections of the Gospel of Matthew are not historical. For Robert Gundry insisted that the story of the Wise Men visiting Jesus is not based in fact but was created by Matthew with no basis in fact!
When asked in JETS dialogue how he would vote on the membership of Mary Baker Eddy in ETS, if she agreed with our statement on inerrancy, even though she used an allegorical method of interpreting Scripture, Gundry replied with shocking candor: I would vote yes. Fortunately, the ETS scholars voted No on his membership.
JETS M arch 12 Ockhamistic Nominalism.
One does not have time to trace the influences of nominalistic skepticism in evangelical circles. One can only speak from personal experience of a nominalist who was retained on the faculty of a conservative institution in spite of the fact that this entails the denial of the orthodox beliefs that God had one nature, Christ had two natures one divine and one human , and that the basic laws of thought such as the law of non-contradiction are not arbitrary.
The errors of nominalism have been adequately exposed in the excellent doctoral work of one of our own members, J. Moreland, in his book, Universals, Qualities, and Quality Instances. Nonetheless, the fact that some evangelicals have bought into this alien view reveals the need to beware of philosophy. Lest I be accused of not being aware of the errors of Aristotle who denied the infinity, personality, and worshipability of God, the temporality of the world, and the immortality of the soul, I would simply point out that Thomas Aquinas, known for his use of Aristotelian concepts, rejected all these errors of Aristotle.
In short, the Aristotle he used had to repent, be baptized, and catechized before he was serviceable to the Christian faith. On the other hand, those like Jack Rogers of Fuller Seminary who deny the inerrancy of Scripture, wrongly claiming that scholastic evangelicalism created the doctrine of inerrancy, are misdirected and ill-informed. But here again it was because of the work of a philosophically aware evangelical, Dr.
John Woodbridge, that Rogers views were refuted without a substantial response. Contrary to Rogers thesis, St. Augustine, hardly an Aristotelian, clearly embraced inerrancy eight hundred years before scholasticism, declaring that: If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood.
The truth is that Aristotle and his distant pupil Aquinas have been a great service to evangelicals who are, as Paul exhorted us, set in defense of the Gospel Phil For Aristotle believed in the correspondence view of truth, the fundamental laws of logic, and the historical-grammatical hermeneuticall of which are essential to the preservation of evangelical theology.
Anthropological Monism. One New Testament scholar from a noted evangelical school wrongly attributed to the New Testament a basically monistic anthropology. Before his institution was fully aware of the devastating consequences of this philosophy on his exegesis, he had denied the JETS M arch 13 physical resurrection of believers, the essential materiality of the resurrection body of Christ, and pronounced Christs Ascension a parable or visual symbol.
On the first point he wrote: the believers resurrection body will come from heaven, not the grave, and, Certainly, dead persons are raised, not impersonal corpses. Because 9 of his admitted monistic anthropology he was forced to acknowledge in order to avoid a temporary annihilationism between death and resurrection that believers received their permanent, albeit spiritual resurrection body at the moment of death while their physical bodies remained rotting forever in the grave, noting that [b]odily resurrection [at the moment of death] is the prerequisite for the resumption of true life after the intervention of death.
He even went so far as to say that the resurrection body of Christ possessed essential immateriality and was nonfleshly. In his own words, he declared: [I]t will be neither fleshly nor fleshy.
Both, of course, deny the essential and continuous materiality of the incarnate Christ both before and after the resurrection which has been part of orthodox Christianity from New Testament times cf. Luke ; Acts ; 1 John ; 2 John 7.
I speak of Murray Harris, former Professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, who under continued criticism from without and pressure from within expressed regret for calling Christs resurrection body immaterial. A whole decade of pain could have been avoided had Harris not wrongly attributed to the New Testament a monistic anthropology. Once more we see the value of Pauls exhortation to beware of philosophy. Historical Criticism. Other evangelical scholars who have bought into some of the philosophical presuppositions of negative higher criticism have been exposed in an excellent new work by Robert Thomas and David Farnell titled The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism into Evangelical Scholarship.
Citing Scot McKnight, they speak of George Ladds acknowledgement that form criticism has thrown considerable light on the nature of the gospels and the traditions they employ, adding, Evangelical scholars should be willing to accept this light.
JETS M arch 14 They note also that Robert Stein is another evangelical who reflects significant agreement with historical-critical assumptions. Like other form critics, he accepts the Four-Source Hypothesis, basing interpretive conclusions on this. Stein even asserted that if the inauthenticity of a saying [of Jesus] should be demonstrated this should not be taken to mean that this saying lacks authority. Indeed, Stein argues that the exception clause in Matt is an interpretive comment added by Matthew.
Then there is Robert Guelich, who in his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount confesses, This commentary offers a critical exegesis in that it makes use of the literary and historical critical tools including text, source, form, tradition, redaction, and structural criticism. Following this method, Guelich cast serious doubt on the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels in general and in John in particular, who he believed put his own theological expressions in Jesus mouth.
Thomas and Farnell also cite David Catchpole claiming that The gospel tradition itself compels us to engage in tradition-historical inquiry, adding, We can hardly avoid attributing to the later post-Easter stage both the redaction of material, and, on occasion, its creation. There seems to be little awareness among these evangelical scholars of the danger of adopting philosophical methods, however modified by their evangelical beliefs which lead logicallyand sometimes actually, as Catchpole admitsto the Gospel writers creating material, rather than reporting it.
Any method that undermines what the Gospels teach us about the words and deeds of Jesus thereby undermines orthodox Christianity. Thomas and Farnell have done a great service to the evangelical community in exposing the drift of evangelical New Testament scholars in this dangerous direction.
Former New Testament negative critic, Eta Linnemann, wrote of their efforts: with outstanding knowledge concerning historical critical theology right down to the finest details, the authors are well equipped to detect historical critical thinking wherever it sprouts, even where nobody would expect itin the midst of evangelical theology by writers supposedly faithful to the Bible.
Of course, that is the point we have been making, namely, no matter how evangelical one may be by background or training, if he does not beware of philosophy, he may fall prey to its subtle influences on his theology. My advice here is divided into two parts: intellectual and spiritual.
First, some intellectual cautions to evangelical exegetes.
JETS M arch 15 1. Avoid the Desire to Become a Famous Scholar. There seems to be an almost irresistible temptation among many scholars, particularly younger ones, to make a name for themselves.
In biblical terms this is the sin of pride of which Holy Scripture warns us. Pride distorts our vision of the truth because it is the presumption to knowledge born of ignorance.