Apologetic: Notes from Josh McDowell’s The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (part one)

Have you ever driven in a fog that was so thick you couldn’t see the car in front of you? It was entirely too dangerous to drive:
Some People see scripture in this manner, with a mind full of fog.

Thomas Aquinas wrote: “There is within every soul a thirst for happiness and meaning

” Who Am I? Why am I here? Where am I going?

The objective of apologetic is not to convince a man unwittingly, or contrary to his will, to become a Christian.
“The objective, Clark Pinnock puts it, “strives at laying the evidence for the Christian Gospel before men in an intelligent fashion, so that they can make a meaningful commitment under the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. The heart cannot delight in what the mind rejects as false.” (Pinnock, SFYC,3)

We are not trying to win an argument – our goal is to glorify and magnify Jesus Christ – Not to “prove” God but provide a basis for Faith… Plowing the field making ready for the seed. Apologetic should never be used as a substitute for sharing the word but used in conjunction it is also a sign post or guide helping direct people back to the word of God

Statement by Josh McDowell:  “You may think it was the irrefutable evidence that brought me to Christ no, the evidence was only God’s way of getting his foot in the door of my life. What brought me to Christ was the realization that He loved me enough to die for me.
Page XXV (He Changed my Life)

The basic Apologetic thesis of these notes is: There is an infinite, all wise, all powerful, all loving God who has revealed Himself by means of the natural, the super natural in creation; in the nature of man, in the history of Israel and the church, in the pages of Holy Scripture, in the incarnation of God in Christ, and in the heart of the believer by the gospel”  (Ramm, PCE, 33)

J.N.D. Anderson records D.E. Jenkins remark “Christianity is based on indisputable facts (Anderson, WH, 10) “the facts backing the Christian claim are not a special kind of religious fact. They are the cognitive, informational facts upon which all historical, legal, and ordinary decisions are based.” (Pinnock, SFYC, 6,7)

Misconceptions: Blind Faith

Blind faith: One doesn’t have to commit intellectual suicide
to become a Christian.  “my heart cannot rejoice in what my mind rejects.” My heart and head were created to work and believe together in Harmony. Christ commanded us to “love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Matt. 22:37)

When Jesus Christ and the apostles called upon a person to exercise faith, it was not a “blind faith” but rather and “intelligent faith.”
The apostle Paul said, “I know whom I have believed” (2Tim. 1:12)

(a personal observation: when a first century Jew used the word “know” it would have been Yeda, you’ve heard the expression Yeda, Yeda, Yeda. Well, that word is much deeper than our word know, you could not use that word unless you truly “knew” something, had experienced it personally. The example I like to give is this: I know in the English concept what a father is, but in the Jewish concept I do not know, because I didn’t have one [for the most part of my life]. So when Paul I know, he meant, he had experienced, had a “hands on” experience.)

“Faith in Christianity,” Paul Little justifiably writes, “is based on evidence. It is reasonable faith. Faith in the Christian sense goes beyond reason but not against it.” (Little, KWhyYB,30) Faith is the assurance of the heart in the adequacy of the evidence.

Often the Christian is accused of taking a blind “leap into the dark.” This idea often finds itself rooted in Kierkegaard.

For me, Christianity was not a “leap into the dark,” but rather “a step into the light.” I took the evidence that I could gather and place it on the scales. The scales tipped in favor of Christ as the Son of God, resurrected from the idea. The evidence so over-overwhelmingly leans toward Christ that when I became a Christian, I was “stepping into the light” rather than “leaping into the darkness.”

If I had been exercising “blind faith,” I would have rejected Jesus Christ and turned my back on all the evidence.

Be Careful. I am not saying that I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus is the Son of God, What I did was investigate the evidence and weigh the pros and cons. The results showed that Christ mut be who He claimed to be, and I had to make a decision, which I did. the immediate reaction of many is, “You found what you wanted to find.” this is not the case. I confirmed through investigation what I wanted to refute. i set out to disprove Christianity. I had biases and prejudices not for Christ but contrary to Him.

Hume would say historical evidence is invalid because one cannot establish “absolute truth.” I was not looking for absolute truth but rather for “historical probability.”

“Without an objective criterion,” says John W. Montgomery, “one is at a loss to make a meaningful choice among a prioris. The resurrection provides a basis in historical probability for trying the Christian faith. Granted, the basis is only one of probability, not of certainty, but probability is the sole ground on which finite human beings can make any decisions. Only deductive logic and pure mathematics provide ‘apodictic certainty,’ and they do so because they stem from self-evident formal axioms (e.g., the tautology, if A then A) involving no matter of fact. the moment we enter the realm of fact, we must depend on probability; this may be unfortunate, but it is unavoidable.” (Montgomery, SP, 141)

At the conclusion of his four articles in His magazine, John W. Montgomery writes, concerning history and Christianity, that he has “tried to show that the weight of historical probability lies on the side of the validity of Jesus’ claim to be God incarnate, the Savior of man, and the coming Judge of the world. If probability does in fact support these claims (and can we really deny it, having studied the evidence?),  then we must act in behalf of them.” (Montgomery, HC, 19)

Misconception #2 “Just Be Sincere”

The Christian faith is an objective faith: therefore, it must have an object. The Christian concept of “saving” faith is a faith that establishes one’s relationship with Jesus Christ (the object), and is diametrically opposed to the average “philosophical” use of the term faith in the classroom today. We do not accept the cliche, “It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you believe it enough.”

(Allow me to add: Many a Christian today is operating on a “Subjective” faith. When asked why the believe they will answer “I know Jesus exists because I feel it/ Him in my heart.” We even sing a song about it, I serve a risen Savior!  We of course we should have the joy of salvation in our heart, but it is not an argument for our belief, for this can be used to argue any position from Atheist to Buddhist. Our faith is based upon solid historical facts, and that is an objective faith.  by the way I hope you enjoy this beautiful rendition of “I serve a risen Savior.” )

It’s not what we believe, it is in whom we believe.  The value of Christian faith is not in the one believing, but in the one who is believed in, it’s object.”

Josh is reminded of a Muslim who came to him and said very sincerely, ” I know many Muslims who have more faith in Mohammed than some Christians have in Christ.” He answered “That may well be true, but the Christian is “saved.” You see, it doesn’t matter how much faith you have, but rather who is the object of your faith; that is important from the Christian perspective of faith.”