David Wood recently posted an excellent video featuring a series of short interview clips with various apologists (Douglas Groothuis, Gary Habermas, Craig Hazen, Mike Licona, Nabeel Qureshi, Mary Jo Sharp, and Frank Turek) on advice to future apologists. As one who is of the younger generation myself (I am almost 27)[1], and who has been active in the public apologetics arena from relatively young (from around 20 years of age) I have some experience to speak of when it comes to being a young defender of the Christian faith.
In this article, I want to address those who are young, perhaps in their late teens or in their 20’s, and who aspire to do public work in apologetics. In particular, I want to reflect on my observations over the past six or seven years of involvement in apologetics and what lessons I have learned in the process — sometimes, unfortunately, the hard way.
Lesson 1: Be Careful How Early You Enter into the Public Arena
It’s perfectly natural that, when you have a new idea, you want to share it with the world. Over the last decade or so, there has been an explosion in the popularity of online blogging, which has given people the ability to spread ideas and information quickly. This has its obvious advantages, but it also has some significant risk factors and draw-backs, especially for young people. Among these is the fact that what you publish publicly on the internet is effectively public material forever.
Why might that be a risk-factor for young people? When you’re young, your views and ideas are still in the process of crystallizing. Being less wedded to a given paradigm than those of the older generation means you are more likely to revise your position or change your mind on certain issues. I, for one, have seen an evolution in my own views and arguments over the past five years. Your arguments also become more refined and sophisticated over time as you learn from the experience of defending them and conversing with people who are better acquainted with a given field than you are. You also become increasingly better informed as you read more and more about a subject. Imagine the frustration, then, when someone Googles your name, and the first hit is to an article you wrote some four or five years ago, articulating views or argumentation which you would no longer defend. You may well have expressed your current views and better refined arguments elsewhere, but that is not necessarily the first thing people will see. Things you said years ago can come back to haunt you for years. So, exercise caution!
A second danger here is that some areas relating to apologetics present a particular risk factor when seeking employment in certain professions. For example, in the academic environment in which we currently find ourselves, being overtly public about your views on biological design may land you in seriously hot water when it comes to building a career in the field of biology. The modern formulation of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has become so entrenched in modern academia that people do not want to put their own careers in jeopardy by being associated with someone who has public affiliations to intelligent design. Similarly, as we have seen with increasing frequency, public criticism of same-sex marriage may land you in hot water in certain career paths.
My advice would thus be to give careful consideration to how early you enter into the public arena to express your views. Think about allowing them to crystallize first. Otherwise, a pseudonym or alias may be a relatively safe option.
Lesson 2: Never Cut Corners — Research Your Argument Thoroughly
This should go without saying, but you would be surprised at the number of people who do not take the time to hunt down a primary source, relying instead on what other people have said about that primary source. This is a very bad habit. When you read a quotation in a book that has been taken from another source, try to avoid using it unless you can trace it to the primary source. If the quotation has been lifted out of context, or has been misinterpreted by the author, you are just as culpable if you do not check it for yourself. Always be ready with primary sources to back up points you make in debate. In addition, read the relevant sections of primary sources carefully. You would be amazed at the number of people who think they are engaged in good scholarship by basing their interpretation of a scientific research paper on its abstract, or even (far worse) its title! Never proof-text a passage of which you aren’t familiar with the context. Exercise great concern for factual accuracy. As Christians, we believe that Christ is ultimate truth itself (John 14:6). We are thus committed to a very high standard of accuracy and fair representation.
You should also be acquainted with the responses that have already been offered to the argument you are making. If you are making a new argument that hasn’t been addressed before, try to anticipate possible objections. Even better, get someone who takes a different view to read and critique your argument before going public with it. Friends can also be invaluable in critically appraising your work before it goes public.
Work to understand your argument well. Don’t just parrot an argument that you heard somebody else make.
Lesson 3: Strive to Understand the View You Are Criticizing Better Than Its Best Defenders
You should always, at least in principle, strive to understand the view or argument you are criticizing better than its best defenders. There is nothing worse than an apologist who discredits the Gospel by making basic misrepresentations of a view, such as evolution or Islam, that could have been avoided with a little research. My advice here would be not to limit your reading to books that already agree with you. Be courageous and read books representing the other side of the debate as well. If you are critically appraising a religion, read that religion’s primary sources. Don’t get your information on Islam, for example, solely from Christian sources. Apart from being intellectually responsible, this also opens up doors and builds bridges to people of other worldview persuasions. My familiarity with the Qur’an and Hadith literature, for example, has opened up numerous opportunities to have dialogues with Muslims. People respect it when you can demonstrate that you have done your homework, and will be more inclined to listen to what you have to say.
Lesson 4: Be Honest About The Weaknesses of Your Position
An argument is rendered far more credible and respectable when the person articulating and defending the position is willing to honestly state the position’s weaknesses upfront. This allows the intended audience to objectively evaluate the pros and cons of your position and come to their own conclusion about where the balance of evidence lies. Unfortunately, this is something we need to see more of in apologetics. All propositional claims have their share of both strengths and weaknesses — yes, even Christianity. The evidence may well be (as I maintain that it is) overwhelmingly in favour of Christianity being true, but there are always facts on the other side of the balance as well, which are worthy of consideration. We are all susceptible, at some level, to confirmation bias, and it is important that we take steps to minimize the impact of this bias on our public presentation of the arguments and evidence.
Lesson 5: Be Charitable
Always look for the most charitable way of reading your sources. Give the benefit of the doubt wherever possible. Show that you can responsibly critique a position or argument even when presented in its strongest possible form. If a critic makes a mistake, don’t immediately blast him for lying or having deceptive or malicious intent. More often than not, they just made a mistake. Point it out. If they admit their mistake, commend them for it. If, on the other hand, someone has had a mistake pointed out to them repeatedly, yet they persist in stating the falsehood, I would be inclined to be less charitable. A common example of this is when Muslim apologists confidently claim, over and over again like a mantra, that the canon of the New Testament was determined in A.D. 325 at the council of Nicaea, a fiction that has been exposed time and time again (see my article here for what really went on at Nicaea).
Related to this, one should always seek to engage with the most respected and capable defenders of a given position. Richard Dawkins and other members of the ‘New Atheist’ community have often been criticized for criticizing the worst representatives of Christianity, and avoiding the best possible opposition. This is not a trait that you want to emulate. There is a time, of course, for critiquing poor defenders of a position, particularly if they are popular, so that the vacuousness of their argumentation may be exposed. It is unfortunate that the most popular apologists for atheism also happen to be the least intellectually sophisticated (e.g. Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins, Sam Harris). Since these men are popular, they ought to be responded to. But your engagement shouldn’t be limited to them. Likewise, so many Muslims listen to Zakir Naik and Ahmed Deedat that their arguments must be responded to, even if they are very unsophisticated. But try to engage Islam’s more reflective apologists, such as Shabir Ally, as well. To quote Proverbs 26:4-5, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.”
Lesson 6: Be Consistent
The application of double standards is the surest sign of a failed argument. It is always important to be intellectually consistent. Don’t, for instance, use an argument against another religion which would work equally well against Christianity. Apply standards consistently!
Even more important, ensure that your style of living is consistent with the message you are proclaiming. Ignatius of Antioch, the second century church father and disciple of the Apostle John, in his Epistle to the Ephesians (15), put it so well: “Indeed, it is better to keep quiet and be, than to make fluent professions and not be.”
Lesson 7: Be A Good Listener
Be prepared to listen carefully to people with whom you are conversing. Seek to understand where they are coming from. Don’t presume things about them based upon what you have read about their religion. Let them have their say whenever they wish to speak. Be wary of steam rollers, but be careful about not being one yourself. It is better to allow them to speak too much than too little. Respond to the position that they have articulated, not the position that you think they should adhere to. Try to keep them on point, however. If you’re debating about Scripture, ask them to stay within one passage and reach a verdict with you on that passage (or at least admit to not having thought it through before and ask for time to reflect on it) before moving on to another passage. I speak from experience when I say that this is particularly important in dialogues with Jehovah’s witnesses!
There is an additional reason why it is prudent to be a good listener. Just because you disagree with an individual does not mean that you have nothing to learn from them. Every individual has unique experience and ideas that you can learn from. Remain teachable, even from those with whom you vehemently disagree.
Lesson 8: Be Prepared to Admit Mistakes And When You Don’t Have An Answer
Everybody makes mistakes from time to time. When someone legitimately points out an error or mistake on your part, do not try to cover it up. Admit to it, noting that it was an honest mistake. If someone contends that you have erred and you are not convinced that they are right, promise to check your sources and get back to them on it. It takes a lot of grace and humility to admit the occasional error, but people will respect you for it, and you will have greater credibility. Just don’t make a habit of making mistakes!
It is also important to confess when you are unable to answer a question or challenge. Everybody’s knowledge is limited, and there is only so much you can have researched. There will come times, on occasion, when you are met with a challenge that you have never considered or encountered before. When that happens, do not attempt to ‘wing’ it. Instead, graciously admit that you haven’t yet encountered this point and promise to investigate it further.
Lesson 9: Never Repay Insult With Insult
Ad hominem attacks, which are by nature leveled against an individual rather than an argument, have unfortunately become common, especially online, where people feel safe behind the anonymity of the internet. One should never repay insult with insult, however. Set a good example for how intellectual discourse ought to be done. Show the world how Christians conduct themselves in argument and debate. To quote Ignatius of Antioch’s Epistle to the Ephesians (10),
Meet their animosity with mildness, their high words with humility, and their abuse with your prayers. But stand firm against their errors, and if they grow violent, be gentle instead of wanting to pay them back in their own coin. Let us show by our forbearance that we are their brothers, and try to imitate the Lord by seeing which of us can put up with the most ill-usage or privation or contempt — so that in this way none of the devil’s noxious weeds may take root in you.
Did Christ retaliate against those that mocked and insulted Him? As 1 Peter 2:23 says, “When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.” Follow the example of Polycarp of Smyrna. When the mounted policemen came to track him down and closed in on his whereabouts, he reportedly ordered at once that they be given all the food and drink they wanted. By doing this, to quote another Proverb, “you will heap burning coals on his head [i.e. make them feel guilty for the way they treated you] and the Lord will reward you.”
Lesson 10: Generally Don’t Be Confrontational In The University Setting
My advice for youths has always been to not draw attention to themselves by being confrontational with their professors in their place of study. Granted, there is sometimes a time and place for challenging professors, but these opportune and appropriate times are not common. The reason you should not be confrontational is that you do not want to come across as portraying yourself as a peer. In a professor-student relationship, this comes across as rather arrogant.
Lesson 11: Be Above Public Reproach
Personal integrity is so important, particularly for the Christian. Like it or not, as a public ambassador for the Christian faith, people are observing your life. Many of them are looking for things to find fault with. As a Christian apologist, there would be nothing worse than to have your reputation sullied by a momentary lapse in moral judgment. The life of the believer is the ultimate apologetic. If the way you live your life does not comport with the message you are proclaiming, people are going to think “This Christ has evidently not had much of an impact on his life? Why should I expect Christ to impact mine?” 2nd Clement 13:3-4 illustrates the point well:
For when outsiders hear the sayings of God from our mouths, they are astonished at their beauty and greatness. Then when they discover that our actions do not match our words, they turn from astonishment to blasphemy, saying that our faith is some kind of myth and error. For on the one hand, they hear from us that God has said, “It is no great accomplishment for you to love those who love you; it is great if you love your enemies and those who hate you.” And when they hear these things, they are astonished by their extraordinary goodness. But then when they see that we fail to love not only those who hate us, but even those who love us, they ridicule us and the name is blasphemed.
As Jesus said to his disciples in Matthew 10:16, “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.”
Lesson 12: Your Academic Studies Must Take Priority
It doesn’t matter how much you know. You are going to be very limited in what you can do as a public intellectual if you have no academic credentials to your name. Striking the right balance between academic study and other intellectual interests is hard, but the former must take priority.
If you adopt intelligent design (ID) theory as your view and this becomes known among the faculty in your department, this is of particular importance, since you are now an ambassador for this view. You don’t want to discredit the ID community by poor performance and you also don’t want to give any defensible justification to those who may want to penalize you for adopting such a view.
Lesson 13: Don’t Let Your Intellectual Endeavors Take Your Eyes Off Christ. Be Soaked in Scripture.
In his book The Doctrine of Repentance, the 17th century puritan Thomas Watson wrote,
Some bless themselves that they have a stock of knowledge, but what is knowledge good for without repentance? It is better to mortify one sin than to understand all mysteries. Impure speculatists do but resemble Satan transformed into an angel of light. Learning and a bad heart is like a fair face with a cancer in the breast. Knowledge without repentance will be but a torch to light men to hell.
It is of the utmost importance that Christ form the cornerstone of everything that you do. Take care to maintain a healthy prayer life and meditate daily upon the word of God. Remember that we are not saved by our adherence to a body of doctrine, nor our ability to articulate and defend the Christian faith. Continuously examine yourself to see whether the beliefs of your intellect reflect the beliefs of your heart, manifested by your actions. Be sure that you are not one of the ones to whom Christ will say “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.”
Conclusion
The above are just a few of the principles that I have picked up through my own involvement in apologetics. Some of these I can relate to through my own experience. Others, I picked up from observing and learning from other people. If you commit to applying the above principles consistently, you cannot go far wrong.
References:
[1] [Editor’s Note: This blog was originally posted August 1, 2016.]
Recommended Resources:
Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4vMvqNk
Angels, Demons, and Aliens: What’s the Evidence? with Billy Hallowell
PodcastIf the supernatural world of angels and demons described in the Bible is real, what tangible evidence exists for it today? And where do aliens and UFOs fit into the biblical worldview? Frank sits down with journalist, author, and digital TV host, Billy Hallowell, to discuss his new documentary film, Investigating the Supernatural: Angels and Demons. From demonic possession to miraculous healings and unexplained encounters, Billy shares what he’s uncovered, and how to separate what’s real from what isn’t. Tune in as Frank and Billy answer questions like:
Whether you’re a believer or a skeptic, these accounts of the unseen realm may challenge your perspective. Be sure to check out Billy’s new film, Investigating the Supernatural, and share this episode with someone exploring the BIG questions of faith!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Donate to CrossExamined
Investigating the Supernatural: Angels and Demons
Playing with Fire by Billy Hallowell
The War on Reality by Frank Turek and Phoenix Hayes
Apply to CIA 2026
Hawaii Cruise
Alaksa Cruise
Which God When There are 3,000 to Choose From?
2. Does God Exist?When I went to university, I encountered the biggest intellectual doubt I’ve ever faced as a Christian: How can I be sure that Christianity is true? Here was my thinking: “Can I really claim that I have the right religion when there are 3,000 others to choose from?” You might have come across a form of this argument via the atheist comedian Ricky Gervais.
As I went to university, I knew that I couldn’t keep my faith, nor share it with any real conviction, unless I knew that Christianity was true (1 Cor 15:14). I had to know which God was the correct one. Ultimately, philosophy was the primary force that drove the cementation of my Christian faith.[i]
Categories of Theism
As I wrestled with this doubt, I discovered that I didn’t have to lucky-dip my way through 3,000 religions until I found the correct one. There’s actually a much simpler way. It turns out that every single and particular religion can be grouped into one of five metaphysical categories, which are:
To this day I am unaware of a sixth possible option for a way the world could work (though I am open to being corrected).[iv] I explicitly note here that “agnosticism” is not a category of worldview. It’s just a placeholder label for indecision. Agnosticism doesn’t affirm anything metaphysical about the universe.
Can you see how, suddenly, the 3,000 problem looks very different? Philosophical reasoning helped me to realize that the question is not, which God of 3,000? The question can be swiftly pruned to become, which of these five?
Putting Each Worldview to the Test
And then, after such an exercise, the gods can be put to the test. Each of these five categories needs to be scrutinized, and it is my contention that only monotheism stands up to the test.
One Option Remains
None of the first four categories provided me with a satisfactory explanation for how the universe works. Hence, by a process of elimination, I was left with monotheism, which actually fulfills the problems with the other categories. Monotheism provides an explanation for how we got something from nothing and how we can reason to truth (contra atheism), it accounts for one infinite being as the universal standard for all things (contra polytheism), it distinguishes created reality from the uncreated (contra pantheism and panentheism), and it supplies an explanation for the sustained existence of the universe and the moral law within it through a God who has revealed himself (contra deism).
More than that; all of the major philosophical arguments for God’s existence (fine-tuning, cosmological, moral, contingency, transcendental) are tailored to monotheism, so I also found positive arguments for a monotheistic God’s existence, on top of the negative arguments against the alternatives.
As Norman Geisler and Frank Turek put it, monotheism gives the “true box top” – the picture that makes everything else make sense.
“This discovery helps us to see not only what [reality] looks like, but what it cannot look like. Since the opposite of true is false, we know that any non-[mono]theistic worldview must be false. Or, to put it another way, of the major world religions, only one of the [mono]theistic religions – Judaism, Christianity, or Islam – could be true. All other major world religions cannot be true, because they are non-[mono]theistic. This may seem like a grandiose claim – to deny the truth of so many world religions . . . but by simple logic . . . mutually exclusive religions cannot be true. Just as certain football players are rightfully cut from the roster of possible players because they lack necessary abilities, certain world religions are rightfully cut from the roster of possible true religions because they lack necessary qualifications.”[ix]
Narrowing the Field
More needs to be said about how religions within the metaphysical category of monotheism account for the Problem of Evil. There is not enough space to address that here. More also needs to be said about which is the true religion within the category of monotheism. Monotheism (unlike deism) requires a knowable God who has revealed himself.
The only three religions within monotheism which proffer a knowable God are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Therefore, by deploying sound reasoning to this question within the Philosophy of Religion, the inquirer is no longer left to choose between 3,000 options; nor even five, once atheism, polytheism, pantheism, and deism have all been ruled out.
The inquirer is left with just three: Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.[1] One of these has to be true.
References:
[1] Let it be noted that these three religions collectively house over half of the world’s population.
[i] “Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.” C.S. Lewis, “Learning in War-Time,” in The Weight of Glory and other addresses (New York: HarperCollins, 1949, repr., 2001), 58.
[ii] Editor’s note: Panentheism affirms that all the universe is “in” God somehow. For example, the universe is God’s body and “God” – as spirit – is really just the divine soul that inhabits this universal body.
[iii] [Editor’s Note: Some distinguish monotheism from “finite Godism”, wherein God is somehow less than the greatest possible being. That’s the conclusion of Harold Kushner in When Bad things Happen to Good People? (1981). And it’s implicit with some unorthodox schools of Christian thought such as open theism (Greg Boyd). Nevertheless, these can also be seen as varieties of monotheism as they affirm that only one God exists. The point is that, even if the majority view within monotheism is tied to “maximal being ontology” (Anselm’s “that than which none greater can be conceived”), as long as it’s only one-God in view, that can be loosely understood as “monotheism.”
[iv] Ibid.
[v] If an atheist wishes to claim otherwise, then he is no longer appealing to atheism but to some other category of theism.
[vi] Polytheism puts “into the universe a third thing in addition to the two powers: some law or standard or rule of good which one of the powers conforms to and the other fails to conform to. But since the two powers are judged by this standard, then this standard, or the Being who made this standard, is farther back and higher up than either of them, and He will be the real God.” C.S. Lewis, “The Invasion,” in Mere Christianity (ProQuest Ebook Central: HarperCollins Publishers), 48. Accessed 10 April 2026.
[vii] The explanation for evil on polytheism is chalked up to the existence of some ‘evil’ god or gods.
[viii] Pantheism would have me believe that I am God. But that would require me to go from a state of not knowing that I am God to a state of realising that I am, in fact, God. Such a change is impossible for an infinite being.
[ix] Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, “Miracles: Signs of Gullibility or God,” in I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2004), 198-199.
Recommended Resources:
The Great Book of Romans by Dr. Frank Turek (Mp4, Mp3, DVD Complete series, STUDENT & INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, COMPLETE Instructor Set)
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)
Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek
Sean Redfearn is a former Community Youth Worker who now works for Christian Concern in Central London, UK. He completed an MA in Religion at King’s College London, is in the process of completing the MA Philosophy program at Southern Evangelical Seminary, and is a 2022 CrossExamined Instructor Academy graduate. Passionate about Jesus, he is grateful for the impact that apologetics has had on his faith.
What If You Don’t Feel Saved? Plus More Q&A
PodcastAre strong emotional experiences required for salvation? Can you be a true follower of Jesus if you don’t “feel” saved? Many Christians wrestle with the gap between what they believe and what they experience during worship or Bible study time . But does the saving grace of Jesus come from a feeling or a decision?
This week, Frank unpacks the danger of grounding your faith solely on feelings. He also tackles other listener questions related to politics, culture, and from a liberal listener on parenting in a digital age. Questions addressed include:
Do you have a question for Frank that you’d like him to address in a future episode? Send it to hello@crossexamined.org!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Donate to CrossExamined
Live Free Podcast
The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt
PastorsBrief.com
Apply for CIA
Jonah and the Big Fish, Part 2
3. Are Miracles Possible?In my previous article, Jonah and the Big Fish Part 1, I spoke about Jonah, the wayward prophet who initially tried to avoid God’s command to warn the people of Nineveh about the impending judgment they were about to receive for the wickedness of their culture. In that article, I discussed the identity of Jonah, who is also mentioned in 2 Kings, as well as the historical realities of Israel, Nineveh (an Assyrian city), and the archaeology that helps us connect what is written to what has been found in the dirt, including what was known for centuries as the grave of Jonah near the lost (but now found) city of Nineveh. I will hereafter do my best to add to the historical and Biblical evidence to show that Jonah and the inhabitants of Nineveh were real people in history, and what else the story tells us.
Prophecies of Nahum and the Fall of Nineveh
The story of Nineveh did not end with their repentance after Jonah’s successful preaching. The Book of Nahum—another short prophetic book in the Old Testament—records prophecies delivered roughly a century after Jonah, during the height of Assyria’s power. Nahum’s message announces God’s coming judgment on the same city that once humbled itself under Jonah’s warning, but returned to its wicked ways. He indicates that it will be flooded, burned by fire, and cease to be a city.
In about 745 B.C., a king named Tiglath-Pileser III restored Assyria to power with Nineveh being its capital city. By 722, Assyria had conquered the northern kingdom of Israel and killed or exiled its inhabitants. (2 Kings 17) The next king, Sennacherib, invaded the southern kingdom of Judah in 701 B.C. (2 Kings 18–19). These conquests were recorded in the Bible and in Assyrian records.
After returning to its wicked ways for a time, Nineveh eventually fell in 612 B.C. to a coalition of Babylonians, Medes, and Scythians, fulfilling Nahum’s prophecy (Nahum 1–3). Archaeology confirms that the city was larger and more magnificent than in Jonah’s time, destroyed by fire, as Nahum describes (Nahum 3:13, 15), and breached by flooding, matching Nahum’s prediction that “the river gates are opened”. (Nahum 2:6) The city was so utterly destroyed that even its ruins were lost to history and not found until the 19th century.
Timing of the Book of Jonah
One criticism of any historical writing is that it was written too late to be the work of the subject or a timely witness. However, the Book of Jonah stands up to this criticism remarkably well. Many of the “higher critics” of the 19th century assumed that Jonah was likely written in the second or third century B.C., However, as authors such as Dr. Bill Cooper argue, we can have confidence that the book originates in the 8th century B.C., when the events transpired.[1]
One way that researchers studying the actual writing use to determine the dates of writing is by the use of specific wording and phrasing that were specific to a time and a place. In Jonah, it has been pointed out that of the 122 nouns, all but eleven are found in writing that is known to have originated prior to 700 B.C. Three of those eleven words are also found in ancient writings, and two are actually Assyrian words. The fact that Assyrian words are found in the writing would make sense if the writer was someone familiar with both Hebrew and Aramaic, which was the language of the Assyrians. It is also very similar to Hebrew, as it is a cognate language. This not only helps to explain how the words would end up in an ancient Hebrew writing, but also how a Jewish man would be able to speak with those from another country about pending judgment and be able to understand one another.
Christ Foreshadowed
If you are unfamiliar with the idea that Christ is foreshadowed in the Old Testament, it is a wonderfully affirming way to get a new perspective on the amazing collection of writings we call the Bible. The Book of Jonah is no exception. In fact, Jonah and his being swallowed by a fish is specifically cited by Jesus Himself as a sign of things to come with His death and resurrection:
“But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here” (Matthew 12:39-41).
It would seem that Jesus was sure of Jonah’s life, his mission to preach, and his successful preaching to those who were his mortal enemies in Nineveh. Though a clear foreshadowing of Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and preaching of salvation for repentance to those in rebellion, Jesus did a few things differently from Jonah. Jonah rebelled against God’s command to go to His enemies and warn them. Where Jonah tried to flee, Jesus obeyed. Where Jonah was thrown overboard into the sea because he was guilty of disobeying God, Jesus willingly went to the cross on our behalf to save sinners. Where Jonah seems disappointed that sinners like the Ninevites would receive clemency for their sins, Jesus asked that God forgive the very people who crucified Him because they “know not what they do”. (Luke 23:24)
As to the idea of a man being swallowed by a fish, I am sure there are lots of writings on that topic about how it may or may not be scientifically plausible. Because God, however, is the Creator of space, time, and matter, and not bound by our rules when it comes to the physical world, as well as the fact that Jesus Himself affirms the story, I am confident that we can trust it, whether it occurred naturally or supernaturally.
God’s Concern
One thing that gets missed in the story of Jonah is the fact that God defends His own right to love those in Nineveh. Jonah becomes angry when he learns that God will spare the judgment promised to Nineveh after they repented. God provides a plant to shade Jonah from the sun, but then allows the plant to wither and die. Jonah says that he does have the right to be angry about the plant, “enough to die” (Jonah 4:9).
But God asks Jonah if he is right in being angry at the death of the plant, which Jonah had not created or cared for. God then asks, “…should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?” (Jonah 4:11)
This is a wonderful opportunity to hear God show that He loves even those in rebellion against Him. He cares for those people who have been so wicked, even to His chosen people. He even cares about the cows. And that is where Jonah’s written story ends.
It is also a great place to start. We who are fortunate enough to live on this side of Christ’s death and resurrection are able to connect the story of Jonah to the story of Jesus. We can connect the story of Jesus to the story of God in the Old Testament. We can see the history, archeology, and the stories come together to give us a picture of God’s judgment (of both the Ninevites and the Jews when they rebelled), as well as God’s concern for all of His creation. We can see the foreshadowing of Jesus, who would arrive eight centuries later to be “something greater than Jonah”.
Conclusion
The Book of Jonah is not important because of the fish. It is important because it gives its own veiled prophecy of the Savior of the world, who would arrive eight centuries later in Bethlehem. It also gives us a reminder of how we should be careful how we view others who are pitted against God. We should not forget that God “. . . is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). We must love our enemies as we see God loved the rebels of Nineveh and Jesus loved those who crucified Him. We should still warn them of judgment, but we leave the ultimate judgment to the Author of their lives.
For a short but sweeping summary of the amazing evidence for the history of Jonah and Nineveh, I encourage the reader to seek out the book, The Authenticity of the Book of Jonah, by author and historian Bill Cooper (2012).
References:
[1] https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j02_1/j02_1_105-116.pdf
Recommended Resources:
Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)
Miracles: The Evidence by Frank Turek DVD and Mp4
Tony Williams is a retired police officer from Southern Illinois and currently lives in Kentucky with his family. He has been studying apologetics in his spare time for two decades, since a crisis of faith led him to the discovery of vast and ever-increasing evidence for his faith. Tony received a bachelor’s degree in University Studies from Southern Illinois University in 2019. His career in law enforcement has provided valuable insight into the concepts of truth, evidence, confession, testimony, cultural competency, morality, and most of all, the compelling need for Christ in the lives of the lost. Tony plans to pursue postgraduate studies in apologetics in the near future to sharpen his understanding of the various facets of Christian apologetics.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3QsCpem
Messianic Jew Reveals: Are Christians REALLY Being Persecuted in Israel? with Jeff Morgan
PodcastIs the state of Israel actually hostile toward Christians, or are viral claims from figures like Tucker Carlson distorting the truth and misleading the masses? This week, Messianic Jew and missionary, Jeff Morgan, joins Frank to drop a “boots on the ground” report on what it’s really like to live and share the Gospel in the Holy Land.
Jeff shares his journey from secular Judaism to faith in Christ and pulls back the curtain on the surprising camaraderie (and the real tensions) between Israelis, Arabs, and Christians. Tune in as they answer questions like:
Want to see Jeff’s ministry in action on the streets of Israel? Be sure to visit his YouTube channel and ministry website, Highway 53. And stay tuned for a very special project from Jeff and Sean McDowell, coming soon!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Donate to CrossExamined
The Shocking Reality of the Treatment of Christians in Israel (Tucker Carlson)
Jeff’s Ministry Website – Highway 53
Jeff’s YouTube Channel – https://www.youtube.com/@Highway53
The Hamas Charter
Pastors’ Brief
Jonah and the Big Fish (Part 1)
3. Are Miracles Possible?The Book of Jonah is very short, only four chapters long. It tells of a prophet named Jonah who was told by God to go to the great city of Nineveh and warn them of a coming judgment. Jonah goes the opposite way on a ship, but a violent storm ends with Jonah being tossed overboard by the sailors because they learn he is fleeing from God. Jonah is swallowed by a great fish, and after three days and some prayers of repentance, he is spit out at Nineveh. [1] He gives his short warning and waits for God to destroy the evil inhabitants. However, the Ninevites repent, and God spares them from the judgment. Jonah is upset with God, Who reminds Jonah that He (God) has every right to pity those in the city. The book abruptly ends with no further response from Jonah.
You may be surprised to learn that there are many good reasons to believe this is an actual accounting of history, rather than a parable. The following is not an exhaustive study on the totality of evidence, but should help the reader understand that there is more to this book than a simple parable. [2]
Jonah
The Book of Jonah is not the only place in the Bible where Jonah is mentioned. In 2 Kings 14: 23-28, the author is recounting the Israelite kingship of Jereboam II, who “…restored the border of Isreal from Lebo-hamath as far as the sea of the Arabah, according to the word of the Lord, the God of Isreal, which He spoke by His serveant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet, who was from Gath-hepher.” We are, by that passage, able to identify Jonah as being a prophet in Israel between 782 and 753 B.C. The fact that both Biblical references to Jonah as the son of Amittai provide strong evidence that this is the same Jonah.
Israel
At the time of Jereboam II, Israel was the northern kingdom and had suffered under the mighty Assyrian empire, which was located to the north. The Assyrians were known for especially harsh treatment of those they conquered, using torture tactics like skinning captives, torturing children, and other gruesome means to bring about human suffering. They had attacked Israel on a repeated basis over the preceding years, and took the lands of Gad, Reuben, and Manasseh (Kings 10:32-33), and significantly reduced Israel’s military (Kings 13:7). In the 2 Kings passage, Jonah prophesied that Israel would expand its borders under King Jeroboam. How did that occur?
Nineveh, of Assyria
Nineveh was an ancient and major city that was a part of the Assyrian kingdom. Each city had its own ruler, but they ultimately reported to the Assyrian king. Jonah’s prophecy, and the later fulfilment, of an expansion of Israel during King Jeroboam II’s time, starts to make sense when you look at the records of Assyria at the same time. According to the Assyrian Eponym Canon and the Bur-Sagale eclipse record, Assyria (including Ninevah) was in the midst of a massive and sudden unrest and decline at the time of Jereboam II’s reign. This was caused by major plagues in 765 and 764 BC, political instability in major cities, and a solar eclipse that occurred on June 15, 763 BC.
Like many other cultures at the time, the eclipse was often seen as a sign of divine judgment to come. While we don’t know for certain what year Jonah would have been transported to Ninevah by the appointed fish to warn of coming divine appointed doom, it would make sense that he could have come at the same time all of these events would have been rattling the people of Ninevah and wider Assyria. They would likely have been much more apt to heed the warnings of an Israeli claiming to speak on behalf of the God of the universe with a warning of pending destruction.
Archaeology
So, the Biblical references to Jonah and the Assyrian records match up as far as who Jonah was and how Assyrians in Ninevah were faring at the time of Jonah’s likely visit. However, the city of Nineveh was eventually lost to history and was believed by many to be a work of fiction by a later writer. Even with references to Ninevah by ancient historians Xenophon and Herodotus, because the ruins were lost to time, many academics believed Ninevah to be a myth. In 1820, however, Claudius Rich discovered ruins near Mosul, Iraq, that he believed belonged to Ninevah. Austen Henry Layard developed the site further and discovered massive palace walls, cuneiform tablets, and the library of Ashurbanipal, confirming this was indeed the city of Nineveh. [3] Further excavations revealed that the massive scale of the city recorded in Biblical and other ancient records was accurate. Nineveh became one of the many cities lost to time, doubted by scholars, and later discovered by archeologists to affirm the Biblical account.
The Hill of Jonah
While Nineveh was destroyed in about 612 BC, evidence of our Jonah remained overlooking the hidden ruins for the centuries that followed. The Tell Neby Yunus, as it has been known to locals for centuries, was known to be the ancient burial site of Jonah, who was brought to Nineveh as a messenger of God to warn of impending doom. While the city was not visible because of the nature of its destruction, the Hill of Jonah remained.
Muslims who lived in the area maintained the story for generations, as Jonah and his story are also mentioned in the Koran. A mosque was built on the hill in 1365 AD, which covered over an ancient Assyrian Christian church that marked Jonah’s grave. In July 2014, ISIS militants attempted to destroy the mosque because they believed the site was a place of apostasy. They also began digging in the area, looking for religious or ancient artifacts they could sell on the black market. They stumbled into the Neo-Assyrian palace built by King Sennacherib (705-681 BC).[4]
What’s Next
In my first attempt, I quickly realized that I could not do justice to this summary of the evidence for the Book of Jonah in one short paper. I will therefore follow this up with a summary of the related fulfilled prophecies of Nahum, the clear foreshadowings of Christ in the story, how we know the book was written in Jonah’s time and not later, and perhaps even how it is that one can confidently believe that a man swallowed by a fish for three days lived to tell about it.
References:
[1] [Editor’s Note: The text doesn’t say the fish spat up Jonah at Nineveh, but rather that he was spat up on dry land (Jonah 2:10). While that could have been near Nineveh of the fish swam around to the Tigris river. The more likely locale, barring another miracle, would have been the shores of the Mediterranean sea.]
[2] For a short but sweeping summary of the amazing evidence for the history of Jonah and Nineveh, I encourage the reader to seek out the book, The Authenticity of the Book of Jonah, by author and historian Bill Cooper (2012).
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineveh
[4] https://israel365news.com/314204/palace-biblical-king-sennacherib-discovered-beneath-isis-destruction-jonahs-tomb/
Recommended Resources:
Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)
Miracles: The Evidence by Frank Turek DVD and Mp4
Tony Williams is a retired police officer from Southern Illinois and currently lives in Kentucky with his family. He has been studying apologetics in his spare time for two decades, since a crisis of faith led him to the discovery of vast and ever-increasing evidence for his faith. Tony received a bachelor’s degree in University Studies from Southern Illinois University in 2019. His career in law enforcement has provided valuable insight into the concepts of truth, evidence, confession, testimony, cultural competency, morality, and most of all, the compelling need for Christ in the lives of the lost. Tony plans to pursue postgraduate studies in apologetics in the near future to sharpen his understanding of the various facets of Christian apologetics.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3QsCpem
The #1 Driving Force Behind Political Violence in America
PodcastWhy is political violence on the rise in America? Look no further than the manifesto written by the man who attempted to shoot up the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday night. In today’s podcast, Frank unpacks the serious consequences of a society influenced by critical theory, and offers insights on how teaching truth and logic rooted in Scripture can help address these issues. You’ll also hear Frank’s speech from the TPUSA Faith Pastor’s Summit last week, where he offers a practical solution to this problem.
Tune is as he answers questions like:
For more information on this topic, be sure to check out the helpful resources in the list below and get your tickets for ‘The Story of Everything’, coming to theatres later this week (APRIL 30-MAY 6)!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Donate to CrossExamined
What Americans Really Think About Political Violence
Pastors’ Brief
CrossExamined Instructors Academy (CIA)
You Can Do It! Defending Freedom with Rob Schneider
‘The Story of Everything’ in theatres APRIL 30 – MAY 6
Advice to Young Aspiring Apologists
Theology and Christian ApologeticsDavid Wood recently posted an excellent video featuring a series of short interview clips with various apologists (Douglas Groothuis, Gary Habermas, Craig Hazen, Mike Licona, Nabeel Qureshi, Mary Jo Sharp, and Frank Turek) on advice to future apologists. As one who is of the younger generation myself (I am almost 27)[1], and who has been active in the public apologetics arena from relatively young (from around 20 years of age) I have some experience to speak of when it comes to being a young defender of the Christian faith.
In this article, I want to address those who are young, perhaps in their late teens or in their 20’s, and who aspire to do public work in apologetics. In particular, I want to reflect on my observations over the past six or seven years of involvement in apologetics and what lessons I have learned in the process — sometimes, unfortunately, the hard way.
Lesson 1: Be Careful How Early You Enter into the Public Arena
It’s perfectly natural that, when you have a new idea, you want to share it with the world. Over the last decade or so, there has been an explosion in the popularity of online blogging, which has given people the ability to spread ideas and information quickly. This has its obvious advantages, but it also has some significant risk factors and draw-backs, especially for young people. Among these is the fact that what you publish publicly on the internet is effectively public material forever.
Why might that be a risk-factor for young people? When you’re young, your views and ideas are still in the process of crystallizing. Being less wedded to a given paradigm than those of the older generation means you are more likely to revise your position or change your mind on certain issues. I, for one, have seen an evolution in my own views and arguments over the past five years. Your arguments also become more refined and sophisticated over time as you learn from the experience of defending them and conversing with people who are better acquainted with a given field than you are. You also become increasingly better informed as you read more and more about a subject. Imagine the frustration, then, when someone Googles your name, and the first hit is to an article you wrote some four or five years ago, articulating views or argumentation which you would no longer defend. You may well have expressed your current views and better refined arguments elsewhere, but that is not necessarily the first thing people will see. Things you said years ago can come back to haunt you for years. So, exercise caution!
A second danger here is that some areas relating to apologetics present a particular risk factor when seeking employment in certain professions. For example, in the academic environment in which we currently find ourselves, being overtly public about your views on biological design may land you in seriously hot water when it comes to building a career in the field of biology. The modern formulation of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has become so entrenched in modern academia that people do not want to put their own careers in jeopardy by being associated with someone who has public affiliations to intelligent design. Similarly, as we have seen with increasing frequency, public criticism of same-sex marriage may land you in hot water in certain career paths.
My advice would thus be to give careful consideration to how early you enter into the public arena to express your views. Think about allowing them to crystallize first. Otherwise, a pseudonym or alias may be a relatively safe option.
Lesson 2: Never Cut Corners — Research Your Argument Thoroughly
This should go without saying, but you would be surprised at the number of people who do not take the time to hunt down a primary source, relying instead on what other people have said about that primary source. This is a very bad habit. When you read a quotation in a book that has been taken from another source, try to avoid using it unless you can trace it to the primary source. If the quotation has been lifted out of context, or has been misinterpreted by the author, you are just as culpable if you do not check it for yourself. Always be ready with primary sources to back up points you make in debate. In addition, read the relevant sections of primary sources carefully. You would be amazed at the number of people who think they are engaged in good scholarship by basing their interpretation of a scientific research paper on its abstract, or even (far worse) its title! Never proof-text a passage of which you aren’t familiar with the context. Exercise great concern for factual accuracy. As Christians, we believe that Christ is ultimate truth itself (John 14:6). We are thus committed to a very high standard of accuracy and fair representation.
You should also be acquainted with the responses that have already been offered to the argument you are making. If you are making a new argument that hasn’t been addressed before, try to anticipate possible objections. Even better, get someone who takes a different view to read and critique your argument before going public with it. Friends can also be invaluable in critically appraising your work before it goes public.
Work to understand your argument well. Don’t just parrot an argument that you heard somebody else make.
Lesson 3: Strive to Understand the View You Are Criticizing Better Than Its Best Defenders
You should always, at least in principle, strive to understand the view or argument you are criticizing better than its best defenders. There is nothing worse than an apologist who discredits the Gospel by making basic misrepresentations of a view, such as evolution or Islam, that could have been avoided with a little research. My advice here would be not to limit your reading to books that already agree with you. Be courageous and read books representing the other side of the debate as well. If you are critically appraising a religion, read that religion’s primary sources. Don’t get your information on Islam, for example, solely from Christian sources. Apart from being intellectually responsible, this also opens up doors and builds bridges to people of other worldview persuasions. My familiarity with the Qur’an and Hadith literature, for example, has opened up numerous opportunities to have dialogues with Muslims. People respect it when you can demonstrate that you have done your homework, and will be more inclined to listen to what you have to say.
Lesson 4: Be Honest About The Weaknesses of Your Position
An argument is rendered far more credible and respectable when the person articulating and defending the position is willing to honestly state the position’s weaknesses upfront. This allows the intended audience to objectively evaluate the pros and cons of your position and come to their own conclusion about where the balance of evidence lies. Unfortunately, this is something we need to see more of in apologetics. All propositional claims have their share of both strengths and weaknesses — yes, even Christianity. The evidence may well be (as I maintain that it is) overwhelmingly in favour of Christianity being true, but there are always facts on the other side of the balance as well, which are worthy of consideration. We are all susceptible, at some level, to confirmation bias, and it is important that we take steps to minimize the impact of this bias on our public presentation of the arguments and evidence.
Lesson 5: Be Charitable
Always look for the most charitable way of reading your sources. Give the benefit of the doubt wherever possible. Show that you can responsibly critique a position or argument even when presented in its strongest possible form. If a critic makes a mistake, don’t immediately blast him for lying or having deceptive or malicious intent. More often than not, they just made a mistake. Point it out. If they admit their mistake, commend them for it. If, on the other hand, someone has had a mistake pointed out to them repeatedly, yet they persist in stating the falsehood, I would be inclined to be less charitable. A common example of this is when Muslim apologists confidently claim, over and over again like a mantra, that the canon of the New Testament was determined in A.D. 325 at the council of Nicaea, a fiction that has been exposed time and time again (see my article here for what really went on at Nicaea).
Related to this, one should always seek to engage with the most respected and capable defenders of a given position. Richard Dawkins and other members of the ‘New Atheist’ community have often been criticized for criticizing the worst representatives of Christianity, and avoiding the best possible opposition. This is not a trait that you want to emulate. There is a time, of course, for critiquing poor defenders of a position, particularly if they are popular, so that the vacuousness of their argumentation may be exposed. It is unfortunate that the most popular apologists for atheism also happen to be the least intellectually sophisticated (e.g. Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins, Sam Harris). Since these men are popular, they ought to be responded to. But your engagement shouldn’t be limited to them. Likewise, so many Muslims listen to Zakir Naik and Ahmed Deedat that their arguments must be responded to, even if they are very unsophisticated. But try to engage Islam’s more reflective apologists, such as Shabir Ally, as well. To quote Proverbs 26:4-5, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.”
Lesson 6: Be Consistent
The application of double standards is the surest sign of a failed argument. It is always important to be intellectually consistent. Don’t, for instance, use an argument against another religion which would work equally well against Christianity. Apply standards consistently!
Even more important, ensure that your style of living is consistent with the message you are proclaiming. Ignatius of Antioch, the second century church father and disciple of the Apostle John, in his Epistle to the Ephesians (15), put it so well: “Indeed, it is better to keep quiet and be, than to make fluent professions and not be.”
Lesson 7: Be A Good Listener
Be prepared to listen carefully to people with whom you are conversing. Seek to understand where they are coming from. Don’t presume things about them based upon what you have read about their religion. Let them have their say whenever they wish to speak. Be wary of steam rollers, but be careful about not being one yourself. It is better to allow them to speak too much than too little. Respond to the position that they have articulated, not the position that you think they should adhere to. Try to keep them on point, however. If you’re debating about Scripture, ask them to stay within one passage and reach a verdict with you on that passage (or at least admit to not having thought it through before and ask for time to reflect on it) before moving on to another passage. I speak from experience when I say that this is particularly important in dialogues with Jehovah’s witnesses!
There is an additional reason why it is prudent to be a good listener. Just because you disagree with an individual does not mean that you have nothing to learn from them. Every individual has unique experience and ideas that you can learn from. Remain teachable, even from those with whom you vehemently disagree.
Lesson 8: Be Prepared to Admit Mistakes And When You Don’t Have An Answer
Everybody makes mistakes from time to time. When someone legitimately points out an error or mistake on your part, do not try to cover it up. Admit to it, noting that it was an honest mistake. If someone contends that you have erred and you are not convinced that they are right, promise to check your sources and get back to them on it. It takes a lot of grace and humility to admit the occasional error, but people will respect you for it, and you will have greater credibility. Just don’t make a habit of making mistakes!
It is also important to confess when you are unable to answer a question or challenge. Everybody’s knowledge is limited, and there is only so much you can have researched. There will come times, on occasion, when you are met with a challenge that you have never considered or encountered before. When that happens, do not attempt to ‘wing’ it. Instead, graciously admit that you haven’t yet encountered this point and promise to investigate it further.
Lesson 9: Never Repay Insult With Insult
Ad hominem attacks, which are by nature leveled against an individual rather than an argument, have unfortunately become common, especially online, where people feel safe behind the anonymity of the internet. One should never repay insult with insult, however. Set a good example for how intellectual discourse ought to be done. Show the world how Christians conduct themselves in argument and debate. To quote Ignatius of Antioch’s Epistle to the Ephesians (10),
Meet their animosity with mildness, their high words with humility, and their abuse with your prayers. But stand firm against their errors, and if they grow violent, be gentle instead of wanting to pay them back in their own coin. Let us show by our forbearance that we are their brothers, and try to imitate the Lord by seeing which of us can put up with the most ill-usage or privation or contempt — so that in this way none of the devil’s noxious weeds may take root in you.
Did Christ retaliate against those that mocked and insulted Him? As 1 Peter 2:23 says, “When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.” Follow the example of Polycarp of Smyrna. When the mounted policemen came to track him down and closed in on his whereabouts, he reportedly ordered at once that they be given all the food and drink they wanted. By doing this, to quote another Proverb, “you will heap burning coals on his head [i.e. make them feel guilty for the way they treated you] and the Lord will reward you.”
Lesson 10: Generally Don’t Be Confrontational In The University Setting
My advice for youths has always been to not draw attention to themselves by being confrontational with their professors in their place of study. Granted, there is sometimes a time and place for challenging professors, but these opportune and appropriate times are not common. The reason you should not be confrontational is that you do not want to come across as portraying yourself as a peer. In a professor-student relationship, this comes across as rather arrogant.
Lesson 11: Be Above Public Reproach
Personal integrity is so important, particularly for the Christian. Like it or not, as a public ambassador for the Christian faith, people are observing your life. Many of them are looking for things to find fault with. As a Christian apologist, there would be nothing worse than to have your reputation sullied by a momentary lapse in moral judgment. The life of the believer is the ultimate apologetic. If the way you live your life does not comport with the message you are proclaiming, people are going to think “This Christ has evidently not had much of an impact on his life? Why should I expect Christ to impact mine?” 2nd Clement 13:3-4 illustrates the point well:
For when outsiders hear the sayings of God from our mouths, they are astonished at their beauty and greatness. Then when they discover that our actions do not match our words, they turn from astonishment to blasphemy, saying that our faith is some kind of myth and error. For on the one hand, they hear from us that God has said, “It is no great accomplishment for you to love those who love you; it is great if you love your enemies and those who hate you.” And when they hear these things, they are astonished by their extraordinary goodness. But then when they see that we fail to love not only those who hate us, but even those who love us, they ridicule us and the name is blasphemed.
As Jesus said to his disciples in Matthew 10:16, “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.”
Lesson 12: Your Academic Studies Must Take Priority
It doesn’t matter how much you know. You are going to be very limited in what you can do as a public intellectual if you have no academic credentials to your name. Striking the right balance between academic study and other intellectual interests is hard, but the former must take priority.
If you adopt intelligent design (ID) theory as your view and this becomes known among the faculty in your department, this is of particular importance, since you are now an ambassador for this view. You don’t want to discredit the ID community by poor performance and you also don’t want to give any defensible justification to those who may want to penalize you for adopting such a view.
Lesson 13: Don’t Let Your Intellectual Endeavors Take Your Eyes Off Christ. Be Soaked in Scripture.
In his book The Doctrine of Repentance, the 17th century puritan Thomas Watson wrote,
Some bless themselves that they have a stock of knowledge, but what is knowledge good for without repentance? It is better to mortify one sin than to understand all mysteries. Impure speculatists do but resemble Satan transformed into an angel of light. Learning and a bad heart is like a fair face with a cancer in the breast. Knowledge without repentance will be but a torch to light men to hell.
It is of the utmost importance that Christ form the cornerstone of everything that you do. Take care to maintain a healthy prayer life and meditate daily upon the word of God. Remember that we are not saved by our adherence to a body of doctrine, nor our ability to articulate and defend the Christian faith. Continuously examine yourself to see whether the beliefs of your intellect reflect the beliefs of your heart, manifested by your actions. Be sure that you are not one of the ones to whom Christ will say “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.”
Conclusion
The above are just a few of the principles that I have picked up through my own involvement in apologetics. Some of these I can relate to through my own experience. Others, I picked up from observing and learning from other people. If you commit to applying the above principles consistently, you cannot go far wrong.
References:
[1] [Editor’s Note: This blog was originally posted August 1, 2016.]
Recommended Resources:
Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4vMvqNk
5 Things You and Your Kids Need to Build a Lasting Faith in a Changing World with Jonathan Morrow
PodcastHow do you and your kids stay grounded in the Christian faith in a culture that is constantly changing and trying to distract us? Jonathan Morrow, director of cultural engagement and student discipleship at Impact 360 Institute, has been equipping students and parents for over 16 years, and is passionate about seeing a new generation build a lasting faith. His newly updated book, ‘Welcome to College‘, helps guide students and their parents as they prepare for their college journey and life beyond the classroom.
Join Jonathan and Frank as they discuss practical tips anyone can use to stay grounded in the Christian faith and answer questions like:
In addition to the updated book, be sure to check out Jonathan’s FREE College Starter Kit available right now at WelcomeToCollege.org. It includes practical tools designed to help new college students hit the ground running and stay spiritually grounded from day one.
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Donate to CrossExamined
Welcome to College by Jonathan Morrow
Impact 360
Jonathan’s Website
Defining Atheism: Belief in No God or No Belief in God
2. Does God Exist?Is Atheism the absence of God-belief or the present belief that there is no God? Traditionally, “atheism” refers to the belief that there is no God. But in the last 20-30 years, it’s become popular to treat the term as a kind of agnosticism, “having no belief in God” or simply, “lacking God-belief.” Who’s right? And what does it matter?
Atheos
Let’s go back to the Greek word from which we get our word “atheism.” “Atheist” is a translation of the Greek: atheos using the alpha privative “a” – which translates as “un-/non-/dis-/not/no,“ and the term “theos” (God). It literally translates as “No God”. Note, it’s not a merger between the alpha privative and the english term “theist” or “theism.” Rather “atheist” as a whole word is a translation of the whole word “atheos.” The alpha privative negates theos, as in, “no God”, or “godless.” as opposed to negating theism which would be “no God-belief.” As it stands with atheism, if the original meaning were drawn entirely from etymology it would mean simply “godless,” “ungodly,” or “without God.” And this indeed is one of the definitions we find for the term in its Ancient sources. In that time, it also had the primary definition of “denying God/gods” which followed by implication from the notion of “godless;” if a person truly believed in a grand judge over all the universe he would not live/teach/think as if no such being existed.
The idea, however, of withholding/refraining-from belief about some God, though present in ancient Greece and Rome, tended to be subsumed under terms like “skepticism” (gk: skepticos) or “materialism” or “atomism” (a form of materialism). Atheos however was used to describe a different phenomenon. Thus the effective meaning of atheos is something like, “[immorally] godless” or “disbelief in God.”
Were someone to translate ancient and classical uses of atheos into “no belief in God” they would do an injustice to the text since that is simply not how Greeks and Romans were normally using the term when they first coined it, nor when they continued using it over the years. Etymology (study of word origins, and composite meaning from word parts) is only one way that words take on meaning. When we apply etymology to the English word “atheism,” we have “athe” (from atheos “no God/Godless”) + “-ism” (belief). Belief then characterizes the “no God” hence we have, “Belief in no God.” And the alpha privative, as always, characterizes the word to which it’s affixed. So, the belief is positive, the object of belief is negative. It is “belief in no God” or “belief in Godless[ness].” For etymology to achieve the negative definition of atheism, a popular definition today, from the term would have to be something like, “theos-a-ism” or, “No belief [in a] God.” The etymology argument then is not a friend but a foe of the negative definition of atheism.
Christian Atheists?
In ancient Rome we find the positive form of atheism exercised when Christians were being persecuted and martyred for being “atheists.” Of course, they still believed in God but because they rejected the Greco-Roman pantheon of Gods, they were slandered as “atheists” by comparison. They did not simply “lack belief” in the Roman Gods, rather they consciously rejected those God’s. They denied the existence of the Greco-Roman Gods (Zeus, Aphrodite, Hermes, etc.). The “lack of belief in God” was already covered under the concept of “skepticos,” (skepticism), namely it was a theological skepticism. That’s a disposition of distrust, doubt, or non-belief regarding God’s existence. The term Atheos was not a good fit for that concept. Atheism was a somewhat non-skeptical position for it took a position, making a claim that “no God exists.”
Compared to the plethora of Gods in the Greco-Roman pantheon, rejecting all but one is practically equivalent to atheism. So, despite it’s misapplication, the term “atheism” stuck. Even ambivalence could have been tolerated among the Romans as they did with many agnostic philosophers (though the term “agnostic” had not been invented yet). But conscious rejection of the Roman Gods was seen as an intolerable affront to the state. As we can expect from ideas that are deeply rooted in human nature and the human psyche, the idea of “atheism” survived for centuries with both connotations intact: “godless” and “disbelief in God.”
In recent times, however, the definition has come under question by atheist themselves. Three motivating factors can be identified.
Strategic Advantage
First, in debates it is generally the better strategy to rebut the opponent’s case rather than to have to be pre-occupied defending one’s own case. A softened definition of atheism allows for this. With negative atheism, the atheist doesn’t carry any burden of proof since that burden is on the participant/s making a positive case of some sort: “God exists” or “God does not exists.” But to claim, “I have no belief about God” is not a positive case. Therefore it requires no defense.
Presumption of Atheism
Second, Antony Flew’s important article “The Presumption of Atheism” (1972) argues that the default or neutral position for humanity is atheism. Building on the point just made, Flew argues that the burden of proof is on the theist to demonstrate that “belief in God” is reasonable. Essentially, Flew is arguing that negative/soft/weak atheism is man’s natural disposition, or if it is not, it is the intellectually justified default position. It is up to the theist to make a positive case for theism.
Logical Positivism
A third factor which might have played a part in this redefinition is the onset of British positivism, like that of A.J. Ayer. Ayer, among others, suggested that claims must be empirically verifiable or analytically (by-definition) true if they are to be linguistically meaningful.[1] Theology, for Ayer, is not true, but neither is it false. It is without meaning since its reference to God lacks analytic veracity and empirical testability so the notion cannot even be entertained as a proposition. It is like trying to argue “I believe in ‘ouch’” or “I don’t believe in ‘um’.” These terms “ouch” and “um” are emotive/gibberish terms that defy cognitive belief or disbelief. “Truth” and “falsity” do not apply to them, and, according to Ayer, nor does it apply to any God-talk. Ayer’s positivism was all the rage for a while, but today, few people are conscious advocates of this “logical positivism,” even though its scope and influence is incredibly widespread. Ayer’s positivism ultimately proved self-defeating since every attempt to say the theory of positivism, failed to satisfy it’s own criteria for meaningfulness.
Understanding these three possible influences together: 1) The strategic advantage of negative atheism (“no belief in a God”), 2) combined with “The Presumption of Atheism,” and 3) a positivistic disposition–it makes complete sense why many contemporary atheists want to define their own camp in negative terms as “without theism, no belief in a God” instead of the historic and traditional use of the term (“disbelief in God),.” But does this view not overlap with agnosticism?
The Complicating Landscape of Non-Theism
Antony Flew and A.J. Ayer are 20th century figures, who emerged from the secularizing influence of German rationalism, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, the Freedom of Religion in the West, evolutionary theory with Darwin’s Origin of The Species. The landscape of non-theism was vast and complicated in the late 19th and early 20th century. To help organize the ideological furniture in the growing domain of disbelief, Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term “agnostic” in 1889. He used this term to describe his own conviction that knowledge about God’s existence or non-existence is impossible. He did not consider himself an atheist, but found himself being called one. He was not a positive atheist–for he was not denying God’s existence. Nor was he a theist–since he wasn’t affirming God’s existence either. Neither was he simply a theological skeptic–since he believed that knowledge of God was not yet (or perhaps ever) possible. His agnosticism is practically indistinguishable from the modern category of “negative atheism” which also lacks belief in God, and also allows that God’s existence could prove unknowable even if He/she/it really existed.
Not surprisingly, the borders between “atheism” and “agnosticism” are often blurry or invisible. So, for atheism to be distinct, defensible, and publicly viable, it needs the help of some categorical distinctions since atheists are widely diverse and do not necessarily hold a party line when they don the moniker “atheist.” Somewhere in the Modern era there seems to have been a division then in both Agnosticism and Atheism, rendering four categories from the previous two.
And another catch-all term can be added to these:
I’m borrowing these categories from Michael Martin, Antony Flew, and William Rowe as they’re quite helpful in clarifying some of the subtleties that arise in these debates. These are not, however, standardized, and do not necessarily reflect the long history or widescale contemporary usage of “agnostic” and “atheist.” I recommend these categories for clarity of usage, but we should be careful not to follow, thoughtlessly, the contemporary popular usage of “atheist” and “atheism” as being weak atheism or weak agnosticism. Etymology, history, and many contemporary standard sources defy that definition. Don’t believe me? Check some of the sources listed below.
At this point you may be wondering why all this matters? What difference does it make? At minimum, clear thinking and precise language are generally good. We should be clear and precise where we can. Besides that general benefit I give, in a different article, nine reasons why this definitional problem with atheism is important.
Positive Atheism is the majority sense of the term “Atheism” according to its historic usage
Positive atheism is also the primary or exclusive definition for “atheism” in the following current sources:
Blackburn answers the question “what do you personally mean by ‘atheism’” by saying, “Actually I prefer the label ‘infidel’ to that of ‘atheist’. I suppose an atheist thinks there is a definite, intelligible question to which the answer is ‘no’, and agnostics also think there is such a question, and that the right answer is ‘don’t know’. But I doubt that there is a definite intelligible question about ‘the existence of God’.”–See below, (2008) Simon Blackburn
Representing Modern trends to normalize negative atheism as the standard sense of “atheism” are the following sources:
Notes:
[1] The seminal text for “logical positivism” is A.J. Ayer, Language Truth and Logic (New York: Penguin, 1936).
Recommended Resources:
Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Dr. John D. Ferrer is an educator, writer, and graduate of CrossExamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella, Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife, Hillary Ferrer, with her ministry, Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.
This blog is adapted from the original version at: https://bit.ly/defining-atheism