This is not an explicit apologetic for Christianity per se, but rather a brief reasoning for the cause of existence that fits within the framework of Christianity. I have listed three premises below which, at first glance, may appear overly-simplistic to the point of being a bit ridiculous, but this is indeed the intent, for the purpose of this piece is practicality. It is only an appeal to simple logic, not an exhaustive showing of evidence, nor an in-depth analysis of philosophical thought. It is something I hope could be easily brought up over a cup of coffee or a pint at the pub. My objective is only to try and show that the idea of a universe caused by some type of outside agent is a logically sound and reasonable view to hold. The three premises are as follows:

1. The universe exists.
2. If the universe exists it is reasonable to think that it had a beginning.
3. If the universe had a beginning it is reasonable to think that it had a cause.

Premise 1 should find little dispute. The only criticism I could think of to the existence of the universe would be perhaps some form eastern philosophy which might claim that the visible world is illusionary. Now, I must admit that I have not done much homework on this type of worldview, so I cannot speak confidently on whether I have stated this view correctly. I will say this though: if one did believe that everything was some sort of illusion, then it would be impossible to know if anything was true or false--so just claiming this type of worldview as truth would seem to be self-refuting.

Premise 2 is much more debatable. The eternality of the universe was a view widely held by atheists until the 20th century, when cosmological evidence was found that strongly conflicted with that idea. A scientific revolution occurred in 1929 when astronomers discovered that the universe was expanding. Before this many thought of it as being stationary (which was helpful to the argument of its eternality). The implication of this find was enormous, for when astronomers traced the expansion backwards through time they found that somewhere in the finite past all matter and energy in the universe converged at a single point, and hypothetically this appears to be when the universe began. Most of us know this as "The Big Bang Theory". This theory is the most widely accepted among the scientific community, regardless of worldviews or beliefs and overwhelmingly suggests that the universe had a beginning. Other theories have been proposed and other models have been attempted that might favor an eternal universe, but none of these are as plausible, or have nearly as much evidence, as the Big Bang model, and find much less acceptance within the scientific community. (It should be noted that there is much more to be said about this theory as well as other unrelated arguments for the beginning of the universe, but for the sake of brevity I will not go into them here).

Premise 3 should follow easily from 2 but it brings with it the potential for the most controversy, because it is here where naturalistic explanations hit a wall.If the evidence for premise 2 indicates that the universe did have a beginning then we must take the next logical step; and logic would assume that whatever begins to exist has a cause. The simplest argument for this is that something can not come from nothing. Science, for the most part, would agree with this statement and so we are left with a question mark at this point. And since there is no definite physical answer for this question mark it should not be unreasonable to look at metaphysical possibilities or other options that might have a more explanatory scope.

With this in mind, let us look at some attributes we could reasonably assume that the cause of the universe might possess:

If the universe had a cause it is reasonable to think that the cause, or agent, exists outside of, and therefore transcends, the entire known universe which includes space, time, matter, and energy.

• If the agent is the cause of space, and is therefore not limited by spatial boundaries, it is reasonable to think that it is capable of omnipresence.
• If the agent is the cause of time, and is therefore not limited by it, is reasonable to think that it could be timeless or eternal.
• If the agent is the cause of matter, and is therefore not limited by material form, it is reasonable to think that it could be, to our perception, invisible.
• If the agent is the cause of energy, and is therefore not limited by it, it is reasonable to think that it could be omnipotent.

By following this line of reasoning we end up with a transcendent, omnipresent, eternal, invisible, omnipotent agent that caused the universe into existence.

Now, I do not want to jump too far ahead too quickly. The traits listed here do not, by themselves, necessarily describe a personal agent of deity let alone the Judeo-Christian God; they could just as well be a description of an impersonal force. To move from the impersonal to the personal requires further discussion on topics like the fine tuning of the universe, the existence of organic life, our human nature and morality, etc,; and all of this would take far too long for this post. As I stated above; my goal here was only to show that the idea of the universe being cause by an outside agent is reasonable and logically sound. But for the sake of putting this information into a Christian context; let's see how the attributes listed above are also ascribed to God in Scripture:

Transcendence
But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens; even the highest heaven, cannot contain you... (1 Kings 8:27)

Omnipresence
Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens you are there; if I make my bed in the depths you are there. (Psalm 139:7-8)

Eternality
Before the mountains were born or before you brought forth the earth and the world, fro everlasting to everlasting you are God. (Psalm 90:2)

Invisible Nature
He is the image of the invisible God... (Colossians 1:15)

Omnipotence
O LORD, God of our fathers, are you not the God who is in heaven? You rule over all the kingdoms of the nations. Power and might are in your hand, and no one can withstand you. (2 Chronicles 20:6)

In summary, we see that: (1) the universe exists and that an argument against its existence seems illogical and self-refuting, (2) Big Bang cosmology has given very strong evidence in favor of the universe having a beginning. (3) Logic would dictate that if the universe had a beginning than it also had a cause: Out of nothing, nothing comes. (4) Since naturalistic explanations cannot account for the cause of the universe than it is reasonable to look outside of the naturalistic realm for explanations.

In future posts we'll try to work on showing how the information presented here is best described by a personal creator, and how that personal creator is best described by Judeo-Christian belief (and if we have any energy left after that we'll work on showing how that Judeo-Christian belief is best revealed and fulfilled by Jesus Christ :).

-Brian Rizzardi-

“Apologetics doesn’t work”. This was the statement made to me by one of my friends at a recent bible study. His reason for this claim being; “you can’t win someone to Christ by arguing with them”. Now, I have heard this statement before and I’m sure it will not be the last time; it is a common objection to this field of ministry, but it is also, I believe, a misconception of what apologetics is and why it is useful.

First, let us be clear on the matter; The English word apology has a different meaning from how we are using it here. It comes from the Greek word apologia meaning ‘to give a defense for’. So when we give an apology for Christian truth claims it does not mean we are saying sorry for being Christians, but rather we are explaining why we believe as we do. Now, does this involve “arguments”? Yes, it does, but not the type of which I think my friend was referring to, such as two hot-headed combatants entrenched in verbal warfare with the goal of making the other feel inferior. Certainly, this would be a poor display of Christ’s love. Actually, apologia can be viewed as a legal term referring to a defense made in a court of law. So when we speak of an “argument” we are speaking of a rational, thought out defense for our case where all the evidence is carefully weighed out and a logical decision can be made, and as Christians this must always be done in love in accordance to the will of the Lord.

Now, when someone says, ‘apologetics won’t get anybody saved’, I completely agree, but I want to be perfectly clear on this point; apologetics will not save a single soul, but neither will fire and brimstone preaching, seeker sensitivity, handing out tracts, or giving alter calls at the end of our sermons. Why do I say this? Simply because it is not our job to save others, for we cannot even save ourselves, it is only God who is capable of this through the redeeming grace of our Lord Jesus and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. Do not get me wrong, I do not say these things to mean that our ministerial actions are useless, not at all! I am simply trying to get to the misconception that some people hold towards apologetics when it comes to evangelizing, and that is simply this: As followers of Christ we are in the business of planting seeds. Some of us also get to water those seeds, but none of us get to make those seeds grow, for that is God’s work (1 Corinthians 3:6).

So, apologetics, in terms of reaching unbelievers, is another form of planting seeds and watering them. Intellectual arguments, no matter how good they are, should not be expected to bestow faith. For if some irrefutable proof for the Christian claim could be made by them what would be the point of faith? But the work of an apologetic can most certainly be a road or a building block to faith and can also strengthen those already in the church. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit this field of ministry has great potential to bring people into a setting where a choice to follow Christ is a reasonable, logical and intellectually valid choice. There are many today who see Christianity, the Bible, or just religion in general, as nothing more than myth; archaic fairy tales to either scare you into submission or to give you warm fuzzy feelings as you go to bed. There are many who live and die for quite different truth claims and view Christianity as an enemy. There are those who, by means of scripture twisting and forming new doctrines, claim that their sect or organization is the only way to God. There are even those among us who cause division within the body of Christ and cause their brothers to stumble. The world gives us plenty of opportunities to defend the faith, and if we can offer sound reasons for our belief while also giving a strong, logical defense to the attacks on Christian truth claims, then apologetics has served a purpose.

We are told to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1), so let us look at how scripture sets a biblical precedent for the work of the apologetic.

1 Peter 3:15
…Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope you have…

Peter does not address this letter to any single person. It is not meant to be read only by church leaders, but is addressed to all of “God’s elect” who are scattered throughout the known world (1:1). So we see here that all Christians are expected to be able to give a reason for their hope. It should be noted that this is a very practical thing to do. Apologetics is not reserved for only the intellectual elite who sit in ivory towers. Anyone who chooses to adhere to a certain belief should be able to give an answer when asked why they have chosen such a belief.

Jude 3
…I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

Jude here was writing to believers about “godless men” (v.4) that had slipped in among them. These men were practicing and teaching things that strayed from the truth of the gospel. The apostle John also deals with a similar subject in all three of his epistles. Not much has changed since then, and today we still find this sort of thing happening all the time from the outside as well as within the church body. It is all too easy to stray from the straight and narrow path, and we know that “Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14), that is why it is vitally important to always be testing and discerning the spirits. Now, of course, it is the Holy Spirit who guides us into all truth and teaches us all things (John 14:26), and the inner witness of the Spirit is more important than our own intellectual ventures, but one of the ways God speaks to us is through his word, and Scripture tells us to be very careful of how we live-not as unwise but as wise (Ephesians 5:15). We are told that the Bereans were of noble character because they examined the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true (Acts 17:11). In the same way we should be measuring everything up to the word of God so that we may “contend for the faith” whenever the truth comes into question.

Acts 17:2-3
As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving to them that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead…

These verses, in my opinion, are the clearest examples of what we call apologetics today being put into practice in the early church. We read here that it was Paul’s custom to reason with others to prove that Jesus was the Christ, and we have examples of both Paul and Barnabas using this method throughout the book of Acts, not to mention the defenses made in many of Paul’s letters. For instance, in his letter to the Romans (ch.1 starting at verse 18), Paul appeals to the entirety of creation itself as an argument for the existence of God (and apologetics still use this argument today).

Certainly, Paul had a specific calling that differed from most and, as an apostle, was given far greater responsibility than others, but by no means was it his job alone to defend the claims of the early church. Aside from Peter and Jude’s instructions to all their readers, we read that Stephan gave a lengthy defense to the Sanhedrin after his arrest (Acts 7), that Jewish and Gentile believers debated on the subject of circumcision (Acts 15) and John’s epistles all seem to deal with combating an early form of Gnosticism. In fact, between vicious Roman oppression, unbelieving Jews, heretical teachings, and internal disputes within the church, the early Christians had so mush adversity to contend with that it is hard to imagine that any of them could escape the responsibility of defending the faith.

When I look around today, I do not see any less of a need for this field of ministry. The early church was trying to show the world the truthfulness of their radical, new belief in Jesus of Nazareth, where as I see the modern church trying to show the world that nearly 2,000 years later the Son of God is still “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).

The work of apologetics is extremely important not only to those who might be reached by it, but also as a strengthening tool for believers. It’s just common sense that anyone spreading the word of the gospel can benefit by having good reasons to back it up. It is also important to me on a personal level, for I myself am one who was reached by it while I was still lost. I grew up as a skeptic and an antagonist who questioned everything. It was not until I did the research and weighed the evidence out for myself that I came to know Jesus as my Lord and Savior. Now, when I think back, I don’t know how I ever lived without Him.

I know there are many more out there like me and that is one of the reasons this work is important on a personal level. The Lord called me to Him through this kind of work and I pray everyday that he will use me as an instrument for His glory. In my future posts I will do my best to bring to the table the evidence I have found in my studies that helped me through my own search for truth, and in doing so I pray that I may be able to help others.

As for those who tell me apologetics don’t work, I usually just smile to myself and try to politely explain that I am living proof that it does.

-Brian Rizzardi-

I couldn't pass this one up--I'm just trying to figure out how this news story didn't get more discussion!

MSNBC reported on March 24, 2005, that a Tyranosaurus Rex bone had been opened up, and SOFT TISSUE was found inside! (Photos furnished by the Associated Press)

And yet, for some strange reason, instead of thinking the creationists might be right about our "young Earth" beliefs, scientists and media continue to report that the dinosaur was 70-million years old. Tell me, how does soft tissue remain in tact for 70-million years? How about 70-thousand years? Let's start there! Do you realize how enormous that number is?

National Geographic interviewed paleontologist Mary H. Schweitzer, who admitted, "Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this [soft-tissue preservation]."

Hmmm... Maybe your theories on fossilization are correct and you just have a confused fossil record! Long before Carbon-14 dating came about, evolutionists drew up the "Geologic Chart," which specifies the age of rock layers and the fossils found within those rock layers.

Somehow, back in the early 1800's, archaeologists slapped an arbitrary age on those fossils and various layers of rocks. They called it "The Geologic Chart," and scientists still use it today. The problem is that nowhere in the world can such a progression of rock layers and fossils be found! Ask a paleontologist how old your fossil is, and he'll ask what layer of rock it was found in; then he'll give an answer. Ask a geologist how old that rock is, and he'll ask you what kind of fossil you found in it; then he'll give you an answer. Law schools call this "circular reasoning." The rocks are dated by the fossils, and the fossils are dated by the rocks--and all these come from a 200-year-old chart that was drawn up via the "un-educated guess."

Cambridge University's Geologist, R. R. Rastall, wrote in Encyclopedia Brittanica (1956, vol. 10, p. 168): "...geologists are arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms they contain."

Could it be that the dinosaurs didn't disappear tens of millions of years ago like science has theorized? Could it be that the earth is younger than popular science believes?

I never stop being amazed at all the evidence there is supporting the idea of a "young earth." Perhaps I'll share more about these facts on this web site in the future. For now, though, let's just continue to be amazed at our Almighty God and the awesome clues He leaves us in nature to remind us of His reality!

Why Apologetics?

My good friend Brian came to Christ after examining the evidence for Christianity, which also led to the salvation of his wife (who used to be a Jehovah's Witness). Today, he continues to be a student of God's Word and the solid evidence that backs up what the Bible has to say.

Given the obvious impact of providing a freely-accessible "reasonable defense" for our faith, I thought a separate blog devoted to such topics would be worthwhile. I hope and pray that many people will come to Christ as a result of what gets shared here. If anything, it would be wise for all of us as Christians to read up on why it is sensible for us to believe what we do.

Keep your eyes open for new posts coming soon!

God bless!
--Art--