Apologetics Course 1, Lesson 1

Introduction To Integrated Christian Apologetics

The word “apologetics” confuses many into thinking that it refers to some kind of apologizing.
Actually this word is not derived from the English world “apology”, but from the Greek word
“apologia”, which is a word referring to “making a defense”. Apologetics is a general term,
signifying a formal defense of any kind. On the other hand, Christian Apologetics is that branch of
Christian theology that answers the question “is Christianity believable”. Integrated Apologetics
stands for the special approach developed by us in our course material where we integrate the
best from all schools of thought in Christian Apologetics.
In the past four centuries, all kinds of religious and spiritual beliefs have come under intense
attack at the hands of radical philosophers and critics. Of this assault, the Christian faith has
received the major portion because of a number of historical reasons some of which will be
mentioned later.
These criticisms against the Christian faith have received so much media coverage that even a
good number of well informed non Christians are aware of some of the major charges labeled
against the Christian faith. Interestingly, books published against the Christian faith and sold from
secular shops become bestsellers even in countries where the buyers are not Christians. This is
the result of all this adverse publicity against the Christian faith.
Today all around us there is an atmosphere where criticism of the Bible and related subjects is
widespread. Most of the Christian students have to face these attacks from other students in some
form or other. It is quite common to meet Christian college-students who are perplexed by
questions that are hurled against their faith. The volley of questions come with such high
frequency that they find themselves at a loss in answering even a portion of them all. Moreover,
since most of them never faced these questions before this assault, they usually do not know
what to think and what to answer. Further, they often fall into the trap of thinking that if they do
not know the answer, then correct or satisfactory answers do not exist.
Once a person erroneously concludes that answers do not exist for the questions raised against
the Bible, his own faith is the next victim. His faith in the inspiration, authority, and the infallibility
of the Scriptures suffer very much. He then finds himself in a split mentality: he knows that it is
these Scriptures which have brought the message of true salvation to him, but at the same time
he does not know what all things written in this Book are believable !
Apologetics is the solution to this problem. A person who has some background in the Christian
apologetics can help this person to see the answers to the problems and questions which he is
facing. Further, a Christian Apologist can pass on information to the doubting person, using which
he can better face the people who raise questions against the Bible.
The last four to five centuries have been a time in history when anti Christian philosophies and
thought patterns have flourished to the full extent in Christian societies. Humanism, a philosophy
in which man has been elevated to the position of God, is the philosophy of the present times. It
is the foundation of almost all the present-day ways of thinking and education. Therefore,
students who have been brought up in any of the present day schools or colleges learns many
things which are contrary to the Word of God. By the time a person passes out of his college, he
accumulates hundreds of such ideas against the Christian faith. The cumulative weight of these
ideas give so much doubt to young believers that all over the world they are struggling to
overcome problems of distrust and doubt.
No individual can possibly solve each and every doubt that these people have, but with the help of
apologetics they can definitely help the people in doubt. An apologist can give answers to a good
number of their problems, and can then teach them the basics of the humanistic philosophy. This
will help the inquirers not only to overcome their doubts, but will also help them to see the root
causes of the problems. This will also give them a capability to deal effectively with at least a good
number of questions as they come to them in future.
There is no person in this world who does not face problems. Everyone faces puzzles, questions,
and fears of different kinds. Such difficult situations will not go away merely by ignoring them or
by pretending that they do not exist. Facing a problem is a difficult affair, and people do resort to
tactics which avoid them instead of facing them. This can be seen frequently in relation to the
Bible. The attacks against the Scriptures come from such diverse fields and sometimes from
people of such high learning that it becomes difficult to answer all of them. No one can ever hope
to master all the disciplines of study from which these questions are raised. It is precisely this
difficulty which induces many people to avoid facing the issues. But there is actually no need for
doing this. Acquiring the basic tools of Christian apologetics will be sufficient to face most of the
attacks.
No person can ever hope to answer all the questions that are put to him, but every Christian
should definitely know something about what godly men are doing in the field of Christian
apologetics. Today the Christian society has numerous highly qualified and dedicated men
belonging to all disciplines of study who are trying to answer each and every question that has
been hurled against the Bible. No individual can face all of it, and it is natural for individuals to
become fearful of these attacks, but once a person realizes that so many people are working on
these problems, then he can rest assured that it will not be long before the answer is published.
In fact, today there are several thousand scholars around the world who are publishing their
conclusions in defense of the Christian faith through hundreds of professional journals and popular
magazines. They are accessible to anyone who is willing to take interest.
The Bible shall always be attacked, and there will always be people whose faith will be shaken by
such attacks. Only the proper use of Christian Apologetics will help such people.

Apologetics Course 1, Lesson 2

A Biblical Basis for Christian Apologetics
We have already seen that Christian Apologetics is that branch of Christian studies that deals with
the defense of the Christian faith. This is fully a Biblical activity because it has been advised and
demonstrated in the Bible at various places. For example, the Scripture commands: “Always be
prepared to make defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you” (1
Peter 3:15, RSV). This means that making a defense of one’s faith to those who question the
Christian faith is a part of our spiritual duty. The word “Apologetics” comes from the Greek word
APOLOGIA used here, and translated as “defense”. So apologetics is a defending of the faith, not
making of apologies as some might wrongly conclude from the English word ‘apologetics’.
A good definition of the character and function of Christian apologetics can be found in Scripture
when it says: “We live in the flesh, of course, but the muscles that we fight with are not flesh.
Our war is not fought with weapons of flesh, yet are strong enough, in God’s cause, to demolish
sophistries, and the arrogance that tries to resist the knowledge of God ; every thought is our
prisoner, captured to be brought into obedience to Christ” (II Corinthians 10:3-6, Phillips)
Almost all of the book of Job is an apologetics to justify God’s dealings with man. In the face of
opposition from his friends and family, Job tries to vindicate the reasons for his loyalty and
confidence in the Lord. He makes it very clear that the Lord of Israel was not like the gods of
pagans around them; rather, He is a faithful God who would never fail those who trust in Him.
Psalms 14 and 19 are also apologetic in character. Romans 1:20 confirms this when it says that
the marvels of the nature are enough to indicate the existence of an intelligent and all powerful
God. The message which the Holy Spirit delivered through Paul in Acts 17 is another example
where an apologetic approach is used to preach the gospel to skeptical unbelievers.
APOLOGETIC APPROACHES IN THE BIBLE: Though the Bible places great stress upon faith and
belief, and though it condemns deliberate skepticism and unbelief, it does not speak against
reason and investigation. The Bible encourages the use of reason and investigation when they are
done sincerely and as an aid to honest inquiry. Both the Old as well as the New Testament furnish
ample evidence of this. What’s more, God Himself gives evidence in numerous places to lead
people into faith.
When God commanded Moses to go to Pharaoh, He gave two signs to Moses so that he could
establish that it is God who sent Him. Whether Pharaoh believed or not is a different subject, but
we should not ignore that God provided demonstration when Pharaoh asked for it. We see the
same thing in the case of Gideon who twice requested for signs, and was granted the request both
the times. We see the same in the case of Hezekiah who was given a choice of signs to confirm
that the Lord has spoken.
When Daniel and his friends spoke to the man who was in-charge over them, he suggested that
this steward should “prove” (investigate and conclude) them for ten days. Again this is the
experimental approach, where a decision is taken on the basis of investigation.
Jesus and his biographers repeatedly stressed that the primary purpose of the miracles performed
by Jesus were to demonstrate who He was, and not merely to bring health to the world. In many
other places the Scripture stress that the miracles in the New Testament church were meant to
ATTEST that God was behind all these things. Though Jesus chided “doubting Thomas” for his
skepticism, He did not refuse to give proof. Rather, He invited Thomas and even other disciples to
examine Him physically and conclude that He is risen.
Thus the Bible furnishes ample examples to indicate the necessity and the important role played
by apologetics for the Christians as well as non Christian hearers of God’s message. Though the
Bible condemns unbelief, it encourages sincere inquiry. And that is where Apologetics plays an
important role.
APOLOGETICS AND POLEMICS: An important companion of Apologetics is Polemics. While
Apologetics deals with objections and attacks originating from people outside the Christian faith,
Polemics deals with attacks originating from within the Church. Many of the readers might be
surprised when we mention attacks from “within” the church because none of us expects our own
people to attack our blessed faith. However, people have always existed within the Jewish and the
Christian faith who have attacked the Old and the New Testament.
These attacks come in two forms. First, in the form of distorted Bible interpretation. Second,
through those false cults who claim that they are a true Christian group.
People who attack the Bible from inside the Church would include everyone who teach perverted
doctrines. During the New Testament period this included the Ebionites, Pelegians, Montanists,
Nestorians, Arians, and many others from within the Church. At the dawn of the twenty-first
century this would include the radicals, the ecumenists, the Christian New Agers. This would also
include those who teach salvation through baptism, those who attack the person of Christ
(Smithism/Poonenism), and those who Hinduize Christian doctrines (Prajapati Proponents,
Christian Vedantists), etc.
False Cults which claim to be Christian but who still attack the fundamental of the Christian faith
include, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, TPM (Ceylon Pentecostal Mission),
Roman Catholics, The Toronto Movement, etc. Their number is growing constantly, and the leaven
of their erroneous teachings is also spreading.
Though Apologetics and Polemics are two different activities, their ultimate purpose is one and the
same: to refute error and to establish truth. Till a few decades ago they could easily be separated
from each other so that those who practice Apologetics did not need to know about Polemics, and
those who specialized in Polemics did not have to study apologetics. But no more ! All kinds of
attacks against the Christian faith now borrow insights from each other, so that today every
apologist must be an expert in polemics, and every polemicist must be an expert in apologetics.
Apologetics Course 1, Lesson 3
History Of Christian Apologetics
Many people have this misunderstanding that Christian Apologetics and Polemics are subjects of
recent origin. Nothing could be farther from truth. Biblical Apologetics and Polemics are as old as
the Bible itself is. Both the Old as well as the New Testament give us ample evidence of this.
APOLOGETICS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT: Attacks against the Word of God started as early as in the
Old Testament period. Within the Old Testament record we can see many people who questioned
whether the God of the Israelites is the true God, and we notice that in many cases God provided
them suitable answers and demonstrations. Some of these proofs have been mentioned on the
previous pages of this book, thus a repetition is not needed.
It must be added, however, that the listing from the Old Testament given above is only a sample.
The actual number of apologetic passages and incidents in the Old Testament is too numerous to
be listed here in this book.
APOLOGETICS AMONG JEWISH FATHERS: The Jewish Fathers and Leaders had to face much
opposition from the pagans because the Bible emphsizes many things which are resented by the
Pagans. For example, right from Genesis, the Bible teaches that man is a sinner, totally depraved,
and unable to save himself. Grace is the only means available for salvation. This irritated and irked
the pagans who had a Universalist theology.
Universalism teaches the salvation of everyone in the world irrespective of his religion. No
exclusiveness of doctrines and practices is accepted by them. Thus it was natural for the
Universalist pagans in Old Testament times to attack the Bible.
Though writing materials were not in abundance at that time, many of these critics of the Bible
produced large numbers of books to attack the Old Testament. History is our witness that people
who attacked the Bible always got great reception from people, and consequently these critics
were able to spread their messages very wide. Many of the Jewish Rabbis and scholars wrote
countless volumes to counter the charges brought by these critics. One of the best known Jewish
apologetic works is Contra Apion, written by the first century Army officer and historian Flavious
Josephus. This book is easily available today in many Seminary libraries as part of the Complete
Works Of Josephus. Archaeologists have discovered numerous other Jewish apologetic works also.
APOLOGETICS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT: With the establishment of the New Testament Church
came a new breed of heretics and critics. This was partially because of the extended influence of
pagan philosophies coupled with easy availability of writing materials. The rise of professionals
called “scribes” also made it possible for writings to be copied rapidly and economically. Thus
these heretics were able to make their voice heard widely.
Another reason for the rise of critics, heretics and heretical movements was the New Testament
itself. Till the book of Malachi, doctrinal subject were taught indirectly and often in a veiled
manner. However, in New Testament doctrines related to man’s sin, total depravity, salvation by
grace alone and faith alone, etc. were proclaimed more clearly. All the unique Biblical doctrines
received clearer explanation and exposition in the New Testament. This made a lot of people
uncomfortable.
As long as the divine message was partially veiled, these critics did not worry much. But clear
proclamation to the Biblical message exposed their errors, biases, and prejudices clearly. No
longer could they maintain their Universalism, Humanism, Accommodationsim, etc. No longer
could they maintain their brand of theology, seeing that now the fundamental tenets of biblical
theology were spelled out clearly.
There were a large number of people who wanted to be called Christians, but who did not want to
accept these biblical doctrines. Many of them were converts from various kinds of heathen faiths.
They did not want to abandon their loyalty to the philosophies and theologies which they had
believed before coming to the Church. Further, many of them loved the freedom for sensuality
that was offered by their previously believed pagan philosophies. Thus using all their literary and
theological skill they tried to popularize their varieties of perverted teachings. The main aim was
self-justification.
Thus there were Judizers who created problems in Galatia and other places. The Epistle To
Galatians is an refutation of their teachings. There were Gnostics who tried to synthesize Christian
theology with occult philosophies. The Epistle To Colossians is an apologetic against them. The
Epistle To Hebrews is an apologetic against another heresy. Jude had to remind his readers to
contend for the faith against those who would like to distort the Christian message. Peter had to
warn his readers against those who mocked at statements in portions of the New Testament, and
so on. Thus throughout the New Testament documents we notice the opposition of scornful people
and heretics at distorting biblical truths. Instead of ignoring them, the New Testament writers
wrote extensively to expose error, to condemn it, and also to establish truth.
APOLOGETICS AMONG CHURCH FATHERS: The availability of New Testament documents irritated
Christians not only in the first century, but also in the centuries that followed. Wanting to hold on
simultaneously to both the Bible and their own pagan philosophies, many of them spread heretical
doctrines using all means available to them. We have already mentioned the name of Gnostics,
Nestorians, Ebionites, Montanists, Pelegains, Arians, and many others. Several Church councils
gathered together to condemn these heresies, and that is one way in which these false teachings
could be suppressed.
Many of the heretics were dedicated writers, and they produced a large number of voluminous
books to spread their ideas. Consequently, the Church Fathers of the same period were also forced
to write lengthy books to refute these errors. A large amount of these heretical writings and
apologetic refutations have been discovered by archaeologists.
The availability of the New Testament documents irked not only the rebel Christians, but irritated
many non Christian writers. Most of these writers were inclined to atheism, universalism,
humanism, hedonism, or narcissism. Since the New Testament documents are totally contrary to
these philosophies, they found it necessary (as self-justification) to attack the Bible.
Further, the Bible is the only religious book in the world that insists that every human is a born
sinner, totally depraved, and unable to anything at all for his own salvation. This, coupled with the
New Testament insistence of Bible Alone, Christ Alone, Grace Alone, and Faith Alone, also irritated
many of them. Further, the fast spread of the Christian faith, and the deep commitment of these
new converts also overwhelmed many of these non Christian critics. Fearing that this spread of
spread would soon convert the whole world into the Christian faith they launched out their tirades
against the Bible, Jesus Christ, and Christianity.
A notable example is the rationalist writer Porphyry. Living in Sicily in the third century, he wrote a
work entitled “Against Christianity”. What is surprising is the size of this work which occupied a
solid FIFTEEN volumes !! Obviously, such prolific writers were able to influence a large number of
people. But here again the Church Fathers did not sit silent. Rather, they courageously combated
Porphyry and similar rationalists and produced hundreds of volumes of Christian Apologetics and
Polemics. Were it not for the warrior mentality of these Fathers, a lot more of damage could have
been done by these rationalists.
MODERN CREATIONISM AND APOLOGETICS: Though Christian Apologetics and Polemics was
strong in the first five centuries of Church, it became somewhat dormant for almost a thousand
years. This was the time when the Roman Catholic Church ruled the Christian world with an iron
rod. Rather than reasoning and arguing with the dissenters, the Church found it easier and better
just to kill them. Opposing voices were not heard much in public because of this life-threatening
atmosphere.
Today very few people know that from about middle of the fourth century to the middle of the
fourteenth century, the Roman Catholic church indulged in a great struggle for ecclesiastical as
well as temporal power. In this struggle they silenced, tortured, and killed millions of dissenting
people. A revolt brewed in the hearts of people, specially of the thinkers in Europe. However, the
dictatorial rule of the Church prevented them from expressing themselves. Thus when the
Reformation gave them the freedom coveted by all thinkers, they came out in torrents against the
Church.
Since most bitter people did not understand the difference between the Roman Catholic church,
the true church of Christ, and the Christ of the Bible, they opposed and rejected all of these things
simultaneously. It was a case of throwing away the baby with the bath-water. This rejection of
Christianity was coupled with the rise of a host of anti-Christian thinkers, philosophies, and
movements. By the time the nineteenth century arrived, the number of such anti-Christian people
and movements became simply mind boggling. What united them all was their opposition to the
Bible and Christianity.
However, since the idea of creation was widely accepted by the masses (including most of the
educated people), it was difficult for them to overthrow the authority of the Bible. They were
convinced that only a rejection of the Bible would solve the problem. By the middle of the
nineteenth century there was a preparation of hearts and an expectation in the air that
Christianity can now be challenged. But the crucial factor which could do this was nowhere in
sight.
The Theory Of Evolution was there already, but it was there only in philosophical form. The rise of
modern science had convinced them that even the best philosophical speculation has no feet to
stand upon till it is given a scientific basis. It was just this time when Charles Darwin proposed his
Theory Of Evolution. For the first time someone was able to propose this hypothesis in the form of
a theory of SCIENCE ! That was the reason why all of these dissenting movements eagerly and
immediately swallowed Darwin’s theory and he became a hero overnight.
Things changed rapidly and this theory took theology also into its influence by the close of the
nineteenth century. The same was the period when infidels with degrees in theology were coming
into positions of power in German universities. Some of these European and American
evolutionists soon persuaded some theologians, specially in Germany, that evolution is a fact. A
few of these theologians then began persuading other theologians and seminary teachers that
now Christians must now accept evolution as a fact. The bolder theologians among them even
started teaching that portions of the Bible that deal with this record of creation should be
abandoned altogether. Germany provided an ideal ground for breeding these thinkers because
German theological institutes are controlled and funded by government money. Government is
interested only in academic degrees, not in whether a person is born again and committed to the
Bible.
Uncommitted radical German theologians had plenty of degrees, but not Christ in their hearts.
Thus they began to act as mercenaries, destroying belief in the Bible. Having a clear agenda to
destroy belief in the Bible, they aimed at destroying the foundations of Christianity first. Further,
since Government funding was liberal, they had the financial muscle-power to print and spread
their ideas worldwide. This is how the German atheists (though they called themselves Christians)
were able to influence all the world through their theology.
However, not everyone was willing to write off the Bible completely. Many were interested more in
keeping both the beliefs together. Acceptance of evolution would make them respectable in the
eyes of theological infidels, but at the same time acceptance of creation would keep them in the
confines of evangelical Christianity. Thus began an era of compromises. This is the era when
compromise interpretations of Genesis came into vogue. Many of these interpretations became
widespread, partially through the influence of Scoffield, and partially through the influence of
compromising seminaries.
Compromise is never good for truth, because it is truth that suffers most when it is mixed with
falsehood. Thus this mingling of evolution with creation eventually destroyed the Biblical
foundations to such a level that radicals, humanists, evolutionists, rationalists, and atheists had a
field day attacking Christians. Things came to such alarming state that in the first half of the
twentieth century it was difficult to find qualified theologians in USA or Europe who would openly
defend the Biblical story of creation. Since the Indian evangelical theology was mostly a copy of
the Western theology, the Indian theologians also avoided defending the Biblical doctrine of
Creation.
A few American Seventh Day Adventists were the only people who were willing to defend the idea
of creation during this period. However, there was a small remnant in some conservative churches
in USA who were willing to take a strong stand. In the first decade of the twentieth century they
produced 12 volumes of books known as “The Fundamentals”. While only a minority of scholars at
that time identified themselves with the stand taken in these books, their influence eventually
helped to turn the tide in favour of the Bible.
American evangelical Christians have began to notice in the fifties that compromise is a slow
poison that ultimately destroys respect for truth. Some of them came together and started writing
aggressively on themes defending the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible. This gave
birth to the modern interest in Apologetics and Creationism. At the dawn of the twenty-first
century the influence of this revival has spread all over the world, and today more than one
hundred and fifty organizations function around the world, devoted solely to apologetics. Their
influence has be so strong that a large number of Seminaries all around the world have begun
assert the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible.
CREATIONISM IN INDIA: Indian theological situation has many a times been a copy of what
happens in the West. Thus with the rise of the German radical theology, most of the theologians
and seminary-trained people in the mainline Protestant churches like the Lutherans, Methodists,
CNI, CSI, and Marthoma churches became theologically radical. The situation is so bad that
evangelical thinking is scorned in their seminaries, and it is difficult to discover theologians and
priests in their forties who have an evangelical commitment or who are willing to take a stand for
the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible.
The separatist churches like the Brethren, the Pentecostals, and the Independent/Fundamental
Baptists, and numerous other such evangelical groups were a little better. They did not forsake
their high view of the Bible. At the same time almost all of them capitulated to compromise
interpretations like Theistic Evolution and Gap Theory. The influence of C. I. Scoffield is notable is
spreading the Gap Theory.
The first Indian to take a strong stand against the Theory Of Evolution was the late Professor H.
Enoch. This was in the early sixties. His English book Evolution Or Creation influenced a large
number of young Indians, specially through the EU and EGF groups. He wrote many articles in the
UESI student magazine also.
In the sixties and seventies no evangelical magazine was willing to publish articles defending the
historicity of the Bible or creation. The only exception was Cross And Crown, a Pentecostal
Magazine edited by Dr. Thomas Mathews from Udaipur, Rajesthan. This magazine took a firm
stand in favour of the accuracy of the Bible, and carried such articles in it regularly for decades.
In the seventies a fellowship of scientists came up known initially as FOCMOS (Fellowship Of
Christian Men Of Science), and later as CSFI (Creation Scientists Fellowship Of India). This
organization soon became defunct because of lack of commitment from members, and also
because their interests lay elsewhere. However, A. K. Skariah, the secretary of this movement
continues to be a tireless crusader for Creation and Apologetics.
A project known as Creation Research was founded by Dr. Johnson C. Philip in 1970. It functioned
mainly through the publication of articles, and by the time of the writing of this present book more
than 5000 articles have been published in more than 6 languages in almost a dozen countries
around the world. This movement is now known as Trinity School of Apologetics and Theology

Apologetics Course 1, Lesson 4

Why The World Hates Christianity I
Nobody needs to be shown that the world hates Christianity, and that it likes and tolerates
anything and everything except the true Christian faith.
The twenty first century is full of reactions against the Christian faith. There are communists,
gays, abortionists, theological radicals, moral relativists, pluralists, universalists, and even some
Christians who hate the Christian faith. It should also be noted that the very same people love
Christ as a teacher or as a revolutionary. Even people of religions that are hostile to the Christian
faith love it when Christ is described as an enlightened incarnation (one among many). Even those
who reject the claim of Christ to be the only Saviour of the world accept as good the moral
teachings of the Sermon on the Mount. Christian social service is warmly welcomed even by those
who are aggressively hostile to the preaching of the Christian faith. From these it is obvious that
the opposition is not to Christianity as a whole, but is only to some portions of it.
In fact the bulk of what is seen today in the name of Christianity is liked, endorse, and even
chased by people. Non Christians vie with each other to get their children admitted in Christian
schools, and the sick around the world prefer hospitals run by Christian missions. Even atheists
are at times willing to join hands with Christians in many endeavours if the Christian community
would abandon just a few things thy consider improper. Fortunately those who do oppose
Christianity in this manner have not kept the Christian community in suspense. They have made
adequately clear the things they hate.
The first thing many of these people dislike are the ’solas’ of reformation. These are the Sola
Scriptura (Bible Alone), Solus Christus (Christ Alone), Sola Fide (Faith Alone), Sola Gratia (Grace
Alone). People love to hear that the Bible is God’s word, and they would respond that yes there
are numerous religious books which are God’s word, including the Bible. But as soon as the sola is
added and Bible is set forth as the ONLY book that is God’s word people dislike the idea. A number
of reasons are there, the chief among which is the unwillingness to accept the concept of special
revelation — that a particular book says exactly what God wants it to say. This places strict
boundaries around a person who wishes to see all kinds of things prescribed in ‘the word of God’
our of which he can choose what he likes. They reckon that as long as a large number of books
that contradict each others are accepted as God’s word, they can pick and choose what they wish
to follow. Narrow it down to a single book, and there goes the freedom. Thus the dislike. The
same is the problem with the other solas also.
Today the world wants an inclusive approach — where everyone irrespective of his beliefs, creeds,
and activities is ‘included’ in whatever group one thinks of. Excluding people even for the most
serious reasons is seen as a crime. Consequently, if Christ alone is the Saviour, then all those who
are not believers in Christ are condemned. If faith is the only way for justification, then all those
who wish to present their works to God come back empty handed. If grace is the only way of
salvation then all the labors which people love to do for salvation are rendered futile. What is
more, all the religious holy places that mint money by the minute would lose this loot. Finally, if
Christ is the only Saviour, then every person needs to make a profession of faith in Christ. A good
number of people do not like to make such a profession because they clearly know the
implications of doing so on their future life and human liberty — they will have to order these
things according to the words of Christ, which is the Bible.
In other words, it is only the gospel-proclaiming Bible-based stream of the Christian faith which
people hate. That is because this stream restricts them from indulging in lust of the eyes, lust of
the flesh, and pride of life. What is more, this stream of Christianity maintains that morality and
moral values are absolute, and that they do not change with times, seasons, and human fads.
What is more, the moral values are not flexible. In a lecherous society where serial marriage,
pornography, and ‘living-together’ is a way of life for many, people would hate such an inflexible
moral code. The flexible (read, non-existent) moral code ensures that divorce, sexual infidelity,
and even financial corruption is not seen as bad. But the Biblical moral code adhered to by the
Bible-believing variety of Christians does not allow this. Since the Bible-believing Christians
proclaim this strict moral code, ethical code, and other principles that decide what is right and
what is wrong, the present generation hates the way Bible-believing Christians respect and
interpret the Bible.
It should be pointed here in this connection that two cardinal doctrines that any Bible-believing
Christian adheres to are hated even more by those who dislike the true Christian faith. These are
the doctrines of infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible. Infallible means that Bible is the sole and
infallible guide to the Christian in every matter related to faith and practice. If it says something
on a subject that is authoritative, and nobody is authorized to question it. This closes all
possibilities of stretching Bible to suite what one wishes to do. It also closes the door to the
possibility of explaining away what the Bible says. Added to it the doctrine of the inerrancy of the
Bible. According to it, if the Bible makes a pronouncement on a subject, that will always be right
and it will never have any error whether the subject is doctrinal, practical, historical, or scientific.
Since these two doctrines define the boundaries clearly, even most non-conservative Christians
hate them. They are ready to give assent to the Bible as long as they do not have to accept the
Bible as any kind of final authority. Their human wisdom is the ultimate authority in that kind of a
system. However, once infallibility and inerrancy are accepted, the boundaries are drawn and the
human wisdom no longer has a place. Thus the dislike for these doctrines (and those who
propound these doctrines) even by many Christians.

Apologetics Course 1, Lesson 5

Why The World Hates Christianity II
The Root Cause
The root cause is the rebellion in human heart. With sin in Eden, the human heart became not
only sinful and corrupt, but also rebellious against God. The basic preferences and inclinations of
the human are always towards evil, never good. Since the Bible presents a clear analysis of this,
and since it asks man to forsake his rebellion and return to God, people hate the Bible all the
more. They simply do not wish to be called to accountability. They wish to indulge in sin, but do
not wish their activities to be identified as sin, or themselves as sinners. We live in the ‘Do It’ and
‘If it feels good, it cannot be wrong’ culture. Thus the hatred for Christianity is basically a hatred
against clear classification of sin and consequences. A hatred against the Bible’s call to human
accountability.
Many so-called Christians try to solve the problem by embracing the Bible, but without embracing
its essence. They do so by substituting or attributing meanings to statements of the Bible which
are not there and which are totally contrary to what the Bible says. This has been going on for two
millennia, but has become intense in the last two centuries because of a historical reason. About
two centuries ago the German theological seminaries fell into Government hands, run by
bureaucrats and flooded with government money. This created a situation where anyone from a
high theological position in a University could make any proclamation against the Bible without
fear. What is more, the abundant money available to them for publication ensured that their
heretical views are published in most attractive volumes and distributed worldwide. This created a
stream of people who claim to be Christians but who deep inside their hearts have no commitment
at all to the fundamentals of the Christian faith. With the increasing relativism and inclusivism, the
number of this kind of superficial Christians is unbelievably large in the Christendom of the 21st
century.
Having understood that the rebellion of the human heart is the root cause for hatred against true
Christianity, and having understood that true Christianity agrees with the stipulations of the Bible
in practical life, it would be good to have an analytical look at the areas in which people dislike the
stand taken by the Bible
Objectivity/Clarity: people want messages from the Divine. In fact they crave for divine messages,
but only if the message is clear enough to appeal to them but is ambiguous enough to lend itself
to a wide range of interpretation and manipulation. People can live with a semblance of religion
and spirituality, but do whatever they please when the message is susceptible to manipulation.
What they need is something like the Oracle of Delphi which predicted things in such broad and
non specific language that priest could tune it to the needs and expectations of every devotee.
Even if two devotees came with exactly opposed and contrary expectations, the same message
could still be “fitted” to the expectation of both. However, here is the difference. Instead of
speaking in ambagious language and a wishy washy style, the Bible speaks in an objective
manner and with such clarity that one has either to take it or leave it. There is no scope for
Making it mean what people want it to mean. When it says that man is a sinner, it applies to all —
to the hardened criminal as well as to the seemingly most saintly human. When it says that the
wages of sin is death, it declares the end in a manner so as to leave no ambiguity. When it says
that there is no other name under heaven or on earth other than that of the Lord Jesus by which
people can be saved, it means precisely that — that there in no Saviour other than Lord Jesus. It
also means that all the others who claim to save people are impostors. This hurts the false
messiahs, who are many and who keep multiplying. This also hurts those who would rather trust
one of the false messiahs than Jesus, the real Saviour. The world hates this aspect of the Bible —
that it is too objective and precise for their flexible needs.
Rationality/Precision: most people, even religiously devoted ones, expect religion to by mystical.
This in turn means that a lot of things will be subjective and irrational, not susceptible to rational
and logical investigation or explanation. What is subjective and what does not yield itself to logical
explanation automatically yields itself to all kind of funny and fancy interpretation. What is more,
one and the same phenomenon can be interpreted differently by different people. Even a single
person can make such an experience mean different things at different times.
A good example is the “baptism of the spirit” experience seen among the pentecostals and
charismatic in India. While the Bible clearly describes things that happened on the day of
Pentecost, those who claim today to seek the same phenomenon consider anything and
everything out of normal as a replication of Pentecost. For example, if a devotee sees a flash of
light, that is interpreted as the baptism of the Spirit. They overlook the fact that seeing flashes,
hearing strange voices, having strange feelings, etc are a normal part of human life. Objective
assessment demands that every experience by analyzed. But such analysis would immediately
show these experiences to be normal human aberrations and not divine manifestations and
therefore people hate objective analysis or rational thinking.
The Bible, however, emphasizes rationality and precision. So much so that the historical books
have been used to reconstruct history and geography with great accuracy. Chronologies have been
constructed with great precision. But such precision also prevents people from arbitrary
interpretation. When it says that “it was evening and morning and it was the fifth day” we need to
interpret it objectively as it says, not according to our fancy or mystic ideas. This is disliked by
many who would prefer to see earth-history in terms of currently popular theories or in the light
of their own fancies and prejudices. The Bible sets forth things in rational and precise language,
leaving no scope for interpretation according to personal biases, and a good number of people
dislike it for that.
Authority/Dominion: people are basically religious. They desire to have deities, stories of the little
gods, and also messages from these gods — provided these messages do not interfere with
human autonomy and authority. Here comes their conflict with the Bible.
The Bible not only communicates divine word, it does so with authority and demands total
subjection from people. It claims total dominion over human life and thought. People hate this
aspect of the Christian faith because this goes totally against their desire for religion to be subject
to them and not vice versa.
Demarcation/Boundaries: demarcation always creates a divide and a boundary. If it is an ethical
or legal subject, demarcation always creates a distinction between right and wrong, holy and
unholy, divine and human, sacred and profane. The human society has a tendency to use these
words, but it defines them in relative terms. There are no fixed or rigid boundaries for them. Nor
do they like unchangeable boundaries.
The Bible and the true Christian faith, however, not only set boundaries but also insist that these
boundaries are essential, divinely ordained, and unchangeable. Obviously, the world hates this
kind of firmness because it deprives them of the freedom to play with moral and ethical values.

Apologetics Course 02
In any field, whether science or theology, presuppositions are the basic and starting assumptions
upon which the rest of the subject is built. At times presuppositions are axiomatic (self proven) in
nature. No proof is needed for establishing axiomatic presuppositions. For example, if two rods A
and B are equal in length to rod C, then A and B would be equal to each other also. However, in
most cases these assumptions or presuppositions are so elementary and so basic that more
elementary or more basic truths cannot be found for proving or disproving the suppositions.
Therefore, arguments at this level should be addressed with great caution.

• Presuppositions Of Christian Apologetics

• Pre-suppositions Of Some Groups Prominent Today 1
• Pre-suppositions Of Some Groups Prominent Today 2
• Pre-suppositions Of Some Groups Prominent Today 3
• Pre-suppositions Of Some Groups Prominent Today 4
• Branches Of Christian Apologetics

Presuppositions Of Christian Apologetics

Similar to the foundations upon which buildings are built, presuppositions are the starting truths
upon which different fields of knowledge and investigations are built.
In any field, whether science or theology, presuppositions are the basic and starting assumptions
upon which the rest of the subject is built. At times presuppositions are axiomatic (self proven) in
nature. No proof is needed for establishing axiomatic presuppositions. For example, if two rods A
and B are equal in length to rod C, then A and B would be equal to each other also. However, in
most cases these assumptions or presuppositions are so elementary and so basic that more
elementary or more basic truths cannot be found for proving or disproving the suppositions.
Therefore, arguments at this level should be addressed with great caution.
Opposing presuppositions must be analyzed, tested, or shown to be false to prove or disprove
their veracity. Some presuppositions do not readily lend themselves to proof while other
presuppositions, while other presuppositions may be easily analyzed when more information
becomes available. In such cases analysis will yield fruitful results. For example, in the early
stages of computer programming people thought that pure mathematical computation could
produce “artificial intelligence”. After about half a century of working with computers every
computer expert today knows that this presupposition was totally wrong.
Many presuppositions will have to be tested in an indirect way through the “Consistency Test”.
Consistency tests are possible only after the subject is developed to a reasonable degree. Once a
subject has been developed, presuppositions and the observed facts can be tested for congruency.
Since the observed facts are established truths, any presuppositions conflicting with these facts
are rejected. This is a powerful method for discrediting false philosophies that underlie many
branches of science.
One good example of the Consistency Test can be used to test the Theory Of Evolution. Among
the many presuppositions that are foundational to evolution, the role played by chance
phenomena is the most important assumption. A “chance event” is an action that is completely
random or unplanned. According to the chance-presupposition of Evolution, randomness and blind
chance must produce a net INCREASE in the order and complexity seen in the Universe (when
matter and energy interact with each other).
At the time when the Theory Of Evolution gained initial popularity, theoretical or experimental
data to evaluate the chance-presupposition was nonexistent. Consequently the Theory of
Evolution continued under the false belief that the assumption was scientifically true. “Chance”
became so important for Evolution that even creative powers were attributed to randomness and
blind chance. However, the study of chance phenomena has grown rapidly in the last century, and
has now provided reliable data with which to evaluate the “chance” assumption. In the light of
irrefutable evidence, today the presupposition about blind chance and evolution can be shown to
be a gross error.
Developments in the Theory Of Probability, Information Sciences, Computer Technology,
Thermodynamics, and the study of biological mutations have shown conclusively that the net
result of randomness and blind chance is DECREASE and DESTRUCTION of order and NOT the
other way round. This is a serious blow to the false theory of evolution. Analysis of
presuppositions in the light of empirical observations furnishes a powerful tool to the Christian
Apologist. One can powerfully refute false presuppositions using the “Consistency Test”.
The analysis of presuppositions can help the apologist in another way. By using a set of accepted
or established presuppositions the apologist can show why the opposing school of thought is in
error. Just by establishing the fact that opposing positions are based upon a different set of
presuppositions is sufficient in many cases to refute opposing positions.
Radical Christian scholars portraying themselves as Bible believing people can be refuted
effectively by using accepted or established presuppositions. Non conservative Christians come in
many shades of thought — from neo evangelicals to complete radicals. All differ from
conservatives (fundamentalists) in interpretation of miracles, creation, and canonicity. Non
conservative Christians try to impress upon Bible believing Christians that miracles in the Bible
were not real, the Genesis creation account is only a non literal story, and that there is nothing
unique with the canon of the Bible.
Since radical Christians use the same vocabulary as conservative Christians, many Bible believing
believers do not recognize that conclusions reached by radical Christians are NOT based on
research, but arise out of false presuppositions of randomness and blind chance. Radical
Christians are mentally preconditioned by the presuppositions they hold and speak AGAINST the
Bible when the presuppositions are not supported. They cannot be convinced against their will.
They are not seekers of truth but proponents of bias. To refute arguments at a surface level is a
losing battle. When false presuppositions are uncovered, the battle changes pace.
As long as one does not expose the radical presuppositions held by non-fundamentalists, the
battle remains one sided. Opposition to the Bible is claimed on the basis of scientific
investigations. When shown that the arguments brought against the Bible stem not from research
but from “starting assumptions”, the situation changes. For example, when a radical Christian
denies the inspiration and infallibility of the scriptures, when he advocates evolution in place of
creation, and when he tries to “demytholyze” supernatural events recorded in the scriptures, he
claims research and science as reason for this attack. This is clear deception.
As long as the apologist focuses on conclusions, exposing the fallacy of their claims will be
difficult. However, if false presuppositions are exposed, the situation changes. For example, it can
easily be demonstrated that the radicals base arguments with at least the following assumptions:
1. The existence of a personal God is doubtful.
2. The Bible is an ordinary book, no different from any other ancient book.
3. All historical phenomena must be explained naturalistically, and therefore miracles and
supernatural events are not possible.
Criticisms voiced by radicals are obviously based on the above presuppositions and are NOT a
result of scholarly research. When a radical scholar starts with the above assumptions the
scriptures are immediately questioned. Once this aspect is exposed, their conclusions can no
longer be perceived as scholarly and the task of refuting radical arguments becomes easy. Radical
bias can often be exposed by asking leading questions; e.g., “do you believe that miracles are
possible”, “do you believe that salvation is obtainable only by faith in Christ”? Through
presupposition analysis the Christian apologist can learn to ask appropriate leading questions, and
thus can diffuse the brashness and boldness with which many of radicals speak against the Bible
and Christianity.
People who oppose the Christian faith often do not disclose their presuppositions since they know
that revealing the bases for the radical beliefs will make their arguments vulnerable. Thus the best
approach for rebutting radical beliefs is to know the major presuppositions of different groups in
advance enabling the apologist to frame suitable leading questions to expose the assumptions of
the opponents. With this in mind some of the major presuppositions of orthodox Christian faith
and of prominent opposing views are listed below.

Pre-suppositions Of Some Groups Prominent Today 1

1-FUNDAMENTALISTS (Theological Conservatives): There are many varieties of Fundamentalist
such as Islamic, Judean, Buddhist, Hindu, and Christian. However, throughout this lesson when
we refer to Fundamentalist, we will be referring to Christian Fundamentalist only. Christian
Fundamentalists are Christians who are devoted to the fundamentals of the Bible. Brethren,
Fundamental Baptists, Independent Baptists, Presbyterians, Fundamental Lutherans, and many
Independents are among such groups. Fundamental (conservative) Christian presuppositions are:
Sola Scriptura: The Bible alone is the Holy Spirit-inspired word of God, and is the source of all
revelation, doctrine, and authority. Human experience or traditions have no authority in the above
matters.
Sola Gratia: Grace alone is the basis of salvation. Grace is unmerited favor from God. No man
however saintly can obtain salvation through his own meritorious works.
Sola Fide: Faith is the only means through which one can attain the free gift of justification. Faith
is a non-meritorious activity. Meritorious human works play no part in receiving the gift of
justification.
Solus Christus: Christ is the only Saviour and the only mediator between God and man. There is
no other Saviour or mediator.
According to the stand of fundamentalist Christianity, anyone denying any of the above tenets is a
heretic. Church Fathers, Protestant Reformers, and the Fathers of the Brethren Assemblies hold all
of the above tenets. The writers of Calvin Research Group Textbooks are unashamedly committed
to the above fundamentals. No theological compromise is permitted. The actual presuppositions of
the writers include additional points, and are mentioned at the end of this chapter.
Fundamentalists are also known by the titles CONSERVATIVES or ORTHODOX. ORTHODOX is used
here in a theological sense, rather than as a denominational title such as Eastern Orthodox .
2-EVANGELICALS: The word Evangelical was actually a synonym for Fundamentalist. Today
“evangelical” implies a more liberal view. In the original sense, and Evangelical is a doctrinally
conservative Christians who believes all the doctrines in the ancient Nicene Creed, which stresses
the centrality of the resurrection, and the belief that salvation is through Jesus, alone. This is
emphasized by the need for a definite, adult commitment or conversion to faith in Christ.
Evangelicals stress both doctrinal absolutes and vigorous efforts to win others to belief. They
believe in the four presuppositions above, but may be more flexible and loose in applying them.
Exactly how loose and flexible depends upon their commitment and what type of doctrinal
absolutes that define their commitments. There are two primary groups of Evangelicals one being
the Conservative Evangelists that are defined by specific doctrines and the Born Again Christians
which are defined by personal, often vague, spiritual experiences and feelings.
Conservative Evangelicals are noted for their faith in their lives and believe they have a personal
responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians. They believe that
Satan exists; believe that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believe that
Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; and describe God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect
deity who created the universe and still rules it today.
While the Born again Christians believing that because they have made a personal commitment,
confessed their sins, and accepted Jesus Christ as savior that they will go to heaven. Because they
are generally upbeat about their beliefs they are always eager to have other join in their in their
faith. It is with the Born again Christian evangelicals that most problems lie, in that they tend to
be far more liberal in acceptance of abortions and/or gay relationships.
Keep in mind that many of those confessing to be Born-again-Christians are in fact Conservative
however, they have started miss using the phrase “Born-again” as a title.
3-NEO EVANGELICALS: By the middle nineteen fifties even the looser variety of Evangelicals
wanted the label “evangelical”, but were not willing to accept the accuracy and reliability of Biblical
narratives. Further, they were not willing to believe in the Biblical record of creation, the flood of
Noah, and miracles. The term Neo (New) Evangelicals was used to identify this group. Many
seminaries worldwide labeled ‘Evangelical’ are actually Neo Evangelical in theology, as is obvious
from their stand on evolution, creation and normative revelation.
Neo-evangelical are theologically radical and would be defined as one who has taken a “lower
view” of Scripture, has developed a more open, inclusivistic spirit toward liberalism, and has
become ecumenical in evangelism efforts.
Neo Evangelical presuppositions are:
• A complete toleration toward, questionable views of Scripture which has inevitability led to the
toleration of a wide diversity of theological viewpoints so much so that they tend to believe of a
probability of being saved without Christ. Neo Evangelical presuppositions are:
A Somewhat Fallible Bible
Probable Theistic Evolution
Probability Of Salvation Without An Explicit Knowledge Of Christ
Doubt About The Veracity Of Miracles Recorded In The Bible
Other things to note are:
• They deny that the Scripture is complete through their attempts to Christianize pagan ideas and
systems founded upon personal beliefs and/or influences such as psychology/psychiatry,
numerology, astrology, personality theory, etc
• Over time in their desire to gain intellectual acceptability there has been a marked subservience
to scientism, which has led to a friendly attitude toward scientism almost to the point of placing
rationalistic (not ‘rational’) scholarship and scientism in the seat of final authority. This has led
many of them to doubt the miracles recorded in the Bible.
• Neo-evangelicals view the gospel as the social gospel, which has two points individual and social,
thereby neglecting New Testament priorities. This means that the gospel tends to become watered
down to make it acceptable to the world.
• They prefer the kind of cooperative evangelism which emphasizes the unity of the church in
preference to truth and doctrinal purity, and try to align with groups that have been traditionally
subversive of Bible truth such as Roman Catholics.
• They criticize Christian Fundamentalist on issues related to their doctrinal emphasis and claim
that this emphasis has caused neglect of the social application of Christianity to the world. They
tend to call for preaching only a “positive message,” as often expressed by the statement, “God
called me to win souls, not to criticize others.”
• They have a tendency toward finding justifiable reasons for condoning and using that, which
evolves from carnality, sensuality, secularism, and worldliness especially in regards to music,
theatrics, emotionalistic and psychological manipulations, promotionalism, and general
appearance.
• Desire to mix their Christian views and politics as one through Christian Activism.
• Unbiblical views regarding God’s role for women.
• Because of their weak views on Scripture they have a tendency to shift from objective Biblical
doctrine to subjective experience which allows for the possible validity of apostolic sign-gifts for
our own day (prophecy, tongues, miracles of healing through special persons, etc.).
4-RADICALS (Wrongly Termed, LIBERALS): When reviewing this section, you need to keep in
mind that there are two forms of radicals: Christian radicals and the Extreme radicals. Christian
radical are actually divided into two forms of radicals, one that should be called liberals that totally
and completely reject the orthodox or conservative position of structured religious organizations.
These Christians are radicals of one form or another and tend to lean towards the liberalism as
seen in modern churches and their acceptances of same sex couples, homosexual priests and
bishops, and modern written Bibles that are less restrictive.
The other form of Christian radicals is more frequently considered the extreme religious right that
tries to change government and the lifestyles of others to their extremely self-righteous morality.
Their form of “Christian” has become a political code word to refer to only those who agree with
their political agenda, shutting out politically or theologically liberal Christians. It is amazing the
degree to which the radical/religious right has linked the term “Christian” not only to politically
conservative doctrines like laissez-faire capitalism, lower-taxes, and gun ownership, but also to
patriotism.
The more conservative form of Christian radical is preferable to the Apologist rather than the
liberal form but this does not mean that an Apologist should ever advocate having the few
extremist dictate to the government or try changing the government to their form of Christianity.
Extreme Radicals come in many forms:
* Anti-government
* The Lunatic Fringes
o Conspiracy Theorists
o Militia Groups
o Identity Christianity
Anti-government: Normally you would not think of Christian groups as having hostility towards the
government. However, there are those that feel contempt for the government and the extreme
religious right that they feel controls the government and the intrusion into their own lives and
personal pursuits.
The Lunatic Fringes: These groups are on the extreme edge of any form of Christianity and either
follow or observe practices outside the norm of normal Christianity.
Conspiracy Theorists: Strongly influence segments of the religious right who believe in the
impending return of Jesus Christ, preceded by a seven year period of chaos, which, in addition to
being strongly anti-communist, see the United Nations as the instrument of an international
communist conspiracy.
Militia Groups: Contains elements and traits shared by the more mainstream Religious Right,
individualist, libertarian, and anti-authoritarian, traits, which are fundamentally in opposition to
the Religious Right. The militia movement contains those that claim Christian and Supremacist
roots. Some of them hold senior positions within the movement with authority, power and
influence. However, these views do not mean they are predominant or ascendant within the militia
movement nor does it mean the militia movement is a Neo-Nazi, White Supremacist or Racist
movement.
Identity Christianity: Who frequently attack, through vocal means, lesbians and gay men are
extreme fringe group, which holds that the White, Anglo-Saxon/Germanic peoples are the true
Israel and that Jews are Satanic/demonic pretenders. Identity Christianity’s theology is very
similar to Christian Reconstructionism.
Most mainline churches have become theologically radical today. Priests in these churches are
often more radical than lay people, and seminary professors tend to be more radical than priests.
Radical presuppositions are:
A Rejection Of All Tenets Of Conservative Christianity
All Religions Eventually Lead To Salvation
Everyone Will Eventually Attain Heaven
The Bible Is Not The Sole Word Of God
The Bible Contains Plenty Of Errors And Primitive Ideas
The Record Of Creation Is A Myth, While Evolution Is Fact
Virgin Birth, Resurrection Of Christ, And Miracles Are Myths

Pre-suppositions Of Some Groups Prominent Today 2

5-NEO ORTHODOX: Began in the aftermath following World War I, with a rejection of Protestant
scholasticism and a denial of the Protestant liberal movement. To distinguish from Orthodox or
Conservative Christians the term Neo-Orthodox was adopted. Neo-Orthodox theology is neither
new nor orthodox. Carl Barth is the most noted proponent of Neo-Orthodoxy.

In the beginning, there was confusion with the movement due to the association
of words. Many saw the word Orthodoxy and associated it with the basic ideas of
the Protestant Reformation and as a means of proclaiming the truth of the gospel.
The prefix Neo caused many to believe that a new philosophy was (or would be)
used to attain an accurate view of Scripture, which used in combination with
orthodoxy would provide a powerful witness to God’s action in Christ for those of
the new century. Soon, however, it became clear that they use word from
orthodox theology in a totally opposite and radical sense, rendering them totally
radical in theology.
Neo-orthodox writers claim that both traditional and liberal Protestantism have
lost the insight and truth of the faith. During the nineteenth century theologians
had taken the paradoxes of faith, dissolved their tension, used rational, logical,
coherent explanations as a substitute, creating propositions, and thus had
destroyed the living dynamic of the faith. Paradoxes of the faith for the neo-
orthodox must remain precisely that, and the dialectic method, which seeks to
find the truth in the opposites of the paradoxes, leads to a true dynamic faith.
Proponents of Neo Orthodoxy liberally use terms like heaven, hell, sin, salvation,
revelation, Christ, and resurrection, but define the terms differently from
conservative definitions. For example when a Neo Orthodox writer talks about the
Word of God, he is not talking about the actual Biblical record; when he talks of
Christ, he is not talking of the Jesus Christ of history! Differing meaning of terms
creates deception. Neo Orthodox presuppositions are:
• A Rejection of All Fundamental Tenets of Christianity by their belief that the
Word as Scripture was not intended be seen as one. The Scripture contains the
Word but is not the Word. The Word is proclaimed and witnessed to, in and
through the body of Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit. The Bible you
have in your hands is not divine revelation. When it inspires a message in your
mind, that message is revelation.
• God’s revelation about Himself is an act of grace to which humankind’s response
is to listen. This revelation by God is presented in a threefold sense: Jesus as the
word made flesh; Scripture, which points to the word, made flesh; and the
sermon, which is the vehicle for the proclamation of the Word, made flesh.
• There is a possibility of Salvation to all without Christ: Due to humankind’s sinful
ways, there is a vast chasm between God and humanity. That humankind cannot
bridge that chasm and all of mankind’s efforts to follow religious doctrine, moral
and ethical thoughts and actions are a waste of time. The only possible way for
the chasm to be crossed is by God, and this he has done in Christ. The Neo
Orthodox deny it.
• Their view of Scripture, “The Bible is God’s Word so far as God lets it be his
Word” (Barth, Church Dogmatics, I / 2, 123), has been seen as a rejection of the
infallible sola Scriptura of conservative Protestantism.
• Neo-Orthodoxy relies on human reason and stress the reliability and validity of
human reason to critique revelation.
6-CHRISTIAN MYSTICS: Christian mystics seek one or more mystical encounters for spiritual joy
and assurance. Christian mystics are found both among Roman Catholics and Protestants.

They are concerned about a spiritual transformation of the human person to

achieve full realization of their human potential, which was realized most perfectly
in Jesus and is manifested in others through their association with Him. Christian
mystics are found among both Roman Catholics and Protestants.
Christian mystics strive to follow a three-way path in their quest of holiness.
While the different paths may have different names in the different Christian
traditions, they can all be characterized as purgative, illuminative, and unitive
which corresponds to what is considered the whole person body, mind, and spirit.
Purgative: forms the foundation for Christian spirituality by way of purification
and this is where aspiring Christian mystics start and focuses on:
• Discipline, particularly in terms of the human body
• Prayers at designated times, either alone or with others, and in certain
postures, often standing or kneeling.
• Disciplines of fasting and alms giving, which includes spiritual and corporal
works of mercy such as feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless.
Illuminative: has to do with the perceived activities of the Holy Spirit, which
enlightens the mind, gives insights into truths not only explicit in Scripture and
the rest of the Christian Tradition, but also those implicit in nature. This does not
mean in the scientific sense, but more in depth aspects of natural happenings
such as experience through the working of God.
Unitive: has to do with the experience of when you unite with God. It is difficult to
describe this experience because it varies from person to person. It is always
associated with Divine love, the underlying theme being that God is known or
experienced at least as much by the heart as by the intellect since.
A final aspect has to do with its communal nature; all members of this lifestyle
always lived in communion with the Church, the community of believers. This
allows for the practice of having a spiritual director, confessor, or “soul friend”
with which to discuss one’s spiritual progress. Do not confuse Christian Mystics
with Christian Spiritism as many do.
Christian Mystic presuppositions are:
Rejection Of “Bible Alone”
Rejection Of Doctrine And Theology
Elevation Of Mystical Experience To The Level Of Revelation
Salvation Through Mystical Experience
Spiritual Joy Through Mystical Experience

7. Christian Spiritism: Christian Spiritism is a deception that hides under the form
of a Christian worship. The church may include all the normal items such as:
pulpit, pews, crucifix, and organ. The service seems normal in their use of: Bible,
Christian payers, and songs. However, the change is that they also use trances
and psychic readings an ancient practice to try communicating with the dead,
which makes it a sacrilege.
Spiritism in any form is Condemned in the Bible, A man or a woman who is a
medium or a wizard shall be put to death; they shall be stoned to death, their
blood is upon them” (Leviticus 20:6,27)… and it is called “an abomination to the
Lord” in Deut.18:12. Christian Spiritism presuppositions are:
• God: is an infinite spiritual intelligence, an impersonal power controlling the
universe.
• Jesus: was a man, not God, and during His time on earth, He was a prophet or
an advanced medium who communicate with the spirit world.
• Jesus: is now a primary spirit that one communicates with in the spirit world.
• No Virgin Birth
• No redeeming cross: yet many will have a crucifix displayed above the pulpit.
• No resurrection
• No Second Coming
• Heaven and Hell do not exist, they are states of mind.
• People continue to live in the spirit world after their physical body dies.
• Rejection Of Bible Alone: they also use their Spiritualistic Manual, Aquarium
Gospel of Jesus the Christ, and Oashpe
8-CHRISTIAN CULTS: Originate from a group of churches that may call themselves Christians, use
the Bible as their Sacred Scripture, and may even have the name of Christ in the title of their
church. Many so-called Christian Cults claim to be the true Church. Since many Cultists are
experts at beguiling unsuspecting believers, it is necessary to know the presuppositions with
which they operate.
Not every cult holds all of these presuppositions, but most cults accept most of the following:
Rejection Of Sola Scriptura And Elevation Of Their Own Books To The Level Of the Bible
Rejection Of Salvation By Grace Through Faith
Rejecting The Uniqueness Of Jesus Christ
Rejection Of Normal Hermeneutics
Claim That Only They Are True Children Of God
Rejection Of One Or More Of The Biblical Doctrines Related To Sin, Salvation, Grace, Justification,
Hell, etc.
The following are a few of the Christian cults:
• Mormons: The Church of Jesus Christ of the of Latter-day Saints
• Jehovah’s Witnesses
• Moonies: Unification of Christianity
• Christian Science Church
• Church of Scientology
• Children of God: Family of Love
• Worldwide Church of God, of Armstrong
• Spiritualism
• Church Universal and Triumphant
• Unitarianism/Universalism.
• Gnosticism/Neo-Gnosticism.
• Way International
• Holy Order of MANS
• Church of the Living God
Other Christian Cults:
• Central London Church of Christ
• Rev. Ike Penitents: Snake Handlers
• Churches for Homosexuals: Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
• Branch Dravidians: “Waco”, David Koresh
• People’s Temple: Jim Jones, Jonestown
9-CHRISTIAN OCCULTISTS: before launching into Christian Occultists, we should examine what
occultism is. To the Occultist, Occultism is the study of hidden wisdom, truth, or rather the deeper
truth that exists beyond the surface. Most people consider this as an unknown area, which is
limited only to depth of human imagination and the use of talismans, magic, voodoo, astrology,
numerology, or even religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism.
Christian Occultists are in reality, advanced students of Occultism and use their gained knowledge
of magic, astrology, numerology, or other training to produce what seems like miracles. They have
produce mass-hypnotism, mass-hysteria, and many other delusions. Reportedly, they have also
produced individual as well as mass-healings. These Christians believe God gives them their
occultic skills not the power of evil spirits. Because of the power, they feel while practicing their
skills:
Rejection Of Sola Scriptura
They Believe That Occult Techniques Are Approved By God
They Believe That The Spirit Beings That Help Them Are From God
They Reject Most Of What the Bible Says About the Devil And His Angles
They Believe That Occult Phenomena Can Bring People Close To God
10-NON CHRISTIAN CULTS: They study hidden wisdom, truth, or rather the deeper truth that
exists beyond the surface they use of talismans, magic, voodoo, astrology, numerology, or even
religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism. They do not try to work with physically measurable
facts, but those obtained through the mind or the spirit, which can be associated to mental,
psychological or spiritual training. However, occultists do study science because they perceive
science as a branch of Alchemy that they try to use to add validity to occultist practices.
These non-Christian cults often pretend to have close similarity or relationship with the Christian
faith. Their leaders often quote from the Bible however, there beliefs are not Christian and the
differences can be seen in the following:
Nature of man:
Christian: Believe man made in God’s image and separated from by sin
Occultist: Believe man is like God, only most people do not realize it
Heaven and Hell:
Christian: Believe they are actual places
Occultist: Believe that Heaven and Hell is a condition that conformed to the will of God or not.
Some occultists actually believe in the Christian version of afterlife.
The devil:
Christian: Believe to be an actual being
Occultist: Believe to be those that perverse the use of their abilities through wrong thinking.
Magic and Ritual:
Christian: Believed to be Satanic activities
Occultist: Believe in making changes through natural forces that they believe is a function of the
spirit world
Their general presuppositions are:
Rejection Of Sola Scriptura
Rejection Of Salvation By Grace Through Faith
Rejection Of Jesus Christ As The Only Saviour
Rejection Of All Major Christian Doctrines

Pre-suppositions Of Some Groups Prominent Today 3

11-NEW AGE GROUPS: in a class by itself was given birth by Alice Bailey of Lucipher Trust in the
nineteen thirties has now become the New Age Movement. The movement has no holy text,
central organization, membership, formal clergy, geographic center, dogma, creed, etc. They often
use mutually exclusive Christian-sounding definitions for some of their terms, which have
attracted Christian followers. There is nothing Christian in this movement in fact it is a free-
flowing spiritual movement; a network of believers and practitioners who share somewhat similar
beliefs and practices, which they add on to whichever formal religion that they follow.
The New Age is a heterogeneous movement of individuals, which became popular during the
1970’s as a reaction against what some perceived as the failure of Christianity. The members are
classified into seven groups. The largest, being Cultural (Christmas & Easter) Christianity followed
by Conventional Christianity, New Age Practitioner, Biblical (Fundamentalist, Evangelical)
Christianity, Atheist/Agnostic, Other, and Jewish.
Many New Age followers hold a number of fundamental beliefs; individuals are encouraged to
"shop" for the beliefs and practices that they feel most comfortable with:
Monism: All that exists is derived from a single source of divine energy.
Pantheism: All that exists is God; God is all that exists. This leads naturally to the concept of the
divinity of the individual, that we are all Gods.
Panentheism: God is all that exists. God is at once the entire universe, and transcends the
universe as well.
Reincarnation: After death, we are reborn and live another life as a human.
Karma: The good and bad deeds that we do add and subtracts from our accumulated record, our
karma.
Personal Transformation A profoundly intense mystical experience will lead to the acceptance and
use of New Age beliefs and practices.
Ecological Responsibility: A belief in the importance of uniting to preserve the health of the earth,
which is often looked upon as Gaia, (Mother Earth) a living entity.
Universal Religion: Since all is God, then only one reality exists, and all religions are simply
different paths to that ultimate reality.
General New Age presuppositions are:
Rejection Of Sola Scriptura
Rejection Of Salvation By Grace Through Faith
Rejection Of Jesus Christ As The Only Saviour
Rejection Of All Major Christian Doctrines
Salvation Through All Religions/Universalism
12-THE NEW PRAJAPATI MOVEMENT: This movement began with a Telegu tract titled ‘Sacrifice’,
published in the nineteen thirties. The tract has now been translated into English and many major
Indian languages. The Prajapati movement gained momentum in the late eighties and in the
nineties primarily through the work of Mr. Koshy Abraham, Dr. Jospeh Padinjarekkera, and
Arvindaksha Menon.
What is Prajapati? In Hindu, mythology is the primordial lord of creatures, and is mentioned in
Vedic, epic and Puranic literature. In Vedic legends, he is described in various ways as the creator
of the world, and the creator of heaven and earth. He is an androgynous being who impregnated
himself by fusing elements of mind and speech. In later epics, he is the guardian of the sex organ.
Prajapati becomes the name for Brahma in later Hinduism.
According to the advocates of the heresy, the Prajapati, who is one of the 33 gods of the Vedas, is
Jesus Christ Himself. They claim that the gods offered the Prajapati as a sacrifice and he has many
characteristics that prove beyond a doubt that the Prajapati is Jesus, the Son of God.
Prajapati is sinless: Jesus Christ, the Son of God, did not commit any sin and the devotees of
Prajapati try to prove Prajapati is Christ. They took some portions from the vedas or Upanishads
(suppressed all what did not suit them) and gave Prajapati a clean sheet.
The Crown of Thorns: Jesus was crowned with a wreath of thorns and if one could prove that the
Prajapati also had such an experience, it would be easy to prove that the Prajapati is Christ.
Therefore, the devotees of Prajapati tried their best to locate something like that, but they could
not. At last, they had to be content with the grass rope that was used to fasten the sacrificial
horse to the pole.
The Rejection: Jesus rejected everything and offered Himself as a sacrifice. However, the devotees
of Prajapati make it something unusual, because, in Itareya Brahmana, a cow is offered and not
Prajapati.
The Silent Sufferer: Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice and suffered everything willingly.
Therefore, it is necessary to show that the Prajapati also did something like that which devotees of
Prajapati cannot.
Close to the Cross: There is no mention of any kind of cross in the Vedas, but it is necessary to
bring some kind of a cross into the Vedas in order to crucify the Prajapati. For this they use the
tail of the sacrificial cow being tied to the pole. But their mistake is the animal is tied to the pole,
but Jesus was nailed to the cross. The pole, which is a god, has nothing to do with the cross.
The Blood: The devotees of Prajapati try to compare the shedding of blood by Christ as being the
same as that of Prajapati however their mistake is that while Christ shed blood there is no
mention Prajapati shedding blood so, it was necessary to find some blood somewhere. Blood was
found in Brhadaranyaka Upanishad where, man is compared to a tree. Man has hair on his head
and the tree has leaves instead. Both the tree and the man has skin as well. The sap of the tree is
like the blood of the man. When a tree is cut, sap oozes, just like the blood that flows from an
injured man.
The Bones: The bones of Christ were not broken and the devotees of Prajapati discovered
something in Itareya Brahmana. The cow sacrificed with the consent of its relatives had 26 bones
of this cow is taken from the body and put in a line thereby showing no broken bones.
The Man Alive: Christ rose on the 3rd day after the Crucifixion and the devotees of Prajapati try to
use the beliefs of Hindus to state that Prajapati returned to life after the sacrifice.
The Flesh of the Man: In the Last Supper Christ presented to his followers bread and wine that
represented the flesh of his body and his blood to consume. However, in the vedas, the gods killed
but did not eat Prajapati.
The Cloth of the Prajapati: Some of the devotees of Prajapati lie that that the clothes of the
Prajapati were divided among four priests, though none of them have ever said where such an
incident is mentioned. Even some of the Prajapati factions deny this characteristic, though the
biggest Pentecostal denomination in India had included Prajapati, along with this characteristic
(including others) in their Sunday School Text book! [They removed it after Pastor TS Balan, a
Hindu-convert and reformist fought against it].
Nailed to the Cross: The devotees of the Prajapati know they cannot prove that Prajapati’s hands
and legs were nailed to the pole. However, they still preach and teach that the hands and legs of
the Prajapati was nailed to the cross and due to this reason the Prajapati is Christ.
Son of a Virgin: Some of the Christian servants of the Prajapati teach that their lord, the Prajapati
of the Vedas, was the son of a virgin … even though they do not say where this matter is recorded
in the Vedas or in other Hindu scriptures. In fact, there is nothing of this sort mentioned in the
Vedas.
It seems that among the Prajapati-Christians, anybody who can quote some things from the Bible
is accepted as born again Christians and given a platform to teach and preach.
Their presuppositions are:
Outright Rejection of Sola Scriptura
Rejection of the Uniqueness of Jesus Christ
Rejection of all Major Christian Doctrines
Elevation of Non Christian Scriptures to the Level of the Bible
13-OCCULTIC CULTS: Occultic Cults are satanic movements manifested in Satan Worship, Sorcery,
and Demon-assisted healings. Many have also manifested as personality-development
movements. Membership in satanic sects, the participation in the rites introduced by them, the
evocation of demonic entities, the personal and sole cult of the devil, and the affirmation of ideas
deriving from the area of Satanism, have assumed an unexpected dimension in today’s society.
In countries where there is religious freedom, satanic cults have flourished with unbridled speed.
They are so diverse certain groups are unknown even to those same people who frequent the
satanic environment. However, most are connected to one another either through a central person
or group or virtual existence such as the Internet web sites.. Due to changes in society some will
cease activity others continue their activities just below the threshold of acceptance by society. All
of them will undergo some type of change over time due to enter rivalries or growth. These
groups will divide amongst themselves into individual trunks that will divide into limbs and
eventually into branches.
Well-known groups that are active include:
· Church of Satan
· Order of the Black Ram
· Worldwide Church of Satanic Liberation
· Order Templi Satanis
· Ordo Sinistra Vivendi
· Chiesa di Satana dl Filippo Scerba Chiesa Luciferiana di Efrem Del Gatto
· Temple of Set
· Werewolf Order
· Church of War
· Order of the Nine Angels and Dark Lily
· Bambini di Satana
· Impero Satanico della Luce degli Inferi
· Seguaci del Maestro Loitan
The group Order Templi Satanis distributes volumes of satanic information through the use of the
Internet is actually makes them more dangerous to the Christian world because most of their
work is in a covert environment.
Satanic beliefs are as diverse as the groups they represent however most of them follow the
following beliefs or presuppositions:
* Satan liberates the believer from religious, moral, and cultural conditioning
* Satanism is a religion of the flesh
* Satanist must find happiness here and now
* There is no heaven or hell to go to after death
* Satan a real being prince of darkness and a friend of Mankind
* It is possible to obtain favors from Satan through magical rituals
* Satan is Lucifer, a positive figure opposed to God who is seen in a negative light
* Rejection Of Sola Scriptura
* Rejection Of Jesus Christ As The Only Savior
* Rejection Of Salvation By Grace Through Faith
* Rejection Of All Major Christian Doctrines
* Elevation Of Non Christian Scriptures To The Level Of the Bible
14-SECULAR CULTS: Secular cults are not a new phenomenon they have been around as long as
the Church started by Christ. However, since the end of World War 2, they have gained in
popularity and varieties. Due to the horrors of war and the lost of so much life, people began
questioning the Church and even God Himself, which left a wide-open spiritual wound that the
secular cults were eager to fill. Because of the mass destruction and seemingly overwhelming loss
of life, the secular cults were able to draw, erroneous conclusions, that there was no God and that
religion was a waste of time and energy, and the idea of orthodox Christianity and all belief
systems that posit a supernatural realm as just a delusional nonsense created to control the
masses.
Their main point that they used repeatedly at the end of the war was "If there is a God, then why
would He allow for so much destruction and loss of life and property?" and "Why would He allow
for genocides to be committed against the Jews?"
Think about it for a moment, you come back from a war to see everything you grew up knowing
either destroyed or dead. You yourself, would have gone hungry, cold, and either killed to survive
or seen the death of so many others. Your mind and spirit is one very large open wound and the
ones that are trying to comfort you are the very same that are trying to lead you away from God.
Over time, your spirit begins to heal and maybe you have returned to God only to see another war
start and the old wounds reopen. Since the end of World War 2 (WW2), the world has seen
multiple wars in the Middle East (Israel, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, etc.), revolutionary wars
in China, Vietnam war, the massive killing fields of Cambodia, Korean War, and multiple genocidal
wars in various African nations. Since the out break of WW2 the loss of human life due to war has
far exceeded 150 million.
This has left more than ample room for Secular Cults to spin their web that God does not exist
however; they do fail in the end because they forget to point out the good humanitarian ideals
and deeds that have taken hold for the betterment of mankind. Because of the destruction, left by
wars humanity has established many watch groups and peacekeeping forces to prevent or at least
stem the flow of war. In addition, they fail because they preach that life is the here and now enjoy
it now because when it is over, it is over. This makes you wonder if it is truly over when you die
then why are they so concerned with the trying to tear down organized religion. Why do they
waste their precious time, since this is the only life they will ever have, when they could be living
it to the fullest? The fallacy with secular cults is that their actions do not coincide with their
doctrine.
Pre-suppositions Of Some Groups Prominent Today 4
15-RATIONALIST GROUPS: Hold to a philosophical belief that the truth is founded by reasoning
and analysis of factual data and not on faith, or religious teachings. Although many people will
normally associate the rationalist movement or groups as atheist, it is not always the case.
Although rationalism is similar to humanism and atheism, it differs from both of these, in that:
* Humanism: Rationalism is found in humanism however, rationalism does not need the strong
ethical component found in humanism.
* Atheism: Reject the belief in God for any or no reason at all and there is no requirement for
rationalism.
Keep in mind, although rationalism does reject any belief based on faith alone but it does not deny
or affirm atheism. However, most rationalists today believe that theism cannot be rationalized
therefore the correlation with atheism. However, some rationalists such as Deism state reason
rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of belief in God. Because deism believes,
reason is the essential element in all knowledge they reject both organized and revealed religion.
They rationalize that God does not interfere with humanity or the world because He made it
perfect from the beginning and to make changes would be to state that He is not perfect.
Deism is the exception and not the norm when studying Rationalist Groups, in that they believe in
a God while the other rationalist groups reject all belief in God, immortality, after-life, heaven, and
hell. Many Western rationalist groups have been known to openly encourage immorality, and
publish pornographic books.
16-HUMANISTS: When speaking in religious terms many of the words used will have multiple
meanings and humanists is just such a word. Therefore, before we speak on one area lets look at
the various forms of humanism:
Christian Humanism:
* Christian beliefs about the nature of God
* Advocate people’s fulfillment by personal effort
Cultural Humanism:
* Knowledge can be obtained through rational thought and experimentation
* Roots in ancient Greece and Rome
* Scientific method and underpinning of all sciences today
Literary Humanism:
* Pursuit of the humanities
Modern Humanism:
* Encompasses both Religious and Secular Humanism
Philosophical Humanism:
* Centered upon the needs and interests of people
Renaissance Humanism:
* Started at the end of the Middle Ages
* Renewed an interest in classical studies
* Promoted the concept that truth found through human effort
Religious Humanism:
* Similar to secular humanism
* Practiced in a religious setting with fellowship and rituals
* Associated with the Society for Humanistic Judaism and some groups affiliated with the
Unitarian Universalist Association.
Secular Humanism:
* Non-religiously based philosophy
* Promotes humanity as the measure of all things
An in-depth look at the Humanist show that their beliefs and practices are:
* They promote their roots to the philosophies of ancient Greece and regard Socrates as the
first Humanist.
* They except knowledge through reasoning and/or hard evidence and not on faith
* The belief that historical progress conflict between organized religion and secular society
beliefs and practices have gradually replaced with secular beliefs
* That religious groups promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both
illusory and harmful
* Acceptance of democracy and rejection of both theocracy and secular dictatorships as
dangerous to individual freedoms
* Combating bigotry, hatred, discrimination, intolerance and censorship
* Support the separation of church and state
* Liberal beliefs about topics, like abortion, corporal punishment of children, death penalty,
enforced prayer in schools, homosexuality, physician assisted suicide, etc.
For the purpose of this course, the concentration will be on the Secular Humanists a non-
theistically based philosophy that promotes humanity as the measure of all things and considers
man as the Supreme Being in the Universe. Essentially, there are no actual differences between
secular humanists and atheists. The facts show that the essence of their presuppositions and
practices are identical. Many secular humanists do not accept this fact and use the name
‘humanist’ instead of ‘rationalist’ because they do not yet have the courage to declare who they
actually are.
Generally speaking:
* They do not believe in:
o A personal God, a Goddess or a combination of Goddesses and Gods
o Supernatural beings such as angels, demons, Satan, Holy Spirit, etc
o Heaven or hell or life after death
o The separation of a person into body, soul and spirit
o Survival of an individual in any form after death
o The existence of a deity, or they don’t really care about the topic
o The concept of a personal God, and regard humans as supreme
* They do believe:
o Excellent codes of behavior and morality can be created through reason
o About human rights and equal opportunities for all
o Humans created the Gods and Goddesses in their own image
o There is no God in heaven to intervene and save us from a disaster
o That full responsibility for the future of the world, its political systems, its ecology, etc.
rests with humans
o A universe that was not created
o In the theory of evolution and a universe that obeys natural laws
o Rejection of divinely inspired ethical and moral codes in favor of codes derived by reason
from the human condition
And they tend to be at the liberal end of the spectrum on such controversial topics as abortion
access; equal rights for gays, lesbians and bisexuals; same-sex marriage, physician assisted
suicide, separation of church and state, etc.
Pre-suppositions Of This Website: The writers of Calvin Research Group Textbooks are all
theological conservatives. The following four presuppositions are a MINIMUM starting point:
Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone)
Sola Gratia (Grace Alone)
Sola Fide (Faith Alone)
Solus Christus (Christ Alone)
However, additional presuppositions describe their positions more fully. These are:
Inspiration: Each word of the Bible is recorded there by God’s inspiration (verbal inspiration). This
inspiration extends not only to the words, but also to ideas and historical/scientific facts.
Inerrancy: The Bible is totally and completely free of moral, spiritual, historical, and scientific
errors.
Infallibility: The Bible is infallible in all matters of doctrine, practice, morals, and every subject on
which it makes an authoritative pronouncement.
Canonicity: The 66 books of the Old and New Testament, and they alone, are the Word of God.
The Apocrypha are not part of the Bible.
Revelation: Christ and the Bible are the only divine revelations given to mankind through the Holy
Spirit. Mankind can know God only through Christ and the Bible.
The Biblical record makes no sense without the above presuppositions. The Bible demands that we
approach it with the above presuppositions in mind. Anything less would force a person to explain
away significant portions of Bible and theology.
Summary
Every apologist should know both his own presuppositions as well as the major presuppositions of
his opponents. Asking suitable leading questions to expose the anti-biblical presuppositions of
one’s opponent is a powerful method to expose error. Only continuous study and analysis will
help.
All doctrinal positions — whether conservative or radical — require adherence to certain minimum
presuppositions. Calvin Research Group is unashamedly a conservative institution, and the
minimum required presuppositions are:
Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone)
Sola Gratia (Grace Alone)
Sola Fide (Faith Alone)
Solus Christus (Christ Alone)

Apologetics Course 03
Free Christian Apologetics Course: The Christian faith is solidly and inseparably based upon
history. If Adam, Eve, Eden, Flood, Moses, Prophets, Jesus, Pentecost, and the Apostles are
eliminated from the Bible, then nothing substantial remains of Christian faith. Ultimately all the
foundational, cardinal, and major Biblical doctrines depend upon the historicity of the events
recorded in the Bible.
The historical nature of the Bible has been recognized by radicals and atheists much more than
the Christians. They know that if this foundation can be destroyed, then the Christian faith would
automatically crumble without additional effort. They have been shown to be right in the liberal
churches. In these churches pastored by theological radicals, the members were told for decades
that there is no historical basis for the Bible.

Tools Of Legal Apologetics

One difference between the Christian faith and many other world religions is the historical nature
of Bible. Though all the other religious books offer many stories, these do not claim to be
histories.
Even in those places where other religions claim to be presenting actual histories, the philosophy
and theology of those religions do not depend upon the historical narrative. Thus even if those
historical narratives are false, or even if they are eliminated, it makes no difference to the
philosophical and theological claims of those religions. This is particularly true of all Oriental
religions. But the same is not true of Bible or of the Christian faith.
The Christian faith is solidly and inseparably based upon history. If Adam, Eve, Eden, Flood,
Moses, Prophets, Jesus, Pentecost, and the Apostles are eliminated from the Bible, then nothing
substantial remains of Christian faith. Ultimately all the foundational, cardinal, and major Biblical
doctrines depend upon the historicity of the events recorded in the Bible.
The historical nature of the Bible has been recognized by radicals and atheists much more than
the Christians. They know that if this foundation can be destroyed, then the Christian faith would
automatically crumble without additional effort. They have been shown to be right in the liberal
churches. In these churches pastored by theological radicals, the members were told for decades
that there is no historical basis for the Bible.
About five decades of such teaching, and all these churches reached the lowest level of spiritual
decadence. There is today no spiritual perversion which is considered wrong by the laity or the
clergy of the liberal churches. It is their offsprings who ushered in the era of promiscuity and
infidelity, illegitimate children, divorce, abortion, serial marriages, and all conceivable and
inconceivable sexual orgies in the western nations.
Bible-believing Christians have recognized the perils befalling the Christian if the historical basis of
this faith can be shown to be invalid. Consequently, for the last two centuries many thousands of
brilliant scholars have devoted their entire lives to examine, clarify, and defend the historicity of
the Biblical narratives. So much so that entire disciplines of study and research have come up in
seminaries, colleges, and Universities around the world as a consequence of all this. Such is the
importance of historical studies for the Christian faith, and Historical Apologetics is only a small
part of these historical studies. We would look at the following subjects in this chapter:
1-Tools Of Legal Method/Apologetics
2-Tools Of Historical Apologetics
3-Application Of The Tools
4-Other Values Of Historical Investigations
Let us study each of them in greater detail:
Tools Of Legal Apologetics
Each branch of learning has its own tools of study, methods of evaluation, and approaches to
deduction. Often the methods that work in one branch do not work in another, though all of them
are based upon the common foundation of logic.
Thus the tools of physics are not that of medicine, and that of mathematics are not that of history.
Only in interdisciplinary studies do some of the tools overlap, and even here things are not often
easy. That is the reason why very few people opt for research/teaching in interdisciplinary fields.
Even many areas of Christian Apologetics are interdisciplinary in nature, and it is here that very
few people work. Most of those who are interested in Apologetics prefer single disciplines like Pure
Philosophical Apologetics (say, Philosophy Of Religions) or Pure Rational Apologetics (say, Bible
And Science).
Legal Apologetics is a combination of Legal and Historical Reconstruction. Since it involves the
Legal and Historical processes, it is necessary to understand the tools used for both of these
methods. The tools of Legal Method are as follows:
1-The Legal Reconstruction Method: Legal Apologetics deals with the legal investigation of whether
a certain thing has taken place or not. Thus in court cases a large chunk of time is spent in
deciding whether a certain event has taken place or not.
Information is collected from the available witnesses. They are then cross-examined to determine
both their personal integrity and also to determine the integrity of their descriptions. Once all the
available witnesses are cross-examined, and once all unacceptable and unestablished information
is ruled out, the rest of the information is compiled into a coherent story. This story is then
accepted as a reliable reconstruction of the things that transpired in relation to the events under
investigation. This is the way in which Courts of Law reconstructs alleged events, and then
punishes or acquits the accused.
Since the events of the Bible are historical in nature, the method of legal and historical
reconstructions apply to the historical events recorded in the Bible. Further, since the historical
narratives have become the favorite target of attack for radicals and rationalists alike, the
legal/historical reconstruction becomes an important tool in the hands of the Christian Apologist.
2-Sufficient And Total Proof In The Legal Method: Most people who talk of "proof" have only the
so-called "scientific proof" in their mind. However, the field of investigating truth is much broader
than that of physical sciences, and therefore the methods of obtaining and assessing proof is also
much broader. What is ample proof in one discipline might be totally worthless in another field,
and thus it is essential to look at a few types of proofs.
In mathematics and geometry, proof consists of showing that a certain set of conditions are true
of certain objects, irrespective of the type of object selected. For example, if a certain property is
demonstrated to be true for a number "n" (where n can have any value whatsoever), then it is
accepted as proof that this property is true for any number whatsoever. Similarly, if a certain
property is shown to be true for a triangle chosen arbitrarily, then this property is assumed to be
applicable for all triangles in the Universe. The same is the case with all proofs of geometry.
In scientific proof the event under consideration is repeated under various conditions and in
various laboratories. If the event repeats itself under the same set of circumstances, it is assumed
to be true.
In legal/historical proof it is necessary to demonstrate that an event has probably taken place
beyond all doubt. It is also necessary to demonstrate that taking place of this event is the best
explanation of the data available.
In all three cases above, something is accepted as true or proven if the proof available is
sufficient. "Total" proof of an event means that one examines each and every conceivable
possibility and establishes each one of them to be true. This is humanly never possible. Thus in a
court of law, once the general truthfulness of a witness is established, his individual statements
are accepted to be true. Similarly, in the case of the Bible, it is humanly not possible to verify
each of the tens of thousands of historical statements. Thus, what the legal expert or the
historical looks for is the general trustworthiness on those points that can be checked. If those are
found to be true, it is considered sufficient for accepting the rest are to be true.
For example, it is not possible to verify whether Abraham uttered each one of the statements
attributed to him. However, if the historical existence of Abraham, the cities mentioned in
connection with Abraham, and the information in general are found to be true, this is considered
sufficient proof that the narratives related to Abraham are true. This is the standard procedure for
proof followed in all legal and historical practices.
On the above count, the existence of Abraham, Moses, the kings of Israel and Judah, the
prophets, the proclamations of the Gospel narratives, etc. are found to be sufficiently proved and
demonstrated.
Topics Under Consideration: Free courses, free theology courses, free Christian Apologetics
courses, seminary, bible school, theological seminary course
Tools Of Historical Apologetics
Though Legal and Historical Apologetics are intimately connected with each other, for the sake of
clarity it would still be helpful to look separately at those aspects of the Apologetics where the
historical aspect is very prominent.
1-Archaeology: Archaeology is a recent science and it deals with the study of ancient civilizations.
Though some people had been collecting ancient artifacts for some centuries, archaeology had its
birth in 1798 when Napoleon conducted a systematic study of the ancient monuments and
artifacts of Egypt. From there it had a slow development till it reached its zenith and scientific
form in the twentieth century.
Biblical/Secular Archaeology: Initially there was not distinction between Biblical and secular
archaeology, but soon scholars realized that the archaeological discoveries in lands where Biblical
history took place are of immense importance to studies of Biblical history. Thus Biblical
Archaeology developed as a subset of General Archaeology. Today Biblical Archaeology has grown
to such levels that several societies and journals are devoted totally and exclusively to this
discipline. More details of Bible and archaeology is included in another section of this work.
Chronologies/Histories: Interest in correlating secular history and corresponding Biblical history
grew towards the middle of the nineteenth century. The growth was fueled partly by the attacks of
the radical theologians and rationalists who tried to use secular history to attack the reliability of
the Bible. These attacks prompted Bible believing scholars to investigate the subject further.
Consequently, today a vast amount of Biblical history and chronology has already been correlated
with the corresponding secular history. If any uncertainty remains, it mostly because of the still
incomplete knowledge of the secular history.
One area of interest has been the chronologies of kings given in the book of Kings and Chronicles.
Often the statements seem to contradict each other, and this has perplexed Bible-believing
scholars. Rationalists gleefully point to these apparent contradictions, and even today their
handbooks against the Bible mention these as the strongest points of attack against the Bible.
However, research from the middle of the twentieth century have clarified these problem.
During the time of the Kings, Israel and Judah used at least five different types of calendar
reckonings. Thus the same date would give different values according to different calendars, and
this was the reason for these conflicting dates. After decades of research, often with the aid of
powerful computers and algorithms, now researches have solved the riddle and there is no serious
calendar problem in the books of Kings and Chronicles. This is another area in which Historical
Apologetics has come to the aid of Bible believing people.
2-Dating Techniques: Discovering exactly how old an archaeological find is helps in accurate
reconstruction of history. Determination of the age helps the Bible in more than one way. For
example, a shroud claiming to be the burial cloth of Lord Jesus was recently shown to be only
about 600 years old. Thus all false claim to its authenticity has been repudiated, and the Bible
believing Christians have been saved from a historical hoax.
Age Determination takes place in many ways. One is Historical Dating. The dates of many artifacts
or kingdoms are known historically, and therefore the dates of the items associated with them is
assumed to be the same. Another method is Comparative Dating. The pottery shapes and styles,
the use of metals, the use of building materials, etc. have changed with age. Thus by comparing
these things with similar items of a known date the approximate age can be found out. The third
methods is Scientific Dating. By using many scientific method, including the Radiocarbon Dating,
the date of many items can be determined. This is how the date of the disputed shroud mentioned
above was determined.
Date-determination is a very complex science and art, and the above paragraph has tried only to
give a glimpse into this field. Suffice to say that date determination of ancient artifacts and
civilizations has played a very significant role in reconstructing past history. This in turn has
helped scholars to correlated Biblical history with the secular. As a consequence of all this work,
today Bible stands as historically most accurate ancient book.
3-Linguistic Studies: Bible is written in two ancient languages (Hebrew and Greek) which are no
longer spoken today. Some chapters in Daniel are written in Aramaic. Ancient Hebrew, Greek and
Aramaic are totally different from their modern counterparts. Consequently much linguistic
investigation has been needed to understand these languages to a sufficient degree. These
studies, in turn, have been greatly beneficial for Christian Apologists.
a. Biblical Languages: A History Of Studies: Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were periods
when a study of Biblical languages was revived. Much groundwork was done both by conservative
as well as by radical theologians. Then the twentieth century brought a flood of literary material
from the ancient world.
The Code Of Hammurabi (300 paragraphs of written material), hundreds of written clay tablets
found in Ugarit, several thousand Nuzi Tablets, 20,000 written tablets at Mari, hundreds of Old
Testament scrolls discovered near Dead Sea, the 22,000 written tablets and fragments found at
Ebla near modern Syria, the hundreds of scrolls found at Oxryrhynchos in Egypt, etc. are some
examples of the abundant written material found from Biblical lands. Written in Biblical languages
and their cognates, this material helped scholars to study Biblical languages in great depth and
breadth.
b. Value Of Linguistic Studies: Linguistic studies helped a better understanding of the meaning of
ancient Biblical texts like Job which contain many words used by man during the earliest period
succeeding the time of Noah. Usages like "sister" for wife by Abraham, Isaac, the love in Songs of
Solomon, have become clear. Similarly, much light has been thrown on word meanings.
Many of the ancient customs were totally different from what we see today. For example, Sarai’s
adoption of Ishmael, Abraham’s unwillingness to send him out after Isaac’s birth, the ritual used
by Eliazar to make a covenant with Abraham, etc. are things that can be understood only when
their customs are understood. Only written material help in such understanding. Thus the
discovery of written material and their studies have helped not only linguists, but also those who
would like to study ancient customs and cultures.
Another benefit of linguistic studies has been our ability to evaluate the accuracy and authenticity
of ancient manuscripts. An entire branch of science called Textual Criticism has developed for this
activity. It has helped Conservative scholars to defend the authenticity of Biblical books. For
example, the book of Daniel was a favorite target of radical and rationalist attacks. One of their
contentions was that the presence of certain Persian words indicated that this book was written
only in 100BC and not in 600BC. Scholars like the late Robert Dick Wilson were able to refute
these charges using their linguistic researches.
Prof. Wilson was fluent in almost 50 languages, and could easily handle another 50. He challenged
any contender to show any proof against the Bible in any language, current or dead. He even
promised to learn that language if it was at that time unknown to him. Today Bible stands as a
vindicated book as a consequence of these linguistic investigations.
Any manuscript that is hand-copied for thousands of years, and that also in the most unfavorable
circumstances, is bound to develop some errors of copying. These include omission of a line when
two lines start with the same word, repetition of words, etc. Linguistic studies have helped
scholars to discover and classify the problems of copying common in Biblical languages. Then with
the help of tens of thousand of manuscripts available today, they are able to reconstruct the
originals with great confidence.
4-Present Status Of Manuscripts: Critics often argue that an ancient book like the Bible cannot be
reliable. They compare Bible with other ancient books, and claim that all other books contain
gross errors of science, philosophy, and of concept. They also point out to the ten to twenty
percent of material in these manuscripts that have become corrupt beyond recognition. They
attribute the same limitations to the Bible also. But historical studies have shown that this
allegation is not correct.
Conservative Christian scholars have always been conscious of the need to keep investigating the
Bible at the manuscript level. They felt the need for two reasons: for a better understanding of the
text, and for a stronger defense of the Bible. Due to these concerns, they have been able to
discover tens of thousands of ancient manuscripts.
Today there are more than 5,300 Greek manuscripts, over 10,000 Latin manuscripts, 9,300 other
early manuscripts, and more than 24,000 manuscripts of portions of the New Testament. In
addition, there are thousands of Old Testament manuscripts. Portions of the New Testament
manuscripts available today were produced less than two decades after Pentecost. Portions of Old
Testament manuscripts available today were produced very close to the time of Malachi. There is
no other ancient book in the world which has produced this kind of a witness to its reliability.
Topics Under Consideration: Free courses, free theology courses, free Christian Apologetics
courses, seminary, bible school, theological seminary course

Application Of The Legal/Historical Tools

Of all the world religions, the Christian faith is one that totally and fully depends upon the
reliability of the historical narratives of its Holy book. Consequently, the radical theologians and
rationalists are quick to attack the historical narratives of the Bible. This is why the practice of
Legal and Historical Apologetics is important for Christian Apologists.
As seen above no sooner attacks began coming against the historical aspects of the Christian
faith, tools of Legal and Historical Apologetics were developed to counter it. These developments
had many advantages in addition to providing a defense of the Christian faith. Some of these are:
1-Insights Into History/Chronology: Most people do not realize that the way history is
written, and the way in which chronologies are constructed, vary from culture to culture. Thus the
historical and chronological records produced by people of one culture can be understood only if
we understand the presuppositions and methodologies of those people. Legal and Historical
studies have furnished much information to help us understand Biblical history and chronology
more accurately.
2-Insights Into Culture/Customs/Manners: Culture, customs, and manners vary from place
to place and time to time even within a single country. So much so that what is considered as
appropriate and even desirable behavior in one part of a country can be interpreted as undesirable
in another part of the same country. Since that is the case, the Biblical history covering a span of
4000 years, having taken place in dozens of countries, contains many things related to these
things that might perplex people today. Some of the Biblical statements can even be
misinterpreted today. However, historical investigation furnishes insights into these things,
eliminating confusion.
3-Insights Into Languages/Meanings: As mentioned before, Biblical languages are dead
today. They are not spoken anywhere. Thus it is difficult for the twentieth century reader to
understand all the finer nuances of these languages when they were used by people for whom it
was their native language. Historical investigations, however, have produced tens of thousands of
writings of all kinds in these languages, enabling linguists to understand vocabulary, word usage,
and idioms of these languages more accurately.
4-Insights Through Reconstruction/Investigation of Biblical Histories/Incidents: Many
events become more meaningful to the readers when the background is reconstructed more fully
to them. This is the reason why popular magazines sometimes carry detailed reconstructions of
historical events like the sinking of Titanic, or the fist voyage to the North Pole. Historical and
Legal investigations have helped Bible scholars to perform similar reconstructions of many Biblical
events (siege of Jericho, fall of Persian Empire, etc), providing greater insights into the
significance and impact of these events.
Other Values Of Historical Investigations
Though the purpose of Apologetics is defense of the Christian Faith, Apologetical investigations
always help the entire spectrum of Biblical studies. For example, in addition to the benefits
mentioned previously, Historical investigations provide help in many other areas of Bible studies
and research. Some of them are:
1-A Better Understanding of Biblical Text/Transmission: The way the Biblical Text was
produced, preserved, and transmitted has an exciting history of itself. Often this can shed much
light for those who investigate the accuracy of the current text of Bible. Further, when radicals and
rationalists claim that the present text is unreliable, such studies help scholars to refute them. For
example, when a radical claims that a certain translation of the Old Testament contained the
Apocrypha Books also, such studies help scholars to show that they were not part of the Canon.
2-Better Appreciation Of Reliability Of Scriptures: The historical nature of Bible and the
Christian faith has prompted radicals and rationalists to attack all historical aspects of the
Christian faith, including the reliability of the Hebrew and Greek Texts that are available today.
However, venturing into the history of these things not only vindicates the accuracy of the present
texts, but also fills Christians with awe about the ways in which God caused this text to be
transmitted so reliably for His children.
3-Better Appreciation Of Prophecy: Most of the prophecies recorded in the Bible have already
taken place. Thus it is often very difficult for the present-day reader to appreciate their apologetic
value. But when historical studies demonstrate how incredible these prophecies were at the time
of their giving, our appreciation for prophecy increases manifold. (This subject is discussed in
detail in another portion of this series).
Summary
Unlike the major world religions, the Christian faith is firmly rooted in history. There is no way to
separate the historical portions from doctrinal ones. Either both of them stand together, or they
fall totally. This is why the historical narratives in the Bible have become favorite targets of attack
for theological radicals and rationalists. Legal and Historical Apologetics is the answer to these
people. History has turned out to be a great friend of the Bible and the Legal and Historical
apologetics have turned out to be very strong answers against all objections !

Jesus And History

Since the Christian faith is firmly mingled with (and anchored in) history, the historical narratives
of the Bible is a favorite target of attack by the theological radicals and rationalists. They have
raised numerous questions against the historical records. The historicity of Jesus Christ is one
such question.
Jesus Christ is so firmly embedded into world history that no knowledgeable and educated person
can conceivably question his historicity. Yet when the dissenters keep harping that He did not
exist, at least some people are disturbed at it. It is human nature that if ten people proclaim a
horse to be donkey, at least some of the people would start doubting their own assessment of the
horses.
Further, many of the disputers have produced massive books to dispute the historicity of Jesus.
For example, Joseph Edamaruku has published books in English and Malayalam to attack the
historicity of Jesus. Writers like him are so clever in throwing in bits and pieces of information in
such a one-sided and plausible-looking presentation that the average reader is totally confused.
These readers are totally ignorant about the debating tricks and propaganda methods used by
these people. Consequently, many young people would like to know more about the historicity of
Jesus Christ.
The four gospels are detailed historical narratives about Lord Jesus, but due to the above-
mentioned influences many young people ask if any additional proof can be produced. Of course,
a large amount of historical proof can be provided for the existence of Jesus Christ. The amount of
material available surpasses the amount of material available to prove the existence of Plato,
Aristotle, Alexander The Great, and other well-known figures of ancient history.
Most of the material available is in the form of buildings, artifacts, and ancillary history. A person
would have to visit those countries to see these things. Since none of this material can be brought
to the reader in a book like this, we will reproduce some of the ancient written material that talk
about Lord Jesus. All of these statements were made by NON-CHRISTIANS, some of whom were
historians, and some of whom were not friendly to Christians.
Ancient Records About Jesus
FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS (Born AD 37): Josephus was a Jewish historian who became a Pharisee at
age 19; in AD 66 he was the commander of Jewish forces in Galilee. After being captured, he was
attached to the Roman headquarters. The Collected Works of Josephus is a massive historical
document, more massive than the Bible. It is a valuable reference book for students of ancient
history. In it he says:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a
doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over
to him both many of the Jews, and ,many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at
the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved
him at the first, did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the
divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And
the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day." Antiquities. xviii.33. (Early
second) century).
In Josephus we also see a reference to James the brother of Jesus and high priest Annas:
"But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition
and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above
all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he though
he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he
assembled a council of judges, and brought it before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ,
whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers,
he delivered them over to be stoned."
In addition to the two portions above, several allusions to Jesus and the Christian faith are found
in the works of Josephus.
CORENELIUS TACITUS (Born Around AD 52): He was a Roman historian, and alludes to the
death of Christ and to the existence of Christian at Rome:
"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow,
nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the
infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress
the rumour, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortured, the
persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the name of
the founder, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but
the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where
the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also." Annals XV.44
Tacitus has made a further reference to Christianity in a fragments of his Histories, dealing with
the burning of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70
LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA: He was a satirist of the second century, who spoke scornfully of Christ
and the Christians. He connected them with the synagogues of Palestine and alluded to Christ as
"… the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world…
Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after
they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified
sophist himself and living under his laws."
Lucian also mentions the Christian several times in his Alexander the False Prophet
SUETONIUS (AD 120): He was a Roman historian and a court official under Hardrian, analyst of
the Imperial House. According to him; "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the
instigation of Christ, he expelled them from Rome."
He also writes: "Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new
mischievous superstition."
PLINIUS SECUNDUS (PLINY THE YOUNGER): He was the Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor
(AD 112). Pliny was writing to the emperor Trajan seeking counsel as to how to treat the
Christians.
He had been killing Christians of all age groups. There were so many being put to death that he
wondered if he should continue killing anyone who was discovered to be a Christian, or if he
should kill only certain ones. He wrote:
"They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the
habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a
hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not do to any wicked deeds,
never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when
they should be called upon to deliver it up."
TERTULLIAN: He was a Jurist-theologian of Carthage. In a defense of Christianity (AD 197)
before the Roman authorities in Africa, mentions the exchange between Tiberius and Pontius
Pilate:
"Tiberius accordingly, in those days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having
himself received intelligence from the truth of Christ’s divinity, brought the matter before the
senate, with his own decision in favor of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval
itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all the accusers
of the Christians".
THALLUS: He was a Samaritan-born historian, and one of the first Gentile writers who mentions
Christ. He wrote about Christ around 52 AD. Portions of his writings have been cited by other
writers. One such writer is Julius Africanus, a Christian writer about 221 AD.
LETTER OF MARA BAR-SERAPION: This was a letter written some time later than AD73, by a
Syrian named Mara Bar-Serapion to his son Serapion. Mara Bar-Serapion was in prison at the
time, but he wrote to encourage his son in the pursuit of wisdom, and pointed out that those who
persecuted wise men were overtaken by misfortune. He mentions the death of Socrates,
Pythagoras and Christ:
"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death ? Famine and Plague
came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from
burning Pythagoras ? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the
Jews gain from executing their wise King ? it was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God
justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were
overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, lived in complete
dispersion. But Socrates did not die permanently; he lived through the teaching of Plato.
Pythagoras did not die for ever; he lived in the stature of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for ever;
He lived through the teaching which He had given."
JUSTIN MARTYR: Around AD 150, Justin Martyr, addressing his Defense of Christianity to the
Emperor Antoninus Pius, referred him to Pilate’s report. Justin assumed that this report must be
preserved in the Imperial Archives which kept a record of all government activities. He pointed out
that the words, "They pierced my hands and my feet were a description of the nails that were
fixed in His hands and His feet on the cross; and after he was crucified Him they cast lots for His
garments, and divided them among themselves; and that these things were so, you may learn
from the ‘Acts’ which were recorded under Pontius Pilate." Later he says. "That He performed
these miracles you may easily be satisfied from the ‘Acts’ of Pontius Pilate."
THE JEWISH TALMUDS: Talmuds are commentaries on the Law written by Jewish scholars
between AD100 to 500. Several of these Talmuds have survived, including what is known as the
Babylonian Talmud. Many of them contain direct, indirect, and veiled reference to Jesus, His
miracles, and even to his mother’s virgin-pregnancy.
Summary
There are so many extra-biblical proofs for the historicity of Jesus that a person has to be either
totally ignorant or totally biased to ignore or question the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Of all
these proofs, we have selected and presented just a few quotations, mostly from non Christian
and even sources hostile to the Christians. Anyone having the slightest idea about the paucity of
ancient records would recognize that it is a wonder that so many records are still available about a
single individual. These are much more than similar records available for the famous philosophers
and kings of the same era.

Apologetics Course 04
So much information is available on the subject of the purity and integrity of the Canon that
several volumes can be filled. Thus what is mentioned on this subject in a small section like this of
this book should be considered only as a pointer to what is available.

• Lesson 001, Reliability Of The Canon 001

• Lesson 002, Reliability Of The Canon 002
• Lesson 003, The Apocrypha
• Lesson 004, Inerrancy Of Bible
• Lesson 005, The Extent of Inerrancy
• Lesson 006, Evidence from Christ

Free Apologetics Course 004, Lesson 001

Reliability Of The Canon
Christian Apologetics Free Seminary Course, Lesson 001
As we write these words, even the last book of the Bible is almost two thousand years old. The
earliest book would be over 3500 years old. Perhaps no other book of such antiquity enjoys the
same widespread use or such spiritual status. This makes it a book frequently attacked by
rationalists and the so-called "modernists".
True, many other books also claim such ancient origin but there is a difference between them and
the Bible. First, the claimed antiquity of these books has not been sufficiently established. Second,
these books (such as the Vedas) deal primarily with philosophy and not with history. The historical
content of these non Christian books is minimal, and these historical passages have almost no
bearing upon their philosophical message. Their philosophical message is not dependent upon the
reliability of their historical content.
On the other hand, the theology and philosophy of the Bible is intricately and
inseparably linked with the reliability of its historical narrative. The history in the
Bible might perhaps be able to survive without the theology, but the theology of the
Bible cannot survive without its history. Thus if the historical content of the Bible is destroyed, or
if it is falsified, the theology of the Bible is automatically destroyed. The radicals and atheists were
quick to understand this, and this is why they have spent immeasurable amounts of time and
energy to attack the historical reliability of Bible and its narratives.
On the other hand, history is a subject more tangible than philosophical speculation. Thus while
the critic finds history a good ground for attacking the Bible, the apologist realizes that the
tangible nature and the general reliability of historical information can be used for defending the
Bible in a more definite and confident manner. What’s more, here is an area which can be handled
even by those people who have no background or training in sciences.
The word Canon means measuring rod. Thus it is used in a given subject for a collection of
information which becomes the standard by which everything in that field is measured. For the
Christian apologist, Canon is a word commonly used to denote the Bible. The attacks against the
Canon of the Bible centers around the following points:
Purity/Integrity Of The Cannon
Accuracy Of The Information In The Canon
In the last two to three hundred years the critics have tried their best to attack the Bible on all
these points. Initially they even seemed to win, but the close of the nineteenth century and the
dawn of the twentieth century brought so many archaeological and historical discoveries that
today none can question the Canon on these points. Thousands of manuscripts, tens of thousands
of references to the history recorded in the Bible, and even entire nations with their libraries have
been discovered. Thus today Bible stands as the most vindicated and amazing ancient book in the
world. It would be profitable to discuss some of these subjects in greater detail.
Purity Of The Canon
Questions have been raised frequently about the purity and integrity of the biblical Canon. Most of
these questions have come from three sources: the radicals among Christians, the
rationalists/atheists, and the Muslims. Ahmadiya Muslims are quite vocal about corruption in the
biblical Canon, with the outrageous claim that there are more than 60,000 errors in the Bible.
These questions have been adequately answered by Christian scholars but in spite of this they
been circulated by ignorant people, and thus they are widely heard today. On the other hand,
many critics of Christianity know the truth but in spite of that they keep repeating these question
with the sole aim of intimidating the ignorant lay people.
So much information is available on the subject of the purity and integrity of the Canon that
several volumes can be filled. Thus what is mentioned on this subject in a small section like this of
this book should be considered only as a pointer to what is available.
THEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Bible itself reminds in many places that it is book inspired
by God. "All scripture is given by the INSPIRATION of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16). Since the origin is God
Himself, we can be confident that what has reached us is holy, free from all kind of error, and
without any admixture with any kind of falsehood.
Bible is not a collection of profound human insight or wisdom, but rather a book given by the Holy
Spirit. The Spirit controlled the human writers in such a way that they wrote exactly what the Holy
Spirit wanted to be recorded. According to 2 Peter 1:20, 21: "..no prophecy of the scripture is of
any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men
of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost". Consequently, the information contained
in the Bible is free from any kind of error, conceivable or inconceivable.
Bible records much information about the unknown past. For example, much of the details in
Genesis ten chapters are from the earliest historical times, for which much record is not available.
Inspiration guarantees the accuracy of these records. Similarly, though Bible is not meant to be a
textbook of history, the historical narratives in the Bible are all totally accurate.
Inspiration guarantees that the information recorded in the Bible about divine will, attributes, and
attitudes are accurately portrayed. It also guarantees that when God’s expectations, demands,
and instructions are mentioned, they are not human speculation but an accurate presentation of
what the true God expects from mankind.
In addition to what God said and what the righteous people did, the Bible also records what the
unrighteous people, fallen angels, and even rebellious believers did. This is not to endorse error,
but to give us an accurate record of error so that we might be warned to flee from such things and
lead a righteous life.

Free Apologetics Course 004, Lesson 002

Reliability Of The Canon
Christian Apologetics Free Seminary Course, Lesson 002
PRACTICAL ASPECTS: Right from the earliest times Jews recognized that the inspired word of
God is to be handled carefully and respectfully. Thus Priests and leaders of the Jews carefully
preserved and transmitted the text from generation to generation. Eventually highly trained
priest-scribes like Ezra began handling the job of copying and transmission (Neh. 8:9). After the
time of Babylonian exile many of the Jews became concerned about the preservation of the
Scriptures, and this is the time when professional scribes became numerous.
There were many large groups of scribes wherever the Jews lived, and these people faithfully
copied not only the Old Testament but also commentaries and other books used among the
children of God. Scribes were the preservers of the Law. They were professional students of the
law and its defenders. This was specially so during the Hellenistic period when the Jewish priests
became corrupt. Eventually they became so obsessed with preserving the Scriptures that they
developed elaborate rules and regulations for their profession. These rules contained stipulations
regarding both the behaviour of the scribes as well as the way in which the Biblical manuscripts
were to be handled.
With dispersion, Greek became the language of many Jews
and this is the time when an important translation of the Old
Testament was produced in the Greek language. Known as the
Septuagint, many of the New Testament writer quoted from
this translation. Aramaic translations were also made, and this
was the spoken language which Jesus and many of His disciples used.
With the wide dispersal of the Jews, they almost ceased to exist as a nation in their motherland.
Hundreds of thousands of Jews scattered around the world adopted the local languages as their
language of communication. With this came the gradual elimination of Hebrew as a spoken
language. This introduced many difficulties to the religiously minded people. The Jews used the
old way of writing the Hebrew language till about AD 500. This system used all capital letters,
without spacing, without word-divisions, and without vowels. For example, the God was written as
GD in Hebrew. The vowels were supplied by the reader at the time of reading.
The old system of writing was fine as long as Hebrew was used as an everyday language, but it
became very difficult with the disuse of Hebrew. The Old Testament text without vowels and
without word-divisions was now liable to be misinterpreted by the ignorant. Thus the word GD
cited above could be read either as GOD or as GUIDE, because the original text did not contain
the vowels. Thus only a person thoroughly familiar with the text of the Old Testament would know
which pronunciation to use in a particular place. The concern over these issues resulted in the rise
of a group of experts called Massorates. These outstanding Old Testament scholars had their
heyday between AD 500 to 1000.
The Massorates carefully compared the handwritten copies available to them and made very
accurate copies of the Old Testaments. They developed and introduced vowel marks so that there
is no confusion left about what a certain word was. They also developed an elaborate code for
copyists and the copies. The copyists had to follow certain rigorous rules about bathing,
cleanliness, and self-preparation before they copied the divine text. They also had to check the
text of each page of the copy so that it matched horizontally and vertically with the original text.
Texts not meeting the stringent integrity criteria were usually destroyed so that they might not
corrupt future texts through ignorant people. The text produced and left by them for the progeny
is called the Massoratic Text, or MT.
The Old Testament in the King James Version and that in all Indian translations are based upon
the Massoratic Text. Many critics and radicals gleefully attacked this fact, claiming that the MT
must be full of errors compared to the originals. They based their argument on the premise that
even the earliest MT text was produced only 1000 years AFTER the original was written. Many
undiscerning even accept such careless pronouncements and became very disturbed. However,
the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the forties changed the whole picture.
Dead Sea Scrolls were produced almost two hundred years before the time of Christ. Which meant
that many of the Dead Sea scrolls were as much as 1200 years older than the Massoratic Text. A
comparison of these two families of manuscripts showed that the MT was unusually accurate. Thus
the work done by Jewish scholars in preserving the purity of the Old Testament Text was
demonstrated once again.
As far as the New Testament text is concerned, it is of more recent origin. The art of writing was
widely practiced, and writing materials (though highly perishable) were plentiful. Consequently,
numerous copies, translations, and versions were produced. So many of them survive today that
it overwhelms Bible scholars. More details about manuscripts of OT and NT available today would
be given in another section.
Integrity Of The Canon
While radicals and atheists attacked the accuracy (purity) with which the Canon was transmitted,
another group was busy in attacking the integrity of it. They claimed that not all books in the
Canon are canonical, while many books that are canonical have been excluded from it. Ahmadiya
Muslims are one group that would want some books of their interest (such as the Apocrypha book
falsely labeled The Gospel Of Barnabas). These claims have resurfaced at the dawn of the twenty-
first century, and many are innocently swept by such baseless argument. Part of the reason is the
ignorance of the layman concerning the Canon and how it was formed.
THE NEED TO FIX THE CANON: There was no need to fix the Canon in the period before 400 BC
because people generally knew which books came from divine source. However, after the last
book of the Old Testament was written, many Jewish people felt the need to clearly spell out the
books that were part of the Canon.
The first reason was distance from the original events. People who lived during the times of
Prophets and great High Priests recognized the way God communicated with them. However, as
new generations came up there was a great time-gap between them and the original revelation.
This gap would automatically make them less familiar with the Scriptures, specially if these books
were not introduced properly to the posterity.
Further, this distance would also enable forgers and
cheats to advance their writings as Scriptures. Thus it
was necessary for the posterity to know the boundary.
Thus the Jewish fathers were alert to recognize and
organize the Canonical books. Of course the correct
order of their actions should be realized: these books did not become Canonical by the recognition
of the fathers. Rather, when non Canonical books started to claim divine authorship, the Jewish
fathers felt it necessary to recognize the books that demonstrated Canonicity. Thus it is not the
recognition that brought Canonicity, but it is their Canonical nature that brought recognition to
them. The fact that Lord Jesus and the Apostles honoured this Canon demonstrates that the
Jewish Fathers were spiritually competent to recognize the Canonical books.
Recognizing Canonical books was necessary also for protecting them from being lost accidentally
or through deliberate destruction. People attacked divine revelation both in the Old as well as in
the New Testament period. The rationalist Porphyry wrote more than 12 volumes to attack the
Bible. In 320 AD the Roman Emperor Diocletian ordered that all religious books be destroyed. In
all such cases it became necessary for the children of God to know which books to hide and
protect from destruction.
Many other practical considerations also contributed to the demand to spell out the Canon. Thus
when the Jews who adopted Greek as their mother-tongue wanted the Scriptures in this language,
it was necessary to know which books to translate. With the easy availability of writing materials
and the wider dissemination of the Scriptures, the demand to spell out the Canon became all the
more important.
As mentioned above, the recognition of the Canonical books was not done randomly or arbitrarily.
Rather, the people of God used very strict criteria for recognizing which books were divine.
Further, many of these books were given to the children of God under such circumstances that
they were recognized as inspired Scriptures soon after these books were written. The divinity of
these books helped them to be included in the Bible.
OLD TESTAMENT CANON: The earliest books of the Old Testament were written almost 1400
years before the Christ, while the last book Malachi was written about 400 years before Christ.
Since these books came from authoritative sources, people were quick to recognize their divine
origin. The sacred books of divine origin were given special honour and protection by the Jews.
The priest as well as the people of God always stood up when a public reading of the Scriptures
was done.
Many spurious books began to claim divine authorship for them about a hundred years after the
completion of Malachi. The Jewish leaders were quick to realize that these writings are not from
God, and thus they guarded the books of Bible against all kind of infiltration.

Free Apologetics Course 004, Lesson 003

Reliability Of The Canon
Christian Apologetics Free Seminary Course, Lesson 003
The Apocrypha
The Apocrypha books are not part of the Canon. Thus none of the things said in this chapter are
applicable to them. These books are neither inspired by God, nor are they in any sense a part of
the Bible.
There is a mistaken belief among some that the Apocrypha books were part of the Bible, and that
these were rejected by the Protestant Reformers. On the contrary, the Apocrypha books were
never a part of the Old Testament Canon. Thus there is no question of the Reformers dropping out
some books from the Canon. Rather, it is the Roman Catholic Church which ADDED these books to
the Canon by a proclamation made at the Council of Trent. The story is something like the
following.
When the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into Hebrew, a number of other books were also
translated. These were translated as a help to the Jews who did not know Hebrew or Aramaic.
Many of the translators felt that the additional books would benefit the readers by providing them
historical and background information about the Jews and their culture. Some of these books were
appended to the Septuagint by them. The addition was not as part of the Canon, but as study
helps. This is similar to the large number of articles often added at the end of study Bibles like the
Scofield, Thompson Chain Reference, Dake’s Bible, or The Ryrie Study Bible. Though these articles
are placed within the same Cover, and though the outer cover contains the word "Bible", none of
the modern readers confuses them with the Scripture.
All the contemporary readers know that the study-helps and articles are not part
of the Canon. In the same way the readers of Septuagint also knew that these
books in the appendix are not part of the Canon. These books found a place in
the translation known as Vulgate, which was commonly used by Roman Catholics. In spite of its
presence in the Vulgate, the Catholics did not accept the Apocrypha as part of the Canon.
With the Protestant Reformation, many of the Reformers challenged the Catholic church to prove
their doctrine by supporting these from the Canon. To their dismay the Roman Catholics
discovered that many of their doctrines are not derived from the Canon. At the same time they
realized that at least some of these erroneous doctrines are supported by the Apocrypha. Thus for
their survival it became necessary to add the Apocrypha to the Canon.
In 1545 the Roman Catholic Church convened what is called the Council Of Trent. Here they
passed numerous resolutions, including many curses against the Protestant Believers. In April
1545 the Council declared that the Apocrypha are also part of the Bible. Thus for the first time in
history the Apocrypha books were ADDED by the Roman Catholic church to the Bible. This was
done in order to justify their doctrinal errors (for which support was available only in the
Apocrypha), and also to oppose the Protestant believers. The first Vatican Council held 1869-70
reaffirmed the decision of the Roman Catholic Church to add the Apocrypha to the Canon.
Historically and theologically the Apocrypha was never part of the Canon. Protestant Reformers
were very zealous about the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Everything is to be tested in the light of
Bible, and Bible alone). Thus they did not allow any kind of leaven to be mixed with the Bible.
The Apocrypha books contain numerous historical, chronological, and doctrinal errors. Some of
these are:
1-Prayers And Offerings For The Dead: The Apocrypha encourages prayer for the dead and also
the offering of money for the souls of the dead people. It should not be forgotten that the Roman
Catholic Church collects millions in money every year on the pretext of praying for the dead that
they might be transferred to heaven.
The Catholic Church needed the non-canonical Apocrypha in their Bibles to support such practices
that are actually not found in the Canon. 2 Maccabees 12:41-46 is the passage that supports this.
Verse 46 says, "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may
be loosed from sin". This is a blasphemous idea.
2-Atonement And Salvation By Almsgiving: Salvation is by grace alone and through faith alone
(Eph. 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 1 John 1:9). However, the Roman Catholic Church adds "good works" as a
condition, and collects billions in money worldwide from gullible people seeking salvation.
Apocrypha books support this (Ecclesiasticus 3:33. Ecclesiasticus of the Apocrypha is different
from Ecclesiastes in the Bible). According Tobit 4:11 of the Apocrypha, "For alms deliver from all
sin, and from death and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness".
3-Preexistence Of Souls: The doctrines that souls have always existed and that the human body
receives a preexisting soul is taught in Apocrypha (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19, 20). This is contrary
to what is taught by the Canonical books.
4-The Doctrine Of Emanations: Emanation is the theory that just as the web used by the spider
comes out of the spider’s own being, the Universe and everything in it is an emanation from God.
This idea is contrary to what the Bible teaches, but the Apocrypha teaches it (Wisdom Of Solomon
7:25).
5-Suicide Justified: Bible is totally opposed to suicide, and warns believers against contemplating
such activities. The Apocrypha justifies it (2 Maccabees 14:41-46).
6-Cruelty To Slaves Justified: While the Canon asks believers to be merciful to slaves (Deu.
23:15,16), the Apocrypha says that the best way to treat a slave is to pile work upon him. It also
justifies cruelty to them when needed (Ecclesiasticus 33:25-29).
7-Other Fallacies And Blasphemies: There are numerous historical errors, doctrinal errors, and
even blasphemies. Hatred for Samaritan people, sanction for lying, encouragement for magical
incantations, assassination, the power of angels to intercede for man, and many other s are found
there.
Worse of all, the doctrine of Purgatory has also come from Apocryphal sources. This is a doctrine
totally opposed to all what the Bible says.
Summary
Though many people claim that books of the Bible have been altered and manipulated, the
historical data opposes this idea. Right from the beginning the Canonical books received special
preservation and protection from the Jews as well as the Christians.
They Apocrypha are not part of the Canon. These books were never considered by the Jews or by
Christians as part of the Canon. It is the Roman Catholic Church which ADDED these non-
canonical books to the Canon in 1545 as a reaction against the Protestant Movement. They
needed to do this to justify their doctrinal errors.
The Canon of God is pure, free from error, and preserved for our instruction and edification.

Free Apologetics Course 004, Lesson 004

Reliability Of The Canon
Christian Apologetics Free Seminary Course, Lesson 004
Inerrancy Of Bible
Right from the time of the Old Testament, believers have held that the Word of God is Inerrant.
Inerrancy means that in producing the original manuscripts, the sacred authors were guided by
Holy Spirit in such a way that they transmitted perfectly, without error, the exact message which
God desired to record for men. Since the Word of God is infallible, it cannot err. And since it is
Inerrant, it contains no mistakes.
The doctrine of Inerrancy arises out of the nature and declarations of the Scriptures themselves.
Biblical books everywhere present themselves as being the Word of God. When the Lord speaks,
He cannot lie; neither can He teach truth by means of error. His veracity as well as His power is at
stake. If he spoke erroneously at the beginning or mingled the true with the false, what could we
think of Him ? He would be an unreliable God, delivering an unreliable message. Even the non-
believer knows this implication, and that is why the rationalists spend so much time to somehow
show that the Bible contains errors.
With our eternal salvation standing or falling on the testimony of Bible, what certainty could we
find in a Revelation that can contain error ? Or what if God, after giving to the sacred authors a
message exact in every detail, had showed Himself unable afterwards to effect its transmission in
a way worthy of confidence ? This would only mean that He had deceived us. And in that case, His
initial revelations would have become untrustworthy by now.
Inerrancy is a fundamental belief of evangelical Christians, and every Apologist should both
understand as well as defend this doctrine.
THE BIBLE’S TESTIMONY TO ITS OWN INERRANCY
Bible repeatedly claims that it is the infallible and inerrant word of God. But no sooner we mention
this, someone might raise objections against it. Thus it would be well to consider these objections
before going further.
First of all, they might ask, is it legitimate for us to base our faith in inerrancy on
the Bible’s own testimony ? Isn’t this just a vicious circle: like dispensing with a
debate simply on the declarations of the accused or merely on the basis of the
statements of the interrogated witness ? No, for here we have the Lord Himself, who attested the
Scripture as the only sources of all true spiritual knowledge. Thus, Just as we go to Scripture for
all the doctrines concerning judgment, salvation, the future, etc, we can deduce from the
revelation a sure teaching concerning the written Word. Since the Lord Himself proclaimed the
Scriptures as authoritative, our first question regarding any subject must be "What do the
Scriptures have to say about this" (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 4:30).
About 3,808 times the Biblical books claim to be transmitting the words of God. After the giving of
the law, Moses declared: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye
diminish from it" (Deut. 4:2; also 6:1-2, 6-9 and 12:32). The psalmist says over and over: "The
law of Jehovah is perfect…. I trust in thy word…. I have seen an end of all perfection; but they
commandment is exceeding broad… Thy word is very pure; therefore, thy servant loveth it… Thy
law it truth… All thy commandments are truth… The sum of thy word is truth; and every one of
thy righteous ordinances endureth for ever… Let my tongue sing of thy word; for all thy
commandments are righteousness" (Ps.19:7; 119:42, 96, 140, 142, 151, 160, 172).
Christ specifically confirmed the whole Old Testament as true. He did not find any error that
needed to be eliminated, nor did He express the slightest doubt about any part of it. He
consistently based His arguments and exhortations on the Old Testament Scripture. He declared:
"One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished"
(Matt. 5:18). Discussing a single word with the Jews, He said: "The Scripture cannot be broken"
(John 10:35). And he exclaimed towards the end of His days on earth: "Sanctify them in the
truth; thy word is truth" (John 17:17).
The holy Apostles also witnessed to the perfection of the Scriptures. Paul said of the law that it is
holy: "and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good" (Rom. 7:12). The apostle’s teaching
is so explicit (e.g., Gal. 3:16-17) that any error in the Scripture cited would take away the very
foundation of that teaching.
For the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Word of God is living, effectual and penetrating,
goes so far as to judge even our feelings and our innermost thoughts (Heb. 4:12). It is not our
prerogative to set ourselves up as its critics. James, describing the Word speaks of it as "the
perfect law, the law of liberty" (James 1:22-25). Convinced of its supreme authority, he addresses
to us this solemn warning: "Think ye that the scripture speaketh in vain ?" (James 4:5).
Finally, John brings the written revelation to a close with these words: "If any man shall add unto
them (the things which are written), God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this
book: and it any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take
away his part from the tree of life" (Rev. 22:18-19). If it is the Lord who has given a message
from Himself, who could have the audacity to attempt to "complete" it or to delete any of it, even
those parts which he might think of slight importance?
A testimony as clear and as unanimous as this is truly impressive. Nowhere does Scripture in one
place declare erroneous what it given in another place, and this holds true for even the smallest
details like the very words, jots and the tittles. As it unsparingly recounts the faults and failures of
men in general and of the people of God as well, its total silence about errors in the work of the
sacred authors undeniably has great weight.

Free Apologetics Course 004, Lesson 005

Reliability Of The Canon
Christian Apologetics Free Seminary Course, Lesson 005
THE EXTENT OF BIBLICAL INERRANCY
It is evident to anyone acquainted with the facts that the biblical text in our hands now is not
without some problems. This is why, before going into the objections raised against the doctrine of
inerrancy, we should specify what the doctrine implies and what it does not.
1-Inerrancy does NOT mean uniformity in all the details given in analogous accounts written by
different authors: The books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles all belong in large measure to the
same historical period, but both their points of view and their expressions vary sometimes. The
four Gospels all recount the life of Christ, but with different details. In the Acts, each of the three
treatments of the conversion of Saul of Tarsus (Acts chapters 8,22,26) is distinguished from the
others in certain definite respects.
Such differences have often been greatly exaggerated by radicals: there are even
those who promptly go on to call them contradictions and errors. In reality,
although the doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy of the Scripture requires that each author write
only the truth, it leaves each one free in the choice of actual incidents which illustrate what he
purposes to each.
Verbal identity between multiple witnesses to the same event is not to be expected. If four
independent witnesses in court parrot syllable by syllable the same story, made up of a series of
complex facts, those men would at once be charged with collusion. Their very uniformity would
make their testimony suspect. For it is a psychological fact that, due to inevitable differences in
points of view, observation and individual emphasis, several individuals, each completely honest,
will tell the very same events in quite different ways and words. This can also be said of the
biblical authors. Inspired, they wrote nothing false. Everything they saw and reported was true,
even though they did not always see and report the same details or in identical words. Rather,
each writer had his own personality and was far from being a mere robot.
Let us take, for example, the accounts of the resurrection as recorded in the Gospels. The
essential facts are identical: Christ arose; the tomb was empty; the Lord was seen alive by
different groups of disciples in various places; His new body was not subject to the limitations of
an ordinary human body; after a certain number of days, He went away from the earth again.
This is the general framework on which all the Gospels agree. But each person’s report differs in
certain details and in the presentation of some of the secondary facts. The accounts are
nonetheless authentic for this, and the truth taught is well established.
2-Inerrancy does not exclude the use of symbols and figurative language: Although everything in
the Bible is inspired, it does not follow that every statement in it must be taken literally. The plain
meaning of many passages is clear from a historical, practical legal and moral point of view. But
there are also many passages where the language is obviously symbolical: for example, many
things in Psalms, the Song of Solomon and the Prophets, as well as the parables in the gospels
and in Revelation are figurative. Besides, thousand of expressions in both the Old and New
Testaments are closer to poetry then a prose. (This is why the style of the Bible always has vital
and magnetic quality).
Therefore, belief in the inerrancy of Scripture in no wise requires a slavish adherence to an
unnecessary and absolutely literal interpretation. Belief in inerrancy does not automatically impose
a circumscribed and slavish adherence to hyper-literalism that shuts out those wider horizons
where picture and symbolism have been used by the Holy Spirit to strike fire to the imagination of
men.
The repeated accusation of an obligatory literalness looms up partly from the false idea which
radical critics hold about the Biblical position. They think that the concept of verbal inspiration
forces interpreters to consider every word by itself, irrespective of the context, as being the object
of an independent interpretation. Nothing could be further from the truth. No language, no
literature, could be subjected to such treatment. Words, vehicles of thought, are arranged and
bound together to express one unified whole. The context will help to determine whether the
interpretation is literal, spiritual or symbolical.
Further, many of the radical critics impose hyper-literalism upon Bible interpretation not because
the Bible demands it, but because this is essential for them to attack the Bible conveniently. They
realize that imposing such an unnatural restriction upon the Bible would give them plenty of
additional opportunities to attack the Sacred book. However, their own writings betray this bias
and nothing needs to be said further about it.
3-Inerrancy does not imply the use of an exact technical vocabulary, conforming to present
scientific terminology: The Biblical authors were all men of antiquity. They employed the language
of their times, not claiming to foresee modern science. But when they did set down facts in the
realm of science, they expressed themselves without error in regard to fundamental principles.
For example, the Biblical record of the creation touches on the following areas: geology,
astronomy, biology, meteorology, zoology, physiology and several others. The expressions used in
the Bible for these things do not claim to be technical ones. Still, every page remains not only
more magnificent but also more logical than any other attempted explanation of the origin of the
universe.
It is also clear that Scripture uses popular expressions in the fields of astronomy, geology and
other scientific domains exactly the way our modern scholars do in current conversation. The
preacher said, for example, that the sun rises and the sun goes down (Eccles. 1:5), precisely as
we ourselves have kept on expressing the idea even AFTER discovering that it is not the sun which
rises or sets.
4-Biblical message must be put back into its own historical setting: Certain declarations of
Scripture were true when they were made, although the circumstances are different now. This is
very obvious in historical matters, where what was in existence till yesterday might not be there
today. When we read in the book of Joshua that the twelve stones set up in the midst of the
Jordan "are there unto this day" (Joshua 4:9), this obviously means that they were there at the
time those things were written.
One contentious subject is that of the chronology of the Old Testament, which the radical critics
keep judging as erroneous. What is certain is that the ancients did not count the way we do and
had no fixed, universal calendar. The exact length of the reign of Kings was often counted
differently in different cultures, and that also on differing calendars. Thus any attempt to reconcile
those dates without taking those methods of reckoning would yield only conflicting results. On the
other hand, when we follow the ancient ways of calculating and dating, we see in Scripture an
unusually greater precision than in other ancient authors. Much work has been done in this
subject in the second half of the twentieth century, showing that the Biblical chronologies are
accurate. The work is very technical, and thus most of this work has not come into the attention
of the layman.
The question of grammar and style is also in harmony with the historical framework. We do not
have any statement that Bible came down dictated from heaven. Rather, the Holy Spirit used
writers belonging to different cultures and generations without obliterating their individualities.
Thus the differences in grammars and styles of individual writers is definitely discernible.
5-Inerrancy has to do with the whole of the Biblical message: Contrary to what many
compromisers claim, the doctrine of inerrancy applies to the whole Bible and not merely to the
parts having to do with "faith and practice". If this were not so, one would have to consider
Scripture fallible in places where subjects other that "faith and practice" are discussed.
Let us take an example from history: God intervened our world events. He initiated His plan of
redemption in the incarnation and consummated it in specific historical facts. If the Bible is wrong
about these facts, what is there for our faith to rest upon? We must notice what Paul says about
the resurrection of Christ, as well as about the history of Israel (I Cor. 15:14-19; 10:11; Rom.
15:4). There is no way for separating the "doctrinal" parts of the Bible from the "non doctrinal"
parts.
The historical facts are so intimately tied in with spiritual realities that it is impossible to separate
the two. We have seen that the same is true of the account of the creation and also areas where
Bible deals with the natural sciences (geology, astronomy, biology etc.). The creation account, and
also that of paradise, the fall, the deluge etc, we find fully confirmed by Christ and the apostles. If
these events were mere myths, then the doctrines based upon them also have to be labeled as
mere myths. It ought to be clear, however, that inerrancy extends only to the text itself, not to the
often absurd interpretations given by humans to it.
In the realm of geography, likewise, the extraordinary exactitude of Scripture has been attested to
by archaeology and by an improved understanding of antiquity. Clearly, the Bible does not claim to
be a manual of science or of history; its supreme domain is that of faith and life. It is the book of
salvation; its aim is to lead us to God and to enable us to live with Him, first down here and then
forever in heaven. Yet it never errs when it makes a comment in the realm of science or history.
6-Inerrancy does not imply omniscience on the part of the Biblical authors: The Biblical writers
were not acquainted with all facets of the subjects they treated. Thus their declarations are true
but not always comprehensive or complete. One illustration is the case of the Four Gospels. Each
one has played its part in filling in, adding to and putting the finishing touches on canvas
portraying the life of Jesus. This principle explains why the Bible does not always provide a full
account of a given event or the well-rounded, all-comprehensive enunciation of a truth, such as
one might expect from omniscience. The Scriptures were written by men who were kept away
from recording error, but who were not endowed with the perceptive faculties which belong to God
alone.
It was, moreover, not necessarily the aim of the biblical records to tell absolutely everything or to
provide total information on every subject. For example, the Gospels give us practically nothing
about Jesus from the time He was twelve until the day He was baptized by John the Baptist. Such
information would certainly have a popular appeal if we may judge by the Apocryphal "gospels",
but this information was not seen as necessary according to the purpose of either the Holy Spirit
or the writers themselves. John in his gospel makes it clear that producing a comprehensive
record of Jesus’ life and ministry was humanly not possible. Thus he chose only those events that
would help the readers to accept Jesus as their personal Saviour.

Free Apologetics Course 004, Lesson 006

Reliability Of The Canon
Christian Apologetics Free Seminary Course, Lesson 006
The Evidence From
Christ’s Use Of the Old Testament
The way in Jesus Christ looked at the Old Testament provides additional insights into the question
of inerrancy. Not surprisingly, our Lord used historical incidents in the Old Testament in a manner
which evidenced His total confidence in their factual historicity.
He acknowledged that Adam and Eve were created by God, that they were two real living human
beings, not merely symbols of mankind and womankind, and that they acted in specific ways
(Matt. 19:3-5; Mark 10:6-8).
He verified as historical events connected with the flood of Noah’s day; namely, that there was an
ark and that the flood destroyed everyone who was not in that ark (Matt. 24:38- 39; Luke 17:26-
27).
On two different occasions, He authenticated God’s destruction of Sodom, and the historicity of
Lot and his wife (Matt. 10:15; Luke 17:28-29).
He accepted as true the story of Jonah and the great fish (Matt. 12:40) and
acknowledged the historicity of Isaiah (Matt. 12:17), Elijah (Matt.17:11-12),
Daniel (Matt. 24:15), Abel (Matt. 23:35), Zechariah (Matt. 23:35), Abiathar
(Mark 2:26), David (Matt. 22:45), Moses and his writings (Matt. 8:4; John 5:46), Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob (Matt. 8:11; John 8:39),
Christ did not allude to these as mere moral stories, but He authenticated the events in them as
factual history to be completely trusted. These events include many of the passages of the Old
Testament against which radicals have raised, controversies like Creation, the Flood and major
miracles including Jonah and the giant sea-monster.
Obviously, our Lord felt that He had a reliable Bible, historically true, with every word being
trustworthy. If we find that He used or taught only in a general way about the Bible, then we must
conclude that He believed in its reliability only generally. On the other hand, if we find that He
relied on the minutiae of the Bible as accurate, then we must conclude that He believed it to be
inerrant down to its minutest details.
Some Concrete Biblical
Evidences For Inerrancy
1-THE EVIDENCE OF MATTHEW 4:1-11: The account of the temptation of our Lord reveals
some important matters concerning His view of the Bible.
First, Jesus accepted the plenary inspiration of the Bible; when first approached by the devil to
turn stones into bread, our Lord replied that man lives by every word that proceeds from the
mouth of God (Matt. 4:4 quoting Deut. 8:3). He did not say "some words" but "EVERY word". If
Scripture is breathed out from God (II Tim. 3:16), then all Scripture must be included in what
sustains man. Not merely parts of Scripture but all of it.
Second, Jesus’ response to Satan’s attacks negates every view of errancy. He said, "It is written"
(Matt. 4:4,7,10). He did not say, "It witnesses". He relied on statements from the Bible to convey
truth in and of themselves and to convey it accurately.
2-THE EVIDENCE OF MATTHEW 5:17-18: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the
Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth
pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law until all is
accomplished". The verse is not only a statement of fact, but also a promise about the Bible made
by the Lord Jesus Himself. Several things should be noticed.
First, what is the promise ? It is that the Law and the Prophets will NOT be abolished, but be
fulfilled. Christ is guaranteeing that the all the guarantees and statements of the Bible shall surely
be fulfilled.
Second, what all in included in this promise ? The "Law and the Prophets" included all of the Old
Testament, our Lord’s Bible. "Law" in verse 18 means the same thing (compare the use of "Law"
in John 10:34 where it includes more than the Mosaic Law).
Third, in what detail will all the promises of the Old Testament be fulfilled ? The Lord said we can
count on all the Old Testament promises being fulfilled down to the very jots and tittles (KJV). An
explanation of "jot and tittle" would be helpful to the non-Hebrew readers.
THE JOT: The jot is the Hebrew letter titled YODH. It is the smallest of all the letters in the Hebrew
alphabet. It would occupy proportionately about the same amount of space that an English
apostrophe takes up in a line of English type. Actually, the Hebrew letter looks very much like an
English apostrophe. Though it is the smallest of the Hebrew letters it is an important as any other
letter, for letters spell words and words compose sentences and sentences make promises. If we
spell a words one way, it is that word; if we spell it another way, even with only a single letter
differently, it is a different word. For example, "Tough" means strong. One letter changed spells as
"touch". One letter added makes it "though". Single letters are enough to change words. Thus our
Lord promised that not one jot would fail. Every promise will be fulfilled exactly as it has been
spelled out.
Many people (influenced by the radical theologians) believe and teach that Biblical writers were
inspired only with ‘concepts’ and that inspiration did not extend to the words used by the Biblical
writers. We must observe here that Christ does not start with concepts and then allow for optional
words to be used to convey those concepts (contrary to what proponents of "concepts-inspiration"
teach). He begins the other way around. The promises are based on the words as spelled out in
the Holy Writ and those words can be relied on fully and in detail.
Neither did our Lord say that the promises would be fulfilled provided they were culturally relevant
at the time of fulfillment. In some theological circles it has become fashionable today to say that
promises and commands of the Bible are to be culturally reinterpreted. This is a subtle attempt to
invalidate the original promises as spelled out in the Old Testament.
THE TITTLE: A "tittle" is even more MINUTE than a Jot. Whereas a Jot is a whole letter, a "tittle" is
only a PART of a letter. The presence of a tittle forms a certain letter, but its absence causes that
letter to become a different one. For example, the Hebrew letter BETH and KAPH look very similar.
The only difference between the two letters is that the bottom horizontal line on the BETH extends
slightly to the right of the vertical line, whereas no extension appears on the KAPH. That
extension (not the entire bottom horizontal line but only the part of it that extends to the right of
the vertical line) is a tittle. If it is present then the letter is a BETH; if it is absent, it is a KAPH.
And whether you use a BETH or a KAPH will decide what word it would ultimately be. According to
the Lord, even such tiny differences were there by God’s ordinance.
There are many other places where the presence or absence of the tittle makes a difference.
While it is easy for an ordinary copyist to overlook the presence of the tittle, the Lord made it very
clear that it is an important part of the inspired scriptures. The Lord’s affirmation was that all of
the promises of the Old Testament will be fulfilled precisely as they were spelled out, in their
minutest details.
In English we might illustrate a tittle this way. Suppose I invite you to my house to have some
"Fun". You might rightly wonder what I consider fun. If I put a tittle or small stroke on the F, then
you might conclude that I like to "Pun". Punning is fun to me. There’s nothing like a fast repartee
of puns with someone. But you may not enjoy making puns, so I’ll put another tittle on the letter.
Now I have spelled "Run". To run is fun for some, but not to me. So I’ll add another tittle and now
I am inviting you over to have a "Bun". The difference between Fun, Pun, Run and Bun is just the
addition of a tittle in each case. But four entirely different words result, and with them, four
different invitations:
3-THE EVIDENCE OF JOHN 10:31-38: Often minute things do make a difference. Towards the
end of His earthly ministry the Lord again reaffirmed His total confidence in the reliability of the
minutest elements of the Scripture. At the temple celebration of the Feast of Dedication, or
Hanukkah (instituted in 165 B.C to commemorate the cleansing and reopening of the temple after
its desecration by Antiochus Epiphanus three years earlier), the Jews asked Jesus to tell them
plainly if He is the Messiah (John 10:24).
His answer was, "I and the Father are One." The words "one" is neuter, "one thing", not "one
person". In other words, He did not assert that He and the Father are identical but that He and
the Father possess essential unity together, that He enjoys perfect unity of nature and of actions
with His Father. The Jews had asked if He were the Messiah. His answer was more than they had
bargained for, for in it He claimed also to be equal with God.
This was certainly the way they understood His claim, for immediately they prepared to stone the
Lord for what they considered to be blasphemy. In order to restrain them the Lord appealed to
Psalm 82. He called this portion of the Old Testament "the Law" (John 10:34), as He did on two
other occasions (John 12:34 and 15:25). In that Law, He said the judges of Israel, human beings,
were called "gods" by virtue of their high and God-given office. Then, He concluded, if that Psalm
can apply the term "gods" to human beings, then certainly the term "Son of God" may be rightly
applied to the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world. In other words, if the title
Elohim is applied to men, how much more appropriate it is to apply it to Himself, since He does
possess essential unity with the Father.
Though this argument is highly sophisticated, certain claims Christ made here about the Bible can
clearly be deduced:
The Bible is verbally inspired: He pointed the Jews to what had been written. God’s Word came in
written prepositional statements, not merely in concepts, thoughts, or oral tradition. It is the
written record that was inspired and that can be relied on.
The Bible is inspired even in what looks as minor statements: Psalm 82 is not what would be
considered a major Old Testament passage. It is not a psalm of David nor a messianic psalm. This
is not said to demean the psalm in any way for, of course, it is equally inspired with all other parts
of the Bible, but it is to emphasize that the Lord did not pick up an outstanding passage on which
to base His argument. Indeed one might say, without being disrespectful, that He chose a rather
ordinary, run-of-the-mill passage. Of course, He could not have done so if He did not believe that
even such passages are God’s inerrant and inspired Word. Furthermore, from that ordinary
passage He focused on a single word, "gods". He could not have done so unless He believed in the
verbal inspiration of the minutest part of the Bible and also on any word in any part of the
statement.
The Bible is authoritatively inspired: In the midst of His sophisticated arguing the Lord threw in
almost incidentally the statement: "and the Scripture cannot be broken". What does this mean ?
Simply that the Scripture cannot be emptied of its authority. The only way it could fail to have
complete authority would be if it were erroneous, but Christ said that here it is both authoritative
and inerrant. Christ was here staking His life on the reliability, accuracy, and authority of just one
word of Scripture when His enemies were about to stone Him.
4-THE EVIDENCE OF MATTHEW 22:23-33: Just as in John 10:34 in the present passage also
he based His argument on the written Word: not upon general concepts, but upon specific written
words. Specifically, He based His case on how God identified Himself to Moses at the burning
bush: " I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Matt. 22:32).
That proves, the Lord went on to say, that God is the God of the living, which means that
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still alive though they had died long before.
How does that identification prove the doctrine of life after death ? Simply by the use of the
present tense, "I am". Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had died several hundred years before God
spoke this way to Moses. Yet God said that He was still their God at the time He was speaking to
Moses. This would not have been possible if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ceased to exist upon their
death. It was only possible if, contrary to the Sadducees’ doctrine, death does not end it all.
The difference between "I am" and "I was" is only a matter of verb tense. This argument was
based on a present tense to support the doctrine of resurrection. The difference is only in the
tense of the verb used similar to we had or we have or I was their God or I am their God.
This interpretation of Christ has many ramifications, and let us observe carefully some of them
here:
1-He assumed as true the historicity of God’s appearance to Moses.
2-He assumed that God’s revelation came in a prepositional statements, not merely through non-
verbal ideas.
3-He assumed that every word of that statement could be trusted to be precisely accurate.
4-He assumed that doctrinal truth has to be based on historical accuracy. The Bible cannot be
inaccurate in matters of history and yet be accurate in doctrine.
5-He assumed that one could use even seemingly insignificant passages of Bible and trust their
accuracy.
5-THE EVIDENCE OF MATTHEW 22:41-46: Later that same day, when the Pharisees had joined the
crowd of antagonists, the Lord became the aggressor, asking a straight-forward question to them:
"About the Christ, whose son is He, (Matt. 22:24). Theirs was an immediate answer: "The Son of
David". The answer was correct but incomplete. Christ is the son of David as far as His humanity
is concerned, but He also is the Son of God, and the Lord wanted the Pharisees to acknowledge
this as well. So He asked them, "Then how does David address Him as Lord. He quoted Psalm
110:1. In that Psalm "the Lord (that is, the Father) said to my Lord (the Messiah who was David’s
Lord): ‘Sit at My right hand (the Father’s) until I (the Father) put Thine (the Messiah’s) enemies
beneath thy feet’.
How could David call Messiah his Lord if Messiah were only David’s son ? The only answer is:
because Messiah was also David’s God. In other words the Messiah had to be both God and man.
As man He was David’s son; as God, David’s Lord. The pronoun "my" links David to his Messiah-
Lord.
Natural procreation links Messiah to David as David’s descendant. The pronoun "my": in Psalm
110:1 links Messiah to David as David’s Lord God. And the pronoun "my" is simply a YODH that
smallest of Hebrew letters, attached to the word "Lord". We learn several things about the
Scriptures from our Lord’s attitude toward the Bible:
1-The spelling of words can be trusted completely, and not one promise will be fulfilled in any way
different from how it was spelled out.
2-The only way the Scripture can lose its authority is if it contains errors, but Christ taught that
the Scripture cannot be broken. Thus He must have believed it did not contain errors.
3-The Lord built sophisticated arguments on single words and even the tense of a verb.
Who can say he fully follows the Lord without accepting His teaching concerning the inerrancy of
the Scriptures?
Summary
The word of God is not only alive and powerful, but is also infallible and inerrant. Thus in the
original writings produced by the forty writers, even the words used came there by the inspiration
of the Holy Spirit. Inspiration gave such an integrity to the original text that even the smallest jot
and tittle was there by God’s guidance.
Doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility apply only to the original autographs of the Bible. Using tens
of thousands of manuscripts that archaeologists have discovered, scholars have been able to get
very close to the original autographs of the Bible. All what we said in this chapter applies to the
original autographs.