Theology and Apologetics

Jesus’ Apologetics

“Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love Me; for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.  Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar, and the father of lies.  But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.’”-John 8:42-45

In short—They do not hear or believe Him because they are not ‘of God’, or chosen by the Father (John 6:44, 6:65, 10:29).  This is comforting for apologists and evangelists in several ways:

First—we, unlike Jesus, do not know who the ‘elect’ or the ‘chosen’ are.
In this sense we can never declare something like this…but,

Second—this means that our hard work in learning a classical, Van Tillian, or ‘Masters Way’ approach, and our effort in speaking the gospel of the Kingdom of God is not ‘useless’.  Rather, we are to do the hard work, and persistently, but unbelief is to be expected of the un-elect.

Third—the principle of children of God vs. children of the Devil is first laid down in Genesis 3:15.  But for apologists and evangelists this principle means that  when a person does believe the gospel, it is evident that they are chosen by God, and regenerated (‘born from heaven’ or ‘born again’) by the Holy SPirit.  If this is the case we can rejoice!  For no one can snatch God’s children out of His hand, and the next call to persistent discipleship is then a joy.

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?

Dr. William Lane Craig vs. Dr. John Shook

Manifestly, then, this boasted popish rule of faith comes practically to this, that to the individual layman his individual priest is his rule of faith, his gospel! And this priest is uninspired; he works no miracle or sign to guarantee his lofty claim; he is perhaps not recognized in other respects as even a man of personal integrity or sanctity. Thus terribly may their cavil be retorted.

—Robert Lewis Dabney, “The Bible its Own Witness”

William Lane Craig on Christology and on Anselm’s argument

I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.

— Charles Haddon Spurgeon (via cicarson)

3. The implication of Gen. 3:22-32a points to another heightened goal of blessing in response to Adam’s faithfulness…it is likely that there is reference in Gen. 3:22 to what might be termed ‘consummative eating.’…Thus, even if Adam had been eating previously of the tree of life, this was to be a more decisive act of eating of that tree than had ever occurred…The reference is to a guarantee of ‘living forever’ if he eats decisively of this tree.

—G.K. Beale, “A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New”

2. This means that the command for Adam to ‘subdue, rule, and fill the earth’ includes uppermost that of him as a king functionally filling the earth, not merely with progeny, but with image-bearing progeny who will reflect God’s glory and special revelatory presence…
Adam and Eve and their progeny were to be vice-regents who were to act as God’s obedient children, reflecting God’s ultimate glorious kingship over the earth.

—G.K. Beale, “A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New”

It seems that Adam was promised some kind of greater blessing if he remained faithful…
First, included in carrying out the mandate of Gen. 1:28 likely was defeating and ruling over the evil serpent by remembering and trusting God’s word of command in 2:16-17…Adam as the preist-king, who prevented unclean things from entering the temple, should have discerned Eve’s misquotation of God’s word and the serpent’s capitalizing on it. Here it is important to recall that later priests in Israel’s temple were to be guardians who were to slay any unclean animal or person entering the temple precincts. Adam was to do the same. Furthermore, Adam should have slain and thus judged the serpent in carrying out the mandate of Gen. 1:28 to ‘rule and subdue.’…
In this light, the tree in Eden seems to have been the symbolic place where judgment was to be carried out…a judgment tree, the place where Adam should have gone to ‘discern between good and evil’ and, thus, where he should have judged the serpent as evil and pronounced judgment on it, as it entered the garden.

—G.K. Beale, in “A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New”.