Thursday

On Islam

​Islam is one of the major six religions in the world, and has come to light even more after the September 11th attacks in 2001. Many questions arose regarding the nature of the faith, and many answers were given that seemed to assert that the violence that was committed in the name of Allah was not in fact intrinsic to faith. Rather, the religion was actually a religion of peace, and these terrorists were simply extremists after whom the religion as a whole should not be characterized.    
​This essay will examine the nature of the Islamic faith, and will conclude whether the violence attributed to Islamic terrorists, is in fact intrinsic to the faith or not. It will also compare and contrast Islam to Christianity, by analyzing the different prophets and scrutinizing the faiths apologetically. The aim of this essay is to 1: show that these two religions do not simply worship the same god in different ways, and 2: answer that if only one can be true, which one is it?

Islam and Christianity
​First and foremost, we must acknowledge our perspective from which we examine the Islamic faith. Though we can never fully “step outside” of our own perspective, we must do our very best to examine objectively.  As a convert from Islam to Christianity, Tony Weedor has advised that “you can never use your western worldview to interpret Islam; you will always get it wrong.”
        The best example of this is in examining Allah, the god of Islam. We must not assume Allah is like the god of the Judeo-Christian faith. “The concept of God as ‘Allah’ is of a being thatis totally other, wholly transcendent to the point of implying that Allah is unknowable in himself but known in his will and requirements revealed in the Qur’an (Sura 42:11, 112:1-4). Islam is a monotheistic religion, like Christianity, however they deny the trinity, considering it polytheism, as well as denying the incarnation which is essential to the Christian faith (Col 2:9).
        Where did this faith come from? By asserting that it completes Christianity, Muslims maintain that their religion came from Abraham, through Ishmael, through the Arab people, and was revealed to Muhammed, the great prophet. This revelation came to Muhammed alone, in a cave, by the angel Gabriel. Before this, however, Muhammed had been told he was the prophet that was prophesied in Deuteronomy 18:15. More on the life of Muhammed will be reserved for the section below.
        This is where the concept of abrogation begins to surface.Completion involves retaining the former, whereas abrogation involves the abolishment of the former. “Although the Qur’an considers the Old and New Testaments as God’s word (Sura 3:93; 4:163; 5:46 etc.), it considers its own authority as greater than theirs (Sura 5:48). Not only does Islam abrogate Christianity, it abrogates former teachings of Islam in favor of latter teachings. For example, Muhammad’s first revelation taught that repayment should be made only to those who mistreat you, while his second revelation now teaches to conquer your whole region.
​As we do our best to put aside our western perspective, we must realize that the purpose of the Islamic faith is not merely religious. “True Islam functions within a community (the umma) that optimally carries its own political identity.” It is a “comprehensive reality – the state is to be as much Islamic as is the local mosque.” What proves crucial to the Islamic faith is its sheep’s clothing that it is simply a culture wanting freedom to practice their values. They are given their freedom under the first amendment. However, their exercise of this freedom is not found in simply worshipping their god, but rather in bringing in the Trojan horse of the very threat to the country which gives them this freedom in the first place.
​Islam works with three stages: the weakened, the preparation, and the Jihad stage. They begin by submitting to the law of the land, all the while working to increase their numbers.Islam grows principally through enculturation, procreation, intimidation, immigration, and capitulation. Muslim men seek to intermarry with the women of the area, and then they begin brainwashing their own children at the age of three. Tony has insightfully pointed out, that as Islam builds its army, it is of no surprise that they do not speak out against gay marriage or abortion. Though these are prohibited for a Muslim, the cause of Islam is actually aided when the infidels practice such things.
        Next is the preparation state, where preparations are made financially, physically, mentally, and militarily. Here we see the concept of Taqiyya surface, which “justifies and practices lying under war circumstances…lying and deceit are part of the Islamic mind-set.” This is also a crucial concept that must be understood in order to understand Islam.
        Once these two phases are complete, the Jihad stage beings. “At this stage every Muslim’s duty is to actively fight the enemy, overturning the system of the non-Muslim country and establishing Islamic authority.” This is exactly what we have seen with Islamic terrorist actions, but it would appear that these actions are not of the extremists, but rather what the faith calls for in order to fulfill its ultimate purpose.
​Christianity also stems from Abraham, but rather can be traced through Isaac, the Jewish people, and Jesus (who was not simply a prophet). The God of Christianity is also singular, however he is Trinitarian by nature and came to the earth (1 John 2:22-23). “That’s the difference, brothers and sisters, God came down.” God is transcendent, but he is also immanent and personal. He is knowable and is unchanging, unlike Allah.
​The Christian faith is not lacking in anything and therefore not able to be completed by anything else. In response to the claim the Islam does simply what the New Testament of the Bible does to the Old Testament, David Nobel explains that “Islam is not to Christianity as Christianity is to the Old Testament [because] the New Testament appeals to, depends upon, and develops from the Old Testament.”
        Salvation is through faith, and with it comes assurance (Eph 2:8, Titus 3:5-6, John 10:28). This is opposed to Islamic salvation which is attained through works, and it never comes with a sense of assurance, and how could it if Allah is not immutable? Christianity grows principally through prayer (Matt 6:5-13), teaching (Matt 28:18-20), preaching (Rom 10:14), service (1 Peter 4:11) and demonstration of love (John 13:35). It is a winsome proclaims of the life-giving news of the Gospel, rather than the intimidation, threat, and fear that drives Islam.

Jesus and Muhammad
​There were many prophecies regarding the birth of Jesus throughout the Old Testament. Muhammad had also been prophesied over, as we saw earlier. A man by the name of Bahira, who claimed to be a Christian (all the while denying Jesus as son of God), told Muhammad’s uncle that he was the final prophet. Jesus embraced the beliefs of his people, and was aware of his identity as mediator (John 14:6). Muhammad was not a mediator, but rather, a final prophet. He initially embraced the beliefs of his family, the Quraysh tribe, but then later tried to persuade them of his own revelation.  Both of these men experience times of testing during their ministry. Jesus was directly tempted by Satan and Muhammad experienced a time where he did not receive many revelations. “Jesus was confident about his purpose and identity from the very beginning. He was not troubled by his time of testing. In contrast, Muhammad became suicidal when his revelations stopped coming.”
​Jesus and Muhammad were both rejected during their ministries: Jesus, by his hometown and religious leaders, and Muhammad, by his very own Quraysh tribe. He was harassed and insulted. His followers were boycotted. It is interesting, that around this time, the revelations Muhammad received often included rebukes of the very people whom were persecuting him. “Jesus showed frustration and anger with the religious leaders… He also used parables to protest their actions (Matt 21:28-46; 22:1-14). However, he did not attempt to cause physical harm to any of them.”
Jesus relied on preaching and healing throughout his ministry. Once the boycott of Muhammad’s followers was repealed, he attempted to rely on preaching alone. However, his“efforts met little success.” Both Jesus and Muhammad appointed 12 key people to work with them. Both Muslims and Christians look to these men as moral exemplars for what their lives should imitate. Every Muslim wants to be like Muhammad. “The Hadith presents Muhammad as the exemplary human whom Muslims must imitate in all respects.”
        Jesus did give authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal (Matt 10:1), however, he always taught his followers to leave the judgment to God, even when they were persecuted (Matt 10:14-19). Muhammad’s first revelation gave permission to fight anyone who rejects Islam, only to be replaced by his second revelation which was to spread Islam by force. “Jesus practiced his ministry the same way from beginning to end. But in Muhammad’s life, there was an event that marked a major change”
        In Mecca, Muhammad displayed cooperation, tolerance and forgiveness. However, “this soft lamb turned into a roaring lion.” Muhammad’s Islamic ministry went from preaching, to using the sword. He went from being perceived as a priest to a military commander. He went from one wife to twelve, and he went from fighting idol worshiper a to fighting the Jews and Christians.

Inconsistent Nature of Islam
​The nature of Islam proves to be quite inconsistent. It does not have a correspondence theory of truth. Winifred Corduan has penned that “Islam can be a paradoxical religion.” We see this through the later revelations of Muhammad that abrogate his previous revelations. We even see this within the concept ofTaqiyya, where even lying is justified under the cause of Allah.Tony Weedor has quipped that “one of the dirty secrets of Islam is that in a way it is relativistic.”
        Muslims hold that the biblical prophets of the Old and New Testaments originally taught Islam, while they simultaneously deny the reliability of those very scriptures because the Bible does not teach Islam. However, “they have never successfully shown that the Bible is corrupted.”
        C.S. Lewis insightfully gave a moral argument for the existence of God, claiming that God necessarily had to be good.What we see in the Islamic faith, is that “certain actions are good not because they derive from God’s character, but because God chooses to call them good.” Again, even good is not defined by an ultimate standard, but rather by the whims of this false god. If good is relative, then is anything really evil? A Muslim cannot consistently maintain that goodness is relative, and yet anything that opposes Islam is evil.
​The logical conclusion of the Muslim’s presupposition, being the Islamic faith, proves to be unlivable. “Once a Muslim starts thinking, they are on their way to becoming Christian.”However, we must realized that what keeps a Muslim a Muslim is not the truth claims of the faith, but rather what seems to be a crippling fear of Allah.

Conclusion
       “The West is a sucker for anything that sounds tolerant or broadminded.” In spite of these American “virtues,” we must recognize Islam for what it is: “a political, cultural and religious system…a religious primarily oriented toward law rather than theology.” As has been shown above, we must also realize that “to claim that [Christians, Jews, and Muslims] worship the same God is misleading.”
        The call for Christians is to be salt and light in the earth.“We must set [Muslims] free with the gospel.” It is interesting that Muslims try to make Mohammed into a mediator, though he never claimed to be. This speaks psychologically and anthropologically to the human condition.

Muslims are hungry for truth because they are disenchanted with the spirit of deception in Islam.  Muslims are thirsty for love, forgiveness and mercy. Muslims are searching for peace in this world because they are disillusioned by the religious jihad, which leads to bloodshed and hatred. Women are frustrated with persecution and denial of their rights. Muslims are longing for a personal relationship with God as the Savior.

     As Christians, we must first be informed (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 Peter 3:15-16). “Early Islam spread largely through force; the radical Muslims of the twenty-first century desire to return to that golden age.” We must also be courageous and act (2 Timothy 1:7; James 2:14-26), in spite of the threat(s) we may receive.
     “Islamic countries are among the most vociferous persecutors of Christians, presenting probably the greatest missionary challenge to the Church and exhibiting the most prominent external threat to the biblical values of freedom, justice, and order.” In this we find our opportunity to suffer for Christ (Phil 1:29), knowing that God does not want anyone to perish but rather to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).
​The Islamic community has been deceived and it is the very threat of Allah which keeps them from seeing the truth. They should be engaged gently, yet logically. Our compassion for the lost should drive us in our endeavors, yet we should never coward in the name of tolerance to keep from exposing the realities of threats. In the words of Jesus himself, we should seek to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves (Matt 10:16).


Bibliography

Weeder, Tony. Class Lecture in Religious Pluralism, Denver Seminary, Littleton CO, October, 29,​2013.

Hyseni, Nezir. “Tolerance and the Qur’an: Understanding the Unavoidable Islam,” Answering Islam. November 7,2013, accessed October 29, 2013.

Noebel, David. Understanding The Times: The Collision of Today's Competing Worldviews, 2nd​Ed. Manitou Springs: Summit Press , 2006.

Gabriel, Mark. Islam and Terrorism. Lake Mary: FrontLine, 2002.

Gabriel, Mark. Jesus and Muhammed. Lake Mary: FrontLine,2004.

Corduan, Winifried.  Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions, 2nd ed. Downers Grove: InverVarsity, 2012.

Groothuis, Douglas. Class Lecture in Religious Pluralism, Denver Seminary, Littleton CO,​October, 29,2013.

Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. New York: HarperCollins, 2001.

Tuesday

Modus Tollens: Reliability of Logic

A recent fascination with truth, and also with the technical language of philosophy, brought me to this conclusion, prompted by a comment from a fellow classmate in Advanced Apologetics.


Modus Tollens in an argument form which denies the consequent:

- If P, then Q
- Not Q
- Therefore, not P

Apply this to the reliability of logic.

- If logic is ever not reliable, it is never reliable.
- Logic is reliable.
- Therefore, logic is always reliable.

Simple, yet controversial.

Sunday

The Philosophy of Postmodernism


     Postmodern is a defining characteristic of the culture in which we live, however, it has been around for centuries. Postmodernism reduces to relativism and permeates to every area of life, and it is the aim of this essay to make this point very clear. Especially for the Christian, the concept of relativity serves as quite the obstacle.  “The root of [this] obstacle today is the postmodernist redefinition and degradation of truth.”
     Truth has been defined, and traditionally accepted, as: that which corresponds to reality. When postmodernism redefines truth, it is implying that truth is no longer considered what corresponds to reality. Once this concept of truth is lost,everything is reduced to perspective and preference; however there is no room for an objective standard.
     Postmodernism “involves loss of optimism and confidence in human progress, incredulity toward metanarratives, skepticism, suspicion of claims to truth, exuberant celebration of diversity, relativism, pragmatism, and pluralism.” Sadly, some would rejoice at this comment, and exclaim “Yes, this is the appropriate way to conceive of reality!” Paul refers to this type of understanding as “wisdom of the world,” and instructs the believer to not be deceived by it (1 Cor 3: 18-20).
     This essay will serve to show that postmodernism as a philosophy reduces to relativism, is illogical, and is therefore unlivable. It will also look at postmodernism in relation to Christianity, and comment on the challenge of the Christian apologist and evangelist.

Postmodernism as a philosophy
     It is interesting to examine postmodernism under the lens of philosophy, because what is discovered, is its self-refuting nature. Comment on this will be reserved for the section below.
     In order for the postmodern philosophy to get off the ground, it must first seek to redefine truth. They assert that in remains unknowable in its current regards, and therefore in order to know truth, we must redefine it. Instead of the previous definition, postmodernists regard “truth as socially constructed, contingent, inseparable from the peculiar needs and preferences of certain people in a certain time and place. This notion has many implications – it leaves no value, custom, belief, or eternal verity totally untouched.” This very redefinition underscores the whole philosophy; things can be changed, nothing is absolute, and all is relative.
     As a philosophy, postmodernism not only attacks truth, but is very abrasive to anyone who subscribes to the “ludicrous” notion that we can even know truth in the first place. These people are labeled as intolerant and bigoted.  “Postmodernists fret mightily about arrogance and dogmatism, but to avoid them they typically rebound into the equal and opposite errors of cheap tolerance and relativism.”
     The question that arises is can this cheap tolerance and relativism withstand the scrutiny of philosophy? If the discipline of philosophy is dedicated to studying truth and reality, then the worldview of postmodernism ends “up being more of a preference or prejudice than a philosophically argued position.”

Engaging postmodernism
     Postmodernism can and should be engaged apologetically. One way to engaged people apologetically, is it to push them to the logical conclusion of their proposition. When this is done with the postmodernist, it becomes quite apparent that their philosophy commits the fallacy of self-refutation.
     If an essential part of postmodernism is that there are no ultimate standards, then this applies to even language. The postmodernist believes that even semantics are arbitrary, yet they use words to express their various points. According to the fine print of their teaching, it would be allowable for someone to completely misinterpret the postmodernist. So why then even speak?
     Postmodernism carries with it incredulity towards metanarratives. It asserts that rather, everything is determined by biological and cultural forces, leaving no place for judgment. However, this very notion undercuts itself, because the postmodernist places themselves as judge for all those who disagree.
     Included in their attack on truth is an attack on logic, because it has been associated with the rationalism of the Enlightenment. However, the postmodernists is not able to break free from using it. In stating that postmodernism is the best philosophy, are they not implying that it possesses its own identity? Thus they invoke the law of identity. If the postmodernism claims a different philosophy is not right, are they not invoke the law of non-contradiction, which is necessary for something to be considered wrong?
     In the claim that we cannot know truth, postmodernism conflates the categories of metaphysics and epistemology, byimplying that therefore truth (in its classical form)must not exist. Though humans are surely flawed, this does not mean we are completely hopeless to know anything as true. “The hazards of human reasoning count nothing against the validity of logic itself.” What is more, is not this very implication a truth claim made by the postmodernist themself? They seem to be saying that we cannot know truth because of our limited perspective, yet are they then claiming to have the perspective from which it is allowable to claim the truth of this statement?
     “There is a real world consisting of logical and moral truths that serves as ‘the last word,’ and it cannot be dissolved into nature or culture.” If it could, it would be anchorless, even for the very philosophy that teaches it.  “Postmodernism reduces to nihilism because there is no final standard. It’s as if they say this with a smile on their face.” The Christian should be disturbed by this and spurred to action. Paul has taught us to speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15), even when dealing with the very people who carry this smile, because we know it is only masking the bondage of a deceptive philosophy. Only the truth will truly set us free (John 8:32). 


The challenge of postmodernism to Christian apologetics
     “Speaking truth in love” is easier said than down. As the postmodernists undermines the notion of truth, the task of the believer only becomes harder. How would the Bible be interpreted through the lens of postmodernism? It would undermine the Gospel message. How can the truth set us free, if it is not regarded as absolute, uncompromising, exclusive, unchanging truth? Through the lens of postmodernism,  men cannot be culpable for the rejection of Christ. How can grace, defined as giving something that is not deserved, be received if one does not see themselves as underserving? “Only if we recognize that the truth of truth… is today in doubt, and that this uncertainty stifles the word as a carrier of God’s truth and moral judgment, do we fathom the depth of the present crisis.”
     The Bible teaches a correspondence view of truth because the truth value of a proposition can only be assessed by its correspondence with reality. However, as has been shown, this runs completely contradictory to what postmodernism teaches. Because “the basic laws of logic… and argument forms… constitute proper thinking, [and] are not contingent social constructions,” we must rely on these very things to expose the nature of the philosophy of postmodernism.
     We know that the Lord is near to those who call on him, but we also know that they must call on him in truth (Ps 145:18).It is our job, as evangelizers, to winsomely argue for the truth that is assumed in this verse.

Without a thorough and deeply rooted understanding of the biblical view of truth as revealed, objective, absolute, universal, eternally engaging, antithetical and exclusive, unified and systematic, and as end in itself, the Christian response to postmodernism will be muted by the surrounding culture and will make illicit compromises with the truth-impoverished spirit of the age.

Conclusion
     “Truth is a daunting, difficult thing; it is also the greatest thing in the world.” For the Christian, called to be ambassadors for Christ, begging the world to be reconciled to God, (2 Cor 5:20), we must accept the confrontational nature of this task.The concept of truth must be the evangelizer’s primary focus when engaging with the postmodernist. When they “seek to disparage metanarratives, deconstruct truth into language games and render spirituality a mixture of subjectively compelling elements, evangelicals must bring objective truth back to the table as the centerpiece of concern.”
     G. K. Chesterton has insightfully penned that “pragmatism is a matter of human needs; and one of the first of human needs is to be something more than a pragmatist.” Our compassion should drive us in our task, as we were once far away ourselves until saved by the blood of Christ (Ephesians 2:13). We cannot compromise on the absolute nature of the truth of the Gospel, because again, it is the only thing that will set us free (John 8:32).



Bibliography
Groothuis, Douglas. , Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of ​Postmodernism. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000.
Netland, Harold. Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission. ​Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001.
Anderson, Walter. The Future of the Self: Inventing the Postmodern Person. New York: Jeremy ​P Tarcher/Putnam, 1997.
Groothuis, Douglas, Class Lecture in Advanced Apologetics, Denver Seminary, Littleton CO, ​October , 28, 2013.
Henry, Carl. God, Revelation, and Authority. Waco: Word, 1976.
Chesterton, G. K. Chesterton. Orthodoxy. 1908; reprint, New York: Doubleday, 1959.

Friday

Does the Ontological argument reduce to, "If God exists, he exists," ?

I'm sorry, what?

I was introduced to the Ontological argument last fall. However, while trying to just keep my head above water while in my first semester of seminary, I did not spend too much time trying to understand it (please don't disown me, my dear professors).

Now taking advanced apologetics, the Ontological argument has reared its face once again. I confess that my initial thought was that it simply reduced to: "If God exists, he exists." Profound, I know. I shall pen my thoughts on the subject in this forum as opposed to writing an academic paper. Although, based on my previous syllabus reading skills, I might come to find out that I actually am required to write this paper, in which case I would gladly appreciate your comments.


The Ontological argument takes a variety of forms, but basically reduces to

1) We can conceive of a greatest possible being (please don't try to tell me that we cannot, because I am conceiving of one right now).

2) It is greater to exist in reality than to merely exist in understanding.

3) A greatest possible being therefore necessarily exists in reality.

4) Therefore, a greatest possible being exists.

This argument was put forth by Anselm in the 11th century, and has been scrutinized by contemporary philosopher Alvin Plantiga, among others. After taking apart, rewording, and expanding (to 33 premises) Anselm's argument, Plantiga advises that though the argument is sound, it does not serve as a proof for the existence of God. "It establish not the truth of theism, but its rational acceptability."

Don't worry. After reflection on both, I no longer think this argument is simple enough to reduce to the tautology "if God exists, he exists." I would therefore begin by placing myself in Plantiga's camp by accepting that this argument is sound but questioning if is serves as explicit proof for the existence God. It does make me think, though, how one would respond to this argument if they did not accept it as sound. And, if they did accept it as sound, but not true, then one (or more) or the premises must be false. However, this modus ponens argument is logical and consisting of true premises. What then do we do with it?

Wednesday

Defining away the problem

When Person-x pushes Person-y to the logical conclusion of their proposition (in an effort to change their mind) and it is realized it is unlivable, Person-y cannot simply define the problem away by saying, "that's not what I meant by ___."

1) If a new word was chosen, the argument would still prove unlivable per its retention of the essence of the proposition.

2) If a new meaning of the same word was chosen, thus changing the essence of the proposition, I would venture to say it would probably agree with Person-x.

3) In order to remain intellectually accountable, Person-y must be willing to admit this when it happens, and cannot simply deny it based on the fact that it contradicts his initial proposition. 

4) The goal is truth, and the essence of truth is: what corresponds to reality. It is not a power play, a philosophical game, or a religious manipulation. 

5) The law of bivalence states that each proposition has one of only two truth values: it is either true or false. Thus every proposition is either true or false, based on the truth maker as being: that which corresponds to reality.

6) Truth claims are not personal attacks, and when someone takes it personally, they are revealing their priority is not to discover truth, but to get away with ____.


Sunday

As of late


Balancing work, school, and what is left of a social life, the blog as finally ended its sabbatical.

Below are 6 papers that have been submitted within the last year. I am aware my sources are not being listed properly, but I do have them should anyone desire to verify or read for additional research. I by no means want to portray plagiarism, or to not respect original authors through giving credit.

In addition to the papers, a simple update;

Classes in Religious Pluralism, Advanced Apologetics, and Theology are currently informing my life, both academically and spiritually. I am being challenged in ways different from every before, as this semester has thus far presented itself quite differently. Honestly, the past year has not been that demanding besides the occasional stress that is alleviated in a day or two. I keep telling myself that these current hardships are making this part of my life more meaningful, because "if it was easy, everyone would do it," right?

These past few months have been characterized by sleepless nights and lots of tears. The pun-reference to Seminary being like a Cemetery for the faith has sadly been personally accurate as of late. As I focus so much on the immutability and goodness of God, I have not rested in His personal nature, and have come to regard him as a Cosmic Brain of which I am becoming an expert. I have been challenged to recognize and deal with this through my Spiritual Formation process. (Through all of this I have actually come to view that class in much less of a cynical attitude. Point for honesty?)

With the hardships this season of life is presenting, I have found myself crying out to the Lord to show me that He is personal. Prayer and thoughtful time spent in Proverbs has been the only source of strength or peace I have received, and this keeps me going back for more.

I am supposed to be thankful for what brings me closer to the Lord, right? I know the Sunday School answer is to focus on His perfect desires and not my immediate selfish desires, but this shift of perspective will require nothing short of a miracle. I am weak.  

Semantic Mysticism

        Epistemology and Apologetics are mutually reinforcing and important
for the evangelistic task given to every believer (Matthew 28:16-20). They
are also both foundational in our efforts to mimic Paul in his desire to
become all things to all people in order to win them over (1 Corinthians 9:
19-23). However, one thing Evangelicals must be extremely aware of, is
what Francis Schaeffer calls semantic mysticism. This refers to the idea of words being used without proper regards to their definition. This occurs
when a word is written or spoken according to the whims of the speaker or
writer, rather than according to a proper definition. In conversations
regarding religion generally and specifically, certain words tend to be used
with more of a subjective connotation than an actual definition. We must
be sensitive to recognizing this, and intentional to steer clear of using it
ourselves.
        This essay will explore the relationship between epistemology and
apologetics, and highlight proper semantic understanding as foundational
for both. The scope of this paper is limited to highlighting a few examples
of terms misused in the apologetics and epistemology fields.


Epistemology

        Epistemology is the study of knowledge, defined as justified true
belief. Everyone has a belief system, no matter how justified or
unjustified. What turns this belief into knowledge is its justification and
its correspondence with reality. Many examples have been given by
philosophers through the years of statements which only meet two of
these criteria, such as justified belief which does not correspond to reality,
or belief which happens to be true but is not justified.
        A belief could be held, such as a belief that my sister is at the library
studying. My justification, would be that if my sister has shown herself to
keep her word in the past, and said she was on her way to study in the
library 15 minutes ago, and it takes 10 minutes to get to the library, she
therefore must be at the library studying. However, unknown to me she
has his terrible traffic and is not in the library studying. This justified
belief of mine would therefore not correspond to reality, and therefore I
could not say that I know that she is in the library studying, no matter
how justified I am in my belief.
        A belief could, however, be true but not be justified. A student could
be in the middle of taking a multiple choice test, and come across a
question of which he is uncertain about the answer. He could guess, based on the which letter he has chosen the least, and turn out to be correct. He
believes he is correct, and happens to be correct, however I would argue
that he is not justified in his belief. This would therefore be called simply
true belief.
        The importance for knowledge as opposed to belief is found in the
desire to become conversant with those by which one finds themselves
surrounded, especially for the Christian. When we attempt to argue for
Christianity from religious experience, or simply personal belief, we have
to realize we cannot gain much, if any, ground with our audience. However, when we argue in regards to objective justification and correspondence to
reality for a specific belief that we hold, our audience will be faced with a
decision to affirm or deny reality.

Apologetics

        Apologetics deals with the various arguments regarding various truth
claims. Christian apologetics, specifically, defends the truth-claims of
Christianity. Apologetic methods involve premises which lead to
conclusions. These methods expose justification, or lack thereof, which is
necessary for knowledge. Though these methods may vary, they all appeal
to reality. All would be done in vain if they did not, and hence the truth
criteria for knowledge.
        The discipline of apologetics in the Christian context, serves to show
Christian doctrinal claims as objectively true and rationally compelling.
This stems from a Biblical mandate to have a reason for the hope that is
within us (1 Peter 3:15). This will be in regards to logical arguments for
the existence of God, scientific arguments for Creation, the moral
argument for the fall, the historical argument for Jesus death, life, and
resurrection. All of these cases are made in the Bible, but we need to be
able to make a case for it to have the reason for our own presupposition
and to form a common ground with our audience.
        We must realize we need strategies for entering into these
conversations, as most people are already a little defensive and possibly
even annoyed when religion is brought into the conversation. This is where
we can draw on epistemology in our apologetic endeavors. We can
question knowledge in any common belief claim, such as morality, and
show that through the justification which follows there must be a source
outside of ourselves where we get this basic belief. Thus, door for the
conversation has been opened for the eventual sharing the gospel. "The reason our minds and senses are trustworthy is that God designed them to
work reliably in the world He created...God created the mine to know
truth."
        God is the only reason or source for basic beliefs, and therefore
these beliefs are a good place to start challenging those who do not
believe in God. Once logic has been affirmed as a basic belief, we can
make logical arguments which cannot be denied. Once history can be
accepted as reliable, we can make strong historical arguments, and the
same is true for morals and science. Apologetics lays out types of
arguments and uses them to apply to certain contexts, and epistemology
holds us intellectually accountable to accept what has been proven as
knowledge.
        It is here where the importance for a proper semantic structure lies.
All arguments could potentially be made in vain without a structure which
enforces the proper use of words in regards to their actual definition.

Semantic Mysticism

        Semantics are the ways we use words with a given meaning, and
semantic mysticism implies using a mysterious meaning, unknown to the
audience. This happens in every discipline, and is sometimes of little to no
importance. However, there is potential danger that is brought when it
starts spreading to and through religious language, which we are seeing in
our world today.
        When words crucial to Christianity become relative in their meaning,
like knowledge, belief, faith, and truth, everything we say in regards to
Christianity becomes relative. We are therefore preaching an un-Christian
message, in light of the fact that Christianity is intrinsically absolute and
objective. Therefore, proper semantics are of utmost importance in any of
our evangelistic efforts.
        What must be made prior to, and during, any apologetic or
epistemological conversation, is an agreement on how words are being
used. A constant defining of words rather than just quickly using them and
moving on, is of utmost importance if we wish to be understood.
Many times, regardless of proper definitions, people use words to
connote whatever they please, leaving their audience unaware and
vulnerable to false teaching. Other times, people use words properly but
are unaware their audience hears these words with a different meaning,
based on a variety of factors.
        We let our young men and women go out unarmed in a day when
armor was never so necessary. By teaching them to read, we have left
them at the mercy of the printed word. By the invention of the film
and the radio, we have made certain that no aversion to reading shall
secure them from the incessant battery of words, words, words. They
do not know what the words mean; they do not know how to ward
them off or blunt their edge or fling them back; they are a prey to
words in their emotions instead of being the masters of them in their
intellects....We have lost the tools of learning, and in their absence
can only make a botched and piecemeal job of it.
        As was stated in the introduction, certain words succumb to semantic
mysticism more often than others. In conversations regarding apologetics
and epistemology, more often than not words such as knowledge, belief,
faith, and truth are used however the author sees fit. Each of these words
will be examined light of their proper definitions and examples of how they
are actually used.

Knowledge

        The term knowledge, briefly addressed above, is defined as justified
true belief, (from hereon JTB). This term is one blatant example of
semantic mysticism in the disciples of apologetics and epistemology. Many
people have uttered "I know this" and "I know that" when in fact they
know nothing of the subject about which they are speaking. They are
conflating the terms know and believe, and when this is done it can easily
lead people astray. The phrase "I know God does not exist" could lead
someone astray because they assume the term know implies justification,
when in reality this statement is simple a false belief (because this is not
knowledge at all). The Bible acknowledges the reality of false teachers and
has very strong words for them.
        But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will
also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive
heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift
destruction upon themselves (2 Peter 2:1)
        As evangelicals, we do not want to swing to the opposite side of this
and try to persuade people based on simply true belief, just so they can
enter the world of ideas unequipped. Douglas Groothuis has said
"evangelize people as soon as possible but no sooner," meaning that a
proper working knowledge system must be in place for Christian truth to be accepted as knowledge.
        We must also continually challenge ourselves to have reasons for our
beliefs, otherwise there is nothing that sets us apart from any other
person arguing from religious experience which may in fact contradict
Christianity. The term belief provides another example of a word often
misused.

Belief

        Knowledge is reduced to belief when it is either lacking justification
or correspondence to reality. However, many times the two terms are still
conflated in their use. W. Jay Wood has said "that behind many objections
to religious belief is an epistemological viewpoint detailing... what
requirements a person must satisfy in order to have knowledge about
anything," and continues to conflates religious belief with knowledge
throughout the rest of his epistemology book.
        A misunderstanding of the concept of belief could also lead one to
misinterpret Scripture. In Acts we read that "believe in the Lord Jesus
Christ and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31), but then we read in James that
"even the demons believe and shudder" (James 2:19). Is it then mere
belief that saves us? This would require more of a Lexicon word study, but
many people do not follow up with this step. They hear in Church "believe
in Jesus," and they have a conversation with someone that does not
believe in him. This Church-goer has been told that belief is what saves
them, so why would they appeal to objective knowledge in the reality of
Jesus in order to have a conversation with this unbeliever?
        What must be stressed, is that beliefs are only worth having if they
do in fact correspond to reality, which would become known through a
process of justification, and would therefore lead to knowledge. However,
when this Church-goer tells his non-believing friend to just believe, his
friend probably hears this in terms of subjective personal belief, which is
not how Scripture was using the term in the verse from where the preacher
originally taught.
        As illustrated, semantic mysticism has exponential negative effects.
Just how the term belief is easily reduced to meaning subjective personal
belief, so has the term faith been reduced. To this term we now turn our
attention.

Faith

        The write has defined the term faith as "Ĺ“evidence in things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). However, many times in contemporary Christian culture
the term is used in place of what atheists refers to as "God of the Gaps."
This accusation implies that whenever Christians find themselves unable
to understand or explain something, they throw out their good Sunday
School answer: God! Atheists are able to see this for what it is, a blind
leap of faith, and so should we. What an insult to a knowable father who
has created us in his own image with minds to affirm his generous
revelation of Himself. What is more, we are never called to make a blind
leap of Faith.
        Soren Kierkegaard is a prime example of a believer using the term
faith without proper regards to its definition. Instead of faith being used
to connote belief inspite of things unseen, because of evidence,
Kierkegaard uses the term to imply complete blind leap. He says that "the
transition to the Christian mode of life is not by means of intellectual
apprehension" and that "Christian faith is against understanding."  He
"protests against the inference that Christian faith must be subordinated
eventually to scientific and philosophical knowledge." His use of the term
in obvious contradiction to scripture is evident in his writing that "instead
of faith we have substituted assurance about faith."
        An accusation might be given that evidence and reason does not
leave room for faith. I would disagree, in light of the following example. As
an agnostic physicist, cosmologist and astronomer, Robert Jastrow has
said in regards to creation that "now we see how the astronomical
evidence supports the biblical view." He also gives an insightful quote
about a scientist who "has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about
to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is
greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for
centuries." However, in spite of the evidence, Jastrow does not make a
personal decision to acknowledge where it has led him.
        I submit, therefore, that sufficient evidence does not discount the
need for faith. Rather, it is necessary in order for faith to not be blind.

Truth

        I have found it interesting, that the phase "absolute truth" is spoken
or written as a concept different from "truth," but the idea of truth implies
absoluteness. I guess this has become necessary in a postmodern culture,
and is extreme people take in order to make sure they are being
understood properly. However, we need to go the extra step to make sure
that the word truth, standing alone, has not lost its definition. We must
replace it with words such as perspective, or belief, when they would be
more appropriate.
        Francis Schaeffer's insight that "the present chasm between the
generations has been brought about almost entirely by a change in the
concept of truth," rings true today. "Young people today live in a
generation that no longer believes in the hope of truth as truth," and I
would submit that this is because of the postmodern overtones in our
world today.
        Richard Rorty has arrogantly uttered that "for the pragmatist
[postmodernist], true sentences are not true because they correspond to
reality," and this lie is what people are fed today. However, is
correspondence to reality not the most proper definition for truth? Implied
by his preface "for the pragmatist," are definitions even subjective?
This is precisely the problem of semantic mysticism. "Rorty argues
that truth means, not what corresponds to the facts, as is the dominant
definition of truth in Western philosophy." This is really a phenomenon,
that what is accepted as the dominant definition of a word can simply be
disregarded and replaced according to subjective whims.

Conclusion

        In light of the fact that humans have an incredible capacity for
deception, we cannot rely on contexts to define words, because of the
potential risk of perjuring ourselves, our witness, or being led astray by
others. This is eternally significant in our evangelistic efforts.
As was shown above, it seems that semantic mysticism only
functions as long as postmodernism reigns. We must never forfeit the fight
against postmodernism or for exposing semantic mysticism.
        The subjective word games inhibit knowledge, and therefore are
necessarily opposed to any epistemology efforts. Epistemologist should be
the last ones to succumb to the tragedy of semantic mysticism, but this is
not the case as shown above.
        Apologists as well, in their efforts to justify Christian knowledge
claims, need to remain highly aware of how this concept necessarily
impedes any of their efforts in arguing or evangelizing.