C (3:47)

My friend Magnus, who's. He's in California now, but he's a pastor in Sweden, he said that their press a couple years ago was putting out that Muhammad was the number one baby name in Sweden for like, three years running.

B (4:05)

Wow. In Sweden. That's remarkable. Yeah. It's not like America's not tracking in that direction, but the Muslims are getting more vocal when it comes to apologetics and polemics. So I put them in there because, you know, I've got a lot of contemporary apologetics on. Islam is like these very specialized things. You know, if you go to YouTube debates and. And such, it's over. Like, how to understand a. A verse in the Quran. Is it. Is that verse promoting violence? Not just back then, but now? And. And my. My approach to Islam is more of the historical approach, you know, the history of Christian Muslim conversation. So I thought that'd be interesting to bring together. It's a little different than your typical approach to approaching Muslims apologetically. And I also think not just because I'm a 1517 guy, a branded man, as they say in Yellowstone. Right. But because I'm also. Well, because I'm at 15 17, that means I'm Lutheran. But because my confession is Lutheran, I think a Lutheran approach is going to be much more focused on a positive approach to apologetics, especially to Muslims focused on the gospel rather than just trying to, like, dismantle. I like doing it, deconstructing other positions, but it also gives a voice and a clear advocacy, if you will, for the gospel.

A (5:38)

You have a whole title, a whole chapter titled Positive Apologetics. I read it. I've definitely seen you make this argument in person before as well. What. Just for listeners, what is positive apologetics and what would be like an example of something that isn't positive? Apologetics, I think, would be the. The other part. And maybe just to set you up a little bit here, why it's like an accessible form of apologetics for people, because I find that when we talk about apologetics, you kind of have. There's maybe like three or four camps on this issue together. So you have the lay Christian who. Apologetics is sort of their extreme interest partially because it allows them some, like technical hobbyist. I'm not really trying to. Hopefully nobody's insulted by this, but like technical hobbyist interest in Christianity that's always relevant and always has new publications to read and new research or new arguments to stay up on. Right. It's sort of that technical hobby form of accessing theology. Because if the truths of Scripture never change, at least the apologetic task kind of might. Right.

C (6:51)

There's.

A (6:51)

There's always something new to, to learn or explore there. Then you have sort of just the, hey, this is too technical for me. I, you know, I believe that my redeemer lives. Jesus loves me. This I know, for the Bible told me so sort of Christian, like apologetics is fine, but I don't really need it myself because I have simple faith. And then you have sort of the militant, like. No, apologetics is actually antithetical to something like positive apologetics is antithetical to Christianity. Apologetics can only be something else. So how does this deal with that.

B (7:33)

Boy that's trying to remember what the original question was. What is a positive apologetics? Was that kind of. Is that the center.

D (7:44)

Distinction to some of the other positions?

C (7:47)

Yeah.

A (7:47)

In contrast. Yes.

B (7:47)

Yeah.

A (7:48)

So like, what is positive apologetics and how does it address these sort of common ways of addressing apologetics?

B (7:54)

Yeah. So actually that's, that's sort of the heart and soul of what makes the 1517. I'm going to dub something here, the 1517 approach to apologetics distinct in that it rides along or it's adjacent to the proclamation of the gospel. And what do I mean by that? Is that our apologetic. I know Scott would agree. Caleb, I'm a little quiet. You make me wonder sometimes. I mean, he'll make positive cases for the flat earth, but maybe not the gospel because of some theological hangups. But no, I'm kidding. Caleb is not a flat earther. But today. So here's the thing. If you look at apologetics as it plays out in the New Testament and in the. When the apologetic genre becomes a thing with Justin Martyr and the second and third century apologists, it's sort of like what I mean, there's three examples I'd give Paul and Thessalonica in Acts, the first verses of Acts 17, where he's at the synagogue and Luke tells us that he went to the synagogue and began reasoning or arguing with the Jews there, as was his custom. Reasoning or showing them arguing for the point that it was necessary for the Messiah to die and rise. And so it's just a few verses, right? But you can imagine Paul's arguing from the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible, maybe the Septuagint, probably the Septuagint, but that the man who was crucified and who Christians claim rose from the dead is the one that the Old Testament's talking about, right? So it's an argument towards Jesus messiahship, his divinity. And so on the latter part of Acts 17, Paul Athens, where he's midst. Luke tells us he's in the marketplace waiting for his friends to catch up with him. And his heart's troubled because he sees all these altars to these pagan gods, including an unknown God. But he begins preaching, as Luke puts it, Jesus in the resurrection, in the marketplace. And then Luke says, and nobody has ever heard it there. So the Stoics and Epicureans grab them or take them up to Mars Hill or the Areopagus and give him a golden opportunity to explain this strange teaching that they've never heard before. And what does he do? Rather than going after, say, their paganism, deconstructing it. I mean, he could have easily done that. He actually starts quoting pagan literature, a Stoic, mostly Stoic literature, as if to say, hey, we can start from here. And as sort of a common ground's not the best term because ultimately there is no neutrality, but it's a common starting point. And in the end, Acts 17:31, he says that God has appointed. Or Acts 17:30 and 31, there's a time God is appointed where he's going to judge everybody and he's given proof is how the NASB translate it, of all these things that he's spoken to them about by raising his son from the dead. Then one more example, my favorite, I think, is Acts. Is it Acts 26, where Paul, he's been arrested. He appeals to Rome or to Caesar, and he goes through these trials. He's standing before King Agrippa. And this is where Paul is stopped mid speech. After he's explain how it is he went from a persecutor of Christianity to an apostle, and now is starting to explain that the one he has been preaching is a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Because Agrippa is not the greatest Jew, but he's a Jewish, you know, he's the king of the Jewish people there. And so he has some knowledge. He's training. I don't know. Did he go to the temple? I don't know. But Paul begins making a case for Jesus as Messiah and risen Lord. And he stopped kind of in a memorable place where I think it was Festus says to him, paul, your great learning has driven you mad. Do you think in so short a time you could convince or persuade the king to become a Christian? And Paul says, the King Agrippa himself knows that I speak true and reasonable words, that what I've told you about, namely concerning Jesus, death and resurrection, did not happen in a corner. These were public events. He didn't say that. That's not the phrase, but that's what he's talking about. You could go check up on this stuff. Not only do I wish I could persuade King Agrippa, but everybody here to become a Christian. So positive apologetics is a persuasive approach to the exhortation in 1 Peter 3 that says, Always be prepared to give an apologia a reason for the hope within you. So, and you can contrast it, if you'll let me go on this monologue a little more, you can contrast positive apologetics with a negative apologetics, which is typically what we think of when we think of apologists, maybe that negative apologetics is simply like a critique of the other person's viewpoint. And that has its place, to be sure. But let's say you can drive a truck through an atheist argument or whatever else, whatever other sort of person you might be speaking with, you've not given them any reason to think any differently about Christianity. So in that chapter, can I go on, or do you guys have stuff to inquisit me with?

C (13:44)

I mean, I would have a comment at some point, but. Finish your little talk.

B (13:51)

Okay. I'm going to add one more thing. Thank you. The actual chapter, Positive Apologetics is. Doesn't just presume, but shows that there are, within our own theological tradition, those who have been very skeptical of the positive approach, because I think it gets a little too close to maybe an Arminianism, a decision type of theology, or whatnot. And others would say, even if you can make a strong positive case for, say, the historicity, the resurrection, the hearer is so burdened or walled off from understanding it correctly because of their presuppositions, that is a total waste of time. Basically, my argument is whether somebody believes or not in terms of, like, really believes that Jesus died and rose for them, that's not even the task of the apologist. That's the work of the Holy Spirit. But what the apologist does, can do, and ought to do, per the tradition of Lutheran theology, find it even in paper. There's one place that's a little weird. But even peeper believe that you could show and demonstrate to the unbeliever. Just like the demons, the devil himself knows that the crucifixion, of course, but also the resurrection are brute historic facts. And the apologist would say to the person they're speaking with, what do you make of those? What are we going to do with it? You know, and that's. That's a totally. That's not an. Then that's more of a conversation that. Where you might just speak the gospel to people. So anyway, that's. I'll stop there because I've been going on probably a good 10 minutes, even though I have the nicest voice, I have the not only a voice, but a face for radio. I'm told that last part's a joke. Just saying, you guys are rolling your.

C (15:50)

Eyes at me like I'm some apologetics chapter. I think the positive apologetics chapter is. Is great. And at the. I mean, the other chapters are great too. But at the end of the day, I think really speaking, you know, making an argument for making an argument is kind of a weird thing to do, but it's important when there are other Christian groups out there. And I was thinking the whole time as you were talking about that about specifically maybe three. I think they're the reformed presuppositionalists. Sometimes like the Ventilian camp of the presuppositionalists are that latter position that you discussed, that you literally can't give over any of this information to a pagan sinner because their presuppositions and their sort of, I think even to the level of their brain wiring that's not been converted by the Holy Spirit or their unregenerate whatever, they can't understand it. The position is they literally can't understand it. So it's a waste of time. So in that thing, all you do is you break down other positions, which is fine. And that's fun. It's really fun to point out another person's logical inconsistencies. And what do we say these days? Own them or troll them, Something like that.

A (17:12)

Own them, baby.

C (17:14)

Yeah, own them. Yeah, we're going to own you. But at the end of the day, that owning isn't converting. Right? I think it's really important to know that when Adam talks about making a positive case. And I'll take this from Montgomery, Dr. Montgomery, but kind of add to it too. Montgomery used to say, when you're doing this kind of thing, you evangelize first in Other words, you preach the gospel first, and then when a question comes up, if that question can be addressed, you address the question. Right. So you preach the gospel. Jesus rose from the dead to save you from sin, death, and the power of the devil. I don't believe somebody can raise from the dead. Ah, but what if. And then you kind of can go through the positive apologetic argument of those that both saw him die and saw him walking around after his death. Right. And that he was really dead and all these things. So you can kind of do that within the. If you're going to label something the 1517 method. The only change I would make to that is to say that you evangelize, defend, evangelize, defend, evangelize, defend, and that the evangelical process of this is never disconnected and is always ongoing in this, in other words, the preaching is paramount and the apologetics is supportive. And I love that. One of the reasons I love that is because there are even people within our own camp who I think are skeptical of apologetics because of their own experience with. It lacks the preaching element. In other words, it's just sort of the arguing and just sort of the defending. And they do say faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, and thus preaching is paramount. I totally agree. That does not negate the necessity of apologetics, even, especially in the evidential form when questions come up. The other one that drives me crazy is sort of just a straight line, and it's kind of connected to. The preaching is paramount. One is the pietism, you know, just that this is. This is not. This is not sort of a necessary. It's just not necessary within that system for reasons of the movement of the Holy Spirit alone. And I think the biblical examples you gave where Paul is going out and he's. He's, in a lot of ways, he does preach to these people, but he's also in a lot of ways leading with sort of the reasonableness argument here. And these things did not happen in a corner aspect of it that is just so important to keep bringing up that in 1 Corinthians 15, I mean, the whole chapter, but starting out with 1 through 6 is basically. Verses 1 through 6 are basically the outlay of all of the people who both saw him die and saw him alive after his death.

B (20:11)

Yeah. In talking about that chapter on positive apologetics, that's sort of the. We're looking at the task in isolation. Yeah. I mean, Montgomery's maxim. I mean, this is what Rod taught us too. Right. It's evangelism first Always. And then. And that's what Paul or Peter exhorts us to when people ask you, you know, and so when they've got a question about your preaching or your proclamation or your declaration, then you be ready to give an answer. And every. I know you love this word, Scott. Every context is going to be different, but for sure, like a Muslim context. And the things that are going to be. Hang up there is going to be very different than say, a spiritual but not religious context or whatever. So the starting point is going to be, you know, just. It kind of depends. But keeping it positive, both in method or like making a case towards the deity of Jesus. The historicity of the Resurrection, I think is of paramount. Otherwise there is a place to be sure for dismantling other positions and clearing of those obstacles out of the way so they can hear things and see things more clearly. But I think nobody would disagree with that. But where a lot of people disagree, like you just said, Scott, is with this positive approach. And the weird thing is that's the sort. That's the. That's the New Testament example. That's the early church's example. So.

C (21:41)

Well, they're. They're evangelizing a world that is pagan, you know, and at the end of the day, well, like ours, but more than ours at the same time. You know, listening to this podcast that Caleb sent us yesterday, I think it still said that 50% of America calls itself Christian.

A (22:03)

It's actually like 65%.

C (22:06)

Yeah. So kind of not like ours at the same time, too, when the early church goes out and shares the gospel to what, a 98% pagan world. And they're going to have to give a defense. Right. So why would I completely change my way of life? Why would I uproot everything? And this is true when they're evangelizing Jews too. And so why would I completely uproot everything? What's the reason? And I think that's part of the sort of like giving a reason for the hope that's within you. I think you can sometimes even evangelize people on that. The Holy Spirit can work in them and bring them to a certain kind of faith. And they still need some questions answered. They still have questions. The what now? Question is real. And I even think that there's an apologetics can come into play there because some of those what now? Questions are sort of logical questions or historical reference questions and cultural questions. And all this is within the realm of the apologist who's good at what they do.

A (23:18)

Can I, in the vein of that podcast and some other stuff that this makes me think about. But what my dad just said is actually something I was thinking about, which is one of the ways I think apologetics mess like in the, in the sort of written and even online sphere makes a mistake, is that I see is that the majority is still dealing with, like, naturalistic scientism and atheists. In the U.S. atheism is less than 7% of the population. Okay. And over 80% of people say they believe in God, that they believe there is a spiritual force or something called God or something like this. And yet, like almost all of the apologetics, like, if you just type in Christian apologetics online right now, you're going to mostly deal with arguments against scientism and strict atheism rather than alternative religious worldviews. And actually, I do want to bring up to my dad's point here, where 63% of US adults, I'm pulling all of this from Pew, at least that way it's relatively consistent, although the numbers are never going to add up to 100 because they're from different studies. But 63% of U.S. adults still identify as Christian. However, 49% of U.S. adults who identify as Christian do not attend church regularly. So your Christian population that attends church is what, 30% of, you know, 31, 32% of U.S. adults regularly attend a Christian religious service. The rest of the of the US Sans this tiny amount of atheists, are just generically religious. Even the ones who call themselves Christian, they just believe in God and somewhat fear him. What is apologetics? How can apologetics deal with that since you might even be, I don't know, dealing with Christians. And your book makes me think of this, Adam, because when I look at the breakdown of your chapters, like I said, there's a theme. There's a lot of Islam in here, but the other theme is mixed with Islam is scripture, the authority of the scripture, the word of God in Christianity, in Islam. Your positive use of apologetics has to do with proclaiming scripture. How does apologetics interact with scripture? And why is that important when your world is religious or Christian in name, but not in practice?

C (25:52)

I'm not going to answer, Adam, but can I lead you a little bit down the path?

B (25:57)

Yes, please.

C (26:00)

When somebody, I mean, I felt like there were two questions there. The one was like, what do you say to these people to make them kind of take Christianity more seriously? And then what's the connection to that, to the scriptures? So if I were, I would take that sort of in two parts on the first part, the minute you started talking, Caleb, I had literally their voices, rods, deep masculine voice and Montgomery's rather unique voice ringing in my head. Take them to the Resurrection. Take them to the Resurrection. Take them to the Resurrection. Take them to the Resurrection and make them encounter that. Because if you encounter the resurrection as a thing that really happened, it's got some serious consequences. And this is where I'm leading you to the water. Adam. Adam has a very good chapter on the empty tomb in this book. Now drink.

B (26:53)

They do, Yeah. So I'm even more confused than I was, but I'm easily confused.

C (27:08)

I tried to help. I made it work.

B (27:12)

Yeah. So the chapter on the empty tomb is framed or. Yeah, it's framed by the question, can a historian following like normal historians or historical methodology, explain the empty tomb, which is a historic fact not universally recognized, but among, across the secular atheist, whatever historians out there, it's regarded as a historic fact, if not a brute historic fact. Now the question is, how do you explain that empty tomb? And there's, I use as a foil in that chapter Bart Ehrman, who's, I don't know if he's still like the, the star of the New Testament studies world or what have you. Bruce, you might have a read on that. But, you know, he's, he's, he's especially known in, in our circles for the book misquoting Jesus, which is basically a argument that because of all the textual variants and the thousands of manuscripts, we should be suspicious that maybe stuff was purposely added in or taken away from the New Testament. Right. But he also, he's written a introduction to the New Testament and Early Christian literature book that is at least when I wrote that chapter was used in at least 75% of universities and seminaries that had an introductory course on New Testament Christianity, New Testament era Christianity. And he's got a little excursus in that book where he says that the tomb was empty, that when the Marys and Peter got to the tomb on Easter morning, the tomb was empty. That the early church really did believe that that tomb was empty. And the early church believed that the reason why it was empty is because Jesus rose from the dead. Airman's point is, though, following Enlightened, I'm using air quotes. Well, I guess they could see it because we're on YouTube now. But enlightened historical methodology, he, he follows even though he tries to disassociate himself with like a human, human argument that presupposes miracles can't happen and so therefore Any historical report that a miracle did happen is just to be a priori without even looking at it or the evidence written off. Ehrman argues that his. Because miracles are. He doesn't use the term anomalous, but because they are by nature unique events, a historian can't. It's not that they have to say it wasn't a resurrection, but they can't use that as an explanation for the empty tomb. So I took that on, and my basic argument is, whatever happened historically, if you're following basic historic methodology without ideological intrusions of, you know, like a naturalistic view of things or what have you, all the evidence, with one little exception, points to Jesus walking around after he had been crucified on Friday. All the evidence, and there's even a Jewish author, Pincus, Lapid or Lapidi, I'm not exactly sure how to pronounce his last name, who wrote a book on Jesus and the Resurrection. And he argues as a Jew that, yeah, all the historical evidence says that Jesus rose from the dead and he was left with like, well, what should I, as a Jew make of that? And if I remember the book correctly, it's maybe at least 20 years old. He says something like, well, he rose from the dead. That doesn't make him Messiah or anything.

C (30:51)

Can I jump off of that for just one second? So to my point, the point that Rod and Montgomery would always make is that if Jesus actually rose from the dead, there are serious implications with that. What you now have is a guy who said he was God and that he was going to prove it by raising himself from the dead. And he did raise from the dead, which means he's God. And now you kind of have to listen to the other things that he said. Now, one of the things I think you can use that for nominal Christians is to say, hey, you call yourself a Christian in a nominal way, but are you wrestling with the fact that this person is actually God and that he rose from the dead and that that resurrection means life and salvation for you? But also then the rest of words are true, and the rest of his words they very much talk about, don't be a nominal Christian. This is now a thing. Now you avail yourself of the Word, you avail yourself of the sacraments, you become part of a community of faith. All the implications that have for that, in a sense, I think they become more real. If this isn't just some tangential belief that I connect myself to or just a social thing that I maybe connect myself to three times a year, but at the end of the day has real implications because God really said them and that this really is God.

B (32:12)

You've just led me to another pool of water. Oh yeah, I'm going to maybe the white claw, black cherry, white claw pool. Because my first chapter, I wouldn't lead you down there. My first chapter is about the authority of scripture and it's not a major part of the argument because it's more of a chapter on like the different confessions or denominations and how they view the authority of scripture. And I make a case for sola scriptura. But in the beginning is that very point you're making, Scott, in a way that if since Jesus did rise from the dead, we've got it. I mean he's probably the best person to ask on questions about reality. I mean there's other ways you can put it. And one of the things you find is Jesus regards in fact calls the I'm presuming Jesus is referring to the Hebrew Bible, but the Greek translation, the Septuagint is good too. What we call Christians call the Old Testament, Jesus refers to it as the very word of God. He treats it as if it's the final authority on things. So you've got the Old Testament is the word of God. You've got a promise from Jesus in John chapters 14 and 16 to the people who are going to begin preaching what Jesus taught them, that upon his resurrection, the Holy Spirit or the Paraclete is going to be sent to them who will cause them to remember everything Jesus taught them. So you got the apostles are given the promise of Montgomery used to kind of, I think he called it the doctrine of total recall. If I remember correctly, he liked playing.

C (33:52)

On that movie that he thinks he saw.

B (33:54)

Yeah, yeah. He thought he'd chuckle and just kidding. But he so then you so and then it's eventually the preaching of the apostles that makes its way into the New Testament, that is becomes the New Testament when it's written down. So you have both, you have the Word of God, the Old and New Testament. I know it's not like the it's not like a deductively certain argument, but it's an evidential, inductive or abductive argument for the Bible being the Word of God. So if the Bible speaks to something as the Word of God, that settles it. I mean that might sound kind of fundamentalisty, but that is the case. If it's the Word of God, that's the case closed.

C (34:38)

Now if the Bible doesn't fundamentalist though, because it goes the other direction, can.

A (34:42)

I Throw a wretch in it a little bit. I mean, not to like, now that we're 35 minutes and not to find like a topic that's worth an hour. But I, I've seen this more than once where somebody can be drawn to admitting either facetiously or genuinely, sometimes it's facetiously just because they know there's not like historical, good historical counter evidence of saying, fine, Jesus Christ rose from the dead, right? And then their next thing we go, oh, great. Like you, you now believe all of the value judgments that Christianity proposes around that. But apologetics doesn't, and this is where preaching comes in, doesn't on its own prove the value judgments. For instance, Christ raising from the dead as a historical fact doesn't prove that it forgives your sins as a historical fact. That's a value judgment from believing the other words of Christ. And people will say things like that are crass, like, well, I could say, watch this, I'm the greatest skateboarder in the world. I'll do a kickflip right here. And I land the kickflip. It doesn't mean I'm the greatest skateboarder in the world. Jesus Christ saying, I raised from the dead, that means I'm God is a value judgment. That doesn't necessarily mean he's God, it just means he rose from the dead.

C (35:56)

Except for he broke the code of the one thing that vexes everybody that's.

A (36:01)

Ever been born, and that's the. You have to then make a, a difference that death is different than turning water into wine or doing a kickflip.

C (36:09)

Or it's the thing everybody lives their entire life trying to avoid, I think, and never and never do.

D (36:16)

I think this point was handled apologetically quite well, actually by N.T. wright in his book Resurrection of the Son of God, where he really goes into deep historical detail about how that value judgment has to be attached to the resurrection because it's nonsensical any other way. Like, Bright makes this point, which I think, like, it's obvious, but he, he says in the book, yeah, this is obvious, but the thing that people don't realize is, is that even Christians don't kind of remember this when they talk about death and resurrection, which is that in order to be resurrected, you have to first really, actually be dead. So there has to be death before there is resurrection. And that may sound like just a total obvious point, but his point being before Jesus's resurrection, there is no real account of like true full death and then someone raising themselves. It's not resuscitated, but you. And you don't even have anything in like other world literature. He goes into detail into like cults, even like weird cults who don't even have that.

C (37:26)

Dare I say that N.T. wright maybe got that point from Montgomery in earlier works and that Adam points that out as well in this book that this is the one thing. This is the one thing. If a man does this, you have to listen at this point. And it's precisely because this is the one thing that nobody can beat materially except for God. And that's the value judgment. Now, do I agree that there's preaching that has to come? I mean, I feel like I prefaced any discussion I had with if we are going to label something, the 15:17 method is going to be preaching apologetics. Preaching apologetics. Preaching apologetics. Preaching apologetics. So yeah. And do I think that if a person finally comes over to this to understand the value judgments that it's been the work of the Holy Spirit that has done that? I absolutely do. I think Adam absolutely does and presents that in his book. But the point is that as Montgomery and Adam point out in this book, this is a process of removing obstacles. And one of the ways of removing an obstacle for somebody is to sort of get them to listen. This matters. And let me tell you why this matters logically, why this matters in your life, why this is an absolute game changer for everybody. And then the preaching comes along and you preach the actual convicting law and the saving gospel that then sort of the Holy Spirit works through that to sort of get the turn to happen. And it's important though to know that when you talk about the resurrection and even it's not fundamentalist. Right. That view of scripture isn't fundamentalist because it doesn't go from the Bible is authoritative and it tells me Jesus is God. It goes from look at Jesus is God and he says the Bible can be trusted. It goes the exact opposite direction of that. It leads you to the same place where you trust the scriptures implicitly but through very different mechanisms to get there.

A (39:37)

Yeah, I just wanted to point out that this is, I like this is increasingly popular in my generation in the anti Christians to sort of concede that Jesus Christ could have risen from the dead and still not be God.

B (39:52)

That's wild.

C (39:53)

And so a kickflip's a good example of that.

A (39:57)

Well, I mean I gave like a real facetious kick.

C (40:01)

Clips are really hard.

A (40:02)

My point, my point is that the declaration like I'm the greatest skateboarder in the world. Right. You know, or the. But the. I think part of that then is exactly what you guys have said here, which is. And kind of what Bruce was leading to as well, which you have to then actually confront them with that they're. They're presenting a novel view of death. Then that death is. Is. If you were to overcome death, it would be not miraculous or extraordinary to everybody. Right. That. That it would be as simple as, well, I invented refrigeration.

C (40:39)

Or.

A (40:42)

That it's even more substantial than Jesus walking on water or turning water into wine or feeding the 5,000. That this is the crux of Christ's ministry and that it is kind of a lie from people to say this, that truly raising from the dead, not like appearing to raise from the dead, not a magic trick. But as Bruce said, being dead, gone and then resurrecting would not be something worth. Yes, yourself. Exactly. Would not be something worth being astonished by.

C (41:18)

He also did it in his.

D (41:19)

Can I just add too, the scriptures.

C (41:21)

Point out that he also did it to other people, which means that he can do it for you. Both these things. Yeah. He rose himself from the dead. That's amazing. That gives you life and salvation. But he also showed that he has the ability to do this for other people. And the promise is that he'll do this for you too.

D (41:38)

Can I just say, I mean, multiple times, also to the apologetics point with the resurrection in the Gospels, Jesus says at least on two occasions, probably more than two, no sign will be given to this generation but the sign of Jonah. And then he says in the story of Lazarus in the Hades and all that, he's like, well, yeah, even if someone comes back from the dead and tells them they won't believe, so it's not surprising that you could believe that someone rose from the dead and still not believe. I mean, Jesus gives us explicit examples of that. So you still need the Holy Spirit to come to faith. And I mean, we've been saying that, so I don't want to belabor the point, but it is an important distinction. Like, just I can see why young people, if it's true, would say, well, of course he's risen from the dead, but that doesn't make him God and doesn't mean my sins are forgiven. Well, yeah, Jesus says even if someone comes back from the dead, still some people won't believe. So it's not a matter of evidence all the time on, you know, why people come to faith. As Adam said earlier, it. It comes down to the Holy Spirit. But of Course, that Holy Spirit comes through the preached word and the preach word is heard through when the, when apologetics allows you to kind of take it in as a, as a real thing to, to pay attention to and not just something to immediately shut down, dismissed. Would you say that's an accurate way of thinking about Adam?

B (43:04)

Yeah. And I mean, it is kind of surprising how Caleb described his generation. But then I was thinking, you know, it's the same sort of generation that can't even tell you what a woman is. So I'm like, let me talk about this point we've been talking about from a totally different perspective or what have you. You all remember the name Antony Flew the Great. Oh yeah, with quotes. A philosopher.

D (43:31)

He got really close at science, didn't he?

A (43:33)

He got so close.

B (43:34)

Yeah, he was an atheist. I mean he, he's sort of like. There was Madeline Murray o' Hare before the New Atheists, who is like a, a crackpot kind kind of atheist, but activist atheist, I guess you could describe her. She's the one who kind of was at the, led the charge of taking prayer out of schools. Ten Commandments and so on. Whether that's good or bad. You guys can debate that later on. But Antony Flew was the brains behind sort of atheism in the second half of the 20th century. Wrote books like the Presumption of Atheism, which argued quite successfully that the burden of proof when it comes to the question of whether God exists or not is not on the atheists anymore because they sign the scientific evidence is so. And the success of science is so profound that there is no need for God. So it's the theist, the Christian believer in our case, who has the burden of proving the case. And that kind of became the standard in universities. Right. Atheism is sort of a default or scientism or naturalism, whatever. Then I don't know, I think like 2005, 6 or 7. Flew writes his last book, which is kind of an intellectual autobiography called There is not a God. But then the knot is crossed out with big fat X or a line or something, if I remember correctly. And so it's him talking about how now he believes that a God, kind of like Aristotle's God must exist on the basis of the scientific evidence, mostly design type of arguments is what he referred to. In particular, he thought the just overwhelming intra intricacies and obvious nature of the obvious like designed aspect to DNA or genetic information required some sort of mind of a sort. But here's where we're coming back full Circle. How did Jan Sock used to put it? Circling back in the excerpt or the appendix of his book, second appendix, he goes, so I believe that there's a God out there of some sort, like a deistic type of demiurge or something. If I were to acknowledge anything more about God, I need to have some sort of clear revelation from him. And he wasn't talking about like some still small voice in a closet like Bruce experiences or something. I don't know if Bruce does that, but he's a pietist, so he might I'm not a pietist. Says the Thomas Flew says there would have to be some sort of clear revelation of God himself in a word or a person or something like that. And then here we are coming back full circle. He says the person who has made the strongest case that God has in fact disclosed himself in history is NT Wright. In his book the Resurrection of the Son of God, who Flew says makes a very strong argument that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. Now Flew at the end says, I don't believe it quite yet. So who knows where Flew ended up on that whole question. But the power of the resurrection as demonstrating, as John puts it in chapter 20, he says, these things were written, I've written giving you all these stories of what happened with Jesus, especially focusing on his miracles, especially his resurrection. I've done this so that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. So now I, I forget how you put it, Caleb. Absolutely. Apologetics is not going to get anybody further than say what, you know, theologians would call historic faith. But I don't know an apologist they might like by their what they do suggest otherwise. But I don't know an apologist out there who would say that you can strong arm somebody intellectually into the actually saving Christian faith. Even like Lee Strobel wouldn't say that. So no.

A (47:46)

And I would say there's actually another positive thing that apologetics do does which is do does.

C (47:55)

Apologetics plural do do. Isn't it do Adam.

B (48:03)

And I'm having an almost senior moment. Oh my.

A (48:06)

But it actually helps Christians as well to be prepared as First Peter says, be prepared to give a defense that is the Christian faith is in the world you are confronted and that historic part of the faith is additive to the confidence that you have with this faith. And we've said this a number of times on the show in different contexts, but everybody has a theology. Christians have a theology. The nuns nones have a theology. The atheist has a theology. And because of that you actually need. Everybody does apologetics as well, whether you sort of like it or not. Even the people who are anti apologetics do apologetics because they speak with people who do not believe or who argue against their positions or whatever it may be. And I think the solid and consistent argument from Adam and in volumes like this is that it's the same kind of catechetical argument we make on the show when it comes to dogmatics. And everybody has a theology which is if you have one of these, you have an apologetic. You have to ground this somewhere. And you need to ground it in the same place that the apostles did, that Paul did, that the historic Christian faith has always grounded this, which is in the Scriptures and in the resurrection of Christ. This is where this argument has been grounded. And deviating from grounding it in that is problematic and complicated. And grounding it in the resurrection of Christ means that your witness here goes beyond just new atheism, goes beyond scientism. For Paul it was to a pagan world. For us it might be to a mixed world of pagan and naturalists or whatever it may be, but it makes it timeless because this is the thing that God has revealed and has given for us to root this in. And so arguments about scripture are central and the authority of scripture, arguments about the resurrection of Christ are central and essential to this. And I think that's why volumes like this are sort of an excellent tool, like easy essays to reground you in the essentials of apologetic and the reality that everybody has these. And so you need to, just like you do with your theology, catechize yourself and catechize others on these essential questions. All right, is that enough for an end? That's good if you want to do that. If you want to participate in this great sort of project of being catechized and grounding your apologetics, you can order Adam's book today, shop1517.org it's also available on Amazon links in the show notes below. I think you'll enjoy this. These are very easy to read essays. It was compiled very well and like most of the books from 1517, it's about 130 pages long. And so it's not something that you're just going to buy and then read 10 pages of and leave on the nightstand because it was just too big to finish. So I think this is an excellent resource. Again, shop.1517.org we thank you for listening. Remember to subscribe wherever you listen to this show. That helps you get these episodes as they come out. It helps it so that we don't miss listeners with content like this. And we hope you're enjoying and learning something new. We will catch you next time. Bye.

B (51:56)

Sa.