Dealing With Difficult Issues: Hebrews 6
As a Bible teacher/preacher, you need to know how to answer difficult issues, questions, and passages within the Bible. In an effort to give insight into how to deal with difficult passages, I’m providing a look inside how I tackled a particularly difficult text—Hebrews 6.Without doubt, Hebrews 6 provides one of the greatest theological challenges for the Bible teacher to interpret. Charles Swindoll calls Hebrews 6 the “Rubik’s Cube of the Bible.” Many commentators choose to either skip Hebrews 6 altogether or provide a brief overview, leaving the difficult text for others to try and explain.In his introduction to Hebrews 6, J. Vernon McGee notes,
This chapter, by all odds, contains the most difficult passage in the Bible for an interpreter to handle, regardless of his theological position. Dr. R. W. Dale, one of the great minds in the earlier field of conservative scholarship, wrote: I know how this passage has made the heart of many a good man tremble. It rises up in the New Testament with a gloomy grandeur, stern, portentous, awful, sublime as Mount Sinai when the Lord descended upon it in fire, and threatening storm clouds were around Him, and thunderings and lightnings and unearthly voices told that He was there.
Every reverent person has come to this section with awe and wonder. And every sincere expositor has come to this passage with a sense of inadequacy, and certainly that is the way I approach it.[1]
Many have offered an explanation to Hebrews 6, but in the end, the best answer may be “I’m not completely sure, but here’s what I believe based on my understanding of what we do know about God’s character.”
Proceed with Caution
That statement drives my perspective on dealing with difficult, thorny theological issues. This is not to say that we should not struggle to find good answers to difficult questions, but it is more of a caution: I want to resist placing God in a box so that the mysteries of God make sense to my finite mind. I except that there are many aspects of God’s character and workings that are left shrouded in mystery, and to forge an answer that makes sense to me may, in the end, only diminish who God is in both my mind and the minds of those under my teaching.
My Perspective on Hebrews 6
After studying extensively the many theories of interpretation of Hebrews 6, here’s where I’ve landed: I believe the writer to the Hebrews is describing true Christians in verses 4 & 5. The words he uses are spoken with certainty:
4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
The Writer Is Referring to True Born-again Christians
While there is debate among commentators and even among our pastors at First Family, I believe the writer is referring to true, born-again Christians. Many argue, for example, that the writer is not referring to true believers, but only to those who have nibbled at Christianity. They point to the words “tasted” used in vs. 4 & 5 and suggest that these were people who never fully digested the gospel and/or the heavenly gift. The problem is that the same word (geuo) that is translated “tasted” in 4 & 5 is used in Hebrews 2:9 when the writer tells us the Lord Jesus tasted death for everyone. No one would argue that when Jesus tasted death, he only nibbled at death and never really died.
Likewise, the word translated “enlightened” (photizo) is the same word used in Heb. 10:32 where the writer declares, “But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings…” No one doubts that in this reference the writer is referring to believers and to their salvation experience.
If we approach this passage and try to prevent our theological leanings from influencing our interpretation of the Scripture, it is difficult not to accept that the writer is referring to fellow believers in vs. 4 & 5.
The Dilemma: Can True Believers “Lose Their Salvation”?
The dilemma comes in v. 6 when he notes that if they then have “fallen away,” it is impossible to restore them again to repentance. Read simply, it appears what the writer is saying is, “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened (saved), and then turn away, to be restored again.”The problem with this simple explanation is that this is contradictory to many other passages that teach the eternal security of the believer. (See John 5:24; John 10:27–28; John 6:37–40; John 6:44–47; 1 Peter 3:2; 2 Cor. 5:1; 1 John 2:19.) At First Family, we believe completely in the eternal security of the believer. We believe that when you are born into the family of God, there is nothing that can take you from Him, even your own rebellion.
I’ve often compared this to the physical relationship a parent has with a child. A son may wander far from his mother and father, but there is nothing that can erase the fact that he was born their son. He is part of their DNA. So it is with spiritual life.
My Resolution to the Problem
So what do we do with the difficult words of Hebrews 6? I rely on what the Bible tells me about the Lord Jesus and His Character.
In John 10:27–28, Jesus tell us,
“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand.”
Jesus gives us eternal life, and He states emphatically, that we “shall never perish.” Moreover, He assures us that no one can snatch us out of His hand. No one. Not Satan, not even our own foolish rebellion.
The Anchor Holds
I also take great comfort in how the writer ends this difficult passage in Hebrews 6. He reminds us that we have reason to hope. Why? Because the source of our Hope is none other than Jesus Christ. In Heb. 6:19–20 he states,
We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek
I love the word picture he uses here–the anchor of our soul. Jesus is sure and steadfast, even in the midst of the heaviest of life’s storms.I want to leave you this week with the words of one of my favorite songs, The Anchor Holds, by Ray Boltz. They capture perfectly the hope we have in Jesus in spite of how large the sea of life is and how little our boat feels at times.
The Anchor Holds
I have journeyed
Through the long, dark night
Out on the open sea
By faith alone
Sight unknown
And yet His eyes were watching me
Chorus
The anchor holds
Though the ship is battered
The anchor holds
Though the sails are torn
I have fallen on my knees
As I faced the raging seas
The anchor holds
In spite of the storm
I’ve had visions
I’ve had dreams
I’ve even held them in my hand
But I never knew
Those dreams would slip right through
Like they were only grains of sand
(Chorus)
I have been young
But I am older now
And there has been beauty
That these eyes have seen
But it was in the night
Through the storms of my life
Oh, that’s where God proved
His love to me
(Chorus)
——————————————
Notes:
[1]]J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible Commentary: The Epistles (Hebrews 1–7), electronic ed., vol. 51 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991), 102. ↩
Google Enters Virtual World
PCMag.com is offering a preview/review of Google Lively (Beta). This is the online giant's entrance into the virtual world dominated by Second Life. Here is the summary of the article:
Lively gives you a 3D chat world with a very clear interface, and it makes getting into virtual worlds much easier than it is with Second Life or World of Warcraft, which both use far more sophisticated 3D rendering for much larger, more realistic worlds (and consequently require far more PC horsepower). Lively gives you nowhere near as rich an experience, but it's a decent way to test the waters. Because of the lack of depth and realistic physics, however, I can't really see Lively, in its current form, becoming a serious challenger to Second Life. It seems more of a phenomenon people will check out just once or twice before they move on.
Here is a video preview from YouTube:
The Legitimacy of Christian Apologetics
For many Christians in America, the journey to faith in Jesus Christ began as a small child. Born into a Christian home to parents who took great interest in passing their faith on to their children, believing in Jesus Christ and in the Scriptures that reveal Him to us, is as natural as the physical progression that takes them from childhood to a mature adult.
Many others, however, are not as blessed. Born into a home that is either neutral to the Christian faith, hostile to any faith at all, or committed a false god or religion, the journey to faith for these people filled with questions and searching for answers. It is this search for understanding that gives cause to the apologist. At the same time, there are also critics of the Christian faith that must be answered. Therefore, this, in essence, is the dual need for apologetics, to perform the necessary work of pre-evangelism to those seeking reasonable answers and to provide a strong defense to critics of the Christian faith.
As believers, God has given us the incredible privilege of being a witness for our Lord Jesus Christ. In addition to being ready with the gospel message, however, we are also commanded to “be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15).
Apologetics is defined as:
the discipline that deals with a rational defense of Christian faith. It comes from the Greek word apologia which means to give a reason or defense.[1]
C. Stephen Evans provides a scope and nature of apologetics:
Historically, apologetic arguments of various types have been given: philosophical arguments for the existence of God; arguments that the existence of God is compatible with suffering and evil; historical arguments, such as arguments from miracles and fulfilled prophecies; and arguments from religious experience, including mystical experience. Some distinguish positive apologetics, which attempts to argue for the truth of Christianity, from negative apologetics, which merely attempts to remove barriers to faith by responding to critical attacks.[2]
Norman L. Geisler, in the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, provides three reasons why apologetics is important:
1. God Commands It. Several New Testament Scriptures instruct the believer to be ready with a solid defense of the Christian Faith. These include 1 Peter 3:15, 2 Corinthians 10:5, Philippians 1:7; 16, Jude 3, Titus 1:9, and 2 Timothy 2:24-25. These verses, written by the Apostles to the first century church, can be summarized as follows: be ready and contend for the faith.
2. Reason Demands It. “God created humans to reason as part of his image (Gen. 1:27; cf. Col. 3:10). God calls upon his people to use reason (Isa. 1:18) to discern truth from error (1 John 4:6) and right from wrong (Heb. 5:14).”[3]
3. The World Needs It. “People rightly refuse to believe without evidence. Since God created humans as rational beings, he expects them to live rationally, to look before they leap. This does not mean there is no room for faith. But God wants us to take a step of faith in the light of evidence, rather than to leap in the dark.”[4]
Some argue, however, that apologetics are not necessary. Geisler gives 12 general objections, and then answers each charge:
1. The Bible does not need to be defended. No Christian would accept a Muslim’s statement that “the Qur’an is alive and powerful and sharper than a two-edged sword.” We would demand evidence….[W]ithout evidence to establish one’s claim to authority, there is no good reason to accept that authority.[5]
2. God can’t be known by human reason. [E]ven though humankind knows clearly through human reason that God exists, he “suppresses” or “holds down” this truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18). It is not because mankind cannot know God by reason, rather, it is human depravity and foolish rejection of the message of the cross.[6]
3. Natural humanity can’t understand. “Paul insisted that “the man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:14). What use, then, is apologetics? In response to this argument against apologetics, it should be observed that Paul does not say that natural persons cannot perceive truth about God, but that they do not receive (Gk. δεκομαι, “welcome”) it.”[7]
4. Without faith one cannot please God. “God does call upon us to use our reason (1 Peter 3:15). Indeed, he has given “clear” (Rom. 1:20) and “infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3 NKJV). Second, this text in Hebrews does not exclude “evidence” but actually implies it. Faith is said to be “the evidence” of things we do not see (Heb. 11:1NKJV).”[8]
5. Jesus refused to give signs for evil men. “This does not mean that Jesus did not desire people to look at the evidence before they believed. Even in this passage Jesus went on to offer the miracle of his resurrection as a sign of who he was, saying no signs would be given, “except the sign of the prophet Jonah” (Matt. 12:39–40; cf. Luke 16:31).”[9]
6. Do not answer a fool according to his folly. “Don’t just argue with someone who will not listen to reason, or you will be just as foolish as he is. But if you are able to show a person the error of his thinking in a way that he can understand, perhaps he will seek God’s wisdom rather than relying on his own.”[10]
7. Apologetics is not used in the Bible. “But apologetics is used in the Bible. Even those familiar with it don’t recognize it, since they don’t realize that what they are looking at is really apologetics.” From Moses to Jesus to Paul, “apologetics was done in the Bible whenever the truth claims of Judaism or Christianity came in conflict with unbelief.”[11] Perhaps the best illustration of this is found in the Gospel of John. In defining his purpose for his Gospel, John declares: “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (20:31). “John selected the signs he used with the apologetic purpose of creating intellectual (“that you may believe”) and spiritual (“that believing you may have life”) conviction about the Son of God.”[12]
8. Logic can’t tell us anything about God. “This objection is self-defeating. It says that logic doesn’t apply to this issue. But the statement itself is a statement claiming logical thinking about God. It appeals to logic because it claims to be true while its opposite is false. That claim, called the law of noncontradiction.”[13]
9. Logic cannot “prove” the existence of anything. “While mere logic cannot prove the existence of anything, we have undeniable knowledge that something exists. And once we know that something exists, then logic can help us determine whether it is finite or infinite. And if it is finite, logic can help us determine whether there is also an infinite being.”[14]
10. Reason is useless in religious matters. “[I] n Scripture God calls on us to use reason (Isa. 1:18; Matt. 22:36–37; 1 Peter 3:15). God is a rational being, and he created us to be rational beings. God would not insult the reason he gave us by asking us to ignore it in such important matters as our beliefs about him.”[15]
11. You can’t prove God by reason. This is, perhaps, the most difficult objection. As Geisler observes, “If ‘prove’ means to demonstrate with mathematical certainty, then most theists would agree that God’s existence cannot be proven. This is because mathematical certainty deals only with the abstract, and the existence of God (or anything else) is a matter of the concrete.” [16] Geisler continues, “The reason one cannot prove God by logical necessity is that formal logic, like mathematics, deals with the abstract. Unless one begins with something that exists, he can never get out of the purely theoretical realm….Unless we know something exists, then logic cannot help us to know whether God exists. And logic by itself cannot tell us whether anything exists.”[17]
12. No one is converted through apologetics. “If this implies that the Holy Spirit never uses apologetic evidence to bring people to Christ, this is clearly false. God has used evidence and reason in some way to reach virtually all adults who come to Christ.”[18]
My personal position on this issue.
Clearly, while the objections to apologetics outnumber the reasons for, the balance tips in favor of the reasons and need for apologetics. As a believer, one reason alone justifies our need to be a defender of the faith: the Lord whom we worship commands it! It is true that belief in Jesus Christ requires a simple faith, and that many spiritual concepts are nothing but foolishness to the unbeliever and skeptic. The Bible is clear, however, that God created us to reason and question, and that He has given us a solid body of evidence to answer these questions. As a Christian, I want to be ready to give a solid defense for my faith in the sincere hope that my response will ultimate lead another to follow Christ and believe in Him.
[1]Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker reference library (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999), 37.
[2]C. Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 12.
[3]Geisler, 38.
[4]Ibid.
[5]Ibid.
[6]Ibid.
[7]Ibid.
[8]Ibid., 39.
[9]Ibid.
[10]Ibid.
[11]Ibid.
[12]Bruce Wilkinson and Kenneth Boa, Talk Thru the Bible (Nashville: T. Nelson, 1983), 337.
[13]Ibid., 40.
[14]Ibid.
[15]Ibid.
[16]Ibid.
[17]Ibid., 41.
[18]Ibid.
A Response to David Hume’s Arguments Against Miracles
For most Americans, the word “miracle” has become synonymous with everyday happenings. Indeed, listen in on the conversation between two people and you will hear about “miracle drugs,” and the fact that it was “a miracle they made it to work” that morning, or if they get a big project finished on time, “it will be a miracle.” Miracles seem to be everywhere!
As one old preaching once said it, “if miracles happened every day, guess what, they wouldn’t be called miracles, they would be called ordinaries!”
Of greater concern, however, is that by casually tossing out the term we actually add credence to the arguments of skeptics to Christianity. As atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie has said,
If miracles are to serve their traditional function of giving spectacular support to religious claims—whether general theistic claims, or the authority of some specific religion or some particular sect or individual teacher—the concept [of miracle] must not be so weakened that anything at all unusual or remarkable counts as a miracle.[1]
By definition, a miracle is a divine intervention into, or interruption of, the regular course of the world that produces a purposeful but unusual event that could not have occurred otherwise.[2] Norman Geisler, in his book, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidence, adds three basic elements to biblical miracles:
- Power–miracles come from a God who is beyond the universe
- Wonders–by their nature, miracles inspire awe in those who see them because they are astonishing.
- Sign–the purpose of miracles: to confirm God’s message and His messenger.
The significance of miracles can be found in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. In his opening sermon in Acts 2, Peter drove home the point:
Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know. (Acts 2:22)
As John MacArthur observes,
Peter describes the means by which God attested Jesus as miracles and wonders and signs. The many miracles performed by our Lord provide overwhelming evidence that He is who He claimed to be. From His miraculous birth to His miraculous resurrection, to all the miracles He performed during His earthly ministry, the miraculous element was central in our Lord’s life.[3]
Because miracles are so central to the very authority and message of Scripture, it comes as no surprise that critics have attempted to rationalize the existence of miracles or disprove them all together based on the lack of empirical experience.
One such critic was David Hume (1711-1776), a Scottish philosopher and historian, rejected the possibility of miracles. According to Hume “miracles are extraordinary events which infringe the laws of nature and are contrary to daily empirical experience. Belief in miracles means to consider them more probable than the laws of nature.”[4] Hume limited knowledge to what the five senses could perceive.
As Robert A. Morey observed, however, “this position is self-refuting in that it itself is not perceived through the senses. It is a metaphysical view.”[5] Yet, in spite of such a simple answer to Hume’s arguments, Morey points out that Hume’s arguments are still read in most introductory courses on philosophy.[6] Hume’s skepticism has taken root in Western psyche, and as Geisler observes, “His [Hume’s] clear and powerful presentation of skepticism and antisupernaturalism was a significant factor in molding the modern secularistic mind.[7]
For this very reason, Christians must have a credible answer to skeptics who deny the possibility of miracles and, in many cases, the existence of God, based on Hume’s arguments. Geisler identifies several areas of criticism:
- It is self-defeating–this is the circular reasoning referred to by Morey above. How can we experience a metaphysical statement? Therefore, the statement is false.
- Atomism is contrary to experience–Hume believed that one event follows another, but we can never observe a tie between them. Yet, we do not experience events as separate events. Instead, the world is a continuous flow. [8]
- Causality can be experienced internally–Hume rejected intuition, dismissing causal connections we experience in our own consciousness that are not based on external events.[9]
- Hume could not live his theory–skepticism leads to an impossible life. A complete skeptic could not eat, walk, or talk.[10]
- Hume never denied causality–He never denied that things have a cause for their existence. Hume even indicated this would be absurd.[11]
In the end, Hume leaves open a door that will ultimately lead to circular reasoning. C.S. Lewis rightly observes,
Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely “uniform experience” against miracles, if in other words they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately we know the experience against them to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of them are false. And we can know all the reports to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle.[12]
Moreover, Hume begins his argument with the assumption that miracles never existed and begins to add evidence.
He presumes to know that all experience is uniformly against miracles before he looks at the evidence. How can he know that all possible past and future experience will support his naturalism? The only way to be sure is to know in advance that miracles do not occur.[13]
Ultimately, this leads to one of the great conundrums for non-Christians: not believing in the God of the Bible requires more faith than believing the evidence for God in the Bible. The evidence that supports the biblical account of miracles is solid. Yet, Hume is not alone, obviously, in his predetermination against Christianity. Many today are looking for reasons not to believe in Christianity and are ready and willing to believe arguments that are less credible than the Bible. As Geisler and Brooks observe,
We find that Christianity has better evidence and more witnesses writing closer to the time of the events than any other religion. Besides this, no religion offers the kind of miracles that Christianity can claim. No other religion has the record of specific prophecy or divine deliverance that the Bible gives. And no other religion has any miracle that can be compared to the resurrection of Jesus Christ in its grandeur or its testimony.[14]
And yet, in the opening paragraph to the next chapter, they quote Thomas Paine who said, “There is no history written at the time Jesus Christ is said to have lived that speaks of the existence of such person, even such a man.”[15]
This, after all, is the mystery of the Gospel Paul spoke of in 2 Corinthians 2. As Paul wrote, “a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (2 Corinthians 2:14).
[1] Norman L. Geisler and Paul K. Hoffman, Why I Am a Christian : Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2001), 104.
[2] Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1990), 79.
[3] John MacArthur, Acts (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994, c1996), 59.
[4] David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1996, c1992), 5:1040.
[5] Robert A. Morey, Battle of the Gods : The Gathering Storm in Modern Evangelicalism, 1st ed. (Southbridge, Mass.: Crown Publications, 1989), 69.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker reference library (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999), 344.
[8] Ibid, 342.
[9] Ibid, 342.
[10] Ibid, 342.
[11] Ibid, 342.
[12] C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: Macmillan, 1972), 105
[13] Geisler and Brooks, 79.
[14] Ibid., 98.
[15] Ibid., 98.
The Archaeological Discovery of the Lost Epistle to the Laodiceans
There has been much debate through the centuries of church history over Paul's "lost epistle to the Laodiceans." The biblical reference for the "lost epistle" comes from Colossians 4:16: "And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea. " There are two ways to interpret this verse: either Paul is referring to a letter written by the Laodicean church to the Colossian church, or he is referring to a letter he personally wrote while in Laodicea.
The most obvious interpretation, however, supported by both the context and grammatical considerations, is that Paul wrote a letter to the church at Laodicea at the same time that he wrote the one to the church at Colossae. The problem is that no letter addressed to the Laodiceans has been preserved in the Pauline corpus.[1]
At various times in history, the church has attempted to resolve the mystery of the Laodicean epistle. One approach was to recreate the epistle. A "pseudepigraphical" Epistle to the Laodiceans has survived in a Latin translation and had some acceptance in the Western Church into the Middle Ages.[2] Another approach has been to identify the epistle with one of Paul's New Testament epistles. Both Ephesians and Philemon have been identified as the missing epistle by church historians, although neither argument has gained wide acceptance.[3]
Regarding the hypothetical premise posed by this discussion question, what if the missing letter was discovered and authenticated by archaeologists today? Should it be included in our New Testament Canon?
The first test of canonicity lies with the writer. Is the writer a true prophet--or spokesman--of God? Obviously, if the letter was authenticated as being written by the Apostle Paul, it would meet this requirement, many books in our New Testament testify. Even by his own contemporaries, Paul was recognized as an apostle and a spokesman for God (cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16). However, not every word Paul wrote was inspired Scripture, and his authorship by itself would not qualify the supposed document as Scripture.
Another factor to be considered is the church's acceptance or recognition of the document in history. Throughout church history, there has been near unanimous agreement regarding the canonicity of the 27 books of the New Testament. Unlike the Old Testament Books of the Apocrypha , which has been a source of controversy and serious debate, the Pseudepigraphal writings of the New Testament have been universally rejected by all traditions of the church.[4] This is important because it is the church that must discover and authenticate a writing as inspired Scripture, not archaeologists.[5]
In summarizing his argument why a letter like "the epistle to the Laodicians" should be rejected, Geisler states:
None of the New Testament Apocrypha have experienced more than a local or temporary acceptance. Most have enjoyed at best a quasi-canonical status, merely appended to various manuscripts or listed in tables of contents. No major canon or church council accepted them as part of the inspired Word of God. Where they were accepted into the canon by groups of Christians it was because they were believed wrongly to have been written by an apostle or referred to by an inspired book (for example, Col. 4:16). Once this was known to be false they were rejected as canonical.[6]
Therefore, a discovery of this letter should be rejected due to the historic determination of the church considering this supposed letter.
[1] Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988; 2002), 3:74.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker reference library (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999), 36.
[5] Ibid., 35.
[6] Ibid., 36.