Southern Seminary Magazine (Vol 90.1) The Light of Truth: Apologetics in the 21st Century

ALBERT MOHLER JR.

SOUTHERN SEMINARY MAGAZINE

e D.Min. is an extension of your current ministry, not a distraction from it. It’s about helping church leaders improve what you’re actively doing every day—faithfully ministering in the place you’ve been called. With professors that are practitioners as well as scholars, you can be sure that every aspect of your education is designed to fully equip you for more faithful service.

Summer 2022. Vol. 90, No. 1.

Copyright ©2022

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Vice President of Communications: Dustin W. Benge

Managing Editors: Jeff Robinson and Stuart Hunt

Creative Director: Stuart Hunt

Production Manager: Evan Sams

Graphic Designers: Benjamin Aho, Gareth Brady, Dustin Benge

Photographer: Trevor Wheeker

Contributing Writers: R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Kyle D. Claunch, Stephen J. Wellum, Andrew T. Walker, Dustin Bruce, Thomas R. Schreiner, Timothy K. Beougher, Timothy Paul Jones, Jeff Robinson, Travis Hearne.

Subscription Information:

Southern Seminary Magazine is published by The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2825 Lexington Road, Louisville, KY 40280. The magazine is distributed digitally at equip.sbts.edu/magazine. If you would like to request a hard copy, please reach out by emailing communications@sbts.edu.

Mail:

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2825 Lexington Road, Louisville, KY 40280

Online: www.sbts.edu Email: communications@sbts.edu Telephone: 800626-5526, ext. 4000

@TheSBTS

@SBTS

@SouthernSeminary

About the Cover:

“The Storm on the Sea of Galilee” is a 1633 oil-on-canvas painting by the Dutch Golden Age painter Rembrandt van Rijn. It was previously in the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston but was stolen in 1990 and remains missing. The painting depicts the biblical story of Jesus calming the storm on the Sea of Galilee, specifically as it is described in the fourth chapter of the Gospel of Mark. It is Rembrandt’s only seascape.

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

from the editor

JEFF ROBINSON

The door that led me into the booklined hallway of serious theological study was apologetics. It began in the mid-1990s. I was working as a newspaper journalist and had received some serious questions about my Christian faith as it relates to both reason and reality. In my Bible reading, I had memorized 1 Peter 3:15 and wanted to obey God’s Word and present a faithful, well-reasoned rendition of the gospel to my inquisitive journalism colleagues. Some sharp brothers in my church turned my attention to books by Josh McDowell, Chuck Colson, and C. S. Lewis. They introduced me to R. C. Sproul and John Gerstner. Another friend pointed me to Greg Bahnsen’s big book on presuppositionalism, and he gifted me John Frame’s book on Van Til. I read Aquinas’s five proofs for the existence of God. These were among the first serious ministry books I owned, and those apologists helped me over my fear of evangelizing lost but bright co-workers. It didn’t take long for me to realize that they didn’t have good answers to life’s ultimate questions, but God’s Word did. That intensive study also opened an entire universe to me with constellations named systematic and biblical theology, church history

and historical theology, biblical exegesis and homiletics, philosophy and ethics. Eventually, God used the seeds apologetics had sown to grow up in me a full-blown call to ministry and then to Southern Seminary as an eager student of the things of God.

It all began with apologetics.

And, really, the fundamental task has never changed. Though I’ve been teaching, preaching, and writing about church history, theology, pastoral ministry, the Christian life, and much else for the past 25 years, all those things really boil down to one thing: a defense and proclamation of the glorious, saving gospel of Jesus Christ. That’s the foundational task for which Southern Seminary equips us all.

I tell both my students and congregation members that the goal of any discipline I’m teaching is always, at its base, evangelism. And the skeleton that upholds full-orbed gospel proclamation is apologetics—always being ready to give an account for the hope that lies within us, communicating it with humility and in the fear of the Lord. In this new edition of the Southern Seminary magazine, we introduce readers to the discipline of apologetics.

by R. Albert Mohler Jr.

Adam and Eve

by Kyle D. Claunch

Pillars and Bridges

by Stephen J. Wellum

Timothy Paul Jones

by Andrew T. Walker

WPresident’s Message

r. albert mohler jr.

e are living in one of those hinge moments in human history. The tectonic plates beneath the society around us are moving and changing in such a way that many of us can recognize the before and after within our own lifespans. The acceleration of social change and the conditions of late modernity now represent a challenge because we understand that—just to take the issue of moral change—it can come with such speed that human beings aren’t built to a scale even to really understand it.

On May 9, 2021, the first openly transgender bishop of any church in the United States was elected by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. That was a church that didn’t ordain anyone to the ministry who identified as LGBTQ+ until 2009. If you look at that change over the course of twelve years, you might think that there have been two millennia of Christian history and over five hundred years of the Lutheran tradition in particular when something like this would have seemed unimaginable.

If you had talked to the people who on behalf of that denomination decided to ordain openly gay a clergy back in 2009, they would have said that it was not in their imagination that ordination could be extended to someone with a transgender identity. They would have said instead, “By the way, what is that?” After all, the ideology behind transgender identity hadn’t been developed yet. Now, it’s mainstream. Indeed, it’s the reigning orthodoxy of the dominant cultural authorities in our secular age.

Within my own lifespan, from 1959 until the present, I’ve witnessed the changing of worlds. In fact, I began to experience our culture’s shifts in a personal way when I was in the eighth grade. It was then that I was yanked out of a very comfortable and overtly Christian culture and placed into a context in which the ambient culture was markedly different. I had no tools for it. I didn’t understand it. As I tell people, the limits of my imagination about religious pluralism for the first thirteen years of my life was related to the fact

that we had one Methodist and one Presbyterian family in the neighborhood.

In a new school, I found myself surrounded by people who came from many different parts of the world and had many different worldviews. I also had teachers who were ardent in their atheism—something that I don’t know if I even knew about until I met an atheist. The new culture I began to inhabit wasn’t as secularized as our own in this current stage of late modernity, but one could already see the threads of contemporary secularization coming together.

We must consider the Bible’s command to “be prepared to give an account for the hope you have” (1 Peter 3:15) in light of these rapid shifts. We must see that a current seminarian’s entire life may be given doing the work of evangelism and apologetics in a culture that is a moving target. It’s a rather humbling realization. Seminary graduates today are entering a culture that is in such fast motion that it’s difficult either to exaggerate or to predict the pace of change.

Let me be clear. The theological task has not changed, but the task of apologetics does seem to have changed, not in terms of its biblical mandate but in terms of its current expression. That is the theme of this issue of Southern Seminary Magazine. Within these pages we’re exploring the theme of apologetics— giving a reason for our hope.

When I was a young Christian encountering cultural upheaval for the first time, I first encountered apologists like Francis Schaeffer and R. C. Sproul. They made a big impact in my life. It’s just that kind of difference that the faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has in the life of our students. Every day, we are giving seminarians the intellectual tools they need to take ideas and truth claims seriously so that they can give a reason for their hope.

R. Albert Mohler Jr.

by r. albert mohler jr.

The Changing Face of Apologetics in a Secular Age

Iwas astounded by conversations with many Americans who watched the dramatic portrayal of Queen Elizabeth’s coronation in the first season of the television program, The Crown. Viewers wondered aloud where they came up with “that strange language.” The strange language they were referencing was right out of the Bible. For most of history, the British crown (and basically all the monarchies in the Western world) explicitly claimed a biblical and theological legitimacy. It’s not by accident that Handel’s majestic anthem “Zadok the Priest” is what is played the very moment that the monarch is shrouded in mystery. The coronation even includes an anointing with oil just as with Samuel, Saul, and David.

When we consider our own secular society, we must realize that the word “secular” actually emerged from the realm of politics. In the Middle Ages, there was a union between the throne and the altar, and it was very well understood that a theological justification was necessary for the monarchy. In this context, the term “secular” began to be used to refer to the distinctly political

“How do we speak to a culture that not only has lower rates of people who say they believe in God, but who when they do say they believe in God, give decreasing importance to what they’re saying?”

power of the government as opposed to the theological and institutional power of the church. But even though the distinction was made, it was made from within a Christian worldview. After all, the “divine right of kings” only makes sense if the legitimacy of the regime is based upon a theological affirmation.

Today, the idea of theism doesn’t even fit the language of most governmental regimes. And it’s not just true in government but throughout our society. When I was a boy, it was assumed when new neighbors moved to your community that you’d ask them what church they wanted to attend. That would be considered a very rude question these days, but you also wouldn’t be surprised if people answered, “No church at all.” We may take this for granted, but the reality is that it’s a stunning change in human experience.

A Society Unbound from Theism

We live in a society marked by secularization. And when I use that term, I’m talking about the sort of secularism that we’ve only experienced in the wake of the Enlightenment and the advent of modernity; we live in a society where theism has lost

“If the world around us is secularizing, then the church must self-consciously practice apologetics as a mode of existence.”

its binding authority. I’ve lived long enough to watch it happen, and it still surprises me.

According to Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor, this falling off of religious faith and practice will become so much a part of the cultural landscape that no one will notice what is missing. It’s an age, Taylor said, within which there’s no longer any need for the society to be grounded in belief in God or in any ultimate reality.

Human beings just are, and society requires no explanation beyond itself. Government just is, and you may argue about which government should be in place, but no one is making any arguments about transcendence or theism. As Taylor said, “In our secular societies, you can engage fully in politics without ever encountering God.”

In fact, Taylor argued that a secular age is one in which people engage all goods that are a part of human flourishing apart from any sort of theological reference. In our day and time, human flourishing has become an end in itself. In fact, the government’s only reason for existence in a secular era is to enhance the current society’s understanding of the common good. If it succeeds at that, government is understood as having achieved its purpose. If it fails, then throw the crooks out and get a new government.

In the secular age, what Taylor calls the social imaginary—the sum total of the ideas that are imaginable by people in a particular social epic—no longer includes theological truth claims at all. The world is different now precisely because it’s missing what had characterized the world before.

Three Observations about Apologetics in Our Changing Culture

How are we to think of the task of apologetics in this new era? How does a Christian defend their faith in a secular age? I want to make three observations:

1

First, if the world around us is secularizing, then the church must self-consciously practice apologetics as a mode of existence. When I was a young Christian reading apologists like Francis Schaeffer, I didn’t think of apologetics as the Christian mode of existence or even as a necessary part of the Christian way of life, but I did feel like it was a necessary part of mine. I largely saw apologetics as a Christian method for answering specific sorts of questions. And once those questions were answered, you moved on from apologetics to something like systematic theology.

That understanding of apologetics wasn’t unique to me. The Anglican theologian Austin Farrer (1904–1968) lived a short life—just sixty-four years—but it was one that saw dramatic changes. When Farrer was born in 1904, four European countries had jurisdiction over more than a third of the earth’s surface. It was a world in which most people in most lands were governed by crowned heads. But all of that, especially in the European context, came to an end. Various empires, including the Habsburg empire of Austria-Hungary and the Romanov empire of Russia, all ended by the time Austin Farrer was ready for grade school.

Farrer’s lifespan, which spanned from just after the time of Victoria until the modern age, included two world wars and a profound transformation of British life. He saw governments that ranged from the High Tory tradition to socialism by the time the Labor Party was in power. The world that Austin Farrer knew at the end of his life was a fundamentally different world than what he had known in the beginning. But to him, the biggest change was theological.

Farrer called what was taking place in Britain the

de-Christianization of society. The word “secular” wasn’t much a part of his vocabulary, but Farrer understood that he had witnessed the eclipse of Christianity as a necessary framework for thinking amongst the British people of his own generation. By the time his life came to an end in 1968, he had seen the receding of Christian faith and doctrine. In fact, he’d seen biblical teaching largely escape the imagination of the British people.

In the midst of these changes, Farrer raised the question as to what the de-Christianization of society meant for apologetics. He concluded that apologetics might only be possible where there are people asking theological questions—questions that the apologists could then answer.

Years ahead of his time, Farrer also foresaw a time when the tools of apologetics would become very rare. Farrer thought of apologetics as the defense of the Christian faith—the defense of Christian truth claims and even of Christian morality—in a time when people would at least know what those claims were. It’s a very different challenge when the society is so secular that it doesn’t even know how to ask the questions or even assert denials. In a secular age, apologetics changes from being merely a tool to being a posture—a mode of existence.

from epistemology (questions of how we know truth) to matters of ontology (questions about the nature of reality) and morality (questions of how we should live).

Richard Dawkins, the most famous atheist in the world and an absolute Darwinian right down to the selfish gene, has recently been relieved of his Humanist of the Year award. The American Humanist Association gave him the award over a decade ago, but now they’ve taken it away. Why?

Well, Richard Dawkins doesn’t have a worldview that is free from ontological obligations. Dawkins is a materialist. He believes in an ontological reality where XX and XY are important. So, he said that a transgender woman is a contradiction in terms, because the genes are still there. As a result, he had to pack up his Humanist of the Year trophy and send it back.

Dawkins found out the hard way that it’s moral issues in our contemporary world that are likely to frame where on the ground our hardest apologetic work is yet to be done. There’s a revolt against being in the contemporary world that is beyond what I could have imagined. In the past, I saw the central challenges faced by Christian apologists as cognitive and not so much moral, not so much ontological, but if you’re dealing with something like the LGBTQ revolution, then you’re dealing with the central claims of identity politics and the transgender revolution, and you actually have an argument against ontology.

Second, in the secular age, none of the fundamental questions of modernity have gone away, but the essential questions are now ontological and moral. Every question imaginable—and some yet unimaginable—are now on the table. But the main fronts of battle have shifted

The truth is we face a society that doesn’t think it’s important whether Christianity is true or untrue. Rather, what matters is whether or not Christianity when asserted is dangerous and harmful to human flourishing. Many believe that Christianity is at best an impediment and

at worst enemies of the common good. In other words, the scandal that Christianity faces right now is primarily a moral scandal.

Finally, Reformed theology is the only adequate framework for a genuinely scriptural and kerygmatic apologetic. Because a theistic foundation is now so far from the society’s imagination, our seminary graduates will likely never live in a moment when the most basic truth claims of Christianity will be heard or understood in anything like the way they are intended.

Sociologist and theologian Peter Berger points out that secularization has changed the plausibility structures for people even if they recite the same creed. Even if someone says the Apostle’s Creed precisely as their great grandparents had said it, they may not believe the Apostle’s Creed in exactly the same way.

In the US, and even in evangelical life according to Berger, secularization works internally. Rather than taking the Christian faith as a whole package, evangelicals typically choose which doctrines they want to believe and which they don’t. The same person may choose to affirm both the bodily resurrection of Christ and gay marriage. Confessing both doctrines feels life-giving so the jerrymandered logic used to cobble them together goes unnoticed. After all, belief is as a matter choice.

Berger calls this the heretical imperative, and I, frankly, think it is quite frightening. How does the Christian pastor or apologist speak to a culture that doesn’t even

have the foundation to hear and understand a coherent biblical framework? How do we speak to a culture that not only has lower rates of people who say they believe in God, but who when they do say they believe in God, give decreasing importance to what they’re saying?

Reformed theology is the only way. In Reformed theology, we not only begin with the sovereignty of God, but we understand God’s sovereign grace to be the operative principle throughout the entire system of our thinking. We believe that the most important work is the Spirit’s internal work, a work which is beyond cognitive realization. We know there is no way to break through the defenses of a rebellious heart, even with the most ingenious argument, until something happens inside that heart, which can only come by the sovereign power of God.

For this reason, we affirm that the preaching of the Word of God is the primary means of grace by which God, by the Holy Spirit, reaches into dead human hearts bringing regeneration, quickening, illumination, awakening.

The Christian apologist certainly employs intellectual tools to defend the Christian faith. The task of apologetics necessarily requires the use of intellectual tools. It necessitates our taking ideas and truth claims seriously and giving a reason for the hope that is in us. But ultimately, our confidence is not in our intellect but in the power of God.

R. Albert Mohler Jr. is President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and daily host of The Briefing.

“We affirm that the preaching of the Word of God is the primary means of grace by which God, by the Holy Spirit, reaches into dead human hearts bringing regeneration, quickening, illumination, awakening.”

Adam and Eve

DID THEY LITERALLY EXIST IN THE BEGINNING AND WHY DOES IT MATTER?

Tby kyle d. claunch

he doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) is indisputably basic to sound Christian theology. This doctrine states that the triune God exists necessarily and eternally, and everything that exists that is not God owes its existence to God.

Nevertheless, among those who hold this basic theological commitment, the question of how to interpret the opening chapters of Genesis has been a subject of debate throughout the long history of Christianity. The urgency of the question increased dramatically with the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species in the mid-19th century. Since that time, some version of macro-evolution has been the consensus explanation for the biological diversity of life on our planet in the scientific academy. Therefore, the issue of the historicity (or not) of the first man and woman named in Scripture— Adam and Eve—has become an increasingly controversial subject.

This article will argue that the historical existence of Adam and Eve as the first human beings and the biological progenitors of the entire human race is a matter of great theological consequence for Christians, and that some interpretive strategies are better suited to defend belief in a historical Adam and Eve than others.

We’ll begin by demonstrating the theological significance of the historicity of Adam and Eve to show

The Expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise, Benjamin West, 1791

that forfeiting this belief would result in compromise to several important doctrinal convictions of the Christian faith. Among Christians committed to belief in the historicity of Adam and Eve, there are many interpretive approaches to the opening chapters of Genesis. These approaches will be summarized briefly along with an assessment of the potential strengths and weaknesses of each. In the end, it will be shown that reading the opening chapters of Genesis as historical narrative is the most consistent way to maintain the tremendously important belief in a historical Adam and Eve.

Historical

Adam and Eve: What’s at Stake?

Genesis 1:26–31 states that God created humanity in his image on the sixth day of creation. He made them male and female; he commanded them to reproduce, filling the earth with their progeny; he gave them dominion over the earth and all life thereon. Genesis 2 describes the creation of the very first man (named Adam, a Hebrew word meaning mankind) out of the dust of the ground and the very first woman (later named Eve) out of Adam’s side. The man and the woman are joined together as one flesh in what Scripture presents as the very first marriage union, which is described as paradigmatic for all future marital relations.

In Genesis 3, the story of Adam and Eve takes a tragic turn as the first man and woman rebel against God through disobedience. God subsequently rebukes them and a curse is pronounced on creation. The consequence of their sin will be the regularity of human death, pain and agony (including high mortality rates) for women and their babies in childbirth, extreme difficulty in farming the land for sustenance, and the punitive removal from the life-giving covenant presence of God as represented by the Tree of Life in the middle of the Garden of Eden.

Amid God’s declaration of judgment in the form of a curse, he also announces a promise of future salvation, stating that the seed of the woman will one day crush the head of the serpent who deceived Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:15). Indeed, the rest of the storyline of Scripture can be understood as a development of the conflict between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent in anticipation of the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ who will finally fulfill the promise of Genesis 3:15. The personal story of

Adam is concluded in Genesis 5:1 where he is described as the father of Seth, his third son, whose future lineage will eventually give rise to the fulfillment of the promise.

While some may wonder whether Christians need to take the personal story of Adam and Eve as historical, attention to later Scripture confirms that a historical reading is the right reading of the earliest chapters of Genesis. Furthermore, forfeiting the historicity of Adam and Eve as real people undermines a number of important Christian theological commitments.

Unlike the personal story of Adam’s life, the prominence of Adam in Scripture does not end with the opening chapters of Genesis. Rather, the accounts given there are viewed by later biblical authors as both historical and theologically consequential.

After Genesis 5, Adam is not mentioned again until 1 Chronicles 1:1. There, his name appears at the head of a genealogy that takes readers from Adam, through Abraham, all the way to the kings of Israel and Judah as descended from David. Thus, for the chronicler, the historical reality of Israel’s history under the Davidic dynasty is of the same kind as the historical reality of Adam, Seth, Enosh, and so on (see the genealogy of Adam and his posterity in Genesis 5).

Later, the prophet Hosea likens the faithlessness of Israel (Ephraim) and Judah to the sin of Adam (Hosea 6:7), a likeness that is most naturally understood as historical correspondence. What Hosea makes explicit is an implicit biblical pattern of typology that many interpreters have recognized. After Adam, many others emerge like him, bearing the status of a kind of new Adam, tested as Adam was. Noah as an individual, Israel as a nation, David as representative of the nation—each of these is presented as a new Adam, given the opportunity to succeed where Adam failed. As Hosea observes, though, these all failed in the same way Adam failed—covenant unfaithfulness to the LORD. Hosea laments:

What shall I do with you, O Ephraim? What shall I do with you, O Judah? Your love is like a morning cloud, like the dew that goes early away. Therefore, I have hewn them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth, and my judgment goes forth as the light. For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me (Hosea 6:4–7, emphasis added).

Fundamental to Christian theology is the happy conviction that this typological pattern of new Adam-like figures did not end with the failure of the Davidic dynasty

under the administration of the Law of Moses. The Gospel of Luke shows us that Adam’s genealogical line continues past the Old Testament Davidic kings all the way to Jesus Christ (Luke 3:23–38). The eternal Son of God, the second person of the Godhead, assumed a human nature, being made like us in every way so that he could be the one to make propitiation to God (Heb. 2:14–18). Jesus was everything Adam was, and he succeeded where Adam failed.

The apostle Paul makes the typological connection between Adam and Jesus explicit: “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:18–19).

In another passage, Paul expounds the connection further, saying,

For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. . . . Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven (1 Cor. 15:21–22, 45–49).

Jesus Christ is the last Adam, the one in whom we have redemption from the consequences of Adam’s sin and from the consequences of our own personal transgressions. “The wages of sin (Adam’s and ours) is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:23).

At this point, some argue that the typological and theological importance of Adam in relation to Christ does not depend on the literal historicity of Adam. Adam can simply be a literary figure whose story makes a profound theological point. Just as I might instruct my children about perseverance in hard work by appealing to “The Tortoise and the Hare” without implying anything about the historicity of the fabled race, so Paul (and Hosea) can appeal to the literary story of Adam without implying that Adam is an actual historical person. This analogy, however, will not hold up to close scrutiny.

In the case of a literary fable used in moral instruction, the story is known to be merely illustrative by all who hear it. There is no history of interpretation of “The Tortoise and the

“Fundamental to Christian theology is the happy conviction that this typological pattern of new Adamlike figures did not end with the failure of the Davidic dynasty under the administration of the Law of Moses. The Gospel of Luke shows us that Adam’s genealogical line continues past the Old Testament

Davidic kings all the way to Jesus Christ (Luke 3:23–38).”

Hare” that ascribes to it a literal sense. On the other hand, the vast majority of interpreters of Genesis 2–3—ancient and modern, Jewish and Christian—have understood Adam and Eve to be literal, historical people. Indeed, even those interpreters who deny the historical existence of a literal Adam (such as Peter Enns1 and Denis O. Lamoreux2) have admitted that the apostle Paul and even Jesus

himself (see Matthew 19:1–10) did indeed believe Adam to be historical.

Inerrancy Compromised, Original Sin Scuttled

Such Christians argue that Jesus’ and Paul’s mistaken belief about the historicity of Adam does not affect the theology of the point being made by the story of Adam concerning human sin, judgment, and redemption. However, this raises an entirely new problem. The inspiration of Scripture as the word of God (2 Tim. 3:16–17) and the trustworthiness of Jesus as God the Son who speaks the word of God (John 3:34) is dramatically undermined by this argument. If Jesus and Paul affirmed as historical that which is not historical, then the word of God communicates as true that which is false. Thus, a denial of the historicity of Adam requires a radical retooling of the traditional doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture and a denial of the inerrancy of Scripture, a fact that those who reject the historicity of Adam are willing to admit.

Another problem with denying the historicity of Adam while affirming the theological claims made in the New Testament about him has to do with the enduring effect of the sin of Adam and Eve. The theological point being made by Paul through his allusion to Adam is not only the fact that Jesus succeeds where Adam failed but that all of humanity is condemned and corrupted on account of Adam’s sin. Paul is explicit that all of humanity is under condemnation and corruption because of the sin of the first man (Rom. 5:12–19). If Adam is merely a literary figure (whether believed by Paul to be historical or not), there can be no explanation for how the sin of a literary character in a myth can have consequences for people in the real world. Thus, a denial of the historicity of Adam would completely undo the historic and very important Christian doctrine of original sin.

Christian Interpretations of the Early Chapters of Genesis

Among Christians committed to the historical existence of Adam and Eve as progenitors of the human race along with such traditional Christian doctrines as the typological link between Adam as primal covenant failure and Christ as Redeemer, the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture as the word of God, and the doctrine of original sin, there are many different interpretive strategies for the first few chapters of Genesis.

Each view below is quite complex and nuanced, and proponents have offered extensive treatments to defend the views. The descriptions below are necessarily described broadly, focusing exclusively on the view’s handling of the historicity of Adam.

“If Adam is merely a literary figure (whether believed by Paul to be historical or not), there can be no explanation for how the sin of a literary character in a myth can have consequences for people in the real world.”

1Genesis 1–11 as Mythical. Some Christians take for granted the claim that biological diversity on earth is the result of a long process of macro-evolution by which all known species of life today evolved from other life forms such that all living things share a common descent. A commitment to such an understanding of biological life rules out the possibility that the opening chapters of Genesis are to be interpreted as historical narrative.

Such Christians usually see the opening chapters of Genesis (often the first 11) as bearing the character of “myth” in the sense of non-historical primaeval stories that function to explain why life in the world is the way that it is. Typically, such interpreters want to preserve the historical existence of Adam and Eve (and perhaps the other characters in the narrative) without affirming the details of the story. Along these lines, William Lane Craig uses the term mytho-history to describe the genre of Genesis 1–11.3 Others have used different terms to make similar points. Such interpreters should be commended for insisting on the historical existence of Adam and Eve, but the designation of Genesis 1–11 as mytho-history is fraught with problems. Despite protests to the contrary, there is nothing

in Genesis 1-11 that marks it as an entirely different genre than the rest of the book or other examples of historical narrative in the Bible. Furthermore, as noted earlier, the historical genealogies of Scripture, such as the extensive one in 1 Chronicles and the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3 give no indication of a different mode of historical account with respect to the names on the list prior to Abraham. As important as the affirmation of the historicity of Adam is for Christian theology, grounding one’s theology in the text of Scripture by means of a consistent hermeneutic is equally important, and it is precisely here that the mytho-history approach of Craig and others fails.

2Genesis 1 as Non-Historical Literature. Other interpreters affirm that the genre of the account from Adam to Abraham is not markedly different than the account from Abraham forward, but they do see a difference in genre between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and following. In other words, the historical narrative genre begins with Genesis 2:4 and is indicated using the Hebrew word tôlǝdôt (“these are the generations of”). This expression is a key literary feature marking the historical continuity of the Genesis narrative, linking the descendants of Abraham with the rest of mankind.

Prior to the tôlǝdôt of Genesis 2:4, the text is seen as communicating in some way other than straightforward historical narrative. On this view, the six-day creation account of Genesis 1 is not historical narrative, but a literary unit intended to convey theological truth about God, man, creation, and God’s redeeming purposes. Thus, the weeklong structure of particular creative events occurring on sequential days is an extended metaphor rather than a literal week of history. There are multiple versions of this

view, sometimes called the literary framework theory. The strength of the view with respect to the question of the historical Adam is its space for one to maintain a commitment to the historicity of the life of Adam and Eve and the other events of Genesis 2–11 about which the New Testament speaks as historical.

However, the sharp divide between the historicity of Genesis 2 and the non-historical character of Genesis 1 is not without problems. Perhaps the greatest difficulty is the fact that Jesus identifies the man and the woman who are joined together in Genesis 2:24 as the “male and female” created on day six in Genesis 1. In Matthew 19:1–10, when asked about the legitimacy of divorce, Jesus cites Genesis 1:27, which says that God made them male and female “in the beginning.” He then moves seamlessly into a quotation of Genesis 2:24, noting that God joined the two together. In other words, Jesus unhesitatingly identifies the “male and female” of chapter 1 with the “man and woman” who were united as one flesh in chapter 2.

This kind of identity seems to indicate that Jesus understood the detailed account of the creation of man and woman and their union in marriage as giving greater detail to the general creation narrative of the back half of the sixth day in Genesis 1. The upshot of all of this is that Jesus assumes the historical character of both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

3The Days of Creation as Long Days. Another view sees the entirety of the opening chapters of Genesis as historical. However, the six “days” of creation are not 24-hour days but rather very long epochs of time. A “day” of creation may cover a time-period of hundreds of thousands to many millions of years. On this

“If Christians are to maintain faithfulness to the Lord in this hostile age, we must be able to articulate a clear and consistent doctrine of humanity rooted in the fact that God has made mankind in his image, mankind is fallen into sin through Adam, and the only hope of redemption from our condemnation and corruption is the redemption found in the second Adam, Jesus Christ.”

kyle d . claunch

reading, the interpreter is able to maintain the historical character of Genesis 1 without being committed to a particular age of the earth. If this view is correct, no account is given in Scripture for how much time elapses between the dawn of creation and the historical Adam and Eve.

While this view is more consistent in its commitment to the historicity of Genesis, it is not without problems of its own. Many find the interpretation of the word “day” as a long period of time to be strained, at best. It is true that the Hebrew word for day can mean many things, including an undefined and long period of time. But the “days” in Genesis 1 are clearly presented as corresponding to a week (consider the sabbath command of Exodus 20:8-11, for example), whereas other examples of “day” having a meaning other than a 24-four-hour day bears that meaning obviously in context so that a 24-hour meaning would be nonsensical. This is clearly not the case in Genesis 1. More importantly, however, is the fact that this view presupposes a long history of death in the created order prior to the creation and sin of Adam.

Proponents of this view will point out that Romans 5:12 only demands that human death is a result of Adam’s sin and says nothing of animal death. However, Romans 5:12 is not the only relevant New Testament text in this regard. In Romans 8:18-23, Paul anticipates the restoration of all creation at the time of the glorification of redeemed humanity in the eschaton. He rehearses the devastating effect of mankind’s fall into sin on the rest of creation. He states that creation itself has been “subjected to futility” (v. 20) on account of human sin. Furthermore, all creation is held in “bondage to corruption” (v. 21) while awaiting the day of its freedom when the children of God are glorified. The Greek word for “corruption” is phthora, a word usually associated with the decay of death.

Peter uses a form of this word in Acts 2:27 when talking about the body of the Lord Jesus, which God will not allow to undergo “corruption” (diaphthora). Paul’s point in Romans 8 seems to be that the futility and corruption of all creation is a result of mankind’s fall. Thus, the completion of mankind’s redemption will result in the freedom of creation from its bondage. As goes mankind, so goes creation. Thus, Paul seems to teach that death in the non-human creation is the result of Adam’s sin. The long-day interpretation of the days of creation cannot consistently maintain the view that death is entirely the result of human sin, a problem that plagues the other views surveyed here as well.

4Genesis 1 Is Historical Narrative with 24-hour Days. To my understanding, the only view that maintains a commitment to the historical Adam and Eve while avoiding the interpretive inconsistencies and potential theological pitfalls identified above

is the view that takes Genesis 1 to be a straightforward historical narrative that gives an account of God’s creation and initial formation of the material universe in six 24hour days consisting of a literal “evening and morning.”

This view is consistent in that it does not force a distinction between the genre of Genesis 1 and 2 nor between Genesis 1–11 and 12–50. Rather, the historical character of Genesis is maintained throughout the narrative and is in historical continuity with the whole Pentateuch and the rest of the Old Testament, leading to the birth of God’s Son from the virgin Mary “in the fullness of time” (Gal. 4:4–5). This view accounts for all creaturely death and bondage as a result of human sin, a conclusion Paul seems to commend in Romans 8:18-23 and other places.

Conclusion

The doctrine of humanity (theological anthropology) is one of the most contentious aspects of the Christian faith in an increasingly secular age. Massively important ethical issues—questions pertaining to the life of the unborn and the elderly or infirmed, questions of societal justice and racial reconciliation, questions of gender and sexuality—all depend on one’s commitment to the doctrine of creation, namely the conviction that it is God who made us and not we ourselves (Ps. 100:3). As Creator, he alone has the right and wisdom to set and direct our ethical commitments.

If Christians are to maintain faithfulness to the Lord in this hostile age, we must be able to articulate a clear and consistent doctrine of humanity rooted in the fact that God has made mankind in his image, mankind is fallen into sin through Adam, and the only hope of redemption from our condemnation and corruption is the redemption found in the second Adam, Jesus Christ.

This kind of doctrinal clarity and fidelity requires belief in a historical Adam and Eve as non-negotiable, and the most consistent way to maintain belief in the historicity of Adam and Eve is by adopting an interpretive strategy that treats all the early chapters of Genesis as straightforward historical narrative with Genesis 1 understood as describing God’s creative activity over the course of six 24-hour days.

Kyle Claunch, Assistant Professor of Christian Theology

1 The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2021).

2 “No Historical Adam: Evolutionary Creation View” in Four Views on the Historical Adam, ed. Matthew Barrett and Ardel Caneday (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013).

3 William Lane Craig, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2021).

Pillars and Bridges

HOW TO PROCLAIM AND UPHOLD THE GOSPEL THROUGH APOLOGETIC METHOD AND STRATEGY

by stephen j. wellum

WWhat does apologetic method and strategy have to do with our understanding and practice of evangelism?

For many people, to ask such a question is strange, since it is common to think that apologetics and evangelism belong in distinct domains. In apologetics, we defend the truth of Scripture, give reasons for why we believe the gospel, and challenge the unbelief of the non-Christian. But is not evangelism something different? Is it not less polemical than apologetics? Is not evangelism more about sharing the good news of our Lord Jesus Christ as we call people to repentance and faith than about arguing for the truth of the gospel?

Although some people distinguish apologetics from evangelism in this way, in truth, this is an artificial and unhelpful distinction. In fact, it is especially unhelpful if one embraces a presuppositional view of apologetics. Why? Because properly understood, presuppositionalism involves both the defense and proclamation of the gospel.

As such, as a method and strategy, a presuppositional approach is vitally necessary to help the church fulfill her calling to proclaim Christ Jesus and to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).

To explain why this is the case, let me develop two points. First, I’ll explain what a presuppositional approach to apologetics is. Unfortunately, there are not only varieties of apologetic approaches known as “presuppositional,” there are also a number of misconceptions of the view. Second, after clarifying what presuppositionalism is, I’ll then explain why it is crucial to a sound defense and proclamation of the gospel.

What Is Presuppositional Apologetics?

Without describing every use of the term “presuppositional,” let me describe how I am using the word. “Presuppositions” refer to one’s ultimate

criterions that are foundational to and which ground one’s overall worldview. Although some deny that they have a worldview, this is not the case: everyone has a worldview whether they acknowledge it or not.

Despite differences between worldviews, every view is grounded in some ultimate criterion(s) or presuppositions that directs their reasoning and allows them to interpret their experience of the world, especially on ultimate matters. Given this fact, this is why what is most significant in worldview analysis is comparing and contrasting a worldview’s presuppositional commitments.

Furthermore, it is important to note that it is not enough merely to assert one’s presuppositions; one must also argue for them, at least if one wants to argue for the truth of one’s view over against other worldviews. For this reason, a presuppositional approach to apologetics does not merely assert the truth of the gospel, it also argues for the objective truth of the Christian worldview over against non-Christian views.

“Creation and history are the stage and theater on which God displays his glory, and ultimately in the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of God the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ—the one who has assumed our human nature to accomplish our redemption.”

Additionally, to clarify what presuppositionalism is as an apologetic method, it is crucial to note that it is not against the use of evidences in the defense of Christianity. Unfortunately, the term may convey such a misunderstanding, as if presuppositionalism is only concerned about arguing for one’s ultimate criterions and not concerned about giving specific proofs and evidences for the truth of the gospel. On the contrary, presuppositionalism affirms the necessary role that evidences serve in the defense of the gospel, especially given the nature of Christianity.

Unlike other religious and philosophical views, the truthfulness of Christianity depends on the claim that our triune God is not only the Creator of the world but also the God who acts in history as the sovereign and providential Lord.

Creation and history are the stage and theater on which God displays his glory, and ultimately in the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of God the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ—the one who has assumed our human nature to accomplish our redemption. For this reason, Christianity stands or falls on the objective truth of particular events in history. Thus, for example, if the flood, exodus,

and Old Testament events did not occur as Scripture describes—or in the case of our Lord Jesus, there was no virgin conception, miraculous life, bodily resurrection, glorious ascension, and Pentecost—Christianity crumbles. If these events did not occur in history, the truth of Scripture and the claims of the gospel are false.

However, presuppositionalism rightly reminds us that evidences never stand alone apart from being presented in an overall theology. Why? Because there are no such things as “brute facts,” namely un-interpreted or self-interpreting “facts.” Instead, “facts” are part of an overall context—an interpretive system or worldview—by which they are understood. This is why in our presentation of the “facts” for Christianity, facts must be presented within the entire worldview they are embedded, otherwise they signify nothing.

For example, think of Christ’s bodily resurrection. Apart from the worldview of Scripture, the resurrection would not signify what it actually does in Scripture. After all, Jesus’ resurrection is more than a mere historical event: it is evidence that Jesus alone is the Savior, Lord, Judge, the one who has ratified a new covenant, and inaugurated a new creation (Acts 2:32-36; 4:12; 13:32-38; 17:30-31; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Heb. 9:15-28). Apart from a specific view of God, history as the unfolding of God’s eternal plan, and a specific conception of the Redeemer, Christ’s bodily resurrection in history would signify none of these truths.

Defining Presuppositionalism

So what, then, is presuppositionalism? Five points will summarize the overall view.

of the world and themselves—despite their view and not because of their ultimate commitments.

It contends that no one is neutral in their thinking and lives. Everyone (Christian or non-Christian) is committed to a worldview, whether they are self-conscious about it or not.

In this regard, presuppositionalists make a crucial distinction: non-Christians can know many truths due to creation and common grace, but they cannot account for or provide a rational grounding for what they know and why they know based on their worldview alone. This is why Scripture teaches that non-Christian views are not and cannot be self-consistent given that “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Prov. 1:7) and “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” (Ps. 14:1a).

Divine revelation is the foundation of all knowledge. This includes God’s revelation of himself in creation (natural revelation) and Scripture (special revelation). Without God creating the world and revealing himself in nature and Scripture, we would have no ultimate warrant for what we know. True objective knowledge requires its ground or warrant in the triune God who is there and who speaks.

In our defense of Christianity, we must look beyond the surface of the debate and critique a person’s ultimate criterions or presuppositional commitments. In other words, it isn’t enough merely to give evidences for the truth of the Bible (which we must do). We must also compare and contrast presuppositional differences between worldviews so that the full intellectual challenge of the gospel is brought against other views.

1 2 3 4

Due to God’s self-revelation in creation and history, all people are without excuse for their rejection of the truth and rebellion against God. Whether the non-Christian admits it or not, they know God from nature, and within their conscience, since the one true and living God is clearly revealed in what he has created (Rom. 1:18-32; Ps. 19:1-6). In our sin, we attempt to suppress this knowledge, yet the unbeliever cannot fully rid himself of the knowledge of God. Therefore, all non-Christian thought can never be completely consistent with itself. Instead, in some form, it lives off the “borrowed capital” of the Christian view. For this reason, non-Christians may have a limited understanding

5

The strategy employed by presuppositionalism applies Proverbs 26:4-5 to worldview analysis and critique. In this text, we are exhorted to “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” If we begin with the second exhortation, we seek to do an internal critique of the non-Christian’s worldview by demonstrating that on its own terms (i.e., according to his folly) it leads to self-contradictions, tensions, and ultimately an inability to provide a rational accounting for what we know to be true.

After this occurs, we then return to the first exhortation to present the Christian worldview as the only view that can account for such things as rationality, laws of logic, science, human dignity, objective moral norms, and so on. In this way, we seek to demonstrate that the Christian view alone warrants these things that we know to be true, while the non-Christian view internally self-destructs on its own terms.

How Does Presuppositional Apologetics

Help in our Evangelism?

Let me answer this question by focusing on two points. First, because presuppositionalism begins with the entire Christian worldview, or better, an entire Christian theology as its starting point, it gives evangelism its message to proclaim. To proclaim the gospel faithfully and rightly, we must have a whole theology in place. For example, to proclaim Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior requires an entire theology of who the triune God is, who humans are, the nature of the human problem, the identity of Jesus as God the Son incarnate, the nature of the cross, and so on. Presuppositionalism provides such a theology for evangelism, and thus gives to evangelism its message to proclaim. Second, presuppositionalism also gives evangelism its

method and strategy by which we go about proclaiming the gospel. For this reason, the task of apologetics and evangelism is the same, namely, to bring the truth of the gospel to bear on the lives of unbelievers who stand under divine judgment for their suppression and denial of the truth. Just as apologetics seeks to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5), evangelism seeks the same goal. In other words, in apologetics, our strategy is to compare and contrast the worldview thinking of the Christian with the non-Christian, seeking to demonstrate that it is only the Christian view that stands.

In evangelism, our strategy is no different.

In fact, presuppositional apologetics helps us carry out our task of evangelism in a more precise manner. As we share Christ with non-Christians, we remind them that they are God’s fallen creatures and image-bearers who stand under his judgment due to their denial of him as their Creator and Lord. Our message is that apart from Christ and building their thought and lives on him, their worldviews are reduced to foolishness. Why? Because in their refusal to fear God, in their refusal to build their lives on the triune God and his self-revelation, their thinking is unable to account for the basic truths of the world on their own terms.

Thus, apart from coming to Christ in repentance and faith as their only Lord and Savior, their thought and lives have no solid foundation on which to be built; instead, they will discover that their views are built simply on quicksand. This is why the only solution for the non-Christian is to repent of their rejection of the truth and to turn to their Creator and Lord, and to receive in God’s gracious promise of Christ the forgiveness of their sins, the work of the Spirit to unite them to Christ, and to be transformed

after the pattern of Christ’s glorified humanity. Then, forevermore, they will fulfill the purpose of their existence in a new creation—to know, glorify, worship, and obey God.

Organically Related

In this way, presuppositional apologetics and evangelism are organically related, and even more, presuppositionalism is necessary to a sound defense and proclamation of the gospel.

Although we can distinguish between the domain of apologetics and evangelism, both carry out the theological task of knowing the glory of the triune God and applying Scripture to every area of life.

Additionally, both apologetics and evangelism seek to fulfill the biblical mandate to “always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15) and to “destroy arguments raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5) by proclaiming the glory of the triune God in the face of our Lord Jesus Christ.

After all, as Paul reminds us, in our apologetics and evangelism, it is Christ “we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ” (Col. 1:28). Why? Because in contrast to worldviews grounded in “empty deceit and human tradition” (Col. 2:8), in Christ alone is true wisdom (Col. 2:9).

May what God has joined together never be separated as we fulfill our calling as the church to know, proclaim, and defend that Jesus is Lord.

Stephen J. Wellum is Professor of Christian Theology and Editor of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology.

BIBLES • AUTHOR EVENTS • CHRISTIAN LIVING • APPAREL

Experience one of the largest theological bookstores in North America.

Monday — Friday: 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.

Saturday: 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Sunday: Closed

Playing Offense

HOW CHRISTIAN NATURAL LAW ARGUMENTS WORK IN PUBLIC APOLOGETICS

by andrew t. walker

For many Christians in our culture, it’s easier to stay silent when one is in the minority opinion about a controversial topic rather than risk disturbing the status quo. Of course, there are wisdom issues about knowing when to speak up, and not everyone is called to join the battle in all the same ways.

But being in the minority does not excuse a total refusal to speak up—especially when Christians have better answers to the most pressing challenges of our day that threaten to tear apart our social order and rob individuals of the flourishing they are owed as image bearers. And that’s the whole point I want to argue: Christians have better, more satisfying answers to explain the confusion and conflict that plagues our contemporary culture, so we should speak up. To engage in public apologetics, though, Christians must understand the types of arguments we need to make.

Making Sound Arguments

Much of my role as an ethics professor at Southern Seminary is convincing students that on the most controversial issues of our day, the best answers are not only Christian answers, but Christian answers are also the most coherent answers one could offer to their secular neighbor. To do public apologetics—to make arguments in hopes of explaining and persuading—requires us as Christians to understand the relationship between faith and reason. We must understand the reasonableness of the ethics we hold as Christians if we hope to make arguments that would hope to see individuals converted and culture more humane.

I’ll use a famous illustration to explain my point. In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King, Jr. made a profound argument for overturning racist laws. But it was not just the conclusion he reached that we should agree with; it was how he got there, too. His argument, which was intended to be publicly accessible and persuasive for pricking consciences and changing laws, appealed to the Christian natural law tradition. Citing Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, King argued that “an unjust law is not law at all.” He wrote:

How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a manmade code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and

natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality.

What King meant was that a law that purposefully harms does not retain the actual power to command obedience; it is thus not true law. Justice can never entail the denial of what is owed to persons. That is, well, unjust. A law, after all, is a standard or measurement that obligates individuals to obey its precepts on the basis that the precept advances some rational good. All truly sound laws will reflect an ordinance of reason that directs persons to their good. To say a law is reasonable means it accomplishes justice. But a law that obstructs or thwarts the good cannot be an actual law because it is unjust. King argues that not only are racial supremacy laws in violation of Christian theology, they violate all rational grounds for justice as well. A true law reflects the principle of justice. A law that does violence to one’s neighbor is wrong because we can grasp the harm the law perpetrates. We would ourselves not want to be on the receiving end of that unjust law’s application. This explains the logic behind the Golden Rule in Luke 6:31. Jesus assumes that any action is just toward others insofar as it is the type of action we would want applied to ourselves. No one in their right mind goes looking to harm themselves for no good cause, so likewise, any law that harms others cannot obtain the grounds of justice, either. Crucially, it’s worth noticing that King does not pit reason against

“Much of my role as an ethics professor at Southern Seminary is convincing students that on the most controversial issues of our day, the best answers are not only Christian answers, but Christian answers are also the most coherent answers one could offer to their secular neighbor.”

theology. Instead, he shows us the reciprocal relationship of both. That, I suggest, is what the task of public apologetics requires. We must explain how the theological premise of our conviction can be embraced by, and bears relevance to, the interest of our secular interlocutor.

Widening the Sufficiency of Scripture

King’s argument serves as a model for how Christians should think about the types of arguments we make. Yes, we should make our case from Scripture and see it as our ultimate and all-sufficient authority, but Scripture is not the only tool in our arsenal that God gave to us, and we would be wrong to assume that knowledge of right and wrong are disclosed only in Scripture. This in no way violates our understanding of the Bible’s sufficiency but widens it.

A narrow sufficiency that does ethics only by prooftext alone will, unintentionally, leave Christians without answers to a whole host of questions. A broader sufficiency, one that encompasses how Scripture speaks over all of created reality, broadens our understanding of the Bible’s relevancy to public apologetics.

The task of public apologetics will often require us to go beyond the pages of Scripture, but never against it. God is the source of all moral knowledge, but a God-implanted moral knowledge is broader than what is contained in Scripture. True moral knowledge resides in all persons regardless of their acknowledging God. He gives humanity the powers of reason and cognition to know whether something is true or false on its own grounds (Rom. 2:14-15). We may suppress the truth or err in our application of the moral law (Rom. 1:18-21), but Scripture attests to the reality of the moral law. Nowhere does Scripture argue that non-Christians are incapable of knowing truth. Scripture argues that non-Christians suppress the truth.

What does this have to do with public apologetics? It means we’re going to have to engage in reasoned debate about deeply moral questions. All moral law certainly emanates from God, but that does not mean one who does not believe in God does not have actual moral knowledge. The unbeliever may have no solid ground upon which to base their morality, but unstable foundations do not invalidate that the knowledge they do have is

true. That may sound like I am investing too much weight or optimism in reason itself. That’s not my intention. Instead, I want us to understand that a secular progressive’s refusal to agree with Scripture also signals their refusal to agree with what are ultimately the sound principles of morality as such. Principles of morality will be sound or they will not be, regardless of the non-believer’s understanding of their foundation. A non-believer may want to argue that an apple is an orange or a man can be a woman, but if they insist upon an irrational conclusion, a part of the task of apologetics is not only offering sound foundations but also sound principles for determining the nature of reality and truth as such. We can and should debate origins, but what we should be concerned preeminently with, is truthfulness. If God’s world is one of order, there must be truth to be understood. If that is true, Christians are called to every sphere of engagement for God’s glory.

“The whole edifice of Christian morality should cause us to point our interlocutor to God because without God, there can be no stable foundation of morality.”

God speaks with one voice in two ways: in Scripture and in creation. Suppose we pit these two against each other, as though faith and reason are opposites. In that case, we do violence to Scripture and send the wrong signal to unbelievers that they are justified to sever reason from faith, as though there are degrees of knowledge incompatible with faith.

Now, some aspects of reason may be incomplete, but they are never incompatible with faith. For example, an unbeliever might not know God as triune. Still, the same triune God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is also the God who rationally ordered a universe where all can know injustice exists and should be rectified. Creation order speaks (Psalm 19; Rom. 1:19-20). An unbeliever may not be able to give account for the identity of the triune God, but they could, in principle, understand that abortion is wrong. And that’s because the world God created is intelligible. It explains why non-Christians can make wonderful discoveries or become experts in medicine: the world has order to it.

Biblical Morality Is Truly Reasonable

Scripture speaks in a panoramic way when it comes to morality. The whole edifice of Christian morality should cause us to point our interlocutor to God because without God, there can be no stable foundation of morality. We should not let our secular neighbors off the hook because they reject Scripture. We should also ask them: from whence does your understanding of sound ethics

derive? Morality reduces to two options: either (1) A transcendently given morality that is universally true and objectively accords with reason and reality as such, or (2) a contingent, evolving neural mechanism promoting dopamine-like sensations based upon group, preference, and power.

If all moral knowledge is known exclusively by Scripture rather than ultimately by Scripture’s testimony of God’s sovereignty, we might unintentionally forfeit the ground on which we’re called to play, which is everywhere. But neither should we ever grant the premise that the morality Scripture speaks of is anything ever less than truly reasonable. Thus, to jettison Scripture, in other words, is to jettison reason itself because the Lord is a God of reason, not sheer will. God does not create Christian morality “over here” and non-Christian secular morality “over there.” The triune God is not only the God over salvation but also creation, which means when God rationally orders the universe, the morality that goes with it is not bifurcated between “Christian” and “non-Christian.”

We see this in Genesis 1.

Genesis describes a creational order that bears witness to creation as such, not simply a Christian view of creation as though the world we inhabit as Christians is different for non-Christians. No, there is one God, one cosmos, one world, and one morality. The beauty of Christian ethics is that properly ordered reason will always harmonize with what Scripture teaches is true. Reason is subordinate to Scripture but never at odds with it. There is no tension and can never truly be. God is not a God of chaos, irrationality, or contradiction.

Our ethics are never less than biblically rooted, but biblically rooted ethics necessarily spin us outward. Our knowledge is not valid insofar as it only agrees with

“If God’s world is one of order, there must be truth to be understood. If that is true, Christians are called to every sphere of engagement for God’s glory.”

andrew t . walker

Scripture, but reason as well. But if it’s reasonable, it will never be at odds with Scripture. If there are reasoned justifications for the ethics we espouse that satisfy the criteria for rational soundness, then where that truth is located—whether in special revelation or general revelation—is irrelevant.

What matters is whether the argument in question is true or false. No tenet of Christian ethics will ever be at odds with what reason can know as true. Therefore, when we speak of “Christian Ethics,” we speak of an inherently public discipline because Christian ethics are grounded in creation, divinely attested to in Scripture, and confirmed by reason. The truthfulness of our ethics is not a private, self-disclosed reality.

Deploy the Full Range of God-Given Arguments

What I want to encourage you with in this brief essay is not so much the correctness of Christian ethics upon such matters as abortion, sexual ethics, and gender—and indeed, they are true—but how Christians should think about our arguments in themselves. I say this because there is a tendency among Christians to think that our viewpoints only have merit because they are found in Scripture. Of course, they have infinite worth because they are found in Scripture, but their soundness expands beyond just Scripture. Their truthfulness reflects the pattern of an orderly creation patterned by God. Practically speaking, it means the pro-choice advocate or transgender activist is revolting against both reason and revelation.

But I’d like to suggest that grounding our ethics and the call to public apologetics in Scripture alone is to bypass the full range of arguments that God gives us. We should never appeal any less to Scripture. We are, after all, Protestants who believe in sola Scriptura. But sola Scriptura is not solo Scriptura. It has never been the position of Christian ethics that authority is found only within Scripture, but that Scripture is our ultimate authority The basic question this raises is whether there are other valid sources of authority that Christians should consider when making public arguments. Sound reason that comports with God’s creation is one of them.

All matters of public policy and cultural flash-points subject to intense debate in the public arena, if they are essential to organizing our shared life around, ought to and can be debated on the basis of reason, which is never disconnected from theology, but merely its entailment. Further, any principle of public policy that a Christian would want to see codified as a sound reflection of biblical morality would necessarily be grounded in the natural law. Any cultural debate that requires Christians to offer a definitive response must never be at odds with

reason; if it were, it would not be grounded in God’s eternal law from the start.

For example, it is either reasonable or unreasonable to kill an unborn child in the womb. This is either a morally good act or a morally evil act. What it cannot be is morally benign. Reasoned arguments that are grounded in a scriptural worldview require us to consider whether the principle that would license abortion is in fact worthy of our affirmation. But both reason and revelation testify to abortion’s unreasonableness. It constitutes the unlawful taking of human life, which is a violation of the right to life and God’s authorship of life, and it is therefore a violation of the sixth commandment (Ex. 20:13).

But to determine whether abortion violates the sixth commandment, I need to apply principles of reason to determine whether the unborn child meets the threshold of a right to life. That requires understandings of hermeneutics, philosophy, biology, embryology, and ethics. All this means is that in a topic like abortion, we need to argue from all sources that coordinate to the truthfulness of abortion being sinful.

Total Ethics, Total Christ

The task of public apologetics is to bear witness to the total Christ. The Christ who redeems is the same Christ who creates and orders (John 1:3; Col. 1:15-17). Where Christ is rejected, nature and reason are dismissed as well, which produces the very pottage of decay all around us: an anti-culture basking in the absurd and the perverse.

Perhaps the greatest non-canonical theologian of the church, Augustine, echoed such a similar refrain when he admonished his readers:

Let us attend to the real matter in debate, and let our arguments appeal to reason and to the authoritative teaching of the Divine Scriptures, dispassionately and calmly, so far as we are able.

There’s no principle of Christian morality, whether decreed in Scripture or attested to in nature, that is not simultaneously ordered to God’s glory and our good. If good, an ordinance of reason; if reasonable, it is sound; if sound, it is binding; if binding, it is God-ordained.

Christianity provides the most consistent, coherent account of morality necessary for the task of public apologetics. It offers God as the source of our ethics, reason as the basis of moral knowledge, and an all-encompassing goal: our good, but chiefly, God’s glory.

Andrew T. Walker is Associate Professor of Christian Ethics and Apologetics and Associate Dean of the School of Theology.

by dustin bruce

reaching history’s most secular generation: apologetics and gen-z

In the West, the demand for the church to do the work of an apologist compares only with the task of reaching the pagan culture which the church faced in the second and third century AD. Report after report testify to the fact that Gen Z (those born between 1997 and 2012 according to Pew Research Center) is the most secular generation in history.

IIn recent findings by Barna, the rates of atheism among Gen Z were double that found in older generations. Anecdotal evidence confirms the statistics and survey results. In a recent conversation with a ministry leader, he relayed to me that his teenage daughter often had to explain what a “pastor” was after sharing her father’s vocation with classmates in a suburban public school. That a young person would have such a lack of familiarity with

“THE LORD HAS PROMISED TO BUILD HIS CHURCH AND THAT WILL INCLUDE MANY FROM AMONG GEN Z. BUT AS THOSE CALLED TO MAKE A DEFENSE REGARDING THE HOPE WITHIN US, WE MUST BE STRATEGIC IN MEETING THE QUESTIONS OF GEN Z WITH THE ANSWERS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE HOPE OF THE GOSPEL.”

the Christian faith would have been unthinkable among any previous generation of Americans.

While the effects of secularization on the rising generation should concern the entire church, those who work in student and college ministry face these challenges daily. The Lord has promised to build his church and that will include many from among Gen Z. But as those called to make a defense regarding the hope within us, we must be strategic in meeting the questions of Gen Z with the answers of Scripture in the hope of the gospel.

The conversation related to how best reach the most secular generation in history (so far) is just beginning, but I would like to put forward four recommendations based on the current research, my own experience, and conversations with ministry leaders across the country.

1. Emphasize the goodness of God and the Christian faith. For young men and women catechized by a secular culture, religion—and Christianity in particular—is now seen as not only pointless, but often as dangerous. The blame for oppression, conflict, and strife often gets laid at the feet of Christianity, particularly in its institutional form. Engaging Gen Z with the gospel may require not just making a case for why Christian belief is plausible, but contending against a fear that embracing Christianity would be to engage in a religious form of self-harm.

Against such suspicions, apologists to Gen Z must emphasize that the God revealed in Scripture “abounds in goodness” (Exod. 34:6) and that “the earth is full of the

goodness of the Lord” (Ps. 33:5).

The Christian gospel recognizes the brokenness of the world but presents a story of a good God sending his only Son to redeem sinful humanity. We can be honest about the failings of those who have born the name of Christ, recognizing that “there is no one good but God alone” (Mark 10:18) and pointing Gen Z to the spotless Lamb who died for the sins of the world.

2. Distinguish between rational objections and emotional barriers to faith. The discipline of apologetics possesses a long track record of presenting thoughtful and well-reasoned arguments for the plausibility of Christian belief. While an emphasis on the rationality of Christianity will be necessary until Christ returns, the barriers to faith present among Gen Z are often more emotional than rational.

The rising generation often perceives Christianity to be out of touch and in opposition to the expressive individualism of the secular culture. In our efforts to reach the next generation, we must be wise to distinguish when a student has a sincere intellectual objection to some point of Christian doctrine and when a student worries that some belief would require them to maintain a belief that contrasts with their feelings.

3. Present Gen Z with a thick view of Christianity. As we engage with the most secular generation in history, the temptation can be to minimize the points of disagreement between the Christian faith and the secular world. While this reaction is understandable, those apologists

who present the most full-throated vision of Christianity will serve Gen Z best.

The Lord Jesus Christ makes comprehensive demands on the life of those who follow him (Luke 9:57–62). While the gospel remains a simple message that calls for a straightforward response of repentance and faith, the Christian faith works itself out as an entire world and life view. Every generation must be presented with the truth that all things were created through and for Christ (Col. 1:16). The comprehensive nature of Christ’s claim over the lives of those who follow him should be a part of the initial apologetic conversations and not an afterthought.

4. Make your case in the context of community. Gen Z is not only the most secular generation but also the loneliest. Recent reports from Pew and the Survey Center on American Life detail how smaller families and broken homes contribute to epidemic levels of loneliness in the emerging generation.

Jean Twenge connects the ubiquitous presence of technology to decreased social behavior among today’s teens and young adults in her book, iGen. With all the supposed opportunities and conveniences available to Gen Z from contemporary secular culture, members of this emerging generation are suffering from a lack of meaningful relationships and community. This, of course, represents an opportunity for the church.

Come Together

As we make our appeal to the next generation, we must

be clear that the summons to follow Christ includes the commitment and blessing of Christian community. Christ expects his disciples to gather (Matt. 18:20) and “to stir up one another in love and good works” (Heb. 10:24).

Apologetics aimed at Gen Z will be most effective when accompanied by a genuine invitation into a personal relationship and the opportunity to witness Christian community. Secularism ultimately cannot live up to its promises. Christians have an opportunity to engage in an “apologetic of normalcy” as secularism continues to drive society in a direction at odds with creation order and Scripture. The imperfect but rightly ordered lives of Christians will present an attractive alternative to the secular norm and undergird the work of the apologist.

While the apologetic task of reaching the next generation looms large, those of us who work with Gen Z know “the arm of the Lord is not too short to save” (Isa. 59:11). As we make our defense of the faith to the coming generation, we do so confident that many will “taste and see that the Lord is good” (Ps. 34:8). The surveys and studies alert us to the challenge of reaching the most secular generation in history; but we rise to meet that challenge in the confidence of the gospel of our Lord Jesus and by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Dustin Bruce is Dean of Boyce College and Assistant Professor of Christian Theology and Church History.

“APOLOGETICS AIMED AT GEN Z WILL BE MOST EFFECTIVE WHEN ACCOMPANIED BY A GENUINE INVITATION INTO A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITNESS CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. SECULARISM ULTIMATELY CANNOT LIVE UP TO ITS PROMISES.”

Master of Arts

Biblical Counseling

For those seeking deeper training in biblical counseling, Southern Seminary now o ers a way to develop your skills while remaining in your current ministry context. Whether its online, on-campus, or both, all courses are taught by the same trusted faculty that makes Southern Seminary renowned for academic rigor, convictional delity, and biblical faithfulness.

by tom schreiner

Fwe argue

that

jesus is the only way, but are we living it out?

For scholars, pastors, and engaged Christians, belief that Jesus is the only way changes the way we live and interact with others. It may be helpful to reflect on a few ways that belief in the exclusivity of Christ affects our lives. First, if Jesus is the only way, we must be courageous. We must not flinch from telling others that Jesus is the only way, even if it means we are rejected by others.

Consider the blind man Jesus healed in John 9. He boldly testified to what he knew about Jesus, even though it cost him social standing and acceptance. He forfeited his place in the synagogue, and thus lost the approval of those with power and influence in the community. He was faithful to what he experienced, repeating over and over again that Jesus healed him of blindness. And when Jesus revealed himself as the Son of Man, the man who

“A FEW YEARS AGO, EVANGELICALS DISCUSSED AND DEBATED THE EXCLUSIVITY OF CHRIST MORE INTENSELY THAN IN RECENT YEARS, INCITED BY BOOKS, PERSONALITIES, AND CONFERENCES. THAT YEAR, THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY FOCUSED ITS MEETING ON THAT CRUCIAL TOPIC.”

was formerly blind worshiped him.

But the Pharisees reviled the man as an ignoramus, criticizing him for trying to teach them and characterizing him as one entirely born in sin. And his parents showed they were cowards, for when they were asked about their son, they said:

We know this is our son and that he was born blind.… But we don’t know how he now sees, and we don’t know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he’s of age. He will speak for himself.

His parents protested ignorance since they didn’t see first-hand what happened. They gave an answer that would preserve their social standing. They put their finger in the wind and concluded it would be too costly socially to stand up for Jesus.

How about you? Do you shrink back from saying what you believe to gain the praise of others? Scholars, do you modify your words and even your convictions to ensure your social standing at academic societies like ETS, IBR, or SBL?

I am always struck and convicted when I read why many did not believe in Jesus, according to John 5:43-44. Jesus says:

I have come in my Father’s name, yet you don’t accept me. If someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe? While accepting glory from one another, you don’t seek the glory that comes from the only God.

The fundamental reason for their disbelief, despite their words, was not intellectual or theological. They

lusted for praise from others, and therefore they failed to believe. It is right for us to regularly ask ourselves: Am I captivated by fear of what others think? Am I holding these beliefs to get praise from others whom I respect? Or am I living as if Jesus is the only way, so there is nothing sweeter to me than receiving the glory that comes from God? May God help us to stand firm so that we live to bring honor and praise to him.

Arrogance and Truth

Many today think we are arrogant if we believe Jesus is the only way. How can we, finite and limited, claim to know the truth? Such a view contradicts what we find in Scripture, i.e., we know the truth because the Holy Spirit has revealed Christ to us. Paul makes this plain in 1 Corinthians 2:6-16.

But here I quote the prophetic words of G. K. Chesterton:

Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction— where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth: this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert—himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt—the Divine Reason.… The new skeptic is so humble that he doubts if he can even learn.

If we live like Jesus is the only way, we will be courageous. We will testify to the truth in Christ. We will not trim our convictions to please others, but in our teaching, preaching, and writing we will be faithful to our Lord. We will remember the words of Paul to Timothy: “So

don’t be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, or of me his prisoner. Instead, share in suffering for the gospel, relying on the power of God” (2 Tim. 1:8).

Don’t Detract from Truth

That leads me to the next point, which is related to the first one. Living like Jesus is the only way also means that we will be humble. Our Lord calls on us to courageously and boldly testify to the truth, but sometimes the way we testify to the truth detracts from the truth.

I remember when I was a young scholar, and some of the most prominent defenders of evangelicalism were known for their brilliance and their boldness in fighting error. But they were also known for their arrogance and egos. There is no excuse for departing from the truth of the gospel, but surely some have left evangelicalism behind because of the spirit with which we have defended the truth.

When we are contending for the truth, we must not forget Paul’s admonition to Timothy:

The Lord’s slave must not quarrel, but must be gentle to everyone, able to teach, and patient, instructing his opponents with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them repentance leading them to the knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 2:24-25).

It is hard for people to hear the truth that Jesus is the only way if we speak with an arrogance that suggests that  we are the only way. We must be firm in contending for the truth, but Paul also commands us to be gentle and patient and to proclaim the truth with gentleness to those who disbelieve. Gentleness doesn’t mean that we are wimpy. There is a gentle firmness, a gentle sternness. But we must beware of anger, for it so often stems from the flesh.

And those who oppose us are watching us, wondering if we are genuine or if we pontificate about truth to exalt ourselves. If they see anger, they conclude that we are defending ourselves rather than the Lord. They suspect that we defend certain positions to advance ourselves rather than Jesus. So, we may proclaim that Jesus is the only way but actually live as if we are the only way.

Proper Thanks

My third point reveals itself when we draw attention to ourselves rather than the way, Jesus. We aren’t living as if Jesus is the only way if we focus on ourselves in

conversations. Like everything else in life this is a matter of spiritual wisdom. There are no formulas here. If you have opportunity, it isn’t wrong to talk about your writing projects and speaking opportunities. In fact, not sharing what we are working on may be a form of false humility. But we aren’t living as if Jesus is the only way unless we obey Colossians 3:17: “And whatever you do, in word or in deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.”

If we are promoting our own name, we are not doing “everything in the name of the Lord Jesus.” If we are living to impress others, we are not living for the glory of God, and we are not honoring him by depending upon him. If you dominate most conversations and don’t really listen to others, then you aren’t living as if Jesus is the only way. If in most situations, you are the big cheese, and you are critical, cynical, and negative, then your pride is motivating you rather than the glory of God.

Do we listen—really listen—to others? We demonstrate our love for God as 1 John says by loving our brothers and sisters. We don’t truly love others if we don’t listen to them respectfully and seriously. One of the dangers of being Christian leaders is that we may listen to fewer and fewer people as we get older. And we may fall into the trap of having all of our prejudices confirmed, so we don’t really see ourselves as we are.

That’s one reason it is a good idea to listen to our critics, for even if they exaggerate their critiques, they almost always see something that is true about us, something that we need to repent of.

Finally, we live as if Jesus is the only way if we are thankful people. As Psalm 36 says, those who know God “feast on the abundance of your house, and you give them drink from the river of your delights.” Believers drink from the living water that Jesus gives us; we feast on the beauty of God; we find him to be our joy, our meat and drink; we are happy and thankful because of his love. We know that there is nothing greater than knowing Christ. Everything else is dung in comparison.

And you know what? People will know, no matter your personality, if God is your portion. That can’t be hidden. It will be evident. And they will be reminded by your joy and contentment that Jesus is the only way.

Tom Schreiner is James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation and Professor of Biblical Theology, and Associate Dean of the School of Theology. Editors’ note: This article was originally published at The Gospel Coalition.

tom schreiner

by tim beougher

you don’t have to be an expert to share the gospel

Many Christians are reluctant to do personal evangelism out of a fear that the lost person will ask them a question they cannot answer. This fear presupposes two faulty lines of thinking: first, that every unbeliever with whom they converse must be an expert on science, history, and sociology; and second, that to be an effective witness they must be able to respond to every single question or

objection on the spot with carefully crafted answers. The passage most often associated with the exercise of answering questions posed by unbelievers (apologetics) is 1 Peter 3:15 (NASB): “But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.” Peter writes to believers calling them to humility and harmony. In no

“SURVEYS SHOW THE GREATEST BARRIER TO CHRISTIANS WITNESSING OF THEIR FAITH TO UNBELIEVERS IS FEAR. WHILE THE MOST COMMON FEAR MANY BELIEVERS FACE IS THAT OF REJECTION BY THE PERSON TO WHOM THEY ARE WITNESSING, FOR A GREAT NUMBER OF BELIEVERS THERE ALSO EXISTS A GREAT FEAR OF BEING ASKED A QUESTION THEY CANNOT ANSWER.”

way does the readiness to defend conviction imply an arrogant spirit; rather, the advancement of reasons for hope should be done winsomely.

I define evangelism as, “The compassionate sharing of the Good News of Jesus Christ with lost people, in the power of the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of bringing them to Christ as Savior and Lord, that they in turn might share Him with others.” Notice that the work of evangelism involves the verbal witness of the Good News in the power of the Holy Spirit. The gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (Rom. 1:16).

Lost people are born again not because of impeccable argumentation but by the will and power of God working through the verbal witness (2 Thess. 2:13). Apologetics serves evangelism. Apologetics may be viewed as a type of pre-evangelism. If evangelism, narrowly defined, is the verbal witness to the offer of the gospel, then apologetics seizes the opportunity to lay the groundwork (pre-evangelism) that anticipates the sharing of the good news.

Paul’s encounter with the world philosophies of his day at Mars Hill in Acts 17:22-34 illustrates this kind of pre-evangelistic apologetics. Paul observes the pagan trappings of his surroundings and uses that as a bridge to explain who the one, true, and living God is. He takes the Athenians’ best philosophical attempt to explain the world in “an unknown god” and skillfully introduces the

Christian worldview before calling on people to repent. Essentially, Paul identifies the shortcomings in the Athenian worldview and shows how the biblical worldview is coherent. Today’s world is ripe with faulty philosophies Christians would do well to observe, identify the holes, and lovingly retell in light of the glorious Christ.

Why Do People Ask Questions?

As we get involved in evangelism, we quickly discover that good evangelistic conversations are not monologues, but dialogues, and include persons asking questions. Why do people ask questions in witnessing situations? I have observed two main reasons:

1. An unwillingness to forsake sin. The questioner doesn’t really consider their questions to be serious. They are simply “playing games.” Their mind is closed. They are raising questions as a smokescreen to avoid dealing with their sinfulness.

For example, while I was witnessing on a college campus a student said to me, “Well, I have a question for you: where did Cain get his wife?” I sensed that this wasn’t really this student’s question, so I responded by saying, “I’ll answer your question if you answer a question from me first: who was Cain?” The student replied sheepishly, “I don’t know.” I then asked, “Well if you don’t know who he was, then why are you concerned

about where he got his wife?” The student told me he had heard someone say if a Christian ever talks to you to ask them that question, since Christians can’t answer it. While I did answer his question, it was abundantly clear this student was just playing games. He didn’t have a serious intellectual objection to Christianity. He understood following Christ would involve him forsaking his sin, something he was unwilling to do.

2. An honest expression of doubt and confusion. Not all persons who raise questions are playing games. Some ask legitimate questions because they are genuinely seeking answers. Francis Schaeffer argues, “It is not more spiritual to believe without asking questions. It is not more biblical. It is less biblical and eventually will be less spiritual because the whole man will not be involved.” Schaeffer goes on to say, “Christianity demands that we have enough compassion to learn the questions of our generation.”

We need to remember that faith in Jesus Christ is not a “leap in the dark” as it is sometimes described by skeptics. Faith in Jesus Christ is instead a “step into the light.” We have good reasons for believing what we believe. When people ask genuine questions, we need to seek to answer them. Paul Little quotes John Stott as offering a wonderful balance: “We cannot pander to a man’s intellectual arrogance, but we must cater to his intellectual integrity.”

General Principles in Responding to Questions

First, don’t get defensive. Don’t be intimidated. After 2,000 years, no one is going to come up with a question that will undermine the Christian faith—and it’s not because people haven’t tried! God’s Word has stood the test of time. Just because you do not have an answer to a question does not mean there is no answer.

Second, avoid an argument. Bringing people to faith in Christ is much more than merely giving an answer to their questions. You can “win” the debate but “lose” that person if your demeanor and tone are sarcastic and argumentative.

Third, answer questions in the right spirit—a spirit of humility. First Peter 3:15 exhorts us to give answers to unbelievers “with gentleness and reverence.” One of the classic definitions of evangelism (from D. T. Niles) says: “Evangelism is witness. It is one beggar telling another beggar where to get food.” This definition reminds us of the importance of humility in our witness.

Fourth, don’t be afraid to respond, “I don’t know the

answer to that question.” We see that even the apostle Paul could not unravel all mysteries. He testified in 2 Corinthians 12:2 (about whether being caught up in the third heaven was “in the body” or “out of the body”), “I do not know, God knows.” In my evangelism classes I have students practice saying that three-word phrase “I don’t know,” since many of them have mistakenly thought it is an admission of failure to utter those words.

Fifth, study to find answers. Not every question has an easy answer, and some questions cannot be answered with our limited knowledge. We don’t have full answers to every question because God hasn’t fully revealed his mind to us on everything. Deuteronomy 29:29 reminds us, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God; but the things that are revealed belong to us …” Not every question has an easy answer but seek to learn answers to common questions people ask.

Seventh, if possible, present the entire gospel message. People aren’t converted merely through receiving answers to their questions, but through hearing and responding to the gospel message. Paul reminds us in Romans 1:16 that “the gospel is the power of God for salvation.”

Eighth, deal with people as people, not as projects (1 Thess. 2:8). No one wants to feel like they are someone’s project. Lost people are lost but they are not stupid— they can sense whether you genuinely care for them as an individual.

Finally, trust in the work of the Holy Spirit. Remember your role and God’s role. As Paul testifies in 1 Cor 3:6, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gives the growth.”

You don’t need to cringe in fear as you share the gospel. You can be free from the burden of thinking you have to have all knowledge and understand all mysteries to communicate the good news of who Christ is and what he has done for sinners. You can be free to respond “I don’t know” to complex questions, even as you study to find answers.

Tim Beougher is Associate Dean of the Billy Graham School of Missions, Evangelism and Ministry, and Billy Graham Professor of Evangelism and Church Growth.

Editors’ note: This article is adapted from Invitation to Evangelism: Sharing the Gospel with Compassion and Conviction (Kregel, 2021).

1Francis A. Schaeffer, “Form and Freedom in the Church,” in Let the Earth Hear His Voice, ed. J. D. Douglas (Minneapolis, MN: World Wide Publications, 1975), 368.

2Ibid., 373.

3Cited in Paul E. Little, Know Why You Believe (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 25.

by timothy paul jones

3 key truths for better apologetics

1

Apology; it’s a defense that includes evidence. A few years ago, I was reminded of my initial misunderstanding when I found this comment appended to an online review of one of my books: “It says he’s an ‘apologist’! If Christianity is worth believing, why would he need to write a book apologizing for it?” The band R.E.M. was apparently operating with a similar misunderstanding when they produced a song entitled “The Apologist”:

“They call me the apologist.../but now I’m facing up/I wanted to apologize for/everything I was—so I’m sorry.”

As it turns out, even though “apology,” “apologetics,” and “apologist” can all be traced back to the same root words, being an apologist has little to do with saying we’re sorry and everything to do with whether the facts confessed in the Christian faith correspond with reality and are internally coherent. Apologetics is the reverent, reasonable, and humble defense—through our words and through our lives—of the hope we have in

Christ’s Appearance to Mary Magdalene after the Resurrection, Alexander Andreyevich Ivanov, 1835

the risen Christ.

The philosopher Aristotle used the words  apologia and  kategoria  to describe the two types of speeches presented in a court of law.  Kategoria  was a speech of accusation related to events that had happened in the past; the  apologia  was a speech of defense in response to the  kategoria. The apostle Peter used this term for a defense when he wrote these words to Christians in Asia Minor: “In your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, ready at any time to give a  defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet, 3:15, emphasis added).

Here’s how I define “apologetics,” on the basis of this text and others scattered throughout the Scriptures: apologetics is the reverent, reasonable, and humble defense—through our words and through our lives—of the hope we have in the risen Christ, as this hope has been revealed in his Word and in his world. Apologetics isn’t saying, “I’m sorry”; it’s a defense that reveals the incoherence of the unbeliever’s worldview by pointing to the internal coherence and external evidence for the believer’s hope in the risen Christ and in his written Word.

2

Holiness provides the foundation for the proclamation of our hope.

The words of Simon Peter in 1 Peter 3:15 can become a bumper sticker for apologetics, but this text is far richer, deeper, and more beautiful than we sometimes recognize. This text seems to have been written to Christians who are beginning to experience social exclusion and perhaps even civic consequences for their faithfulness to Jesus. In this context, the first defense of the faith to which Peter calls them is holiness (1 Pet. 1:15–17; 2:9–17; 3:13–17).

Our defense of the Christian faith doesn’t end with our holiness, but it must start with holiness. Holiness won’t ultimately protect the people from persecution, but it ensures that whatever they suffer will be for the sake of their Savior and not because of their sin.

3

A Christian’s hope is centered in the resurrection—and so is our defense.

Throughout 1 Peter, Simon Peter centers the Christian’s hope in the resurrection (1 Pet. 1:3, 13, 21). Sometimes, his focus is on the resurrection of Jesus on

the third day; other times, it’s centered on our future resurrection, which the resurrection of Jesus guaranteed. But, either way, resurrection is the foundation of our hope.

So, what does this mean for apologetics?

If apologetics is giving a reason for our hope, and hope is centered in the resurrection, the resurrection should be central in Christian apologetics. When the resurrection is not central in apologetics, the practice of apologetics can turn into a bad game of theological trivia, with the unbeliever raising a random series of objections until he or she “wins” by coming up with a question that the Christian can’t answer. When the resurrection of Jesus is central, however, apologetics can never stray far from the gospel, and we respond to the unbeliever’s questions by turning the question toward the cross and the empty tomb.

If you choose to focus your apologetics on convincing an unbeliever that a particular approach to creation is correct—even if you convince the unbeliever that you’re correct—that individual has still not been confronted with the gospel. If you convince someone that there are sound philosophical reasons why a good God might allow evil in the world, and they agree with you but never hear the hope of the resurrection, your defense is a miserable failure. Why? In your passion to defend the truth, you have wandered from a focus on the gospel—the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus by which God is reconciling sinners to himself and revealing his reign in the world.

Any apologetic that defines the truth and defends the truth but never delivers a call to believe the gospel is empty and vain. Apologetics is a means that God chooses to use for his glory; the power, however, is not in our apologetics but in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel alone is “the power of God for salvation” (Rom 1:16). That’s what Charles H. Spurgeon was getting at when he said, “Suppose a number of persons were to take it into their heads that they had to defend a lion.… Open the door, and let the lion out!… He would take care of himself.… The best ‘apology’ for the gospel is to let the gospel out.… Preach Jesus Christ and him crucified. Let the Lion out!”

Timothy Paul Jones is Vice President for Doctoral Studies and C. Edwin Gheens Professor of Christian Family Ministry.

Equipped

Today’s Christian college students and graduates will face challenges that previous generations could not have imagined. Boyce College is ready to train students who will serve the church and engage the culture from a convictional and biblical worldview, regardless of the challenges before them.

by jeff robinson

HOW ONE SBTS ALUM IS LEADING HIS CHURCH AMIDST THE RUBBLE OF A DEADLY STORM’S WAKE

WE HAVE TO LIVE OUT OUR FAITH

photos by trevor wheeker

THIRTY TO SIXTY SECONDS.

That’s how long it took for the storm to explode Wes Fowler’s carefully regimented weekly schedule and, of profoundly more importance, to change his life and the lives of Mayfield, Kentucky’s citizens forever.

Fowler, a PhD student at Southern Seminary and 2015 DMin graduate, spent the daytime hours that Friday as most busy pastors do—finishing his sermon and preparing his heart to preach to God’s people on the fast-approaching Lord’s Day.

But by the next day, Fowler was being interviewed by CNN, the Washington Post, and other local and national media outlets about what had unfolded in his hometown during that tragic half-minute late Friday night.

Fowler, with his wife and three kids, survived the deadly tornado that obliterated Mayfield, Kentucky, and the surrounding area on December 10, killing at least 84, including one member of the church he pastors, First Baptist Church of Mayfield. Several FBC members lost homes and property. Mercifully, the storm spared Fowler’s house.

In the days following, he responded to a non-stop barrage of queries from national news media, along with dozens of emails and text messages offering help with recovery. FBC staff members and volunteers operated out of a motor home positioned on church property across from the main sanctuary. During our interview, he received a call from the mayor of Mayfield, and his phone beeped regularly as text messages rolled in.

“The last few days have been unique,” he said, his phone lighting up with yet another unknown caller, this one from Mississippi.

“See, look at that,” he said. “There have been phone calls from all over the country, text messages coming in, emails coming in. On day one I was trying to respond to them as they came in, but now there’s an overwhelming feeling that I can’t keep up. I want to, but at one point I had over a hundred text messages that I hadn’t even seen yet.”

Fowler and his church became an epicenter for communicating the tragedy to the outside world. He was interviewed by CNN’s Anderson

Cooper. Amid the rubble, Fowler has been amazed at how God has given church leaders the opportunity to share the gospel with media members and beyond.

“In the conversation with Anderson Cooper, both before and after, we talked about the church, we talked about the Lord, I was sharing about my calling to the ministry and he was incredibly open to that conversation and incredibly genuine,” Fowler said.

“It has given me a chance to share the gospel with people who don’t know the gospel well at all. I shared the gospel with a New York Times reporter, with an LA Times reporter, and with an AP reporter who already knew the gospel. We’ve had a good experience with the media. They’ve been very kind to us, and we’ve tried to be very kind to them.”

Less than 48 hours after the storm, Fowler and the staff organized a Sunday morning prayer service at the damaged building. They prayed, sang hymns, and worshiped the Lord. For most FBC members, it was their first look at the torn city.

“That was very hard,” Fowler said. “It was difficult to see the heartbroken looks on their faces. We were and are still learning how many of our people were affected, but many of our members showed up to pray and worship our great God.”

FBC held a similar service a week later and church leaders are pondering how the congregation might continue to gather, perhaps in smaller groups, while the church is repaired, an effort that will take many months and millions of dollars. FBC Mayfield has survived much adversity since it first met in 1843 on the outskirts of town.

A Deeply Personal Tragedy

One week after deadly tornadoes rampaged across Western Kentucky, Mayfield looked like old photos from bombed out cities in World War II; it was as if a massive lawn mower sat and spun over the town during those horrific seconds. For

Fowler, this tragedy is deeply personal; he grew up in Mayfield, graduated from high school here, came to faith in Christ here, and has pastored his home church since 2011 here.

But “here” will never be the same.

“My parents go to this church,” he said. “My grandparents went here. My great grandparents were here. I was baptized in this church. I made a profession of faith at this church. I baptized my kids here. I sat between my grandparents in the balcony growing up.

“I think the emotional part of this is that I know some of this is not coming back, and it certainly will never be the way it was. Some of it will be built back, and I think we’re going to be okay at First Baptist; but it’s just not going to be the same Mayfield. It’s going to be different; there’s no way around it. Everything in downtown Mayfield is gone except for our church building. Our building is the only one left standing that still has structural integrity.”

“THERE WAS A VACUUM IN THE TUNNEL IN A MOMENT. THE CEILING TILES BEGAN TO POP UP AND DOWN. THE PRESSURE CHANGED. THE LIGHTS WENT OUT, WHICH MADE IT A LITTLE SCARIER, AND THE KIDS WERE SCREAMING AND CRYING. WE GOT INTO A SECTION ON THE FLOOR.”

In the days before the storm struck Mayfield, forecasters warned that a rare December outbreak of violent tornadoes was possible. Fowler figured there might be bad weather but thought it would miss Mayfield. A tornado passed nearby in 2016 but dodged the city.

But on that Friday as the storms grew worse and the

long track tornado that would decimate Mayfield, Dawson Springs, and other Western Kentucky communities slithered toward his community, Fowler decided it was time for his wife and three children to seek shelter at the church, two miles from their house. The church has an underground tunnel that connects the main church building to the children’s center across the street.

Fowler and the family of youth pastor Kody Hopwood, a MACE graduate of Southern Seminary, arrived simultaneously at the church. It was 9:20 p.m.

Wes and Kody briefly debated whether the tunnel or

All of FBC’s buildings were damaged by the December 10 storm.

the gym would provide a safer haven. They chose the tunnel. It was a life-saving decision; the gym was pummeled by the storm, its roof pulled off like the top of a tin can.

At 9:27, the tornado hit.

“I could hear it coming and it grew louder and louder,” he said. “There was a vacuum in the tunnel in a moment. The ceiling tiles began to pop up and down. The pressure changed. The lights went out, which made it a little scarier, and the kids were screaming and crying. We got into a section on the floor.

“My wife got on top of my daughter, and I got on top of my two sons. Kody and Heather were on top of their family, so there for a few moments we were laying on top of our families as debris and dirt filled up the room. It was a terrible, loud sound. It lasted 30 seconds to a minute, but it felt like five minutes.”

Wes and Kody emerged from the tunnel. What they saw was incomprehensible.

“I never dreamed the church was damaged like it was,” Fowler said, his voice cracking with emotion. “I came back up and looked outside into Mayfield for the first time. I had my flashlight, it was still raining, and I’m looking around, and it was the most disorienting thing. I thought something was wrong with me. I was confused. I couldn’t see any buildings. I couldn’t see buildings I’ve seen my whole life.

“This glass shop here (next door to the church) where we know the owner and where we buy our windows: I couldn’t see it. I could see our church bus. It had been inside a big garage, but the garage wasn’t there anymore. The bus was smashed. It was disorienting, a bit confusing. Then it started to sink in: It’s all gone.”

Wes Fowler talks with church members just days after a tornado devastated their hometown.

Existential Questions, Heightened Opportunities

In the days following, the world seemingly descended on the region, hundreds to help recovery efforts and many to report on the unconscionable destruction. Fowler, his staff—four of whom either hold degrees from Southern or are current students at the seminary—and numerous volunteers handled media requests while also fanning out to help church members whose lives have been affected by the storm.

FBC’s staff faced the inevitable existential question: “Why did God allow his people to suffer such seemingly random affliction?” Fowler’s daughter asked him a similar question. The longtime pastor drew upon John 9 where the Lord’s disciples ask him whether a man was born blind due to his sin or his parents’ sin.

“I told my kids, we have to use this for the glory of God,” he said. “The reality is I don’t know why it happened to Mayfield on this day at this time. But I do know what we can do now, though: we use this opportunity to share the gospel. I’ve said to several media sources that I think when times are good, it’s very easy to be a follower of Christ. When times are bad, it’s more difficult, but that’s what people are watching.

“We have to live out our faith now. We have to share the gospel now. In fact, this teaches us that the gospel is really our only hope. Our only hope is Christ, and this

scene in Mayfield visually depicts that. You can’t put your faith in a building. You can’t put your hope in a city. As Hebrews 13 tells us, our faith and hope is in an eternal city. That’s what I’m trying to teach my children. That’s what I’m trying to tell the community in bite-sized pieces as it comes up.”

Blake Shuecraft, a current Seminary Track student at Southern/Boyce, who has served as associate pastor of children at FBC Mayfield since 2019, said his seminary training has been invaluable in helping others sort through the questions that come with a tragedy of such magnitude. Shuecraft grew up in Western Kentucky and his wife is a Mayfield native.

“There are a lot of people who are open to hearing the gospel who might not have been before,” Shuecraft said. “I’ve been thinking about Dr. (Tim) Beougher and how he uses the term ‘being sensitive to opportunities’; what an opportunity right now.

“We’ve been fielding questions as to why this happened. We don’t know necessarily why, but we do know that now we have an opportunity to be a light to the community. We have an opportunity to offer help to those who are hurting through Jesus. It’s been great to be able to apply those great truths we see in Scripture that we’ve learned at Southern. It’s being put to use right now. It’s all come together.”

Wes Fowler stands in front of the damaged sanctuary of FBC of Mayfield, KY.

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

news & features

the ultimate goal of theological education is holiness, mohler says at spring convocation

By Jeff Robinson

Studying theology at the deepest level is not an end to itself but is ultimately a means to the learner’s holiness, Southern Seminary President Albert Mohler told students and faculty Tuesday at the school’s annual Spring Convocation.

Drawing on 1 Peter 1:13-25, Mohler said studying the Word of God is such a high privilege, angels long to obtain such knowledge. The president’s address was titled, “Preparing Your Minds for Action: The Means and Ends of Christian Learning.”

“I don’t think it’s wrong to think that there are angels that are envious of you,” Mohler said to students and faculty, (envious) of those who are going to be able to dive deeply into the truth of God’s Word, to

look deeply into the truths revealed in Scripture, to know the doctrine and teaching of the church deeply, to understand the gospel more comprehensively.

“Angels long to look into these things. Angels—beings created for the glory of God—have a knowledge certainly, but the knowledge given to us in Scripture is superior to their knowledge.”

In 1 Peter and many other places in Scripture, such as Leviticus 11:44, God commands his people to be holy because he is holy. Mohler said this is the ultimate goal for all study of God’s Word. He noted that theological education is merely the means to the end of holiness, and the two must never be confused.

“Books, classes, lectures, teachers, schools, colleges, universities, seminaries—even the most godly—are simply means, not ends,” he said. “Means to what? Means to the preaching of the gospel and the fulfillment of the Great Commission? Yes. Means to the edification of the

saints and to growth in godliness? Yes. Means for planting churches and feeding churches? Yes. But even those are penultimate. The end is holiness.”

Mohler encouraged students to prepare their minds for action, to apply rigorous efforts to their studies, preparing for ministry to the glory of God.

“It’s a good word at the beginning of an academic term,” he said. “You can’t just lazily enter Christian learning and expect to get learning. You can’t lackadaisically enter the classroom. You can’t just unenergetically accept this as the use of time.

“Something explosive is going to take place. The mystery of learning is beyond our comprehension— how is it that God allows our mind to comprehend his revelation? It is, of course, the imago dei, it is his condescension to us, his grace and mercy to us.”

four vital truths are foundational to human flourishing, anderson says in gheens lectures

By Travis Hearne

Important ground on our culture’s understanding of human nature has been lost in the last decade, Ryan T. Anderson told the Southern Seminary community during the annual Gheens Lectures March 16-17.

Truths that were self-evident

a generation ago now require an academic response in the public sphere, Anderson argued.

Anderson is founding editor of Public Discourse and president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. He is author of five books, including When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment and Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom

Anderson identified four creational truths found in nature and the opening chapters of Genesis that Christians must defend to promote a flourishing society.

God made humans in his image and likeness. Christians should fight for legal and cultural change to protect the infants while also aiding and supporting women harmed by the abortion industry.

God created human beings male and female. Anderson urged that work must be done to recover a sound understanding of the sexual differences. The answer is not the harmful transforming of the body, but a return to God’s good design revealed through the natural law and Scripture.

God created males and females for each other. “It’s not that God

created two random sexes,” said Anderson. “God created male and female precisely with the design for us to unite as one flesh.”

God created us for himself. “We’re not just created in the image of God, but we are made for God,” Anderson said. “Which is simply to say that religion should have a role in our public life. Not only have we secularized our public square, but now we are using the law to punish people who have not gone along with secularization.”

union with christ is the christian doctrine of salvation, noted theologian says in annual norton lectures

By Travis Hearne and Jeff Robinson

Union with Christ is central to the doctrine of salvation, theologian Fred Sanders told the Southern Seminary community at this year’s Norton Lectures Series, held February 9-10 in Heritage Hall.

Sanders gave three lectures on “Union with Christ, Systematically Considered.” Sanders is professor of theology at Biola University and the author of numerous books, including The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes

Everything and The Triune God.

In the first lecture, Sanders argued that union with Christ is a unifying theme of soteriology, even though it is sometimes underplayed in contemporary theology.

“While it makes sense to speak about the Christian doctrine of God or the Christian doctrine of the incarnation,” Sanders said, “it seems somehow less believable in the contemporary world to assert that there is such a thing as one single Christian doctrine of salvation.

“It is the powerful, scriptural, and spiritual drive toward union with Christ that gave rise to the creeds.”

Being prominently present in the early church councils and in the writings of reformer John Calvin, union with Christ is fundamental to any unified Christian teaching on salvation, he argued.

In the other lectures, Sanders examined the doctrine biblically and theologically.

Union with Christ is one of the key themes in the apostle Paul’s theology, particularly in Romans 5-6 and in the first two chapters of Ephesians—often summarized concisely in two words: in Christ. But the doctrine is also present in the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, he said.

sbts encourages mission-centric work during great commission week

By Travis Hearne

Southern Seminary encouraged students, faculty, and staff to get involved in missions both locally and globally during the school’s Great Commission Week April 12–14.

Southern filled the week, themed “Send Me!”, with events designed to present options and information for the many students considering full-time missions after graduation.

Paul Chitwood, president of the International Mission Board, kicked off the week with a chapel message on the need for the gospel in solving the world’s greatest problem.

“Lostness is the world’s greatest problem.” Chitwood said, “We know the solution to the world’s greatest problem, the gospel of Jesus Christ, and we have been called to share it.”

Paul Akin, Dean of the Billy Graham School of Missions, Evangelism and Ministry, interviewed Chitwood in The Bookstore at

Southern on the mission of SBTS and the IMB. Southern has proudly partnered with the IMB for 160 years and the seminary is more mission-centric than at any other time, Chitwood said.

“Today’s SBTS is more focused on deploying a generation of missionaries to the nations than at any time I’ve witnessed over the past 30 years,” he said.

Southern also hosted Kevin Ezell, president of the North American Mission Board, for Thursday’s chapel. Ezell called for churches to prioritize sending missionaries in a sermon on Acts 13:1–8.

“In the end, success for churches will be determined, not by their seating capacity, but by their sending capacity,” Ezell said.

All in all, the week provided resources and guidance to any student called to serve in local, regional, and international missions. The IMB, KBC, and NAMB each offered info fairs and active missionaries from each agency offered testimony and answered questions from prospective missionaries.

Great Commission Week is no exception to Southern’s mission, Akin said. It’s just one of the ways

Southern continues to fulfill its calling, not only as an academically rigorous institution, but as a training ground for those called to take the gospel to the nations.

sbts trustees elect faculty and approve annual budget at Spring Meeting

By Jeff Robinson

In their spring meeting Monday evening, trustees of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary unanimously approved a $50.4 million operating budget for 20222023, as enrollment and finances remain very strong.

The new budget represents a $2.3 million increase (4.8 percent) from the budget trustees approved last year. Over the past two budget cycles, Southern’s budget has grown by more than $13 million despite challenges from the recent pandemic.

“God continues to bless Southern Seminary and our churches continue to send us the most amazing students,” SBTS President Albert Mohler said.

“This is a great era in the history of this seminary and college and we are pressing ahead. Our board of trustees and faculty and staff work together for the best theological education we can provide our students for a lifetime of faithful ministry. We pray to bear this great mission with faithfulness until Jesus comes.”

The new budget is just right for the current economic circumstances, seminary leaders said.

“We believe this is a conservative budget,” said Jon Austin, senior vice president for institutional

Graham School Dean Paul Akin interviews IMB President Paul Chitwood during Great Commission Week at SBTS.

administration. “We are mindful of the economic state of not only the country, but the world, so we want to navigate that and be very mindful of that.”

Two years ago, the seminary cut tuition by 15 percent to stabilize student enrollment during the pandemic. Trustees approved a small tuition increase of four percent for the coming year.

In other business, the board unanimously elected Josh Powell as chairman of the trustees, replacing Clint Pressley, who has served in that role for the past two years.

“It’s been joyful to serve and it’s been intense,” said Pressley, who has served as pastor of Hickory Grove Baptist Church in Charlotte, N.C. for the past 12 years. “It has been eye-opening to see all the hard work it takes to run a seminary. It has been deeply edifying to see the God-honoring work leaders put forth on behalf of theological education. It has been a great privilege to serve in this role.”

Powell serves as pastor of First Baptist Church of Taylors, S.C. and has served as a trustee at Southern for nearly six years. Powell received his MDiv from Southern in 2003.

Said Powell, “I consider this one of my greatest honors in life and ministry to be a part of this institution, to be a graduate of this

institution, and now to be able to serve in this capacity is a true privilege.”

Trustees also elected other officers, including Bill Behrens as first vice chairman, Keith Daniels as second vice chairman, Bill Sones as secretary, and Jeremy Rhoden as financial board chairman.

The board elected several faculty members including Tyler Flatt as Associate Professor of Humanities, Justin Irving as Professor of Leadership, and Abraham Kuruvilla as Professor of Christian Preaching. Trustees designated Irving to the Duke K. McCall Chair of Christian Leadership and Kuruvilla to the Carl E. Bates Chair of Preaching. Flatt was promoted from Assistant

Professor of Humanities to Associate Professor of Humanities, and Miguel Nunez was promoted from Associate Professor of Pastoral Leadership to Professor of Pastoral Leadership.

Trustees also approved sabbatical leave for several faculty members, including Jonathan Pennington, Bryan Baise, Duane Garrett, John David Trentham, Brian Vickers, John Wilsey, and Gregg Allison.

Board members honored the faithful service of four trustees who are rotating off the board after 10 years of service: Ellie Coursey (KY), Nick Floyd (AR), Patricia Skelton (KY), and Merril Smoak (CA).

Trustees also heard a testimony from Keith Percic, an MDiv student in the Billy Graham School of Missions, Evangelism, and Ministry, who detailed how Southern, its faculty, and its students have deeply impacted his life.

In his report to trustees, Mohler said: “If your heart is ever heavy, or you worry about the future of the church, just meet one of the young students on this campus. You will thank God for giving Southern Baptists a future. We get to see that bright future on this campus.”

Clint Pressley leads his final meeting as Chairman of the SBTS board of trustees.

Hershael York greets trustee Chairman Clint Pressley.

alumni

kitchens, sbts alum, promoted to air force chief of chaplains

by travis hearne

In 1994, Captain Claudia Foss couldn’t sleep. She thought she believed in God, but her family didn’t go to church, and she never considered becoming a Christian.

Then desperation kicked in.

After exhausting all other options, Captain Foss, a rising star in the Air Force, called her chaplain. Randy Kitchens, a young Baptist minister just four years removed from seminary, answered.

Twenty-eight years later, Foss continues to write and speak publicly about that night when Kitchens shared the beauty of the gospel with her. Soon after, Kitchens baptized Foss as a Christian in an indoor pool.

But Foss is just one. One of the many American airmen and airwomen touched by the life and ministry of Kitchens. Kitchens remains called to serving his God and country. And God has multiplied his role. Last year, Kitchens achieved the rank of major general and rose to become Air Force Chief of Chaplains with the unanimous consent of the Armed Services Committee.

“My promotion was a humbling experience and I recognize the magnitude of this responsibility,” Kitchens said. “My family has always supported God’s call and leading within my life, career, ministry and military service. My parents, wife, children, and their families are excited about this new level of leadership and service, especially for a time such as this.”

Kitchens will lead the Department of the Air Force Chaplain Corps—consisting of 2,200 active and reserve chaplains and religious affairs airmen. He will also continue serving on the Armed Forces Chaplains Board by providing insight to the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff on matters related to religion, ethics and quality-of-life.

“I realize that God’s calling upon my life and new areas of service have prepared me for the present and future,” Kitchens said. “As a pastor at Big Coppitt First Baptist Church in Key West, Florida prior to seminary,

I learned a great deal about ministry, identity, service, love, compassion, and people that created a great foundation—which then blossomed during my time at Southern Seminary.”

Chaplain Kitchens was ordained as a Southern Baptist minister in 1983. He joined the Air Force Reserves in 1987 and served as both a Chaplain Candidate and Chaplain. In 1989, he received a master of divinity from Southern. Entering active duty in the Air Force in 1993, Kitchens went on to earn a PhD from Louisiana Baptist University in 2001.

Said Kitchens, “Both of our children were born while my wife Sherri and I learned all we could grasp about ministry, missions, theology, scripture, and methodology. I began my military career as a USAF Reserve Chaplain Candidate with summer training during those years at Southern. This aided my framework and understanding of theological pluralism within military chaplaincy and greatly prepared me for chaplaincy and my role today as Chief of Chaplains for the US Air Force and US Space Force.”

The road to promotion, however, wasn’t always easy. In 2017, Kitchens overcame a cancer diagnosis which resulted in surgery.

“While many have called this a miracle, I have called this a journey of faith and trust in my God who has guided, delivered, prompted, and ordered my steps and movements during my life. Overcoming this challenge has given me a greater understanding and resilience during difficult times, which enables me to live each day and lead each person with a renewed compassion and fervor unlike before.

“Pray for the Lord to give me wisdom as I serve the religious needs of our Airmen, Guardians, and their families, and for the Lord alone to be glorified in my new ministry responsibilities.”

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

recent faculty books

Invitation to Evangelism

Timothy K. Beougher Kregel 2021 | $26.99

What exactly does it mean to “evangelize” in a Christian sense? And how is such evangelizing supposed to be done? Longtime pastor, evangelist, and SBTS professor of evangelism Timothy K. Beougher answers these questions and more from theological, historical, and practical perspectives. Beougher demonstrates God's goodness in evangelism through relatable anecdotes, Bible teaching, and encouraging instruction. Invitation to Evangelism welcomes believers into the experience of stepping out in faith of behalf of people God loves.

Grace & Truth Study Bible

R. Albert Mohler Jr., Editor Zondervan 2021 | $26.99

The NIV Grace and Truth Study Bible paints a stunning canvas of the goodness of God’s redemptive plan revealed in the gospel of Jesus. Warmhearted and practical study notes guide your reading as you learn and relearn the good news of Jesus on every page. Whether you are just starting your walk with God or have been studying the Bible for years, you’ll gain fresh insights of grace and truth while you learn to love him more deeply.

The Joy of Hearing: A Theology of the Book of Revelation

Thomas Schreiner Crossway 2021 | $19.99

In this first volume in the New Testament Theology series, trusted scholar Thomas Schreiner walks step-by-step through the book of Revelation, considering its many themes—the opposition believers face from the world; the need for perseverance; God as sovereign Creator, Judge, and Savior—as well as its symbolic imagery and historical context. The Joy of Hearing brings clarity to the content and message of Revelation and explores its relevance for the church today.

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

recent faculty books

When Home Hurts: A Guide for Responding Wisely to Domestic Abuse in Your Church

Jeremy Pierre, co-author Christian Focus 2021 | $16.99

This work seeks to equip pastors, church leaders and church members to respond with the heart of God to situations of domestic abuse that occur in their local church. Prioritizing the safety of the victim at all times, Pierre and Wilson seek to help you be the kind of church leader, church member, friend, parent, sibling, or neighbor who responds wisely. We want the church to be a new normal for those grown accustomed to abuse. A home that doesn’t hurt those inside, but instead welcomes them into the tender care of the Lord.

40 Questions About Roman Catholicism

Gregg Allison Kregel 2021 | $23.99

The Roman Catholic faith is one of the world’s most widespread religious traditions, yet the unique aspects of Roman Catholicism elicit perennial questions from adherents and outsiders alike. Such questions tend to fall into three major categories: historical backgrounds, theological matters, and personal relationships. Using Catholic Church documents and the writings of Catholic scholars, Baptist systematic theologian Gregg R. Allison distills the teachings of Catholicism around 40 common questions about Catholic foundations, beliefs, and practices.

Jesus’s Final Week

William F. Cook III B&H Academic 2022 | $17.99

Jesus’s Final Week leads readers through a close examination of the last experiences of Jesus’s earthly life, including his entry into Jerusalem, cursing of the fig tree, and final Passover meal. Author and pastor William F. Cook doesn’t merely comment on the events themselves but studies the key biblical passages carefully, evaluating their meaning and significance. An excellent resource for any Christian who wants to learn more about the events of Holy Week and to prepare for celebrating Easter.

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

recent faculty books

Typology: Understanding the Bible’s Promised-Shaped Patterns

James M. Hamilton Jr. Zondervan 2022 | $29.99

This work shows us how to put our Bibles together and demonstrates that the similarities we find in the Bible are based on genuine historical correspondence and demonstrates how we recognize them in the repetition of words and phrases, the parallels between patterns of events, and key thematic equivalences. When read in light of God’s promises, these historical correspondences spotlight further repetitions that snowball on one another to build escalating significance.

The Loveliest Place: The Beauty and Glory of the Church

Dustin Benge Crossway 2022 | $22.99

The local church is a beautiful reality, and Dustin Benge urges Christians to see the holy assembly of God’s redeemed people in all its eternal beauty. He explains what makes the church lovely, including the Trinitarian relationship, worship, service, and gospel proclamation. For those who have never learned to view the church as God sees it, or have become disillusioned by its flaws, this book is a reminder that the corporate gathering of believers is a reflection of God’s indescribable beauty.

Iron Sharpens Iron: Friendship and the Grace of God

Michael A.G. Haykin Union Publishing 2022 | $14.99

The modern world, with its emphasis on speed and busyness and the misnamed “social” media, has not been an especially welcoming place to develop long-lasting, solid friendships that help to nurture the heart. Providing exemplars and guidance in this challenging situation, this book on friendship looks at some of the details of the friendships of the eighteenth-century pastor-theologian Andrew Fuller to help us think about and engage in meaningful relationships and joy for the Christian journey.

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

recent faculty books

Hope For All the Earth: Understanding the Story of the Old Testament

Mitchell L. Chase 10ofThose 2022 | $6.99

In this helpful guide, Mitchell L. Chase takes readers, step by step, through the whole sweep of the Old Testament, through its stories and songs, through its prophesies and promises, and shows us how each one points us to the coming Savior, and God’s plan rescue us from our sin and establish his everlasting kingdom.

A Concise Guide to the Life of Muhammad: Answering Thirty Key Questions

Ayman S. Ibrahim Baker Academic 2022 | $24.99

This companion volume to the author’s A Concise Guide to the Quran answers many of the key questions non-Muslims have about Muhammad, reveals the importance of Muhammad for Christian-Muslim and Jewish-Muslim interfaith relations, and examines Muslim and non-Muslim primary sources. This introductory guide is written for anyone with little to no knowledge of Islam who wants to learn about Muslims, their beliefs, and their prophet.

God and the Transgender Debate: What Does the Bible Actually Say about Gender Identity?

Expanded and Updated Andrew T. Walker

The Good Book Company 2022 | $16.99

This warm, faithful and compassionate book that helps Christians understand what the Bible says about gender identity has been updated and expanded throughout, and now includes a section on pronoun usage and a new chapter challenging some of the claims of the transgender activist movement.

25 YEARS OF FAITHFUL SERVICE

by jeff robinson

TOM SCHREINER, TOM NETTLES, & HERSHAEL YORK

In 1997, three conservative scholars joined the faculty at SBTS, and their presence loomed large in the re-embrace of biblical and theological fidelity at Southern Seminary.

Veteran Kentucky pastor Hershael York joined as professor of preaching, noted Baptist historian Tom Nettles came on board to teach church history/historical theology, and noted New Testament scholar Tom Schreiner joined the faculty as professor of New Testament. The teaching and writing of all three in the ensuing decades helped Southern rebuild a strong confessional foundation and reassert the founders’ original vision for the seminary.

Twenty-five years later, York and Schreiner continue to teach and write as regular members of the faculty, and Nettles retired from teaching full-time in 2014 but remains as professor emeritus. In this interview, the three of them spoke about their early days at Southern, the changing landscape in culture and the church, and also offered words of well-earned wisdom about endurance in the Christian life and ministry.

With the seminary’s transformation was far from complete when you were hired in 1997, what did you expect during those early days of teaching here? Did you expect things to turn around as quickly as they did?

Hershael York. A large part of the faculty at that time was still very resistant to Dr. Mohler’s leadership and the conservative direction of the seminary. The Western Recorder actually wrote an article criticizing my addition to the faculty as well as my theological commitments, so I knew what I was getting into. Some of those early faculty meetings were rancorous, to say the least, but within two years the tide had turned. It became obvious that the seminary was returning to its original theological commitments and those who were not on board left.

Tom Nettles. Twenty-five years ago, a majority of the faculty still hovered within the realms of the moderate resistance to the Conservative Resurgence. Dr. Mohler had come as president of the Seminary 14 years into the resurgence in 1993. This movement was a slow, painstaking, step-by-step commitment on the part of biblical inerrantists. Both laymen and ministers desired that all employees in denominational agencies believed and functioned in their calling as believers in the infallible character of Scripture.

This commitment would determine their belief that the Bible, in its every assertion properly and contextually understood, was free of error. The very fact that Al

Mohler had been called as president in 1993 said that the inerrantists were having much greater success than anyone could have anticipated. There was no turning back, and in time the goal would be achieved. It seemed, however, to be three or four years away, for, in 1997, there was still a tilt in favor of the opposition. I had come on a contract basis in order to avoid having to appear before a faculty committee.

The president was wise in the way he chipped away at the prevailing commitment to moderatism. On one of my first days in my office in the Robertson wing of Norton, I stepped into the hall, saw a faculty member coming from his office in my direction. I introduced myself, and he said, “Oh no!” and turned around and went back to his office. By God’s gracious providence, around ten new faculty members were added the next year and established a majority of the faculty in the inerrantist/ confessional position. Dr. Mohler from the beginning had tied the resurgence at Southern to a regaining of conscientious commitment to the Abstract of Principles. So, a high degree of broad theological consensus existed throughout the new faculty appointments. In 1976, I had no expectation that Southern ever would be other than the model—a virtually immutable Platonic ideal— of liberal Southern Baptist theological education. The Lord God who created heaven and earth and sent his Son to redeem his elect and the Spirit to inspire the word of revelation of these eternal covenantal commitments had determined otherwise. Through chosen vessels to whom he gave insight, courage, and determination he spoke, and even Southern Seminary succumbed to the historic Baptist commitment to inspired Scripture, evangelical theology, in the form of its original founders.

Tom Schreiner. When I came in 1997 the change was fundamentally over. There were just a few professors left from the former era.

Could you have ever envisioned God’s work these past 25 years in drawing thousands of young people to SBTS to study the Bible and theology? What has been most gratifying to you in this revival of love for God’s Word and sound doctrine among several overlapping generations for which SBTS has been called “ground zero”?

York. I had no concept of being at Southern for 25 years, nor of the rich spiritual returns on that investment that awaited. I was so focused on the immediacy of the seminary’s resurgence that I did not then appreciate how God would give me a part in shaping generations for ministry.

Now, with a broader and more mature perspective I can better understand the remarkable grace that God has shed on Southern. Our graduates are glorifying Christ and serving his churches by preaching, pastoring, teaching, ministering, evangelizing, and discipling all over the world.

Nettles. Though the reality of what happened never ceased to be a point of gratitude and praise, and even some degree of astonishment at how thoroughly the threshing floor was cleansed, given the dynamics of close to two decades at that time, I anticipated with hope the kind of comprehensive strength and substance that became a mark of theological education at SBTS. Part of my understanding of history is based on 2 Timothy 1:10-12 where Paul expresses his confidence that God himself is committed eternally to protect the deposit of truth that he has revealed about the covenanted redemptive work of his Son. Of course, like warnings to the churches in Revelation, God could sovereignly remove the lampstand from its place due to a history of unfaithfulness, but the text teaches that until the day of Christ, he will not allow the testimony to the work of his Son lose its authoritative form of sound words, its power, its clarity, or its success. It seemed, that having begun the good work, God would continue it for his glory, the honor of his Son, the demonstration of the Spirit’s power, and the faithful and thorough equipping of his appointed ministers of the gospel. That I expect such to happen in sovereignly selected pockets throughout the world does not diminish the impact of God’s grace in doing that eternally conceived work of protection and restoration right here. The existential experience of seeing new classes come in every

year, graduations of those classes recurring after (approximately) every three years, and even children of former students showing up in class, the degree of impact made by this historic shift in theological commitment overwhelms my mind with gratitude and awe.

Schreiner. I think the most gratifying thing is seeing our students going out as faithful pastors, missionaries, staff members, educators, counselors, worship leaders, etc.

Since you began here in 1997, it seems we’ve had a revolution, or perhaps many revolutions, in our culture, most of which have impacted the church. So, would you give different advice to our graduates going out into ministry today than you would’ve back then?

York. The tools of war may change through the years, but not the essential character of war. That’s true of spiritual warfare as well. Satan may use different weapons, but the battle is still won through the atoning work of Christ. I have seen certain cultural challenges arise that I never anticipated or imagined, but I do not consider our difficulties greater than those the apostle Paul faced. So whatever new battle fronts Satan might establish, the gospel of Jesus Christ is still the way the war is won. I am more committed than ever to teaching our students to believe in the power of the gospel and to proclaim it faithfully as the only hope for a world wrapped in lostness.

Nettles. Cultures have no absolutes, apart from pervasive fallenness and rebellion against God, to govern the changes that introduce new affections and “orthodoxies” into each generation. The biblical revelation has stood against the world in every generation and the call of the prophet always is to repent and return. The biblical standard of truth in its explanation of the gospel never wavers and its confrontation with the lies of the world always is the same.

I would encourage every student to know Scripture so thoroughly, its leading themes in their integration with gospel themes so profoundly, the specific words and verses that constitute the doctrinal ideas so accurately, the history of doctrinal departures and recoveries with such understanding, that error will become obvious upon

investigation and the antidote of truth will be virtually palpable. When the leading principles of philosophical systems, social analyses, popular movements, and even a political agendum are inconsistent with the worldview and eternal perspective engendered by gospel categories, their errors should be exposed, warned against, and, when fitting for the health of the church, publicly opposed. One cannot predict what will emerge as the next great crisis, but ever-increasing knowledge of revealed truth as epistemologically determinative and the triune God as the only absolute ontological foundation for reality will be consistent tools for understanding the rapidly flying errors and challenges to biblical faith.

Schreiner. I wouldn’t give different advice. First Timothy 4:16 says watch your life and your teaching. I think that is the primary thing we still need today. Yes, we have challenges today, but there have always been challenges and there will always be challenges. The best preparation for every situation is living a life of godliness and knowing the Word of God.

You’ve exhibited faithful endurance to your Lord, to your family, and to your ministry during your years at SBTS (and long before). What has been the key to running strong and long in the “race set before us?” What piece of wisdom would you give brandnew students and brand-new ministers that might help them to endure faithfully over the long haul during such difficult times?

Nettles. If one does indeed endure to the end, the only explanation finally is that “the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 1:14). A God-given mate willing to endure and share the difficulties that often punctuate the life of a gospel pilgrim makes even the most difficult road a secure and pleasant place to travel. Several perceptions that might be consistent with that most fundamental reality include: be aware of how God has gifted you and press those gifts to their maximum effectiveness; gain understanding as to how your gifts might be of service in the various challenges that consistently are set forth by the world; take the Davy Crockett summary of biblical faithfulness seriously, “Be sure you’re right, then go ahead.” Unceasingly cultivate a love for biblical truth and refuse

York. The only “key” I know is simply to love the Lord Jesus. No other reward or motivation will keep one focused and faithful. The advice I share is that by which I seek to live, namely, that my sole purpose is to bring glory to Christ. The Holy Spirit is not interested in making me a better teacher, or preacher, or even a better Christian. His great ministry is to glorify the Son, and when I ask the Holy Spirit to help me glorify Jesus, he always answers that prayer. It is unthinkable that the Holy Spirit would not grant my desire to glorify Christ. When glorifying Jesus is our passion, we always have strength to do it.

to rest in present knowledge but always “grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ,” through his revealed truth. Do not fear those that can kill the body and then have nothing more they can do, but fear God who inhabits and controls eternity.

Schreiner. Certainly, the key to any of us making it is the grace of God! My advice is trust the Lord one day at a time. Live a life of repentance before God every day. Don’t worry about whether you will make it for the long haul. Trust God today and then tomorrow and then the day after tomorrow.

What must future generations do to keep the Southern Seminary faithful to the founders’ vision?

York. The Trustees must always ensure that every professor at Southern must be committed to the inerrancy of Scripture and the doctrines cherished by our founders as expressed in the Abstract of Principles. We are not called to innovate or to create, but rather to “keep” the faith once for all delivered to the saints and also to proclaim it to the world. A deep doctrinal commitment that spawns a passionate evangelistic spirit will keep Southern faithful to the vision that began in 1859.

Nettles. The dynamic so clearly perceived by Dr. Mohler in his mature grasp of how one can steer a straight path through treacherous terrain should be emulated. Never concede to diminished views of biblical relevance and thorough truthfulness. Embrace the consistency of the biblical revelation through a carefully constructed confession that should expand, at least in your personal life, to the very last proposition of biblical revelation. Larger confessions, not smaller, are the food of faithfulness.

Schreiner. Actually, I think 1 Timothy 4:16 is the key. Be faithful in your life and teaching.

What has been a personal highlight of your teaching career at SBTS?

York. Through the years several students have kindly

told me that a class I taught changed their lives. Something I shared with them had such a profound impact and transformed them so radically that the direction of their lives shifted, and God used them in ways they did not think possible. The knowledge that the Lord graciously allows me sometimes to have that effect is overwhelming.

Nettles. The fellowship of kindred minds, as in the church, so in theological education is like to that above. There have been many delightful and spiritually sustaining moments in this unique fellowship. The encouragement and opportunity to write on ideas, issues, and persons that are important in giving a framework for God-centered ministry has been encouraged by collegial example, the availability of resources, and a healthy expectation of expanded usefulness in the larger community of theological education. And ah! The students in the classroom—what a challenge and delight they provide for continual personal growth and fruitful investment in the future. The last few years, I have accompanied my wife, Margaret, in working voluntarily in the Southern Exchange (formerly The Attic). That has provided opportunity to see the larger context of the life and needs of students and has been an encouragement for prayer as to the broader commitment that an entire family makes when a God-called disciple takes on the stewardship of theological education.

Schreiner. The students who are faithful in ministry are my greatest encouragement.

Master of Divinity

Learn to defend the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints with Southern’s fully online M.Div. in Apologetics. Southern Seminary’s Apologetics programs train students to defend the Christian faith by grounding it in a biblical worldview.