Understanding the case for Christianity

If you’ve tried your hand at evangelizing atheists and religious skeptics, you know all too well that some of them will maintain that atheism is the default worldview and there is no evidence or good arguments for God. And, when you whip out your standard Christian apologetic  arguments, such as the cosmological argument for God that asserts a creator brought everything we know into existence, they’ll say, “That doesn’t prove the God of the Bible exists!”

I hate to break it to you, but they’re right.

Or when you make them aware of the teleological argument that says the universe and humankind exhibit marks of intelligence and design, skeptics will return fire and say such a case doesn’t mean Christianity is true.

Get Our Latest News for FREE

Subscribe to get daily/weekly email with the top stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.

Once again, they’re correct.

Here’s the thing: when you or I dole out Christian apologetic claims in a onesie-twosie fashion, thinking it will seal the deal on someone’s salvation, the end result is usually a crash-and-burn situation for us, with no consideration given to the faith on the side of the unbeliever. This is unfortunate and, in the end, it is our fault because we typically don’t stir the apologetics pot correctly to help the person we’re talking to think about the case for God in the right way.

And just what is that “right way?” While a singular argument can have an impact and get the cerebral juices flowing for some people, a better approach is the cumulative case method that takes progressive steps towards the end goal of showing that Christianity is reasonable to believe and accept.

My apologetics professor, Dr. Norman Geisler, taught this kind of approach and used a twelve-step framework to discuss God with unbelievers that he turned into a couple of books, Twelve Points That Show Christianity Is True and I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Now, I’m guessing that strikes you as being lengthy. “Twelve steps? Isn’t that a bit much?” I hear you, but Geisler reasoned that some people were a little further along than others concerning what they believed, so most times, you didn’t need to cover all 12 steps.

A more concise version of the cumulative case method is one used by William Lane Craig, which he briefly discussed during a recent podcast. Let me walk you through his outline and show you how a cumulative case approach can help unbelievers better understand the case for Christianity.

A first cause

For those still asking the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” that was posed by the co-discoverer of calculus G. W. Leibniz, the first cause argument helps by simply asserting that “something” (the universe, us, etc.) exists and that you don’t get something from nothing. Therefore, an “eternal” something exists.

The options for our eternal reality are surprisingly few — reality is either an illusion, is self-created, is nothing more than the universe, or was created by something self-existent.

Dr. John Lennox rightly discards the first two as ill-conceived and says, “Human intelligence ultimately owes its origin to mindless matter or there is a Creator. It is strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second.”

Does the first cause argument prove the God of the Bible? Absolutely not. But its evidence does make the idea of a first uncaused cause reasonable to assume.

OK, fine, but where do we go from here? The next logical step is to work backward from the effects of the first cause to determine its nature, and that begins with what it has made.

A purposeful cause

You have to admit that identifying natural vs. intelligence causes is cake. Lennox says, “Is it not to be wondered at that our archaeologist immediately infers intelligent origin when faced with a few simple scratches whereas some scientists, when faced with the 3.5 billion letter sequence of the human genome, inform us that it is to be explained solely in terms of chance and necessity?”

Admit it, we know intelligence when we see it.

The argument from design is very compelling (it’s my favorite) and helped turn around some atheists like Antony Flew. Does it mean Christianity is true? No. But it does indicate that whatever brought reality into existence is intelligent and purposeful, i.e., it had intent. And one of the things it intended to do was help us understand how to live. 

A caring cause

It’s both funny and instructive to see those who espouse relative morality the most manifest absolute morals in matters they care about. Many atheist philosophers have given up on opposing objective morality — for example, Louise Atony said, “Any argument against the objective reality of moral values will be based on premises that are less obvious than the existence of objective moral values themselves.”

Yep.

Does the moral argument for God that says objective moral values imply a moral lawgiver seal the deal on the Christian faith being the right belief system? No, but it does support the idea that whatever brought us to life is moral, cares about us, and wants us to live right.  

At this point, let’s take a quick breath to note that these three steps, just on their own, lead to some pretty powerful inferences. The cause of reality must be supernatural (it created the natural); powerful (incredibly); eternal (self-existent); omnipresent (it created space and is not limited by it); timeless and changeless (it created time); immaterial (because it transcends space/physical); purposeful (has intent); necessary (as everything else depends on it); infinite and singular (you cannot have two infinites); diverse yet with unity; intelligent (supremely); and moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).

This lines up well with the God described in Scripture who is supernatural (Gen. 1:1); powerful (Jer. 32:17); eternal (Ps. 90:2); omnipresent (Ps. 139:7); timeless/changeless (Mal. 3:6); immaterial (John 5:24); purposeful (Gen. 3:9); necessary (Col.1:17); infinite/singular (Jer. 23:24, Deut. 6:4); diverse yet with unity (Matt. 28:19); intelligent (Ps. 147:4-5); moral (Dan. 9:14) and caring (1 Pet. 5:6-7).

Not a bad start. Now, let’s continue.

A revealing cause

When it comes to Jesus, the agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman admits, “He [Jesus] certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees.” Many of those scholars also agree that Christ was killed under Pontius Pilate, was buried, went missing from His tomb, was reportedly seen by a decent number of people, and His followers swore to that fact and paid the ultimate penalty for it.

Now we get to the fish-or-cut-bait line of the Christian faith. If these things are true, then Christianity is indeed true, and we’ve got God revealing Himself in the flesh to His creation.

Just one last step to go.

A personal cause

Craig has discussed elsewhere the important distinction between “knowing” and “showing” your Christian faith. The steps before this are all about showing how Christianity is true, but ultimately, knowing it’s real comes down to the witness of the Holy Spirit that is personally given to each believer when they’re born again.  

Every Christian believes because of the “Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him” (Acts 5:32); “The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children” (Rom. 8:16). The apostle John agreed writing, “If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son. The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself” (1 John 5:9–10).

Do others experience “feelings” about God? Sure. The Mormon “burning in the bosom” and similar experiences in Islam are just a couple of examples.

But when you combine the evidence of the “showing” side of faith with the “knowing” that all believers receive, the result is a case that’s hard to refute.

That’s why the cumulate case approach to apologetics is so compelling — it takes rational steps towards rationally accepting the truth about Christianity that are then confirmed inwardly by God’s Spirit, who is given to those who receive Christ.

At that point, a journey begins that was stated well by Anselm, who wrote: “For I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe — that unless I believe I shall not understand.”

And that’s a pretty exciting place to be.