Moral Apologetics Paul R. Shockley www.prshockley.org This work is especially indebted to J. Budziszewski’s, “Practical Responses to Relativism and Postmodernism: Part II” in Philosophy: Christian Perspectives for the New Millennium, v. 1 (Addison, Tx.: CLM & RZIM Publishers: 2003), 107-122; Ibid., What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide (Dallas: Spence Publishing, 2003).

Consider the following quote… “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” ~ C. S. Lewis ~ “Is Theology Poetry?” Essay Collection (London: HarperCollins, 2000), 21. 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com I. Introduction: The Christian worldview possesses many benefits. Among them I would like to summarize three: A. Christian worldview possesses the greatest explanatory power among its rivals (e.g., Darwinian naturalism; postmodernism). B. Christian worldview is able to answer the greatest questions asked in life. C. Christian worldview is able to harmonize both natural revelation and special revelation. 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

Answers the Greatest Questions: Origin: Where did we come from? Identity: What are we? Who are we? Meaning: Why are we here? Morality: How should we live? Destiny: Where are we going? Evil: What’s gone wrong with the world? Hope: What can be done to fix the problems of the world? 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

Meaning- Significance Cross-cultural Awareness General Revelation Meaning- Significance Answered Prayer Salvation Peace Cosmological Experiences Innate Idea Teleological Conscience Ontological God Arguments Intuition Moral Law Existential Need Obj. Beauty Cross-cultural Awareness Evidences Big Bang: Morals: Anthropic Principle Specified Complexity Irreducible Complexity Objective Values Objective Duties Altruistic Acts 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

Is Jesus Liar, Lunatic, or Lord? Multiple, Independent Sources Early Attestation 5,800+ N.T. Manuscripts Continuity Fulfillment of Predictive Prophecy Historical Accuracy Archeological Accuracy Jesus Use of Scripture The Bible is the Word of God and (all else opposed to it is false]. Uniqueness of Scripture Reliability of Scripture Experiences Predictive Prophecy Seen by over 500 witnesses; Testimony from multiple sources Trustworthy people who taught & lived by highest ethics and who died for testimony Early Written Attestation (mostly 15-40 yrs) after event. If God exists, miracles are possible Arguments Intuition Predictive Prophecy Sinless Life Greatest Words Ever Spoken Performed Miracles Greatest Positive Influence Ideal Exemplar (e.g., loved the unlovely). Evidences The Person & Work of Christ Historical Bodily Resurrection of Christ Is Jesus Liar, Lunatic, or Lord? 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

C. Harmonized Starting Point for a Christian Worldview (natural & Special Revelation) Uniqueness of Scripture Existential Experiences Reliability of Scripture Arguments to and from Natural Revelation The God of the Bible Intuition Evidences From and to Natural Revelation Historical Bodily Resurrection of Christ The Person & Work of Christ 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

Consider the following quotes by J. Budziszewski: “Something bad will always happen when we act contrary to our design: If not one thing, then another. If not physiological damage, for example, then emotional damage [Ibid., 111].” “Postmodernism is simply the habit of thinking that nothing holds together, that everything is in pieces [Ibid., 95].” “Confusion of the mind interacts with obstinancy of the heart [Ibid., 108]” 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

II. Moral Apologetics assumes the following as its starting point: 1. Ever law has a law giver. 2. There is a Moral Law. 3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

8 Evidences for Moral Law: 1. The Moral Law is undeniable. A person who denies all values, values his right to deny them. We know it BEST by our reactions. Our reactions help us discover the Moral law. It is the basis of human rights (e.g., Nuremberg Trails). 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

8 Evidences for Moral Law: It defines a real difference between moral positions (e.g., M. Teresa vs. Hitler). Since we know what is absolutely wrong, there must be a standard of rightness. The moral Law is the grounds for political and social dissent. 8. If there were no Moral Law, then we wouldn’t make excuses for violating it. 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

III. Looking a Little Deeper into Moral Law: A. Moral law derives its authority from God and is reflected in the design of His Creation. B. This doesn’t mean that it is arbitrary; it is rooted in His eternal goodness. Nor does it seem to us arbitrary, because it because it meshes with the way we have been put together, and we discover it in the deep structure of our own created conscience. D. The source of moral law is God as Creator and Lawgiver. 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

III. Looking a Little Deeper into Moral Law: The content of Moral Law is at some level known to all and are right for everyone. Content of Moral Law: 1. 10 Commandments (the Decalogue): 2. Golden Rule. 3. Others… 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

III. Looking a Little Deeper into Moral Law: G. Historically, Moral Law is called “natural law.” 1. Natural law is called “natural” because it is built into the design of created human nature, woven into the fabric of the normal human mind [Budziszewski, “Natural Law,” 473]. 2. Natural law is law because it has the properties of all. Its precepts are not arbitrary whims, but rules that the mind can grasp as right for they are designed in such a way that every rational being knows them [Idem]. 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

III. Looking a Little Deeper into Moral Law: There is a certain knowledge of right and wrong “written on the heart” that can be repressed, denied, or even buried, but cannot be annihilated. A seared conscience still remains a conscience [J. Budziszewski, “Practical Responses to Relativism and Postmodernism,” 95]. 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

III. Looking a Little Deeper into Moral Law: “A Natural law apologetic begins by calling the attention of listeners to the things that they already know. Paul proceeds in this manner when he reminds the Athenians of their altar ‘To An Unknown God’, bringing to the surface their cloudy awareness that despite their hundreds of idols, they have not found true deity. Then he ‘connects the dots’: ‘Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you’ (Acts 17:23). Notice that although Paul makes use of the witness design, he does not say ‘let me tell you about the witness of design’. There is no need. 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

III. Looking a Little Deeper into Moral Law: Paul’s hope was to persuade his listeners of the truth of the gospel. However, natural law also provides a basis for the effort to persuade unconverted people of moral truths short of the gospel, so that we can share a decent society. As in Paul’s case, one begins with what the listeners already dimly know. In defending the natural institution of marriage, for example, one does not begin by saying ‘According to the theory of natural law, men and women are complementary.’ One simple calls attention to the fact that they are complementary.” 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

III. Looking a Little Deeper into Moral Law: Budziszewski also notes: “If we do think of natural law as common ground, however, we must understand it as slippery common ground. Though in some fashion, people already know the foundational principles of natural law, it does not follow that they are aware of knowing it. They may even be in rebellion against knowing it, desperately trying to convince themselves that they do not know what they really do. The differences between a naïve and a sophisticated natural law apologetic is that the former ignores this difficulty, while the latter anticipates it-it dissipates smokescreens and gets behind deception” [Ibid., 476]. 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

III. Looking a Little Deeper into Moral Law: Therefore, J. Budziszewski’s starting point involves three ideas [Ibid., 473]. 1. Source of Moral Law is God. 2. Foundational Moral Principles exist that are right for everyone. 3. Foundational Moral Principles are known to everyone. 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

III. Looking a Little Deeper into Moral Law: Nobody is truly ignorant! 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com IV. 5 Witnesses: Witness of Creation (Psalm 19:1-6; Romans 1); Witness of Human Design (Rom. 1:26-27); Witness of Deep Conscience (Rom. 2:14-15); Witness of God-ward Longings (Ecclesiastes 3:11); Witness of Consequences (Galatians 6:7). 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

V. How Does Natural Law Operate: A. Perhaps the greatest consequence of violating natural law is the workings of a guilty conscience. Deep conscience operates in three different modes [Ibid., 475]. 1. Cautionary Mode: alerts us to the peril of moral wrong and generates an inhibition against committing it. 2. Accusative Mode: Indicts us for wrong we have already done, it alerts us to the peril of moral wrong, and generates an inhibition against committing it. 3. Avenging Mode: It punishes the soul who does wrong but who refuses to heed the indictment. 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

V. How Does Natural Law Operate: B. Consider the words of Dr. Budziszewski; “The most well-known signal of deep conscience in the accusatory mode is the feeling of remorse. However, no-one always feels remorse for doing wrong and some people never do. Yet even when remorse is absent, the subconscious knowledge of guilt generates unavoidable needs for confession, atonement, reconciliation and justification. These needs can be truly satisfied only by a ‘broken spirit and contrite heart’ (Ps. 51:17). If we refuse to repent, however, we futilely try to appease the furies by other means. We may compulsively rationalize, confess every detail of our sins except the fact that they were wrong, or pay pain after pain, price after price, in a cycle which has no end because we refuse to pay the one price demanded [Ibid., 475]. 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

VI. How to Use Moral Law Apologetics: A. Remember that an angry response from the other party is not necessarily evidence that you have made a mistake. B. However, if you insult or become angry in a way that doesn’t represent Christ honorably, then you have erred. 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

VI. How to Use Moral Law Apologetics: C. How can anger potentially provide you with an opportunity? Consider the following example: Someone says to you in the conversation: “How dare you say something like that? What kind of a person do you think I am?” You can reply, “Slow down. There is nothing in what I’ve said to make you angry; I’m merely calling to the implications of your position. Is there something in YOU to make you angry?” [“Practical Responses to Relativism and Postmodernism: Part II, 113]. 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

VI. How to Use Moral Law Apologetics: D. J. Budziszewski notes, “Gut reactions on your part and their part may not by themselves reveal the rightness or wrongness of something, but they are included in the relevant data that ought to be considered” [Ibid., 113]. 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

VI. How to Use Moral Law Apologetics: Always seek to move scenarios from the realm of hypothetical, making them concrete and realistic. Hypo: “What if someone were to say that murder were okay? How might we answer him?” Real: Aren’t you asking, “Isn’t murder okay for those who say it is?” Move the question or scenario from the hypothetical to the real. F. Be aware of the limits of different kinds of arguments. Some arguments never go far enough. 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

VI. How to Use Moral Law Apologetics: G. Remove masks of self-deception: Budziszewski writes: “ Self-deception prevents a person from recognizing the force of a logical argument. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t hope of breaking through. If we depend on God’s grace certain techniques of argument can sometimes break through, but self-deception goes beyond merely presenting a better logical argument [Ibid., 112].” 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

VI. How to Use Moral Law Apologetics: H. Therefore, as you engage others you need to be dependent upon God, have the right emotions, in the right way, at the right times, toward the right persons, for the right reasons, ever so sensitive to both the person with whom you are speaking and yourself. 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

How to break through the Mask of Self-Deception: Dissipate the Smoke; Connect the Dots; Release the Catch; Play back the Tape; E. Call Attention to the Obvious.

How to break through the Mask of Self-Deception: “Something bad will always happen when we act contrary to our design: if one thing, then another. If not physiological damage, for example, then emotional damage. But because people don’t want to believe that, you have to take the next step. You have to raise consciousness about the fact that these bad consequences aren’t merely something that happens to occur. They occur because the behavior is contrary to our design-to the way that we have been made. That’s why no foolproof ‘protection’ will be developed-but it’s also why the behavior would be wrong even if foolproof ‘protection’ were developed. Respect for the design reflects respect for the Designer; everyone feels the force of that reflection, whether or not you call attention to it. Notice too, that awareness of the Designer opens up the conversation. People want to know about Him. So you can talk about that too” [Ibid., 111].

VII. Breaking through the Mask of Self-Deception: Tactic # 1: Dissipate the Smoke: If I answer every one of your questions, then would you then change your mind (Ibid., 113). If I reasonably answer every one of your questions, are you willing to believe? 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

VII. Breaking through the Mask of Self-Deception: Tactic # 2: Connecting the Dots: People don’t want to connect certain dots why they do what they do. In fact, they may try hard not to connect the dots; sometimes they’ve already connected them subconsciously, but don’t want to admit it to themselves. Sometimes they suspect that there is a dot to be connected here, but they just won’t look at that part of the picture (Ibid., 115). By attentively listening, you may be able to ask the right question that points them to the “dot” they are trying to ignore or repress. 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

VII. Breaking through the Mask of Self-Deception: Tactic # 3: Release the Catch: It is giving permission to the person to reveal his or her thoughts, feelings, and beliefs about something that they have kept hidden or have refused to discuss in view of various reasons (Ibid., 116). 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

VII. Breaking through the Mask of Self-Deception: Tactic # 4: Play Back the Tape: Mildly confrontational, you ask the person “Do you notice what you’ve been doing here?” Then you replay what they have done (e.g., interrupt you as you are about to give a reason for believing in the Bible) and then you ask them, “Why do you think you do that?” (Ibid., 117). 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

VII. Breaking through the Mask of Self-Deception: Tactic # 5: Call Attention to the Obvious: There are some things that people plainly know, but persist in overlooking. In a disarming way, ask them questions that will direct their attention to notice what they already know to be true. No information is added beyond what they already know (Ibid., 117). 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

VII. Breaking through the Mask of Self-Deception: For Example: “I just can’t have a baby right now.” Response, “Well, what do you call what’s inside of you?” Reply is, “I call it a baby.” That gives the permission to say, “In that case, it seems the question before you isn’t whether you can have a baby right now, but what to do with the one that you’ve already got.” Call Attention to the Obvious! (Ibid). 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

VII. Breaking through the Mask of Self-Deception: Tactic # 6: Waiting for A Divine Opportunity: “Strictly speaking, it isn’t a ‘strategy’ at all, because it is simply waiting for an opportunity from God. You see, God has his own apologetics, which escape all of our plans, techniques, and calculations” [120-21]. There will be times when God brings forth a circumstance to you that you did not plan, prepare, initiate, or motivate. The person just comes to you in view of the conviction of sin in his or her heart. 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

VII. Breaking through the Mask of Self-Deception: Answering a person who embraces a postmodern outlook or worldview: 1. Find out if they merely pose as a postmodernist or if they really bought into that worldview. 2. When someone says that he can do without meaning and coherency, J. Budziszewski responds, ‘”You know as well as I do that the longing for meaning and coherency is deep-set in every mind, yours as well as mine. So my question for you is this: What is it that you want so badly that you are willing to give up even meaning and coherence to have it?” 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

VII. Breaking through the Mask of Self-Deception: Answering evil. “But if God is good and all-powerful, then why is there suffering?” I can give you some technical solutions if you want; and I think so far as they go, they’re pretty good. But I’ll admit to you that I don’t know the whole answer as to why God permits suffering. I do know how God views our suffering, though, because He took the worst of it upon Himself for us. That’s what the Cross is all about. With that kind of God, I can wait for the rest of the answer.” 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

VIII. Basics of Moral Apologetics: A. Dependence on God. Why? “Only God can disarm the other part’s hardness of heart (pg. 103).” Technique and knowledge will not avail unless we cooperate with God. 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

VIII. Basics of Moral Apologetics: Carefully Appraise the Situation. - Must be able to distinguish between the following: 1. honest intellectual difficulties’ 2. evasions and self-deception (Ibid., 103). 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

VIII. Basics of Moral Apologetics: Turn Back the Question. “How can we talk with people who know or suspect the moral truth but who don’t admit to themselves all they know? …Often it helps just to turn back the question. A student once asked, ‘Isn’t morality all just really relative? How do we even know that murder is wrong?’ Now was this an honest intellectual difficulty or a smokescreen? I recognized at once that it was a smokescreen. Never believe anyone who claims ignorance of basic moral rule like ‘Do not murder.’ The problem was self-deception. So I responded, ‘Are you in any doubt about murder being wrong?’ …He wasn’t at all prepared to be asked, ‘Do you mean it?’ [Ibid., 105]. 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

VIII. Basics of Moral Apologetics: Turn Back the Question: Stumbling a bit, he replied, ‘Some people might say that murder was all right.’ I pressed, ‘Yes, but I’m not asking some people. I’m asking you. Have you any real doubt about murder being wrong for everybody?’ Confronted in this sway, he broke down and admitted, ‘No I guess, not.’ That gave me the opportunity to say, ‘Then we don’t have to waste time on things you aren’t really in doubt about, like whether morality is relative. Tell me something that you are in doubt about.’ Now this was a moment of truth for this student. Was he suddenly cured of all moral confusion? Certainly not, but he had learned something-even if only about himself. He had learned that he wasn’t as ignorant as he wanted to believe that he was [Ibid., 105].” 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com Summary: “The task of moral apologetics is only ten percent teaching; the other ninety percent is uncovering. He labors not to fill the empty conscience, but to dredge the sunken conscience-to bring people face to face with what they really know, but suppress. The Adversary will try to keep it down, but by the grace of God we can sometimes help bring it to the surface. That is our goal” (pg. 106). 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com Concluding Thought: “If you live apart from the Redeemer, then truth really will seem fragmented because you won’t be able to make sense of things. If you live apart from the Redeemer, then personality really will seem fragmented because you won’t know who you really are. And if you live apart from the Redeemer, then life will seem fragmented because you will be unable to grasp its meaning and may simply give up trying.” ~ J. Budziszewski, “Practical Response to Relativism and Postmodernism: Part I, pg. 95.” 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com

Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Budziszewski’s, “Practical Responses to Relativism and Postmodernism: Part I” in Philosophy: Christian Perspectives for the New Millennium, v. 1 (Addison, Tx.: CLM & RZIM Publishers: 2003), 107-122; Ibid., What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide (Dallas: Spence Publishing, 2003), 89-106. J. Budziszewski’s, “Practical Responses to Relativism and Postmodernism: Part II” in Philosophy: Christian Perspectives for the New Millennium, v. 1 (Addison, Tx.: CLM & RZIM Publishers: 2003), 107-122; Ibid., What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide (Dallas: Spence Publishing, 2003). J. Budziszewski, “Natural Law” in New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics, edited by W. C. Campbell-Jack nad Gavin McGrath (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: 2006), 473-76. 9/18/2018 Template copyright 2005 www.brainybetty.com