What's in a Name?

“God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ And he said, ‘Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’’” (Exodus 3:14 ESV)

Exodus 3:14 has given encouragement and comfort to many of God’s people over the years. This verse constitutes so much more than the recording of an actual event when the Creator of the universe condescended to answer questions from a member of His creation, namely Moses. In addition to being an accurate historical record, these words have provided theologians, philosophers, and followers of Christ with an invaluable glimpse into the character and essence of God. It is impossible for men or women to plumb the depths of the mystery of the one true God, or to achieve a complete understanding of our Creator through an examination of His revealed Word. Yet for those who would study and learn from Exodus 3:14, there are great blessings indeed.

The immediate context of Exodus 3:14 is found in the preceding verses. God has met with Moses and called him to lead His people out from under the oppression of the Egyptians. Moses responds with a series of questions, the second of which is found in verse 13: “Then Moses said to God, ‘If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?’” Knowing that the Israelites were living under slavery in the polytheistic culture of Egypt, Moses needed an answer in order to specifically point them to the one true God. In verse 14, God gave him that answer.

The first Hebrew word in Exodus 3:14, יֹּ֤אמֶר, which is translated said, is frequently utilized in the Old Testament to introduce revelation, and the source of this revelation is identified by the following word. With the second word of this verse, אֱלֹהִים, God speaks one of His names to Moses, God or Elohim. The names by which God chooses to refer to Himself are highly significant, as the Israelites held that a person’s name reflected a being’s character and essence. It should be noted that the form of this word is a grammatical plural, though it’s meaning in this instance is singular. Some scholars have seen this plural-singular tension as an implication of God’s “majesty or stateliness.” However, it is reasonable to go further, interpreting this usage as a hint of the Trinitarian nature of God, the mystery of the plurality of Persons in the Godhead.

The next name for Himself that God shares with Moses, this time as a specific answer to his question, is I AM WHO I AM. This name utilizes the word אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה for I AM, which appears three times in this verse. It is interesting to note that while the word is visually identical in each case, being based on the Hebrew verb meaning to be, it functions twice as a noun (in its first and third usages) and once as a verb (in its second usage). This is important, because when the word is used as a verb, it could be translated I will be. Using the verb alone, we might suspect that God is in the process of becoming something else, or changing in some way. Yet the two times that it functions here as a noun could be accurately translated as I be, or better yet, I AM. This speaks to the self-existence and total non-dependency of the Creator, who has always been and will never become, as opposed to all of creation, which is fully dependent on God for existence, having once become and then continuing on in a state of becoming. The word אֲשֶׁ֣ר, translated as who, connects the first two usages, and considering their different functions as a noun and a vowel, we can read this name of God as I AM WHO I WILL BE, or I AM WHO I AM.  God has always been, He has never become or changed, and He will always be. Many classical theologians have pointed to I AM WHO I AM as referring to God as eternal existence. In explaining this concept, Geisler describes God as, “. . . Pure Being or Pure Existence. God is Pure Actuality . . .” Swanson states that this name for God also focuses on His “. . . presence, care, concern, and relationship.” For the people of God, this insight from Exodus 3:14 into the unchanging nature, character, and essence of God speaks to the absolute reliability of His presence, His promises, and His Word.

In the second half of Exodus 3:14, God says to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’’” The Hebrew word תֹאמַר֙, which could be translated as you will say, is clearly a divine instruction. There is not a hint of suggestion or prediction contained in this usage of the word. God is sending Moses on a mission to free His people from their bondage in Egypt. Moses has been given a direct command from God Himself, and he is expected to obey. The fact that this is a mission-like undertaking is emphasized by the usage of the word שְׁלָחַ֥ נִי, translated as has sent me. In context, this Hebrew word means to send; to dispatch; to send out, usually for a purpose. God has a specific plan in mind, and He is dispatching Moses to play a major role in the successful completion of that mission.

Another detail of this mission emerges in the final Hebrew word of this verse, אֲל ֵיכֶֽם׃, which is translated to you. This word is plural in its usage here, with the sense that God is sending Moses to you all. And who is this plurality, this you all that Moses is being sent to deliver? We see the answer in the verse. They are the people of Israel. And the Hebrew word used here, לִ בְנֵ֣י, which can be translated as to the sons of or to the people of, underlines the “presence, care, concern, and relationship” that was mentioned above, insights into the character of the one true God as revealed in His name I AM WHO I AM. The Hebrew word translated here as to the people of, is a term of endearment, a reference to a relative, as a parent tenderly addresses his children. God loves the sons of Israel. They are His people. He has heard their cries for help and His rescue mission continues.

In the third chapter of Exodus, the one true God has promised to be with His people and rescue them from their bondage in Egypt. In Exodus 3:14, God has answered Moses’ question from the preceding verse: “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” God’s response to this question is insightful both to the reliability of His promises and to the beauty of His essence and character. Some scholars have sought to explain away this divine disclosure by suggesting that God’s answer is evasive, showing a reluctance to reveal His name, or even that God is cutting Moses off and redirecting their conversation. But all such attempts to water down the passage are inaccurate, clearly disregarding the context of the verse. In actuality, God responds patiently to Moses’ inquiry by not only providing His name, but doing so in a manner that unveils important attributes of the one true God. While the promises contained in this passage of Scripture are remarkable and sure, it is this precious glimpse into the nature of the One who gives those assurances that should fill us with wonder, awe, and hope.

Alexander, T.D. “Exodus.” In New Bible Commentary, edited by D.A. Carson, R.T. France, J.A. Motyer and G.J. Wenham. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Geisler, Norman L. Systematic Theology. Vol. 2. Bloomington, MN: Bethany House, 2003.

Kaiser, Jr., Walter C. “Exodus.” Vol. 2 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.

Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, M.E.J Richardson and Johann Jakob Stamm. The

Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden, New York: E.J. Brill, 1999.

Sailhamer, John H. The Pentateuch as Narrative. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Strong, James, S.T.D., LL.D. A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2009.

Swanson, James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament). electronic ed. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997.

Walvoord, John F., Roy B. Zuck and Dallas Theological Seminary. The Bible Knowledge

Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983. 

Natural Law: More Evidence for the Existence of God

A unique aspect of the Christian worldview is the teaching that rather than mankind searching for and discovering God on our own, men and women can only know God because He has first revealed Himself to us. If it had not been for God initiating contact with humanity, He would have remained “hidden in incomprehensible majesty,”[1] as the human race collectively crawled in the darkness, hoping “that they might feel their way toward him and find him” (Acts 17:27).[2] There are four primary avenues through which God has revealed Himself to mankind: in His creation of the physical universe; in the Incarnation of His Son, Jesus Christ; through the Canon of Scripture; and in the witness of human conscience. While both the Incarnation and the Bible are examples of God’s special revelation, the creation and the conscience fall under the category of general revelation, as they are “available to all rationally and morally responsible persons.”[3] This post will focus on the later of these divine revelations, the human conscience and its expression of natural law.

What is Natural Law?

There is some difficulty in accurately defining the term natural law, as it carries a significant amount of baggage. When some hear the term, they immediately think of the scientific laws of nature, such as gravity and the speed of light, laws that define and predict the interaction of physical objects.[4] This is not the natural law we are considering. Instead of describing the actions of physical matter, natural law has to do with the universal and binding rules of proper human behavior.

In the context of this post, natural law can be defined as the “general, objective, and widely shared moral values that are not specifically tied to the special revelation of Scripture.”[5] It is not a theory developed by human philosophers, but rather an objective foundation of reality put in place by God Himself. Natural law “is built into the design of human nature and woven into the fabric of the normal human mind.”[6] And as such, it holds a certain continuity among the human species. C. S. Lewis described this universal aspect of the natural law:

C. S. Lewis

"This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to every one."[7]

The precepts and moral absolutes of natural law are based on the holy and changeless character of its Creator. And God, the author of natural law, has not hidden it from us. “It is not a secret rule, for He has so arranged His creation that every rational being knows about it.”[8] In his epistle to the Christians at Rome, the apostle Paul explained that since the special revelation of Scripture was not available to all people, God implanted the moral law within the hearts of human beings. For when people “who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness . . .” (Romans 2:14-15a).

Each individual’s conscience, his innate knowledge of right and wrong, gives testimony that God has inscribed His moral law upon our very hearts. Not only is the natural law known by all rational human beings, it is also recognized as being right. J. Budziszewski’s brief summary helps to clarify our understanding of the natural law: “Certain moral principles are not only right for all, but at some level known to all. They are the universal common sense of the human race.”[9]

Evidence for Natural Law

The witness of Scripture has been noted above, seen in Paul’s statement in Romans 2:14-15, that God’s moral law has been written on the hearts of humanity. But is there evidence for the natural law apart from the Word of God? There is indeed abundant evidence that testifies to the objective reality of the natural law, the universally known standard of moral values.

When one compares the moral teachings of various religions and civilizations throughout history, the “striking resemblance of their basic ethical principles”[10] quickly emerges.   C. S. Lewis points to this reality in The Abolition of Man: “But what is common to them all is something we cannot neglect. It is the doctrine of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false . . .”[11] In the appendix of this same book, Lewis presents an impressive (though not exhaustive) list of common moral teachings expressed by over a dozen different civilizations throughout history, from Greeks, Romans, and Babylonians, to Egyptians, Norsemen and Native American Indians.[12] Lewis’ inventory of shared moral beliefs include beneficence, duties to parents, elders and ancestors, justice, honesty, mercy, and magnanimity.[13] This recognition of the common threads of morality winding throughout mankind’s history points to the existence of the natural law.

When we turn our focus to individual persons, it does not take long before the natural law can be seen at work. While it is one thing to observe how a person acts, or even to ask someone how they think others should act, the unvarnished revelation of their deepest moral belief arises in how they react when someone threatens their own rights or property.[14] In other words, rather than arguing with a self-proclaimed moral relativist and trying to convince her of the existence of the natural law, it is much more effective to simply steal her smart-phone. The widely shared morality of the natural law quickly emerges when someone’s prized possessions or personal rights are violated.

Without the existence of natural law, it would often prove impossible to pass judgment on the most heinous of moral violations when those crimes are given legal cover within a particular society. This was the challenge of the Nuremberg trials, when Nazi leaders stood in the dock charged with the attempted extermination of an ethnic and religious people within their country’s borders. One of the arguments of the defense was that what began with the systematic exclusion of the Jewish people from normal life in Germany was actually justifiable under the Nazi legal system. A series of laws had been established within Nazi Germany, laws which progressively degraded the legal standing of Jews.[15] These included the declaration that they were non-persons, effectively forfeiting for the Jewish people the normal legal protections now only afforded to those considered “fully human.” Another contention of the defense was that since no law existed specifically prohibiting their actions, no crime had actually taken place! In answer to this rationalization, the Nuremberg tribunal utilized the existence of natural law as the foundation of the legal proceedings. During the final verdict, the American Judge Francis Biddle pointed to the universality of justice and the innate moral conscience shared by all of humanity:

Nuremberg Trial

"It is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole. To assert that it is unjust to punish those who in defiance of treaties and assurances have attacked neighboring states without warning is obviously untrue, for in such circumstances the attacker must know that he is doing wrong, and so far from it being unjust to punish him, it would be unjust if his wrongs were allowed to go unpunished."[16]

Timothy Keller sums up this connection between the Nazi atrocities and the objective veracity of natural law. “The Nazis who exterminated the Jews may have claimed that they didn’t feel it was immoral at all. We don’t care. We don’t care if they sincerely felt they were doing a service to humanity. They ought not to have done it.”[17] The Nuremburg trials provide powerful testimony from human history to the transcendent reality of the natural law.

God is the Source of Natural Law

The widespread agreement of societies throughout human history to certain common yet undeniable moral values illuminates the truth that an objective moral law exists. And for an objective moral law to exist, there must be a moral lawgiver. In other words, the existence of the natural law is one more piece of evidence for the existence of God. Natural law, “the notion that there are true, universally binding moral principles knowable to all people and rooted in creation and the way things are made,”[18] finds its foundation in the very character of God Himself, who has provided a standard upon which He can justly hold accountable those who have not been given the special revelation of Scripture. “I didn't know” will not be a valid excuse before the judgment seat of God. The existence of moral values apart from special revelation underlines a reality that is shared by all people. God has engraved His natural law on every human heart.

---

[1]Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 113.

[2]The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway Bibles, 2001).

[3]Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 125.

[4]Mortimer J. Adler, How To Think About The Great Ideas, ed. Max Weismann (Peru, IL: Open Court Publishing, 2009), 352.

[5]Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 53.

[6]J. Budziszewski, What We Can’t Not Know (Dallas, TX: Spence Publishing, 2003), 14.

[7]C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001), 5.

[8]J. Budziszewski, What We Can’t Not Know, 14.

[9]Ibid., 15.

[10]Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options, 123.

[11]C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man: Reflections on Education with Special Reference to the Teaching of English in the Upper Forms of Schools  (New York: MacMillan Company, 1947), 12.

[12]Louis Markos, Apologetics For The 21^st Century (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2010), 29.

[13]C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man: Reflections on Education with Special Reference to the Teaching of English in the Upper Forms of Schools, 51-61.

[14]Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options, 124.

[15]Ian Kershaw, Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1998), 568-573.

[16]Robert E. Conot, Justice at Nuremberg (New York: Harper and Row, 1983), 493.

[17]Timothy Keller, The Reason For God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Penguin Group, 2008), 147.

[18]William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2003), 410.

So You’re Telling Me There’s a Chance

What can Lloyd Christmas teach us about the existence of God? To be honest, not much. But in a roundabout way, Lloyd’s hope-filled denial of reality might nudge us in the right direction. 

God has revealed the reality of His existence in four primary ways: In creation, in our conscience, in Christ, and in the canon of Scripture. Regarding His creation, there is abundant evidence in our universe that points to the existence of God. One such witness is the Cosmological Argument. Although there are several variations to this line of reasoning, the basic argument goes something like this:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The universe began to exist.

Therefore, the universe has a cause.[1]

Intuitively, we know the first premise is true. It is self-evident that nothing comes from nothing. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause. In other words, nothing pops into existence without something or someone doing the popping.

It has been less than 100 years since science confirmed the truth of the second premise, that our universe had a beginning. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (the universe is running out of steam), Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the increasing red shift in light coming from distant galaxies (the universe if expanding), and the radiation echo (leftovers from the initial explosion when the universe began) are just three examples of scientific evidence that our universe came into existence. According to science, our universe began with a massive explosion, something known as the Big Bang.

With all that being said, the truth regarding our universe’s beginning boils down to two possibilities:

The universe was caused by nothing.

The universe was caused by something.

Did our universe come into existence without a cause? I seriously doubt it.

But if the universe was caused by something, that something would have to be an incredibly powerful entity who transcends time and space. Or, as Greg Koukl often says, "a Big Bang requires a Big Banger."

Starting to sound a little like God.

Is it possible Lloyd will end up with Mary? Though highly unlikely, I guess I’ve got to admit it's possible. 

Did our universe come into existence without a cause? While some argue it may be technically possible, it remains highly improbable.

And I’d guess those odds are a lot worse than one in a million.

---

[1] Alister E. McGrath, Mere Apologetics: How to Help Seekers & Skeptics Find Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2012), 97.

Is Truth True?

When Pontius Pilate asked Jesus Christ, “What is truth,” did he understand the cosmic importance of his question? In a situation thick with irony, Pilate went outside before receiving his answer, though he had just inquired of the Son of God, who had earlier identified Himself as “the way, the truth, and the life.” For many people in our time, the answer to Pilate’s question remains clouded and controversial. But the nature of truth is an important precondition that must be considered before we can argue for the truth of the Christian worldview. 

Subjective / Relative Truth versus Objective / Absolute Truth

The current struggle over the nature of truth involves two central competing ideas: subjective / relative truth versus objective / absolute truth. In our post-modern world, many people consider it a waste of time to even consider the differences between these terms. Some are perfectly content to dismiss any controversy with catch phrases such as, “What’s true for you may not be true for me. But that’s okay. Truth is in the eye of the beholder.” While there are certainly subjective / relative truths (i.e. “I think chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla”), they primarily apply to areas of preference and personal opinion. On the other hand, objective / absolute truth (i.e. “Häagen-Dazs Vanilla Swiss Almond ice cream contains sugar”) is a statement about reality that is true for every person whether they believe it or not. Objective / absolute truth lies in the nature of the object, not in the opinion of individual persons.

So what is objective / absolute truth? Aristotle said that truth is “saying of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not.” In other words, truth means “telling it like it is.” The distinction between relative and absolute truth is important when asking if God exists, because what God is like is not a matter of our personal opinions. The truth about God is firmly grounded in God himself.

The confusion of the subjective / relative truth position often comes from linguistic misconceptions. When I state that right now I am looking out the window at a man walking a dog, a relativist would answer that while that statement is true for me, it is not true for him. But I am not claiming that the relativist is also looking out the window. Rather, the truth that I am looking out the window at this moment remains absolutely true for all people in all times. The absolute objective truth will never change that at 11:15am on Monday, February 25, 2013, I was looking out the window at a man walking his dog. 

Not only is relativism linguistically confused, but it also self-destructs logically. When the relativist states that, “All truth is relative,” he is making an absolute statement about the nature of truth. But if all truth is relative, his absolute statement cannot be true. The argument for relativism has collapsed under its own weight. Except in cases of personal preference and opinion, relativism is unworkable, unlivable, and wholly contrary to both common sense and the world we observe around us. As a person thinks this through, the realization naturally arises that if something is objectively true, it is absolutely true, and absolute truth is not subject to change.

Four Theories of Truth

In further defining the nature of truth, it will help to briefly consider four basic theories of truth. These theories are the Coherence theory, the Pragmatic theory, the Intentionalist theory, and the Correspondence theory.

The Coherence theory suggests that something is true if it as coherent and self-consistent. But a group of statements are not necessarily true because they are consistent. Consider several witnesses colluding to give false testimony in a trial. The fact that their versions of an event consistently agree in no way makes their testimony true.

“I’m glad the Bible works for you, but as far as I’m concerned it’s just a jumble of myths and legends that don’t make any difference in my life.” Sound familiar? This statement is an example of the Pragmatic theory of truth. The speaker is saying that whether the Bible (or anything else) is true or not depends on if “it works” in a person’s life. This theory quickly breaks down in the real world. While a child’s lie to her parents may succeed in getting her the money she seeks (her lie “works” as Dad hands her a dollar), the positive result (in her eyes) does not somehow turn her lie into the truth.

The Intentionalist theory finds truth in the intentions of the communicator. If a writer’s statement accomplishes what she intended it to accomplish, then it is a true statement. When Harper Lee wrote To Kill A Mockingbird, one of her intentions was that her readers would be confronted with the issues of rape and racism. Without a doubt the author’s intention was accomplished, yet Atticus Finch remains a fictional character.

This leaves the Correspondence theory, which states that truth about reality corresponds to the way things really are. For truth to be true, what we say and what we know must correspond to what is.

Why does this matter?

C.S. Lewis once described the real life danger to anyone who embraces subjective / relative truth while denying the reality of objective / absolute truth: “If Truth is objective, if we live in a world we did not create and cannot change merely by thinking, if the world is not really a dream of our own, then the most destructive belief we could possibly believe would be the denial of this primary fact. It would be like closing your eyes while driving, or blissfully ignoring the doctor’s warnings.”[1]

“And that’s the way it is”

When Walter Cronkite closed his evening news program with the words, “And that’s the way it is”, he was (perhaps unwittingly) confirming the Correspondence theory of truth. Objective / absolute truth is a critical foundation as we consider the world around us, because if God exists or not, and what that God is like, must match reality.

And that's the way it is . . .

---

[1]C.S. Lewis, “The Poison of Subjectivism,” in Christian Reflections (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967)

What are Theology and Christian Apologetics?

In the subtitle of this website you may have noticed three particular words, theology and Christian apologetics, each of which appear in an attempt to justify the existence of this blog. Starting off with a definition of these terms just seems to make sense.

Theology:

While the term theology may seem academic to some, it is really quite simple at its core. Its roots come from the Greek Θεός (theos), meaning “God,” and λόγος (logos), meaning “word,” “study of,” or “reason.” Christian theology begins with the foundational principle that any accurate knowledge of God has its ultimate source in God Himself. God has provided human beings with revelation concerning Himself in four primary ways: In creation, in our conscience, in Christ, and in the canon of Scripture, with the fullest of these revelations being through the Word incarnate, His Son Jesus Christ. Theology is the reasoned study of God, i.e. our attempts to learn more about God and understand His interactions with humanity in a deeper way.

Christian Apologetics:

Paul defends the truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ
before King Agrippa and Festus (Acts 26)

On the other hand, the term Christian apologetics tends to be more commonly misunderstood. At first glance, one might think this has to do with Christians apologizing for their beliefs. But a look at the original language from which the word apologetics is derived will help clarify its true meaning. The Greek word ἀπολογία (apologia) means “the act of making a defense” or “a speech of defense.” Christian apologetics is the giving of a reasoned defense for the truth of the Christian worldview. This involves both the answering of objections to Christianity as well as making a proactive case for the reality and relevance of the Christian faith. However, there is more to Christian apologetics than simply presenting a sound logical argument. In his first epistle, Peter emphasizes both the importance of how one communicates a defense and what the underlying motivation for that defense should be. “ . . . but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense (ἀπολογία - apologia) to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect . . .” (1 Peter 3:15) The bedrock foundation of all Christian apologetics is faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, God the Son come in human flesh. And we honor our Lord when we prepare ourselves to answer questions about why our ultimate hope is in Christ. Doing our homework also has the added benefit of deepening our own faith as we come to a more thorough understanding of why we believe what we believe. It is likewise worth noting that Peter expands on his call to defend the faith with an exhortation to do so “with gentleness and respect.” The aim of apologetics is not to crush an opponent under the weight of our argument, but rather to clear up misconceptions in a gracious and considerate manner. Instead of seeking to embarrass and antagonize someone outside the Christian faith, our goal should be to defend and proclaim the Gospel in such a way that the mind and heart of the questioner is exposed to the truth and beauty of Jesus Christ.