What's New?     Online Store About Xenos Home Groups Bible Teachings Adult Classes Books & Essays Ministries Donate Xenos Books Outlines & Charts Online Journal

Christianity: The Faith That Makes Sense has been used by God to lead many to personal faith in Jesus Christ. This study guide is intended to help Christians use Christianity: The Faith That Makes Sense more effectively as a witnessing tool by discussing the issues in greater depth. The guide can be used either for individual study or for group study. We will address a group facilitator throughout and individuals can simply ignore the group discussion suggestions.

For each chapter, read the section in Christianity: The Faith That Makes Sense first. If you are leading a group you must consider whether or not your members will do the reading outside the group. If you suspect members have not read the chapter, you can read either the chapter or relevant sections in the group by going around taking turns reading aloud. Then compare answers to selected study questions.

You may copy this study guide and distribute it free of charge provided you show the author’s name and you do not alter the text except for dividing it into manageable sections. Feel free to address any questions to the author or members of the Crossroads Project staff at our web site: http://www.crossrds.org or from the Christianity: The Faith That Makes Sensepage. You can also buy quantities of Christianity: The Faith That Makes Sense at the web site at discount or call 1-800-698-7884

1. Christianity: The Faith That Makes Sense begins with a metaphor of a party where everyone dies within three hours. How do you see this party fitting into the communication strategy of the book?
   
   The party is intended to emphasize the need to consider spiritual things. In an age of apathy and cynicism, our first task is to persuade non Christians to engage with us. A story or metaphor like this may prick a sense of need that could lead to further talk.
1. How would you react to the suggestion by a non Christian reader that being ushered into such a party is unfair, and any God who would create such a situation should not be acknowledged?
   
   Ask, "How do you define fair?" and "Where does your sense of fairness come from?" Point out that, in reality, God doesn’t actually inject each person with a virus—the virus is a result of our own autonomy. The amazing thing is that God gets involved in our bad situation and rescues us.
1. Aside from the duration of the party being different from the duration of our lives, can you think of any other differences or discontinuities between the metaphor and real life?
   
   To be completely fair, we should imagine, not one witnesser with a door he claims leads to health, but a few hundred all claiming that their door is it. The individual would have to try to discern which one(s) are more credible. However, we also must stress that just because there are many false claimants doesn’t mean none of them are true.
1. For postmodern or relativistic readers, consider a person who refuses to believe in the reality of the deadly virus and insists that because his belief's are different, his fate will be different also.
   
   His belief's are irrelevant. He will die like the rest.
1. Do your friends have a strong sense of purpose in their lives? If so, what is it? If not, are they bothered by this lack? Should they be?
   
1. As Christians, what is the purpose of our lives?
   
1. A non Christian says, "A life doesn’t have to be eternal to be meaningful." How would you respond?
   
   We should ask, what then is that meaning? If all are here momentarily, and our world is also momentary in the history of the universe, why would any thing be meaningful in the ultimate sense?
1. If you were really in such a party and found a door leading to life, would you go back to lead others out?
   

1. Many today, including Christians, doubt that reason can tell us much in the spiritual realm. What do you think?
   
   Answers to this question will help reveal postmodern attitudes in the group.
1. Can we deny the validity or the importance of reason but still stick up for truth?
   
   No, we cannot. Truth is only meaningful when juxtaposed to falsehood. Apart from reason, the true and the false can both be right. Only when we exclude the possibility that a thesis and its antithesis cannot both be right at the same time is truth objective. If both a thesis and its antithesis can be right at the same time, what is a lie anyway?
1. Can you think of any other area of knowledge that requires both reason and experience?
   
   Learning to drive; playing music; speaking a language; appreciating the northern lights.
1. Do you think some Christian doctrines such as the trinity are beyond or above reason? Can something be beyond human comprehension but still compatible with rationality?
   
   Explain the difference between something that is irrational and something that is incomprehensible. You may may not comprehend how your copying machine works, but that doesn’t mean it’s irrational. Likewise, we may not understand some aspects of the infinite God, but we err if we claim he is irrational. The trinity is one in essence, three in person. This is not irrational, even though we have never experienced such a thing and cannot comprehend it. God says he cannot tell a lie.
1. Consider the concept of a square triangle. Can such a thing exist? How do you know?
   
   A contradiction in terms is irrational and self-refuting. The universe is real and created by a rational God, not a dream state where anything can happen. Eastern gods contradict themselves, not the God of the Bible.

1. Can you think of another illustration, besides the coin flipped, showing that neither side carries the burden of proof?
   
1. If we, as Christians, believe we have the burden of proof, what effect might such a belief have on our witnessing?
   
   It could lead to more aggressive use of arguments, or a tendency to inflate the importance of significance of some arguments. It could lead to denial of valid points made by our opposition.
1. Can you think of any illustration (other than the lost peanut butter jar) where reasonable faith makes sense?
   
   

1. Can you think of any world view that can prove itself?
   
1. Does naturalism (e.g. Atheism or agnosticism) require faith? Why or why not?
   
   
1. If McCallum is right that no world view can be proved, can we really know anything? How would you differentiate between Christianity and any other opinion?
   
   Faith is required, but reasonable faith is plausible faith—faith that doesn’t deny itself; faith that answers the main questions facing us. We don’t need to know with absolute certainty, we have relative certainty.
1. Is the person who claims to believe in nothing at all actually believing in something? What about the person who says there are no universal truths?
   
   Yes. This person believes that no point of view merits belief. But this is itself a point of view. To say there are no universal truths is a universal truth claim. This statement can’t possibly be right!

1. Name some things you know because of your experience.
   
   What the color blue is. . .
1. Name two things that cannot be known any way other than experience.
   
   Love; beauty
1. One author claims that anyone who honestly turns to God and asks for an experience of his reality will be saved eventually. What do you think of such a claim?

1. How would you define grace?
   
1. Do you agree that grace is the heart of the biblical message, or do you see something different?
   
   Look for emphasis in biblical teaching through two avenues: the strength of the language used when teaching (i.e. emphatic language), and repetition. For the Old Testament suggest that the notion of lovingkindness (chesed) corresponds to the New Testament concept of grace (charis).
1. What evidence can you think of for, or against, the biblical view on the nature of man? (Think of history, children, your own life etc.)
   
   History provides scant evidence of the goodness of all people. Children are born willing to fight, lie, and steal. They must be trained to behave socially. With yourself, focus on motives, not just actions. Remember sins of omission.
1. What sins are most characteristic of fallen humans?
   
   Selfishness, autonomy, pride, lust and hate must rank high.
1. Why does the author think that the idea of works salvation implies that God is unloving or unwelcoming? Do you agree?
   
1. Can you think of any religious system other than Christianity that does not teach works salvation?
   
   Some extremely passive interpretations of eastern mysticism (e.g. formal Taoism) argue that the key to life is to do nothing. However, even these teach a form of karma, where what you do comes back to you in measure.
1. McCallum cites Romans 3 and the phrase "the just and the justifier." What does this phrase mean? How could you explain it to a non Christian?
   
1. Some Christian teachers and Christian-based cults mistakenly teach that works are either the main key, or an essential part of salvation. Who do you know that argues works salvation for Christians, and how would you counter such claims?
   
1. Read the citations from Islamic, Jewish, and Catholic religious texts. All three of these religions are very important because all are theistic, just like biblical Christianity. Interestingly, all three come from a biblical tradition. Do you agree that the passages cited show that these religions teach salvation by works? Are you aware of any claims to the contrary?
   
   Many liberal American Jewish congregations are universalistic (See below ch. 9). So are individual Catholics. But Catholic dogma is clear that not only grace, but works are essential for eternal life.

1. This chapter focuses on arguments, not for Christianity specifically, but for the existence of God. Surveys show that over 90% of Americans believe in a god or gods. What, then is the usefulness of this material?
   
   Many are not formal atheists, but are practical atheists. Also, of those claiming to believe in God, probably half or more to not accept an infinite, personal God like the God of the Bible. These arguments will not support pantheistic ideas of God.
1. What is another good illustration (besides the Taj Mahal) for the argument from design?
   
1. The genius of the presuppositional argument is that it points out, not just what is likely or unlikely (like the argument from design) but what is consistent or inconsistent with one’s own presuppositions. Why is this relevant for witnessing Christians?
   
   Presuppositional arguments can refute individual world views, which is often necessary. Likewise, by a process of elimination, it can point the way to biblical Christianity, which alone is able to be completely self-consistent.
   Facilitators should be aware that the form of pressuppositional argument given here is not the classical pressupositionalism of Cornelius Van Til, but a modified pressuppositional argument more like that advanced by Francis Schaeffer.
1. Why is the man’s suggestion that they change their currency incompatible with his view of the rocks spelling Canadian Railways. . .?
   
   Just checking to make sure they can articulate how this argument works.
1. Postmodern thinkers claim that it doesn’t matter if they are inconsistent with their own presuppositions because everyone is inconsistent. Is this true?
   
   No. Christians may not be consistent, but this is because of personal failure, not because our faith makes it impossible to be consistent. Another world view is able to be self-consistent, namely deism.
1. Postmodernists also claim that consistency is nothing but a western test unknown in other cultures. Give some examples of inconsistency between truth claims and actions or views. Follow these examples:
   
   -A man claims he doesn’t believe gravity has any claim on him, but he wears a parachute when skydiving.
   
   -Your wife claims she loves you but she also wants to have affairs with other men.
   
   -A postmodern mother claims there is no such thing as objective truth, but chides her daughter for lying.
   
   
1. Why, in your own words, is it impossible to devise moral norms based only on a material world with material creatures?
   
   Focus on the illustration involving vinager and soda.
1. Is there a difference between relative morality (morals relative to the individual or group) and no morality at all?
   
   No, there is no difference. A moral code that dictates I do whatever I think is right is exactly the same as no moral code at all. Moral norms must be able to call us to behavior different from what we want.
1. As the author points out, the arguments in this chapter point to the existence of God, not exclusively to the Bible or to Jesus Christ. At the same time, we could argue that they to not point at all to eastern mystical, or pantheistic concepts of God. Why is this true?
   
   An impersonal, pantheistic force would not be able to plan or think in a way that would account for what we see in nature.

1. What are the problems and the possible strengths for each of the following means of authentication for Christianity or any other truth claim?
   l
   - The evidence of miracles
   
   Weakness: Must be authenticated—hard to tell if real. Hard to repeat for every person. Might be duplicated by occult religion.
   Strength: points directly to the supernatural.
   
   - The evidence of others’ testimony
   
   Weakness: People make mistakes and they lie. How do we know who to believe among conflicting testimonies?
   Strength: If we know or trust the person, it can be very convincing.
   
   - The evidence of historical reliability of the Bible
   
   Weakness: Can be complicated and hard to explain. Does not point to inspiration necessarily. Only convincing if people accept our methodology.
   Strength: Depending on one’s presuppositions, can tip the scale in favor of belief.
   
   - Rational consistency with its own propositions
   
   Weakness: Only shows consistency with a given paradigm, therefore not necessarily binding on other paradigms. Some don’t value consistency.
   Strength: Can set Christianity apart from other self-refuting views.
   
   - Correlation between claims made in a religious text and provable things outside that text (eg. in nature)
   
   Weakness: Only demonstrates that some parts of a text are valid, not all parts. Requires interpretation of the text.
   Strength: Can point directly to the reliability of the Bible if handled well.
   
   - The historical argument for the resurrection of Christ
   
   Weakness: Can be hard to explain or defend. Relies on convincing non Christians that it’s more likely that someone rose from the dead than that religious people would lie.
   Strength: Depending on one’s starting point, it can move someone from general respect for Christ and the Bible to personal faith. When handled by a master rhetorician it can and has led many to Christ (e.g. C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity).
   
   The argument that Jesus must be true because I have experienced him in my heart
   
   Weakness: Same argument is advanced by Buddhists, New Agers, and Cultists.
   Strength: Supremely convincing to the one having the experience. Also convincing to others if they trust the one with the experience.
   
   - The argument that God alone can tell the future course of human history, and has done so in the Bible.
   
   Weakness: Can be difficult to explain, requires study. Requires interpretation of biblical prophecies. Must verify the dates of texts and that fulfillment actually occurred. Finally must be able to rule out deliberate fulfillment (e.g. Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a colt of a donkey could have been deliberate fulfillment of Zech 9:9).
   Strength: Can point directly and exclusively to Jesus Christ and the Bible. If handled well, the few predictions that meet all these conditions can be very convincing, even to skeptics if they come to believe our interpretations of the passages are fair.
   
1. A non Christian says, "The Bible is a written document, and has been translated many times. Therefore, it probably contains unknown thousands of errors and we have no idea what was in the original." Respond.
   
   Point to a good text on this issue, like Geisler and Nix, From God to Us, or J.W. Montgomery, History and Christianity, or McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict.
1. With the Bible, we have the proposition that God has spoken to the human race through the medium of a written document. What would some of the other possibilities be, and what weaknesses would they have?
   
   Nature- leaves too much up to human interpretation
   Verbal testimony- unreliable
   etc. . .
1. Can you think of a way God could have authenticated Jesus Christ, that would have worked better than his predictive prophecy method (not just for his own day but for today)?
   
   
1. Do you know of other religions that have similar means of self-authentication?
   
   No, you don’t.
1. Do you have friends who believe Nostrodamus was a true predictor of the future? Nostrodamus claimed to foretell the future via astrology. Do you think the examples of his predictions given are persuasive?
   

1. According to McCallum, the servant songs describe the life and ministry of Jesus in detail. Is this true? The best way to study the servant songs is to read them along with the intervening material and record inductive conclusions as you go. Compare your work with commentaries. See if you end up with an outline similar to the one in Chapter 6 of Christianity: The Faith That Makes Sense.
   
   The point here is to make readers aware that there are problems in the interpretation of these passages, contrary to the inflated claims of some Christian apologists. On the other hand, the main picture is clear. Perhaps, if going through the passages is unrealistic for your group, you could pick some examples out for examination.
   
1. While becoming familiar with the strengths of these predictions, acknowledge the problems as well. How do you account for the following features of the anonymous servant songs?

• The servant is anonymous. Why?
• The servant is never called Messiah or linked directly with that role as portrayed in other passages. Why?
• The songs portray events and roles from both first and second comings of King Messiah, but never mention there will be two comings. Why?
• In the context of the intervening passages between the servant songs, God refers to "my servant Israel" or "my servant Jacob." (Is. 41:8,9; 43:10; 44:1,21; 45:4) Why would God confuse readers by referring to one servant by name (Israel) and another servant anonymously? Isn’t the first rule of interpretation to interpret according to context?
  
  Yes, but in the case of these passages, we cannot make sense of them when applied to the Jewish people. See the endnotes from this chapter in fms.
  
• Why is the anonymous servant also called "My servant Jacob?" (Is. 49:3)
  
  While answers to all these issues exist, they do pose potential problems in witnessing. By learning an appropriate response to each, you will be better equipped to witness, even though you will probably not want to get into this level of detail unless the person you are communicating with asks.
  
  McCallum advances the suggestion that most of these problems may be related to the notion of the Messianic secret referred to in these passages and others: Eph. 3:6-10; Col. 1:25,26; Rom. 16:25; I Cor. 2:8; I Pet. 1:12. See the endnotes for this chapter in fms.

1. Consider communicating with a non Christian about Christ. How could you summarize the material in the servant songs sufficiently to use them in a short conversation?
   

Daniel 9 is a remarkable prophecy, but some people steer away from it because it is complicated. Yet, as you can see from this chapter of Christianity: The Faith That Makes Sense, it is possible to summarize and simplify the passage enough to use effectively in evangelism.

Let’s look at Daniel chapter 9 and gain a better understanding of the background and basic interpretive issues:

1. Daniel 9:1 dates this vision as being in "In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes." We have no record of Darius, but we know Xerxes well from history. Since Daniel says Darius "was made ruler" we can assume he was a viceroy serving under Xerxes, the new Persian ruler. Look in a Bible dictionary and find out when Xerxes conquered Babylon.
   
   For most of these, just try to ascertain that members are doing the work and see what their answers are.
1. Daniel says his reflection began when he read in Jeremiah the number of years for the Jewish exile in Babylon. (See Jeremiah 25:11) Considering that Daniel was taken into exile with the first group of captives in about 605 BC, (and remembering that years go down instead of up in the BC period) about how many years had passed since his capture?
   
   About 70 years, especially when including the Hebrew tendency to count any part of a year as a whole.
1. As Daniel prays and confesses the sins of the people, he also mentions the curse that Moses warned them about. Read Leviticus 26:33-35 in context. Their unfaithfulness had resulted in their exile, but somehow the "sabbatical year" was involved as well (see chapter 24:1-6). This link is important, because the Sabbaths of years in the last part of the chapter have this as their context. Read also IIChronicles 36:20-22. Here again, we see reference to the Jeremiah prediction, to Xerxes, and to the sabbatical years, of which 70 had apparently been ignored.
   
   Some translations merely says "70 weeks" instead of "70 sevens" thus making it harder to understand. See margin of NASB.
1. In verse 24, Gabriel says God will allow the Jewish people 70 "sevens" or shabuim (from which we get the word "Sabbath"). Now you can see why the context dictates that these be Sabbaths of years, not of days. Now read the list of things the Jewish people must do to complete their commission. For each item, write one or more possibilities for what it might refer to.
   
   finish transgression
   Bring in the millenium?
   
   put an end to sin
   Bring in the millenium?
   
   atone for wickedness
   The work of Christ
   
   bring in everlasting righteousness
   Could refer to the church or to the millenium
   
   to seal up vision and prophecy
   Complete the Old Testament, and perhaps the whole Bible
   
   anoint the most holy
   Either re-consecrating the rebuilt temple, or annointing Christ (his baptism?)
1. In verse 25 some versions refer to the coming of Messiah, and others refer to "The Anointed One. In Hebrew this word is Meshiach, from which we get Messiah. Anointing the "most holy" (verse 24, NIV) could be a reference to the Messiah as well.
1. We will not attempt to dissect the chronology of years here, although this has already been done in fms. Go over that section again, including the footnotes to make sure you understand it. Since the rebuilding of Jerusalem occurred in the 400’s BC, it should be clear that the coming of Messiah is about 483 years from some time in the fifth century BC. Without going into detail, this alone should make it clear that the fulfillment falls in the early first century. See the works referenced in the notes for more detail on the two main ways to interpret the passage.
   
   Help members to overcome intimidation from the complicated nature of this text.

Although the fulfillment of modern day predictions is rarely as objective as those concerning Christ, there are a few key exceptions.

Read Luke 21:20-25. In this passage Jesus lists a series of events in consecutive order. Write here the order of events in that passage:

The surrounding and descruction of Jerusalem (AD 70)
The deportation of the Jews into all nations (After AD 70)
The re-occupation of Jerusalem by the Jews (1967)
The end times (?)

1. Compare this prediction to the one in Isaiah 11:1-12. This passage describes the coming of Messiah as the Root of Jesse (King David’s father). Isaiah says God will then "reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the remnant that is left of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the sea. He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth." (vs. 11,12) Notice the following about this prediction:
   
   This is the second time God regathered Israel. When was the first?
   After the Babylonian captivity in the 6^th C. BC.
   
   He gathers them from a number of nations, including "the islands of the sea." Look in a Bible dictionary or study Bible and record what they say this expression means.
   
   Usually refers to unknown lands beyond the (Mediterranean) Sea
   
   He also gathers them from "the four quarters of the Earth." Would this be a good description of the regathering that occurred under Ezra and Nehemaiah?
   
   No, they were only regathered from one nation--Babylon
1. Read Ezekiel 37:1-14. According to verse 11, what do the dry bones stand for?
   
   The Nation of Israel, scattered around the earth.
   
   The bones are said to be very dry and dead. What does this suggest about Israel prior to the miracle of regathering?
   
   The extreme unlikelihood that they would ever be regathered
   Note too that they are regathered into bodies which nevertheless remain dead. A second prophecy is required to raise them to life. This could suggest that Israel is regathered in unbelief and later experience a spiritual revival.
   
   Read vs. 21-28. Again, from where does God regather his people?
   
   From "all around" but Babylon was only in one direction from Israel
   
   According to vs. 24-26, the regathering is associated with certain key events or features. List these features here:
   
   "David" apparently refers to the Messiah, son of David.
   Peace in the land—the central Millenial promise.
   
   Can you see any reason why some scholars would associate this regathering with the end times?
   
   See above

This chapter is easily the longest in the book, so if you are using this guide for group study, consider dividing this chapter into more than one week.

Remember that responding to objections to Christianity is not the heart of evangelism. In fact, we should only answer these common complaints, in my opinion, after we have already clearly shared the gospel itself. We may find it all too easy to become side-tracked onto these issues and never actually come to grips with the gospel message of grace. On the other hand, after we have declared the gospel, we are obligated to give an account for our belief—that is, to answer honest questions to the best of our ability. This is why the book has been arranged with the objections at the end.

1. Your non Christian friend at work says, "It really kills me that you Christians think you are right and everyone else in the world is wrong. What arrogance!" How would you respond?
   
   "Well, someone must be wrong. . ."
   "Are you saying you are right and I am wrong?"
   
1. McCallum points out that the followers of David Koresh were mistaken. Think of two other illustrations showing the importance of truth and the danger of falsehood.
   
   A person believes thin ice will support her.
   A person believes Perrot will solve the economic woes of America (just kidding!)
   
   
1. A friend of yours is about to walk off the top floor of a 10 story building because he thinks he can fly. Would it be arrogant of you to intervene to try to prevent him from walking off? Why or why not?
   
   
1. If I claim to have knowledge, am I being arrogant? What about Jesus, Paul, or Moses?
   
   Ignorance is no guarantee of humility
1. While you may not think you are being arrogant when you claim to know universal truths, you may be perceived that way by postmodern hearers. What do you plan to do to minimize this problem?
   
   Admit areas where you don’t know. Admit good parts of other views. Other ideas. . .
1. Again, when your postmodern friend hears you point out that Christianity and other religions contradict one another, she suggests that such contradiction is only on the rational level—the level of dogma. What really matters is an experience of the divine or a sense of the sacred. How would you respond?
   
   The David Koresh example speaks to this. Think of others.
   
1. McCallum says, "Once we are prepared to say any religion is wrong and should be rejected, we must be prepared to reject all religion if necessary. Otherwise, why would we reject some but not others?" This could be a key insight. If true, it means that once our hearers denounce any religion as false, they have crossed a threshold where critical issues matter. We can now call on them to be consistent by going the next step and re-assessing all religion. How does McCallum attempt to bring people this threshold? How will you do so?
   
   McCallum cites several of the most extreme and outlandish examples of religion first (head-hunting, etc.) and gradually moves to more common religions (Hindu teaching that women cannot go to heaven). Note that the rejection of even one extreme religion is enough to cross the threshold. Note also, that the rejection of Christianity (even though based on its’ absolutism) also constitutes crossing the threshold.

1. Many today, under the influence of postmodernism, have come to view science as a villainous discipline operated by liars who are more interested in hiding the truth than discovering it. Specifically, postmodern people believe science seeks to foist its view on others whether right or wrong for them. When dealing with such a person we would waste our time if we dwell on harmonizing science and Scripture. How will you tell whether someone with whom you communicate looks up to science or deplores it?
   
   Devise some questions to ask regarding science.
   
1. If we identify our person as one who views science as authoritative, what areas are most likely to be sticking points preventing them from coming to faith?
   
   Those in fms.
   
1. McCallum says, "We should note first of all that the Bible's world-view is in harmony with the first principles of science in that both believe in the uniformity of cause and effect in a real material world." What do you think this statement means? Is it right, and, if so, what is its significance?
   
   Christian thought was the cradle of science. Intellectual historians are convinced that science would never have arisen in Hindu or tribal cultures, for instance. This is one reason why science has been cast as a villian along with Christianity by postmodern thinkers
   Consider this statement by postmodern educator, Roberta Barba:
   "The study of science and related technology often requires students to adapt to a white male culture, to an Eurocentric/androcentric world view. The basic assumptions of science, as it is taught to American children in textbooks, focus on male as opposed to female and on European as opposed to Eastern or African or South American ways of viewing the world." [Robertta Barba, Science in the Multicultural Classroom: A Guide to Teaching and Learning. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1995), p. 8]
1. Consider this diagram:
   
   On the left is a description of the world view known as modernism. On the right is a description of a world view known as postmodernism. For modernists, there is only cause and effect operating in the machine of nature. There is no room for the supernatural. For postmodernists anything goes, whether there is an adequate explanation or not. Postmodernists deny our ability to discern cause and effect, saying we really read our own interpretations into the picture. In the center is Theism (the biblical view). How does theism stand apart from modernism and from postmodernism?
   
   From Modernism:
   
   From Postmodernims:
   
1. What do you think of the young-earth/old-earth debate in Christian circles? What do non Christians think of it?
   
   At the very least, no one is listening.
1. Devise two short, general statements you would feel comfortable making to a non Christian in the course of a conversation about science and Scripture.
   
   

1. Until recently, the problem of evil has been the number one avenue of attack against the biblical view of God. This argument still has great influence with some people, though more and more people are employing more relativistic defenses. Viewed this way, any relativist who throws up the problem of evil is indicating that he or she has run out of relativistic formulas and is falling back on older (modernist) methods—a good sign. At least such people are using reason and thesis-antithesis thinking in religion. With others, this argument occupies the center in their resistance to God. How will you tell which kind of person you are dealing with?
   
   
1. What bothers you most about the problem of evil and what is your emotional reaction?
   
   
   Do you think you should share this reaction with a non Christian friend?
   
   Probably, failure to admit we feel troubled by this area will be interpreted as coldness or smugness on our part.
1. Your non Christian friend says, "I can’t believe you would follow a god who creates a world where even babies suffer pitifully." How would you respond?
   
   Encourage members to draw on the approach in fms.
1. McCallum claims that personhood requires freedom. Can you think of any other illustrations (besides the one with the robot) that show why persons must be free-choosing agents?
   
   Someone is murdered with a gun. Why do we send the person holding the gun to prison, but not the gun itself? The gun is a machine—it does what it is made to do, therefore it is not responsible.
1. If we reject theism based on the problem of evil, what are the alternative explanations? Are these less dreadful or more dreadful than the biblical answer?
   
1. McCallum claims there is no fairness in a fallen world. Have you ever wondered why a tragedy occurred? Have you ever suspected that you were being punished by God when something went wrong? How would you know if a tragedy were disciplinary or merely cause and effect?
   
   There is not definite answer to this question, which suggests we go easy on the theological explanations for tragedy.

1. Study the section on atrocities and accompanying endnotes. Were you aware that such things have occurred? Do you think McCallum may be exaggerating? Would you suggest to someone who pointed such incidents out that things might not have been that bad?
   
   This might help identify those who are in the grip of historical denial. The actual truth is far worse than McCallum has detailed here. Point out that these are not isolated incidents, but a part of the general pattern of church oppression over hundreds of years. Other religions are oppressive too, but this is hardly the point.
1. McCallum says the rise in church atrocities is linked to the church’s move to remove access to Scripture from the laity. Do you agree with his analysis? Why would he see this connection? How might popular access to the Bible serve to curb church abuse?
   
   As church leaders concentrate authority in their own hands, they set the stage to be tempted into oppression.
1. Do you trust a clergy person to interpret the Bible for you, or do you feel responsible to come up with your own interpretation?
   
   

1. Do you think people today are often willing to see God as a God of love but not as a God of justice? Why do you suppose this is?
   
   The concept of justice is closely related to the concept of truth and of moral right and wrong. As these concepts have been overthrown, justice becomes mere personal revenge.
1. What bothers you most about hell?
   
   Hopefully, thoughtful Christians are troubled by hell. If not, perhaps they have not thought deeply about it, or have low empathy. We may be bothered, but we may not deny. We should admit we, too, are troubled in this area, but in the end, it’s not up to a vote.
1. McCallum claims that common grace and general revelation are important concepts to consider when dealing with hell. Why?
   
   Justice is only reasonable when people are not compelled to reject God.
1. Using fms if necessary, describe the views of afterlife held by each of the following:
   Atheistic:
   
   Pantheistic
   
   Universalistic
   
   Polytheistic
   
   Biblical
   
   
1. McCallum says, "If we admit free will, we cannot deny responsibility." Why?
   
   See again the illustration of the gun above.
1. He also asks, "Is it reasonable to think that I could create a new religion with tenets that please me, and feel that because I believe it, it will actually be true?" This has become a very important question because postmodern constructivists believe exactly that. How would you respond to the notion that "My believing something makes it true for me."
   
   Ask them why they don’t use that method when running their check book.

This final chapter is intended mainly as an invitation to receive Christ and a basic orientation for those who may have responded to Christ while reading the book. The author intended to attempt to head people toward biblical fellowship, prayer, and the Bible itself for growth. As such, we do not feel we need to include it in the study guide.

Thank you for reading fms, and for working through this study guide. We hope God has used the study to enrich your life and strengthen your faith. Now that you have moved more deeply into the background issues raised in the book, you should feel more willing than ever to give it to non Christian friends. May God bless your efforts to spread His word!

Go to the Faith Makes Sense Book Page
See all the books from Xenos authors