Eye Scary Ought

Eye Scary Ought

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, January 16, 2026 (Donate)

Have you ever thought, if you had been there to see Jesus perform great miracles that you might have a stronger, impenetrable faith? For instance, if you had seen Jesus take two fish and five loaves and feed 5000 men and their families? If you saw this, you would have an immense faith, right?

For those who don’t believe in Christ, surely, they would have believe if they witnessed Old Testament prophecies being fulfilled before their very eyes in Jesus Christ—or would they? Imagine listening to the wisdom and authority of Jesus Christ day in, and day out—surely you would have been an amazing believer, right?

Well, Judas, the betrayer, saw miracles, witnessed prophecy before his very eyes, and heard the great and perfect wisdom of Christ, yet he never believed. He even betrayed Jesus for some silver coins.

(1)   A Deceptive Thief

Speaking of silver coins, Judas was a thief, and God knew it. The Holy Spirit speaking through John records:

Then one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, who would betray Him, said, “Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it. (John 12:4-6, NKJV)

Judas’ eye was on money, not Christ. He would snitch from it. Judas held the money box too, perhaps by his own beckoning as thieves tend to do in an effort to make it easier to “help themselves” (John 13:26-30).

Judas thieving from the money box; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Consider Judas’ when it came to the two drachma temple tax. If he was in charge of finances, then why did tax collectors come to seek taxes from Jesus (and Peter)? That should have already been handled by Judas. The Bible says:

When they had come to Capernaum, those who received the temple tax came to Peter and said, “Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?” He said, “Yes.” And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?” Peter said to Him, “From strangers.” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free. “Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you.” (Matthew 17, NKJV)

Capernaum is where Jesus lived during His years of ministry (Matthew 4:13). But it shows Judas mishandling money even then. Nevertheless, Jesus uses it as a teaching point of who He was. 

(2)   Seeing Miracles Didn’t Convince Him

Judas saw miracles of Jesus—like the feeding of the 5000! He helps gather baskets of bread. Yet, he didn’t believe. 

Judas gathering loaves; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

He saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead and yet, he didn’t believe. What a fearful, yet scary thought to know that the power of life and death is in Jesus hands—the very person Judas intended to betray.

Judas and some disciples with Mary and Martha talking to a risen Lazarus; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

(3)   Seeing Prophecy Fulfilled Didn’t Convince Him

Judas saw prophecy fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus directly prophesied that Judas would betray Him. He said this to his face! How could he not be in awe as he did the betraying?

(4)   Spending Time With Jesus And Hearing His Wisdom Didn’t Convince Him

Over and over again, Judas heard Jesus’ wisdom and how he dealt with those who were hostile to Him (e.g., scribes, Pharisees, etc.). Christ’s brilliance is unmeasurable. Yet Judas didn’t believe.

He thieved and betrayed instead of being what he ought to have been: honorable, teachable, and a true followed of Christ

Conclusion

When Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss for 30 pieces of silver it fulfilled prophecies (Psalm 41:9; Zechariah 11:12-13).

Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders. (Matthew 27:3, NKJV)

Afterwards, he knew he messed up. He felt bad—duh (can I use “duh” in a proper article?). But feeling bad about your sin doesn’t help you or save you.

“The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had never been born.” (Mark 14:21, NKJV)

Judas Iscariot (pronounced: “Eye Scary Ought”) witnessed the amazing feats of Christ and yet, did not believe. He now suffers eternally for it. Even other disciples initially struggled (e.g., Matthew 28:17). Consider Thomas and the blessing to those of us who have not seen:

Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29, NKJV)

Let’s learn from this and follow Christ in obedience no matter what. For the way of Iscariot is the way of death but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ.

Silver coins thrown into the Temple; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

□

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Mr. Hodge earned a Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC). Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a Visiting Instructor teaching all levels of undergraduate engineering and running a materials lab and a CAD lab. He did research on advanced ceramic materials to develop a new method of production of titanium diboride with a grant from Lockheed Martin. He worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar, Inc., prior to entering full-time ministry.

His love of science was coupled with a love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one year of his life, Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and scientific dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over 25 years of experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields.

 

 

What Is Science?

What Is Science?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, January 15, 2026 (Donate)

Science is essential in today’s world—cell phones, rockets, military, communications, computers, clean water, petroleum products, gas and electric vehicles, and even church are reliant upon modern technology that was built on scientific principles.

Royal Enfield's classic-looking Meteor 350 with modern scientific technology; Image by Bodie Hodge

Science in simple terms is a methodology to learn knowledge—even the anglicized word “science” means “knowledge” from Latin (scientia).

The Basics Of Science

Science is the systematic study of the natural world through (1) observation, then (2) experimentation, then (3) measurement, and then (4) analysis and adjustment—oh, and then part everyone forgets—(5) repeat. For those who recognize this, the method of science never really ends but can go on and on and on in a repetitive cycle.

It is a process by which man can gain knowledge about the observable physical world, but we will never, even collectively as mankind through the ages, be able to be on par with the knowledge of God who is omniscient (all-knowing). The knowledge of God is perfect and intriguingly, infinite.

Scientists are people who practice or use science (usually degreed in one way or another). Scientists, who are properly practiced in the methods of science, desire to understand how the physical world operates in the present using testable and repeatable methods. You can’t observe or repeat the past.

This approach is foundational to disciplines such as physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, materials science, geology, and engineering, and it has produced extraordinary technological and medical advances.

However, the word “science” is often used too broadly, especially in discussions about origins. Not all scientific claims are made using the same methods or carry the same level of certainty. For this reason, we need to draw a crucial distinction between operational (observational) science and origins (historical) science.

One is dealing with knowledge in the present and the other is dealing with knowledge in the present to help us understand the past. This is where a bunch of unobserved and unrepeatable assumptions tend to get in the way of properly understanding the past.

Remember science deals with things we can observe and repeat in the present, not the past. Understanding this distinction is essential for evaluating claims about the past and avoiding category errors that misrepresent what we can use science to legitimately demonstrate. In other words, some try to use the good reputation of observable or operation science to equate with things of the past which have not been observed or repeated. This is actually a bait and switch fallacy in logic.

So it is good to understand that there are different definitions and understandings of what is often called “science” today.

Operational (Observational Or Repeatable) Science

Operational science refers to scientific investigation that deals with present, observable, and repeatable phenomena. This is why operational science is often called repeatable science or observable science.

It is the kind of science most people think of when they hear the term “scientific method.” This form of science involves controlled experiments, direct measurements, repeated testing, and the ability to [probabilistically] verify or falsify hypotheses through observation.

Operational or Observational Science; Image from Presentation Library

Examples of operational science include:

• Testing chemical reactions in laboratories
• Observing gravity, electromagnetism, and motion
• Medical trials and pharmaceutical research
• Engineering and materials testing
• Agricultural experiments and breeding programs

Most people strongly agree with the validity, reliability, and usefulness of operational science. To the surprise of some, creationists and evolutionists largely agree in this domain, because operational science is not dependent on assumptions about the religious concept of millions of years or deep time or origins. We often work side-by-side doing good science like this—I’ve worked alongside evolutionary colleagues doing operations science for a long time.

Our conclusions can be observed in real time and tested by anyone using the same procedures. This is the kind of science that allows airplanes to fly, bridges to support weight, how the polio vaccines works, and electronics to function.

Operational science is repeatable, predictive, and corrective. When errors occur, they can be identified and addressed through further experimentation. As such, it produces a high level of confidence in its conclusions. 

Origins (Historical) Science

Origins science, also called historical science, deals with unobserved past events. These events cannot be repeated or directly tested because they occurred in history and are no longer accessible to experimental investigation. Instead, origins science is utilized by scientists in the present to help them reconstruct the past by interpreting evidence that exists in the present.

Origins or Historical Science; Image from Presentation Library

Examples of origins science (often discussed by the secular humanists) include:

• The origin of the universe
• The origin of the earth and geological features
• The origin of life
• The development of biological diversity
• The origin of time
• Past catastrophes

Origins science does not follow the same methodological constraints as operational science. While it still uses real evidence, such as fossils, rock layers, DNA, and light from distant stars—all in the present—the conclusions drawn from that evidence depend heavily on assumptions about the past. The past becomes a worldview issue more than a scientific issue.

For instance, a secular humanist and a creationist could look at one of the fossiliferous rock layers today (Pennsylvanian Rock Layer for instance). The humanist could conclude that the rock layer was laid down millions of years due to their believe of slow gradual accumulations over millions of years in geology. The creationist, looking at the same rock layer in the present, would conclude this rock layer was laid down about 4,350 years ago in a global Flood of Noah’s day.

Same scientific evidence, different worldviews to interpret that evidence; Image from Presentation Library

Notice, it was the same evidence, same rock layer, and two vastly different conclusions because they have two different worldviews by which they interpreted the evidence. So, it is more of a worldview/religious issue than a scientific one. Both can observe the same material structure of the Pennsylvanian rock layer, observe the same fossils. The scientists cane see that the layer has the same boundaries, chemical structure, same erosional features, and so on.

Because no human observed these events, scientists must rely on historical reconstruction rather than experimentation. This means that the same physical evidence can be interpreted in fundamentally different ways depending on one’s worldview or starting assumptions.

The two methods of interpretation come from two different religious viewpoints—secular humanism—with materialism, naturalism, and evolutionism versus God’s Word as an eyewitness to the past pointing out a worldwide, global Flood that would lay down rock layers quickly.

Sadly today, some even define the word “science” as the religion of naturalism because of this. This again, shows a bait and switch fallacy. But really, the issue is trusting God about what happened in the past, or a false religious view of secular history developed in the mind of fallible man. It comes down to God vs. man—an authority issue.

The Role Of Worldviews And Assumptions

Origins science is inseparable from worldview commitments. Every interpretation of past events begins with assumptions about what is possible and how the world operates. Naturalistic assumptions exclude divine action (i.e., leave God out of it) and therefore interpret evidence within a purely material framework. Oddly enough, the concept of an immaterial conclusion is not material and thus shows the futility of such an argument being self-refuting.

Biblical assumptions, by contrast, allow for supernatural creation and divine judgment as described in Scripture. Disagreements over origins are not primarily disagreements over the data itself, but over how the data is interpreted.

Fossils, rock layers, genetic similarity, and astronomical observations are real and observable, but their meaning is inferred when dealing with the past. Different assumptions about the past lead to different ideas about the past.

Same science, different interpretations; Image from Presentation Library

Because of this, I maintain that origins science does not have the same level of certainty as operational science. While it can provide plausible explanations, it cannot prove historical events in the same way that repeatable experiments can demonstrate physical laws. We should leave the past to eyewitnesses who reported on it—like what God did in His Word.

Why The Distinction Is Important?

The distinction between operational and origins science is not meant to dismiss science, but to clarify its proper limits. Many people mistakenly assume that all scientific claims carry the same dignified weight. When origins claims are presented as if they were directly observed or experimentally verified, science is being deceptively overstated.

I would suggest humbly that acknowledging this distinction promotes intellectual honesty. Operational science can be used by scientists to help us understand how the world works today. Origins science attempts to explain how things came to be in the past. Confusing the two leads to false claims of certainty and can deceive listers and learners as to the role of philosophical and theological assumptions in interpreting evidence.

Francis Bacon And The Scientific Method

Francis Bacon was man who largely developed what later became known as modern scientific methodology—the Scientific Method. He did not invent science, but he helped formalize a disciplined approach to investigating the natural world.

Bacon lived within a Christian worldview that assumed the universe was orderly, rational, and understandable because it was created by a rational God. This biblical foundation was essential for the rise of systematic science.

Portrait of Francis Bacon, early 1600s; Public Domain

Bacon criticized the medieval reliance on Aristotelian/Greek philosophy which was usually based in abstract speculation. It was often disconnected from direct observation. Because God promised to uphold things in a specific way, He argued that nature should be studied through careful observation and experimentation rather than primarily through inherited philosophical assumptions of the Greeks.

Bacon promoted inductive reasoning when observing the scientific world, which moves from specific observations to broader conclusions, as opposed to purely deductive reasoning based on philosophical premises alone. His approach encouraged humility before the evidence and restraint in drawing conclusions beyond what observations justified.

Bacon did not view science as religiously neutral. He believed that studying the natural world was a way to glorify God by examining His creation. Bacon distinguished between God’s Word, revealed in Scripture, and God’s works, revealed in nature, teaching that both come from the same divine Author and therefore cannot ultimately contradict each other when properly understood. Of course, we need to understand nature in light of revelation—nature is suffering under a curse (Genesis 3), but is still upheld by God in a specific way (e.g., Genesis 8:22).

Scientific investigation, in his view, was a form of stewardship and a partial recovery of knowledge that had been damaged by the Fall. From Bacon’s influence we get what is commonly called the Scientific Method. Of course, it has been modified since his original publication of this method in 1620 (Novum Organum)

The scientific method is a structured process used primarily in operational science. It involves:

·       observation of the natural world

·       formulation of a hypothesis

·       experimentation to test that hypothesis

·       evaluation of results and modification

·       repeated testing

Hypotheses are retained, revised, or rejected based on how well they align with observable evidence. The scientific method functions best when applied to repeatable and observable processes in the present.

It was never intended to reconstruct unobserved historical events such as the origin of the universe or life. When applied beyond its proper limits, the method is often misused to give unwarranted certainty to origins claims. The scientific method remains a powerful and reliable tool when used within the boundaries for which it was designed.

The Philosophy Of Science: Science Can Be Used To “Disprove”, But Not “Prove

Philosophically, science is best understood as probabilistic rather than absolute. This is what Bacon meant by induction.

Scientific claims are dependent on observation, experimentation, and induction, not in logical proof in the mathematical or metaphysical sense. Because scientific conclusions are drawn from limited data about a complex and changing world, they can never establish certainty, only varying degrees of confidence.

Before I go any further, let me explain the difference in scientific definition of thought experiment, hypothesis, theory, and law—because they are different from common usage.

·       Thought experiment – A mental exercise used to explore the logical consequences of an idea or scenario without performing a physical experiment. It helps clarify concepts, test assumptions, and reveal logical implications, but it does not produce empirical data.

·       Hypothesis – A tentative and testable explanation for an observed phenomenon. A hypothesis makes specific, falsifiable predictions that can be examined through observation or experimentation.

·       Theory – A well-supported explanatory framework that integrates multiple tested hypotheses and observations—there is no reasonable evidence against it. A scientific theory explains why phenomena occur and remains open to refinement as new evidence is discovered.

·       Law – A concise descriptive statement, often expressed mathematically, that summarizes universally consistent patterns observed in nature. A scientific law describes what happens under specific conditions but does not explain why it happens.

Many often suggest today (when they argue against evolution) that “evolution is just  theory”. They seem to think that this is good way to cast doubt on evolutionary ideas. However, they don’t realize that theory in science (there is no reasonable evidence against it) is not defined as a theory in everyday life (which means “doubtful” idea).

Evolution has plenty of evidence against it and so it’s proper categorization, scientifically, should be “failed hypothesis”.

Keep in mind that the methods of science can be used to disprove claims when observations contradict them. A single repeatable observation that conflicts with a universal claim is sufficient to show that the claim is false or incomplete.

If a theory predicts that a phenomenon must always occur under certain conditions, and it does not, the theory fails that test. Then it goes back to a failed hypothesis.

A lot of people mis an important aspect about science. The methods of science cannot truly prove a theory to be universally true. No amount of confirming evidence can guarantee that future observations will not overturn it. Repeated successful predictions increase confidence (highly probably), but they do not convert probability into certainty because the entire method is built on induction.

For this reason, scientific knowledge remains open to revision. Its strength lies not in delivering final proofs, but in rigorously testing ideas, eliminating false explanations, and refining models that best fit observed reality. But if someone says “Science proves X to be true”, then you should know immediately that they don’t know the finer points for what science can and can’t be used.

Science Is Predicated On The God Of The Bible

Science is philosophically predicated on a biblical worldview because the foundational assumptions required for science to function coherently are derived from Scripture, not from materialism or atheism. Bacon recognized this to a degree.

Science depends on several core presuppositions: that the universe is orderly rather than chaotic, that the laws of nature are consistent over time and space, that cause and effect are real, that human reasoning is generally reliable, and that sensory observations correspond meaningfully to reality.

Interpretations about the past come down to a battle over authority; Image from Presentation Library

These assumptions cannot be justified by science methodology itself, because to use science already assumes them in order to operate. Instead, these are predicated on the Bible being true and that the universe was created and is sustained by a rational, faithful, and sovereign God—Jesus Christ.

The Bible presents God as a lawgiver who upholds creation in a consistent manner. Because God is unchanging and faithful, the natural world behaves in a predictable way, making experimentation and repeatability possible. Without this expectation of uniformity, scientific investigation would collapse into skepticism and be useless and meaningless. Uniform laws of nature are not a conclusion of the scientist but a prerequisite for doing science at all.

Genesis teaches that humans are created in the image of God. This provides the basis for trusting human rationality, logic, mathematics, and moral responsibility in handling evidence. If human thoughts were merely the product of unguided processes aimed at survival rather than truth, confidence in scientific reasoning would be undermined.

The biblical doctrine of the image of God explains why human minds are capable of understanding the world God created. We are made in the image of an all-knowing God of truth. This is why we can do science and attain knowledge and process it and recognize truth.

Historically, modern science arose in cultures shaped by biblical Christianity. I affirm that science is not religiously neutral. Its foundational assumptions about order, logic, causality, and truth rest on a biblical worldview, even when those assumptions are often taken for granted today.

Conclusion

Scientific methodology is a powerful and valuable tool when used correctly. Operational science investigates repeatable, observable processes in the present and produces highly reliable knowledge. Origins science seeks to reconstruct unobserved past events and necessarily involves interpretation shaped by assumptions.

Recognizing the difference between these two categories helps clarify what science can legitimately demonstrate and where worldview commitments influence conclusions. Science is a powerful confirmation of God Word and helps us explain the world…when done correctly.

Article Appendix: Selected Scientists of the Past and Present who believe(d) in the God of the Bible

Chronological List of Scientists (Birth Year Order)

• Johann Gutenberg – Printing technology – 1400
• Nicolaus Copernicus – Heliocentric astronomy – 1473
• Francis Bacon – Scientific methodology – 1561
• Galileo Galilei – Observational astronomy – 1564
• Johannes Kepler – Planetary motion – 1571
• William Harvey – Circulatory system – 1578
• René Descartes – Analytical geometry – 1596
• Blaise Pascal – Probability and fluids – 1623
• Robert Boyle – Chemistry, gas laws – 1627
• John Ray – Taxonomy – 1627
• Christiaan Huygens – Wave optics – 1629
• Robert Hooke – Cell biology – 1635
• Nicolas Steno – Stratigraphy – 1638
• Isaac Newton – Classical physics, fluids, gravitation, laws of motion, and calculus – 1643
• Herman Boerhaave – Clinical medicine – 1668
• Carolus Linnaeus – Biological classification – 1707
• Leonhard Euler – Mathematical analysis – 1707
• Antoine Lavoisier – Modern chemistry – 1743
• Alessandro Volta – Electricity – 1745
• Pierre-Simon Laplace – Celestial mechanics – 1749
• André-Marie Ampère – Electrodynamics – 1775
• Georg Ohm – Electrical resistance – 1789
• Michael Faraday – Electromagnetism – 1791
• Samuel Morse – Telegraphy – 1791
• Matthew Maury – Ocean currents – 1806
• Gregor Mendel – Genetics – 1822
• Louis Pasteur – Germ theory – 1822
• Jean-Henri Fabre – Insect behavior – 1823
• William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) – Thermodynamics – 1824
• Joseph Lister – Antiseptic surgery – 1827
• James Clerk Maxwell – Electromagnetic theory – 1831
• Josiah Willard Gibbs – Thermodynamics and physical chemistry (Gibbs Free Energy) – 1839
• George Washington Carver – Crop science – 1864
• Max Planck – Quantum theory – 1858
• Arthur Eddington – Stellar physics – 1882
• Arthur Compton – X-ray physics – 1892
• Werner Heisenberg – Quantum mechanics – 1901
• John Eccles – Neurophysiology – 1903
• Ernst Chain – Penicillin – 1906
• Wernher von Braun – Spaceflight – 1912
• Henry Morris – Flood geology – 1918
• Benoît Mandelbrot – Fractal geometry – 1924
• Raymond Damadian – Inventor of the MRI – 1936
• Russell Humphreys – Nuclear physics – 1940
• Walter Bradley – Thermodynamics – 1943
• John Sanford – Genetics – 1947
• Stuart Burgess – Design engineering – 1953
• Danny Faulkner – Observational astronomy – 1955
• James Tour – Nanotechnology – 1959
• Bodie Hodge – Advanced materials engineering – 1974
• Jason Lisle – Cosmology – 1974

 □

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Mr. Hodge earned a Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC). Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a Visiting Instructor teaching all levels of undergraduate engineering and running a materials lab and a CAD lab. He did research on advanced ceramic materials to develop a new method of production of titanium diboride with a grant from Lockheed Martin. He worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar, Inc., prior to entering full-time ministry.

His love of science was coupled with a love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one year of his life, Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and scientific dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over 25 years of experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields.

 

Doctrine of Dominion

The Doctrine Of Dominion (And Ownership And Inheritance)

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, January 14, 2026 (Donate)

We are in a culture where one nation has pure land ownership by its citizens, another nation has the government or a sovereign own it all (e.g., communism), and still other nations allow citizens to own the land, but pay yearly taxes—like a rent on it—to keep it each year. How does land get passed along from generation to generation?

Did you know that God’s Word speaks to this issue? Land ownership and inheritance are outworkings of doctrines based in a very early doctrine—dominion.

The Doctrine Of Dominion

The doctrine of dominion in Scripture begins in Genesis and is the foundational principle for understanding land stewardship, national boundaries, and inheritance. Dominion is not merely power or exploitation; it is delegated authority from the sovereign and ruling God to mankind, exercised under God’s rule and for His purposes.

A king evaluating his dominion with his advisors; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (Chat GPT)

In Genesis 1:26–28 (NKJV), God declares,

“Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Humanity’s dominion is predicated on being made in the image of God. God is a ruling, ordering, and purposeful Creator, and man reflects that nature by being entrusted with authority to rule over things in the created order.

Genesis 2 reveals more about this idea by placing Adam in the Garden “to tend and keep it” (Genesis 2:15). Dominion therefore includes stewardship, cultivation, protection, and accountability. The earth belongs ultimately to God (Psalm 24:1), but man is appointed as God’s vice-regent or “steward”, ruling under His authority rather than autonomously.

Buck’s Definition

Charles Buck, in his theological dictionary[1], viewed dominion as authority granted by God, not ownership independent of Him. He understood dominion to mean mankind’s right and responsibility to govern, cultivate, and use the earth according to God’s moral order.

Dominion based in creation, where God made man in His image and placed him over the works of His hands. Buck pointed out that this authority was limited and accountable, since God remains the ultimate owner of all things.

Buck also connected dominion with stewardship, arguing that land, resources, and social authority must be exercised wisely, justly, and for the common good as predicated on Scripture. For Buck, dominion did not justify abuse or tyranny, but required obedience to God, care for others, and respect for divinely established order in families, nations, and inheritance. These are wise words from Charles Buck.

The Fall Affects Dominion

After the Fall, dominion is not revoked but distorted due to man’s sin and our current sin nature. Because of sin, there is toil, conflict, pain, suffering, and abuse of authority (Genesis 3:17–19), yet God continues to work through human governance. After the Flood, God reaffirms man’s authority over the earth (Genesis 9:1–3).

This principle of dominion directly relates to land ownership and national boundaries. Scripture teaches that God Himself determines the boundaries of nations. Deuteronomy 32:8 states, “When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the peoples.” Land is not merely claimed by strength; it is apportioned by God’s sovereign decree.

Consider the land divisions after the Flood after Noah inherited the earth. They changed a little prior to the events at the Tower of Babel.

Land Adjustments After The Flood

In Genesis 9:27 (NKJV), Noah declares,

“May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Shem; and may Canaan be his servant.”

This statement shows an early recognition that God Himself governs the expansion and inheritance of peoples on the earth. This statement means that Noah’s three sons inherited the world form their father and it was already divvied up. But after Ham’s inappropriate actions, and Shem and Japheth’s appropriate actions, Noah asked God to revise it and enlarge Japheth’s inheritance.

Noah’s words are not merely a blessing but a prophetic acknowledgment that dominion and territory are granted by God, not seized independently of Him.

After the Flood, mankind was commanded to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Genesis 9:1). This implies a lawful and orderly division of the earth among families and nations under God’s authority. Noah’s reference to enlargement assumes that such divisions were already understood as part of God’s design for dominion and inheritance likely after surveying and settling at Noah’s farm initially.

Noah evaluating plans for the Ark; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (Grok)

The scattering at the Tower of Babel was due to man’s rebellion against God’s divine plan. Instead of spreading out and exercising dominion over assigned territories, humanity sought centralized power and self-glory, saying,

And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.” (Genesis 11:4, NKJV).

God’s judgment confused their language and forcibly scattered them, accomplishing His original purpose for national boundaries and territorial inheritance. If you look closely at Japheth’s territory, it really was larger than the others. See maps in this article on Babylon.

Tower of Babel being built; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (Grok)

Another Example Of Dominion Is With Abraham And His Descendants

Nowhere is this clearer than in God’s covenant with Abraham. In Genesis 12:7 (NKJKV), God promises,

“To your descendants I will give this land.”

This promise is reaffirmed repeatedly (Genesis 15; Genesis 17), showing that land inheritance is covenantal and generational but as we read further, conditional upon their obedience. Just like in the Garden of Eden, disobedience (sin) caused man to be vomited out; so, the Israelites were vomited out when they sinned against God (e.g., the captivity). In the same way though, the Canaanites who were committing atrocious sins (see Leviticus 18) before the Israelites, were also vomited out of the land.

The land of Israel is described as an inheritance, not as arbitrary real estate (Deuteronomy 4:21). It is held under God’s law and can be forfeited through rebellion (Leviticus 18:24–28).

Inheritance in Scripture flows naturally from dominion. Families, tribes, and nations receive land to steward under God’s commandments. Numbers 26–36 carefully outlines the division of the land among the tribes of Israel. This shows that inheritance is both a gift and a responsibility. For instance, Naboth’s refusal to sell his vineyard (1 Kings 21:3) underscores that land inheritance was viewed as sacred, not disposable.

National authority follows the same pattern. Kings are judged by how they exercise dominion under God’s law. Psalm 72 portrays righteous rule as reflecting God’s own justice and care for the poor. When rulers reject God’s authority, their dominion collapses (Daniel 4:17), demonstrating that all earthly rule is subordinate to God’s ultimate kingship.

We need to remember that biblical dominion begins with God, flows to mankind made in His ruling image, and is expressed through stewardship of land, the establishment of nations, and the passing of inheritance.

Image requested by Bodie Hodge (Chat GPT)

Dominion is not ownership in the absolute sense, but entrusted authority. God, the supreme Ruler, gave man something real to rule over, calling humanity to reflect His order, justice, and faithfulness on the earth. So how does dominion play out long term?

Christ’s Eternal Dominion

The Bible teaches that dominion from now through eternity in Heaven belongs fully and eternally to Christ, yet redeemed humanity shares in His rule by union with Him, not independently from Him.

After His resurrection, Jesus Christ declares,

“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18, NKJV).

Scripture consistently presents Christ as the last Adam and eternal federal head (1 Corinthians 15:45; Ephesians 1:22). Dominion is restored to mankind in a perfected state only through Him—as Christ is sinless.

Believers are said to be “heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ” (Romans 8:17) and are promised participation in His reign: “If we endure, we shall also reign with Him” (2 Timothy 2:12). Revelation 5:10 states that the redeemed “shall reign on the earth,” and Revelation 22:5 affirms they “shall reign forever and ever.”

However, this reign is delegated and participatory, not autonomous. Christ alone possesses inherent dominion; man rules as a redeemed steward under Christ’s kingship. Heaven is not a return to independent human dominion, but the perfected fulfillment of dominion through Christ, to the glory of God.

□

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Mr. Hodge earned a Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC). Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a Visiting Instructor teaching all levels of undergraduate engineering and running a materials lab and a CAD lab. He did research on advanced ceramic materials to develop a new method of production of titanium diboride with a grant from Lockheed Martin. He worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar, Inc., prior to entering full-time ministry.

His love of science was coupled with a love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one year of his life, Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and scientific dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over 25 years of experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields. 

---

[1] Charles Buck, A Theological Dictionary, Thomas, Cowperthwait & Co. Publishers, Philadelphia, PA, 1838.

BAM Year-End Review 2025

BAM Year-End Review 2025

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, January 13, 2026 (Donate)

Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous; not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing. (1 Peter 3:8-9, NKJV)

What a busy year it has been! Biblical Authority Ministries (BAM) has had quite a few highlights. We give glory to God for all He has done and we look forward to what He has in store in the coming year.

Tax Exempt Status

In 2025, BAM officially became an official 501(c)(3) ministry. It wasn’t without its hiccups. I spent way too much time on the phone trying to get things corrected at the IRS as there was glitch and it was initially put in wrong. It took ages to figure that it wasn’t on our end but theirs, but we finally got it worked out.

BAM Website

The BAM Website has gone from good…to great! And yet, there is still much more to come this year. It really has become a source website for Christians wanting answers to defend their faith, stand on creation, and reach people with the Gospel.

www.biblicalauthorityministries.org

I’ve been able to produce or republish about 5 articles per week. This really helps generate content that is needed in hosts of different areas—scientific content, cultural content, news, theological content, world religions, American heritage, philosophy, and holidays. And of course, these are all done from a biblical authority perspective—letting God be ultimate and supreme in all matters.

Speaking

Technology is amazing! I love being able to use the latest tech to give lectures…all over the world without leaving my office! I’ve been able to speak for ministries in Europe, Canada, and the USA.

What an honor it’s been to reach people with the truth of God’s Word and present the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I’ve had some great feedback from hosts and listeners/attendees who are hungry for answers. Some of the highlighted lectures were (1) Dinosaurs, Dragons, and the Bible; (2) Halloween, Paganism, and the Bible, and the (3) Tower of Babel.

In 2025, I was able to speak at special events and even youth programs. I am available for speaking—including churches—and you can inquire more here.

Radio And Media

In 2025, I’ve done several radio interviews. On one instance, I’ve had the privilege of being a regular guest on a major multi-national radio network, reaching pastors, Christian leaders, and laymen. It’s nice having the website recommended so often to extend our reach. The feedback has been incredible this past year.  

I was also able to record with a popular creationist who travels all over the country filming relevant content. In this instance, we hit a doozy of a topic—the different between men and women and the gender issue plaguing our culture. It was powerful.  

I’ve also been on several popular audio or video podcasts in 2025. It really does keep me busy! I am available for radio, TV and podcast interviews just message me in the email address here to get things set up.  

DVD

I was able to record one DVD at a live event. It was the Tower of Babel. It is a more recent version and a slightly different angle than the older one I did many years ago. I get that DVDs are no longer as popular…and even going extinct…since streaming has become “the thing”.

However, physical media is always important and still has a niche. Some still prefer physical media and there is something nostalgic about it!

Books

I was able to help edit an autobiography book from a popular Christian evangelist (slated to be released in 2026). It was exciting working with an author with which I hadn’t previously worked.

I also helped with a book that Ken Ham released as General Editor. It was Defending God’s Existence and it has been selling quite well. The book really hits the meat of this subject.

Sadly, many try to argue God’s existence in ways that are not the best—by setting the Bible aside and arguing for some generic “deity”. This book points out why those methods aren’t always the best and then hits with a genuinely “nuclear” argument that is super powerful.

It also shows how to use logic, philosophy, and evidence correctly when dealing with the subject of God’s existence. I highly recommend the book.

Final Thoughts

Well, there is so much more that I could discuss, but I just wanted to give you a taste of the ministry from a glance.  

Please be in prayer for me and Biblical Authority Ministries as we move forward. The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. I want to encourage you consider giving to the ministry as this is what allows me to continue to do ministry to promote God’s Word and continue to get the Gospel to those who need it.

□

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Mr. Hodge earned a Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC). Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a Visiting Instructor teaching all levels of undergraduate engineering and running a materials lab and a CAD lab. He did research on advanced ceramic materials to develop a new method of production of titanium diboride with a grant from Lockheed Martin. He worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar, Inc., prior to entering full-time ministry.

His love of science was coupled with a love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one year of his life, Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and scientific dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over 25 years of experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields.

Baptism of Jesus Day

Baptism of Jesus Day

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, January 12, 2026 (Donate)

How many people realized that yesterday was a Christian holiday? It was the Feast of the Baptism of Jesus, often called the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord or Baptism of Jesus Day. This holiday is a time to remember when Jesus Christ was baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan River. This event is recorded in all four Gospels, Matthew 3, Mark 1, Luke 3, and John 1, and it marks the beginning of Jesus public ministry.

Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

This holiday is the first Christian holiday after the Twelve Days of Christmas (Twelfthtide) end on January 6^th. It is always the Sunday that follows Epiphany (the Twelfth and final day of Christmas). Obviously, it is a day to remember and honor Jesus’ baptism.

Although Jesus was without sin, He submitted to baptism to fulfill all righteousness. In doing so, He connected Himself with sinful humanity and foreshadowed His role as the sin bearer for mankind.

At His baptism, the heavens were opened, the Holy Spirit descended upon Him like a dove, and the voice of the Father declared that this was His beloved Son in whom He was well pleased. This moment provides one of the clearest biblical revelations of the Triune God, with the Father speaking, the Son being baptized, and the Holy Spirit descending—one God, three persons of the Godhead.

Theologically, the Baptism of Jesus Day points forward to the gospel itself. It shadows His substitutionary work on the cross, where He would fully take their punishment—cleansing them—and it sets the stage for His teaching, miracles, death, and resurrection. With John’s testimony about Christ, it reveals that Jesus is the promised Messiah and publicly inaugurates His ministry.

Historically, the feast has ancient roots in the early Church. The Baptism of Jesus Celebration was originally celebrated as part of Epiphany (which is discussed by Church fathers in the AD 300s; see: John Cassian, Conferences of John Cassian, Chapter 2, Of the custom which is kept up in the Province of Egypt for signifying the time of Easter, AD 360-435). In Eastern Christianity, Epiphany traditionally focused primarily on the baptism rather than the visit of the Magi.

Over time, Western Christianity developed a clearer distinction between the Feast of Epiphany and the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, which is now commonly observed on the Sunday following Epiphany.

Today, the Feast of the Baptism of Jesus serves as a reminder of who Christ is and why He came. It calls believers to reflect on their own baptism, not as a means of salvation, but as a testimony of repentance, faith, and identification with Christ. Above all, the feast directs attention to the glory of God revealed in Jesus Christ and the beginning of the work that would ultimately bring salvation to the world.

□

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children. 

 

What Is Apologetics – And Why Do It?

What Is Apologetics – And Why Do It?

Ken Ham and Bodie Hodge

All passages NKJV unless otherwise denoted.

 Biblical Authority Ministries, January 9, 2026 (Donate)

The Bible is under attack in today’s age. In fact, the Word of God has been under constant attack since the Garden of Eden, when the serpent, which was influenced by Satan, questioned Eve about God’s command in Genesis 3 (“Has God indeed said…”).  We call this the “Genesis 3 attack.” 

Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

In our day, what is the main Genesis 3 attack?  We believe it is the teaching of evolution and millions of years that attacks the historicity of Genesis 1-11, and thus undermines the authority of Scripture. The first step is to recognize these attacks and their consequences, and then understand how to deal with. 

1 Chronicles 12:32a states: 

“Of the sons of Issachar who had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do…” 

Christians need to understand our times so that we can know what the church ought to do. 

So what is going on today? There are numerous false claims about the Bible (especially in regard to the historicity of the first eleven chapters of the Bible) even by many professing Christians themselves. Subsequently, we are seeing kids walk away from the faith having no answers for the world. Statistics reveal that two out of three young people are walking away from the church and research clearly shows this is related to doubt and unbelief because of compromising teaching in regard to the first book of the Bible. Sadly, much of the church does not understand this problem and therefore is not doing what needs to be done to counteract this terrible situation of a generational loss of biblical authority. 

So what do we do?  Well, God’s Word says:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear. (1 Peter 3:15)

It is time for the church to respond to these attacks that are undermining Scripture and greatly contributing to the loss of the next generation from the church, and begin equipping generations to know how to answer the skeptical questions in our modern scientific age. The church needs to “return fire” on these attacks that have had devastating consequences in the spiritual state of coming generations and the culture. The professional research we initiated shows clearly that the church needs to be teaching apologetics at every age level. 

What Is Apologetics And What Is Its Purpose? 

The phrase translated “to give a defense” or sometimes “give an answer” in 1 Peter 3:15 comes from the Greek word apologia, which literally means, “reasoned defense.” It does not mean to apologize, which is a common misconception among some who are not acquainted with this thrust of Christianity. It means to give a logical defense of the Christian faith. 

Apologetics is a branch of Christianity that defends the authority of God’s Word, the character of God, and Christianity as a whole and also uses the Bible as an offensive “weapon” (e.g., like a sword) against all other worldviews and opposition.  Not only do we need to teach general Bible apologetics in this age, but we also need to teach creation apologetics (dealing with the evolution/millions of years issues). 

Apologetics is an exciting area of study to help strengthen your faith, defend Christianity, and close the mouth of the attacking unbeliever.  But please don’t misunderstand. Apologetics is not a tool to make people believe in Christ. The Bible makes it clear that “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God” (Romans 10:17). But, apologetics can help answers people’s skeptical questions and be used to point them to God’s Word and the gospel.  They can be shown clearly that the history in the Bible is true, that’s why the gospel based in that history is true. 

When under attack, there are two primary defenses available to you: defend (answer) and/or disarm (go on the offense).  These are essentially the basics of Christian apologetics. Let’s consider an analogy to help you understand. Let’s say there is a crazed person who comes at you with a knife and tries to strike you down. You can defend yourself by blocking or moving out of the way every time the attacker strikes. Or you can disarm your opponent by taking the knife out of their hand. 

Now to apply this to our situation concerning a defense of the Christian faith. You can defend by answering the questions, but then you can also disarm their arguments by attacking the very basis of their attacks, pointing out that they have a faulty starting point for their worldview. Of course, all this should be done with meekness and fear (gentleness and respect) as God’s Word instructs us. 

It’s important to understand that in Christendom, there are some different types of apologetic approaches—though we would insist not all are correct and therefore it is important to ensure you are using the right one. 

The main types (each with an ever-so-brief definition) are: 

·       Classical:  essentially this method assumes that rational thought is the absolute standard regarding philosophical debates.  Evidence is used in conjunction with the argument—though it is important to understand all evidence is interpreted; i.e., rational thoughts first to point to the Bible’s truthfulness).[1]

·       Evidential (essentially assumes that rational thought is the absolute standard and that when people see evidence (as in miracles in the Bible, or historical evidence and scientific evidence), they will come to the right conclusion; i.e., evidence first to point to the Bible’s truthfulness).[2]  This method really assumes people are ‘neutral’—which is against what the Bible clearly states about the nature of man (there is none righteous, and none seeks after God etc.).

·       Presuppositional (otherwise known as “Reformed apologetics”)

o    Van Tillian; God and His Word are the absolute standards of morality, logic, uniformity in nature, dignity, etc.  The Bible is the only basis for a worldview that makes knowledge possible. All other worldviews must borrow from the Bible to make sense of the world; i.e., Bible first and final to look at all things.)[3]

o   Other popular semi-presuppositional methods:

§  Clarkian: The best worldview is the most logical and Christianity is the most consistent in its logic. So Christianity appears to be the best.[4]

§  Shaeferian: The best worldview will give the best answers to life. Christianity gives the best answers to life. So, Christianity appears to be the best.[5]

§  Carnellian: The best worldview is the most coherent. Christianity is the most coherent via the internal text. So, Christianity appears to be the best.[6]

§  Others (Cumulative Case, Reformed Epistemology, Fideism, etc.)[7]

The above was not meant to be an exhaustive list, but it helps give you an idea of the different styles that are used to defend the Christian faith.  Naturally, some work better than others, especially in certain instances. 

The ministry position has been in the vein of presuppositional apologetics. We use the Bible as our absolute authority in every area to build a worldview so we have the right basis to have the ability to then correctly understand the world (the evidence) around us. This is the overall style of apologetics used in our apologetics resources. 

Apologetics In The Bible 

The Bible commands that we give a reasoned defense of the faith in 1 Peter 3:15. Peter also makes it clear this is to be done by first setting apart Christ as Lord in your heart and to do this with gentleness and respect.

Far too often Christians obtain a few answers and they think they are then ready to “force” those answers on to people so they can beat their opponent. Instead, this should be done with gentleness and respect. We need to show the same grace, mercy, and love that the Lord showed to us .  This is why apologetics should always be used in conjunction with the Gospel (Matthew 28:18-20); in other words, don’t do apologetics for the sake of doing apologetics to try to win an argument, but do it for the sake of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

But consider other pertinent passages also: 

We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete. (2 Corinthians 10:4-5, ESV) 

If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself. (1 Timothy 6:3-5) 

Furthermore, discernment must be used when discussing the things of God. Many apologists get caught up debating one person (who refuses to be corrected) over the course of years. The Bible speaks on this subject: 

But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned. (Titus 3:9-11) 

"Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces. (Matthew 7:6) 

"And whoever will not receive you, when you go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet as a testimony against them." (Luke 9:5) 

If someone is not willing to learn and really shows no sign of being challenged and willing to consider they could be wrong, do not continue wasting time with them (on the account of their hard hearts). You may find much more fruitful evangelism with others who are willing to listen. Some may think that the Bible commands us to give an answer back to these those people who are arguing against the Christian faith repeatedly (for years even) because of 1 Peter 3:15. But take note of the careful wording: “always be prepared to give an answer.” 

1 Peter 3:15 doesn’t say to always give an answer, but always “be prepared to give an answer”. There are, in fact, times to refrain. For example, when people fail to listen [even professing Christians who refuse to listen] (2 Peter 2:3), when you can discern that they obviously do not want to be instructed (Proverbs 1:7), or when their purpose is to be divisive (Romans 16:17), then it is time to move on. 

Practical Apologetics 

There are several things the apologist should strive for when defending the faith. The first is to present the Christian worldview from the starting point of the Bible. (Mark 16:15; Proverbs 26:4). This would include but not be limited to:

1.     Creation week was a period of 6 ordinary 24-hour days. How can one stand on the authority of Scripture and then question the history in the Bible? If Genesis is not true, then why is the rest of the Bible true?

2.     Man was made in the image of God. Man is not just the product of random chemical reactions over million of years. Therefore, man is not just an animal; human life has value (the most common worldview today is secular humanism with its foundation in man’s beliefs of evolution, millions of years, and that you are just an animal with no value).

3.     God created a perfect world where there was no death. Man’s sin brought death and corrupted this perfect world. The Bible describes death as an “enemy.” The fall of mankind explains death and suffering in the world and the need for a Savior and the need for a new heavens and new earth.

4.     The Flood that accounts for most of the rock layers that contain fossils; and also that God does judge sin, but also sends a means of salvation (i.e., the Ark).  The righteous judge is also a God who is merciful.

5.     The Tower of Babel which helps us understand why we speak different languages and why we all look a little different, even though we are one race, all sinners, and all in need of a Savior.

6.     Moses and the Law, which gives more detail as to what sin is as it reigned from the time of Adam. And relate how Christ fulfilled the law and offers grace.

7.     Christ and His work on the Cross when God became a man to die and pay the penalty for our sin and offer the free gift of salvation to those who believe in Jesus Christ and His Resurrection.

8.     New heavens and new earth to fulfill what God has promised (Christians look forward to this, when there will be a time with no more death and suffering.) 

Many times when we present a Christian worldview to the unbeliever, it involves clearing up misconceptions about Christian theism. A few examples are: 

1.                        God is one God who is triune (three persons: Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit), not three separate “gods”;

2.                        Christianity should be based on the Bible, not the words of fallible humans—even if they are Christians (who often fail to live up to the standards in the Bible);

3.                        God created the world perfect, not the way it is today.  It has been subjected to death and decay due to man’s sin (Genesis 1:31, Deuteronomy 32:4, Genesis 3, Romans 8). Death and suffering are a result of sin and God stepped into history as Jesus Christ the God-man, to die in our place and save us from sin and death. 

Second, in a sin-cursed and broken world, it is good to understand the way an unbeliever thinks. This is important to be able to refute their false worldviews because of their wrong starting point (starting with man’s word instead of God’s Word).  (Ephesians 4:17-18, 1 Corinthians 1:21, 1 Corinthians 2:14, 1 Corinthians 3:19, Colossians 2:8, Romans 1:18-28 and so on). We need to know as much as possible about the other person’s professed worldview so that we can kindly refute it when the time comes. 

Third, the Christian apologist should do an internal critique of the unbeliever’s worldview (Proverbs 26:5; 2 Timothy 2:25). Point out where they are being arbitrary, inconsistent, where their worldview’s ultimate conclusion leads (e.g., reduced to absurdity) and even cases where they borrow from the Bible.[8] 

Lastly, in our apologetics we must strive to continually point people to God’s Word and present the Gospel. Many times this can be done when presenting the Christian worldview.  But make sure the gospel is “front and center” in apologetics as the Gospel of Jesus Christ is of utmost importance. 

Presuppositional Apologetics (Van Til)[9]: What Is It? 

Van Tillian presuppositional apologetics places God and His Word, the Bible, as the absolute authority in every area. God, who knows all things, has stated in the Bible that all other worldviews (are wrong, so by extension all other worldviews have inconsistencies and must borrow from the Bible to make any sense of the world, whether they realize it or not. 

Christian theism is not arbitrary, it is consistent, and has the preconditions of intelligibility (preconditions to make knowledge possible; e.g., we are made in the image of a logical and all-knowing God).  Other worldviews, are arbitrary, inconsistent, and lack the preconditions that make knowledge possible. So presuppositional apologists do an internal critique of the unbelievers’ worldview to show where it is arbitrary, inconsistent, and where they lack the preconditions necessary for knowledge.  

Presuppositional apologetics is a well-known method by which apologists “go on the offensive” to confront false worldviews (hopefully in a nice way of course). In other words, an apologists makes adherents of other worldviews, like secular humanism, atheism, Hinduism, Islam, cults, and the like, try to defend their worldviews so they can show the problems within their professed view. And in all this, point out clearly where these other religions borrow from the Bible to make sense of the world.  

For example, when the Creation Museum opened in May of 2007, the atheists protesting the opening hired a plane to fly above the museum quoting “Thou shalt not lie.” The atheists have no reason not to lie in their own worldview, so they had to borrow from the Christian worldview to make this statement[10]  

Interestingly, these atheists who say there is no right and wrong were arguing that the Creation Museum was teaching something wrong (Bible history). Right and wrong exist because we have an absolute authority, the God of the Bible, who defines what is right and wrong in the Bible. These atheists didn’t have a foundation to determine right and wrong—only their subjective opinion!

Atheists who argue that we are just animals are almost always wearing clothes. Do animals wear clothes? No. So instead of making a consistent argument that we are only animals, atheists are instead confirming a literal Genesis 3 where we wear clothes due to sin and shame!  God gave Adam and Eve clothes after sin. This works with many other things: Why do we have 7-day week– the Bible. Why does logic and reason exist—the Bible. Why does knowledge exist – the Bible. Why is marriage defined as a man and a woman—the Bible. 

This list can go on for hours! But in an unbeliever’s worldview, they lack the very foundational basis for such things. 

Image in original publication (Dan Lietha/AiG)

Here is a checklist to look for problems in the unbeliever’s worldview[11]: 

1.     Is it arbitrary (mere opinions, relativism, mere conjectures (perhaps prejudicial), biases that have no ultimate basis)?

2.     Is it inconsistent (fallacies, behavior doesn’t match what one professes, their presuppositions do not mesh together)?

3.     Violations of preconditions for knowledge (any ultimate basis for logic, uniformity in the universe, morality, and so on)?

4.     Will this view be reduced to absurdity (a form of inconsistency when taken to its ultimate conclusion)? 

Some may argue that non Christians don’t believe the Bible to be true and yet they can do logic, insist on a view of morality, do excellent scientific research that builds outstanding technology, and so on. But they miss the point then. The issue isn’t that they can do it, but they don’t have a basis to do it. They must borrow from the Bible to actually make sense of it. In other words, the Bible has to be true, whether they acknowledge it or not, just to make sense of things. 

Short-Comings Of Other Presuppositional Views

There have been several “presuppositional” methods proposed over the years outside of the Van Tillian method.[12] Many of these people have contributed some excellent material to the debate and mesh well with Van Tillian presuppositional apologetics in many areas.  But there are some overarching flaws that reduce the potency of their overall thrust such as: 

Clarkian: Gordon Clark essentially says that the best worldview is the most logical and Christianity is the most consistent in its logic. So Christianity appears to be the best. 

Schaefferian: Francis Schaeffer essentially says that the best worldview will give the best answers to life. Christianity gives the best answers to life. So, Christianity appears to be the best. 

Carnellian: Edward J. Carnell essentially says that the best worldview is the most coherent. Christianity is the most coherent via the internal text. So, Christianity appears to be the best. 

Of course, there are other variations too like (e.g., Nash). But we cannot be exhaustive in this short chapter.[13] 

Clark’s view (one of the more popular) is in essence similar to the Evidential/Classical methods. Even though he made some great presuppositional arguments in certain places, his overall viewpoint, falls short of the typical presuppositional viewpoint. In other words, Clark really moved to a position that man’s autonomous reasoning (man apart from God) should be used as the absolute starting point, over God’s Word. 

Carnell actually began with Van Tillian presuppositional apologetics and then moved to a form that was based on autonomous human reason looking at coherency. Schaeffer’s ultimate apologetic does something similar as well, by ultimately appealing to man’s authority over God’s Word.  

But even so, the problem with each of these is…by what standard is “best” to be determined…autonomous human reason or God’s Word? By moving away from God’s Word as the absolute standard, these other methods really move away from true presuppositional apologetics. Such faulty “supposedly presuppositional” views still fall short. They actually fail because they still need to stand on the preconditions of intelligibility in regard to the Bible’s absolute standard, just to make their case. [14] 

Hence, each of these other methods are still inherently adopting a Van Tillian basis and don’t acknowledge it (because those proposing them failed to realize it). Christian theism based on the Bible as the absolute truth, is the precondition that must be borrowed for knowledge to even be possible.  

Each of these other views ultimately rely on fallible human logic as the absolute standard—instead of God, who is the ultimate standard.[15] Furthermore, each of their propositions are pseudo (false) presuppositional views as these views consequentially can’t really allow one to know the Bible is true or be certain that God even exists—or be certain of one’s own salvation. For these other views, in essence, their position is that this is the “best possible worldview right now”, “likely the most coherent so far”, and “gives the best possible answers right now”, but could still be wrong.  

Essentially, each of these other alleged presuppositional views are forced into a position that biblical matters are likely true or likely the best, but we can never know it 100 percent for sure. Interestingly, the Bible says we can know numerous things, for example: 

And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. (Romans 8:28) 

But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. (1 John 2:5) 

These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. (1 John 5:13) 

Neutrality Vs. Common Ground 

Have you ever had anyone ask you to “leave the Bible out of it” when you are discussing a subject? Perhaps they say something like “let’s discuss this, but since I don’t trust the Bible, you are going to have to use better sources, so we can meet on neutral ground.” 

This is a subtle tact to try to get you to throw out the Bible and have a “civilized” discussion about a topic, without all that supposed “religious stuff”—in other words, to be supposedly “neutral.”  But there is actually no neutral position.  The Bible makes it clear than man’s heart is depraved and we are either for Christ or against. 

What they are subtly trying to do is to get you to give up the Bible as your ultimate authority (your starting point) and trust theirs (man becomes the authority or starting point on the subject at hand, not God). In other words, they are trying to get you to act like a secularist, and if you do so, you have already lost the debate. 

Consider this analogy: You see a person who is sniffing cocaine. As an apologist you want to inform this person of addictive problems associated with this illegal drug (e.g., 1 Corinthians 6:12). And they say, “listen, we can talk about this, but first you need to sniff this cocaine with me.” Would you do it? Of course not, you don’t give up your morality based on the Bible’s authority and accept theirs; so why give up the Bible’s authority in any other area to trust theirs?[16]  

Be on the look out for those who propose that there is such a thing as neutrality in the debate. There is no such thing as neutrality: 

He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters. (Matthew 12:30) 

Because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so. (Romans 8:7) 

You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. (James 4:4) 

We don’t want to get caught “giving up the Bible” to meet on supposed neutral ground, otherwise the non-Christians, especially the many secularists today, win! 

Image by Bodie Hodge

This is because they are getting you to leave the Bible out of the debate and thus debate on the terms of man’s opinions being the ultimate authority (if the Bible is left out, then God is left out, which means man is the ultimate authority by default).   In other words, they want you to give up your starting point of God’s Word, and replace it with their starting point of man’s word—so they win! 

Image series in original publication (Dan Lietha/AiG)

But there is common ground. The unbeliever will often repeat that it is wrong to lie, murder, and so on. But what are they doing? They are borrowing from the Bible. This is what we need to point out!  We do have common ground, but that is because they are borrowing from the Bible.  They actually have to use the Christian starting point of God’s Word to discuss such things. 

So apologists need to recognize this and “pull the rug out from underneath” the unbeliever. Then when they realize they have no reliable foundation, we pray God will convict them to  step aboard the biblical foundation—to change their starting point (which is a work of the Holy Spirit on their heart—a work of the Word of God that convicts and saves). Actually, in such discussions when they are obviously borrowing from the Christian starting point (the Bible), then when they attack the Bible they are essentially trying to blow themselves up too—whether they realize it or not. Hence, their position is self-refuting.

Image series in original publication (Dan Lietha/AiG)

When we meet on common ground, we need to point out that the unbeliever is actually standing on borrowed ground—God’s ground! 

Correct Aspects Of Classical And Evidential Apologetics 

Many may have already realized the similarities in Classical and Evidential apologetics.  And rightly so! Evidential apologetics is actually a modern outworking of Classical apologetics. In fact, many Classical apologists appeal to Evidential thinking on certain arguments and vice versa. Often, we find classical and evidential apologists accepting positions that actually undermine biblical authority (like belief in a billions of years old earth), because they really have such a trust in autonomous human reasoning. 

And we would be the first to admit that Classical and Evidential methods would be great in a perfect world…but we are not in a perfect world. Let us explain. In a perfect world, everyone would use logic correctly! In a perfect world, everyone would view evidence the correct way. In a sin-cursed and broken world, logic and evidence are not used and viewed correctly because of false worldviews that have resulted due to sin and thus the fallen state of man and how that affects our thinking.  

Consider:  We all have the same evidence (we all live in the same universe). We look at the same dinosaur bones, same DNA, same rock layers, same continents, and so on. And yet, the majority of world’s people are not coming to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is Lord. The evidence concerning Christ is not convincing them—even when we put it right in front of their face! Evidence, by itself, doesn’t convince people (Luke 16:31, John 6:65, 1 Corinthians 12:3, etc.); even Jesus when He offered His body as proof of the resurrection did not remain silent but the evidence was presented in conjunction with the authoritative statements of Christ (Luke 24:36-41). Sadly some still disbelieved (Luke 24:41). 

Look now at the basis of the classical method. Everyone has the same logic and reasoning, but not everyone does it correctly and hence the majority of the world’s people are still not coming to Christ. In a broken world, these theoretical methods simply don’t work the way they should due to human sin and the fact that man’s heart is already biased against God—man is not neutral! 

The point is, God Himself, is the ultimate authority in every area.  So God’s Word has to be presupposed before we can even do a debate on logic/reasoning or evidence. 

Follow us here, in the Classical and Evidential methods; it is  assumed that logic is the absolute standard.  But if logic is the absolute standard, then God would not be. Essentially, Evidential and Classical apologists are [inadvertently] appealing to another absolute standard (system of logic) to claim that God is the absolute standard. Classical and Evidential defenders readily appeal to God as the absolute authority (and this is correct) but their method appeals to something else as the absolute authority. By default then, man’s ideas (autonomous human reason) become the authority over God. 

But don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.  There is a time when an evidential-style method is useful – in fact, very useful. This is when both involved in the debate share the same biblical worldview. 

When both debaters have the same biblical worldview, then it is a matter of understanding the evidence, not a debate about worldview.  When a debate arises over some scientific evidence or the like, and both are biblical creationists (for example), then the debate can proceed almost identical to an evidential method. The difference is that the Bible is the authority and evidence is a good confirmation of the Bible’s truthfulness. There is more on evidence later in this treatise. 

The same sort of situation occurs with the classical method. When both share a common biblical worldview, then the debate is no longer over worldview, but can be carried on from the perspective of a classical style apologetic by making the logical case. The difference is recognizing the place of God and His Word above all – even logic, which is more of a reflection of the way God thinks and upholds. 

For example, classical arguments for the existence of God (first cause, design, and so on) are a good confirmation of the transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG)[17] that is actually presupposed prior to the classical arguments.[18] TAG is actually the natural outworking of presuppositional apologetics.[19] But classical arguments, building on the Bible as the absolute authority, are a great confirmation of what we expect. 

Image by Bodie Hodge

One needs to recognize that the Bible gives the very basis by which we can do logic and understand knowledge  – for we are made in the image of an all-knowing, logical God (Genesis 1:27, Colossians 2:3). Only God knows everything.  Therefore, it is only on the basis of what the all knowing God reveals to us we can even begin to construct the right worldview.  

The Bible also explains why we mess it up – sin (Genesis 3, Romans 5). It is the Bible that enables us to understand that our memory and sense are reliable (e.g., Job 38-41) and the world will be upheld in a certain fashion (e.g., Genesis 8:22). So we have a basis to look at evidence and draw conclusions – but such things are predicated on the truthfulness of the Bible as the ultimate authority.

Uses Of Evidence 

We commonly encounter the false perception that evidence is not used among presuppositional apologists. This cannot be farther from the truth. That is a philosophy nearing “fideism” (when one believes there is no reason to use evidence, arguments, or the Bible, but let God do all the work)…essentially faith alone (fides in Latin means faith). 

The presuppositionalist uses evidence. It is often done in a slightly different way than Evidential or Classical apologetics.  Some of the uses of evidence are: 

·       Confirming a biblical worldview

·       Introduction to worldviews

·       Showing inconsistencies and arbitrariness in false worldviews

·       To show the unbeliever they must use the Bible to properly understand evidence 

Let’s look at an example for each of these. 

A. Confirming A Biblical Worldview

Often, we come across evidence that is a great confirmation of the Bible’s truthfulness. One excellent example of that is the Flood of Noah’s day. When we see rock layers all over the world that have fossils in them, this is good confirmation of what we would expect to see as a result of a global flood. We can use this evidence when discussing a Christian worldview with an unbeliever to confirm that God’s Word is the right starting point. 

Image in original publication (from Presentation Library)

B. Introduction To Worldviews 

When an unbeliever and biblical Christian engage in discussion, evidence is often used. And this can be good… an apologist can use evidence in regard to origins for instance, to help the unbeliever realize it is really a worldview debate. 

Image series in original publication (Dan Lietha/AiG)

Then point out to the unbeliever that the debate is actually about starting points that build the two different worldviews.  The real debate is actually at the starting point level. 

C. Showing Inconsistencies And Arbitrariness In False Worldviews 

This is a very effective use of evidence when evidence simply doesn’t mesh with the unbeliever’s worldview. For example, the secular humanistic worldview (no God, evolution, and millions of years) teaches that dinosaurs evolved into birds over millions of years.

Recently, they found a group of feathers in rock layers supposed to be at the “dawn” of dinosaurs existence![20] The secular response was to say that they look like feathers but they can’t be true feathers because dinosaurs hadn’t evolved into birds yet!  Note the utter inconsistency!   

D. To Show The Unbeliever They Must Use The Bible To Properly Understand    Evidence 

Evidence can also be used to share with the unbeliever that the very basis to logically think about fossil feathers (using the example above) in rock layers below dinosaurs is predicated on the Bible’s truthfulness about knowledge, logic, and correct reason. In other words, we can’t even properly understand logic unless the Bible were true.  By starting with the Bible, we can not only make sense of the evidence, but have a basis to do so.  

Conclusion 

This short chapter on apologetics is merely scratching the surface of the topic. In fact, entire anthologies can be (and have been) written on the brief topics we discussed in this introductory chapter on apologetics. Our hope is that you learn the importance of apologetics in today’s day and age and study the topic and how to answer and “give a defense”. 

But remember these key points: do this for sake of the Gospel and the authority of the Bible. And do this with gentleness and respect. The unbeliever is not the enemy; it is the false philosophy that has taken them “captive” that is the enemy (2 Timothy 2:24-26, Colossians 2:8, 2 Corinthians 10:4-5). An unbeliever, whether they realize it or not, is made in the image of God, your relative, and is in need of Jesus Christ to be saved.

All images in original article from Answers in Genesis; republished by permission. 

---

[1] Popular Classical apologists are William Lane Craig, Thomas Aquinas, Norm Geisler, R.C. Sproul, and J. P. Moreland.

[2] Popular Evidential apologists are B.B. Warfield, William Paley, and John Warwick Montgomery.

[3] Named for Cornelius Van Til who articulated it in modern times, espoused by Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, Kenneth Gentry, Michael Butler, and Jason Lisle. Early presuppositional apologetics examples are claimed from the Bible itself, as well as numerous others such as Augustine (in some aspects) and John of Damascus.  

[4] Variant developed by Gordon Clark.

[5] Variant developed by Francis Schaefer.

[6] Variant developed by Edward J. Carnell.

[7] We simply can’t hit all the methods in this short introduction. So we are going to stick to the most popular views in the treatise.

[8] For more on these topics please consult Dr. Greg Bahnsen’s book Always Ready or Dr. Jason Lisle’s book The Ultimate Proof of Creation.

[9] In this short section, we will merely hit a brief highlight of Van Tillian presuppositionalism. For a more complete treatment please see: Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis, Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, NJ, 1998.

[10] Atheism has no God who sets what is right and wrong, so there is no ultimate basis not to lie. 

[11] Due to the limited space in this chapter these will not be expanded upon. But to know more about this, please consult Dr. Greg Bahnsen’s book Always Ready or Dr. Jason Lisle’s book The Ultimate Proof of Creation.

[12] Some say that they like Van Tillian [or even Bahnsen’s] presuppositional apologetic, but they don’t want to promote it because Van Til had specific denominational views that they do not agree with. Please do not get us wrong; our intent here is not to make people follow all of Van Til’s positions but to understand and make use of the philosophical method outlined in his works in regard to his apologetics method. 

[13] To understand these viewpoints and their overarching flaws please consult Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended, by Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Ed. Joel McDurmon, American Vision (and Covenant Media Press) Powder Springs, GA, 2009.

[14] Preconditions of intelligibility (knowledge) are the things that need to be in place for knowledge to exist. For example, the Bible gives a precondition for intelligibility where man is made in the image of an all-knowing logical God.  Hence, we can relate to logical reasoning about knowledge and knowledge transfer. Also, God being all-knowing is the basis for knowledge to exist, and so on. 

[15] The problem here is that logic is elevated above God, whereas in a presuppositional debate, logic is a tool but subservient to God and His Word being the ultimate authority. Logic is possible because God and the Bible are true.

[16] No analogy is perfect, but hopefully this gets the point across.

[17] TAG basically states that any alternative to the biblical theism would make knowledge impossible. In essence, it is the only book that has the preconditions for knowledge/logic [i.e., intelligibility]. All other worldviews must borrow from the Bible for the world to make sense. Science, morality, and logic all stem from the Bible being true. So to reiterate, if the Bible were not true, then knowledge would be impossible. In other words, if the Bible were not true, nothing would make sense – good or bad…everything would be meaningless and pointless

[18] New Answers Book 3, Ken Ham, Gen. Ed., Master Books, Green Forest, AK, 2010pp. 263-270.

[19] For good summary of people’s attempts to refute TAG, please see The Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence by Michael R. Butler, http://www.butler-harris.org/tag/.

[20] Eighty million years ahead of its time, Jeff Hecht, NewScientist, 24 March 2012, page 8.