THE-104
Christian Worldview & Apologetics I
Defending the Oneness of God, baptism in Jesus' name, and salvation against common objections.
Topics: Apologetics, Comparative religion
Suggested resource: Free articles from Apostolic Information Service; your own Armor of God material.
Week 1: Answering the Trinitarian Objection
Reading: Matthew 3:13–17, 28:19; John 1:1, 14, 14:9–10 (revisit THE-101)
The single most common objection you'll face to the Oneness position is Jesus' own baptism: “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:16–17). Read quickly, this looks like three distinct persons appearing in one scene — the Son standing in the water, the Spirit descending visibly, and the Father's voice from heaven — and it is the strongest single text a Trinitarian believer will raise.
The honest, careful Oneness answer does not deny what the text says; it explains it through the incarnation itself. Jesus at His baptism is fully human as well as fully God (Colossians 2:9, studied in THE-101 and THE-202) — the man standing in the Jordan is the Word made flesh, while the voice from heaven and the descending Spirit are the same one God relating to His own incarnate Son from beyond the limits of that human body at that specific moment. This is not three eternal persons who have always coexisted; it is the one God, who has taken on genuine humanity in Christ, expressing Himself in more than one mode at once during the very event that inaugurates Christ's public ministry — something the incarnation itself makes possible, since God relating to His own flesh is not the same problem as three permanently distinct persons would be. Good apologetics here means stating the Trinitarian reading of this passage as fairly and fully as a Trinitarian believer would state it themselves, then answering that full version, not a weaker caricature of it.
Key terms: Matthew 3:16–17's three-part scene, The incarnation as the explanatory key, Colossians 2:9 applied to the baptism scene, Steelmanning the strongest objection
Discussion Questions
- Can you state the Trinitarian reading of Jesus' baptism fairly, in a way a Trinitarian believer would agree accurately describes their view?
- What is your best, most careful Oneness answer to it, stated in a way that doesn't dodge what the text actually says?
Challenge: Write out the strongest Trinitarian argument from Matthew 3:16–17, in full, followed immediately by your best point-by-point response, in your own words.
Week 2: Textual Criticism Basics
Reading: General reading: manuscript transmission of the New Testament
A basic, honest answer to whether we can trust the Bible we have today matters for anyone teaching others. The New Testament is supported by thousands of Greek manuscripts, far more than any other ancient document, allowing scholars to compare copies and identify with high confidence what the original text said; textual variants that do exist are overwhelmingly minor (spelling, word order) and none affect a major doctrine. Knowing this doesn't require becoming a Greek scholar, but a working answer to 'hasn't the Bible been changed over time' will come up, and a calm, informed response builds far more trust than a defensive one.
Key terms: Manuscript evidence, Textual variants, Textual transmission, Confidence in the text
Discussion Questions
- Have you ever been asked whether the Bible has been 'changed' over the centuries? How did you answer, and how would you answer now?
Challenge: Find one reputable, free summary of New Testament manuscript evidence and write a two-sentence answer you could give someone who raises this objection.
Week 3: A Brief Comparative Religion Overview
Reading: Acts 17:22–31 (revisit); 1 Peter 3:15
Peter's instruction to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” assumes you'll actually encounter people from other beliefs and need to respond thoughtfully rather than dismissively. A basic working knowledge of the major world religions and other Christian traditions, what they actually teach in their own terms rather than a rumor of what they teach, lets you find genuine common ground where it exists and identify real differences accurately where they don't, following Paul's model at Athens of starting from what an audience already believes rather than attacking it outright.
Key terms: 1 Peter 3:15, Meekness in apologetics, Understanding before responding, Common ground vs. real difference
Discussion Questions
- Where have you seen a conversation about faith go badly because someone argued against a caricature rather than what the other person actually believes?
- What common ground might you find with someone from a different faith background before addressing differences?
Challenge: Pick one other faith tradition you know the least about and find one accurate, neutral summary of its core beliefs, written by an adherent if possible.
Course Exam
Five questions for review or self-testing.
Q: What is the Oneness explanation for the baptism of Jesus, where Father, Son, and Spirit seem to appear distinctly?
Reveal Answer
The one God relating to His own incarnate Son from more than one vantage point, consistent with a genuine incarnation, not three separate persons.
Q: Why does the number of New Testament manuscripts matter for textual confidence?
Reveal Answer
Thousands of manuscripts allow scholars to compare copies and identify the original text with high confidence; existing variants are minor and don't affect major doctrine.
Q: What does 1 Peter 3:15 instruct believers to be ready to do?
Reveal Answer
Give an answer for the hope within them, with meekness and fear.
Q: What is 'steelmanning' an argument?
Reveal Answer
Representing the opposing view in its strongest, most accurate form before responding to it.
Q: What model does Paul give at Athens (Acts 17) for engaging other beliefs?
Reveal Answer
Starting from what the audience already believes to build a bridge, rather than attacking outright.