Week 14: Chapter 13 — The Verdict of History: What Do We Do With Jesus?

1.The authors present Christianity not as one option among many spiritually equivalent paths, but as the conclusion demanded by the evidence. How does the cumulative structure of the argument — each chapter building on the last — support this conclusion differently than a single isolated argument would?

2.Geisler and Turek address the question of what to do with people who have never heard the gospel. How do they navigate this question? Does their response satisfy you, and how does it interact with the moral argument from Chapter 7 (that God has written His law on every heart)?

3.The authors argue that the exclusivity of Christianity — 'no one comes to the Father except through me' (John 14:6) — is actually a mark of intellectual honesty rather than arrogance, because all truth claims exclude their contradictions. How would you make this point in a conversation with someone who found Christian exclusivity offensive?