What is Christian Apologetics?
One thing it is not is having to apologize
to any one for believing on Jesus Christ with your whole heart and soul.
When you understand what Christianity really is, there is less reason to
avoid it.
Should you be defending your
Christian beliefs?
I am going to say yes. Not that God
needs to be defended, but you should know what you believe and why you
believe. A couple of simple reasons would start with you will be
stronger in your own faith when you see that it is not so blind.
Another is you will do a better job of telling others of the good news
of Jesus Christ when you know what you are talking about.
This page hold's a view I share with other
Christians that believe you have a responsibility to get up off your backside
and do what you can to share the gospel of Jesus Christ. I like the
way the late Dr. Walter Martin would paraphrase I Peter 3:15 "To every
man an answer"
So far we have apologetic articles by
Doug Groothuis and Ron Rhodes.
We hope to continue to gather more.
SIX ENEMIES OF APOLOGETIC
ENGAGEMENT
by Doug Groothuis
The evangelical world today suffers from
apologetic anemia. Despite the
fact that holy scripture calls believers
to give a reason for the hope we
have in Christ (1 Peter 3:15; see also Jude
3), we sadly lack a public
voice for truth and reason in the marketplace
of ideas. We do not have a
strong intellectual presence in popular or
academic culture (although
some areas, such as philosophy, are more
influenced by evangelicals than
others). The reasons for this anemia are
multidimensional and complex.
Three recent books explore the lack of a
“Christian mind” in
contemporary evangelicalism, and I highly
recommend them. Mark
Noll’s The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind
(Eerdmans, 1994) explores
the historical roots of evangelical anti-intellectualism.
Os Guinness’s Fit
Bodies, Fat Minds (Baker Books, 1994), discusses
some of the historical
problems and also outlines what a Christian
mind should look like. J.P.
Moreland’s Love Your God with all of Your
Mind (Navpress, 1997)
explains why Christians don't think, develops
a biblical theology of the
mind, and offers helpful apologetic arguments
and strategies to empower
the church intellectually.
1. INDIFFERENCE
Too many Christians don't seem to care that
Christianity is routinely
ridiculed as outdated, irrational, and narrow-minded
in our culture. They
may complain that this “offends” them (just
as everyone else is
complaining that one thing or another “offends”
them), but they do little
to counteract the charges by offering a defense
of the Christian world
view in a variety of settings. Yet
Scripture commands all Christians to
have a reason for the hope that is within
them and to present this with
gentleness and respect to unbelievers (1
Peter 3:15). Our attitude should
be that of the Apostle Paul who was “greatly
distressed” when he beheld
the idolatry of sophisticated Athens.
This zeal for the truth of God led
him into a fruitful apologetic encounter
with the thinkers gathered to
debate new ideas (see Acts 17). It
should for us as well. Just as God “so
loved the world” that he sent Jesus to set
us right with God (John 3:16),
Jesus’ disciples should so love the world
that they endeavor to reach the
lost by presenting the Gospel and answering
objections to the Christian
faith (John 17:18).
2. IRRATIONALISM
For some Christians, faith means
belief in the absence of evidence and
argument. Worse yet, for some faith
means belief in spite of evidence to
the contrary. The more irrational our beliefs,
the better--the more
“spiritual” they are. Although Paul
teaches in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 that
God makes foolish “the wisdom of this world”
(because it is false
wisdom), God’s revelation is not irrational;
nor must belief in it be
irrationally held. God does not require us
to suspend our critical faculties
in order to believe what he has made known.
Through Isaiah, God
declares to Israel, “Come let us reason together”
(Isaiah 1:18). Jesus
commanded us to love God with all of our
minds (Matthew 22:37).
When Christians opt for irrationalism, they
become just another
“religious option,” and are classified along
with Heaven’s Gate, the Flat
Earth Society, and other intellectually impaired
groups. In the wake of
the Heaven’s Gate suicide, several major
magazines such as Esquire,
Newsweek, and US News and World Report claimed
that the faith of
those who ended their life in accordance
with Marshall Applewhite’s
science fiction religion were no stranger
that Christians, who believe
ridiculous things as well. Sadly, the
behavior of some Christians gives
impetus to such accusations.
3. IGNORANCE
Many Christians are not aware of the tremendous
intellectual resources
available to defend “the faith that was once
for all entrusted to the saints”
(Jude 3). This is largely because many
major churches and parachurch
organizations virtually ignore apologetics.
One major campus ministry
with a fine history and an otherwise splendid
program offers no materials
to help students deal with the unbelief emanating
from their secular
professors. Few evangelical sermons
ever address the evidence for the
existence of God, the resurrection of Jesus,
the justice of hell, the
supremacy of Christ, or the logical problems
with non-Christian
worldviews. Christian bestsellers,
with rare exceptions, indulge in
groundless apocalyptic speculations, exalt
Christian celebrities (whose
characters often do not fit their notoriety),
and revel in how-to methods.
You can tell much about a movement by what
it reads, and by what it
does not read.
4. COWARDICE
In our pluralistic culture, a “live and let
live” attitude is the norm, and a
capitulation to social pressure haunts evangelicalism
and drains its
convictions. Too many evangelicals
are more concerned about being
“nice” and “tolerant” than being biblical
or faithful to the exclusive
Gospel found in their Bibles. Not enough
evangelicals are willing to
present and defend their faith in challenging
situations, whether at
school, at work, or in other public settings.
The temptation is to privatize
faith, to insulate and isolate it from public
life entirely. Yes, we are
Christians (in our hearts), but we have difficulty
engaging anyone with
what we believe and why we believe it.
This is nothing less than
cowardice and a betrayal of what we say we
believe.
Consider Paul’s inspired
request for prayer and his admonition to us:
“Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful
and thankful. And pray for
us, too that God may open a door for our
message, so that we may
proclaim the mystery of Christ for which
I am in chains. Pray that I may
proclaim it clearly as I should. Be
wise in the way you act toward
outsiders; make the most of every opportunity.
Let your conversation be
always full of grace, seasoned with salt,
so that you may know how to
answer everyone” (Colossians 4:2-6).
We may experience rejection; but Jesus called
those who are persecuted
for his name’s sake “blessed.” “Blessed are
you when people insult you,
persecute you and falsely say all kinds of
evil against you because of me.
Rejoice and be glad, because great is your
reward in heaven, for in the
same way they persecuted the prophets who
were before you” (Matthew
5:11-12). The Apostle Peter echoes his Master:
“If you are insulted
because of the name of Christ, you are blessed,
for the Spirit of glory and
of God rests on you” (1 Peter 4:14).
On the other hand, when the Holy Spirit blesses
our efforts, people will
respond with interest and even saving faith
(Romans 1:16). We must
never forget that Jesus has all authority
in heaven and on earth, and that
he has commissioned us to declare and defend
his Gospel (Matthew
28:18-20).
5. ARROGANCE
AND INTELLECTUAL VANITY
At the other end of the spectrum of error
lies the arrogance of the
know-it-all apologist, who is more interested
in displaying his or her
arsenal of arguments than in defending the
truth in a godly manner. The
besetting sin of apologetics is intellectual
pride, and it must be avoided at
all costs. The truth we defend is a
gift of grace, not our intellectual
achievement. We develop our apologetic
skills to sanctify ourselves in
the truth, to win souls for Christ, and to
glorify God. We must “speak
the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15). Truth
without love is arrogance; love
without truth is sentimentality.
Arrogance also occurs when some apologists
accuse other believers of
heresy without sufficient evidence.
Paul told the early church leaders to
expect heresy in its midst and to be on their
guard against it (Acts
20:28-31). We should do the same.
However, we must be vigilant not to
slander fellow Christians or to assume the
worst about them. I know of
this error first- hand, having myself once
been accused of being New
Age because a critic horribly misread one
portion of one my anti-New
Age book, Unmasking the New Age!
Let’s not waste our apologetic
energies attacking other believers when real
heretics and unbelievers cry
out for refutation and correction.
6. SUPERFICIAL
TECHNIQUES OR SCHLOCK APOLOGETICS
Some who get excited about apologetics may
become content with
superficial answers to difficult intellectual
questions. Our culture revels
in rapid responses to most anything, and
technique is king. Some
Christians memorize pat answers to apologetic
questions--such as the
problem of evil or the creation/evolution
controversy--which they
dispense without a proper engagement of the
issues and without an
empathetic concern for the soul that raises
the question. I once saw a
little book called something like The Handy,
Dandy Evolution Refuter.
Yes, macro-evolution is false, and good arguments
have been raised
against it from both nature and Scripture,
but the matter is not as
simplistic as the title of that book makes
it sound. Apologetics must been
done with intellectual integrity.
Francis Schaeffer’s apologetic motto was
that we must give “honest
answers to honest questions.” First,
we must really hear the question
being asked or the objection being raised.
We must get inside the minds
of those who are giving reasons for not following
Christ. Each person is
different, not matter how common some skeptical
objections may be.
Don’t reduce people to clichés.
Second, respond to what you hear. Don’t
answer a question that was not
asked. Such a superficial approach
will not impress the thoughtful
unbeliever. If you cannot come up with a
sound answer to the objection
at the time, don't try to hide your ignorance
or inability. Honestly
admitting your limitations is better than
giving a shoddy answer. Tell the
person that it is a good point and you need
to think more about it.
Christianity is absolutely true; but this
doesn’t imply that any one
Christian can handle absolutely any objection
raised against it. We
should avoid apologetic techniques, and instead
develop intellectual
resources and cultivate real dialogue with
unbelievers.
Walter Martin rightly said that the evangelical
church was a sleeping
giant, and he endeavored mightily to awaken
it to its God-given potential
to present the Gospel and defend it against
skeptical and cultic
objections. With this legacy in mind,
may we rekindle this vision and
find the passion and wisdom to put it into
effect through the power of the
Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8).
--Douglas Groothuis, PH.D. teaches philosophy
at Denver Seminary and
is the author of seven books, the most recent
being The Soul in
Cyberspace (Baker,1997). Posted with
permission.
To visit Doug's page click this sword:
Strategies for Dialoguing
with Atheists
by Ron Rhodes
No one is born an atheist. People choose to become atheists as much as
they choose to become Christians. And no matter how strenuously some
may try to deny it, atheism is a belief system. It requires faith that
God
does not exist.
When dialoguing with atheists, it is helpful to point out the logical problems
inherent in their belief system. If you succeed in showing an atheist the
natural outcome of some of his (or her) main claims and arguments, you
are in a much better position to share the gospel with him. Let us consider
two prime examples here.
(1) "There is no God." Some atheists categorically state that there is
no
God, and all atheists, by definition, believe it. And yet, this assertion
is
logically indefensible. A person would have to be omniscient and
omnipresent to be able to say from his own pool of knowledge that there
is no God. Only someone who is capable of being in all places at the same
time - with a perfect knowledge of all that is in the universe - can make
such a statement based on the facts. To put it another way, a person
would have to be God in order to say there is no God.
This point can be forcefully emphasized by asking the atheist if he has
ever
visited the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. Mention that the
library presently contains over 70 million items (books, magazines,
journals, etc.). Also point out that hundreds of thousands of these were
written by scholars and specialists in the various academic fields. Then
ask
the following question: "What percentage of the collective knowledge
recorded in the volumes in this library would you say are within your own
pool of knowledge and experience?" The atheist will likely respond, "I
don't know. I guess a fraction of one percent." You can then ask: "Do you
think it is logically possible that God may exist in the 99.9 percent that
is
outside your pool of knowledge and experience?" Even if the atheist
refuses to admit the possibility, you have made your point and he knows
it.
(2) "I don't believe in God because there is so much evil in the world."
Many atheists consider the problem of evil an airtight proof that God does
not exist. They often say something like: "I know there is no God because
if He existed, He never would have let Hitler murder six million Jews."
A good approach to an argument like this is to say something to this effect:
"Since you brought up this issue, the burden lies on you to prove that
evil
actually exists in the world. So let me ask you: by what criteria do you
judge some things to be evil and other things not to be evil? By what
process do you distinguish evil from good?" The atheist may hedge and
say: "I just know that some things are evil. It's obvious." Don't accept
such
an evasive answer. Insist that he tell you how he knows that some things
are evil. He must be forced to face the illogical foundation of his belief
system.
After he struggles with this a few moments, point out to him that it is
impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite reference
point which is absolutely good. Otherwise one is like a boat at sea on
a
cloudy night without a compass (i.e., there would be no way to distinguish
north from south without the absolute reference point of the compass
needle).
The infinite reference point for distinguishing good from evil can only
be
found in the person of God, for God alone can exhaust the definition of
"absolutely good." If God does not exist, then there are no moral absolutes
by which one has the right to judge something (or someone) as being evil.
More specifically, if God does not exist, there is no ultimate basis to
judge
the crimes of Hitler. Seen in this light, the reality of evil actually
requires the
existence of God, rather than disproving it.
At this point, the atheist may raise the objection that if God does in
fact
exist, then why hasn't He dealt with the problem of evil in the world.
You
can disarm this objection by pointing out that God is dealing with the
problem of evil, but in a progressive way. The false assumption on the
part
of the atheist is that God's only choice is to deal with evil all at once
in a
single act. God, however, is dealing with the problem of evil throughout
all
human history. One day in the future, Christ will return, strip power away
from the wicked, and hold all men and women accountable for the things
they did during their time on earth. Justice will ultimately prevail. Those
who enter eternity without having trusted in Christ for salvation will
understand just how effectively God has dealt with the problem of evil.
If the atheist responds that it shouldn't take all of human history for
an
omnipotent God to solve the problem of evil, you might respond by saying:
"Ok. Let's do it your way. Hypothetically speaking, let's say that at this
very moment, God declared that all evil in the world will now simply cease
to exist. Every human being on the planet - present company included -
would simply vanish into oblivion. Would this solution be preferable to
you?"
The atheist may argue that a better solution must surely be available.
He
may even suggest that God could have created man in such a way that
man would never sin, thus avoiding evil altogether. This idea can be
countered by pointing out that such a scenario would mean that man is no
longer man. He would no longer have the capacity to make choices. This
scenario would require that God create robots who act only in
programmed ways.
If the atheist persists and says there must be a better solution to the
problem of evil, suggest a simple test. Give him about five minutes to
formulate a solution to the problem of evil that (1) does not destroy human
freedom, or (2) cause God to violate His nature (e.g., His attributes of
absolute holiness, justice, and mercy) in some way. After five minutes,
ask
him what he came up with. Don't expect much of an answer.
Your goal, of course, is not simply to tear down the atheist's belief system.
After demonstrating some of the logical impossibilities of his claims,
share
with him some of the logical evidence for redemption in Jesus Christ, and
the infinite benefits that it brings. Perhaps through your witness and
prayers
his faith in atheism will be overturned by a newfound faith in Christ.
--Dr. Ron Rhodes, President of "Reasoning
from the Scriptures Ministries"
Adjunct Professor of Theology at Southern
Evangelical Seminary, Charlotte, N C.
Adjunct Professor of Theology at Golden Gate
Seminary, Southern California.
Posted with permission.
To visit Ron's page click this sword:
This article is from the REASONING FROM THE
SCRIPTURES Newsletter, a free
monthly Internet newsletter available by
writing ronrhodes@earthlink.net
with the
word "subscribe" in your post.
FSBCI
(Gill Rapoza is your host)