By: Dr.Paul Coulter
No
one is converted through apologetics?
 |
| Acts 26:28 |
B] Objections from
outside the Bible
1. Logic cannot tell
us anything about God
This statement is self defeating since it relies on internal logic as
the basis for its claim. Logic is simply the way in which we state facts and
make claims. In this sense it is impossible to say anything at all about God or
anything else without employing logic. As Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli write [6]:
Most people scorn or ignore apologetics because
it seems very intellectual, abstract and rational. They contend that life and love and morality and sanctity are
much more important than reason. Those who reason this way are right; they just
don’t notice that they are reasoning. We can’t avoid doing it, we can only
avoid doing it well.
They explain the relationship between the language of logic and
argument and the reality of the world we live in [7]:
We write in terms, propositions and arguments
because we think in concepts, judgments and reasoning; and we do this because
the reality we think about includes essences, facts and causes. Terms express
concepts which express essences. Propositions express judgments which express
facts. And arguments express reasoning which expresses causes, real ‘becauses’
and ‘whys’.
Since Christians believe in a God who speaks using human language we
must be committed to the belief that language can describe reality in a way
that is comprehensible. Although we do not claim we can know every truth about
the causes, ‘becauses’ and ‘whys’ of the universe, we do believe that God has
created us in His image as rational people who can comprehend those causes,
’becauses’ and ’whys’ that God has revealed to us through the ordering of
nature, through His actions in history and through His words recorded in
Scripture.
2. Logic cannot prove
the existence of anything
This may be true, but logic can show what things are possible and
impossible and even whether something is probable or improbable. Logic,
therefore, can point towards the existence of God and the truth of
Christianity, even if faith is required to finally embrace it. We can apply the
same thinking to relationships – logic can help us decide whether we are loved,
but it cannot prove love – love must be experienced. Apologetics helps to bring
people to a point where they can enter into relationship with Christ. Part of
the problem with this objection is that it depends on the definition of
’prove’. Very few, if any, things in life can actually be proved conclusively
through logic, yet we live as if many things are true. Our knowledge of the world
depends on experience as well as reason. Both are valid ways of discovering
truth about our world.
3. No one is
converted through apologetics
Whilst apologetics without the gospel is not enough, there is plenty
of evidence that God has used apologetic evidence to bring people to Christ.
C.S. Lewis wrote that, “nearly everyone I
know who has embraced Christianity in adult life has been influenced by what
seemed to him to be at least a probable argument for Theism”[8].
Testimonies of people like Frank Morrison and Augustine support this claim. It
is one thing to argue that arguments cannot make a person believe, but quite another
to argue from this fact that arguments have no part in the process of moving a
person towards faith. In the words of Gresham Machen [9]:
But, because argument is insufficient, it does
not follow that it is unnecessary. What the Holy Spirit does in the new birth
is not to make a person a Christian regardless of the evidence, but on the
contrary to clear away the mists from his eyes and enable him to attend to the
evidence.
Again, in the words of Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, “Arguments may not bring you to faith, but
they can certainly keep you away from faith. Therefore we must join the battle
of arguments.”[10]
A Biblical Case for
the Task of Apologetics
A number of New Testament passages are key to helping us understand
why we should engage in apologetics and how we should do it. We will consider
each of these passages in the order in which they appear in the New Testament,
outlining principles for apologetics
that arises from them as we do so:
Acts 17:14 – “He
reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving …”
This passage speaks of Paul’s activity in Thessalonica amongst the
Jews. He went to where they were in the synagogue and he “reasoned with them
from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and
rise from the dead“. Paul started with what these Jewish people knew, the Old
Testament, and sought to convince them from it of the fact that the Messiah had
to die and rise, so that he could then tell them that Jesus was the Christ. He
was making a logical case for the gospel that he proclaimed, removing the
barrier in their minds that said the Messiah could not have suffered as Jesus
did. The result was that some were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas – their
persuasion was a necessary precursor to their "joining", which
implies conversion. The word translated “reasoned” is significant because it
means dialogue. Paul’s arguments were not preprepared and predelivered, they
arose in the context of interaction, questions and debate. This is a vital
reminder that apologetics is an engagement with people. The same word is used
throughout Acts to describe Paul’s approach in different contexts – in Athens
both in the synagogue and the marketplace (17:17), in Corinth in the synagogue with
Jews and Greeks (18:4) and in Ephesus, first for three months in the synagogue
and then daily over the course of two
years in a rented lecture hall (19:810).
●Biblical apologetics seeks to persuade
people of the truth of Christianity so that they can believe in Jesus
●Biblical apologetics is not a theoretical
exercise – it engages in dialogue with real people with real questions
Acts 17:2234– “He has given proof of this by raising him
from the dead”
In this section of Acts we find Paul in a predominantly Gentile
context. His approach to proclaiming the gospel is quite different from his
approach among the Jews described earlier in the chapter (see above). With the
Jews and Gentile God fearers he started with the Old Testament Scriptures which
were familiar to them and which they already accepted as true. In Athens,
however, he was among Gentiles who were immersed in Greek thinking. His
starting points in communicating his message were therefore:
a) Greek
religion – he used a statue dedicated to the “unknown God” as a starting point
to explain that they did not actually know the one true God who had created
them. He had identified a fault line in their religious thinking – an uncertainty
about the true nature and number of the gods – and he used this foothold to
begin to demolish their worldview.
b) Greek
philosophy – Paul was sufficiently well versed in the writings of Greek
philosopher poets to be able to quote one of them (verse 28). He was able to
use the truth within their own belief system, however limited it was, as a
platform from which to proclaim the whole message of God of which that truth
was part.
Using these starting points he then dangled before them a hook – that
the one true God has appointed a man to be judge and that the proof of this was
that this man had risen from the dead (verse 31). Whether Paul was cut short at
this point by the opposition of some of his audience (verse 32) or whether he
deliberately ended his speech at this point with a ‘cliffhanger’ intended to
provoke further discussion we cannot be sure. It is important to notice,
however, that he presents the resurrection of Jesus as a key apologetic
evidence for the truth of Christianity. Other New Testament passages show that this
confidence in the resurrection as the proof of Jesus identity was central to
the apostles’ proclamation of the gospel (see Acts 2:32 ; Romans 1:4 ; 1 Corinthians.)
This record of Paul’s activity in Athens is sometimes criticised as a
failure. It is suggested that it was an attempt by Paul to foray into a
different approach and that because it was unsuccessful he reverted to his
typical approach based on the Scriptures in the next city he visited, Corinth
(Acts 18). This claim is unfair, however, as some, albeit “a few”, of Paul’s listeners
in Athens did become Christians including at least one member of the Areopagus
(verse 34). In addition, as we shall see when we consider 2 Corinthians 10:35, Paul
did use reason in his work in Corinth. The smaller response among the audience
in Athens is likely to have been because it was a less receptive mission field,
one that was steeped in Greek ideas and therefore whose people were not easily
persuaded. The different approaches Paul took in different cities and contexts
should actually be read as a skilful apologetic approach that understood the
culture and found common ground from which to begin to persuade people of the
truth of the gospel. It is an example of Paul becoming “all things to all men”
as he told the Corinthians he normally did for the sake of the gospel (note he
was contextualising the same unchanging gospel into different cultures) so
that he could win some people for Christ (1Corinthians 9:1923).
Apologetics must work from an understanding of the culture and
worldview of the people being reached. It should then start from their current
beliefs to build a case for the Christian faith. Acts 17 is a helpful biblical
example of positive apologetics in a cross cultural context.
The three different responses of people in Paul’s audience (verses
3234) also highlight three aims of apologetics:
●Some
sneered – apologetics seeks to confront false ideas with truth
●Some
said they wanted to hear more – apologetics seeks to interest people in the
claims of the gospel
●Some
believed – apologetics seeks to persuade people to believe in Christ
Once again we are reminded that apologetics cannot be separated from
evangelism and that its goal is not simply to win intellectual debates, but to
provoke people to consider the gospel and ultimately to trust in Christ.
●Biblical
apologetics recognises the resurrection of Jesus as a key argument for the
truth of the gospel
●Biblical
apologetics starts from an understanding of people’s worldview to build bridges
to Christian truth
●Biblical
apologetics expects a response – it aims to confront, provoke interest and
persuade
Acts 26:2429 – “What I am saying is true and reasonable”
In Acts 26 Paul is making a legal defence (an apologia, verse 2)
against the accusations of the Jews before the Roman Governor Festus and King
Agrippa, the son of the Herod Agrippa who had reigned during Jesus’ ministry
and execution. After explaining the gospel to Festus Paul was able to say that
his words were both true and reasonable – he appealed to Festus to listen to
his message both because it was true but also because it made sense. There was
no contradiction in Paul’s minds between the gospel and reason, proclaiming the
message of Jesus and using sound arguments for it.
Apologetics seeks to show that the Christian message is true and that
it is reasonable, both in terms of internal logical coherence and its power to
explain the world and our experience within it. During this same encounter Paul
also turned to King Agrippa, who was present, and asked him if he believed the
prophets. Agrippa felt that Paul was trying to “persuade” him to be a
Christian. A key apologetic argument for Paul, as we have already seen in Acts 17:14, particularly
amongst Jews was the fact that Christianity fulfilled Old Testament prophecy.
This was also an important line of argument for the Second Century apologists
and it remains so in modern apologetics.
●Biblical
apologetics seeks to show that the Christian message is both true and
reasonable
●Biblical
apologetics recognises fulfilled prophecy as an important line of evidence for
the truth of the gospel
Romans 1:1820,2:1415 – “what may be known about God … God has made
… plain to them”
These passages are important because they lay the foundation for the
classical approach to apologetics. Paul speaks of two kinds of testimony that
are available even to people who have not known the Scriptures or the gospel.
These are what we might call general revelation since they are available to
everyone, but contrast with special revelation (Scripture and the gospel) which
only some have heard. The two witnesses are:
a) Creation
(1:1820) God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, are
seen in what He has made. Paul is not claiming that people can know all that
can be known about God from Creation, but that some things about Him can be
known. Most importantly it is possible, and logical, to know from creation that
God exists, and we can also say some things about what He is like – for example
He must be intelligent, rational, powerful and capable of relationships. As a
result, men are “without excuse” (verse 20) if they fail to acknowledge God’s
existence. This phrase is significant as it translates the Greek word
anapologētoi – literally they are “without an apology” or “without a defence”.
Paul continues in the rest of chapter 1 to describe how mankind wilfully
abandoned their knowledge about God, replacing Him with other gods, with the
result that God abandoned them to their own desires which, left without a
check, led them to every kind of sinful behaviour.
b) Conscience (2:15) The requirements of
the law are written on their hearts. Once again Paul is not saying that every
aspect of God’s law can be deduced from the human conscience or that it is a
foolproof guide as to what is right and wrong. The conscience has been damaged
by sin and people can even numb their own conscience by repeatedly ignoring it,
but still Paul argues that the conscience can act as a guide in morality. There
is a universal law written on human hearts.
Based on these verses we should expect to be able to build bridges to
the Christian faith from both people’s observations about the world (science)
and their innate sense of morality (conscience). We can construct arguments for
God’s existence from the recognition of design in nature and the experience of
goodness and guilt in the human heart. It must be noted that Paul’s primary
concern in Romans 12 is with explaining how nature and conscience leave human
beings without excuse and justifies God’s righteous judgement of all people,
but it is still valid to conclude from what he says that these means of ‘general
revelation’ can speak to people about the truth of the gospel.
●Biblical
apologetics can develop arguments for God’s existence from the nature of the
universe and from human nature
2 Corinthians 10:35– “We demolish arguments … and we take captive
every thought”
In these verses Paul describes his ministry in terms of warfare
against spiritual strongholds that take the form of arguments and pretensions
set against the knowledge of God. This provides a basis for offensive
apologetics (the sense is of actively storming strongholds rather than taking a
defensive stance), although it is likely that this will not be the task of
every believer but a specific calling of some, like Paul, whom God has called
for this purpose. It is essential to remember that apologetics is a spiritual
enterprise, no less than evangelism, and so we should approach it prayerfully
and with care.
●Biblical
apologetics is part of spiritual warfare against powers hostile to God – it
must be surrounded by prayer
●Biblical
apologetics at a higher intellectual level is a ministry entrusted by God to
specific individuals
Philippians1:7, 16 –“defending
and confirming the gospel”
Paul is in prison because he has engaged in defending the gospel
(verse 17). This process includes both defending and confirming the message –
clearly Paul engaged in both defensive and offensive apologetics. Notice,
however, that it is the gospel that Paul defends and confirms. For him the task
of apologetics always led to the gospel. We must never separate apologetics
from evangelism, since it is the gospel that saves, not simply evidential and
philosophical proofs of God’s existence and Christ’s historicity. We must seek
to lead people to the message of the cross, the claims of Christ and the implications
for their lives.
●Biblical
apologetics involves both defending the gospel against attack and proactively
building a case for the gospel
●Biblical
apologetics should always lead to the gospel, since it is the gospel that saves
1 Peter 3:1316– “Always be prepared to give an answer for
the hope that you have”
This passage provides a firm basis for defensive apologetics (dealing
with questions people ask) as it envisages believers providing an answer to
those who ask them why they have such hope. It teaches several key principles
for apologetics. Firstly, apologetics is the task of all believers, not simply
an intellectual elite – all should be prepared to give a defence. Secondly,
arguments cannot be separated from the power of a provocative lifestyle –
people should see our hope and ask us about it and our good behaviour should
make the strongest case for the truth we declare. We should be eager to “do
good” and this includes being eager to share our faith with others. Thirdly,
our confidence comes from knowing that Christ is Lord (Peter’s quote from Isaiah 8:12 in verse 14 of
his letter actually identifies Jesus as the LORD Almighty) – fear of Him is the
antidote to fear of man. Fourthly, our attitude in engaging should be humility
(not placing confidence in ourselves but in God) and fear of God (“respect” in
verse 15 really means reverence for God, not respect for the people who ask us
or for their beliefs, although proper respect is also important in our witness
according to 1 Peter 2:17.
Consider the following tagline from an apologetics website:
designed to help you engage your neighbors with
hard hitting evidence as to why society cannot survive without Christian truth,
and why it is indeed true. It is vital that believers be equipped in the battle
to defend Christian truth.
It is difficult to see how this language is consistent with humility
here. Do we really need to be “hard hitting” in our answers and do we really
want to “battle to defend”? Of course, we realise that there is a spiritual
battle ongoing (see 2
Corinthians 10:35)but we need to realise that the enemy is the spiritual
forces thatblind and ensnare people rather than the people themselves. We can
use strong arguments without being “hardhitting” towards the people we speak to. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli write[11]:
Apologetic arguments are like military
hardware... In this warfare we defend reason as well as faith, for reason is
the friend of truth, and unfaith is untrue. In defending the faith we take back
territory of the mind that is rightfully ours, or rather God’s... But the
warfare is against unbelief, not unbelievers... The goal of apologetics is not
victory but truth. Both sides win.
This passage helps us to overcome some common barriers Christians
identify when thinking about evangelism and apologetics:
Lack of interest:
a) On
their part – “everyone who asks you” – our different lives should provoke an
interest in them
b) On our
part – “if you are eager to do good” – we ought to have a desire to bless
others by sharing our hope
Lack of distinctiveness:
a) Our
actions – “good ... conscience ... conduct” – we must have clear consciences to
have confidence in sharing
b) Our
attitude – “Do not fear their fears ... your hope” – do we react differently to
the challenges of this world?
Lack of confidence – fear of:
a)
Rejection – “do not be afraid. Rather set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts”
– who do we fear? Man or God?
b)
Getting it wrong – “with humility” – we don’t have to have all the right
answers; we point to Christ, not ourselves
●Biblical
apologetics at the level of explaining the reason for our hope is the task of
all believers – all should be prepared
●Biblical
apologetics is pointless without a consistent Christian lifestyle – our hope
and goodness is the greatest apologetic
●Biblical
apologetics draws confidence from the Lordship of Christ – fear of God
eliminates fear of man
●Biblical
apologetics must be practiced with the correct attitude – humility and
dependence on God
NEXT: The Dynamic of Apologetic
Dialogue
SOURCE: An
Introduction to Christian Apologetics - bethinking.org
[6]P. Kreeft.& R. Tacelli Handbook of Christian Apologetics
(Monarch, 1994), pp.2021
[7]P. Kreeft & R. Tacelli Handbook of Christian Apologetics
(Monarch, 1994), pp.1718
[8]C.S. Lewis 'Is Theism Important' (1952), in God in the Dock.
[9]G. Machen, quoted in John Stott The Contemporary Christian (IVP,
1992), p.59
[10]P. Kreeft & R. Tacelli Handbook of Christian Apologetics
(Monarch, 1994), p.21
[11]P. Kreeft & R. Tacelli Handbook of Christian Apologetics
(Monarch, 1994), p.22
No comments:
Post a Comment