The Cruciality of Christian Apologetics

Are there biblical basis for our engagement in apologetics ?

Some people imagine that the word "apologetics" is a foreign word that is imposed upon theological ideas. This is not so. It is a word that comes right out of the Scripture.

The word "apologetics" comes from the Greek work "apologia" which means "a defence." There are times when the word is used as a legal metaphor in a court of law describing the defendant's rational reply to the charge of the prosecution. At other times the word is used to describe a reply to a crowd in an informal situation.

In Scripture, the word "apologia" is used is the following situations:

* In Acts 22:1, when Paul faced the lynch-mob on the steps of Jerusalem, he said: "Give me a hearing while I make an "apologia" or a "defence".

* In Acts 25:16, Festus says: "It is not the Roman practice to hand over any accused man before he is given an opportunity of answering the charges."

* Before King Agrippa, "Paul with many gestures presented his "apologia". Acts 26:1.

* A simple usage is found in Phil 1:17, where Paul says: "I am put here for the "apologia" of the gospel".

* In Phil 1:7 Paul says: "You are all partakers with me of grace both in imprisonment and in the "apologia" and confirmation of the gospel".

* In fact the very first instance of preaching of the Christian faith opened with an impeccable statement of the defence of the faith, Acts 2:14ff.

The preaching of the gospel will be met with resistance. The Christian is urged to pit himself against this resistance. And Christian apologetics seek to engage itself in the three basic tasks:

* to present the facts of the case
* to assert the impossibility of the non-Christian position
* to affirm the rationality of the Christian position

Before we go further, the prior question of the legitimacy of Christian Apologetics cannot be taken for granted. Is doing Christian apologetics even appropriate?

The Difference between Conviction and Demonstration

There are those who argue that you can never argue a person into faith. Now that, at best, is only half the truth . Surely without the Holy Spirit's conviction on a person's mind and heart, nothing that we do will ever have any effect on anyone. Of course you can never argue a man into faith. But then by the same token, you can't even witness a person into faith, and you can't preach a person into faith.

If our apologetics wins no souls for Christ, then by that same token, neither is our witnessing or our preaching going to win anyone for Christ. It is simply the case that no human person could save a soul. Didn't Jesus say: "Flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but my Father who is in heaven" Mt 16:17.

This objection comes a position that does not take into account that there is a world of a difference between demonstration and conviction. We may demonstrate the fact of Christianity to be true. But we cannot convict anyone of the truth of our demonstration.

This delicate balance between demonstrating and conviction is beautifully illustrated for us in Acts 5:32. "We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him." In real life, a person by the name of Lydia bore this out. It is documented for us in Acts 16:14 that "the Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul". Whilst it takes a human person like Paul to demonstrate the truth of our faith, it is finally the Holy Spirit who clinches the case of his demonstration. But let me go one step further.

The Argumentative New Testament

While it is true that the apologist should never substitute argument for preaching, we must not forget that in the New Testament, there is a large element of the argumentative mode of witnessing.

The words Paul uses in the NT are strongly argumentative words - reason, dispute, refute, debate, and the like. Go through Acts 19ff and you will not miss out on the spirit of this mode of witnessing.

For two years, Paul presented the validity of the Christian faith in a lecture hall in Tyranus, with the result that the whole population of the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord. Ac. 19:10.

It is interesting that the Western text of the Greek adds: "From the fifth hour to the tenth hour, daily." Now that's engaging in an apologetic defence of the faith, for two years, from 11 am to 4 pm daily. That's huge!

Greshen Machen rightly says that "a Christianity that avoids arguments is a Christianity that's foreign to the New Testament."

What About Colossians 2:8?

Some people have pointed out that Scripture itself warns us against any intellectual philosophising of our faith when in Colossians 2:8, Paul warns us: "Beware let no one spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit".

But is this a ban placed on philosophising?

In the Greek text, the use of one preposition "dia" ("through"), and the absence of the definite article before the second noun "apates" ("deceit"), should inform us that Paul is warning the church at Colossae against a particular philosophy of the false teachers. The NIV is clearer here: "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy".

Far from it being a warning against the practice of philosophy, it is a warning against a specific form of philosophy.

In fact a closer look at the verse will logically inform us that we cannot beware of false philosophy unless we are first aware of it, and be conversant with it. You simply cannot rebut an error unless you first recognise it.

What About 1 Corinthians 1:18?

Was it not said, some have asked, that "the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God"? And doesn't the Bible say that "God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise?"

From reading such texts, some have argued that we don't have to present Christianity as rational because the Bible does not seem to affirm the place of rationality in our witnessing.

The word "foolishness" here refers to foolishness to the "hubris" or "pride". It should not be interpreted to mean that the gospel is foolishness to the "ratio" or "reason".(I Cor 1:18/ 1:20/1:21/ 1:23 /1:25 1:27/ 2:14/ 3:19)

Don't Be Like Mules

A mindless Christianity is a contradiction in terms. Surely part of what it means to be made in God's image is to be rational. Animals may have instinct but fundamentally they have no rationality. Didn't the psalmist say: "Don't be like horses and mules without understanding". The Bible is not interested in the absurd and the irrational. The Bible knows nothing of a blind faith; neither upholds it. In fact, blindness, in the face of revealed truth, is the curse of a depraved mind.

The New Testament may urge us to crucified our pride but never our intellect. Paul says in Eph 6:14 "Gird yourself with the belt of truth". It has the picture of trimming the flabbiness of uncritical thinking and the charge to "think Christianly".

Christ Himself put a high premium on truth. He was in fact the very incarnation of truth. Indeed our Lord believes that the very first commandment should read: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37).

We cannot forge an artificial dichotomy between mind and heart

Scholarship and devotion go hand in hand as church history abundantly shows us. In fact the failure by Christians to gird themselves with the truth has sapped the intellectual confidence of Christianity. Is it any wonder why we are producing Christians who have become mere caricatures of Christianity rather than imitators of Christ.

Not Simply a Nice Idea

But apologetics is not just a biblical ideal. It is a biblical injunction. In I Peter 3:15, the apostle puts it this way: "Sanctify Christ in your heart. Always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and meekness."

The question is not whether we should philosophise or not. From the peasant to the philosopher, everybody philosophises. The question is whether we will be a good philosopher or a bad one!

A Great Time to be Alive

Os Guinness has pointed out that this is a great time to be alive where the task of apologetics is concerned. Unbelief has rarely been so unsure of itself as today. The case for unbelief is perhaps at its weakest for centuries. In the academic realm, especially in the philosophical realm, this is such an exciting time for the church.

Some of the most serious obstacles to faith have disappeared. Reason and faith are no longer considered to be necessarily incompatible one with the other as was once thought. Spiritual beliefs are no longer considered to be intellectually disreputable. There was a time when people believed that we could draw a clear line between science on the one hand and religion on the other. Not so now. We are living in a time when both spiritual and scientific justification of belief stand on equal footing.

So of all time, this is not the time for slumber. It is a great time to stand up for the defence of our faith.

But the church must not make the mistake of reducing the task of apologetics to a segment of the life of the church. It needs to creatively encompass every ministry of the church - in our preaching, teaching, writing and training. It must not be allowed to become a dry, stuffy intellectual affair. Rather it should be but something which arises out of a sanctified heart, as Peter sees it. Far from being the luxury of a selected few, the task of apologetics needs to be a part of the whole thrust of the churches' witness to society. The defence never rests.

We must be in the process of constructing our battering ram, so that one day we may bring it up against the citadel of falsehood!