Truth On Tough Texts
ISSUE 38 -
2008
Apologetics
and the Gospel
1 Peter 3:15
About 36 years ago, in my first
semester OF
theology, my professor required a
3,000 word research paper on any subject that had been
covered during that semester. (Actually, I think my
passion for writing was ignited partially by that
event.) The topic I chose was one that had been
bothering me ever since we had dealt with it in class,
namely, the logical proofs for the existence of God.
These classic arguments were originally designed to
prove God’s existence rationally.
But even as a naïve,
know-nothing neophyte, this idea bothered me. “Is this
the way we should approach God?” I asked in my paper.
“Is this how we should ‘argue’ to a lost world?” It is
now, three and a half decades later, that I am still
troubled by this in a very popular form of evangelism
called apologetics.
What Is
Apologetics?
When we do something that
offends or hurts someone, we “apologize” or “make an
apology,” which is an admission of error. The source of
those English words, however, has a very different
meaning.
Here we quote our
text: But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and 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. The word answer translates the Greek
apologia, which is comprised of apo,
“from,” and logos, “speech.”
In Classical Greek, it was used as a legal term
referring to an attorney presenting a defense for his
client.
That idea is carried
over into the New Testament. Paul, for example, made a
“defense” before the people of Jerusalem for his
speaking against the Law in Acts 22:1. He also
“answered” Festus in defense of his faith (25:8; cf. v.
15), as well as Agrippa (26:1).
The question that
arises, however, is what does such a “defense” or
“answer” mean? Does it mean that in order to be an
effective witness for Christ we each must memorize reams
of facts about creation science so that we can shoot
down every argument the evolutionist raises? Does it
mean that we can’t possibly be effective in evangelism
if we can’t prove the accuracy of the Bible to the
atheist by reciting all the archeological evidences for
the existence of ancient cities mentioned in the
Bible?
A few months ago, I
heard a noted speaker say, “There is no [Church office]
of Apologist,” but he went on to insist nonetheless that
this kind of “elder” is crucial for the church today.
His ministry consists, then, of debates and open forums
with every ilk of unbeliever, outspoken (even violent)
enemy of Christianity, and the most vile and immoral
people of society. As stated back in our July issue,
what is this if it is not “[casting] . . . pearls before
swine,” thereby not only allowing but even
further empowering such
people to “trample [God’s truth] under their feet”
(Matt. 7:6)?
The Major
Approaches to Apologetics
Apologetics is defined, as
one noted author writes, as “the reasoned defense of the
Christian religion. Christianity is a faith, to be sure;
but there are reasons for this faith. Faith is not be
confused with reason; but neither is it to be separated
from it.”[i] There are three
major approaches to apologetics that have been advocated
through the years.
Classical Apologetics
This approach
defends the faith through rational arguments for the
existence of God, using evidence to substantiate
biblical claims and miracles. Early classical apologists
include Augustine, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas (which
actually should bother us because they all, especially
Aquinas, tried to blend Scripture with pagan Greek
philosophy). Such an apologetic might go something like
this:
Steve: Can you give me any
logical evidence that God exists?
Jim: Well, I can sure
try. After all, the universe exists, and it’s not very
rational to think it made itself.
Steve: Well, maybe. Do you
have any other argument?
Jim: Well, to take that a
little farther, there is the Cosmological Argument.
Everything has a cause, so if you continue to trace back
through each cause, you must get to the First Cause, and
it is there you find God.
Steve: Is that all you
have?
Jim: Oh, no. There’s also
the Teleological Argument, which says everything must have
a designer, such as a watch, for example. Who then
designed the complexity of the universe? We must
conclude God.
And so the arguments
continue but without proving anything, quite frankly.
Such arguments no more prove God exists than does the
evolutionist’s assertion that there was a big bang prove
that it happened.
What many advocates
of this approach either fail to recognize or refuse to
admit is that this is actually the foundation of
Deism, which every true evangelical, of course,
rejects as apostasy. Deists maintain that reason is the essential
element in all knowledge and flatly reject both
organized and revealed religion. And what is the
foundation of their belief? The logical proofs for
God’s existence. The practical
outworking of Deism is that while God created the world,
He does not intervene or take an active part in it. We
must ask, therefore, is this really the approach we
should advocate?
Evidential
Apologetics
Similar to the
classical approach, this one
defends the faith through the evidence of the miracles
of the Bible, especially the evidences for Christ’s
resurrection, as well as fulfilled prophecies and
scientific evidence for creation. Such an apologetic
session might go like this:
Steve: Can you give me any
logical evidence that God exists?
Jim: Absolutely. The
miracles of the Bible demonstrate it clearly.
Steve: But all that is
just a bunch of stories.
Jim: Oh, but the Bible
accurately records various cities, customs, and other
things that have been verified by outside sources.
Besides, such things were recorded by
eyewitness.
Steve: Maybe, but such
stories, even by eyewitness, could be mistaken,
exaggerated, or plagiarized.
Jim: That’s not likely.
With thousands of Greek manuscripts that essentially say
the same thing, that’s pretty good evidence that the
accounts are reliable.
Steve: Well, I’ve still
got a problem with miracles. That’s just not rational
thinking.
Jim: But what do you do
with all those witnesses?
And again it goes
on. It could now go into the historical evidences of
Jesus resurrection, creation, and so forth, but nothing
is necessarily proven in the strict sense of the
word because nothing can be
demonstrated.
Presuppositional Apologetics
This approach
abandons the rational method of the preceding
approaches. It seeks to prove nothing because nothing
can be proven. Why? Because of a person’s
presuppositions. Fallen man is unable to see
truth much less believe it.
His sinful mind doesn’t even think straight. Unless a
person starts with God, he cannot know truth. Oh, yes,
he can certainly know that the universe exists, that
gravity will kill him if he jumps off a tall building,
and so forth, but his presuppositions force him to deny
that God made any of it. Proverbs 1:7 seems to clearly
indicate just such a reality: “The fear of the LORD is
the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and
instruction.” Such a conversation with an unbeliever
might go like this:
Steve: Can you give me any
logical evidence that God exists?
Jim: Actually, no, I
can’t.
Steve:: Why not? How do
you expect me to believe anything you say?
Jim: I can’t prove
anything to you because of your presuppositions.
Steve: What do you mean by
that?
Jim: I mean that what you
already assume to be true forbids you to look without
bias at any evidence I might give you that God
exists.
Steve: That’s
because there is no evidence
God exists.
Jim: See what I mean? Your
mind is already made up and refuses to allow any
alternative.
Steve: No, that’s not
true. I’ll believe enough evidence.
Jim: I don’t mean to be
confrontational, but no you wouldn’t. If I told you that
1,000 witnesses saw Jesus rise from the dead, you might
say (just as many skeptics have in the past) that it was
just mass hysteria. If I said that hundreds of Old
Testament prophecies have been fulfilled, you could say
(again like many critics have) that they were forged,
post-dated, or whatever. Even if I had a videotape,
you’d say it was just special effects. Your
presuppositions simply will not allow you to
believe.
Steve: Sure I can if you
give me enough evidences.
Jim: And how many would
that take? No, regardless of how much I offer, you will
still say no because your presuppositions absolutely
demand it.
Steve: Well, then how can
I believe?
That last question
is really the heart of the whole issue. How
do we get someone to believe?
This leads us to our main
point.
The
Application
So how do we
get someone one to believe? The answer is: we
don’t. Does it not seem quite
odd that we think that our well reasoned arguments,
however compelling or convincing they might be, can
actually persuade someone to believe apart from the
power of God? And if it is the power of God that saves,
why do we need compelling arguments in the first place?
Or is it that we need both?
Please consider
this. Our Lord did literally thousands of miracles. Now
there was positive, irrefutable, convincing
proof, right? But did that compel anyone to believe? No.
In fact, despite all those miracles, when the Lord Jesus
began to preach about righteousness and salvation, and
then even had the “audacity” to say that He
alone is the “bread of life”
(Jn. 6:22–71), many left Him (v. 66), just as most
people today are offended by the preaching of a narrow
Gospel (Matt. 7:13–14; Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:1–12). Our Lord
went on to make it clear that it is the Holy Spirit who
gives life (v. 63) and “that no man can come unto me,
except it were given unto him of my Father” (v. 65). He
went on to add another very unpopular notion nowadays:
“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath
sent me draw him” (v. 44), indicating that God alone is
at work in salvation.
No,
it is not arguments that win anybody to Christ, rather
it is “the Gospel of Christ” itself (the Gospel
in and of itself without anything added) that is
“the power of God unto salvation to every one
that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek”
(Rom. 1:16). Paul, in fact, prefaced that statement with
the assertion that he wasn’t ashamed of that Gospel,
rather he preached that alone as God’s
power.
I fear that just the
opposite is true today, that many are ashamed of
preaching the Gospel alone. I fear that they think that
doing so is to be simplistic, naïve, unscholarly, and
not socially relevant or intellectually challenging. I
also fear that we have become so Arminian, so
man-centered in our theology, that we no longer believe
that it is God alone who performs the
entire work of
salvation.
Paul went on in I
Corinthians 1 to deal with this exact situation. Yes,
preaching the Gospel alone will be
very offensive to Jews and
foolishness to Gentiles (v. 23). What about knowledge,
argument, and thought provoking debate? Paul says that
“[God] will destroy the wisdom of the wise.” What, then,
is the power to save? “The preaching of the cross is to
them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are
saved it is the power of God” (v. 18).
One commentator tells the
story of a University of Pennsylvania history professor
who read Jonathon Edward’s great sermon, “Sinners in the
Hands of an Angry God.” His motive was to reveal how
harsh and morose the Puritans were, but the result was
that one student was converted.[ii]
That is the power of Gospel
preaching!
As
if that were not enough, Paul goes in 2:1–5 to make the
matter even less ambiguous by using his own ministry as
an illustration. Now let us not forget that Paul was
extremely educated. He was familiar with Greek culture
and philosophy. In I Corinthians 15:33, for example, he
quotes a proverb that first appeared in a play by the
Greek poet Menander (ca. 342–291 BC). He also quotes the
semi-mythical 6th Century BC Cretan philosopher-poet
and reputed prophet Epimenides in
Titus 1:12.
In spite of such
education, not to mention an obviously brilliant mind
that could have debated the Greek orators in Corinth
right out of the forum if he had chosen that
methodology, Paul wrote:
I, brethren, when I came
to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom,
declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I
determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus
Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in
weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my
speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of
man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of
power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of
men, but in the power of God.
What could possibly
be clearer than that? The key word is “enticing,” which translates the Greek adjective
peithos, which in-turn comes from the verb
peitho, “to persuade, prevail
upon, win over, or bring about a change of mind by the
influence of reason or moral considerations” (e.g.,
Matt. 27:20).[iii]
He didn’t philosophize or debate in the Greek
forum. He didn’t give any logical proofs for God’s
existence. He didn’t even try to prove Jesus’ deity or
resurrection. He just preached the Gospel. Why?
Because saving “faith” is “the
power of God,” as well as even “the gift of God” (Eph.
2:8; see TOTT #15).
At this point, some
teachers immediately bring up Acts 19:8, where Paul
“went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space
of three months, disputing and persuading the things
concerning the kingdom of God.” They insist that since
“persuading” is also peitho, then this proves that Paul was doing
“apologetics.” We submit, however, that if that is true,
we have a serious contradiction, for what Paul did there
in the lecture hall at Ephesus was the very thing he
said he refused to do in Corinth. Please read it again.
What he was doing in Ephesus was debating with the Jews
concerning the kingdom, a focal point for the
Jews, not the existence of
God or other such apologetic subject. This verse simply
does not justify modern
apologetics.
I was blessed in the
depths of my soul by these simple words from the beloved
J. Vernon McGee:
There are many
people today who try to prove that the Bible is the Word
of God. There are also those who try to prove that the
Bible is not God's Word. My ministry at the beginning
was an apologetic ministry. I tried to prove that the
Bible was the Word of God. I learned, however, that I do
not need to prove it; I am to give it out, and the
Spirit of God takes care of that. I have already come to
the definite, dogmatic conclusion that the Bible is
indeed the Word of God. I don’t think it is—I
know it is. And I know what
it can do for you today. Therefore it does not need my
weak support. The Bible will take care of
itself.[iv]
It would appear that
Charles Spurgeon agreed. When asked one day how he would
defend the Bible, he replied, “Defend the Bible? I would
just as soon defend a lion. Just turn the Bible loose.
It will defend
itself.”
We
come full circle back to our main text. What does Peter
mean when he says be ready always to give an
answer to every man? John Gill well
explains:
Now, a “reason” of
this is to be given; not that they are to account for
the Gospel, upon the foot of carnal reason; for that is
not of men, nor according to the carnal reason of men;
nor is it to be thought that every Christian should be
capable of defending the Gospel, either in whole, or in
part, by arguments and reasons, in a disputatious way,
or to give a reason and argument for every particular
truth; but that he should be well acquainted with the
ground and foundation of the Christian religion; at
least, with the first principles of the oracles of
God, and be conversant with the
Scriptures, and be able to point
out that in them, which is the reason of his holding
this and the other truth, though he is not able to give
a gainsayer satisfaction, or to stop his mouth: and this
is to be done with meekness and fear; with meekness,
before men; in an humble modest way; not with an haughty
air, and in a morose and surly manner, which serves only
to irritate and provoke.[v]
In other words, we
don’t use reason; we use revelation. We
don’t debate the issues in arrogance; we
deliver the truth in humility. One of the
tendencies in modern apologetics is to think our
arguments are actually helpful, or to word it even more
spiritually, “God uses our arguments.” But where does
Scripture say that? Further, it
is extremely easy for us to become puffed up in our
knowledge and think that we are responsible for “winning
someone to Christ.”
We
should also address another use of
apologia: “I am set
for the defence of the gospel” (Phil. 1:17). What does
this mean? Does it imply the modern idea? Hardly. Lehman
Strauss well puts it:
I have heard it said that
the gospel needs no defense. No doubt there is some
truth in that statement, but certainly there needs to be
a defense against the misrepresentations of the gospel.
. . . The full truth should be preached with singleness
and purity of purpose.[vi]
Paul was not talking
about argumentation and proof-preaching, rather
defending the preaching of the true Gospel. What we
should be doing today is defending the true Gospel in
light of how it is being diluted and perverted by so
many teachers. Those are the people who are doing the
greatest damage, not the foolish evolutionist and
atheist. If I may be so blunt, it is the Joel Osteens
and Robert Schulers that are destroying the Gospel
message.
I am convinced, in
fact, that at least part of this issue has to do with
our no longer knowing what the Gospel is and exactly
what it is we are to be proclaiming. The Gospel is not
about proving God’s existence or demonstrating evolution
to be ridiculous (not to mention “meeting people’s felt
needs”). Scripture doesn’t try to do any of that.
Genesis 1:1 states that God created the universe and
makes no attempt to prove either that fact or even God’s
existence. The only verses that can possibly be defined
as “apologetic” (in the modern sense of the word) are
ones such as, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and
the firmament showeth his handiwork” (Ps. 19:1), and,
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made, even his eternal power and
Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20).
That is “proof enough.” Anyone, therefore, who rejects
that glaringly obvious truth, who defiantly rejects the
God of the universe, is a helpless, hopeless, and
hapless fool (Ps. 14:1).
So
strong is the word “fool” in that verse, in fact, that
it is the third level of fool in the Hebrew. The first
(’ewîl) is the person who is thick-brained, likes
to argue, and despises
instruction (Prov. 1:7; 12:15; 20:3). The
second (kesîl) is the
dull,
obstinate fellow who even if you put truth right in
front of his eyes, he will not see it (17:24). But here
the fool is nabal, which adds to the
others the idea of “an
arrogant bore,” a totally insensitive, immoral, and
ungracious person. He speaks well of nothing (Prov.
17:7), is a disgrace to all that is good (Ps. 74:22),
and his mind is closed. Again, even though all creation loudly proclaims not only
God’s existence, but also His eternal, sovereign
power and even Godhead, that is, His glorious character and attributes
(Rom. 1:20), this depraved, obstinate wretch shakes his
fist and says, “There is no God.” Such people willfully
refuse (because of their presuppositions) “to retain God
in their knowledge” (1:28). Should we actually give such
people an open forum for their blasphemy? They already
own our school campuses and monopolize the news media.
Why empower them further?
What, then, are we
to do? We are to proclaim the Gospel. We are to
tell the lost that they are lost, that they have sinned against a holy God,
and are destined for an eternity in hell. We are to tell
them that Jesus Christ alone is “the way, the truth, and
the life” and that “no man cometh unto the Father, but
by [Him]” (Jn. 14:6), for “neither is there salvation in
any other: for there is none other name under heaven
given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
We must boldly proclaim that only in Him is there
“forgiveness of sins” (Col.
1:14).
Now, should we know
the arguments of the unbeliever? Should we know how they
will attack? Should we equip our church people and our
children for the dangers that exist? Of course! Any
military man knows the importance of knowing his enemy.
But our answer must always be, “Thus saith the Lord,”
not, “So says science.”
Are
apologetics worthless and a waste of time, effort, and
brain storage? Absolutely not! They are a wonderful
blessing to the Christian heart. I am fascinated, for
example, by fulfilled Bible prophecy. My favorite
example is how it has proven the accuracy of the
prophecy against the city of Tyre (Ezek. 26) and
how Alexander’s conquest fulfilled it to the letter.
Archaeology
is also a great blessing; the existence of many biblical
cities has been proven by the archeologist’s spade, such
as, Ur of the Chaldees and the cliff city of Petra.
Further, as a backyard astronomer, every deep space
object I observe gives me joy in how it “[declares]
the glory of God” (Ps.
19:1).
But none of that
saves anyone. The only hope man has is regeneration. He
will know nothing apart from God. It is our
responsibility, therefore, as God’s Word declares, to
“plant” the seed and “water” the seed, but it is the
Sovereign God who will “[give] the increase.” We are
nothing; He is everything (I Cor. 3:
6–7).
One writer, who oddly
enough is an evidentialist, puts it well: “Some people
say the best offense is a good defense, but I say unto
you that the best defense is a good offense. . . . The
best defense of Christianity is a clear, simple
presentation of the claims of Christ and who He is in
the power of the Holy Spirit.”[vii] Let’s leave it
there.
Dr. J. D.
Watson
Pastor-Teacher
Grace Bible
Church
NOTES
[i]
R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner, Arthur Lindsley, Classic
Apologetics (Zondervan, 1984), p.
13.
[ii] Gordon Clark, Philippians
(The Trinity Foundation, 1996), p. 29.
[iii] Vine’s
Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament
Words.
[iv] Thru the Bible
(electronic edition), comment on Neh. 3:26 (emphasis in
the original).
[v] John Gill’s Exposition of the
Entire Bible (emphasis added).
[vi] Lehman Strauss, Devotional
Studies in Philippians (Loizeaux Brothers, 1959), p.
72.
[vii] Josh McDowell, The New
Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Thomas Nelson,
1999), p. xxxi.
