An Approach to Christian Apologetics

16 Pages·2015·0.25 MB·English

by  Travis Clark

An Approach to Christian Apologetics
Author: Dennis McCallum
1. Apologetics and the Noetic Effects of Sin
Before we can develop a comprehensive approach to apologetics, we should determine how we will
respond to the biblical teaching on the noetic effects of sin. To what extent can fallen man use his reason
to understand the things of the Spirit? Should we use an approach that employs reason, or simply rely on
a declaration of the truth, in the belief that God will quicken those who are "appointed unto eternal
life"?1 Indeed, perhaps there is no place for apologetics at all!
There is definitely a problem here, as evidenced in numerous passages which indicate that the non-
Chrisian cannot receive the things of the spirit.2 I think we need to give full weight to this teaching, but
we need to consider other teachings as well that throw a different light on the issue.
Christ declared that no one could come to Him unless the Father draws him.3 This corresponds with
Paul's point in Romans 3. However, Christ also declared that when He was lifted up, he would,
"...draw all men to Himself".4 I understand this to mean that although man cannot, and will not, arrive at a
knowledge of God through autonomous reason, he can still be reasoned with, because God will grant him
the blessing of a spiritual "drawing" action. This ministry enables him to understand at least the basic
gospel of Christ.
This idea is confirmed in Jn.16:8-11. The Spirit "will convict the world" -- a reference to God's work with
non-Christians. No doubt this convicting ministry will enable the non-Christian to understand the basic
issues of "sin, righteousness, and judgment".
This would explain why Paul did not attempt to speak to the Corinthians in terms of the full wisdom of
God, but did feel that they would understand "Christ and Him crucified."5
I would further understand that rational persuasion is an appropriate vehicle for communicating this
message. Paul says, ". . .knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men."6 Luke also says that
". . .according to Paul's custom, he went to them and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the
Scriptures,explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer. . ."7Again we read that at Corinth
itself Paul was, ". . .reasoning in the synagogue. . .and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks." Even if some
of these people were Old Testament style believers, certainly some of them were not regenerate.8
While reason and persuasion will work in apologetics, we would be mistaken if we assumed that the non-
Christian is not impaired in his/her ability to apprehend advanced theological truth. We need to remember
that Paul would speak wisdom only among those who were "mature" or who were "spiritual men"
(pneumatikoi).9 We should center our conversation around the great themes of the grace of God, heaven
and hell, and personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit, with accompanying changed life. Any other thing
that is introduced should be supportive of those themes, and not apt to distract from them.
Thus, based on the drawing ministry of the Holy Spirit extended to all mankind, and the clear example of
Paul, we can be confident that there is a role for rational persuasion in the proper practice of apologetics.
2. Burden of Proof in Apologetics
The next question that must be settled in the mind of the apologist is that of burden of proof. The
Christian communicator must decide what the goal of apologetics is. As already stated in an earlier
paper,10 I think that Geisler errs when he asserts that the Christian (or any other) world view must have an
"adequate truth test" in the sense that it is an undeniable (or inescapable) proof. The actual situation, in
my view, is that no world view can really offer such a proof.
If we feel that we must offer an undeniable test for the truth claims of Christianity, we are accepting the
full burden of proof for our view, even though no other view can offer such proof either.
If this position is accepted, it may lead, I think, to misdirection in our communication, as well as a
combative type of apologetic approach. Misdirection, because we will offer confusing and unpersuasive
arguments, and combative, because we will be intent on proving our point instead of simply presenting
Christianity as a world view that is worthy of serious consideration.
Thus, I find myself fully in agreement with the position taken in class, that we have only to make
Christianity plausible. There is a clear theological basis for such a stand in the biblical teaching regarding
God's role in apologetics mentioned earlier.
3. Communication Considerations
o Decision Making and Communication
It is best if relationship precedes persuasion in apologetics. This is based on the decision making process
usually involved in major decisions. We need to carefully set up a situation where there is the greatest
ease in moving from one position to another.
The time element should also be stressed. It is rare that someone will be willing to decide to change the
course of their life on the spur of the moment. Even if they were willing, the decision might be ill-
informed, and superficial.
The Christian communicator should learn to "read" the listener's progress in understanding and
responding to the Christian message. The rule of thumb that should be followed is this: When response is
seen, offer more truth. When unresponsiveness is seen, back away in the area of truth. However, we
should not back away personally. It is essential that we remain available and interested in the listener even
if unresponsiveness is seen. Of course, eventually we may reach a limit to this commitment, but we
should be very slow to do so.11 We should return later to such a person, and see if the receptiveness has
changed.
Increased dissonance and doubt will usually be the result of hasty conversions. Even though this is not
always the case,12 I think we should plan our apologetic with the norm in mind, and maintain flexibility in
the use of it.
o Dealing With Non-Christian Preconceptions
A second communication consideration that should be borne in mind is that of the likely preconceptions
of the listener. Greatest among these will often be the notion that Christians are self-righteous, mean,
judgmental, ignorant and/or boring.
These conceptions are usually firmly based on previous experience on the part of the listener. There are
definite images of witnessing Christians that we will have to separate ourselves from if we are to be
effective at communicating with secular people today.
The pre-conceptions in the area of self-righteousness, meanness, and judgementaslism are best dealt with
in the context of our relationship with the listener. It is best (if possible) to know for sure that the listener
knows we are clear in these areas before trying to introduce the Gospel. If the listener experiences
accepting love from the believer for a period of time, it will be hard for the listener to change his/her mind
about us just because of something we believe.
If it is not possible or expedient to establish such a relationship beforehand, we can still demonstrate
innocence in this area by the reaction that we have once the gospel has been given-- especially if it is not
accepted.
The preconception that Christians are ignorant is found among well educated people who have been
exposed to TV preaching or superstitious believers in real life. A lack of ignorance is best demonstrated in
a non-religious area prior to introducing the gospel if possible. We are not trying to show off how much
we know at this point, but to demonstrate that we think in a reasonable and non-gullible way.
We should avoid showing that we are educated in the area of theology because this might intimidate the
listener, causing him/her to feel embarrassed at his/her own ignorance of Christianity. People will
sometimes be reluctant to converse in areas where they feel too ignorant.
The final area of preconception is that Christians are boring. This thought often stems from experiences
that the listener had in the institutional church during youth. It is not an exaggeration to say that many
people carry a deep seated revulsion to Christianity because of the forced boredom they experienced as
children in the church. There is also the added fact that many of the activities which the listener considers
fun are believed to be against the rules of Christianity. In some cases, this impression is accurate. In
others, it is not. In all cases, however, Christianity is not boring.
The Christian apologist should try to dispel the fear of boredom by demonstrating a lack of boringness,
again before introducing the gospel if possible.13 If this is not convenient, such a demonstration should
follow the gospel. The best way to do this is to join the hearer doing things that are not boring (that is, not
boring in the mind of the listener) and to enjoy doing those things.
It may also be necessary to disassociate ourselves from some abberant form of Christianity that the
listener is identifying us with. There are often doctrinal assumptions that are being made by the listener--
perhaps doctrines that we do not believe in.
Since it takes time to make a decision to commit one's life to Christ, we have ample time to undo all of
the pre-conceptions that may be present. The apologist should exercise patience and diligence in
accomplishing this goal.
o Thesis-Antithesis Communication
A final consideration in the area of communication is the problem of effectively communicating abstract
truths. An abstract truth cannot be communicated effectively simply by stating it. Key ideas such as grace,
love, justice, meaning and value do not necessarily mean the same thing to the listener as they do to the
speaker.
There are several ways to concretize abstractions. We can make use of illustration and analogy, as I will
advocate later. We can also use the practice of always stating the antithesis of each thesis. When we
explain what an idea's antithesis is, the listener will understand the thesis.
Allow me to concretize this abstraction with an illustration. Very many non-Christians do not understand
the crucial biblical concept of grace. Grace is, after all, not very common in the temporal world we live
in. How can we explain such an idea? One way would be to offer imperfect analogies like the
unconditional love of a parent for his/her child.14 Another method of communicating the meaning of
grace is to compare it to law.15
It is my belief that Christian communication is sometimes too bland because we are reluctant to step on
anyone's toes. It is possible to forcefully argue against a position while arguing for a different position,
and still not seem judgmental. This is because the impression (and the fact) of judgementalism has to do
with an attitude of rejection toward people, not with disagreement with a position per se. Care should be
exerted to make this distinction.
4. Apologetical Content
o Pre-Evangelistic Content
Once the point is reached in a communication situation where an explanation of my (Christian) world
view is appropriate, my approach to apologetics would differ in a couple of minor ways from the method
suggested in class.
While not rejecting the validity of personal experience as a message, I would add, and even prefer, a
metaphysical argument in favor of investigating Christ to begin with. The reason for beginning with the
metaphysical approach is that it has universal appeal, it is true, it is biblical, and it is not subject to some
of the problems that other arguments are.
The issue of meaning in life has universal application. Even though people do not usually thing in these
terms, they usually have thought about it at some point in their lives. We can, I think, cause meaning to
become a conscious issue in anyone's mind if we approach it properly.
The claim that Christ gives meaning and purpose to our lives is true, and can be argued unquestioningly.
However, because many people rarely think about meaning in their lives, they may find it hard to
understand some of the concepts involved. We need a way to bring the average person face to face with
the issue of meaning in life, and to do so in a way that compels immediate favorable consideration of
Christianity.
Arguing from analogy and parable can make the issue of meaning understandable, and pressing. Jesus
used this kind of argument as can be seen, for instance, in the parable of the rich fool. When Christ
confronts the imaginary rich fool He says,
"You fool! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have
prepared?" 16
And to the others He explained the metaphysical import of the story by saying,
"So is the man who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God."17
Christ is arguing here that no pursuit or identity that is temporal can have any ultimate meaningfulness.
Any temporary importance such goals seem to have is lost at the moment of death. Purpose in life is not
to be found in materialism, but in a relationship with God that will last forever.
This same approach can be seen in the parable of Lazarus and Dives,18 and the unrighteous steward.19 His
teaching at the raising of Lazarus20 focused on the issue of eternal life as it affects our life now. One of
His clearest teachings on the subject is the question that He put more than once, "What is a man profited
if he gains the whole world, and loses or forfeits himself?"21
A suitable way for us to argue from an analogy might be like this:
Imagine yourself being ushered into a large gymnasium where a party is going on. There are numerous
booths around the walls. Each booth offers a different activity or product. You see that there are
thousands of people, all busily going from one booth to another engaging in various pursuits.
Some are in a booth that offers sexual experience. Some are in another booth that offers drug experiences.
Still others are in a very large booth going through various procedures which, when completed, will
entitle them to be rich. For those who want it, there are art and music lessons. You can even go into a
laboratory and do research.
The men leading you into the gymnasium explain that you can do anything you want to at the
party. However, the party is only three hours long. After three hours, you will be taken out and shot to
death.
Can you enjoy the party?
As you go to several of the booths, looking for something fulfilling to do, you witness several people
being dragged screaming out of the door. This is followed by the sound of gunfire.
As you realize the tragic nature of the situation that you and everyone else, are in, you also realize that
you don't want to engage in some flippant activity. Therefore, you go to the laboratory and after two
hours of intensive work, you discover a medication that will enable everyone to live for three hours and
five minutes. Yet you find yourself wondering whether you have really done anything worthwhile.
As you try to consider what to do next, you find yourself wondering whether or not to simply walk out to
the firing squad immediately, and have done with it.
At this point in the parable, we have hopefully drawn our friend into an understanding of what
metaphysical need is. It may be necessary to customize the elements in the story to fit the listener. We
may have to remind him/her that there is no real difference between three hours and seventy years. There
is still a complete absence of ultimate meaning if life is temporal.
Our object in this type of communication is not to defend Christianity, but to create a sense of need. Thus,
it is pre-evangelistic in scope.
If we are dealing with someone who has successfully anesthetized themselves from the pain of lostness,
this step may be a necessary pre-requisite for the Gospel, or for sharing our own experience. There are
even those who would admit that Christianity is possible, but they do not see why it is important to them.
Here again, we need to develop a way to wake such a one up to reality.
The illustration that I have suggested is merely reducing a dilemma that is confusing to some, to a size
that is comprehensible to all.
At this point it may be good to continue with the analogy.
As you stand in the party wondering what to do next, you hear someone trying to get your attention.
Looking over, you see a man standing by the corner of a booth near the wall, gesturing for you to come
over. You walk over and ask him what he wants. He says, "We've found a doorway back here that they
don't even know about! You can walk out of here and go where you please!"
Obviously, such a claim would be suspicious. It might be a trick. It certainly seems too good to be true.
Yet, while caution would be reasonable, you certainly are going to go over and see what he has! If you
were really in such a situation, one option that would be unthinkable would be to walk away without even
investigating.22
We have now created a sense of need for a metaphysical answer. We can begin to argue that we are the
one who has found an exit. We can argue that Christianity is that answer.23
By starting with a metaphysical approach, we have possibly avoided some pitfalls common to other
starting points. For instance, what if my Christian experience is not very great at this time? What about
the foul experience of other Christians? What exact experience am I going to be able to honestly promise
the non-Christian?
We might avoid another problem with starting out with an argument from experience-- namely that such
an argument might tend to have more effect for those who happen to be in a position of felt need at the
moment.24 The one who feels that he "has it all together" may not understand why he would want to trade
in his own experience (which he is happy with) for one that I am happy with.
It is sometimes possible to incorporate personal experience into an approach of the sort mentioned. We
can simply preface it by sharing that, "I was bothered by this need for meaning in my life, which led me
to consider Christianity."25
o Evangelistic Content
Once we are sure that we are communicating with an interested person who is willing to listen, we are
ready to explain and defend the good news about Christ.
Before explaining anything else, I think we should do what Paul did, namely to know "nothing but Christ
and Him crucified." I take this to mean that we explain grace. I can usually assume that the listener thinks
that Christianity is law.26 Therefore, I will seek to prove that, no matter what he/she has heard before,
Christianity is actually, "faith apart from works."27
After explaining the grace-law dichotomy, I will try to explain a second dichotomy-- namely that of
"religion verses relationship". This dichotomy is explaining the difference between a formal and a
personal relationship. I am going to assume that the listener may not think of Christianity as a personal
relationship with God at all. The listener may think of a relationship with God in the same way he/she
thinks of a relationship with the Internal Revenue Service. There is a relationship there, but it is not a
personal one. There is simply the desire to stay out of trouble by meeting the minimal requirements. Such
a relationship could hardly be considered a love relationship.
I would want to detail each of these dichotomies from the Scripture in the belief that the Holy Spirit will
work through the Word of God to a greater extent than He would otherwise.28 I would assume that as I
share these truths with enthusiasm and warmth, such a declaration of the truth will have an impact far
beyond what would be expected normally.
We have to be able to explain the difference between mental assent and personal faith. Here, perhaps no
area of content is as useful as our own experience. The sharing of our personal experience in the context
of the understanding already mentioned should be highly effective, especially if the Christian has a high
level of credibility in the eyes of the listener.
5. Encountering Problems in Apologetics
The types of arguments that are usually considered to be the bulk of apologetics would be, in my
approach, best used when problems are encountered. I think that the order is important here.
I feel that I must first explain the two dichotomies mentioned under evangelistic content, before I am
willing to defend any aspect of Christianity at all.29 Otherwise, I may be actually defending, not the true
biblical Christianity that I believe in, but the jaded idea of Christianity that the listener may have. There
have been many times when an inexperienced Christian has defended special creation, the existence of
God, various Christian ethics, or other areas, but left the discussion without ever explaining the grace of
God!
In my view, this would be an unqualified waste of time. We would be giving reasons for belief in
something, but we forgot to say what! Thus, I would change the subject simply and directly before
defending any aspect of Christianity by saying, "First of all, when I say Christianity, I mean. . . and I don't
mean. . .."30
If I am sure that we are both talking about the same thing, I can now enter into a discussion with the
listener about problems that he/she may have with Christianity, or that I may have with his/her world
view.
There are two types of responses that are typically encountered at this point. The first is the person who
indicates curiosity or interest, but also requires more evidence in the positive sense before he/she will
believe. This person is demonstrating a neutral or positive attitude toward the message, while still
unwilling to make a decision.
The second type of person indicates that there are particular objections that must be answered before
further consideration will be given. This person is demonstrating a more skeptical posture.
 The Neutral Posture
For the person who is basically open to the gospel, though still cautious, we need to offer evidence that
will increase the likelihood of Christianity. Here I think that some of the material used by evidentialists
can be used to effect.
There is particularly one area of of the evidentialist approach that offers promise. That is the area of
already fulfilled prophecy concerning Christ. This area of evidence is affirmed in the Bible, and was used
by both Christ and Paul frequently as corroborative evidence.31 There are some predictions that are not of
very much evidential value today because of the reasons cited in class.32 On the other hand, there are
some that carry weight, even if they are not conclusive.33
Another area of evidence that should be brought to bear (although this is not a part of the evidentialist
approach) is the evidence that can be seen in the presence of a walking Christian community. Christ said
that the unity of believers or the love that they have for each other would demonstrate to the world that
Jesus is the authentic savior of mankind.34
If the Christian communicator has access to a victorious local church, it would no doubt be wise to try to
introduce the non-Christian to a casual assembly of that body. This could be a social gathering, although
it would be better if it were a meeting where the Bible is taught. Experience repeatedly shows that those
who had questionable responsiveness before a visit to a warm and contentful fellowship become
responsive very quickly after such a visit.
One of the drawbacks to this area of evidence is that it is not available to everyone. In many cases, a visit
to one of our churches will be more of a detriment than an advantage. At the same time, it is not really
necessary to have this evidence at hand. We can still win people with other apologetical approaches.
There is a particularly effective argument in the area of comparative religion that will help a neutral
questioner in many cases. This argument begins with the speculation that God may have spoken to man at
some point in history. Such a notion is very plausible if we realize that there would be every reason to
expect that a creator God who has created personal beings might have wanted to get in touch with them at
some point.
If there has been such contact, we might reasonably expect to see evidence of that contact in that some
substantial group of people have a "revelation" that is authentic. (If there is no evidence of such contact,
or if some small splinter group is the only one that has such revelation, then we will probably not
establish contact with God, and the whole discussion is pointless.)
We are arguing here that if we hypothesize the existence of God, and the existence of a revelation that He
has given, a reasonable starting place to look would be the options available (the world's religions) and
find which one is most likely to be that revelation.
When we do this, we are confronted with a multitude of conflicting claims and world views, yet all
similar in one respect. They all call for the believer to perform works in order to gain the favor of the
deity(s), or to become deity. In addition, there is one major religion that claims that the one doing the
work is not the worshiper, but God.
Seen in this light, the religions of the world are all the same at the center of their teaching. Only one is
really fundamentally different in approach.35 It should further be noticed that the nature of this difference
is that in most of world religion, the one who is "good" and thus causing salvation to occur is man. In the
one that is different, it is God who is good, and who causes salvation to occur.
This leads to the question, "Which religious systems were probably made up by men, and which is likely
to have been revealed by God?" Would not the one that places God as the good and sacrificial one, and
sees no saving virtue in man, less likely to be the product of human creativity? Further, Would it not be
the one that is fundamentally different from the others that deserves the first place in our consideration?
Regardless of the type of evidence that is used, it is clear that for this type of person, we are only trying to
give some reasons for further investigation and consideration. If the person demonstrates further response,
we should advise him/her to take any further searching directly to God. We should suggest that the person
ask God to intervene personally and reveal the reality and the knowability of Himself in actual
experience.36
 Skeptical Hearers
For the skeptical hearer, I believe that we have to be prepared to give real answers to real questions. This
means that in the case of those who pose questions that are not real, in that there is no sense of satisfaction
in the hearer when they are answered, or that they are non-sensical, we have to determine whether to
provide answers at all. There are times when we would be correct to imitate Christ, and refuse to answer
questions that are clearly intended to provoke argumentation, rather than to receive answers. We can see
several examples of this in the Bible. One of the clearest examples would be Christ's answer to the priests,
scribes and elders in the encounter recorded in Mark 11:27-33.37His reply,". . .neither will I tell you. . ."
was the direct result of the cynical duplicity that they were demonstrating in their false questioning of
Him.
If we discern that the hearer does not want to discuss the issues honestly, we may do better by declining
further discussion, and returning to a demonstration of love in our dealings with him/her.
If, on the other hand, there is reason to believe that the issues being raised are, or might be, authentic
stumbling blocks, we should try to provide satisfying answers. It is quite out of the question to provide
the actual answers that I would provide in every area in a paper such as this. However, I have indicated
the general direction of my preferred answers to the major types of questions usually raised in Appendix
A.
Conclusion
I have described an approach to apologetics that begins with the knowledge that God is working with me
in persuading the hearer through the work of the Holy Spirit and His Word.