Apologetics

In his sermon to the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers at Mars Hill (Acts 17:22–34), Paul modeled the offensive strategy, which encompasses philosophical/scientific arguments for the existence of God and theological/historical evidences for the resurrection of Jesus. [1] He identified common ground on which to reason with the Athenians by commenting on a local altar dedicated to an “unknown God” and citing one of their philosophers, arguing that God is the transcendent, self-sustained source of the world (24–25 and 29) who providentially orders our lives (26–28). As the cause of the world’s existence and order, “God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead” (30b–31). The resurrection is confirmation, therefore, of God’s supremacy and Christ’s lordship.

Theistic Proofs

David sang: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge” (Psalms 19:1–2). And Paul declared to the Romans that “since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made” (Romans 1:20). Creation discloses its creator. The cosmological argument demonstrates that God is the transcendent and powerful explanation of the existence of the universe. Evidently, there either is or is not an answer to the question “What explains the existence of the universe?” If there is an answer then the universe is explicable, whether we ultimately ascertain the answer or not. But, if there is not an answer then the universe is inexplicable, and any attempt to probe the question is misguided.

Yet, why would the universe be mysteriously inexplicable? The persistent intuition behind scientific inquiry is that questions about physical realities have answers, in principle. Indeed, theologians, philosophers, and scientists regard the question as worthy of serious contemplation. Either the natural world—including space, time, matter, energy, and forces—explains its own existence, under the purview of physics, or something above the purview of physics explains its existence. Physicists can, nevertheless, coherently conceive of the absence of space, time, matter, energy, and forces. And the big bang cosmology provides convincing evidence that the universe began to exist. The universe is not inexplicable and does not explain its own existence. On the contrary, something beyond the natural world and above the purview of physics explains the existence of the universe: a supernatural being, under the purview of theology.

The teleological argument demonstrates that God is the transcendent and intelligent explanation of the physical order of the universe. As it turns out, certain fundamental conditions of physics—such as the mass difference between neutrons and protons which enables hydrogen atoms to form and the triple-alpha process which enables carbon-12 atoms to form, among other things—are apparently “adjusted” or “fine-tuned” for the existence of biological life. Unless the fundamental conditions occupy extremely narrow parameters, life cannot exist. Cosmic fine-tuning is not physically necessary because physicists can coherently conceive of universes wherein the fundamental conditions do not occupy life-permitting parameters. It is exceedingly improbable that the fundamental conditions should permit life, let alone produce life, by chance. As a consequence, cosmic fine-tuning is evidence that a supernatural being designed the universe.

Skeptics routinely ask whether God has a creator and designer, insinuating that proponents of the cosmological and teleological arguments must admit that either God requires an external explanation of his existence and order or the universe does not require an external explanation of its existence and order. First, whereas the big bang cosmology suggests that God caused the universe and cosmic fine-tuning suggests that God designed the universe, there is no indication that God2 caused and designed God. And, second, supposing that God2 explains God’s existence and order, we should ask whether God2 also has a causer and designer: God3; and so on, ad infinitum. Yet, given an infinite regress of explanations, nothing ultimately explains the existence and order of the universe. God is plausibly the uncaused cause and undesigned designer of the universe since something ultimately explains the existence and order of the universe.

The moral argument demonstrates that God is the transcendent and good explanation of moral facts and duties. Moral facts—for example, “kindness is right,” “cruelty is wrong,” “honesty is right,” “dishonesty is wrong”—are objectively true, or true without reference to our conventions or preferences, and have corresponding moral duties—“one ought to be kind,” “one ought not be cruel,” “one ought to be honest,” “one ought not be dishonest.” Despite the doubts of a small contingent of moral nihilists and relativists, moral facts are widely acknowledged. To cite a controversial example: proponents and opponents of abortion do not disagree that murder is wrong. It is wrong to kill innocent persons. They disagree that fetuses are persons. The moral fact, however, is undebatable.

Atheistic moral realism holds that the world of moral facts, like the physical world, is either inexplicable or self-explanatory, effectively sanctioning the existence of moral facts by positing a mysterious divide between the natural and moral worlds. Moral naturalism grounds moral facts and duties in the natural world, without reference to God, usually in terms of biological evolution. The evolutionary account of morality removes the mysterious divide posited by atheistic moral realism, proposing that the process of evolution produced moral values in humans, just as it supposedly produced biological features. Even so, human moral values produced by evolution are not facts. Other species might eventually harbor diverse moral values as a result of their distinct evolutionary histories. And, despite the evolutionary emergence of human moral values, one is not bound to respect corresponding duties in an atheistic world. A psychopath might disavow his duty to refrain from committing murder by pleading that he lacks a sense of disapprobation of murder. So, if God does not exist then moral facts and duties do not exist; but if moral facts and duties exist then God exists.

Besides these three, major arguments, there are other traditional philosophical/scientific arguments for God, such as the ontological argument from the very concept of deity and the noological argument from human consciousness. As Paul implied while preaching to the philosophers at Mars Hill, such reasoning is a prelude to the apostolic message that God raised Jesus from the dead. The theological/historical case for the resurrection demonstrates that God is the providential explanation of the empty tomb and post-mortem appearances of Jesus; and that Jesus is the victorious, risen lord of the world.

The Historicity of the Resurrection

Paul relayed a terse creed regarding the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:3–5: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.” The prefix “and that” effectively enumerates four points: (1) Christ died, (2) Christ was buried, (3) Christ was raised, and (4) Christ was witnessed. Paul likely received the creed a few years after the crucifixion at his first meeting with Peter and James (Gal. 1:18–19).

Concerning point (2): the Gospel of Mark, which contains the earliest record of Jesus’ life, attests that a Sanhedrinist, Joseph of Arimathea, buried Jesus. The dependent Gospels of Matthew and Luke and the independent Gospel of John corroborate the burial account. Christian evangelists could not have broadcast a lie about a public figure like Joseph in Jerusalem. They would not have invented a story in which a member of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish authoritative body that condemned Jesus, delivered him to Pontius Pilate for execution, and persecuted his followers, provided Jesus with an honorable burial. And they would not have portrayed Jesus’ principal followers, particularly Peter and John, as craven deserters unless they had actually abandoned Jesus at his trial. For these reasons, the burial account was certainly not a literary invention.

Concerning point (3): the creedal confession that “he was raised on the third day” indicates that the resurrection was a temporal, physical event and implies that the tomb was found empty, as the Gospel of Mark attests. It is unlikely that Mark’s narrative ends without a risen Jesus, as some critical scholars propose. The denouement is surely Jesus’ final victory in the form of an empty tomb, not the abrupt defeat of his mission. Soon after, Peter publicly announced that “God raised him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for him to be held in its power” (Acts 2:24), meaning that God had restored Jesus to physical life, in keeping with the traditional Jewish doctrine of resurrection. His audience would not have understood him to mean that God “raised” him in a non-physical form, leaving his corpse in the tomb.

Mark’s admission that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome found the tomb empty (Mark 16:1–8) is surprising given the low value placed on women’s testimony in first century Jewish society. The Jewish historian Josephus expressed the prevailing attitude that neither women, “on account of the levity and boldness of their sex,” nor slaves, “on account of the ignobility of their soul,” were considered credible legal witnesses. [2] Mark’s reliance on the testimony of women, undoubtedly, hampered evangelism by making Jesus’ male disciples appear cowardly for failing to attend his burial or visit his tomb with the women. Like the burial account, the discovery of the empty tomb was not a literary invention.

According to the Gospel of Matthew, the chief priest bribed the tomb guards to report that the disciples stole the body of Jesus after they fell asleep (Matthew 28:11–15). Matthew parenthetically remarked that “this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day” (15). In other words, first century Jews conceded that the tomb was empty but insisted that the body of Jesus was missing due to a conspiracy rather than a miracle. Even if Matthew invented the story, as some critical scholars allege, he expected that his readers were aware that Jewish opponents of the gospel accused the disciples of stealing the body. What is more, assuming the historicity of the burial narrative, it is notable that neither Jewish nor Roman authorities produced the body from Joseph’s tomb in order to refute Peter’s scandalous first sermon. The public, evidently, believed that the tomb was empty, otherwise the apostles could not have effectively preached in Jerusalem. Conversion was tantamount to treason. In light of the high social cost of joining the Church, the empty tomb was a necessary precondition for conversion.

Concerning point (4): Luke and John confirmed that Jesus appeared to Peter (Aramaic: “Cephas”) and the disciples (Luke 24:34–42; John 20:19–20). Paul reinforced point (4) with a supplemental list of witnesses: “After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also” (1 Corinthians 15:6–8). The appearance to James, the younger brother of Jesus, explains his unexpected emergence as a leading figure in the early Christian community. Jesus’ siblings had once scoffed at his teachings (John 7:1–10), believing he was insane (Mark 3:21). Still, James joined the Church (Acts 1:14) and became a “pillar,” with Peter and John (Galatians 2:9). Luke reported that James rendered an authoritative decision in response to the Judaizing controversy (Acts 15:13–21) and, in due course, independently headed the Jerusalem church (21:17–26). Josephus chronicled his martyrdom by stoning. [3] Luke also recorded Paul’s zealous campaign against the Christians and dramatic conversion on the way to Damascus (Acts 7–9), which Paul recounted in is Epistle to the Galatians (Galatians 1:13–17). Their conversions, ministries, and martyrdoms constitute evidence that James and Paul witnessed the risen Jesus.

In observance of Peter’s charge to “always [be] ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15), projects in defensive apologetics vindicate Christian faith by refuting objections to the central claims of Christian theology. [4] The two categories of objections mirror the categories of offensive apologetics: philosophical/scientific and theological/historical. Philosophical/scientific objections include the stone paradox for divine omnipotence, the problem of theological fatalism for divine omniscience, and the infamous problem of evil for divine omnibenevolence, among others.

The Coherence of Theism

According to the stone paradox, God either can create an immovable stone or cannot create an immovable stone. There is no other option. Of course, if God can create an immovable stone then there is something he cannot move. Conversely, if he cannot create an immovable stone then there is something he cannot create. Ostensibly, God cannot be omnipotent, contrary to a central claim of Christian theology.

An utterly immovable object remains stubbornly unaffected by physical forces of any magnitude. Consider, for instance, the number 7: although it has numerical properties—being odd, being prime, and being greater than 6—it does not have physical properties. God cannot move the number 7 because it is not physical. Immovable objects are not subject to physics. Stones, however, are physical objects. Divine omnipotence means that God can accomplish any logically possible act but reifying an absurd being, like a stone that is not subject to physics or a square circle, is not logically possible. For this reason, the stone paradox is an unsuccessful objection to God’s existence.

The problem of theological fatalism raises an apparent dilemma: either God knows the future and we act fatedly or we act freely and God does not know the future. Imagine that, immediately prior to Jesus’ arrest, John reasoned that “if Christ foreknows that Peter will deny him three times then Peter will deny him three times. And Christ foreknows that Peter will deny him three times. Therefore, Peter will deny Christ three times, despite his oath to die rather than disown the Lord.” John might conclude that Peter is fated to betray Jesus by divine foreknowledge.

The first horn of the dilemma, wherein divine foreknowledge precludes human freedom, is theologically untenable. Fatalism implies that God’s foreknowledge causally determines our acts, which implies that our acts are not free, which implies that we are not morally responsible for our acts, which implies that we are not sinners, which implies that we do not need a savior, which implies that the gospel is false. Peter was, undoubtedly, morally responsible for his unfaithfulness and culpable for his sin.

The second horn of the dilemma, wherein human freedom precludes divine foreknowledge, is palpably unbiblical. So called “open theists” suggest that God knows the past and present but not the future, since the future does not exist. They maintain that the future is unknowable, just as logically impossible acts are undoable. Notwithstanding, Peter’s denial is just one instance of divine foreknowledge (Mark 14:31), as God is ever able to “declare… the things that are coming and the events that are going to take place” (Isaiah 44:7). Assuming that future tense statements, like past and present tense statements, are either true or false, God knows all true future tense statements and believes no false future tense statements.

In the hypothetical pre-trial situation, John mistakenly reasoned that Peter was fated to deny the Lord. Christ’s past knowledge does not cause Peter’s future, fated denial. Quite the opposite, Peter’s future, free denial causes Christ’s past knowledge. In that moment, if Peter will freely refrain from denying him then Jesus foreknows that Peter will freely refrain from denying him. God foreknows and foreordains (e.g., Acts 4:27–28; Romans 8:29; Ephesians 1:5) but does not causally determine our acts. Christian theology, thereby, navigates between the Scylla of fatalism and Charybdis of divine ignorance.

The problem of evil is the most notorious philosophical/scientific argument against Christian theology. As per the logical problem of evil, the skeptic reasons that Christian theology harbors a contradiction between the assertions that God wills to prevent evil acts (being omnibenevolent) and can prevent evil acts (being omnipotent) but, nonetheless, permits evil acts. The free will defense undercuts the objection by emphasizing that, although God is omnipotent, he cannot causally determine our acts without precluding libertarian free will.

In addition, although God is omnibenevolent, he does not immediately will to prevent evil acts, but ultimately wills to prevent evil acts. As a prime example, he permitted the sons of Jacob and Potiphar’s wife to persecute Joseph the patriarch for a greater purpose. Joseph said to his brothers, “as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today” (Genesis 50:20). The soul building defense undercuts the objection on the grounds that God providentially intends to bring about greater goods by permitting acts of evil.

Philosophers of religion generally grant that the free will and soul building defenses defuse the logical problem of evil. In response, skeptics advance the evidential problem of evil, which states that, there are unnecessary acts of evil that have no providential value. Skeptics aver that God ought to be able to maximize goods while permitting fewer acts of evil. Imagine that, after a woman tells her son to organize his bedroom, the boy procrastinates for hours. The mother is in a good position to accuse him of wasting time because she knows, through experience, the basic tasks involved in organizing his room and the timeframe in which those tasks can be accomplished. We are not, however, in a good position to accuse God of permitting unnecessary evils since we do not know the complex tasks involved in realizing the goods of the actual world. While the evidential problem of evil has some traction, it is an unsuccessful objection to God’s existence.

The Coherence of the Bible

Theological/historical objections include the apparent incoherence of the doctrines of the Trinity and the hypostatic union, the apparent injustice of the doctrines of substitutionary atonement and hell, and a number of purported historical inaccuracies in Scripture. The Bible is composed in two languages, containing several literary genres, embedded within various cultural settings over 2000 years. The historical authenticity of numerous biblical peoples, places, and event is well-established, while others remain uncorroborated by extra-biblical evidence. The flood of Noah, the exodus from Egypt, and the events of the Book of Jonah are primary examples of historically disputed narratives. By consistently studying the major biblical periods and events—the patriarchal period, the exodus, the conquest of Canaan, the period of the judges, the united Kingdom of Israel, the divided Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the exilic period, the rebuilding of Jerusalem, the ministry and resurrection of Christ, and Paul’s missionary journeys—the apologist develops expertise in certain issues of biblical historicity, which is essential for developing a holistic, biblically-based apologetic, personally invigorating, and edifying to the Christian community.

To very briefly vindicate the central claim of Christian theology that God is one divine being subsisting as three divine persons: the doctrine of the Trinity is not a facile scientific description of God but an analogical, appropriate, and serviceable depiction of an ultimately incomprehensible Deity. Our ability to conceptualize his being is too limited, as “His greatness is unsearchable” (Psalms 145:3). By employing analogies, trinitarianism does not postulate a contradictory being; again, like an immovable stone or a square circle.

Scripture conveys three sub-doctrines about God’s nature: that there is one divine being: God, or monotheism; that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equally divine, or the maximal deity of the persons; and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct divine persons, or the individuality of the persons. Early fourth century theologians compared the Father to the sun, emitting the Son like light, God’s visible representation, and the Spirit like heat, God’s felt presence. Just as we see the sun by its light and feel the sun by its heat, the Son and Spirit reveal the invisible God. The divine persons are as individual as the sun, its radiance, and its calidity while remaining one being. Where, after all, does the sun end and the sunlight begin? And when has the sun existed without its light and heat? God is always Father, radiating into the world through his Son and Spirit. Still, the sun analogy is incomplete insofar as it underemphasizes the maximal deity of the persons. Subsequent theologians compared the three divine persons to three human persons sharing humanness. The critical difference is that divine persons, unlike human persons, do not merely share divinity, they are divinity. The divine persons share being, like three torches coming together to form one light. The torch analogy is also incomplete insofar as it underemphasizes monotheism. Finally, the fifth century theologian Augustine likened the Father to a personal being with rationality, personified by the Son, and affection, personified by the Spirit. Consider your own self-concept: although you know nearly everything about yourself, you do not know yourself completely. God the Father, however, knows himself completely, such that his self-concept is “evolved up” so as to constitute another divine person within him: his Son. The Son is analogous to an internal conversation partner except that, in God, the other person is real, not feigned. Similarly, God’s love is evolved up in the person of the Spirit, such that his knowledge and love are eternally distinct, like friends rather than personal properties. The person analogy is also incomplete insofar as it underemphasizes the individuality of the persons. Cumulatively, the models facilitate multifaceted and worshipful meditation on God’s nature. As a result, the doctrine of the Trinity does not involve an explicit contradiction. [5]

The task of polemical theology is to critique the central claims of non-Christian belief systems. [6] A serviceable belief system is a structured set of knowledge claims, beliefs, and values by which one formulates individually coherent, mutually consistent, and broadly explanatory answers to persistent questions about the world and human existence, and through which one interprets reality. Apologists must be familiar with the broad spectrum of belief systems.

Worldview and Interreligious Apologetics

Indecisive skepticism includes strong agnosticism, the thesis that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists, and weak agnosticism, the thesis that, while it is possible to know whether or not God exists, the evidence is insufficient to warrant either conclusion. The burden for strong agnostics is to formulate a philosophy of knowledge that definitively excludes the possibility of theological knowledge. The burden for weak agnostics is to rebut the persuasive evidence for God.

Decisive skepticism includes strong atheism, the thesis that God does not exist, and weak atheism, the thesis that one may believe that God does not exist in the absence of evidence for God. Nevertheless, atheism bears a burden of proof. Non-belief in the existence of God (agnosticism) does not justify belief in the non-existence of God (atheism). Naturalism, the doctrine that every being is material or reducible to matter and that every event is governed by the laws of physics, is the metaphysical theory behind atheism. Although atheists assert that naturalism encapsulates the simplest conception of reality, it cannot adequately explain the existence and order of the universe or the existence of moral facts and duties, logical facts, minds, rationality, and free will. The irony of atheism is that the universe sprang into existence from nothing without a cause, order emerged from chaos, and insignificant chunks of inanimate matter within a vast, purposeless physical order accidentally gained consciousness, only to realize that they are insignificant chunks of matter.

Among singular views of God, pantheism, the thesis that God is the universe, is a brand of religious naturalism, conceptually similar to skepticism. Unfortunately, views that fail to distinguish between the world and God cannot provide a humane solution to the problem of evil. Other singular views of God include panentheism, the thesis that God pervades the universe as souls pervade bodies; theism, the thesis that God both pervades and transcends the universe; and deism, the thesis that God transcends the universe. There are, moreover, two types of theism: unitarian theism with one God subsisting as one divine person and trinitarian theism with one God subsisting as three divine persons.

As theistic religions, both Islam, the most recognizable unitarian religion, and Christianity, the only trinitarian religion, espouse that God is maximally great—omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and unreservedly free. An omnibenevolent being plausibly expresses and experiences perfect love. And so, a unitarian deity must create objects of love in order to express and experience perfect love. But, if God must create then he is not unreservedly free. Islamic theology cannot assert that God is both omnibenevolent and unreservedly free. Christian theology, on the other hand, holds that the Father, Son, and Spirit eternally express and experience perfect love without sacrificing divine freedom.

Pluralist views of God include polytheism and henotheism, according to which there are many gods. The difference is that polytheists worship many gods while henotheists worship one out of many. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a cult of Christianity commonly known as the “LDS Church” or “Mormon Church,” began promoting polytheism (or, possibly, henotheism depending on the meaning of the term “god” in Mormon theology) in the nineteenth century. Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS Church declared that the Father, Son, and Spirit, along with all angelic and human persons, constitute a race of eternal, divine beings.

Counter-cult Apologetics

A cult is a theologically aberrant derivative of a primary, world religion such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. The cults of Christianity purport to disseminate the gospel message while denying or significantly modifying certain central claims of Christian theology—typically the authority of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, sin, Christ’s substitutionary atonement, and salvation by grace through faith. Peter warned believers to beware of those who promote false gospels:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep (2 Peter 2:1–3).

Mormonism is a theologically aberrant derivative of Christianity on multiple counts: Mormon theology cedes the authority of the Bible to the prophetic and interpretive authority of the LDS Church; denies the maximal deity of Christ, monotheism, and Christ’s substitutionary atonement; diminishes the doctrine of sin; and endorses salvation by works. Joseph Smith effectively invalidated the concept of maximal greatness within Mormon theology by denying monotheism. After all, if we are members of a race of eternal, divine beings, along with the Father, Son, and Spirit, then no one is the transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and unreservedly free source of reality. And, since no one is maximally great, maximal power is not required to overcome sin. The problem of sin must be manageable. In Mormon theology, Jesus provided an example of obedience which we must emulate in order to prove our worth to the Father and attain godhood. There is, thus, a direct line from Smith’s denial of the doctrine of the Trinity to salvation by works. Mormonism is a remarkable example of a contemporary false gospel.

Critics of the practice of apologetics protest that appeals to reason and evidence undermine heartfelt devotion to God. [7] After all, the Holy Spirit reveals spiritual truths (1 Corinthians 2:10–13), whereas the insights of philosophy, science, and history are too feeble to sustain a believer’s faith or move an unbeliever’s hardened heart. As Paul admitted to the Corinthians, "my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God” (1 Corinthians 2:4–5). Put succinctly: one who believes God by faith does not need proofs and one who needs proofs does not have faith with which to believe.

Unfortunately, this blunt contrast between faith and reason is simplistic. Faith is not the foundation of Christian belief or a spiritual denunciation of mundane knowledge. Faith is trust proportional to knowledge. To illustrate: a young woman stranded on a dark highway would trust her loving, devoted, conscientious father to rescue her because she knows his character. Yet, for the same reason, she would not trust her selfish, lazy brother to come to her aid. We have far more faith that God will rescue us from sin and death because we know that he is infinite love, wisdom, and power. Knowledge of God, founded in Scripture and bolstered by philosophy, science, and history, deepens faith.

One’s “heart” cannot be strictly divorced from one’s “head.” Jesus commands us to worship God with our entire being—heart, soul, strength, and mind (Luke 10:27). Applying tools of reason and evidence to revelation sharpens our perception of God’s nature and acts in history, stretches our minds, and enlarges our souls. Small souls are spiritually immature, ruled by sensations and emotions, because they only know small things and harbor a convenient conception of God. (Very tiny souls worship anything that provides them with pleasure, which is the origin of paganism.) Big souls are spiritually mature, ruled by his word and love, because they know big things and enjoy an increasingly accurate conception of God.

According to a more formidable objection, although faith is trust proportional to knowledge, saving knowledge is not communicated by means of theoretical apologetics. Reason and evidence fortify faith once the Spirit has renewed our minds, but cannot lead us to salvation because “a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Corinthians 2:14). The Spirit alone, unaided by reason and evidence, communicates saving knowledge which inspires trust in God. Critics insist that, since human reason and evidence cannot ground knowledge of God, let alone trust in God, we must not present philosophical, scientific, and historical arguments for God to unbelievers. They consider offensive apologetics, in particular, misleading, if not blasphemous.

Indeed, the testimony of the Holy Spirit, rather than apologetic argumentation, is the basis of saving knowledge. Apologetic argumentation is not, however, superfluous to conversion. Although the ministry of the Spirit, rather than pastoral teaching and care, is the basis of sanctification, the Spirit often uses corporate praise and confession, meditation on Scripture, exegetically sound sermons, and prayer to sanctify us in Christ. Similarly, the Spirit often uses sound reasons and cogent evidences to justify us in Christ. In utilizing well-structured argumentation, he converts the unbeliever’s heart by redirecting his devotions to Christ and mind by restructuring his thoughts, such that they are consistent with his newfound devotions. God uses apologetics as a tool to facilitate conversion, ushering new believers into worshipping and thinking with the Church. [8]

Footnotes

[1] For introductory readings in offensive apologetics, I recommend William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2008); Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1998); and Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalists Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1998).

[2] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, trans. William Whiston (London, U.K.: 1737), 4.8.15.

[3] Josephus, 20.9.1.

[4] For introductory readings in defensive apologetics, I recommend Thomas V. Morris, Our Idea of God: An Introduction to Philosophical Theology (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1991); J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2003), chs. 25–31; and Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2014).

[5] See my chapter “On the Triune God” in John Jelinek and Bryan O’Neal, eds. Standing Firm: The Doctrinal Commitment of the Moody Bible Institute (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2019) for a basic outline of the logic of trinitarian theology.

[6] For introductory readings in polemical theology, I recommend Alan W. Gomes, ed. Unmasking the Cults, Zondervan Guide to Cults and Religions Movement (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1995) and the subsequent books in the series.

[7] For a comprehensive discussion of apologetic methods, I recommend Kenneth D. Boa and Robert M. Bowman Jr., Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001).

[8] I thank the elders at Northshore Christian Church in Everett, Washington for vetting this chapter and for their continued fellowship.

Biblical quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise noted.

Cite as Merchant, Sanjay. "Apologetics." Trinitas Social. https://www.trinitassocial.com/theology/apologetics. 

Originally published as Merchant, Sanjay. “Understanding Apologetics.” In The One Volume Seminary. Edited by Mike Boyle, Laurie Norris and Kerwin Rodriguez, 199–213. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2022.