Chalcedon Blog

The goal of apologetics is not to win someone to Christ. It's not to win a debate, or demonstrate the superiority of one's intellect. The goal of apologetics, in fact, has as much to do with the Christian as it does with the individual the Christian is debating or bearing witness.

One of the proof texts often cited by presuppositionalists is 1 Peter 3:15, "[B]e 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 Greek term being used here for "answer" is apologia, and it carries the simple meaning of a "verbal defense." This is why apologetics is often referred to as "defending the faith." Cornelius Van Til's well-known volume on apologetics is simply titled The Defense of the Faith. Dr. Greg Bahnsen's easy-to-read book on apologetics is aptly named after Peter's text: Always Ready.

Yet, making a defense for the hope that is in you should not be confused with debating. When two parties debate, they are being offensive as well as defensive. It is a reasoned discussion designed to establish the veracity or falseness of a particular position. However, in First Peter the idea of defense relates to defending against persecution and false accusation, not winning people to Christ or debating a philosophical point:

And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good? But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; 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: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing. 1 Peter 3:13-17

When Peter says "every man," he means them that "falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ" (v. 16). This in no way suggests that a Christian ministry host a debate between the local atheist biologist and their Christian biologist. That is not defending the faith; or should I say, "defending YOUR faith," i.e. giving an apologia for the hope that is in YOU (v. 15). This is what we're commanded to do. We are to offer a defense for the hope behind our way of living. There is no command here to promote debates.

We must offer a defense of the faith when our "good conversation in Christ is falsely accused" (v. 16). The end result of such false accusations of Christians is that we "suffer for well doing" (v. 17). The reason we suffer is because our good works are publicly misconstrued as "evil doing" (v. 17). This is nothing new. Christianity has always endured detractors, i.e. those who falsely accuse Christians of being evildoers (v. 16).

This is the reason why I dedicate a fair amount of publishing space to engaging our critics regarding theocracy and dominionism, i.e. Christian Reconstruction. I am making a defense (apologia) for our mission, since it is being misconstrued as evil doing. Granted, as Peter states, "it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing" (v. 16), yet, he also admonishes us to be ready to offer a defense in "meekness and fear." In other words, we must do so in godliness, but we should never be silent.

So we see early on that apologia is "the making of a defense"; and the New Testament utilizes the term likewise in other matters of defense. In 1 Corinthians 9, the apostle Paul makes a lengthy apologia toward those who criticized the validity of his apostolic ministry:

Am I am not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord. Mine answer (apologia) to them that do examine me is this... 1 Cor. 9:1-3

In lieu of the infiltration of detractors amongst Paul's churches, it is quite reasonable that he engage in apologetics in order to both validate and defend his ministry. This was a proper use of apologia in that it sought to provide a reasoned answer for his hope -- the hope that inspired his mission. However, he only utilized an apologia when his work came under personal attack. He was not seeking to defend all apostles from the criticism of unbelievers, he was defending his apostleship from detractors within the churches he planted.

Upon one of his visits to Jerusalem in Acts 21 Paul faced a city-wide persecution after certain Jews from Asia falsely accused him of undermining the law, the people of Israel, and bringing in a Gentile thereby polluting the temple (Acts 21:28). The Jews caused an uprising, and Paul was beaten with the intent of killing him. When the chief captain heard of the uproar, he and a band of soldiers rushed to the melee to stop it. The chief captain had Paul bound in chains, and took him into custody. At Paul's request, the chief captain allowed Paul to address his persecutors:

Men, brethren and fathers, hear ye my defence (apologia) which I make unto you. Acts 22:1

At that point, Paul referenced his Jewish nationality and Pharasaical commitment to the law of his fathers (v. 3). He told of his own participation in persecuting the church of God by dragging Christian men and women off to prison for their faith (v. 4). He showed himself as one zealously committed to the Jewish traditions, but an encounter with the living Christ on the road to Damascus made manifest the sheer error of his persecutions.

This was a defense of the hope that was in him. Where his mission was being spoken of as evil doing, his purpose in offering an apologia was to demonstrate the righteousness of his cause.

When in bonds, Paul offered a defense of the gospel (Phil. 1:7), but his intent was not to debate his detractors over the existence of God. Paul was perpetually on trial both within and without his churches, and much of his time was spent defending his reason for preaching. This was Paul's primary purpose for apologetics.

Disputing the Faith: Paul and His Areopagus Address

When we do find Paul "arguing," it's not with the unbelievers. What many modern Christians define as apologetics amounts to disputing with unbelievers; it's not a defense of the faith or hope that is in them. True apologia takes place when the unbeliever falsely accuses the Christian. It is then that the believer must be ready to make a defense.

Too many Christians are looking for a "duel" with the unbeliever. They offer a challenge and then schedule a debate. This is not a defense. A defense lawyer is only called upon when an individual is accused of a crime. Defense lawyers do not schedule trials to simply argue ideas. They defend the accused. Modern Christian apologists can often act more like prosecutors than defense attorneys.

In Acts 17, the apostle Paul was provoked in his spirit upon his visit to Athens: "He saw the city wholly given to idolatry" (v. 16). Yet, in light of this mass idolatry, he does not confront the Grecian philosophers, but rather pays a visit to the local synagogue:

Therefore, disputed (Gk. Dialegomai) he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him. (v. 17)

How could a contingency of Jews in Athens allow an entire city to be given over to idolatry? The Jews were never effective at changing the course of a city. Throughout Paul's missionary journeys he found synagogues sprinkled among the Gentile nations, but these Hebrew outposts made little impact on the harboring community. Only the power of the Christian faith could transform a city, therefore, Paul's concern was to preach the gospel to the Jews, since hitting the local synagogues was always his first step in reaching a city -- Jews, as we say in marketing, were the low-hanging fruit of Paul's time:

Now when they had passed through Amphipopolis and Appolonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures. Acts 17:1-2

He "reasoned" out of the Scriptures with the Jews in Thessalonica, and he "disputed" with the Jews in the idolatrous city of Athens. In both cases he preached the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 17:3, 18). It so happens that in both cases there were Greeks present (v. 4,17, 18). But in Athens, this preaching of the resurrection of Jesus Christ led to a wider discussion with the local philosophers:

Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection. And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. Acts 17:18-20

Luke describes these Athenians as men who wasted their time telling or hearing something new (v. 21). These were not pursuers of the truth. Their interest in Paul was his suggestion that a man was raised from the dead:

And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. (v. 32)

This "indifference" on the part of the Athenians followed the so-called "great debate" by Paul the apologist (c.f. v. 22-31). But, was Paul debating the Greeks here? There was nothing much to debate. Paul was a preacher to the Gentiles (1 Tim. 2:7, 2 Tim. 1:11) -- "for the which cause he also suffered" (2 Tim. 1:12) -- and debating the existence of God with hardened unbelievers was not akin to faithful preaching. So, after calling the Athenians "superstitious" (Acts 17:22) and "ignorant worshippers" (v. 23), Paul declares, "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent" (v. 30).

Paul's mission was to call men to repentance -- specifically, the Gentiles. When he does take the time to reason or dispute, he does so with the Jews since they are already aware of Jehovah's existence, understood some measure of messianic prophecy, and bore a clear obligation to the Scriptures. In his disputing with the Jews, Paul placed emphasis upon the resurrection of Christ from the dead because the resurrection is the established Old Testament criterion for identifying the messiah (Acts 2:22-36). That's why the resurrection is a stumblingblock to Jews, and foolishness to Greeks (1 Cor. 1:23). The Jews could not make the connection, and the Greeks could not comprehend the importance.

Paul has a simple reason for not engaging in philosophical debate with unbelievers regarding God's existence. First, God did not send him to do so; and second, the wisdom of words tend to dilute the power of the cross:

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1 Cor. 1:17

Paul goes on to say, "The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness" (v. 18), yet Christians take classes in apologetics to avoid appearing foolish before unbelievers. Is this not giving ground to the unbeliever, and diluting the cross?

Please don't misconstrue my statements. I have great admiration for the presuppositional argument for the existence of God. However, even the "Great Debate" between Dr. Greg Bahnsen and Dr. Gordon Stein did not lead to Stein's repentance. Here you had the greatest apologetical system applied by the greatest Christian debater and the opponent dies in his sin. Bahnsen's debates have done much to more empower the faith of Christians than lead unbelievers to repentance. I'm still thankful for every one of his debates. They are lessons in the superiority of the Christian worldview.

We can easily end up endorsing rationalism when we seize on an apologetical system as the means to repentance. Granted, one can use presuppositionalism in conjunction with faithful Gospel preaching. It all depends upon the individual discussion. But, to think that our apologetic is alone sufficient leads us to rationalism.

Greeks seek after wisdom (1 Cor. 1:22), i.e. they are looking for a reasoned debate for proof. Instead, God says, "offer them foolishness." Why? Because the world is filled with reason, and this abundance of wisdom does not lead men to Christ. Therefore, God is more pleased with the perceived foolishness of gospel preaching. And He's more pleased with it because it's what His wisdom dictates:

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God... (v. 21a)

This is an odd statement, and one that carries a similar idea to Paul's discussion in Romans where unbelievers "professing themselves to be wise, become fools" (Rom. 1:22). Despite the clear evidence of God's existence (Rom. 1:19-20), unbelievers foolishly corrupt themselves with idolatry and perversion. God then judges them for this sin, though it was He who in His wisdom determined it to be so.

The Greeks find the resurrection of Christ to be foolishness. In response the Christian must not rehearse "evidence that demands a verdict," but rather preach Christ crucified (1 Cor. 1:23), viz. "Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God" (v. 24). Fallen man needs a confrontation with power, not philosophical arm-twisting. We must follow the manner that God has ordained:

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in presence. 1 Cor. 1: 27-29

Christ is, therefore, our "wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption" (v. 30). We must boast in nothing more than Christ, His cross, and His glorious resurrection. To glory in the superiority of our apologetic method is akin to boasting in one's salvation. Calvinists should understand this, though the Van Tillians (which I am one) tend to glory in the superiority of their method. Man does not choose God (John 15:16), therefore man cannot boast that his faith was his own (Eph. 2:8-9). As presuppositionalists, we must carefully avoid the implicit denial of God's sovereignty in predestination and salvation by thinking we've obtained the best argument for God's existence. "He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord" (1 Cor. 1:31).

Dr. Cornelius Van Til defines apologetics as "the vindication of the Christian philosophy of life against the various forms of the non-Christian philosophy of life."[1] Sproul and Gerstner define apologetics as "the reasoned defense of the Christian religion."[2] B. B. Warfield refers to apologetics, or apologies, as "defenses of Christianity, in its entirety, in its essence… as against either all assailants, actual or conceivable, or some particular form or instance of attack."[3] This central idea here is the defense of the Christian faith against those views that stand in opposition to it. The question becomes, "Do we go out and pick fights?"

I encourage you to read Warfield's discussion of apologetics as he amplifies the meaning and necessity of apologies. In other words, there will be instances -- especially within academia -- when making defenses is proper for the refining of our philosophies. I'm not referring to that sort of apology. What is of concern to me is that we have a ready defense against those who speak evil of our good conversation in Christ. This in itself presupposes that we are living in a manner that would draw the criticism of the world. All too often our lifestyles are of no perceived threat, and therefore, there is not much need for a defense.

1. Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1976), 1.
2. R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner, Arthur Lindsley, Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 13.
3. B. B. Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vo. IX (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1932), 3.