Tag: Apologetics

  • False Doctrine is a Biblical Reason to Leave a Church

    False Doctrine is a Biblical Reason to Leave a Church

    I recently resigned from the board of my church and renounced my membership mainly due to false doctrine. False doctrine, and those who promote it, should be rejected, rebuked, and exposed. This is demonstrated multiple times in the New Testament (1 Timothy 1:19-202 Timothy 4:14-15Jude 3 – 4Matthew 23Galatians 1:6-9Galatians 5:12Titus 1:9Romans 16:17). However, I realize that this is a sensitive topic and every situation is different. My goal with this article is to share insights that may help others in their journey. I’ll outline what actions should be taken to prevent from departing irresponsibly and what a Biblical mindset looks like. 

    1) Do your research – Don’t be uncharitable to your pastor. It’s unwise to assume the worst and act hastily. Challenge your assumptions honestly against the scriptures. Most sermons are preserved in a digital forum somewhere. Watch them as many times as you need to achieve a proper understanding within its correct context. 

    Be in unceasing prayer for wisdom as you do this. Proverbs 2:6 says, “For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.” With a repentant heart, faithful and rigorous study, and a love for God’s truth, you’ll discover the answers to concerns organically. If these answers legitimate your concerns, it’s time to prayerfully move to the next step.

    2) Talk to your pastor – Barring extreme cases where heresy is unrepentantly preached from the pulpit, you should present your theological concerns to your pastor. The pastor should respond to your concerns happilytransparentlystraightforwardly, and Biblically. If the pastor is not answering your concerns in this way and restoration isn’t fully or sufficiently reached, the likelihood of ongoing doctrinal problems resolving is unlikely.

    3) Pray and observe – If the pastor resolves the theological concerns, that is the ideal scenario. It could’ve been a misunderstanding, which happens sometimes. However, if the meeting with your pastor still left matters completely or partially unresolved, it’s reasonable to be hopeful of change but mindful that your doctrinal concerns may arise again. Continue with your studies prayerfully and studiously if the theological issues continue. Depending on the doctrinal issue and your level of engagement in the church, each person’s journey will look different. Again, that’s why prayer is important in your journey

    4) Ask yourself the hard questions – Now that you’ve prayerfully invested time in studying the false doctrine, you’ve confirmed it’s false doctrine, you’ve notified the pastor of the issue and no actionable steps were taken, it’s time to judge whether all of your efforts justify a departure from the church. Again, this will look different for every person. False doctrine is a tricky subject to navigate sometimes. For example, denying the triune nature of God is a clear example of heresy while the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) movement cleverly cloaks its false doctrines by mainstreaming the redefinition of orthodox Christian terms and practices. They should be treated differently when exiting a church because they’re not the same.

    5) Make the decision – This decision will be harder for some and not others. For my spouse and I, it was tremendously difficult. I was on the board and my wife was a staff member. My wife and I collaboratively did steps one through four mentioned above. Now that we did all the hard work and asked ourselves the painfully challenging questions, it was time to make a decision. We found that our investigation of this matter provided a powerful scriptural case for leaving the church. Ultimately, if scripture isn’t being presented in a way that is true to the Word, the Gospel is not being preached. As Christians, we are not obligated to stay at a Gospel-less church

    Conclusion  

    False teachers, false prophets, and false apostles have been warned about at length throughout the Bible. It’s not uncontroversial how God, the Creator of all things, feels about those abusing His Word. We see in 1 Timothy 6:3-5,

    “If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.”

    The truth is the only thing that will liberate the church. The church body must invoke a no-tolerance policy for those who promote heterodoxical or heretical doctrines. False doctrines must never be permitted in the Christian worldview. This is not a negotiable issue. You’re either for the entire Word or you’re not. All of God’s Word is inerrant, and we must treat it as such.

    I’m not suggesting you make this decision lightly. I devoted six months of prayer and research, along with presenting my concerns to the pastor before I ultimately decided to leave the church. This was a process that weighed on my mind every day. If you’re in a similar position, I encourage you to use the Berean model of examining all teachings against scripture (Acts 17:10-15). 

    I’m also not suggesting you should communicate your findings in an unloving way. The second greatest commandment is to “love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:34-40) However, this doesn’t mean that I only tell people what they want to hear. Love includes telling people uncomfortable truths. I was in a position of church leadership, and I had responsibilities for the operations of the church, which included guarding the congregation against teachings that would compromise their understanding of scripture. I took this obligation seriously, which is why I published my concerns (i.e. NAR and Dan Bohi) on this blog for anyone to view. My prayer with each publication was that God would use it to communicate the truth to an audience who needs it. The apostle Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 4:3, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,” and the same is true today. Not everyone will approve of your departure. That’s ok. As long as you’ve demonstrated that you’re following God’s Word, you can depart the church with a clean conscience. 

    Lastly, do not leave without going to another church. Leaving one church does not relieve you of your Biblical responsibilities of attending church (Hebrews 10:24-25Colossians 3:16Matthew 18:201 Corinthians 12:12-22). You must be a member of a Biblically faithful church somewhere. Church attendance is also non-negotiable. All Christians must be working in their churches and using their God-given talents for His Glory.

    In closing, I encourage everyone to be emboldened to speak the truth in love, gentleness, and respect. Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves so that you’ll be prepared to navigate the wolves among the sheep. (Matthew 10:16

  • False Doctrine is a Biblical Reason to Leave a Church

    False Doctrine is a Biblical Reason to Leave a Church

    I recently resigned from the board of my church and renounced my membership mainly due to false doctrine. False doctrine, and those who promote it, should be rejected, rebuked, and exposed. This is demonstrated multiple times in the New Testament (1 Timothy 1:19-202 Timothy 4:14-15Jude 3 – 4Matthew 23Galatians 1:6-9Galatians 5:12Titus 1:9Romans 16:17). However, I realize that this is a sensitive topic and every situation is different. My goal with this article is to share insights that may help others in their journey. I’ll outline what actions should be taken to prevent from departing irresponsibly and what a Biblical mindset looks like. 

    1) Do your research – Don’t be uncharitable to your pastor. It’s unwise to assume the worst and act hastily. Challenge your assumptions honestly against the scriptures. Most sermons are preserved in a digital forum somewhere. Watch them as many times as you need to achieve a proper understanding within its correct context. 

    Be in unceasing prayer for wisdom as you do this. Proverbs 2:6 says, “For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.” With a repentant heart, faithful and rigorous study, and a love for God’s truth, you’ll discover the answers to concerns organically. If these answers legitimate your concerns, it’s time to prayerfully move to the next step.

    2) Talk to your pastor – Barring extreme cases where heresy is unrepentantly preached from the pulpit, you should present your theological concerns to your pastor. The pastor should respond to your concerns happilytransparentlystraightforwardly, and Biblically. If the pastor is not answering your concerns in this way and restoration isn’t fully or sufficiently reached, the likelihood of ongoing doctrinal problems resolving is unlikely.

    3) Pray and observe – If the pastor resolves the theological concerns, that is the ideal scenario. It could’ve been a misunderstanding, which happens sometimes. However, if the meeting with your pastor still left matters completely or partially unresolved, it’s reasonable to be hopeful of change but mindful that your doctrinal concerns may arise again. Continue with your studies prayerfully and studiously if the theological issues continue. Depending on the doctrinal issue and your level of engagement in the church, each person’s journey will look different. Again, that’s why prayer is important in your journey

    4) Ask yourself the hard questions – Now that you’ve prayerfully invested time in studying the false doctrine, you’ve confirmed it’s false doctrine, you’ve notified the pastor of the issue and no actionable steps were taken, it’s time to judge whether all of your efforts justify a departure from the church. Again, this will look different for every person. False doctrine is a tricky subject to navigate sometimes. For example, denying the triune nature of God is a clear example of heresy while the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) movement cleverly cloaks its false doctrines by mainstreaming the redefinition of orthodox Christian terms and practices. They should be treated differently when exiting a church because they’re not the same.

    5) Make the decision – This decision will be harder for some and not others. For my spouse and I, it was tremendously difficult. I was on the board and my wife was a staff member. My wife and I collaboratively did steps one through four mentioned above. Now that we did all the hard work and asked ourselves the painfully challenging questions, it was time to make a decision. We found that our investigation of this matter provided a powerful scriptural case for leaving the church. Ultimately, if scripture isn’t being presented in a way that is true to the Word, the Gospel is not being preached. As Christians, we are not obligated to stay at a Gospel-less church

    Conclusion  

    False teachers, false prophets, and false apostles have been warned about at length throughout the Bible. It’s not uncontroversial how God, the Creator of all things, feels about those abusing His Word. We see in 1 Timothy 6:3-5,

    “If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.”

    The truth is the only thing that will liberate the church. The church body must invoke a no-tolerance policy for those who promote heterodoxical or heretical doctrines. False doctrines must never be permitted in the Christian worldview. This is not a negotiable issue. You’re either for the entire Word or you’re not. All of God’s Word is inerrant, and we must treat it as such.

    I’m not suggesting you make this decision lightly. I devoted six months of prayer and research, along with presenting my concerns to the pastor before I ultimately decided to leave the church. This was a process that weighed on my mind every day. If you’re in a similar position, I encourage you to use the Berean model of examining all teachings against scripture (Acts 17:10-15). 

    I’m also not suggesting you should communicate your findings in an unloving way. The second greatest commandment is to “love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:34-40) However, this doesn’t mean that I only tell people what they want to hear. Love includes telling people uncomfortable truths. I was in a position of church leadership, and I had responsibilities for the operations of the church, which included guarding the congregation against teachings that would compromise their understanding of scripture. I took this obligation seriously, which is why I published my concerns (i.e. NAR and Dan Bohi) on this blog for anyone to view. My prayer with each publication was that God would use it to communicate the truth to an audience who needs it. The apostle Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 4:3, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,” and the same is true today. Not everyone will approve of your departure. That’s ok. As long as you’ve demonstrated that you’re following God’s Word, you can depart the church with a clean conscience. 

    Lastly, do not leave without going to another church. Leaving one church does not relieve you of your Biblical responsibilities of attending church (Hebrews 10:24-25Colossians 3:16Matthew 18:201 Corinthians 12:12-22). You must be a member of a Biblically faithful church somewhere. Church attendance is also non-negotiable. All Christians must be working in their churches and using their God-given talents for His Glory.

    In closing, I encourage everyone to be emboldened to speak the truth in love, gentleness, and respect. Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves so that you’ll be prepared to navigate the wolves among the sheep. (Matthew 10:16

  • Real Questions from Real Friends

    Real Questions from Real Friends

    In the spirit of reigniting this blog, I’ve asked two of my closest friends, who are skeptical of Christianity, to provide me a list. A list of questions and concerns that trouble them the most about Christianity. Christianity is a worldview that makes serious claims about reality that should be seriously faced.

    We all experience reality. As we live life, we’ll be introduced to competing worldviews that attempt to explain reality. But, regardless of how hard we may try to avoid forming a worldview, we inevitably settle upon a worldview that we feel best describes the world around us.

    My friends providing genuine, sincere, and thoughtful objections are doing so in good faith. They’re doing so while being open enough to the answers. This approach may sound foreign for some people in an age of ideological rigidity. However, an honest search of truth can’t begin if the heart and mind aren’t willing to receive answers. Not just any answers, however. The answers that provide our hearts and minds with a deeper insight into reality. These are the answers Christ uses to transform lives.

    I hope my friends who supplied me with questions read these posts and see that my intentions are pure. I want them to pursue greater knowledge of Christ, seek His plan for their life, and ultimately devote their lives to Christ. When they read this, that may sound silly to them, but it’s not silly to those who’ve found Christ. Those of us who’ve been Christians for a long time know that Christ is a living God capable of life transformations.

    In this age of skepticism, people sometimes need to be assured they’re not checking their brains at the door when considering Christian theism as a worldview. For skeptics who search, with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, they’ll find a savior in Christ.

    Be on the lookout for my upcoming articles addressing these questions from my dear friends…

  • Real Questions from Real Friends

    Real Questions from Real Friends

    In the spirit of reigniting this blog, I’ve asked two of my closest friends, who are skeptical of Christianity, to provide me a list. A list of questions and concerns that trouble them the most about Christianity. Christianity is a worldview that makes serious claims about reality that should be seriously faced.

    We all experience reality. As we live life, we’ll be introduced to competing worldviews that attempt to explain reality. But, regardless of how hard we may try to avoid forming a worldview, we inevitably settle upon a worldview that we feel best describes the world around us.

    My friends providing genuine, sincere, and thoughtful objections are doing so in good faith. They’re doing so while being open enough to the answers. This approach may sound foreign for some people in an age of ideological rigidity. However, an honest search of truth can’t begin if the heart and mind aren’t willing to receive answers. Not just any answers, however. The answers that provide our hearts and minds with a deeper insight into reality. These are the answers Christ uses to transform lives.

    I hope my friends who supplied me with questions read these posts and see that my intentions are pure. I want them to pursue greater knowledge of Christ, seek His plan for their life, and ultimately devote their lives to Christ. When they read this, that may sound silly to them, but it’s not silly to those who’ve found Christ. Those of us who’ve been Christians for a long time know that Christ is a living God capable of life transformations.

    In this age of skepticism, people sometimes need to be assured they’re not checking their brains at the door when considering Christian theism as a worldview. For skeptics who search, with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, they’ll find a savior in Christ.

    Be on the lookout for my upcoming articles addressing these questions from my dear friends…

  • My Little Ministry

    My Little Ministry

    The Worldview of Jesus blog has been in hibernation for quite some time. As the author, I’ve found myself spread too thin. Between family, work, and other extra-curriculars, I set aside my writing on this blog. However, I found great enjoyment in blogging about Christian apologetics. At the height of my blog, I received tens of thousands of views annually. Compared to other mainstream blogs, that’s not a huge viewership, but I was happy knowing that I was exposing many people to Christ through my tiny apologetics ministry.  

    Over the years since I stopped writing, I wrote about conservative politics, which is another passion I have. However, I didn’t love it. Politics is a negative business, yet it is interested in all of us regardless of whether we’re interested in it. I ultimately found myself exhausted and taxed by the endlessly deep cycle of political commentating. While my political insights were well-received, they were only well-received because I had spent many years working out my comprehensive Christian worldview.

    My Christian worldview is the bedrock for my analysis, which grants me insights into Christian apologetics and the culture. I hope to touch on both more frequently on this blog moving forward. In addition, I hope to revive my tiny apologetics ministry and prayerfully guide people down the path of better understanding their faith.

    J Warner Wallace, a mentor of mine and many other Christian apologists, famously says, “The impact of a single “million-dollar apologist” will not change our culture as powerfully as the impact of a million “one dollar apologists.” I pray God will use this website for His glory and speak into the lives of as many as possible.

  • My Little Ministry

    My Little Ministry

    The Worldview of Jesus blog has been in hibernation for quite some time. As the author, I’ve found myself spread too thin. Between family, work, and other extra-curriculars, I set aside my writing on this blog. However, I found great enjoyment in blogging about Christian apologetics. At the height of my blog, I received tens of thousands of views annually. Compared to other mainstream blogs, that’s not a huge viewership, but I was happy knowing that I was exposing many people to Christ through my tiny apologetics ministry.  

    Over the years since I stopped writing, I wrote about conservative politics, which is another passion I have. However, I didn’t love it. Politics is a negative business, yet it is interested in all of us regardless of whether we’re interested in it. I ultimately found myself exhausted and taxed by the endlessly deep cycle of political commentating. While my political insights were well-received, they were only well-received because I had spent many years working out my comprehensive Christian worldview.

    My Christian worldview is the bedrock for my analysis, which grants me insights into Christian apologetics and the culture. I hope to touch on both more frequently on this blog moving forward. In addition, I hope to revive my tiny apologetics ministry and prayerfully guide people down the path of better understanding their faith.

    J Warner Wallace, a mentor of mine and many other Christian apologists, famously says, “The impact of a single “million-dollar apologist” will not change our culture as powerfully as the impact of a million “one dollar apologists.” I pray God will use this website for His glory and speak into the lives of as many as possible.

  • Duck Commander’s Candor and the Moral Argument

    Duck Commander’s Candor and the Moral Argument

    Duck Commander Phil Robertson is in the public eye again. God truly knows I love him. I really do. I love Duck Dynasty. It’s hilarious. I admire the candor of Phil Robertson and his willingness to call things as he honestly sees them. Honestly, most of the time he’s right when it comes to the essence of his message. In this case, since he’s utilizing an apologetic argument in a public forum, I’d like to examine the argument and his delivery and see if he was doing the argument justice. Below is a transcript of what he said.

    “I’ll make a bet with you. Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him. And then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot them and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him. And they can look at him and say, ‘Isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn’t it great that there’s nothing wrong with this? There’s no right or wrong, now is it dude?’

    Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say, ‘Wouldn’t it be something if this [sic] was something wrong with this? But you’re the one who says there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun. We’re sick in the head, have a nice day.’

    If it happened to them, they probably would say, ‘Something about this just ain’t right.’”

    Well, that’s quite an example. An atheist family being brutally raped and murdered is very politically incorrect to imagine in a public setting. However, Phil has never been one for abiding by the rules of the tyrannical PC police. If Phil wants to say it, you better believe he’s going to say it! Some of the article titles published by public media outlets that have reported on Phil’s comments have been titled, “Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson Attacks Atheists at a Florida Event Using Rape”, “Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson condemns atheists at prayer event”, “Phil Robertson’s Appalling Atheist Fantasy”, “Duck Dynasty’s’ Phil Robertson Imagines Brutal Attack on Atheists in Graphic Speech.” Oh boy. I’m afraid many of the ‘journalists’ may be contextually challenged when evaluating Phil’s remarks in their entirety. Or they may be entirely focused on misleading their audience. That’s a possibility too.

    It seems that many in the media don’t like Phil. His appearance seemingly reeks of ignorance. That dirty disheveled hair, camouflage clothing, and a Bible in his back pocket, are immediate red flags for the modern day secularist. These red flags translate into a target on the back of Phil Robertson’s head. Everyone seems to be looking for Phil to slip up and say something controversial so they can nail him for it publically. For example, Phil commented on his opposition to sexual sin to GQ which caused quite the controversy with A & E and the public at large. In the end, A & E realized that Phil was worth the cultural liability and kept him on Duck Dynasty. Smart move A & E.

    However, regardless of Phil’s redneck appearance and his often unorthodox way of turning a phrase, was Phil’s message valid or was it fallacious? That’s what I’ll be examining.

    The Moral Argument

    Phil’s fictional scenario of two guys breaking into an atheists’ home and proceeding to do awful things to the atheist family was meant to illustrate that the atheist would consider what the criminals did was objectively wrong. As Phil said, the atheist would say, ‘Something about this just ain’t right.’ All people, atheists and theists alike, wouldn’t go through a tragedy that Phil described and feel like what happened was morally permissible. We would all acknowledge how morally bankrupt such actions would be, which was Phil’s point. He’s not saying that atheists can’t acknowledge objective morality despite what the secular media has been irresponsibly repeating. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. One of the primary points of the illustration is to acknowledge that atheists are capable of acknowledging objective morality. However, the main premise of his fictional tragedy is that the atheist doesn’t have the philosophical framework to make sense of how objective moral values and duties existence at all.

    The moral argument goes like this,

    • If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist
    • Objective moral values and duties do exist
    • Therefore, God exists

    Many prominent atheists have conceded as much. Below are a couple examples of such admissions,

    Richard Dawkins describes in River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life,

    “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. . . . DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music” (p. 133)

    Atheist William Provine, a scholar of the history of evolutionary biology at Cornell University, said in a debate with Philip Johnson,

    “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either”

    Atheist philosopher Michael Ruse wrote in Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,

    “The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory” (pp. 262-269)

    When looking at what Phil said in its proper philosophical context, he’s absolutely right. Under an atheistic worldview, a heinous criminal could say without being objectively morally wrong, ‘Isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn’t it great that there’s nothing wrong with this? There’s no right or wrong, now is it dude?’ The existence of objective morality is a tremendously convincing argument for God. One of the biggest advocates for this argument was C.S. Lewis, and the argument personally had a transformative affect on his conversion to Christianity from atheism. In the classic Mere Christianity, Lewis wrote,

    “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”

    So many unbelievers fall into this pit of confusion about morality. They think the existence of injustice is positive proof of the nonexistence of God, but where do they get the notion of objective justice? Oddly enough, they couldn’t have an objective standard of morality without God, which defeats the purpose of their complaint that God is unjust. As Christian apologist Frank Turek rightfully says, “atheists have to steal from God to fight against Him.”

    Phil’s Candor

    Many people are turned off by it. Some are turned on by it. Personally, I recognize Phil’s rough personality and don’t look too deep into his seemingly abrasive message to draw hasty conclusions that may not be right. Many perceive his delivery as a little too abrasive and harsh, and I would sympathize with some of those people on some of the comments (including this one) that Phil has made in the past. However, Phil has made it excessively clear in all forums that he loves God and he loves his neighbor. While some people may take Phil’s words out of context to support a political agenda against him, I would challenge anyone to advance an honest case against Phil Robertson that accurately illustrates that Phil is a hateful, narrow-minded, intolerant, bigot.

    Does that mean that I would have approached the very same situation with the same gruffness as Phil? I personally take a softer approach. While I feel that Phil is generally knowledgeable about the topics he speaks on, I feel that his messages sometimes gets lost in transit because of the gruff delivery. His candor sometimes becomes a liability rather than an asset to his ministry. While I can see how it can serve as both, it would be wise for Phil to proceed forward with caution and clarity when using controversial illustrations that are highly susceptible to being twisted and warped to suit a negative PR campaign against him and his enterprise.

    Conclusion

    Phil is a good man, but he is undoubtedly gruff. He doesn’t pretend to be a soft touchy-feely preacher. If you want to hear the raw unfiltered truth, Phil is your guy. However, does his candor mute his message? Sometimes yes. Unbelievers are going to be upset at the way he delivered this example. Why? Because it specifically focused on an atheist family! The atheists were victims of the crime in his scenario which made atheists feel somewhat victimized. That’s what motivated the aggressive and misleading article titles about this situation that I referenced earlier. Obviously, as I explained earlier, an honest examination of Phil’s remarks would invalidate the legitimacy of the misleading articles attempting to disparage Phil for using this illustration.

    In the end, we must be careful about what we say and how we say it. Maybe instead of using an “atheist family”, Phil could have just referenced a “family” and examined how impotent the atheistic worldview is in condemning the objective evil in this fictional tragedy. The family doesn’t necessarily have to be an “atheist family” in order to effectively make the point. In fact, there are many other ways to illustrate the very same point, likely to a greater and more fulfilled ends. We should strive to deliver truth without compromising compassion, and sometimes Phil can deliver a message that is lopsided towards truth without the components of compassion that are necessary when evangelizing to the lost. Regardless of his candid delivery, Phil is a brother in Christ and we should pray for the success of his ministry.

  • Balancing Intelligent Design and Philosophy

    Balancing Intelligent Design and Philosophy

    I recently came across a couple of unique insights on how some (even classical Christian theists) object to Intelligent Design (ID) as being a “God of the Gaps” or “argument from ignorance” fallacy while reading The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism by Edward Feser. Feser effortlessly demolishes the gross philosophical ignorance of the New Atheists, and mainly does so by artful implementation of Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophical reasoning. Make no mistake, Feser pulls no punches. While in the process of dismantling atheism and its most hostile horsemen, William Paley’s argument from design becomes collateral damage. Sadly enough, for me anyway because I rather enjoy the design argument, Feser provides sound philosophical objections for why ID may not be the most effective approach when delivering an apologetic for the existence of the Christian God.

    Personally, I sense that Feser is not charitable enough to ID and the valuable critiques it has persuasively marshaled against Darwinism. However, Feser rightly states,

    ““But ID arguments raise serious questions about Darwinism!” Maybe so, and that is not unimportant. But my interest here is in the question of what sorts of arguments establish the existence of the God of classical theism. And to challenge Darwinism, even to refute Darwinism, would not be to establish classical theism. Indeed, it would not even be to refute naturalism.”

    Feser has an excellent point. If ID can keep the scientific elite in check, even while sometimes being the controversial minority, that’s great but does it advance the apologetic for classical Christian theism? However, on the other side of that coin, does ID allege to make any claims towards any single religion? Here is what prominent ID advocate Stephen Meyer writes in Signature in the Cell concerning the claims that ID makes,

    “The theory of intelligent design does not claim to detect a supernatural intelligence possessing unlimited powers. Though the designing agent responsible for life may well have been an omnipotent deity, the theory of intelligent design does not claim to be able to determine that. Because the inference to design depends upon our uniform experience of cause and effect in this world, the theory cannot determine whether or not the designing intelligence putatively responsible for life has powers beyond those on display in our experience. Nor can the theory of intelligent design determine whether the intelligent agent responsible for information life acted from the natural or the “supernatural” realm. Instead, the theory of intelligent design merely claims to detect the action of some intelligent cause (with power, at least, equivalent to those we know from experience) and affirms this because we know from experience that only conscious, intelligent agents produce large amounts of specified information. The theory of intelligent design does not claim to be able to determine the identity or any other attributes of that intelligence, even if philosophical deliberation or additional evidence from other disciplines may provide reasons to consider, for example, a specifically theistic design hypothesis.” (pp. 428-429)

    Both Feser, who seems to be largely critical of the ID approach, and Meyer seem to agree that the claims of ID are limited. I admire Feser’s emphasis on the value of the classical philosophical argumentation for God’s existence. Likewise, I genuinely admire Meyer’s work in the scientific realm of critically analyzing the inadequacies of the evolutionary mechanisms that allege to account for all biological life from a common ancestor. ID, properly approached, cannot prove the God of Christian theism (or any other god for that matter). I would have to agree with Feser that Christians who use ID to prove the existence of the Christian God are misusing ID.

    A Sound Approach

    ID cannot illustrate “the identity or any other attributes of that intelligence.” So, should ID have a role in the apologetic for Christian theism given its limited scope of what it can illustrate? I feel it definitely should it the proper context. After all, many arguments are limited on what they can prove. The moral argument and the Kalam cosmological argument are two popular apologetic arguments that do not result in a conclusion that precisely identifies a specific monotheistic God. In that sense, these arguments are limited but they were not designed to provide proof for the God of Christianity, Islam, or Judaism. I feel ID can add valuable scientific support for the teleological argument (i.e. fine-tuning argument), which is outlined like this…

    1)     The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design

    2)     It is not due to physical necessity or chance

    3)     Therefore, it is due to design.

    This, like the Kalam cosmological argument and the moral argument, cannot prove the existence of the God of Christian theism by itself but it can persuasively serve as a contributing member in a cumulative case composed of multiple arguments for the existence of the Christian God. A persuasive cumulative argument would start by establishing a strong case for theism and then slowly work its way towards illustrating the historical proofs of Christianity. In my opinion, Feser and Meyer have both contributed greatly to how present-day apologists operate and how we formulate our arguments for the existence of God.

    Conclusion

    Feser takes an Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophical approach when establishing a reasoned apologetic for the existence of God, which I highly respect. I would encourage everyone to read his book, The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism. It is the most philosophically potent refutation of atheism I’ve ever read. Feser truly enlightened me to the massive utility of the Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophical approach and I’ve added many books to my reading list to help learn more about it.

    While I know how Feser has been critical of many ID proponents because ID itself doesn’t serve to establish the existence of the Christian God, I feel that Christians should utilize scientific information to our advantage when we have an opportunity, especially when it explicitly has theistic implications. Ignoring the scientific significance of ID would be foolish because it adds credibility to what we already know of the universe through sound philosophic reasoning; the Christian God created the Heavens and the earth. The scientific and philosophic truths of reality cannot logically be in contradiction. God, the efficient cause of the universe and the Being by which all things ultimately derive their final cause, cannot logically create a universe that would reflect contradictory physical and metaphysical truths simultaneously because God cannot act contrary to His nature.

    For this reason, we can be confident that reliable science and sound philosophy can coexist without conflict. The possibility always exists that the science of ID may end up being refuted and new approaches may end up taking its place. Philosophy may well be a greater safe haven for sound Christian apologetics, as Feser advocates in his book. One thing is for certain though; reliable scientific findings should be used whenever possible to strengthen the argument for the existence of classical theism.

  • Can You Argue Someone into Heaven?

    Can You Argue Someone into Heaven?

    Every Christian apologist has heard the phrase, “you can’t argue someone into heaven!” This objection has seemingly become the mantra against the advancement of apologetics within the church. When this phrase is spoken, it is issued as a denouncement of the Christian apologetic approach. The objection is founded on the presupposition that apologists are merely interested in ‘arguing’ and that apologists are honestly convinced that ‘arguing’ will somehow direct people to a personal relationship with Christ. Does this objection of apologetics accurately characterize how genuine Christian apologists truly interact with unbelievers? If this denouncement doesn’t fairly criticize the shortcomings of apologetics, what false presupposition does this criticism maintain that leads these objectors to a misunderstanding of apologetics? Given the prevalence of this criticism within the church, it’s important to give some attention to it by honestly addressing the merits and shortcomings of the objection.

    The Merits

    First and foremost, a meritorious quality of the statement ‘you can’t argue someone into heaven!’ is that it’s true. You can’t argue someone into heaven. Apologists who conduct themselves with an argumentative demeanor are being counterproductive to their cause of bringing disciples to Christ. If individuals assume that arguing is merely what apologists are out to do, then maybe they have developed this assumption after observing the conduct of some apologists. While this assumption of apologetics may be entirely false, their perception was molded by real experiences with apologists. The reminder that ‘you can’t argue someone into heaven’ can serve as a helpful hint that apologists should be mindful of how they are perceived and cognizant of the way they communicate with others of different worldviews. We don’t want to give the impression of being impersonal, uncaring, and argumentative.

    The Shortcomings

    The shortcomings of this objection vastly outweigh the merits. While the objection is true on the face of it, it precludes an honest description of what Christian apologetics is and how it should be practiced. Simply because some Christians have practiced it poorly does not mean that the practice of apologetics is inherently bad. It’s comparable to saying that Christianity is bad because of how Hillsboro Baptist Church conducts themselves. Obviously, those that claim they’re acting in the name of Christianity while acting in contradiction to its teachings shouldn’t be viewed as accurate representations of Christianity. We look to Christ as the perfect example for what Christianity is supposed to look like. Since apologetics was embraced by Jesus, we can safely assume that this objection has an inherent fault within it.

    So, where is the fault? It assumes that apologists are motivated by the sheer act of argumentation with unbelievers. Contrary to this objection, apologists genuinely believe that arguments for the existence of God will not bring a person into a saving relationship with Christ. We acknowledge that the Holy Spirit is only capable of that. However, would these same individuals stand by the objection, “You cannot preach someone into heaven!” with the same zeal as they have argued against apologetics? Obviously, no rational Christian would make this objection. Christ specifically called us through the Great Commission to make disciples! Did Jesus say, ‘let the Holy Spirit take over from here fellas!’ before His ascension into Heaven? Uh, no. The teachings found within the Bible promote a Christian worldview where Christians should prepare themselves and each other to give reasons for the hope that they have (1 Peter 3:15). No matter how far you dig in the Bible, you’ll never find a passage that promotes intellectual laziness.

    Does intellectual preparedness mean civil and constructive argumentation in some cases? Absolutely. We should be prepared to compare our ideas against other worldviews. Why? The Apostle Paul said that there will come a day where people will preach false doctrines and will happily embrace what their itching ears want to hear instead of accepting the truth (1 Timothy 4:3). We are observing these types of things happening in society now! An informed Christianity will weigh heavily in our favor when having dialogues with unbelievers, especially when that dialogue could potentially open a door for the Holy Spirit to work in the heart of the unbeliever. Ask yourself how many missed opportunities you’ve had in your personal life because of your unpreparedness.

    Will our personal preparedness convince the unbeliever of our position 100% of the time? Not likely! However, it will give us the ability to open the door a little wider so that the Holy Spirit may enter and work on the heart of the unbeliever. We must be prepared to answer intellectual and emotional objections to our faith with gentleness, respect, and a loving heart. Sometimes all it takes is the apologetic discernment to know when to shut up and listen and sometimes it takes knowing how to persuasively and clearly communicate an answer to a difficult objection. Knowing how to be winsome in both instances is an important quality for a Christian apologist.

    Honest Skeptics Value Intelligent Discussion

    As we’ve seen, apologetics is not about arguing someone into a relationship with God. It’s about knowing why you believe in Christianity and communicating these reasons in a convincing manner to unbelievers when given the opportunity. From my experience, learning how to persuasively make a case for His existence has brought me closer to God. Being an apologist has been a blessing in my life! Which is why it’s tremendously discouraging to hear these types of ill-thought objections to apologetics because I’ve personally experienced the satisfaction one can receive from being a loyal student of the Lord.

    Imagine if you were an unbeliever on a genuine search for answers. Would you be satisfied with “the Bible says so…” type of answer from a Christian? Would this be persuasive? Absolutely not! If I was a truth-seeking unbeliever and a Christian answered my sincere question with that type of answer, I would be extremely discouraged. I would think, “how could a Christian be satisfied with that explanation!?” When we’re speaking with unbelievers, we are advocates for Christ in their eyes. They are looking to us (as Christians) for answers because we should be the most equipped to answer them! It is our obligation to tell them why they should accept Christ in a persuasive manner. Imagine if you’re a car salesman and a potential customer starts asking you questions about a car he wants to purchase, what would the potential customer think if you couldn’t answer any of his questions? He may not think the car was bad but he would think the representative of the car was an idiot, which would cause him to move to another car lot where there are better salesmen who could provide seemingly better answers. Similarly, if Christians can’t answer questions about their faith to skeptics, it’s likely that skeptics wouldn’t consider Christianity as a serious option because Christians are perceived as largely ignorant and inarticulate?

    Some people will never be convinced and many are only interested in seeking out an argument. Maybe this is where today’s Christian apologists get a bad reputation because we sometimes pander to ‘internet infidels’ and unwisely partake in dialogues with unbelievers that sometimes get out of hand. We must avoid these types of conversations because they are counterproductive to the advancement of the Kingdom. There are some skeptics who are sincerely open to following the evidence where it leads. These are the people that we must reach. These are the skeptics that will eventually step through the door if they encounter a Christian who will take advantage of the opportunity to present the Good News. Whether the opportunity is developing a relationship with him over time, having a brief discussion on park bench, or occasionally having a theological discussion with a co-worker, these are the opportunities that we must be prepared for.

    Conclusion

    In sum, it can be convincingly shown that this objection is not truly representative of Christian apologetics. Have apologists argued inappropriately before? Yes, however we’re all fallible. Mistakes will always be made by everyone. Personally, I feel it is a mistake to needlessly object to apologetics because it is falsely believed by some that apologetics is an attempt to argue people into heaven. I couldn’t argue someone into heaven any more can I force my wife to love me. When speaking with an unbeliever, I could provide substantive reasons for my faith in Christ and pray that they answer the call that the Holy Spirit has placed on their heart. Our ability is limited as apologists. Ultimately, it’s up to the unbeliever to make the decision to accept or reject Christ.

    Acknowledging the limitations along with appreciating the immense utility of apologetics can help us better understand what place apologetics should have in our relationship with Christ. Just like prayer, worship, and community have a place in the body of Christ, so does apologetics. It can be found throughout scripture. Not everyone is gifted in this area, which is fine! At the same time, it shouldn’t be ignored entirely; especially if apologetics is being avoided in order to maintain a false presupposition (i.e. apologetics is synonymous with arguing). Christian apologetics is not synonymous with arguing. This notion is flooded with a gross misunderstanding of the apologetics the Bible speaks of. Fruitful dialogue is the vehicle the apologist uses to open the door for the Holy Spirit. Jesus and the Apostle Paul are brilliant examples of apologists that had immeasurable apologetic skill when speaking with unbelievers. If you don’t believe me, I’d invite you to pick up the New Testament!

  • Overcoming the Skepticism of Christian Apologetics

    Overcoming the Skepticism of Christian Apologetics

    The practice of Christian apologetics must be approached in a way that seeks to strengthen one’s intellect and understanding of God so that we can make a comprehensive case/defense for the existence of God. Apologia is the Greek word that describes the action of ‘giving a defense’. There is a Biblical call for all Christians to be apologists, which necessarily entails that we love the Lord with all of our minds. Over the years I have developed a passion for apologetics. Sadly however, I’ve come to notice that ministries in apologetics within the church are quite lacking during a time when we need them the most. Young adults are leaving the church at a rate that is much higher than we’ve ever seen in the past. The apologetics community has noticed a trend of skepticism among the church as far as embracing apologetics is concerned. As apologists, this fact has increased our concern for the future wellbeing of the church. Secularism is on the rise and loyal Christian adherence is on the decline among the present generation of young adults. It’s important to ask the question now, will the church regret not taking a more apologetic approach when the church has significantly weakened over the next century?

    It’s true, being a competent apologist is not an easy task. It takes much time, prayer, and study. Regardless of difficulty, apologetics is an essential part of a Christian life. The classic scripture outlining our call to be apologists is 1 Peter 3:15, “15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” Jesus clearly stated that the greatest commandment is ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ (Mark 12:30-21, Matthew 22:37, Luke 10:27) Jesus makes a specific mention of the ‘mind’. This should give all Christians a clue that we shouldn’t exclude the mind when practicing our Christian faith. The Apostle Paul parallels his Christian life as a ‘race’ in 2 Timothy 4. If this life is a ‘race’, why would the church unnecessarily delay training? I love the way Paul phrases his charges to future Christians regarding the vital importance of living a prepared Christian life,

    2 Timothy 4: 1 – 8:  In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry. For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time for my departure is near. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.

    It’s evident that without intellectual preparedness, the dullness of our minds will ultimately illustrate our inability to “preach the word” and to be “prepared in season and out of season.” Apologetics is an art that will help Christians identify “sound doctrine” and help decipher the truth from what many people’s “itching ears want to hear.” Knowing the truth and effectively deciphering the falsehoods will help us “keep [our] head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist.” The directions Paul has laid out describe a transcendent directive that will last until the second coming of Christ. This isn’t an ‘I want you to do this but it’s no big deal if you don’t want to’ type of directive. The opening sentence of 1 Timothy 4 outlines the severity of his charge, “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge.This charge does not sound like a fluffy little remark in passing. This sounds like a firm command to all Christians because it’s directly connected to “God and Christ Jesus” and his judging of the “living and the dead.”

    As the Western world is progressively growing more secular, Paul’s charge is more relevant today than ever. Paul’s description, For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths” applies today in a shockingly prophetic way. Denying Christian apologists the opportunity to increase the volume of educated Christians who could “preach the world” and “correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction” effectively shoots the church in the foot. If Western churches aren’t effective at genuinely convincing a skeptical audience (as statistics show), why aren’t more churches warmly welcoming apologetics as a pillar of their local ministry to reach the unbelievers who desire dialogue from informed well-spoken Christians?

    Can Everyone Be an Apologist?

    The short answer is yes. Everyone can, however not everyone has strengths (or interests) in this area. Admittedly, I struggle with my prayer life. That is a weakness of mine and I have to rely on other people within my church family to encourage me with that. However, my weakness in prayer doesn’t mean that I don’t pray. Prayer is a directive from God, along with apologetics. Should directives from God be ignored simply because they aren’t aligned with our strengths? Absolutely not.

    Many people become frustrated with the difficulty of apologetics because it necessarily entails the understanding of various fields of study (i.e. theology, history, philosophy, science, etc…). Many people find these topics overwhelming, especially if they’ve never studied them before. Admittedly, apologetics can be an intimidating area of practice. The ontological argument still makes my head hurt. For the apologist who wants to get started with some easy reads, start by reading the ‘The Case for…’ books by Lee Strobel, which provide a great surface level explanation of apologetics and general understanding of the best arguments for the existence of God. This is how I started out as an apologist and I genuinely feel these were the books that kick started my passion for learning more about Christ and how to persuasively develop a convincing case for his existence.

    Not everyone will have an interest in learning about apologetics just like not everyone has an interest in running a prayer ministry. However, we should be familiar with these practices of ministry despite our interest if we are going to be strong ambassadors for Christ. That is why I believe we can all be apologists for Christ. Equipped with knowledge for the existence of God along with our capacity to live a life that uniquely reflects the impact Jesus has made on our lives, we can all effectively embody a Christ-following apologist. One doesn’t have to be the equivalent to Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, or William Lane Craig to be considered an apologist. Like J Warner Wallace says, we should be content with being One Dollar Apologists because we have the ability to reach people that these big name apologists can’t reach. Apologetics is the fuel by which evangelism operates in a secular society that is in search of answers to the hard questions.

    The Importance of Communication

    Not only can the practice of apologetics advance our knowledge of a wide variety of topics, but it can aid us in our ability to effectively deliver this knowledge clearly and persuasively to unbelievers. In Greg Koukl’s book Tactics, which I would highly recommend to anyone, he explains how to effectively communicate with unbelievers of all persuasions. Regardless of how much knowledge one has, learning how to communicate your knowledge is the first step in becoming a fruitful disciple. While gaining knowledge of apologetic topics in combination with learning the skills to communicate under a variety of different circumstances, it would be hard to deny the utility and value of such a skill once one has begun having fruitful conversations with unbelievers. Jesus and Paul were masterful in the art of communication. Given this fact, shouldn’t we desire to follow in their footsteps and intentionally learn the best ways to evangelistically communicate the Word?

    Since becoming proficient in Koukl’s Tactics, I have become a significantly better communicator in all areas of my life. Some within the church have resorted to ‘the Bible says so’ approach without any further discussion. This tactic is a conversation ender rather than a tactic that would open up potential roadways in the heart and mind of the unbeliever through persuasively communicating the merits of our Christian convictions. If one ends the conversation by using poor tactics, an opportunity to convincingly communicate the Word is eliminated before substantive dialogue was a possibility. Without the ability to communicate effectively, the amount of knowledge becomes completely irrelevant.

    Common Objections to Apologetics

    I have some thoughts as to why apologetics is being kept at an arm’s length in many churches. Apologetics can be misconstrued as being impersonal and argumentative. Many in the apologetics community have experienced these same roadblocks. Some Christians critique the practice of apologetics as being motivated by ‘winning arguments’ with those that disagree with us. Rather than being charitable to the real purpose of apologetics as it’s described in the Bible, many have chosen to stick with what’s comfortable and not venture out into uncharted territory. Francis Schaeffer addressed this concern beautifully when he said,

    You are not trying to win an argument or knock someone down…You are seeking to win a person, a person made in the image of God. This is not about your winning; it is not about your ego. If that is your approach, all you will do is arouse their pride and make it more difficult for them to hear what you have to say

    Next, many people simply feel apologetics is irrelevant. After all, why would God need anyone to defend Him? God doesn’t need us to defend Him however He has directed us to spread the Good News as His disciples. As His disciples, it would be important to our evangelistic efforts to know a thing or two about how to persuasively talk about the merits of our position. Frank Turek frequently talks about the difference between ‘belief that’ and ‘belief in’. For example, prior to asking my wife to marry me, I believed that she would make a good wife. With the knowledge I had accumulated about my wife, I believed that she would make an exceptional wife (which she is!). After believing that she would be a suitable wife based upon everything I know about her, I took the step of faith to ask her to marry me because I believe in her. How can we evangelize unbelievers, let alone convince them to place their faith in Christ, if we reject the idea that God wants us to provide intelligible reasons for why people should believe in Him? Most unbelievers want to believe that God exists before they place their faith in Him to become a life long Christ follower.

    I’ve also observed Christians saying that somehow apologetics would obstruct our ability of developing meaningful relationships. Many in the church have a mistaken presupposition that apologetics is only intellectual in practice and that it removes the emphasis that we should place on becoming salt and light in our communities. This is a gross misrepresentation of what a true apologist should look like. Remember the last part of 1 Peter 3:15, “and do this with gentleness and respect”? This is a directive concerning the nature of our conduct during the course of apologetics. When assessing the holistic directives that God has placed upon us through His word, it would be a weighty claim to prove that apologetics is merely the act of arguing with someone with a complete disregard for fruitful relationships.

    Obviously, all of those objections against apologetics do not hold water. Is it possible that people can get too caught up in apologetics and lose sight of knowing God personally rather than merely knowing about Him? Absolutely, but the same is true about people in other areas too. Christians must appreciate that a balance must be found. Is it wrong to spend more time in your area of interest? Not necessarily, but it does become a problem when it consumes every part of your spiritual life.

    My plea to the church is that it overcome it’s skepticism of apologetics and approach the church with a holistic mentality by encouraging congregations to seek the Lord with all of their minds and use this knowledge to evangelize through substantive dialogue. Encouraging the church to be apologists in their lives may ignite a passion that they might have never known they had. If we’re Christians, wouldn’t we want to be in a relationship with God that would allow for emotional and intellectual connectedness so we could serve as better ambassadors for Christ?

    Apologetic Verses in the Bible

    The church’s skepticism should be overcome by numerous Biblical examples found within our scriptures. Throughout all of these scriptures, you’ll find that the Bible provides abundant directives and examples that encourage Christians to be prepared to provide solid reasons for our faith in Christ. One would endlessly strain to find a single scripture that would encourage a lazy intellect. I’ve provided some (of the many) verses that support the church’s call to openly participate in apologetics,

    2 Corinthians 10:5We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,

    Philippians 1:7 – It is right for me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my heart and, whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God’s grace with me.

    Acts 22:1 – Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense.

    Acts 25:16 – I [Paul] told them that it is not the Roman custom to hand over anyone before they have faced their accusers and have had an opportunity to defend themselves against the charges

    Matthew 22:15-33 (example of apologetics with Jesus ) – Paying the Imperial Tax to Caesar – 15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”

    18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

    21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.

    Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

    22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

    Marriage at the Resurrection

    23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27 Finally, the woman died. 28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”

    29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

    33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.

    Colossians 2:8-9 – See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ. For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.

    Jude 3 – Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.

    Acts 17:24-31 (example of apologetics with Paul) – 24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

    29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

    Conclusion

    Sadly, there are still many within the church that remain skeptical of apologetics despite the unambiguous scriptural directives for Christian case making. It’s hard to diagnose exactly why the directive for apologetics is largely being ignored. We don’t observe the church deliberately avoiding directives to pray, give charitably, and commune together. Then why is this particular calling so easily swept under the rug? Is the church comfortable with living in its own bubble despite the statistics objectively illustrating that many young adults are leaving the church after high school? Why does skepticism towards the embracement of apologetics seem to linger?

    As J Warner Wallace says, sometimes you have to make the case for case making. This is most certainly the case. In order to remove certain fears of apologetics within the church that I discussed above, apologists have to effectively prove to the church why it is needed despite the fact that it’s already clearly communicated in the Bible. We need to point out examples of it within the Bible and its efficacy by those who used it (i.e. Jesus, Paul, etc…). It’s essential to clearly advance an apologetics ministry within the church that will unite the congregation as a whole and can be smoothly incorporated in the local evangelistic efforts of the church.

    Is apologetics the silver bullet that will save the entire church and the unbelieving community? No. However, the unwarranted skepticism of Biblical directives has impeded the church’s ability to keep young adults in a healthy relationship with Christ and grow the church by effectively evangelizing unbelievers in a strongly secular culture. The practice of apologetics can provide the necessary tools to any Christian when he or she is trying to navigate through a difficult discussion with an unbeliever. As Greg Koukl says, ‘put a stone in their shoe’ and give them something to think about. The only way we are going to make every evangelistic opportunity count is if we are prepared to confidently and persuasively speak about the merits of Christianity. It’s time for the church to recognize the utility of apologetics and promote more apologetic teachings among the congregation in an effort to expand the kingdom. It’s a fool’s errand to obstruct a healthy practice from being implemented within the church. So, let skepticism of apologetics be a thing of the past! In the end, when apologetics is done Biblically, we’ll all notice a greater closeness with God and each other.