Apologetics Is Not For Convincing Atheists
A rodeo mentality hinders apologetics. But that is exactly what I had during my battle with skepticism.
When confronting skeptics, I thought there must be an answer so faultless that it would give all opposing arguments whiplash on the takedown. If my brain was sufficiently developed, brute intellectual muscle could hogtie and drag screaming atheists to salvation. The Holy Spirit does need a sidekick, right?
No. He doesn’t. I was missing the whole point of apologetics
The Purpose of Apologetics
Faith is not a product of intellectual strength on the inside or coercive persuasion from the outside. It is a gift from God from start to finish.
Thus the purpose of making a reasoned defense of our beliefs - apologetics – is not to create faith in someone by arguing them to God. Apologetics is not a trump card, a cowboy’s lasso, or a checkmate move. No man comes to the Son unless he is drawn by the Father (John 6:44).
The purpose of apologetics is to present a map that ultimately points the doubter toward Jesus Christ. There are two parts to this purpose…
1. Strengthen Believers in Their Faith
Acts 18:24-28 tells a short story of Apollos. He was eloquent, competent in the Scriptures, and instructed in the way of the Lord. He was an accurate and fervent teacher. When he showed up on the scene in Achaia, “he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.” That is Christ-centered apologetics in action, a means God uses to channel His grace to believers in need of strength.
2. Present the Gospel to the Unbeliever
In Acts 17:16-34, we find Paul reasoning with the Stoic philosophers. But Paul wasn’t there just to argue endlessly in the name of apologetics. His mission was to present the gospel, and once that was done, he left.
How to Respond to Those Who Reject the Truth
Why did Paul walk away from the stoics who mocked the gospel? Why didn’t he stay to convince them? Because that is not the goal of apologetics. Apologetics can’t convert people to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
“The heart must be kept tender and pliable; otherwise agnosticism converts to skepticism. In such a case the value of apologetics is voided, for apologetics is aimed at persuading doubters, not at refuting the defiant. He who demands a kind of proof that the nature of the case renders impossible, is determined that no possible evidence shall convince him.”
- The Case for Orthodox Theology, Edward John Carnell
That is not to say that we should just blurt out the gospel and then walk away if no one responds. We are to be gentle and merciful to those who doubt or are blinded to the truth (Jude 22, 2 Timothy 2:23-26), and that might take the form of a long-term discussion with an unbeliever.
Know When to Walk Away
However, when someone is openly hostile to even hearing the truth – which is often evidenced by mockery – apologetics is not the answer. Only the Holy Spirit’s work can enlightened their minds and open their hearts to the truth. It is ok to walk away and seek another opportunity to speak to the truth to a ready heart.
As C.H. Spurgeon put it,
“How many hours in a day ought a man to give to [becoming acquainted with all the phases of modern doubt]? Twenty-five out of the twenty-four would hardly be sufficient…Am I to spend my time in going about to knock his cardhouses over?
“Not I! I have something else to do; and so has every Christian minister. He has real doubts to deal with, which vex true hearts; he has anxieties to relieve in converted souls, and in minds that are pining after the truth and the right; he has these to meet, without everlastingly tilting at windmills, and running all over the country to put down every scarecrow which learned simpletons may set up.”
- The Weaned Child, sermon by CH Spurgeon
Enjoy this post? Subscribe to blog updates via email or via RSS
Related posts:
I used to use apologetics as the method of evangelism. I found that all it did was create room for arguments and debates. I still use apologetics, but it’s not my method anymore. My method consists of mostly listening. R.C. Sproul says that one of apologetic’s major tasks is to “shut the mouth” of the unbeliever. But he says it much more loving than that.
And, yes, when we desire spiritual growth (hehe) apologetics substantially helps the believer by helping him or her understand why he or she believes what he or she believes.
In what way did you use apologetics as a method of evangelism?
You’re right – apologetics does play an important role in helping a believer understand the basis for belief (to the extent that the Holy Spirit is opening our mind to the truth while we reason).
It was THE method. Basically, I would find out what they believed and then would make an attempt to refute all their erroneous views. So now, when a person might say something like, “Ya know, I’m just not sure about Jesus. Everything I hear or read about him makes it difficult to believe anything at all!” Instead of me trying to find out that person’s erroneous views of Jesus, I would ask them if they have every read the Bible, and encourage them to forget about what they heard, and just look in Scripture at the person Jesus and what Jesus thought about himself. I would also likely read it along with them. I still might talk about his or her erroneous views of Jesus, but it would not be the primary motivator.
Ah, I’m with you now.
Last summer, Demian pointed me to Tactics in Defending the Faith
…the biggest takeaway from it was how to ask questions to get at the root assumption of people’s assertions.
Highly recommend the audio if you’ve never heard it.
I actually listen to Greg Koukl. I like his approach to this sort of thing.
Another jewel of a post!
B.B. Warfield said this, “…God, since the creation of His world, has plainly revealed through the things He has made His eternal power and divine nature, and the requirements of His law, so that there is no excuse for unbelief or disobedience on the part of any man; yet however glorious this revelation, it is not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary for salvation.
Paul puts it this way, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. (1Cor.2:14)
The last sentence of your quote from Carnell makes a poignant rule, which I paraphrase thus, “You may lead a professing atheist to the Living Water, but you can’t make him drink.”
Daniel, I think this is my first time commenting on your blog but I’ve been reading (and forwarding) for a while. Let me say your spiritual maturity and discernment humbles this guy who looks to be 20 years your senior.
Regarding apologetics, I had a conversation with one of my pastors, Bill, a while back where I asked him what he thought about a certain apologist. My intent was to pick his brain as to the apologist’s bias so I could make sure I was looking critically at his position. Bill in wisdom saw the question behind the question and told me “here’s the problem with apologetics. It’s good to a point but you are never going to figure out God. You are going to have to live with the tension of not knowing everything and let that push you to deeper faith in Christ.
I think a thoughtful person will admit that they’ve had a dark moment at least of the soul where they are so far down the rabbit hole that all of a sudden the idea that maybe flagellum have evolved (or whatever) somehow renders their faith pointless. When I type it like that it sure seems silly.
Press on.
I am an ex-evangelical Christian, Wheaton College graduate. When I studied the claims of Christians (especially of Protestant apologists), I found them absurd, and often shockingly dishonest. Yet, the most concerning and potentially harmful attitude that many Christians have is an attitude of certainty. Most will admit that even before they became Christians (or were “saved”) that they already believed the claims of Christianity with certainty. Only after the fact do they try to find the intellectual data in an attempt (and often a half-hearted attempt) to justify their certainty.
Simply put, most Christian groups put an enormous emphasis on certainty, and give the highest praise to members of their communities who express the most certainty, and likewise shun (and even encourage hatred of) those with an attitude of uncertainty. Indeed, saying, “I don’t know,” or, “I’m not sure, is regarded as a sign of weak faith, and therefore an undesirable attitude.Yet, an attitude of uncertainty is the cornerstone of scientific reasoning, and scientific dialogue.
Most Christians don’t have the courage to discuss the tenets of their faith, and a allow for the possibilty that their beliefs are wrong. Thus, they refuse to entertain the idea that they have false beliefs. As a result, they may have false beliefs that cannot be corrected with reason and evidence, which is the definition of a delusion.
Billy Wheaton
1 Cor 2:14 needs to be my next Bible memory verse.
Is the B.B. Warfield quote from a book?
Rob, it is a pleasure to hear from you, and your support – reading and forwarding – is priceless.
“You are going to have to live with the tension of not knowing everything and let that push you to deeper faith in Christ…” That’s what 1 Cor 2:14 says the natural man sees as folly. You brought up a really good point.
Billy, I appreciate you laying out a few important thoughts.
When you refer to “certainty,” what do you mean? It sounds like you use certainty in a scientific sense interchangeably with certainty that the church calls “faith.”
[...] reading an article discussing the role of apologetics, I have been thinking about how it fits in with [...]
I mean certainty in the sense that the word is most commonly used in our culture, which is to describe the feeling a person has that he or she is unmistakably right. So it could, and often is, used interchangably with the word “faith.” But when the two words are used as synonyms, look out! We might experience a wild ride.
The two words are not the same, and “faith” has traditionally been used to describe something optimistically–even though it is uncertain. For example, a person in East Asia in WWII might have used the word “faith” to describe how they felt about the liklihood of General MacArthur returning to the Philippines. It is taken for granted that nobody knew for sure, before he actually returned.
But often times when Christians used the word “faith” in a way that implies God has given them magical powers, most Christians seem to merely applaud, rather than correct their flawed thinking. What magical powers am I referring to? The most blatantly absurd utterances that are magical thinking, and abounded in the Christian communities I was a part of are:
1) a belief that one can know the future like a fortuneteller. Here is a common example, “I know the Jesus is coming back soon, and probably will come back during our lifetime.” Of course, most of the people I knew who said that are dead. None were admonished by others for making claims about the future–one with certainty (Jesus in coming back), and one with ridiculous reasoning and faith (he is likely to come back during our lifetime).
2) A belief that one can read mind. And what a dangerous belief this is. But it is the cornerstone of apologetics, in my opinion, and an easy skill to act as if one has in order to appear intelligent and wise. Here is a typical example from Ravi Zacharias in the introduction to a chapter in Lee Strobel’s book, The Case for Faith, “A man rejects God neither because of the intellectual demands nor because of the scarcity of evidence. A man rejects God because of a moral restistance that refuses to admit his need for God” (p. 247). How does Zacharias know what others think? We all know with as much certainty as is possible that Zacharias does not know what others think itellectually, what they might resist morally, or what their honest assessments of the evidence are. But he can pass as a Christian “intellectual,” because too many Christians are willing to give him a pass when he utters these magical claims that we might expect to here from a palm reader or Tarot card reader.
Regardless, even if a person felt 100 certain about their Christian beliefs, he or she could approach a discussion with a non-believer by acting as if he or she had an attitude of uncertainty. In the same way that many twelve-year-olds know they are right, and cannot be persuaded to even keep an open mind, so it is with many Christians who admire this same childish attitude of certainty. It is potentially perilous, and when reality catches up with those Christians, I hope we all all don’t suffer from their stupidity.
In conclusion, I have found that people who cannot genuinely say, “I don’t know” about almost everything, not only don’t know much, but also tend to be the most demanding and threatening.
Billy Wheaton.
While I agree that many people have certainty when they shouldn’t, and Christians can and do abuse applications of “faith”, I do not join you in most of your assertions.
But your personal uncertainty is reasonable, because man naturally does not know all there is about reality. We are not omniscient. Therefore, apart from God, we can have little certainty.
I got it from a compilation of brief excerpts from his shorter writings, which I am presently unable to relocate…
Hey! Just found it!!
Read it here:
http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/index.html?mainframe=/calvinism/warfield_reformed_theology.html
Excellent, it’s on my reading list now. Thank you!
Billy, how cool that you hold a degree from a college bearing your own name!
But seriously, one must wonder why you would post what you have on this particular blog, “Desire Spiritual Growth”…
Inasmuch as you do not appear to be seeking to learn of Jesus Christ, have you posted from a desire to deliver misguided Christians from our “delusion”, “childishness”, and “stupidity” as you put it?
Or is it possible that whatever you now believe has brought you so little satisfaction that you simply wish to dislodge the faithful from their security because your misery would love some company?
Most of what you allege about “Christians” does not apply to biblically defined believers in Jesus Christ and, while I will confess with Daniel that I have known professing christians who have held such views, and have even done so myself in past ignorance, “blind” belief, a know-it-all attitude & behavior, and “hatred” of those who are uncertain are decidedly uncharacteristic of genuine believers in Christ, who attribute our salvation to the unmerited grace of a loving and merciful God who freely gave His only Son to be the propitiational sacrifice for the sins of many, to die in our place that we might live.
Now, if you’d like to accuse believers of writing inordinately lengthy run-on sentences, I have just validated your claim in the statement above. But as far as the nature of faith in Christ, you have demonstrated by your comments a gross misunderstanding and lack of knowledge. I say this not to shame you, but in hope you may consider the possibility that I am correct, and stick around to seek the truth as it is in Jesus.
As for being an ex-Christian, perhaps you are (in the sense of the world’s definition of a christian). But there are no ex-true-believers-unto-eternal-life. If Christ has once known you, nothing can remove you from Him. If He has never known you (as in Mt.7:23) then you are not a once-was, but a never-were.
The faith of a genuine Christian is based solely upon the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God. Upon what are your beliefs based?
I was unaware that this was an exclusive site–meant for Christians only.
Regardless, I wrote a book about evangelical (inerrantist) Christians, so I suppose discussing it from time to time seems reasonable. Really I need to do more, and get my website up again.
Anyway, you wrote, “But there are no ex-true-believers-unto-eternal-life. If Christ has once known you, nothing can remove you from Him. If He has never known you (as in Mt.7:23) then you are not a once-was, but a never-were. The faith of a genuine Christian is based solely upon the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God.”
This is a good example of the things I mentioned in the previous post. And it gives an example of why people might be attracted to Christianity. Specifically, you make a blanket claim about what Chriatian faith, as if you have special knowledge or discernment that others don’t have. But we know this is false. I can read and study the Bible just as you have. And it is unreasonable to claim it is inerrant. As well, Christian faith may or may not be based on the things you outlined–the particulars are contingent on the persons who hold such faith.
Next, you use circular reason with your rendering of “once saved, always saved.” Regardless, we all know that you don’t know my thoughts, motives, or the nature of my commitment, in the past, to the type of Christian faith you seem to have now. If I tell you I was earnestly, honestly, and wholeheartedly commited to Christ in the past, then that should settle the matter. If this does not fit your worldview, and in order to make things fit with your flawed reasoning, you claim to know my thoughts/mindset in the past, then too bad for your worldview. You cannot bend reality just to make it fit your distorted view of reality. You are a “natural man,” no matter how hard you pretend to have special powers or gifts that make you different than me. As a result, I know you have no idea, whatsoever, what my thoughts and commitments were in the past.
Billy Wheaton
Billy, thanks for your reply. Like you, I was unaware that this is “an exclusive site– meant for Christians only.” To my knowledge that is not the case, but it is curious to me that a non-believer would seek to peddle his wares here, as the site is obviously intended to minister to those who, um, “desire spiritual growth.” You offer nothing of spiritual value in your comments, and you still haven’t said why you are posting here…
I am quite aware that my post offers a “good example of the things [you] mentioned in the previous post,” as that was my intention, in part. But let me be perfectly clear that there is no “as if” about what I’m saying: true believers in Christ, who have been born again from above by the will and action of God upon them, most assuredly DO “have special knowledge [and] discernment that others don’t have.” The third chapter of John and many other Scriptures make this clear to the believer, and leave unbelievers to muddle in the unclarity of their own self-manufactured confusion. I cite again [for the believers' benefit], 1Cor.2:14:
“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” [I commend to all readers the entire passage from 1Cor.2:1-14 as an exposition to those who are able to understand, of why and how they are able to understand.]
We all entered this world as “natural persons,” but some have been given by God a second birth which has initiated the formation of Christ Jesus within us, adding a spiritual dimension which the natural does not and cannot possess.
As for reasoning: all reasoning is circular, as it must return eventually to some fundamental presupposition. Ours is this: God is, and rewards those who seek Him diligently> We know this because His Word declares it> His Word is true and trustworthy because God cannot lie> We know this because His Word says so, and on it circles…
You appear to not realize that, in your blatant statements about the “flawed reasoning” of Christians, our worldview, distortion of reality, and what “we all know” [about what we can & can't know], you are making the same claims against Christians that you accuse us of making towards you. But, you see, we DO know your thoughts and motives, not because we are smart or magical or mindreaders, but because God’s Word openly states them. But you still haven’t told us: upon what certainties do you base your claims to a superior knowledge that purports to discredit ours?
As previously stated, I do not claim to know whether or not you have ever been saved– only that if you were you still are and it will become evident eventually. The Bible does say, however (not merely my opinion), that your feelings of earnestness, honesty, and wholeheartedness have nothing to do with the reality of it [one may be sincere and still be sincerely wrong].
I also do not know whether you are a deliberately deceitful rebel against and enemy of God, or simply a deceived and rebellious enemy of God because of ignorance. So, you see, unlike your claim, I do not pretend to know everything, nor to have secret knowledge– everything we believe is clearly stated in the Bible, for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. But the dead in trespasses and sins see and hear nothing of the kingdom of God.
Thanks for your honesty about your beliefs. I hope you take this in return as an honest appeal for you to consider.
If one were to outline what you claim generally, one might come up with this:
-Special powers, roles, and secrets that only you and a select few have.
-false beliefs that are clearly outside the realm of knowing in our shared physical world. For example, you claim to know, based on my non-believer status, enough about my past motives, character, integrity, or whatever, to have determined I was never essentially indistinguishable from someone like you now–as a “genuine” Christian.
-A need to appeal to one’s special powers in attempts to hold one’s false beliefs together (e.g., quoting a Bible verse, interpreting it, and assuming one’s special gift of discernment makes the believer’s interpretation non negotiable).
Thus you special powers, not evident in our shared world, and false beliefs that are not correctable by reason and evidence. As these are the hallmarks of the reason processes of people with mental health thinking disorders–as defined in the psychiatric community–do you think anyone should take you seriously?
If not, that is sad to me. And something like apologetics will become increasingly a tool that leads you and some others in your group to withdrawl from the rest of society as the title of this post suggests (such withdrawal is yet another hallmark of mental illness).
If you do want others to take you seriously, then you will have to try (not necessarily all in one day), shed the Superman costume, and specal powers from your unnatural world, and have to learn to cope with others, who have the same limitations, fears, uncertainties, and challenges that you have.
Billy Wheaton
Billy,
You are not very consistent, and it leaves me questioning your motives.
- You seek to undermine our certainty and convictions, yet you freely display your own certainty in calling our beliefs “false beliefs.”
- You request that a Christian feign uncertainty, yet you are unwilling to do the same. Instead, you make bold assertions.
- You toss out Al’s claim that, based on your behavior, you are acting like one who never truly believed. Your grounds? Al couldn’t possibly read minds. Then you turn around and draw the conclusion, based on Al’s behavior, that he is acting as one with a mental illness.
- You say most Christians do not have the courage to discuss the tenets of their faith, yet you continue to ignore questions about your own certainty. I refer you back to Al’s question: “But you still haven’t told us: upon what certainties do you base your claims to a superior knowledge that purports to discredit ours?”
Your efforts to cast doubt on Al’s mental health and eligibility to be taken seriously…are casting doubts on your own.
I appreciate your thoughts, and hope you read more than the titles of the blog and post. In all gentleness, I ask you as a guest to grant Al and the others as much – if not more – respect and courtesy as you wish for yourself.
As I said from the outset, I have an attitude of uncertainty. Nevertheless, some things are like gravity, and seem to be true every time they are tested. For example, one person cannot read another person’s mind, or what is in it, with even the smallest bit of certainty. Thus, when someone claims to know this info, I label it “false” until sufficient evidence warrants changing my position.
For example, when one says that as a Christian one becomes “spiritually discerned,” or whatever, in comparison to non-believers, the obvious question become, How do you know this? Since we know you cannot truly ever know (because you [as I] cannot read others minds), then you must have another way of knowing. So when you are referring to me, I know when your assertion are correct or incorrect. So when as above, it is stated with certainty, that I did not have whatever spiritual, metaphysical, attitudinal, or whatever ingredients it takes to make a “genuine” Christian in the past. The conclusion is that Al somehow magically knows that IN COMPARISON TO HIM, I lacked some ingredient that he has now, which makes him a “genuine” Christian.
And yes, this claim (a common one among the Christians I know) is flat out crazy.
To claim you could somehow know this from reading the Bible, and claim your particular interpretation of the Bible is equivalent to the “word of God,” is not consistent with the overwhelming evidence we ALL have at our disposal. You cannot read my mind. I cannot read yours. So regardless of what a Bible passage might say, Ravi Zacharias doesn’t know what another human is “morally reluctant to accept.” Paul, the author of Romans, does not know the will and motives of non-beleivers as he claims in the patently absurd first chapter of Romans, for example. And no matter how good you might feel about being special after reading a Bible verse–we know you simply have no way of knowing whether you are more, or less, blinded; more, or less, discerned, etc. than anyone else simply because you are a Christian.
If you take these special powers to be true based on faith, I consider this to be potentially scary and dangerous, as you could use the same kind of warped reasoning to justify almost anything (as many already have).
Billy Wheaton
“Billy”, I am finished with addressing your concerns because you have patently ignored everything I have purposed to say to date, electing instead to repeat your claims, ignoring my replies and cherry picking from my comments only those things you attempt to discredit in your rants. You have shown yourself to be not only anonymous but dishonest.
I will pose to you these questions (some for the 2nd & 3rd times)– if you elect to answer any or all of them honestly, and if you wish me to, I will engage you in further discussion. Otherwise, you are welcome to the last word:
1. What was your motive in posting your non-christian views to be read by Christians?
2, Upon what basis do you claim to know what other people (do & do not; can & cannot) know?
3. Who is the “we” that you assert also know these things you claim to know?
4. What establishes you as an expert on mental health?
5. What makes you suppose that because something “seems to be true” that it is?
6. Have you never been wrong (since whenever you decided you are an ex-Christian)?
7. What establishes your standard for right and wrong?
—a. Are you (a) god?
—b. If not, who or what is your god?
8. Did you publish the book you said you wrote?
— a. Under what names (title / author / publisher)?
— b. Where or how can it be obtained?
I cannot wish you godspeed, as He is angry with the wicked every day, but if you will repent of your sins and seek Him, you may yet find God merciful,
al
1. What was your motive in posting your non-Christian views to be read by Christians?
I simply followed a link from Twitter. After reading the post, I decided to reply. Posting on Twitter is a bad way, if the goal is to attract Christians only.
2, Upon what basis do you claim to know what other people (do & do not; can & cannot) know?
I only know what I think. And, I know others cannot read my mind, or anyone else’s mind, for that matter. When claims suggest access to the private thoughts of others, huge red flags go up to me. I refer you to Romans 1 for a classic example.
3. Who is the “we” that you assert also know these things you claim to know?
I am merely being confident in asserting that others will agree–no human can read any others human’s mind. But, you are right, if “we” don’t agree on this, then “we” have to take a huge step backwards in this discussion.
4. What establishes you as an expert on mental health?
Does one have to be an expert to read about mental health, and to have a good general working knowledge of the same? I am not an expert, but rather simply a reasonably well informed general practitioner of family medicine.
5. What makes you suppose that because something “seems to be true” that it is?
I have no evidence (as in zero) that would suggest any other human can read, or know the contents, of another person’s thoughts with much certainty. As well, I have none that any human is anything other than pathetic at predicting (prophesying, etc.) the future–even the near future. So I consider this to be true, as the evidence that it is, is overwhelming. But, I am open to evidence to the contrary.
6. Have you never been wrong (since whenever you decided you are an ex-Christian)?
You tell me. Do you think I should believe someone who claims to know the thoughts, desires, and motives of other people, as the Apostle Paul does in Romans 1? If so, why?
7. What establishes your standard for right and wrong?
I am simply saying that the kind of faith you are referring to leaves you vulnerable to the pitfalls that evidence suggests comes with the disordered reasoning that it takes to have said faith. . . . I don’t think it is right or wrong.
8. Did you publish the book you said you wrote?
Billy Wheaton with Joy Fuller, Hooks and Ladders, iUniverse, 2009 (obviously both pseudonyms)
You can Google it and get it multiple ways. Or, if you sent me your email in a few days, I could send along a free PDF version (same as published version).
Billy Wheaton
I am BillyWheaton on Twitter