Credible Truth

What is Christian Apologetics?

JJ INICIO — Mon, 02 Dec 2024 09:12:20 +0000

What is Christian Apologetics?

The word “apologetics” derives its meaning from the Greek word ἀπολογία (apología) meaning defense. The Greek term refers to a reasoned defense that would be given in a court of law. The classic example is Plato’s Apology, Socrates’ defense against the charges of atheism and corrupting the youth. The usage of the word “apologia” in the Bible is likewise generally referred to “giving a reasoned defense for one’s particular belief, action, or position,” but not necessarily in the court of law – it could be in the synagogue, market place, or anywhere else for that matter.

Now, what does “Christian apologetics” mean? Christian apologetics is the branch of Christian theology that rationally defends the truth claims of the Christian faith against criticisms and distortion, and giving evidence of its credibility. In simple words, it is a discipline within Christian theology that gives evidence for why the Christian faith is reasonable or credible. The discipline of Christian apologetics has a strong biblical base. The primary bible passage that apologists use is1 Peter 3:13-16 where the apostle Peter urges “all” believers to be always prepared to give an answer back to those who question the reason for the hope that we have in Christ Jesus.

Having said that, every discipline has goals, functions that they perform. The goals of apologetics are many folds. Here are some key goals of apologetics:

Firstly, apologetics seeks to vindicate the Christian worldview as a system. Here the task of the apologist is to make a positive case for the validity of the Christian faith. It involves philosophical, scientific, historical, and other fields of knowledge to argue for the credibility of the faith.

Secondly, apologetics seeks to defend the Christian worldview against its assailants. Here the opponents, mostly people of other belief systems, basically criticize or attack the truth claims of Christianity. The goal of the apologist, then, is to defend the truth claims by clarifying the Christian position in light of their misunderstandings and misrepresentations; in general clearing away intellectual hindrances that might hamper the non-believers from believing those truth claims.

Thirdly, apologetics seeks to refute opposing philosophies, belief systems and theories. Here the apologist not necessarily gives evidence for why Christianity is true, but refutes the belief system or philosophy of the non-believer. He shows that there is incoherence and incongruity in the belief system/philosophy of the person whom he is dialoging with. The goal, then, is that the non-believer sees the incoherence in his philosophy and is then opened to listening to what the apologist has to say about the Christian faith.

Fourthly, apologetics seeks to strengthen believers. There are many ways in which apologetics strengthens believers. Firstly, it gives them confidence to share their faith with non-believers. Often times, the Christian is afraid to talk to a non-Christian about religion because he is afraid that he’ll not be in a position to answer questions that the non-Christian throws at him apart from just saying: “I have faith and therefore it’s true.” Yes, the inner witness of the Holy Spirit is authenticating enough, but the non-believer does not understand it. Knowing why Christianity is true based on evidence and rational reasoning strengthens the believer to share his/her faith with others. Secondly, it prevents lapses. It’s not hard to convince someone that many Christians are giving up Christianity for various reasons. Knowing why Christianity is true would have prevented them from leaving their faith. Finally, it boosts his relationship with God. The believer’s relationship with God would be strengthened if the inner witness of the Holy Spirit is supplemented with the knowledge of apologetics.

Finally, the end goal of apologetics is salvation of the unbeliever, not necessarily winning the argument. Here comes the role of Christly persuasion. As the apostle Peter encourages us 1 Peter 3:13-16, we ought to present our reason for why we believe in Christianity by being gentle and respectful. It is very critical that we give room for the Holy Spirit to work in the heart of the unbeliever by building a relationship based on love and humility. The goal of apologetics here is that it prepares the heart of the person to receive Christ.

Why are people leaving the Christian faith?

JJ INICIO — Mon, 02 Dec 2024 07:42:40 +0000

What is Christian Apologetics?

Why are people leaving the Christian faith?

While it’s true that some come back to the faith after temporarily wandering off, the majority, it seems, never come back. Let’s explore some of the most common reasons why Christians leave their faith.

Reason 1: Churches are Overprotective

As Christians living in the 21st century, we have unprecedented access to ideas and worldviews. Unfortunately, the church has failed to engage with the challenges to Christianity from the variety of ideas that exist in our culture. The church has a sort of ostrich mentality where you put your head in the sand and pretend that it is not really out there instead of engaging with it. Think about this! It would be a remarkable sermon, for example, where the pastor would say something like this: “Many biblical scholars think that this is not a historical narrative but is merely legendary.” And then begin to deal with that. Or if preaching on Genesis 1 were to say, “Now, there are certain data from population genetics that suggest that Adam and Eve could never have existed; that the human population never shrank below 2,000 individuals in the past.” The kids are hearing this in their biology class at school, and yet you never hear it in church. So, in that sense maybe they feel it is a kind of bubble or overprotective environment. This perhaps backfires because they hear these challenges anyway, and so the failure to acknowledge them and address them hurts their faith.

Reason 2: Churches come across as anti-science

This is predominantly found among young adults. One of the reasons they feel disconnected from church or from faith is the tension they feel between Christianity and science. The most common of the perceptions in this arena is “Christians are too confident they know all the answers”. Some feel that “churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in”. As a result, many science-minded young Christians are struggling to find ways of staying faithful to their beliefs and to their professional calling in science-related industries. For instance, there is a sort of unholy alliance between New Atheists and Young Earth Creationists that, if you think that the world is older than ten to twenty thousand years, you have somehow betrayed the Bible and contradicted the Bible. So, if you are convinced that those two are incompatible, that is to say an ancient world and the truth of the Scripture, then something has got to give and the church will come across as antagonistic to mainstream science.

Reason 3: The Exclusive nature of Christianity held by Christians

This is the problem of religious pluralism. The idea that Christ and Christ alone is the way of salvation and the way to God is deeply offensive to people today. People think that we are narrow and bigoted and dogmatic and therefore are really immoral people. I think what lies behind it is the cultural conviction that religious belief is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of taste or fashion, and therefore to say that your view alone is right is just an expression of bigotry and close-mindedness because you are simply saying that your tastes are the only right tastes – the only legitimate ones. People don’t think of religious belief as objective matters of fact. Therefore, this kind of exclusivity they find offensive, just as if I were to condemn your taste in music or your taste in clothing and say that my tastes alone are correct. If religious belief is just a matter of taste then these claims to exclusivity are indeed absurd and offensive.

Reason 4: The Church is unfriendly to those who doubt.

People with Christian experience say the church is not a place that allows them to express doubts. They do not feel safe admitting that sometimes Christianity does not make sense. In addition, many feel that the church’s response to doubt is trivial. Some of the perceptions in this regard include not being able “to ask my most pressing life questions in church” and having “significant intellectual doubts about my faith”. In fact, intellectual scepticism is a major reason cited by those who have left.

Why would God allow potential confusion about His revelation, resulting in many religions?

JJ INICIO — Thu, 28 Nov 2024 08:31:58 +0000

What is Christian Apologetics?

Why would God allow potential confusion about His revelation, resulting in many religions?

Undoubtedly, there are a variety of worldviews practiced today in our world. We see from the study of these diverse worldviews that, although they agree with each other on a superficial level, they all differ fundamentally in their view of God and His nature. Now, if God is unchanging, eternal and is perfect, why are there so many worldviews? If it’s the case that they all talk about the same God, why is there such a drastic difference in their core beliefs? For instance, how could one worldview, for example, say “God is personal,” and another say “He is not!” Why would God allow this massive misinterpretation of His revelation to prevail? In other words, the challenge can be put forth like this: given that there are a variety of worldviews, all being fundamentally different, and that God is perfect, why would He allow potential confusion about his revelation, resulting in many religions?

Now, God could have easily made his existence more clear and obvious. Perhaps have his name written in the sky, or have every atom or molecule inscribed on it the statement “made by Yahweh.” But, he chose not to. Why didn’t he? If he did, it could have, perhaps, solved most of the problems that exist today. We wouldn’t be fighting over which religion is the correct one. Most importantly, it could have saved many from eternal damnation.

In order to answer this, let’s look at three key premises that are fundamental to answering this challenge. First, it is logically impossible for God to reveal himself in mutually exclusive ways. Because God is a morally perfect being, and that he cannot lie, it makes perfect sense to conclude that this premise is true. For, to reveal himself in mutually exclusive ways is to “deceive” humanity, and to “deceive” cannot be an attribute of God. Second, it is not plausible that there exists unresolvable uncertainty over God’s revelation. If God has revealed himself so that we discover him, He would definitely provide the means and the power to His honest seekers to be able to find him. Otherwise, why would he reveal Himself in the first place? If God has revealed himself, His existence and persona is certainly resolvable, at least to some degree if not completely. Third, it is plausible that there exists resolvable uncertainty in the process of human’s search for God. Now, this is the more difficult premise.

Why would there be resolvable uncertainty in the search for God? Now, follow me on this: in the attainment of any virtue, the necessity of choice is fundamental. In other words, in the absence of choice (good or bad), virtue cannot be attained. Similarly, in order to attain the true knowledge of God, there ought to exist a possibility of attaining a false knowledge of God. In order to meet that end, God endowed humanity with libertarian freewill. Furthermore, God being all-good and all-loving, there cannot be a violation of libertarian free will granted to humanity, which, perhaps, could lead the individual to reject God Himself.

Now, consider a naughty five year old at school, for example. Assume that his strict dad keeps a watch over him all day, noting his behaviour in class. The kid is totally robbed of his freedom to act freely. He “behaves” himself not because he wishes to, but because he is under the watchful eyes of his strict dad. Imagine his dad is away one fine day. He now has the freedom to act according to his wishes. He has the option of choosing to do both good and bad, which was not the case earlier. Earlier, he didn’t have any option other than to “behave” because he was under his dad’s watchful eyes.

Similarly, what if God keeps popping into your bedroom every night? What if He walks by you, physically recognizable, wherever you go? Wouldn’t you be irritated by his intrusion? You would be forced to believe in him even though you might not like it, won’t you? You are robbed of your freedom to choose him wilfully. Now, this is important! God is not interested in merely getting people to be saved or to believe in him, but to come to him willingly, entering into a communal relationship with him. This means that he keeps himself at the right distance, a distance not too far away that we don’t recognize him, nor, too near that we are forced to believe in him. This distance allows the possibility of misidentifying and misrepresenting Him.

How do we know which worldview is true?

JJ INICIO — Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:24:08 +0000

What is Christian Apologetics?

How do we know which worldview is true?

Considering the plethora of religious worldviews, how do we know which worldview is true? On a superficial level, there seem to be two options – one, all religious worldviews are equally true; two, all religious worldviews are equally false.

Let’s have a closer look at the first option. The core beliefs of various religious worldviews suggest that this is highly unlikely because they are contradictory in their understanding of literally every aspect of a religion, from the nature of God, to the nature of man, to sin, to salvation, to heaven and hell, so on and so forth. But a religious pluralist might argue at this point that every religious worldview, although, expressing contradictory beliefs, are experiencing the same God, and hence conclude that every religious worldview is equally true and valid. In other words, the religious pluralist argues that all paths lead to the same destination eventually. The adherents of a particular religious worldview, according to the pluralist, are totally blinded in that they do not experience what the others are experiencing. This view of the pluralist is problematic in many ways (I’ve addressed this in my other blog titled “Are all religions basically the same, are they just different paths to the same God?”). But, let me mention just one here.

Given that God is a morally perfect being, which means he cannot lie, God cannot reveal himself in mutually exclusive ways. If he did, it would make no sense to accept him/her/it as divine. This is exactly what we observe in world’s religions. One religion makes claim about a particular belief that stands in complete contradiction to another. Just take Islam and Buddhism, for example. Their worldviews have almost nothing in common. Islam believes that there is a personal God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and holy, and who created the world. It believes that people are sinful and in need of God’s forgiveness, that everlasting heaven or hell awaits us after death, and that we must earn our salvation by faith and righteous deeds. Buddhism denies all of these things. For the classical Buddhist ultimate reality is impersonal, the world is uncreated, there is no enduring self, life’s ultimate goal is not personal immortality but annihilation, and the ideas of sin and salvation play no role at all. Examples like this could be multiplied. Both these worldviews can never be equally true at the same time, considering the fact that God is a morally perfect being.

How about the second option? Given that all religious worldviews contradict each other on a fundamental level, could it be that all of them are equally false? Let’s find out! Consider the following statements, for example:

John Marshal is in Chennai!

John Marshal is in Delhi!

John Marshal is in Kolkata!

John Marshal is in Mumbai!

Now, it can easily be said that all of the above statements cannot be true at the same time. But, could it be the case that all of them are equally false? Yes, it is possible! It is possible that he is elsewhere, in Bangalore, for example. But, it is also very much possible that one of the above statements is true, that he is in Chennai, for example. So, the question boils down to this: what evidence does one have to suggest that he is in one of the above places or he is not in any of the above places?

Now, let’s superimpose this analogy to the various religious worldviews. Given that religious worldviews contradict each other fundamentally, and that they cannot all be true at the same time, could it be that they are all false, or that one of them is true? Well, it all depends on how much evidence one has to suggest that it is true. So, how do we test every religion for its truthfulness? Well, I would like to propose the following three tests for truth.

First, every worldview, whether it is Humanism, Materialism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other worldview for that matter, must be logically coherent and consistent within its own system. Second, if the worldview makes empirically verifiable claims, then it must stand the test of verification. For instance, Christianity claims that Jesus lived in history, he died and rose again. Now, this is falsifiable. So the question is: does Christianity provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to suggest that its claims are true? If it does, then it’s probably true. Third, is the worldview under study experientially relevant to one’s day to day life? This is very significant because, a worldview must be comprehensive, addressing every aspect of life. So, how do we know which worldview is true? By applying the basic tests for truth which are coherence, correspondence and relevance. In other words, the worldview under consideration must be logically coherent, empirically verifiable and experientially relevant in order to be true.

Are all religions basically the same? Do they all lead to the same God?

JJ INICIO — Thu, 28 Nov 2024 06:51:19 +0000

What is Christian Apologetics?

Are all religions basically the same? Do they all lead to the same God?

Often, we hear it asked in this manner, "Why make such a big issue about Jesus Christ and Christianity? All religions ultimately teach the same thing. Was not Jesus basically saying the same thing as Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed, and the other founders of great religions? They all teach that God is love, we are to love our fellow man, and that we should give ourselves for others, don’t not? If this is the case, then why single out Christianity for special attention?"

There is a famous story in Indian religious texts (Rig Veda, some Buddhist and Jain texts) that is used by some to describe the relationship between different religions. The story describes a group of men who are blind. They come upon an elephant standing still, and each man goes to a different part. The first feels the large, thin ears and says, “An elephant is like a fan.” The second blind man grabs on to a leg and says, “you are wrong, an elephant is like a tree trunk.” The third blind man is up front and holds on to the elephant’s trunk. “You are both very mistaken, an elephant is like a thick snake.” The fourth blind man is way in the back and grabs that little, thin tail and says, “None of you know what you are talking about – an elephant is like a rope.” So off they go arguing about what an elephant is like, each sincerely convinced that they are right and each certain that the others are totally wrong. Now, a Prince comes along and asks them what the issue was. The Prince then goes on to tell them that neither of them were completely right in their description although they had partial truths about the nature of the elephant. Now, the reason that this story is told is to say that people who believe their faith is correct and other religions are wrong are themselves mistaken - because all religions are like the blind men describing the elephant - they have a piece of truth, but not the whole truth. So, all religions are just describing the same God in different ways. Thus, they conclude that all religions are basically the same despite their differences.

There is another way people think that religions are all basically the same. People describe this position by quoting the Hindu Bhagavad Gita (4:11), “Howsoever men may approach me, even so do I accept them; for, on all sides, whatever path they may choose is mine.” The illustration usually given for this is that there are many different paths to get to the top of a mountain. Some are quick, some seem to wander endlessly around. Some are easy and some are hard - but eventually all the paths reach the top of the mountain. The same is true, they say, of all the religions in the world. While they seem to do different things, the end result is all of them will get to God.

Both of these positions are very attractive to many people today because people think this kind of perspective would solve many problems. There is no basis for conflicts based on religions because we should all just say that all religions are right. That way people won’t feel bad when someone’s faith disagrees with theirs - they can just be comforted that all religions are basically the same. Peace, harmony, tolerance, brotherhood – what more could anyone want. Surely, it must be the case that all religions are basically the same or that all religions lead to the same God - because that’s what the world needs so that we can all be one.

Superficially speaking, yes, most religions have things in common. They all attempt to meet a deeply felt need of all human beings to worship something and to experience ultimate reality. Many have similar codes of ethics. It is generally believed that such things as murder and stealing are wrong and loving is right. Therefore, there is some common ground between most faiths. When this is established people often make the mistake of assuming that they are all the same. However, they are not. In addition, the pluralist’s argument is self-defeating. Let me explain why!

Firstly, let’s take a look at the first parable! Now, make sure to apply the principle we just learnt; “apply the claim to itself,” and check if it’s self-defeating by applying the law of non-contradiction. The moral of the story according to the parable teller is that all religions are like these blind men. They each touch a different part of ultimate reality and therefore any one of them is arrogant to say they have the whole truth. But take a step back and think about what is being said here. Do you see the breathtaking claim that is being made? Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Moses, and Muhammad are all blind, but in fact, I can see! These leaders all had a small perspective, but I am the one who sees the full picture. Now who is being arrogant? It is just as arrogant to say that Buddha, Muhammad, and Jesus were all wrong in their exclusive claims as it is to say that Jesus is the only way. The issue is not about who is arrogant, but what is actually true and real. Did you just notice that the parable teller proved the exact opposite of what he wanted to say? He wanted to say that no one has the truth but clearly acknowledges that he has the truth, namely the truth that no one has the truth. Pluralism, hence, is self-refuting in addition to being arrogant.

Secondly, all religions cannot be true at the same time because they fundamentally contradict each other in their teaching. The Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Christians and other religious groups cannot all be experiencing the same God because the way they define God contradicts each other. They can all be wrong, but they cannot all be true. It is impossible for God to be personal and impersonal at the same time, for example. Hence, to say that all religions are ultimately the same shows a lack of understanding of these religions and what they are teaching. When carefully studied, all religions differ in their teaching about God, man, sin, salvation, hell, heaven, so on and so forth, which is more or less everything there is to know about a religion. Let’s consider the views of God of five major world religions, for example, and see how distinct they are to each other – Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and the New Age. In looking at these major belief systems and their views of God, we find tremendous diversity: Hindus acknowledge multitudes of gods and goddesses; Buddhists say there is no deity; New Age followers believe they are God; Muslims believe in a powerful but unknowable God; Christians believe in a God who is loving and approachable. Are all religions worshiping the same God? Let's consider that in a bit more detail. New Age teaches that everyone should come to the center of a cosmic consciousness, but it would require Islam to give up their one God, Hinduism to give up their numerous gods, and Buddhism to establish that there is a God. The world's major religions (Hinduism, New Age, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity) are each quite unique. And of these one affirms that there is a personal, loving God who can be known, now in this life. In Hinduism, a person is on their own trying to gain release from karma. In New Age, a person is working at their own divinity. In Buddhism, it is an individual quest at being free from desire. And in Islam, the individual follows religious laws for the sake of paradise after death.

The final reason we can give to the falseness of the idea that all religions lead to God is to answer the illustration of the paths up a mountain. The assumption of the parable teller is that he’s got God’s view of all the paths and knows that they all lead up to God. Now, the more critical issue here is, as we have discussed earlier, that the God to whom the respective path leads are not the same, and so obviously they don’t end up in the same place. The assumption of the pluralist here is that the ultimate reality is one, but as we have discussed before that it’s not the case since they fundamentally contradict each other in their view about God. All religions do not lead to God.

Why do some Christians reject the task of Christian Apologetics?

JJ INICIO — Thu, 28 Nov 2024 06:30:58 +0000

What is Christian Apologetics?

Why do some Christians reject the task of Christian Apologetics?

In this post, we’ll be discussing the question: why do some Christians reject the task of Christian apologetics? Well, there are at least three reasons.

First, some Christians would say, “Christianity is a matter of the heart, not of the intellect. I don’t want to define it. I know and love Jesus and that’s enough for me.” Well, clearly, I am not doubting the sincerity of many such people. However, I'm afraid that these are the sort of Christians who fall prey to false doctrines and teachings in the thousands every single year. Why? Because they refuse to pin down what they believe; they think it is a bad thing to attempt to define it. But it is not a bad thing, it is simply common sense. As soon as the cults and sects arrived on the scene (which was quite soon), the early Christians discovered that they needed to define their Christianity; they did this through such things as the very early Apostles Creed and, later, through the later great 4th century creeds, such as the Nicaean Creed and the Creed at Constantinople. When people purposefully or accidentally pervert biblical teaching they are very subtle, and the only way we can see that is when we define and articulate what we believe clearly. The apostles thought it was imperative that the beliefs of Christianity were clearly and carefully defined. All we must do to establish this fact is to go right through the New Testament epistles and note how important the apostles thought it was to define what Christianity is, and what it is not!

Why did Paul write his letter to the Galatians and Romans, for instance? There was a misrepresentation of the gospel. A subtle deviation from the truth of Christianity. The Jewish Christians insisted that the gentile believers had to become Jews or follow the outward ceremonies of the Mosaic Law (Gal. 2:3, 11-12, 14; 4:10). Paul’s message was loud and clear. He didn’t simply sit around and say, “It doesn’t matter, as long as they love Jesus and know him it’s fine!” No! He immediately wrote a letter in anger. In fact, he called them “you foolish Galatians” (5:1). He corrected them. He wrote, “to require the outward deeds of the Law is to deny the heart of the gospel.” It’s the same with his letter to Romans as well. John’s first epistle also bears witness to our point. So, in essence, to define Christianity is not a bad thing. In fact, as I said earlier, it helps us keep away from heresies. However, as I said earlier, this does not mean that sincere love for God takes the back seat.

Second, some Christians think that Christian Apologetics could lead to a purely-human understanding of God. They argue that divine knowledge is only granted by the Holy Spirit, only God grants us true spiritual knowledge; and if that is granted, then Apologetics is not needed. Of course, ultimately, certainly only God grants us true spiritual knowledge. It is certainly a point well taken, but what about that in-between stage as the Spirit starts working with us and gradually opening our minds? If this objection is true, why even preach the Gospel? But before that, didn’t the apostle Peter say: “But in your hearts set apart 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, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.” (1 Peter 3:15-16). How can we be prepared to give an answer concerning the hope of the Gospel if we refuse to get involved in Christian Apologetics?

People who reject the task of Christian Apologetics sometimes quote this: “On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.” (Matthew 10:18-20). But the Matthew text is talking about giving a defense of Christianity in a time of serious trial before magistrates, rulers and judges. At such a time we do not need to prepare our defense because the Holy Spirit Himself will speak through us. The context of these verses is set in verse 17: “Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues.” Also, we have already noted 1 Peter 3:15 which tells us to be prepared to give an answer - if this should seem insufficient to some, we really should consider the Book of Acts which shows the Apostles regularly involved in Christian Apologetics. Let’s look at an example:

“Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. 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 hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' "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 man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 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 all men by raising him from the dead."' (Acts 17:22-31).

So here we see Paul freely engaging in Christian Apologetics! Did Paul say, 'I am not even going to discuss God with these people because they can't possibly understand unless the Holy Spirit opens their minds.' Of course not!! Preaching the Gospel cannot avoid the discipline of Christian Apologetics, that is, to preach the Gospel is to proclaim, explain and to defend the Christian Faith.

Finally, some Christians say, “Christian Faith” is not based on evidence while Christian apologetics is all about presenting evidence for the Faith, and hence reject the discipline of apologetics. They often quote Hebrews 11:1 which says, “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” to support their argument. They think faith and reason are opposite. The more reasons you have, the less room there is for faith. But this definition is foreign to the Bible. The Greek word for faith, pistis, is derived from the verb pisteuo, which means “to convince by argument.” Hebrews 11:1 explains that faith is “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Some translations replace “conviction” with “evidence.” Faith, then, is being convinced that the things we can’t see (e.g. God, heaven, the resurrection, etc.) are real. Biblical faith, then, is not blind, but functions the same way as trust. You don’t blindly trust people. They have to earn it. You put your trust in people you have good reason to trust. Biblical faith is also not contrary to reason. It’s consistent with reason. You put your trust (faith) in what you have good reason to believe is true.

God, in the Old Testament, taught faith in these terms. He routinely reminds the Israelites why they can trust Him (put their faith in Him). God is the One who delivered them from slavery. “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery” (Exod. 20:2). This is repeated over and over and over (Exod. 13:3, 13:14, 33:1, Lev. 25:38, Deut. 5:6, 6:12, etc.). That’s why the Jews can trust – put their faith in – God. Jesus also operated with this understanding of faith. John wrote 21 chapters about Jesus in his Gospel, much of it records supernatural works. Why? He explains, “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). In other words, you can put your faith in Christ because His miraculous works are a testament to His claims and credibility.

These are some of the reasons why some Christians reject the discipline of apologetics. I hope I’ve addressed them well. If you have further questions, please feel free to respond.

The Need for Apologetics Today

JJ INICIO — Thu, 28 Nov 2024 06:23:34 +0000

What is Christian Apologetics?

The Need for Apologetics Today

If you are one of those people who does not know what Christian apologetics is and what its functions are, I would suggest for you to read my post on “what is Christian apologetics?” before reading the “need for apologetics today.” Here, in this blog post, we are only discussing the question: “is apologetics needed today?” I’ve been asked this question by many and hence this post. Hopefully, you find this helpful.

So, is apologetics needed today? Well, absolutely yes! This does not mean that one needs to be apologetically trained or well-versed in the arguments concerning the credibility of the Christian faith to be saved or have a close relationship with God. Far from it. Why, then is it needed, you may ask? Well, for many reasons. Let me mention just four for now.

Firstly, we are literally being inundated with a plethora of beliefs and ideologies around us. In a multi-cultural and multi-religious place like India, it is tremendously difficult to claim exclusivity. But the cause of concern is that the average Christian is not able to positively engage in a discussion with a non-believer, primarily, because he/she does not have the necessary knowledge about religious or philosophical ideas other than their own to have a dialogue. Apologetics prepares the church to positively engage with the challenges these beliefs and ideologies put forth. St. Paul, in Athens (Acts 17), could dialogue with a group of Greek philosophers because he knew what they believed and why they believed in what they believed. This made it easier for him to dialogue with them. In fact, he quoted a Greek philosopher in his discussion with them. India, like ancient Greece, has many philosophies floating around today, and apologetics helps us engage in friendly dialogue with people of other faiths.

Secondly, people today, more than ever, are open to dialogue about truth and religion, but, unfortunately, have no one to dialogue with. This, I think, is sorrowful. There are hundreds of people in India seeking truth and looking for solutions to their problems. But, the sad part is that, we Christians just do our own thing and forget the mandate that God has placed on us. Apologetics helps us engage in conversation with the seeker.

Thirdly, the Christian church is overwhelmed by false doctrines. Needless to say, this is the case throughout the body of Christ. From sexuality to idolatry to vocation, the church compromises with the values of the wider society. Apologetics helps correct these false ideologies within the church.

Finally, it’s so very true that Christians on several occasions, at least in India, have been the recipient of massive verbal attack on all fronts, not because we proclaim Christ, but because we seem to portray an anti-national attitude– referring to Christianity being a western religion, anti-cultural attitude– referring to Christianity introducing western cultural elements. While this may be true superficially, it is definitely not true essentially. But, how do we dialogue our way out through this bad image that has been so strongly engrained into the hearts of people for well over a century now. Apologetics helps us counter the bad image that Christianity has received in the media and culture. How so? Apologetics, here, seeks to clarify the misunderstandings and misinterpretations that people now and in the past, have had on the Christian belief.

While this is certainly not an exhaustive list of reasons why I believe apologetics is needed today, it at least helps us get started at looking at apologetics from a utility perspective.

Are we prepared to give an answer for the reason for the hope we have?

JJ INICIO — Thu, 28 Nov 2024 05:45:34 +0000

What is Christian Apologetics?

Are we prepared to give an answer for the reason for the hope we have?

“But in your hearts, set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you for the reason for the hope that you have, but do this with gentleness and respect” 1 Peter 3:15

In the above passage, the apostle Peter issues a command, which eventually becomes foundational to the discipline of Christian Apologetics. He says “we should always be prepared to give an answer (apologia),” which literally means to give a “reasoned defence,” for the reason for the hope that we have. Now, to whom is Peter writing this? He is writing to the church that is scattered throughout the world, which is suffering severe persecution. Throughout this letter Peter exhorts his readers to lead holy and obedient lives. Every chapter contains practical instruction as to how we should live and what attitude we should adopt. In the midst of all of this instruction, comes a very clear command – be prepared to give an answer for the hope that you have. The challenge Peter places for us, today, is: are we prepared to give an answer for the reason for the hope that we have?

But, even before beginning to prepare to give an answer for the reason for the hope we have, Peter urges us to “set apart Christ as Lord in our hearts” (v.15a). What does this mean? It means that we submit every area of our lives under the Lordship of Christ. “Heart,” here, not only indicates the seat of our feelings but also the seat of our thoughts as well. Every part of us needs to be under the authority of Christ. A complete surrender to the Lordship of Christ is an essential ingredient in giving an “answer” for the reason for the hope we have as believers in Christ Jesus.

Secondly, since this passage is written in the context of holiness, when we give an answer for the reason for our hope, we should speak from the context of holiness. Our attitude, our actions and how we treat other people is vitally important (1 Peter 3:8 onwards). Even when faced with persecution, evil is not to be repaid with evil. 1 Peter 3:15 is saying that because our lives and attitudes are different, due to living in obedience to God’s commands, people will ask questions as to why and we should therefore be prepared. In other words, there should actually be a demand for an apologetic because of the quality of our lives.

After we have set apart Christ as Lord in our hearts, Peter, then, urges us to be “prepared.” Now, what does it mean to “be prepared?” The word in Greek has its roots in the idea of “being fit.” Now, physical fitness does not happen instantly; it takes dedication, commitment, hard work and a lot of resilience. And, most importantly, after one gets fit, one cannot, for a moment, think that he/she is fit forever. In order to maintain his/her fitness, consistent exercising is required. It’s not like the degree one earns after college, which, no matter how many years go by and the person remembers absolutely nothing about it, he still, proudly, can say he/she is such and such. Similarly, “getting prepared” is going to involve us exercising the effort necessary to make sure that we are ready. Opportunities to share our faith should not be lost because we haven’t taken the time to think through what we would say.

After we have prepared, we must give answer for the reason for the hope that we have. Now, what is the reason for our hope? The gospel is our hope. What is the gospel? The salvific work of Jesus Christ on the cross and his resurrection from the dead is the gospel. There is no other reason for our confidence. Also, this is an event that happened in history. So, believing that Christ died so that we might be saved is not a superstition. Instead there is a reason for the hope that we have and that reason is falsifiable. We must be ready to give an explanation, a defence, of why the Gospel is true. However, at the same time we must recognise that people may have other legitimate questions that need to be dealt with before they are prepared to give us a hearing. We need to deal with these issues so that we can clear away false ideas. Then Christ can be seen for who he is.

Finally, Peter addresses the question: how do we give an answer? In other words, what should be our attitude when we share the gospel? The gospel should always be shared with gentleness and respect. The gospel itself is a message of peace and grace. The Gospel, however, is not to be compromised in any way. But the way we present it must be consistent with its content. One of the reasons we find evangelism so scary is because we’re afraid of offending people. Talking about Jesus does involve using some challenging words. It’s not easy to talk about His exclusivity, or the call to take up our cross and die. But friends, can I urge you – let the offence stay with the gospel. Don’t be offensive in how you share it. Do it with gentleness and respect.

Brothers and sisters in Christ, are we prepared to give an answer for the reason for the hope we have? Let’s examine and commit ourselves!