Christian Apologetics pg. 1

Apologetics defined. –

          Christian apologetics is concerned with defending the Christian faith. The word “apologetics” is derived from the Greek apologia, which means “defense.” When the apostle Paul was before the Roman officials in Acts 24:10 and 25:18, he defended himself (apologeomai). Similarly, Socrates gave an “apology” before the Athenian court.
          There are both negative and positive apologetics. The former is the rational defense of the Christian faith, against all types of arguments raised against it (such as the famous “problem of evil”). The latter has to do with demonstrating the truth of the Christian faith. While apologetics commonly implements philosophy and logic, one needn’t be a hardcore intellectual to defend or support the faith. Furthermore, not all arguments are intellectual, as some are psychological. For example, Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), a Danish Christian philosopher who railed against the use of apologetics to make Christianity seem more rational, believed that it was more important to show the absurdity of Christianity, and to make it clear that it requires a leap of faith. He was right to stress the importance of faith, even though he downplayed the use of reason.

Importance of apologetics. –

          The Christian scriptures admonish believers to “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” (1 Pe. 3:15-16), and the command is given to “Preach the Word” (2 Ti. 4:2). While these verses alone can be taken to apply only to evangelism, as well as merely negative apologetics, St. Paul’s Areopagus (AHR-ee-OP-ah-guhs) sermon in Acts 17:16-34 underlines the importance of the believer’s also engaging in positive apologetics. (Paul’s method is evident elsewhere, too. See Acts 9:29, 18:4,19, 19:8-10, 28:23; also see Acts 6:10 and 18:28 for other examples of believers doing apologetics.)

Insufficiency of apologetics alone. –

          Apologetics alone is, of course, insufficient for the presentation of the gospel. Paul explains that his “message and…preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power” (1 Co. 2:4,5), and also that “the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength” (1 Co. 1:25). Believers must not merely rely on knowledge, but should submit to the Spirit of God so that they do not falsely think they are doing it all on their own. After all, “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Co. 8:1).

Faith in and faith that. –

          It should be made clear that not all believers of Christ are believers in Christ. True Christians believe, but also produce spiritual fruit (see Jn. 15:1-2 and Ga. 5:22-23). James, the brother of Jesus, writes, “faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead” (Jas. 2:17). After all, even demons have faith that God exists (Jas. 2:19). Faith-that is different from faith-in. One can believe that Christ is Lord without choosing to accept Him as one’s own Lord. But the one who has faith in Christ Jesus of Nazareth strives after the example that He gave, and shows love for Christ through obedience to His commands (Jn. 14:15).

Witnessing to the truth through word and deed. –

          This said, God desires believers to witness to the truth through preaching the message (Ro. 14:17) as well as through actions that display holiness and godliness. Believers are called to be holy in all that they do (see 1 Pe. 1:14-16). They are called to love “with actions and in truth” (1 Jn. 3:18). To be sure, these commands can be kept in principle, but due to human imperfection, cannot be followed completely in practice. This is why Christ is not merely the ethical prototype the believer is to follow (Jn. 13:15), but also the Atonement (1 Jn. 4:10). That is, Jesus Christ is the sacrifice that finishes all the work that the believer could never complete in order to attain salvation (Heb. 7:25,27). Consequently, the believer does not behave godly in order to merit going to heaven, but behaves godly out of gratitude to the One who has taken away the sin that created an otherwise impassable gulf separating him or her from the living God.
          The one who preaches about God and lives a horribly sinful life commits a great injustice toward God. Conversely, when a Christian allows for God’s changing and transforming work on his or her spirit by the power of God’s Spirit, and proclaims the wonders God has done for him or her—this person shows a much deeper understanding of what it means to witness to the truth.

One’s worldview (Ger. Weltanschauung) and its consequences. –

          The way one sees life and views the world around them has a great impact on one’s attitude and actions in the world. Some worldviews are more disposed than others to accept spiritual truths. For instance, naturalist worldviews reject all things supernatural, and as a consequence do not allow for belief in the existence of spiritual entities such as God, Satan, and angels. In this way, one’s own personal view of the world can have some serious repercussions. One’s worldview may deny the possibility of attaining knowledge of higher truths (as some forms of agnosticism do), reject the use of logic (e.g., Buddhism), or merely reject the use of logic as a means of proving the Christian faith (known as fideism, a position held by Kierkegaard, mentioned above). In all of these cases, apologetics will do little good, at least insofar as one’s worldview is fixed and one is unwilling to open oneself to the possibility of the truth that Christianity professes to have.
          The reason it is so necessary to see the consequences of holding a particular worldview should be obvious. If not, it shall be made so with what follows. Apologetics is often accustomed to using logic and reason to demonstrating the truth of the Christian faith. However, in many arguments that support the truth of Christianity, a skeptic can choose not to accept one of the underlying presuppositions, or one of the argument’s key premises, held by the Christian. For instance, for one form of the Cosmological Argument (see below), one of the key premises is that everything that begins to exist must have a cause for its existence. But, argues the skeptic, if the universe has always existed, then there is no reason to ask for its cause.
          Many arguments that bear on the truth or falsity of Christianity are like this. Some hold the opinion that one has a choice whether to believe or disbelieve, and that those who choose not to believe are (sometimes or often) choosing that way because of their sin, or because of the effects of their sin. This position shall be examined in greater detail following the arguments for God’s existence. All things being equal, it is definitely true that one’s worldview is influenced by a variety of factors, such as the culture one is born into. Nevertheless, there appears to be some degree of choice involved when it comes to belief-formation.

Pascal’s Wager. –

          Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), French physicist and mathematician, reasons that a simple cost-benefit analysis shows that even if one has no evidence for the truth of God’s existence, it is still advantageous to believe in him. In fact, the argument has the consequence that no matter how improbable it is that God exists, the most reasonable person will nevertheless place his or her bets on God. Here is a reconstruction of the first piece of his argument:

(1) If God exists and I believe in Him: there is infinite gain and finite loss.
(2) If God exists and I do not believe: there is finite gain and infinite loss.
(3) If God does not exist and I believe in Him: there is finite loss.
(4) If God does not exist and I do not believe: there is finite gain.
(5) Therefore, it is prudentially reasonable to believe in God. (1-4)

He suggests that the unbelievers should begin by “acting as if they believe.” But since this argument works just as well at compelling belief in Allah or Zeus as it does in the God of Christianity, Pascal begs the question. The argument does work, however, on those who already believe that God exists. Given that the first part of the argument makes plain the need for putting one’s faith in God, and not just having faith that God exists, this second part shows one way to go about doing it: through imitating other believers.
          Not only is the value of this evidenced by the field of social psychology (which shows that, in many cases, behavior influences attitude), the Bible prescribes this method as well. St. Paul writes: “Therefore I urge you to imitate me” (1 Co. 4:16); “Join with others in following my example, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you” (Ph. 3:17); “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ” (1 Co. 11:1); “You became imitators of us and of the Lord” (1 Th. 1:6). Pascal is right that one needs to take a leap of faith, and others, including Søren Kierkegaard and William James, have also stressed this point. However, one need not take a blind leap of faith: faith should be placed in an object that is rational to believe in. Fideism, which views religious belief as not subject to rational evaluation or criticism, is an untenable position, as well as unbiblical, and should be avoided.
          In 1 Th. 5:21, the Bible exhorts the individual to “Test everything”—even what is found in the Bible—in order to make the right choice about what to believe. An analogy may help. When on some uncertain floor of a large office building, presented with four or five different elevators, all of which are open, one should not walk blindly and arbitrarily through whichever one feels is best. Instead, one should make sure that the elevator shaft has a working elevator in it, a floor to step foot on, so as to avoid leaping to one’s doom. Now, one may have to get into a defective elevator or two before finding the right one, but eventually one should locate the elevator that shall lead one to the proper destination.

More on worldviews, and the role of choice in belief. –

          Everyone must decide for themselves what to believe when it comes to matters of religious faith, even if that decision is to disregard religious faith altogether. As far as it is up to the person what religious worldview he or she will hold, the choice should take into account what seems most reasonable.
          People of course differ in perception of what is reasonable, but some tests for truth are pretty common. A worldview (religious or otherwise) that has greater explanatory power or comprehensiveness is more valuable than one which explains less about the world. A worldview that corresponds with the way the individual is naturally inclined to view reality will be more reasonable than one that is at odds with such natural inclinations. (A worldview that denies the existence of pain and suffering, for instance, will be very counterintuitive and less likely to attract many followers.) A worldview should also have a level of simplicity, and ought to avoid multiplying explanations needlessly. Another vital criterion for what constitutes an acceptable worldview is the practical consideration of how livable such a worldview is. (For example, a person whose worldview includes the denial of the existence of the “self” will be contradicted by the person’s living as if there is a self. Or consider: a relativist about truth will probably have a hard time living as if there are absolutely no absolute truths.)

Setting the stage for what follows. –

          What follows are various lines of apologetical arguments. Pascal’s Wager was examined above in order to set the stage. It has been established that a person who believes that the Christian God exists should place one’s faith in Him. A propositional faith (“belief-that” faith) is inferior to a personal, genuine, existential faith. (I shall draw this out at further length later.) If one requires more evidence for God’s existence before taking the indispensable faith-leap, it is hoped that some of the arguments that follow will clear away some impediments to belief in the God of Christianity. Again, not all of these will attempt to prove the existence of God. Some will show the practical implications of belief in the Christian God, and others will juxtapose the Christian God to the gods and non-divinities (e.g., Buddha, Lucifer, the Goddess) of other worldviews.
          It would be a detriment to the case for Christianity to disregard the importance of one’s entire human nature in offering a Christian apologetic. That is, intellectual arguments for God by themselves do not compel belief in God, and only compel belief in the existence of God to an uncertain degree. Furthermore, a person does not just think, but feels and acts in a variety of ways. The human psyche is not just composed of intellect, but of a very important emotional faculty, the heart. There is also the volitional aspect of one’s nature, the will. (The hotly debated matter of whether the human will is free or determined will be broached later.)
          It would be an even greater detriment not to acknowledge the role of God’s Spirit in apologetics. After all, without the Holy Spirit working on those who do not yet believe, the premises and presuppositions that they would normally accept might be rejected to avoid a conclusion they thoroughly disbelieve (and, perhaps, wish not to believe). Sometimes a person would rather hold a belief that seems quite outlandish than accept the truth of the Gospel. (This is not to say that unbelievers are unreasonable, because conversely there are certain beliefs the Christian holds that will strike the nontheist as outlandish as well—though it shall be argued later that this is for a wholly different reason.) Now, proceeding to some forms of the classical arguments for God’s existence.

The kalam Cosmological Argument. –

          The first of the classical arguments for God is the Cosmological Argument. William Lane Craig is one of the recent proponents of the kalam formulation of the argument. This argument reasons from the universe to God. (“God” here considered is the personal, timeless Creator of the universe, not the complete Christian God. More on which later.)

(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its beginning to exist.
(2) The universe began to exist. (9,17,20,26,31)
(3) The universe has a cause for its beginning to exist. (1-2)
(4) The cause of the beginning of the universe was personal.

Those who wish to deny the effectiveness of this argument can reject premise (7), or by arguing—contrary to (5)—that no contradictions arise from an actual infinite existing in reality. (This, it shall be admitted, has been done—e.g., see Morriston. This is not an airtight argument.)
          The second line of support for premise (2) does not assume that the first one has been accepted.

(10) If there is an actual infinite, it must occur all at once.
(11) An actual infinite cannot be traversed (passed through).
(12) A beginningless temporal series of events is an actual infinite. (cf. 7,8)
(13) An beginningless temporal series of events cannot be traversed. (11,12)
(14) If there was an infinite number of moments before today, today would never have arrived. (13)
(15) Today has arrived.
(16) So, there has not been an infinite number of moments preceding today. (14,15)
(17) Hence, there has been a finite number of moments preceding today. (16)
(2) Therefore, the universe began to exist. (17)

Some will wish to deny (11), but it is difficult to conceptualize the consequences of such a denial. To traverse an actual infinite would be similar to trying to jump out of a bottomless pit. The jumper would never reach the top! One cannot count to zero from negative infinity, because there would seem always to be an infinite stretch of numbers to count off before zero. However, the skeptic who is adept at mathematical sets can effectively argue against (11). Perhaps another way out for the skeptic is to reject premise (12). Since this premise is identical to (13), if one can decisively knock out this premise, one can avoid accepting the kalam argument on philosophical grounds. But, there are still two scientific arguments for the conclusion that the universe had a first instance.

(18) Light from distant galaxies is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum.
(19) This phenomenon indicates that the universe is expanding.
(20) If one theoretically reverses this expansion one reaches a point where there is nothing—no space, time, or matter.
(21) The mass of the universe cannot converge all at once, reassemble at a dimensionless point, and bounce back into another expansion.
(22) Even if it could, there cannot have been an actually infinite number of past cycles due to problems with the actual infinite. (cf. 6,11)
(23) Gravity is the only thing that will draw back together the matter of the universe.
(24) The universe’s strength of gravity is a function of the density of the universe’s mass.
(25) The universe’s mass needs to be twice as dense as it is currently held to be for it to reach a point of expansion and converge.
(26) Hence, there was only one explosion and the oscillating universe model must be rejected. (21-25)
(2) Therefore, the universe began to exist. (20,26)

Due to the ever-changing nature of the sciences, the premises of this argument rest on the current scientific trends. Nevertheless, if this argument succeeds, it adds considerable support to the second premise of the kalam argument. The same is true of the following argument.

(27) According to the second law of thermodynamics (henceforth, SLT), the entropy of the universe (which can be understood as energy, disorder, or information) is increasing; also, the amount of usable energy is decreasing and being uniformly distributed.
(28) An implication of the SLT is that the universe will eventually die by experiencing what physicists call the “heat death” of the universe.
(29) If the universe has always existed, it must have already reached its equilibrium state (its “heat death”) an infinite amount of time ago.
(30) The universe has not reached its equilibrium state.
(31) Hence, the universe has not always existed. (29-30)
(2) Therefore, the universe began to exist. (31)

Some try to argue that the SLT does not apply across the entire universe, but such arguments forget that sum of the universe’s parts are not greater than the universe as a whole. Another argument is that the universe is infinite in extension, but this view is not widely held.
          Now, (2) may be a tough pill for some to swallow, but if it is accepted along with (1), then (3) logically follows. The only thing left is to show that the cause of the universe must be personal, and not impersonal.
          The universe, if it had a first instant—and has not always existed—had to have been caused by something personal or impersonal that was ontologically prior (but not temporally prior) to it. The state of affairs that existed prior to the universe had to have been without time or space. If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the beginning of the universe did not exist in this eternal (timeless) state, then the point at which these conditions first appeared would itself be the first instant. However, this leads to an infinite regress, because this point would then need to have some necessary and sufficient conditions.
          Of course, if the necessary and sufficient conditions did exist in this timeless state, the event would happen spontaneously. It seems that the only way for a first event to arise spontaneously from a timeless and spaceless state of affairs is for a personal agent to freely cause this event. This makes it most reasonable to believe that a timeless, immutable agent caused the universe to come into being.

Some concerns about the kalam version of the Cosmological Argument. –

          While some, such as philosophers William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, and astrophysicist Hugh Ross (founder of Reasons to Believe) are optimistic about the horizontal forms of the Cosmological Argument, such as the above kalam formulation, there is still enough room for the skeptic to reject the argument (though the argument does at least seem to grant the theist some rational justification for belief in a First Cause). Perhaps the philosophical and scientific evidence leaves one feeling that deism (rather than a full-blown theistic conclusion) more plausibly follows from the argument. That is, God may be the First Cause without being the Sustaining Cause of the universe. On this view, God has set the whole thing off and then sat down in his sofa to watch how it all unfolds. He is still, take note, a being located in eternity (more on which later), but He chooses to remain inactive for whatever reason.
          Or maybe one rejects the argument completely. There is no First Cause of the universe—fine. Physicist and theologian Willem Drees is one such individual who has had some qualms about horizontal forms of the Cosmological Argument. As he has written, “Hawking cosmology lends itself much more to an interpretation of sustaining than of making.…From the timeless perspective [entities of creation] are all co-eternal, or they are all created ‘timelessly’. Hence they all are equally related to the Ground of Being” (BBB:QCG, 74).
          So now, to avoid the deistic conclusion, the vertical form of the Cosmological Argument shall be introduced, which hopes to adequately establish the existential necessity of a here-and-now Cause of the universe.

Apologetics pg. 1
Apologetics pg. 2
Apologetics pg. 3
Apologetics pg. 4
References for Apologetics
Back to Intro