arguments

Atheism Requires a Little Humility

By Nick Bertsch

When conversing with various atheists, I have encountered sort of a self-righteousness that confuses me. There is a certain sense in which many have a very condescending view of anyone they deem stupid enough to believe in a creator of the universe. The funny thing is, there are more problems in explaining reality for those who deny God's existence, than there are for those who affirm it. Here are a few off the top of my head, just to start.

First, most atheists are also naturalists or materialists. They believe all that exists is matter. In other words, "In the beginning were the particles." If this is the case, then it follows that wherever each person is at this moment is the result of physical processes. We are basically molecules in motion, or "moist robots." This should mean that our thoughts, beliefs, emotions, etc. are not rational but chemical, and we have no control over them. Whatever sense of morality we have, whatever view of God we have, and whatever else we think, are not something freely chosen or deduced rationally, but rather caused by chemical reactions in the brain. In other words, we don't reason, we just react. There is no free will in this view; we are biologically determined. This means that the atheist has no grounds to think his view is rational, because his beliefs are caused by his biology. Chances are though, most atheists will switch categories, claim they have free will, and yet cling to a worldview that undermines it completely.

Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel argues as much in his book Mind and Cosmos. He writes: "Evolutionary naturalism provides an account of our capacities that undermines their reliability, and in doing so undermines itself."[1]

Second, although I am sure some will disagree, it seems that it is atheists who, more often than not, will take the wildly counter-intuitive position of denying such blindingly obvious things as objective morality and consciousness to argue against a creator. Richard Dawkins, a well-known atheist, has famously said, "DNA neither knows nor cares, DNA just is, and we dance to its music."[2] There are many atheists who will even argue that our consciousness is an illusion. Despite such bold statements, they will then proceed to argue about the immorality of religion (which is really just people dancing to their DNA, supposedly) using what they feel are rational arguments produced by their consciousness which is supposedly illusory . . . for everyone but them. Makes sense, right?

not-atheist-symbol1Third, when the best answer your worldview can provide in many cases is "we don't know," then it would be polite not to look down on those who draw an inference to the best explanation by positing God. The origin of life, the origin of the universe, and the origin of consciousness are a few things that have no plausible explanation within the worldview of naturalism, and it would be nice to see an atheist or two be a little more charitable with Christians, since "we don't know" is the best they can ultimately come up with when pressed.

Fourth, even though it's a standard atheist tactic to blame religion for causing more wars and violence than anything else, it is actually atheism that has the higher body count. Regimes like those of Stalin, Lenin, and Mao Zedong made atheism the institutionalized position, resulting in the slaughter of over 100 million people combined, many of whom were religious people. Is it because all atheists are evil? Of course not. It is because atheism reduces us from human beings created in the image of God, with intrinsic value, to glorified animals with extrinsic value, who can be killed if they are not useful or oppose what you want. If a person has the power these men had, and views people this way, there is nothing logically incoherent about killing anyone who disagrees. Those claiming to be Christians who committed violence did so against the teachings of Jesus. Read for yourself. However, those who believe we are all animals and are accountable to no one have the logical backing for some pretty ugly things. Most atheists don't think like this, which I am glad for, but there is nothing in the logical outworking of their worldview which would prevent them from doing so. In other words, they are inconsistent yet again, and should be a bit more charitable to those with a worldview that doesn't lead logically to these kinds of things.

Fifth, since most atheists think evolution is really to blame for the way we all think and behave, why is it so impossible for them to keep their evolution to themselves and let Christians and everyone else believe what they want? Why are they so threatened by us? Why do some feel the need to remove any mention of God from anything in society, and silence or ostracize anyone who dares to dissent? I find it a little telling of the weakness of their worldview. If religion is a product of evolution that has helped people survive, then there is no explanation for the irrational hatred so many atheists have for it.

Finally, it is seemingly impossible for many atheists to accurately represent the Christian worldview before they proceed to argue against it. They consistently build a straw man of what we don't believe (with a few verses ripped out of context from the Old Testament thrown in), and then proceed to tear it apart. If you can't argue confidently and logically against a view someone actually holds, then don't look down on them with such disdain for holding it.

I could probably rant forever on this, but I think I have made my point. I love when good conversations happen, but find more and more that the tone, and the tactics, are often unhelpful. There are many like me who have not blindly accepted belief in God, but have logically thought it through and find His existence undeniable. The reality is, there are massive problems with the atheistic worldview, and it would serve some atheists well to have a little humility in view of this. Christians are not the only ones with questions to answer.


[1] Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 27.

[2] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic Books, 1995), 133.


Learn to stand strong in your faith!

Subscribe to our weekly email to get the latest content from Faith Beyond Belief.
* indicates required



Apologetics Can't Save People

j-warner-wallace.jpg

By Jennifer Pinch

Apologetics is the discipline of providing justification for our conclusions. Let us begin with a brutally honest confession. There are some really bad apologetics out there. There are sincere, gospel motivated Christians who fail to recognize basic rules of logical argumentation and are ill-equipped to identify unbiased, evidence-based research. This kind of defense of the faith raises red flags in the minds of seekers and skeptics, and rightfully so. We need to begin by holding our Christian defense to the exact same standard we would require of any other religious apologetic. This transparency is essential to sharing the reasons for the hope that we have with integrity.

What does this have to do with apologetics "saving people"? Paradoxically, both everything and not much. Allow me to explain. Dubious apologetics have the very real potential of becoming a barrier for some to trust Christian truth claims. Careful apologetics can help to resolve questions and provoke doubt in the intellectual and emotional objections to faith. At the very same time, we must always recognize that God is sovereign. He can and does use our failures for His glory. In fact, one of my Christian mentors is a man who was led toward Christianity through a false prophesy. I also know several former Mormons who came to a genuine saving faith in Christ while members of a false church.

"[Christians] need to master the facts and evidences that support the claims of Christianity and anticipate the tactics of those who oppose us. This kind of preparation is a form of worship." —J. Warner WallaceThe reasons for becoming a Christian are complex. It may be that the testimony of a changed life through Christ was utterly undeniable and persuasive. It may be the hearing of God's testimony about Himself through the reading of Scripture that is recognized as truth and is embraced. For some, God intervenes in a supernatural way to bring people to belief in Christ. There are many reports of these occurrences happening, particularly amongst Muslim people in the Middle East in the last few years. I would also argue that many who claim to be Christians have simply inherited the faith of their parents and when push comes to shove, their faith is extremely fragile. I had the privilege of attending a friend's baptism just yesterday, who realized this painful truth a few years ago. Her crisis of faith was an intense journey. In her baptismal testimony she explained how apologetics rescued her faith. Her studies and God's faithfulness provided her with confidence that it is reasonable to believe and there is good evidence for Christianity.

What is important to recognize is that if the depth of our Christianity is only as deep as being impressed by another person's testimony or a desire for community, and is not also anchored by good reasons to believe, we are at risk of being like those who fell away described in the parable of the sower and the seeds. Jesus describes a sower accidentally scattering seeds along a path (Matthew 13:3-9, 18-23). Some of the seeds were immediately eaten by birds. (The birds might be representative of quick-witted Internet rhetoric against God's word.) Some of the seeds sprang up immediately but because they were on rocky ground and had no root, they withered away. (These seeds are representative of people who are persuaded to believe on a subjective, emotional appeal alone, and lack intellectual reasons for their faith.) Some seeds were sown amongst thorns and thistles and were choked out eventually. (Proverbs speaks to this when it says, "Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm" [Proverbs 13:20 ESV].) Lastly, Jesus tells of the seeds that fall on good soil and produced grain. Not only did those seeds grow into plants, but they multiplied. (They fulfilled the great commission, to go out and make disciples.)

Bart Campolo, son of influential evangelical leader Tony Campolo, is an unfortunate example of a seed sown on rocky ground. In an interview for WORLD News Group, he said, "The truth of the matter is that, for me, all the supernatural dogma, the eternal life, the heaven and hell, Jesus rising from the dead—all the fantastic things that you have to believe to be a Christian—that wasn't the attraction for me… I wanted to be part of this wonderful community, and so, for me, the dogma was the price of admission, not the attraction."[1] His faith was only as deep as his emotional and social desires. When he was given reason to think his faith might negatively influence his friendships—as Jesus promised it would—rather than standing firm, his shallow rooted, pragmatic faith was revealed.

When the assertion is made that "apologetics can't save people," it reveals a dismissive attitude, often by those who are actually very passionate about sharing the gospel through evangelism. However, if one wants to argue that apologetics can't save people, it stands to reason that neither can evangelism. Salvation is from the Lord (Jonah 2:9). When sharing the gospel, the disputes over methodology are primarily a matter of Christian unity. We all ought to agree that it is the saving work of the Holy Spirit that brings the lost to repentance and faith. The question of how that saving miracle occurs, is unique to the individual. There are Christian believers who bear witness of the fact that they were convinced primarily by evidence. These include brothers and sisters like C. S. Lewis, Holly Ordway, and J. Warner Wallace. On the other hand, there are many examples of Christians who came to faith by hearing the Word of God preached and simply recognizing the truth being spoken, like Charles Spurgeon and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 6. At the same time, salvation is a spiritual rebirth, a transformation that goes far beyond what we can reduce to a sequence of events.

Our desire ought to be faithfulness to the task we have been called to as followers of Jesus Christ. We are to set apart Christ as Lord, always be prepared to give a rational defense for the hope we have (1 Peter 3:15), and go out into all the nations making disciples (Matthew 28:19). Evangelism and apologetics are necessarily interconnected. We are the body—one body. Let us not become divided as we seek to boldly share the good news of our risen Saviour!


[1] Warren Cole Smith, "Bart Campolo on Life After Faith," WORLD, October 17, 2015, accessed October 19, 2015, http://www.worldmag.com/2015/10/bart_campolo_on_life_after_faith.


Learn to stand strong in your faith!

Subscribe to our weekly email to get the latest content from Faith Beyond Belief.
* indicates required



Two More Things Apologetics Can't Do

augustine.jpg

By Jojo Ruba

Last week, I started looking at some limitations of apologetics, which still show why apologetics is important. I continue my thoughts this week with two more things apologetics "can't do," but still shouldn't stop us from using them anyway.

3. Apologetics isn't the Bible.

Now, some believers argue that apologetics isn't the Bible; therefore, we shouldn't do anything other than share the Bible with others. Again, as apologists, we should admit that we must always share the truths we learn in Scripture. It's obvious that the Bible shapes the Christian worldview, and apologetics can't replace Scripture.

However, any missionary will tell you that when you go to a foreign country, you also need to teach the skills to read the Bible along with the Bible, especially if the people you speak to don't have a written language. You have to teach them everything from learning how to read the Bible in their own language to understanding basic cultural practices in the Bible.

In our culture, there is so much biblical illiteracy that we often have to do the same thing in explaining the Bible to others. One Christian told me she can't even share her faith with two co-workers because they think she is "homophobic." If she isn't equipped to explain the biblical view of sexuality in a way her non-Christian friends can understand, then they would never go to her to explain her views about the Bible. That's what good apologetics can do.

Now, I understand there are differences in apologetic approaches and our goal at FBB is not to debate them here. But regardless of our approach, it is important to point out that apologetics isn't the Bible and that we must always share the truth of Scripture. But in doing so, we also have to teach important skills that help others understand Scripture, and apologetics can help them gain those skills.

4. Apologetics can't replace the Holy Spirit.

One other Christian objection to apologetics is that Christians don't need to study apologetics because the Holy Spirit will provide the words when we need them.

Unlike the other objections, this idea actually sounds biblical. In Matthew 10:19 (and the parallel passage in Luke 12:8-12), Jesus says, "But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say."[1]

Now, of course, God can have us speak whatever He wants. In fact, there are several examples in Scripture where this happens. In Luke 1, Elizabeth and the preborn John the Baptist are both filled with the Holy Spirit and Elizabeth declares God's blessing on Mary and the preborn Messiah (vv. 42-45). In Acts 7, Stephen is filled with the Holy Spirit as He confronts the people about to kill him (vv. 56-60).

But this passage is used against apologetics because some argue that since the Holy Spirit will just put words in our mouths like magic, we don't need to prepare for any kind of interaction with others. Of course, this would be a good excuse not to read your Bible or even evangelize too. But that would make no sense since Jesus specifically taught the disciples so that they can share their experiences with others.

"The predictions of the prophets . . . were read, they were corroborated by powerful signs, and the truth was seen to be not contradictory to reason, but only different from customary ideas, so that at length the world embraced the faith it had furiously persecuted." —Augustine of HippoThe passage can't be used against apologetics in general, because Jesus is talking about a specific time and place when He said the Holy Spirit will give us words. He never says we shouldn't prepare for conversations with others. He says for us "not to worry" about what to say, "when they hand you over" to authorities to attack your faith. In fact, if you read the entire context, this has verse has nothing to do with preparing for everyday interactions but with special interactions when we are treated unjustly by the authorities. This was the exact situation Peter found himself in Acts 4. Being dragged unjustly in front of the ruling council of priests and elders, the Holy Spirit gave Peter the exact words he needed. Yet even in that situation, Peter never once indicates that it is a waste of time using apologetics! In fact, the Holy Spirit, through Peter, declares that the curing of a disabled man was evidence of Christ's divinity. He was using a miracle that everyone in the city observed as good reason for others to trust in Jesus!

In Acts 5, Peter and the apostles once again were brought before the council. This time, Peter declared, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross…And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him" (vv. 30-32). If God intended for the apostles to rely solely on the Holy Spirit to give the apostles "words" to say, why did the apostles have to be "witnesses"? It's clear even in the exact situation that Jesus talked about in Matthew, that the Holy Spirit doesn't just give us words but also uses His witnesses' experiences and training. He lets us experience events and learn things so that we can be useful to Him. Many examples in the Bible (Moses and Aaron in Exodus, Esther in front of her king, Nehemiah asking to bring His people back to Israel, etc.) have God's people giving reasons to authorities without specific words from the Holy Spirit.

In other words, apologetics can never replace the role of the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit uses apologetics and experiences we have to help convince others to obey God. He doesn't just give us "magic" words to say at the moment, but many times speaks through our experiences and arguments.

Conclusion

In high school, I learned that there is nothing wrong with admitting that you have limits and as Christian apologists, we should be willing to admit the same. But apologists shouldn't be embarrassed by these limits. Rather, they should show how these limitations actually show the need for apologetics in many aspects of our Christian life, from relationship building to Bible reading and sharing. It allows us to be effective in living out our faith as God's representatives on earth.

Next week, we'll examine the most common argument based on "what apologetics can't do": "Apologetics can't save people". If you want a hard copy of this series, Faith Beyond Belief will be publishing this series as a booklet that you will be able to order on-line.


[1] Scripture citations are taken from the New American Standard Bible (NASB).


Learn to stand strong in your faith!

Subscribe to our weekly email to get the latest content from Faith Beyond Belief.
* indicates required



What Apologetics Can't Do

william-lane-craig.jpg

By Jojo Ruba

When I was in grade 12, I was part of as many student clubs as I could be. I was elected to be on student council, joined the yearbook club, was part of the choir's musical, and even showed up at a few juggling club meetings. I did all of this while I was taking a full course load. Eventually, the long days and lack of sleep took their toll and the quality of my work suffered. I had to cut back, dropping a few classes and clubs.

When Christians argue against using apologetics, it's important to accept that apologetics also has limitations. Those of us defending the use of apologetics shouldn't exaggerate what a reasoned defense of the faith can do. But even by acknowledging what apologetics can't do, it becomes clear why apologetics is such a necessary part of the Christian life. Here are two of the top things apologetics "can't do" that actually show why apologetics is essential.

1. Apologetics can't replace relationships with people.

I was at a huge Christian youth event when I talked to a young woman who was sitting in an information booth for the conference. As I chatted with her, I mentioned the idea of learning good reasons to share our faith. Her response was that she didn't really spend a lot of time doing that. Instead, she said, she just built relationships with people and that's how people became Christians.

"Conversion is exclusively the role of the Spirit. But we can rationally commend our faith to thers in the confidence that some, whose hearts he has opened, will respond to the apologetic we present and place their faith in Christ." —William Lane CraigThis popular argument against apologetics is attractive, especially for those of us who don't like to "argue" or make others feel uncomfortable. And as apologists, we should be willing to agree that apologetics can't replace relationships. But here's a question that those who hold this view should be asked: "What do you talk about in those relationships to get people to become Christians?"

If you were to adopt the model this young woman advocates for, you would still have to learn how to explain the faith to someone you are in a relationship with. When the atheist you have befriended begins to ask why you believe in the Christian God or why you trust the Bible, would you simply say, "I don't know but you should believe in that God because I'm your friend"? How much of a friend would you be with that attitude?

In contrast, no one I've heard teaching apologetics has ever come out against relationship building. In fact, in our training, we encourage Christians to learn how to begin a conversation so as to be in relationship with others around us.

The other point to remember is that the Bible never says we have to be in relationship with someone before we share our faith with that person. In fact, there are several examples where the opposite happened. For instance, Jesus tells the rich young ruler to sell everything he has and then follow Him, prompting that man to leave and not have a relationship with Him (Matthew 19). He also tells a mocking thief that he was going to Paradise based on just a few words and no prior relationship (Luke 23). Philip also showed the Ethiopian eunuch who the Messiah was and then promptly disappeared (Acts 8). This doesn't mean we shouldn't build relationships when we can, but it does mean relationship-building and apologetics aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, relationship-building requires apologetics, though apologetics can be used outside of relationship.

2. Apologetics doesn't appeal to a world that embraces relativism.

I was teaching an apologetics class when Ambrose interrupted the class to argue against what I was teaching on truth. He said that "apologetics" doesn't work because our culture doesn't embrace propositional truths.

This argument is popular among those who embrace the emergent church or the teachings of Christian existentialist Søren Kierkegaard (though it is debated whether they properly interpret him). The argument basically goes like this: Our culture has rejected modernity and all the hard claims about "truth" because we recognize that truth is subjective—it is always seen through the subjective understanding of flawed people. Therefore, the only way to reach a postmodern culture is to tell them stories instead of "facts." People who embrace the Christian faith do so not because it is more rational, but because it meets their subjective "needs."

Ambrose later wrote a public comment on our Facebook page that even goes further. He says not only is the "modern" view of truth unreliable, it actually contradicts the Christian message. He wrote:

Reason itself has to be sanctified to be of any use. 2 + 2 = 4 has a kind of rightness. But its rightness is defined in a closed system that is part of a fallen order. What becomes of "reason" and "arguments" once they are sanctified? My point is, the modern apologetic obsession with reason and arguments is already too great an acquiescence to the present age and, by association, its ruler. We are called to get a new mind, not one that thinks more skillfully by the world's own definition. The entire underlying worldview of fbb, from what I have seen, is unbiblical.

Now to be fair, Ambrose is right that human reason is tainted by sin. He is also right that apologetics simply doesn't appeal to a postmodern mindset—it doesn't "work" in changing everyone's minds. As apologists we should be willing to accept that apologetics can't make someone rational.

However, we already know this because Jesus promised that when we talk to others about Him, they will say all kinds of evil about us (Matthew 5:11). But this fact doesn't make Jesus conclude that, "Lack of appeal means you shouldn't share reasons for your beliefs!" Rather, He makes clear that our success or failure has nothing to do with whether the person accepts the arguments. Rather, we are commanded to bring these reasons to people so that the gospel can be understood (1 Peter 3:15). In fact, that's exactly why Luke said he wrote the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts so that his friend, Theophilus could know the "exact truth" of what he believed (Luke 1: 1-4).

And surprisingly, Ambrose's own arguments show that he can't escape the need for reason. When he argues against reason, he does so using arguments he thinks are reasonable! In fact, postmodern Christians who chastise apologists for defending the Christian faith must use their own rules of logic to come to their conclusions! They make an observation (culture rejects truth) and come up with a conclusion that they think will help rectify the problem (Christians should reject modernism's obsession with truth). Despite its tainted nature, they can't escape the tool of reason to help them come to their conclusion. Which is why when I asked Ambrose how he came to that conclusion (that is, how did he reason his way to that view?), he never responded.

As Dallas Willard says:

Today, by contrast, we commonly depend upon the emotional pull of stories and images to "move" people. We fail to understand that, in the very nature of the human mind, emotion does not reliably generate belief or faith, if it generates it at all. Not even "seeing" does, unless you know what you are seeing. It is understanding, insight, that generates belief. In vain do we try to change peoples' heart or character by "moving" them to do things in ways that bypass their understanding.[1]

In my next article, I'll discuss two more things apologetics can't do, but which nonetheless underscore its importance.


[1] Dallas Willard, "Jesus the Logician," Christian Scholar's Review, 28 no. 4 (Summer 1999): 605-614. http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=39.


Learn to stand strong in your faith!

Subscribe to our weekly email to get the latest content from Faith Beyond Belief.
* indicates required



I'm Sorry! But the Church Needs Apologetics

francis-schaeffer.jpg

By Scott McClare and Jojo Ruba

An elderly Christian woman once told me that she didn't need to learn apologetics. She said she knew enough to be convinced that Christianity was correct, and didn't need any more information. In response, I asked her a question (something we at Faith Beyond Belief train a lot on). I asked her, "I'm glad you know enough to be convinced of Christianity. But do you have non-Christian friends who might need to know a little more in order to be convinced to become Christians? Couldn't you learn more for their sake?"

She said I made a good point.

Unfortunately, her initial resistance to apologetics is something too many Christians adopt when we share what we do at Faith Beyond Belief. Christians raise all kinds of objections to why they shouldn't have to learn about how to defend their faith in an increasingly hostile culture.

francis-schaefferThat's why we created this series. We want to examine some of the top arguments from Christians who think apologetics is unnecessary or, worse, damaging to the cause of Christ. Many of these arguments are ones we've heard from friends or family or Christian critics. Many of these arguments are also left unspoken—they are lingering doubts we hear between the lines when we introduce FBB to Bible college professors or pastors or Christian students at Christian schools.

Interestingly enough, simply defining apologetics helps dispel many of the critics' arguments. It's important to start here because there is so much confusion and ungrounded prejudice against apologetics because of how it is defined. And of course, if we want a biblically-minded Christian to listen to the case for apologetics, we should look for a definition in Scripture.

The word apologetics comes from a Greek word, apologia, which means "to give a verbal defense." This is the word Peter uses when he writes, "in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15, emphasis added).[1] Christian apologetics, then, is the defense of the Christian faith. Generally, apologetics focuses on answering objections from non-Christians. Hence we can contrast apologetics with polemics, which is the refutation of false ideas within the Christian faith.

When the apostle Paul writes about fighting spiritual battles, one of the two "weapons of our warfare" he tells Christians to use is effective apologetics: "We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:4-5). The other weapon is practical holiness, and as Peter writes, that in itself can also be an apologetic: "even if some [husbands] do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct" (1 Peter 3:1).

One of my pastors used to be fond of saying that everyone is a theologian; it was just a matter of how good a theologian you were. Similarly, everyone is an apologist. Muslims and Mormons begin their training as youth; Jehovah's Witnesses practice how to have conversations with people at the door. And every atheist I've met seeks to get Christians to adopt their worldview. We all have a belief system we believe is true. As Christians in particular, we want to persuade others that our beliefs are true, as well. Hence, the goal of Christian apologetics is to persuasively answer honest objections that keep people from faith in Jesus.

Why do apologetics? Again, scripture has the answer. We do apologetics because God commands it (1 Peter 3:15; Jude 3-4). We live in a society whose institutions, such as schools, media, popular culture, and government, are increasingly hostile to faith. That's nothing new, of course. The first generation of the church fathers, such as Justin Martyr and Tertullian, were largely apologists who saw a need to appeal to the authorities who were persecuting the church, and tell them not to believe the false rumours that circulated about what Christians believed and how they behaved.

We do apologetics because we want to persuade non-Christians to repent and believe in Jesus. Skeptics have many barriers to faith: the reliability of the Bible, the historicity of the Resurrection, the reality of miracles, and others. Reasoned apologetics can remove those barriers.

We do apologetics because we want to help other Christians strengthen their faith. Unfortunately, many Christians are not well-informed about Christianity and cannot clearly define even its core tenets: for example, the Trinity, the relationship of Christ's two natures, the meaning of the Atonement, or the difference between justification and sanctification. This is increasingly worsening as the Internet steadily provides false information that causes further confusion. It's no wonder Christian teachers and youth pastors agree that the average age for a young person to face a crisis of faith is now 13. They don't have to go to university to hear all kinds of false ideas about Christianity—they can just hear them on YouTube.

Apologetics helps define the truth of the Gospel. Other Christians may also hear the answers given to the objections of skeptics, and be encouraged and emboldened themselves. We then become role-models for how we can engage and teach the truth of the gospel of believers who may have no one else to help them.

We do apologetics to protect the church from harmful influences. There are many cults and new religious movements that call themselves "Christian," but they promote false doctrines. These need to be answered and refuted so that they do not lead the church astray. John warned his readers not to even invite false teachers into their homes, because it gave the appearance of approving their message and giving them a base from which to spread it (2 John 10-11). In addition to false religious influences, the church also needs to be protected from secular influences, such as immorality and worldly thinking. We need to clearly articulate God's will that God's people be holy, in both their bodies and their minds. As apologist Matt Slick has written:

The fact is that Christianity is under attack in the world, and we need to fight the good fight of the faith without shrinking back. We need apologetics to give rational, intelligent, and relevant explanations of Christian viability to the critics and the prejudiced who would seek to undermine the teachings of our Lord Jesus.[2]

With all the clear biblical commands, why, then, does it seem like many Christians and churches are indifferent, or even hostile, to apologetics? In this series, we'll examine some of these arguments and excuses to reject making the case for Christ. We've asked our FBB writers to take the most vocal Christian critics of apologetics head-on and provide some solid responses to their concerns.

Ironically, many people not familiar with the term apologetics thinks it refers to apologizing or having to say we are sorry for doing something. Through this series, we want Christians to realize that when they engage in Christian apologetics and defend the faith with "gentleness and respect," they have nothing to apologize for.


[1] Scripture citations are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV).

[2] Matt Slick, "Eight Reasons Why We Need Apologetics," CARM, accessed September 1, 2015, https://carm.org/eight-reasons-why-we-need-apologetics.


Learn to stand strong in your faith!

Subscribe to our weekly email to get the latest content from Faith Beyond Belief.
* indicates required



Same Ol' Argument: a Logical Refutation

Bible-with-warning-sticker.jpg

By Justin Wishart

Our Executive Director, Jojo Ruba, recently sent me an opinion editorial published by the Medicine Hat News.[1] Scott Schmidt, the article's author, goes on a diatribe chastising Christians who submit to the Word of God, and the God who inspired it. Schmidt makes it very clear what he thinks of the Bible by saying that when it is "read cover to cover it becomes blatantly obvious just how much complete nonsense there is." He attempts to give a moderated view by saying, "I couldn't care less what you believe in your own life, as that is the entire point. Live and let live." However, Schmidt then says, "[I]t's time for you to change your attitude, or go away"; so much for "[l]ive and let live." Schmidt is very interested in forcing his morality on anyone who might disagree with him. However, there is one thing he said which I agree with him about. "The thing is, while it might be your right to say what you want, the second you make it public (or attempt to) it becomes my right to tell you what I think." I will now do the same.

There are so many poor arguments, outright logical fallacies, and misrepresentations in Schmidt's article that I am surprised he deemed it worthy to print. It also made it hard to pick which direction to take my response. There is a virtual delta of channels I could have taken. However, I deemed a response worth the time because you see many of his flawed arguments used by various Internet Atheist types. This might provide a useful resource for our readers if they encounter such arguments online, and if you do apologetic work online, you will face these arguments.

Schmidt's article is an attempt to argue that Christians shouldn't take the Bible's teaching on homosexuality seriously. He makes the mistake that many Internet Atheists make. He accuses Christians of not reading the whole Bible and applying it equally to their lives, so why should we accept what the Bible says about homosexuality?

Your religion also says I have to marry my sister-in-law if my brother dies, and that my daughter must marry her rapist as long as he gives me 50 gold coins. In the same part of the book that calls "a man laying with another man" an "abomination," we're also told we can't eat shrimp, wear polyester or get divorced. Those same pages require hair never be messy, beards never be trimmed, and, for good measure, dictates parents kill their children if they curse at them. Unless you don't find any of these rules to be absurdly offensive, how could you keep a straight face while trying to suggest the one about "laying with another man" deserves credibility?

Schmidt thinks that since we wear polyester, we shouldn't be against homosexual actions. Far from being a good argument, this simply shows that Schmidt hasn't thought through this subject. Due to space, I am not going to justify these mentioned laws individually, but provide some general principles that show Schmidt's argument is meaningless.

Bible with warning sticker1. Schmidt gives the impression that homosexuality is only discussed in Leviticus. This is simply false. There are six passages which specifically deal with homosexuality, including three in the New Testament.[2] Yet, Schmidt seems to be completely unaware of this fact, or simply chose not to mention this in his article. This shows that Schmidt's argument fails to refute the biblical teaching on this subject. Any proper refutation must deal with these other verses as well.

2. The Bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman.[3] This disqualifies a same-sex union from being a biblical marriage. Sorry, Schmidt: to a Bible-believing Christian, a homosexual union is not a marriage. The Bible also teaches that sex should only take place within a marriage covenant.[4] This then disqualifies any homosexual act as permissible, because they would all have to happen outside a marriage covenant. Schmidt's argument fails to recognize this fact found within Scripture. Since there is no mention of this in his article, his argument doesn't even come close to addressing the Bible's teaching homosexuality, much less refuting it.

3. Everyone, including Jews, must reinterpret their relationship with Torah Law. There are two main reasons for this. One is that there is no Torah theocracy. Cultural context must be therefore considered.[5] Since many of the paradigmatic laws found within the Torah are state-focused laws, they do not directly apply in our modern context. While we can look at the paradigm and see the wisdom of the principles that the law is derived from, some direct commands cannot apply anymore. Secondly, the Temple, with all its ceremony and rituals, is no longer here. Much of the Torah Law is focused on the Temple (or Tabernacle) and the rituals associated with it. Schmidt does not attempt to deal with these hermeneutical issues. But if anyone is going to refute the Bible's teaching, it must be addressed. This is but another way his argument fails.

4. Christians believe the Jesus fulfilled the Law.[6] This is exactly the main thing that changes the Christian's relationship with the Torah Law. Until Schmidt shows how eating shellfish (and the other laws he mentioned) is treated the same hermeneutically as homosexuality in light of the life of Jesus, his argument cannot refute the Bible's teaching on the subject.

5. Schmidt confuses the actions of Christians with the veracity of the Bible. Even if he was able to account for the above principles, this would still not make his case. It might be the case that the vast majority of Christians have gotten our beard laws wrong. That if we were to be consistent, men should never shave our beards. Yet, Schmidt argues that if this is true, and that we indeed should not shave our beards, that it follows we should be okay with homosexuality. How does that follow? It could be that homosexuality is still an abomination and we should also not shave our beard. Pointing out (alleged) Christian inconsistencies does not mean we should necessarily throw out all other laws, but could mean that we should simply become more consistent. Since Schmidt does not provide any justification as to why we should abandon the Levitical teaching on homosexuality, instead of taking seriously the beard laws, his argument fails here.

While more could be mentioned, these five failures alone show Schmidt does not provide a meaningful refutation of the Bible. I don't even need to provide justification as to why Leviticus commands what it does.[7] An argument which is shown to be fallacious does not need to be refuted further; and Schmidt's argument is about as fallacious as they come.

I mentioned earlier that there were many channels I could have taken my response given the fallacious nature of Schmidt's article. One simple example will highlight the absurd nature of this article. He says:

You see, I couldn't care less what you believe in your own life, as that is the entire point. Live and let live.

However, that flies right out the window when you use archaic excuses to take other people down.

If I replace the pejorative term "archaic" with the pejorative term "liberalized," how does he avoid his own criticism? Is he not trying to take down the Bible, and as a result Bible-believing Christians? Does he not want us to simply "go away"?

It appears that Schmidt would benefit more in learning some basic logic instead of fallaciously attempting to take Christian people down.[8] He would have easily seen how erroneous his arguments are and realized that he needs to study the subject much more. Instead of such a pointless hit piece, he might actually be able to add something meaningful to this discussion. Unfortunately, the general population haven't learned basic logic and may even find his arguments convincing. The fact that I have come across this argument many times proves this to be the case. It is up to the apologist—correct that, it is up to the Christian to point out the errors in this argument. People actually fall for such poor argumentation.


[1] Scott Schmidt, "The Bible Is Not Always the Best Source of Right and Wrong in the 21st Century," Medicine Hat News, July 8, 2015, accessed July 24, 2015, http://medicinehatnews.com/commentary/opinions/2015/07/08/the-bible-is-not-always-the-best-source-of-right-and-wrong-in-the-21st-century/.

[2] Genesis 19; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10.

[3] Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5.

[4] Hebrews 13:4; Proverbs 5:15-19; Exodus 20:14; 1 Corinthians 7:2-5.

[5] To use an Old Testament example, many of the Torah Laws had to be abandoned when Israel was under Babylonian rule.

[6] Matthew 5:17; Romans 10:4.

[7] However, simple Google searches will find good introductory justifications for such laws if one is really interested in learning.

[8] I would recommend Gordon Clark's book Logic (4th ed., Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2004).


Learn to stand strong in your faith!

Subscribe to our weekly email to get the latest content from Faith Beyond Belief.
* indicates required