APOLOGETICS CAN TAKE MANY DIFFERENT FORMS

Apologetics can take many different forms. For the sake of simplicity, I will divide them into two forms – negative and positive.

The "positive approach" offers evidences; the "negative" answers the challenges. The negative is the more offensive and direct of the two. Jesus used both. When the religious leadership accused Him of casting out demons by the hand of Satan, He retorted with an example of negative apologetics:

·       Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? (Matthew 12:25-26)

If Satan is at war against himself and his minions, his kingdom would self-destruct. Therefore, the allegation of the Pharisees was not reasonable (logical). Adding to their their logical problems, the next verse suggests that they too had been encouraging of the deliverance ministry among their own without a concern that they also may be tapping into the power of Satan. It seems like their charging Jesus with a satanic partnership, without likewise examining their own people, smacked of hypocrisy.

Similarly, the Pharisees often charged Jesus with violating the Sabbath by healing on the Sabbath. On numerous occasions, Jesus pointed out their hypocrisy through a logical critique (negative apologetics). For instance, after healing at a synagogue on the Sabbath, the leadership criticized Him. To this, Jesus responded:

·       “You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger and lead it away to water it? And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?” (Luke 13:15-16)

Were they truly hypocrites? Yes! Jesus logically demonstrated that they were using a double standard – one standard against Him and another to allow them to take care of their animals on the Sabbath. Besides, healing the woman was of far greater importance than watering the animals. (Clearly, Jesus believed in human exceptionalism!)

This type of logical critique is so powerful that it allows no come-back. Instead, the leadership was ashamed of themselves. (Sometimes love requires shaming!)

Elsewhere, Jesus again pointed out their hypocrisy – their use of two different standards. They accused Jesus of healing on the Sabbath, while they gladly circumcised on the Sabbath:

·       If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the Law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man’s whole body well? Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” (John 7:23-24)

By regarding only one verse out of the many on the subject, they were not rendering a right but a prejudicial judgment. Often, Jesus accused them of either misusing or not even knowing Scripture:

·       But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” (Matthew 22:29-32)

In contrast, the “positive approach” offers evidences and proofs but does not immediately silence the opposition. For example, take your own testimony. While some will find it impressive and even inspiring, others will dismiss it, saying:

·       Why should I believe you, or

·       Buddhists’ claim that meditation has changed their lives, or

·       Muslims claim that Allah has given them meaning and purpose.

Whatever you say, they can always offer counter “evidence.” If you say that Jesus changes lives, they can retort, “Jesus also ruins lives.” If you say that Christianity served as the impetus for the resurgence of science, they will say that, “Christianity has been the source of ignorance and repression.”

In short, when you are confronted by a hostile militant and decide that it is better to hold your ground than to wipe the dust off of your feet, it is generally more profitable to use negative apologetics. This is what I often use to address the militants.

“Negative apologetics” come in many forms. After I had posted a brief essay on Facebook, an atheist reiterated the same challenge that many do: “Well, you first have to prove your god exists!”

If you’ve have tried to present proofs to militant atheists, you know how futile this can be. No matter how weighty your proof, the atheist can still quibble with it. This might not reflect a problem with your proof, but their unmovable commitment to their own faith. It also might reflect a problem with all proofs in general. However strong they might be, they are never airtight or unassailable.

Rather than engaging in this frustrating process, in many cases I’ve opted to place the burden of proof on the atheist: “First prove that you exist! This will prove to me that it is even worthwhile for me to even attempt to prove that God exists.” Of course, they never can prove this to my satisfaction. The following dialogue illustrates this fact:

ATHEIST: You still have not shown me any evidence that god exists.

ME:  Well, if you prove you exist, I'll prove God exists.

ATHEIST: I asked you first!

ME:  That’s true, but if you are just a computer spewing out messages, I don’t have any obligation to you.

ATHEIST:  Daniel, do you honestly think that there is a direct comparison between whether I exist, and whether god or Jesus exists? Clearly you have more evidence for me existing than for god or Jesus.

ME:   Then prove you exist! Prove that you are not simply a bio-chemical robot or that you are not just an illusion as a monistic Buddhist claim. Consistent with this, please define your use of the word "I." What is this thing you call "I?"

ATHEIST: You are just unable to prove that God exists.

ME:  No! I am just presenting you with an object lesson. If you are unable to prove that you exist, you are in no position to demand that I prove that God exists. Besides, if I can successfully quibble about your existence, I trust that you will also be able to quibble with any solid evidence I offer in favor of God’s existence.

You might ask, “Why even engage in such an argument?” Perhaps this argument will fail to show him the hypocrisy of his demand for more proof of God’s existence than even for his own. However, there are others reading these exchanges on Facebook. It is my prayer that it might sow valuable seeds in the thinking of others.

However, negative apologetics is used more commonly and effectively. When I have done open-air evangelism, scoffers will assault me with a series of charges. One scoffer yelled, “This is no way to be absolutely sure of any of this stuff.”

Sometimes, a question is the best way to answer. I therefore responded, “Are you absolutely sure?” If he says he is, I respond:

·       How is it that you can be absolutely sure while you absolutely deny that I can be absolutely sure? Sounds like a double-standard to me.

Nine times out of ten, this will silence the scoffer. However, if he answers, “No, I am not sure,” I will simply respond, “Why then are you making such a claim if you are not sure!”

Many others insist, “There is no such thing as absolute truth.” I simply ask:

·       Is your statement absolutely true?

Once again, if he answers, “Yes,” I point out that he just contradicted himself, because if there is no absolute truth, then his own statement cannot be absolutely true.

There are many variations of these illogical challenges. For instance, some say, “The only truth is change itself.” Therefore, I ask, “Then doesn’t that mean that the ‘truth’ of your statement is changing?” If he admits to this, then I merely respond that his statement is therefore meaningless, since it too will change in the next day.

Sometimes our negative apologetic might require a bit more information to expose the contradiction. Often, skeptics will make moral charges against our faith and God. For example, in a Times Magazine debate (11/13/06, p. 55.), atheist and evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, was asked:

·       “Do humans have a different moral significance than do cows?”

To this, Dawkins responded, “Humans have more moral responsibility perhaps, because they are capable of reasoning.”

However, if our moral responsibility depends on being “capable of reasoning,” then some humans are more morally culpable than others. Why? Because some reason better than others! Therefore, before the court can pass judgment on the guilty party, they should administer an IQ test to determine the extent of the punishment. Absurd, right?

However, Dawkins has a greater problem. Prior to this, Dawkins admitted, “I don’t believe that there is hanging out there, anywhere, something called good and something called evil.”

This makes Dawkins a moral relativist. He doesn’t believe that morality has any existence outside of our thinking. Therefore, morality is just something that we create. This makes morality relative to the individual and society. Consequently, without a higher, unchanging, and objective basis, morality is subjective. It’s just what we feel or decide it to be. This means that Dawkins cannot say that his morality is more valid than Hitler’s morality. However, in The God Delusion, Dawkins famously claimed:

·       “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Had Dawkins merely stated, “This is just the way I feel about God,” there would be no logical problem. However, coming from a position of moral relativism or subjectivism, he cannot coherently pronounce an objective indictment.

In order to claim that Hitler or God was wrong, we would need to base our indictment upon an objective standard. When, as Probation Officer, I wrote up charges against a probationer, I had to use objective language coming directly from the State Penal Law book. I could not charge a probationer with something that I merely felt was crime.  Instead, it had to be written in the code book.

However, Dawkins admits there is no code book, no objective or absolute moral laws that have been broken. In fact, whenever a moral relativist - and all atheists are essentially moral relativists - brings a moral indictment against Christianity, I remind them that they cannot bring an objective charge without an objective standard. With their subjective self-based morality they cannot logically bring a moral charge against anybody.

Therefore, when the atheist charges, “Your God is a genocidal maniac,” I simply respond, “What's wrong with that?” As a moral relativist, there can be nothing objectively wrong with that!

However, for us, this doesn’t end the question. We want to be able to know and to explain why our God is not “petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic…” as Dawkins has claimed.

Why? Confidence in our faith and our walk depends upon successfully grappling with these issues. This requires us to meditate on the Word both day and night (Joshua 1:8; Psalm 1), so that we can offer (to ourselves, first of all) positive evidences to the contrary.

This is what we will have to deal with in the following chapters.

***

However, there is another matter we must first address—the limitations of apologetics.

It has been argued that apologetics alone cannot save anyone. Of course, this is true. God must grant faith (Eph. 2:8-9) and even a repentant heart (2 Timothy 2:24-26) before anyone can be saved. Here are a couple of illustrations of this fact. The renowned atheist and mathematician, Bertrand Russell, had once been asked:

·       Bertrand, what would you say to God if you encounter him after you die and he asks, “Bertrand, why didn’t you believe?”

Russell confidently responded, “There just wasn’t enough evidence,” as if to say:

·       I am a rational person and rational people require evidence. The fault, therefore, wasn’t with me but with you!

However, it is likely that God would have responded: “You were surrounded with the evidences, but you were unwilling to acknowledge them (Proverbs 1:20-32).”

Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most famous atheist today, has taken it one step further, claiming that no evidence is possible to support belief in God! In an interview with hosted by Peter Boghossian, Dawkins was asked:

·       What would it take for you to believe in God? (YouTube)

Dawkins dismissed the possibility that any evidence is possible-–that even if Christ returned, he would have no way of knowing whether this was an hallucination or not.

However, if Dawkins were to use this logic consistently, he also would even deprive himself of any evidence for the existence of the universe. It might only be a dream or hallucination.

Nevertheless, Dawkins seems haunted by the idea that his dismissal of all possible evidence doesn’t line up with the logic of science. After all, if a theory can be falsified by the evidence, it should also be amenable to evidential proof. Perhaps he senses that he is playing fast-and-loose with the concept of evidence and of science.

In any event, Dawkins accurately reflects that state-of-mind of the unbeliever. In their case, there is no amount of evidence (or apologetics) that will change their minds. Why? Because their heart must first be changed before their minds can be truly responsive to the light of the evidence.

Therefore, apologetics is first for us, His Church. Our hearts are already open to the evidences. Besides, we need to be mentally assured of the truths of the Christian faith.

Some will protest, “I don’t need apologetics. I just believe, and that is enough.” However, this stance is inadequate. For one thing, our faith is always undergoing trials and refinement, as Peter had warned:

·       In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 1:6-7)

Paul also warned us that those who think that they can stand without the entire armor of God (Eph. 6:12- ) will fall (1 Corinthians 10:12), and this coat of armor includes apologetics, the reasons for our faith.

Israel’s greatest prophet, John the Baptist, longed to have more evidential reassurance after he had been thrown into jail (Matthew 11:2-3). If he required these reassurances, so too do we! And Jesus proved that He was more than ready to provide the necessary reasons-to-believe, for example:

·       “You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. And now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place you may believe.” (John 14:28-29)

While some of us may require more evidence than others, we all need reassurances as we endure God’s spiritual surgery. This chronic skeptic certainty did! However, the searching for reassurances has produced for me a great confidence, by His grace, and boldness before a hostile world. It is this boldness that I hope to impart to my brethren.

Of course, apologetics alone cannot save. However, even preaching Christ cannot save without the work of the Spirit. However, the Spirit can use them both to draw others to salvation.

Let us now feast upon the evidences.