Answers to Common Questions

Yeah, so the question is for those at home, why is apologetics important to the

Church? Yeah, well, I mean, if obeying the Word of God is something that Christians should be doing, this should be characteristic of those who are part of the body of Christ, then apologetics should very much concern us because apologetics is commanded in Scripture.

And again, you have the famous verse, 1 Peter 3, verse 15, which tells us to set apart Christ as Lord in our hearts, always being ready to give a reason for the hope that is within us, yet doing so with gentleness and respect.

You have Jude 1, verse 3, where Jude writes that he found it necessary to write concerning the necessity of contending for the faith once for all delivered.

And of course you have examples of the Apostle Paul engaging in apologetics, reasoning with the

Jews from the Scriptures, trying to show that the Messiah had to come and suffer and die. He was trying to prove from Scripture the position of, you know, the

Christian position. So you have multiple examples of apologetics within the

Scriptures themselves. So you have explicit commands to defend the faith, and then you have historical examples of Christians, the

Apostles and others, defending the faith, okay? So in one sense, apologetics is important for the

Church because obeying Scriptural commands is important to the Church. If, you know, if we are servants of Christ, we want to obey

His Word, and His Word commands us to always be ready to give a reason for the hope that's within us. So that's one reason why it's important.

Number two, if we allow error to proceed without correction, that is detrimental to the furtherance of the

Gospel, right? And so we are called to know the truth so clearly that we're able to identify error and point it out when appropriate for the instruction of the people of God and for the closing of the mouths of those who bring false accusations.

So, you know, our desire for knowing the truth, expounding and spreading the truth, our love for Christ and our desire to honor

His Word, all of these things wrapped up with the fact that the Bible commands us to engage in the defense of the

Gospel, all of these things I think are very important to the Christian because we want to honor

God and we want to stand up for what the Bible teaches is true. Now, there are different ways that this happens, how this kind of outflows.

You have both an external way of doing apologetics and a more internal way of doing apologetics. For example, apologetics typically, in the popular circles, we tend to think in a very superficial way that apologetics is simply defense of the

Christian faith against the atheist or, you know, the Mormon or whatever. And that's true. That's kind of an external apologetic in that Christians are defending the

Christian faith by opposing philosophical ideas or religious perspectives from without the church.

But then you have this internal apologetic in which we are to defend the truth of the

Gospel by false doctrine that creeps in, you see. And so you have these different aspects of apologetics that I think are very necessary for Christians to engage in because we seek to honor the truth as has been revealed to us in Scripture.

So those are some of the reasons why I think apologetics is important. Of course, we want to also think of the broader context of our society as well.

If Christians are not engaging with the philosophical ideas that are going around in our context, then

Christianity will easily be seen as an irrelevant position because we're not really speaking to the current ideas of the day.

And so I think for the sake of relevancy, I think Christians should be engaging with competing philosophical and worldview perspectives and arguing for the truth of our perspective in an intellectually rigorous way, in a way that is consistent with Scripture, and in a way that honors

Christ in our very conduct and the way that we go about that. So I think those are a couple of things that I can touch on as to why apologetics is important for the church.

So the question is, how would we respond to someone who says, you're only a Christian because you were born in a

Christian home, or you were born in America, or something like that. You're only a Christian because you grew up in the Christian West.

You know, if you were born in the Middle East, you'd be a Muslim. If you were born in India, you'd be a

Hindu. You know, these sorts of things. Well, first, I think when someone tells me that you're only a

Christian because you were born in America, or you were born in a Christian home, I mean, my response is, you know, so?

Right? I could also be a Christian because it's true, and the Spirit of God has bore witness to my spirit, and I've experienced, you know, the born -again experience and encountered

God, right? And of course, we go further than that. We can give evidence for the truth of the

Christian faith and things like that. But here's the problem with that kind of assertion.

To say that you're only a Christian because you were born in a Christian home, or you were born in the Christian West, and so therefore, you know, that somehow is a detriment to the

Christian position, or the Christian position is somehow false because of that, that is to commit the logical fallacy known as the genetic fallacy.

And the genetic fallacy is a fallacy in reasoning. It's a fallacy of irrelevancy, okay?

It kind of brings up an irrelevant point that doesn't touch upon whether a position or belief that's held is actually objectively true.

I mean, think about it. Even if it's true that the only reason why I'm a Christian is because I was born in the

United States, for example, that has no bearing as to whether Christianity is actually true, right?

It has nothing to do with it at all. And the problem that I think arises, even worse for the person bringing that objection, is that it's completely reversible, right?

So suppose an atheist is the one bringing this assertion across, and I were to say, well, you know, you're only an atheist because, you know, fill in the blank.

You were born in a skeptical household or whatever. We can come with any reason. The problem with that is it doesn't touch on the truth of atheism.

It doesn't touch on the truth of Islam. It doesn't touch on the truth of any other perspective. So it's really kind of an irrelevant observation.

And it kind of begs the question, too, of the falsity of the position, you know? Say, for example, the reason why

I'm a Christian from a biblical standpoint is because the Spirit of God has done a work in my heart, right?

Caused me to be born again, has gifted me the gift of faith to believe, so on and so forth. But to say that you're only a

Christian because of where you're born already assumes that the reason that the Bible gives for our being a

Christian is false, right? The only reason why I'm a Christian is because of my geography. That's ridiculous. So it commits a genetic fallacy, which is a fallacy in reasoning, which makes it kind of an illegitimate assertion.

It really doesn't touch on anything meaningful at all. And it can be reversed on the person who is bringing it.

It's kind of along the lines of when someone says that belief in God is sort of kind of like a cognitive dissonance with regards to the believer.

You know, you want it to be true, and so you kind of trick yourself into believing it's true. The problem with that is that that's completely reversible.

I could argue that same way for the atheist. Suppose you're an atheist because you want so bad for there not to be a

God that you trick yourself into believing that God doesn't exist. Okay, so if an objection, if an assertion can be easily reversed on the person making the assertion, then

I think there's a problem there. So that's how I would respond to that claim. Yeah.

All right. So the question is, how do we respond to the rhetorical question?

You know, it's kind of a gotcha question of who created God, okay? Now, the simple answer is no one.

No one created God, right? So you say, what created God or who created? Nothing, right? Only things that begin to exist require a cause.

You see, now this assertion, who created God, is usually based upon a misunderstanding of an illegitimate formulation of a cosmological argument.

Sometimes people misconstrue the cosmological argument as something to this effect, that everything that exists has a cause, okay?

And that's not part of the cosmological argument, because it would, in fact, be subject to the criticism of the question, well, then what caused

God? If everything requires a cause, and God is part of everything, then God requires a cause, and that would be a completely legitimate observation.

But the problem is that the cosmological argument is not formulated, at least I've never seen it formulated so as to say that everything that exists has a cause.

As a matter of fact, if you take, for example, I think the most popular version of the cosmological argument, which is the

Kalam cosmological argument, which is defended by a host of philosophers, one of the most prominent being

William Lane Craig, the argument goes like this. Premise one, whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Premise two, the universe began to exist. Three, therefore the universe had a cause, okay?

I think I got that right. So whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause. All right, just checking.

Now, some people would reply, well, then what caused God? And that reply shows that there's a misunderstanding of the argument that's being said.

So, for example, look at the first premise. Whatever begins to exist requires a cause. The cosmological argument has never been that everything that exists requires a cause, because that's obviously fallacious.

So if we look at the premise of, say, the Kalam, which I've just mentioned here, whatever begins to exist has a cause, it makes no sense to ask what caused

God, because God is not one of the things that require a cause, especially within the context of the

Christian worldview. The God of the Bible is from everlasting to everlasting.

He's eternal. And so the traditional conception of the God of Scripture is that he doesn't have a cause.

He is the one who has caused all things, okay? So the argument is saying that whatever begins to exist has a cause.

And so that is a more valid form. Now, some people think that, you know, well, that's just special pleading.

Well, no, it's not. And given the Christian worldview, God has revealed himself, and Scripture has given us information about God, nature has given us information about God, and we take this all together, we learn that God has revealed himself as the eternal one.

And this truth can be known and is known through general and special revelation.

We can go more into that, but just to clarify, who created God is a question that's based upon the misunderstanding of some of the traditional arguments for God's existence, and it's based on a misunderstanding of the nature of God himself.

Yeah. So what is the role of philosophy in apologetics?

Well, I think philosophy plays a very important role. Philosophy helps us to be critically minded.

There are two important tasks of philosophy. One is a constructive task.

We build, you know, our worldview, our philosophical outlook provides explanations for reality.

It puts things into categories, and it makes us think clearly about things. But then there's also the critical task of philosophy, which engages in critiquing and applying logical analysis and things like that.

Now, for apologetics, this is very important, because when we are engaging in intellectual combat with competing ideas, clarity, logical thinking, being able to categorize things correctly, these all become very, very important.

So I think philosophy can aid the apologist in clearer thinking, especially with regards to the consistency of their own perspective and being able to explain that in a way that's clear and cogent.

And at the same time, it provides sharp intellectual tools to critique bad arguments, right, applying logic to concepts and worldviews and things like that.

So I think that's a very important element of Christian apologetics. But actually, there is a big misunderstanding, even amongst

Christians, that philosophy is something that Christians should not engage in.

Now, besides the fact that it's literally impossible to not engage in philosophy, I think it's a good opportunity right here to kind of discuss very briefly what the

Bible does say about philosophy. So if people want to look in their Bibles to Colossians 2, verse 8, here's what the apostle

Paul says. He says, See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

Okay? Now, a lot of people will kind of take note of verse 8, where it says,

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, so as to say that philosophy is nothing more than empty deception, and so therefore

Christians should not engage in philosophical reflection, philosophical engagement, things like that.

Now, of course, that's not at all what the Bible is teaching here, for look what it says. It says, See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

Now, this passage is not saying that Christians should not engage in philosophical reflection, but what it is saying is that it's saying be careful of a particular kind of philosophy, the kind of philosophy that is after the elementary principles of the world and not after Christ.

It is an ungodly and secular philosophy based upon the elementary principles of an unbelieving mindset.

Don't adopt that kind of philosophy. Rather, your philosophy should be one that is after Christ. And so,

I think philosophy is an essential aspect of the apologetical task. It's an essential aspect of thinking clearly and being able to look at the

Christian life in a way that is logically consistent with itself. And this is very important, especially from within the context of like a presuppositional approach.

We are very mindful of our worldview and we place great emphasis upon the consistency and interrelatedness of every aspect within our worldview.

I think philosophy helps us to explain that and apply it to all areas of our lives, apologetics being just one area.

So, I think philosophy is very important in that regard. Yeah, so why does apologetics seem so scary?

Okay. Well, apologetics can be scary for some people in multiple contexts.

On the one hand, apologetics as a discipline can be scary because it's very intimidating.

When we speak of apologetics, it's often associated with philosophical and theological vocabulary that might not be familiar to the average believer.

And so, it can be intimidating in that regard. But, at the same token, I think that's why we need teaching in the church.

People who are trained in these areas so that they can bring some of these truths to the average person and help them to learn how to contextualize the information.

Here's the thing. As a teacher myself, I'm not afraid to use big words with my students, but I want them to learn the words, learn the concepts, and then learn to contextualize what they're learning so that you're learning the information, and once it's apprehended, you can adapt that information to the specific context in which

God has placed you in. And so, yeah, it can be scary, but at the same time, it's part of the learning process, right?

And I think once we work hard at understanding the foundations of our faith, theological and philosophical truths that we can use as tools, once we get a handle on those things,

I think we can cater what we've learned to the particular context in which we find ourselves in.

And so, I think that seeing the big picture there might make apologetics a little less scary.

Also, it can be scary in terms of just the nature of apologetics. I mean, apologetics is confrontational.

A lot of people don't like confrontation, and so they don't want to get into uncomfortable conversations at the dinner table or in school or wherever it is because it's uncomfortable.

But at the same time, you know, there are ways to go about disagreeing with people without being so argumentative about it, and so we might want to find strategic ways to engage within a context in which, you know, we can have a fruitful interaction with someone with whom we disagree.

Now, that's not always going to happen if you follow the ministry of Jesus. I mean, obviously, the ministry of Jesus, the ministry of the apostles and Paul, you know, these were controversial.

They confronted controversy on multiple levels, but at the same time, they were so concerned about the truth of the gospel that they set aside their discomfort and engaged those issues.

And I think we should have that same spirit, that even though, on the one hand, we might feel uncomfortable engaging in conflict, truth being so important to us, we must be willing to cast aside that discomfort for the sake of defending the gospel, which is, in various contexts, under attack.

And so, hopefully, putting it in that context might be a little bit helpful, you know, to framing this in the way that maybe it's not as scary as we think, but if it is scary, we don't do it in our own strength, right?

Of course, we do all of this in the strength of the Spirit and the knowledge of the Word of God, knowing that the

Holy Spirit living within us, at the proper time, He will give us the words to speak. I think that's very important.

A lot of these things in apologetics, theology, these intellectual things that we're engaging in, there's also that spiritual element there that's,

I think, very important to keep in mind. We do not engage in intellectual battle absent from the work and power of the