A Role for Apologetics?

[ITS]

Apologetics didn't seem to work on the Pharisees in Jesus' and Paul's day. Many today say we should love, not debate, that is, apologetics should only pay a minor role in evangelism. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

[captainnerd]

I used to be a huge fan of apologetics, and even set out to train myself to become one during a period of my undergraduate years. I even went so far as to make the preliminary arrangements to host an Atheism vs. Christianity debate in the basketball coliseum at the university I was attending. Years ago I thought apologetics needed to play a bigger role in witnessing for Christ, but time and experience have persuaded me otherwise.

My answer to this particular question is that I am inclined to agree. I believe apologetics has a place, but that, in the bigger picture of our Christian witness, it should not be a major component of our witness. My reasons are simple.

First, the example Jesus gave us with His life. I?ve never thought of Jesus as an apologist. I?ve always related to Him, based on my study of Scripture, as a teacher and a shepherd. Jesus did find Himself in the role of an apologist on occasion, but only on occasion. People traveled from great distances to meet and listen to Jesus. I believe the evidence of Scripture is that people came to find Jesus not because of His knack for or employment of apologetics but because of His teaching.

Second, the example of Paul?s life. Outside of Paul?s discourse with the Greeks at Mars hill, I can?t recall him taking on the role of an apologist. Paul was an organizer and a teacher. Paul certainly had the mind capable of making him a great apologist, but that?s not how God used him in most situations.

Third, the example of the disciples. In my years of study about the 12, I don?t even so much as associate them with apologetics. They may have played that role at times, but I can?t recall even one instance from Scripture. I know them as teachers, not apologists.

Fourth, a look at the modern person. From my experience, people aren?t suffering from a shortage of information these days, but from a shortage of confidence that anyone outside of their immediate family even cares that they?re alive, much less loves them. My experience with my fellow Americans is that we are largely a lonely people.

I?ve been blessed to work all over this nation in about as many different fields of employment as any of my 35 year-old peers have worked ? from logging to business to politics to the entertainment industry. I?ve noticed a common thread of loneliness throughout my fellow countrymen.

Throughout the course of my life many people have found me. I don?t know how to explain how God uses me other than to state that He has taught me to be available to people everywhere I go and not to be in a rush because He is continually sending strangers to find me, strangers who need to know that they are loveable, that they are loved by God. Only a handful of the people God has sent to me have approached me for a debate about the existence of God or some principle of Christianity. Virtually all of them have come to me broken by the weight of feeling alone, unloved, unlovable, and unforgivable in life.

Granted, my experience is simply my own perspective and is quite limited, but I think God has walked me down this crooked and wandering path to show me things about people. I haven?t found a great thirst for debate about God in people. I have found them parched to know that God knows them, loves them, and wants to save them from the despair of an uncertain future in a world that seems to be racing toward isolated chaos as the norm for daily living.

God has built me into a writer and I do not yet have the gift of brevity so I will force myself to bring this to a conclusion. I believe apologetics has a place in the Christian witness. If apologetics were a product, I would market it to the university campus, but probably few, if any, other places.

Experience has taught me that there is ultimately no intellectual road to God, that the journey to God is along a pathway through the heart, not the mind, of man. One can devote decades to an intellectual search for God and make progress, but in the end it will be his heart that decides whether or not he will in fact find and embrace God.

Apologetics has a place, but I believe it should be treated with great care, just as one would handle a razor-sharp knife. Apologetics are words, the works of the tongue and the mind. May we not take lightly God?s warning that words not guarded closely will cut and wound deeply (Psalm 57:4, 64:3, 140:3; 1 Cor 13:1; James 3:5,8).

Jesus commands us to love God with all we are and to love our neighbors. As my years progress, I have a decreasing desire to try to find a place for apologetics in my quest to fulfill these commands.

[Jeff H]

Apologetics didn't seem to work on the Pharisees in Jesus' and Paul's day. Many today say we should love, not debate, that is, apologetics should only pay a minor role in evangelism. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Apologetics is something that happens after the fact. You never begin with apologetics. Apologetics should probably be limited to the legal world. Christ used apologetics in the context of defending his interpretation of the law. I suppose one could argue that Jesus was defending his faith, but that is a mute point when politics is based on a theocracy.

Other than in the legal realm, I see no purpose in defending one's faith. One can defend one's thought process and actions by explaining their motivation, but that is explanation, not debate.

I have found that apologetics is more a love of debate and quick wit; a theological chess game that very few can play and even fewer bring to checkmate.

The time spent in highlighting differences could very well be spend in the practice of love, either in mutual love for community or, as Jesus called it, loving your enemy. It is not always possible, rare in fact, to change an enemy, one who is politically, philosophically and theologically opposed to you, and make him or her your friend. Jesus called us to live in that context knowing we might have to do it for a lifetime.

Apologetics tend to define the differences and drive deeper wedges. It does little to create community; or when it does, it does so to preserve and isolate the faith. Should we assume one cannot change? Never! However, apologetics should be used as an attempt to define the faith, not as dialogical warfare. Allow those with a bent toward the intellectual to read and question, remembering it is not the argument or the wit or the rational methods that change lives, it is the kerygmatic word and walk of a life changed by Jesus.

[Michael J Anderson]

Apologetics didn't seem to work on the Pharisees in Jesus' and Paul's day. Many today say we should love, not debate, that is, apologetics should only pay a minor role in evangelism. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

I tend to agree that apologetics should play only a minor role in our evangelism.

First, there are times when apologetics are useful in evangelism. Some non-Christians, when confronted with the claims of the gospel, frankly love to engage in debate over certain matters. I think in these instances we would not be fulfilling our call to witness if we refused to engage them in debate simply because we reject the practice of making apology for the faith, choosing only to love. Others may have developed some misunderstandings about the Christian faith along the way and a simple apologetic argument may remove a significant barrier to their faith. In any case, whatever debating and defending is done should be in a spirit of love and with genuine concern for the unbeliever?s best interest.

However, I doubt that apologetics as that term is popularly understood (Josh McDowell?s ministry comes immediately to mind) is extremely effective in leading people to salvation. I more so subscribe to the view suggested by George Ladd in his apologetic work I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus. There he argues that the historical evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus is indeed compelling, but until a person believes that God intervenes supernaturally in our world they will not believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead. It is only after we have encountered Jesus in our lives that we accept in our worldview that God intervenes supernaturally. With this presupposition, the evidence for the resurrection is indeed overwhelming, and we are strengthened by knowing that our faith has a strong foundation. I believe this logic applies across the board to apologetic arguments in general. The implication of this is that apologetics is more useful for strengthening the faith of believers than for converting unbelievers. This has certainly been my experience, and McDowell?s More Than A Carpenter and Ladd?s Resurrection have been of immense value during the course of my Christian life, though books like these did not help me to become a Christian.

[Michael J Anderson]

Apologetics didn't seem to work on the Pharisees in Jesus' and Paul's day. Many today say we should love, not debate, that is, apologetics should only pay a minor role in evangelism. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Apologetics is something that happens after the fact. You never begin with apologetics. Apologetics should probably be limited to the legal world. Christ used apologetics in the context of defending his interpretation of the law. I suppose one could argue that Jesus was defending his faith, but that is a mute point when politics is based on a theocracy.

Other than in the legal realm, I see no purpose in defending one's faith. One can defend one's thought process and actions by explaining their motivation, but that is explanation, not debate.

I have found that apologetics is more a love of debate and quick wit; a theological chess game that very few can play and even fewer bring to checkmate.

The time spent in highlighting differences could very well be spend in the practice of love, either in mutual love for community or, as Jesus called it, loving your enemy. It is not always possible, rare in fact, to change an enemy, one who is politically, philosophically and theologically opposed to you, and make him or her your friend. Jesus called us to live in that context knowing we might have to do it for a lifetime.

Apologetics tend to define the differences and drive deeper wedges. It does little to create community; or when it does, it does so to preserve and isolate the faith. Should we assume one cannot change? Never! However, apologetics should be used as an attempt to define the faith, not as dialogical warfare. Allow those with a bent toward the intellectual to read and question, remembering it is not the argument or the wit or the rational methods that change lives, it is the kerygmatic word and walk of a life changed by Jesus.

I more or less agree with the thrust of this message. I would like to respond particularly to two points raised.

First, as to the assertion that apologetics is essentially a "theological chess game" and driven by a love for debate, I agree that this is often the case. The whole point of a debate is to undermine your opponent's position and convince the audience of your position. In some settings this is entirely appropriate (I have been involved in running on-campus debates, and huge numbers of Christians and non-Christians eagerly come), but debate most often creates a confrontational atmosphere in which it is hard to offer anyone the gift of the good news of Jesus.

Second, it was said that it is very rare that one can change an enemy into an ally (i.e. a fellow Christian). I likewise doubt that we will argue many people into the kingdom of God with philosophical, intellectual and scientific arguments. (That is not to say that we shouldn't try to persuade people from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ; but that to me is more so exposition of Scripture than it is apologetics.) Yet God may use one of our apologetic arguments to break down a barrier someone has to the faith. With the barrier removed, then they can respond to the 'kerygmatic word,' which indeed is the vital essence of our evangelism.

[Seekingjesus]

Apologetics didn't seem to work on the Pharisees in Jesus' and Paul's day. Many today say we should love, not debate, that is, apologetics should only pay a minor role in evangelism. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

For me, this question tends to be a very difficult question to answer. I want to agree with my fellow students; however I am not sure I am able to do so. The reason for this may be because of the context that I regularly minister within. I am a street evangelist in the Canadian city of Toronto. Canada tends to have a harder atmosphere to minister in, compared to the United States where it still has an “implied” Christian context. This means that United States tends to still have a very Christian background and thought. Just because an apologetic debate is not mentioned or formulated, does not mean it is not there. I have ministered in many US Cities and find it much easier to share my faith rather then in Toronto. Toronto is a city where on one street corner you can run into 72 different nationalities, with 72 different religious backgrounds. Toronto is a city with not much understanding of the true God. Almost every time I enter the city of Toronto, I find myself in an apologetic debate. It is by far one of the toughest cities I have ministered in. In a city like Toronto, apologetics debates are upon most people’s hearts, even if they do not know what the word apologetics mean. Canada is a very anti-God nation where people are constantly trying to disprove God, show God is false or even make up God in their own image. It is a very tough place to minister without the use of Apologetics. If they can disprove God, limit the claims of Christ, etc; then they are free to live however they want. In a society which is narcissistic and where truth is relative; you better be prepared to have an apologetic debate or else you will not get further then a “Hi, How are you?”. Apologetics are very important, especially when I talk with people of other faiths or belief systems (which is the majority of people now-a-days).

Though it may appear that Jesus and Paul didn’t use apologetics, if you study closely to language and context of scripture you will see that there is an implied apologetic debate that has taken place prior to the event in question. To illustrate this, take a look at the story of Jesus’ birth. You see wise men from a foreign country come and bow down before the Christ child. It is a very cute story and helps us see the concept of the eternal kingship of Christ, however, have you ever stopped and thought about these men? These men were kings, rulers, and astronomers from a country that did not serve Yahweh, the God of Israel. How would they come and bow before this Christ-child, without a previous understanding of what was to take place. At some point in these men’s culture and life they were challenged apologetically; perhaps it was from the remnant which were taken captive by Babylon, who challenged these men on an apologetic level. When we see these men arrive on the scene in the gospel accounts, no one ever stops to think how they heard of this God of Israel, and the Christ-Child. Most of us automatically assume that the wise men “grew up in a Christian home” or “were always Christians”. This is a bit humorous yes, but I am trying to make a point that at some point in the history of these wise men, there had to have been an apologetic debate to help them see Yahweh, the God of Israel.

Another aspect of implied Apologetic understanding is when Jesus converses with Nicodemus. Jesus does not have to take Nicodemus back to Creation and go through the creation story with Nicodemus. Nicodemus knew the story of Yahweh, so Jesus talks with Nicodemus with an implied apologetic understanding. This is why Jesus shares with Nicodemus about being “Born again”. Everything before, in Nicodemus’s apologetic understanding is implied. Somewhere, at sometime in Nicodemus’s life, he has worked through the apologetic debates. You see this implied apologetic understanding in a number of instances. When Jesus speaks with the Pharisees, there is an implied apologetic understanding. When he speaks with disciples, there is an implied apologetic. To illustrate the implied apologetic within Jesus’ conversations with his disciples look at the story of the transfiguration. After the transfiguration (Mark 9:11), Jesus and his disciples start talking about how Elijah was to come. In order for this conversation to take place, the disciples must have had an understanding from a previous time. This is an implied apologetic understanding about the end times and coming messiah. Jesus didn’t have to debate them, for they already understood it. In this case their implied apologetic understanding came from their heritage, or the Hebrew Scriptures. To say that Jesus seldom used Apologetic is not entirely accurate. He did not use apologetics when there was an implied apologetic understanding in tack.

Paul also has instances where he knows of the implied apologetic understanding of the person he is discussing with. Paul does however know how to have an apologetic debate as well. We see in Acts 17 Paul using the apologetics of an “Unknown God” and claiming it was Jesus. We also see books written to set up an apologetic understanding of who Christ is, for example the book of Colossians. Paul sets out and writes the book to the Colossian church because they were failing to understand that Jesus was God. Paul writes to them and says “For by him (Jesus) all things were created; things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him”. (Colossians 1:16). Paul is writing to a church that is stuck in a pluralistic society where there was not relative truth, so he understood that their apologetic understanding was at a minimum. This is why Paul was considered an evangelist. He knew his culture that he was around and was able to speak to them all on an individual basis starting at their understanding of Christian apologetic.

One thing we must keep in mind when we are dealing with an issue like this is that we do not have all the words that Jesus, Paul or other Bible people ever spoke. We do not have an exhaustive account of all their life experiences and conversations. By making an assumption that they did or did not use apologetics normally or aggressively, is to formulate an argument on a small piece of evidence. It can have its own difficulties, and could leave us “scratching our head’s” for answers. Perhaps the reason why Jesus and Paul never used the apologetic debate style of evangelism is because they knew their audiences understanding of Jewish or Christian apologetics.

From my own experience, I talk with people who have different understandings of God, Jesus, the Bible, etc. It is simply my job as an evangelist, to meet all individuals where they are at and go from there. If they are an evolutionist, I need to help them see God being the creator, first and foremost. Since an evolutionist believes that they are a mere coincidence, there is no moral standard that they should live by (because God who gives this standard does not exist). They themselves make their moral standard. If someone makes their own moral standard, and you were to come along and tell them they have missed the mark of God’s standard; they would laugh at you and perhaps cause problems. But if you were able to establish that a loving God created them to have a relationship with them; then you may be able to tell them that their sin separates them from this loving God. In order to reach someone who is an evolutionist, or narcissist or anyone else who has limited understanding of God; you first must challenge them on an apologetic level.

In conclusion, I am not sure we should be so quick to count out the use of Apologetics within evangelism and other forms of ministry. It can be very effective. I think it can be a great and effective tool to share your faith in God the creator of the universe. It is an amazing tool to break down some barriers and other misconceptions non-Christians have; not to mention that it can help them see the flaws within their own belief systems. When used effectively Apologetics can be a very good tool for the first line of defence or even attack to break down the walls of a person you are talking with. It is a very good way to help a non-Christian see the flaws in their world view. Evangelists should have at least some knowledge for the different issues that confronts Christianity. This will enable them to have a very effective ministry, especially when dealing with someone who has little (or none) understanding of the Judeo-Christian God.

[Seekingjesus]

Apologetics didn't seem to work on the Pharisees in Jesus' and Paul's day. Many today say we should love, not debate, that is, apologetics should only pay a minor role in evangelism. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

I tend to agree that apologetics should play only a minor role in our evangelism.

First, there are times when apologetics are useful in evangelism. Some non-Christians, when confronted with the claims of the gospel, frankly love to engage in debate over certain matters. I think in these instances we would not be fulfilling our call to witness if we refused to engage them in debate simply because we reject the practice of making apology for the faith, choosing only to love. Others may have developed some misunderstandings about the Christian faith along the way and a simple apologetic argument may remove a significant barrier to their faith. In any case, whatever debating and defending is done should be in a spirit of love and with genuine concern for the unbeliever?s best interest.

However, I doubt that apologetics as that term is popularly understood (Josh McDowell?s ministry comes immediately to mind) is extremely effective in leading people to salvation. I more so subscribe to the view suggested by George Ladd in his apologetic work I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus. There he argues that the historical evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus is indeed compelling, but until a person believes that God intervenes supernaturally in our world they will not believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead. It is only after we have encountered Jesus in our lives that we accept in our worldview that God intervenes supernaturally. With this presupposition, the evidence for the resurrection is indeed overwhelming, and we are strengthened by knowing that our faith has a strong foundation. I believe this logic applies across the board to apologetic arguments in general. The implication of this is that apologetics is more useful for strengthening the faith of believers than for converting unbelievers. This has certainly been my experience, and McDowell?s More Than A Carpenter and Ladd?s Resurrection have been of immense value during the course of my Christian life, though books like these did not help me to become a Christian.

Micheal J Anderson writes a compelling response to the question. He makes a great claim that Apologetics can play a role in evangelism, or evangelistic meetings, however, Mr Anderson believes that it is better used when strengthening Christians. I can fully see where he is coming from, because I know now that I am a Christian, sometimes the reassurance of these important Christian truths, can reignite a passion or flame for Christ that has slowly died low. I have felt this and witnessed this within my own life, and it is a great feeling when you are assured of such things.

However, I would like to challenge Mr. Anderson on the issue that is “Can apologetics bring about salvation within a person’s heart?”. Though prior to his conversion, Mr. Anderson appears to have had a solid understanding of God, of Christ and his work on the Cross, and rising again; I am not sure most Christians can and would agree. Mr. Anderson may claim that he had a good understanding of these debates and understandings. I would assume that at some point in his pre-Christian era, someone talked to him about these issues. I would suspect that he did not “always” have this inclination of Christ rising from the Dead, which is a topic that a lot of Christians still fully understand. I would suspect that there was some sort of Apologetic taking place, even if Mr. Anderson did not realize it.

For myself at the age of ten, I started to study the apologetics of different religions, and actually tried to fit the pieces together as much as my ten year old brain could. For five years, I worked through different world views and religions, different arguments and thoughts, before I declared Jesus, King of my life. On terms of apologetic, reason, logic and world views I came to faith in Jesus Christ. Since then I may get strengthened by apologetic arguments, obviously I can understand more than I once could at the age of ten. Though Mr. Anderson claims he had no contact with apologetics before he became a Christian, I am not certain I can make the same claim. I know without a doubt that I was challenged a multiple of times with apologetics like the existence of God; the deity of Christ; even the resurrection of Christ. If people did not talk to me about these things I am not sure I would be the Christian I am today.

[Anton]

I believe that apologetics should play a minor role in evangelism.

I would like to congratulate my fellow followers of Christ for their learned and insightful perspective on this issue.
My approach to this discussion requires me to scramble to the Scriptures to see if some light can be shown on this issue. I Peter 3:15 comes to mind: "But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence (NASB). Our message is chiefly one of love: we share of God's love because of our love for our fellow man. Our message has to be about the , burial, resurrection of the Lord, His promises, and the invitation to place faith in Him. My testimony is also key to Gospel-witness. The pure Gospel has to be communicated at all times, and there has to be room left for the Holy Spirit to do His work on the heart of the kind listener. I feel that quite often some people tend to take matters too far into their own hands in order to convince someone of his/her need for Christ. The motivation is commendable, but sometimes more harm is done than good. I also feel that in matters of the Kingdom the heart has to be convinced before the head is, and this "heart-work" belongs to the Holy Spirit.

Evangelism, I feel, requires one to consistently bring the listener to the message of the Good News. I respect what my previous pastor had to say about a non-believer who kept asking questions. He said that people usually sought to fire all sorts of questions to the Christian in attempt to stump him/her. The pastor usually puts an end to the questions by asking, "If I were to answer the next question, would you place your faith in Jesus Christ?" On the other hand, it behooves Christian to study apologetics in order "to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:16). So keep studying apologetics with the intent of answering people when they ask about your faith and issues pertaining to your faith.

It seems as if debates are the the wave of the future. This could be good, I guess. In my weaker moments, however, I find "Apologetics Debates" informative, though generally just feeding into the pattern of "my God is better than your god, I'm smarter than you, I'm the winner ...."

[Anton]

Apologetics didn't seem to work on the Pharisees in Jesus' and Paul's day. Many today say we should love, not debate, that is, apologetics should only pay a minor role in evangelism. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Apologetics is something that happens after the fact. You never begin with apologetics. Apologetics should probably be limited to the legal world. Christ used apologetics in the context of defending his interpretation of the law. I suppose one could argue that Jesus was defending his faith, but that is a mute point when politics is based on a theocracy.

Other than in the legal realm, I see no purpose in defending one's faith. One can defend one's thought process and actions by explaining their motivation, but that is explanation, not debate.

I have found that apologetics is more a love of debate and quick wit; a theological chess game that very few can play and even fewer bring to checkmate.

The time spent in highlighting differences could very well be spend in the practice of love, either in mutual love for community or, as Jesus called it, loving your enemy. It is not always possible, rare in fact, to change an enemy, one who is politically, philosophically and theologically opposed to you, and make him or her your friend. Jesus called us to live in that context knowing we might have to do it for a lifetime.

Apologetics tend to define the differences and drive deeper wedges. It does little to create community; or when it does, it does so to preserve and isolate the faith. Should we assume one cannot change? Never! However, apologetics should be used as an attempt to define the faith, not as dialogical warfare. Allow those with a bent toward the intellectual to read and question, remembering it is not the argument or the wit or the rational methods that change lives, it is the kerygmatic word and walk of a life changed by Jesus.

I like some of the things that brother Jeff has to say. I do disagree with the comment that he sees "no purpose in defending one's faith". Being ready to give a defense or answer to anyone who desires to know is biblical and extremely important! If Christians cannot offer substantial reasons for their faith in Christ then there is trouble afoot. On the other hand, I like what Jeff has to say regarding not engaging in "debate" but rather resorting to the "practice of love".

This may just be word-splitting, but I did detect referece to non-Christians as "enemy". This I may have conjured up from the comments "loving our enemy" and "to change the enemy" in Jeff's response. Non-Chrisitians are not our enemy: Satan is our enemy. To even think of non-believers when using that term (enemy) is to affect our witness and evangelistic message. I think that I know what Jeff is trying to say. However, we must be careful how we represent ourselves: we love everyone with the love of Christ. To view non-Christians as the opposition is to distort our witness and "apology" for the cause of Christ.

I agree with Jeff when he states that we must be cautious in using apologetics. We must not be involved in verbal warfare with people whom we are seeking to win to Christ (under the power of His Holy Spirit).

[jrdods]

I think that it is not correct to assert that apologetics did not seem to work in Jesus’ or Paul’s day. It can only be asserted that based on the narrative, the Pharisee’s and Helenic Jews did not accept the gospel. Based on the same narrative; it would appear that many others did accept the gospel. The entire Gospel of John is an apologetic, which presents Jesus as fulfilling the signs of the Messiah. If apologetics were minor, or ineffective, why would an entire Gospel be devoted to them? Finally, I am a Christian because of apologetics, so apologetics were very effective for me.

[jrdods]

I tend to agree that apologetics should play only a minor role in our evangelism.

First, there are times when apologetics are useful in evangelism. Some non-Christians, when confronted with the claims of the gospel, frankly love to engage in debate over certain matters. I think in these instances we would not be fulfilling our call to witness if we refused to engage them in debate simply because we reject the practice of making apology for the faith, choosing only to love. Others may have developed some misunderstandings about the Christian faith along the way and a simple apologetic argument may remove a significant barrier to their faith. In any case, whatever debating and defending is done should be in a spirit of love and with genuine concern for the unbeliever?s best interest.

However, I doubt that apologetics as that term is popularly understood (Josh McDowell?s ministry comes immediately to mind) is extremely effective in leading people to salvation. I more so subscribe to the view suggested by George Ladd in his apologetic work I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus. There he argues that the historical evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus is indeed compelling, but until a person believes that God intervenes supernaturally in our world they will not believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead. It is only after we have encountered Jesus in our lives that we accept in our worldview that God intervenes supernaturally. With this presupposition, the evidence for the resurrection is indeed overwhelming, and we are strengthened by knowing that our faith has a strong foundation. I believe this logic applies across the board to apologetic arguments in general. The implication of this is that apologetics is more useful for strengthening the faith of believers than for converting unbelievers. This has certainly been my experience, and McDowell?s More Than A Carpenter and Ladd?s Resurrection have been of immense value during the course of my Christian life, though books like these did not help me to become a Christian.

I agree with most of what Michael J Anderson has to say. It should always be remembered that apologetics are limited. We ought not to build our entire faith on the basis of apologetics, but rather on the other witnesses presented in the Scriptures as well: the Holy Spirit, Christian fellowship, and the Scriptures. Nevertheless, I love the intellectual elements of my faith, and I will embrace them and witness for them- apologetics are major!

[Nancy B.]

It seems apologetics in Scripture depended to a large extent on the heart of the questioner. The fact that apologetics did not "work" on the Pharisees (and Jesus often did not directly answer their questions) may have been because He knew their hearts and that their questions were not from a sincere desire to know truth, but from a desire to discredit Him.

To those who sincerely wanted to know whether He was the Son of God, there was ample apologetical evidence given (Jesus mentions this as one of the reasons for His works), along with sufficient revelation from the Father. It seemed the two worked together. Thus there is a legitimate use of biblical and historical evidence when the lack of such evidence, bolstered by the lies and misconceptions of the world system, have created a stumbling block in a person's mind to keep them from considering Who Jesus is.

In my opinion, it is unfortunate that apologetics has come to mean almost exclusively arguing and debating; the promulgation of a belief system, rather than a balanced combination of truth spoken and also demonstrated in daily life. For some, the best demonstration of love is a respectful, reasoned explanation of why it is intellectually feasible to believe in Jesus as God's Son; for others, their prior experiences have made practical demonstrations of God's love the best way to their heart. Neither excludes the other.

Finally, it is interesting that the verse most used in connection with apologetics, 1 Peter 3:15, occurs within the context of suffering: being reviled, slandered and intimidated by unbelievers. One senses that this verse means not only to explain to unbelievers why we believe as we do, but also why we are the way we are. Perhaps the best apologetic is to display the supernatural patience, joy, love and life of Jesus when attacked for our beliefs, caring more about the other person's eternal soul than winning an argument.

[Nancy B.]

I tend to agree that apologetics should play only a minor role in our evangelism.

First, there are times when apologetics are useful in evangelism. Some non-Christians, when confronted with the claims of the gospel, frankly love to engage in debate over certain matters. I think in these instances we would not be fulfilling our call to witness if we refused to engage them in debate simply because we reject the practice of making apology for the faith, choosing only to love. Others may have developed some misunderstandings about the Christian faith along the way and a simple apologetic argument may remove a significant barrier to their faith. In any case, whatever debating and defending is done should be in a spirit of love and with genuine concern for the unbeliever?s best interest.

However, I doubt that apologetics as that term is popularly understood (Josh McDowell?s ministry comes immediately to mind) is extremely effective in leading people to salvation. I more so subscribe to the view suggested by George Ladd in his apologetic work I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus. There he argues that the historical evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus is indeed compelling, but until a person believes that God intervenes supernaturally in our world they will not believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead. It is only after we have encountered Jesus in our lives that we accept in our worldview that God intervenes supernaturally. With this presupposition, the evidence for the resurrection is indeed overwhelming, and we are strengthened by knowing that our faith has a strong foundation. I believe this logic applies across the board to apologetic arguments in general. The implication of this is that apologetics is more useful for strengthening the faith of believers than for converting unbelievers. This has certainly been my experience, and McDowell?s More Than A Carpenter and Ladd?s Resurrection have been of immense value during the course of my Christian life, though books like these did not help me to become a Christian.

It has been interesting, reading through the various postings, to note how often one’s views of apologetics in evangelism are based on one’s personal experience. While we have all known those who loved to argue for arguing sake, there are also those who are genuinely seeking truth. So I agree that there are times when it is right to give a loving, reasoned explanation of why we believe as we do, which can overcome misunderstandings unbelievers have about the Christian faith. Until I started reading Francis Schaeffer, I didn’t know there were any intellectual reasons why Christians believed what they did. God used Schaeffer’s writings to bring me to the place where I believed there was a real, personal God.

In answering the charge that apologetics is not very effective in leading people to salvation, I would answer that it is the gospel that leads people to salvation, but apologetics may be part of God's laying a groundwork where the gospel may be accepted. Yes, we cannot argue people into the kingdom; but the apostle Paul used evidence from the Hebrew Scriptures to convince the Jews of his day that Jesus was the promised Messiah. When speaking to Gentiles, he referenced God as Creator and Judge of the earth using general revelation.

Regarding Ladd’s argument that the historical evidence for the resurrection is not effective unless someone already believes that God supernaturally intervenes in our world, I would answer that the disciples and first century church turned the world upside down preaching the resurrection of Jesus. It is part of the gospel; part of who Jesus is as the One who is received as Savior for eternal life; and, although we realize a person does not come to that conclusion by argumentation, but by the illuminating power of the Spirit, yet the Spirit often uses evidence. The Spirit's working and evidence are not mutually exclusive. It is not our responsibility to convince people, but we still preach the gospel, including the resurrection of Jesus, because the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit convinces people that it is true. Thus apologetics is not just to strengthen the faith of believers, as many who have been introduced to Christ through today’s genuine, God-honoring apologists can affirm.