There are several ways in which apologetics has been addressed by the church and not all have been biblical.
In Latin America, we are just beginning to present to the church biblical teachings that, to begin with, instruct and defend the existence of the Creator God, explains the monotheism of the Christian faith, the doctrine of the Trinity, the truthfulness of the Scriptures, its manuscript traditions (the history as to how copies of the manuscripts were written), the biblical account of creation, and much more.
The direction that we take in apologetics will have great consequences, for better or for worse. Let me share with you some lessons that are important if we want to defend our faith biblically.
The adverbs “historically” and “biblically” are not synonymous
In the seminary, where many of us go in preparation for ministry, the term “historic” is commonly and widely used to defend a certain interpretation of a biblical text. This is often because of the need to counteract a modern idea that has infiltrated the interpretation of biblical texts by contemporary authors and pastors.
For example, once, someone tried to convince me that the “side of Adam” that God had used to form Eve was not a bone operation. According to this person, the Hebrew word for “side” also means “curve”, which can represent the curved double helix structure of our DNA. In other words, God, instead of removing Adam’s bone, only took Adam’s chromosomes to form Eve.
On these sorts of occasions, a good argument against such erroneous claims that are without a biblical basis, is to show the person that this interpretation is not the historical interpretation. But it’s important to note that this not the whole argument in and of itself.
Just the fact that something has happened in the history of the church does not make it the authority in and of itself. We can consider the historical context of the passage, the textual context, the author and his intentions, the teaching of the entire Bible, and the central redemptive narrative, among other things. But we can also consider how a text has been interpreted throughout the history of the church, particularly the early eras (about 100-400 A.D.). These are tools that help us “correctly handle the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).
However, some tools carry more authority and are used more than others. For example, the immediate context of a biblical text has authority for its interpretation, above the form of which the church after the apostles had understood the text. This must be obvious, but many have not noticed this.
Origen (c. 200 A.D.), for example, interpreted the Old Testament by means of “mystical interpretation” and wanted to “recover these deeper or hidden meanings, which were different from the literal or clear meanings.”[1] For various reasons, this form of interpreting the Scriptures undermines the form that our Lord Jesus interpreted them and that of the apostles.
The same can be said of apologetics. There has been a range of styles and forms in regard to engaging with apologetics throughout church history. We can examine these briefly and learn about what they were trying to accomplish. However, we should not attempt to copy them just because of their ecclesiastical historicity. These methods must also be subjected to the Scriptures.
Therefore, as we consider the forms in which we should learn and apply apologetics, let us take into account that the adverbs “historically” and “biblically” are not themselves synonymous.
Apologetics without its foundation isn’t biblical
Moreover, we need to understand that because of the religiosity of human beings, no one can address an issue from a neutral starting point. Such a point does not even exist, and we discredit the Word of God and its content if we believe that we can argue from an erroneous starting point with the expectation of later establishing the argument on a biblical foundation.
Historically, much has been written about apologetics, and on several occasions, advocates of the faith have relied on philosophical arguments rooted in pagan thought.
The dangerous thing about that is that if you look at their arguments more objectively, you may notice that some of them can be used to give a defense of a pantheon of gods, as taught in other philosophies of life. Even some arguments depend on man’s total free will in order to rescue God from the accusation of evil.
This tendency, to rely on and argue for secular philosophy in favor of God (theism) and the truthfulness of his Word is prevalent today amongst most Christian apologetic books in our seminary libraries.
Apologetics, however, can be very useful. It engages with philosophy when magnifying the error in the logic of the unbeliever’s thinking, and in the sciences, it can be reasonably shown how the naturalistic worldview has led the unbeliever to his conclusions rather than empirical science.
That said, we cannot rely on apologetic arguments that begin from a neutral starting point, believing that the power of Christ’s testimony is based on the power of man’s persuasive words. The Apostle Paul recognized the importance of not relying on arguments of human sophistry rooted in pagan thought:
My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power (1 Cor. 2:4-5).
Someone might perhaps object: “But does the Apostle Paul not say here that a demonstration of the Spirit, as in miracles, must be our way of evangelizing?” Absolutely not! Here’s a good example of how context is key.
-
- Historical context: During the time of the Apostles, the Holy Spirit worked in ways that served to authenticate the Apostles’ message. The New Testament was in the process of being written, and the entire book of Acts shows how God often worked in miraculous ways among the Apostles, showing His approval and indicating the church’s submission to them (Acts 19).
- Textual context: In the three previous verses, we read: “And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.” (1 Corinthians 2:1). The emphasis is the proclamation of God’s testimony, not signs and wonders of God. So Paul relied not on the style of word (superiority) or human wisdom (pagan philosophy), but on the content of the word.
- The power of the gospel: “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling” (vv. 2-3). So the power of the gospel was centrally rooted in Christ, not the trembling and fearful messenger.
In the next article, we will be delving into this as we see that apologetics without the gospel is in fact a form of disobedience.
[1] Justin Taylor, PhD., “An FAQ on Mysticism and the Christian Life”, The Gospel Coalition. Accessed November 30, 2016. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/an-faq-on-mysticism-and-the-christian-life/