I am going to argue that Biblical Apologetics is
characterized by a certain set of traits, the absence of which means the
absence of the project itself. In other words, as one looks at the class of “biblical
apologetics, one must ask what are those “class defining attributes” that
distinguish it from other classes. All apologetic methods claim to be biblical,
but in one way or another, they are missing some of those essential
characteristics necessary to satisfy this definition.
First, I will seek to demonstrate that the definition of
apologetics along with the method and manner in which we carry out this
definition are all unambiguously informed by Scripture. A straightforward exegetical
approach to the discipline of apologetics reveals all we need to know in order
to understand the discipline, the method we must employ, and the manner in
which we are to behave in order to accomplish the discipline in a way that
honors God and extends the highest degree of respect to divine revelation. I
would be remiss if I did not also disclose that such an approach presupposes
the right use of the laws of human thought. Exegesis always involves deductive
and inductive methods of approaching the text.
The truth of God, having been revealed to us in Scripture, warrants
the utmost veneration. The discipline of Biblical Apologetics has a deep and
profound duty to maintain an inflexible, inexorable, unyielding loyalty to
Scripture. After all, the Christian worldview is a paradigm. As such, it stands
or falls as a whole. In other words, it cannot be discontinuous. Biblical
apologetics rests on the foundation of one message, one way of looking at
reality, one way of knowing, and one way of living. Departure from this “one
way” even in the smallest gradation translates to an indiscriminate retreat
from Biblical Apologetics as an enterprise and exchanges it for something less
than God’s remedy for how we need to respond to the unbeliever in a fallen
world.
The Right Definition – Response
In order to understand the essential components of biblical
apologetics, one must first acquire an accurate definition of the term.
Moreover, since the term we aspire to understand is the same one used by
several writers in numerous documents of the Greek New Testament, it only
follows that we must confine our investigation to the documents of the GNT.
After all, central fallacies arise at precisely these stages. The failure to
establish a working definition of a term lends itself to unnecessary confusion
and in many cases, frustration. It does little to advance the cause of truth.
The Greek words apologia and apologeomai
appear 18 times in the Greek NT. Luke uses the terms 10 times and in every
single instance it is in the context of a formal religious or civil trial with
perhaps one exception(Lu. 12:11; 21:14; Acts 19:33; 22:1; 24:10; 25:8; 25:16;
26:1; 26:2; 26:24). In each of these cases, the idea is that a person has been
charged or indicted and they are responding, or answering the indictment or
charges. Paul uses the term twice to defend his ministry against false charges (I Cor.
9:3; 2 Cor. 12:19). He uses it on three occasions to reference his trial (Phil.
1:7, 16; 2 Tim. 4:16). He uses it once to refer to how the Gentile conscience
defends its behavior in terms of moral practice (Rom. 2:15), and once to refer
the Corinthian repentance and how that served to defend charges against the
genuineness of their faith (2 Cor. 7:11). Peter uses the term in his command to
all Christians to always be prepared to respond to those who would demand an
account of us for the reason of the hope that is in us (1 Pet. 3:15).
It seems clear then that Christian apologetics is a response
to something. In most cases, it was a response to a formal charge or
indictment. However, it would be an overstatement to say that this is the
predominant picture that should come to mind. On the other hand, it would also
be inaccurate to describe Christian apologetics as primarily a response to an
inquiry, or a simple question. While one must accept that this situation would
rightly be classes as apologetics, it is not exactly the situation described in
most instances in Scripture.
The Right Method – Faith Informed Reason, Revelational
Epistemology, Biblical Authority.
The Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke, contain several
examples of NT Apologetics. You do not need to look any further than Scripture
in order to identify the apologetic model that Christians ought to employ. The
very first apologetic is issued in Acts 4:8. The charge came in response to the
preaching of Jesus. The religious leaders arrested Peter and John. Peter stood
up and preached Jesus Christ, whom they had crucified, and whom God had raised
from the dead. He reasons from Scripture to support His argument. Peter began
with Christ, reasoned from Scripture, and ended with Christ. The result was a
threat of serious bodily harm.
The next apologetic example is recorded in Acts 5:17-42. The
apostles answer the council’s charge by thundering that they must obey God rather
than men. Peter once again points to the resurrection, proclaims that they are
witnesses of these things, and also confirms that the Holy Spirit is witness to
these events. Christians have both the testimony of Scripture and the testimony
of the Holy Spirit that the truth claims of the Christian worldview are
actually true. This is how Peter and the apostles reasoned. In contemporary
times, we are told, even by Christian apologists, that such reasoning amounts
to little more than fideism.
Another example of NT Apologetics is located in Acts 6:8-7:60.
Stephen is falsely accused by men who argued with him but were unable to gain
any ground due to the soundness of his argumentation. Stephen reasoned from Scripture.
Stephen stands up to defend himself at the council and he immediately begins
with God, and from the start he reasons from Scripture.
One more example concerns perhaps the most popular apologetic
presentations of all. In fact, this address is so popular that it so
overshadows the others in such a way that I can hardly think of anyone even
considering the apologetic nature of these events. Yet it is clear that each of
these historical events were apologetics through and through. In Acts 17, Paul
gives the most memorable of all the apologetic episodes ever recorded. And as
one might image, Paul too, begins with God and reasons from Scripture
throughout his defense of the Christian system of truth, the gospel of Jesus
Christ.
The apostles along with Christ began with the supreme
authority of the Divine in every encounter. Even when Paul gave his personal
testimony of conversion, he always pointed men up to the supreme rule of God,
and included that Lordship and resurrection of Jesus Christ. “Upon the rock
foundation of God’s word the Christian is able to demonstrate the foolishness
of unbelieving thought while at the same time vindicate the greatness of divine
wisdom.” [Butler, The Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence]
Rational argumentation for the existence of God is only
valuable when used in the context of reasoning from Scripture. Otherwise, all
one can show is that some finite god exists and that he or she created the
universe and all that is in it. The ontological, cosmological, and
teleological arguments do nothing to establish the exclusive truth of
Christian theism. For that, we must turn to revelation. Rational argumentation
rests upon foundationalism, a system that does not make sin an essential epistemological
category. A system that fails to recognize sin as such, also fails to take Paul
seriously.
Apologetic method must rest upon the bold foundation of the
sufficiency of Scripture. What does it say about the bride of Christ when she
surrenders such sacred ground? Not only has the church surrendered the doctrine
of sufficiency to psychological integration, and to the pragmatism of programs
and a self-help message that is far more psychological that salvific, now it
seems she wishes to give up her defense of Scripture in exchange for
philosophical speculation anchored in a foundationalism that takes Paul nor any
other Scripture seriously in terms of the epistemological aspects of sin. In
other words, to concede to any method other than a presuppositional one
necessarily affirms that which is should seek to refute; the validity of
autonomous human reason.
The Right Manner – Christian Charity
It is more than just ironic that Christian blogs, websites,
and even apologists themselves can resort to name-calling, pejorative language,
insults, and the like all in the name of defending the message of Christian
hope and love. Still, the sad truth is that this behavior is more common than
many realize. Christian apologetics begins when an unbeliever responds to the
Christian message. The unbeliever’s response should always be met in the light
of the character that the Christian ethic demands. Paul instructs Titus not to
speak in a way that would harm or injure they’re reputation, to malign no one.
Paul tells him to speak in a way that is peaceable, gentle, showing every
consideration for all men (Titus 3:2). The “men” Paul references are clearly
unbelievers, given the context of this passage. The same apostle instructed the
church at Colossae, “Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned
with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person” (Col.
4:6).
Peter could not have been more translucent when he said that
our apologetic must be given with “gentleness and reverence.” This word
gentleness is akin to our modern idea of courtesy. We must take a gentle or
humble attitude toward those who would make such demands of us. The word for
reverence carries the idea of profound respect. It is as much about the manner
of our answer as it is about power of our argument. While prophets, apostles,
and our Lord issued rebukes that were stinging and appropriate, our own
disposition must be dissimilar. We are not prophets, apostles, or the Lord.
They belonged to a much different class of authority while we are all on the
same playing field. Stern rebukes issued by these men in divine narrative do
not serve as legitimate excuses for us to engage in rude and uncharitable
argumentation in our apologetic. A biblical apologetic, to be biblical, must
rightly define the term apologetics, must reason rightly from Scripture, and it
must be laced with Christian charity top to bottom.
No comments:
Post a Comment