The Danger of Being ‘Too Good’ at Apologetics

March 6, 2013 § 8 Comments

It’s the commission of every believer to “give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” (1 Peter 3:15) Apologists exercise a particular desire to engage in rational debate in an effort to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God.” (2 Cor. 10:5) We of course feel obligated to be good at it, but that doesn’t guarantee the acceptance of Christianity by skeptics.

A good argument is often rationally ignored in a debate. Since Genesis 3, the fallen heart of man is bent toward self-deceit(1), and as Romans 1:25 says, is more than willing to trade the “truth for a lie.” Only the Holy Spirit can open eyes to the truth of Christianity and the Gospel and bring a soul to see past the obstacles.

Boxing080905_photoshopSometimes though, I think apologists can put forth a logically impenetrable defense and actually become one of the obstacles. An impregnable argument can be a complete turn-off, and that’s actually not what we want. We want to demolish arguments, but not the human spirit in the process. As the mantra goes, the Christian’s goal is to win souls, not arguments. In thinking about past debates (and I’m sure others have seen this) there are times when an argument really comes together, as the result of the Spirit’s guidance, and practice, and by the humble discovery of the validity of Christianity’s deepest foundations. But it comes together as such a solid, air-tight case that the unbelieving opponent simply checks out of the conversation. And still in unbelief. Many times I’ve experienced an online debate ending without an atheist’s response, just when it was getting really ‘good’. I somehow delivered a debate-ender. By having the last word I would feel accomplished in demolishing their arguments and faithfully defending Christianity—then perform a self-check for pride. But now I wonder if I demolished any spirit they had to continue to seek the truth from me, or any believer. Winning the debate can mean losing the debate when the opportunity to win someone for Christ is lost or shortened.

I suddenly feel the urge to re-write some previous posts and re-do some previous debates (Oops… too late for that last one).

Brick_wall_in_León,_Guanajuato,_2010-06-13So going forward, how do we keep such a wall from going up? Colossians 4:6 gives us an answer: “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” Show grace in your defense. Grace is, after all, what we preach, why and how we are in a position to preach, and the desired result of it all: Sinners coming to terms with God’s grace through Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:8,9). Do we show grace by intentionally presenting weak arguments to keep an unbeliever coming back? I don’t think so. I suppose it will take on different forms for different apologists, but we don’t want to compromise the truth just to make it taste better, but maybe our form. Here are three ways.


The Bible provides the only rational basis for objective truth, rooted in the nature of God, and no other worldview offers this.

Christians claim the Bible as the only rational basis for objective truth, rooted in the nature of God. Can you think of another worldview that does this? two propositions above are saying the same thing. Which one feels more open and friendly? The one ending in a question, doesn’t it? The objective truth of the Bible feels like it needs to be stated firmly as a stone wall. Could what you’re stating also be put in question form? Questions invite further dialog, as long as they are not snide or obviously rhetorical. Ask questions that should logically lead them to the same conclusion that you were planning to assert with a firm statement. Invite them to get there using their own cognitive abilities rather than forcing your conclusions on them. They need to know that you still want to discuss it.


Screen Shot 2013-03-05 at 8.04.36 PMGrace comes in other forms too, from the admonition of 1 Peter 3:15 to give a defense “with gentleness and respect.” Concede good points made whenever they appear, and let your opponent know that you appreciate their time and that you’ve learned a lot from what they’ve offered (this is always true for me; I learn something about my opponent’s worldview at every encounter). At least in written correspondence, mood and temperament is often not clear, so clarify a gentle and respectful demeanor in debate forums with fewer ALL-CAPS and exclamation marks, and more happy emoticons. You may sacrifice professionalism there, between it’s a small sacrifice. Note the difference between PLEASE! and Please. 🙂


Be brief, if you can. A lengthy post can be daunting and discourage response. Don’t launch every point in a single comment or post, unless you’re responding to series of points. I’ve found that the more stripped down my dialog is, the shorter the response, unless you’re met with a lot of extra rhetorical or emotional fluff—which you are free to ignore. Try to be succinct, yet thorough.

These approaches may seem like we are depending on and playing off of an opponent’s emotional responses to keep the discussion going. I’ve debated with many unbelievers who rely heavily on emotion to make their points, so the approach is fitting. When right reasoning is corrupt by sin, we resort to emotions. Those who challenge our faith are God’s human creation.

381px-Avocado_SeedlingUltimately we are only playing a part in leading others to Christ—God opens eyes and turns hearts. But God uses Christians and our apologetics, so the part we play shouldn’t drive seekers away, but keep them seeking. All debates must end, but may they not end because an opponent feels cornered and utterly beaten. If we are rejected, let it not be because skeptics don’t feel as though we want to listen and learn their position. Let skeptics reject the Gospel of salvation when it’s graciously presented in truth and love. Even if rejected, our apologia can be a seed that will, Lord willing, take root.

[Here is a debate of mine where I think grace was effectively applied: A Doubter Challenges Christianity.
And here is one where I think I lacked in it, effectively driving home the argument but shutting down the discussion, really before any clear presentation of the Gospel on my part: Evidence for God in the Laws of Logic.]

1) The Crucial Concept of Self-Deception in Presuppositional Apologetics, by Dr. Greg Bahnsen

Non Ad Hominem

December 17, 2012 § Leave a comment

Thankfully, man is not the sum total of of his ideas. The call to love and respect the people God created doesn’t apply to the ideas they may come by, which, whenever presented, are always open for scrutiny, challenge, and reasoned debate. And they may stand or fall by the same.

Basics of Apologetics: The 1 Peter 3:15 Model (Part 3 of 3)

September 19, 2012 § Leave a comment

The last of a three part series, this post dissects 1 Peter 3:15 and relates a framework for what I consider to be the ultimate goal in doing apologetics.

“But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord…”

Regardless of the approach we use (see previous post), we should keep the goal of apologetics in mind and follow a blueprint that will get us there. With the goal of presenting the Gospel in mind, there are often courses and directions that will take us there efficiently. I think the best way is the introduction of the sin problem. It’s something that everyone has in common and so many relevant arguments about current issues and common questions that lead there quite naturally. There would be no need for the Gospel without the reality of sin. Get people talking about sin and present the Solution that is the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”

Our calling seems to be continual (“Always…”). The primary method of being continually prepared to give an answer about Biblical Christianity is to study the Bible. There are great books and resources available to help with that. Some are pretty deep in philosophy but others are not.

Know what you believe, but avoid being ignorant of other beliefs. Take the time study the doctrine of other religions and worldviews if that’s who you are having a dialog with.

Another great way to get into defending your faith is to simply practice it. Engage in a conversation with that friend, neighbor, family member, co-worker or classmate, and you know who they are. There are many more opportunities online for apologetic debate that aren’t as nerve-wracking as face to face debate. Online discussion forums or the comment area beneath most news articles are great venues to do apologetics for two reasons. Firstly, you have opportunity to research your answers before you give them (it’s natural to feel unprepared going into any conversation). And secondly, your discussion often remains public for many to see and perhaps be persuaded.

Phillies manager Charlie Manuel argues with the ump

Lastly, Paul encourages gentleness and respect in our discourse with unbelievers. NEVER engage in personal attacks, excess sarcasm or course language. Christians argue that our faith is set apart from the world’s, so we should be set apart from the world’s way of debate. G. K. Chesterton notes that many people quarrel because they don’t know how to argue. An argument is a statement of a position that doesn’t require it to be heated or angry, and reasonable arguments follow civil guidelines. Do it with gentleness and respect!

By the way, you don’t rob anyone of respect if you politely get out of what Proverbs 26:4 considers “foolish arguments” (Don’t Waste Time on Apologetics).

Follow these guidelines and there will be NO guarantee that an unbeliever will see the truth. God can and does use apologetic arguments to open darkened eyes, but ultimately this responsibility is the work of the Holy Spirit (Let the Spirit Do His Thing). Do apologetics, pray as you go, and leave the rest to Him.

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with respect at God&Neighbor.