The Problems and Possibilities of Christian Apologetics

Last updated on: May 21, 2020 at 7:48 am by Roger E. Olson

The Problems and Possibilities of Christian Apologetics 2020-05-21T07:48:26-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Recently a very popular Christian apologist (defender of the faith) named Ravi Zacharias passed away. I did not know him and this post is not about him. All I know is that many people thought very highly of him and will miss him.

His passing, however, has caused me to think again about Christian apologetics in general. Why do I not write apologetics? Besides here, I mean.

As I see it, anyway, the problem with Christian apologetics is that, too often, anyway, it claims to accomplish too much. I do not think even the best argument can persuade a reluctant person to embrace the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no such thing as “evidence that demands a verdict” or a knock-down, drag-out proof that leaves no room for Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith.”

At the end of every argument for the truth of Christianity lies a gulf, a gap, that can only be crossed by an act of faith, of commitment. American philosopher William James talked about the “will to believe.” Without the will to believe, apologetics fails. How can one have the will to believe—in Jesus Christ as God and Savior? Only the Holy Spirit can provide it.

Suppose someone does “become a Christian” solely, exclusively in an intellectual way—on the basis of arguments and evidences. Is he or she now really a Christian? Yes and no. Yes in the sense of having the right state of mind, mental condition, at least with regard to some facts about God and Jesus and perhaps himself/herself. No in the sense of having that which is most crucial to true Christianity, heart-felt commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord and a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

So do I oppose apologetics? Yes and no. Yes if it means the attempt to prove Christianity true with the result that a smart person who hears or reads the argument(s) will become a Christian. No if it means the attempt to remove false cognitive stumbling blocks to faith that have been placed in the path of someone sincerely wanting to be a Christian (at first or continuing).

That is what apologetics is good for—demonstrating using reason—evidence and logic—that Christianity is not false, mythical, stupid or dangerous. In fact, I believe it is possible to demonstrate rationally that the overall, general Christian worldview has greater explanatory power than any competing worldview.

However, without the Holy Spirit working through the demonstration, nothing of any great spiritual importance will be achieved—except possibly the removal of false stumbling blocks placed in people’s path toward faith.

Too many Christian apologists forget the Holy Spirit entirely.

A real problem with much Christian apologetics is the assumption (implied if not stated) that there are certain arguments for the truth of Christianity that, if articulated well, can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I said above, I believe a case CAN be made (rarely is made well) that the basic, general Christian worldview has greater explanatory power than its competitors. However, that procedure falls short of proof. It has its place and can have value, but it does not constitute proof.

Many arguments used by rationalistic Christian apologists have “holes” that any bright, perceptive critic can easily notice and point out. No argument for the existence of God, for example, is fool proof; every one has some Achilles Heel that can be found and used against it. All contain hidden assumptions. If a person agrees with the assumption of an argument for God’s existence, then it might work to persuade him or her to be open to the idea that God (or a god) exists.

On the other hand, the same is true of all arguments that are a posteriori as opposed to a priori and even the best a priori arguments that aim at synthetic truth (as opposed to analytic truth) fall short of absolute proof. Kant’s whole philosophical project centered around the attempt to discover synthetic propositions that are true a priori. For example: All things known will be ordered in time and space (the two categories of understanding). But these—time and space—are (for Kant) part of the mind’s equipment; whether they are “real” outside the mind is unknowable. So the argument that this is true a priori depends on the validity of the critical idealism of Kant’s philosophy which was a response to Hume’s skepticism.

At the end of the day, the best argument for God’s existence is that presented by Catholic theologian Hans Kung (there should be an umlaut over the “u” but my word processor today won’t put on there!) which is that you must choose between believing in God and being a nihilist. I believe that works. But as Kung himself said, this is at best an “indirect proof” of God’s existence and works ONLY because hardly anyone admits to being a true nihilist. Therefore, they are assuming God’s (or something like God’s) existence whether they know or admit it (even to themselves) or not.

The problem with this is that many, many modern Western people are willing to be nihilists under the guise of adopting some kind of utilitarian ethic. A perfect illustration of this KIND of problem is the American television program (situation comedy) The Big Bang Theory where the hedonistic main characters often struggle over ethical issues without any basis for there being any real distinction between good and bad, right and wrong. For example, for them it is unethical to sleep with someone else’s girlfriend or boyfriend but not unethical to sleep with many people—so long as none of them are in a “committed relationship” however loosely committed it may be. Because they are all practical atheists or agnostics, there is no absolute foundation for this sexual ethic and yet they ACT as if there is one. They are inconsistent hedonists or perhaps inconsistent theists (without knowing it).

So, to draw this essay to a close, apologetics has some value in certain situations (spelled out above). But it cannot achieve spiritual transformation without the Holy Spirit. And ultimately, what the Holy Spirit MUST do to bring a person to authentic Christian commitment is convincingly convict him or her of his or her personal need of a savior. This apologetics alone cannot do.

*Note to commenters: I never speak here for anyone but myself. If you decide to respond follow these rules: Do not include a hyperlink; be brief, concise and to the point; remain civil and kind; give reasons (do not just make assertions); stay on topic and do not go off on a tangent; remember that this is not a place fo you to promote your own alternative view. This blog is meant for evangelical Christians; others are welcome to ask questions better to understand evangelical Christianity. It is not a place for debate about incommensurable world views or theologies.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

May 17, 2020

Confusion Reigns about COVID 19 Fatality Rates

Next Post

May 23, 2020 Why Lying Has Become Normal and Acceptable

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which king of Judah burned the scroll of Jeremiah's prophecy?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Zedekiah Jehoiakim Josiah Hezekiah