Christianity Is the Only, Not Just the Best, Reasonable Position to Hold

The argument for the existence of God and for the truth of Christianity is objectively valid. We should not tone down the validity of this argument to the probability level. The argument may be poorly stated, and may never be adequately stated. But in itself the argument is absolutely sound. Christianity is the only reasonable position to hold. It is not merely as reasonable as other positions, or a bit more reasonable than other positions; it alone is the natural and reasonable position for man to take.

By stating the argument as clearly as we can, we may be the agents of the Spirit in pressing the claims of God upon men. If we drop to the level of the merely probable truthfulness of Christian theism, we, to that extent, lower the claims of God upon men.

Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel (P&R, 1977), 62.

The Value of Systematic Theology for Defending the Faith

Many people believe that the basis and source of defending the faith is different than that of knowing the faith. That is, they believe that we do systematic theology by appealing to the Scriptures, and we defend our faith by appealing to reason or philosophy (since unbelievers don’t accept the Bible as the Word of God).

The distinctive of the presuppositional (or transcendental) approach to apologetics developed most extensively by Cornelius Van Til is its demand that Scripture be the starting point for all human knowledge, and that it be maintained as such in a believer’s defense of the faith against attacks by unbelievers.

The best apologetic defense will invariably be made by him who knows the system of truth of Scripture best. The fight between Christianity and non-Christianity is, in modern times, no piece-meal affair. It is the life-and-death struggle between two mutually opposed life-and-world views…He who has not been trained in systematic theology will often be at a loss as to how to meet these attacks. He may be quite proficient in warding off the attack as far as details are concerned, but he will forever have to be afraid of new attacks as long as he has never removed the foundation from the enemy’s position.

It should not be forgotten in this connection that the minister’s duty is increasingly that of an apologist for Christianity. The general level of education is higher than it has ever been…If the minister would be able to help his young people, he must be a good apologete, and he cannot be a good apologete unless he is a good systematic theologian.

In conclusion, we should observe that just as a thorough knowledge of the system of truth in the Scripture is the best defense against heresy, so it is also the best help for the propagation of the truth…

And then Van Til starts stepping on toes:

The church will have to return to its erstwhile emphasis upon its teaching function if it is to fulfill its God-given task of bringing the gospel to all men. Its present recourse to jerky evangelism as almost the only method of propaganda is itself an admission of paupery…Revivalists ought to make themselves unnecessary as quickly as possible.

On this last point, Van Til is contrasting the modern evangelical and fundamental church’s tendency to reduce its purpose simply to training for evangelism, and jerky evangelism at that. I believe what he meant by “jerky evangelism” is an approach to evangelism where the message is divorced entirely from the rest of Christian doctrine and is reduced to a “get saved” message, followed by a “here’s how to get people saved” view of the Christian life. He was pleading for a return to a comprehensive instruction in sound doctrine that would provide the foundation for both a deep and strong faith, and a solid foundation for a robust defense of the faith against attacks. As a result, he calls for the swift elimination of revivalists who preach a denuded gospel that is insufficient for apologetics.

The Importance of 1 Peter 3:15-16 for Apologetics

The text of Scripture that most clearly teaches us about every believer’s responsibility to be involved in apologetics is 1 Peter 3:15-16. In this passage, every believer is commanded to be prepared to “give and answer,” lit. “make a defense” (Greek: apologia) for what he believes. This defense is made through appeal to a “reason,” (Greek: logos) or a logical, rational argument. And the content of the argument is the hope within us (essentially our belief in Christ’s resurrection and return). The rest of the passage proceeds to tell us how to do so: gently, with respect, and supported by a pure life and conscience.

Many believers find such an injunction daunting. Yet, this passage also contains the seeds of encouragement by what it does not command us to do. Greg Bahnsen summarizes the encouragement:

1. This text does not say that believers are supposed to take the initiative to start arrogant arguments with unbelievers, telling them we have all the answers. We do not have to go looking for a fight. Rather, we offer a reasonable defense in answer to those who ask for such from us, whether they do so as an opening challenge to the integrity of God’s Word or as the natural response to our evangelistic witness.

2. This text does not say that believers are responsible to persuade anybody who challenges or questions our faith. We can offer sound reasons to the unbeliever, but we cannot make him subjectively believe those reasons. We can refute the poor argumentation of the unbeliever, but still not persuade him. We can close the mouth of the critic, but only God can open the heart. Only God can regenerate a dead heart and give sight to the blind. This is why apologists should not evaluate their success or adjust their message on the basis of whether the unbeliever finally comes to agree with them or not.

3. This text does not say that defending the faith has a different ultimate authority than does the task of expounding the faith. It is a common  mistake to think that the Scriptures are an adequate basis for our theology, but inadequate or inappropriate for defending our faith. Believers are often misled into thinking that whatever they take as the ultimate standard in apologetic thinking must be neutral and agreed upon by believer and unbeliever alike; and from here they go on to make the second mistake of thinking that something like “reason” is such a commonly understood and accepted standard.

1 Peter 3:15 teaches us that the precondition of presenting a defense of the faith (apologetics) is the same as doing theology—setting apart Christ as Lord in our hearts. It would be a mistake to think that Peter is speaking of the heart here as though it is our center of emotions over against the mind with which we think.

Greg Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith (Covenant Media Press, 1996), 111-12.

These observations relieve much of my anxiety about sharing the gospel. The burden is not on me to convince anyone or convert anyone (although that is my desire). My responsibility is simply to prepare myself to answer those who ask me why I believe the gospel. God does the convicting, convincing and converting. I can’t persuade people, but I can prepare myself.

For those interested in getting started in the basics of preparation for apologetics, I recommend two books. Although there are many websites that contain helpful information, I have found these two books to be the best introduction:

Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith by Greg Bahnsen

and

The Battle Belongs to the Lord: The Power of Scripture for Defending Our Faith by K. Scott Oliphint