Saints and Sceptics

One objection to apologetics runs as follows: “Only God can effectively call someone to faith”. Well, amen and hallelujah. But how does God call us? Typically, through his word; and it is astonishing how often God’s word reasons with unbelief. For example Paul opens his chief theological statement, the book of Romans, with a critique of idolatry and polytheism.  The creator’s eternal power is revealed through the natural world; the author of this creation must be far greater than anything in the created realm. Yet, even though everyone instinctively searches for God, pagans worship with pieces of wood and stone. This is foolishness, for they should know that something even more beautiful lies behind the beauty of nature.[1] .

Paul makes a similar argument to the Athenians in Acts 17. The ‘world and everything in it’ reflects the power of one creator. If everything in this world depends on a creator, then it follows that the creator cannot depend on anything in nature. It is madness, then, to bring food to idols as a means of honouring the divine. Furthermore, it is absurd to suggest that anything fashioned by  human hand could contain or convey the majesty of the creator. These arguments would have been familiar to the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers of Athens. They might even have been sympathetic to Paul’s argument that because all men searched for the same thing, it was more reasonable to believe in one creator. Creation, after all, testified to one designer and one providential plan. [2]

Of course, if the gods of the pagans cannot adequately account for creation, neither can atheism. Atheism is on trial when Paul writes in Romans and preaches in Athens. Sadly, the philosophers cut Paul off when he mentioned the resurrection; the intellectual elites of Athens were more interested in fashions than truth, as Luke makes clear. But it was a tragic moment when Paul was silenced at the Areopagus, for the reader of Acts knows that he had excellent evidence for the resurrection.  Acts not only appeals to the eyewitness testimony of the apostles;  Paul could ask the Roman procurator Festus and King Herod Agrippa II to consult the public record! Presumably, the Jewish authorities had some difficulty in accounting for facts like the empty tomb!

When we are explaining the Gospel we have an obligation to let the Scriptures speak; and God’s word contends that unbelief makes no sense. God’s call does not bypass our brains. So we must follow Paul’s example and argue passionately for the Gospel. Without the doctrine of creation man cannot make sense of his world; without the doctrine of the Fall he cannot make sense of himself. Without God’s Law he has no meaning; without God’s Gospel he has no hope. This is not a quest for academic credentials; we are not seeking intellectual respectability.  But it remains the duty of every evangelist, every preacher, every pastor, and every Christian, to do all that they can to persuade the unbeliever of the truth of the Gospel. And that means apologetics!

It is tempting to think that the phrase “Gospel-centred” has lost something of its value in evangelical circles. Perhaps it made sense to talk about “Gospel-centred” ministries, “Gospel centred” discipleship or even “Gospel-centred” marriages. However, when we come close to endorsing “Gospel centred” diets, we might wonder if a trend hasn’t been taken a little too far. This is a shame because it seems that “Gospel centred apologetics”[1] is a biblical ideal; a concept that would remind evangelists and pastors of their priorities in apologetics.

A Gospel centred apologetic would differ from other approaches in two ways.  First, it would not aim to defend every evangelical distinctive. Evangelicals believe that the historical reliability of the Bible is vitally important, but in apologetics the goal is to defend the central claims of the Gospel rather than every statement of Scripture.1 Peter 3 v15 commands Christians to have a ready defence simply for the Gospel. We are to defend the message that God the Son died for our sins and was raised by His Father; not the belief that Jericho was razed by Joshua.

Apologetics should focus on defending the truths that a person must believe if they are to accept Jesus as Saviour and Lord. These can be outlined quite simply[2] – the universe is God’s creation, but mankind’s rebellion against the Creator has left us morally and spiritually ruined; God’s Son died so that we can be rescued from our plight and he rose again so that we might be part of the New Creation. But we must guard something more than a brief articulation of the Gospel. We must also defend the essential truths that a person must implicitly accept to have a saving faith; a list of truths that no child of God could deny.

This means defending something like Richard Baxter’s and CS Lewis’s “Mere Christianity”; a list of  the doctrines that all Christians hold in common. Of course, salvation is not a matter of passing theological examinations; but surely you cannot deny who God is and be one of his children? There must be certain beliefs which cannot be denied if someone is to accept the Gospel.  We must be willing to accept that God is Triune, for example, and that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human. Apologists must clarify these teachings as best they can, to defend the Gospel from more palatable, but dangerous, heresies.

So when we evangelise we might have to carefully consider the Creeds; and we must always carefully explain the biblical message of Creation, Redemption, Faith, and Reconciliation. These are weighty matters, indeed, for both believers and  unbelievers to think about. Gospel centred apologetics simply asks if it is wise to set time aside for discussing Adam’s navel or Cain’s spouse. The precise timing of Creation seems as irrelevant as the exact time of his return in such conversations. We must avoid unnecessary distractions. Our time is better spent confronting the unbeliever with God’s command to repent and to trust in Jesus. And that brings us to the second distinction of Gospel Centred apologetics.

We should not distinguish apologetics from evangelism. Apologetics is just reasoning with those who do not believe; and this is exactly what Paul does whenever he preaches the Gospel.  Sometimes he reasoned in the Synagogues, using the Scriptures to show that Jesus fulfilled God’s promises to Israel. At other times he defended his Gospel from the charge of irrationality by calling attention to evidence available in the public record. He was even prepared to argue with a mob of idolaters that their sacrifices were irrational !

Paul felt obliged to give a passionate and articulate response to the charge of irrationality. The author of Acts reports several trial scenes to establish that the Apostles were reasonable men of good character. This was simply part and parcel of their mission to spread the Gospel. The Church was commanded to preach, but it was also instructed to persuade. There is a certain machismo to thumping a pulpit and commanding people to “believe or be damned”, but, alas, the New Testament does not allow the Church the luxury of unthinking belief. Whether we are responding to the charges of scepticism or putting unbelief on trial, our orders remain the same: to give a reasoned defence for the hope that is in us.