There is more than one way to approach Christian apologetics. In this case I am not referring to the debate between Classical, Evidential and Presuppositional apologetics. Instead I mean there are at least two different objectives that some people doing apologetics have. While everyone in apologetics would say that they are defending the Christian faith and trying to get people to believe in Christ it would seem that some have a greater objective in mind than others. The objective of one kind of apologist is to defend the whole truth of the Christian worldview, without compromise, no matter how our culture receives it. The objective of some others is to get people to believe certain aspects (presumably what they consider the most important parts) of the Christian worldview and they are less concerned with whether or not people believe 'the peripherals'.
Now I speak of two pretty black and white camps while realizing there is something of a sliding scale with many shades of grey in between. Nevertheless every apologist, consciously or not, falls closer to one than the other. It is my contention that the first objective, to defend the truth of the Christian worldview without compromise is what true apologetics is about. I loathe the idea of commending Christianity to our culture by way of watering it down and making it more palatable to secular taste buds. The idea that we can boil down Christianity to the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus and say all those other doctrine are optional is despicable, but that is the result of some of the apologetics we see today.
The problem comes when we start playing games such as 'how little do I have to believe to be a Christian?' The moment that question is asked we have already lost. Apologetics is not about defining what is the most reductionist, minimalist form of Christianity that one can hold to and still be a Christian. Apologetics is about helping people believe the whole Christian worldview.
We are not calling people to believe the Bible is basically reliable as a historical source, we are calling people to believe the Bible is the authoritative word of God. We are not calling people to merely believe that the best explanation of the facts is that Jesus rose from the dead, we are calling them to repent and believe the gospel. We are not calling people to believe generally in the moral law but to believe specifically in the morality presented in Scripture which is where the moral law giver has spoken most clearly.
I am tired of talking to 'Christians' who think it is acceptable to pick and choose what they believe in the Bible. I am tired of talking to apologists who act as if we cannot believe (or expect others to believe) anything in the Bible unless it is corroborated by an early non-Christian source. That kind of limp-wristed, minimalist, halfhearted sort of Jesus following is pathetic.
I love apologetics. I love the evidence that supports the truth of Christianity. I love extra-biblical sources that support the data of the Bible. I love manuscript evidence that shows the faithful transmission of the Bible. I love philosophical arguments that show the logical consistency of believing in God. I love that science shows serious problems with evolutionary theory. I love all of that stuff and more and I agree that if Christianity is true we should see evidence of just those sort of things.
But here is the problem, we will never confirm with 100% certainty every fact that the Bible proclaims. It just wont happen. But it is wrong to conclude that you should not, therefore, believe everything the Bible proclaims. If the evidence shows that belief in God is more reasonable than the alternative, then believe in God wholeheartedly. If the evidence supports that Jesus rose from the dead then bow to him as the sovereign Lord of your life. If the Bible has been shown to be faithfully preserved and that the New Testament authors told the truth then yield to the instruction of the Bible completely.
The fact of the matter is if Jesus rose from the dead, he is who he claimed. If he is who he claimed then the Bible is God's word as he said it is. If you are a Christian that means you are committed to following Jesus and his teachings and you should be all in. There is no half way in Christianity.
If we can affirm the central truths of Christianity with intellectual rigor and honesty, and we can, then that should be reason to believe more. All of those truths can be reasonably affirmed and that is a foundation for believing all of what Christ and his apostles and the prophets of old taught. It's ludicrous to believe that God exists and raised Jesus from the dead and then to also to sit over the Bible as its judge on every issue that cannot be externally confirmed.
Apologetics should lead people to believe more, not less. I'm afraid many apologist have actually led Christians to believe less while helping non-believers believe more, but still insufficiently so. If Jesus rose from the dead then Christianity is true and all that comes with it. If A then B. If B then all the way to Z.
Now I speak of two pretty black and white camps while realizing there is something of a sliding scale with many shades of grey in between. Nevertheless every apologist, consciously or not, falls closer to one than the other. It is my contention that the first objective, to defend the truth of the Christian worldview without compromise is what true apologetics is about. I loathe the idea of commending Christianity to our culture by way of watering it down and making it more palatable to secular taste buds. The idea that we can boil down Christianity to the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus and say all those other doctrine are optional is despicable, but that is the result of some of the apologetics we see today.
The problem comes when we start playing games such as 'how little do I have to believe to be a Christian?' The moment that question is asked we have already lost. Apologetics is not about defining what is the most reductionist, minimalist form of Christianity that one can hold to and still be a Christian. Apologetics is about helping people believe the whole Christian worldview.
We are not calling people to believe the Bible is basically reliable as a historical source, we are calling people to believe the Bible is the authoritative word of God. We are not calling people to merely believe that the best explanation of the facts is that Jesus rose from the dead, we are calling them to repent and believe the gospel. We are not calling people to believe generally in the moral law but to believe specifically in the morality presented in Scripture which is where the moral law giver has spoken most clearly.
I am tired of talking to 'Christians' who think it is acceptable to pick and choose what they believe in the Bible. I am tired of talking to apologists who act as if we cannot believe (or expect others to believe) anything in the Bible unless it is corroborated by an early non-Christian source. That kind of limp-wristed, minimalist, halfhearted sort of Jesus following is pathetic.
I love apologetics. I love the evidence that supports the truth of Christianity. I love extra-biblical sources that support the data of the Bible. I love manuscript evidence that shows the faithful transmission of the Bible. I love philosophical arguments that show the logical consistency of believing in God. I love that science shows serious problems with evolutionary theory. I love all of that stuff and more and I agree that if Christianity is true we should see evidence of just those sort of things.
But here is the problem, we will never confirm with 100% certainty every fact that the Bible proclaims. It just wont happen. But it is wrong to conclude that you should not, therefore, believe everything the Bible proclaims. If the evidence shows that belief in God is more reasonable than the alternative, then believe in God wholeheartedly. If the evidence supports that Jesus rose from the dead then bow to him as the sovereign Lord of your life. If the Bible has been shown to be faithfully preserved and that the New Testament authors told the truth then yield to the instruction of the Bible completely.
The fact of the matter is if Jesus rose from the dead, he is who he claimed. If he is who he claimed then the Bible is God's word as he said it is. If you are a Christian that means you are committed to following Jesus and his teachings and you should be all in. There is no half way in Christianity.
If we can affirm the central truths of Christianity with intellectual rigor and honesty, and we can, then that should be reason to believe more. All of those truths can be reasonably affirmed and that is a foundation for believing all of what Christ and his apostles and the prophets of old taught. It's ludicrous to believe that God exists and raised Jesus from the dead and then to also to sit over the Bible as its judge on every issue that cannot be externally confirmed.
Apologetics should lead people to believe more, not less. I'm afraid many apologist have actually led Christians to believe less while helping non-believers believe more, but still insufficiently so. If Jesus rose from the dead then Christianity is true and all that comes with it. If A then B. If B then all the way to Z.
