Why is Apologetics Needed? Part 2: Spiritual Warfare

II Apologetics is needed because all Christians throughout their earthly sojourn live on the frontlines of a spiritual warfare against an invisible enemy.

Paul teaches us that “though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor. 10:3-6).¹

Strongholds are essentially fortresses, or walled fortifications for troops, weapons and other supplies. This war imagery points to the reality that Christians are in a spiritual battle against the antichristian ideas that captivate the minds of unbelievers, and that the believer has access to a divine power to defeat the opposing forces. The endgame for Paul is for Christians to “not only…demolish false arguments but also to bring people’s thoughts under the lordship of Christ.” He reminds us “that Christian ministry involves a battle for the mind” and that “false arguments need to be demolished, so that people might yield to the truth of the gospel and find life under the lordship of Christ.”²

All sorts of teachings or doctrines circulate freely in the public square, none are equally true, but the messages can be either good, bad or ugly. One task of apologetics is to encourage Christians to exercise discernment and test all things in light of the Scriptures (Acts 17:11; 1 Thess. 5:21). This involves reading the Bible, applying sound hermeneutical principles in the interpretation of biblical passages, and meditating upon the Word. The goal is to develop a robust theology which can inform their beliefs, practices and worship.

More often we follow our beliefs and less often we think about our beliefs but it always good to take a moment to grapple with the question of why we believe what we believe. For example, ethical relativism works well when it is a matter of convenience, the moral flexibility is working out to the relativist’s personal advantage, but all the relativism comes to an end when the relativist is violated either by robbery or rape. At this point, moral imperatives prohibiting robbery and rape are best accepted as universal as opposed “to each his or her own.” The folly of relativism is that, if true, then both the victimizer and victim in the case of rape or robbery are neither right nor wrong in their actions and reactions, but all they can really have are preferences. Impulses to rape and rob and aversions to being raped and robbed would be equivalent liking or disliking ketchup on fries, since there would be no objective moral standard. On the other hand, it is far wiser to say rape and robbery are universally wrong, with persons, groups and cultures thinking otherwise being morally flawed. Showing the folly of a false belief is a way to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God.” Biblical prohibitions against rape and robbery are far from archaic and obsolete; rather, they have eternal manifold relevance (cf. Exod. 20:15; Deut. 22:25-27).

Apologetics then involves thinking clearly about the implications of Christian theology on the critical issues of the day (e.g. origins of life, biblical reliability, miracles, artificial intelligence, abortion, reproductive technologies, euthanasia, cloning, climate change, economics, etc.). Both logic and philosophy are integrated into the critical thinking process to aid in examining the worldview presuppositions underpinning opinions on issues and assessing the morality of an action.

Bad philosophy based upon human wisdom, of course, is something Christians are to avoid (Col. 2:8), but none of this precludes thinking philosophically about things or having a philosophy rooted in divine wisdom, and even Paul employed the use of philosophical concepts and language as a means of furthering the Gospel (See “Is Colossians 2:8 a Warning Against Philosophy?” by Moyer Hubbard). C.S. Lewis puts it this way: “Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered. The cool intellect must work not only against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms which deny intellect altogether”³

Moreover, words and deeds go hand in hand in the successful dismantling false argument and lofty opinions. Think about 1 Peter 3:15, the commonly quoted passage on Christian apologetics, “But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.” Tsunamis of persecution are razing the first century Christian Church, and Peter encourages believers to tell the world why they persist in holding to their beliefs about Jesus Christ, but they are to do this in “gentleness and respect.” The very next thing the apostle writes is for “a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil” (1 Pet. 3:16-17). Logically coherent arguments for the faith matter but never to the exclusion of godly character. Christ-like response to persecutors would show the world that the Christianity was never really the enemies to Roman Empire they were being caricaturized as, and perhaps some would come to a true evaluation of things, thinking to themselves, “Wait a minute, maybe I have got this Jesus Christ guy all wrong?”

To be continued…

— WGN

Notes:

1. All Scripture cited from The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), unless noted.
2. Colin G. Kruse, New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, ed. D. A. Carson et al. (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 1201.
3. C.S. Lewis, “Learning in War-Time,” The Weight of Glory (New York: HarperOne, 1980), 58.