Home / Academics / Division of Religion & Philosophy /

Defending the Faith in a Post-Christian Era:

Wanted - Evidence, Reason, and the Holy Spirit!

If theology is the “queen” of the sciences, then Christian apologetics - the discipline that teaches us how to defend the faith - is surely the handmaid that, along with philosophy, helps to polish the stones adorning her jewel-encrusted crown.  The apostle Paul himself polished these stones before the Roman procurators, Felix and Festus (Acts 24 & 25), as well as Agrippa, the Jewish king (Acts 26), confessing both his doctrine and piety in masterful ways.  And 21st century apologists continue this task of polishing our beliefs and doctrine to a brilliant sparkle as they defend the “faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.”  Whether a pre- or post-Christian era, the song remains the same: the gospel is preached and God’s Kingdom is advancing because of the efforts of both evangelism and apologetics, the twin pillars of the kerygma. 

Apologetics mandated

Christians today, however, face cultural and intellectual challenges that even Peter himself couldn’t have foreseen because of his place in the timeline of history.  The apostle’s words, of course, are familiar to us: “Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence” (1 Pet. 3:15).  Responses to Peter’s mandate today call for every bit as much clear thinking as they did back in the first century.  But now even more sophisticated measures are needed for reasonably defending Christian faith than were available for use during the New Testament era.  Simply put, apologetics is not only significant to the faith of every era but also biblically warranted.

Apologetics on the defensive

Good apologetics, like theology, doesn’t just happen.  The elements of a good defensive apologetic must be defined, refined, and last of all redefined in ever more distinct and subtle ways.  Why?  Because of the number of simultaneous challenges thrown our way by a post-Christian world, challenges that question the truth or rationality of Christian faith.  For example, Christians are dealing at present with an ill-defined yet escalating biotech ethos, one that seems unsure even of its own agenda but is generating a number of scary potential outcomes anyway. 

Further, we’re coping with the relentless rise of religious pluralism in the midst (ironically!) of a culture of disbelief, even as evolutionary theory continues to exact its toll on higher education and its closed-minded architects.  And finally, the mystical gobbledy-gook endorsed by countless New Age avatars doesn’t even deserve to be acknowledged, except for the fact that countless souls buy into its nonsense so absolutely. 

From inside the Christian fold itself, we’re at odds, on the one hand, with an appealing inclusivist plan of salvation while, on the other, adherents of “open theism” continue to drift closer to heresy and their likely expulsion from the ranks of orthodoxy.  And culturally speaking, apostate imaginations are running wild, swiftly gaining the high road because of the big bucks that elitist Hollywood has at its disposal for purposes of seducing us with spectacle, something every Christian parent should now begin to fear.  And the band plays on. 

Apologetics on the offensive

A good offensive apologetic, however, has the ability to discern what’s actually happening spiritually in the minds and hearts of neo-pagan neighbors living next door, who may or may not have ever been confronted with the claims of the gospel.  A proper understanding of Rom. 1:18-32 tells us this much - that the suppression of truth about God is inexcusable even at the level of general revelation.  According to this passage, once the suppression of truth takes place, it gets exchanged for idolatrous pursuits that are an affront to the God and Creator of us all. 

Today’s offensive apologists, then, make the claim that heathen and pagan sophisticates alike are rationally obligated to accept the truth claims of Christian faith, whether generally or specially revealed.  Admittedly, this is a much more difficult enterprise to carry out than purely defending the faith against alternative worldviews.  But Paul’s opening words to the Romans and his apologetic method as a whole give weight to this notion.  For example, Acts 17:2-3 states: “And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead.”  Paul, it seems, never backed down from a good argument, emphasis on good.  Offensive apologetics tries hard to take an unbelieving world straight to the heart of the matter – its need for salvation from sin and its obligation to respond to that need.

Do we assume God or argue for him?

Of course there’s a sense in which we should answer “Both” to the question, “Do we assume the truth of Christianity and leave it at that or argue for it instead?”  If we argue for its truthfulness, it follows logically that we’re assuming it to be true.  No great insight really.  But, without question, today’s bewildering array of worldviews, cults, -isms, and -ologies lends new dimensions to the apologetic task, dimensions with a depth and breadth that go beyond the known importance of assumptions.  Putting our apologia into service for the sake of the gospel’s clear and powerful proclamation means that it’s now more crucial than ever to struggle against the siren songs of the post-Christian age.

But this brings an obvious tension to the mix.  One particular approach to apologetics known as presuppositionalism seems to glory, by and large, in the assumption that any attempt to find, much less use, rational and evidential tools for defending the Christian worldview is tantamount to replacing the authority of God’s Word with the workings of the idolatrous human mind.  What!?  This is fuzzy thinking, pure and simple.  Apologetics for the 21st century doesn’t need to be constrained by such a contrived yet pious sounding notion.  Such an approach turns into an end run time and time again, a way to bypass the serious preparation needed to obey Peter’s command to have solid answers ready for anyone who’s likely to pose tough questions.

Chalk it up to Christian immaturity, but witnessing sessions like the one below actually take place.  Without mentioning names, the topic here is the resurrection, and the person being witnessed to is sincerely inquiring.

Why do you believe that? 

I JUST DO. 

But why? 

I BELIEVE IT BY FAITH, AND IT’S WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS. 

Fine.  But give me some reasons to believe that it’s even remotely possible to get up out of the grave.

WELL, TO BELIEVE THE CONTRARY IS IMPOSSIBLE. 

What?  That’s not saying much.  Show me the truth of what you say. 

NO, NOT YET!

Why not?

I CAN’T.  THE HOLY SPIRIT ISN’T WORKING AT THIS POINT.  I CAN TELL BY YOUR ATTITUDE.

Sadly, the approach here made precious little impact on the person’s life situation.  Better to have been prepared with reasons why Jesus rose from the dead and how the “many convincing proofs” (Acts 1:3) for his resurrection played themselves out in history than to have ended the one-time conversation on such a sour note.

The bottom line

So what’s the evangelist/apologist to do?  Preach the gospel and provide answers whenever asked.  But someone may come back with, “Can all this defensive and offensive apologetics you’re talking about, can all this evidences and assumptions stuff you’re touting, be brought together in some way?  Can some sort of working prescription make sense of it all?”  The answer, though up for debate, is a resounding yes!  And here it is:

Evidence is the necessary but not the sufficient cause for belief. 

What does this mean exactly?  It means that the Holy Spirit works internally (within the hearts and minds of the lost), but he always does so in connection with the external evidence, evidence of such a prevailing nature that it essentially lays bare the objective truthfulness of Christian faith despite its eventual acceptance or rejection by any or all comers.  The external evidence, then, is the necessary cause or condition for belief - it must be made available, or faith is myopic, if not blind! - but it’s not the sufficient cause or condition.  Only God himself, the Holy Spirit, can be the sufficient cause or condition for belief.  But he nevertheless employs the evidence positively as he works, in different ways with different people as a rule.  Many a Christian can bear witness to how, when and where God utilized a variety of evidences to help usher them slowly yet ultimately to saving faith.

If the external evidence for Christian faith were in fact faulty, a good case could be built by skeptics for justifying unbelief.  But it’s not faulty, as we know.  It’s simply there for the taking, and no one gets past it because it never goes away.  The God of the Bible doesn’t leave himself without witness.  Even so the evidence, as necessary and rational as it is, never compels belief; rather, God alone is sufficient to compel belief.  Only the Spirit himself is enough to oblige belief. 

Final thoughts

In the final analysis, belief, saving faith, conversion, however it’s described, is the gift of God, a miracle wrought by the Holy Spirit.  But miracles of this nature always happen in relation to actual facts, to the historical and doctrinal realities surrounding the gospel’s proclamation.  The Spirit doesn’t work apart from either God’s Word or God’s works or some indefinable combination of the two.  Every cubic inch of reality serves as an evidential point-of-contact between the unbelieving masses and the gospel’s acceptance; the power of the evidences are waiting to be used as the need arises.  By the same token, our best efforts at apologetics and evangelism are ineffective without the accompanying work of the Holy Spirit.  Thinking clearly, then, about the facts of the Bible and created reality, facts that embrace both God’s Word and his works, is the very stuff of Spirit-led apologetics. 

Hal N. Ostrander

Chair, Religion and Philosophy Division

Brewton-Parker College

Mt. Vernon, Georgia

Fall 2003