This is a compilation of objections that, in my experience, Christians have risen.
Before I begin, consider what 2 Timothy 3:16 says:
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
Considering this, the fact that giving a defense to those that ask of us for a reason of the hope that is in us is required; how can anyone say that apologetics is pointless?
Having said that, let’s begin shall we?
Objection 1: “There is no point of doing Apologetics because it doesn’t save anyone.”
Consider if we replaced the word “apologetics” with the word “evangelism” instead and said, “There is no point in evangelism because it doesn’t save anyone”. Should we abandon the practice of evangelism merely because it doesn’t save anyone? Of course not! For we are commanded by Jesus in Matthew 28:10 to “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. Likewise, we are told in 1st Peter 3:15 to “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you for a reason of the hope that is in you”.
Both Matthew 28:10 and 1st Peter 3:15 are both commandments issued by God to do very different things, yet no one thinks for a moment of ceasing to evangelize. God commands us to have a defense ready for the hope in us, and for that reason alone is why there is a point of doing apologetics!
Furthermore, if we consider what John 6:44 says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day”, apart from God’s drawing, neither apologetics nor evangelism could save anyone! Thus, apologetics, like evangelism is a tool which God utilizes to draw us to Himself.
Let’s address the claim that apologetics doesn’t save anyone.
It seems to me that such a claim is ignorance of apologists that are actively professing that apologetics brought them to salvation. For example, Lee Strobel and Jim Wallace both affirm that had it not been for apologetics, salvation would’ve been impossible. For them, like Thomas, they needed evidence to support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Though, what began his search for the evidence of the resurrection of Christ was the way in which his wife, shortly after her conversion to Christianity, acted towards her family. But a guy like Lee still needed evidence to support such a claim to believe it. What would’ve happened if apologetics wasn’t there?
Moreover, to say that God can’t use apologetics as a tool to draw people to Himself is limiting God.
Objection 2: “Debating and arguments are of the flesh, which relies on the mind, and since the mind is enmity against God; it is wrong to debate.”
In order for one to avoid the conclusion of this proposition, one has to aviod debating any subject, including that apologetics is wrong, which seems impossible. Consider the proposition, “Debating and arguments are of the flesh, which relies on the mind, and since the mind is enmity against God; it is wrong to debate” . When one posits this as an argument against apologetics with an apologist, one is debating! Irnoically, the one positing this is as an argument is contradicing himself in the same breath.
The most devastating argument to this objection is Paul, for he was constantly debating his beliefs in the Synagogues -Consider the book of Acts -refer to Acts 19:33, 22:1, and 24:10. He even admits that he is using a “fleshly” argument at one point in Romans! People in Paul’s day objected to things he taught, both Jew’s and Gentiles alike. For example, in the book of Romans, Paul explains an argument someone gave to him concerning something he said, “We will do evil to let God be true” and to defeat this argument, Paul used his mind rather than the scriptures.
For those that are reading this that say we shouldn't have extra-Bible arguments to defend our position, consider Psalms 91:1 which states, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands". Moreover, in Hebrews 3:4, the author gives an example of how to detect Fine Tuning! Observe, "Every house has a builder; but he that built all things is God". This is an example that Intelligent Design proponents use to provide a positive case for ID.
Objection 3: “Oh no, I am using scripture and not man’s wisdom, therefore, debating isn’t bad."
Unfortunately, this is a blatant contradiction to the previous proposition; therefore, this is simply absurd to say.
What I find most demonstrable about this is that they think that because they are using scripture; some how that voids out the fact they are still debating. It seems as though they have found their own loophole to defend their position of anti-Apologetics and continue to debate.
But let us entertain this as a separate proposition and see if it holds any water.
First, it seems to me that the insinuation is that one can’t use the extra-biblical arguments to debate. If this is the case, as I showed previously, Paul used extra-biblical reasoning to defend his position. Therefore, I don’t see any reason that we can’t use extra-biblical argumentation. So, to avoid this, one has to maintain a non-Pauline view, which is absurd to say the least.
Objection 4: “I have faith that God exists.”
This doesn’t seem to be a legitimate or adequate objection to apologetics, however, let’s addresses it anyway.
Consider if I were to say that I have faith that fairies exist and that you should believe me because “I have faith that they do exist”. But suppose this doesn’t suffice and you questioned me further and asked for some evidence in support of such a claim and my response was simply that “There was a book written about these fairies, and it confirms my beliefs.” What if I then went on to say, “If you don’t believe that fairies exist, my book says you will be tortured for an eternity”?
Now, does my faith that fairies exist or that a book confirms their existence have any bearing on the truth of the existence of fairies?
Objection 5: “We don’t have to defend God; He can do that all by himself."
First and foremost, this misconstrues that which apologetics is defending. For, it isn’t God, His nature, or His attributes that are being defended; it is the hope that is in us, as 1st Peter 3:15 postulates. To say “God can do it all by himself” forgets that we are co-laborers which God has declared in the Scriptures.
Furthermore, if God can defend Himself, He can just as easily evangelize all by Himself too. Does this mean we shouldn’t evangelize? No, of course not! So why would this objection to apologetics make an apologist stop being one?
I will leave you all with two quotes that sum up the importance of apologetics:
"If all the world were Christian, it might not matter if the world were uneducated. But, as it is, a cultural life will exist outside the church whether it exists inside or not. To be ignorant and simple now - not to be able to meet enemies on their own ground - would be to throw down our weapons, and betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen." - C. S. Lewis
"False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or o...f the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion. Under such circumstances, what God desires us to do is to destroy the obstacle as its root.” – J. Gresham Machens
Before I begin, consider what 2 Timothy 3:16 says:
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
Considering this, the fact that giving a defense to those that ask of us for a reason of the hope that is in us is required; how can anyone say that apologetics is pointless?
Having said that, let’s begin shall we?
Objection 1: “There is no point of doing Apologetics because it doesn’t save anyone.”
Consider if we replaced the word “apologetics” with the word “evangelism” instead and said, “There is no point in evangelism because it doesn’t save anyone”. Should we abandon the practice of evangelism merely because it doesn’t save anyone? Of course not! For we are commanded by Jesus in Matthew 28:10 to “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. Likewise, we are told in 1st Peter 3:15 to “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you for a reason of the hope that is in you”.
Both Matthew 28:10 and 1st Peter 3:15 are both commandments issued by God to do very different things, yet no one thinks for a moment of ceasing to evangelize. God commands us to have a defense ready for the hope in us, and for that reason alone is why there is a point of doing apologetics!
Furthermore, if we consider what John 6:44 says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day”, apart from God’s drawing, neither apologetics nor evangelism could save anyone! Thus, apologetics, like evangelism is a tool which God utilizes to draw us to Himself.
Let’s address the claim that apologetics doesn’t save anyone.
It seems to me that such a claim is ignorance of apologists that are actively professing that apologetics brought them to salvation. For example, Lee Strobel and Jim Wallace both affirm that had it not been for apologetics, salvation would’ve been impossible. For them, like Thomas, they needed evidence to support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Though, what began his search for the evidence of the resurrection of Christ was the way in which his wife, shortly after her conversion to Christianity, acted towards her family. But a guy like Lee still needed evidence to support such a claim to believe it. What would’ve happened if apologetics wasn’t there?
Moreover, to say that God can’t use apologetics as a tool to draw people to Himself is limiting God.
Objection 2: “Debating and arguments are of the flesh, which relies on the mind, and since the mind is enmity against God; it is wrong to debate.”
In order for one to avoid the conclusion of this proposition, one has to aviod debating any subject, including that apologetics is wrong, which seems impossible. Consider the proposition, “Debating and arguments are of the flesh, which relies on the mind, and since the mind is enmity against God; it is wrong to debate” . When one posits this as an argument against apologetics with an apologist, one is debating! Irnoically, the one positing this is as an argument is contradicing himself in the same breath.
The most devastating argument to this objection is Paul, for he was constantly debating his beliefs in the Synagogues -Consider the book of Acts -refer to Acts 19:33, 22:1, and 24:10. He even admits that he is using a “fleshly” argument at one point in Romans! People in Paul’s day objected to things he taught, both Jew’s and Gentiles alike. For example, in the book of Romans, Paul explains an argument someone gave to him concerning something he said, “We will do evil to let God be true” and to defeat this argument, Paul used his mind rather than the scriptures.
For those that are reading this that say we shouldn't have extra-Bible arguments to defend our position, consider Psalms 91:1 which states, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands". Moreover, in Hebrews 3:4, the author gives an example of how to detect Fine Tuning! Observe, "Every house has a builder; but he that built all things is God". This is an example that Intelligent Design proponents use to provide a positive case for ID.
Objection 3: “Oh no, I am using scripture and not man’s wisdom, therefore, debating isn’t bad."
Unfortunately, this is a blatant contradiction to the previous proposition; therefore, this is simply absurd to say.
What I find most demonstrable about this is that they think that because they are using scripture; some how that voids out the fact they are still debating. It seems as though they have found their own loophole to defend their position of anti-Apologetics and continue to debate.
But let us entertain this as a separate proposition and see if it holds any water.
First, it seems to me that the insinuation is that one can’t use the extra-biblical arguments to debate. If this is the case, as I showed previously, Paul used extra-biblical reasoning to defend his position. Therefore, I don’t see any reason that we can’t use extra-biblical argumentation. So, to avoid this, one has to maintain a non-Pauline view, which is absurd to say the least.
Objection 4: “I have faith that God exists.”
This doesn’t seem to be a legitimate or adequate objection to apologetics, however, let’s addresses it anyway.
Consider if I were to say that I have faith that fairies exist and that you should believe me because “I have faith that they do exist”. But suppose this doesn’t suffice and you questioned me further and asked for some evidence in support of such a claim and my response was simply that “There was a book written about these fairies, and it confirms my beliefs.” What if I then went on to say, “If you don’t believe that fairies exist, my book says you will be tortured for an eternity”?
Now, does my faith that fairies exist or that a book confirms their existence have any bearing on the truth of the existence of fairies?
Objection 5: “We don’t have to defend God; He can do that all by himself."
First and foremost, this misconstrues that which apologetics is defending. For, it isn’t God, His nature, or His attributes that are being defended; it is the hope that is in us, as 1st Peter 3:15 postulates. To say “God can do it all by himself” forgets that we are co-laborers which God has declared in the Scriptures.
Furthermore, if God can defend Himself, He can just as easily evangelize all by Himself too. Does this mean we shouldn’t evangelize? No, of course not! So why would this objection to apologetics make an apologist stop being one?
I will leave you all with two quotes that sum up the importance of apologetics:
"If all the world were Christian, it might not matter if the world were uneducated. But, as it is, a cultural life will exist outside the church whether it exists inside or not. To be ignorant and simple now - not to be able to meet enemies on their own ground - would be to throw down our weapons, and betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen." - C. S. Lewis
"False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or o...f the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion. Under such circumstances, what God desires us to do is to destroy the obstacle as its root.” – J. Gresham Machens
