[00:00:10] Welcome to the 5 Minute Apologetics series. On today's episode we are looking at answering some of the objections that people raise to using apologetics. You can't argue anyone into the Kingdom. The Bible does not need to be defended. This is relying on human intellect and denying the role of the Holy Spirit. If you have encountered these objections, this episode is for you. Please remember to subscribe if you have any questions. Send them to info at ezrafoundation.org and we'll try to get those answered. Now let's get into this.
[00:00:39] Our first objection is that you cannot argue anyone into the Kingdom. You may hear this or you may have this said to you when you are trying to use apologetics. It betrays a misunderstanding about the apologetic endeavour. It assumes that apologetics is just about winning arguments. And this is also a lesson for apologists to make sure that it's not just about winning arguments for you.
[00:01:01] Now I appreciate the sentiment, but this is patently false. Now yes, every good apologist will surely acknowledge it is only the Gospel that saves. No one would deny that. But the evidence indicates that arguments in favour of Christianity are one valid way that God has used and does use to reach people. Think of Augustine, think of Aquinas, think of C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, J. Warner Wallace.
[00:01:27] Lee Strobel himself has said that he's lost count of the amount of people who have come to faith through his apologetics books. A case for faith or a case for Christ, you're probably familiar with those. Countless people. A Cornell professor and literary critic, David Dakes, remarked once that more had been converted through Lewis than in the British revival campaigns of Billy Graham.
[00:01:50] C.S. Lewis wrote that nearly everyone I know who has embraced Christianity in adult life has been influenced by what seemed to be at least a probable argument for theism. And again, in the words of Peter Kreeft, in his Handbook of Christian Apologetics, he says, Arguments may not bring you to faith, but they can certainly keep you away from faith. Therefore, we must join the battle of arguments.
[00:02:13] So that first objection for me really falls flat. It goes against the weight of history and denies God the ability of being able to use rational argument to bring people to faith. All the while acknowledging it is the Gospel that actually saves. Objection two. The Bible does not need to be defended. It is like a lion. Now, you may have heard this objection used as a popular quote that is often attributed to C.H. Spurgeon. You see this on the Internet all the time. It's usually a picture of Spurgeon and it'll have this written next to it.
[00:02:42] The Bible is like a lion. How would you defend a lion? Open his cage and leave him to defend himself. Now, again, I thoroughly appreciate the sentiment. And I think the way Spurgeon is meaning this here, it's more about having a high view of Scripture, which I absolutely share. The whole caged lion philosophy that has come from it is unhelpful. Let me explain why. You see, to imply the Bible is just somehow to passively be let loose seems to devalue the medium through which God has ordained its spread,
[00:03:12] which is Christian preaching, writing and using the gift of teaching in various ways. We need to do more than just quote the Bible. We're to explain the Bible. This is what Jesus did on the road to Emmaus. Luke 24, verse 27. Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, he explained to them the things concerning himself in all the Scriptures. Now, presumably this was more than just a simple reading, a recitation of the text. He explained the text.
[00:03:39] Think of Ezra the scribe when he did that national Bible study in that wonderful chapter, Nehemiah chapter 8. He read the law and the text says, Nehemiah 8, 7, The Levites explained the law to the people while the people remained in their place. So you have a national reading of the Bible and then you also have the priests going about the people explaining the law. Explanation is always needed. Think of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts chapter 8. He was reading the words of Scripture, but he needed it explained to him.
[00:04:09] Acts 8, verse 27. So he got up and went. This is Philip. And there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candice, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. And he had come to Jerusalem to worship and he was sitting in his chariot and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And then the spirit said to Philip, go up and join his chariot. Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, Do you understand what you are reading? And he said, Well, how could I unless someone guides me?
[00:04:38] And Philip then explained it to him. Paul is often seen doing more than simply reading the scriptures. Acts 19, verse 8. And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. Reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God from the scriptures. You see, many people, I believe, have been let down by a weakened version of this caged lion philosophy.
[00:05:04] That simply means in practice, don't question or don't try and defend the Bible or don't ask your pastors any difficult questions. Honest questions in this idea are seen as a sign that you don't have enough faith or you don't have a high view of scripture. Both of these things are wrong. The caged lion philosophy is often used as an excuse to avoid tough questions coming from the culture. That is definitely not what the apostles or the early church or our Lord did. They faced these questions head on. They confronted error with truth.
[00:05:34] And that is what apologetics does. Let's look at our final objection here now. And this is the natural man cannot understand the things of God. So why bother? You've probably heard this one before. This objection is usually raised with a quotation from one Corinthians two, verse 14, which says, But a natural man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually appraised. And therefore, the objectors conclude that there is no point to apologetics.
[00:06:03] Now, I think this is a misuse of this particular verse. First, the text says this man does not receive the truth. It doesn't say that he doesn't perceive it altogether. I've actually read many correct explanations of the gospel by those who do not affirm or believe it themselves. They have simply learnt the words from the book and explained it clearly. The text says that they do not accept it. And the Greek word, dikomai, means welcome it. They don't welcome it.
[00:06:29] Paul elsewhere argues that basic truths about God are clearly seen through the creation in Romans one, and they can be understood from that. So much so that people will be without excuse when they stand before the Lord. That's general revelation. However, you need special revelation and the spirit of God to produce that salvation. This cannot be done. This cannot be accomplished by the natural man. It also implies that the content is revealed scriptural truth, something that cannot be acquired, but through the spirit of God.
[00:06:58] This is what the verse is talking about, really. That's the focus. It's not really talking about a debate in the 21st century about whether we can or cannot be using apologetic arguments to show the rationality of the Christian worldview. The real problem in this verse is that unbelievers do not want to accept the gospel. Now, in the text, when it says cannot understand in the NASB, the King James actually renders that nor can he know them. But the no there is the Greek word nosko, which means to know by experience.
[00:07:26] It's saying the natural man has no experiential knowledge of the gospel because that is spiritually appraised, i.e. it is a working of the Holy Spirit. And it's only believers that have the Holy Spirit. It's very similar to a later comment in 1 Corinthians 12, 3, where Paul says no one can say Jesus is Lord except the Holy Spirit. Now, of course, an unbeliever could recite the words Jesus is Lord, but it's not talking about that. It's talking about saying them and understanding, meaning them and having a relationship with that person.
[00:07:55] You have to have the Holy Spirit for that. So as you can see, this is really speaking into a different issue. And secondly, people who quote this verse as an argument not to use apologetics, they make an assumption that is really a derivative of our rationalist enlightenment mindset that apologetics is simply an intellectual pursuit entirely devoid of the Holy Spirit. The biblical apologist understands that the Holy Spirit can use apologetics if he so chooses. And it is easy to demonstrate that he does.
[00:08:23] The two things are not mutually exclusive. As a spirit filled Christian, the apologist will pray for all encounters for the spirit to use his words, his arguments, his reasoning, his explanation to cause and plant seeds to cause those seeds to grow, to remove obstacles that people may have so that a person is drawn to the cross and can see the cross clearly. It doesn't have to be an either or. So don't fall into this trap of pitting faith against reason.
[00:08:48] Rather, proclaim a reasonable faith in the power of the Holy Spirit as the best explanation of reality and keep the gospel at the center as the only way of salvation. That's all for this episode. I'm Dr. Thomas Fretwell. This is 5 Minute Apologetics. Thanks for watching. Please remember to subscribe, support the show. We'll see you next time. You've been listening to Thomas Fretwell. For more resources or to support the ministry, please go to EzraFoundation.org.
