Top 3 Books: Apologetics

What are your top 3 Apologetics print books?

I LOVE that question!

#1. Know Why You Believe by K. Scott Oliphint Zondervan Academic

Scott Oliphint covers all the basic bases in this book: the Bible, God, Jesus, Miracles, Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, salvation, life after death, Christianity’s supposed conflict with modern science, the problem of evil (brilliantly addressed), and the exclusivity of Christianity. There’s simply no better apologetic introduction to the Christian worldview. Read my full review.

#2. Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen, edited by Gary DeMar American Vision

This book held the #1 spot, forever. It’s that good, and I cannot overstate the impact it had on my life. Not only did I recommend this as the first book for anyone wanting to learn apologetics, but for a long time I recommended this book as the first for anyone wanting to grow in Christianity, in general. It’s that fundamental and effective.

#3. Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis by Greg L. Bahnsen P&R

NOW BACK IN PRINT! “In this volume, Bahnsen has gathered the primary passages on apologetics from the vast body of works by Cornelius Van Til, arranged them topically, and added incisive commentary and analysis. The result is a carefully organized digest of all that Van Til taught about apologetics with running exposition by Bahnsen.”

The Noetic Effects of Sin & Apologetics

The term noetic means “of, relating to, or based on the intellect.”¹ The noetic effects of sin are the effects of sin on the human mind. Man’s fallen nature is “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil,”² and that includes the rational faculty. Man’s intellect has not escaped the fall, but is just as corrupt as the rest of his nature.

The text of Scripture is remarkably clear about the noetic effects of sin. Sin, contrary to some views, doesn’t only corrupt the affections. “For in his discussion of a corrupt nature Paul not only condemns the inordinate impulses of the appetites that are seen, but especially contends the mind is given over to blindness and the heart to depravity.”³

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, both His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools . . .

For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 1:18–22, 25)⁴

because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God, for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so (Rom. 8:7)

But a natural man does not accept the depths of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually examined.⁵ (1 Corinthians 2:14)

. . . the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Cor. 4:4)

Therefore this I say, and testify in the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their mind, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart. (Ephesians 4:17–18)

Note all the rational terms. Not only is man’s intellect tarnished by sin, but he doesn’t stand in total ignorance or indifferent towards God. The Bible describes the unbeliever as knowing the true God, yet actively suppressing the truth, and even hostile towards him. The effect of sin on the mind is futility and foolishness. Fallen man is unable to understand, believe, and submit to God’s revelation. In summary: “Human reason, therefore, neither approaches, nor strives toward, nor even takes a straight aim at, this truth: to understand who the true God is or what sort of God he wished to be toward us.”⁶

This biblical doctrine of the noetic effects of sin has received proper emphasis in Reformed theology.⁷ First, from John Calvin:

The true principles held by the human mind resemble sparks; but these are choked by the depravity of our nature, before they have been applied to their proper use. All men know, for instance, that there is a God, and that it is our duty to worship him; but such is the power of sin and ignorance, that from this confused knowledge we pass all at once to an idol, and worship it in the place of God. And even in the worship of God, it leads to great errors, particularly in the first table of the law.⁸

The Canons of Dort state in the third and fourth heads of doctrine: “In contrast to the gifts given in creation, he caused in his mind blindness, horrible darkness, vanity, and perverseness of judgment, in his will and heart wickedness, rebellion, and hardness, and in all his affections impurity.”⁹ Likewise the Westminster Larger Catechism answer 28: “The punishments of sin in this world, are either inward, as blindness of mind, a reprobate sense, strong delusions, hardness of heart.” The Scriptures and Reformed testimony is clear: the intellect of man has not escaped the fall untarnished, sin “having corrupted his entire nature.”¹⁰

The question remains: what bearing does this have on apologetics? Though Scripture is clear regarding the noetic effects of sin, there is a disconnect between theology and apologetic practice in most of Christianity. We even see the biblical teaching contradicted by the apologetic method of some who subscribe to the aforementioned Reformed and Presbyterian standards. 

Fallen man does not acknowledge God as God. Thus he denies his own creation in God’s image. He denies creation’s relationship to the Creator. He interprets himself and the world around him apart from God—attempting autonomy. His life-system will be decidedly godless. 

As fallen he will not—and morally cannot—love God, profess knowledge of Him, or reason in a way that is subject to the authority of God’s revelation. The sinner must constantly attempt to be what he is not: autonomous and free of God. Thus the unbeliever looks upon the world as contingent (the diverse facts are what they are by chance), he looks upon the standards of logic as abstract (the unifying principles of reason are not derived from experience but legislatively imposed on it), he looks upon himself as autonomous (his own laws or principles or experience will be the final judge of truth and meaning), and finally he looks upon man, the world, and logic as all religiously neutral (they can be understood totally apart from God and His revelation). The unbeliever will consider his thinking and interpretation to be normal and normative.¹¹

Therefore, the Christian cannot engage in an apologetic method the requires the unbeliever to be a neutral and objective judge of the reasonableness of Christianity. The unbeliever does not understand anything truly because he does not submit to the God who Created everything. To him, the facts are not God’s facts, to be interpreted in reference to God, but facts awaiting interpretation by autonomous man (brute facts). The unbeliever, because of his radical corruption, is unable to deal objectively with the facts. Van Til says of the fallen consciousness of man:

It builds upon the nontheistic assumption. It in effect denies its creaturehood. It claims to be normal. It will not be receptive of God’s interpretation; it wants to create its own interpretation without reference to God.¹²

Sin has created an absolute ethical antithesis between believer and unbeliever.¹³ This conflict always obtains, and is of a religious nature (not metaphysical, in the realm of being). There is a noetic divide through humanity, two contrary epistemologies. In principle, then, the believer and unbeliever do not agree on anything. There is no neutral ground on which to argue or present evidence for Christianity over-against unbelief.

When man became a sinner, he made himself instead of God the ultimate or final reference point. And it is precisely this presupposition, as it controls without exception all forms of non-Christian philosophy, that must be brought into question. . . The sinner has cemented colored glasses to his eyes which he cannot remove. And all is yellow to the jaundiced eye.¹⁴

K. Scott Oliphint points out, regarding Van Til’s glasses metaphor: “The blindness of sin does not mean that we cannot see; it means rather that everything that we see is colored by our condition of depravity. What we see, therefore, we inevitably twist according to our sinful desires.”¹⁵ Though not annihilated, the rational faculty of man is corrupted. The unregenerate knows 2 + 2 = 4, but he expels God from the equation. The non-Christian cannot understand anything truly because suppresses the truth of the Triune God who created, preserves, and governs all his creatures and all their actions. The unbeliever is unavoidably anti-theistic in his thinking. 

It is therefore impossible to appeal to the intellectual and moral nature of men, as men themselves interpret this nature, and say that it must judge of the credibility and evidence of revelation. For if this is done, we are virtually telling the natural man to accept just so much and no more of Christianity as, with his perverted concept of human nature, he cares to accept.¹⁶

The Christian cannot think that our apologetic is one of simply giving more information to the unbeliever, as if that will make a difference. The unbeliever is bombarded with God’s self-revelation every waking hour, yet exchanges the truth for a lie. Because of sin, he cannot deal objectively with the facts. We may not present arguments and evidence to the one whose mind is hostile towards the God he knows, and beg for a positive verdict. The rebellious creature is not the judge, before whose bar we make our case. He is incompetent to judge rightly. What is needed is a change of mind—repentance. Unless he be born again, he will not bow the knee to Christ. 

The non-Christian thinks that his thinking process is normal. He thinks that his mind is the final court of appeal in all matters of knowledge. He takes himself to be the reference point for all interpretation of the facts. That is, he has epistemologically become a law unto himself: autonomous.  Consequently, the depravity and alleged autonomy of man’s thinking prevent the regenerate Christian from seeking common ground in the unbeliever’s self-conscious and admitted outlook on anything. Rather than agreeing with the sinner’s conception, ordering, or evaluation of his experience, the Christian seeks his repentance—repentance in the world of thought.¹⁷

Bare facts and arguments are just more grist for the unrighteousness mill. The whole of creation testifies of the one true and living God, for God has made himself known in what he has made (Ps. 19:1–2; Rom. 1:19–20). The unbeliever possesses and suppresses the truth of God. The natural man, dead in sin, cannot understand God rightly. Thus it is futile to expect him to follow the evidence to Jesus or reason his way to salvation. In our apologetic, we cannot approach the unbeliever as if his mind is not totally depraved. The unbeliever is not the final arbiter of truth, and so our Christian apologetic cannot be an appeal to the sinful, autonomous human intellect.

Footnotes:

1. Merriam-Webster Dictionary: of, relating to, or based on the intellect. Noetic derives from the Greek adjective noētikos, meaning “intellectual,” from the verb noein (“to think”) and ultimately from the noun nous, meaning “mind.” [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noetic]
2. Westminster Confession of Faith 6.4
3. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (edited by John T. McNeill, translated by Ford Lewis Battles) vol. 1, pg. 253
4. All Scripture citations are from the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) unless otherwise noted [lsbible.org]
5. Italics always original in Scripture citations.
6. Calvin, Institutes vol. 1, pg. 278
7. By “Reformed theology,” I mean the whole “system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures” contained in the Westminster Standards, and likewise the Three Forms of Unity. In short, more than the Doctrines of Grace.
8. Calvin, John. Calvin’s Complete Bible Commentaries (With Active Table of Contents in Biblical Order) (Kindle Locations 472691-472695). Kindle Edition. 
9. Godfrey, W. Robert. Saving the Reformation: The Pastoral Theology of the Canons of Dort (p. 53). Reformation Trust Publishing. Kindle Edition.
10. Belgic Confession art. 14
11. Greg Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended pg. 17–18
12. Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Fourth Edition) edited by K. Scott Oliphint, pg. 72
13. K. Scott Oliphint, ”What is Presuppositional Apologetics?” Westminster Theological Seminary [http://media1.wts.edu/media/audio/so105_copyright.mp3]
14. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, pg. 101
15. Ibid. 
16. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, pg. 105
17. Bahnsen, Greg. Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith, loc. 715. Kindle Edition. 

Collision between the Spiritual and Civil Laws on Marriage

James Bannerman discusses the relationship between the church and the state, arguing that if they are not cooperating with each other, even if the state attempts neutrality toward religion, the result would be harmful for both institutions. A powerful example he uses is marriage. Note how profound is his case, though writing in 1868. His insight may be helpful for the church’s thinking about either the redefining of marriage stateside or the efforts to legalize no-fault divorce in the Philippines.

III. In the third place, I would refer to the law of marriage as another of those cases which illustrate the general position, that the civil and religious elements are so connected together in human society, that where they do not meet and unite in friendship and mutual co-operation, they must inevitably tend to the serious or fatal injury of one or the other.

Marriage is one of those institutions which, although not of grace but of nature, is yet adopted into the system of Christianity, and regulated by the rules which Christianity has laid down. The law of marriage has its origin in nature, and not in revelation; and yet the duties and rights connected with it, together with their exact nature and limits, are matters with which revelation deals. In so far as these involve moral or religious duties, we are to seek in the Bible for the code of law by which they are prescribed and determined. But marriage is, in another sense, a civil matter, coming under the province of the ordinary magistrate, and necessarily requiring to be dealt with in the way of civil enactment. There are civil rights intimately connected with it, in such a manner that the state cannot avoid the duty of legislating in regard to it, and regulating them by positive statutes and rules. In short, the institution of marriage is to be viewed in two lights,—either as a moral observance, falling to be regulated by the law of Scripture, or as a civil observance, falling to be regulated by the law of the state. And with this twofold character which it sustains, and this twofold legislation to which in every civilised and constituted society professing Christianity it is subjected, how, it may be asked, is a collision between the spiritual and the civil enactments on the subject—fraught, as it inevitably would be, with deadly consequence to the peace, if not the existence, of human society—to be avoided or prevented? If the state recognise the Bible as the Word of God, and the law of the Bible as the law of God, then it will take that law as the guiding principle for its own legislation, and make the enactments of the magistrate in regard to marriage coincident with the enactments of Scripture. But if the state do not recognise the Bible as the Word of God, there can be no security that its regulations shall not come into conflict with the regulations of Scripture as regards the institution of marriage, in such a manner as to put in peril not only the peace and purity of domestic life, but also through these the highest and holiest interests of human society. The ordinance of the family lies at the very foundation of civil society. It is the unit of combination around which the wider and more public relations of civil life associate themselves. Destroy or unhinge the domestic ordinances, unloose or unsettle the family bond, and no tie will be left holy enough or strong enough to bind up the broken and disjointed elements of human life. And yet, unless there be on the part of the state a distinct acknowledgment of the Word of God as the law to which its own laws must be conformed, there can be no security against the danger of the enactments of civil society on this vital point running counter to the appointment of God. The degrees of relationship or consanguinity within which marriage is valid or invalid,—the terms on which it is to be contracted or dissolved,—the rights which it confers on children, and the claims of succession,—all these are questions that fall to be determined both by the law of Scripture and the laws of the state, and any difference or conflict in regard to which must tend to unsettle the very foundation of human society. From the very nature and necessity of the case, if the state is not here at one with religion, it must be a difference deeply, if not fundamentally, injurious to the one or the other.

—James Bannerman, The Church of Christ (1868) loc. 2361-2393

Note especially that if the state does not align marriage law with the law of Scripture, there can be no security for marriage. Consequently, human life as we know it is in danger. Bannerman asserts, back in 1868, that the very foundation of human society will be destabilized. And that is exactly what we see happening before our eyes, today. The church has seen this coming, and yet it’s coming true.

Should Education be Religious?

Yes or no?

The Word of God also indicates very explicitly that the education which the parents are in duty bound to provide for their children must be fundamentally religious. If fact, its emphasis is so exclusively on religious training that it almost seems as if it regarded this as the whole of education.

This finds its explanation in the fact that Scripture deals primarily with the religious and moral needs of man, that it regards religion as the most fundamental, the most basic thing in the life of man, and that it would not consider any education as sound and satisfactory that was not permeated with the spirit of religion.

—Louis Berkhof, “Being Reformed in Our Attitude Toward the Christian School” in Foundations of Christian Education: Addresses to Christian Teachers pg. 29-30

And as Cornelius Van Til says, there’s no neutrality. Yes, even in education. As Greg Bahnsen told plenty of high school students, referring to the myth of neutrality they would encounter in the academic world: they’re not, and you shouldn’t be. Those who claim to be neutral and that you should be too, they actually are not neutral. And you, Christian, should not be because you claim the name of Christ. We should not attempt neutrality because of what God has said in Scripture.

So for those who answer that education should not be religious, that’s actually impossible. Every human being knows God, being made in God’s image. All people are without excuse, because God has made himself known to them.

Therefore, “secular” or irreligious schools are in fact not truly so. They, and everyone in them, like everyone else, are unavoidably religious.

The question “should education be religious?” is already assuming something: that education can be neutral. That neutrality is a possibility. But it’s not. The claim of Christ is comprehensive, total. To then claim that he can be excluded from anything, even education, is to not be neutral but actually against Christianity.

Religiously neutral education? To rephrase Greg Bahnsen’s line: it’s not, and it shouldn’t be.

The question is not whether education should be religious. The fundamental question is which religion. And at bottom, there are only two choices: belief or unbelief. Christianity, or anti-Christianity.

Inerrancy & Apologetics — K. Scott Oliphint [video]

Man Will Necessarily Have a God

Man will necessarily have something that he respects as his god. If man do not give his highest respect to the God that made him, there will be something else that has the possession of it. Men will either worship the true God, or some idol: it is impossible it should be otherwise: something will have the heart of man. And that which a man gives his heart to, may be called his god: and therefore when man by the fall extinguished all love to the true God, he set up the creature in his room. For having lost his esteem and love of the true God, and set up other gods in his room, and in opposition to him; and God still demanding their worship, and opposing them; enmity necessarily follows.

—Jonathan Edwards, “Men Naturally Are God’s Enemies“, The Works of Jonathan Edwards Kindle loc. 60837-60843

Inerrancy and Worldview by Vern Poythress

Inerrancy and Worldview: Answering Modern Challenges to the Bible by Vern Poythress

Copyright © 2012 by Vern Sheridan Poythress Published by Crossway

This is my new “handout book” to people who have difficulties with the Bible. It is very well rounded, tackling challenges from major disciplines that are under the influence of modern assumptions. Just look at the table of contents: challenges from science and materialism, from history, about language, from sociology and anthropology, and from psychology. Critics of the Bible come from these various angles, and reading this book will certainly help you in being prepared “to answer anyone.”

In my frequent apologetic conversations about the Bible with unbelievers, I have realized more and more that nearly all the difficulties with the Bible arise from the worldview that the individual brings to Scripture. The Bible is not dealt with according to it’s own claims. Rather, it is measured by another criteria, an autonomous criteria. This is rarely recognized on the part of the critic, who either alleges his neutrality explicitly or simply argues like he’s neutral (having never examined his own bias). I find myself, over and over again, having to point out the underlying commitments (about reality, or knowledge, or ethics) being brought to the Bible and questioning their validity. This book does just that, and is therefore an indispensable aid to day-to-day apologetics.

Taking seriously the Bible’s own worldview, and not imposing ideas from modern worldviews, helps to dissolve many of the alleged difficulties. (pg. 209)

This book defends inerrancy, Scripture’s complete truthfulness in what it says, from the angle of worldview. Vern Poythress shows that many of the challenges to Scripture, resulting in moves to throw out or redefine inerrancy, are the result of worldviews in conflict with the worldview of the Bible itself.

We can begin to answer many of our difficulties in a number of areas if we make ourselves aware of the assumptions that we tend to bring along when we study the Bible. (pg. 16)

Poythress also makes the necessary connection between false worldviews and the reality of sin. He addresses the noetic effects of sin, sin’s corruption of the mind, “so that we may appreciate the need for Christ to rescue us from sin, not only in its gross forms, but in the subtle forms that it can take within the mind. By so doing, we can also grow in appreciating the role that the Bible has to play in renewing our minds.” (pg. 187)

. . . mainstream modern thinking collides with the Bible. The collision arises largely from differences in worldview. The differences are all the more important because worldviews have entanglements with our hearts. People with corrupt hearts, in rebellion against God, corrupt their view of the world. They pass corrupt worldviews to their children, who absorb them because they too have corrupt hearts to which corrupt worldviews appeal. It is the ultimate vicious cycle. (pg. 237)

Further, Poythress emphasizes that only by God’s gracious work (regeneration) will we trust Jesus Christ, see Scripture’s claims and believe them. Worldview and ultimate trust are connected, and every human being is blinded by sin, and cannot escape that on their own. Thus, they need the Gospel and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit:

God has made provision for sins, not only through what Christ accomplished on earth, but also through Christ’s life now. He reigns as King in the presence of God the Father (Heb. 6:20; 7:24–25). And he sends the Holy Spirit, who empowers people to understand and receive what he is saying in the Bible. Robust reading of the Bible means reading that is filled with the presence of the Holy Spirit in your heart and mind and life while you are reading. If you do not have the Holy Spirit in your life right now, you can ask Jesus Christ, who is alive in heaven, to send his Spirit to you to enable you to hear and understand the Bible. But, as usual, there is a difficulty: to do that, you have to admit failure—you need supernatural help. You have to admit that you cannot receive adequately what God says unless God enables you. (pg. 186)

I highly recommend this book. It’s a quick read. The chapters are short and the whole book progresses quickly. This work is untechnical and very easy to understand. I think every Christian is able to (and should!) read this book, even if English is a second language. Read this book especially if you are frequently talking with people (even professing believers) who have difficulties with believing the Bible. I suggest even giving this book to them (after you have read it), so they can see how the prevalent modern worldview is probably the reason for the alleged difficulties.

The best option is, of course, to read this book with them.

College students (and future college students) would especially benefit from this book. I heartily agree with Wayne Grudem’s praise: “it is a wide-ranging analysis that exposes the faulty intellectual assumptions that underlie challenges to the Bible from every major academic discipline in the modern university world. I think every Christian student at every secular university should read and absorb the arguments in this book.”

Again, I highly recommend this. It is now my handout book for anyone who has difficulties with the complete truthfulness of the Bible, and for any believer frequently confronted with modern challenges to the Bible.

From the preface:

I agree that our modern world confronts us with some distinctive challenges. But I do not agree with the modern attempts to abandon or redefine inerrancy. To respond to all the modern voices one by one would be tedious, because the voices are diverse and new voices continue to appear. Rather, I want to develop an alternative response in a positive way. . . .

The Bible has much to say about God and about how we can come to know him. What it says is deeply at odds with much of the thinking in the modern world. And this fundamental difference generates differences in many other areas—differences in people’s whole view of the world. Modern worldviews are at odds with the worldview put forward in the Bible. This difference in worldviews creates obstacles when modern people read and study the Bible. People come to the Bible with expectations that do not fit the Bible, and this clash becomes one main reason, though not the only one, why people do not find the Bible’s claims acceptable.

Within the scope of a single book we cannot hope to deal with all the difficulties that people encounter. We will concentrate here on difficulties that have ties with the differences in worldview. (pg. 14)

And yes, Inerrancy and Worldview is in the Apologetics Track.

Evangelism Demands a Presuppositional Defense

The very reason why Christians are put in the position of giving a reasoned account of the hope that is in them is that not all men have faith. Because there is a world to be evangelized (men who are unconverted), there is the need for the believer to defend his faith: Evangelism naturally brings one into apologetics. This indicates that apologetics is no mere matter of “intellectual jousting”; it is a serious matter of life and death – eternal life and death. The apologist who fails to take account of the evangelistic nature of his argumentation is both cruel and proud. Cruel because he overlooks the deepest need of his opponent and proud because he is more concerned to demonstrate that he is no academic fool that to show how all glory belongs to the gracious God of all truth. Evangelism reminds us of who we are (sinners saved by grace) and what our opponents need (conversion of heart, not simply modified propositions). I believe, therefore, that the evangelistic nature of apologetics shows us the need to follow a presuppositional defense of the faith. In contrast to this approach stand the many systems of neutral autonomous argumentation.

—Greg Bahnsen, “Evangelism and Apologetics”, Synapse III (Fall, 1974)

This is vital to understand. One reason (among many) that our apologetic must be presuppositional is the evangelistic nature of apologetics. No, evangelism and apologetics are not categorically different, let alone at odds with each other (a common notion). The apologetic encounter is an evangelistic encounter. Understanding what God’s Word says about the condition of the unbeliever and the nature of conversion makes clear the necessity of a presuppositional defense of the faith, as opposed to a neutralist approach (which is every other apologetic method).

Let this sink in:

So, what apologetic is obviously necessary?

Apologetics and evangelism are not sharply divided. Rather, the evangelistic nature of apologetics itself shows what kind of apologetic is required: one that is consistent with what God has said about the unbeliever, the believer, conversion, epistemology, etc. If we submit to what Scripture says is the character of evangelism, we will see what apologetic approach we need to take.

Read the rest of Greg Bahnsen’s article for free at Covenant Media Foundation. God willing, all believers as they defend the faith will be encouraged to set apart Christ as Lord, instead of on the shelf.

The article is one of Greg Bahnsen’s best, and has already provoked another blog post, coming soon.

Read more on the relationship between evangelism and apologetics: Pre-Meditated Evangelism, Not Pre-Evangelism.

What hath Apologetics to do with Discipleship?

Yes, the play on “what hath Jerusalem to do with Athens?” is fully intentional. Much the same intention of the original is communicated by this question. What relation has “Athens” (whatever that means, usually the mind/intellect) to do with “Jerusalem” (whatever that means, typically Scripture, Christianity, and “spirituality”). In much the same way apologetics tends to be divorced from the life of discipleship to Jesus.

“What hath apologetics to do with discipleship?”

My answer: everything.

This makes sense if we understand that Christianity is a worldview. I appreciated this point of personal testimony in Jeff Durbin’s session (what he says between 4:21-6:49) from the 2015 Bahnsen Conference. When he began to read Greg Bahnsen (Always Ready), it was more than just having a philosophically consistent apologetic. It was learning to see all of life as under the Lordship of Christ. “All thinking was to be submitted to Jesus Christ as Lord.” It was more than apologetics, it was a change of life as a Christian.

I can attest to that as well. The same happened to me. I certainly was sanctified when I encountered Bahnsen’s work. When I first read Greg Bahnsen (Pushing the Antithesis), I must say I wasn’t as deeply changed by apologetics narrowly defined, but by suddenly being able to look around me and actually discern presuppositions and worldviews, and see the antithesis between Christianity and unbelief, and self-consciously ground all of life in the Christian worldview. My life was changed. I too, learned to think as a Christian. I learned more than a mere apologetic method.

You know what that was? A huge leap in our personal discipleship. It was a great moment in our lives as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Everything we do will have an apologetic edge to it, because we live from a Christian standpoint, whereas non-Christians do everything from the standpoint of unbelief. All creation is covenantally qualified. All is in relation to God, and with reference to him (whether acknowledged or not). Christ is the reference point, in him are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge and by him all things hold together (Colossians 2:3, 1:17). The question is not “do you have a personal relationship with God?” All people, by virtue of being created by God, in his image, are in relationship (covenant) with him. The question is, “what kind of personal relationship with God do you have?” A right relationship, or one of enmity? Are you in Adam, or are you in Christ? That’s covenantal language.

With this understanding, we see that everything we do is covenantal, characterized by our covenantal relationship with God. Therefore, all activity is religious activity. Both believers and unbelievers are inherently religious, they were made covenantal creatures by God. So everything we do, regardless of our worldview, we do religiously. Because of this there is no sacred-secular dualism.

What is discipleship? Jesus commanded that disciples be made of the nations, “teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20). Teaching and obedience. Learning sound doctrine and living it out, and making more disciples. Disciples are disciple-makers. Simply another way to describe this is learning the Christian worldview, the total perspective of Scripture, and living by it.

Discipleship can be summarized as developing, demonstrating, and defending the Christian worldview.

Understanding that all of life is under the Lordship of Christ, you are going to be doing everything, self-consciously, as a Christian. You will use your words to explain why you live the way you do. You won’t necessarily be doing anything differently than non-Christians (apart from what is explicitly sin), but your basis for doing everything, from family to employment, will be different. There’s that absolute, ethical antithesis between believer and unbeliever.

One way to understand apologetics is: the application of theology to unbelief, wherever it is found. So everything you do is potentially apologetic, as you are living according to the truth in contrast to unbelief. Worldview is the framework for discipleship, for Christianity encompasses all of life, and it is by the Scriptures that we interpret everything. Apologetics is at the level of worldview. It is fundamentally a collision of worldviews. Discipleship and apologetics go hand in hand.

What has apologetics to do with discipleship? Everything, because your personal discipleship is growing in the knowledge of Jesus Christ, living that out as the Holy Spirit works in you to will and to do (Philippians 2:13), and making disciples of others. So, what struggle with unbelief within you will always be confronted by the Scriptures. As you live it out, you will be confronted with the antithesis, the way of living based on unbelief (way of the wise versus the way of the fool, as in Proverbs). And, as a result, unbelievers will ask or challenge you, and you must respond at the level of their worldview. That’s apologetics.

In addition to that, every disciple is by definition a maker of disciples. How is that done? Exactly what had to happen to you. You believed in the Lord Jesus, being transferred from darkness to light, from “in Adam” to “in Christ.” You are to be proclaiming the Gospel to people. You are to engage in apologetics, confronting their unbelief. Say that God brings them to life, what then? Well, you have a baby, you’ve got to raise him. Time for that “teaching them everything” that Jesus said. Catechism and Confessions come in handy. Teach them the Word of Christ, and model for them what it means to live every day under the Lordship of Christ. This includes sitting under the preaching of the Word, taking the sacraments, and being shepherded in the covenant community of the church. Through all of that, unbelief is continually confronted by the Gospel. What remains of unbelieving thought is replaced by God’s thoughts in his Word. They are being sanctified. As they live accordingly, they understand more of what it means to demonstrate the Christian faith. And in obedience, they are training to be always ready to answer anyone who asks. They know what they believe, because they’ve developed a Christian worldview and are demonstrating it daily, and are commanded to defend it.

In addition, the aim is not merely that they would be holy and happy in their personal discipleship, but the long term goal is that they too would disciple others. The cycle begins again. Disciples are disciple-makers.

Maybe this will be a helpful way to illustrate the interdependency of apologetics and discipleship. They should never be compartmentalized in your life or in the church. Apologetics is not a separate activity. It’s more an angle, a perspective, that is either less or more emphasized or apparent. When you’re talking with an unbeliever, it’s more apparent. In a Bible study, it may be in the background. Remember: there’s one theology behind “discipleship” and “apologetics.” (Of course, if we are in the habit of making false-distinctions between preaching, evangelism, apologetics, and theology, then this will be difficult to understand.) Theology is applied to the renewing of your mind (Romans 12:2), which is apologetics at work, as your old pattern of thinking is challenged and replaced. You progressively think God’s thoughts after him. So apologetics (theology applied to unbelief) is happening to you in your personal development (discipleship).

Part of your personal development in godliness should be learning and employing apologetics. As far as your disciple-making, you’ll do the same thing for someone else. Toward the unbelievers, you engage in apologetics, challenging their worldview, and presenting the very worldview that you have been growing in and living by.

The transition for the newly made disciple should be smooth, since it’s the very same theology driving your apologetic that you are presenting to the unbeliever, and when God saves them, bringing them into covenant with Christ, they now stand upon (and learn) that same theology, which now drives their whole life. Presuppositional or covenantal apologetics is evidently not optional. You present the unbeliever with the absolute authority of the self-attesting Christ, not attempting neutrality, then after they are brought under that authority, they live self-consciously under that authority. You do not grant neutrality in apologetics, and they do not grant neutrality in any area of life after conversion.

Toward believers, you teach that same theology that grounds and drives apologetic methodology. Teach that pattern of sound words for their own personal growth, viewing and living all of life as a Christian, and they have a defense for anyone who asks, so they can be disciple-makers as well.

Apologetics and discipleship are interwoven and constantly overlapping. I’m not sure a chart or graph could be made to illustrate the relationship. It’s a bit tangled. But we must grasp that Christianity is a worldview. All of life is under Christ’s Lordship, and only properly understood through the lens of his Word. The biblical apologetic is a worldview apologetic, challenging the root of unbelief itself. The (worldview) teaching you are getting (should) have an apologetic edge, for your personal sanctification and also to provide something to say to others.

All believers must be discipled and equipped to make disciples. Part of that is training in apologetic methodology, specifically. The practice of apologetics is a component of complete discipleship. At the same time, apologetics will always be an application of Christian theology, no matter what activity you are doing. Whenever and wherever there is a clash of worldviews, within you or between you and others, there’s apologetics. And there is discipleship there, also! Because whoever you are interacting with is in covenantal relationship with God. If they are an unbeliever, and you are confronting their worldview and offering the hope of the Gospel, you have begun disciple-making. As Jesus said, make disciples of all nations.

If you are helping a new believer with basic doctrine, there are worldview changes taking place, as unbelieving categories and presuppositions are being replaced with ones from Scripture. The change of mind is sanctification. And you begin to train them in apologetic methodology so they are prepared to tell others about their new faith, in obedience to Christ, which is characteristic of being a disciple (1 Peter 3:15).

For the more mature believer, they may pursue more advanced training in apologetics or not. Regardless, it will always be part of their life as a disciple. We are always growing in the knowledge of Christ, and must always be ready to give a defense to anyone.

I am confident in saying that if apologetics has no place in your life, or in your disciple-making, then that discipleship is deficient. On the flip side, if discipleship is missing from the teaching of apologetics, in other words no development or demonstration of the Christian worldview, then that’s a serious deficiency. You really cannot separate the two. This is beyond the fact that apologetics is for the church, and should be developed within the local body. What I mean is that apologetics is dependent on and flows from the very “everything I commanded you.” Theology drives methodology. And do we really understand theology if we cannot offer a defense? It would be very strange if someone claimed to learn or teach apologetics and not also learn/teach sound doctrine. How could anyone learn apologetics apart from developing the very Christian worldview being defended? How could one avoid undermining or contradicting the Christian worldview by his apologetic methodology if he did not know that worldview? (a methodology that assumes neutrality, for example). If you are learning/teaching apologetics as a naked method, you’re doing it wrong.

Disciple-making is apologetic: making disciples by engaging unbelief, then simultaneously teaching the Christian worldview and how to defend it. Apologetics permeates discipleship: from the point of unbelief being challenged with the Gospel (apologetic clash of worldviews), to the moving from unbelief to belief (changing worldviews), then as one’s worldview is transformed (continuous unbelief being confronted), and for the rest of your life as a disciple of the Lord Jesus as you bear witness to him (demonstrating and defending the Christian worldview), in turn making disciples (engaging in apologetics).

It’s all very involved. Intertwined. No clean-cut, sharp distinctions here. It all may seem a little scattered and repetitive, but such is the nature of the case, I think.

By the way, if you weren’t completely convinced that a presuppositional (or covenantal) apologetics is the only way, this interdependent and overlapping relationship between theology, discipleship, and apologetics should help.

I could go on, and add a whole bunch of substantiating quotes, but this post is long enough.

That “Same God” Question

“Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?”

This whole situation, with a professor of a Christian college saying Christians and Muslims worship the same God, is a perfect case for why apologetics is so important. Do you think apologetics isn’t really necessary? Just look around.

Somebody posted a selfie, wearing the hijab, and saying that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. That’s not so new, except that she’s a professor at a Christian college (Wheaton). That’s unique. Now what? There’s a big blow up. She’s been disciplined. And everybody’s talking about the ethics of the college in dealing with her, etc. But what else is in the air is what she said: Christians and Muslims worship the same God.

There it is. The question is: is that statement true? Can you answer? What about others in your church and family? Can the college and high school students answer?

Now, if someone is at a loss as to whether the question is true, isn’t that a problem?

Secondly, how do you go about answering that question? Sure, you may know immediately the truth of the matter. But why? You may know what you believe, but do you know why you believe it? How do you back up your position? And once again, what about others in your church and family? Are all the students equipped to take on the task of communicating why?

A Question of Method

Not only is this situation showing whether people know what they believe and why they believe it, but it is also exposing the matter of method. As this question is being handled, and various people are communicating what they believe and why, their approach is being made clear; their apologetic methodology. Simultaneously, something of their theology is being revealed as well, obviously. And this is not a non-issue. As Van Til said, “the question of method is not a neutral something.”

This is important: if you run directly to philosophy to answer this question, you’re doing it wrong. What I mean is, in your effort to back up your truth claim and communicate it, you immediately begin to define a god of generic theism, using philosophic categories, and thereby prove your point, you have shown your authority.

But, doesn’t the answer matter? Yes, it does. The answer had better be true.

There’s only one theism. Every other theism is an idolatry.

—K. Scott Oliphint

But how we get there is important, too. And how you get there reveals what your ultimate authority, your standard, is. There is no neutrality, even in apologetic engagement. If the method is in conflict with biblical teaching, then regardless of your answering correctly, you’re already on the wrong foot. Your standard for knowing what is true would be independent of Scripture. And also, you’ll only be able to challenge those who deny Christianity up to a certain point.

The authority is Scripture. We are commanded, in our apologetics as in all else, to sanctify Christ as Lord in our hearts. Because the Triune God has given us his Word, that must be the foundation on which we stand. So when you are dealing with the question, “do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?”, your answer could actually be as simple as:

“Your heart must not be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in Me. . . .

 

“Lord,” Thomas said, “we don’t know where You’re going. How can we know the way?”

 

Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

“If you know Me, you will also know My Father. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.”

 

“Lord,” said Philip, “show us the Father, and that’s enough for us.”

 

Jesus said to him, “Have I been among you all this time without your knowing Me, Philip? The one who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I speak to you I do not speak on My own. The Father who lives in Me does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me. Otherwise, believe because of the works themselves.

 

—John 14:1, 5,-11

And in case that wasn’t clear enough, add an unequivocal “NO, Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God.”

Or, as James White shows in the video below, you go to the worship scene in Revelation, since the question is “do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?” And what is clearly presented in Scripture is not a unitarian worship.

The true God has revealed himself everywhere to man in creation, and truly defined himself in his Word, and shown what true worship is. That is our authority: the Triune God speaking in Scripture. Leave that, and the whole apologetic encounter goes down the drain.

Now, if you want to go and present a side-by-side comparison of the Christian God and the Muslim god, go ahead. But understand that why we know the answer is because God has spoken in his Word. That is how we know, and it is on God’s authority that we proclaim him. Not on autonomous philosophy, seeking to handle the question in a neutral fashion.

Are we bringing the question before the bar of God’s judgement, his self-testimony in Scripture? Or, are we looking to independent human reason to decide the truth of the matter?

As K. Scott Oliphint said at the end of his Bahnsen Conference address, when addressing the question of how to distinguish between Christianity and Islam,

Without Christianity, nothing else, including your beliefs, can make any sense. Islam can’t do it, Judaism can’t do it, only Christianity can do it. Because Christianity tells us that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and is constantly, always, everywhere, in every place revealing himself to every person, all the time, now and into eternity future. That’s the truth of the matter, and apologetics seeks to make that truth evident to people so that it connects with the truth that they already know, because God has been there revealing himself.

—K. Scott Oliphint

Apart from that approach, we cannot distinguish Christianity from other “theisms.” Christianity is trinitarian. But if Scripture is not our starting point in apologetics, and we attempt our defense by appealing to neutral categories to try to define “god”, we are not adequately or faithfully defending Christianity.

To bring this round full circle: do you think apologetics isn’t really a priority? If so, then wake up. Go online. Bam, confrontation. Look around, and you will see the clash of worldviews. Not only does God himself in his Word command all believers to do apologetics, making it a moral necessity, but the obvious situation we are in demands that we always be prepared to defend the Christian worldview to anyone.

For more helpful treatment of this issue, James White deals with the most important level: worship. We do not worship the same God.