Apologetics, the Why and the How

“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…” (1 Peter 3:15, ESV)

For most Christians, Peter’s words present a daunting challenge. Unless you’re a pastor, or an evangelist, or someone else similarly gifted and accustomed to preaching the Gospel, giving a defense of your faith tends to be a messy enterprise. Answers rarely come easy. Objections, on the other hand, come like a mighty river, and they’re often difficult to refute and turn aside. And often, Christian apologetics seems to be a futile exercise—we can’t argue anyone into the truth, and sometimes it looks like our efforts only make unbelievers more stubborn in their resistance to the Gospel.

Why Debate an AtheistOver the past year-and-a-half, Pastor Wilson has written several books attacking the “New Atheism” movement, but debating atheists is not a newfound hobby for him. Wilson has debated atheists Eddie Tabash and Dan Barker—each of them twice, no less—in the past fifteen years. And in this CRF Lecture, Why Debate an Atheist, he explains what good can come of such debates and why he has taken the time to participate in them. For those who question debates’ worth, or who would simply like to know what they can learn from them, this lecture provides answers.

To celebrate the release of Is Christianity Good for the World?, we’re offering this talk as a free MP3 download. Please visit the item page to download the talk, and please share it with your friends: it is a wonderful introduction to and defense of Christian apologetics, particularly since we face the ongoing attacks of New Atheism.

And speaking of Is Christianity Good for the World?, we have been very pleased with the reception it has received thus far. Not only has it sold well on Amazon and other online retailers, but it is also being featured on front tables in Barnes & Noble stores across the country. (See photo below, and look for the blue hand!!) We’ve also setup a splash page for the book , so please feel free to point your friends or your blog links to ischristianitygoodfortheworld.com: not only can they see a good-sized picture of the book, but they can choose where they would like to purchase a copy.

 

 

This entry was posted in *New* Books & Audio and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Apologetics, the Why and the How

  1. Robert says:

    Pardon me, but how does the question of whether something is good for the world relate to its truthfulness?

  2. Frank says:

    Hi Robert,

    Good question. And one that could probably take a lot of words to answer. So, if you’ll forgive me for writing simply, I’ll say this:

    We all live as if telling the truth is good, while telling a lie is bad. And if it’s right for us to live this way (which it is), then it make sense that seeking good is also seeking truth. The question, “Is Christianity good for the world?” is really another question (“Is Christianity true?”) flipped on its head and asked from a different angle.

    But, if you want a better, I’d suggest looking at 1 John, where the Apostle approaches truth not as something simply to be believed, but as something to be done—kind of like “good.”

    Hope that helps.

    Blessings,
    Frank.

  3. Tim Prussic says:

    I love that Pr. Wilson’s book is merely two volumes away from that massive Led Zeppelin book! They both seem like worthy buys.

  4. don jones says:

    Also, I suspect, good is being used in the sense of the classical idea of the good, the true, and the beautiful.

  5. Robert says:

    Hey Frank, thanks for the response. You wrote,

    We all live as if telling the truth is good, while telling a lie is bad. And if it’s right for us to live this way (which it is), then it make sense that seeking good is also seeking truth.

    I’m afraid your formulation here doesn’t quite make sense.

    Yes, telling truth is considered good, but sometimes telling a lie is also good. Much depends on the circumstances. Would you have answered truthfully to the Nazis if they asked if you were hiding Jews in your house, when you were?

    Seeking good can be seeking truth, but truth is also far broader than goodness. Scientists seek the truths of nature’s laws. Are they seeking good? Not really. They’re seeking knowledge, which can also be a quest for truth.

    The question “Is Christianity good for the world?” thus has little bearing on its truthfulness. Many Muslims would affirm that Hamas is good for the world, but does that make its version of Islam true?

    In any case, aren’t you a little concerned that 2,000 years after its founding, people still debate whether Christianity is good?

  6. Frank says:

    Hi Robert,

    I too will begin with a quote:

    Yes, telling truth is considered good, but sometimes telling a lie is also good. Much depends on the circumstances. Would you have answered truthfully to the Nazis if they asked if you were hiding Jews in your house, when you were?

    My answer would (of course) be, “No.” But I think that this only proves my point: the fundamental question in this situation is not, “What is true?” but rather, “What is good?”

    Did you take a look at 1 John? Because here, I think, we come to a vital point of disagreement. “Truth” is what God says, and everything that God does and says is good. I imagine that when you speak of “the truths of nature’s laws,” you’re talking about what you see as cold, hard, objective facts. But I don’t believe the world works that way. If something is truly good, then it is also truly true. If something is not truly good, then it’s false.

    And no, believe it or not, I’m not concerned about this kind of debate. Because actually, Christianity is much older than 2,000 years. And besides, if I only believed in things that were past the point of debate, then I’m not sure that I could believe in anything at all.

  7. Robert says:

    the fundamental question in this situation is not, “What is true?” but rather, “What is good?”

    But Frank, you earlier conflated telling the truth with good, and telling a lie with bad. Now, you acknowledge that telling a lie can also be good. I guess it’s not as black and white as you earlier suggested.

    “Truth” is what God says, and everything that God does and says is good.

    Killing children is good? (Exodus 12:29)

    If something is truly good, then it is also truly true.

    How do know if something is truly good? You’ve suggested that everything God does is truly good. So how do we know when God does something?

  8. Frank says:

    Robert,

    I’m glad you’re comfortable with quoting the Bible: it makes it much easier for me to answer your last question. “Truth” is what God says it is, and I know what God says is true by reading the Bible. How do I know that the Bible is true? Well, maybe I don’t “know” this. I believe it because I was given faith. Much like newborns instinctively believe that their mothers will feed them. No reason, no logic, just faith.

    Contrary to what you claim, I did not conflate “telling the truth with good.” I merely used an analogy about life and how we generally call liars “bad” and truth-tellers “good.” This is by no means the same thing as saying that “good” is simply “telling the truth” (as I’m sure someone with your nuance can easily see). Nor is it saying that “all lying is evil” or “all truth-telling is good.” And, if you had read 1 John (like I suggested), you’d have quickly seen that what I mean by “truth” is anything but a black-and-white/easily-defined-abstraction.

    What’s more, you don’t seem to understand context. You reference Exodus 12:29, suggesting that, if I actually believe that what God says and does is good (which I do, wholeheartedly), I must believe that killing children is good. But this doesn’t seem like responsible argumentation or reading.

    For example, let’s say I took this quote from you:

    Scientists seek the truths of nature’s laws. Are they seeking good? Not really.

    What if, based on these three sentences, I were to claim, “Robert believes that scientists don’t care about doing what’s right.” Would that be accurate? Would you call that a “true” interpretation of what Robert does and says?

    My hunch is that you would answer, “No.” Which leads me to ask: why are you (who have claimed, thus far, to be concerned with “truth”) so irresponsible when declaring what is “true” about God?

Comments are closed.