Quoted Observations on Apologetics

[Learner]

Charles H.Spurgeon:

"I question whether the defences of the gospel are not sheer impertinences.The gospel does not need defending.If Jesus Christ is not alive and cannot fight his own battles,then Christianity is in a bad state.But he is alive,and we have only to preach his gospel in all its naked simplicity,and the power that goes with it will be the evidence of its divinity."


"Suppose a number of persons were to take it into their heads that they had to defend a lion.There he is in the cage,and here come all the soldiers of the army to fight for him.Well,I should suggest to them that they should kindly stand back,open the door,and let the lion out!I believe that would be the best way of defending him.And the best "apology"for the gospel is to let the gospel out....Preach Jesus Christ and him crucified .The Lion of the tribe of Judah will soon drive away all his adversaries.This was how Christ's first disciples worked.They preached Jesus Christ wherever they went.They did not stop to apologize,but boldly bore their witness concerning him."

 

[JohnV]

Tim:
I like the lion analogy. In one sense apologetics is that simple, and in another sense it is not that simple.

The idea of apologetics is to let the truth out, to let it stand on it's own, so that the truth of the gospel is clearly displayed even in the face of criticism. Just let it out; or just take the concealments off.

On the other hand, men's criticisms have become ever more in-depth, as they continue to fight against the truth. The more answers we can come up with, the more they find to criticize, it seems. We come across that all the time. We are able to steer people through the mire of their own ideas, with great effort on our part due to the stubbornness of the suppression of truth. Yet once we have steered them through, they come back with a whole new set of ideas that defy the logic of even their own thinking.

But more than that, it is to the end that we ought not to allow the cultural suasions of our day to take root in the minds of believers, or it may distort the doctrines of the Bible. It is our duty to show that homosexuality and abortion are evils, not only from Biblical teaching, but also from the perspective of the rules of interpretation, of consistency in doctrine, and of nature's own testimony.

As many as there may be who work to just open the cage to let the lion out, so there are many more who open the cage to let out a goat. By the time they are through with their distortions of the gospel, there is not much left but God's rubber stamp on their own particular vices. So we have to be sure that it is the Lion of Judah that is let out of the cage, and not some substitute.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Great quotations, Tim!

[quote:5b00f6208f][i:5b00f6208f]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:5b00f6208f]
Tim:
I like the lion analogy. In one sense apologetics is that simple, and in another sense it is not that simple.

The idea of apologetics is to let the truth out, to let it stand on it's own, so that the truth of the gospel is clearly displayed even in the face of criticism. Just let it out; or just take the concealments off.

On the other hand, men's criticisms have become ever more in-depth, as they continue to fight against the truth. The more answers we can come up with, the more they find to criticize, it seems. We come across that all the time. We are able to steer people through the mire of their own ideas, with great effort on our part due to the stubbornness of the suppression of truth. Yet once we have steered them through, they come back with a whole new set of ideas that defy the logic of even their own thinking.

But more than that, it is to the end that we ought not to allow the cultural suasions of our day to take root in the minds of believers, or it may distort the doctrines of the Bible. It is our duty to show that homosexuality and abortion are evils, not only from Biblical teaching, but also from the perspective of the rules of interpretation, of consistency in doctrine, and of nature's own testimony.

As many as there may be who work to just open the cage to let the lion out, so there are many more who open the cage to let out a goat. By the time they are through with their distortions of the gospel, there is not much left but God's rubber stamp on their own particular vices. So we have to be sure that it is the Lion of Judah that is let out of the cage, and not some substitute. [/quote:5b00f6208f]

John, I agree with you in the sense that it is our duty to show that things such as homosexuality and abortion are evils, and demonstrate the biblical truth on all of the issues of our day, whatever era we may live in. However, I don't think that's really the issue Spurgeon is addressing - he seems to be talking about the Gospel and the Gospel alone. He is saying that apologetics taken beyond a very simple nature is unbiblical, and that for the most part we should let the Holy Spirit do the work of applying what we preach to the believer's mind and heart.

As he said, "the gospel does not need defending," and I take this to mean that when we get to the point where we're just struggling to provide our latest philosophical rebuttal to the umpteenth objection by the skeptics, we are actually demeaning the biblical Gospel, portraying it as less in power and majesty than it really is. As you said, "The more answers we can come up with, the more they find to criticize, it seems." And when we just keep responding to that cycle with more criticisms, the Gospel eventually seems like nothing more than a complicated worldview made up of a series of intellectual musings.

I like how Packer put in in his introductory essay to Owen's [i:5b00f6208f]Death of Death[/i:5b00f6208f], "The preacher's task, in other words, is to [i:5b00f6208f]display Christ[/i:5b00f6208f], to explain man's need of him, his sufficiency to save, and his offer of himself in the promises as Savior to all who truly turn to him; and to show as fully as he can how these truths apply to the congregation before for him" (emphasis his). Now, I don't want to seem like I'm totally bashing the practice or apologetics, because that is not what I'm trying to do. Rather, I agree with Spurgeon (especially as stated in his first quotation) that once we go beyond a certain simple, fine line of demonstrating the truth of the Gospel, we have overstepped our biblical boundaries of defending it, and we in fact degrade its very nature, power and awe by doing that.

In Christ,

Chris

 

[JohnV]

Chris:
I don't disagree with you. I also took Spurgeon to mean that. What I trid to say is that sometimes we have to clear the cultural way, so that when the simple gospel is preached, is it received for what it is.

But this now borders on the discussion of whether apologetics is a pre- or post-evangelism tool, or both. What I am referring to is that there are JW's, and a host of others out there discrediting the gospel with their "isms". Not only that, but there are many Christians out there as well who undermine years, decades, or even centuries of mission work, by representing Christianity, but living as if this world is all there is or will be. They live lawlessly, just like unbelievers, but justify themselves, sometimes using the Bible quite heavily. They do great damage.

I remember on friend who was unapproachable in respect to the gospel. He had all kinds of questions, which I tried to carefully answer for him. But in the end, the example of his neighbour was enough to turn him forever against the gospel. He died some years back, without ever opening up to the gospel, as far as I know.

So there is a lot of post-evangelism apologetic work to do. That 'neighbour' already had the gospel, and went to church twice every Sunday, but clearly needed to have some cultural accoutrements removed from his theology.

Apologetics in not a necessary part of the preaching of the Word, for the Word will indeed stand on its own. But people don't. And that's what apologetics is for. Like it or not, every one is an apologist; for the one who says that he isn't has accepted that apologetic. It is something we do either well or not well, but it is not something we do not do.

 

[Me Died Blue]

OK, I see your point now, John - especially with regard to the post-evangelism side of it. But even then we should be on the lookout for ourselves putting too little faith in the Spirit's sanctification. That being said, I basically agree with what you wrote. I guess when I made my first post in this thread I was thinking of apologetics [i:5853ccb924]only[/i:5853ccb924] in a pre-evangelism sense, to the secular world. I usually just think of "post-evangelism apologetics" and theology being the same thing. You helped clarify what you meant by apologetics, though, and its significance in all forms.

In Christ,

Chris

[Edited on 6-1-2004 by Me Died Blue]

 

[Learner]

C.H.Spurgeon:"The One Thing Needful"

"We hear a great deal about the necessity of controversy.We ought to be ready to answer all that infidels object,so wise men say.Every absurdity of every fool we are to sit down and reply to,and when this labour of Hercules is accomplished,we are to begin again,for by that time new whimsies will be in men's brains,and new lies will have been begotten.Is this so?Am I to do nothing in winning souls and glorfying God,but to spend all my time in finding wind for the nostrils of the wild asses of the desert?Well,let those do it who please,we believe that the settlement of all controversy in the church and for the church would come from the Lord himself,if we believed more fully in him,and waited more upon him for guidance,and if we preached the gospel more in his own strength,and in his own Spirit."

 

[Learner]

Gordon H.Clark

"Non-Christians do not have to violate logic.Many of their arguments are perfectly valid.The Christian rejects the arguments,or should do so,not because of their alleged invalidity,but because of their anti-Christian presuppositions."

 

[Learner]

Charles H.Spurgeon:"The Fourfold Treasure"

"Carry a bold face when you confront the brazen philosophy which insults your Lord.The man who does not believe the Bible does not know as much as thou dost.Blush not,though with mimic wisdom the unbeliever tries to laugh or argue thee down.He knows not Christ,though he propounds wonderful theories...and though he has a glib tongue,is only an educated fool,a learned idiot,who thinks his own rushlight brighter than God's own sun...Do not blush,then,if you find yourself in his company;do not make yourself the blushing one because the fool is there.Self-conceit were to be avoided and loathed;but this is not self-conceit,but a holy courage in a case which demands of you to be courageous.To know Christ is the best philosophy,the highest of all sciences...If you know Christ you never need be afraid of being ashamed and confounded whatever company you may be in.If you stood in a senate of emperors,or amidst a parliament of philosophers,...Be not ashamed,then,amid the intellectual pride of this boastful age."

 

[Learner]

C.H.Spurgeon:"One War Over And Another...

...Begun" 9/17/1882

"If some new doubt is hatched;if some philosopher thinks he has found out a flaw in the gospel,next Sunday these worthies discourse upon it,for they think every new query must be answered.As for me,I do not care a fig what all the philosophers find out,for they cannot disprove the facts of my experience.When I come across a fresh piece of infidelity I do not hurry to proclaim it to you,and so do the devil's advertising for nothing.Let others follow their business,if it be their business;as for me,my business is to preach the truth of God which I have learned from his infallible word by the teaching of his Spirit."

 

[Learner]

C.H.Spurgeon:"Chariots Of Iron"9/28/1882

"I care very little for those evidences of the existence of a God which are fashioned for us by learned men--the a priori argument from anology,and all the rest...The most convincing evidence is found in another kind of reasoning,such as that which conquers all doubt by actual experience.When God has come to our soul,and drawn nigh to us in the hour of our distress,we have needed no further argument.When he has said 'Peace' to our troubled spirit,and stilled its raging,then we received conclusive evidence of his power.When he has lifted us up into ecstasy,and filled us with joy unspeakable and full of glory,we have laid up these evidences in our record-house,and our assurance has grown doubly sure."

 

[Irishcat922]

The Bible teaches us that the mental and spiritual perspectives of believers and unbelievers differ radically from each other. In principle, and according to what they profess, the basic worldviews - the fundamental presuppositions - of the Christian and non-Christian conflict with each other at every point.[7] The all-pervading sinful depravity of the unregenerate man touches his intellect as much as anything else. "The mind of the sinful nature is at enmity with God, for it is not subject to the law of God, nor can it be" (Romans 8:7). Paul's description of the unbelieving mind in Ephesians 4:17-19 is graphic. Unbelievers walk in vanity of mind, with darkened understanding, ignorance and a hardened heart. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Rom. 1:22). On the other hand, believers are said to be transformed by the renewing of their minds (Rom. 12:2; cf. Eph. 4:23-24). They now have the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16) and bring every thought captive to Him (2 Cor. 10:5). It is not surprising, therefore, that believers and unbelievers - with their conflicting worldviews and heart conditions - do not really share a common view of knowledge, logic, evidence, language, or truth. Pilate arrogantly asked, "what is truth?" (John 18:38). Agrippa differed with Paul over what is "believable" (Acts 26:8). What unbelievers call "knowledge," believers shun as "pseudo-knowledge" (1 Tim. 6:20). What believers call wisdom, unbelievers call foolishness (1 Cor. 1:18-2:5).

Greg Bahnsen Lecture on believing