Students in the Real World, 4-1

Our approach to apologetics ought to be biblical and rational, and biblical rationalism is the only option. The previous chapter, however, does not include an explanation of biblical apologetics or practical instructions on how to apply it, and neither will we go into detail about that now. This is because these have been extensively discussed in our other publications, and you are advised to study and review them.

Without repeating what I have said in other places, I will add something here that should prove immensely helpful to the budding biblical apologist. I am referring to the deficiencies of a mechanical understanding and practice of apologetics, including the use of formula in conversation and debate.

Sometimes people ask me if I could summarize for them everything they need to know about biblical apologetics in two or three paragraphs, or to reduce my entire approach into a short list of bullet points. Indeed, the approach can be meaningfully described in a few paragraphs, but it is obvious that these individuals do not want a summary because they wish to reduce what they understand into a convenient form, but they wish to study a summary so that they can understand and learn to use it in the first place. However, a short summary leaves out so many details, including the arguments that support the asserted premises, that it will offer limited help to someone who does not already understand this approach to apologetics. It cannot enable a person who is confused about it to understand it and implement it.

To draw an example from another system of apologetics, consider the cosmological argument. Even with something like this, it will not do just to memorize the steps. A person must understand the principles behind that argument, and how to defend each premise. Each opponent is different, and might have different objections to each step, or might present these objections in different ways. A person who merely memorizes the steps and the words can easily become lost in a conversation or debate.

Some people submit their own summaries and paraphrases for my approval. Although the effort is commendable, they suffer from significant inaccuracies, and usually they are too mechanical. Most of the time, their attempts betray their failure to grasp the essence of this approach. As I have always insisted, it does not consist of a formula or a series of steps, but a combination of a body of knowledge and a way of thinking – that is, biblical knowledge and rational thinking.

This body of knowledge is that which we defend, and with which we attack. This way of thinking is what governs our application of this body of knowledge in our interaction with unbiblical ideas. Since what is biblical is also rational, we can simply say that the essence of biblical apologetics is the biblical way of thinking. What appear to be recognizable "steps" in my presentation of this approach are its manifestations and not its essence. In other words, how it is presented can vary depending on the context, such as what kinds of ideas we are seeking to counteract.

This is why biblical rationalism carries unlimited power and flexibility in debate when it is correctly understood and practiced. It does not matter whether it is a written dialogue or an oral debate. It does not matter how the conversation starts or where it strays. It does not matter if the opponent is a child or an adult, a novice or an expert in a field. It does not matter even if the opponent's belief system is foreign, unknown, or randomly invented – the biblical apologist adapts as the debate proceeds. He can use whatever he has available to him for various purposes. He can bring into the conversation what he understands from other fields to construct secondary or ad hominem arguments, or he can know nothing but Christ crucified. In every case, he is assured of victory.

Sometimes a person would study our materials and begin to practice biblical apologetics with great success, but then stumble over a particular argument or objection from an unbeliever. He suddenly does not know how to proceed, as if biblical apologetics does not apply to this challenge. In every case, and for whatever reason, the trouble is that the person has stopped applying the biblical way of thinking.

Let us construct an illustration from an unbeliever's perspective. Consider the morality of a relativist, who says that there is no absolute standard of good and evil, but that everything is "relative." A typical challenge might be, "Then, murder might also be good, and rape might not be evil." In itself this response presents no logical refutation of relativism, but only one of its implications. The relativist only has to say, "That's right," and move on. Yet, some relativists are stumped – not because relativism has been refuted, but because he has stopped thinking like a relativist. Of course, relativism is false and can be refuted, but the point is that the relativist does not have the lose the debate right at this point, that is, if he will just continue to think like a relativist.

Apply this to biblical apologetics. Some objections cause beginning biblical apologists to stumble, not because they refute the biblical worldview, but because they temporarily derail these Christians from thinking consistently with it. The difference is that, whereas relativism is false and will therefore crumble under rational analysis, the biblical worldview is perfect, and exhibits greater and greater brilliance the more it is scrutinized. This can be demonstrated, however, only if the apologist persists in a biblical way of thinking no matter what questions and objections are brought up.

Perhaps some of those who are too rigid with biblical apologetics make the mistake of thinking that the arguments themselves are a body of knowledge. They should be asking, "What should inform my thinking? And what should direct my thinking?" – it is revelation that informs (or provides correct content for thinking), and reason that directs (or ensures validity in thinking). But instead, they tend to ask, "What should I say to answer this question, that objection?"

They tend to memorize answers when they should learn the body of knowledge and way of thinking from which all answers arise. And this is why they would ask what to say to a particular challenge, but when they encounter even a slight variation of the same thing, they must return to inquire again. Maybe memorized responses and convenient formulas provide a sense of security, but this is deceptive, because if they depend on these things, they in fact become more prone to failure in debate.