What Apologetics is NOT

A link to the source - http://www.the-daily-blessing.com/apologetics/not_apologetics.html


When many people, both believers and non-believers alike, hear the word apologetics, they think of conflict. The Bible says that apologetics is the defense of the Christian faith, the destroyer of false ideas, and the demolisher of arguments against the knowledge of God. To us these are very harsh words, especially destroy and demolish. However, the Bible also makes it very clear that we are to practice apologetics politely and respectfully. Apologetics, when done correctly, I believe would be better compared to “diplomacy” than “battle”, even though there’s disagreement. Non-believers won’t always go by this “rule” when debating, but the Christian has an obligation to.

Apologetics is not an attempt to do battle with non-believers. Though of course it does involve disagreement, it does not have to be rude or harsh in any way at all. Jesus taught that there is never an excuse for a rude response toward anyone, regardless of how rude or harsh they may be to you. I’ve actually debated with one atheist in the past who could not seem to make a single statement or ask a single question without cussing me out, even though he was the one to confront me in the first place. But that is not an excuse to respond to him in a rude manner.

Apologetics is not just for those who are well educated in particular subjects such as science and history. While it is very important that Christians study other subjects, the outcome of a debate does not depend on who has the greater knowledge. One of the biggest mistakes critics make is the assumption that your level of knowledge on a particular issue or subject will determine the outcome of a debate. Intellignece does not necessarily equal truth. Apologetics has much more to do with logic and strategy in conversation, than it does with knowledge of particular subjects. For example, an atheist may present to you a great amount of info on evolution which may be way over your head, but, if that atheist began by assuming from the start that there couldn’t be a God, or that evolution is plausible simply because it explains life and therefore no God is ‘needed’, his entire argument is flawed, regardless of the creditability of his information, because the basis of his argument includes such great presuppositions about the supernatural that the real motivating factor ironically isn’t the evidence itself, but the atheist’s personal world view. While that of course would not disprove evolution, it discredits the specific argument presented. I've heard the story of an eight year old girl who refuted a scientist in his own field, not because she was smarter than him of course, but because she simply didn't understand how he came to the conclusion he was presenting. Through her questions, the scientist realized that he was presenting a circular argument.