The Pivotal Question In Biblical Apologetics

I have a keen interest in Biblical Apologetics; that is, the practice of Biblical and Scriptural defence. I am hardly a Ravi Zacharias type, but I really find that aspect of my faith life to be one which is edifying and encouraging. That, coupled with my propensity to enjoy a good debate, has gotten me in my fair share of fruitful discussions. It has also, unfortunately, pulled me in arguments which were probably not the best venue for me to participate (only because I can be pretty opinionated, as you can probably tell by reading this here blog).

I would say that the area I will discuss all the time, without exception is Biblical study and viability. Lots of Christians over the years have said that the most important question for Christians to address with non-Christians is "did the resurrection really happen", or "did Jesus rise from the dead?" They say that the whole cornerstone of Christianity rests on that. I suppose that point can be made, but I feel (and this is just my opinion) that the most important question to address to non-believers is, "Is the Bible true?" or "Is the Bible reliable?" If the answer is yes, then that takes care of a lot of the questions with which we don't have answers or some parts of the Bible are tougher to understand. If I believe that the God of creation and the universe and the same God who created me and you, and sent Jesus to die on the cross, authored the Bible, I will be more than happy to yield to what He says in His Word, even if I don't fully understand it. I think that the fallacy of using the question of "did Jesus really rise from the dead?" as the central cornerstone question of Christianity, is that you are assuming that the non-believer accepts or assumes that the Biblical account of the life of Jesus and His subsequent death and resurrection, as told by the Bible. If they don't believe the Bible is accurate, true or authored by God Himself, guess what? It will matter little how you argue the resurrection point - which is why I believe that showing the Bible to be both a historically reliable document, but also showing that it is the Word of God (latter is harder) is the starting point in presenting the gospel message to the unbeliever. I got this sense more than a decade ago when I was doing some personal study of hermeneutics and one night in my bed, it dawned on me, "what is the point of using the Bible to argue points to a non-Christian when they don't believe in the Bible?" I agree - the Bible, as God's Word, can stand up to scrutiny and doesn't need our defending it - but from a logical perspective, I want to avoid the trap of referring to something that someone does not accept as a factual or reliable reference point.

Quick example, a few years back, a colleague of mine here at work, who also happens to be a strong Christian, is very knowledgeable on the Bible and would put me to shame often, in terms of what he can pull up. Well, we had an opportunity to discuss Christianity with a highly philosophical Jewish colleague (and a friend of mine). The Christian guy started to argue the finer points of the resurrection and about Christianity's distinctives. Guess what? The Jewish guy rejected all of the Christian's arguments, saying that they are all from the Bible and he does not accept the Bible as truth. I totally saw his point. The Christian man then totally shocked me by telling my Jewish friend "it doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not, it's still true." I thought that this was more of a defensive manoeuvre rather than an apologetic one - and it completely re-affirmed what I have thought the past decade or so. I took the conversation into a different realm, asking him what problems he has with the Bible, and that discussion went somewhere, where My Jewish friend told me he wasn't interested in talking with the Christian guy anymore. I'm not sure if I was able to convince him of anything, but at the very least, I was able to show that some of his arguments against the Bible's reliability had, at the very least, some flaws. I mean, i'm not Grant Jeffrey, so I can't argue that kind of stuff, but it does seem to indicate that being able to show the Bible as a reliable and trusted reference point is the first step. Which is why I am so gung-ho on Bible study. We can read listen to all the sermons on CD that we want, or read all the Christian books we want or listen to Christian music and attend Christian conferences and even go to Christian retreats - the problem is, if the Christian does not spend time in their Bibles, knowing God's Word - guess what? When they come across the intelligent and philosophical non-Christian who can easily deflect the standard circular arguments and worse, if they no longer can use the Bible as their point from which to make counterarguments, the Christian will be saddled with several problems in the debate.

There are a plethora of reasons to read one's Bible - to hear what God has to say to them personally, to better understand their relation to God, to know the history of their faith, and to capture guidelines and disciplines for living a life pleasing to God. But I think one of the more paramount reasons to read one's Bible is to be able to familiarize oneself with it, in the event the Christian has a witnessing opportunity. I think I can say most Christians would rather avoid having to debate the hard issues with non-Christians and I think this is sad, since that is neither the model nor the practice Jesus did Himself or expected from His followers.