56th North India Theological Students Conference, 2018

Clark Theological College, Mokokchung: Nagaland

A Paper Presentation on:

Understanding Christian Apologetics in Contemporary Context

Presenters: Trinity Theological College, Dimapur: Nagaland

Respondents: Aizawl Theological College, Mizoram

1
 Introduction
We are living in one of the most crucial turning points in human history and the Christians today,
as a body of Christ, are called to serve the cause of Christ at this Juncture. The generations now
living have witnessed an explosion of knowledge, cultures and societies have been radically
transformed and the reality of truth is itself denied. The task of defending the Christian faith and
claiming Christianity to be the absolute is now being condemned with the rise of postmodernism.
In a true sense, the defense of the faith has fallen on hard times. It is yet, at this age of madness
and confusion, that the defense is most needed. This paper highlights the etymological meaning
of Christian apologetics, its purpose and function, historical developments, a few of the major
issues that Christian apologetics deals with and finally Christian responses to these issues.

1. What is Christian Apologetics?

The term “apologetics” derives from the Greek word apologia, which means “to defend” or “to
make a defense.” There can be as many different types of apologetics as there are beliefs in the
world: atheistic apologetics, Hindu apologetics, Buddhist apologetics, Christian apologetics, etc.
However, generally when the discipline is discussed, most people associate it with Christian
apologetics. Therefore, for this paper, when we use the term apologetics, we will be referring
specifically to Christian apologetics. Christian apologetics is the branch of Christian theology
that seeks to provide a rational justification for the truth claims of the Christian faith.
Apologetics serves to show to unbelievers the truth of the Christian faith, to confirm the faith to
the believers, and to reveal and explore the connections between Christian doctrine and other
truths.1It is the body of knowledge that defends the philosophical, historical and doctrinal truth of
true Christianity.
2. Purpose and functions of Christian apologetics
2.1. Biblical command: to defend the faith as stated in 1 Peter 3:15 which says, "but sanctify Christ
as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give
an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence." Peter 3:15, has often
been regarded as the classic biblical statement of the mandate for Christians to engage in
apologetics.2
2.2. Defense: This function is closest to the NT and early Christian use of the word apologia,
defending Christianity against the plethora of attacks made against it in every generation by
critics of varying belief systems. This function involves clarifying the Christian position in light
of misunderstandings and misrepresentations; answering objections, criticisms, or questions from
non-Christians; and in general clearing away intellectual difficulties that nonbelievers claim
stand in the way of their coming to faith.3 We need apologetics to defend the constant threat
of apostasy in the visible Christian church. Such is the case with the Metropolitan Community

1
William Lane Criag, Reasonable faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Illinois: Crossway Books, 2008),
15.
2
William Edgar, Reasons of the Heart: Recovering Christian Persuasion (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 33-
41.
3
http://truthbomb.blogspot.com/2011/08/four-functions-of-apologetics, accesed 4/09/2018.5:30pm.
2
 Church denomination, which openly advocates the support of inappropriate sexuality in violation
of scripture (Rom. 1:18-32)
2.3. Refutation: This function focuses on answering the arguments non-Christians give in support
for their beliefs. Most apologists agree that refutation cannot stand alone, since proving a non-
Christian religion or philosophy to be false does not prove that Christianity is true. Nevertheless,
it is an essential function of apologetics. Another reason of apologetics is to refute the
misinterpretation, misunderstandings and heresies.4
2.4. Persuasion: By this we do not mean merely convincing people that Christianity is true, but
persuading them to apply its truth to their life. This function focuses on bringing non-Christians
to the point of commitment. The apologist's intent is not merely to win an intellectual argument,
but to persuade people to commit their lives and eternal futures into the trust of the Son of God
who died from them." The fact is that Christianity is under attack in the world, and we need to
fight the good fight of the faith without shrinking back. We need apologetics to give rational,
intelligent, and relevant explanations of Christian viability to the critics and the prejudiced who
would seek to undermine the teachings of our Lord Jesus.5

3. History of Christian Apologetics

3.1. Apologetics in the New Testament
Although perhaps none of the New Testament writings should be classified as a formal
apologetic treatise, most of them exhibit apologetic concerns. The New Testament writers
anticipate and answer objections and seek to demonstrate the credibility of the claims and
credentials of Christ, focusing especially on the resurrection of Jesus as the historical foundation
upon which Christianity is built. Many New Testament writings are occupied with polemics
against false teachings, in which the apologetic concern is to defend the gospel against
perversion from within the church.6
Of all the New Testament writings, the two volumes by Luke are the most overtly apologetic in
purpose.7 In his prologue (Luke 1:1-4) Luke announces that his work is based on careful
historical research and will present an accurate record of the origins of Christianity. The very
structure and content of this two-part work suggests it was written at least in part as a political
apology for Paul. In Acts the motif of Jesus’ resurrection as vindication, his fulfillment of Old
Testament messianic prophecies, and the charismatic phenomena on and after the Day of
Pentecost are used as cumulative evidences of the messianic lordship of Jesus (Acts 2:36) and of
the authority of the apostolic truth claims. Along the way Luke uses the speeches of the apostles
to present apologetic arguments to a wide variety of audiences, both Jewish and Gentile.

4
Kenneth D. Boa, The Apologetics Study Bible: Understand Why You Believe “What is Apologetics?” (np:
Holman Bible Publishers, 2007), 25.
5
Kenneth D. Boa, The Apologetics Study Bible..,25.
6
Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Orthodoxy and Heresy: A Biblical Guide to Doctrinal Discernment(Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1991), 71-73.
7
Frederic R. Howe, Challenge and Response: A Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1982), 34-46
3
 Challenged to explain his position by Stoic and Epicurean philosophers, Paul set his message in a
rational context in which it would make sense to his philosophically minded audience. The
speech was quite unlike those Paul delivered to Jewish audiences, which emphasized Jesus as the
fulfillment of Old Testament messianic promises and quoted Old Testament proof texts liberally.
In fact, Paul used a form of speech recognized by the Greeks as a philosophical address, such as
was commonly used by the Stoics and Cynics of his day.
Paul’s letters elsewhere also repeatedly deal with apologetic issues that arose as both Jews and
pagans who had confessed Christ and become associated with the churches (1 Corinthians 1:18-
21; 2:6-16; 15). 8
3.2. The early Church
In the post-apostolic era, the new challenges that confronted the burgeoning church as it spread
throughout the Roman Empire required a new apologetic counterthrust. Rabbinic Judaism, fully
developed Gnosticism, persecuting paganism, and Hellenistic culture and philosophy all opposed
the fledgling church. The religious apologists defended Christianity against these attacks and
sought to gain converts to the faith by arguing for the superiority of the Christian position
The apologists of the second century modeled their arguments after contemporary philosophical
refutations of polytheism and the critiques of pagan philosophy by Hellenistic Jews. Of the many
apologists from this period, the most important by far was Justin Martyr,9 a convert to
Christianity from Platonism. Justin used messianic prophecies from the Hebrew Scriptures to
prove that Jesus is the Messiah.
The third-century Alexandrians continued to assimilate arguments from Platonic and Stoic
philosophers as well as Jewish controversialists. Clement of Alexandria wrote a number of
theological discourses and an apologetic work called Protrepticus, a more sophisticated and
persuasive work than those of the second-century apologists. By far the most important Greek
apologist of the third century was Origen,10 whose lengthy Contra Celsum (“Against Celsus”)
was a reply to Celsus’s philosophical, ethical, and historical criticisms of Christianity.
In the fourth and fifth centuries, pagan religions were on the wane and Christianity was on the
ascendancy throughout the empire, particularly after the edict of Constantine in 313. Christian
apologists, both Latin and Greek, wrote with pride of the progress and life-changing effects of
Christianity. They also became more systematic in their presentation of Christianity as a
worldview in contrast to competing philosophies, notably Neo-Platonism. The greatest apologist
and theologian of this period and indeed of the first millennium of Christian history was, by
nearly everyone’s reckoning, Aurelius Augustine (354-430), the bishop of Hippo, whose
apologetic and theological writings ranged widely over the areas of human culture, philosophy,
and history.

8
W. Harold Mare, “Pauline Appeals to Historical Evidence,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological
Society (1968): 121-30
9
Henry Chadwick, “Justin Martyr’s Defence of Christianity,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 47
(1965): 275-97
10
Johan F. Goud, “Origen (185-254),” in Bringing into Captivity Every Thought: Capita Selecta in the
History of Christian Evaluations of Non-Christian Philosophy, ed. Jacob Klapwijk, Sander Griffioen, and Gerben
Groenewoud, Christian Studies Today (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1991), 29-47.
4
 By the seventh century Christianity had absorbed Greco-Roman culture and triumphed in its
struggle against paganism. The church was the central vehicle of Western culture, and its
apologists during the Middle Ages directed their efforts in three directions—toward unconverted
Judaism, the threat of Islam, and the rational ground for belief. Two Christian philosophers of the
Middle Ages who stand out for their contributions to apologetics, and whose works continue to
be read and debated today, were Anselm and Thomas Aquinas.11
3.3. The Reformation
The primary concern of the Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century was the doctrine of
salvation. In their view the Aristotelianism of the Scholastics—the medieval theologians on
whose teachings the sixteenth-century Roman Catholic system was based—had led to a
confusion and perversion of the gospel of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
Until the post-Reformation period most Europeans took Christianity for granted, and the major
religious debates were primarily intra-Christian disputes about the meaning of certain key
doctrines of the faith. But the seventeenth century saw the rise of religious skepticism that
challenged the very truth of the Christian faith. This skepticism led to new developments in
apologetics. Some apologists responded to the rationalistic critiques of Christian doctrine by
expressing a skepticism of their own—regarding the reliability of human reason—and proposing
an approach to religion that emphasizes faith as a response of the heart. Other apologists
accepted the rationalistic challenge and sought to answer it by proving that Christianity was just
as rational as the conclusions of modern science.12
3.4. The Rise of Modern Apologetics
The skepticism of the Scottish philosopher David Hume, prepared the way for modern apologist
movement, which rejected all revelation claims and all natural religion or natural theology, and
declared the autonomy of human reason. Hume convinced many that the teleological or design
argument, the argument from miracles, and other standard Christian apologetic arguments were
unsound.
Reformed philosopher Alvin Plantinga published his God and Other Minds. In this and other
books Plantinga led the way in developing a school of thought known as the “New Reformed
Epistemology”. Plantinga argued that belief in God is rationally justified even if the believer
cannot offer any evidence for that belief, just as we are rational to believe other things even if we
cannot prove they exist. The focus of the new Reformed epistemology is on justifying belief
rather than challenging unbelief. Yet its approach has some affinities with presuppositionalism,
perhaps most notably its rejection of evidentialism. The school came into prominence in 1983
with the publication of Faith and Rationality, co-edited by Plantinga and Wolterstorff. The new
Reformed epistemology and presuppositionalism are the two major varieties of Reformed
apologetics today.

11
Timothy M. Renick, Aquinas for Armchair Theologians (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002
12
William R. Everdell, “Christian Apologetics in France, 1730-1790: The Roots of Romantic Religion,”
(Texts and Studies in Religion, vol. 31 Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1987); Brown, Christianity and
Western Thought, 159-234.
5
 4. Types of Apologetics
The field of apologetics maybe broadly divided into two sorts: offensive (or positive) apologetics
and defensive (or negative) apologetics.
Offensive apologetics seeks to present a positive case for Christian truth claims. It seeks to
positively demonstrate that the Christian faith is true and relevant. It uses biblical material,
philosophical arguments, historical and archaeological evidences, specific findings, art, culture,
etc. to demonstrate this.13
Defensive apologetics seeks to nullify objections to the Christian faith. A purely defensive
apologetics does not try to demonstrate the truth of Christianity. Rather, it tries to defend the
Christian faith against attacks and criticisms, and to refute the beliefs and arguments that non-
Christians give in support of their position.14

5. Problems and Issues

5.1. Arguments for the Existence of God
In the twentieth century the dominant philosophical trends have generally been no-theistic, if not
openly atheistic, and the proofs for the existence of God have been discounted accordingly.
Some of the fundamental premise of arguments/proofs for the existence of God may be discussed
in the following ways:
5.1.1. The Ontological argument: This argument was first developed by Anselm of Canterbury
(c.1033-1109), and it was later expanded by the great Scholastics. The basic premise is that God
is the being than no greater being can be conceived. This sounds reasonable enough, and most
people would probably be inclined to agree with it in principle. Yet the premise has two major
weaknesses which make its usefulness somewhat questionable.
The first weakness is contained in the word greater. Is God greater than anything else
quantitatively (i.e. is he bigger?), qualitatively (i.e. is he better?), or both? If God is merely
bigger than anything else there is no real problem, unless a still bigger object can be found or
imagined, which is always possible, since quantity can theoretically be increased to infinity. If
greater refers primarily to quality, the difficulty becomes one of measurement. Christians would
want to argue that God can be measured only against himself, but in that case, the outcome of the
argument is decided in advance.15Greatness might be understood in terms of power, but that
would not necessarily have implications for God’s size or character. Is God to be thought of like
that? And what about forms of greatness which are conceived along lines which are incompatible
with the being of God? It would be a poor theologian who would argue that God is the greatest
liar or thief imaginable! Greatness suffers in the end from being too subjective a concept, and
which may be applied without reference to moral criteria.
The second difficulty with the ontological argument is the word conceived. To conceive of
relative greatness is to assume that the scale is open-ended; it will always be possible to conceive
13
William Lane Criag, Reasonable faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Illinois: Crossway Books,
2008), 23-24.
14
Ibid., 23-24.
15
Gerald Bray, The Doctrine Of God: Contours Of Christian Theology (Illinois:Inter Varsity
Press,1993),66-68.
6
 of something greater than the maximum. These conceptions may not consist in actual fact, but
we have no means of proving this one or the other. Conceivability also implies that there must be
limits to God and that in itself makes it highly suspect, as the mystical tradition reminds us. If we
answer that this objection is not valid because we conceive of God as the absolute being, we are
still left with serious problems of definition. How can we conceive of God as being omnipresent,
if there are creatures which exist outside of him? Or how can God be omnipotent, if other powers
exist, some of which are actually opposed to him?
5.1.2. The Aetiological Argument: the aetiological argument, which is sometimes regarded as part of
a broader cosmological proof, relies on the assumption that every effect has a cause. By tracing
the chain of cause and effect back to the beginning, we are supposed to come eventually to the
first cause, or prime mover, which by definition is neither moved nor caused itself. This very
Aristotelian argument was used by Thomas Aquinas and it became a standard feature of classical
Scholasticism. At first sight it looks very promising, but although it has convinced many
unbelievers, it has its own problems, which in strict logic are insoluble. For example, if the prime
mover and first cause is supposed to be itself unmoved and uncaused, how did it come into
being? And how can it be the cause of something else without some kind of movement? Another
problem is that this argument does not tie in very well with the belief that God is both different
from and sovereign over his creation. If he were merely the one who set the ball rolling, would
he not be one just end of a great chain of beings which together make up the universe? And then
what would become of the idea of divine providence, or control over the created order?
5.1.3. The Teleological Argument: This proof for the existence of God is twinned with the aetoligical
argument under the wider cosmological umbrella. It is different, though, in that it focuses on the
end of the universe rather than on its beginning. According to the teleological argument,
everything which happens has a purpose.16 There is a design in the universe, aspects of which
can be studied at a very level from the sub-atomic to the human. Such complexity cannot be
accidental; a design implies a designer just as surely as a watch implies a watchmaker.
Furthermore, a design implies a purpose, and it is this which distinguishes the teleological from
the merely aetological argument. Furthermore if the design is cosmic, as it clearly is, the designer
must be greater still i.e. a metaphysical being capable of constructing such an artistic
masterpiece. The teleological argument is more substantial than is either the ontological or the
aetological ones, but it is not without its limits. For a start, it is not clear that there really is a
single design which can be applied to the entire universe. Things sometimes happen which do
not go according to plan, and even scientific laws are not infallible. Proponents of teleological
argument may easily find themselves denying miracles, for instance, and therefore defending a
picture of God which is inferior to the one offered to us in the Bible.
5.1.4. The Ethical Argument: The ethical argument takes us out of the purely physical and into the
moral domain. Most people tend to assume that the latter is also spiritual, but it is important to
understand that this is not necessarily so. Hedonists would deny it categorically, since for them

16
Gerald Bray, The Doctrine Of God,Countors Of Christian Theology(Illinois: Inter Varsity Press,1993),69-
70

7
 what is pleasurable to the senses is right. But hedonism, although at times it has been widely
practiced, has always been considered immoral, and its few theoretical advocates have never to
overcome this prejudice for long. Materialists might also reject this assumption on principle,
though in practice their objections are usually formal rather than substantial. In fact, they quite
often incline towards Puritanism which demands a very high degree of spiritual-discipline. As far
as the historical debate about the proofs for the existence of God is concerned there can be no
doubt that the ethical argument has always been primarily as a spiritual one, although it
obviously has important material implications. That humanity has a moral understanding of sorts
is generally agreed, but problems come when we attempt to define it any further. Good and bad
doubtless have a meaning, but as we have already seen in the context of the ontological
argument, that meaning can be very subjective and arbitrary. One person’s meat is another’s
poison’ as the saying goes, and this is nowhere more true than in the spiritual realm. The
widespread agreement about moral matters which has been evident over the centuries in Europe
is very largely due to the benefits of common culture and civilization; where these has been
broken down, or have never existed, the moral consensus disappears. Morality and ethics is a
very pagan concept, not a Christian one. Aristotle was deeply concerned with it, as of course was
Plato. In their wisdom, they looked for behavioral norms by which to live, believing that people
could save themselves and their society by adhering to a logical set of principles. Modern
atheists who argue against the common 19th century believe that religion is a necessary buttress
for morality are merely echoing Plato’, who saw no need for the gods and their immoral
activities, and therefore rejected pagan Greek religion. On the other hand, it is true that the Bible
lays down principles which be called ethical, and the so-called ‘moral law’ was supposed by the
classical Reformed theologians to be one aspect of the old covenant which is still valid today.17
5.2. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ
With the resurrection of Jesus Christ rests the rise and the fall of Christianity itself, unlike any
other religion. The resurrection, if true, not merely answers the question, “Is there a god?” but it
also answers the question, “What sort of a God is he?”18
There have been several theories as to prove the resurrection of Jesus Christ as hoax. The Swoon
Theory accounts that Jesus didn’t actually die, but rather fainted and regained consciousness in
the tomb. Replacement Theory says that Jesus wasn’t crucified but someone was put in His
place. Another theory known as the Hallucination Theory says that the resurrection
appearances were hallucinations.19.All of these ideas have been rightly discarded by vast
majority of the contemporary scholars. The most popular scholarly alternative today is that the
resurrection is the product of a later mythologizing process of an original tradition that did not
include a supernatural return from the dead.20

17
Gerald Bray, The Doctrine Of God, Countors Of Christian Theology(Illinois: Inter Varsity
Press,1993),71-72.
18
Charles Joseph, “The Resurrection: Heart of the Christian Faith” Two Week Certificate course in
Christian Apologetics in RZIM Centre for Christian Apologetics, Chennai (May 14-25, 2018).
19
Ibid.
20
Craig L. Blomberg, Making Sense of the New Testament: Three Crucial Questions (Leicester: Inter-
Varsity Press, 2003), 68-69.
8
 Not only do the alternatives to Jesus’ bodily resurrection fail to convince, but six additional
arguments also provide strong evidence in favour of its historicity. Firstly, I Corinthians contains
Paul own testimony of Jesus’ appearance to Him, disproving all alternative theories. In addition,
there are more than a dozen other references to Christ’s resurrection in the indisputably Pauline
epistles written no later than the 50s (Rom. 4:24, 25; 6:4, 9; 8:11, 34; 10:9; I Cor. 6:14; II Cor.
4:14; 5:15; Gal. 1:1; I Thess. 1:10, etc. Secondly, no other explanation adequately accounts for
why the first Jewish Christians altered their day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, especially
when their Law made Saturday (Sabbath) worship one of the inviolable Ten Commandments.
(Exod. 20:8-11). Something objective, astonishingly significant, and a datable to one particular
Sunday must have generated the change. Thirdly, in a culture in which women’s testimonies was
often inadmissible in a law court, ho would have invented a foundational ‘myth’ in which all the
first witnesses to a hard-to-believe event were women? Fourthly, the restrained accounts of the
New Testament differ dramatically from the bizarre apocryphal descriptions of resurrection
invented in the second century and beyond. Fifth, in the earliest centuries of Christianity, no
tomb was ever venerated, separating Christian response to the death of their founder from
virtually all other religions in the history of humanity. Finally, what would have led the first
Jewish Christians to reject the interpretation bequeathed to them from Deuteronomy 21:23 that a
crucified Messiah, by the very nature of his death, demonstrated that he was cursed by God?
Once again, it is easier to believe and admittedly supernatural event than to try to explain away
all these strange facts by any other logic.21
5.3. Trinity
Trinity simply means ‘triunity’. God is not a simple unity; there is plurality in His unity. This
doctrine is one of the greatest mysteries of the Christian faith. The Trinity is at the heart of
orthodox Christianity. The basis for the Trinity is this: (i) There is one God and (ii) There are
three distinct persons who are God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God has one essence and three
persons. By this, we mean, He has one “What” and the “Whos.” The three Whos share the same
What (essence). So, God is a unity of essence with a plurality of persons. Each person is
different, yet they share a common nature.22
Each of them relates to the other Two in certain ways. These are somewhat analogous to human
relationships. The Bible’s description of YHWH as Father and Jesus as Son says something of
how the Son relates to the Father. Also, the Father sends the Spirit as a Messenger, and the Spirit
is a Witness of the Son (Jn. 14:26). These Descriptions helps us understand the functions within
the unity of the Godhead. Each is fully God, and each has their own work and inter-relational
theme with the other two. But the three share the same essence, so that they unify as one Being. 23
There are many critics – the Muslims in particular – who contend that it is incoherent and
contradictory. Perhaps no Christian concept draws so violent a reaction among the Muslims than
that of Jesus as the “only begotten Son of God.” This raises red flags immediately. It is often

21
Ibid, 69-70.
22
Norman Geisler, “Trinity,” in Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker
Books, 1999), 730-737.
23
Ibid., 730-737.
9
 misconstrued in a fleshly, carnal sense of someone who literally begets children through sexual
intercourse. A few cults, notably the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), approach this view of
“begetting”. Further, for the Islam, begetting is creating and for them, “God cannot create
another God.” This reveals the degree to which the biblical concept of Christ’s Sonship is
misunderstood by Muslim scholars. For no orthodox Christian equates the King James Version
translation of “begat” with “made” or “create”. Arianism taught that and was strenuously fought
wherever it has appeared in the Church history. Its primary adherents today belong to the cult,
Jehovah’s witnesses. 24
Furthermore, there are two primary heresies from which the Trinity is to be distinguished:
modalism and tritheism. The heresy of modalism also called Sabellianism, denies there are three
distinct eternal persons in the Godhead. It believes that the so-called “persons” of the Trinity are
modes of God substance, not distinct persons. Like water with its three state (liquid, solid and
gas), the Trinity is said to be only three different modes of the same essence. Unlike modalists,
Trinitarians believe there are three distinct persons (not just modes) in the one substance of
God.25
Muslims misconstrue the Christian view of God as tritheism rather than as monotheism, which
affirms the existence of three separate gods. For them, Allah has unity and singularity. But these
factors are not the same. It is possible to have unity without singularity, for there could be
plurality within the unity. For example, a human mind, thoughts and words have a unity, but they
are not a singularity, since they are all different. Likewise, Christ can express the same nature as
God without being the same person as the Father. Unlike the tritheists, Trinitarians do not affirm
a God with three different substances; they confess that God is three distinct persons in one
substance (Deut. 6:4; Mk. 12:29; I Cor. 8:4, 6).26
C S Lewis aptly puts it, “If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could
make it easier. But it’s not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing
religions. How could we? We are dealing with fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has no
facts to bother about.”27
5.4. The Problem of Evil
The problem of evil is a serious challenge to the defence of Christianity. If God is absolutely
good, then why is there evil? Although every worldview has to deal with the problem of evil, it is
an especially acute problem for theism. Of the three major worldviews, Atheism affirms the
reality of evil and denies the existence of God. Pantheism affirms the reality of God but denies
the reality of evil. Theism affirms the reality of both God and evil. Herein lies the problem: how
can an absolutely good Being (God) be compatible with evil, the opposite of good? As compared
to the other worldviews that affirms both God and evil, theism would seem to be in a more
disadvantageous position. Finite godism, for example, can claim that God desires to destroy evil
but he is unable to because he is limited in power. Deism, likewise, can distance God from evil
24
Ibid., 730-737.
25
Norman Geisler, “Trinity,” in Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker
Books, 1999), 730-737.
26
Ibid., 730-737.
27
Ibid., 730-737.
10
by stressing that God is not immanent in the world. for panentheism evil is a necessary part of
the ongoing progress of the interaction of God and the world (his body).
The problem for theism is that it not only believes God is all-powerful and could destroy evil, but
he is all-loving and should destroy it. Further, the theistic God is all-knowing and created this
world fully aware of what would happen. It is in the context of this kind of theistic God that we
approach problems of evil.28
According to St. Augustine, all that God created was good, but evil was not a substance. He said,
“What is evil? Perhaps you will reply. Corruption... But corruption exists not in itself, but in
some substance which it corrupts; for corruption itself is not a substance... to be corrupted, then
does not imply absence of good; for in corruption it can be derived of good, which could not be
there if there was the absence of good.” (On the Morals of the Manichaens, 5.7). We can deny
that evil is a thing, or substance, without saying that it isn’t real. It is a lack of things. When good
that should be there is missing from something that is evil.29
As for the answer to why evil is not stopped or destroyed, we see two answers. First, evil cannot
be destroyed without destroying freedom. Free beings are the cause of evil and freedom was
given to us so that we could love. Love is the greatest good for all free creatures (Matt. 22:36-
37), but love is impossible without freedom. So if freedom is destroyed, which is the only way to
end evil, that would be evil in itself, because it would deprive free creatures of their greatest
good. Hence, to destroy evil would actually be evil. Secondly, just because evil is not destroyed
right now does not mean that it never will be. The argument implies that if God hasn’t done
anything as of today, it won’t ever happen; assuming that the person making the argument has
some insight information about the future. If we restate the argument to correct this oversight in
temporal perspective, it turns out to be an argument that vindicates God.30
Another problem is the purpose of evil. Why so much evil? Firstly, we need to make a clear
distinction between our knowing the purpose for evil and God having a purpose for it. Just
because we do not know God’s purpose for evil, does not mean He has a good reason for it.
Pain also keeps one from self-destruction. A good example is of the lepers, who lose feeling of
the affected areas, as such, they hang on to something until it inflicts pain on them; touching a
hot pan, for example.
C.S. Lewis said, “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in
our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”31 Why would God allow His own Son to
suffer and die a cruel and violent death as a criminal when he had done nothing wrong and, by
nature, had no need to die? This injustice is very hard to explain unless there is some greater
good accomplished by Christ’s death which overshadows the evil of it. Jesus’ own explanation
was that he had come “to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mk. 10:45) and saying “Greater
love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends” (Jn. 15:13). Hebrews 12:2
states the purpose of Jesus meaning that the reconciliation of sinners was worth the suffering.
28
Norman Geisler, “Evil, Problem of,” in Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids:
Baker Books, 1999), 219-224.
29
Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990), 41.
30
Ibid, 41-44.
31
C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: Macmillan, 1962), 93.
11
 The higher purpose of and greater good derived from Christ’s death as our substitute for the
penalty of our sins is more important that the evil inherent in the process.32
5.5. Sexuality
To observe that we live in a society that is suffering greatly from sexual confusion or sexual
misconduct is not a novel insight. There is little need to provide a full set of statistics to
demonstrate the consequences of the sexual revolution in the mid 20th century, for what is not
familiar with the epidemic in fornication, adultery, domestic violence, divorces, and venereal
diseases? There is no particular reason to believe that we have seen the peak of the growth in
sexually related problems. Statistics do not really capture the pervasive ills attendant upon sexual
immorality. The realities of sexual immoralities touch every realm of life they affect people’s
ability to relate to friends and family; they affect people’s ability to do well in their studies and
jobs; and they affect the whole of society.33
During the 60s when the sexual revolution was in full swing, many argued that it would liberate
men and women from the repressive view of sexuality pervasive in the society; people would be
able to make love to those whom they loved without the strictures of marriage. Many pointed to
Christianity as the source of sexual repression. But the Christian view of sex is looking a lot
more like wisdom and common sense today than any time before. Christians no longer need to
offer apologies for their insistence upon sexual morality, for their insistence upon reserving sex
for marriage.34
For the Christians, at least seven principles can be discerned within God’s revelation defining the
positive value of biblical sexual morality. These work as a set, so that none works alone without
the others, and rejecting any one affects the whole thing.35
5.5.1. Sex must be personal (relational)
5.5.2. Sex must be exclusive (unique)
5.5.3. Sex must be intimate (profound)
5.5.4. Sex must be fruitful (productive)
5.5.5. Sex must be selfless (sacrificial)
5.5.6. Sex must be complex (multidimensional)
5.5.7. Sex must be complementary (unite corresponding difference)36

6. A Christian Response
C.S Lewis once stated that if one cannot explain a simple truth chances are that they do not
understand it themselves. In order to have a case of defense for Christianity, one has to have a
deep conviction on their faith, to have one’s doctrines carefully examined, understood and

32
Ibid., 45-47.
33
Janet E. Smith, “The Christian view of Sex: A Time for Apologetics, not Apology,”
https://stm.caedm.ca/hp_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Handout-The-Christian-View-of-Sex-Dr.-Janet-
Smith-1.pdf
34
Ibid.
35
Daniel R. Heimbach, Trued Sexual Moralit: Recovering the Biblical Standards for a Culture in Crisis
(Secunderabad: Authentic Books, 2011), 135
36
Ibid., 165-173.
12
convicted. The Scriptures also remind us that God’s Word abides forever and can never be
broken (Isa 40:8; John 10:35; 1 Pet 1:23). We are also reminded that faith comes by hearing the
Word of God (Rom 10:17). Knowing the Word, saying the Word and defending the Word are all
vital parts of apologetics.37
Jesus illustrates profoundly how we are to answer questions effectively. Most often, whenever
Jesus was questioned, He questioned the questioner, thereby enabling the questioner to articulate
their own assumptions and test their own motives, like the time when a lawyer asked Him,
“Good Master, what shall I do to attain eternal life.” Jesus’ counter-question as to why the
lawyer called Him good put his entire concept of God and obedience to test.
When Jesus said in Mark 2:22: “you do not put new wine into old wineskins,” he was
demonstrating how he was reshaping the thoughts of his disciples before he gave them a thought
to think about. The task of an apologist is to examine and understand each worldview, for every
individual has a worldview, and respond accordingly.
All reality is ultimately defined by the Holy Trinity, God who is a being in relationship. All
relationships have to be based on the recognition of truth. God is the truth. As we yearn for
meaning, we look for that which is not just enchanting but that which is perpetually so without
the high cost of ecstasy. “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full” (Jn. 10:10).
Apologetics therefore, does not depend on one knockout argument but in the response to the real
for which we all ultimately search.
In addition, the role of apologetics is to win a person, not an argument. That happens only when
real questions surface and the real value of questioner is upheld. Finally, it is the work of the
Holy Spirit that works in convicting the listener. Whatever approach we use, it is the very role of
the Holy Spirit that can bring true conviction.38

37
Ravi Zacharias, “The Church’s Role in Apologetics and the Development of the Mind,” Beyond Opinion:
Living the Faith we Defend, edited by Ravi Zacharias (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007), 314.
38
Ibid., 333-344.
13
Bibliography

Geisler, Norman. Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.

Zacharias, Ravi. Ed. Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith we Defend. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007.

Blomberg, Craig L. Making Sense of the New Testament: Three Crucial Questions. Leicester: Inter-
Varsity Press, 2003.

Boa, Kenneth D. The Apologetics Study Bible: Understand Why You Believe “What is Apologetics?”
Np: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007.

Bowman, Jr., Robert M. Orthodoxy and Heresy: A Biblical Guide to Doctrinal Discernment. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1991.

Bray, Gerald. The Doctrine Of God: Contours Of Christian Theology. Illinois: Inter Varsity Press,1993.

Chadwick, Henry. “Justin Martyr’s Defense of Christianity,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 47.
1965.

Criag, William Lane. Reasonable faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Illinois: Crossway Books, 2008.

Edgar, William. Reasons of the Heart: Recovering Christian Persuasion. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.

Everdell, William R. “Christian Apologetics in France, 1730-1790: The Roots of Romantic Religion.”
Texts and Studies in Religion, vol. 31 Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1987.

Geisler Norman L. and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990.

Howe, Frederic R. Challenge and Response: A Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1982.

Joseph, Charles. “The Resurrection: Heart of the Christian Faith” Two Week Certificate course in
Christian Apologetics in RZIM Centre for Christian Apologetics, Chennai.

Klapwijk, Jacob. Sander Griffioen, and Gerben Groenewoud. Eds. Christian Studies Today. Lanham,
Md.: University Press of America, 1991.

Lewis, C.S. The Problem of Pain. New York: Macmillan, 1962.

Mare, W. Harold. “Pauline Appeals to Historical Evidence,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological
Society. 1968.

Renick, Timothy M. Aquinas for Armchair Theologians. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.

Heimbach, Daniel R. Trued Sexual Moralit: Recovering the Biblical Standards for a Culture in Crisis.
Secunderabad: Authentic Books, 2011.

Webliography

Smith, Janet E. “The Christian view of Sex: A Time for Apologetics, not Apology,”
https://stm.caedm.ca/hp_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Handout-The-Christian-View-of-
Sex-Dr.-Janet-Smith-1.pdf

http://truthbomb.blogspot.com/2011/08/four-functions-of-apologetics,

14