Insufficient Evidence

It has been suggested by many that the only effective method of preaching the Gospel to the unsaved is via apologetics, the rational defense of Christian doctrine. Now, of course, there is some truth to that. I mean, it is circular. The only way to preach the Gospel is to preach it rationally. Sure. But that's not what's in mind here. The idea here is that the only way to preach the Gospel to the unsaved is to approach the truth neutrally -- without the presupposition that Scripture is true -- and defend the faith via secular means. Authoritative declarations like "Thus saith the Lord" or, more likely, "The Bible says" aren't going to cut it. You have to explain rationally and evidentially why it's true without the use of the Bible because, after all, unbelievers ... don't believe. If they don't accept the Bible as authoritative, making authoritative claims from the Bible is useless. And, in a "secular" world, that would make sense. That is, if we are talking about a world where the five senses provide all the input and the mind is all there is, then that's what you have to deal with.

There are a couple of problems here. First is the historical problem. The Gospel of John, for instance, is full of what you and I would call "miracles" but what John calls "signs". The miracles are signs because they served as evidence of the truth claims of Christ. So Nicodemus said, "No one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." That was the idea. Miracles proved who Jesus was. I've heard this multiple times from skeptics. "If God would do a miracle in front of me, I'd believe." Well, you'd think that was the case, but it wasn't so, was it? In the story of Lazarus and the rich man, the rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus back from the dead to warn his brothers. Abraham said, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead." In standard prophetic manner, this is exactly what happened when the Jews saw the real Lazarus raised from the dead. Jesus waited until he was dead for four days (no doubt about his "dead" status) and then, in front of the Jewish mourners, commanded Lazarus to come forth. When he did, their reaction wasn't, "Oh, we've seen it for ourselves! You are the Christ!" No! "From that day on they planned together to kill Him." (And Lazarus, too! John 12:10) Evidence, you see -- even the best of evidence, irrefutable evidence -- is not sufficient to persuade.

The second problem is the notion that the Gospel is received by means of persuasion. It is true that we come to a variety of positions by means of persuasion. A teacher can show you enough times that 2+2=4 and you will be persuaded. It doesn't take a lot of effort to demonstrate that dropping a bowling ball on your foot is painful. These things don't take spiritual insight. We get them. In a secular world where the five senses are the primary input for the mind, these things work just fine. But Paul said that Natural Man doesn't accept the things of God, that Natural Man has been blinded by the god of this world. Jesus said that belief is granted from God, not acquired by argument. Paul wrote "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by proper apologetics." No, that's not what he wrote. You see, the second problem is that the apologetics approach assumes a natural world -- a world ruled by the senses evaluated by the mind -- but Scripture assumes another force. That other force is the Holy Spirit, the work of God. Thus, the Gospel isn't just a well prepared, well defended, well executed presentation, but "the power of God". Scripture is not just another truth statement we need to defend; it is the living Word of God. We're talking about a different dimension here that bypasses the sensory input and logical brain not because it is illogical, but because sinful man is broken.

I'm not suggesting that we abandon apologetics. We are commanded to make a defense. We are required to contend for the faith. In Athens, Paul took his logical defense to the Areopagus and presented it. That was apologetics. Indeed, God used that to bring some to faith. So I'm not suggesting that it's useless or that we should abandon it. On the contrary, we must embrace it. But Paul said that in Christ "are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col 2:3). Since we're dealing with people who cannot understand the things of God (1 Cor 2:14) and since we have the Word of God -- a power itself -- and the power of God Himself at work, it makes no sense to rely simply on rational defenses and secular reasoning in evangelism. Remember, the basic starting structure of sin is "Did God say?" Ignoring what God has said doesn't help resolve this problem. Relying on the reasoning capacity of fallen man doesn't help much either. Evangelizing with apologetics alone is like going hunting with a well-oiled, properly maintained, perfectly-sighted rifle ... and no bullets. God said, "So shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it" (Isa 55:11).