Note: If you have not signed up to join my blog email list, please click on “contact” above and send me your name and email address. You will receive a personal notice when I post a new blog and avoid missing future blogs in this and other series. I do not share email addresses.

Part Twelve:  Responding to Atheists and Skeptics Using Offensive Apologetic Tactics?  

1. I don’t believe that God exists!

• If I gave you evidence that demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that God exists, would there be any reason for you to reject God’s existence? If so, I’d like to know why.
• There is no scientific, philosophical, or logical reason not to believe God exists. So is your disbelief in God just a personal opinion, or do you have some verifiable reason to reject His existence?

2. There is no proof God exists!

• As I see it, there are only three possible ways for the universe to come into existence. It created itself, it always existed, or God created it. Since the laws of physics and logic demonstrate that the universe is not eternal, nor could it have caused itself to exist, do you have another option besides God being the creator?

3. If everything that exists has a cause, God must have a cause!

• Only things that have a beginning have a cause. The God of the Bible is self-existing and eternal. Why would God need a cause?
• If God is the First Cause, what came before “first?”

4. Atheists can be just as morally upright as Christians. We don’t need a God to tell us how to behave!

• True, atheists can be just as morally upright as Christians, but why should they? If there is no God to communicate eternal standards for moral behavior and hold people accountable if they violate those standards, why shouldn’t people do as they please?
• If people disagree over what’s moral and immoral and are free to set their own moral standards – and if God doesn’t exist and set ethical standards – on what basis can we condemn pedophilia or infanticide for people who want to practice them?
• In Western civilization, traditional moral standards have their source in the Judeo/Christian religions. Doesn’t this mean the ethics atheists accept come from God? If not, where did they originate?

5. How can you claim God exists when there is so much suffering and evil in the world?

• For the sake of argument, let’s say that God doesn’t exist. What is your solution to human suffering and evil if there is no God to comfort people in this life and no hope for a future life where there will be no pain, suffering, and evil?
•  If God is all-loving and all-powerful and yet chooses to allow evil and human suffering to remain, He must have a good reason. Wouldn’t it be wise to at least see what that reason is?
• Why do you blame God for evil acts that people are responsible for—such as war, murder, rape, and child abuse?
• What does an atheist say to a parent whose child is dying of cancer? “Gee what a shame.” “Tough luck” “I’m sorry to hear that” (I think it was William Lane Craig who wrote this last response)

Note: If you have not signed up to join my blog email list, please click on “contact” above and send me your name and email address. You will receive a personal notice when I post a new blog and avoid missing future blogs in this and other series. I do not share email addresses.

Part Eleven: Responding to Skeptics Who Claim Evolution Is Undisputed Scientific Fact Using “Offensive Apologetics” Tactics 

 1. Evolution best explains the origin of life and the universe!

• How did our orderly universe evolve by pure chance from the disorder of the alleged Big Bang explosion?
• How can the universe suddenly come into existence out of nothing when no laws of physics can account for it? In fact, how could there have been laws of physics if nothing prior existed?
• How can you claim life emerged from non-life when the theory has never been observed in nature or performed in a laboratory?
• It’s been demonstrated statistically that even a four or five-billion-year-old earth is still not old enough for life to emerge from non-life and evolve into the myriad life forms on earth today. So how can you claim evolution best explains the origin of life?

2. Evolution is science; creation is religion!

•  Why should I believe that when the facts and evidence of science fit creation by divine design better than random, purposeless evolution? Can I suggest some material you can read by world-class scientists to prove this?
• The debate is not about religion; it’s about the facts and evidence of science. If scientific facts independent of Scripture best fit a creation model of origins, why would creation be just religion? 

3.  Evolution is a fact of science!

• Since it can’t be demonstrated that life originated and evolved through random accidental processes, isn’t that belief more faith than fact?
• Scientific facts are established through repeatable observations and experimentation. Evolution depends mainly on assumptions and speculations. How can you say evolution is a fact of science?
• Can you point to any verifiable transitional fossils showing one kind of animal evolving into an entirely different kind of animal, such as a half-leg, half-wing, or half-scale, half-feather? If not, aren’t you making an assumption?

4. All serious scientists are evolutionists!

• If that’s true, how do you explain the scientific work of Drs. Michael Behe, Stephen Myers, Jonathan Wells, Henry Morris, and thousands of other scientists—many of them well known in their respective fields—who are not evolutionists?
• Why should only evolutionists be considered “serious scientists?” Isn’t that a philosophical statement rather than a scientific one?
• There are thousands of creation scientists who were originally evolutionists but are now creationists. Are you saying they’re no longer scientists?

5.  Intelligent Design is all about a divine Creator; therefore,                      it’s religion.

• If Intelligent Design is religion, why do Intelligent Design proponents use the same scientific evidence secular scientists do and refuse to bring their religious beliefs into their writings?
• If secular science rejects any evidence not supporting evolution, doesn’t that make evolution a philosophical claim rather than empirical science?

Next week I’ll examine the existence of God.

Note: If you have not signed up to join my blog email list, please click on “contact” above and send me your name and email address. You will receive notices when I post a new blog and avoid missing future blog posts in this and other series. I do not share email addresses.

Part Ten:  Six Common Challenges to the Bible and Suggested “Apologetics on the Offense” Responses

Suggestion:  Before you read the examples of my responses in this and the following four blogs, try to think of your own counter questions. This exercise can be used for individual study, group discussions, Bible studies, and role-playing formats.

I don’t believe the Bible is reliable or even authentic!

• Have you read the Bible? If not, then aren’t you saying you don’t believe in something you know nothing about?
• What don’t you believe about the Bible, and why don’t you believe it?

You don’t take the Bible literally, do you?

• Why wouldn’t God say what He intends to mean?
• Why would God make us guess what the Bible means if He wants to communicate truth to us?
• What reason would God have for not making the Bible literal?

3. Everyone knows that the Bible’s unreliable because it has been translated so many times during the centuries!

• How do you know the Bible is unreliable?
• Where has the Bible been incorrectly translated?
• Thousands of Bible scholars believe the Bible is reliable and translated accurately. Why do you think they’re wrong?

4. Everyone knows the Bible is full of contradictions!

• What contradictions are you talking about? Can you give me some examples?
• Since alleged contradictions in the Bible have nothing to do with the Bible’s cardinal teachings, such as the deity of Jesus Christ, how would they discredit Christianity even if there were some?
• Even if a few minor copyist errors do exist, how does that prove Jesus Christ isn’t God and Savior?

5. Science proves Bible miracles never happened!

• How does science prove biblical miracles never happened?
• Miracles are a matter of history and verified by eyewitnesses. Can science prove anything historical, like the existence of George Washington?
• If a transcendent, personal God exists, aren’t miracles possible—even probable?

6. You can’t believe the Bible; it was written thousands of years ago!

• Where is the Bible historically or in any other way untruthful?
• What does age have to do with truth?
• The Bible is proven to be more historically reliable than any other ancient document. If you reject the Bible, do you reject the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and the Greek and Roman historians?

Next week we’ll respond to challenges concerning biblical creation.

Note: If you have not signed up to join my blog email list, please click on “contact” above and send me your name and email address. You will receive notices when I post a new blog and avoid missing future blog posts in this and other series. I do not share email addresses.

Part Nine:  Here Is Why Apologetics on the Offense is an Effective Tactic in Today’s Increasingly Anti-Christian World

As Christians, we need to challenge the erroneous and biased assumptions skeptics and other critics hurl at us. Indeed, we need to challenge any secular source that disseminates distorted and unsubstantiated claims about Christianity. Half-truths, distorted information, and speculations never reveal truth. They hide the truth. As we engage popular culture for Jesus Christ, part of our apologetic task is to point out that personal opinions, misinformation, and conjecture prove nothing. As I’ve heard it said, “One can sincerely believe in something and be sincerely wrong.”

Defending our faith is the heartbeat of Christian apologetics. Still, responding initially in witnessing encounters by applying offensive apologetic tactics, putting the burden of proof on the unbelieves, is successful because it brings to light speculation and hearsay by encouraging critics to justify their arguments and opinions. Combined with our sincere love for them, this method encourages critics of Christianity to think through and evaluate their own beliefs. When non-Christians conclude for themselves that there is no objective evidence for their faultfinding assumptions about Christianity, a small victory is won in the larger spiritual battle.

Christianity on the offense (the Socratic Method—see part one) aids evangelism in at least three ways:

1. We’ve begun to build a sincere relationship with skeptics through which the light of Jesus can eventually shine.
2. We’ve encouraged skeptics to evaluate their own positions on the issues at hand. They are forced to confront and mend weaknesses—if they can.
3. If critics conclude for themselves that their views lack objective, verifiable support, they may become more willing listeners to Christian perspectives. This can lead to opportunities for sharing the Gospel.

Try to apply offensive apologetic tactics initially in apologetic situations. It will significantly increase your effectiveness in apologetic evangelism and hinder or even stop the wrong thinking and unsubstantiated arguments on which many non-Christians rely in their attacks against Christianity. However, we must always be ready to give the Christian perspective on the issue at hand—defensive apologetics. So do your homework. Be prepared (1 Peter 3:15). ©

Next week: In each of the following five blog posts, I will list one category of critical statements or questions that skeptics typically bring up during witnessing encounters. I will include examples of relevant counter-questions Christians can ask in each category, which will obligate the skeptics to defend their position on the issues they raise. The five categories include Scripture, evolution, Jesus’ deity and resurrection, the existence of God, and moral relativism / religious pluralism.

Note: If you have not signed up to join my blog email list, please click on “contact” above and send me your name and email address. You will receive notices when I post a new blog and avoid missing future blog posts in this and other series.  I do not share email addresses.

 Part Eight:  More Generic Questions That Obligate Non-Christians to   Reevaluate Their Misbeliefs about Christianity

Last week’s blog looked at four of seven generic questions Christians can ask skeptics and other critics that will fit almost any apologetic issue we encounter. In today’s blog, we’ll look at the remaining three. Under each category, I explain the purpose and give examples of how they can be used in apologetic evangelism. The point of this exercise is to practice offensive apologetics for later application.

If . . . is true, can you explain . . .?

This category of questions raises issues that a skeptic’s position or worldview cannot explain.

• “If life evolved over billions of years, can you explain the virtual absence of transitional fossils when many thousands should have been discovered? In fact, why are there no transitional fossil parts, such as a half-scale/half-feather or a half-leg/half-wing?”
• “If the universe suddenly came into existence on its own out of nothing, can you explain how this happened when no laws of physics can account for it? In fact, how can something come from nothing anyway?”
• “If life emerged from non-life, can you explain how non-living chemicals can evolve into living anything, especially since it has never been observed in nature or duplicated in a laboratory?”
• “If Jesus’ resurrection never occurred, can you explain the eyewitness documentation that hundreds of people saw Jesus after His certified death on the cross and burial?”

 What is your solution to. . . ?

The idea here is to encourage non-Christians to see that apart from God, their worldviews can’t answer life’s difficult questions or hold people accountable who practice perverse moral behavior.

• “What is your solution to human suffering if God does not exist?”
• “What is your solution to the moral depravity so widespread in our culture if there is no God to tell us how to behave and hold us accountable?”
• “If moral behavior is relative to individuals or their societies, would you agree sex with children is permissible for those who want to practice it? Do you think child sacrifice can be an acceptable religious practiced?”

What difference does it make?

This last question helps non-Christians see that the criticisms they have about Christianity do not invalidate or compromise fundamental biblical truths and essential doctrines.

• “What difference does it make whether God created life on earth in six days or over billions of years?” Wouldn’t He still be the Creator?”
• “Even if the Bible contains a few minor errors—and I’m not saying it does—what difference do they make? Can you show me an alleged error affecting the Bible’s overall historical accuracy or essential doctrine, such as the deity and resurrection of Jesus Christ?” ©

Note: Good apologetics requires we are familiar with the non-Christian religions and secular beliefs. We need to do our homework and be prepared to defend our beliefs and why we reject theirs (defensive apologetics). ©

Next week I’ll summarize why apologetics on the offensive is an effective and even necessary tactic in today’s increasingly anti-Christian world?

Note: If you have not signed up to join my blog email list, please click on “contact” above and send me your name and email address. You will receive notices when I post a new blog and avoid missing future blog posts in this and other series.  I do not share email addresses.

Part Seven:  Generic Questions That Obligate Non-Christians to Reevaluate Their Misbeliefs about Christianity?

The remaining blogs in this series will focus on practical application. In today’s post and next week’s, I will list generic questions that Christians can ask skeptics and other critics that will fit almost any apologetic issue we encounter. Under each category, I will explain the purpose of these generic questions and then give examples of how they can be used in apologetic evangelism.

I don’t fully understand what you’re saying—can you elaborate?

This question requires critics to clarify their views. If they are merely parroting something they heard in secular culture, it will quickly become apparent. They won’t be able to explain what they mean. For example:

• “What do you mean Christians are intolerant? Aren’t you intolerant when you say I shouldn’t share my faith? Would sharing something that changed your life be intolerant?”
• “I don’t understand why you think the Bible is full of contradictions? Can you give me some examples?”

How do you know what you believe about Christianity is true?

This question challenges skeptics to give logical reasons for their anti-Christian assertions.

• “How do you know that Jesus, who claimed to be God and demonstrated divinity in numerous ways, isn’t God?”
• “How do you know Jesus’ resurrection is a myth? Eyewitnesses saw Jesus alive after His publicly certified death and burial.”
• “Why do you think the Bible is unreliable when eyewitnesses or their close associates wrote most of it—and much of its contents are confirmed by historical evidence?

 Where did you get your information?

This question challenges skeptics’ sources of information. Are those sources reliable? We want to help critics see if their misinformation about Christianity is a byproduct of secular culture.

• “Where did you learn that evolution is a fact of science? Have you examined scientific data supporting a creation model of origins?
• “Where did you learn that Jesus’ resurrection is mythical? Shouldn’t you get your opinion on the resurrection’s historicity by reading eyewitness testimony in the Bible and other historical documents?

Why should I believe your belief is more reliable than mine?

We should encourage skeptics to give the same evidence to support their views they expect us to support ours. We want them to realize they can offer no compelling reason for why we should accept what they claim.

• “Why should I believe The Book of Mormon is divine revelation when—unlike the Bible—there is no historical confirmation?”
• “Why should I believe in evolution when the fossil record and recent discoveries in astrophysics and molecular biology don’t support it?”
• “Why should I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God when he made numerous false prophecies—when not a single Bible prophet did?”
• “Why should I believe the Qur’an when it gives distorted information about Jesus and contradicts eyewitness testimonies in the Bible?”

Note: Good apologetics require we are familiar with the non-Christian religions and secular beliefs. We need to do our homework and be prepared to defend our beliefs and why we reject theirs (defensive apologetics). ©

Next week we’ll look at three more generic questions we can ask in response to the misbeliefs and negative assumptions critics raise against Christianity.

Note: If you have not signed up to join my blog email list, please click on “contact” above and send me your name and email address. You will receive notices when I post a new blog and avoid missing future blog posts in this and other series.  I do not share email addresses.

Why Is Offensive Apologetic Surprisingly Non-threatening? And an Example from the Evolution/Creation Debate

This week’s blog is the third of three benefits for applying offensive apologetic tactics when engaging confirmed unbelievers. As said previously, the goal of apologetics on the offense is to get unbelievers to conclude for themselves, rather than being told, that their present religious or secular beliefs on a particular subject are inadequate. Because unbelievers reach this conclusion primarily on their own, we don’t come across as trying to clobber them intellectually.

Offensive apologetics avoid a pitfall common in apologetic evangelism: raising the ire of non-Christians. When people feel shoved into a cerebral corner where there is no way out but to admit they’re wrong, they seldom do so. Instead, they get angry. Or they shut down entirely and refuse to debate any further. Or they cross their arms and irrationally reject the Christian view despite the evidence. As theologian Alister McGrath put it, “People find it difficult to change their minds if they are made to feel it is a win-or-lose situation. Bad apologetics creates the impression that changing your mind is equivalent to losing an argument. And nobody likes losing argument—especially in public.” (Intellectuals Don’t Need God and Other Modern Myths, 90).

Apologetics on the offense challenge unbelievers to reexamine their position without hammering the Christian point of view down their throats. We’re not lecturing; we’re asking questions. It encourages unbelievers to accept the Christian solution through their own reasoning channels. It tactfully reveals their viewpoint can’t resolve the same challenges they raise with Christians. It gives them a way to admit defeat on their terms.

Let me illustrate this principle. Suppose you are engaged in a discussion on creation versus evolution. Let’s see how the defensive and offensive approaches differ:

Defensive:  Let’s me give you facts. There are no verifiable fossils that show reptiles evolving into birds. Moreover, probability studies prove that mutations—given the age of the earth in evolutionary terms—can not account for the development of higher species from primitive species. Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence that life aroused from non-life in some imaginary chemical soup that supposedly existed before life on earth. The whole theory of naturalistic evolution is ridiculous and can’t be proven!

Now, let’s apply this same debate using offensive apologetics:

Offensive:  Let me ask you a couple of questions about evolution. I’d like to see how your view explains a few things I think the creation model explains more easily. For example, evolutionists claim reptiles evolved into birds. But no half-leg half-wing or half-scale half-feather fossils have ever been found that would indicate such evolution occurred. So how can evolutionists make that claim without verifiable fossil evidence?

I’ve read that probability studies demonstrate the earth isn’t old enough for mutations to account for the emergence of higher life forms from lower life forms. I curious, what evidence do you have that contradicts these studies?

I’ve recently read there is no known mechanism in nature that can cause life to spring from non-life. How can evolution claim that life arose from nonliving chemicals when there is no empirical evidence to support it?

Which response is less threatening? Making assertive statements (even if accurate) that inadvertently disparages evolutionists and likely shuts down productive discussion? Or asking legitimate questions that encourage evolutionists to rethink their assumptions, which can lead to an open-minded discussion of the creation model? Which approach is more likely to encourage a future opportunity to share the Gospel? ©

Next week we’ll look at the kinds of questions we can ask non-Christians that encourage them to reevaluate their misbeliefs about Christianity and their own worldview assumptions.

Note: If you have not signed up to join my blog email list, please click on “contact” above and send me your name and email address. You will receive notices when I post a new blog and avoid missing future blog posts in this and other series.  I do not share email addresses.

Part Five: How Do Offensive Apologetic Tactics Make Complicated Issues More Manageable—Such as Why Is There Pain and Suffering in the World If God Exists?

In last week’s blog, I shared the first of three benefits of applying offensive apologetic tactics, at least initially, in apologetic and other witnessing opportunities (“boomerang questions”). This week’s blog will look at a second benefit. Apologetics on the offense reduces complicated issues to a manageable size.

Bite-Sized Chunks

Many of the challenges raised by non-Christians are simple to state but complex to answer. In witnessing encounters, we often don’t have the time or in a good setting to respond adequately. For example, consider this popular argument against the existence of God:

If God is all-loving and all-powerful, as you Christians claim, He would not allow evil and suffering. But evil and suffering exist. Therefore, God is either not all-loving and doesn’t care that people suffer, or He’s not all-powerful and can’t stop it. Either way, God doesn’t exist as you Christians believe.

Entire books have been written in response to this argument, called the “problem of evil.” It’s impossible to give a satisfactory reply to such a complex and emotionally laden issue during a coffee break at work or a casual encounter at a party. But putting the issue back on the non-Christian (offensive apologetics) allows us to give a reasonable response that helps them see there is no solution to the problem of evil without God. Our reply can be something like this:

You’ve identified one of the biggest dilemmas confronting the human race, regardless of one’s religious belief. Not only Christians but for all religions and philosophies—including atheists—must deal with this issue. I believe that the Christian solution is the only logical and sustainable response to this problem, and I’d love to get together when we have more time and explain it. But for now, let me give you something to think about: If God didn’t exist, what is the solution to evil and human suffering? It’s easy to blame God, so let’s remove Him from the equation. What’s left? Can you think of a solution to evil and suffering without God?

I think it was Willian Lane Craig who put this kind of response bluntly: “What does an atheist say to the parents of a child dying of cancer? ‘Tough luck,’ ‘Gee, what a shame,’ ‘I’m sorry to hear that.'”

How would you respond to this question if God is out of the picture? The fact is, if Christian skeptics honestly investigate this issue, they’ll discover there is no better solution to the problem of evil than the Christian.

When dealing with complex issues, challenging the non-Christian to respond first by asking simplified questions achieves three things: First, it clears away peripheral issues and gets right to the heart of the problem: Is there a solution to the problem of evil without God? Second, we have put the burden of proof on the nonChristian to account for their erroneous anti-Christian assumptions that God either (1) can’t solve the problem of evil, (2) is the cause of it, or (3) doesn’t exist. And third, we have opened the door for further dialogue—a future witnessing opportunity. ©

Next week we’ll look at the third benefit of apologetics on the offensive: It is surprisingly non-threatening.

Note: If you have not signed up to join my blog email list, please click on “contact” above and send me your name and email address. You will receive notices when I post a new blog and avoid missing future blog posts in this and other series.  I do not share email addresses.

Part Four:  What Benefits Do Offensive Apologetic Tactics Have over Defensive Apologetics?

In my previous three blogs, I described what offensive apologetics is and why it’s an effective tactic when engaging the confirmed unbeliever. Beginning with this week’s blog—and the following two blogs—I’ll suggest specific benefits of offensive apologetic tactics over defensive apologetics, particularly as an initial response to skeptics and other critics. (See part two to review defensive apologetic tactics.)

First Benefit:  Boomerang Questions.

Continuing to apply the Socratic Method described in part one as an offensive apologetics tactic, this approach entails responding to challenges by asking the same kinds of questions critics ask Christians: How do they explain the presence of pain and suffering? How do they know their holy books are true revelation? How do they know their religion is true when it contradicts other religions that also claim to be true? and so on. As theologian Alister McGrath put it, “Too often, those who ask critical questions of evangelicalism fail to realize that those same critical questions need to be addressed within their own ranks as well.” (A Passion for Truth, 22)

Most non-Christians take their worldview presuppositions for granted. It’s an eye-opener when unbelievers discover they can’t answer the very critical questions they ask Christians. This may leave the door wide open for us to explain the Christian position on the topic under discussion.

I’ll illustrate this technique by presenting examples of typical questions unbelievers ask Christians. Notices all the Christian responses are designed to challenge unbelievers to respond to the very issues they raise.

Unbeliever: “You Christians can’t prove what you believe!”

Christian: “Then why don’t you prove what you believe!”

Unbeliever: “How do know the Bible is true?”

Christian: “How do you know your holy book is true?”

Unbeliever: “You Christians are so narrow-minded. You only think your religion is true!”

Christian: “Does your view make you narrow-minded? How does being narrow-minded make something untrue?”

Unbeliever: “If a woman wants an abortion, it’s her right to do whatever she wants with her own body.”

Christian: “If a baby is a human being, why wouldn’t it have the same right to live as the mother?”

Unbeliever: “We don’t need a God to set standards of good and evil. People can make their own moral choices.”

Christian “Then if I someone believes sex with children is acceptable, would you agree?”

The purpose of these kinds of “boomerang” questions is to point out that the same questions unbelievers think will stumble Christians they cannot consistently resolve themselves. People seldom think through their own beliefs. Religious and secular presuppositions are usually just taken for granted to be true. The right boomerang questions force unbelievers to rethink their assumptions. When they do this, they may be more willing to listen to Christian alternatives. And as I’ve demonstrated in my revised and expanded edition of Defending Your Faith; Reliable Answers for a New Generation of Seekers and Skeptics (Kregel Publications, 2019), Christians can justify their beliefs. ©

Next week we’ll see that apologetics on the offense can reduce complicated questions to a manageable size.

Note: If you have not signed up to join my blog email list, please click on “contact” above and send me your name and email address. You will receive notices when I post a new blog and avoid missing future blog posts in this and other series.  I do not share email addresses.

Part Three:  Should Christians Go on the Offensive When Challenged by Skeptics—and What Did Francis Schaeffer Have to Say About It?

 It’s been said that the best defense is often a good offense. In this week’s blog, we’ll see why this advice works great in apologetic and evangelistic encounters with skeptics and other critics of  Christianity. In the first two blog posts in this series, I explain how to do this. In today’s blog, I’ll explain why it’s effective and how the late theologian and philosopher Francis Schaeffer applied it.

Two Reasons Why Going on the Offensive in Apologetics Is an Effective Tactic

The first reason is it helps non-Christians realize their religious and secular ideologies can’t be substantiated. In other words, unbelievers discover they are unable to defend what they believe. They can’t muster evidence to support their views the way Christians can. If unbelievers realize this, they may be more willing to reconsider Christianity.

Second, it helps unbelievers see that their views of Christianity are erroneous. Non-Christians frequently harbor misconceptions about what the Bible teaches and misunderstand what Christians believe. More often than not, their opinions are a by-product of our secular culture—not the result of personal investigation. They are merely parroting what they’ve read or heard somewhere in secular societies.

What Francis Schaeffer Had to Say

Christians believe that all spiritual and moral truth are tightly bound to Scripture. If this is true, it follows that non-Christian religions and secular ideologies will eventually lead practitioners to a dead end. They may contain sparks of religious or moral truth, but the full light of truth will be absent. To pursue spiritual truth in non-Christian religions and philosophies will always end in failure. Theologian and philosopher, the late Francis Schaeffer, put it this way:

[I]n reality no one can live logically according to his own non-Christian presuppositions. . . . Regardless of a man’s system, he has to live in God’s world. If he were consistent to his non-Christian presuppositions he would be separated from the real universe . . . . [Thus] we ought not first try to move a man away from what he should deduce from his position but towards it. . . . . We try to move him in the natural direction in which his presuppositions would take him. We are then pushing him towards the place where he ought to be, had he not stopped short.” (The God Who is There, 126-127)

What Schaeffer is suggesting is that we urge unbelievers to follow their presuppositions to their logical conclusion. This is essentially apologetics going on the offensive, which we saw in parts one and two involves asking questions that challenge the legitimacy of their beliefs. When this is done, the unbeliever will inevitably discover (whether they admit it or not) that their religious or secular beliefs are untenable. They not only break down in terms of incoherence, but they are impossible to live with consistently without being “separated from the real universe.” Hence, they are incapable of leading to spiritual truth. ©

Next week:  In next week’s blog—and in the following two blogs—I’ll suggest specific benefits of offensive apologetic tactics as an initial response to skeptics and other critics. We’ll look specifically at why offensive apologetics can open the door to a productive dialogue with closed-minded non-Christians.