Oxford professor Alister McGrath has made a most misleading statement in his awkwardly titled book, Intellectuals Don’t Need God and Other Modern Myths. He says, “Apologetics is not about winning arguments – it is about winning people.”[1] In connection with this, the book has as one of its central theses that many, or even most, individuals reject Christianity not mainly because of any insuperable intellectual objections, but because of other factors such as existential applicability. Thus he writes, “Christianity must commend itself in terms of its relevance to life, not just its inherent rationality.”[2]

The rest of his book, also laden with problems, attempts to justify and develop this assumption and its ramifications in the practice of apologetics. I contend that his assertion is misleading, false, and dangerous for Christians who wish to conduct faithful and biblical apologetics; nevertheless, his assertion represents not only a minority view, but rather a popular notion of what apologetics should strive to accomplish.

To repeat, McGrath writes, “Apologetics is not about winning arguments – it is about winning people.” When winning arguments is contrasted with winning people, most people would not wish to immediately disagree even if they sense that there is something wrong with the statement, since to disagree might imply that they care more about winning arguments than about winning people. That is, if we define apologetics as concerned mainly with winning arguments against unbelievers, then it may seem to some people that we have been distracted from what is supposedly our main objective, which is winning people to Christ.

McGrath’s statement is misleading because it implies that you can lose an argument against the non-Christian, and in connection with losing the argument, still win him to Christ; it implies that there is no positive connection between winning arguments and winning people. But if there is no positive connection between the two, then this means that in a debate an unbeliever can show that Christianity is false, and then proceed to repent and believe the gospel anyway.

Of course, the Holy Spirit can and often does convict the mind of the elect regardless of your failures in argumentation, but this is different from denying a definite positive relationship between winning arguments and winning people. I may say, “Apologetics is not about hitting people in the face, but about winning people to Christ,” would it then be true that I may hit people in the face, and in connection with hitting them in the face, still lead them to Christ? On other hand, refraining from hitting people in the face is one of the things that is conducive to winning people to Christ, making it preferable and almost necessary.

One of McGrath’s errors is in confusing apologetics with evangelism. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines the word apologetics as a “systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine); a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity.”[3] On the other hand, evangelism is “the winning or revival of personal commitment to Christ.”[4] These definitions reflect common usage, and the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology agrees with them. It defines apologetics as “a systematic, argumentative discourse in defense of the divine origin and the authority of the Christian faith,”[5] and evangelism as “The proclamation of the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ with a view to bringing about the reconciliation of the sinner to God the Father through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.”[6]

Given these definitions, it is evident that apologetics is not the same as evangelism, however they may be related, but McGrath has confused the two. It would be more accurate to say, “Evangelism is not only about winning arguments, it is also about winning people to Christ; nevertheless, defeating unbelievers in argumentation may be the means by which God converts them.” Since apologetics is by definition about argumentation, McGrath’s statement is tantamount to saying, “Our arguments with unbelievers is not about winning arguments, but winning people,” or “Apologetics is not about apologetics, but evangelism.” But this is self-contradictory and false by definition. By replacing the meaning of apologetics with that of evangelism, there is no longer a word for expressing the meaning of what is properly called apologetics.

Another statement in the book brings up another common misconception about apologetics. Referring to the unbeliever’s mindset when hearing the gospel message, he writes, “The gospel is being evaluated, not on the basis of its ideas, but on the basis of its effects on people and institutions.”[7] To McGrath, this is supposed to count against the idea that apologetics is “to demonstrate the rationality of the Christian faith.”[8] A similar objection against the proper definition of apologetics is that many people reject the Christian faith not because they think that it is false, but because they have certain personal needs that they think the gospel cannot satisfy, whether these needs are psychological, social, financial, and so forth. Therefore, the objection goes, apologetics (or even evangelism) should focus on how the gospel addresses these needs rather than God’s command to the unbeliever to renounce his sins and affirm the truth of the gospel.

It is often true that, as McGrath says, “The gospel is being evaluated, not on the basis of its ideas, but on the basis of its effects on people and institutions.” However, this is precisely what is wrong with many unbelievers, and it is precisely about this that the Christian apologist must confront them. That the Christian faith is not evaluated according to its truth or falsity, but how well it “works” or makes one feels, is a lapse in rationality or even denial of rationality. Instead of adapting our approach to accommodate the unbelievers, it is our duty to confront and correct them on this.

What if people reject the gospel, not because they think that it is false, but because it will make them unpopular with many people? Should we then modify our approach to show them that Christianity will in fact make them popular, or should we instead argue that this is the wrong way to judge a worldview? If pragmatism is the predominate philosophy in a given society, must we then show that Christianity is the most practical of all religions and worldviews? Why not instead show that pragmatism is wrong? Rather than trying to show that Christianity is true according to the unbelievers’ false standard of judgment, we should show that their very standard of judgment is false, and that Christianity is true according to a true standard of judgment, and that this true standard judgment is God’s revelation to us. This is biblical apologetics.

There are so many false converts in churches today precisely because we have not been performing evangelism by preaching and defending the truth, but rather by satisfying the audience’s personal needs and wants, when the biblical gospel commands them to deny precisely those personal needs and wants. This same error explains why it appears as if the gospel’s “effects on people and institutions” have not been altogether positive. We must insist that if people refuse to come to Christ by the right message and for the right reasons, then they should not come to Christ at all, since those who profess Christ under these conditions are really making a false profession, and there are already too many false Christians in our churches to accommodate more of them. Neither apologetics nor evangelism is to “win people” at all costs – certainly not at the expense of the truth.

Having made the statement cited as an attempt to correct the traditional aim of apologetics, even McGrath proceeds to say:

It is the intractability of human sin, rather than any deficiency in the gospel, that underlies the fact that there are bad Christians. Sadly, sin is so pervasive that the Christian church tends to obscure Christ as much as she reveals him. It is only by the grace of God that the attraction of Christ and his gospel breaks through the tainted witness of the institutional church. That there are Christians who are not especially good is a testimony to the reality and power of human sin; that there are Christians who are especially good is a testimony to the reality and power of divine grace.[9]

This is at least a decent attempt at answering the problem McGrath brings up in his book, that the gospel does not seem to “work” as well as professing believers claims. We may also add that many, or even most, who claim to be Christians in our day are in fact false Christians, and thus the seemingly ineffectiveness of the gospel in their lives – they have never been Christians in the first place. In addition, even when we are referring to real Christians, McGrath’s answer shows that Christian theology is not contradicted by the fact that Christians still sin, so that our message is still true despite what the unbelievers observe. That is, Scripture never claims that Christians would be perfect in this life, only that they have been radically changed by God’s grace and power.

So, McGrath still uses a rational argument here, and one that refutes one of the unbeliever’s reasons for rejecting the gospel. But then, what is the difference between what McGrath does here, and the agenda of traditional apologetics? In light of what he has written above, it is difficult to explain how McGrath could disparage traditional apologetics as giving “the impression that Christianity is a set of ideas that some people accept and others reject.”[10] Instead, what McGrath has written shows his implicit acknowledgment that Christianity is indeed a set of ideas, or a worldview, that we claim as true and commend to the unbeliever as something that he must accept.

McGrath continues, “Yet Christianity is about ideas incarnated in history, about the embodiment of values in real life,”[11] but this adds nothing to the discussion, and does not excuse his inconsistency. His statement acknowledges that, whether they are “incarnated in history,” Christianity is still “about ideas,” and whether they are “embodied in real life” (whatever that means), “values” are still intellectual ideas and concepts. It appears that McGrath wants to distance himself from an intellectualistic apologetics, but he cannot seem to shake away from it, especially in his better and wiser moments.

Therefore, the premise that it is wrong or insufficient to think of apologetics as primarily concerned with winning arguments is baseless nonsense. Having correctly defined our terms, we have also established that we can distinguish between apologetics and evangelism without completely separating the two. Although many people are converted without extensive arguments, God often uses our arguments as the means by which he converts sinners. Apologetics often serves evangelism, but the two are not identical.

The aim of biblical apologetics is to demonstrate Christianity’s intellectual superiority over all non-Christian worldviews by using arguments, and this aim often (but not always) subsists under the broader purpose of evangelism. On some occasions, it may be the Christian’s main aim to defend Christianity’s intellectual credibility against the criticisms of unbelievers. That is, on some occasions, the primary focus may be on winning the debates themselves, and not on converting sinners, although God certainly can and will use some of these debates as occasions through which he converts some of his chosen ones.

We should remember that even evangelism itself serves the broader purpose of maturing the elect. That is, our primary task has never been evangelism; rather, our primary task is to bring the elect to maturity, and evangelism is only the first step in accomplishing this primary task. Thus apologetics is mainly about winning arguments; evangelism is a broader category that is mainly about winning people to Christ, which often involves apologetics; then, discipleship is a still broader category that is mainly about bringing people to maturity in Christ, which often involves evangelism.[12]

Scripture teaches that apologetics has as its end the total refutation of non-Christian intellectual ideas, besides providing an invincible rational presentation and defense of its own position. Given our above definitions for apologetics and evangelism, biblical examples do not always present them as separate procedures, but that they may occur at the same time. This is consistent with what we have stated, that we often perform apologetics in the context of and for the purpose for evangelism. But what we have established is that it is possible to distinguish between the two so that, despite their close relationship, we can separately discuss them. Therefore, apologetics is about winning arguments, and evangelism is about winning people to Christ. The relationship between them consists in the fact that winning arguments against the unbelievers is often the means by which God “presses home” the reality and truth of his revelation to sinners, and thus converting their minds by his sovereign grace.

Regarding Paul’s missionary work to the Thessalonians, Luke writes, “As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures” (Acts 17:2). The expression, “as his custom was,” follows the same grammatical construction as “as was his custom” in Luke 4:16, where Luke describes Jesus’ habit of synagogue attendance. Here Paul “reasoned with them from the Scriptures.” The English word translated “reasoned” (dialegomai) signifies a verbal presentation and intellectual interaction for the purpose of arriving at a logical conclusion. A.T. Robertson confirms that the word means, “to select, distinguish, then to resolve in the mind, to converse, then to teach in the Socratic method of question and answer…then simply to discourse, but always with the idea of intellectual stimulus.”[13]

Thus J. B. Phillips translates, “On three Sabbath days he argued with them from the scriptures, explaining and quoting passages to prove the necessity for the death of Christ and his rising again from the dead. ‘This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you,’ he concluded, ‘is God’s Christ!'” (Acts 17:2-3).[14] Similarly, Richmond Lattimore’s translation says that Paul “lectured to them on the scriptures,” and that he did this by “demonstrating and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead” (Acts 17:2-3).[15]

Paul carries out his ministry by lecturing and arguing, although these are precisely the two things that many modern Christians say that we must not do. They should be ashamed of how far they have departed from scriptural methods, and those of us who affirm the Scripture should harshly rebuke them for their apostasy. True Christians will remain faithful to the Scripture, so that instead of moving away from lecturing and arguing, we must get back to lecturing and arguing. In this age when most people misunderstand and malign the Christian faith, we must lecture about and argue for the gospel more than ever before. This is the strategy of the apostles, vehemently opposed by today’s apostates.

Paul’s preaching involves reasoning, arguing, and lecturing – all of which are highly intellectual activities. Arguing is an integral part of his evangelistic strategy. Moreover, rather than arguing for the gospel’s existential value – its ability to satisfy the unbelievers’ “felt-needs” or creaturely longings – he argues for the gospel’s central propositions, such as God’s revelation and judgment, and Christ’s incarnation and resurrection. He presents the gospel as something that people must believe because it is true, rather than focusing on its power to deliver them from such things as depression, loneliness, or meaninglessness. This is what it means to do apologetics – it honors the gospel and converts the elect by persuasively arguing that Christianity is true, and therefore must be believed. Paul says, “Now [God] commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). God imposes a moral obligation on humanity to believe all that the Scripture teaches, including Christ’s incarnation, atonement, and resurrection, so that no one can reject the gospel with impunity.

By their examples, the early Christians does not commend to us the modern anti-intellectual approach characterized by emotional appeals, with much drama and fanfare, but rather the highly intellectualistic strategy of academic lectures and rational arguments. This is the way to both reach unbelievers with the gospel and educate believers in the faith. Many people try to make the case that other evangelistic programs appear to be more effective, but since these are non-biblical or even anti-biblical methods, they can succeed only in generating false converts. If people are not converted by and to the true gospel, then they are not converted in any Christian sense at all; rather, they remain under the wrath of God, unsaved, and heading toward destruction.

Of course, our confrontations with unbelievers vary in degrees of formality. Sometimes we must defend the faith against professional academics, but more often the confrontations occur in our daily conversations with friends and associates. Whatever the case may be, the rational presentation of the gospel’s claims must always be present. People must believe the gospel not because they think that it will make them feel good or alleviate any personal inconvenience, but because they have come to believe that Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5).

Let us now deal with one popular biblical passage, from which many people derive support for deviating from the biblical pattern, and into their own anti-intellectual and so-called “creative” outreach strategies:

Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).

For now, we need to observe only one point to present the type of misuse under discussion. Paul says, “To those not having the law I became like one not having the law.” Why? “So as to win those not having the law.” But in the middle of his sentence, Paul adds, “though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law.” Although Paul is sensitive to the culture and background of those he tries to reach, he never compromises his Christian commitment or doctrine. He explains that although he “became like one not having the law,” he was in fact “not free from God’s law.” Paul never changes the content or the presentation of the gospel; he merely adapts to the non-essential cultural conditions that do not compromise the gospel. You must not become a drug addict to reach drug addicts, and you must not become a prostitute to reach prostitutes. Instead, following the apostles, you must lecture at and argue with them for the gospel, accommodating your hearers only on non-essential matters.

It is true that different people have different objections against the gospel, and in this sense, we adapt our message so that our presentation can have a direct effect on the audience. However, it remains that our response to any objection consists of rational arguments, and the object of faith proposed to them is still the ideas and propositions of the Christian faith. Therefore, all modifications in our presentation are only superficial – we may adjust the frame of our presentation, but not the essential content or approach.

For example, a person who claims to reject the gospel because of a scientific objection needs a different answer than a person who rejects Christianity because of a prior commitment to a false religion. But in either case, we use intellectual arguments to counter their resistance, and what we tell them to believe remains the same. Moreover, in the biblical or presuppositional system of apologetics, we can successfully refute both types of objections with similar arguments with only slight and superficial adjustments.[16]

There are many things that we can and should do to prevent cultural differences from hindering the gospel without compromising our commitment to pure doctrine in the process, as Paul indicates in this passage. Saying that we should “become all things to all men” as an argument against the intellectualistic view of apologetics and evangelism is pointless and irrelevant. Christians can be sensitive to the audience’s culture and background, but that does not result in any essential change in our approach and message.

Acts 17:1-3, cited earlier, refers to Paul’s evangelistic ministry to Thessalonica. Then, referring to his later ministry to Corinth, the Bible says, “Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks” (Acts 18:4). This verse again describes his approach to both the Jews and the Greeks. Against those who disregard the importance of winning arguments, Paul consistently argues for the Christian faith as a true and coherent system of thought. Luke writes that Paul “reasoned” (argued, discussed, lectured) with his audience, with the express intent to “persuade” (Thayer: “to induce one by words to believe”) all types of hearers.

Some people say that we must not argue with the young people of our day, since their culture is so adverse to intellectual discourse that they would completely disregard our message if we attempt to reason with them. In addition, since the people of our image-oriented television generation have an attention span of only several minutes, it is unrealistic to expect congregations to endure an hour-long lecture-like sermon filled with theological and philosophical information and arguments.

In reply, we first note that it is the biblical way to preach and teach the word of God through intellectual presentations and arguments, and therefore this approach is our only hope. Second, the people’s anti-intellectualism is itself an unbiblical and sinful attitude that we must rebuke and correct – by biblical and intellectual means. Third, whether they know it or not, their aversion to deep thinking about the ultimate questions is in itself an intellectual conclusion drawn from unjustified and unbiblical premises that they have implicitly accepted. These premises will surface as we press them to explain and justify their anti-intellectual and unbiblical mindset, quickly turning the situation into an intellectual confrontation. In short, the very belief that intellectual discourse is futile is an intellectual position that the Christian must challenge.

It is impossible to destroy anti-intellectualism by surrendering to it – to abandon doctrinal preaching and theological lectures so that we may give place to music, drama, dancing, and socializing only serves to foster the problem. We must not give the people what they desire, since they desire the wrong things; rather, we must tell them what the Scripture commands them to desire.

We must not throw down our weapon, “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Ephesians 6:17), just because deluded believers and hostile unbelievers tell us that this weapon is no longer effective. Instead, we affirm that “the word of God is living and active” (Hebrews 4:12), penetrating deeply into the hearts of men. Against any type of anti-Christian reasoning, including self-contradictory arguments saying that we should not argue, we can apply God’s word, which will certainly succeed by God’s power (Isaiah 55:11).

When preaching, we should not encourage the people to become or to remain imbeciles, incapable of grasping even the most basic theological sermon or lecture. We may need to accommodate their untrained intellect by preaching simply at first, but we must always preach biblically, and the law of God will make wise the simple (Psalm 19:7). Although we must allow time for the people to progress, we must not hold back forever, but we must declare to them “the whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:27, NASB). To do anything less is to perpetuate the spiritual famine in our churches today; it is impossible to gain biblical results while defying biblical methods.

Paul argues against unbelieving ideas all the time; it is an integral part of his evangelistic strategy, and it is part of what it means to preach. Similarly, concerning Apollos, Luke writes, “Apollos, a native of Alexandria…was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures” (Acts 18:24), and “he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ” (v. 28). Alexandria was the hub of Jewish-Hellenistic learning, and had library and university. Apollos, who was Jewish, was educated in such a setting of academic and philosophical rigor. He puts his education to good use in verse 28 by refuting the Jews in public debate, proving that Jesus was the Messiah. As with Paul, instead of disparaging his enthusiasm to argue, Luke casts Apollos in a positive light precisely because of his intellectual prowess and his ability to refute the opponents of Christianity.

Jesus also argued to defend his ministry and his message, and he argued so skillfully that Scripture says, “None of them could answer him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day to question him any more” (Matthew 22:46).[17] You should take time to read through the verses preceding this, especially verses 15-45. In them, Jesus proves himself a brilliant exegete (v. 23-33) and systematic theologian (v. 34-40); he resolves a doctrinal dilemma that the Pharisees raised against him (v. 15-22), while posing one of his own that can be resolved only by acknowledging that the Messiah was to be God and man, and that he is the one who fits the description (v. 41-45). He was a master of argument and debate.

Reading the Gospels with an anti-intellectual mindset, one easily misses the subtlety and precision with which Christ argues with his opponents on numerous occasions. Do we suppose that the guards were mesmerized by some sort of mystical power or non-intellectual charisma emanating from his person when they said, “No one ever spoke the way this man does” (John 7:46)? No, people believed because of the intellectual content that he words conveyed: “And because of his words many more became believers” (John 4:41; also Mark 6:2, Luke 19:48, John 7:15). In the Bible, effective ministry is never attributed to some sort of mystical presence or non-intellectual charisma, which many today erroneously call the “anointing,” but it attributes effective ministry to sound doctrine communicated through faithful preaching, rendered effective by the Spirit’s power.

More than several biblical passages command Christians, and especially ministers, to refute Christianity’s opponents. Paul spells out the nature of this conflict:

The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)

According to Paul, we are out to destroy every anti-Christian idea, thought, pretension, and argument. He is clearly describing an intellectual battlefield, where ideas are pitted against one another.

Many people suppose that the conflict is non-intellectual, but precisely the reverse is true – our conflict with unbelievers is mainly a war between worldviews, that is, the networks of intellectual ideas that structure our way of understanding and organizing all of our thoughts and perceptions. Christianity is a worldview – its gospel is an intellectual message that demands people’s assent, and that at the same time contradicts all non-Christian worldviews.

Paul’s language depicts a military campaign, with believers storming the gates of the enemy. We are involved in a war of ideas, and we are to advance God’s kingdom by intellectual communication, whether in speaking or in writing (Ephesians 6:19; John 20:31). Paul asks for his readers to pray for him, so that his preaching would be effective (Colossians 4:3-4); there is no alternative or backup strategy. We preach sound doctrine “whether the time is favorable or unfavorable” (2 Timothy 4:2, NRSV), and not just when doctrinal preaching is in vogue or acceptable to our audience. Preaching sound doctrine is the only program for advancing God’s kingdom and promoting Christian growth. Professing believers are made impotent when they misunderstand the biblical gospel or reject the biblical method for communicating it.

Paul teaches that “an overseer” of God’s people must be able to teach biblical doctrine and refute error: “Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work…He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it” (Titus 1:7-9). In our theological terms, a minister must excel in both theology and apologetics. The foundation for his theology and apologetics must be “the trustworthy message as it has been taught” – he must affirm and defend the biblical gospel.

However, the Bible does not only command the minister to excel in apologetics – it also commands all believers to learn how to defend their faith. Peter writes, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15). The command is to be able to answer “everyone who asks” about Christianity – that is, you must learn to answer or refute every person who asks about or even attacks your faith from any perspective, whether his question or objection is theological, philosophical, ethical, historical, or scientific. The necessitates considerable training in biblical theology and apologetics, which is every believer’s duty to pursue and every minister’s duty to provide.

As a Christian, you should know how to respond when unbelievers say, “Christians are hypocrites!”; “Christianity is narrow-minded!”; “Prove to me that God exists!”; “How can you believe in God when there is so much evil in this world?”; “How can a loving God send people to hell forever?”; “Why do you believe in the biblical miracles?”; “Why do you believe in creation as opposed to evolution?”; or, “What evidence is there for Christ’s resurrection?” When unbelievers challenge you with these and other objections, it is your duty to argue and win.[18]

Many Christians are extremely vulnerable to intellectual assaults from unbelievers because their ministers have not been teaching them theology and apologetics, and these Christians are not diligently pursuing such knowledge, either. And because many believers are so intellectually vulnerable, unbelievers no longer consider the Christian faith as having any intellectual credibility.

One reason behind people’s reluctance to define the aim of apologetics as winning arguments is the lack of confidence that they can indeed decisively win every debate against the unbelievers. If they know that they can indeed win every argument, then perhaps they would not be as anti-intellectualistic as they are when it comes to apologetics. Nevertheless, we must begin by giving believers a sound theological foundation, for if God’s people are constantly “tossed here and there by…every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14, NASB), then effectively apologetics would be impossible. You cannot defend the faith without first knowing about the faith.

Thayer rightly defines the word translated “an answer” (apologia) in 1 Peter 3:15 as “a reasoned statement or an argument; verbal defense, speech in defense.” Accordingly, Wuest translates the verse, “…always being those who are ready to present a verbal defense to everyone who asks you for a logical explanation concerning the hope which is in all of you.”[19] This is in harmony with our contention that apologetics is indeed about winning arguments by a verbal presentation of intellectual ideas.

Doing biblical apologetics does not mean that we woo the unbeliever into faith in Christ by promising him existential benefits, as if that is possible in the first place; rather, we confront the unbeliever with the truth of the gospel, and demand that he submits to it. Over and over again, the Scripture calls us to win arguments against unbelievers with the intention to totally annihilate their systems of thought, and that by this God might sovereignly convert some of them. Those who say that apologetics is not about winning arguments, or that the Christian life has no place for arguing with our opponents, have allowed contemporary concepts of social etiquette and religious tolerance to color their reading of the Bible. To state it bluntly, modern ideas of right and wrong have caused these people to reject the Bible.

Then, Jude writes, “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (v. 3). This apostle was eager to discuss soteriology, or the doctrine of salvation, but the urgency of the situation demands that he exhorts his readers to “contend for the faith,” that is, to do apologetics. The word translated “contend” (epagonizomai) carries the meaning of intense struggling or striving. “The faith” refers not to subjective belief, but the object that must be believed, namely, the Christian system of doctrine “that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”

Since the content of the faith has been “once for all” delivered to us, this necessarily means that it cannot be changed at a later time. This in turn means that those who attempt to “update” the content of our faith cannot at the same time claim to have a Christian heritage or to be friends of Christianity; rather, they are false prophets and damnable heretics. The gospel never becomes obsolete, nor does it “evolve.” Any effort to “update” or “modernize” it is just another disguised attempt to subvert the faith. There are false religions that claim to follow the Christian tradition, but since the true gospel has been established by the apostles “once for all,” it is not subject to change in the slightest degree; those who say otherwise have no real affiliation with Christianity. This means that we must denounce all liberal theologians along with all religions and denominations that falsely claim to be Christian, such as Catholicism and Mormonism. Paul writes, “As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” (Galatians 1:9). Anyone who preaches a gospel different from Paul’s will suffer the ultimate punishment.

Many people hesitate to accept the biblical meaning of apologetics because they think that it is somehow unkind, and therefore “unchristian” to argue. However, although the interactions between intellectual opponents can sometimes become quite heated, it does not follow that all debates are conducted in an overly contentious manner. Peter teaches us to do apologetics “with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15), but this is so that by our sound reasoning and good behavior, our opponents “may be ashamed of their slander” (v. 16). Likewise, Paul writes, “In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us” (Titus 2:7-8). By proper conduct, cogent arguments, and “soundness of speech,” we put hostile unbelievers to shame. Therefore, the Bible’s instruction to act kindly toward others does not exclude arguing against them, but it is given as a way by which we may embarrass our unbelieving opponents.

Many people assume that being kind and polite means that we must not embarrass unbelievers by exposing their stupidity, and much less should we sharply reprimand them for their false beliefs and wicked behavior. However, the Bible explicitly permits both:

Better is open rebuke than hidden love. (Proverbs 27:5)

When [Jesus] said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the people were delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing. (Luke 13:17)

Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, “You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?” (Acts 13:9-10)

Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning. (1 Timothy 5:20)

Even one of their own prophets has said, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith…These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you. (Titus 1:12-13, 2:15)

The Bible never says that those who walk in love must always be soft-spoken or non-threatening. Sharp rebuke can help some people become “sound in the faith.” One who contends for the faith with intellectual ruthlessness before a hostile audience shows his love for God and for the hearers. In contrast, the prophet Jonah ran from his mandate when God commanded him to call Ninevah to repentance.

Therefore, I exhort you by the authority of divine revelation: Argue! Maintain your Christian character while you argue, but argue with wisdom and with force; argue uncompromisingly and unrelentingly; argue to destroy every unjustified premise and demolish every unbelieving thought; argue to expose the intellectual bankruptcy of every non-Christian worldview. Do not let fools, cowards, and heretics dissuade you from your biblical mandate. Argue well, and argue to win.

[1] Alister McGrath, Intellectuals Don’t Need God and Other Modern Myths; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993; p. 12.

[2] Ibid., p. 9.

[3] Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition; Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2001; “apologetics.”

[4] Ibid., “evangelism.”

[5] Evangelical Dictionary of Theology; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1984; “apologetics.”

[6] Ibid., “evangelism.”

[7] McGrath, p. 68.

[8] Ibid., p. 68.

[9] Ibid., p. 71.

[10] Ibid., p. 68.

[11] Ibid., p. 68.

[12] I say “often” and not “always” because God does not always convert the sinner through what we call “evangelism,” since he can and does convert sinners “directly” through the Scripture.

[13] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 3; Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1930; p. 267.

[14] J.B. Phillips, The New Testament in Modern English; New York: Touchstone, 1988.

[15] Richmond Lattimore, The New Testament; New York: Bryn Mawr Trust Company, 1996.

[16] See Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions and Presuppositional Confrontations.

[17] Lattimore, New Testament.

[18] For additional instructions on defending the faith besides what is contained in this book, see Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology, Ultimate Questions and Presuppositional Confrontations.

[19] Kenneth S. Wuest, The New Testament: An Expanded Translation; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1961.