prepping.com
Can We Be Neutral When We Defend The Christian Faith?
Why Truth Needs More Than Just Facts
Defending what we believe and hold to be true is a big part of many people’s lives. We often call this kind of defense of what we ultimately believe “apologetics,” which means explaining our hope or conviction. Some folks think this sounds like we’re making an apology, but it isn’t about saying we’re sorry.
Rather, it’s about clearly and respectfully presenting reasons and evidence for our beliefs. Remember that evidence and facts require a framework for interpretation. Now, defending the faith has historically taken different forms…
Some actually follow an approach that traces back to the Classical philosopher Socrates.
Others prefer a position they believe is rooted in the teachings of the Apostle Paul. Although there are many variations, it helps to see how these two ways of thinking compare when pressed to their conclusions.
A Unique Foundation For Defending The Faith
Alright, there’s some good reasons to care about defending the faith and understanding apologetics. After all, there are questions about the Christian faith that just never seem to go away. For example, people have always asked why God allows suffering, whether miracles can really happen, or if we can trust ancient writings. These questions are natural, and they deserve clear responses. Another reason is that we want to show that what we believe is not just a private feeling.
So apologetics has to do with objective truth, how we understand reality, and how we make sense of our experiences. I should also qualify by saying that the goal here isn’t just trying to win arguments. We should be aiming to help people see why we think this faith makes sense and how it can bring hope and understanding.
Some people worry that apologetics could mean watering down what is unique about the Christian faith as if we had to give up parts of our beliefs to make them fit into a more neutral worldview. A truly biblical approach is different. In fact, it’s about proclaiming that the nature of our faith stands on a very unique foundation. Jesus said, “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.” Matthew 12:30
Understanding The Antithesis
This foundation includes the idea that God reveals truth to us and that our thinking depends on this revelation more than we realize at first blush. Being neutral might sound nice or polite, but in the end, an attempt at warm neutrality really suggests that we don’t actually hold firm convictions.
Instead, a better way should stress that there’s a difference between how believers see the world and how unbelievers see it before we even get out of the gates to discuss or debate. This difference is sometimes called the antithesis, which basically means one side views the nature of reality in a way that the other side does not.
The antithesis goes way back to Genesis 3:15 “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”
Unlike Socrates, Paul taught that human reason can never be neutral.
Socrates and Paul: Night And Day Differences
A typical illustration of this contrast comes from looking at Socrates, the ancient Greek philosopher, and contrasting his foundational beliefs with the Apostle Paul. Interestingly, both men were put on trial in Athens, offering defenses for what they believed that were called apologies at the time. However, they argued in very different ways as I’d like to illustrate.
Socrates used a method that made human reason the highest judge of truth. He did believe in a guiding spirit or higher power. He called it the Demiurge, which was an appeal to myth. But he also insisted that people should be neutral in their thinking. He saw human reason as a spark of the divine that was not deeply damaged by ignorance or moral flaws.
In his defense, he appealed to facts to show his wisdom, logical coherence to show that the charges against him made no sense, good results that came from his teaching, the example of his own life, and finally, an inner, somewhat mystical voice that guided him. This ‘inner voice’ was his own autonomous conscience. This “moral compass” guided him in all his decisions and actions he said. Think about starting with an inner voice, compared to what the bible says is a place to start reasoning: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.” (Proverbs 1:7)
Paul Had A Very Different Idea
Now, many people who defend religious faith have tried to use some of these same lines of argument, believing that human reason on its own can take you all the way to God, or at least most of the way. On the other hand, Paul had a very different message when he defended his beliefs. He taught that human reason is never neutral. He said, “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)
Paul wrote that our thinking is clouded by sin and that people are actually hostile to the truth of God. He still used reason in his explanations but did not treat it as a separate power that operates apart from God’s revelation in Scripture. (He did not use autonomous human reason to legislate truth.) For Paul, faith and reason go together at every stage.
Paul argued that the truth about God does not become apprehended after it’s proven through evidence and rhetorical arguments. Instead, our ability to argue sensibly… in the first place… depends on the fact that there’s a wise Creator… who created us with the capability of knowing.
Ultimately, this knowledge means knowing anything at all. Paul again comments, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)
The Impossibility of Neutral Ground
Some people mistakenly say they want to meet in the middle and be neutral as if there is a plain, shared way of reasoning that everyone can agree on at the outset. This idea is popular, but there is a big problem.
Suppose we believe that God created us, including our minds, and sustains all of reality. In that case, our very way of understanding the world isn’t neutral at all. Darkness doesn’t get along well with light as we learn in 2 Corinthians 6:14-16, “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?”
In this case, we’ve already started with assumptions about reality, even if we weren’t conscious of them. These starting points might be an assumption that the universe follows certain laws or that our minds are capable of truth. But we might be missing a more profound question when we attempt to defend the faith by saying that anyone who looks at the facts logically will arrive at belief we do.
Ordered Or Chaotic?
Well, for starters… why should logic have real life applications if the world is governed by chaos and pure contingency, making the world random? How can our brains be trustworthy if there is no design behind them? Those bigger assumptions are actually part of our faith that God is the source of order and knowledge. This is why we say that ‘neutral ground’ in apologetics… the idea that there is some shared, unbiased way of reasoning that everyone can agree on… is a total misconception.
The bible is full of this “bigger assumptions” idea as Isaiah 55:8-9 demonstrates “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.’”
Why an “Antithetical” Approach Matters
More and more Christians are starting to believe that to be truly consistent, we absolutely must start with the conviction that God is real and speaks the truth through Scripture. Only then show that rejecting that starting point leads to confusion or contradiction. I would simply point out that if we start by granting that we can all reason together in a purely neutral way, we’re building our discussion on a very sandy foundation. And, we’ve already lost the argument in a sense. Apparently, Paul thinks the starting point for the wisdom of the world is pretty darn sandy…
“For it is written, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.’ Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.” (1 Corinthians 1:18–21)
Different Mindsets Start With Different Assumptions
A solid apologetics would reflect the “mindset” difference between a worldview where God stands at the center and a worldview where God does not. This is the antithesis: the idea that human reasoning makes assumptions and conclusions one way if that reasoning assumes God’s reality and another way if it does not. In other words, the antithesis is the fundamental difference in how believers and unbelievers view all of reality, and it is a key concept in Christian apologetics.
James 4:4 offers advice on maintaining a clear antithesis between the world’s ways and God’s ways: “You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”
This does not mean we ignore evidence or throw away logical thinking. Just the opposite. It means we recognize that deep down, the best explanation for the basis of logic and why evidence speaks to us… is that a wise God designed both us and the universe. When we defend the faith this way, we are not simply adding God on to a worldview that is already complete on its own. Instead, we are showing that no worldview is complete unless grounded in God’s truth from the “get go” as they say.
Revelation as the Ultimate Key to Knowledge and Understanding
The word revelation sometimes makes people imagine mystical visions or secret messages. In a Christian sense, it simply means God has made truth known in ways we can grasp. This includes the idea that God communicates who He is through creation, conscience, and most importantly through Scripture.
If we keep reason in one box and faith separate in another, we’re missing the point that they belong together. Just like a flashlight needs batteries before it can shine, our minds need God’s truth from Scripture before we can see the world clearly.
The Christian claim is that reason itself comes alive only when guided by the light of Scripture. This framework does not appeal to any such “inner voice” alone, nor does it rest only on autonomous human logic. Instead, it stands on the claim that God made us to know him and that this relationship conditions all our learning.
Reason and Belief Walk Hand in Hand
All of this means apologetics is more than a show of intellectual or rhetorical skill. It’s an invitation to explore why we believe something and share it with a kind and open heart. When done well, it shows respect to people who have questions and tries to remove needless barriers in their search for truth.
It should also humble us since it reveals that our ability to think depends on Someone far greater than ourselves. It points to a personal Creator who has given us both resonating capacity and emotions and then invites us to use them for his glory. When we do apologetics humbly, we need to know our own limitations and where the guard rails are:
“For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.” (Romans 8:7)
Faith is Not Against Reason
This does not mean we ignore deep questions or hope people will believe on a whim. It means we keep sharing that the concept that faith is not against reason but makes reason possible. It also means we let go of pretending that there is a purely neutral space with respect to human reasoning. There is no such space.
Instead, we point to the God who underpins our ability to think. This approach takes some confidence since it insists on a difference in perspective right from the start. Further, it’s an invitation to others to consider that a loving God might best explain reality, their own lives and ability to know anything at all. We do owe our friends and family the truth. The truth as stated by Jesus: “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'”
When we keep this in mind, our final attitude can be full of hope. We can trust that truth is not random or fragile, but Scripturally solid. When we know that, the real goal of apologetics becomes more clear… to let the light of God’s truth shine as brightly as possible.
The post Can We Be Neutral When We Defend The Christian Faith? appeared first on Off The Grid News.
New Posts (Home)
ChatBox
Popular Posts 
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
