I. The Identity of the Subject

The Meaning of Apologetics

Apologetics is derived from the Greek word, apologia.  This word is in turn derived from two Greek roots, apo (from) and logo (word or science). The standard Greek lexicon, BDAG, gives the meanings defense, reply, or excuse.  Its use in the New Testament is frequent.  The noun is used in Acts 22:1; 25:16; 1 Cor. 9:3; 2 Cor. 7:11; Phil. 1:7, 16; 2 Tim. 4:16; 1 Pet. 3:15.  The verb is used in Luke 12:11; 21:14; Acts 19:33; 24:10; 25:8; 26:1, 2, 24; Rom. 2:15; 2 Cor. 12:19.  A related noun meaning without defense is used in Romans 1:20.  These biblical uses of apologia and its relatives show that this word means defense.  These uses are consistent with the idea that apologetics is in general the defense of the faith.  Even more significant is the fact that several of these uses have pointed relevance to the defense of the Christian faith.  Many of these references speak of the legal defense that Paul and other Christians were called upon to make of their faith in a literal court of law.  Note particularly the uses in Luke and Acts.  These usages are, of course, not without relevance to the subject of apologetics.  Even more pointed in their relevance, however, are the usages in Philippians (1:7, 16) which speak of the defense of the gospel and the usage in 1 Peter which speaks of the defense of the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15).  This latter passage especially warrants careful exposition and will be the subject of such exposition in this lecture.  Both the passages in Philippians and 1 Peter assume that the Christian faith is capable of a reasoned defense.  On the other hand, the use of the related word, without defense, in Rom. 1:20 indicates that it is really unbelief which is defenseless.

Philippians 1:7 institutes a parallel between the word, defense (apologia), and the word, confirmation (βεβαιώσει).  This parallel word signifies according to one lexicon “to confirm, to verify, to prove to be true and certain, confirmation, verification”.^[1]  This definition is borne out by the single, other use of this word in the New Testament (Heb. 6:16 and also by the uses of the verb (βεβαιόω-Mark 16:20; Rom. 15:8; 1 Cor. 1:6, 8; 2 Cor. 1:21; Col. 2:7; Heb. 2:3; 13:9) and the adjective (βεβαίαν‑-Rom. 4:16; 2 Cor. 1:7; Heb. 2:2; 3:6, 14; 6:19; 9:7; 2 Pet. 1:10, 19). This parallel word indicates that the defense of the gospel is intimately related to its being verified or confirmed to be true.  Furthermore, it assumes that the Christian faith is and may be shown to be utterly certain.  As a result it may be fully relied upon and thoroughly defended.

The common definitions of apologetics are true to the usage of and concepts conveyed by these biblical words.  Webster defines apologetics as “the branch of theology having to do with the defense and proofs of Christianity.”^[2]  Cornelius Van Til calls it “the vindication of the Christian philosophy of life against the various forms of non‑Christian philosophies of life.”^[3]  It is thus that part of Christian theology in which we study how we know that Christianity is true and how we show this to others.  It is the science, therefore, of replying to the objections of unbelief.  Thus, it is often spoken of as the defense of the faith.

Such definitions assume that apologetics is necessary because of mankind’s fall into sin and unbelief.  B. B. Warfield, however, asserts that apologetics would have been necessary even without sin.^[4]  This statement as Warfield intends it contains certain false ideas.  Specifically, Warfield thinks that logical argument and extended reasoning derived from evidences which do not presuppose the God of the Bible are necessary if we are to have an intellectual right to our faith.  As we will see in these lectures, this view is wrong.  Yet, there is a positive value and need for Warfield’s assertion that apologetics would have been necessary regardless of the fall.  It reminds us that apologetics involves a science that is not a product of the fall.  This brings us to the second word.

The Meaning of Epistemology

Epistemology is derived from the two Greek words, επιστημη (knowledge) and λoγoς (word or science).  These root words suggest that epistemology means the science of knowledge.  Webster, thus, defines this science as “the study or theory of the origin, nature, methods, and limits of knowledge.”  It is, then, the science that answers the question, “How do you know?”  Observe several things about this science.  First, notice that epistemology does not, like apologetics, presuppose unbelief.  It is, if I may so speak, a positive science.  Epistemology, while it would not have been as problematic or, perhaps, as interesting in a world where there was no unbelief, would still have been a legitimate study.  Second, apologetics must, therefore, presuppose epistemology or an epistemological approach.  It is naive at best and disastrous at worst to suppose that we may engage in apologetics without serious consideration of epistemology.  Much of popular apologetics attempts to defend the Christian faith without a concern or word about the issue of epistemology. Such defenses of the Christian faith are in danger of minimizing the very fact which makes them necessary.  It is sin and unbelief which make apologetics necessary.  May we assume that such a radical evil has not impacted the minds and, therefore, epistemologies of those to whom we are defending the faith?  Is it not possible, if this is the case, that this very reality must be taken into account if our apologetics are really to leave our hearers without a defense?  Third, epistemology has to do with the most foundational philosophical issues.  It involves questions about knowledge and, therefore, questions about the nature and source of our knowledge of God.  Surely we may not talk about apologetics and, therefore, apologetic strategies and arguments by which to defend the faith and attack unbelief (which is what is properly meant by apologetics) until we have clarified to ourselves the nature and source of our knowledge of God.

II. The Necessity of the Subject

Preface

As we will see in our historical overview of and introduction to Christian apologetics, there is a part of the Christian tradition which has tended to reject apologetics as unnecessary and a waste of time.  This viewpoint has been associated with what has been called fideism (Fide is the Latin word faith.  Hence, fideism is literally faith-ism and implies the demand for faith without providing adequate intellectual grounds for believing.  Logically, then, fideism undermines apologetics.)  For this reason, and because it is important to underscore the practical necessity of the study of apologetics at the beginning of a course on the subject, the classic biblical statement of the duty of apologetics must now be carefully expounded.  That classic statement is found in 1 Pet. 3:15.

Introduction

Its Context:

1 Peter is a letter of encouragement to Christians suffering for their faith in a Gentile world.  Our passage, 3:15, occurs in a section filled with brief admonitions for suffering Christians (verses 8‑16).   Clearly, our duty to defend the faith is not suspended by our having to suffer for it.  Plainly, apologetics may be carried on even in the midst of persecution.

1 Peter is also a letter written to young believers (1 Pet. 2:2; 4:4) in contrast to 2 Peter, a letter written to the same churches at a later and more mature period in their life (2 Pet. 1:12; 3:17).  This is the original context of this key apologetic text.  How appropriate, then, for young believers who are members of our churches, to be trained to give a reason for their hope.  How necessary, therefore, that Christian teachers be able to train the new converts in giving a defense of their faith.

Its Theme:

Verse 15 is an admonition or command to Christians to defend their faith when they are called upon to do so. The key word is “defense”.  It means a reply, an answer, a defense.  It is often used of a formal or legal‑-even a courtroom‑-defense (Acts 25:16; 26:1, 2; 25:8; 2 Tim. 4:16).  There is good reason to think that the word means a formal defense in 1 Peter 3:15.  It is used with two other words with legal overtones‑‑to ask (aitew‑-Acts. 12:20; 25:3, 15) and a reason (logoj‑-Matt. 5:32; 12:36).^[5]  This does not mean that Peter is thinking of actual court trials in this text.^[6]  It does mean that he is thinking in terms of a more or less formal defense “to everyone who asks a reason.”

Its Outline:

1 Peter 3:15 divides straightforwardly into five points regarding our defense of the faith:

1. Its Nature
2. Its Prerequisite
3. Its Preparation
4. Its Occasion
5. Its Manner

1. Its Nature: “give an account of the hope that is in you”

• What is “the hope” that we are to defend?

For the meaning of “hope” note 1 Pet. 1:3f., 13, 21f. and 3:5, the other four occurrences in the letter.  It is a hope rooted in God, begotten by the gospel, looking for the eternal glory, which radically changes our lives.  In brief, our hope is simply our Christianity itself looked at as our hope.  It is this we are to defend.  It is the defense of the faith to which this passage calls us.

• What kind of defense are we to make?

The term translated “account” or “reason” is the Greek word, logos.  It connotes the idea of a reasoned statement.  Reymond says,  “The Greek word translated reason is logon, from logoj, which root, regardless of whether one would translate it “word,” “explanation”, “speech”, “sentence”, etc.  includes implicitly the idea of rationality, reasonableness, or thought.”^[7]  The Christian is to show that his faith is rational, reasonable, and factual not irrational and contrary to reality.  He is to show that his hope is grounded in truth and that his expectation will be fulfilled.

First Observation:

Reymond says, “The command clearly implies that the Christian faith is fully capable of a reasonable defense. The inspired apostle would not command the Christian to defend that which is rationally indefensible.”^[8]  John Brown asserts that this text teaches “that this hope is not a groundless one, a reason can be given for it, it can be defended.”^[9]  Christianity is, thus, not an anti-intellectual leap of faith.  Our hope has a rational and objective basis.  Apologetics is, therefore, possible, reasonable, and necessary.

2. Its Prerequisite: “sanctify Christ as Lord”

There is a necessary pre‑requisite if one is to boldly defend Christianity in the face of persecution.  One must resist being intimidated by the persecutor (v. 14b).  The question, however, which must be answered is,  How am I to do this? Verse 15a provides the answer in the words, “sanctify Christ as Lord.”  The Apostle Peter is alluding to Isa. 8:12 f.  We are to set apart Jehovah.  We are to exalt Him. He is holy—the separate one—, separate from us in His purity and in His transcendence.  We are to regard him as such so that in fearing Him, we no longer fear men and He becomes a sanctuary for us.  He is to be our fear and our faith.

Though there is a textual variant in 1 Peter 3:15, the probable reading is that given in the NIV and NASB:  “Sanctify Christ as Lord.”  In other words, Peter regards Christ as the Lord of Hosts of Isa. 8:13. We are to regard Him as the Holy One, set Him apart as our Lord and God, fear and trust Him as the supreme Lord.  We are to fix our hope in Christ as God over all and in doing this cease to fear men and be emboldened to defend the faith.

Second Observation:

The standpoint or starting‑point of the Christian’s defense of Christianity is that of faith.  Full confidence in the truthfulness of Christianity must be the fundamental presupposition of his defense.  This is implied both by the admonition to sanctify Christ as Lord and thus be always ready and also by the fact that it is the hope in us that we are defending.  Reymond says,  “the text assumes a heart stance of faith (‘the hope that is in you’):  on the one hand, a self‑conscious commitment on the part of the Christian; on the other, the recognition of this commitment on the part of the unbeliever who is asking a reason for the Christian’s hope.”^[10]  The implication of this is that we do not momentarily suspend our faith in Christianity when we come to defend it and adopt a position of so‑called “unbiased neutrality” in which we try to be open-minded or impartial about whether Christianity is true.  Rather our defense must grow out of our faith and hope and be built on the truth of the Word of God. The charge that will immediately be made against this methodology is that it is circular reasoning.  Are we not assuming at the outset that which we need to prove? There is a good answer to this charge but for the moment it is sufficient to note that the Bible calls on us to believe in Christ and regards everything short of that not as neutral objectivity or fair-mindedness, but as wicked unbelief.

3. Its Preparation:  “always being ready to make a defense”

• The Necessity of Preparations

The word translated “ready” means both ready and prepared. Literally, the original reads, “But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts ready (or prepared ones) always for defense.”  Cf.  Matt. 22:4, 8; Mark 14:15; Luke 14:17.  (The verb is used in Mark 14:12, 15, 16; Rev. 19:7, 21:2.)  John Brown says, “To be ready, is to be prepared when called on, to state and defend the Christian hope.”^[11]  The necessity of such preparations is confirmed by the courtroom analogy which Peter uses.  A lawyer does not rise to defend his case in court without thorough preparation, so too Christians ought not to be caught unprepared to defend their hope.

• The Nature of These Preparations

What, however, is the nature of the preparations we are called on to make?  How are we to prepare?  Our preparations must be both spiritual and intellectual.

• • Spiritual

The admonition to “sanctify Christ as Lord in our hearts” informs us that our preparations should be spiritual preparations.  By exalting and setting apart Christ as holy in our hearts and minds, by regarding Him as the holy incarnate God we should bolster and maintain a believing and reverent frame of mind.

• • Intellectual

Our preparations must also be intellectual.  The courtroom analogy which Peter carries through in the words, apologia, a legal defense; aitew, a legal inquiry or request; and, logon, a legal ground, points us to the need for intellectual preparations.  The term, logon, means a reasoned statement and implies the need for intellectual preparations. Christians must be able to give a “formal”, that is, reasonable defense of their faith.  This demands some form of intellectual preparation.  A defense of our hope must include two elements.  We must be able, first, to state and, second, to defend the hope which is in us.  In other words, we must understand what our hope is, and we must understand how to defend our hope.

Third Observation:

Being prepared (and thus making preparations of both a spiritual and intellectual nature) to give a reasonable defense of our faith is every Christian’s duty and therefore especially a Christian teacher’s or pastor’s duty.  (Hence this course is a necessary part of a normative, theological curriculum.)

4. Its Occasion: “to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you”

Several Comments are appropriate here:

(1) Peter assumes that the hope in us will become visible in the way we live and that people will, therefore, ask us about it.

(2) It is our duty to always be ready to answer everyone who asks.  Reymond says, “The command expressly calls upon every believer to be ready upon every occasion to give to everyone who asks the reason for his faith commitment.”^[12]  Violation, therefore, of this command is sin.

(3) It is not necessarily our duty actually to answer everyone who asks.^[13]  This is no command to respond to the baiting of mockers (Prov. 9:7-9; Matt. 7:6).  Those who are only seeking an opportunity to ridicule and make light of holy things should not (at least on some occasions) be answered.^[14]  They are not seriously or sincerely asking.

Fourth Observation:

There is the possibility of communication between believer and unbeliever.  This command assumes that there is common ground.  This may not seem to be a terribly profound remark.  Our study of the history of apologetics should, however, enable you to realize how important this statement is.  This has been a great issue among Christian apologetes.  Simply put, the problem is that the believer has nothing in common with the unbeliever spiritually (1 Cor. 2:14-16), but that is precisely the area of discussion in which all apologetics must move.  Reymond again aptly remarks, “This injunction expressly assumes the possibility of communication between believer and unbeliever, otherwise, the exhortation would be pointless.  The precise basis of this possibility of communication constitutes the apologetic problem of the nature of common ground or a point of contact between believer and unbeliever.”^[15]

5. Its Manner: “yet with gentleness and reverence” (NASB); “But do this with gentleness and respect” (NIV)

I would translate this, “with courtesy and respect.”

• The Meaning of the Phrase

The Greek word, prauteitoj, means gentleness or courtesy.  BDAG gives the meanings “gentleness, humility, courtesy, considerateness.” The word, fobon, means, of course, fear.  The question here is, however, whether this word refers to the fear of God or “respect” for men.  It would be easy to argue that Christians should only fear God, but never men (1 Pet. 2:17; 3:6, and 14).  There is certainly a wrong fear of men.  However, the New Testament and other texts in 1 Peter clearly indicate that there is a proper fear to be given even to sinful men for the sake of the divine order (Eph. 5:33; 1 Pet. 2:17, 18; 3:2).  Since this reference to fear is coupled with gentleness, it appears clear to me that it refers to proper respect for men.  Peter is speaking of a gentle and respectful demeanor toward the unsaved.^[16]

• The Significance of the Phrase

This phrase begins with a strong word meaning but or yet. The implication is that if Christians properly set apart Christ as Lord in order to defend their faith, they may easily fall into the error of being discourteous, disrespectful toward those with whom they are speaking. The reason for this is related to the very nature of a true Christian apologetic.  A proper defense of the faith takes its stand uncompromisingly in its faith in Christ and states unhesitatingly that there is no possibility that its position is wrong and not a shred of intellectual justification for any other position.  In a word, proper defense of the faith is totally dogmatic.  This dogmatic attitude in human affairs is often related to and associated with excessive zeal and pride which in turn give rise to discourteous and disrespectful behavior. Peter warns that there is no place for such things in a true defense of the faith.  A “you idiot” attitude must not be conveyed.

Fifth Observation:

Notwithstanding the “dogmatic” character of a true defense of the faith, our manner must be one of humble courtesy and respect.  The command to defend the faith and evangelize the lost does not exempt us from all the other commands of the Bible or from being sensitive to the dynamics and ethics of inter-personal relations.

III. The Approach to the Subject

The Necessity of a Biblical Approach

The general apologetic position which will be advocated in these lectures is that of presuppositionalism.  The precise meaning of this word will be clarified later.  Cornelius Van Til, the acknowledged father of presuppositionalism, did little exegetically to develop the biblical basis of his position.  Even though he claimed that his position was biblical and held the highest view of the authority of the Bible, yet he left the clarification of the exegetical basis of his apologetics to the other members of the Westminster faculty.  Thus, it is crucial that these lectures devote themselves to the exegesis and applications of important biblical passages and themes on the subject of apologetics.

But there is another and even more basic reason why I speak of the necessity of a biblical approach to Christian apologetics.  I believe that the Word of God is and must be authoritative for all of human life and, therefore, of course, for theological epistemology and Christian apologetics.  Furthermore, I believe that the Word is sufficient for every endeavor which the Christian ministry presses upon the Christian minister (2 Tim. 3:16, 17).  One of these endeavors is certainly the defense of the faith (1 Pet. 3:15).  Hence, it is both terribly foolish and downright illegitimate to fail to seek the source of theological epistemology and Christian apologetics in the Word of God itself.^[17]  It may be true that this methodology already assumes a certain (presuppositional) apologetic approach.  I think it does.  Whether it does or not, however, I am confident that genuine Christians—no matter what their apologetic preferences—will have a difficult time denying the propriety of my procedure.  In a word, theological epistemology and Christian apologetics are systematic theology.  As systematic theology they must be built on the results of exegetical theology.  But this brings me to a second point regarding the proper approach to this subject.

The Necessity of a Historical Approach

Just as we noted the priority of exegetical theology to systematic theology, so also we noted the logical priority of historical theology to that discipline in which our present subject is encompassed.  It should not surprise the student, therefore, to discover that I also speak of the necessity of an historical approach to theological epistemology and Christian apologetics.  There is much in many ways to be learned about apologetics from church history.  An understanding of church history will enable the student to understand the very technical terminology that is thrown around in apologetics.  He will be enabled to understand “where those he reads are coming from.”  Also, historical theology will (under the light of Scripture) begin to suggest the broad lines of a Christian apologetic.  We believe that the Spirit of God has prevented the church from totally departing from a proper defense of the faith.  But our interest in historical theology is in a very real and central sense much less focused on these impressive values, than on another very simple issue.  If the Bible is our answer key for Christian apologetics, it will do us little good if we do not know the proper questions to ask of it.  Score keys are of little value at all if we do not come to them with a list of questions to be answered.  So also our Bibles will be of little use to us, at least of little use to us as compared with the use they might be, if we do not come to them with the great issues and questions firmly in our minds which historical theology has debated.

^[1]Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, ed. by Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, vol. 2 (Bible Society of South Africa, Cape Town, 1989) 340.

^[2]Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, (The World Publishing Company, Cleveland, 1966).

^[3]Cornelius Van Til, Apologetics (Literary Licensing, 2011).  This is from an actual class syllabus.

^[4]B. B. Warfield, Studies in Theology, 4.

^[5]Lenski, 1 and 2 Epistles of Peter, The Three Epistles of John and the Epistle of Jude (Ninneaplis: Augsburg, 1964) 150.

^[6]John Brown, 1 Peter (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust) 2:90.

^[7]Robert Reymond, The Justification of Knowledge (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1984) 2.

^[8]Reymond, The Justification of Knowledge, 2.

^[9]Brown, 1 Peter.

^[10]Ibid.

^[11]John Brown, 1 Peter, 93.

^[12]ibid.

^[13]John Calvin, Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981) en loc.

^[14]The qualification is necessary because of the paradoxical balance required in Proverbs 26:4-5..

^[15]John Calvin, Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981) en loc.

^[16]Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980) 4:362, says “This fear is not the fear of God exclusively, nor that of men, but the respect for man, and humble reverence of God.”  Note also Leighton, 1 Commentary on 1 Peter (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1972)  328; Calvin, en loc.

^[17]I anticipate here the following question: Are you inferring that Van Til committed this error when he did little exegetically to develop the biblical basis of presuppositionalism? My response is that Van Til relied on the fine exegesis of those around him at Westminster Seminary.  Thus, he did not commit this error because his apologetics was bathed in and surrounded by the exegetical labors of men like Ned Stonehouse, John Murray, and E. J. Young.  

Sam Waldron

Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.