9. Turning the Table on Unbelief

Throughout this series we have listened to many apologists. Two voices we have heard—Cornelius Van Til and C.S. Lewis, took quite different approaches. Here's how one pastor compared their styles. "The Van Tillian methodology was negative, to reduce the opponent to absurdity. The Lewisian methodology was affirmative, to persuade the opponent that they actually needed and wanted the Foundation and Anchor of Truth." And while folks might favor one approach over the other, aren't they both needed?

This was Paul's apologetic plan. Apologists must "destroy arguments" (2 Cor. 10:5). They also must "entreat … by the meekness and gentleness of Christ" (1).

Apologetic conversations aren't about hypothetical truths but about the most important matters of life. So we mustn't simply stick to the point brought up by critics. We must see ourselves as God's prophets "anointed to confess his name" and reveal the mysterious "counsel and will of God concerning our deliverance." Apologists aim to disrupt the status quo of the critic. Why? Because "as an outsider I don't need reasons to dismiss something. My ignorance of the subject is already doing a good job of that. I need reasons to take seriously something that I would otherwise dismiss."