A Comparative Study of the Work of Apologetics and Evangelism

By Frederic R. Howe

[Frederic R. Howe, Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology, Dallas Theological Seminary.]

The purposes of this article are to seek to clarify the ongoing task of apologetics, to show its divergence from the work of evangelism, and to offer a challenge to the high and worthy task of carrying on both a biblically sound evangelism and a biblically consistent defense of the Christian faith. The words of Jude 3 epitomize the challenge as follows: “Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (NASB).

The very existence of the common salvation of which Jude wrote rested on the redeeming grace of God which had been faithfully proclaimed to Jude’s readers in the work of New Testament evangelism. These believers who had been evangelized were to enter into the sphere of defense or apologetics, setting the clearcut lines of difference between truth and error. This defense, which was a virtual polemic against false teachers, involved the kind of response projected in Jude 22: “And have mercy on some, who are doubting” (NASB). Granting the textual problems in this verse, one still can agree with the words of George Lawler concerning it:

It thus seems reasonable to take Jude’s admonition to mean that we are to extend mercy to those who may have leanings toward such things as are taught by apostates but who are hesitating in doubt…. It may well be that some of them are still hesitating, wavering, in doubt as to what is right or wrong and have taken no final step. Some may be disputations, to be sure, and under the influence of the apostasy, and attempt to support claims made by apostates. In either case, and in both instances, we must make every effort to correct their mistaken views and impressions, even to the point of rebuke if need be.[1]

Obviously, Jude had primary reference to a specific type of false teaching which had set itself over against the believers. The activity he urged on his readers at that time conceivably involved the field of polemics, in distinction from apologetics. However, these two fields in the present day have apparently overlapped significantly, so that the words of Jude can apply to the role of the defender of the faith today.

The Task of Apologetics

A description of the task of apologetics depends to a large degree on a whole battery of contingent factors. These include such things as the place of apologetics in the theological encyclopedia, and the actual system of apologetics being developed. On surveying some of these positions, however, it becomes apparent that the work of apologetics involves the careful study of and response to systems of interpreting reality which are opposed to the Christian Trinitarian system.

It is necessary first to review briefly the history of terms pertinent to this field of inquiry and how they have been used. The term polemics appeared more frequently in the past than it does now, but it dealt with subject matter that differed from the realm of apologetics, as noted by Beckwith:

Polemics is that department of theology which is concerned with the history of controversies maintained within or by the Christian Church, and with the conducting of such controversies in defense of doctrines held to be essential to Christian truth or in support of distinctive denominational tenets…. Theologically, therefore, polemics finds a place after dogmatics and apologetics…. The limits of the subject depend upon practical circumstances, the needs of the period, and the disposition of the controversialist.[2]

The term apologetics has a definite relationship to the Greek words ἀπολογία and ἀπολογέομαι. In New Testament times the word ἀπολογία meant defense. Its technical usage was limited to a speech of defense, or a reply to some specific charge, and it appears in Acts 22:1 in this way. The Apostle Peter writes, “But sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: being ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear” (1 Pet 3:15, ASV). The English word answer translates the Greek word ἀπολογία. The dangers of oversimplification in applying the passage to the whole realm of the defense of the faith are clearly obvious. The verse functions in a context particularly meaningful to the readers in the first century. However, on the basis that all Scripture has a teaching content and a vital applicatory message, believers of all ages can find a principle here. The principle is that one must be ready to give a careful answer. Readiness to give a cogent statement clearly implies preparation. The preparation involves a knowledge of the position which is defended, and the attacks brought against it. Along with an awareness of issues, furthermore, the Apostle Peter stresses an attitude of dependence on God. If the call is issued for the act of giving defense on the basis of this verse, it is imperative also to issue the call for the proper attitude in this activity, an attitude exemplified by New Testament believers in their defense. The apostle stresses an attitude of total dependence on God. Biblical meekness is not weakness, but rather is controlled strength. The passage teaches that believers are encouraged to be prepared to give defense, but this defense is to be devoid of all arrogance, pride, or self-sufficiency.

Some have felt that 1 Peter 3:15 has no bearing on the defense of the faith in modern times. They feel that the verse must be limited to the times that were faced by the first readers, when believers were called on to give specific and formal defense to the Roman world power. Passages in the book, such as 1 Peter 2:13–17, are cited to give credence to this viewpoint. The implication is thus drawn that 1 Peter 3:15 implies only a technical answer in the face of immediate confrontation with the world situation at that time, namely, believers facing the official stance of the government and having to give answer in a formal trial. However, Stibbs evaluates this position in the following manner:

Be ready, says the Greek, pros apologian, i.e., with a view to an apology, explanation, or speech in defence. Note the use of this word in Acts xxv.16; 2 Tim. iv.16, “answer”; and in Phil. i.16, 17, “defence.” The accompanying phraseology in this verse, however, combines forcibly to suggest something which might be called for at any time in the most informal and spontaneous manner. The verb aitein, asketh, suggests ordinary conversation rather than an official enquiry. The words always and to every man make the reference completely general and comprehensive. The Christian must remember that anybody at any time may ask him to explain and justify his Christian confidence…. The Christian is then to engage, not in an aggressive attack on the other person’s will or prejudice, but in a logical account (the word translated reason is logos), or reasoned explanation of the hope that is distinctive of the Christian community (cf. Heb. x.23, RV).[3]

From the primary meaning of the word ἀπολογία is derived the term apology. An apology means a statement of defense, directed specifically against one or more charges brought against the speaker and/or his viewpoint. By normal progression of thought, apologetics comes to mean the entire field of defense, a study of various attacks brought, and answers to those attacks.

Apologetics may therefore be defined as “a study of the clarification and defense of the total system of biblical Trinitarianism with reference to specific attacks against the total system, or against any of the basic elements inherent within the system.” Any definition of this subject will naturally reflect the method and approach of the one who gives the definition. It seems apparent, however, that certain elements are present in any definition given for this field of study.

First, there is obviously a core of truth to be defended and clarified. The first part of the definition refers to this core. It is not the task of apologetics to state or systematize this biblical core. However, in many cases, objections have been brought to points within this system, and the very nature of biblical defense demands that the position itself be stated clearly, so that no false ideas are present in the mind of the one who brings the charge.

Second, there is an ever-changing and ever-growing body of data assembled by opponents who bring attack against Christianity. Great sensitivity and awareness is demanded of the student of apologetics at this juncture. The defense must be firmly rooted in the biblical system, and at the same time the defender must be vitally and keenly committed to an awareness of what is being said against the position in contemporary situations.

The Task of Evangelism

A variety of opinions on what constitutes evangelism vie for attention and consideration. The Word of God gives the framework for this vital task. The Greek verb εὐαγγελίζομαι and its cognates are easily the central terms to be considered. The verb itself can be defined as “the action of proclaiming glad tidings,” referring specifically to the Christian message of salvation. An examination of Acts 8:35, 40; and 14:21 reveals that this activity has been carefully delineated in this description:

Evangelization refers to the initial phase of Christian ministry. It is the authoritative proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible in relevant and intelligible terms, in a persuasive manner with the definite purpose of making Christian converts. It is a presentation—penetration—permeation—confrontation that not only elicits but demands a decision. It is preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ for a verdict.[4]

Both the activity involved in and the aims set for evangelism must be grounded in sacred Scripture. As Packer puts it:

According to the New Testament, evangelism is just preaching the gospel, the evangel. It is a work of communication in which Christians make themselves mouthpieces for God’s message of mercy to sinners. Anyone who faithfully delivers that message, under whatever circumstances…is evangelizing. Since the divine message finds its climax in a plea from the Creator to a rebel world to turn and put faith in Christ, the delivering of it involves the summoning of one’s hearers to conversion. If you are not, in this sense, seeking to bring about conversions, you are not evangelizing; this we have seen already. But the way to tell whether in fact you are evangelizing is not to ask whether conversions are known to have resulted from your witness. It is to ask whether you are faithfully making known the gospel message.[5]

It is beyond the scope of this article to explore more deeply the ramifications of these descriptions. Evangelism definitely concerns each ongoing generation of believers (Matt 28:18–20). For the purposes of this study, evangelism is viewed as the full-orbed proclamation of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

A Comparison of Evangelism and Apologetics

Several distinctions between apologetics and evangelism must be made. First, apologetics as an activity appears as a constantly dynamic and changing study, due simply to the constantly changing flow of ideas in history. As has been observed, many of the world views which opposed Christianity were criticized and answered by apologetics in the past. Present-day apologists can learn from past defenders of the faith, but new problems demand new answers. By contrast, however, the work of evangelism will of necessity demand that no change be made in the actual content of the message. The message of the gospel must be viewed as a sacred trust (Titus 1:3), to be passed along to each generation without change. Perhaps the well-worn cliché, “changeless truth for changing times,” has been overworked. Nonetheless, while the workers in evangelism in each succeeding generation will constantly seek effective communicative skills, they must not change the message. This comparison must be made with the realization that both apologetics and evangelism are based on the entire Christian Trinitarian system.

Second, there seems to be a difference in the actual aim or goal of each activity. Warfield addressed himself to this area in a little-known but major study he did in his separate introduction to the work of Francis R. Beattie on apologetics. In this carefully constructed effort, Warfield brought cogent response to Abraham Kuyper, and set forth some principles that any student of apologetics needs to evaluate. It is interesting to reflect on the fact that Warfield, in June, 1898, wrote the introductory note to the English translation of Kuyper’s Principles of Sacred Theology. Warfield’s deep appreciation for the contributions made by Kuyper in that statement is clearly obvious. His differences with Kuyper notwithstanding, he exemplified dignity and courtesy. Such a spirit is incumbent on workers in the field of apologetics in this generation, and is often sadly missing.

The goal of apologetics is not primarily the actual conversion of the one receiving the defense to Christianity, as Warfield observed:

It certainly is not in the power of all the demonstrations in the world to make a Christian. Paul may plant and Apollos water; it is God alone who gives the increase….it does not in the least follow that the faith that God gives is an irrational faith, that is, a faith without grounds in right reason…. We believe in Christ because it is rational to believe in him, not though it be irrational…. We are not absurdly arguing that Apologetics has in itself the power to make a man a Christian or to conquer the world to Christ. Only the Spirit of Life can communicate life to a dead soul, or can convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment. But we are arguing that faith is, in all its exercises alike, a form of conviction, and is, therefore, necessarily grounded in evidence.[6]

Third, a different body of data pertains to each of these two disciplines. Evangelism has as its focal point the gospel itself. This fact is made clear in 1 Corinthians 15:1–2a: “Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand, by which also ye are saved” (ASV). One who communicates the gospel functions in a role delineated by Packer in this statement:

To teach the gospel is his first responsibility: to reduce it to its simplest essentials, to analyse it point by point, to fix its meaning by positive and negative definition, to show how each part of the message links up with the rest—and to go on explaining it till he is quite sure that his listeners have grasped it. And therefore when Paul preached the gospel, formally or informally, in the synagogue or in the streets, to Jews or to Gentiles, to a crowd or to one man, what he did was to teach—engaging attention, capturing interest, setting out the facts, explaining their significance, solving difficulties, answering objections, and showing how the message bears on life.[7]

Care must be exercised that one does not arbitrarily press this distinction between apologetics and evangelism as to content. Obviously when Paul preached the gospel, he was involved in close contact with people, and there seems to be every indication that he would answer questions and get involved in meaningful discussion. However, it also seems that the purpose of these discussions most often went directly to the argumentation involved in proving that Jesus was the Messiah and that the Old Testament verified this. The content of Christian apologetics, by contrast, includes the broader sphere of the entire Christian Trinitarian position. Perhaps this contrast is one of degree and emphasis.

Fourth, the end result of each activity differs. Evangelism finds within its domain a vital and earnest seeking for conversion from the proclamation of the gospel. This result is the work of God, to be sure, and not man, as exemplified in Acts 16:14: “And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, one that worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul” (ASV). On the other hand, while apologetics can serve in a realm of preevangelism, it seems logical to limit its intended results to the fulfillment of the task of giving an answer, and of presenting a reason for the hope that is within the believer.

However, who can ultimately fathom or even understand the massive work of God the Holy Spirit in this entire sphere of operations? Who can actually say that He would not be pleased, as He sovereignly moves, to use the arguments marshalled within the scope of apologetics to act as probing forces in the heart of an unbeliever? The actual proof of the veracity of these arguments, insofar as the inward response or acquiescence to the argumentation is concerned, involves the work of the Holy Spirit. It must be realized, however, that God the Holy Spirit does not authenticate or verify propositionally or historically inaccurate data. Warfield summarizes this issue as follows:

The Holy Spirit does not work a blind, an ungrounded faith in the heart. What is supplied by his creative energy in working faith is not a ready-made faith, rooted in nothing, and clinging without reason to its object; nor yet new grounds of belief in the object presented; but just a new ability of the heart to respond to the grounds of faith, sufficient in themselves, already present to the understanding.[8]

In summary, it has been observed that apologetics and evangelism do have some significant differences. Apologeties will be changing constantly, in its methodology, whereas evangelism will never change in the core of its message. The primary goal of apologetics is to give an answer, not to win adherents. The working materials available to each field differ considerably. And the results of the activity of each field seemingly are different. God the Holy Spirit works sovereignly as the gospel is proclaimed in biblical evangelism, and He vindicates the truthfulness of the Christian position. A defender of the faith, however, does not expect Him to function in this way in the work of apologetics. It is sufficient to have the answer presented by the Christian worker in apologetics. Obviously the worker must give an answer in the strength of the Holy Spirit. But he then calmly rests the issue with God Himself.

Conclusion

A striking illustration of how apologetics and evangelism overlap on some occasions is found in the life of Viggo Olsen, M.D. The fascinating account of his service in the country of Bangladesh is well known, as recorded in his book Daktar: Diplomat in Bangladesh.[9] Portions of that book have been reprinted in a small booklet entitled The Agnostic Who Dared to Search.[10] The story told by Olsen reveals that before he and his wife became Christians, they decided to embark on a detailed study of Christianity with the intention of rejecting it on intellectual grounds. Little by little, as they studied works that deal with data common to apologetics and evidences, all the while as unregenerate individuals, they were led step by step to see the truthfulness of the entire Christian position. Their study was no minor investigation or casual perusal. It was an exhaustive search into many of the deepest issues that are treated in textbooks on Christian apologetics. On strict historical evidence, this is a case study revealing that God is pleased to use deductive and inductive argumentation in the actual thought processes of an unregenerate person to demonstrate truth. One must say that this is the case, or else be driven to the unwarranted conclusion that Olsen is not telling the truth. When the Olsens later both trusted Jesus Christ as their personal Redeemer, they acknowledged that their entrance into the sphere of redemption was all by the grace of God. Throughout the entire process of the study in which the Olsens engaged, their mental facilities were functioning within the realm of the darkened understanding so vividly portrayed in the words of Ephesians 4:18. Yet since they are human beings in the image of God, they still perceived truth.

This same dimension of perception can also be seen in the case of the Apostle Paul. He was certainly unregenerate as these words indicate: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads” (Acts 26:14, NASB). These goads or searching, probing instrumentalities were operative and functioning within the thought patterns of an unregenerate man. This is obvious, since Jesus portrays Saul as actively resisting them, and he certainly could not resist that which he could not have the intellectual capacity to understand in the first place. Bruce’s comments about this process are appropriate:

This homely proverb from agricultural life suggests that there was already in the depths of Paul’s mind a half-conscious conviction that the Christian case was true. Stephen’s arguments were perhaps more cogent than Paul allowed himself to admit, and his demeanour at his trial and in his death made a deep impression on Paul. It was probably in large measure to stifle this conviction and impression that Paul threw himself so furiously into the campaign of repression. But the goad kept on pricking his conscience, until at last the truth that Jesus was risen indeed burst forth into full realization and acknowledgement as He appeared to Paul in person and spoke to him by name outside the walls of Damascus.[11]

Even as God used thoughts in the life of the Apostle Paul probing into his mind and conscience as goads, He used a rational process of testing and weighing arguments in the lives of the Olsens as guides along the way to His sovereign work of regeneration.

As is the case with any field of endeavor in the Christian realm, there is much work now to be done. The challenge to get to work in the actual doing of the task of Christian defense is mandatory. This present writer would like to lay down the gauntlet, so to speak, in challenging workers in the present day to a new effort in apologetics. A great deal of time and effort has been spent articulating major systems of apologetics, and pondering their relative merits and weaknesses. This is as it should be, for this is an important and even crucial matter. However, many avenues of intellectual activity are yet to be pursued in the defense and confirmation of the Christian faith. Regardless of the type of apologetic system espoused, the task must be accomplished. Reflecting on the urgency of this issue, for example, Killen calls for a renewed dedication to the real task of apologetics as he outlines a total defense of the faith against Communism, and proposes a truly biblical apologetic.[12]

Another case study is pertinent here. For years thousands of copies of a book entitled The Lost Years of Jesus Revealed have been sold.[13] This writer recently saw the work displayed in a standard bookstore in a shopping center. The unsuspecting reader is led to believe through reading this book that the very foundations of historic Christian Trinitarianism are false. Here is indeed a major attack against the Christian system. These words are just a sample of the approach followed by Potter:

When the Qumran manuscripts are properly recognized and evaluated in relation to the books in our very much edited and expurgated New Testament, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit will have to go, and will take with it the doctrine of the Trinity, which never was in the New Testament anyway.[14]

This type of accusation is multiplied throughout Potter’s work. In this same realm are the popular works of Hugh J. Schonfield. His book The Passover Plot,[15] just in its current paperback form alone, has gone through its twentieth printing (as of January, 1977). Doubtless his more recent book, Those Incredible Christians,[16] will have an equally wide circulation. Here is a worthy challenge: to set forth a carefully documented, well-written response to the attacks offered by Potter and Schonfield. Christian scholars have certainly offered some positive response to Schonfield’s position, but the response unfortunately has not had the same kind of circulation to which it is entitled, and which it should get. This is just a sample of the kind of “grass-roots” apologetic activity facing the current generation.

Since the, general reading public is now being given an opportunity to buy Christian literature attractively produced and in paperback editions in secular bookstores all across the nation, then why not take as an aim the production of well-written, attractively produced, paperback editions of works giving a solid defense of the faith in response to such works as those of Schonfield and Potter? At least the challenge is there, and it is mirrored all the more forcefully to this current generation when the words of Jude 3 are once again placed into perspective in the light of current attacks: “Beloved…I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (NASB).

Notes

1. George L. Lawlor, The Epistle of Jude (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1972), pp. 131-32.
2. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1911 ed., s.v. “Polemics,” by C. A. Beckwith, 9:109.
3. Alan M. Stibbs, The First Epistle General of Peter, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), pp. 135-36.
4. George W. Peters, A Biblical Theology of Missions (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972), p. 11.
5. James I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1961), p. 41.
6. Benjamin B. Warfield, “Introductory Note,” in Francis R. Beattie, Apologetics, vol. 1: Fundamental Apologetics (Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1903), pp. 24-25.
7. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, p. 48.
8. Warfield, “Introductory Note,” p. 25.
9. Viggo Olsen, Dakfar: Diplomat in Bangladesh (Chicago: Moody Press, 1973).
10. Viggo Olsen, The Agnostic Who Dared to Search (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974).
11. F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954), p. 491.
12. R. Allen Killen, “The Inadequacy of the New Evangelicalism and the Need for a New and Better Method,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19 (Spring 1976): 113-20.
13. Charles Francis Potter, The Lost Years of Jesus Revealed (New York: Fawcett World Library, 1962).
14. Ibid., p. 120.
15. Hugh J. Schonfield, The Passover Plot (New York: Random House, 1965).
16. Hugh J. Schonfield, Those Incredible Christians (London: Hutchinson of London, 1968).