Introduction

1 Peter 3:15 is the classic place in Scripture on the topic of Christian apologetics. It is probably the best known of the passages that are related to answer giving. It is put to song. It is memorized. It is truly used as a primary text of Scripture on the matter of apologetics. This position is justified because the passage gives us all the basics of apologetics in a brief sketch. This text is in effect a paradigm: it gives an outline in miniature of all the essentials pertaining to this subject. It does so in a gripping context and in powerful ways.

Today I want to discuss another element in the apologetics paradigm. But before doing that we should review the three we covered last week: the Christian duty, the relentless quality, and the ultimate presupposition of Christian apologetics. It is a duty that belongs to all Christians (1 Pet. 3:8ff.). The relentless quality refers to the fact that we are to be always ready to give answers (v. 15). That is, we must always be prepared to prepare. It means to be always preparing (like military readiness; always in training) because answer giving is a process that includes dialogue, retreat, and forward advance. It means that we will be relentless in pursing answers (picture your head like an upper room that is to be well furnished, ready, and adjustable). The ultimate presupposition explains this relentlessness. Nothing takes precedence over commitment to Christ as Lord (v. 15). As the Christian life begins (Rom. 10:9-10) so it continues. It is all for the king and thus all that we do at every step must in submission to His authority. It is love for Christ that makes the Christian willing to do this duty and relentless in pursing it.

Now let's turn to the nature of apologetics another element in the paradigm. We can discuss this in two main points: nature of apologetics stated and applied. I was going to cover more elements today but this is too important and fundamental to pass over lightly.

1A. The nature of apologetics stated

Nature refers to the essence of something. It answers the "what is it?" question. So particular answers to various questions and challenges are not the concern here. This is a question about answering that needs to be answered first to help us properly approach any and all questions. As we face a barrage of questions about this and that ad infinitum, we need to figure out how to proceed at least in some general way. And the nature of what we are to do will help us immensely in the doing of it. This "what?" question will lead immediately to the "how?" question.

We begin to get a sense of what apologetics is when we reflect on two phrases in 1 Peter 3:15, "to give an answer" and "to give the reason." It is from the first phrase that we get the word apologetics. The word Peter uses sounds like our English word apologize (it is transliterated apologia, hence the term apologetics). Peter literally says, "be always ready to answer those who ask you for a word." So where do the translators get the notions of defense and reason? The ESV has "to make a defense" for the first phrase and like the NIV it has give a "reason" for the second.

The notion of "giving reasons" in verse 15b stems from the use here of a word for a courtroom defense or a defense of your good name in verse 15a (apologia, cf. 2 Cor. 7:11; 1 Cor. 9:3; Acts 22:1: 25:16; 2 Tim. 4:16). In 2 Corinthians 7:11 Paul speaks of the repentance of the Corinthians that resulted from his first letter to them. They expressed a godly sorrow that included an eagerness to clear themselves or defend themselves. Before Paul rebuked them they had been apathetic and didn't care that gross sin went on in the church while they sat idly on the sidelines. This is personal self defense in the context of being accused. How is this done? The charges include claims that aim at establishing the truth of ones guilt. Defense aims at establishing something else as true, namely, "innocent as charged." Earlier when the Corinthians put Paul on the hot seat, he gave his defense to those who sat in judgment on him (1Cor. 9:3).

Thus a process is indicated in which arguments and counter arguments are given. This process is especially evident in the actual courtroom context. In the book of Acts some apologia giving is stated. Paul gave a defense before the Jews at Jerusalem, at least partly because he was cut off in the middle of making his case (22:1, 22). This led to charges, removal from Jerusalem and imprisonment for Paul while he waited for a trial before the Roman officials. The Jews were ready, relentless, determined and prepared to ambush Paul if they could have him brought back to Jerusalem (25:1-5). The Roman official uses the term apologia in Acts 25:16 (in Roman law one has the right to face his accusers and defend himself from their charges). It is something reasonable (25:27) to not have this interchange with specific charges stated. Unreasonable here is the same term used in 1 Peter 3:15 translated "reason" but with a negative before it (word versus un-word). A verb form of the word is then often used (Acts 26:1-2; it includes what is true and reasonable, v. 25, and open to public verification-it was not done in a corner, v. 26).

Properly, the term apologia not only relates to a literal courtroom defense because Paul's literal defense at Rome is also gospel defense as indicated in the powerful passage in 2 Timothy 4:16-18 (cf. 4:1).

2A. The nature of apologetics applied

1) First, we should note how Paul's literal defense merges with his gospel defense and with our gospel defense.

Philippians 1:7 is a link between Paul's example at Rome and Peter's charge to us in the classic text. The either/or structure of the sentence should not deflect us from the impact of the passage (in chains or defending). Disjunctions like this often mean both rather than one or the other. Paul is not saying that in chains he does not defend the gospel (one versus the other). He is speaking of being in chains defending or not in chains defending. For our purposes, the important point is that either way the Philippians share with him in this grace.

2) Second, this means that Christians need to be mentally tough

We all share in this kind of answer giving. The Christian duty that applies to "all of you" (1 Pet. 3:8ff.) includes this reasoned defense that involves this interchange of arguments where claims and counter claims are bantered back and forth in order to establish the truth.

If it is a defense then it is appropriate to translate "word" (logos) as "reason" (15b). We are told to give a defense when asked for a word. Man asks for a word/reason and God tells us to give a defense. We have to be willing and ready to engage this "bantering" with an informed mental toughness.

3) It is at this point that justification of logic emerges.

Defense involves reaching a conclusion (like not guilty or your good name is cleared) based on solid support. Being asked for support, you are to show the connection of your support to your conclusion. In the technical vocabulary of logic, this implies that when you are asked for a reason you are to give an argument in which premises are used to support conclusions. It is to be a reasoned defense where there is a line of reasoning from premise to conclusion (from P to C on a vertical arrow). 

P (premises)

C (conclusion)

For example, premises may be given to support the conclusion that Daniel is properly identified as third in rank while second only to the Babylonian king, Belshazzar (we are to give reasons to show that that is not an error historically). The conclusion has to be confirmed by showing that the arrow (line of reasoning) hits the target.

We should be reminded that we are drawing an implication here regarding drawing implications. The WCF (I, VI) states that "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture…." We can deduce the duty of using logic from the nature of defense giving and logic involves the making of such deductions.

Perhaps it is helpful in this connection reach back or up to the most basic foundation of logic, which is the character of God and our place as God's image bearers (Gen. 1:26). God is truth; He knows Himself perfectly and He knows all things perfectly. Thus Jesus is the truth (Jn. 14:6). This must mean that He is logical or perfectly consistent because if there were some inconsistency than something would be false and true at the same time. But being true there can be no falsehood and thus no inconsistency. As His image bearers we are to be like Him in being logical.

This is not to over-intellectualize Christian faith but it is to intellectualize it. Christians are not to be un-intellectual or anti-intellectual. For example, a well-known Christian thinker whose name is hard to pronounce, Kierkegaard (1813-55), taught that faith begins where thinking leaves off. The mysteries of the gospel like the incarnation are an offence to reason. To know God you must go beyond the rational. To believe is to believe something objectively uncertain. There is no such thing as evidence only faith. God is only known in an intense and personal way (cf. A Brief Guide to Ideas by Reaper and Edwards, 105-106).

Such a view goes with existentialism, a philosophy of meaning that is subjective in its emphasis on emotions and personal experience. It is also associated with fideism that the defense of the faith is carried out by exhortation and personal testimony rather than rational arguments (as we shall see Van Til is charged with being fideist without warrant). But as we have seen, defending the gospel includes both testimony and logical argument. The Christian is called to be a critical thinker. Christianity is pro education and the development of logical skill in the use of knowledge.  Jesus tells us to come to Him for rest but also for learning (Matt. 11:28-30).

Conclusion

We have a duty to do apologetics in a relentless pursuit of the truth for the honor of Christ our Lord. That includes logical argument and reasonableness. These skills are properly part of development in the image of God (being restored) as we cultivate Christian graces in general. We are to be tough-minded for the king (pro rege!).