As part of last night’s discussion on the cumulative case argument for apologetics, we examined whether Acts, as a descriptive text, should be used prescriptively in evangelism. I want to first express my gratitude to Dan Kraft for engaging with me on the topic. His thoughtful approach is genuinely appreciated, and his commitment to a godly dialogue was evident. If I misunderstand any of his perspectives here, I invite him to correct me, as my intent is to represent his views as accurately as possible.

During our discussion, we discussed whether Acts offers a prescriptive model for evangelism, Romans 1’s relevance in conversations about God’s existence, and the role of 1 Peter 3:15 in apologetic contexts. My goal here is to delve more deeply into these passages, grounded in sound exegesis and a spirit of humility, both to clarify my own position and to encourage further reflection.

Acts as Descriptive or Prescriptive?

• Dan’s Position (as I understand it): Dan holds that Paul’s evangelistic approach in Acts should be viewed as a prescriptive model for how Christians today should share the gospel. He argues that Paul’s consistent approach throughout Acts—including his direct proclamation of the gospel rather than arguing for God’s existence—demonstrates a “biblical” method of evangelism, rooted in the conviction from Romans 1 that God’s existence is evident to all. By this logic, Paul’s lack of engagement in philosophical arguments for God’s existence serves as an implicit directive for believers to similarly affirm, rather than argue for, God’s reality when witnessing.
• My Position: I see Acts primarily as a descriptive narrative, chronicling the specific contexts and methods the apostles, including Paul, used to spread the gospel, rather than a prescriptive manual for all believers. In my view, the accounts in Acts serve to illustrate the early church’s growth, its challenges, and the flexibility of the apostles’ methods based on their audiences, without necessarily mandating that we imitate each aspect of their approach in every setting. To consider Acts as prescriptive in this way could inadvertently limit the scope of effective evangelism and ignore Paul’s own adaptability.

Exegetical Analysis:

Acts, written by Luke, presents a historical account of the early church’s growth and includes a variety of evangelistic methods adapted to diverse contexts. For instance, Paul’s approach to Jewish audiences differs from his engagement with Greek philosophers in Athens (Acts 17). The fact that Paul changes his method based on the audience suggests flexibility rather than rigidity. If we understand Acts as prescriptive, we might risk limiting the range of methods allowed in evangelism, contradicting the nuanced, contextual approach that Paul himself models.

If Dan believes all Christians must follow Paul’s methods exactly as described in Acts, I respect his consistency in seeking a biblical foundation. However, I see Acts as primarily historical, intending to inform and inspire rather than dictate a single method. If I’m wrong on this point, I encourage Dan to offer further clarification. Consequently, I think Dan is committing a hermeneutical error.

Romans 15:4 and 1 Corinthians 10:11

One moment in the discussion where I admittedly was taken by surprise was Dan’s use of Romans 15:4 and 1 Corinthians 10:11 as the “biblical answer” to why there are “historical books” included in the Old Testament, linking them to the way the book of Acts is seen in the New Testament. I wasn’t prepared for this, and since have noticed a missed opportunity I had at this point in the discussion. Here are the perspectives and breakdowns:

• Dan’s Perspective: Dan referenced these verses to argue that all Scripture, including Acts, was written for our instruction, thus supporting a prescriptive reading of Paul’s approach.
• My Perspective: I believe these verses speak more to moral and spiritual instruction rather than prescribing an evangelistic or apologetic methodology.

A deeper Analysis of these verses:

Romans 15:4

• Context and Purpose: Romans 15:4 states, “For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” In the broader context of Romans 15, Paul addresses the unity of believers, urging the “strong” and “weak” to bear with each other, follow Christ’s example, and live in harmony. Paul’s appeal to the Scriptures here supports his encouragement for mutual endurance and the communal hope shared by believers.
• Focus on Endurance and Hope: Paul’s phrasing suggests that the purpose of the Old Testament writings is to instill perseverance and encourage believers in times of difficulty. The “endurance” Paul mentions is tied to a capacity for resilience, often in the face of persecution, hardship, or challenges within the Christian community. This is not a directive for evangelistic or apologetic method but rather an affirmation of Scripture as a source of strength and resolve.
• Scripture as a Guide for Personal and Communal Growth: Paul’s reference here highlights the Old Testament’s value for guiding moral and spiritual formation within the church. By seeing how God sustained His people, believers are encouraged to hold fast to faith. The instruction of “whatever was written” points to a broad applicability, suggesting that all Old Testament Scripture contributes to the believer’s spiritual foundation, developing character and hope through examples of faithfulness.

1 Corinthians 10:11

• Context and Purpose: In 1 Corinthians 10:11, Paul writes, “Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.” Leading up to this verse, Paul recounts the moral failures of the Israelites in the wilderness—idolatry, immorality, testing God, and grumbling. Paul’s aim is to caution the Corinthian believers against repeating these mistakes, stressing that their lives as New Covenant believers require vigilance and integrity.
• A “Warning” for Godly Living: The term “example” (Greek: typos) implies a pattern or model meant to teach a lesson. Here, the emphasis is on learning from Israel’s errors to avoid similar pitfalls. The phrase “for our instruction” conveys a moral and ethical intent, underscoring the importance of holy living and cautioning against complacency. Paul uses Israel’s story as a solemn reminder, not as a model for how to conduct apologetics or evangelism, but as a call for self-examination and personal sanctification.
• Relevance to New Testament Believers: Paul’s use of “on whom the end of the ages has come” signals an eschatological urgency. Believers, standing in the fulfillment of God’s redemptive plan, are urged to live with heightened awareness and commitment. This passage serves as a moral and spiritual instruction for Christian conduct, aimed at fostering maturity and discernment within the church body, rather than offering a formula for external evangelistic methods.

The Formative Role of Scripture in Christian Life

• Spiritual and Ethical Formation:

Both Romans 15:4 and 1 Corinthians 10:11 point to Scripture’s role in shaping the inner life of the believer. These verses underscore that Scripture acts as a tutor, leading believers to develop virtues like patience, faithfulness, and resilience. By looking at Israel’s history and the fulfillment of promises, Christians are equipped to build lives marked by integrity and perseverance.

• Scripture as Instruction for Growth, Not Methodology:

The emphasis in both verses is on personal and communal transformation rather than prescriptive methods for evangelism or apologetics. They highlight the Old Testament’s instructive power, providing believers with examples to emulate or avoid, reinforcing the view that these passages serve as guides for character formation. If these verses were intended as directives for methodology, we might expect clearer connections to specific evangelistic or apologetic practices.

If Dan sees these passages as supporting a particular apologetic approach, I can understand his reasoning in linking them to the narrative examples in Acts. However, I interpret these verses as broadly encouraging Christian living, focusing on the ethical and spiritual formation that equips believers for faithful witness. In this sense, they function as a foundation for enduring faith rather than prescribing specific methods for engaging others. Therefore, I would, in retrospect, kindly point out that Dan is misapplying these texts.

Romans 1: Does It Preclude Arguing for God’s Existence?

• Dan’s Perspective (as I understand it): Dan suggests that Romans 1 renders arguments for God’s existence unnecessary. He interprets this passage to mean that because God’s existence is evident in creation, there is no need to argue for it, particularly in evangelism. According to this view, Romans 1 provides a sufficient basis for presupposing God’s existence without engaging in additional philosophical or evidential arguments.

• My Perspective: I interpret Romans 1 as affirming the principle of general revelation—that God has made His existence known to all through creation. However, I believe that this does not exclude the use of reasoned arguments for God’s existence, especially when addressing those unfamiliar with or skeptical of Christian teachings. I see value in engaging people intellectually to help bridge gaps in understanding, as Paul demonstrates in his discourse with the Athenians in Acts 17.

Exegetical Analysis of Romans 1

Romans 1:20 reads, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” The Greek phrase aorata (“invisible qualities”) and dynamis (“power”) affirm that creation provides clear evidence of God’s existence and attributes. Paul’s wording—phanera (“clearly seen”)—implies that God’s qualities are perceptible and understood universally, which aligns with the concept of general revelation.

However, Paul’s intention here seems more focused on establishing humanity’s accountability than eliminating the need for discourse on God’s existence. He emphasizes that people are “without excuse” because creation itself attests to God’s reality. While this natural knowledge of God provides an inherent awareness, it doesn’t necessarily eliminate the usefulness of engaging people through argument, particularly when addressing different intellectual or cultural contexts.

Classical and Evidential Apologetics’ Use of Romans 1

Evidentialists and classical apologists often appeal to Romans 1 to support the value of general revelation in apologetics. They argue that this passage affirms the natural world as a foundation for demonstrating God’s existence, which allows for reasoned discourse and evidence-based arguments. For evidentialists, Romans 1 validates using creation as a “first step” to present the case for God’s existence, allowing observations from science, history, and nature to reinforce faith.

• Classical Apologetics and Romans 1: Classical apologists, who often utilize a two-step approach (first arguing for theism, then for Christian claims), see Romans 1 as a biblical basis for general revelation. They argue that while creation reveals God’s reality, reasoned discourse helps articulate and clarify this revelation. For example, Thomas Aquinas viewed natural theology—arguments based on observation of the natural world—as a means to lead people toward an understanding of God. Classical apologists believe Romans 1 supports the use of cosmological and teleological arguments, which point to God’s existence as a rational conclusion drawn from the natural order.
• Evidential Apologetics and Romans 1: Evidentialists also turn to Romans 1 as a foundation for presenting evidence that supports theism. They argue that if God’s attributes are “clearly seen” in creation, then scientific, historical, and philosophical evidence can serve as a legitimate basis for helping others recognize God’s existence. Evidentialists often use the passage to show that arguments based on observable phenomena—like the complexity of the universe or the fine-tuning argument—can bring people closer to belief. In this sense, they see Romans 1 as an invitation to use creation as an apologetic tool, grounding their approach in the natural revelation that Paul describes.

Acts 17 as a Model of Engaging Through Reasoned Discourse

Paul’s encounter in Athens (Acts 17:16-34) serves as a compelling example of his willingness to engage in discussions about God’s nature with people unfamiliar with the Jewish faith. In Acts 17:22-23, Paul opens his address by acknowledging the Athenians’ religiosity and referring to their altar “To an Unknown God.” This beginning is a contextual, respectful acknowledgment of their worldview, designed to open the door for dialogue. Paul then moves into a theistic argument, proclaiming God as the “Lord of heaven and earth” who does not live in temples built by hands (Acts 17:24).

This approach aligns with Paul’s assertion in Romans 1 that God is evident through creation, yet it shows his willingness to expound on this truth in ways that resonate with the cultural and intellectual background of his listeners. By quoting Greek poets (Acts 17:28), Paul leverages general revelation to build a bridge to his audience, showing that reasoned discourse can serve as a valuable means of helping others understand God’s nature. The Greek word used in Romans 1:20, kathoratai (translated as “clearly seen”), emphasizes that God’s qualities are observable and accessible, yet it does not imply that additional reasoning or evidence is redundant.

General Revelation and Reasoned Apologetics

While Romans 1 presents God’s existence as evident in nature, this revelation is non-specific and may leave certain individuals seeking a fuller understanding. Classical and evidential apologists argue that reasoned discussions help clarify and expand upon this general revelation, making it more intelligible to those from secular or skeptical backgrounds. For them, Romans 1 supports the approach of starting with common ground—such as the natural world—and moving toward a fuller understanding of God, especially when addressing modern audiences who may lack a foundational belief in God.

In this view, reasoned apologetics complements Romans 1 rather than detracts from it. While creation reveals God’s attributes, dialogue helps address specific doubts and intellectual barriers, allowing individuals to engage deeply with these truths. If Dan sees this reasoning as detracting from the sufficiency of Romans 1, I respect his view; however, I believe that Paul’s use of reason in Acts 17 exemplifies the validity of engaging audiences intellectually. This approach can offer clarity for those genuinely seeking to understand, without negating the foundational truth that God has made Himself known through His creation.

1 Peter 3:15 and Its Role in Apologetics

• Dan’s Perspective (as I understand it): Dan maintains that 1 Peter 3:15 should not be exclusively viewed as an apologetic text, given its broader context focused on godly conduct and endurance in the face of suffering. He emphasizes that Peter’s primary concern lies in how believers respond to opposition, not necessarily in prescribing formal apologetic methodology.
• My Perspective: While I agree with Dan that 1 Peter 3:15 is set within a broader context of encouraging steadfastness and integrity during persecution, I see this verse as underscoring the need for believers to be prepared to articulate their faith. This readiness extends beyond hostile situations to encompass daily interactions where questions about faith may arise.

Exegetical Analysis of 1 Peter 3:15

Contextual Background of 1 Peter 3:15

• The broader section (1 Peter 3:13-17) addresses believers enduring hardship and persecution. Peter encourages them not to fear intimidation but to conduct themselves with honor and gentleness. His aim is to strengthen their witness, advising them to sanctify Christ as Lord and remain ready to answer anyone who asks about their hope.
• Peter’s immediate context is one of suffering, but his instruction in verse 15 goes beyond simply enduring hardship. He emphasizes a proactive stance: believers are to sanctify Christ in their hearts and be prepared to give a reasoned explanation for their faith, implying a responsibility to both steadfastness and clarity in testimony.

Detailed Exegesis of Key Phrases in 1 Peter 3:15

1. “Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts” (Greek: kyrion de ton Christon hagiasate en tais kardiais humon):

• The verb hagiasate (translated as “sanctify”) means to “set apart” or “consecrate.” This command is in the aorist imperative, signaling an urgent, decisive action to honor Christ above all in the believer’s heart.
• En tais kardiais humon (“in your hearts”) suggests an internal commitment. Peter links the act of sanctifying Christ as Lord directly with the believer’s core being—the “heart” (kardia), which in Greek thought often represented the seat of emotion, intellect, and will. By anchoring this in the heart, Peter establishes that a believer’s outward testimony flows from a deep-seated devotion.
• This phrase, then, underscores that apologetics is not merely intellectual but deeply rooted in one’s commitment to Christ. The heart-orientation toward Christ as Lord provides the foundation for a life that is visibly set apart, attracting questions from others.

2. “Always be prepared to make a defense” (Greek: hetoimoi aei pros apologian):

• Hetoimoi (“prepared” or “ready”) suggests a continual, vigilant readiness. The adverb aei (“always”) reinforces that this preparedness is not situational but rather a permanent state of readiness, whether in persecution or in everyday interactions.
• The term apologia (translated as “defense”) means “reasoned response” or “explanation.” In classical Greek, apologia was often used in a legal context to denote a formal defense, yet Peter’s usage here suggests something broader: the ability to articulate one’s beliefs clearly and thoughtfully.
• The phrase pros apologian can be rendered as “toward a defense,” indicating an orientation or intention toward explanation rather than simply passive endurance. Peter thus calls believers not merely to withstand questioning but to actively engage in thoughtful, reasoned responses about their faith.

3. “Always be prepared to make a defense” (Greek: hetoimoi aei pros apologian):

• The phrase panti to aitounti (“to everyone who asks”) implies that this readiness to respond is not limited to hostile interrogators but to anyone who inquires, including those genuinely curious or seeking understanding.
• Logon peri tes en hymin elpidos can be translated as “a reason concerning the hope that is in you.” Logon (from logos) means “reason,” “word,” or “explanation,” suggesting a clear, logical articulation of one’s beliefs. The word elpidos (“hope”) speaks to the future-oriented confidence Christians have, grounded in the resurrection and promises of Christ.
• Importantly, peri tes en hymin elpidos (literally “concerning the hope in you”) highlights that the hope is internalized—it is something believers personally hold, experience, and can testify to. This hope isn’t an abstract concept but a living reality that should naturally provoke questions, especially when expressed with peace and steadfastness in challenging circumstances.

4. “With gentleness and respect” (Greek: meta prautetos kai phobou):

• Prautetos (gentleness or meekness) and phobou (respect or reverence) together characterize the demeanor believers should embody when giving their defense. Prautetos denotes a humble, patient attitude, while phobou conveys a reverent, respectful approach, possibly toward both God and one’s audience.
• This phrase indicates that the manner of apologetics is as important as the content. A defense given with gentleness and respect avoids arrogance or aggression, aiming instead to invite understanding and reflect Christlike humility.

Broader Implications of 1 Peter 3:15 for Apologetics

• While 1 Peter 3:15 is situated within a context of persecution, the call to be “always prepared” (hetoimoi aei) suggests an all-encompassing readiness applicable to daily life. The open-ended phrasing “to everyone who asks” (panti to aitounti) implies that this preparedness is not exclusive to hostile situations but includes any opportunity where questions may arise.
• Furthermore, the internal aspect of “sanctifying Christ as Lord” grounds the apologetic response in personal devotion, making it relevant beyond specific moments of persecution. Believers are encouraged to give a reason for their hope with humility and clarity, not as a defense mechanism but as an invitation for others to understand the faith that sustains them.

If Dan views the apologetic application of 1 Peter 3:15 as overly narrow, I understand his caution, especially given the verse’s primary setting in the context of suffering. However, I interpret the verse as urging both preparedness in trials and in general interactions. This readiness to give a reasoned account is essential for engaging a world that often asks questions about faith in a variety of contexts. By emphasizing gentleness and respect, Peter sets a tone that is universally applicable, ensuring that the believer’s response is not only reasoned but also Christlike.

Final Reflections:

Reflecting on this dialogue, I am sincerely grateful to Dan for his thoughtful engagement and the chance to refine my perspective. His commitment to the authority and clarity of Scripture is inspiring, and his points have challenged me to revisit each passage with a deeper sense of responsibility to accurately represent God’s Word. If I have misunderstood or misrepresented any aspect of his views, I welcome his correction, as my goal is to engage with both accuracy and humility. These conversations offer invaluable opportunities not only to sharpen our own theological understanding but also to build unity in our shared pursuit of truth.

In considering these passages together—Acts, Romans 1, Romans 15:4, 1 Corinthians 10:11, and 1 Peter 3:15—I find that each, while distinct in purpose and context, collectively upholds a principle of flexibility and wisdom in evangelism and apologetics, without diminishing the importance and supremacy of scripture in evangelism. Acts illustrates the adaptability of the apostles’ methods, revealing how they responded to diverse audiences with contextually relevant approaches. Rather than prescribing a single evangelistic method, Acts demonstrates the apostles’ responsiveness to the Holy Spirit and to the unique backgrounds of their listeners, which I see as an encouragement to similarly engage others thoughtfully.

Romans 1 affirms the truth of general revelation, that God’s existence and attributes are evident in creation. However, rather than precluding further dialogue, this passage establishes a foundation for engaging those who may need a bridge from their natural awareness of God to a fuller understanding of the gospel. Classical and evidential apologists have long understood Romans 1 as validating reasoned discourse and the use of evidence, reflecting Paul’s own practice of engaging others thoughtfully, as he did in Athens.

Romans 15:4 and 1 Corinthians 10:11, while not focused on methodology, reinforce the formative role of Scripture in shaping believers’ lives and character. These passages remind us that the Old Testament writings are for our instruction, teaching us perseverance and humility. This personal formation naturally informs our witness, equipping us to respond to others from a place of integrity and maturity rather than rigid adherence to a single model.

Finally, 1 Peter 3:15, set within the context of enduring hardship with faithfulness, emphasizes the importance of readiness to give an answer for the hope within us. While it encourages steadfastness under persecution, its message extends beyond this to a general call for preparedness in all encounters. Peter’s focus on gentleness and respect highlights the spirit in which our witness should be given, making this verse foundational for an apologetic approach that is both reasoned and compassionate.

In sum, these passages collectively encourage a witness that is thoughtful, adaptable, and grounded in Scripture. Rather than binding us to one prescriptive method, they emphasize the importance of context, character, and readiness. While Dan’s perspective offers valuable reminders of the foundational truths we share, I hold that these texts invite us to approach apologetics and evangelism with flexibility and attentiveness to the needs of those we encounter. Thank you again to Dan for his insights and his godly approach to this discussion; his perspectives have both challenged and encouraged me in my commitment to faithful witness.