keeping a clear conscience. We cannot use the "weapons of the flesh", even though we, ourselves, are only human. Instead, we must use divine weapons, such as prayer and knowledge. It is a sad fact that many apologists who claim to be Christians do, indeed, use weapons of the flesh. They are agressive, sometimes even violent and profane. This violates the two verses we have covered.

 

As previously mentioned, apologetics can be either offensive or defensive. Defensive apologetics deals with defending Christianity against objections against it. For example, one might object to Christianity because of a strange verse that seems to contradict the science of it's time. An apologist would answer the objection by either showing that the science of the time is in error (or even that the error has already been corrected), or by showing that the verse or passage has been taken out of context (see a brief explaination of the context defense).

 

Offensive apologetics takes a different approach. Rather than defending Christianity, it instead argues against an idea or religion that opposes Christianity. As an example, when witnessing to a muslim, a Christian might seek to expose the errors in the Qur'an. It should be noted that offensive apologetics does not intend to defend Christianity, but rather remove an alternative choice. Apologists very rarely (never, in my experience) believe that the "last religion standing" wins. Offensive apologetics is noticeably common from non-Christian religions.

 

Apologetics seeks to convince someone to change their views through reasoned arguments. There are two approaches to this. The first approach is the evidential approach. This approach seeks to provide evidence for Christianity, or against opposing worldviews. As an example, one might explain how we can prove all human beings are descended from one woman by examining mitochondrial d.n.a., which would be great evidence that Eve did, at one point in history, exist, just like the Bible says.

 

The second approach is the presuppositional approach. The evidential approach depends on the presuppositional approach, as one's presuppositions affects how one view's the evidence. If someone's presuppositions are automatically set against God, no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. For example, if one presupposes that death is absolute, they will not accept evidence that Jesus rose again, because their pre-suppositions forbid them to do so.

 

Conclusion

Apologetics, therefore, is a reasonable defense of Christianity that intends to convince unbelievers to change their views and embrace the truth of Christianity, repenting of their sin and turning instead to Jesus, who died and rose again to pay their penalty and buy them eternal life.