Proof vs. Persuasion in Apologetics
Later this week, I’ll be teaching at the Adelphia Discipleship School, where I’ll be delivering 10 hours of classroom instruction to college-aged adults. I’ve been working pretty much full time the past couple of days preparing my presentations, and part of my prep work has been to expand (by roughly 100%) the content in my presentation entitled “Apologetics Is Not What You Think.” So, with all of that new material fresh on my mind, I got a little carried today in my review of last week’s introduction of 1 Peter 3:15. I won’t take the time to spell it all out here, because I’m a bit pressed for time, but I’ll just put a picture of the whiteboard here so you can see what my “review” looked like. Bonus points if you can figure out what I was saying!
Proof
I looked up a few dictionary definitions of proof and here’s what I came up with:
Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement — Oxford Languages
The cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact — Merriam-Webster
A fact or piece of information that shows that something exists or is true — Cambridge
As I was prepping for this lesson, my eldest son called from college, so I picked his brain a bit since he’s a good, clear thinker. Here’s his contribution:
Delivery of sufficient justification to warrant a conclusion
Spoken like a true Lincoln-Douglas debater (and coach).
He also pointed out something that the dictionaries don’t point out, namely that objective truth claims will require objective proof, while subjective truth claims are generally bolstered with subjective proofs. In the photo below, you can see two examples I used in class to illustrate this point.
Persuasion
While proof can be either objective or subjective, persuasion, on the other hand, is always subjective because it has to do with individual beliefs or feelings on a matter. The dictionaries state this in drier and more academic terms, of course:
The action or fact of persuading someone or of being persuaded to do or believe something. — Oxford Languages
persuade: cause (someone) to do something through reasoning or argument
The act or process or and instance of persuading — Merriam-Webster
Persuade: to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position, or course of action
Persuade: to make someone do or believe something by giving them a good reason to do it or by talking to that person and making them believe it — Cambridge
Applications
Can something be proved without the audience being persuaded?
Absolutely, and we can see clear examples of this in Scripture:
Proof:
To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God. — Acts 1:3
Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead. — Acts 17:30, 31
Without Persuasion:
When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. — Matthew 28:17
There’s an old joke that I like to use to illustrate this point in a couple of my presenations:
A man is convinced he is dead. His wife and kids are exasperated. They keep telling him he’s not dead. But he continues to insist that he is. They try telling him, “Look, you’re not dead; you’re walking and talking and breathing; how can you be dead?” But he continues to insist he is dead.
The family finally takes him to a doctor. The doctor pulls out some medical books to demonstrate to the man that dead men do not bleed.
After some time, the man admits that dead men do not bleed. The doctor then takes the man’s hand and a needle and pokes the end of his finger.
The man starts bleeding. He looks at his finger and says, “What do you know? DEAD MEN DO BLEED!”
Can someone be persuaded without any proof (or contrary to proof)?
Absolutely, and in a the past few years, our nation has lost its collective mind in a mass demonstration of this principle:
Rampant gender dysphoria (i.e., “identifying” as something you are clearly not) to the point where we now have men competing in women’s sports, men in dresses working in the White House.
All cops are racists.
All rich people are evil, greedy pigs.
The presidential election of 2020 was the “safest, most secure election in history.”
Etc., etc., ad nauseam; this list could go on for days.
One of my favorite examples is one that I unfortunately cannot show to a classroom full of children (at least not without taking the time to edit it). I won’t link to it here, for the same reason, so I will describe it to you; the “adults in the room” have probably already seen it.
There’s a fairly well-known journalist who likes to do man-on-the-street interviews of a political nature. In this one particular video he produced, he went around asking dark-skinned people he met “How racist is this quote?” after reading off something that a prominent politician had said. The quotes were rather cringe-worthy overall, and the interviewees would react accordingly (sometimes with profanity). After every quote, the journalist would ask “Who do you think said that, Donald Trump or Joe Biden?” Every single person (at least those that made the clip…I am aware of the practice of selective editing to further a narrative) said, “Donald Trump,” but the truth was that every single quote was from Joe Biden. Because these people had only been exposed to oft-repeated mantra “Trump is a racist,” they all—to a man—took that as gospel truth. How could it not be true? After all, he’s a Republican….that’s all the proof required.
What’s the Point?
The point is simple…as we interact with unbelievers and we present the gospel to them, and we talk about the things that the gospel entails: man’s sin, the coming judgment, the reality of hell, and Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross; or if we’re engaging in arguments (debates, not fights) about creation vs. evolution, the existence of God, the truth of God’s Word, etc., it’s absolutely critical that we not confuse “seeing results” with “being results.” “Apologetical” conversations affect people’s fundamental belief system—their worldview—and it is only by God’s sovereign grace and mercy that unbelievers are granted the repentance required to dispose of those basic beliefs and adopt a biblical worldview. People also get mad when their fundamental beliefs are challenged, perhaps for the first time, and they’re found lacking an adequate explanation for those “preconditions of intelligibility”—the things that make knowledge possible in the first place—but that’s to be expected.
So, do not lose heart when people don’t fall at your feet and exclaim “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30) It doesn’t (necessarily) mean you have failed to prove your point, it could be that the other person refuses to be persuaded because it means giving up too much (John 3:19).
Homework
With this little detour out of the way, let’s get back to understanding 1 Peter 3:15. To that end, the assignment is to:
Read the entirety of 1 Peter (in multiple versions, if you can). What are the two major themes of the epistle?