It has come up on status updates, blogs, books, and articles. “It” being the idea that apologetics are not needed because God does not need to be defended. The idea sounds great at first, I mean God is God and I am human. What could I do to defend God, and why would He ever call on me to help?
However, upon deeper inspection this argument has several problems. First, it fails to see what good apologetics is about. Apologetics is not simply about defending God, but rather about reasonable explaining our faith (see this post for more details). In apologetics the goal is to set forth in an understandable way why we believe what we believe concerning all types of topics. Apologetics deals with existence of God, Deity of Jesus, Truthfulness of Scripture, but it also can deal with defending the truths found within Scripture against error.
Second, it fails to see that the Scripture calls us to this task. When we understand apologetics as reasonable explaining why we believe and defending the truths of Scripture, then we can quickly see that Scripture calls us to do apologetic work. Preachers are required to defend against false teachings, elders/pastors are as well. You cannot reading 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus without coming to this conclusion.
Three, it fails to see the fact that we have sections of the Old and New Testament, which are apologetic in nature. Normally, we call these sections a theodicy. By theodicy we mean a defense of God. I think much of what Paul is doing in Romans would fall into the category of theodicy. In it Paul is defending God’s righteousness against claims that somehow God was unrighteous in how He justified men. If Paul believes it was important to defend God, then I should as well.
The truth is sometimes phrases sound good, but upon further investigation are just wrong. In fact I think I could do a whole blog series on such phrases.