Answering those who don't want an answer

In Evangelism, you meet two kinds of people: Those who can be convinced through logic and reason, and those who can't. Those who can will typically ask the right questions, or at least they will sincerely ask the wrong questions. The obvious response to these people is to either answer the right questions (if you know what you're talking about; "I don't know yet, let me get back to you" is always a valid answer), or to redirect them to the question they should be asking.

For example, an unbeliever might raise the problem of evil. The problem of evil is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask. We have an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God, so why does evil still exist? This is a question that is on the lips of believers and unbelievers alike. So why not answer it?

There is a fairly simple line of reasoning for why God doesn't just destroy all evil right now. First, the Bible says we are evil. Second, the Bible says God loves us, even to the point where He will let Christ take our punishment instead. Thus, if God destroys all evil right now, He has to destroy us too. If you're dealing with an unbeliever, you can point out that if He did that at that very second, the unbeliever would be eternally condemned. But what if he eventually believes? What if, following your discussion, your unbelieving friend has lost the final obstacle preventing him from turning to Jesus? By holding out for just one more day, God saves just one more person. And that might be the case with another potential believer tomorrow, next week, next year, how many people can God save by just being patient?

There are a number of possible comebacks, but I didn't really intend this article to address the problem of evil. Please see the Moral Objections section for more on that. The question is what do you do with unbelievers who are not reasonable? There are unbelievers who can't be converted by logic and reason. Unbelievers who may even actually be fully aware that there is a God, but they have specifically chosen to reject Him, and spread that rejection far and wide. They ask questions too, but their questions are far less reasonable. Sometimes, they appear logical, such as the question "can God create a stone too heavy for Him to lift?" This is a challenge to God's sovereignty. A yes or a no would both mean there is a limit on God's power.

This question can be flipped. You can answer "yes, but He could still lift the rock." "but that's a contradiction!" the atheist would reply. Yes, yes it is, and that's the point. By defining omnipotence in such a way that God should be able to contradict Himself, they have opened the door to contradictory answers. Thus, nothing can be used as an argument against God. In reality, this is not the picture the Bible paints of God, as it says there actually are things God can't do. Lying, for example, is completely impossible for God. This, of course, does not mean that God physically cannot state something that is not true. The Bible is proof of this, as it accurately records the errors of man, or even the lies of Satan. When Satan said "you will not surely die", that was a lie, and yet that lie is forever preserved in the inspired word of God. But it does mean that lying is not within God's own nature. God hates lying, and thus God cannot lie.

But sometimes the unreasonable unbeliever goes far beyond tricky questions. Sometimes, they are so blatantly unreasonable that the evidence before their eyes is not enough. An example of this can be seen in Matthew 21:23-27. The chief priests and the elders asked Jesus, a literal miracle worker, "By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?"

Now, when I say Jesus was a literal miracle worker, I don't just mean He turned a few buckets of water into the world's greatest wine. I mean He had literally demonstrated His power by curing the sick, casting out demons, and if I'm not mistaken, by this point He had literally raised Lazarus from the dead. Even if it turns out I have my Biblical chronology a little off, I know for a fact that in Matthew 9, Jesus had demonstrated His authority beyond reasonable doubt. Observe:

"Then behold, they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, be of good cheer; your sins are forgiven you.” And at once some of the scribes said within themselves, “This Man blasphemes!” But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”—then He said to the paralytic, “Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.” And he arose and departed to his house."" (Matthew 9:2-7).

And so Jesus had already demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that He had authority, and where He got it from. Yet still these people ask "By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?" But Jesus was having none of it. He responded with His own question: "I also will ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things: The baptism of John—where was it from? From heaven or from men?"

This question was unanswerable for the chief priests. They didn't believe John, but they knew they'd be severely disliked if they said John wasn't a prophet. So they refused to answer, so Jesus refused to answer them either.

Not every question is good enough to receive an answer, especially since not every question is asked with the intention of receiving an answer. In apologetics, the goal is not to show off your vast knowledge, but to convince someone of the truth, and thus as long as you are affirming the truth in an honest way, you're doing your job. Sometimes, answering an honest question one on one is the best course. Sometimes, the one asking the question isn't there to get an answer, but you may have an audience who may benefit from it, and so answering simply to show that there is an answer is worth it. But some questions just aren't worth answering. Sometimes, it's better to demonstrate the hypocrisy of your opponent by refusing to answer, instead asking a better question. In all things, be honest, be loving, refrain from sin, and remember who you serve.