A Florida traffic stop recently made national news after a deputy cited a woman for allegedly holding a cell phone in her right hand while driving. There was just one problem: the woman did not have a right hand.
As the interaction unfolded, the woman repeatedly exposed the obvious flaw in the deputy’s accusation. She lacked the very hand he claimed he saw holding a cell phone. Yet the deputy ignored the evidence sitting right in front of him and issued the citation anyway. Authorities eventually dismissed the ticket, but the incident left many viewers asking the same question: How could someone cling to a conclusion when the evidence so clearly contradicted it?
The answer is simple. Human beings are not nearly as objective as we like to imagine.
When people become emotionally, intellectually, or personally invested in a conclusion, they often force the evidence to fit their beliefs instead of allowing the evidence to shape them. Pride blinds people to facts that should be obvious. People do not always reject truth because they lack evidence. More often, they reject truth because they refuse to follow the evidence wherever it leads. The Florida deputy illustrated that reality perfectly.
This reality exposes the supposed flaw that critics often point out in Christian apologetics.
One of the most common objections to apologetics is that it doesn’t work. If the evidence for Christianity is so compelling, why are there still atheists? If the arguments for God’s existence are so strong, why do so many people reject them? If the resurrection of Christ is supported by historical facts, why does unbelief continue to exist?
Behind these objections is a faulty assumption. The assumption is that people always follow the evidence, and that if an argument is sufficiently strong, everyone who hears it will accept it.
Yet the Florida traffic stop demonstrates how unrealistic that expectation is.
The deputy’s refusal to acknowledge the evidence before him did not change the facts. The woman still lacked a right hand. Reality remained reality regardless of whether he accepted it. His rejection of the evidence did not invalidate the evidence.
Likewise, the rejection of an argument does not automatically expose a flaw in the argument. Every day people reject conclusions that they simply do not want to embrace.
Why should we expect spiritual matters to be any different?
Scripture certainly does not.
The Bible never describes mankind as neutral truth-seekers carefully weighing the evidence wherever it may lead. Instead, Romans 1 tells us that men “hold the truth in unrighteousness.” The phrase carries the idea of suppressing or restraining the truth. The problem is not merely intellectual. It is moral. Fallen men do not simply need more information. They need hearts transformed by the grace of God.
This truth appears repeatedly throughout Scripture. The nation of Israel witnessed God’s power in Egypt, walked through the Red Sea, ate manna from heaven, and still rebelled. The religious leaders watched Christ heal the sick, cast out devils, raise the dead, and fulfill prophecy, yet they plotted His death. They did not lack evidence. They refused to submit to what the evidence revealed.
Perhaps the most striking example comes from the words of Christ Himself. In Luke 16, Abraham tells the rich man that if people will not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.
That fact alone should forever destroy the myth that enough evidence automatically produces belief. If witnessing a man return from the dead cannot overcome a rebellious heart, then we should not be surprised when people reject arguments for Christianity no matter how compelling those arguments may be.
The Christian faith has never feared evidence because truth has nothing to fear from investigation. The problem is that many Christians measure apologetics by the wrong metrics.
They assume the value of an argument is determined by how many people accept it. Yet if acceptance is the standard, then nearly every biblical prophet was a failure. Noah preached for decades and was rejected. Jeremiah was rejected. Elijah was rejected. The apostles were rejected. Even Jesus Christ Himself was rejected by His own people.
Were their messages defective? Of course not.
Success in God’s economy has never been measured by universal acceptance. It has always been measured by faithfulness to Christ and His word.
This is why Christians must remember who they ultimately serve. Our first responsibility is not to persuade every skeptic. Our first responsibility is to please the Lord Jesus Christ. We should certainly strive to be accurate, thoughtful, and persuasive. We should remove unnecessary obstacles and answer objections honestly. But the ultimate value of an argument is not determined by whether an unbeliever accepts it. It is determined by whether it is true and whether it honors God.
Does it accurately represent Scripture?
Does it faithfully communicate the truth?
Does it glorify Christ?
Those are the questions that matter.
Far too many Christians become discouraged when unbelievers reject carefully constructed arguments. They assume the conversation failed. Yet rejection does not necessarily expose a flaw in the argument. Often it exposes the condition of the hearer.
The Florida deputy reminds us of an important truth. Sometimes a person’s rejection reveals nothing more than the stubbornness of the human heart.
That is not a failure of apologetics.
It is a reality of life in a fallen world.
About The Author
Amen
Thank you
Modern Christendom has forgotten what the mission of the Church is. Scofield pointed out the error a century ago, when he asserted that the mission of the Church is not the conversion of the world, but the evangelization of the world. A rejected argument (if sound) says more about the hearer than it does the argument. Well done.