Point of Contact in Apologetics: A Biblical Exploration of Humanity's Capacity to Respond to God

Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

Introduction: Defining the “Point of Contact” in Biblical Terms

The term “point of contact” in apologetics refers to the aspect of human nature or cognition that allows for meaningful communication and responsiveness to God’s revelation. While modern theological constructs have at times muddled this term—especially under Calvinist or Barthian influence—a biblically grounded understanding insists that fallen man retains the cognitive and moral faculties to engage with God’s truth when presented through His inspired Word. Rather than depending on mystical intervention or abstract existential events, the true point of contact is rooted in the objective revelation of Scripture and man’s retained rational and moral faculties as a bearer of the image of God.

The doctrine of man’s fallenness must be understood biblically, without importing philosophical systems that erase human accountability or reduce man’s role to mere passive recipients of grace. Scripture is clear: though sin has affected humanity, it has not obliterated our capacity to recognize truth or respond to divine instruction. It is through this lens that we must assess the true nature and function of the point of contact in apologetic engagement.

Rejecting Total Depravity: Man’s Retained Cognitive and Moral Capacities

A critical correction must be made to systems that assert total depravity—that is, the belief that man is so corrupted by sin that he is utterly incapable of responding to God apart from a preceding regenerative act. This doctrine has no biblical support when Scripture is interpreted literally and with grammatical-historical precision. The consistent witness of Scripture shows that man, though fallen, still possesses the ability to understand God’s Word, be convicted by it, and respond to it.

Consider Romans 2:14-15: “For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do by nature the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them.” Here Paul affirms that moral reasoning and conscience are still operational in those outside the covenant. These faculties form a point of contact by which God’s truth, presented in Scripture, can appeal to the human mind and conscience.

Moreover, in Acts 17:30 Paul tells the Athenians that “God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent.” This declaration would be nonsensical if man had no inherent capacity to respond. The call to repentance presupposes the ability to comprehend, evaluate, and act upon divine instruction. Nowhere does Scripture teach that man’s mind has been rendered inoperative or that his will is incapable of responding without a pre-faith regenerating act.

Missteps of Barth and Van Til: Undermining Propositional Revelation and Moral Responsibility

Karl Barth’s theology, which posits that God’s grace operates independently of propositional content or human cognition, is fundamentally unbiblical. His notion that grace is a non-rational “event” ignores the biblical teaching that God communicates through words—objective, intelligible, historically rooted revelation. Romans 10:17 is unambiguous: “So faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” There is no faith without understanding, and no understanding without clear, communicable truth.

Similarly, Cornelius Van Til’s presuppositional framework, while rightly concerned with challenging secular assumptions, wrongly assumes that the unbeliever cannot reason truthfully due to spiritual inability. This is inconsistent with Scripture’s portrayal of many nonbelievers as capable of acknowledging, understanding, and responding to divine truth. Scripture includes countless appeals to reason (Isa. 1:18), conscience (John 8:9), and volition (Josh. 24:15). God’s appeals assume that His audience can process and respond to His words—something impossible if total depravity were true.

Suppression of Truth: An Active Ethical Rebellion, Not Total Inability

Romans 1:18–21 explains that men “suppress the truth in unrighteousness,” not because they are incapable of perceiving it, but because they choose not to glorify God. The text explicitly states: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes…have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made.” This is an active moral decision to resist, not an inherited incapacity to understand.

Thus, suppression of truth is a form of rebellion, not a sign of inability. The image of God in man, though affected by sin, remains intact enough for God to hold individuals accountable for rejecting His truth. The problem is not that unbelievers cannot understand—it is that they do not want to obey. This disobedience is willful and moral, not a byproduct of metaphysical incapacity.

This distinction is crucial for apologetics. If we believe, as Scripture does, that man is still capable of reasoning and moral decision-making, then our apologetic method must reflect that. We do not need to assume spiritual regeneration in order for the gospel to be heard or the truth of Scripture to be comprehended. Instead, we faithfully proclaim the Word of God, confident in its power to convict, persuade, and transform through its inherent truth and rational clarity.

The Scriptural Point of Contact: The Conscience and Rational Mind

The actual point of contact between the apologist and the unbeliever lies in two key biblical realities: the conscience and the rational faculties endowed by God and preserved even after the Fall. Paul appeals to these realities throughout Acts and his epistles. In Acts 24:16, he emphasizes striving to maintain a “blameless conscience,” and in Romans 12:2 he urges believers to be “transformed by the renewing of your mind.” Both concepts assume the mind and conscience are engaged in the process of responding to God’s truth.

Even non-Christians exhibit this point of contact when they affirm justice, denounce evil, or express wonder at creation. These are echoes of the image of God that persist in all human beings and that allow the apologist to engage with them meaningfully. An apologist can therefore appeal to shared moral intuitions, logical consistency, and the internal witness of creation, knowing that the unbeliever is capable of grasping and evaluating those appeals.

The Role of God’s Word in Activating the Point of Contact

While man retains the capacity to understand and respond, it is the inspired Word of God that activates and directs this capacity toward the truth. Hebrews 4:12 says, “For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword…and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” The Scriptures are designed to penetrate human cognition and conscience—not bypass them. They speak directly to man’s inner faculties and moral awareness, and through this interaction, they provoke a response.

Thus, the point of contact is not mystical or hidden. It is directly addressed whenever the Word of God is proclaimed. Apologetics, then, should not aim to construct artificial entry points or assume that one must first prove reason or morality. Instead, the apologist should confidently present the truth of Scripture, trusting that the conscience and rational faculties can be engaged through the power of the Word itself.

Evaluating Apologetic Methods: Truth Must Govern Approach

The measure of any apologetic method must be its adherence to truth and its faithfulness to Scripture. An apologist’s method should never pander to secular reasoning or downplay the authority of God’s Word. Attempts to accommodate unbelieving standards of proof or neutrality betray the apologist’s mission and undermine the effectiveness of the gospel.

Paul’s approach in Acts 17 provides a model. He reasoned from Scripture (even when speaking to pagans), appealed to what they already understood about reality, and then confronted them with the truth of judgment and the resurrection. He did not claim they were incapable of understanding; rather, he treated them as responsible moral agents who could recognize truth and either accept or reject it.

Conclusion: Apologetics Must Engage Man as a Responsible Moral Agent

The true biblical view of the point of contact holds that man, though fallen, is fully capable of engaging with God’s Word. This includes understanding, evaluating, and responding to truth through the conscience and rational faculties. There is no biblical support for the claim that the unbeliever is totally incapable of hearing and responding to truth until after regeneration.

Thus, apologetics must reject all systems—Calvinist or Barthian—that deny man’s responsibility or redefine grace as something that bypasses human understanding. The apologist must remain committed to Scripture alone, presenting it clearly and trusting its power to convict and persuade. It is through the divinely preserved faculties of reason and conscience, and under the influence of the inspired Word, that the unbeliever is confronted with truth.

Apologetics, therefore, is not a battle of philosophical systems or theological constructs—it is the faithful proclamation of truth to moral beings capable of responding. This is the true point of contact: not an abstract faculty, but the very real, Scripturally affirmed ability of man to hear and heed the voice of God through His Word.

You May Also Enjoy

Apologetics as Proof: Rigorous Methodological Considerations for Christian Faith

About the author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).