Many well-intentioned people who take interest in apologetics (especially early on in their journeys) have an unbiblical idea of the apologetic task. If you Google "apologetics", you'll be immediately bombarded with content from those apologists who do not hold a Reformed view of man, God and salvation. This leads them to offer an apologetic to unbelievers, where the believer and the unbeliever start off on equal footing - and Christianity is offered as the best option out of the many rational options available.

Although hordes of books have been written on a prolegomenon (introduction) to apologetics, it is always taken for granted that the Scripture's teaching on the nature of unbelief is simply irrelevant, or perhaps even wrong. As Reformed apologists, we should build an apologetic methodology that is submissive and informed by Scripture, and not build an apologetic on principles that prove to undermine the teaching of Scripture. This point comes across clearly in the introduction of the new book by Daniël Akande.

The following is an extract from Daniel Akande's new book, "The Folly of Unbelief".

For a long time, the tacit assumption that the unbeliever is somehow within his intellectual rights to object to or outrightly reject the truth of Christianity has been made. The unbeliever is perceived as the “rational” one, while the believer is said to believe solely due to his upbringing or due to blind faith.

This perception has been altered somewhat due to the efforts of some great Christian minds over the years who have tried their best to build an intellectual case for the Christian faith and to answer the challenge of unbelief. But in many cases, even these great minds have made a concession to the unbeliever: the concession that he has some sort of intellectual or rational foundation upon which he can reasonably object to the claims of the Christian faith.

All too often, it is assumed that the unbeliever has made a coherent and rational case for his unbelief. It is assumed that the unbeliever has arrived at his unbelief through genuine intellectual considerations. It is assumed that the Christian and unbelieving positions are on somewhat equal intellectual footing and that the Christian’s job is to show the unbeliever that the Christian position is equally reasonable or perhaps more reasonable than the unbelieving position. The Christian position is presented as being the best option amongst multiple reasonable views.

These assumptions must be rejected. They must be rejected because Scripture teaches us that Christ is the way, truth, and life and that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Him. Scripture teaches us that those who reject Christ are foolish. Christ only is the Solid Rock and all other ground is sinking sand. Christianity, then, is not just the most reasonable position out of many—it is the only rationally defensible position.