Bad apologetics does not have the gospel as the goal; it is arguments for argument’s sake. If an apologist spends an hour talking with an unbeliever offering numerous arguments but never gets to the gospel, his priorities are misaligned. The gospel must always be the goal in apologetics. We may not always get the gospel, especially if the one we are sharing with is not receptive and cuts us off . . . but at a minimum we always seek to plant a seed (1 Cor 3:6).

A bad apologist will win an argument to put a notch on their apologetics “gunbelt”, but ultimately lose the soul. They win the battle but lose the war. In bad apologetics, there is no dependence upon the indwelling Holy Spirit for discernment and guidance; it is only an intellectual activity. A bad apologist doesn’t listen to what someone has to say, but is formulating his next avenue of attack as his “target” is sharing. In bad apologetics, winning the argument is most important.

A bad apologist views an unbeliever as an opportunity to demonstrate their intellectual prowess, rather than viewing them as someone in the imago dei whom God loves. A bad apologist spends all his time immersing himself in the latest arguments and philosophical controversies with little (or no) time spent quietly with the Lord and Scripture. A bad apologist never backs down or admits something is beyond his understanding; he is unwilling to concede if his “opponent” offers a good point. A bad apologist views an unbeliever as an adversary instead of someone to be respected and loved.

Bad apologetics uses the most complex arguments in order to intimidate. (In contrast, Jesus is our model for how he simplified the most complex issues.) A bad apologist dominates the conversation. A bad apologist overwhelms his “opponent” with as many arguments as possible. A bad apologist focuses his ministry solely on unbelievers, failing to recognize that apologetics also has a valuable ministry to believers (good apologetics can often help strengthen believers who are struggling with doubt.)

A bad apologist only thinks tactically while a good apologist thinks strategically and may sometimes execute an intellectual “gambit” – i.e., a good apologist may make a tactical concession in order to secure a strategic victory. (In Chess, this is known as a “gambit”). A bad apologist fails to execute theological triage; every issue becomes a hill to die on and every matter is worth falling on his sword for. A bad apologist fails to prioritize issues——for example focusing on an isolated “doghouse” in the yard when the main dwelling is burning down. A bad apologist engages in every conflict that comes his way while a good apologist chooses his battles carefully. A bad apologist often can’t see the forest for the trees; he is often distracted by minutiae. A bad apologist reaches a point in their knowledge where they think they have “arrived” in contrast to a good apologist who recognizes that the more he learns, the more he realizes just how little he really knows. A bad apologist never admits he doesn’t know something.

Bad apologetics kicks down the door instead of patiently waiting on the Holy Spirit to gently open the way. A bad apologist uses “junk” apologetics (i.e., “NASA has discovered the missing day of Joshua” [false], “the entire NT can be reconstructed from the writings of the early church fathers” [false], “there are no variants in the Greek manuscripts of the NT” [false; in fact there are well over 400,000 variants although the vast majority are inconsequential spelling and grammatical errors, etc.). A bad apologist has a “silver bullet” argument that he uses in every situation and with every unbeliever (in reality there are no “silver bullet” arguments.)

Bad apologetics views science as an enemy, failing to recognize it can be a powerful ally. On the other hand, bad apologetics fails to also recognize the inherent limitations of science. Bad apologetics views reason as supreme failing to recognize that truth arrived at by reason can never contradict truth received by special revelation. A bad apologist is always on the defense failing to understand the necessity of sometimes going on the offense.

Finally, Sean McDowell lists five reasons why apologetics can get a bad name:

1. Apologists often overstate their case – the temptation to state things more certainly then they are.
2. Apologists often do not speak with gentleness, respect and love.
3. Apologists are often not emotionally healthy.
4. Apologetics is often done in a cold, mechanical and rationalistic manner.
5. Apologists are often intellectually elitist.