If Christian arguments are sound and cogent, then why aren’t they universally accepted? Even many CHRISTIANS have objected to the propriety of even offering such arguments. Ever hear of Reformed Epistemology?

Yes, and Plantinga's work is some of the most rigorous philosophy of religion written in the last century. But notice that it does not say what the objection needs it to say.

1. The standard fails its own test. The principle “an argument is sound only if everyone accepts it” is not itself universally accepted. By its own criterion it would be unsound. The objection cannot be stated without exempting itself, which is usually a sign the principle is wrong rather than the argument.

2. Truth is not decided by a vote. Germ theory, heliocentrism, and plate tectonics were all contested, and their defenders were sometimes ridiculed. Universal agreement is not a reliable mark of truth, and disagreement is not a reliable mark of falsehood. What matters is whether the premises are true and the inference valid.

3. Scripture predicts the resistance. Paul says people “suppress the truth” in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18) and that “the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing” (1 Corinthians 1:18). Widespread rejection is not an anomaly the New Testament failed to anticipate; it is forecast on nearly every page.

4. The noetic effects cut both ways. If sin affects how we think, we should expect strong arguments to be resisted for non-rational reasons — and that diagnosis applies to Christians too, which is why believers should hold their conclusions with humility. It is a claim about everyone's cognitive condition, not an insult aimed at skeptics.

5. Reformed epistemology does not oppose arguments. Plantinga's central proposal in Warranted Christian Belief is that belief in God can be “properly basic” — warranted without being inferred from other beliefs, like belief in other minds or in the past. That removes the demand that faith be based on argument. It says nothing against offering one.

6. Plantinga argued constantly. He reformulated the ontological argument, developed the evolutionary argument against naturalism, and delivered a famous lecture outlining roughly two dozen theistic arguments. If Reformed epistemology were an argument against apologetics, its most famous defender did not get the memo. The movement's leaders are among its most productive arguers.

7. Arguments remove obstacles, not wills. Apologetics is not a lever that forces assent; it is a way of clearing ground. It answers the objection that faith is irrational, which is the actual barrier for many people. Reason can take the roof off; it cannot make anyone move in.

8. The Christian who distrusts argument is debating method. “Should we argue?” is a different question from “is it true?” A disagreement about tactics among Christians is not evidence against the conclusion. You can find believers who think apologetics is unspiritual without that telling you anything about whether God exists.

9. Test the premises, one at a time. The productive question is not how many people find an argument convincing but whether each premise is true. Take the kalam argument: whatever begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore the universe has a cause. That can be examined line by line, and that is where the discussion belongs.

Disagreement tells you that people disagree, which nobody doubted. If you want to know whether the arguments are good, the only way is to look at the arguments — and 1 Thessalonians 5:21 gives Christians the same instruction: “test everything; hold fast what is good.”

Sources: Alvin Plantinga; William Lane Craig; Gregory Koukl; Warranted Christian Belief; Reasonable Faith.

Related challenges:
• IF God exists, He’s maniacal. If He WANTED to forgive sin, He’s 'all-powerful' and 'all-loving' – He could just, SHAZAM, forgive sin. Instead, He sends down His only Son to be slaughtered and murdered to take care of the sin problem. Now THAT’S evil!
• I hear a lot about “intelligent design.” Has this now proven God and falsified evolution?
• How would you respond to Victor Stenger’s stinging assertion that religious argument leads universally to dismal failure and untold suffering?