What Are Some Apologetic Approaches?

Most Christians understand that there is a need to defend the Christian faith from counterarguments that are critical to its tenets of faith and basis for existence. Certainly, much of the world is without a presentation of the gospel and in need of a clear understanding of the message of Christ. In presenting the gospel, the evangelist has a duty to be prepared to demonstrate why the claims of Christianity are true and worthy of being embraced, rather than the claims of others. This gives rise to the need for Christian apologetics, and the question of how best to set forth the truth of the Christian proclamation.

The Importance of Method in Apologetic Practice

Consequently, the concern of this chapter is not to outline a defense of the doctrines of Christianity, but to present the different approaches that Christians have utilized in setting forth and defending Christian truth, as well as highlighting the underlying distinct theological ideas and emphases apologists place within their method.

Though Christian apologists are united on the essentials of the faith, there are differences among them on a variety of issues relating to their methodology. For example, they differ in several areas, such as whether there is a shared common ground set of ideas between the Christian and the non-Christian to utilize in their case for Christianity; whether arguments for God’s existence are adequate or even necessary to convince an unbeliever of the truth of Christianity; whether one should emphasize the crucial role worldviews play in the interpretation of Christian evidence; whether tangible and material evidence presented through discoveries of archaeology and history is sufficient to convince the skeptic; and whether the gospel is sufficient apart from other apologetic arguments. There is also the perennial argument between role of faith and reason (see the chapter “What Is the Relationship Between Faith and Reason?”).

What is more, the divisions between apologetic methodologies also

relate to each one’s perspective on the use and limits of the two ways in which God has revealed Himself—that is, in nature (general revelation) and in Scripture (special revelation). This perspective will form the apologist’s view on the nature and capacity of humans to respond to these means of revelation. Generally, there are four recognized methods[1] that are utilized to defend the faith, which include:

(1) classical,

(2) evidential,

(3) presuppositional, and

(4) the fideist approach, though most apologists identify with one of the first three, or overlap at certain points.

In analyzing these different approaches, it is important to remember the caution issued by Norman Geisler: namely, that there is no universal way in which we can categorize each of these views with their variations.[2]

The Four Types of Apologetic Systems

Classical Apologetics. The classical method of apologetics is usually developed through a three-step approach (for a more detailed response, see the chapter “What Is the Overall Apologetic Task?”).

First, the classical apologist recognizes the crucial role that one’s worldviews play in coloring (interpreting) the data and material evidence. For example, because atheists do not believe in God, they would not believe it possible to have a Son of God (since there is no God in the first place). Therefore, by addressing worldview considerations in the first step, such as the undeniable first principles of philosophy (or reality), like the laws of logic, personal existence (your own being), knowledge, and the nature of truth.

Once the basic fundamental principles of one’s worldview are established, the second step sets forth various arguments for the existence of God and the possibility of miracles. According to the classical apologist, because evidence does not come with a set of instruction manuals telling how to interpret the data, the first two steps are crucial to preparing the individual’s worldview to correctly make sense of the material evidence in the final step.

In the third step, the apologist argues from empirical (what can be seen with the naked eye) and historical evidence that the Bible is authentic, historically reliable, inspired, and is a trustworthy record of miracles and the physical resurrection of Christ.

The classical apologist believes that the person whom he addresses is capable of understanding rational arguments in spite of being a sinner, and that the Spirit of God uses such argumentation and evidence to apply the gospel to the individual.

An example of this three-step method of argument is found in classical apologist Norman Geisler’s work Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. He sets forth a 12-point argument, starting with undeniable first principles such as personal existence, truth, and logic.[3]

The 12-point argument is as follows:

(1) truth about reality is knowable;

(2) opposites cannot both be true;

(3) the theistic God exists;

(4) miracles are possible;

(5) miracles performed in connection with a truth claim are acts of God to confirm the truth of God through a messenger of God;

(6) the New Testament documents are reliable;

(7) as witnessed in the New Testament, Jesus claimed to be God; (8) Jesus’s claim to divinity was proven by a unique convergence of miracles (e.g., resurrection);

(9) therefore, Jesus was God in human flesh;

(10) whatever Jesus (who is God) affirmed as true is true;

(11) Jesus affirmed that the Bible is the Word of God;

(12) therefore, it is true that the Bible is the Word of God, and whatever is opposed to any biblical truth is false.

Each proposition of the argument both depends on the former proposition and logically leads to the next proposition. The argument concludes with the premise that “the Bible is the Word of God and whatever is opposed to any biblical truth is false.”

To summarize, if truth is knowable, and a theistic God exists, then miracles are possible (which are acts of God confirming the message of God). And if this is so, then the message of the New Testament is historically reliable, and because the New Testament says Jesus is the Son of God as was confirmed by His resurrection from the dead, then Jesus is God. Thus, the Bible is the Word of God because Christ (who is God) affirmed it. If all of this is true, then orthodox Christianity is true.

Therefore, since anything opposed to truth is false, anything opposed to the Bible must also be false—thus Christianity is true.

To be clear, the classical view sees great importance in offering evidence, which should be presented. However, if there are chronic rejections of the material and Christ, one must do pre-evangelism to discover if there is a worldview problem hindering a proper interpretation of the evidence. If the individual possesses a theistic worldview but is not a Christian, it may be appropriate to start with the evidence. The classical approach has served the body of Christ well through the centuries and has been extremely useful in combating the philosophical arguments against the Christian worldview.

The classical view has been criticized because its opponents believe it is inappropriate to attempt to understand the infinite God through human logic (Isaiah 55:8-9). Classical apologists respond by saying that it is certainly true that God’s ways are beyond human reason (meaning we cannot fully understand His ways); nonetheless, they are not contrary to human reason (we can grasp some of His ways without contradiction—Isaiah 1:18; 1 Timothy 6:20).

Some well-known modern classical apologists include Norman Geisler (Christian Apologetics), R.C. Sproul (Classical Apologetics), William Lane Craig (Reasonable Faith), and J.P. Moreland (Scaling the Secular City).

Evidential Apologetics. Unlike the deductive approach (in which the conclusion is based on logical premises) to apologetics that we have seen in the classical view, evidentialism is inductive (visual and tangible) in nature.[4] This method defends and corroborates Christian truth by following historical evidence discovered through investigating what the evidentialists aver to be the facts of the matter. Whereas the classical apologist begins with logical arguments before any experience, the evidentialists, in the words of Bernard Ramm,[5] look to three kinds of factual data.

The first relates to material facts that are found in historical events, documents, and archaeological artifacts.  The second relates to events or phenomena that may be considered supernatural in nature. Third are experiential facts, such as individual and social phenomena. It is important to remember that evidentialists do not reject logical argument per se, nor do they reject arguments for the existence of God, but only the overemphasis that may be placed upon them.

Accordingly, our focus should be on demonstrating the incarnation of Christ and those issues that relate to Christ, including demonstrating the trustworthiness of the biblical text. That is to say, our apologetic should be Christocentric. Therefore, logic should be used in analyzing evidences that support the Christian position.

Evidentialists argue that one needs to offer reasons why the Christian viewpoint is consistent with truth. Those who hold this position will focus on the source documents that present issues relating to the historicity of the biblical text, its reliability, and particularly the questions surrounding the incarnation, birth, life, death, and the bodily resurrection of Christ. Evidential apologetics has served the church well, with some Christians seeing an overlap between the classical and evidential approaches.

Some of the most recognizable evidential apologists of our time include John Warwick Montgomery (director of the International Academy of Apologetics, Evangelism, and Human Rights in Strasbourg, France), Josh McDowell (Evidence That Demands a Verdict), Gary Habermas (The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ), and Don Stewart (10 Reasons to Trust the Bible).

In agreement with the classical approach, the evidentialist believes that unregenerate skeptics have the ability to understand rational arguments and truths, yet due to the sinfulness of the mind, emotions, and will, those who are unregenerate distort the truth and will not embrace the truth of God.

Ultimately, a proclamation of the gospel is necessary to bring the non- Christian to Christ.

Presuppositional Apologetics. The presuppositional approach is the position advocated by some within Reformed theological circles. Cornelius  Van Til, a professor at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, was the most noted advocate earlier in the twentieth century.[6] Later presuppositionalists were Greg Bahnsen and Rousas J. Rushdoony. Each of these theologians and philosophers believed that because humans are fallen and sinful creatures, they are not able to understand spiritual truth about God.

Consequently, presuppositionalists do not believe that there is any common ground between the regenerated and the unregenerated, so that logic and rational arguments are ineffective. According to this view, because humans are totally depraved, with sin having corrupted their minds, emotions, and wills, they are unable to understand or receive God’s truth as revealed in nature and Scripture. Essentially, presuppositionalism argues that the unbeliever’s worldview is inadequate and that only when one first assumes Christian presuppositions (of God and the Scriptures) can any appropriate knowledge be obtained. The believer, in contrast, is able to understand the truth of God because of the work of the Spirit in creating faith in the nonbeliever.

Fideist Approach. The fideist approach to apologetics is distinct from the other methods discussed above. This is so because no rational justification or evidence is needed for a defense. One only needs to engage the unregenerate from Scripture and allow your own life to be an example.

For the fideist, Christianity is viewed as being above reason. To be clear, this is not saying that Christian ideas are irrational. Rather, they are beyond the reach of human reason. There is the perception that, from a negative standpoint, that rational arguments are insufficient and that a faith experience is all that is necessary for answering the challenges of the unconverted. Most would classify individuals such as Soren Kierkegaard, Karl Barth, and Donald Bloesch as fideists.

Those who oppose fideism argue that the biblical text supports the use of reason (Isaiah 1:18; 1 Peter 3:15) with regard to spiritual issues, and that it is not possible to believe in God without first believing that He exists (Hebrews 11:6). The fideist perspective is also viewed as contradictory because reason is used to argue that one should not believe in reason to defend Christianity. Predictably, the fideist would respond that God, not reason, is the basis for salvation, and that only a witness to the heart of the human by the Spirit can bring a regenerate person to belief.

Argument for an Integrated Apologetic

Methodology (Apostle Paul)

With regard to the classical, evidential, and presuppositional approaches, one must realize that these are not new ways to look at a presentation or defense of the Christian faith. Aspects of these ideas and approaches are found in the biblical authors and the early church fathers. Even the Greek philosophers argued with each other about the value of using deduction and induction in one’s arguments, as well as the difference between arguing from innate first principles (ideas such as logic, truth, personal existence) deductively to construct a worldview, or whether to construct the worldview inductively piece by piece.[7]

Though presuppositionalists say that the unbeliever will not come to belief in Christ based on rational arguments or evidences found in science, history, or other proofs from inductive investigation, few would say that an unsaved person is incapable of accepting the existence of God.

Furthermore, few would claim that an unbeliever would necessarily reject facts of history, science, or even miracles. Presuppositionalists only say that none of this will cause a person to believe in Jesus.

On the other hand, evidentialists—and even classical apologists— believe that though one can make a case for Christianity from proofs that can be understood by non-Christians, they also agree that these proofs alone will not cause a person to embrace Jesus; the work of the Holy Spirit in moving the unregenerate toward belief in the gospel is necessary.[8]

Classical apologist William Lane Craig says, “…what about the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the unbeliever? Since the Holy Spirit does not indwell him does this mean he must rely only upon arguments to convince him that Christianity is true? No, not at all. According to the Scripture, God has a different ministry of the Holy Spirit especially geared to the needs of the unbeliever.”

John Warwick Montgomery says, “Ultimately a non-Christian must make a moral choice as to what he will do with the objectively sound case for Christianity. If he exercises his will to accept the Christ of the Scriptures, that act must be attributed to the Spirit alone as a pure gift of grace. But the monergistic event of conversion no more denigrates or renders superfluous the work of the apologist than it does the work of the preacher or evangelist who presented the saving message to the individual in the first place. The Holy Spirit does not create the gospel or the evidence for it; He applies what is preached and defended to produce salvation.”

In evaluating the three major apologetic positions, namely, classical apologetics, evidential apologetics, and presuppositional apologetics, it seems clear that there are areas of agreement. That is to say, adherents to all three positions accept that no logical or evidential argument could bring a person to faith in Jesus apart from the special work of the Holy Spirit in the heart. In addition, all agree that the unbeliever must recognize the existence of God and also his own sinful condition. Calvin rightly said, Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes, and gives birth to the other.[9]

Calvin sensed the manner in which the effort to bring men to a saving knowledge of God is found within the New Testament itself. When one studies the ministry of the apostle Paul in his efforts to bring others to faith in the Messiah, we discover that his approach, in some sense, includes a combination of these methods.[10]

For example, Paul believed that the person without the Spirit of God could still know certain things about God (Roman 1:19-21). This included an acknowledgment of what God has revealed, His attributes and His divine nature. Because unbelievers possess this knowledge, they are without excuse. But Christians like Paul are not the only ones who understand this recognition of deity on the part of all. One may find quotes from Xenophon (Xen. Mem. 1.iv.c. 3), Plato (Plat. Tim. Loc. c. 5), Cicero (Cic. Disp. Tusc. 1.I.c.26), Maximus (Max. Tyr. Diss. 38), and many others that indicate all humanity knows of God, and persons such as those listed may even have been philosophers from whom Paul developed some of his terminology.

They speak of God’s invisible nature, that all see Him, that He has divine power, and that all humans acknowledge the existence of God. Paul’s address at the Areopagus (Mars Hill, Acts 17:22-34) combines these elements—his address was well organized and well reasoned.

First, he treated his audience with respect, even using the same phrase as Socrates in the Apology, “men of Athens,” though we should not understand him to be patronizing them, for that was forbidden before the Areopagus.

Second, he started with an idea and used literary sources (Epimenides and Aratas, Acts 17:28) that they could understand and largely agree with, though he invested their terms with fuller meaning from the Christian worldview.

Moses, in the creation account in Genesis 1, did much the same by using contemporary Canaanite terminology, though he invested his language with correct theological perspective. Christians rightly understood Paul’s method here: “it wraps universal truth in the language and idiom of the day, culminating in a uniquely Christian expression of biblical revelation, and inviting the listeners to a higher metaphysical ground.”[11]

Paul moved his unregenerate hearers from creation and took them to the requirement of repentance and essential message of the gospel, the resurrection of Jesus. We should follow Paul as an example in blending the various approaches so that by some means we might lead others to repentance.

---

[1] Some have suggested other methods, such as Reformed epistemology method, and the cumulative case method. It is not my intent to cover newer views, but the major three that have garnished support over the years, and the lesser but historic alternative of fideism. For more discussion of these newer perspectives, see Steven B. Cowan, ed., Five Views on Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI Zondervan, 2000), 15-20, and the review on Five Views on Apologetics at Apologetics Index, http://www.apologeticsindex.org/a108.html

[2] Norman L. Geisler, The Big Book of Christian Apologetics: An A to Z Guide (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012), Kindle loc. 29.

[3] Norman Geisler, “Argument of Apologetics” in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999), 36.

[4] For further description of evidential apologetics, see Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 42; John Warwick Montgomery, “The Holy Spirit and the Defense of the Faith” in Bibliotheca Sacra 154:616 (Oct

1997): 387-395; for a presuppositional response to the value of evidences, se John C. Whitcomb Jr.,  Contemporary Apologetics and the Christian Faith, Part IV: The Limitations and Values of Christian  vidences,” Bibliotheca Sacra 135:537 (Jan 1978): 25-33.

[5] Bernard Ramm, Protestant Christian Evidences: A Textbook of the Evidences of the Truthfulness of the Christian Faith for Conservative Protestants (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1953), 16-32.

[6] Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1955).

[7] Ronald B. Mayers, “Both/And: A Biblical Alternative to the Presuppositional/Evidential Debate” in Michael Bauman, David W. Hall, and Robert C. Newman, eds., Evangelical Apologetics (Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1996), 35.

[8] William Lane Craig, Apologetics: An Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1984); John Warwick Montgomery, “The Holy Spirit and the Defense of the Faith” in Bibliotheca Sacra 154:616 (Oct 1997): 392.

[9] Mayers, “Both/And: A Biblical Alternative to the Presuppositional/Evidential Debate,” quoting John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, J.T. McNeill, ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1960), 1.1.1.

[10] H. Wayne House, “A Biblical Argument for

Balanced Apologetics: How the Apostle Paul Practiced Apologetics in the Acts (Acts 14:8-18, 17:16-34),” in Norman L. Geisler and Chad V. Meister, eds., Reasons for Faith: Making a Case for the Christian Faith  Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007), 53-75.

[11] House, “A Biblical Argument for Balanced Apologetics: How the Apostle Paul Practiced Apologetics in the Acts (Acts 14:8-18, 17:16-34)” in Reasons for Faith, 71.