Posted: 10/21/08

Three Apologetic Methods

by Israel Wayne

In the past series of articles we have looked at two different means by which we learn about the world around us: General Revelation and Special Revelation. We have seen that all people, Christian or non, can understand certain principles about how the universe works through observing General Revelation. Because of "Common Grace," they can take the laws that God has instilled into creation and they can harness those laws and apply them practically to life. Special Revelation, on the other hand, is the only way that we can know God personally and is our only hope for salvation.

Over the years, three major approaches to Christian Apologetics have emerged and I think you will see some interesting parallels to ideas we have already examined regarding Reason, Revelation and Logic. The word "Apologetics" is derived from the Greek word, apologia, which means, "defense."

The three main approaches we should consider are:

1. Evidentialism.

2. Classical Apologetics.

3. Presuppositionalism.

Evidentialism

The first form of Apologetics we should examine is called Evidentialism. Without being overly simplistic, Evidentialism is the idea that we use evidence (which may be scientific, archaeological, paleantological, historical, etc.), to convince the skeptic that Christianity is true. An evidentialist may appeal to fossil evidence that points to a global flood, an ancient tablet bearing the name of a Biblical character, evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, or even laws of physics or mathematics that indicate Intelligent Design.

Classical Apologetics

The second form, Classical Apologetics, is an appeal to rationality and logic. This approach has its roots in the Socratic method of the Greeks. The attempt is to persuade the skeptic with argumentation and rhetoric. Thomas Aquinas is considered to be the father of Classical Apologetics.

Presuppositionalism

The third, Presuppositionalism, does not intend so much to prove through irrefutable evidence, nor through persuasive logic, but instead it seeks to "declare" or "proclaim" the truth, with the intent of allowing the Holy Spirit to change the heart of the hearer. It is predicated on the belief that everyone has certain biases or "presuppositions" which serve as foundations for their beliefs. Everyone accepts certain premises as "givens," and builds their philosophy or worldview on those beliefs.

Over the years, there has been a fair amount of controversy and disagreement between Christians over which method is the most Biblical or the most effective in reaching skeptics.

Although there is much overlap between these categories, and many apologists use all three, in general, Classical and Evidential approaches tend to be used more by Arminian Christians, which Presuppositionalism is preferred by Calvinists.

Arminian Apologetics?

If someone holds to a hyper-Arminian theology, he will be more inclined to believe the burden in Apologetics or Evangelism rests on the shoulders of the Apologist, or Evangelist. If you don't use just the right argument, or demonstrate powerful enough evidence, then the skeptic will not believe, and the fault will rest with the Apologist. It can put a lot of pressure on the person defending the faith.

Calvinist Apologetics?

On the other hand, a hyper-Calvinist will believe that only God can change the heart of the hearer, and so the only obligation of the Apologist is to present the Word of God accurately, and allow the Holy Spirit to work. There is less desire to persuade, convince or cajole the skeptic into belief. The main motivation is to proclaim the truth and let the chips fall.

Are There Honest Skeptics?

Before you can decide on which method to use, you first have to identify the main problem with the skeptic. Is he simply uninformed, needing to hear evidence that has been kept from him. Is he using bad logic and reasoning skills? Or his heart rebellious and he is resistant to the truth, even though it is plain to him?

Just as medical doctor seeks to diagnose the problem first before he begins a method of treatment, so the Christian apologist must understand what is causing the unbelief of the non-Christian, before he can effective use Apologetics.

Inductive vs. Deductive Apologetics?

The first two approaches also tend to correspond to an Inductive approach to Logic, while Presuppositionalism represents more of a Deductive view.

It is my view that there is a place for each of these approaches, but there are some substantial differences between them, which should be explored in more detail in the next few articles.

Copyright 2008, by Israel Wayne. All Rights Reserved.

By Israel Wayne Click here for bio and archived articles