Apologetic Methods: What Are They and Can't We Agree?
Reprinted with permission from Paraklesis (Spring, 2009) courtesy of Baptist Bible College
As Christians today, we face a daunting task. More than ever the people who surround us follow the gods of other religions, materialism and secularism, or the Christian God only nominally. The task of making a case for Christ is greater than ever.
But when we turn to books on defending the faith we wonder at all the disagreement. How can believers who agree on so much doctrine disagree so vehemently over apologetics? We in the ministry have to understand the issues ourselves so we can help our people interact with apologetic writings and defend their Christian faith. If there is a mist in the pulpit, there will certainly be a fog in the pews.
Defining Apologetics
Apologetics is the defense of the Christian faith. But how should we do it? Should we go positive or negative? Negative apologetics refutes charges against our faith, while positive apologetics makes a case for our faith. Should we be hard or soft? Can we prove our case for the faith (hard), or only show it probable (soft)? Consequently, can a person rationally reject Christ (soft), or is he being irrational (hard)? Is apologetics simply evangelism, or can it include “pre-evangelism”—removing obstacles and preparing the way for the gospel? Is apologetics just for unbelievers, or also helpful for believers?
These are a few areas of debate among apologists. If we don’t understand these issues we’ll be lost when we try to interact with books on apologetics. A recent book examines five apologetic strategies (Steven B .Cowan, ed., Five Views on Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), but we can put them in two broad camps: evidentialism and presuppositionalism.
Evidentialism
Evidentialism views at least part of the apologetic task as presenting positive arguments to make a case for the Christian faith. There are three evidentialist approaches.
First, the classical method employs a two-step approach: (1) use reason and natural theology to establish theism; (2) present historical evidence to prove Christianity. Strict classicalists insist on both steps, while moderate classicalists just prefer both steps.
Second, the strict evidential method is a one-step approach: use historical arguments to establish both God and Christianity. Strict evidentialists debate whether it’s just preferable to use only historical evidences, or whether it’s mandatory.
Third, the cumulative case method combines many strands of evidence into a hypothesis that explains the data better than any alternative. This approach makes a more modest claim: though we can’t prove Christianity beyond a shadow of a doubt, we can make a plausible case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Despite the differences, these approaches agree that we should present positive arguments for Christianity, that we can appeal to an unbeliever’s reason, and that God uses positive arguments to lead unbelievers toward faith in Christ.
Presuppositionalism
Presuppositionalism disagrees with evidentialism for one reason or another. Offering positive arguments to establish Christianity is not fruitful; the apologist must start with belief in God, not argue toward it.
First, and bearing the same name, is the presuppositional method. Presupposing God is the proper apologetic starting point. The unbeliever knows God exists (Rom. 1), so why try to prove it? Moreover, sin leads the unbeliever to judge the evidence insufficient. The apologist must reason transcendentally: God is necessary even to deny God. All thought presupposes the Christian God. God is not the conclusion of an argument, but the One Who makes argument possible. God will use the transcendental argument to convict the unbeliever of his irrationality and need to presuppose God and accept Christ.
Second, the reformed epistemology method follows Calvin’s view that all people have an inborn sensus divinitatis (awareness of God); therefore, people can rationally believe in God without the aid of evidences. The believer is within his “epistemic rights” to believe God exists though he can’t prove it. He need not prove his own belief in God, nor present arguments to persuade the unbeliever to believe in God. Instead, he should insist his faith in God is rational as a properly basic belief. He should help the unbeliever come to grips with his own sensus divinitatis. Reformed epistemologists aren’t against the use of evidence completely; they just don’t believe it’s necessary to support their own belief. Nor do they think presenting arguments should be our primary method of persuading unbelievers to accept Christ.
Conclusion
This is only a sketch of apologetic methods and areas of disagreement. But Christians should not be troubled by debates over apologetic method. After all, there are many areas of agreement. What is more, all the methods offer help for the apologetic task. The Holy Spirit can use all kinds of Christians and all kinds of methods to lead all kinds of people to Christ. We can all agree salvation is ultimately God’s doing. Our job is to be faithful stewards of the gospel as we reach a lost world for Christ.
Kenneth M. Gardoski is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Baptist Bible Seminary. He served as a missionary educator in Warsaw, Poland for eight years and has taught Bible and theology courses and seminars in Belarus, Latvia, Poland, and Russia. He earned his Ph.D. in theological studies, focusing on Calvinist and Arminian soteriology and their respective approaches to the doctrine of eternal security. 
- 15 views
What I recall reading (which is admittedly not a great deal) approached presuppositinalism (edit: man! I can’t even spell it) as the method where the presupp’s are givens and you go from there.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
"The Midrash Detective"
The Presuppositionalsit says, “Assuming the basic teachings of Christ are true, let’s examine the faith of Christianity. Is it internally consistent? etc.” AND he says, “Let’s assume the basic teachings of [insert religion] are true, let’s examine that faith. Is it internally consistent? etc.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
There are others here who could answer this much better than I could. What would your reaction be to the Buddist parable of the elephant?
A group of blind men come across an elephant. Each one of them feels a different part of it. Later, they compare notes on what an elephant is like. The one who encountered a leg says an elephant is like a tree, while the one who felt an ear has a contradicting description of the elephant.How do you answer the parable of the elephant? The evidentialist will answer it differently than the presuppositionalist.
The Buddist says that God is like the elephant. He allows himself to be felt in different ways by different men. Therefore, no one should make exclusive claims about God since no one understands all of him.
What’s the presuppositionalist answer?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The presuppositionalist answer is, “Ok, let’s presuppose your thesis: No one can make exclusive claims about God. But there is another character in the parable that has to be considered: The Teller; the one who made up and told the parable. Each man in the parable has a small and incomplete view of God. But NOT the Teller. He knows that God is not just a leg or an ear. He knows that God is a complete elephant. The Teller of the parable is making a claim of exclusive knowledge about God, which is the type of claim that is forbidden by the theme of the parable. So by its own presuppositions, the parable is invalid.”
Discussion