WHAT IS APOLOGETICS: AN INTRODUCTION TO APOLOGETIC METHODOLOGY

The word apologetics is derived from the Greek ἀπολογία (apologia), meaning “to give a reasoned defense.” We see the concept of apologetics in 1 Peter 3:15.

“but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.”

The mandate given in Peter’s epistle is a mandate to be apologetic. Apologetic not in the sense of feeling bad or being sorry as we may understand it to be in the west, but of giving a reasoned defense for the hope that is in us. The hope of the Christian faith. To be an apologist, is to be one who is prepared to defend the Christian faith at all times. Some may say “in season and out of season”. The call to be apologetic is not for a select few, but for all believers. This then presents a question, how exactly is it that we go about defending the Christian faith?

This is a thought-provoking question that has led to many great discussions and debates over the years. Under the umbrella of “apologetics” there varying thoughts and convictions as to how one can most faithfully give a reasoned defense for their faith. I am sure there will be future articles that will devote more time to each one of these apologetic methodologies we will be looking at in this article, but for now, the purpose is to introduce and briefly define each of the three.

EVIDENTIAL

Perhaps the most prominent method of apologetics in the western world is known as evidential apologetics. This methodology is known as the “one-step approach” to apologetics as the evidentialist will begin by immediately going to the specific truth claims of the Christian faith and offering for them a defense. The evidentialist will seek to give an apologia (a reasoned defense) for the Christian faith by appealing to evidences as proofs for the existence of God and the reliability of claims found in scripture. The evidentialist will point to things such as archeology, fulfilled prophecy, miracles, etc to make their arguments.

It is the conviction of the evidentialist that what is lacking in the hearts and minds of the unbeliever is an insufficient understanding of the proofs for God’s existence and the Christian faith. So then, through offering a variety of evidence, it is the goal of the evidentialist to convince the unbeliever of the existence of God bringing them to a belief of the Christian faith.

Probably the central case made by the evidentialist in defending the Christian faith is that of the historical evidence for the life, death, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. The evidence for the bodily resurrection is overwhelming and is more than worthy of its own post. It is the belief of the evidentialist that if they are able to convince the unbeliever of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, then all other truth claims found in scripture fall into place. For example… If Jesus rose from the dead, we can conclude that He is the Son of God as he claimed to be and if Jesus is the Son of God, we can conclude that there is a God and His word is truth. Finally, If God’s word is truth, then all scripture claims are true.

CLASSICAL

Another prominent method of apologetics is known as classical apologetics. Like the evidentialist, the classicalist will appeal to evidences found in things such as archeology, fulfilled prophecy, and miracles, etc.. However, unlike the evidentialist, the classicalist will not begin with these arguments. Whereas the evidential method is known as the “one-step” approach, the classical method is known as the “two-step” approach to apologetics.

The classical apologetic argument begins with an appeal not to evidences, but an appeal to reason. Before the classicalist will give a defense for the specificities of the Christian religion, they will give a defense for a general existence of God using one of two arguments. These are known as the cosmological and teleological arguments.

The cosmological argument attempts to appeal to one’s reason as it argues that the existence of the universe (cosmos) is itself a call for rational belief in God. This is how the argument goes… “In order for something to exist, it must have a cause, in order for something to be caused, it must have someone/something who/that caused it, in order to have someone/something who/that is the initial cause, they/it must be uncaused.” So then, because the universe exists, it is rational to believe there is a God who serves as the uncaused causer of the cosmos.

The teleological argument also attempts to appeal to one’s reason as it argues that because there is design that can be observed in the universe, it is rational to believe there is a God who serves as the designer. William Paley famously used the divine watchmaker analogy where he tells the story of a man walking through the forest who stumbles across a watch and ponders its origin. Did this watch arrive by accident due to its parts randomly falling from the sky? Or, was it dropped there; that it was the product of a designer. As he pondered, he found it to be irrational to suggest that the watch was a product of anything other than a designer. The application was that in the same way, one should recognize that the universe is organized and designed with certain laws, such as the law of gravity. All of time, space, matter, action, and force were the result of the designer, God. It is only once these two ideas are established that the classicalist will then appeal to specific evidences to offer support and proof to the claims of scripture. This would be the second of the “two steps”.

PRESUPPOSITIONAL

Lastly and possibly the least popular method of apologetics is known as presuppositional apologetics. Presuppositionalism, emphasizes that evidence alone is insufficient to defend the Christian faith. This is due to the fact that one’s sense of reason is ultimately determined not by evidence, but by their presuppositions. The presuppositionalist would argue that there is no such thing as “neutral ground” when it comes to logic and reason. Apart from God, there is no perfectly objective vantage point from which an individual can see and interpret the world around them.

The presuppositionalist will seek not to find neutral ground with the one who they are defending their faith against, rather, the presuppositionalist recognizes that they presuppose the divine revelation found in the scriptures to be the final rule, authority, and starting point for all knowledge. Presuppositionalism seeks to undermine the worldview of the unbeliever by demonstrating that apart from the Christian worldview, one cannot give an objective justification for things such as truth, love, justice, morality etc...

Foundational to the presuppositional argument are the words of Paul found in verses 18-20 of the first chapter of his epistle to the Romans… “18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”

In this passage, Paul suggests that the proof for the existence of God is not lacking. In fact, it is quite the opposite… Paul claims that what can be known about God (invisible attributes, divine nature, eternal power) has been on full display for all of history in the things that have been made. Therefore, it is not that the unbeliever has genuine disbelief in God, rather, in their unrighteousness, they are suppressing what they know already know to be true about God. Because of this, they are without an apologia (defense).

What we see in Romans chapter one is known as general revelation and leads many presuppositionalists to their apologetic position. In light of these things, the presuppositionalist is under the conviction that due to the individual being spiritually dead and a slave to sin, they are unable to be objectively logical and rational as they are “spiritually discerned”. The goal of the presuppositionalist is often not to prove God’s existence but to prove that the unbeliever already knows God exists.

THE NEED FOR APOLOGETICS

There is much more that could be said and learned about the three methods of apologetics. There is much debate and discussion yet to be had as to which is the most faithful and effective in our defense of the Christian faith. However, while many will disagree on the approach, all Christians should recognize that we are all called to share and defend the Christian faith. We are all called to be apologists. This understanding should lead us to diligently study apologetics.