TABLE
OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1. A
BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO FOUR TYPES OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS
1.1 Classical
Apologetics
1.2 Evidential
Apologetics
1.3 Presuppositionalist
Apologetics
1.4 Reformed Epistemology
2. A
CRITIQUE ON AFORE MENTIONED METHODS
2.1 Classical Method
2.2 Evidential Method
2.3
Presuppositional Method
2.4 Reformed Method
3. INTEGRATED
APOLOGETICS
3.1
Edward John Carnell
3.2
Francis A. Schaeffer
3.3
David K. Clark
3.4 C.
Stephen Evans
3.5
John Frame
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INTRODUCTION
How to relate the
Christian worldview to a non-Christian world has been the dilemma of Christian
spokespersons since the apostle Paul addressed the Stoic and Epicurean
philosophers in Athens. Twenty centuries of familiarity have not simplified
this mission, as fresh challenges have arisen in every century and new methods
and approaches to the defense of the Christian faith have been originated. The
debate has a long history, and a few lines will not begin to do justice to its
complexities. A considerate reading of some recent proponents of each position,
however, suggests that at least some of the fences that barricade off each
position from the others are beginning to come down.
At least formal
differences in theory and method have stridently distinguished leading
Christian apologists. At the same time, many apologists draw on a variety of
methods and do not fit neatly into a single theory of how to defend the
Christian faith.
In this paper, we will
identify four schools of thought (Classical, Evidential, Presuppositional and
Reformed) or idealized types of Christian apologetic methodologies. We will
look at the actual apologetic arguments of leading apologists and see how their
methods compare to those idealized approaches. We will then consider the work
of apologists who have advocated directly integrating two or more of these four
basic approaches. The objective is to add to an understanding of these diverse
apologetic methods that will supplement all Christians in their defense of the
faith and facilitate to speak with more relevance. And then with a concise
critique on every method an integrated reflection will be drawn from an
apologetical perspective.
1.
A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO FOUR TYPES OF
CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS[1]
Apologetics is based on
the word apologia (Greek 1 Peter 3:15), which means to give a reason or
defense for some belief. In modern Christian apologetics, there are four
schools of thought: classical, evidentialist, presuppositional, and Reformed.
1.1.
CLASSICAL APOLOGETICS[2]
The classical approach is
so named, because it was engaged by the earliest Christian thinkers to practice
formal apologetics, such as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Anselm. Modern
Classical Apologists include Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, Charles Hartshorne,
F. R. Tennant, Norman Geisler, R.C. Sproul, and John Gerstner. The importance
of studying classical apologetics stems from the fact that most secular
philosophy courses only dialogue with the classical arguments. In addition,
Classical Apologetics are an item of dogma for the Roman Catholic Church. As it
is put, form of apologetics, there are two steps:
1.1.1
Proving the existence of God (broad
theism) through rational argumentation using various arguments.
First is the cosmological
argument which has three main sub-arguments: the Aristotelean argument, the
medieval argument, and a more scientific approach based on the Principle of
Sufficient Reason. (William Lane Craig, Thomas Aquinas)
A. The Aristotelean argument looks like this:
i. There cannot be an actual infinite--that
is, a universe existing infinitely in time.
ii. Therefore, the universe had a
beginning.
iii. Whatever begins to exist must have a
cause to exist.
iv. Therefore, there must be an uncaused
cause of the universe.
B. The medieval argument
was propounded by Thomas Aquinas in the 1200s. This argument looks like this:
i. Every object we observe to exist is
dependent on some cause to exist.
ii. The sequence of causally dependent
causes cannot be infinite, or else nothing would exist.
iii. Therefore, there must be an uncaused
first cause.
C. The third approach
argues thus:
i.. Nothing exists without a sufficient
reason why it exists.
ii. There are existing dependent things
including the universe itself.
iii. There cannot be an infinite series of
dependent things.
iv. Therefore, there must be a necessary
first cause.[3]
Second, the teleological
argument argues that there is a supreme Designer who designed the universe.
Based on the evidence of the complexities of the universe, the argument
concludes that there must be an intelligent Designer because such complexities
could not just have happened at random. Among the illustrations used for this
argument are a watch and the watchmaker in which a watch does not just come
into being, but requires a watchmaker to design its intricate parts. (William
Paley, Michael Behe)
The third argument is the
moral argument (C.S. Lewis, William Sorley) follows like this:
i. There are objective moral obligations.
ii. These obligations cannot be explained
by natural causes.
iii. These obligations cannot be explained
by social factors.
iv. Moral obligations can only be
explained by a personal source.
v. Therefore, moral obligation must have a
personal source which the authority to establish
it.
Fourth, the Ontological
arguments (Anselm, Alvin Plantinga, W.L. Craig) is particularly controversial
due to its questionable logical validity. The Ontological argument is the most
complicated of all of the arguments that classical apologists use. It attempts
to prove the existence of God through abstract reasoning alone and was most
famously propounded by Anselm of Canterbury. This argument is the one that has
received the most criticism.
Anselm's argument is thus:
i. Our understanding of God is a being than
which no greater can be conceived.
ii.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
iii.
A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being
that exists only in the mind.
iv.
If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that
which exists in reality.
v. We cannot be imagining something
that is greater than God.
vi. Therefore, God exists.
These arguments are used
by classical apologists in their attempts to prove the existence of God and
then work from that agreed upon basis. Caner concluded, "The classical
apologist believes that every human being can be shown (and convinced of) the
existence of God because he is created in the image of God (Imago Dei).[4]
1.1.2
Establishing the truth of Christianity by appealing to the historical evidence,
particularly of the life of Jesus,
his miracles, and his resurrection.
Classical Apologetics
focuses on making an argument for the Christian faith by providing rational
arguments for the existence of God. Ergun Caner has stated, virtually all forms
of classical apologetics operate from an evidential basis. In classical apologetics,
the unbeliever is offered evidence of the existence of God, and the supposition
is that the unbeliever can reasonably ascertain that this hypothesis is
rational and cohesive. In Classical Apologetics, arguments are offered that
begin before any discussion of Scripture and its teachings.[5] There are four main
arguments that classical apologists use when discussing the existence of God:
the Cosmological argument, the Teleological argument, the Moral argument, and
the Ontological argument. Let me explain briefly about these four arguments.
1.2 EVIDENTIAL APOLOGETICS
Evidential Apologetics is
that style of Christian defense that stresses the miracles found in the Bible
particularly Christ's resurrection as an evidence for the existence of God and
the validity of Christ and His words. It
also uses historical evidences to support the veracity of the biblical
account(s). In this, it is very similar
to Classical Apologetics, which stresses reason in its approach to
evidences. Basically, evidential
apologetics stresses evidence such as miracles, fulfilled prophecies, etc., and
uses reason to support them. [6]
Evidential apologetics
deals, as the name implies, with the evidence for Christianity: the
resurrection, the biblical manuscripts, fulfilled prophecy, miracles, and much
else. It presumes, perhaps, that the listener, or questioner, is not
necessarily prejudiced and should recognize truth, or at least, good evidence
for truth, when it is made available. The classical apologist is usually well
aware that 'fallen depravity' has affected all minds yet remains essentially
optimistic that in any particular case the Holy Spirit could be at work in
opening a person's mind.[7]
The evidentialist
approach appeals to the many different forms of evidence that support the truth
claims of Christianity. Evidentialists overlap with classical apologists when
they use rational evidence, but they don't believe the rational proof for the
existence of God is a necessary step. They may just as easily appeal to
miracles, historical, prophetic, or archaeological evidence, without first
proving God's existence. Josh McDowell is a modern proponent of this approach.
There is only one step: Present the evidence for the truth claims of
Christianity.
The Historical Argument
(an inductive argument with a posteriori premises).
i.
Historiography, textual criticism,
archaeology, etc. demonstrate that the Bible is a reliable history book.
ii.
The Bible teaches that Jesus lived, and
claimed to be God.
iii.
Jesus could only be (l) Lord, (2) a liar,
(3) a lunatic
iv.
Various parts of the description of Jesus'
conduct and the response to his character rule out his being a lunatic.
v.
Other parts of his conduct and a lack of
clear motive rule out his being a liar.
vi.
Therefore Jesus was whom he said he was:
Lord, and God.
This is done by examining
the uniqueness of the Bible, how we got the Bible, and then looking at
archaeological evidence to demonstrate the trustworthiness of the Bible.[8] Based on that premise, the
evidential apologist moves to make his case for Christ by proving His deity,
humanity, and work through the many evidences from the Bible and history. A
detailed look at proving that Christ was not only man, but also God through
what McDowell calls "The Trilemma." C.S. Lewis argued from this point
of view in his argument that Christ was a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. Once
Christ's deity has been affirmed and proven, the Evidential apologist then
seeks to prove the fact of the resurrection through the many biblical and eyewitness
accounts.[9] Based on these
conclusions, the evidential apologist is ready to make his conclusion.
Evidential Apologetics is
a strong way to defend the Christian faith and to share the gospel of Jesus
Christ. In part 3, I will examine a third type of apologetics: Historical
Apologetics.
1.3. PRESUPPOSITIONALIST APOLOGETICS
Presuppositional
apologetics have become prominent in recent years due to the work of several
reformed scholars including Cornelius Van Til, Gordon Clark, E. J. Carnell, and
Francis Schaeffer.
At a time when classical
apologetics are in general discredit among scholars in the secular world,
presuppositionalism has enjoyed increasing respect in scholarly circles. Modern
Christian communicators should read a good selection of the writings of these
authors, and become able to employ this approach when appropriate. [10]
The central idea (theory)
behind presuppositional apologetics is the fact that everyone does have certain
presuppositions, no matter what their world view. This fact is obvious,
although the exact presuppositions held in a given case may not be obvious. It
is even possible that the presuppositions are not clear to the one that holds
them.[11] Therefore, there often
needs to be a step of discovery of the other's presuppositions before applying
the method.
The presuppositionalist
approach presupposes that Christianity is true without rational proof or any
type of direct evidence. Though there are many different types of
presuppositionalism, they all essentially demonstrate that Christianity makes
the most sense of reality. In this system, Christianity is seen as a total
worldview. Some show that it is the only rational worldview (Gordon Clark, Carl
F.H. Henry), others show that it is the only worldview that can be consistently
lived (Francis Schaeffer), and still others show that it is the only worldview
that is internally consistent with itself. Then demonstrate that Christianity,
as a whole worldview system, is superior to the alternatives (naturalism,
pantheism, Islam, etc.)
In contrast to Classical
and Evidential Apologetics, Presuppositional Apologetics, begins with the
absolute belief that the listener cannot come to any conclusions concerning any
evidence without first agreeing to certain premises. The Presuppositional apologist
argues that there can be no discussion of Christianity and of God with a
non-believer prior to the non-believer laying down some of their basic
presuppositions. [12]
If, for instance, a non-believer declares that they are an atheist and an
evolutionist, then the Christian apologist, according to Presuppositional
Apologetics, will not be able to discuss God or anything to do with
Christianity until the non-believer sets aside their presuppositions that they
have regarding the nature of God or their beliefs regarding Christianity.[13]
The Presuppositional
apologist seeks to break down the worldview of the non-believer down to their
most basic beliefs and then form the argument for Christianity after both agree
upon a foundational starting point. Most Presuppositional apologists, agree
that, at the outset, both the listener and the speaker must agree that a Triune
God has revealed Himself in the Bible. In essence, the Presuppositional
apologist seeks to change a person's presuppositions to be in agreement with
biblical revelation.
There are two basic types
of Presuppositional Apologetics: [14]
A.
Revelational Presuppositionalism
It teaches that the Holy
Bible is the core and center of all truth, and without this shared belief, the
listener and the apologist will never come to any commonality. These apologists
believe that at the center of any conversation is the revelation of God through
the Bible and an argument cannot take place unless this presupposition is
agreed upon. Cornelius Van Til was one of the more popular Revelational presuppositionalists.
B.
Rational Presuppositionalism
It teaches that
"only Christianity is internally consistent and logical, and therefore,
the listener must hold to a belief in logic before a discussion can bear any
fruit." Gordon Clark is the more popular rational presuppositionialist and
emphasized the importance of logic in any argument. A sound presuppositional
apologetic belongs in the arsenal of the modern Christian communicator, because
it is frequently very effective in public speaking and in gaining respect in
one on one conversation, especially with well-educated and intelligent hearers.
1.4
REFORMED[15]
EPISTEMOLOGY
Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas
Wolterstorff and William Alston, in their so called Reformed Epistemology, have
argued that belief in God does not require the support of evidence or argument
in order for it to be rational. In doing so, they reject the evidentialist
objector’s assumptions about rationality. [16]
This is rooted in the
philosophical school of rationalism, which states that there are certain ideas
innate to humanity. Alvin Plantinga, the premier Reformed epistemologist,
argues (with John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas) that God has created human beings
with innate knowledge of him, which may be triggered by such things as the
wonders of nature (Romans 1:20). Believing in God without empirical evidence is
just as rational as believing that other people have minds and believing that
your memories of the past are true.[17] There is also a limit to
the things that human beings can prove. If we were required to prove
everything, there would be an infinite regress of proving. There must be some
truths that we can just accept and reason from. Thus, we can’t help but trust
our cognitive faculties. [18]
2. A
CRITIQUE ON AFORE MENTIONED METHODS
2.1 Classical Method
Despite the potency of
the arguments produced within the classical apologetic, there are a number of
weaknesses which proponents of other apologetic methods have exposed; the
concept of irrefutable proof underlies most of these criticisms. While the
cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments can show the
reasonableness of belief in the existence of God, they cannot provide a formal evidence
beyond the bounds of rationality. In other words, it is possible to reject all
three of these arguments for the existence of God and still hold a rational set
of beliefs about the world. A second difficulty with the classical apologetic
is that if the skeptic refuses the argument for the existence of God, he is
automatically excused from examining the historical evidence for the authenticity
of the Scriptures. This can actually end up being harmful the apologist’s talk.
2.2 Evidential
Method
The primary criticisms of
the evidentialist approach center around the acceptance of the evidence given
by the apologist. First, the skeptic need not accept the “consensus” view of
the Scriptures, nor need he accept the evidence for the authenticity of the
Scriptures. The skeptic can always demand more evidence, or simply assert a
postmodern reading of the text at hand. The second criticism is that even if
the evidentialist pulls the skeptic down the path to stating he accepts the authenticity
of the Scriptures, this doesn’t mean the skeptic must accept the result the
evidentialist states. In other words, the skeptic can doubt the logical relationship
between the authenticity of the Scriptures and the reality of what is written
there. The Scriptures may truly have been written when the evidentialist says
they were written, and by whom the evidentialist says, but all of this can be
rejected as failing to prove that the writers wrote candidly.
The infinite regress argument[19]
Evidentialism also faces
a challenge from the infinite regress argument. This argument begins with the
observation that, normally, one's supporting evidence for a belief consists of
other beliefs. But it seems that these other beliefs can do the job of
justifying only if they themselves are already justified. And evidentialism
demands that these supporting beliefs be justified by still further evidence if
they are to be justified themselves. But this same reasoning would apply to the
new, deeper level of supporting beliefs: they can only justify if they're
themselves justified, and evidentialism therefore demands an even deeper level
of supporting belief. And so on. According to this argument, a justified belief
requires an endless supply of reasons. Some philosophers like Thomas Nagel
posit that this is an absurd conclusion.[20]
2.3 Presuppositional
Method
The presuppositionalist
leans greatly on the impact of sin on the capability of the skeptic to think
(the noetic effect of sin). In this view, the effect of sin on the mind is not
to “not know,” but rather to hold back what is known. Therefore, arguing from
evidence to the existence of God or the authenticity of the Scriptures is a futile
attempt; the skeptic already knows these things. The presuppostionalist assumes
the existence of God and the authenticity of the Scriptures, and argues from
this base. Presuppositional apologetics has been also criticized from two
specific directions. The first is that the presupposition of the existence of
God in proving the existence of God is really viciously circular —or rather
that it really doesn’t matter whether it is or is not viciously circular, but
rather that it is circular at all. The second is that the skeptic isn’t so easy
to convince that his thinking is not rational; if you drive a car or fly on an
airplane designed or built by the skeptic, for instance, you implicitly trust
the rationality of this thinking while declaiming that same rationality.
2.4 Reformed Method
Criticism of the reformed
apologetic centers around the presupposition of God’s existence; while it is
true that no convincing evidence has been offered for the existence of another
person, and yet all people believe in the existence of other people, this
cannot be stretched to the existence of God. The problem is the leap of logic
between believing in the existence of a person in the ordinary sense, and
believing in a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent creator. These are two different
“classes” of persons; the existence of one class does not necessarily infer the
existence of the other. Beyond this, even with the assumption of God’s existence,
there is no path from this assumption to Christianity in particular. Assuming
God exists does not prove he is, in fact, the God described in Christianity.
3. INTEGRATED
APOLOGETICS
In the modern time, as
the discussions over apologetic approaches and methods have sometimes seemed to
outshine the apologetic mission itself, some apologists have sought to build up
an approach that combines or integrates elements of more than one approach.
These apologists typically believe that the most effective apologetic will
utilize more than one line of argument in defense of the Christian faith.
Augustine, for example,
is claimed as a forerunner by classical apologists, especially though not
exclusively because in his earlier writings he made extensive use of arguments
for God’s existence. Warfield saw him as a forerunner of classical apologetics
and of Reformed theology. [21]
Reformed apologists, though, find Augustine on a trajectory leading toward
their approach in his later writings, in which the authority of Scripture and
the sovereignty of God are given special emphasis. Thomas Aquinas is claimed as
a forerunner of the classical approach because of his emphasis on Aristotelian,
deductive reasoning. Yet he is also claimed as a precursor to the evidentialist
approach because his “five ways” are all based on observed characteristics of
the world, and because he insisted that apologetic arguments based on reason
could only yield probable conclusions. And surprisingly, C. Stephen Evans has argued
that he can also be read as adhering to a kind of moderate, rational fideism,
on the grounds that he “clearly affirms that faith requires some beliefs that
are above reason.” Anselm of Canterbury is usually classified as a classical
apologist because of his use of deductive, a priori reasoning in his
ontological proof for God’s existence and in his argument for the necessity of
the Incarnation. But Karl Barth’s thoughtful reinterpretation of his apologetic
concludes that, for Anselm, “faith leading to understanding” means that only
from within the standpoint of faith can the meaning and significance of the
Christian doctrines be understood. These examples (many more could be given)
illustrate that it is usually a mistake to speak of premodern apologists as
consistent advocates of any one of the four approaches, especially the three
nonclassical ones. They may also be cited in support of considering whether an
approach that combines or integrates the four model approaches is desirable and
achievable.
In the second half of the
twentieth century, as the varying approaches began to cultivate greater uniqueness
and debates about their relative merits began to take place, more than a few
apologists attempted to develop a inclusive approach that incorporated more
than one of these models. Most often the focal point was on developing a
rapprochement between classical or evidentialist apologetics on the one side
and Reformed apologetics, especially presuppositionalism, on the other.
Furthermore, we shall
discuss some of those apologists who worked in the area of integration and
attempted to come up with new methods.
3.1 Edward John Carnell
One of the first
Christian apologists to advocate an approach that was partly presuppositional
and partly evidentialist was Edward John Carnell (1919-1967). Indeed, Gordon
Lewis’s summary of Carnell’s approach suggests that he sought to integrate all
four of the approaches.[22] The Reformed and
evidentialist approaches dominate Introduction to Christian Apologetics;
Carnell’s synthesis of them is augmented by elements of fideism in his
subsequent works. Not surprisingly, he refused to pigeonhole his own approach
into any specific camp. “There is no ‘official’ or ‘normative’ approach to
apologetics. At least I have never found one. The approach is governed by the
climate of the times. This means, as it were, that an apologist must play it by
ear”.[23]
Since apologetics is an
art and not a science, there is no “official” way to go about defending the Christian
faith. The defense must answer to the spirit of the times. . . . The climate of
our modern world is dynamic and existential. People speak of Kierkegaard’s
“individual,” of “confrontation” and “crisis.” This is why we have sought to
impress the contemporary mind with evidences drawn from man’s marvelous powers
of moral and rational self-transcendence.[24]
Carnell concludes by
insisting that “apologetics has its limits . . . God is a living person, not a
metaphysical principle. Evidences may point to God, but God himself must be
encountered in the dynamic of personal fellowship. Only the Holy Spirit can
illuminate the evidences.”[25] According to Carnell, the
practical significance of this fact is that today Christian apologetics must
emphasize moral and spiritual evidences over the more traditional kinds of
evidence.
3.2 Francis A. Schaeffer
Francis August Schaeffer
IV (1912-1984) was one of the most beloved Christian apologists of the
twentieth century. His influence was so great that Newsweek once called him
“the guru of fundamentalism.” There are many reasons for Schaeffer’s
popularity, but two stand out.[26] First and foremost,
Schaeffer embodied the ideal of an apologist who sought to “speak the truth in
love” (Ephesians 4:15). He talked to people, showed a genuine interest in them,
and in his teaching on apologetics emphasized the importance of approaching
non-Christians with compassion as individuals in God’s image. L’Abri, his
retreat center in the Swiss Alps that has been duplicated in several countries,
was a place where people in spiritual and intellectual anguish could go and be
heard and helped.[27] Second, Schaeffer
inspired evangelical Christians to broaden their approach to apologetics beyond
the usual disciplines of philosophy, theology, science, and history—which have
dominated our own discussion in this book—to encompass ethics and the arts.
“Cultural apologetics” touches most people more profoundly than traditional
forms, because it connects with them in those areas of life in which personality
is more deeply involved.[28]
It is no wonder that
Schaeffer avoided being labeled an advocate of any one school of apologetic
theory. He did believe there were certain guiding principles that should be
followed, but he rejected the idea of an apologetic system that could be
applied in all cases. He emphasizes that in evangelism and apologetics “we
cannot apply mechanical rules. . . We can lay down some general principles, but
there can be no automatic application.” Thus “each person must be dealt with as
an individual, not as a case or statistic or machine. So I do not believe there
is any one apologetic which meets the needs of all people . . . I do not
believe that there is any one system of apologetics that meets the needs of all
people, any more than I think there is any one form of evangelism that meets
the need of all people. It is to be shaped on the basis of love for the person
as a person” [29]
While few if any students of Schaeffer would conclude that the classical model
dominated his approach to apologetics, some do contend that he is properly
identified as an evidentialist.
3.3 David K. Clark
David K. Clark is an
American evangelical who was raised in Japan, where he became acquainted
firsthand with the Eastern philosophies that have since become prevalent in the
United States. He studied philosophy of religion and apologetics under Norman
Geisler at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where he received his master’s
degree. While studying for his doctorate at Northwestern University, he wrote a
short book entitled The Pantheism of Alan Watts, for which Geisler wrote the
foreword.[30]
In Dialogical Apologetics: A Person-Centered Approach to Christian Defense,
Clark does not abandon the classical model, but he does deny it exclusive
validity.[31]
Clark denies the distinctive supposition of the four approaches that there is
only “one correct epistemology” that “is right for all persons,” arguing
instead that while truth is one, human ways of coming to know that truth are
varied. Likewise, he denies “that there is only one right way to practice
apologetics”. The dispute over the one right apologetic method “is exciting
stuff for the apologetics junkie,” but it searches for a method to reach an
“unbeliever-in-the-abstract” rather than real, live unbelievers. “I have never
talked with an unbeliever-in-the-abstract. When I am speaking with the man on
the Bower Street bus, I try to find out what he knows and work from there. If
knowledge is person-centered, then my apologetic should start with what this
man believes”.[32]
Here again, Clark’s
classical approach is moderated by elements of evidentialism. Thus he goes on
to describe dialogical apologetics as “a rational enterprise in that it seeks
to build a reasoned, probabilist, holistic, cumulative case for Christianity”[33]. Where he distinguishes
his approach is more in strategy than in epistemology: the arguments and
evidences are to be used with due sensitivity to the differences among persons
to whom the apologist is speaking. Dialogical apologetics encourages a strategy
of dialogue with unique persons in whom an apologist uses all the tools in the
toolbox to move particular individuals toward an intellectual acknowledgment of
the Christian world view and a heartfelt commitment of life and soul to the
Savior that this world view declares.
3.4 C. Stephen Evans
Stephen Evans (1949- ) is
a Christian philosopher who has specialized throughout his career as an
interpreter of Kierkegaard. In fact, Evans’s work has encouraged evangelicals
to reconsider the sharply critical view they have typically held toward the
Danish thinker.
Evans discusses the integration
of diverse approaches to apologetics explicitly in The Historical Christ and
the Jesus of Faith. Specifically, he states that he will assess the viability
of two different types of theological accounts of how knowledge of the
incarnational narrative is possible. These two accounts are an evidential model
that understands knowledge of the story as derived from ordinary historical
evidence, and what I shall term the Reformed account, that describes the
knowledge as the product of the work of the Holy Spirit within the life of the
person. As seen, Evans includes classical apologetics with evidentialism.[34] He will conclude that “a
combined account provides the best picture of how such religious historical
knowledge is possible. Perhaps the central thesis of Evans’s model for
integrating the evidentialist and Reformed traditions is that apologetics and
religious epistemology are not identical enterprises.[35]
For Evans, the Reformed
approach generally has more value in understanding how we come to faith, while
the evidentialist approach generally has more value in functioning as a means
through which we come to faith.
3.5 John Frame
John M. Frame (1939- ) is
an exceptional apologist in the Van Til tradition. Among Van Til’s leading
interpreters, Frame alone has offered a critical, creative interpretation of
presuppositionalism that makes room for many of the traditional kinds of
apologetic arguments criticized by Van Til.[36] Further complicating the
matter, in his book on apologetics Frame relates the three perspectives to
apologetics in yet another way. Constructive apologetics, or apologetics as
proof, is the normative perspective; offensive apologetics, or apologetics as
offense, is the situational; and defensive apologetics, or apologetics as
defense, is the existential. We may understand what Frame means from his
application of the schema to the rest of the book. Apologetics as proof centers
on the proof for Christianity from God’s own normative revelation, confirmed by
arguments for God’s existence and for the truth of the gospel (chapters 3–5). [37] Most of Frame’s arguments
have been drawn from presuppositional, classical, and evidential apologetics,
and so this perspective cuts across the lines of the apologetic models that we
have seen earlier in four methods.
In short, above mentioned
all the apologists, in a way, endeavored to integrate two or more apologetical
methods to have wider impact on Christian task of apologetics. Even in our
times beyond single apologetical methods, we are insisted to work towards
integration to make our message more relevant and reasonable to postmodern
world.
CONCLUSION
To a degree, under the
impact of postmodernism, the various disciplines of Christian apologetics have
an opportunity to draw closer together than they have usually been in the past.
Moreover there is a tendency, especially
among more popular writers, to caricature the other positions. And seen all
four of the apologetic systems presented here have both strong points and
weaknesses
The presuppositionalist
may blame the evidentialist with superficiality. You can line up evidence to
support the truth of Christianity until you have exhausted yourself by your
efforts, but no amount of evidence is sufficient to compel belief. Did not
Jesus himself say that even if someone came back from the dead, they would not
believe? Evidentialism simply does not understand the implications of human finitude
or the profound noetic effects of the fall and both limitations are exacerbated
by postmodernism.
The rational
presuppositionalist is scarcely better. He acknowledges that there are
controlling presuppositions, but thinks he can give adequate reasons to defend
Christian presuppositions.
If you cannot give
reasons for the supremacy of Christian presuppositions, will you simply offer a
critique of everyone else’s position and then sit around and wait for the
Spirit to strike? Does not the record of New Testament preaching show that
reasons were advanced in the bold advocacy of the gospel? Besides, doesn’t the
pressure of postmodernism drive us to the conclusion that unless we present
reasoned argument why the Christian worldview is the true one, people will
think of Christianity as just one more arbitrary option?
The evidentialist reminds
her presuppositionalist colleagues that human beings, made in the image of God,
are endowed with reason, and however corrupted those powers, God’s truth must
be set forth so as to appeal to that reason and to destroy alternative claims.
Do not the canonical evangelists and other New Testament believers present the
evidences in support of Jesus’ resurrection, and take pains to debunk the
denials? Moreover, precisely because postmodernism is so strong in the land, it
is important to overturn presuppositionalist thought as a cop-out that
inevitably ends in subjectivity and uncertainty. Proclaim the truth and support
it with the fullest arsenal of evidences; it is God’s truth, and by God’s grace
it shall prevail. Typically, these
apologists integrate two or more approaches by expanding one approach to absorb
elements (usually not the whole) of the others. So, for example, David K. Clark
is really a classical apologist with a broad enough understanding of that
method to include the other approaches (especially evidentialism), using the
important principle that the utility of arguments is person-relative. C.
Stephen Evans is really an evidentialist in his apologetics and a broadly
Reformed epistemologist in his theology of revelation and faith. John Frame is
(as he maintains) a presuppositionalist with a broadened understanding of that
approach to include the others viewed as perspectivally related.
I believe that this
practice of intensifying or enriching one apologetic approach by incorporating
fundamentals of other approaches is just what apologists should do. Sometimes
one can doubt that it is possible, or
even desirable, to formulate a “fifth” apologetic system that would in every
respect unite and thus succeed the four basic approaches. Rather than striving
to generate the ideal single apologetic system or method or model that all
apologists should use, Christians should start from the most excellent approach
they know and enhance or refine it using whatever they can from other
approaches.
[1] Charlie M. “A Brief Introduction
to Four Types of Christian Apologetics” http://www.mooneytheology.com/2012/07/brief-introduction-to-four-types-of.html (accessed on 06/01/15)
[2] Classical apologetics is rooted in
natural theology, which operates on the belief that God has revealed himself
through nature (general revelation), apart from what may be learned about God
through Jesus or the Scriptures (special revelation).
[3] Paul Derengowski, “Methods of
Apologetic Practice” http://capro.info/Apologetics/Methods_of_Apologetic_Practice.html (accessed on 07/01/15)
[4] Bodie Hodge, Confound the
Critics: Answers for Attacks on Biblical Truths (USA: New Life Publisher,
2014)
[5]Matt Slick , “Classical Apologetics”
http://carm.org/classical-apologetics (accessed on 07/01/15)
[6] Greg L, “Evidential Apologetics
The Right Way” https://answersingenesis.org/apologetics/evidential-apologetics/ (accessed on 07/01/15)
[7] Andy Naselli “Carson on
Presuppositional vs. Evidentialist Apologetics” http://andynaselli.com/carson-on-presuppositional-vs-evidentialist-apologetics (accessed on 07/01/15)
[8]Magnus Onyike, Understanding
Christian Apologetics (Nigeria: Lulu Publishing Com, 2009), 78.
[9]Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L.
Okholm Christian Apologetics in the Postmodern World (Illinois:
Intervarsity Press, 1995), 206.
[10] Kenneth Boa, Robert M. Bowman Jr. Faith
Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith (USA:
Authentic Publisher, 2005), 377.
[11] Robert Charles Sproul, Classical
Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith (Michigan:
Zondervan, 1984), 183.
[12] Dennis McCallum and Gary
DeLashmutt, “Theistic Apologetics” http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/theistic.htm (accessed on 07/01/15)
[13] M. Nelson, “Apologetic
Methods of Presupposition and Evidentialism” http://www.yutopian.com/religion/theology/Apologetic.html (accessed on
07/01/15)
[14] Robert Charles Sproul, Classical
Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith (Michigan: Zondervan,
1984), 304.
[15] “Reformed” refers to the Reformed
wing of the Protestant reformation, which was largely shaped by John Calvin.
This approach has been developed within the confessional Reformed tradition of
Protestant Christianity.
[16] Patrick Roche, Knowledge of God
and Alvin Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology
http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/roche-plantinga.shtml (accessed on 07/01/15)
[17] J.W. Wartick, “Question of the
Week: Which apologetic method do you prefer?” http://jwwartick.com/tag/presuppositional-apologetics/ (accessed on 08/01/15)
[18] Dean Hardy, Stand Your Ground:
An Introductory Text for Apologetics Students (USA: Zondervan2007), 39.
[19] Ed Hindson, The Popular
Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence (USA: Harvest House
Publisher, 2008), 65.
[20] H. Wayne House, Dennis W. Jowers, Reasons
for Our Hope: An Introduction to Christian Apologetics
(Nashville:
B&H Publisher, 2011), 291.
[21]Bowman, Faith Has Its Reasons:
Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith, 427.
[22] Ray Ortlund, “Remembering Edward
John Carnell” http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/rayortlund/2008/03/03/remembering-edward-john-carnell/ (accessed on 08/01/15)
[23] Edward John
Carnell, The Kingdom of Love and the Pride of Life (Grand Rapids: Erdmann,
1960), 5.
[24] Bowman, Faith Has Its Reasons:
Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith, 382.
[25] Edward John
Carnell, Christian Commitment: An Apologetic (New York: Macmillan, 1957;
reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), 302.
[26] Bing Davis, “Truth With Love: The
Apologetics of Francis Schaeffer”
http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-life/truth-with-love-the-apologetics-of-francis-schaeffer.php (accessed on 08/01/15)
[27] John M. Frame, “Some Thoughts On
Schaeffer’s Apologetics” http://www.frame-poythress.org/some-thoughts-on-schaeffers-apologetics/ (accessed on 08/01/15)
[28] Scott R. Burson, Jerry L. Walls, C.
S. Lewis & Francis Schaeffer: Lessons for a New Century (USA: Inter
Varsity Press, 1998), 78.
[29]Bowman, Faith Has Its Reasons:
Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith, 401.
[30] Ibid, 453.
[31] David K. Clark, Dialogical
Apologetics: A Person-Centered Approach to Christian Defense (Michigan:
Baker, 1993), 111.
[32] Ibid, 112.
[33] Ibid, 114.
[34] Bowman, Faith Has Its Reasons:
Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith (USA: Authentic Publisher,
2005), 427.
[35] Ibid, 471.
[36] Ibid, 487.
[37] Ibid, 489.
0 comments:
Post a Comment