How Should We "Do" Apologetics?

by Tim Chaffey

     Over the past few weeks I have been thinking a lot about the correct way to "do" apologetics.  The simple answer is found in 1 Peter 3: 15, we are supposed to "do" apologetics "with meekness and fear" or as the NIV puts it "with gentleness and respect."  I guess we could end this article at this point but I want to dig a little deeper and provide some insight into the academic world of apologetics.

     There are two main schools of thought on how we should "do" apologetics: presuppositional and classical (or evidential).  A very brief summary of the two sides is that presuppositionalists argue that God is a given while classical apologists attempt to build a case for God based on the evidence.  From what I have read and heard, the debate has been very respectful (thankfully).  Even so, there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the opposing sides.  I also believe a large portion of the debate may be dismissed as semantics, but there are real differences.

     The presuppositional approach was championed by Cornelius Van Til (1895 - 1987), former professor of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary.  Essentially, presuppositionalists accept a degree of circular reasoning.  John Frame admits as much in Apologetics to the Glory of God but he makes a distinction between what he calls "narrowly circular" and "broadly circular" arguments.  A narrowly circular argument would be to say "the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it is the Word of God."  Frame argues that a broadly circular argument is "the Bible is the Word of God because of various evidences" (i.e. the resurrection, cosmological proof, etc.).  He says "the argument is still circular in a sense, because the apologist chooses, evaluates, and formulates, these evidences in ways controlled by Scripture."[1]  The presuppositionalist argues that every apologist presupposes a Christian epistemology, (i.e. he must hold to a view of knowledge and fact that is consistent with Scripture).  That being said, the presuppositionalist feels confident that he has won the debate.

     The classical apologist uses the evidence available to him in an effort to prove that God exists and the Bible is His Word.  This approach is called "classical" because it has been used by every major apologist throughout church history until the nineteenth century.  One may argue that Jesus Himself was a classical apologist.  As He walked and talked with two disciples on the road to Emmaus, Jesus "expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself" (Luke 24: 27).  In other words, Jesus used historical evidence to prove that the Messiah had to be killed but would be resurrected.  The Apostle Paul may rightly be called a classical apologist.  Following our Lord's lead, Paul reasoned from the Scriptures with the Jews in the synagogues (Acts 17: 2, 10 - 11; 18: 4).  Church history is full of classical apologists and there are many today, including Norman Geisler, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, and R.C. Sproul. 

     I have always favored the classical approach because it seems to have Scriptural precedence.  However, presuppositionalism also has biblical support.  Romans 2: 15 describes the conscience that God has given to everyone.  All men have the law written on their hearts even though many struggle to suppress it and at some point it may become "seared" (1 Timothy 4: 2).  What this means is some people may ask us to prove God's existence and/or the claims of the Bible (and we should be prepared to do so - 1 Peter 3: 15) before they will place their faith in Christ.  Others may respond to the Gospel message, not based on the evidences, but because their conscience convicts them of their sinfulness and they realize their need for a Savior. 

     There are extremes on both sides of the debate.  Some presuppositionalists have claimed that using evidence to prove God's existence is fruitless while some classical apologists seem to forget that all men already know God because He has made Himself known through general revelation.[2]  However, most apologists on both have much in common even though they may not realize it.  John Frame stated, "there is less distance between Van Til's apologetics (presuppositional) and the traditional apologetics (classical) than most partisans on either side (including Van Til himself) have been willing to grant.”[3]  In the above examples, the presuppositionalist may claim that when Paul reasoned with the Jews he was presupposing a Judeo-Christian worldview.  The classical apologist may claim that an unbeliever's conscience will not convict him until he sees some (even the tiniest bit of) evidence.   

     Personally, I think this debate can be helpful to better understand our arguments and how to best reach the unbeliever but it should not consume the apologist's time.  We are here to give a defense for our faith (1 Peter 3: 15) and to go on the offensive against false ideas (2 Corinthians 10: 4 - 5).  Let us not forget that we are on the same side of this battle against Satan and his forces and both apologetic approaches have been successful.

(6/7/05)

(back to articles)