On the Compatibility of Apologetics Methodologies

It is often said that Classical and Evidential apologetics are incompatible with Presuppositional apologetics. In fact, not only is this said, but too often it is said in a nasty tone when people are arguing about how apologetics should be done. It is my purpose in this brief post to argue that the methods are actually not incompatible. What is actually incompatible, humorously enough, are the presuppositions about apologetics that apologists themselves sometimes hold. Let me try to clarify what I just said. The methods themselves are not incompatible with one another, but often the people who utilize them are. Ultimately the issue is not about apologetic methodology; it is about theology.

Typically those of a more Arminian (or Arminian leaning) theology, who emphasize the idea of human freedom and responsibility, more often prefer Classical and/or Evidential apologetics. The reason for this is they believe the primary issue in conversion is that a person needs to believe the gospel is true (which is correct), and the way people exercise faith/belief comes about by receiving enough evidence to be convinced (which is false, in my opinion). In other words, for Arminians, the problem of unbelief is largely a problem of ignorance of the facts and a failure on the Christian's part to persuade the unbeliever that Christianity is true and that they need to believe it.

On the other hand those of a Reformed/Calvinistic theology, who emphasize the idea of God's sovereignty over all things, including the individual election of all who will be saved, more often prefer Presuppositional apologetics. Reformed thinkers recognize (along with their Arminian brothers and sisters) that faith/belief is central in the conversion of the lost, but they disagree with the perspective which identifies ignorance or lack of persuasion as the reason people do not believe; rather, they understand the reason people do not believe is because they are dead in their sin and need God to regenerate their heart and give them faith and repentance to believe. As such the reformed apologist presupposes the truth of Christianity and the Bible and argues that one cannot make sense of the world we live in unless Christianity is acknowledged as the truth, and people cannot be saved apart from the work of regeneration that God alone does.

So the issue is not the method of apologetics; the issue is the beliefs (presuppositions) of the apologist in relationship to theology and the means by which God saves people. So the two views are: (1) God saves by the gospel being preached and defended persuasively through philosophy and evidence (Arminian) and (2) God saves by the Gospel being preached and God giving the hearer a new heart with which to believe (Calvinism/Reformed). Another way to say it is that Arminians believe that arguments and evidence can be the decisive factor which brings people to faith, whereas Calvinists do not. Stated conversely, Calvinists believe that God's act of regeneration is the decisive factor which brings people to faith, whereas Arminians do not.

So the issue, at its base, is theological and not methodological. Theological conviction comes first and typically predisposes people towards a certain approach to apologetics. However typically Calvinist/Reformed thinkers are drawn towards strict presuppositionalism, and typically Arminian thinkers are drawn toward Classical and/or Evidential apologetics. This is merely a description of how things often are but is not prescriptive of how they must be. In fact, one example will demonstrate how much overlap there already is between the methods.

The Moral Argument for God's existence is a Classical argument because it fits within the two step methodology of proving the existence of God (Theism) before proving Christian theism in particular. Although this argument is not, strictly speaking, an evidential argument, most evidentialists I know think well of this argument. Interestingly, this argument is, at its core, presuppositional in nature. Here is the argument stated in deductive form:

(1) If objective moral values exist, then God exists.
(2) Objective moral values exist.
(C) Therefore God exists.

Let us unpack this a bit. The argument is relatively simple, despite the fact that it is misunderstood and/or misrepresented by atheists on a regular basis. The argument is simply stating that if there are objective moral values, such as "murder is wrong" and "telling the truth is good", then there must be sufficient grounds for such claims to be objective, that is, true regardless and apart from whether people believe it or know it to be true. An objective moral value is something which transcends individuals, culture and time. If it is objectively true, then it is true for everyone, everywhere and in every time. Such a thing cannot possibly be grounded in individual opinion, for individuals disagree about morals all the time. Such a thing cannot be cultural because cultures come into conflict on moral issues (e.g. Nazi Germany versus the Allied Forces). So if objective moral values exist, they must find their ground in something beyond individuals, beyond societies, beyond humanity itself. A moral law giver, such as God, is the only sufficient explanation. So if objective moral values exist, then it is necessarily the case that God exists.

Now it is not my purpose here to defend premise one but only to establish what is being said. Nor am I going to argue in this post for premise two that "Objective moral values exist". My point here is only to establish the nature of the argument being made. If objective moral values exist, then God exists. But while this is a classical apologetics argument, it is clearly presuppositional also. It says you cannot make sense of the fact that there are objective moral values unless you presuppose God exists. If you presuppose God's existence, then you have an adequate foundation for explaining the moral realities you see, experience and participate in every day. If you deny God's existence then you live inconsistently with your own worldview.

The classical argument is 'objective moral values, therefore God' and the presuppositional argument is 'God, therefore objective moral values.' But this is a distinction without a difference. It is actually the very same argument that is being made. So the Moral Argument serves us well to show that, methodologically speaking, Classical apologetics and Presuppositionalism are not mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, if you listen to good apologists of various stripes, you will see that often Classical and Evidential apologists are questioning the validity of their opponents' presuppositions and that Presuppositionalists often cite evidence and use philosophical reasoning to make their case. The fact is the void which exists between apologetics methodologies is very thin. The real chasm is not between methodologies; it is between theologies. I would encourage apologists to drink deeply from the well of all three methods of apologetics and learn to blend their approaches to be more effective. Understand that theology precedes method and that what you may not like about Presuppositionalism or what you may not like about Evidentialism or Classcialism is not their method, it is their theology. You can disagree with their theological presuppositions and still learn from their methodology.

The apostle Paul utilizes all three methods of apologetics throughout the book of Acts, and therefore, we should too. As a theologically reformed Christian, I suggest that only presupposing God's existence and the truth of what is communicated in Scripture can we make sense of the world around us. Even so, I am willing to defend Christian truth by utilizing philosophical argumentation and historical evidence. God, in his divine sovereignty and election, works through means. Romans 10 follows Romans 9. God elects unto salvation, but the word must be preached, heard and accepted. God may uses evidential and classical apologetics in the process of preparing people to receive new hearts in regeneration.

In reality, if Presuppositional apologetics works for Christianity, it is because Christianity is actually true. And if Christianity is actually true, then we can expect it to cohere with good philosophy and the historical evidence that is available. This is why neither Presuppositionalism nor Classical apologetics nor Evidential apologetics ultimately work for false religions like Islam or Mormonism or Buddhism, etc. Christianity is true and, therefore, can be demonstrated as such from numerous different approaches.

One last thought. Apologetics is not merely about evangelism (although it ought to be a large part of our evangelistic efforts). Apologetics strengthens the faith and confidence of believers, and this is where I think Presuppositionalists should be able to agree wholeheartedly that philosophy and evidence come alongside and reinforce what the word of God already tells us is true. If God exists, as we presuppose, and if His word is true, as we presuppose, then we should expect that what we find in philosophy and evidence would cohere with that.

What Apologetics Must Never Become

I firmly hold that apologetics has a threefold purpose, namely, to defend, affirm and proclaim the gospel message and Christian worldview. As apologists we are about the ministry of shielding the faith from those who attack and attempt to destroy it and we do this by taking arguments against God, the Bible, Jesus, etc., and dismantling them and showing them to pose no credible threat to the truth of the Christian worldview (2 Corinthians 10:4-5). A byproduct of that defense is that it comforts and affirms the faith of believers who see that there are no sustainable objections against their faith which bolsters their confidence. Furthermore in equipping believers with apologetics, even prior to the need to defend their faith, we encourage Christians because they can see that they have really good reasons to believe that Christianity is true. Finally, apologetics actually is not all defensive but also has an offensive side as well. Apologetics is a powerful tool in the hands of an evangelist who presents the gospel and effectively answers questions and objections to the credibility of the Christian faith which leaves the person alone with Jesus and no more smoke screens (1 Peter 3:15).

Yes, I believe apologetics is powerful and vital to a healthy Christianity in this present day. But there is a form of pseudo-apologetics out there today that is, I believe, more dangerous than any objection from a skeptic I’ve ever heard. This pseudo-apologetic methodology is that of making Christianity more palatable to the secular mind. Rather than defending the faith, defending the truth of the word of God, it instead twists and shapes Christianity into something that is more acceptable to the culture. It is the kind of approach that takes away the stumbling block and inserts a comfy pillow. Homosexuality a sin? No, that was just Paul speaking to the culture of his day and out of the bias’ he himself had, that doesn’t apply to you. Or, perhaps, when Paul said “natural” in Romans 1 he meant they gave up what was natural for them personally, not that all homosexuality is wrong but that you have to be true to yourself. Women can’t be pastors? Oh, don’t you worry about that because it was just cultural but today we are more progressive and Paul would never have said that today. The Bible is the inerrant word of God? Well it is a light that leads us towards God’s truth but it was indeed written by fallible men who sometime made mistakes, so you can’t take everything too serious. Adam and Eve were literal people created by God? Well, you know, somewhere along the evolutionary process there evolved the first two true human male and female so they were kind of like Adam and Eve. Jesus rose from the dead? Sure, it was a spiritual resurrection that we too can experience.

Hopefully as you read this you abhor what you are seeing, but the truth is I’ve seen these all before and more like them. An apologetic approach that takes away any part of Christianity that might be offensive to someone’s personal likes and dislikes so as to make Christianity an option for them. However to do this is devoid Christianity of all of its meaning. One of the central tenets of Christianity is that we (you and I) are fundamentally flawed to our core and that what we do and think and believe is out of step with the reality of how God has intended things to be. By necessity the gospel message is offensive to the ears of secular man. What good is it to strip Christianity down to bare bones in order to get people to come under the title “Christian” if in doing so we remove all of that which will lead them to repentance and salvation? (1 Corinthians 1:23-24)

I am deeply burdened by the trend I see within the apologetics community to make Christianity more palatable rather than to be absolutely counter cultural and show the lost why Christianity is true and that they need to change. Some of this drift towards palatability is not as blatant as the things mentioned above, some of it seems more harmless but, as a popular Christian song says, “It’s a slow fade.” If you are an apologist and are reading this, let me just encourage you to fidelity to God’s inerrant word as the sole rule for faith and practice. Please look at your own methodology and approach and scrutinize it yourself and make sure that what you are doing is in step with the authoritative, unchanging, word of God. At no point do we have the right to stop taking what the Bible says seriously so as to make Christianity a more comfortable option for the secular mind. It’s not supposed to be comfortable for them. Jesus is asking them to die and become someone completely different than they now are (Matthew 16:24).

Apologetics: Evangelism of Pre-Evangelism?

Introduction

Professional apologists have disagreed on the matter but it is still a worthy question, “What is the relationship of apologetics to evangelism?” Some have, of course, argued that apologetics has no relationship to evangelism and would rather relegate apologetics to be used only for defending and strengthening the faith of believers. Apologetics in their mind is only defensive and has no offensive value. In this view one must simply preach the gospel and then once people believe they can use apologetics to further strengthen their faith.

Others see apologetics having no place in Christian ministry at all because they see reason and evidence as being counter to the gospel that is to be received and held by faith alone (as if having good reasons to believe nullifies faith). Those in this category are they who see Christian faith as necessarily a blind leap. Theologians and philosophers like Karl Barth and Soren Kierkegaard are representative of this ideology which sees reason and evidence as actually destructive to faith since they interpret faith to mean believing against or without reaon.

In this paper we will argue against both of these views (while finding the first view more acceptable than the second) because they misunderstand or don’t take seriously enough what Scripture itself says as it relates to faith and apologetics. We will then demonstrate that the appropriate relationship of apologetics to evangelism is supplementary and that of reinforcing the truth of the gospel so as to remove barriers to faith after having shared the gospel and to encourage people to place their trust in Christ.

Dispelling Deficient Views of Apologetics

As stated previously there are two deficient views within Christianity as it relates to apologetics. The first deficient view is that apologetics is only to be used in a defensive posture or perhaps to affirm the faith of believers but that it never has a positive aspect that supports the gospel. It is clear, however, that Scripture would disagree with this position. For instance let us consider Paul’s use of apologetics in an offensive way (offensive as in proactive rather than rude) in Acts 17 at the Areopagus (alternatively known as Mars Hill). Acts 17:22-32 reads as follows:

So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, “ ‘For we are indeed his offspring.’ 29 Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” 32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.”

Here we see Paul reasoning with the philosophers at Mars Hill who did not know the God of the Bible and did not accept the Old Testament as authoritative and he engages them with an apologetic argument using things from their own culture in order to drive home points. Paul makes use of the altar that is dedicated to “an unknown god” as a way of finding common ground to present the gospel and he even makes use of secular literature that was known to his audience to show that the ideas he was presenting are no completely foreign to them

The fact that Paul is arguing is using apologetics as he is presenting he gospel to that Athenian philosophers suggests apologetics can and should be used make a positive case for Christianity when talking with non-believers. Apologetics is not merely defensive or for affirming the faith for those who already believe. Apologetics can be used to make the gospel more understandable in contexts that have no prior exposure to the gospel also.

The second deficient view of apologetics that we mentioned is that it is simply not something that Christians should engage in and that it is actually contrary to the Christian message to provide reason and evidence. To the group who see faith and reason as polar opposites we should suggest that they simply need to look again at Scripture and see that the Bible never uses the term faith to indicate a “blind leap.” Paul is said to have reasoned with the Jews (Acts 17:2; 17:17; 18:4 and 18:19) he also reasoned with the gentiles as we just said in Acts 17 at Mars Hill, and in Acts 24:25 he even reasoned with the governor Felix. Likewise Peter’s sermon at Pentecost in Acts 2 is not devoid of reason and evidence as he appeals to the Jews that they need to believe in Jesus as the Messiah. 1 Peter 3:15 tells believers that they need to be prepared to give an answer for the hope that they have when unbelievers ask them about their faith, in other words, what reasons do you have for what you believe?

The word “faith” in Scripture communicates the idea of trust which is not opposed to reason and evidence at all. In fact one could easily argue that the more reasons you have to trust someone or something, the more faith you have in them. So, clearly, apologetics can be used offensively and the Bible doesn’t present it as contrary to faith but, rather, supplementary and useful both for sharing with unbelievers and strengthening the faith of believers.

Apologetics: Evangelism or Pre-Evangelism?

So with those two categories out of the way the question still remains “What is apologetics proper relationship to evangelism?” Historically apologetics relationship to evangelism has often been viewed as “pre-evangelism.” Many have argued that the purpose of apologetics is to clear away objections and to till the ground making it fertile for the seed of the gospel to be sown. How, after all, can an atheist who rejects the notion of God’s very existence possibly respond positively to the gospel until he has been first convinced that Theism is true in and of itself? At least such is that rationale of those who view apologetics primarily as pre-evangelism.

In this way many have argued that you cannot start with the gospel, you cannot assume anything, but you must first start with where the unbeliever is at and then make the gospel your end goal. So with an Atheist we must first make Theism plausible or believable before we ever share the gospel or talk about the Bible. With the Pantheist we must first expose the flaws in his/her worldview and show that they are not living life consistent with their beliefs. In this way apologetics is pre-evangelism because you remove walls and barriers to the gospel. Ideally, in this view, once you have removed all of the barriers then you can present the gospel having moved them into a framework of thought in which they might now find the gospel intellectually and spiritually palatable.

The problem with this view is that it underestimates the power of the gospel itself to grab the hearts of sinful men. Mind you we should not object at all to the idea of arguing the philosophical proofs for God’s existence or showing a person the internal inconsistencies of their own worldview or of demonstrating the historical evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. In fact we ought to applaud these efforts and see them as valuable, for so they are. Where we should object is to the notion that apologetics is merely “pre-evangelism” rather than part of evangelism proper. We should disagree with the idea that we must first make the gospel palatable to the non-believer prior to sharing it, in fact we should argue that this is a mistake that over-emphasizes our human ability to try and coerce conversion.

Gospel First Apologetics

We ought to see apologetics as supplementary to evangelism and we should argue that we must begin with the gospel and end with the gospel. Whether one is talking to an Atheist, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Wiccan, a Mormon, etc., we must begin by articulating the Christian worldview and gospel so that we unashamedly, from the get-go, and boldly proclaim the good news of Jesus. In fact, it makes sense that beginning with the gospel is the most logical and apologetically beneficial place to start for several reasons.

The first reason we ought to start with the gospel before moving to apologetics is the sufficiency of the gospel to save. Romans 1:16 says “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.” The gospel is itself the power of God to save and we should not discount God’s ability to save people without any help from us. It is striking, when listening to conversion stories, to hear what inevitably grabbed the hearts of different people and turned them to faith in Christ. The reality is that with a simple sharing of the gospel God may be pleased to turn the heart of a person to himself on the spot and all of their questions and objections may melt away as the Spirit of God grants them repentance and faith to believe. If for no other reason than the fact that God can save anyone at any time no matter who they are or what they may currently believe we ought to be persuaded to start with the gospel. It may turn out that no apologetic works is necessary where you thought it may be.

Beyond this, however, there are other good reasons to suggest that the gospel is the natural starting point for apologetic engagement because once we have presented the gospel we can then ask our friend “What do you think about what I have just said?” and “Do you have any questions about the Christian faith or is there anything I can help you make sense of?” In so doing we pass by a lot of potentially unnecessary talk about evidences that may not even be necessary.

For instance, in any given engagement, the person we are talking to will hold different presuppositions and starting points. Perhaps they believe in a theistic concept of God, if so then it is hardly necessary to dive into the Kalam Cosmological argument with them. Perhaps they even believe the Old Testament and they are a Jewish person, then I have a starting point to reason with them that Jesus is the Messiah just as Peter did in Acts 2. Perhaps they believe the facts of the gospel itself but they are simply unwilling to repent and turn their life over to Christ, then that changes the conversation entirely. Whereas apologetics as pre-evangelism assumes that we need to build a foundation before talking about the gospel, the gospel first approach is a way of determining how much foundation is already there for us to build on. By starting with the gospel and then asking them to identify where they agree and/or disagree you cut out a lot unnecessary steps and can immediately begin to focus on what is holding them back.

There is yet another reason we could mention for why we ought to start with the gospel when you are interacting with a non-believer, namely, in so doing you have placed your beliefs on the table and there are no surprises for them nor are you going to be accused of misleading them as to your intent. Why be anything other than up front about what you want to persuade the other person to believe? We don’t want you to just believe Theism is true (although it is), we want you to believe Christ is Lord! We don’t want you to merely believe that the Bible is a reliable ancient document (although it is), we want you to know the God revealed in it! We are not defending nor presenting anything less than the gospel of Jesus Christ. Why do any form of apologetics in a way that is divorced from the gospel itself?

Conclusion

In conclusion, the proper relationship of apologetics to evangelism should be that of a supplementary position. Gospel first apologetics is the most logical and honest way to use apologetics in evangelism because it assumes the sufficiency of the gospel to save as it is God’s power to do so and also because it allows us to determine how much common ground we have with the person we are speaking to so that we don’t have to do unnecessary work. Gospel àApologeticsàGospel. Begin with the gospel, the if necessary answer their questions and objections that are brought up according to their belief system, and then take it back to the gospel and their need for Jesus.