Popular
Apologetics Methodologies—And Their Problems
Bodie
Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI
Biblical
Authority Ministries, November 3, 2025 (Donate)
Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)
Apologetic
Methods
As a general reminder, apologetics is very
powerful—if done correctly.
When
we, as Christians, offer a defense of the Christian faith, we are called an
“apologist”. The Apostle Paul, for instance, was an apologist when reaching the
Greeks.
Recall, it doesn’t mean we apologize,
but instead we offer logical and reasonable defenses and answers
for the Christian faith, by standing firmly on the authority of God’s Word—from
the very first verse (Genesis 1:1). So,
by using the Bible as our starting point, we are poised to use apologetics
properly, thus giving us a basis for logic and reason, which can only come out
of a biblical worldview.
With
this in mind, let’s evaluate various apologetic methodologies that have been commonly used by Christians throughout
history, and see if these methods actually start with God and His Word as the
absolute authority/standard. Apologetics is a biblical concept and
predicated on the truthfulness of Scripture. And so, when we start with the
Bible, we can know and understand how God wants us to respond and defend the
faith, for instance:
·
We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the
knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to
punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete. (2 Corinthians
10:4-5, ESV)
·
Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove,
rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. (2 Timothy 4:2, ESV)
·
“…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” (1 Peter 3:15, ESV)
Many
Apologists Give Up The Bible As The Starting Point
Sadly,
there are many apologists who (foolishly) want to leave the Bible out of the
debate and make a case strictly on “human terms”. Naturally, of course,
“apologists” for non-Christian worldviews also want to leave the Bible out of
it. But when Christians take this
tact, it is a very odd tactic.
Think
about it: if you give up the Bible at the onset, then why even bother doing
apologetics, which is commanded in the Bible, in the first place? See the
tension? Yet far too many Christians have done exactly this!
Scripture
is the supreme authority in all matters, and so our defense is to affirm that
authority in our “argument” or response. So, if the Scriptures are the supreme
authority, then it would be illogical (and sinful!) to toss them aside and
argue as if there is some other “absolute
authority”—in doing so, the Christian apologist has lost the debate before it even
began!
If you don’t start with God, then by default,
you start with man. This is called “autonomous human reasoning”—reasoning apart from God and His Word.
Essentially, man is seen as being the absolute authority, not God.
Here’s
the main point (so don’t miss this!): if an apologist does not start with God
as the ultimate authority, then by default, he unwittingly starts with fallible
man as the “supreme authority”—that is—whether they realize it or
not—the religion of humanism. Why would a Christian argue for the Christian
religion assuming the religion of humanism is true? That is quite a strange
phenomenon and an irrational approach to defending the Christian faith, Yet,
sadly, it’s more common that you might think!
The
goal of the Christian apologist is to always be honorable to God’s Word
(i.e., as stated in 1 Peter 3:15, “in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy…”)
and refute false claims about God and His Word—while preaching the good news (gospel)
of Jesus Christ—His death, burial and resurrection. The gospel message really is
good news because we, as born-again Christians, can now be saved from the
infinite wrath of God, Who should rightly punishment us for our sins because He
is a righteous judge. But in an amazing turn, God Himself in the person of
Jesus Christ was able to take that infinite punishment on our behalf.
In
defending God’s Word and the Gospel therein, this must never be done by
attempting to give up any of the 66 books of the Bible. But instead, by
standing firmly on Scripture, an apologist is to effectively “silence” the
opponent’s arguments using the Bible and not tossing it aside in one’s
apologetic. Dr. Cornelius Van Til once wrote:
“This view of Scripture, therefore, involves the idea that there
is nothing in this universe on which human beings can have full and true
information unless they take the Bible into account.”
The
reason I’m harping on this idea of “leaving the Bible out of it” so much is
because Christians often get caught up doing apologetics this way. I’m no
exception, as I used to do it this way too in the past. Once I learned the
intricacies of some of the common apologetics methods used today, I needed to
leave those methodologies behind that didn’t start with God and His Word.
Methodology
There
are several popular methodologies that exist, but the three most common
methodologies that Christians tend to use are Classical Apologetics, Evidential
Apologetics, and Presuppositional Apologetics. As a quick note, the Classical
and Evidential methodologies are similar in that they both have the same
starting points, same processes, and have considerable overlap, but still have different focuses. I will deal with
those nuances in a moment.
The
Presuppositional method (also called the Transcendental
method) is starkly different in starting point, method, and overall commitment
to an ultimate authority. So, the obvious question to ask is: which apologetic methodology
is the best to use, or can they all be used in “conjunction with each other” (i.e.,
pick and choose depending on what you are discussing, like picking the right
tool for the job out of your toolbox)?
To
answer this question, we need to (1) understand these methods and then (2) test
them against the absolute authority of God’s Word. This may surprise you, but even apologetic methods that are used to
defend God’s Word still need to be humbly tested against God’s Word (e.g., 1
Thessalonians 5:21).
It’s
important to understand that in Christendom, there are several different types
of apologetic approaches that have been used throughout the history of the
church—though not all are correct—and therefore it is important to ensure one
is being discerning. These will be discussed in much more detail, but as an introductory
overview, the main types are:
- Classical: essentially
this method assumes that autonomous rational thought (i.e., based on man’s
reasoning alone) is the “absolute standard” regarding philosophical debates. Evidence can be (and often is) used in
conjunction with the argument—though it is important to understand all
evidence is interpreted based on a given worldview (i.e.,
autonomous rational thoughts first point to the possibility of the Bible’s
truthfulness or the possible existence of a deity). Popular Classical
apologists include men like William Lane Craig, Thomas Aquinas, Norm
Geisler, R.C. Sproul, and J. P. Moreland.
- Evidential: like
Classical, this method starts with autonomous rational thought (i.e., based
on man’s reasoning alone) as the “absolute standard” and that when people
evaluate evidence (e.g.,
miracles in the Bible, or any sort of historical evidence and scientific
evidence), they might come to the right conclusion regarding Christianity
in general (i.e., starting with human logic to look at the evidence first
to then try to point to the Bible’s truthfulness). In a nutshell, this
method really assumes autonomous people are “neutral” in their judgments
about God and His Word (i.e., it’s the belief that people just need “more
evidence” to be convinced of the truth of God’s Word). Popular Evidential
apologists include men like B.B. Warfield, William Paley, and John Warwick
Montgomery.
- Presuppositional (Van
Tillian): God and His Word are the absolute and only standards of
morality, logic, uniformity in nature, dignity, etc. The Bible provides the
only basis for a worldview that makes knowledge possible. All other
worldviews must subtly borrow from the Bible to even try to
possibly make sense of the world (i.e., the Bible is the first and final
“lens” we use to look at all things.) This method is sometimes called “Van
Tillian” (named after Cornelius Van Til who articulated it in modern times).
Along with Van Til, other popular Presuppositional apologists include men
like Greg Bahnsen, Kenneth Gentry, Michael Butler, Jason Lisle, James
White, Jeff Durbin, Doug Wilson, and many others. Early presuppositional
apologetics examples are claimed from the Bible itself, as well as
numerous others such as Augustine (in some aspects) and John of Damascus.
§
Other popular semi-presuppositional methods include:
§
Clarkian: The best worldview is the most logical and Christianity
is the most consistent in its logic. So Christianity appears to be the best.
Logic is God.[4]
§
Shaeferian: The best worldview will give the best answers to life.
Christianity gives the best answers to life. So, Christianity appears to be the
best.[5]
§
Carnellian: The best worldview is the most coherent. Christianity
is the most coherent via the internal text. So, Christianity appears to be the
best.[6]
- Others[7]
- Cumulative Case
- Reformed Epistemology
- Fideism
Of
course, the apologetic methods listed above was not meant to be an exhaustive
list, but it helps give you an idea of the different styles that have been used
to defend the Christian faith.
Starting
Points For The Apologetic Methods
I
pointed out that these methods of defense of the faith differ on starting
points. As repeated before, which I’ll continue repeating throughout this book,
there is no greater authority on any subject than God—hence, He is our ultimate
starting point. God started with Himself in Genesis 1:1 (the foundational verse
of the rest of the Bible). It would be wise to mimic God and start with God,
and by extension His Word, in our apologetic. As Christians who want to honor
God with all our words, thoughts, and deeds, it would be utterly foolish
and sinful of us to not start with God as our ultimate authority in our
apologetic.
To
clarify, when I say God, I mean the triune God of the Bible—who is the
Creator of all things including time, matter, and space (e.g., the heavens and
the earth). God is omnipotent (He can do all His holy will), omnipresent
(nothing can be hid from God), and omniscience (His knowledge and understanding
are infinite). He is the absolute Truth, the Way and the Life and ultimate
Love. God’s revealed Word—the 66 books of the Bible—come with the authority of
God Himself.
Don’t
miss this important point: I am not arguing for a “generic god” or mere
“theism” or even some concept of a “designer”. I am arguing for the God of
the Bible alone, and I would join in arguing against any other false
counterfeit God, god, gods or other false religious system.
For
Christian apologists to start anywhere other
than God and His Word, then they are giving up God and His Word as the
supreme authority in their argument. In other words, if you give up God’s Word,
you forfeit the very thing you set out to prove before you even began!
As
an analogy, imagine you’re a solider in the past (back in the day when swords
were a thing) during a battle and your opponent tells you: “before we begin,
you must drop your sword, and be neutral in this fight…”—and you agree—while
he still holds onto his weapon! That’d be pretty foolish, right? You’d for sure
lose the fight right from the start!
Yet
the same foolish thing happens whenever Christians try to “leave behind”
the Bible (i.e., their sword!) in their apologetic. Or here’s another analogy:
imagine again you’re a soldier in battle and rather than using your sword to
strike down your opponent, you decide that your strategy should be to first “convince”
the other soldier that your sword is actually a real weapon. And so, you
start describing everything about it, such as its metal composition, how it was
made, where it came from, how long it is, how sharp it is, and so on.
Of
course, we all see how foolish of a strategy that would be… but again, that’s
exactly what Christians are doing today with their apologetic! So, all that to
say, if you’re a Christian, stop defending your sword by trying to “prove” its
existence—just use it! (Ephesians 6:17;
Hebrews 4:12).
Let’s
take this further, if you do not start with God, then where is your “new”
absolute starting point? It’s man.
Fallible, sinful, imperfect man. Man is seen as an “authority greater” than
God. Again, this is the most basic form of the religion of humanism. So, whenever
a Christian apologist tries using this method, he has already taken a sinful
position that “man is greater”—whether
the apologist realizes it or not. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that
there is no such thing as “neutral” ground (i.e., neutrality is a myth):
“He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather
with Me scatters abroad. (Matthew 12:30, NKJV)
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is
not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. (Romans 8:7, NKJV)
Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with
the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the
world makes himself an enemy of God. (James 4:4, NKJV)
There
are other verses we can list here… but I think you get the point. (By the way,
trying to take this supposed stance of “neutrality” is a prime example of what’s
commonly called the pretended neutrality fallacy).
Here's
the bottom line: any defense of Scripture must be predicated on the
Bible; that is, it ought to presuppose (and thus be foundationally
presuppositional) that Scripture is the authority—not man’s word.
When we start with the Bible, we are thinking God’s thoughts after Him and
emulating Him—which is what every Christian is commanded to do! The way He
looks at things is the correct way and we should mimic this.
The
Methods Defined: Classical, Evidential, And Presuppositional Apologetics
Classical
and Evidential
Classical
and
Evidential apologetic methods are like “twin sisters” in their
methodology. Both are based out of the classical Greek methods where human
logic is considered “supreme” (going back to the days of classical Greek
philosophy with men like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle). Also bear in mind that
this is the era when the Old Testament was coming to a close.
In
these methods, human logic is used as the “supreme authority” for one to build
arguments. Simply, if the arguments are based strictly on reason and philosophy,
then it is classical apologetics. And if the arguments are dealing with
historical or scientific “facts” and evidence, then it is called evidential
apologetics—hence the name evidential. There is a common
misconception that evidential apologetics is the only method that “uses
evidence”, but this is a farce. All methods use evidence—except Fideism
(the method of blind faith alone).
To
summarize, the classical and evidential methodology is identical in their
starting point and processes. This is why many evidential apologists will
sometimes call themselves “classical” or vice versa, depending on what they are
debating. Nonetheless, the takeaway here is that man’s logic/reasoning
is the starting authority in both methods. (Of course, not to say
logic or reasoning is bad, but rather that should not be a Christian’s starting
authority in apologetics.)
Logic
Let’s
now define what I mean by “human logic”.
Again, logic is not a bad thing by any means, nor am I arguing that logic is
errant. In fact, logic is essential in any form of debate.
When
starting with the Bible, we have a basis for the existence of logic because we
are made in the image of a logical God of truth who upholds all of existence in
a consistent, logical way. Hence, when starting with the Bible, we have a true,
justified belief for the existence of logic. On the other hand, when one starts
with man and thereby rejects God’s Word as the supreme starting
point…why should logic exist? There
is suddenly no reason or basis for it to exist! So why have an apologetic
method that starts like that?
In
any materialistic worldview (where “matter/energy is all that exists”), then
logic cannot exist because it is not made of matter/energy! By the way,
ironically, this is the most common worldview among secular scientists—those
who use logic/reason daily when doing science for a living!
In
any Eastern religion (like Hinduism, Taoism, etc.) where “all is spirit” and “all
is one” (monism), then being logical and being illogical are
essentially one and the same (whether they realize it or not); hence, logic
shouldn’t exist given that worldview.
In
any pagan, moralistic, or mythical religion where “man is the best there is” (such
as in Buddhism, Confucianism, paganism, Greek Mythology, Wicca/Witchcraft,
etc.) logic is purely human-dependent. And thus, logic becomes arbitrary and
fallible because humans are arbitrary and can err, which means logic is
ultimately meaningless in any of these religions. (You may not have realized it,
but we just refuted the majority of the world’s manmade religions in these last
two short paragraphs!)
Again,
only the biblical worldview—founded on the solid rock of God’s Word—gives us a
basis for the existence of logic. So, when I say, “human logic”, there is no
basis for its existence within any professed belief system or worldview that’s
founded on man’s word!
But
of course, those who don’t start with God’s Word (usually) tend to agree that
logic does exists (even though their worldview can’t account for it), so how do
they get around this? To have any level of rationality, they must borrow or,
more accurately, steal the basis and existence of logic from God whether
they acknowledge it or not. They can’t help it (like a kleptomaniac who has an
uncontrollable urge to steal things) because they’re made in the image of a
logical God, living in His logically ordered world, whether they realize it or not.
Back
To Classical And Evidential
When
Christians fall into the trap of using the classical or evidential apologetic methods,
they basically “set aside” the Bible as the absolute authority to then attempt
to argue a “human-based logical case” (then utilizing philosophy or evidence,
etc.). Consequently, by default, this means arguing for some sort of a generic theistic god’s existence (not
the God of the Bible). Or perhaps in some cases, this results in arguing for
the truthfulness of one verse or phrase in the Bible.
One
way to illustrate this method is to imagine a “stepping stone” to leap to the
God of the Bible or to make a case that the Bible is trustworthy (e.g., at
least one passage or this one part of the Bible is likely truth, so maybe
all of it is too). This is called an
inductive argument (as opposed to a
deductive argument, where the claim
isn’t necessarily shown as true but could be probable or likely.
So,
the idea here is that once you’ve “convinced” your opponent that the Bible
might be true on some of its claims or that a god might exist (or at least a “good
probability” of it), then you can “kind of” use the Bible after that. Or in the
case of cults like Mormons, Muslims, Hinduism, Greek Mythologies, etc., they
then leap to their alleged god(s) and use their alleged “holy” books or their
myths. This is the basic method of Classical and Evidential apologetics (as
coined together in their commonalities). As one can see, hosts of different
religions can and do use this methodology.
Aristotle
used this style of methodology against Plato to argue for a singular deity (as
opposed to polytheism) over two thousand years ago.
Presuppositional/Transcendental
Apologetics
Transcendental
apologetics
(more commonly called Presuppositional) starts with God and His Word as the
foundational starting point. So, from a
big picture, other religions are obviously not using this method.
The
presuppositionalist asks why Christians would even think to disregard the Bible
and use the Greek (an unbiblical, man-centered) method at the onset of
their argument. Why not start an apologetic (which is a concept derived from
the Bible anyway!) by treating the Bible as the absolute authority—and then using the Bible’s method for apologetics
by modeling the way God did it in Scripture? (Recall that God never argues for
His existence in Scripture—He just is!) Keep in mind the Old Testament was
written prior to Socrates and Plato’s deaths and before Aristotle was even
born!
Though
many Christians in the past would refer to the Bible for apologetic use,
Cornelius Van Til, in the 1900s systematically developed a biblically sound
methodology that Christians could use that faithfully honors God and His Word.[11]
Obviously, Van Til thought Christians would rejoice at this (and rightly so),
but instead some Christians attacked him for not starting with the Greek method
like so many before.
In
short, the Transcendental (or Presuppositional) method essentially looks at
philosophy, world religions, reason, facts, and evidence the same way every
time—in light of God’s Word being the absolute authority. In the same way, an
apologetic should start with God and His Word as the supreme authority on
everything. My Statement of Faith says of the 66 books of the Bible:
“The Bible is divinely inspired, inerrant, infallible, supremely
authoritative, and sufficient in everything it teaches. Its assertions are
factually true in all the original autographs. Its authority is not limited to
spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such
fields as history and science.”
I
would dispute the sinful claim that man is “supreme” and point out that man
(the creature) is fallible, and thus not in a position to usurp the authority
of God (the Creator). I would dispute the irrational claim that facts and
evidence “speak for themselves” or
that they are somehow “neutral”. My apologetic is to use God’s Word as our supreme
starting point to then correctly interpret evidence and facts that confirm
Scripture, not the other way around. In other words, we do not use
facts/evidence to “prove” God’s Word is true—our powerful Creator has spoken
and revealed Himself to us and that’s why we know His Word is true.
When
people reject God’s Word as supreme when looking at any kind of evidence, facts,
or philosophy, they rely on man as supreme (again, this is “humanism” in
its broadest sense). When man is seen as the authority, they are not neutral
but have an active bias against the Word of God. Another way to put it, when
man claims to be “neutral”, he’s already said the Bible is wrong (and thus, is not
actually being neutral).
At
the foundation, Van Tillian presuppositional apologetics places God and His
Word, the Bible, as the absolute authority in every area. God, who knows all
things and cannot lie, has stated in the Bible that all other worldviews are
wrong. By extension, all other worldviews have inconsistencies—and must borrow
from the Bible to make any sense of the world at all—whether they realize it or
not. The other worldviews just do so inconsistently.
Christianity
is not arbitrary—it is consistent—and provides the only basis for the
preconditions of intelligibility (preconditions to make knowledge possible;
e.g., we are made in the image of a logical and all-knowing God). Other worldviews are arbitrary, inconsistent,
and lack the preconditions that make knowledge possible . So, presuppositional apologists not only point out
where false worldviews contradict God’s Word, but they also do an internal
critique of the unbelievers’ worldview to show where it is arbitrary,
inconsistent, and where they lack the preconditions necessary for knowledge
(within their own story).
Presuppositional
apologetics is a well-known method by which apologists both defend and “go on
the offensive” to confront false worldviews (hopefully in a gentle and
respectful way, of course). In other words, an apologist destroys the
foundation of false worldviews like secular humanism, atheism, Hinduism, Islam,
cults, etc. If done properly, it exposes the weakness of defending false views
and reveals the problems within their professed religions and philosophical
systems. And while at the same time, point out clearly where these other
religions borrow from the Bible to make sense of the world and reality in
general.
For
example, when the Creation Museum opened in May of 2007, the atheists
protesting the opening hired an airplane to fly above the museum pulling a
banner that said “Thou shalt not lie.” The atheists have no reason not to lie
in their own worldview, so they had to borrow from the Christian worldview to
make this statement.[14] Interestingly, these atheists who generally say
there is no “right and wrong” were arguing that the Creation Museum was
teaching something wrong (Bible history).
The
only reason why right and wrong exist is because we have an absolute authority,
the God of the Bible, who defines and sets the standard for what is right and
wrong in the Bible. These atheists didn’t have a foundation to determine right
and wrong—only their subjective opinion! In fact, given their worldview,
atheists who try to say that something is “right” or “wrong” (“good” or “evil”)
is really no different than saying “I don’t like putting relish on my hot dog
because it doesn’t taste good” (i.e., just a personal preference).
What made this situation even better was that people driving to the museum knew
right where to go (signage on roads wasn’t up yet). They thought the Creation
Museum hired the plane and was telling the world to stop lying. It was a great
win-win!
Consider
further that atheists who argue that we are just animals are almost always
wearing clothes. Do animals wear clothes? No. (Unless their owner dresses them
up…) So instead of making a consistent argument that we are only animals,
atheists are instead confirming (whether they realize or not) a literal
Genesis 3 where we wear clothes due to sin and shame! God gave Adam and Eve
clothes after sin (Genesis 3:21).
This
works with many other everyday things: Why do we have a 7-day week—the Bible.
Why does logic/reason exist—the Bible. Why does knowledge exist—the Bible. Why
is marriage defined as a man and a woman—the Bible. This list can go on for
hours! But in an unbeliever’s worldview (not just atheism), they lack the very
foundational basis for such things.
Short-Comings Of Other Presuppositional Views
There
have been several “presuppositional” methods proposed over the years outside of
the Van Tillian method.[16]
Many of these people have contributed some excellent material to the debate and
mesh well with Van Tillian presuppositional apologetics in many areas. Greg Bahnsen, a leading proponent of the Van
Tillian method, points out that there are some overarching flaws that reduce
the potency of their overall thrust. In short, Bahnsen points out:
Clarkian: Gordon Clark essentially says that the best worldview is
the most logical and Christianity is the most consistent in its logic. So,
Christianity appears to be the best.
Schaefferian: Francis Schaeffer essentially says that the best
worldview will give the best answers to life. Christianity gives the best
answers to life. So, Christianity appears to be the best.
Carnellian: Edward J. Carnell essentially says that the best
worldview is the most coherent. Christianity is the most coherent via the
internal text. So, Christianity appears to be the best.
Of
course, there are other variations too like (e.g., Nash). But we cannot be
exhaustive in this article.[17]
Clark’s
view (one of the more popular views among Christian apologist circles) is in
essence similar to the Evidential/Classical methods on a certain point. Even
though he made some great presuppositional arguments in certain places, his
overall viewpoint falls short of the typical presuppositional viewpoint. In
other words, Clark argued for a position that man’s autonomous reasoning (man
apart from God) should be used as the “absolute” starting point, over God’s
Word in the particular instance—logic. This conflict led Clark to argue that “logic
was God” to get around it. This is a clear problem that plagues his
methodology.
Carnell
actually began with Van Tillian presuppositional apologetics but then moved to
a form that was based on autonomous human reason in certain areas, focusing on
coherency.
Schaeffer’s
apologetic (though beautifully presuppositional in many respects) does
something similar as well, by ultimately appealing to man’s authority
over God’s Word, placing humans as the “authority” to judge what is the best
answers for life.
Don’t
get me wrong, I have great respect for these men, but they fell short in these
areas. (Don’t get me wrong, I’ve fallen short on more areas than I can
recall!). Here is the problem that each of these “presuppositional” methods all
have in common—by what standard? Is it “best” to start with autonomous human
reason or God’s Word? By moving away from God’s Word as the absolute standard,
these other methods really move away from a true presuppositional
apologetic. Such faulty “supposedly presuppositional” views still fall short.
They actually fail because they still need to stand on the preconditions of
intelligibility in regard to the Bible’s absolute standard, just to make their case. [18]
Hence,
each of these other methods are still inherently adopting a Van Tillian basis so
there was no need to shift. Christianity, which is based on the Bible as the
absolute truth, is the precondition that must be borrowed for knowledge to even
be possible.
Here’s
the takeaway: each of these other views that are claimed to be
“presuppositional” are partially-so at best because they all ultimately rely on
fallible human logic as the absolute standard (in some area)—instead of God,
who is the ultimate standard in all areas. (More specifically, the root problem
with each of these views is that logic is trying to be “elevated” above God. Whereas,
in a true presuppositional debate, logic is a tool, yet it is still subservient
to God and His Word—the ultimate authority—since logic is only possible because
God and the Bible are true.)
Furthermore,
each of their propositions are pseudo (false) presuppositional views since these
views consequentially can’t really
allow one to know the Bible is 100% true, or to be 100% certain that God even
exists—or be 100% certain of one’s own salvation. For these other views, in
essence, their position is that this is the “best possible worldview right
now”, “likely the most coherent so far”, and “gives the best possible answers
right now”—but could still be wrong. (Notice the lack of firm, faithful commitment
to God’s authority in each of these statements!)
Essentially,
each of these other alleged “presuppositional” views are forced into a position
that biblical matters are likely “true” or likely the “best” possible option—but
we can never know it with complete (100%)
confidence. Interestingly, the Bible says we can know numerous things, for example:
·
And we know that all things work together for
good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His
purpose. (Romans 8:28, NKJV)
·
But whoever
keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that
we are in Him. (1 John 2:5, NKJV)
·
These things
I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may
know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the
name of the Son of God. (1 John 5:13, NKJV)
Classical
Apologetics In Practice
Got Questions defines
Classical Apologetics accurately:
“Classical apologetics is a method of apologetics that begins by
first employing various theistic arguments to establish the existence of God.
Classical apologists will often utilize various forms of the cosmological,
teleological (Design), ontological, and moral arguments to prove God’s
existence. Once God’s existence has been established, the classical apologist
will then move on to present evidence from fulfilled prophecy, the historical
reliability of Scripture, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus to distinguish
Christianity from all other competing forms of theism.”
In
Classical apologetics, the starting point is logic—human logic to be more
specific. With this presupposition, there is an attempt to build a coherent
case of a generic “theistic being” with supporting arguments. Again, this is a Greek
method, used by ancient Greeks like Aristotle, to argue for the existence of a god.
The
classical apologist uses these types of arguments (starting with autonomous
human logic as supreme) as the basis to develop
supportive “cases” or “arguments” of some sort of “theistic presence” (often
incorrectly called “proofs” of the existence of a god(s)). This is the first
step of any classical apologist—to try to make a case that a god(s), supreme being, absolute reality, or
universal principle might exist beyond nature—that is, to make a case for
generic “theism”. The primary four
classical arguments for a generic god’s existence are:
1.
Cosmological Argument
2.
Teleological Argument
3.
Ontological Argument
4.
The Moral Argument
Regardless,
a god in these arguments isn’t necessarily a case for the God of the Bible but for any possible generic god(s) nor is the
initial goal to make a case that the Bible is true. This is very important to
note—so don’t miss this point! Furthermore, these arguments are also probabilistic cases, not absolute, as
they also rely on arbitrary starting points (human logic). And so, by using
these typical classical arguments, the best
you could argue for is that there might, probably, be some sort of “god”—maybe,
probably. (I wonder, do these classical apologists have the same attitude while
at church on Sundays, believing that they’re worshipping a “god” that probably
exists? Note the inconsistency!)
Nevertheless,
if the apologist convinces the unbeliever that there might be a god, then they generally shift gears (usually out of
nowhere!) to present a case of a specific historical or scientific evidence to
argue that the Bible might be accurate in a few specific instances. For
example, one might bring up an aspect of Christ’s resurrection or some external
document that affirms something in the Bible (e.g., an archaeological find that
the Hittites existed). Then they use this piece of evidence to build a case to
suggest some sort of historical reliability of the Scriptures at a particular
verse(s).
Once
again, these arguments are still probabilistic (not definitive). The hope is to
get the unbeliever to jump to the conclusion that the whole Bible is true or at
least trustworthy in some spots (usually texts that speak directly about Jesus
in the New Testament). In doing so, they hope the argument becomes more or less
“probably true”. So how good are these
arguments for the existence of a god? (Spoiler alert: they’re not good!)
Cosmological
Argument
The
cosmological argument assumes that a human understanding of logic is absolute,
and then builds the argument specifically on the fundamental logical law of cause
and effect. Simply put, it supposes that every effect has a cause (i.e.,
everything that had a beginning must have had a series or “chain” of causes).
And if you go back far enough, there is a first
cause or initial cause that is then
defined as “deity”, “initial force”, Brahman, nothing (e.g., big bang), or
“god” or what have you. Obviously, different people define this initial cause
differently.
Of
course, there are still problems with the cosmological argument because it is
assumed that the law of cause and effect, which exists in the observed universe
(and is assumed to work in the whole universe), also works outside of time and prior to
the existence of the universe and space-time.
Another
serious problem is that we don’t know if this alleged “theistic being” upholds
logic and the universe consistently, at all times and in all places. Given this
worldview, how does one really know that the law of cause and effect has not
changed in the past? How does one really know this law works everywhere in the
world? Or how does one really know this law will work the same tomorrow as it
does today?
Such
things cannot be known—unless an all-knowing God, who is outside of
space-time, has revealed that to us! The God of the Bible promised to uphold
the world in a particular way (e.g., Genesis 8:22, etc.) so we can know the
laws of logic and the laws of the universe have been held up in a certain
unchanging way (except for the case of God’s miraculous working if He chooses
to do so) and He promises to continue to uphold the universe in the future.
But
the Bible isn’t part of this discussion at this point in the cosmological
argument, which means one can’t really know if the law of cause and effect goes
prior to universe or even back into the past since one has left the Bible out
of it!
The
unknown “god” in this view is also being subjected to the laws of the universe
but not necessarily above and beyond them. Hence, this “god” may not be
all-powerful—just “powerful enough” to get things started. Nevertheless, not
only Christians but also many Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, etc., have used this
argument over the years.
Furthermore,
this initial cause doesn’t necessarily have to have a mind but can be an
impersonal force like the universe creating itself as in the big bang or an
Eastern religion (e.g., impersonal Brahman’s manifestation of Brahma of
Hinduism).
In
the secular view, the big bang (the naturalistic story that everything came
from “nothing” on its own—no God required) would be that first cause. Sadly, many Christians today use this naturalistic
story as an “apologetic/evangelistic tool” during witnessing encounters, saying
“God used the big bang as the first cause to create the universe…”—which means
God really didn’t do anything since big bang is model that says it did it
itself with “no God required”.
So
having a first cause isn’t necessarily an exclusive argument for the God of the
Bible—which even most atheists recognize! It would be consistent with the God of the Bible, the uncreated Creator of all
things Jesus Christ, but it isn’t necessarily a case for the God of the Bible
only.
Teleological
Argument
The
design argument (AKA, the teleological argument, which is really more of a
secular argument rather than a biblical one) looks at nature to see if we can
spot designs, and then presume a generic, “god-like” designer(s) was involved (e.g.,
intelligent design arguments). If we find design in the universe (fine-tuning
of the solar system for life for instance) or nature (DNA for example), then
one can argue that maybe there is an
ultimate designer—or at least a designer(s) that is better or smarter than humans.
Many
people from various hosts of religions have used this argument to argue for
their alleged god(s). In fact, atheists frequently use this argument to argue
for extraterrestrial aliens or some sort of “higher intelligent” life that
exists somewhere out in the cosmos. Yes, you read that right… even atheists
(including scientists!) have used the teleological argument to argue that extraterrestrial
aliens may have seeded life on the earth “millions of years” ago! So, this is not
an argument exclusively arguing for the God of the Bible—not even close!
When
we start with the Bible (like Romans 1:20)
we expect to find design. God is the ultimate designer and engineer. In other
words, design (and degradation of design in our sin-cursed world of nature) is
a confirmation of Scripture. When we start with Scripture, we know that people
have no excuse for God’s existence when looking at the world (Romans 1:18-21).
But the main thing to remember here is that every Classical argument, including
the teleological argument, is not an argument that starts from the
Bible.
On
top of that, one of the other major flaws in the teleological argument is the
problem of “bad design” in the world (this is a common one that atheists will typically
point out). That is, without the Bible, apologists who use this argument cannot
provide a solid answer to the many examples of things that are not fine-tuned
or “poorly designed” in the world.
Thus,
any generic “deity” that is shown to “probably” exist is seen as both equally
good and bad in a consistent teleological understanding. Clearly, this doesn’t
match the God of the Bible—who is purely good and the standard of what is good
with no evil in Him (e.g., 1 John 1:5).
So, to suddenly make the jump from this generic deity to the God of the Bible
based on this argument is actually quite the leap of blind faith.
Of
course, this argument is predicated on the concepts of good and bad existing
(biblical concepts) and that man is made/designed in such a unique way as to
study the world and have the ability to make conclusions about observations
(i.e., being made in the image of the God of the Bible).
So,
here’s the point: unless the Bible is true, the teleological argument doesn’t
even make sense at all in the first place. However, unlike this teleological
(secular) argument, if we actually start our thinking on the Bible, then we can
know with certainty that God made the world perfect originally, but now
the world suffers under the curse due to sin (Genesis 1:31,
Deuteronomy 32:4),
which explains why we see both “good” and “bad” design.
Ontological
Argument
The
ontological argument is an odd argument. Again, it starts with the use of
purely human reason alone (rather than observation of evidence or things in the
universe). The most common forms of this argument were derived by Anselm of
Canterbury (a Christian philosopher and theologian of the eleventh century)
about 1,000 years ago. He defines God as a being which no greater can be
conceived, and being the greatest, must exist as that is the best
thing since it is better than not existing. Another way to put it: since
God is the “greatest thing” possible, and since existing is better than not
existing, then God must exist. (Clear as mud?)
If
this argument seems a little convoluted, it is. Aside from the ambiguity of
what exactly the terms “great” and “exist” actually mean, the main problem with
this argument is that the concept of God is predicated on the autonomous human
mind and different people arbitrarily conceive different beliefs of who is the
greatest “god” (Zeus, Allah, Brahman, God of the Bible, etc.). The concepts of
good, great, greater, better, spiritual being, etc. comes from the Bible being
true—so just to develop this argument, it has to be predicated on concepts from
the Bible being true. If you notice, this basically defeats the purpose of an
autonomous argument that tries to be distinct
from the Bible.
Naturally,
Christians would want to define the greatest as the “God of the Bible”. But at
this point, one must give up the ontological argument to still make the huge “leap”
to the God of the Bible—without “proving” the God of the Bible via the
ontological argument—which thus renders it pointless. Hence, the logic doesn’t
follow, which is the second problem (which is also ironic because the whole
argument relies on pure logic!).
Granted,
I agree there is none greater than the God of the Bible, but we can only know
that because the absolute God of the Bible revealed it in His absolute Word—the
66 books of the Bible. But again, the Bible is not part of the discussion and
that really is the fatal flaw of this autonomous ontological argument.
Moral
Argument
The
moral argument is based on the idea that all people have some sort of “moral
code” (or something similar). That is, every person naturally knows that some
things in our world are “right” (“good”) and some things are “wrong” (“evil”).
Therefore, there must be some sort of (transcendent) moral lawgiver. Though
not all agree on a specific code, in many instances, people believe that “man
is basically good”, and so there must be an ultimate perfect lawgiver. But why
assume this alleged deity is ultimate or perfect? That doesn’t logically
follow.
In
fact, there’s a lot of immorality in the world—does that mean there
exists an ultimate immoral deity? That would be the religion of dualism (two
distinct equal and opposite, good and evil, beings or gods). Of course, this is
not the God of the Bible who is perfectly good. The Bible makes it abundantly
clear that Satan (a created being) has no power next to our powerful Creator
God.
In
this fallen world, there are a lot of “good” moral things and there are a lot
of “bad” immoral things. So, in the moral argument, if there’s one generic “god”
that is the lawgiver, then is this deity both equally good and evil? And who
defines moral and immoral anyway? See the problem?
This
kind of argument was a similar one that Plato used with ideals and perfect
forms that existed elsewhere. One of his students, Aristotle, eventually called
out Plato’s error because there was no way to show how that ideal realm
interacted with the real world. Though, one might say the God of the Bible can
impose His moral will on His creation and that is true—however this means
you’ve given up the argument and appealed to the Bible without the argument
yielding any proof from the moral argument for the God of the Bible!
If
one merely assumes that there is a perfect standard of morality, and that our
human morality reflects a broken aspect of that morality, then the moral
argument ultimately fails. So why assume that a perfect standard exists instead
of assuming a broken moral standard form of “god” exists? Here’s the point:
this argument simply isn’t a good case for the God of the Bible.
In
fact, whenever sinful men start with man’s fallible and autonomous reasoning as
their standard, it’s inevitable that they will make a case for a fallible god
in our fallible sinful image. This is
not the God of the Bible. There is always a huge “leap” to the God of the Bible
that is required when using these fallible (manmade) arguments.
But
since man’s morals are not absolute, not invariant, and not unchanging, then
why assume the nature of this generic deity is any different? This is ultimately
why the ancient Greeks, who also used similar kinds of arguments, arrived at
the conclusion that their “gods’ morality” was not absolute but had a changing
nature (i.e., their “gods” were more like “super” humans that had fallible
natures).
Again,
since this argument itself cannot lead to an absolute moral God, Christians who
assert that God is the absolute moral lawgiver when using the moral argument,
by necessity, have to make a gigantic leap to leave the moral argument behind.
Also,
when it comes to the standard of morality—who picks it? Who says? Without the
Bible, then sinful man does. The only way to know that absolute morality exists
is by revelation from an absolutely
moral God. So, the moral argument doesn’t lead to an absolute God—but an
absolute God does lead to absolute morality. Therefore, the argument is actually
reversed (back to front)—when one starts with God and His revealed Word, we
have a basis for absolute morality.
How
To Look At Philosophical Arguments Correctly
To
be fair, the heart of a Classical apologist really does want to help people
realize the Bible is true—I have no doubt about that. As a former Classical
apologist, I always wanted to point everyone to the God of the Bible. Yet each
of these classical arguments for the existence of “a god” always required me to
make a gigantic leap to say it was the God
of the Bible. And I knew that.
Furthermore,
each of these four arguments that held out hope for the existence of the
absolute, all-knowing (omniscient), all-powerful (omnipotent), present
everywhere (omnipresent), perfectly truthful God of the Bible started by
assuming that God’s absolute authority doesn’t apply in philosophy… How odd!
We
need to throw this rotten idea of autonomous (fallible) man’s reasoning in the
trash can—and instead start with God and His (infallible) Word as the absolute
authority. Have faith in God and His Word (Hebrews 4:12,
11:6)
and not lean on our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5).
By looking at matters the way God does in His absolute sense, we are thinking
God’s thoughts after Him (Proverbs 1:7).
Only then can we begin to make sense of good and bad, design, first cause,
logic and reasoning, morality, and so on. All of these things are a confirmation of what we expect because
God’s Word is true.
Do
we expect to find design? Yes. When we do, it’s a confirmation of the Bible. Even
when we find broken design, the Bible makes sense of that too—hence that is
also a confirmation of the Bible. Is the God of the Bible the first cause? Yes,
but we already knew that because of Genesis 1. The law of cause and effect
exists because the God of the Bible upholds the world in such a way.
God
is the absolute—and we can know that with certainty because He revealed it to us. Absolute morality only
comes out of a biblical worldview where God is the absolute moral Lawgiver
(being a reflection of His perfectly moral nature). Morals are meaningless
without God giving them meaning and cannot even be defined without God defining
them! Seeing morality (even broken morality in a broken world) is a
confirmation of the truthfulness of Scripture.
Classical Apologetics In Practice
The
classical apologist often uses these arguments to try to argue for the God of
the Bible. However, each
of these arguments are not necessarily for the God of the Bible—without a huge
leap in logic. Furthermore, these same kinds of arguments are often used by
people of false religions (including cultists!) to attempt to point to
their respective false god(s)—which should really give every Christian pause
before attempting to use these kinds of man-made arguments. Christians cannot give
up the absolute authority of God’s Word—in favor of man-made presuppositions—to
then argue that maybe a “god” exists!
Bluntly
put, Classical methodology is not founded on Scripture as the authority—and
thus is a sinful (not God-honoring) practice that Christians must avoid. At the
same time, biblical creationists can appreciate the emphasis that classical
apologetics places on the ability to possibly know God through what He has made
(inadvertently using Romans 1). But again, because creation is fallen—including
the mind of sinful man—creation’s witness to the Creator has been corrupted—and
cannot lead one to Christ—it is merely enough to condemn them to have no
excuse.
Among
the world's leading classical apologist (R.C. Sproul and his colleagues) wrote
about the classical model:
·
“Nevertheless, for Van Til, theoretically, the proper starting
point is not man at all, but God. If man were the starting point, we all would
have this in common and thus and initial point of contact. But this is not so,
there is no point of contact – nothing in common”
and “The issue of starting point is crucial to the debate. The
presuppositionalist maintains that you cannot get to God by starting with the
self (cf. chap. 10), and the traditionalist argues that the self is the only
possible starting place.”
·
“We must begin with
ourselves, that is, autonomously” (emphasis in original).
In
other words, the “natural” method in classical apologetics is to start with man—not
God. This is why hosts of different religions will often use this method,
ignoring the Bible altogether.
Evidential
Apologetics In Practice
Evidential apologetics,
to reiterate, is like the “twin sister” of classical apologetics. Both
use the same structure and method but have different focuses. Think of it like
twin sisters where one is wearing a dress, and the other is wearing overalls.
In reality though, evidential (also called apologetical evidential)
is more of a subset of classical apologetics.
So,
how is the focus different? Where classical apologetics focus on philosophy and
reason, the evidentialist focuses on evidence—like scientific observations
or historical documents. This is where the name comes from (evidential). Of
course, not to say that classical doesn’t use evidence or that evidential doesn’t
use reason or philosophy. Rather, the key difference is the primary focus.
Due
to the explosion of scientific advancements over the last few hundred years,
evidential apologetics has grown to become the most popular game in town, even
more popular than classical apologetics—which had largely been more popular
than evidential for much of church history.
Like
classical, evidential starts an argument with the assumption that autonomous
man’s reason is “supreme” to look at evidence. (i.e., man is the judge.)
To
understand more about the evidential method, one of the world’s leading
evidentialist apologists, John Warwick Montgomery, has said,
·
“facts must carry their own interpretations,”
·
“the very nature of legal argument (judgments rendered on the
basis of factual verdicts) rests on the ability of facts to speak for
themselves,”
·
“Evidential apologists of all stripes hold in common a second
crucial aspect: the conclusions of the apologetic arguments they employ are shown
to be probable rather than certain,” (emphasis
added)
·
“Can one ‘begin with God’ (the Christian God) without benefit of
objectively discoverable historical facts? I say No.”
Due
to modern scientific data and treasured historical documents that have been
discovered, as mentioned, the evidential method has largely surpassed the
classical method in recent times. Evidentialists, like Classicalists, use their
method in hopes of demonstrating that Christianity might be true (don’t miss this point!). Thus, the method only
provides probabilistic results (i.e.,
the Bible might be true on a
particular point here or there). So, this method cannot lead to any absolute
certainty about anything at all. The best arguments that can be presented are
only probable.
Evidentialism
is largely inductive, as opposed to deductive, in its logical format. This
is why the arguments are probable and not absolute. The format further
evaluates “facts” based on human logic and opinions to make a probabilistic
case for Christianity on some point (such as the resurrection, existence of
Daniel, or existence of Pontius Pilate, reliability of the Scriptures, etc.).
This
method also (falsely) presumes unbelievers can “interpret facts correctly” when
they are presented to them—in other words, data and evidence are seen as not
needing interpretation (i.e., “facts speak for themselves”). But scientific
data, historical documents, archeological finds, or any other piece of evidence
still require interpretation! And they are largely interpreted based on one’s already preconceived worldview. For
instance, this is why creationists and evolutionists do not agree on the
interpretation of many evidences (e.g., rock layers)—we interpret them
differently.
But
take note, the evidentialists are still interpreting things based on man’s opinions when looking at
evidence, attempting to judge God and His infallible Word by fallible human
opinions. It should be odd to an
observer that God, who is the judge of all matters and who judges by His Word,
is being judged by fallible, sinful beings! This is back to front! As an
analogy, it’s like trying to put God “in the dock” of a courtroom to be
interrogated—while man sits in the judge seat to pass his judgment.
Simply
put, God is the Creator and man is the creature—and it would be nothing less
than arrogant foolishness to try to think otherwise. The Apostle Paul in
Romans 9:20 NKJV (see also Isaiah 2:22) put
it this way: “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the
thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”?”
Please
don’t get me wrong here. I have many evidential friends and colleagues and I am
not criticizing them personally. (I used to be in this classical/evidential
camp too!) On the contrary, I am criticizing the method as being faulty, sinful, and utterly foolish at its very
foundation.
Recall
that these arguments are probabilistic—not certain or absolute. That
means in each case, the evidentialist cannot be certain that the resurrection actually happened, or that the
Scriptures are 100% reliable, and so on. Thus, they leave open the possibility
that the resurrection did not occur or that the Bible is not 100%
reliable.
This
is a very critical point—because it’s the bedrock of Christianity that’s at
stake here—and so it’s worth repeating: the evidentialist cannot have
absolute certainty of anything written in Scripture—including the
resurrection, which is the foundation of the gospel itself (1 Corinthians 15).
Furthermore, these arguments, if successful, are only saying one small part of
the Bible “might be true” (e.g., the resurrection, or certain prophecies) but
not the whole of Scripture.
The
consistent evidentialist, when asked if he is saved, should respond in accordance
with his methodology as, “probably”. (Again, I wonder if these apologists have
the same attitude while at church on Sundays, believing that they’re
worshipping a “god” that probably exists? Note the inconsistency!)
Of
course, the evidentialist doesn’t respond this way because they know
they are saved—because the Scriptures say they can know (with 100%
certainty!). But by their method, how do they really know that the Bible is
100% true, and thus that they are truly saved? Simply put, they can’t, given
their methodology. (Again, note the inconsistency!)
It
is completely a blind faith jump from the Bible being “probably true” to being “100%
true”. And yet, this is exactly what many evidentialists do in practice.
They use a method to say the Bible “might be true”, but then say that they
personally believe it to be 100% true. What just happened? Without any logical
reason whatsoever, the evidentialists gave up his evidentialism (and its probabilism)
and opted to stand on the Bible as true—without
warrant.
As
a caveat, that doesn’t mean that certain evidential (or even classical)
apologists don’t personally believe the resurrection to be certain or that the
whole Bible is 100% reliable. But if they want to try to be consistent to their
apologetic, then they would admit that their method cannot give them any level
of absolute certainty!
This
is why many evidentialists will use language like “high levels of confidence”,
“good possibility”, “best explanation”, “the odds are nearly 100%”, “we can be
confident”,
and so on. In doing so, they are unwittingly yielding that the Bible may not
be true, or that the resurrection may not have occurred, thus leaving
open the possibility, albeit slim, that they the events recorded in the Bible
didn’t happen. (And the reality is that unbelievers, given their fallen nature,
will take that “slim chance” every time!)
For
example, Richard Swinburne, a professor of philosophy at Oxford University
calculated in the early AD 2000s, that the probability of Jesus resurrection
was about 97%.
(Again, I wonder if Professor Swinburne has the same attitude while at church
on Sundays, believing with 97% confidence that he is worshipping the God of the
Bible?) Others have also done this calculation and based on their personal
study (e.g., Dr. Gary Habermas) are either higher or lower than Swinburne’s
result. But in each case, did you realize that they leave open the possibility that
the Bible is not true regarding the resurrection! Again, make sure you
don’t miss this critical point!
Ironically,
I’ve found that many evidentialists will often cite Scripture as true to
make an evidential case for the truthfulness of one of the Bible’s
claims. Let’s again go back to the case for the resurrection. How do they argue
for it being (probably) true? Typically, the evidentialist will quote from the
Gospels of Matthew, Mark. Luke, and/or John as
truth to understand specific circumstances surrounding the resurrection (such
as timings, witnesses, events surrounding the resurrection, etc.) and then go
on to make a probabilistic case for the resurrection while trying to counter
the critics.
Some
evidentialists will go so far as to say that even unbelievers “agree” these
passages are true—but do you realize what just happened? Given their system, truth
is now dependent on unbelievers’ opinions! No. The Bible is the truth in all
matters and not dependent on the
fallible opinions of unbelievers—who are in hostile rebellion against their
Creator.
But
notice that by appealing to Scripture here, one just “pulled the rug out from
underneath” the evidential method! That is, appealing to Scripture defeats the very
purpose of an evidential method! Appealing to these verses in the Gospel
accounts—as though they were trustworthy and true—without first attempting to
show that these verses are trustworthy, just exposed the method’s inadequacies.
Did
you catch it? The evidential method was essentially given up—to appeal to the
Bible as the absolute truth—to then argue for the evidential method. So, the
question for the evidentialist is simply this: What is the point of appealing
to the evidential method, if the Bible is already treated as the absolute
authority, when the goal of the evidential method is to argue for the
possibility of the Bible being the absolute authority? (Did you follow along? It’s
okay if you have to read that sentence again…).
In
the evidential method, one can’t know for certain that the passages being
quoted were even 100% true! Yet even if the method was successful in giving a
good probability of said passages, you still can’t know for sure!
Thus, an evidential method, when you get down to the “nuts and bolts” renders
the Bible useless in the debate. These are just some of the major problems when
using an evidential method.
Some
evidentialists might argue that evidentialism mimics the modern legal system in
the Western World (US, Canada, UK, Australia) of looking at evidence. However,
it is important to note that our modern legal system is based entirely on human
opinions being seen as the absolute truth—not God’s Word. In fact, the Bible
was “tossed out” of the legal system generations ago! And as a result, look at
the mess we are in—but of course, that is to be expected as consequences of
secular and autonomous man’s opinions in our culture.
In
other words, humans are the judge in modern legal systems, and their autonomous
opinions rule when they interpret the evidence in light of their own
preconceived ideas, opinions, and worldview. This is why a piece of evidence
can be given to five different people and get five different interpretations
out of it. Simply, when man’s opinions are seen as “supreme”, then God and His
Word isn’t.
Though
the presuppositions of the classical and evidential apologists lay with the
fact that autonomous human reasoning, not God’s Word, is at its base starting
point, unbelievers looking at the same evidence and “facts” are not always seen
as straightforward. That is, rather than seeing the arguments as evidence for
Christianity, the unbeliever will almost always interpret the evidence
differently based on his or her humanistic worldview. And so, in an evidential
methodology, it’s simply one person’s opinion vs. another person’s!
Again,
to be clear, most Christian evidentialists do believe the Bible is a sufficient
source of information in and of itself. However, they do not believe this is
the “most effective strategy” to use with unbelievers. But at the root, that
response is really just a smokescreen of the real issue at hand—the world wants
to keep the Bible out of the debate, and evidentialists seem content to
compromise (or more accurately, bow down) to the world’s demand and happily go
along with this premise, and thus leave the Bible out of it.
Can
an unbeliever be convinced of an evidential or classical apologetic? Sadly,
yes. But that doesn’t mean the method is correct, it simply means some people
can be convinced by a bad argument. And remember, it is still the Holy Spirit
that convicts and saves—not the apologetic. Nevertheless, we should be
honorable to God and do apologetic the way He does it in Scripture, not based
on the whims of man.
Presuppositional
Apologetics In Practice
The
presuppositionalist takes an entirely different tact than both
classical and evidential. As you might’ve already guessed… instead
of starting with man’s reason or opinions as the “supreme” authority, this
position opts to start with God and His Word (the 66 books of the Bible) as the
absolute authority on all matters—including reason, logic, philosophy,
science evidence, historical documents, archaeological finds, and so on.
In
other words, the presuppositionalist defers from his own thoughts and submits
to God’s absolute Word as the starting point in all argumentation in every area
of life and reality. In the presuppositional method, one tries to follow God’s
thoughts after Him and let God’s Word be the authority, in whom are hidden all
the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Proverbs 1:7;
Colossians 2:3).
What greater authority is there than God? None! Or in the words of the late Dr.
Greg Bahnsen: “If God is God, then who or what authority could be higher than
His? There cannot be an authority higher than God’s.”
If
one of the reasons for apologetics is argue for God’s Word being the absolute
authority, then why give up the Bible as the absolute authority like the
classical and evidential methods do? Think about it, how do believers stand on
the Bible’s authority if they’re just willing to give it up? It would be
illogical to do so, yet that has been the popular method over history, again
going back to Greek thought (400-500 BC).
So,
the question is, why would Christians decide to give up God’s Word at the onset
of the debate—and then decide to use methods derived by pagans to
attempt to defend God’s Word? It is very odd when you think about it. And
speaking of pagans, you need to realize this other very important point that
(contrary to popular belief) unbelievers are NOT neutral—no matter how many
times they say it! So, here’s the point: unbelievers are not neutral—and
Christians shouldn’t try to be either!
So,
presuppositionalists treat God’s Word as the absolute authority from the word
go. God and His Word are seen as the authority from the first verse of the
Bible: “In the beginning, God…” (Genesis 1:1). And note that God didn’t stop
part of the way through Genesis 1:1 and then suddenly deviate to using a
classical argument for His possible existence, or using an evidential method to
present all the scientific evidence and historical documents (written by people
later) to say His statement “might be true”. No, He just says it! In other
words, the Bible comes with God’s own self-attesting authority.
And
rightly so! God is the final authority, and only He can reveal Himself by final
authority. God treats Himself as the ultimate authority, and that is why
presuppositionalists also mimic what God does in His example by using God and
His Word as the supreme authority. So, the method used in presuppositional
apologetics is far different in all major aspects from that of classical and
evidential.
The
presuppositionalist recognizes that God and His Word are the supreme
presupposition, hence the name “presuppositionalism” or
“presuppositional”. Though,
philosophically, this methodology is often known as “transcendental”
apologetics. And here’s the thing that makes it so unique: unlike classical or
evidential methods, people of false worldviews (like atheists, Hindus, or
Buddhists) cannot use this methodology—otherwise they’d have to give up
their worldview to do so! In starting with the Bible, the Word of God is not
off limits from the onset of any debate or argument. On the contrary, this
methodology presupposes the authority, sufficiency, and truthfulness of
God’s Word—right from the start.
For
instance, when an objector says, “well I don’t believe the Bible” simply ask
him by “what authority do you object to God’s absolute authority?” Logically
speaking, the objector has committed the fallacy of faulty appeal to
authority (a false authority fallacy/misplaced authority fallacy) in his objection.
Thus, he is being illogical when trying to oppose God’s Word.
By
starting with God’s Word, and this is a key biblical point so don’t miss this:
the Bible clearly says every person knows that not just some general “god/deity”
exists, but rather they know that the God of the Bible (Yahweh/Jehovah)
exists—in their heart of hearts (e.g., Romans 1:20-32)—but they actively suppress
this knowledge (similar to trying to hold a beachball underwater). And as a
result, God has given them over to a debased mind to do what ought not to be
done.
So,
here’s the takeaway: the goal is not to convince them God exists—they
already know God exists, but they are trying to hide that fact by either
pretending (i.e., after becoming self-deceived) He doesn’t exist (e.g., atheism/agnosticism)
or reinterpreting God (e.g., Hinduism, Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses) or
convoluting Him to be one of many “gods” (e.g., Greek Mythology, Mormonism).
So, one of the main goals of presuppositional apologetics is to expose the internal
inconsistency in the unbeliever’s worldview (their mistaken nature of God,
for instance).
In
a nutshell, the presuppositional apologist’s goal is to refute false beliefs
from all other religions with Scripture and to ultimately point people to Jesus
Christ. The presuppositionalist refutes false worldviews by showing not only
their inconsistency with God’s Word, but also the internal inconsistency within
their own story, where they are being arbitrary, and where they borrow from
God’s Word unwittingly (e.g., wearing clothes, 7-day week, using logic,
absolute morality, observable and repeatable science is possible, etc.).
And
while it’s important to expose the arbitrariness and inconsistencies in the unbeliever’s
worldview, what’s more important to remember is that apologetics does not
save anyone from the wrath of God to come. Remember that it is God that
saves people—not us—but we present the gospel consistent with our
apologetic—always using the Bible as the ultimate authority and Gospel in its
pages. In other words, if we’re not pointing people to the Cross, then we’ve
ultimately failed in our apologetic.
In
the same way that Jesus asked for the stone to be rolled away from Lazarus’
grave, so we remove those stumbling blocks, but only God can bring people back
to life. As an analogy, you can think of apologetics as the “forklift” that
removes the barriers and clears the way for the gospel.
But also remember that apologetics will NOT remove the barrier of pride—only
the gospel can do that! (And be careful that apologetics doesn’t “puff” you up
with pride!) This is why the apologist’s job is to humbly and respectfully
“close the mouth” of the unbeliever and let the Holy Spirit convict the heart
unto salvation (e.g., 1 Corinthians 12:3).
Contrary
to the belief of many critics of this method, evidence is actually often used
in presuppositional apologetic methods. The key, as
we’ve previously discussed, is the interpretation of the evidence in
light of one’s presupposed worldview.
In
presuppositionalism, all evidence must be interpreted in light of God’s Word. And
when people misinterpret evidence for their respective religion, we need to
correct their understanding of the evidence. Often in presuppositional
methodology, one asks what must be true for this to be possible. For example,
when someone asks the question, “how do we know the Bible is true?” we then must
ask: “what must be true for someone to ask this question?” Or more simply, “how
do we know anything is true?” The typical responses you’ll hear from people
are, “I know things are true based on reason” (i.e., it has to be rational) or
“I know things are true based on observation” (i.e., using our five senses), or
sometimes they’ll say, “I know things are true based on experience” (i.e., it
just works for me).
Pause
for a moment… did you realize that to even ask the question “how do we know the
Bible is true?” (or even any question at all!) it is predicated on the Bible
being true? Follow me for a moment… First, the question assumes absolute truth
exists. Second, the question assumes knowledge exists. Third, the question
assumes that human beings are made in such a way that we can use logic and
reasoning to even understand the question itself. Of course, we could keep
going with even more assumptions, but I think you get the point…
To
summarize: truth, knowledge, and the fact that man is made in the image of an
all-knowing, logical God of truth are all predicated on the Bible being true.
So just to ask the question means the Bible has to be true—it doesn’t mean the
unbeliever has to “believe” the Bible is true (I can guarantee that he won’t!),
but that the Bible has to be true to even make sense of his questions in the
first place.
Another way to put it, the Bible has to be true because of the impossibility of
the contrary—that is, if the Bible isn’t true, then we couldn’t know anything
at all. In fact, apart from the Bible, one wouldn’t even be able to make
sense of reality at all, and thus would be reduced to absurdity.
Granted,
we find many confirmations that the Bible is true in all different areas
of science, archaeology, philosophy, and so on. But here’s the point: instead
of these things being the basis to try to argue for the Bible, the Bible
is the absolute—and these things are merely consistent with what we expect
to find—because Scripture is true.
Did
you notice how the Bible is used as the authority, not man’s opinions nor fallible
human reason? And did you notice that any argument, evidence, philosophy, and
so on are merely predicated on the truthfulness of God and His Word? It should
be very clear by now that the presuppositional apologetic is much different in
methodology than the classical and evidential approach. Because the Bible is
true, we expect to find design in nature, and we expect to find cursed design
and deteriorations in design since the curse in Genesis 3 too. When we start
with God’s Word, things make sense.
Cornelius
Van Til summarized it well when he said,
“The best, the only, the absolutely certain proof of the truth of
Christianity is that unless its truth be presupposed there is no proof of
anything. Christianity is proved as being the very foundation of the idea of
proof itself.”
So,
the presuppositionalist acknowledges that logic, knowledge, truth, uniformity
of nature (i.e., the assurance that the future will be like the past), absolute
morality exists, and that these things are solely predicated on God and His
revelation to man. Simply put, how we know things are true is because God has
spoken.
Critics
may claim that other religions could also account for some of these things
within their professed religion. However, that claim actually falls tragically
short—having no basis whatsoever for such things if they were consistent! For
example:
·
Atheists, if they were consistent, would have no laws (moral,
logical, or scientific) since they are not material and atheism is a
materialistic religion (i.e., the only things that supposedly exist in atheism
is matter and energy in the cosmos). In fact, given the atheistic worldview,
whether something is “true” is actually meaningless! It’s impossible to get
truth from a brain that’s just “fizzing” chemicals (like a can of soda) and so
the atheist cannot even trust his own thoughts are telling him the truth. And
on top of that, the atheist believes his worldview is “true”—not because he
“freely” chose to believe it’s true—but rather as a result or “byproduct” of chemical
reactions!
·
Hindus believe all is “one” (called “monism”) and therefore being
moral and being immoral is “one and the same”, and it also means being logical
and illogical are “one and the same”. In other words, per their worldview,
logic and reasoning mean nothing.
·
Muslims (Islam) openly borrow from the Bible as the absolute
standard for these things (e.g., Sura 2:40-42,126,136,285; 3:3,71,93; 4:47,136;
5:47-51, 69,71-72; 6:91; 10:37,94; 21:7; 29:45,46; 35:31; 46:11).
·
Etc.
Like
Islam, every man-made religion borrows from the biblical worldview, in order to
have any level of rationality, whether they realize it or not. Muslims, as well
as other cults of Christianity, often acknowledge it at least. (Actually,
according to Islamic doctrine, their god Allah is said to be so
“superior” that nothing in our human experience can even begin to compare.
However, laws of logic are an essential part of our human experience—which
means laws of logic cannot be a reflection of the way Allah thinks—and thus
Islam cannot provide a basis for any kind of rationality, which is why Muslims
have to borrow from the Bible to make sense of anything).
The
presuppositionalist shows unbelievers that their worldview is wrong at its very
base, as they can’t make sense of logic, knowledge, and truth and so on. Then
the presuppositionalist teaches them that correct worldview from God’s Word.
Paul
did this in Greece when he witnessed to them in Acts 17. He had to show the
Greeks that their respective worldviews were wrong, and that God was the only
one responsible for all things—life, breath, and all things (Acts 17:25)
which includes logic, truth, knowledge, and so on. In short, the Greeks’ false
worldviews had no basis; and then Paul explained more about who God was, and
then put Jesus and the resurrection on top. But notice from the text that Paul never
asked them to judge God’s Word to see what their fallible opinions led them to—but
instead used God’s Word as the authority to judge their false beliefs—and
thus call them to repentance.
We
have demonstrated that this approach gets to the root of the worldview issue,
while still allowing the use of evidence and reason within biblical parameters.
We want to let God be God—and His Word be the authority that we follow in all
areas—including our apologetic methodology.
Concluding
Remarks On The Methods
While
many apologetic methods have been used by Christians through the ages, they
often separated themselves at the crucial point of starting point from God’s
Word. All of those non-presuppositional methods fall short, and thus they are
admittedly not the best. I want to encourage all Christians to unashamedly
stand on the authority of the Bible in all areas, and thus stand
presuppositionally on Scripture.
The
Christian should use the Bible to then judge all scientific evidence,
historical data, philosophy, and archaeological finds against the Scriptures,
and see how they are confirmations of His Word. We should refute and demolish
arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God
and take captive every thought and make it obedient to Christ (Acts 18:28;
2 Corinthians 10:4-5).
We should do this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15)
but it should also be bold in obedience with our love for Christ (e.g., Acts
9:29;
2 Corinthians 5:12-15.
Let
us also remember that while our defense of the faith can answer objections to
the Christian faith and affirm the Bible’s truthfulness, it is the gospel that
“is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16).
Thus, the apologist must always be ready to share the good news of Christ’s
sacrificial death, burial, and resurrection.
□
Bodie Hodge,
Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various
churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers
in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding
news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight
Council.
Bodie
launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal
website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken
on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and
universities. He is married with four children.
Classical Apologetics, R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley, Academie Books (through Zondervan Publishing House), Grand Rapids, 1984, p. 214.
Classical Apologetics, R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley, Academie Books (through Zondervan Publishing House), Grand Rapids, 1984, p. 212.
Montgomery, “The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity,” in Evidence for Faith, 335.
