We now turn our attention to the historical foundations of apologetics. As discussed in the first paper, apologetics has been around from the beginning. As soon as humanity could be divided into believers and unbelievers, there have been those thinkers who have attempted to breach the chasm.
Apologetics, at a high level, can be divided into three major types: the Classical, the Evidential, and the Presuppositional.
Classical Apologetics
Modern Classical Apologists include Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, Charles Hartshorne, F. R. Tennant, Norman Geisler, R.C. Sproul, and John Gerstner.
The importance of studying classical apologetics stems from the fact that most secular philosophy courses only dialogue with the classical arguments. In addition, Classical Apologetics are an item of dogma for the Roman Catholic Church. As Christiani puts it,
"Before starting to examine modern forms of apologetics,... Are such forms permitted; are they lawful?...Yes, but with a few conditions: first, they do not contradict classical apologetics and, secondly, that they are in some way connected with it. No one may reject classical apologetics, for, as we have seen, it has been sanctioned by the Vatican Council, and the principles then laid down have been repeated by St Pius X in his Encyclical Pascendi. These two documents, which we must not reject, indicate the proper end for Catholic apologetics, and the essential means for gaining this end."[footnote 1]As a result of these two facts, most students today are led to believe that these arguments are the main line of Christian defense, even though many of them are not particularly effective. Classical apologetics should be understood then, not only for use in evangelism, where appropriate, but also in order to be prepared to critique some of the weaker arguments.
There are three classical arguments for the existence of God:
Thomas Aquines conceived of five ways to God, the second of which was his version of the ontological argument. In Aquinas' rendition of this argument he uses the idea of an infinite causal regression which should not be confused with an infinite temporal regression:
Some more recent approaches to the Ontological Argument have shown some promise. Discussions of these approaches will be forthcoming in a future revision to this paper.
This is really less of an argument than a metaphor. A point which Scottish philosopher David Hume used to show that this "argument" is really not very forceful.
The basic scenario is stated similar to:
While walking through a field, one finds a watch on the ground. He naturally and rightly concludes that it had a watchmaker. Likewise, if one studies the more complex design in the natural world, he cannot but conclude that there is a world Designer behind it.
David Hume produced effective criticisms of the teleological argument in his essay, "Dialogues Regarding Natural Religion."[footnote 5]
The main salient points were that:
Although the teleological argument makes the existence of a designer likely, the argument by itself does not lead necessarily to belief in biblical monotheism. It could, for instance, also support polytheism.
Critics feel the Darwinian theory of natural selection has destroyed the teleological argument, by showing that changes come from purely natural causes rather than by special design. This is not true. While natural selection may account for which forms "survive", it cannot account for which forms "arrive". Stated differently, a distinction must be made between change within given levels of complexity, versus the emergence of new levels of complexity. For example, a screw cutting machine may accidentally produce a backward threaded screw. However, it will not produce a television!
Furthermore, in all closed systems we observe a leveling process. Physicists point out that there is a universal tendency toward greater entropy. This means, among other things, that the amount of energy available for use is always decreasing. In a sense, the Universe is running down, which means that the universe should eventually reach a state of complete entropy.
This implies that the Universe is not eternal, because if it was eternal, it would have reached a position of complete entropy an eternity ago. This suggests that the Universe had a cause which is beyond itself.[footnote 6]
The "red shift" Doppler effect shows astronomers that the universe is expanding. Such movement could not have been in progress forever. This is the origin of the so-called "big bang" theory, which is more or less axiomatic today.
There is no known reason why a big bang would have occurred, or why the present inertia of the stars would ever reverse direction, as in the theory of the oscillating universe. This is to say that the theories that might account for such oscillation are unproven, and involve phenomena which have never been observed.
If everything requires a cause, then God requires a cause. If God requires no cause, then not all things require a cause.
However, if it can be shown that the eternal existence of God is different than the eternal existence of the Universe, this argument might hold up. John Hick has argued that since God is personal, He is not subject to natural law, (e.g. thermodynamic laws) which apply to the physical realm. Therefore, there are fewer problems with His eternity than there would be with the eternity of the physical universe.[footnote 7]
The position taken in the cosmological argument regarding an infinite regress of cause and effect (namely that an infinite regress is not possible because the whole string requires a cause) fails to come to grips with the word "infinite". If a cause and effect chain is infinite, then the reason for it is always the previous cause. To appeal to any outside cause is to beg the question entirely.
The appeals to scientific laws and to the big bang are primarily useful for showing that there are problems with the naturalistic view. They do not prove the existence of God. However, by comparing the theistic model with the naturalistic model in the light of these laws of nature, it is possible to show that theism would remove some problems that naturalism cannot. the result is greater probability for theism.
In recent years, modern philosopher William Lane Craig has stirred a renewed interest in the Kalam approach.
Evidentialist Apologetics
Evidential Apologetics are the product of the rise of modern science and modern historiography. During the period of the Enlightenment, Christians were eager to show that a scientific approach to Christianity was possible.
The type of scientific method used was a forensic, or inductive approach, which is similar to courtroom evidence. Forensic science collects evidence after the event (e.g. an autopsy) and seeks to find the most plausible explanation for the event. Such an argument does not claim to "prove" Christianity, but only to render it probable.
Today, Evidentialism is the main approach in use in American fundamentalist and evangelical circles. Spokesmen for the approach include Josh McDowell, C. S. Lewis, John W. Montgomery, Clark Pinnock, Hal Lindsey, and many others. Many other author's combine evidential arguments with other approaches.
However, it is essential that the Christian apologist realize some limitations of this method.
Modern evidentialist apologists have made exaggerated claims regarding our ability to verify the historicity of the Gospels. Although we can demonstrate relatively good historical value in the gospels, it would be a mistake to think that secular scholars will be impressed to the extent that they would accept supernatural aspects of the narrative.
Evidentialists have failed to point out that the Gospels lack one feature that is considered important for credibility by modern historians-- namely correlation. That is, even though the gospels can be correlated with other sources regarding geography and non-Christian historical facts, they can not be compared with outside sources regarding the words, acts, and character of Jesus. This does not mean that the gospels are not historically sound. It only means that they are not as iron-clad as some authors have claimed.
The empty tomb argument is based in part on an argument from silence. This fact is mitigated somewhat by the fact that it is a conspicuous silence (because the body could have been exhumed) but it remains a sore point which has not been admitted or dealt with by evidentialists.
The Lord Liar Lunatic dilemma is not a very strong argument from the standpoint of cogency. On the other hand, it is effective in confronting the hearer with his choices, and eliminating the likelihood of the "good man" theory. It does not usually deal with the legend theory sufficiently.
Some Evidentialists have a reputation for credulity and deliberate distortion, especially when citing authorities who supposedly agree with the position taken, when they actually do not. There are even cases of gross misinterpretation and quotations taken out of context apparently on purpose. The work of many evidentialists has the appearance of "working from the bottom line up" (looking for anything that will prove the point) rather than careful scholarship.[footnote 9]
The evidential arguments have strengthened the faith of many Christians.
When addressing non-Christian's, the argument from fulfilled prophecy is the best part of the evidentialist argument to use. This argument has definite value in terms of establishing the likelihood of biblical revelation and the uniqueness of Christ.
Evidentialist arguments can and should be used to create curiosity and willingness to hear a more complete presentation of biblical teaching. They should also be used to correct the misconception that Christianity is without evidence. They are, in other words often pre-evangelistic in scope.
Presuppositional Apologetics
Presuppositional apologetics have become prominent in recent years due to the work of several reformed scholars including Cornelius Van Til, Gordon Clark, E. J. Carnell, and Francis Schaeffer.
At a time when classical apologetics are in general discredit among scholars in the secular world, presuppositionalism has enjoyed increasing respect in scholarly circles. Modern Christian communicators should read a good selection of the writings of these authors, and become able to employ this approach when appropriate.
The central idea behind presuppositional apologetics is the fact that everyone does have certain presuppositions, no matter what their world view. This fact is obvious, although the exact presuppositions held in a given case may not be obvious. It is even possible that the presuppositions are not clear to the one that holds them. Therefore, there often needs to be a step of discovery of the other's presuppositions before applying the method.
In some models (Van Til's for instance) there is the assumption that the presuppositions of all non-theists are the same. In others, this question is left open at first.
One problem that is frequently encountered is that the hearer becomes argumentative and resistant if he feels that he is being "bested" in a debate. In other words, the presuppositional approach is confrontative, and therefore runs the risk of further agitating the ego of the hearer. He begins to feel that he must not only submit his ego to God, but also to the apologist.
It is therefore recommended that the presuppositional approach be used especially in cases where resistance is being encountered, or where an argumentative attitude is already evident. Another situation that is good for a presuppositional argument is public speaking. In this case, since the opponent is imaginary, the crowd is not provoked to ego-involved behavior.
Another problem has to do with the difficulty of establishing step #3 in Van Til's method or #4 in Schaeffer's method. These are sophisticated arguments that can be hard to simplify unless they are understood well. Additional reading is imperative if this ability is to be acquired. An example of how this is done can be seen in the following example.
At the same time, however, you could not prove, just from a consideration of their arrangement alone, that they were arranged by a purposeful being. It is possible -- at least logically so -- that there was no guiding hand at all in back of this pattern...It is possible that the stones, one by one, rolled down the hill and, over the course of centuries, finally ended up in that interesting arrangement... For surely the mere fact that something has an interesting or striking shape or pattern, and thus seems purposefully arranged, is no proof that it is . . . .
(So far, this is a standard teleological argument. What follows is the connection between the teleological and the presuppositional arguments.)
Here, however, is the important point which it is easy to overlook; namely, that if, upon seeing from the train window a group of stones arranged as described, you were to conclude that you were entering Wales, and if your sole reason for thinking this, whether it was in fact good evidence or not, was that the stones were so arranged, then you could not, consistently with that, suppose that the arrangement of the stones was accidental. You would, in fact, be presupposing that they were arranged that way by an intelligent and purposeful being or beings, for the purpose of conveying a certain message having nothing to do with the stones themselves. Another way of expressing the same point is, that it would be irrational for you to regard the arrangement of the stones as evidence that you were entering Wales, and at the same time to suppose that they might have come to that arrangement accidentally, that is, as the result of the ordinary interactions of natural or physical forces...it would be irrational for one to say both that his sensory and cognitive faculties had a natural, non-purposeful origin and also that they reveal some truth with respect to something other than themselves, something that is not merely inferred from them.[footnote 13] (emphasis mine)
A sound presuppositional apologetic belongs in the arsenal of the modern Christian communicator, because it is frequently very effective in public speaking, and in gaining respect in one on one conversations, especially with well educated and intelligent hearers.
Footnotes
1. Msgr. Leon Cristiani, Why We Believe (New York,NY: Hawthorn Books,1959) p.96
2. Condensed by Douglas Chismar, "Resource Materials, Christian Apologetics". (Unpublished course notes, Ashland Theological Seminary, 1985) p.3 A fuller discussion can be found in Hick, Arguments for the Existence of God. See note #6 below.
3a. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (New York: Benzinger Brothers, Inc., 1947), Pt.1, Q. 2, Art. 3. See also Summa Contra Gentiles, trans. Anton C. Pegis (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975), I, 13.
3. William Paley, Natural Theology, cited in Geisler, Norman L., Christian Apologetics, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company, 1976) pp.88,89
4. uses a basic form of this argument in Rom. 1:18-20.
5. David Hume, Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1935).
6. It is important to remember that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system. Since the earth is not a closed system, (in that it is open to energy input from the sun etc.) this argument cannot be used directly to attack evolution on earth. However, a slightly modified approach having to do with the overall increase in entropy due to the infusion of energy from an external system can be used to demonstrate the further statistical improbability of abiogenesis.
7. John Hick, Arguments for the Existence of God. (New York: Herder and Herder, 1971) pp.34 ff. He also gives other reasons for distinguishing between God and the universe in the area of eternalness.
8. For a use of prophetic evidence by God in the Old Testament, see Isaiah 41:22-29;42:9;44:7,24-25;45:21;46:8-10; and 47:12-15. In these remarkable passages, God shows that His chosen method of self verification would be predictive prophecy. The passages are interspersed with the four anonymous servant songs which, according to the New Testament, refer to Christ.
For usage of this method by Christ, see Lk.24:44 where Jesus points to the Old Testament, as well as to his own words as providing verification through prediction.
For the apostles, Acts 17:2,3 shows that Paul customarily reasoned from the scriptures, citing predictive prophecy of Christ in order to persuade his audience. I Cor. 15:1-8 is an evidentialist argument based on eyewitness accounts, and predictive prophecy. I Jn. 1:1-3 and II Pet. 1:16-21 are also evidentialist arguments.
9. Note that the young earth position is usually argued using exactly the same evidentialist techniques used to prove the deity of Christ.
10. See my paper "An Introduction to Christian Apologetics", (1996 unpublished)
11. Condensed by Douglas Chismar, "Resource Materials, Christian Apologetics". (Unpublished course notes, Ashland Theological Seminary, 1985) p.4
12. Douglas Chismar, "Resource Materials, Christian Apologetics". p.5
13. Quoted in John Hick, Arguments for the Existence of God, pp.23,24