Within Christian apologetics several schools of thought exist. This article is firstly an attempt to come to a classification of these different schools. Next, the agreements and disagreements between these schools are investigated. It appears that despite the differences there are several common convictions between the several apologetic approaches, namely ‘knowing as basis for showing’, and ‘faith seeks understanding’. These common convictions appear to be fundamental if compared with the differences. The third part of this article explores the arguments for an integration of the different approaches. However, the concept of a strict integration will be problematic, and this leads in the final part to a proposal. The proposal is for a complementary model of concentric circles, starting with the convictions of the heart in the centre in fideism and presuppositionalism, continuing with apologetics which refer to the human mind in classical apologetics and culminating in apologetics that refer to senses in evidentialism.
This article does not deal with apologetics within Christian churches, but with the discourse between belief and unbelief. Within Christian apologetics one finds several streams or schools of thought such as classical apologetics, evidentialism, presuppositionalism and fideism. The different schools sometimes give the impression that their approach is exclusive with respect to other schools. Searching these different apologetic schools, however, gave me the impression that it might be possible to unite these different approaches into one integrated model. Kenneth D. Boa and Robert M. Bowman Jr. (
Firstly, I make some remarks about the classification of the different apologetic schools and roughly sketch some characteristic differences. Secondly, I look for the common convictions in the diverse streams. In the third place I describe some motives for an integration of the different apologetic models. These investigations lead – lastly – to a proposal of a complementary concept of apologetics.
If these schools of thought are classified from the analytical criterion of epistemology, it leads to a classification of three apologetic schools (cf. Boa & Bowman
In 1999 Norman Geisler (
In this article the choice has been made to divide the apologetic schools from a synthetic perspective in classical apologetics, evidentialism, revelational apologetics (including presuppositionalism and reformed apologetics) and fideism.
These differences appear in several practical situations and in the attitude towards different disciplines. It is not surprising that Roman Catholic apologists use classical apologetics. Revelational apologists can be of a reformed conviction. Fideism is used by protestants who dislike liberal or orthodox systems of thinking.
A comparable division can be made in relation to philosophy and science. Classical apologists are usually positively oriented towards philosophy and science, whilst fideists are characterised by a critical and detached attitude. Revelational apologists accept philosophy and science, but they employ their own Christian philosophical and scientific system, because they are critical towards secular science. Evidentialists are often less philosophical, but they try to integrate faith and science.
With respect to Scripture the following conclusions can be made. Revelational apologists understand Scripture as authoritative concerning the issues of faith and science. Evidentialists seek to prove the historical truths of Scripture and to refer to fulfilled prophecies. Fideists see Scripture often as a witness of God’s acts in which the Self-revelation of God is most important and in which the historical reliability can be relativised.
When it comes to the pressing question of evil in history, the revelational apologist will stress God’s sovereignty, the evidentialist will wonder whether the amount of evil can be reconciled with God’s goodness, the classical apologist argues that God has reasons to accept evil in his creation, whilst the fideist witnesses of his hope in God despite all the evil in history.
After sketching the characteristic differences between the different apologetic methods, in this section I will take the opposite direction and explore those convictions which are common in the different apologetic approaches.
Every Christian apologist will agree that ‘showing’ the truth of Christian faith emanates from ‘knowing’ (Craig
Therefore, the emphasis on a personal relationship with Christ in fideism is not unfamiliar to the representatives of other apologetic schools. This accent is evident in revelational apologetics. In revelational apologetics personal faith functions as an important pivot point of the worldview. This pivot point is so important in presuppositionalism that it can be said that the unbeliever practices science in a different way.
Classical apologists and evidentialists acknowledge the difference between ‘showing’ and ‘knowing’. With this distinction they emphasise that – despite the common ground of reason – the unbeliever thinks on a different wavelength than the believer. Not only the revelational apologist, but also the classical apologist acknowledge the difference between ‘inside internal’ and ‘outside external’ faith. There is a difference in the issue as to how to reach the unbeliever, but there is no difference about the question whether believers operate in another dimension than the unbeliever. Despite the common ground between believers and unbelievers, classical apologists acknowledge that reason does not give direct access to God. The classical apologist, the revelational apologist, and the fideist underline that one does not come to real knowledge and assurance of God without the witness of the Holy Spirit. Implicitly it looks as if the fideist blames the classical apologist that he understands faith within the realms of reason, but this reproach is unjustified. Both the fideist and the classical apologist are convinced that natural human beings do not understand the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:14).
Representatives of different apologetic schools have in common the conviction that faith is more than reason. Classical apologists who stress most the use of reasonable arguments do not mean that mysteries such as the trinity, the incarnation or reconciliation can be made understandable for the human mind. The use of reason in classical apologetics is limited to the notion of the existence of God, but is not used to explain God, the knowledge of God and the relation with God.
Because the ‘distance’ between classical apologetics and fideism is the biggest, I argue about these two apologetic schools. The difference between fideism and classical apologetics does not concern the question whether God and the knowledge of him is within the reach of reason. Concerning God and the knowledge of God, both classical apologists and fideists deny the magisterial use of reason in which reason stands over and above the Word of God as a magistrate to judge the content of God’s revelation.
An example of this denial is to be found with Martin Luther. In 1517 he held the
This did not imply that Luther denied every use of reason. It is remarkable that Luther who supplied the ingredients for fideism acknowledged that natural reason was conscious of God, his justice and his mercy, however, this natural knowledge of God does not know what God thinks of us or how God saves us.
Also for believers Luther acknowledged a certain use of reason. In
The difference between fideism and classic apologetics does not concern the issue of whether human beings can embrace the gospel of Jesus Christ by reason. Both fideism and classic apologetics acknowledge the limits of natural reason with respect to the heart of the gospel. The negative attitude of fideism with respect to human reasons seems to be a great contradiction with classical apologetics, but looking deeper into this attitude it appears that both schools acknowledge the limits of reason. As fideism has possibilities to use the minister-function (in contrast to the magister-function) of reason with respect to faith, it appears that fideism does not speak merely negatively about the use of reason, but it considers reason relatively unusable in matters of faith. As fideism at the same time is able to honor the use of reason in the unbelievers’ acknowledgement of the existence of God, it appears that the distance between fideism and classical apologetics is not as big as it appears. The great difference in the attitude towards reason has more to do with the object upon which one is focused than with the difference in the appreciation of reason as such. Whilst fideism has the content of the gospel as its object of consideration and classical apologetics the existence of God as object, it is understandable that both schools speak in a different way about reason. Whilst classic apologetics is committed to a reasonable discourse on the existence of God, fideism does not see the usefulness of such a contact. This means that the difference in judgement about reason concerns more the apologetic approach as such than the judgement about the possibilities of reason as such.
There are different motivations to achieve an integration of apologetic approaches. In this part of the article I will deal with the theological motivation, the historical motivation and the practical motivation and end with a conclusion.
Believers live in spiritual communion with Christ.
One comes to the same basic patterns if you think from the perspective of creation, sin, redemption and recreation. In recreation the old creation is not discarded, but the old creation is transformed into the new creation. The new creation is fuller and richer than the old creation, but there is not a complete discontinuity. In God’s future a spiritual body will be raised on the day of resurrection. Corporeality is a guarantee for continuity, whilst the spiritual character of the body implies discontinuity. These notions show one that this creation is destined for recreation. Despite sin God will achieve his aim with his creation.
The basic patterns of creations are also fundamental. Despite sin these basic patterns are recognisable, so that one does not live in a house of ghosts with daily unexpected and unwanted surprises. That there are many patterns in creation and logic is certainly true. This pleads for an ontological continuity before and after the fall into sin. This view is the source of the argument that God is not far from the unbeliever
Revelational apologetics and fideism remind us that creation and redemption cannot be isolated of each other. At the same time it should be pointed out that it is in accordance with Scripture to distinguish creation and recreation. The first message of Scripture is not to call human beings to faith, but to confront them with God. Next follows the necessity of reconciliation with Christ. A striking example is found in the strategy of the apostle Paul. Whilst he starts his message in the synagogues with the message about the Messiah, towards unbelievers he begins his message with God and creation.
There is also another view that pleads for the integration of apologetic methods. God starts a personal relationship with his sinful creatures. At the same time he remains the Creator who gives norms for human life and teaches the truth about himself, human beings, creation and history. There are good reasons to dismiss deism. God does not remain at a distance, but he is actively involved in his care for creation. The aspect of the personal relationship is present in fideism. The right of classical apologetics and evidentialism is to be found in their presentation of God’s order in the whole of creation, whilst revelational apologetic asserts the message of Scripture that reveals the meaning of creation. The different ways in which one stand in relation to God justifies different approaches of apologetics. Since the one God is central, there is no reason to separate and isolate the different apologetic approaches from one other. Separating apologetic schools would imply that the different relations with God are made absolute.
Finally, there is an argument from anthropology to defend the unity of the different apologetic approaches. Human beings are intelligent beings. There are reasons to join this anthropological notion in classical apologetic and evidentialism. The intellectual orientation of revelational apologetics does justice to this dimension of Christian life. Revelational apologetic appeals rightly to God’s transcendent revelation, whilst evidentialism starts with the immanent reality of God. Beside the human intellect one should also speak about human will, human affections and human intuition. This is the right of fideism.
It can also be said that the Holy Spirit effectively influences the different dimensions of the human mind. By the Spirit the human mind is enlightened so that the same facts receive another meaning. The Word of God becomes the great framework of interpretation of human life and human history. By the Spirit human beings become very willing to be led by the Word and Spirit. These notions underline the desirability of integrated apologetics.
Classifying the different apologetic schools makes clear that apologists in history cannot be easily divided. Augustine can be understood as the precursor of both classical apologetics and revelational apologetics (Boa & Bowman
The outcome of this search makes clear that the division into several apologetic methods is more idealistic than realistic. To get a clear view of a certain apologetic approach it is good to concentrate on the ideal type of a school, but at the same time it is necessary to acknowledge that the apologetic reality is more complex that the addition of several schools. Apologists can use several apologetic methods to share the message of the Bible. It is logical to assume that unbelievers differ. One unbeliever is more receptive to argument
These considerations support the plea for a holistic apologetic approach in which the instruments and the insights of the different apologetic methods are employed. The specialism of the different approaches has improved the quality of the tools, but this increase should be without profit if every apologetic specialisation would isolate itself from the other approaches.
John Frame (
There are also pragmatic motives to plead for a holistic integration of apologetic methods. In such a holistic approach the apologist can make use of several apologetic insights and instruments.
The basic use of human intellect cannot be missing in an apologetic debate. A basic instrument in classical apologetics is the use of logic. The law of non-contradiction is fundamental for the whole of life and all human conversation. The general use of intellect is also relevant in relation to the classic proofs for God’s existence. These proofs are in the strict sense of the word no proofs, but confirmations for faith. In the culture of the
Evidentialism has much material to speak about the reliability of Scripture and historical witness concerning Christ’s resurrection. In Scripture the historic character of certain facts are referred to on several occasions. John refers to the miracles of Jesus, whilst Luke assures us that he had done historical research.
Revelational apologetic is correct when it argues that people do not come to faith by the proofs of evidentialism, but this truth cannot lead to the conclusion that historical proofs are contrary the transcendent truth of Christian faith. Revelational apologetics is helpful to give consciousness of the Christian framework of interpretation, to elaborate on it and to confront the unbeliever with his (unconscious) interpretative framework of life. It is the great merit of revelational apologetic that it has clarified that neutrality does not exist. Furthermore it has good evidence to show that not all things can be proved in an academic way but that one starts with the truth of it. In this way room for the Christian faith can be created. If it is possible there can be a deep apologetic contact about the presuppositions in which the Christian shows what the consequences are of the unbeliever’s presuppositions.
However, it remains formal if this is the only thing that can be interchanged with the unbeliever. Scripture teaches that Christians can refer to historical events to fill the Christian scheme of interpretation. So the non-Christian can see that his interpretative framework is a framework of belief, namely unbelief, and that these facts undermine his framework of interpretation.
Fideism shows that a Christian does not speak about theoretical facts, but that it is existential for him that he accepts the consequences of his worldview. These are moments in which unbelievers can see the power of faith in human life.
These approaches do not exclude each other, but they strengthen each other as several ropes tie a ship to the harbour. Tertullian used in his
Finally it will be considered that a certain integration of several apologetic methods does do justice to the reality of the Christian life. Personal faith is the deepest motivation for apologetics. In the personal relationship with Jesus love is born to win others for the gospel. It is conceivable that the personal life of the believer is the occasion of coming to a deeper conversation about reality.
If Christians are asked to give an account of their faith, they can testify about personal faith. Therein they can speak about the meaning of Jesus Christ and of the Trinity. If Christians get critical questions, there are few possibilities of explaining the content of faith in the cross and in the triune God. In that case the Christian cannot do anything but defend faith
The next step is to show that the Christian framework is true. In this way the
After examining the differences and similarities between the several apologetic schools on the one hand and considering the motives for integration on the other, it is time to come to a proposal of such an integration of apologetic approaches. It is impossible to integrate the schools as such, because several schools have an exclusive view about themselves. Therefore in this approach for integration two decisions are taken. Firstly, only the positive characteristic perspectives of the several schools are integrated. Secondly, I propose not to speak about integration as such, but about complementary apologetics, because in this way the finer nuances of every school can be justified, whilst at the same time the strong points of every school can strengthen each other.
A common characteristic of every school is the conviction that faith is more than reason and that the personal knowledge of the triune God in the cross of Christ is not to be reached by reason. Also classical apologetics acknowledges that the use or reason with respect to the content of Christian faith is limited.
Therefore this common conviction forms the centre of a complementary apologetic model. In the centre of this model is the personal relationship with the crucified Christ: a relation that does not depend on arguments or proofs. The impression exists that fideists do not go further, however, this impression is generally speaking not true, because most fideists acknowledge that it is possible to speak in an understandable and reasonable way about the content of faith.
Given this possibility of accountability of the content of personal faith, one can orientate oneself towards another perspective in Christian apologetics, namely the broader unity of the biblical message, an aspect that is especially represented by revelational apologetics. A fideist will not be against the thesis of Plantinga and Wolterstorff (
The heart of the apologetic discourse lies in the hearts of Christians and their personal relationship with Christ. This is also the deepest motivation to reach unbelievers. In this complementary approach the Christian can start with a personal witness, but it is also possible to deal firstly with the presuppositions of faith, the worldview or the fundamental character of Christian faith. For the (extreme) fideist the last is not enough, but why should it not be possible to use this approach as a preparation for faith?
Despite differences between fideism and revelational apologetic there are several interfaces between these schools (Boa & Bowman
At this point a dichotomy between apologetic approaches can be perceived. On the one hand the classical apologetics and evidentialism are seen, whilst on the other hand revelational apologetics and fideism are seen (Cowan
This observation makes it an exciting issue whether another perspective can be added to complementary apologetics in which on the one hand justice should be done to the central notions of fideism and revelational apologetics, and in which on the other hand, justice should be done to the central notions of classical apologetics and evidentialism.
In this context one should note that classical apologetics makes a distinction between two phases in the apologetic structure. It is not the intention of classical apologetics to deal in apologetics with the central content of the Christian faith. Classic apologists are conscious of the fact that reasonable arguments for faith can only be used as a preparation for the heart of the gospel in the message of cross and resurrection, because they do not pretend to be able to do any more than show the possibility and the reasonability of the existence of God. In that sense classical apologists are conscious that faith in God does not rest on proofs of God. Knowing the God of the proofs is not the same as knowing the personal God who revealed himself in the cross of Christ. Classical apologists use the proofs of God, however, to counter negative prejudices against a belief in God.
Revelational apologists and fideists criticise this apologetics because it misses assurance. A classical apologist will immediately agree. But here it must be remarked that the revelational apologist is not completely sure about the interpretation of every part of Scripture, especially concerning the worldview of history. This relativisation of the assurance of revelational apologetics cannot relativise the difference between these schools of apologetics. The difference is given with the assurance of faith itself and the possibility of human knowledge. Here an unbridgeable gap appears for the revelational apologist. Standing in the assurance and the reality of faith he cannot take the unbeliever in this reality. The conversation about the presuppositions and the reasonability of the Christian faith can create space for Christian faith, without reaching assurance. The absolute truth of God’s reality cannot be transmitted to others. For the apologetic discourse this implies that the revelational apologist cannot do any more than defend the possibility of the Christian faith.
This means that there is enough reason for revelational apologetics and fideism to give space to the preparational work of classical apologetics. Given the distinction between magisterial and ministerial use of reason and the distinction between the knowledge of God in the gospel and the consciousness of God as Creator, there are no unbridgeable gaps.
A reproach from the perspective of revelational apologetics towards classic apologetics can also be that the cosmological – and also the teleological – proof for the existence of God implies a reduction of the message of the gospel, because God is much more than the first beginning and the designer of the cosmos. From the point of view of revelational apologetics classical apologetics fails to show every aspect of Christian theism. This analysis is correct, but the question remains whether this critique is justified. Classical apologists do not pretend to present the complete message of the Word. They see their labour only as a small brick in the great building of the presentation of Christian faith.
Within the context of a two phase apologetics the following step is that of the third perspective, namely the notion that is used in evidentialism concerning the observable of verifiable facts. One also notes that from the perspective of the revelational apologist or fideist the evidentialist does not come to the heart of the message. Despite this difference, the revelational apologist and the fideist have to agree that believers and unbelievers share the same ontological reality. This implies that there is a principal possibility to speak about the objective reality of the history of salvation. Believers and unbelievers speak from a different perspective, but the possibility of speaking about the same object cannot be denied at the outset.
Presuppositionalism opposes the argument that one can speak of historical facts without any presuppositions, but it cannot oppose the study of these facts as such. This insight gives a perspective for a relation between presuppositionalism and evidentialism. From his Christian presuppositions the Christian has the possibility to raise the historical proofs of Christ’s resurrection or the proofs for the reliability of Scripture in the expectation that the Holy Spirit uses this research of historical facts as an instrument to convince the heart.
Perhaps this point is difficult for evidentialism, because evidentialism does not intend a two-step apologetics. Evidentialism can speak directly about the objective facts of Scripture, miracles, fulfilled prophecies and the resurrection of Christ to connect these facts with the central message of the gospel. If evidentialists can admit the distinction between historical faith and the personal relationship with Christ, the evidentialist can participate in complementary apologetics. Although this may be problematic for an individual evidentialist, it must be possible for evidentialism as such.
In this way it is also possible for evidentialism to give space for the presuppositionalist’s question of the interpretative framework. This is also possible for evidentialism as such, because it belongs to the scientific approach to reflect on the method. This means that the question of the presuppositionalist can strengthen the case of complementary apologetics.
The totality of this investigation leads to a plea for complementary apologetic in which the centre is formed by personal faith in the gospel of the cross and in the acknowledgement that this is inaccessible for human understanding. This personal faith is embedded in the broader interpretative framework in which creation, fall and redemption become visible so that one can speak with the unbeliever. This position of faith is no hindrance to speak with the unbeliever about the rational arguments for the existence of God, nor is it a hindrance to testify of the objective facts of the history of salvation and to combine it with the interpretative framework. Standing in faith, faith seeks a better understanding of itself and accounts for faith to others.
In this article both the characteristics and the interfaces of the various apologetic schools have been investigated. Subsequently an investigation of the motives for integration followed, however, a concept of strict integration will be problematic. This leads to the development of a complementary concept in which not the schools as such can be integrated, but the characteristics of the several apologetic approaches can strengthen each other in a complementary way.
The foregoing investigation asks for an illustration of a complementary apologetics. This can be given by the reference to the resurrection of Christ. Believing apologists find the centre of their faith in the resurrected Christ, because the resurrection of Christ is not only the justification of Christ, but in communion with Him also the justification of the believer. Furthermore, the union with Christ implies that believers participate in his kingdom and eternal life, so that the complete life of the Christian is put in this perspective.
In the interaction with the unbelievers the believing apologists can witness of the meaning of Christ and his resurrection for their understanding of life. It is not unimaginable that the unbeliever reveals unbelief by fierce criticism on belief in a new world which is accomplished by a naked man on the cross. In the understanding of the unbeliever such a story is absurd. Faith in the resurrection of Christ is for the unbeliever rather a confirmation of the folly of the cross than a testimony of its truth.
Fideists are prepared on this criticism, because they understand this affliction from their own heart and they are deeply convinced that faith in the gospel of the cross is not attained by reasoning. Furthermore, they recognise the rejection of the cross from the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 1:18–23). The apostle Paul proclaims – somewhat provocative – the centrality of the gospel of the cross with the remark that it is foolishness for the developed Greek. For fideists this is a reason to underline the transcendent character of the gospel that they personally cannot understand, but they witness the power of the gospel in their personal life. The gospel is so unimaginable for human reason that it must come from God, because nobody can invent this story.
From the presuppositional perspective it can be added in which interpretative framework Christ has to be understood, namely the framework of creation, sin and redemption. This apologist will ask his unbelieving interlocutors from which interpretative framework they think and live. In a qualified debate this interaction can lead to the acknowledgement that everybody thinks from his own interpretative framework of understanding, which interprets the world, the meaning of life and death, the origins and the future of history.
From the rational perspective of the classic apologist can be added that it is not unreasonable to presuppose that the Christian framework of understanding is true. The belief in a God who has created all things, the belief in the reality of sin and the belief in the redemption by God is coherent. At the background of this framework function concepts like trinity and incarnation, which are above human understanding. Nevertheless it can be argued that it is not unreasonable that God is another category than human beings. In this way the classic apologist defends and argues that the Christian understanding of reality is the best way to understand the coherence in reality (cf. Andrews
Also the evidentialists contribute to the debate. They can argue for the academic credibility of the resurrection of Christ. The combination of the empty tomb, the assurance of the witnesses of the resurrection and the rapid growth of Christianity in the time after the resurrection can be best explained from the acceptance of the bodily resurrection of Christ as a historical fact.
If the personal life style of apologists and their attitude in the mind of Christ underline their witness, the resurrection of Christ can be brought near to the unbeliever, so that prejudices disappear and the Holy Spirit convinces the unbeliever of the reality of the living Christ.
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.
It would also be possible to plead for orthopraxic apologetics, but in the argument of this article it would not make a significant difference. Orthopraxic apologetics is a way of theology of retrieval (cf. Webster
W.L. Craig (
Luther (WA = Weimarer Ausgabe of Luthers Werke 1, 224–228).
Luther (WA 1, 353–365).
Luther remarked this on Jonah 1:5 (WA 19, 206–208) and Galathians 4:8–9 (WA 40, 606–608).
Luther (WA 18, 606–609, 667–671, 720–722).
There is a ‘revival’ of the concept of
John 1:3, 4, 9; Colossians 1:15–20; Hebrews 1:1–2.
Acts 17:27.
Compare Acts 14:15–16 and 17:24–28.
In part three of his book Frame (
John 20:30–32; cf. also Luke 1:1–4.
Tertullian’s writings are edited in volumes 1–2 of the