MAPPING APOLOGETIC METHODOLOGIES: HOW TO APPROACH APOLOGETICS

MAPPING APOLOGETIC METHODOLOGIES: HOW TO APPROACH APOLOGETICS

By: Daniel McMillin

In this paper, I will compare and contrast the various approaches to apologetics while promoting my preferred methodology. In Brian K. Morley’s Mapping Apologetics: Comparing Contemporary Approaches, there are five major positions that are introduced: (1) Presuppositionalism, (2) Reformed Epistemology, (3) Combinationalism, (4) Classical Apologetics, and (5) Evidentialism.[1] In my opinion, each of these models of apologetics is not inherently destructive or difficult. Every method that is employed is valid and practical for the defender of the faith. However, as I examine each of these methodologies of apologetics, I see that there are some negatives that must be analyzed. What I do not desire to do is to throw away a certain methodology because I personally do not favor it. On the other hand, I want to highlight what is valuable about each of these methods. In this paper, I will be discussing the various positive attributes of each of these methods while offering short criticisms of each approach.

In light of this, I find it necessary to note that these apologetic methods should not be understood as a “one-size-fits-all” apologetic. In addition, it should not be the aim of each of these methods to be viewed as all-encompassing. Rather, each of these methods should be employed within different contexts depending on the individual that we are engaging with; this is also called “contextualization.”[2] As human beings, we are very complex, especially when it comes to the way we conceptualize ideas. Thus, it is important to be familiar with each of these methods so we may apply them in the proper context to defend the faith (apologetics) and promote the faith (evangelism).

The “Presuppositional approach,” proposed by Cornelius Van Til and John Frame, is a Reformed theological approach to apologetics. Those who begin their approach to apologetics with their presupposition of Reformed theology are heavily committed to the sovereignty of God.[3] The aim of presuppositional apologetics is the use of the transcendental argument. Within this approach, the reasoning is from Christianity. That is, it is circular, deductive, and indirect. One of the positive presuppositions of this approach is its conviction in the Trinitarian God of the Bible. As John Frame wrote, “Nothing is intelligible unless God exists, and God must be nothing less than Trinitarian, sovereign, transcendent, and immanent absolute personality of the Scriptures.”[4]

A few issues arise from using this approach, chiefly the presupposition of Calvinism’s centrality. Since Van Til and Frame presuppose the validity of Calvinism, they call others to their worldview rather than beginning with theirs. In addition, they view human fallenness as a characterization of trying to know truth apart from God. Thus, man’s sinfulness keeps them from acknowledging God’s truthfulness. The most common critique of this approach is that it falls into the trap of circular reasoning. While I disagree with Van Til and Frame’s presuppositions, namely their conviction of Calvinism, I see the great value of this approach with the proper presuppositions. Possibly, the best place to apply this approach is within the context of the Church. This approach may be very valuable to use when defending the fundamental truths of the Christian faith. However, this may not be as effective with the skeptic as the classical or evidential approach.

The “Reformed Epistemology approach,” proposed by Alvin Plantinga, is grounded in the origin of creation and an awareness of the Creator (sensus divinitatis). Every human is born with the capacity or awareness of God through “perception, memory, and a priori belief.”[5] There is, according to Plantinga, sufficient evidence to suggest that Christian theism is not simply reasonable but is actually believable for those who encounter reasonable arguments for Christian theism.[6] One of the most valuable contributions of this approach is its emphasis on one’s immediate awareness of the divine, which leads to the divine. However, one of the major criticisms of this approach is its inability to eliminate other options of theism.  

            The “Classical approach,” proposed by Richard Swinburne and William Lane Craig, moves the unbeliever from proving classical theism to biblical Christianity. This approach aims to influence the nonbeliever to believe in theism, which ultimately leads to Christianity. They begin with the probability of Christianity’s truth and how it is the best understanding of God. This approach tests Christian theism on its lowest levels by demonstrating that Christian theism and God’s existence are the most logical explanations.[7] It tests whether the God of Christianity is more reasonable than the God of other religions. In addition, it proves that Christianity is the best explanation for the universe; that is, Christian theism is highly probable.

One of this approach's greatest contributions is its ability to demonstrate the reasonableness of Christianity and the unreasonableness of a world without Christianity through the classical proofs of God's existence: teleological, historical, cosmological, kalam-cosmological, moral, miraculous, and religious experience. This approach offers rational arguments to confirm faith based on what can be known. Rather than simply claiming that Christianity is true, it demonstrates its truth.[8] 

The “Evidentialist approach,” proposed by John Warwick Montgomery and Gary Habermas, emphasizes the necessity of evidence. This approach seeks to remove any biases or presuppositions that one brings to the table and examine the facts. The evidence is the standard that guides the discussion where “facts ultimately decide the value of our attempts to understand them.”[9] This position argues from the worldview of the nonbeliever and challenges them to confront and reevaluate their presuppositions. Unlike the presuppositional approach, this methodology does not require the nonbeliever to assume a Christian worldview. Instead, the evidentialist accepts the nonbeliever’s worldview and begins to argue for Christian theism from their worldview. In addition, this approach “tends to focus chiefly on the legitimacy of accumulating various historical evidences for the truth of Christianity.”[10] Facts point to interpretation, and those facts that are being interpreted will point to the validity of Christian theism.

Before moving any further, I want to note that I value each of these approaches within their respective contexts. There are various situations that would certainly make one approach better than another. But what if I could only use one approach to convince an unbeliever of the tenets of the Christian faith? Which approach would I use? Personally, if I were to have only one approach that I had to use to defend the gospel, it would be the evidentialist or “minimalist approach” proposed by Gary Habermas. [11] This approach is incredibly useful for addressing the argumentation of the skeptic in academic circles, sharing the gospel with an unbeliever in an evangelistic context, and reassuring believers that there is evidence that supports their Christian convictions. The presuppositional and Reformed epistemological approaches would certainly not be as useful when engaging with a skeptic, mostly because they may not withstand the pressure, and the classical argument may not always be the best approach with a certain individual, possibly because they are too used to the same arguments from apologists.[12] I believe that the minimalist approach may offer the apologist the proper approach to use with anyone they encounter.

The minimalist approach grants the unbeliever or skeptic’s worldview and uses arguments that can be agreed upon by both parties. Instead of using the full range of arguments that are accepted within the framework of a Christian worldview (an excellent approach that expresses the full range is the classical approach mentioned above), the minimalist uses arguments that are based upon the most reliable and undisputed facts.

Habermas’ approach differs from the traditional approaches of apologetics. In fact, as Morely notes, Habermas finds the traditional approach to be very weak since it begins by arguing for the “trustworthiness of the Bible, then uses that to argue for various supernatural topics like its inspiration or the deity and resurrection of Christ.” The issue is that most apologists argue for the trustworthiness of the document rather than the evidence found within the document.[13] Alternatively, Habermas argues “from facts that are agreed upon by a vast majority of scholars, including those who are hostile to belief in a literal resurrection.”[14] 

One of the major reasons that the minimalist argument is different from any other is that it does not begin with a top-to-bottom approach, but it is more of a bottom-up approach. The minimal facts are like the bricks that are laid to build a house, and once those bricks are placed, more layers may be added. This becomes especially helpful in some conversations with skeptics and unbelievers alike. Rather than establishing the existence of God, the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture, or the sensibility of Christianity, the evidentialist may begin with the resurrection of Christ and begin to work his way up to those other subjects. In my view, the goal is not to stay with the minimal facts but to expand to the maximum facts of Christianity, which ultimately leads to one’s conversion.

An incredibly positive consequence of this approach is its ability and willingness to engage with the argumentation of the opposing side and to prove the Christian faith on their turf. I find this to be a commendable characteristic of this methodology because it demonstrates the apologist's respect for the opposing side and the ability to reason from another vantage point.  I appeal to this method of apologetics mostly because it offers a heavily convincing approach to the resurrection of Christ. Since the resurrection is the foundation of the Christian faith by which everything stands or falls, it is vital that the resurrection be proven; otherwise, everything else in Christian theism is false (1 Cor. 15:14). The minimalist approach is certainly one of the best approaches to the resurrection of Jesus within any context. There are varying degrees of skepticism to the resurrection of Christ. There are those who deny the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth,[15] others who propose alternative theories for the resurrection,[16] some who attack the integrity of the Biblical record and call attention to alleged discrepancies,[17] and the rest deny the resurrection since it does not fit within a naturalist worldview.[18] 

Since Habermas argues for the resurrection of Christ from an evidentialist perspective, it is important to note what evidence he regards as relevant to the discussion. He notes that “surrounding the end of Jesus’ life, there is a significant body of data that scholars of almost every religious and philosophical persuasion recognize as being historical. The historicity of each ‘fact’ on the list is attested and supported by a variety of historical and other considerations.”[19] Robert Stewart summarizes the criteria for Habermas’ minimal facts: (1) Each event has to be established by more than adequate scholarly evidence, and usually by several critically ascertained, independent lines of argumentation, and (2) the vast majority of contemporary scholars in relevant fields have to acknowledge the historicity of the occurrence.[20] In sum, for something to be a minimal fact, it must be established by credible evidence and must be the consensus of scholarly opinion; that is, at least 75% of scholars must agree.[21] 

Habermas and Licona, in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, list five historical principles that determine the credibility of the resurrection of Jesus: (1) Multiple, independent sources, (2) attestation by an enemy, (3) embarrassing admissions, (4) eyewitness testimony, and (5) early testimony.[22] Each of these points informs Habermas’ six minimal facts: (1) Jesus’ death, (2) the disciples’ experiences, (3) the earliest proclamation of the Gospel, (4) the disciples’ transformations, (5) the conversion of James, and (6) the conversion of Paul.[23] All of these “established facts,” as Morely notes, “support each other against challenges to the resurrection.”[24] The minimalist approach offers a concrete case for the resurrection of Christ that leaves no room for objections. To demonstrate the value of this argument, I will conclude this paper by arguing for the resurrection of Christ with these minimal facts by examining the earliest account of the resurrection appearances.

Habermas suggests that “the single most crucial portion of the entire resurrection discussion concerns Jesus’ appearances. They are both the best-attested of the evidential considerations and the most important.”[25] Paul’s credal statement in 1 Corinthians 15:1-9 reads:

“Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.”

The apostle Paul wrote the letter to the Corinthians about twenty-five years after Jesus’ death (55 AD), which is very early considering the time of writings from antiquity. Paul talks about how they received it, and so this is something not original to Paul and earlier than his writings. Paul would have received this tradition, according to Galatians 1:18-20 and 2:1-10, about five years after Jesus’ crucifixion in Jerusalem from Peter and James (35/36 AD) and possibly also on another visit with Peter, James, and John thirteen years after that (48 AD). The apostles would have this material earlier, certainly before this interaction with Paul. It has been suggested that this report could have possibly been constructed within months of the crucifixion as early as 30-32 AD.[26] This tradition is possibly the earliest Christian tradition that predates Paul’s conversion (32/33 AD), writings (50-66 AD), and all four gospel accounts (60s-80s). In sum, Paul’s letter offers the earliest evidence for Christ’s resurrection through the testimony of those who witnessed the risen Jesus: Cephas or Peter (v. 5), the Twelve (v. 5), the five-hundred brothers and sisters (v. 6), James (v. 7), the Apostles (v. 7), and Paul himself (v. 8-10).[27] 

END NOTES

[1] Brian K. Morley, Mapping Apologetics: Comparing Contemporary Approaches (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2015).

[2] For more on contextualization, see Joshua D. Chatraw and Mark D. Allen’s Joshua D. Chatraw and Mark D. Allen, Apologetics at the Cross: An Introduction for Christian Witness (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2018), 186-197.

[3] Cornelius Van Til, Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1979), 43.

[4] John Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1994), 89.

[5] Alvin Plantinga, Warranted ChristIan Belief (New York, Oxford University Press, 2000), 175.

[6] See, Alvin Plantinga, God and Other Minds: A Study in the Rational Justification of Belief in God (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990).

[7] See, William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008); Richard Swinburne, Is There a God? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996); The Coherence of Theism (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991); The Existence of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

[8] Morley, Mapping Apologetics, 222.

[9] John Warwick Montgomery, “Speculation vs. Factuality: An Analysis of Modern Unbelief and a Suggested Corrective,” in Christ as Centre and Circumference: Essays Theological, Cultural and Polemic, Christian Philosophy Today 13 (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2012), 32.

[10] Gary R. Habermas, “Evidential Apologetics,” in Five Views on Apologetics, ed. Steven B. Cowan (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 92.

[11] Gary R. Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Rational Inquiry (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1976).

[12] The classical approach is a close second of mine. In my view, the minimalist approach should eventually move one to use a classical approach that allows the apologist to be freer with their argumentation once the unbeliever accepts those minimal facts.

[13] Morely, Mapping Apologetics, 335.

[14] Morely, Mapping Apologetics, 349.

[15] Gary R. Habermas, Evidence for the Historical Jesus: Is the Jesus of History the Christ of Faith? (Cambridge, OH: Christian Publishing House, 2020); The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2023). 

[16] Habermas and Licona list the following theories: legend theory, nonhistorical genre theory, fraud theory, wrong tomb theory, apparent death theory, psychological phenomena theory (hallucination, delusion, vision, conversion disorder, etc.) in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2004), 84-119.

[17] Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 120-131.

[18] Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 132-150.

[19] Gary R. Habermas, “The Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection of Jesus: The Role of Methodology as a Crucial Component in Establishing Historicity.” STR 3.1 (2012), 15.

[20] Robert B. Stewart, “On Habermas’s Minimal Facts Argument” in Raised on the Third Day: Defending the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. Ed. W. David Beck & Michael R. Licona (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), 2.

[21] Since Habermas’ minimal facts only allow 75% agreement among scholars, he does not appeal to the Gospel accounts or Jesus’ burial and the empty tomb since scholars heavily dispute them.

[22] Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 36-40.

[23] Gary R. Habermas, On the Resurrection, Volume 1: Evidences (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024).

[24] Morely, Mapping Apologetics, 340.

[25] Gary R. Habermas, Risen Indeed: A Historical Investigation into the Resurrection of Jesus (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2021), 23.

[26] Habermas often notes that Bart Ehman even agrees to the early dating of this credal statement in Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Harper Collins, 2012).

[27] Gary R. Habermas, “Experiences of the Risen Jesus” in Christian Apologetics: An Anthology of Primary Sources. Ed. Khaldoun A. Sweis and Chad V. Meister (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 354-361; On the Resurrection, 367-436; Risen Indeed, 21-26.