LIBERTY UNIVERSITY JOHN W. RAWLINGS SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
The Functions of Apologetics
A Paper Submitted to
the Faculty of the School of Divinity
in Candidacy for the Degree of
Doctor of Education in Christian Leadership (Ed. D) Department of Christian Leadership and
Church Ministries
By
Mary Gracias
Lynchburg, Virginia
6/2022
The Functions of Apologetics
Historically, apologetics has been understood to involve at least three functions or goals.
Some apologists have emphasized only one function while others have denied that one or more
of these are valid functions of apologetics, but in general they have been widely recognized as
defining the task of apologetics. Francis Beattie, for example, delineated them as a defense of
Christianity as a system, a vindication of the Christian worldview against its assailants, and a
refutation of opposing systems and theories.9
Bernard Ramm also lists three functions of apologetics. The first is “to show how the
Christian faith is related to truth claims.” The truth claims of a religion must be examined so
that its relation to reality can be discerned and tested. This function corresponds to what
Beattie calls defense. The second function is “to show Christianity’s power of interpretation”
relative to a variety of subjects—which is essentially the same as what Beattie calls vindication.
Ramm’s third function, the refutation of false or spurious attacks, is identical to Beattie’s.10
John Frame likewise has outlined “three aspects of apologetics,” which he calls proof,
defense, and offense. Proof involves “presenting a rational basis for faith”; defense involves
“answering the objections of unbelief”; and offense means “attacking the foolishness (Ps. 14:1;
1 Cor. 1:18-2:16) of unbelieving thought.”11 Frame’s book then follows this outline: proof
(chapters 3–5), defense (6–7), and offense (8).
The first three parts of Robert Reymond’s fourfold analysis of the task of Christian
apologetics follow the same pattern. (1) Apologetics answers particular objections—obstacles
like alleged contradictions between scriptural statements and misconceptions about
Christianity need to be removed (defense). (2) It gives an account of the foundations of the
Christian faith by delving into philosophical theology, and especially epistemology (vindication).
(3) It challenges non-Christian systems, particularly in the area of epistemological justification
(refutation). To these Reymond adds a fourth point: (4) Apologetics seeks to persuade people of
the truth of the Christian position.12 In a sense, this last point could be viewed simply as
indicating the overall purpose of apologetics, with the first three points addressing the specific
functions by which that purpose is accomplished. On the other hand, treating persuasion as a
separate function is helpful, since it involves elements that go beyond offering an intellectual
response (the focus of the first three points). Persuasion must also consider the life experience
of the unbeliever, the proper tone to take with a person, and other matters beyond simply
imparting information.
We may distinguish, then, four functions, goals, modes, or aspects of apologetics. The first
may be called vindication (Beattie) or proof (Frame) and involves marshaling philosophical
arguments as well as scientific and historical evidences for the Christian faith. The goal of
apologetics here is to develop a positive case for Christianity as a belief system that should be
accepted. Philosophically, this means drawing out the logical implications of the Christian
worldview so that they can be clearly seen and contrasted with alternate worldviews. Such a
contrast necessarily raises the issue of criteria of verification if these competing truth claims are
to be assessed. The question of the criteria by which Christianity is proved is a fundamental
point of contention among proponents of the various kinds of Christian apologetic systems.
The second function is defense. This function is closest to the New Testament and early
Christian use of the word apologia: defending Christianity against the plethora of attacks made
against it in every generation by critics of varying belief systems. This function involves
clarifying the Christian position in light of misunderstandings and misrepresentations;
answering objections, criticisms, or questions from non-Christians; and in general clearing away
any intellectual difficulties that nonbelievers claim stand in the way of their coming to faith.
More generally, the purpose of apologetics as defense is not so much to show that Christianity
is true as to show that it is credible.
The third function is refutation of opposing beliefs (what Frame calls “offense”). This
function focuses on answering, not specific objections to Christianity, but the arguments non-
Christians give in support of their own beliefs. Most apologists agree that refutation cannot
stand alone, since proving a non-Christian religion or philosophy to be false does not prove that
Christianity is true. Nevertheless, it is an essential function of apologetics.
The fourth function is persuasion. By this we do not mean merely convincing people that
Christianity is true, but persuading them to apply its truth to their life. This function focuses on
bringing non-Christians to the point of commitment. The apologist’s intent is not merely to win
an intellectual argument, but to persuade people to commit their lives and eternal futures into
the trust of the Son of God who died for them. We might also speak of this function as
evangelism or witness.
These four aspects or functions of apologetics have differing and complementary goals or
intentions with respect to reason. Apologetics as proof shows that Christianity is reasonable; its
purpose is to give the non-Christian good reasons to embrace the Christian faith. Apologetics as
defense shows that Christianity is not unreasonable; its purpose is to show that the non-
Christian will not be acting irrationally by trusting in Christ or by accepting the Bible as God’s
word. Third, apologetics as refutation shows that non-Christian thought is unreasonable. The
purpose of refuting non-Christian belief systems is to confront non-Christians with the
irrationality of their position. And fourth, apologetics as persuasion takes into consideration the
fact that Christianity is not known by reason alone. The apologist seeks to persuade non-
Christians to trust Christ, not merely to accept truth claims about Christ, and this purpose
necessitates realizing the personal dimension in apologetic encounters and in every conversion
to faith in Christ.
Not everyone agrees that apologetics involves all four of these functions. For example,
some apologists and theologians have claimed that proof is not a valid function of apologetics—
that we should be content to show that Christianity is not unreasonable. Or again, some
Christian philosophers have urged against trying to argue that the non-Christian is being
irrational to reject Christianity. Many apologists have even abandoned the idea that apologetics
might be useful to persuade people to believe in Christ. Such opinions notwithstanding, all four
functions have historically been important in apologetics, and each has been championed by
great Christian apologists throughout church history.13 It is to the efforts of those apologists,
then, that we turn in the next chapter.
Resources
Howe, Frederic R. Challenge and Response: A Handbook for Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1982. The first two chapters discuss the definition of apologetics (13-24) and the
relationship between evangelism and apologetics (25-33), with Howe arguing for a sharp
distinction between the two.
Mayers, Ronald B. “What Is Apologetics?” Chapter 1 in Balanced Apologetics: Using Evidences
and Presuppositions in Defense of the Faith, 1-14. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996. First published as
Both/And: A Balanced Apologetic. Chicago: Moody, 1984. Helpful treatment of the meaning of
apologia and of the relationship between apologetics and philosophy.
Warfield, Benjamin B. “Apologetics.” In The New Schaff-Hertzog Encyclopedia of Religious
Knowledge, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson, 1:232-238. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1908.
Reprinted in Studies in Theology, 3-21. The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield 9. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1932; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981. Still hard-to-match analysis of the nature of
apologetics and its place in the academic disciplines.
1 Martin Batts, “A Summary and Critique of the Historical Apologetic of John Warwick
Montgomery” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1977), 1.
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all biblical quotations are from the “Updated Edition” of the New
American Standard Bible, or nasb (La Habra, Calif.: Lockman Foundation, 1995; Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1999). Other translations cited include the New International Version (niv) and the
New Revised Standard Version (nrsv).
3 Greg L. Bahnsen, “Socrates or Christ: The Reformation of Christian Apologetics,” in
Foundations of Christian Scholarship: Essays in the Van Til Perspective, ed. Gary North (Vallecito,
Calif.: Ross House, 1976), 191.
4 Benjamin B. Warfield, “Apologetics,” in Studies in Theology, The Works of Benjamin B.
Warfield, vol. 9 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1932; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 3-21.
5 Bahnsen, “Socrates or Christ,” 193.
6 E.g., A. B. Bruce, Apologetics; or, Christianity Defensively Stated, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1892), 33-34; “Glossary of Technical Terms,” in The New International Dictionary of New
Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 1:51.
7 The first occurrence of the term known to us is in John Warwick Montgomery, Faith Founded
on Fact: Essays in Evidential Apologetics (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1978), xiii (which uses the
form “meta-apologetics”).
8 Mark M. Hanna, Crucial Questions in Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 94.
9 Francis R. Beattie, Apologetics; or, The Rational Vindication of Christianity (Richmond:
Presbyterian Committee of Publications, 1903), 1:56.
10 Bernard Ramm, A Christian Appeal to Reason (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1972), 15-19.
11 John M. Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction (Phillipsburg, N.J.:
Presbyterian & Reformed, 1994), 2.
12 Robert L. Reymond, The Justification of Knowledge: An Introductory Study in Christian
Apologetic Methodology (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1976), 5-7.
13 In the first edition of this book, we had correlated these four functions of proof, defense,
refutation, and persuasion with the four basic approaches of classical, evidential, Reformed,
and fideistic apologetics. Although some rough correlations can be made (e.g., refutation is
primary in the presuppositionalist wing of Reformed apologetics; persuasion clearly is primary
in fideism), they do not hold up consistently.
