LIBERTY UNIVERSITY JOHN W. RAWLINGS SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
Two approaches to 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
7/2022
Two approaches to Apologetics
Rationalist: setting forth rational, logical arguments defending Christianity with the aim of
convincing unbelievers.
This approach focuses on reasons to believe and on defending the faith against criticism.
This is often called “traditional” or “classical” apologetics because this seems to be the method
used by the most prominent apologists of earlier centuries. Rationalists start from “neutral”
ground and work toward proofs that the Bible and Christianity are true. Before one can
meaningfully discuss historical evidences, one has to establish God’s existence. Without a
theistic context, no historical event could ever be shown to be a divine miracle. Once God is
proven to exist, one can show that the Bible is God’s Word, that Jesus is God’s Son, and that
Christianity is the only valid faith.
The problem with a rationalistic approach to apologetics is that one must assume a
standard of truth that exists apart from the Bible. The Bible, in order to be true, must meet this
independent standard. The Bible becomes subject to man’s ability to reason—one must show
the unsaved person that the Bible is truly reasonable.[4] Further, rationalists seem to rely on
weighty arguments and evidence to bring conversion rather than on a simple declaration of the
Gospel message.
Presuppositional: starting out with the notion that the Bible is true and that it’s God’s
business to convince unbelievers of this fact.
This approach focuses on presenting the truths of Christianity as fact without regard for
how unbelievers respond to it.
Presuppositional writer John Frame states, “[We] should present the biblical God, not
merely as the conclusion to an argument, but as the one who makes argument possible.”[5] By
demonstrating that unbelievers cannot argue, think, or live without presupposing God,
presupposition-alists try to show unbelievers that their own worldview is inadequate to explain
their experience of the world and to get unbelievers to see that Christianity alone can make
sense of their experience.
The problem with this approach is that it assumes what it’s trying to prove, namely, that
the Bible is true. However, this seems to be consistent with Peter’s admonition to recognize the
Lordship of Christ in the apologetic task (1 Pet 3:15). There is no true neutrality—everyone
accepts the authority of God’s Word or they do not, and not to do so is sin.
Both the testimony of history and the testimony of God’s Word have informed us that the
world willnot be convinced one whit of the truth of Genesis because of a mountain of
creationist evidence or the discovery of Noah’s Ark. The world will not be convinced one whit of
the truth of Exodus and Joshua because of a mountain of archaeological evidence. The
“evidence that demands a verdict” will always return from the world a verdict of unbelief. The
“search for the historical Jesus” or for the “historical Paul” will never convince men that Christ
died and rose for them or that the New Testament is authentic. These might attract the nod of
approval from a humanistic world that operates from a foundation of intellectual autonomy,
but they will do nothing to change the heart. The Holy Sprit can change the heart of the enemy
of the gospel, but he never stoops to engage the enemy on their terms. He will only engage the
enemy on God’s terms:the foolishness of the Word preached. Far be it from us to imagine we
can improve on his methods. The world may call us “anti-intellectual,” but God will call us wise.
[6]
Why does which apologetic approach you take matter? Imagine this scenario: you are
attempting to convince a friend that Jesus really did rise from the dead. You show your friend
all the evidence from the Bible that the resurrection is a fact. But your friend does not believe
the Bible. He says that you can’t use information from the Bible to defend the Bible. The
rational apologist would then step back and show that the Bible is indeed trustworthy. The
presuppositionalist, on the other hand, would keep preaching the Bible, knowing that God has
promised to use the Word to draw unbelievers to himself in spite of the unbeliever’s unbelief.
One should not revert to the unbeliever’s worldview just because the unbeliever doesn’t accept
the Christian worldview.[7]
Note: A third approach to apologetics, experience, is commonly used to defend the faith in
many Christian circles. That is, Christians argue for the existence of God and the validity of
Christianity based on their own personal experiences of God. This is the argument “I know God
is real because I can feel him in my soul.”[8] Feelings of inner peace, confidence, excitement,
security or conviction may seem beyond question to the one feeling them, but have little
weight with others. Experiences are by nature subjective and personal. While individuals may
find such experiences confirm and deepen their own faith, it is unlikely that others will be
persuaded based on such experiences. Hence, it is unwise to use personal religious experiences
as a primary apologetic resource. Personal testimonies may aid apologetics, but one’s
experiences should not be the focus of an apologetic encounter.
Another Note: Apologetics follows and presupposes a correct system of theology. One must
determine the content of Christianity before he can defend and propagate it. The better you
know the Bible and theology, the better you will be able to explain, promote and defend
orthodox Christianity. It’s obviously counter-productive to defend and propagate false doctrine.
Conclusion
Apologetics is the study of the best ways to 1) explain Christianity to unbelievers; 2) defend
Christianity against its critics; and 3) challenge unbelieving and unorthodox ideas about God. In
this series we’ll follow this general outline, first looking at the validity of what Christianity
teaches, then showing that many criticisms of Christianity don’t hold up under scrutiny, and
finally exposing the weaknesses of unbelief and unorthodox ideas.
