Welcome to ON TRUTH A ministry of Dr. Cky J. Carrigan devoted to Apologetic Evangelism which seeks to equip the saints for the work of evangelism through a rigorous pursuit of TRUTH motivated by LOVE. HOME BACK TO INDEX
CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICAL APPROACHES TO APOLOGETICS
By Cky J. Carrigan (Spring 1997)
INTRODUCTION
The statement, "There is a God, who has a Son, and the Bible is His word," is an eternally profound, life changing claim for truth, but it is not a test or defense for truth. Christian believers have made these claims, or ones that follow from them, for nearly two millennia. While these claims for truth must be proclaimed from pulpits, parlors, and porches around the world, these claims must also be tested and defended. The work of a Christian apologist is to articulate a thoughtful, reasonable defense of the truth claims of Christianity. The apologist must also perform his work in a way that accounts for faith and reason.
This paper will describe the term "contemporary evangelical apologetics," set forth a brief history of apologetics, and define the cultural milieu in which apologists now operate. This work will then describe four ways to classify apologetic systems, and summarize the particular approaches of several practitioners.
Definitions and Descriptions
The English term "apologetics" was derived from the Greek word, apologia, meaning defense.1 Writers have described the discipline of apologetics in various ways. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology defined apologetics as a subdivision of Christian theology which is a "systematic, argumentative discourse in defense of the divine origin and the authority of the Christian faith."2
E. J. Carnell suggested that apologetics is the "branch of Christian theology which answers the question, "Is Christianity rationally defensible?""3 It is the task of the apologist to arrange answers to critics who pose objections against Christ, salvation, or the truth of the Bible. According to Carnell, the purpose of apologetics is to glorify God by defending His Words, and to eliminate any excuse the critic may have for repenting on the grounds that Christianity is illogical.4
Bernard Ramm defined apologetics as "the strategy of setting forth the truthfulness of the Christian faith and its right to the claim of the knowledge of God."5 According to Ramm, the question of strategy, that is, how is truth applied to Christianity, is the "basic bedrock in Christian apologetics."6
Norman Geisler described the central task of the apologetic approach in the following way:
The heart of this apologetic approach is that the Christian is interested in defending the truths that Christ is the Son of God and the Bible is the Word of God. However, prior to establishing these two pillars on which the uniqueness of Christianity is built, one must establish the existence of God. For it makes no sense to speak about an act of God (i.e., miracle) confirming that Christ is the Son of God and that the Bible is the Word of God unless of course there is a God who can have a Son and who can speak a Word.7
William Lane Craig suggested that apologetics is a theoretical discipline that has a practical application. He defined apologetics as "that branch of theology that seeks to provide a rational justification for the truth claims of the Christian faith."8
For Gordon R. Lewis, apologetics is not the same as theology. He defined apologetics as "the science and art of defending Christianity's basic truth claims."9 Lewis juxtaposed the difference between theology and apologetics saying,
Theology presupposes the primary tenets of Christianity and sets forth their implications in systematic detail. Apologetics, on the other hand, examines Christianity's most basic presuppositions. It considers why we should start with Christian presuppositions rather than others.10
Contemporary evangelical apologetics, therefore, may be eclectically defined as the apologetics of the last half of the twentieth century that is consistent with the central beliefs of historic Christianity. It is a scientific, artistic, and strategic discipline of philosophy that systematically, rationally, and practically defends Christian presuppositions against non-theistic world views, non-Christian theism, and atheism. It defends the assertion that there is a God who can have a Son and who can speak a Word. It is also a discipline of theology that defends the truths that Jesus is the Son of God and the Bible is the Word of God. The purpose of apologetics is to glorify God and bring mankind unto repentance and faith.
Brief History11
Apologetics had its genesis in Ancient Athens. The classic example of an apology was Socrates' (d. c. 399 B.C.) noble defense before the Athenian court as recorded in Apology.12 Jesus of Nazareth engaged in apologetics as well. In Matthew 22, Jesus made a reply (apologia) to the three leading Jewish sects of the day. And the Book of Acts is replete with accounts of Paul doing apologetics.13
The early church continued the apologetic activity of Jesus and the Apostles. The early church defended itself against accusations of cannibalism, immorality, undermining the Roman empire, and gullibility. In fact, the earliest theologians were called apologists. Their approach was primarily defensive. Among the early apologists were Justin Martyr (d. c. 167), Athenagoras (2d cent.), Irenaeus (d. 203), Tertullian (d. c. 230), and Origen (d. c. 253) who wrote an apologetic masterpiece entitled, Contra Celcum.
Augustine of Hippo (d. 430) transformed the defensive apologetics of Origen and other pre-Augustinian apologists into a positive defense of the truthfulness of Christianity's claims in The City of God, and The Confessions. Augustine's biblical Neoplatonism and apologetics dominated Western thinking in the Middle Ages as evidenced by the apologetic work of Anselm of Canterbury (d. 1109) and his ontological argument for the existence of God.
After Anselm came Thomas Aquinas (d. c. 1274), who was an important and influential apologist of the Aristotelian order. Aquinas produced Summa contra Gentiles, and Summa Theologica, and he described the "five ways" of showing the existence of God.
John Calvin (d. 1564) was the apologist of sorts for the Reformation with his consistent theological method in the Institutes. Joseph Butler (d. 1752) was a nineteenth century apologist who defended Christianity's claims against English Deism in Analogy of Religion. Several evangelical Christian apologists have risen to prominence in the last half of this century, and this paper will provide a descriptive analysis of some of them and their philosophical approaches to apologetics.
Contemporary Milieu
It has been demonstrated by the above historical survey that apologists make a systematic defense of the claims of Christianity in their own distinct cultural, intellectual, and spiritual milieu. Contemporary evangelical apologists operate in their own unique environment. A characterization of this current environment will be described in this section.
Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli described the current world thusly: the world stands at a threefold point of cultural, intellectual, and spiritual crisis. Western civilization faces death at the hand of secularism, the very idea of objective truth is questioned, and death and eternal judgment await all who do not believe.14
Francis A. Schaeffer said that Hegelian Dialecticalism was shaping the relativistic thinking of the modern western culture. He described a "line of despair" that divides history. Before the line of despair both Christians, with good reason, and non-Christians, without good reason, shared the same presuppositions about absolute truth: the thesis, and its antithesis. But, after the line of despair the idea of a moving truth influenced philosophy, art, music, general culture, and finally theology. Apologists must defend whether God is there (thesis) or not there (antithesis) in a world where truth moves (eternal synthesis).15
William Lane Craig indicated that America in general and American evangelical Christianity in particular were in a state of intellectual neutrality. He observed that cultural illiteracy was a consequence of relativism and this world-view pervaded the thinking of highly educated persons in American society and in Christian scholarship.16 Craig wrote,
Evangelicals really have been living on the periphery of responsible intellectual existence. The average Christian does not realize that there is an intellectual war going on in the universities and in the professional journals and scholarly societies. Christianity is being attacked from all sides as irrational, and millions of students, our future generation of leaders, have absorbed that viewpoint.17
Ravi Zacharias characterized the current cultural milieu in another way. He suggested that the West has a false sense of security in the ideas of modernity. Modern man's prideful, irrational, misplaced faith in self is like the airline passenger who refused to wear his seat belt saying with reference to himself, "Superman does not need a seat belt," without realizing the flaw in his argument seeing that Superman does not need an airplane to fly.18
Contemporary evangelical apologists are defending Christianity's truth claims in the following milieu. Western civilization and its Christian world view are giving way to secularism, objectivism is giving way to relativism so that truth is moving, scholarship is eroding for lack of an objective basis, and an irrational, prideful, misplaced confidence stands in the way of evaluating this flawed thinking.
CLASSIFICATION OF APPROACHES
A. J. Hoover
Approaches to Christian apologetics have been classified in several ways. A. J. Hoover divided apologetic approaches in two broad schools: the subjective school and the objective school. He further subdivided the objective school into the natural theology school and the revelation school.19 Since Hoover's classifications are similar to Bernard Ramm's, the characteristics and chief advocates of these classes will be discussed under Ramm.
Bernard L. Ramm
Bernard Ramm classified apologetic approaches in three systems: systems stressing subjective immediacy, systems stressing natural theology, and systems stressing revelation.20
Subjective Systems
The subjective systems stress the uniqueness of the Christian experience. Advocates suggest that the experience of religion is self validating to the extent that the experience itself is its own proof. Non-contemporary examples of this apologetic include Blaise Pascal (d. 1662) who developed the apologetic of the heart, Soren Kierkegaard (d. 1855) who posited the apologetic of existential faith, and Emil Brunner (d. 1966) who produced the apologetic of encounter.21
Several characteristics are common to the subjective systems. There is an emphasis on the inward, subjective experience of the gospel. There is an affinity for existential philosophy and an accompanying disdain for traditional philosophy. The supra-rational and paradoxical aspects of Christian teachings are stressed. Natural theology and theistic proofs are rejected. The hidden, transcendent nature of God is emphasized. And, the blinding effects of sin which hampers mankind's reasoning powers are stressed.22
Natural Theology Systems
The natural theology systems stress reason. Advocates trust the powers of human reason to produce religious knowledge. Non-contemporary examples of this apologetic system include Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) who developed an Aristotelian, empirical apologetic; Joseph Butler (d. 1752) who built an apologetic based on Locke's brand of empiricism and theories of probability; and F. R. Tennant (d. 1957) who posited an empirical apologetic for religious statements.23
Several characteristics are common to this system. The truth about religion may be discovered by the rational powers of the mind. Empirical foundations serve as a ground of faith. The imago Dei was flawed but not destroyed in the Fall. And, scientific and religious propositions employ similar verification principles.24
Revelation Systems
The revelation systems stress the role of special revelation as the basis for apologetics. Advocates do not trust experience or reason alone to serve as the apologetic arbiter of truth. Non-contemporary examples of this system include Augustine of Hippo (d. 430) with his doctrine of illumination, John Calvin (d. 1564) with his doctrine of the witness of the Spirit, and Abraham Kuyper (d. 1920) with his Augustinian-Calvinistic synthesis.25
Several characteristics are common in this family of systems. Faith precedes understanding. Understanding should be vigorously pursued consequent to faith. Experience is mitigated by the objectivity of the work of Christ, the justification of God, and the Word of God. Faith and enlightenment depend upon a special act of the Spirit. Depravity impairs human reason. And, issues of truth must not be diluted.26
Gordon R. Lewis
Gordon Lewis observed six approaches in his survey of as many contemporary, evangelical, systematic apologists. Unlike Ramm's broader families of apologetic systems, the classifications of Lewis were primarily ordered around individuals. His division of apologetic systems were pure empiricism, rational empiricism, rationalism, biblical authoritarianism, mysticism, and verificationism.27
Pure empiricism attempts to defend Christianity's truth claims by objectively examining observable evidence. The mind is a blank slate with no innate principles of reasoning, faith, presuppositions, or hypotheses, that draw conclusions based on the experience of observation. In view of the evidence, there is a very high probability that God exists. J. Oliver Buswell, Jr. is an example of this approach.28
Rational empiricism seeks to defend the truth claims of Christianity by suggesting that the human mind possesses rational, innate principles of logic and causality. These principles together with empirical facts of experience demonstrate that God exists based on coherence: a true conclusion coheres with the logical and causal categories of the mind and the facts of experience. Stewart C. Hackett is an example of this approach.29
Rationalism tries to defend Christianity's truth claims by offering the test of logical consistency. This system rests upon two fundamental axioms: God exists, and the Bible is true. Upon these two axioms, this approach deduces a consistent system of philosophy that supports Christian truth claims with the fewest difficulties. Gordon H. Clark is an example of this approach.30
Biblical authoritarianism attempts to defend the truths of Christianity by posing the test of scriptural authority. This system presumes the triune God and the truth of the Bible which is self-authenticating. Unlike Gordon H. Clark's rationalism, this system does not require consistency or confirmation by facts and it is not bound to the idea of necessary logic. Cornelius Van Til is an example of this approach.31
Mysticism seeks to defend Christianity's truth claims by appealing to a direct personal experience of God. This personal experience of God is self-authenticating for the question, "Does God exist?" Although this kind of Christian mysticism incorporates several characteristics of other evangelical systems after establishing a beginning point, it posits that one is only convinced about the existence of God by the personal experience of God. E. E. Barrett is an example of this approach.32
The verification approach is a test of non-contradiction (rationalism), evidence (empiricism and biblical authoritarianism), and experience (mysticism). It treats the truth claims of Christianity as hypotheses to be verified by the total experience of mankind. The hypotheses are tested by logical consistency, the factual adequacy of history, science, fulfilled prophecy, and miracles, conversion experience, values, ethics, and psychology. The truth claims of Christianity are shown to be true because of the overwhelming, intellectual probability of verification. With this apologetic, there is moral certainty about Christianity's claims of truth. E. J. Carnell is an example of this approach.33 Gordon R. Lewis adopts this method as well.34
Norman L. Geisler
Norman Geisler did not attempt to classify distinctly contemporary or distinctly evangelical tests for truth. He did, however, pose several categories of philosophical methods for testing the truth of theism versus non-theism. Some of these categories and their evangelical practitioners cut across the classifications of Hoover, Ramm, and G. Lewis. To that extent a description of each of these categories may help the reader grapple with the prior philosophical test for the truth of theism as a basis for defending Christian theism.
Geisler described seven inadequate methods and one adequate method of testing the truth of theism. The inadequate methods are agnosticism, rationalism, fideism, experientialism, evidentialism, pragmatism, and combinationalism.35 Geisler's adequate test for truth is undeniablity-unaffirmablity.36
Agnosticism suggests that God is either unknown, or unknowable,37 therefore, it is in itself a self defeating test for theism and can not or will not answer the question, "Does God exist?"38 For obvious reasons, there are no evangelical examples of this methodology for testing truth.
Rationalism argues for innate ideas or principles as a basis for testing the truth of theism.39 Geisler characterized contemporary evangelicals, Stewart Hackett, as a theistic rationalist, and Gordon Clark, as a revelational rationalist.40 Rationalism is inadequate because the first principles of rationalism can not be proven themselves.41
Fideism claims that faith is the only way to truth about God.42 Several other characteristic ideas run through fideism. Truth is subjective and personal, not objective or propositional. There are no valid proofs for the existence of God. The tests for truth are existential not rational. God's revelation and grace are the source of all truth.43 Tertullian, Pascal, Kierkegaard, Barth, and Brunner are non-contemporary examples of this apologetic. Geisler classified Van Til as a revelational fideist.44 Fideism is inadequate because it is not a test for the truth of theism, it is only a claim for the truth of theism.45
Experientialism is similar to fideism, but while fideism offers no real test for truth, experientialism offers the experience itself as the test for truth. Plotinus, Friedrich Schleiermacher, and Rudolph Otto are offered as proponents of this methodology.46 Experientialism is inadequate as a test for the truth of theism because it does not eliminate the possibility of the truth claims of non-theism.47
Evidentialism poses facts and events as a test for the truth of theism. A wide variety of evidence is employed including past and future events, present religious experience, and the external world of nature. William Paley, Joseph Butler, C. H. Dodd, John Hick, and J. W. Montgomery are cited as evidentialists. The latter three are contemporary, and the last is evangelical.48 Evidentialism is an inadequate test for the truth of theism because no facts are self-interpreting. Facts gain their meaning and their truth by the context, so facts therefore can not be used to determine context. An indefensible, circular reasoning ensues.49
Pragmatism is another test for the truth of theism. Pragmatism claims truth is true because it is experientially workable. William James is a non-contemporary, non-evangelical example of this approach, but Francis A. Schaeffer together with Aquinas also employed some aspects of this method. There are some common characteristics for the pragmatic test for truth. The testing ground of a theory of truth is human experience over the long run. Therefore, absolute results of this test are not knowable.50 Pragmatism is not an adequate test or justification for the truth of theism because it is not able to prove which world view is true against others. It is not able to exclude mutually exclusive ways of viewing ultimate reality. For example, if pantheism works for the pantheist, and naturalism works for the naturalist, how does pragmatism provide a basis for rejecting one or the other or both?51
Combinationalism is a test for the truth of theism which combines other tests for truths. Each particular expression of this approach may vary the number and use of different factors, however each view employs some presupposed model by which the whole range of experience can be understood. For example, Edward J. Carnell posed the test for a propositional scriptural model. There are several characteristics of combinationalism. No one test for truth is adequate. Facts, reason, and logic are comprehensively employed. The starting point is usually presuppositional. Experience is not self-interpreting. And, truth is modeled after a scientific hypothesis.52 Combinationalism is inadequate as a test for the truth of theism over against non-theisms because a combination of inadequate tests can not form an adequate test. Whatever makes an individual test insufficient is present in the combined set of tests.53 Combinationalism is, however, an adequate test for truth within a given world view, i. e., theism.54
In sum, Geisler identified several contemporary evangelical apologists in five of his seven classifications: Hackett and G. Clark are characterized as rationalists, Van Til a fideist, J. W. Montgomery an evidentialist, Carnell a combinationalist, and some pragmatic elements are revealed in the apologetics of Francis A. Schaeffer. Geisler asserted that all of these approaches are insufficient tests for the truth of theism over non-theisms. Geisler's only valid test for the truth of theism over non-theism is the dual test of undeniability and unaffirmability. This dual test will be described and evaluated in the section on Geisler's approach to apologetics in the next chapter.
INDIVIDUAL APPROACHES
This chapter will describe the particular apologetic approaches of seven contemporary evangelicals. All the apologists under review could be classified as some sort of combinationalist-verificationalist with the exception of Gordon H. Clark who is a revelational rationalist. The first three subjects have produced comprehensive, systematic works in apologetics: E. J. Carnell, Bernard Ramm, and Norman Geisler. The last three subjects have not produced comprehensive works in apologetics but they demonstrate an approach in their works: Francis Schaeffer, C. S. Lewis, and Clark Pinnock.
Gordon H. Clark55
Gordon H. Clark portrayed his fundamental dependence upon reason and the reasonable revelation of Scripture when he wrote, "In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God. . . . In Logic was life and the life was the light of men. . . . The law of contradiction is not to be taken as an axiom prior to or independent of God. The law is God thinking."56
Clark defended the truth claims of Christian theism by arguing against empiricism and its resulting skepticism and relativism as self-defeating tests for any knowledge or truth.57 He employed Kantian arguments for a priori knowledge of time, space, and mathematics as evidence for the law of contradiction as a universal factor in knowledge58 then used the presupposition of logic to defend Christian theism. Clark defended the truth claims of Christianity on the basis that "Christianity is self-consistent, that it gives meaning to life and morality, and that it supports the existence of truth and the possibility of knowledge."59 Clark implied that only Christianity supports the existence of knowable truth, therefore only Christianity is true.
Edward J. Carnell60
E. J. Carnell set forth to test the truth of the Christian system by a combination of methods he called systematic consistency.61 His purpose of a test for truth was "to aid us in determining when our thoughts are the same as God's thoughts."62 Like other approaches, Carnell first showed why other tests for truth should be rejected in favor of his own. He argued against various tests for truth including the test of instinct, customs, tradition, consensus gentium, feeling, sense perception, intuition, and pragmatism, on the basis of deception or relativity. He argued against the correspondence test of empiricism on the grounds that an idea of the mind can not be compared for correspondence to an extra-idea of reality.63
Systematic consistency involves two elements. The first element is called horizontal self-consistency which is the application of the law of contradiction, the first test for validity.64 Carnell wrote,
If one refuses to construe his propositions according to the axiom of contradiction, all one can do is to check him off his calling list. There is no longer anything to talk about.65
The second element is called vertical fitting of the facts. By this, Carnell meant that "coherence involves an interpretation of the real concrete facts of human history."66 He defined facts as external and internal experience. External experience is historical experience. Internal experience is rational and moral experience.67
Having established the rules of logic and experience for systematic consistency, Carnell is left with three tests for truth: logical consistency, internal personal coherence, and external empirical adequacy. On the basis of the second and third tests he admitted that systematic consistency could not rise above rational probability, but he confidently asserted that the more the evidence increases, the more the strength of probability increases. This produced what he called moral certainty.68
Once Carnell established his principle of systematic consistency he then used it to test Christianity on the basis of general revelation and the special revelation of Scripture.69 Carnell's method was to state an hypothesis, i.e., the triune God exists, the Bible is the Word of God, Jesus was raised from the dead, etc., then evaluate the truthfulness of the hypothesis on the basis of logical consistency, internal personal coherence, and external empirical adequacy. A hypothesis is verified when "it results in an implicative system which is horizontally self-consistent and which vertically fits the facts."70 A verified hypothesis then becomes additional evidence for other hypotheses.
The apologetic system of Edward Carnell or something similar to it served as an important basis for several other contemporary evangelical apologetic approaches.
Bernard Ramm
Bernard Ramm was another combinationalist whose logical starting point and method was similar to Carnell's. Ramm's apologetic method began with facts which lead to a postulation which lead to an hypothesis that accounted for the facts. He penned,
All progress in knowledge of any kind is possible only if from facts we go on to postulation, namely, suggesting some theory or hypothesis that integrates and explains the facts.71
The Christian faith is the postulate of the Christian. Ramm set forth to verify the following postulate:
The Christian religion is the redemptive and revelatory work of the Holy Trinity which reaches its highest expression in revelation and redemption in the Incarnation of God in Christ: and this religion is preserved for all ages and is witnessed for all ages in the inspired Holy Scripture. . . . The truest expression of the Christian religion is the Reformed faith which seeks to preserve the best of Christian theology from the end of the Apostolic Age to the Reformation, and which cast the faith of the Reformation in its most biblical form. 72
The Christian faith may be verified by using a system of apologetics that employs the symbol of three concentric circles: the persuasion and witness of the Holy Spirit, the action of God in creation and history, and synoptic vision. These three concentric circles which blend together and double back with one another represent three stages in the process of verification. These stages seek to demonstrate the grounds for Christianity's truth claims.73
Stage one is the persuasion and witness of the Holy Spirit. Only God can speak for God. Therefore, the witness of the Holy Spirit is the fundamental, non-negotiable, verifying principle of Christian apologetics. Every Christian has the witness of the Spirit which persuades him that his faith is in the truth. This persuasion has external anchorage in the Word of God and the redemptive acts in Christ. It is also a spiritual verification in that the primary verification of religion must be so. The witness of the Spirit verifies truth. It is the witness of a revealed Word and a witness of redemptive history and it persuades that both are true.74
Stage two is the action of God in creation and history. When the acts of a living God are added to the witness of the Spirit, the witness of the Spirit is defended against accusations that it is only a subjective experience, and therefore only a subjective proof.75 This stage of verification is based upon the action of God in creation, revelation, and redemption, as revealed in Scripture. It defends the hypotheses of the Christian faith by appealing to the biblical accounts of a God who does creative acts, and participates in the history of mankind, performing supernatural acts including the fulfillment of prophecy, miracles, and the resurrection of Christ.76 "The truth of God and the action of God are both the presupposition and the test of Christian experience. The veracity of faith is then dependent upon the action of the living God."77
Stage three is synoptic vision. Synoptic vision is a term used to describe the overview of the entire field of inquiry. The apologist attempts to see the total system in the facts, not just see a heap of facts. Synoptic vision looks for a pattern or configuration by which it can synthesize the discipline into one unified theory. Whatever pattern synthesizes the data in the most meaningful way is the synoptic vision of the investigator.78 The Christian synoptic vision is composed of three elements: factual, interpretive, and personal. Factual elements include biblical history and geography, ancient history and comparative linguistics. Interpretive elements include philosophy, history, the philosophy of history, and the history of philosophy. Personal elements include individual conversion experience, prayer life, worship patterns, and Bible reading, together with emotive experiences like joy, defeat, spiritual renewal, etc.79 In this circle, the principle of coherency rather than consistency is used to verify the various postulates and hypotheses of Christianity.80
Ramm's three verification stages served to yield full certitude with regard to the spiritual, inward, tests for truth; and high probability with regard to the objective historical, factual basis of the Christian revelation.81
Norman Geisler
Norman Geisler is a combinationalist when testing the truth claims of Christianity against other forms of theism, that is, Judaism, and Islam, but he offered another test for choosing between world views. He called this the test of undeniablity and unaffirmability.82
Undeniablility is a test for the truth of a world view. What ever is undeniable is true. A definitionally or theoretically undeniable claim is essentially a tautology. The statement, "Triangles must have three sides," is undeniably true. While triangles might not actually exist, their existence can not be denied on the grounds that this statement is a tautology. If a triangle were to exist, then it must actually have three sides. Like the triangle, if God were found to exist, then he must have all the characteristics that God must necessarily be conceived to have. An existentially undeniable claim makes a claim for truth on the basis that one must exist to deny his own existence. A knower undeniably knows that he exists. He knows that he is a contingent being and infinite regress is a contradiction. Therefore it necessarily follows that he may know that a theistic-God exists.83
Unaffirmablity is a test for the falsity of a world view. A directly unaffirmable claim is made when the statement itself provides the information to defeat itself. The statement, "I can not express myself," is an example of a directly unaffirmable claim. An indirectly unaffirmable claim is made when a statement negates the only basis on which it can make its affirmation or denial. The statement, "I know that one can not know anything about reality," is an example of an indirectly unaffirmable claim.84
Geisler made a comprehensive, systematic argument for Christian truth claims that began with an assertion and defense of an adequate methodology, moved to an assertion and defense of theism, and ended with an assertion and defense of the basic Christian claims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Bible is the Word of God. The assertions of Geisler's argument may be summarized in the following manner:85
Methodology
The truth of theism over against non-theisms can be known and tested. Agnosticism, rationalism, fideism, experientialism, evidentialism, pragmatism, and combinationalism are inadequate tests for the truth of theism. Undeniablity and unaffirmability are adequate tests for the truth of theism.
Theistic Apology
Theism is true over against non-theisms on the basis of the tests of undeniability and unaffirmability. Deism, Pantheism, Panentheism, and Atheism are unaffirmable and deniable. They are self-defeating systems that can not be affirmed directly or indirectly, and they can be denied definitionally or existentially. Theism, however, is undeniable and affirmable.
Christian Apology
Christian theism is true over against non-Christian theisms, Judaism and Islam, on the basis of systematic consistency: combinationalism. Supernaturalism is true over against naturalism. History can be objectively known and verified. The New Testament with its supernaturalistic elements is historically reliable. The supernaturalistic, historically verifiable, New Testament verifies the deity and authority of Jesus Christ. The authoritative deity, Jesus Christ, verifies the inspiration and authority of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments.
Francis Schaeffer
Francis Schaeffer was not a systematic apologist. He was concerned mostly with the communication of the gospel to non-Christians.86 He did, however, employ some verification principles, relied upon some presuppositions, and used reason in his evangelistic endeavors.
According to Schaeffer, the tests for proof, that is, verification principles, in religion follow the same proofs for science and philosophy. "Proof consists of two steps: The theory must be noncontradictory and must give an answer to the phenomenon in question. We must be able to live consistently with our theory."87
Schaeffer also held some presuppositions in the employment of his verification principle. He wrote,
". . . Christianity, which begins with the existence of the infinite-personal God, man's creation in His image and a space-time Fall, does offer a nonself-contradictory answer which explains the phenomena and which can be lived with, both in life and in scholarly pursuits."88
Reason was essential for Schaeffer but it was not the end of the matter. He said that rationality was to religion as form was to art. Reason is needed, "to open the door to a vital relationship to God."89
Schaeffer's most famous apologetic work, The God Who Is There, set forth the case that there was a crisis of truth after Hegel's dialectic which created a prevailing presupposition that truth was in flux. Schaeffer argued that Christian presuppositional apologetics about the unchanging nature of truth could have stayed an eroding confidence in truth that has affected every area of culture including theology. He suggested that eroding confidence in truth has caused a general sense of despair that now serves as a window of opportunity for Christians to proclaim that God is there, and His Son is the way to overcome the despair caused by relativism.
C. S. Lewis
C. S. Lewis may be called an unsystematic verificationist with a high regard for the role of reason in matters of faith. He attempted to bring non-Christians to entertain the ideas of mere Christianity. He wrote, "All I am trying to do is to ask people to face the facts--to understand the questions which Christianity claims to answer."90
According to Gordon Lewis, C. S. Lewis defended the truths of Christianity by appealing to a common ground with non-Christians in five areas: a common body of facts, laws of nature, laws of logic, laws of morality, and a longing for happiness with God.91 Mere Christianity was chiefly concerned with defending the existence of God and basic claims of Christianity on moral grounds. C. S. Lewis wrote,
These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they know that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.92
Lewis' Mere Christianity began by establishing the natural presence of oughtness then moved to show how Christianity is superior to other world views. It then stated the basic Christian beliefs, evaluated several issues of Christian behavior, and set forth a case for the trinity. Lewis' closing argument reminded the would-be-Christian to count the cost of following Christ. While not systematic, Lewis was very effective in engaging non-Christians in an evaluation of the basic claims of Christianity on the primary basis that Christianity was reasonable.
Clark Pinnock
Clark Pinnock has not written a systematic approach to apologetics but his Set Forth Your Case demonstrated that he employed a type of hypothesis-verification approach similar to Carnell's. He used the terms, "hypothesis," "postulate" and "presuppositions" in his approach. Pinnock wrote, "The resurrection is the only hypothesis which will make peace with all the facts. It constitutes excellent motivation for trusting Christ."93 He also said, "The whole gospel message is grounded on one basic postulate: the existence of the sovereign triune God, who is both infinite and personal. Christian theology without this God is inconceivable to contemplate. . . ."94 Pinnock suggested further,
The data are there for all to examine. We must challenge the non-Christian to suspend his prejudice against Christianity for the time it takes to examine fairly the evidence for the Christian faith, to take up a proven method for ascertaining truth, the empirical method, and apply it to the biblical records. No one is imprisoned with an iron cage of presuppositions. By the truth of the gospel and through the power of the Spirit he can be freed.95
The above quotation demonstrated that Christian and non-Christian presuppositions were verified or falsified, and that empirical verification including historical data was a very important test for truth in Pinnock's method. The indispensable empirical test being the test of the resurrection of Christ.
Both reason and faith had roles in Pinnock's quest for truth, but mere religious experience did not. Reason's role was limited to pre-evangelism. He wrote, "All men employ the rational function. . . . Because of the noetic effects of sin, however, the non-Christian is unwilling to allow the truth of the gospel to have its persuasive effect in his life. The miracle of regeneration coincident with the presentation of the gospel is required in order to convert him to Christ."96 On balance though, about faith, Pinnock also said, "Faith is not believing what you know to be absurd. It is trusting what on excellent testimony appears to be true."97 Experience is not, however, a valid test for the truth of Christianity. Pinnock quips, "Experience alone is too flimsy a base on which to rest the Christian system. . . . The assertion "God exists" simply does not follow from the assertion "I had an experience with God.""98
It appears that while Pinnock postulated the existence of God early in his system, the empirical-historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ served as the ground of his apologetic, working backward to theism, and forward to biblical Christianity. Pinnock attempted to balance, and account for, the rational, empirical, and existential components of testing and knowing truth.
Others
The limited scope of this paper does not permit more than a few descriptive sentences about the work of three other contemporary evangelical apologists. These three are actively engaged in the current apologetic enterprise and it may help the reader to be acquainted with their work. Gary Habermas specializes in the proofs for the resurrection. William Craig is a combinationalist who has produced a very fine systematic work. And J. P. Moreland offers both a defense of theism together with a defense of Christian theism.99
Gary R. Habermas is professor of philosophy and apologetics at Liberty University. His works include, The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Rational Inquiry, The Resurrection Debate, Verdict on the Shroud, and The Verdict of History. Habermas defended the truth claims of Christianity primarily on the basis of the historical evidences (biblical and extra-biblical) for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. He generally began by postulating the evidence for the trustworthiness of Scripture and proceeded from there.100
William Lane Craig is a graduate of Wheaton, Trinity Evangelical, University of Birmingham, and the University of Munich. His monograph, Apologetics: An Introduction, was a work built upon the verificationalist-combinationalist model of E. J. Carnell, possibly more like Ramm than Carnell. He wrote, "I have argued that we can know Christianity is true because of the self-authenticating witness of God's Holy Spirit, and that we can show it to be true by means of rational argument and evidence."101 Craig defended the truth claims of Christianity on the basis of systematic consistency and the evidence of the Holy Spirit.102
Having established the method for testing truth Craig presented a practical argument for the existence of God on the basis of absurdity without God.103 Then he set forth the classic arguments for the existence of God followed by an argument for special creation by a God who exists. Craig then posited the reliability of historical evidences particularly the Bible, and moved to defend the historical Jesus who lived, died, and was resurrected.104
J. P. Moreland is professor of philosophy of religion at Talbot School of Theology. He defended the truths of Christianity in Scaling the Secular City. He began his apology with an argument from cause. He argued, in this order, that the universe had a beginning that was caused by personal agency (the world exists). Setting aside the former argument for a time, next he suggested that awareness of one's finite mind is proof for one's existence (I exist), and proof for one's finite existence is proof for an Infinite mind that exists (God exists). Moreland next explored the relationship between a universe, a finite mind, and an Infinite mind, asserting that Christian theism alone is the only world view that accounts for a meaningful relationship between a personally caused universe (the world) an Infinite mind (God) and a finite mind (me).105
Next Moreland argued for the historical reliability of the New Testament documents which assert the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Next, rational arguments which presume to make Christianity irrational were falsified. Then, empirical arguments that presume to make Christianity unobservable were falsified.106
CONCLUSION
The discipline of apologetics appears to defend two kinds of assertions, therefore two distinct methods may be required. There is an apologetic which defends the assertions of theism against atheism and other non-theisms. And there is an apologetic which defends the assertions of evangelical Christian theism against Islam, Judaism, and non-evangelical Christian theism. The first kind of apologetic seems to be mainly a philosophical apologetic. The second seems to be mainly a theological apologetic. Philosophical apologetics do not presume the existence of a theistic God, they attempt to set forth an adequate test to verify or falsify whether God is there. Theological apologetics, however, presume the existence of a God who may have a Son and a God who may speak.
Norman Geisler's dual test of undeniability and unaffirmability, together with J. P. Moreland's argument from cause and meaning appear to be the most compelling, useful and adequate defenses for philosophical apologetics. Philosophical apologetics, however, can only serve as pre-evangelism. The most compelling, useful and adequate method for theological apologetics is any one of the several methods fashioned on the verification model of E. J. Carnell which takes into consideration subjective and objective information interpreted by a sound, reasonable integration of all the evidence. Theological apologetics, on the other hand, presumes then verifies what philosophical apologetics attempts to prove.
To answer the question, "How does one know that there is a God, who has a Son, who has spoken, and the Bible is His word?" one must reasonably evaluate all the available facts with reliance on the witness of the Holy Spirit who testifies to the Truth.
___________________
1Apologia is a compound Greek word which connects the preposition apo meaning "off" or "away" to logia meaning "that which is spoken." Together, they form the meaning "that which is spoken off or away," as in a defense of an accusation.
2Walter Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), s.v. "Apologetics," by A. J. Hoover, 68.
3E. J. Carnell, Introduction to Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1952), 7.
4Ibid., 7-8.
5Bernard L. Ramm, Varieties of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1961), 13.
6Ibid.
7Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), preface.
8William Lane Craig, Apologetics: An Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1984), xi.
9Gordon R. Lewis, Testing Christianity's Truth Claims (Chicago: Moody, 1976; reprint, Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1990), 21.
10Ibid., 21.
11The material for this section was gleaned from Ramm, Varieties, 11-13; and L. Russ Bush, ed., Classical Readings in Christian Apologetics: A.D. 100-1800 (Grand Rapids: Academie, 1983), xiv-xvii. For an extensive work on the history of apologetics see Avery Dulles, History of Apologetics (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971).
12Ramm, Varieties, 11. A case could be made however that Moses, the author of Genesis, employed apologetics prior to Athens to defend the oral traditions of biblical origins against deficient Canaanite and Babylonian creation myths.
13See Acts 22, 23, 24, 26; Galatians 1,2; 1 Corinthians 9; and 2 Corinthians 13.
14Peter Kreeft and Donald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994), 24.
15Francis A. Schaeffer, The God Who is There (1968), collected in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, vol. 1 (Westchester, Illinois: Crossway, 1982), 5-26.
16William L. Craig, No Easy Answers (Chicago: Moody, 1990), 11-27.
17Ibid., 17.
18Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God? (Dallas: Word, 1994), 7-14.
19Elwell, 68-70.
20Ramm, Varieties, 15-17.
21Ibid.
22Ibid.
23Ibid.
24Ibid.
25Ibid.
26Ibid. This is the system preferred by Ramm.
27Gordon R. Lewis, Testing Christianity's Truth Claims (Chicago: Moody, 1976; reprint, Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1990), 10-11.
28Ibid., 36, 45-75.
29Ibid., 36-37, 76-99.
30Ibid., 37, 100-124.
31Ibid., 37-38, 125-150.
32Ibid., 38, 151-175.
33Ibid., 38-40, 176-284.
34Ibid., 295.
35Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 13, 140.
36Ibid., 141.
37Ibid., 13-15.
38Ibid., 133-136.
39Ibid., 29-30.
40Ibid., 35-37.
41Ibid., 137.
42Ibid., 59.
43Ibid., 58-59.
44Ibid., 56-58.
45Ibid., 137-138.
46Ibid., 65-81.
47Ibid., 138.
48Ibid., 83-99.
49Ibid., 138-139.
50Ibid., 101-116.
51Ibid., 140-141.
52Ibid., 117-132.
53Ibid., 140.
54Ibid., 145.
55For an additional characterization of Gordon H. Clark refer to the descriptions by Gordon Lewis and Norman Geisler of rationalism, this paper.
56Gordon H. Clark, Logic (Jefferson, Maryland: Trinity Foundation, 1988), 120-121.
57Gordon H. Clark, A Christian View of Men and Things (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1952), 285-325.
58Ibid., 312-318.
59Ibid., 324.
60For an additional characterization of E. J. Carnell refer to the descriptions by Gordon Lewis and Norman Geisler of verificationism, and combinationalism, this paper.
61Carnell, Introduction, 56.
62Ibid., 47.
63Ibid., 47-56.
64Ibid., 108-109.
65Ibid., 108.
66Ibid., 109.
67Ibid., 111-113.
68Ibid., 113-118.
69Ibid., 122-190.
70Ibid., 175.
71Bernard L. Ramm, A God Who Makes a Difference (Waco: Word Books, 1972), 32.
72Ibid., 33.
73Ibid., 38.
74Ramm, Difference, 44.
75Ibid., 47.
76Ibid., 45-51.
77Ibid., 51.
78Ibid., 60.
79Ibid., 62.
80Ibid., 67-70.
81Ibid., 73.
82Geisler, Apologetics, 145, 263-264.
83Ibid., 143-144.
84Ibid., 141-143.
85Geisler, Apologetics. The limitations of this paper do not permit a report or analysis of the defense for each assertion in the summary.
86Schaeffer, The God Who is There, collected in Complete Works, 175-178.
87Ibid., 121.
88Ibid., 122.
89Ibid., 123.
90C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, revised ed. (New York: Macmillian, 1952), 39.
91Gordon Lewis, Testing, 332-334.
92C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 21.
93Clark H. Pinnock, Set Forth Your Case (Nutley, New Jersey: The Craig Press, 1968), 68. Please note that Pinnock's present theological position is no longer classical theism, but a kind of free will theism , therefore his present work is generally considered to be unorthodox.
94Ibid., 74.
95Ibid., 86.
96Ibid., 85.
97Ibid., 49.
98Ibid., 46.
99Other contemporary apologists that bear mentioning are Carl F. H. Henry, Donald G. Bloesch, David K. Clark, Charles Colson, David E. Cook, Josh McDowell, and Ronald Nash.
100Gary R. Habermas, The Verdict of History (Nashville: Nelson, 1990), 13.
101W. L. Craig, Apologetics, 207.
102Ibid., 22-23.
103Hans Kung made a similar argument in Does God Exist.
104Craig, Apologetics.
105J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), chapters 1-4.
106Ibid., chapters 5-8.