Apologetic Methodologies: Introduction to Apologetics

What is “Apologetics”?

Comes from the greek word, “ἀπολογία” (apologia), which means to “make a defense”.

ἀπολογία

In context though, it may be rendered with varying english terms such as; answer (), clear (), excuse (), but most are used in the lexical sense of making a defense or defending. Most notably is Peter to exhorting the church, .

Methods of Apologetics

Classical Apologetics

Cosmological argument

Ultimate Cause - causality: there can’t be an infinite number of regressions of causes. Thomas Aquinas was known for this apologetic.

Sufficient reason

Ontological argument

coming from the greek term (ontos / “being”). The mere fact that we can think of a being like that. That we can think of a necessary perfect being like that. The study of ontology, which is studying the nature of “reality”.

Teleological argument

Telos, literally means “end”. Its the design argument. Every design has a designer, like the watch has a watchmaker.

Moral Argument

The moral argument for the existence of God is the argument that God is necessary for objective moral values or duties to exist

The moral argument for the existence of God is the argument that God is necessary for objective moral values or duties to exist. (taken from carm.org)

Presuppositional (Worldview) Apologetics

Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics and Philosophy of Religion Presuppositionalism

An apologetic strategy often associated with Cornelius Van Til and some of his students. The presuppositionalist emphasizes the way all human belief systems depend on unprovable basic assumptions, arguing that biblical faith or its lack crucially shapes our presuppositions. According to such a view, common ground between the believer and unbeliever is limited or nonexistent and apologetic arguments must take the form of explorations of the unbeliever’s system of thought so as to reveal contradictions within it due to its faulty presuppositions.

Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics and Philosophy of Religion Presuppositionalism

An apologetic strategy often associated with Cornelius Van Til and some of his students. The presuppositionalist emphasizes the way all human belief systems depend on unprovable basic assumptions, arguing that biblical faith or its lack crucially shapes our presuppositions. According to such a view, common ground between the believer and unbeliever is limited or nonexistent and apologetic arguments must take the form of explorations of the unbeliever’s system of thought so as to reveal contradictions within it due to its faulty presuppositions

Every worldview has presuppositions, assumed beliefs that assume their validity. The Christian, the atheist, the mormon, etc. The idea is to expose inconsistencies in one’s presuppositions (worldview), and offer the gospel. Categories within one’s worldview; Theology, Anthropology, Knowledge, Ethics, Salvation

Evidential Apologetics

The view that any belief, religious beliefs specifically, are only rational if they’re based on reliable and verifiable evidence.

In

Apologetics in Action - Formal Debate

The following is an excerpt from “The Great Debate: Does God Exist?,” a formal debate between Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen and Dr. Gordon S. Stein that was held at the University of California (Irvine) on February 11, 1985. Dr. Bahnsen begins the cross examination:

Dr. Bahnsen: “Are all factual questions answered in the same way?”

Dr. Stein: “No, they are not. They’re answered by the use of certain methods, though, that are the same—reason, logic, presenting evidence, and facts.”

Dr. Bahnsen: “All right. I heard you mention logical binds and logical self-contradictions in your speech. You did say that?”

Dr. Stein: “I said. I used that phrase, yes.”

Dr. Bahnsen: “Do you believe there are laws of logic, then?”

Dr. Stein: “Absolutely.”

Dr. Bahnsen: “Are they universal?”

Dr. Stein: “They’re agreed upon by human beings. They aren’t laws that exist out in nature. They’re consensual.”

Dr. Bahnsen: “Are they simply conventions, then?”

Dr. Stein: “They are conventions, but they are conventions that are self-verifying.”

Dr. Bahnsen: “Are they sociological laws or laws of thought?”

Dr. Stein: “They are laws of thought which are interpreted by men and promulgated by men.”

Dr. Bahnsen: “Are they material in nature?”

Dr. Stein: “How can a law be material in nature?”

Dr. Bahnsen: “That’s a question I am going to ask you.”

Dr. Stein: “I would say no.”

Moderator: “Dr. Stein, you now have an opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Bahnsen.”

Dr. Stein: “Dr. Bahnsen, would you call God material or immaterial?”

Dr. Bahnsen: “Immaterial.”

Dr. Stein: “What is something that is immaterial?”

Dr. Bahnsen: “Something not extended in space.”

Dr. Stein: “Can you give me an example of anything other than God that is immaterial?”

Dr. Bahnsen: “The laws of logic.”

Moderator: “I am going to have to ask the audience to hold it down please. Please. Refrain from laughter and applause. Can you hold that down please?”1

1 Gary DeMar, ed., Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007), xix–xx.