Table Of ContentApologetic Method
Jacob D. Hantla
Reformed Theological Seminary, Virtual Campus
“Christian Apologetics”
Professor, Dr. John M. Frame
June 2008
Apologetic Method 2
Table of Contents
The Apologist............................................................................................................................ 3
Apologetic Method ................................................................................................................... 4
Apologetics as Evangelism ................................................................................................... 5
Apologetics and Circularity .................................................................................................. 6
Apologetics and Evidence ..................................................................................................... 9
Apologetics and the Individual ........................................................................................... 10
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 12
Apologetic Method 3
Most of the discussions relating to the methods of apologetics are centered around how to do
apologetics. However, the most important issues surrounding the methods of apologetics are the
character of the apologist and the presuppositions of the apologetic. Christian apologetics must
do more than convince one of the plausibility or probability of theism; apologetics must point
apologist and skeptic alike to a true knowledge of the God of the Bible and the worldview that
flows from that knowledge.
In 1 Peter 3:15, the standard proof-text passage validating the existence of apologetics, the
apostle commands the believers facing persecution to “in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as
holy, always being prepared to make a defense (ἀπολογίαν, apologion) to anyone who asks you
for a reason for the hope that is in you” (ESV). Christian apologetics is generally defined as the
theological discipline devoted to the apologia—making a defense or giving an answer—of the
Christian worldview. Before considering how this apologetic is made, we must consider the
apologist himself.
The Apologist
Whenever a non-Christian and a Christian interact, there are two totally distinct sets of basic
heart-commitments coming into contact1. The heart of the Christian—the center of his
affections—honors Christ as holy and is committed to living an obedient life to the glory of God
(1 Peter 3:10-12; Romans 6:16). The heart of the non-Christian, by contrast, does not honor
Christ as Lord or as holy (1 Corinthians 12:3; Ephesians 2:1-3; Romans 1:21, 29-31) but is
committed to only evil (Romans 3:10-18). In 1 Peter 3, the apostle‟s concern when these
1 Van Til (1976, Chapter 4) calls the interaction a “head-on collision” of worldviews.
Apologetic Method 4
worldviews collide in an apologetic encounter is the way in which the Christian behaves in that
interaction. Likewise, Paul‟s concern for the Lord‟s servant is his demeanor while making an
argument for the faith.
Not only does the apologist proclaim truths about God with his mouth, but he also makes a
loud and clear statement about the nature of the God he is representing through his conduct. Just
as the Christian and non-Christian worldviews are in opposition to each other, so too the
character of the Christian and non-Christian will be divergent. It is expected that the non-
Christian will behaviorally manifest his opposition to God. In contrast, demonstrating his
submission to the Lord and love for his opponent, the apologist must be gentle and respectful (1
Peter 3:15), not quarrelsome, kind to everybody, able to teach, and patient in endurance of evil (2
Timothy 2:23-24). Whitcomb writes (1977, 292), “It is clear from [the 1 Peter 3] passage, then,
that no spiritually effective answers can be given to unregenerate people by Christians
concerning the hope that is in them until they have learned to „sanctify Christ as Lord‟ in their
own hearts.”
Apologetic Method
God must be glorified in the manner in which the truth is presented, and God must be
glorified by the truth that is presented in the apologetic encounter. As has already been said, the
apologetic encounter is a clash of worldviews: The Christian submits everything including his
rational mind to God; the non-Christian, while in a sense knowing God (Romans 1:21), refuses
to even acknowledge God (Romans 1:18, 28) and rather views his own wisdom and not God as
the standard (Romans 1:22; 1 Corinthians 1:18-22). These effects of sin—effects on the
unregenerate‟s entirety, including intellect (noetic effects)—must be acknowledged. As Frame
Apologetic Method 5
writes (Cowan, 2000, 211), “Those who deny God do so, not because they lack evidence, but
because their hearts are rebellious.” Ultimately the job of the apologist is to do that which the
apologist cannot do, change the fundamental way that a person relates to God. The apologist is to
argue in a way that the Spirit would use to change one who has a knowledge of God that refuses
to honor him as God (Romans 1:21; 2 Timothy 2:25-26) into one who honors God as holy (1
Peter 3:15; Romans 6:16).
Apologetics as Evangelism
We see then that the task of the apologist is simply a subset of the task of the evangelist. In
response to demands in Corinth for evidence and engagement with Greek philosophical wisdom
(1 Corinthians 1:22), Paul instead gives them the wisdom of God, the word of God, namely the
gospel of Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 1:23, 2:1-7), a wisdom which the world will not
understand apart from the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:14). It is a wisdom that those who God is
saving2 will recognize for what it is, the wisdom and power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18, 30). This
does not mean that the apologist abandons wisdom or argument, but rather preaches a wisdom
not dictated by the standards of man, but rather by God. For His glory, God will not be found by
the wisdom of the world (1 Corinthians 1:21-31). So while the apologist may receive demands
for evidence according to the standards of human wisdom, he must be certain that every word of
his apologetic response is presented in submission to God‟s Word toward the end of his hearers‟
salvation.
2 The regenerate with the noetic effects of sin reversed by the noetic effects of salvation, the very imparting of
the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16).
Apologetic Method 6
Every apologetic encounter and presentation of evidence must be seen as an opportunity to
preach that which God will use to change the hearers‟ hearts: Christ crucified—the message of
God‟s substitionary, reconciling death on the sinner‟s behalf (1 Corinthians 2:2; 2 Corinthians
5:18-21)3. The sinner who thinks that he is sitting in judgment over God must be brought into
proper relationship to God; he must realize that knowledge obtained apart from submission to
God is distorted knowledge. The problem is epistemological, and the non-believer must begin
thinking apart from his own autonomy. All true thought is subject to God‟s Word as the final
normative standard (Frame, 1994, 51). Therefore, Frame defines apologetics as “the application
of Scripture to unbelief” (1987, 87). A presuppositional apologetic—an apologetic that
recognizes that conformity to Scripture is the very criterion of truth—is the necessary conclusion
of a biblical understanding of the noetic effects of sin and regeneration.
Apologetics and Circularity
If the Christian apologist is to argue for the truth of God by presupposing the truth of God‟s
Word, is this not circular reasoning, as the conclusion is assumed by the argument itself? Some
apologists like William Lane Craig say that the futility of circular arguing for God by using
Christian presuppositions precludes its use in apologetics. Rather, as Craig argues, we must start
from common ground and build a case for Christianity. He claims that this common ground is the
“laws of logic and the facts of our experience” (2008, 51-57).
3 Note also, in 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16, that the manner in which Paul apologetically presented Christ crucified
(not with lofty speech or wisdom, but in weakness, fear, and trembling so that faith would rest in the power of God)
is an important compliment to the content of the message. Both the manner and the content are necessary, both are
contrary to those of the worldly skeptic, and both are designed to humble man and exalt God.
Apologetic Method 7
How is one to argue that laws of logic (rationalism) and sense experience (empiricism) are
valid standards by which to measure truth? In its final analysis an argument for rationality
reduces to rational autonomy being accepted as the ultimate standard; the same goes for the
argument for empiricism. The Christian recognizes the truth that God is the quintessential
reference point, or standard, for truth. The non-Christian maintains that God is not the measure
of truth, usually substituting the autonomous self in His place. Therefore, again we see that there
is no true common ground but rather two mutually exclusive systems that must argue circularly
for their ultimate criterion4.
Even the Christian‟s circularity5 relating to the ultimate standard can be used as an apologetic
tool. As we have seen, unbelief in God does not find its root in lack of evidence, but in sinfully
refusing to submit to God. If the goal of apologetics is faith in the gospel, then recognition
(through revealing a presupposition) that the non-believer has been entirely in rebellion to God
may be a step the Spirit will use to convict of sin. The apologist is not simply trying to add some
Christian values or data to the skeptic‟s worldview; worldview must change, and that happens by
repentance and faith in the gospel.
Furthermore, with the universal existence of ultimate presuppositions in view, the apologist
can demonstrate the inability for anything other than the God of the Bible to function as this
norm. The rationalism of Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz is irrationalism, as it bases itself on the
4 Frame argues (1987, 130), “Circularity in a system is properly justified only at one point: in an argument for
the ultimate criterion of the system” (emphasis his). And again (2002, 407), “There is always a kind of circularity
when we are dealing with an ultimate standard. If one‟s standard of truth is human reason, one can argue for that
standard only by rational argument, an argument that presupposes the truth of its conclusion.” “The critic will be just
as „guilty‟ of circularity as the Christian is” (Frame, 1987, 130).
5 Despite the validity of circularity relating to the ultimate criterion, Frame‟s advice (1987, 130-131) to avoid
“narrowly” circular arguments, “broadening” the argument with data submitted to the standard of God‟s Word, thus
making it more persuasive and not viciously circular.
Apologetic Method 8
autonomous thinker and is disconnected from reality. The Humean, empirical understanding of
reality that modern science6 espouses also reduces to irrationalism as it is incapable of describing
any necessary or universal truths. The rationalist must be shown the insufficiency of accepting
himself as ultimate and instead be directed to the one that makes all logical thinking and
argument possible (Frame, 2000, 220), a logical, creator God. The empiricist must be shown that,
based on empiricism alone, no universal truths or values can be discerned. “Not a single fact can
be known unless it be God that gives that fact meaning” (Van Til, 1997, chapter 11).
The apologist does not then leave the skeptic in irrational despair, nor does he allow him with
Kant to say that we must limit our use of reason (rationalism) to the world of experience
(phenomenal) and not the noumenal world of things as they really are in themselves. Rather, the
apologist should expose this rational-irrational dialectic that is present in all unbelieving thought.
He should use that dialectic to point the unbeliever to what is obvious to him but suppressed
(Romans 1:18-21) and is necessary for all thinking and knowing—something outside of
himself—namely the creator God of the Bible (Frame, 1987, 59-61, 360-361; Frame, 1994, 69-
71). When any ultimate standard (morality, laws of logic, validity of sense-experience, etc.)
appealed to by the skeptic is valid leads to knowledge of truth, the apologist can expose that the
unbeliever is thinking inconsistently with that inadequate standard and actually thinking as if
God were the standard.7 The unbeliever‟s problem should be demonstrated not merely to be that
he has adopted the wrong ultimate standard, but that his embrace of an inadequate and
6 Philip Johnson in Darwin on Trial does an excellent job of exposing the irrationalism and inconsistency in
science, particularly as relates to Darwinian evolution and natural selection. Johnson dismantles handily the claim
that science has proven Darwinism, and therefore it is true, and that creationism is therefore resoundingly
disproven. Johnson reveals that science is not as objective as its adherents would like to think. His arguments can be
useful in exposing the insufficiency and inconsistency of using science as an ultimate standard.
7 Van Til argues that this is the best argument for Christian theism, to show the unbeliever that “Even non-
Christians presuppose its truth while they verbally reject it.” (2003, 134)
Apologetic Method 9
inconsistent normative standard is caused by and evidences his rebellion toward God. The
unbeliever is wrong because he does not know how he ought8 to know.
Apologetics and Evidence
Therefore, the apologist is able to make use of all types of evidence and argument provided
that it is valid according to the criteria of Scripture and done in submission to God as Lord. For
example, the Paley‟s classic teleological argument can certainly be used to show that the
evidence of design reveals the personal Creator of Scripture. Similarly, so long as the
cosmological and ontological arguments are used to argue for the God of the Bible, they are
valid. As Van Til asserts (2003, 134), these traditional arguments even presuppose the truth of
the Bible, although the skeptic ignores this. Arguments for the historicity of the Bible and Jesus‟s
resurrection should be embraced as well. All true statements can be useful in one‟s apologetic
since all was made by God and is held together in Christ and reveals God in so conclusive a way
that all of humanity is without excuse in the face of this evidence (Colossians 1:15-17; Romans
1:18-20). All evidence, when rightly understood, will reveal the God of the Bible and the truth of
a biblical Christian worldview.
There are some limitations to argumentations from evidence however. As we have
repeatedly seen, the unbeliever‟s root problem is not a lack of knowledge, but an unwillingness
to submit to that which is already known (In a Romans 1:18-21 sense). Therefore, no amount of
argumentation, no matter how valid and lucid is sufficient to compel the non-Christian into the
kingdom (Habermas, 2000, 96) if it is considered apart from submission to God. Satan knows
8 Ought is an ethical term. The presence of ethics as a standard presupposes the personal, absolute God of the
Bible (see Frame, 1994, 52 and 93-101).
Apologetic Method 10
plenty of propositions about God; he just does not know them obediently; he is therefore the
embodiment of irrationality (Frame, 2006, 101). Similarly, the non-Christian knows God; he just
does not know Him obediently (Frame, 1987, 44-45 and 58).
Evaluating evidence for God or the Bible creates a very real danger of communicating to
the apologist and skeptic that they are neutral, autonomous judges presiding over God and His
Word9. Reason and empiricism, we have seen, are not valid ultimate criteria for truth; the
apologist must avoid reinforcing the misconception that they are. Habermas claims (2000, 115-
116) that the apologist is to “meet critics on their own (common) ground, using their
presuppositions and their methodology.” This is a losing proposition from the start as their
presuppositions deny God; to act as if God is able to be known by these presuppositions is to
reinforce in the skeptic that neutral reasoning is possible or that autonomous reasoning is
acceptable. A proper apologetic must express the truth about God, that He is Creator, Lord of
heaven and earth, Judge, and Savior (Frame, 2000, 220).
Apologetics and the Individual
Not all those who “ask a reason” are asking for the same reasons or with the same prejudices
and presuppositions. The loving, gentle, patient, and humble apologist will take the time to listen
to the skeptic, recognizing that the only difference between himself and the unbeliever is God‟s
regenerating and sanctifying grace. Apologetics must be flexible enough in form and content to
be person-variable (Mavrodes, 1970, 42; Frame, 2000, 222), recognizing some differences
among unbelievers‟ objections, concerns, education level, experience, and hardness of heart. The
9 Take Butler‟s statement (1824, 252) for example, the epitome of what should be avoided as the evidence is
considered: “Let reason be kept to: and if any part of the Scripture account of the redemption of the world by Christ
can be shown to be contrary to it, let the Scripture, in the name of God be given up.”
Description:Apologetic Method Jacob D. Hantla Reformed Theological Seminary, Virtual Campus “Christian Apologetics” Professor, Dr. John M. Frame June 2008
