Christian Apologetics

     Christian apologetics is the defense of the Christian faith through rational arguments. The term comes from the Greek word apologia, which means "defense". There are a number of subfields within apologetics. Some apologists specialize in internal biblical consistency (such as JP Holding, owner of tektonics.org), others in scientific defenses of the Bible, and still others in historical or philosophical defenses of Christianity (such as Gary Habermas or Lee Strobel). Christian apologist JP Holding has recommended that prospective apologists choose one area of focus rather than trying to be a "jack of all trades". Some feel that faith alone should need no justification; however, many feel that Christians should be prepared to defend and spread their faith by intellectual means. (Dulles, Avery, 1999)

>

Evidentialist apologetics

    Evidential apologetics seeks to defend Christian belief through evidence. This can take the form of:

·        Arguments based on the historical accounts of the Bible;

·        Defense of the historical accuracy of the Bible;

·        Biblical Archaeology, seeking to show that the Bible is consistent with the physical evidence;

·        Creationism, seeking to show that the creation accounts of the Bible are the most reasonable explanation for life as we know it.

     In the modern period American evangelical apologetics has been dominated by the evidentialist approach. Its emphasis is on the presentation of Christianity as factual—as supportable or verifiable by the examination of evidence. This type of apologetic system, while acknowledging that indisputable and absolutely certain proof of Christianity lies beyond human reach, defends the truth claims of the faith as eminently reasonable. More specifically, Evidentialist apologetics argues that these crucial truths can be shown to be highly probable. Rather than defending the faith in two stages, as does classical apologetics (first by defending theism, then by defending specifically Christian claims), Evidentalism uses multiple lines of evidence to support Christian theism as a whole.

     Evidentialist apologetics may from one perspective be viewed as a subtype of classical apologetics. Both approaches want to provide reasons for faith that are accessible to non-Christians. However, the evidentialist approach has over the past two centuries gradually emerged as a significantly different model of apologetics.

     The evidential method has much in common with the classical method except in solving the issue concerning the value of miracles as evidence. Evidentalism as a apologetic method may be characterized as the ''one-step'' approach. Miracles do not presuppose God's existence (as most contemporary classical apologists assert) but can serve as one sort of evidence for God. This method is fairly eclectic in its use of various positive evidences and negative critiques, utilizing both philosophical and historical arguments. Yet it tends to focus chiefly on the legitimacy of accumulating various historical and other inductive arguments for the truth of Christianity.

     Given this focus, evidentialists may and will argue both for theism and Christian theism at the same time without recourse to an elaborate natural theology. They might begin, for instance, by arguing for the historical factuality of Jesus' resurrection and then argue that such an unusual event is explicable only if a being very much like the Christian God exists. Having then established God's existence via Christ's miraculous resurrection, the evidentialist would then go on to contend that Jesus' resurrection also authenticates his claims to be God incarnate and his teaching on the divine authority of Scripture. (McDowell, Josh, 1972)

>

Pros and Cons

     By emphasizing on the Axioms of logic and science, with the support of historical evidences, one of the biggest advantages of this method is that it tends to capture the interest of the non-Christian by discussing common (ground) interest. This stages a friendly atmosphere for communication by talking about something that the non-Christian can associate with and thus is more receptive. After all isn’t this the whole idea of Christ’s incarnation? The Word became flesh so that we can experience God and let his love be evident to us. Without God becoming flesh to live in the midst of man, it would have been difficult for man to understand Gods love. Thus it is important to start the apologetic with a common ground that non-Christians can relate to.

     It avoids religious elements that could offend or threaten the non-Christian who might cause the individual to alienate himself from Christianity. The fallen man has a radical sin bias that blinds him to the truth about God, Christ and the Scripture. He suppresses the truth in unrighteousness and exchanges the truth of God for the lie (Roman 1:18, 25). Therefore, a non-Christian tends to find the knowledge of God repulsive. By avoiding these issues (elements of Christianity) that are blind to the fallen man and concentrating on evidences that are apparent to them, the non-Christians are thus more receptive to the Gospel, by exercising his freewill judgment.

     Evidentalism is biblical. After all Jesus did present Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs (evidence). The Lord did not chastise Thomas when he doubted His resurrection by saying to other disciples, until I see the nail marks in his hands and thrust my finger into the wound in His side, I will not believe! (John 20:25) But instead, He graciously offered exactly what Thomas had demanded as concrete, empirical evidence for His deity.

     Moreover, Jesus fulfillment of the Old Testament (Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, etc.) is yet another support of the evidential approach.

     Jesus also pointed to his miracles as the ultimate verification (evidence) of the truth of His claim concerning Himself. Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. (John 10:37, 38).

     Not only does Evidentalism concede too much, it seeks to prove too little. The most Evidentalism claims to be able to do is to prove the probable truth of Christianity.

     Even if one can prove that all the claims in the Bible about Jesus is true, its close to impossible to prove that Jesus is the Son of God. Also, no matter how compelling the evidences are, they do not convince those who have not submitted to Gods Word in faith (Luke 16:31). Barth (Reference 3) also maintained neither Scripture nor the saving events recorded in Scripture can be objects of proof to the unbeliever. Rather, faith is the way to know that the Bible is Gods word or that the resurrection took place. (Lai, R.R., 1981)

     This method tends to abandon the basic religious elements of Christianity and thus not sit well with Presupposition list, who believe that common ground denies the existence of God, for Whom, through Whom and to Whom are all things (Roman 11:36). To say that the impersonal axioms of logic and science are the basic principles of reality is to deny the Christ who is before all things. Evidentialists are often criticized as judging God.

     Since reasoning and interpretation are affected by ones existing worldview, the meanings derived by Evidentialists may not arise out of bare facts and are biased.

     In appealing to miraculous evidences, Evidentialists claim miracles in the presence of anomalies in nature. But by calling anomalies miracles, they begged the question, because, miracles presuppose God.

>