The Four Schools of Apologetics and the Case for a Utilitarian Approach
Some people might be under the impression that all apologetics are the same, but there are in fact four major schools of apologetics, each with its own methodology. While each school has its adherents, none of them provide the ultimate method of convincing people of the truth of the gospel. If the goal of apologetics is to bring people to Christ and not merely to win an argument, Christians must take a utilitarian approach to apologetics. We must use the arguments that work.
The first thing that people should get out of their head is that apologetics has something to do with being sorry about offending people. This is sometimes the impression left on many uneducated people. Apologetics comes from the Greek word apologia, which was a plea, defense, or clearing of the accused. Christian apologetics is, therefore, the defense of Christianity. There is a long tradition of apologists who defend Christian belief against atheism or other religions apart from evangelism. Some people argue that such an attempt at rationalizing Christianity without the involvement of the Holy Spirit is futile, but of course this is not to say that apologists are not also guided by the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, it should be the goal of all apologetics to bring people to Christ. It is thus the partner of evangelism. Apology breaks down the intellectual barriers from accepting the gospel while evangelism proclaims the good news of Christ to bring people to faith.
Classical Apologetics
The oldest school of apologetics (often called “classical” or “traditional”) is based on building a logical proof for the gospel. It is best represented in the Summa Theologica of Thomas of Aquinas. However, the idea of using the reasoning of unbelievers against them dates from the early church. For example, in the late second century, church father Tertullian of Carthage published the Prescription for Heretics, in which he argued that since heretics lack faith, corrupt the scriptures, and use independent reasoning, it is necessary to argue from the basis of reason. Even the apostles did the same, for they understood that heretics would not accept our scriptures.
Some people have called the classical model an incremental or piecemeal approach to salvation, based on the arguments put forward by Thomas. Starting with the common ground of reason, the atheist must be converted to agnosticism and then belief in a general deity. Then he must be converted to the truth of the Christian God over other gods, then to belief in the scriptures, then to Christ. The problem, of course, is that such reasoning often do not prove enough to convince most people because the so-called neutral ground on which they start (which is invariably secular) tends to favor the unbeliever.
Evidential Apologetics
A second and more modern school of apologetics is what some call evidentialists. This is a more inductive approach to apologetics in that it relies on defending the facts and historical background of the gospels as being true using evidence. Thus, while classical apologetics focus on deductive reasoning such as causation or ontology, the evidential apologist defends the Bible and historical account of Christ. Since it relies on inductive reasoning and facts that constantly shift with new discoveries, evidential apologetics is more about probability than logical certainty, leaving open the possibility that future facts may arise that change the probability model and create doubt. However, a more practical problem is that it requires a broad knowledge of history, language, culture, archeology, and science, making it less useful to the lay person who tends to misstate evidence.
Classical Presuppositional Apologetics
Opposed to classical and evidential apologetics is what some call presuppositional apologetics. Epistemologically, this grouping of apologetics examines the presuppositions and underlying worldviews upon which arguments for and against God are based. In essence, if man without Christ is fallen, so are his reasoning, empirical experiences, and feelings, leaving no common ground with the believer. Not surprisingly, this school was developed primarily by reform theologians since they believe in the total depravity of man.
There are two major schools of presuppositional apologetics, which we may call deconstructive and rational. Deconstructive or classical presuppositional apologetics focuses on a reductio ad absurdum argument in that it challenges the so-called logical basis used by unbelievers by observing its weaknesses. It challenges rationality and evidence as being useless due to the underlying assumptions (presuppositions) that derive from sin and a godless worldview. Instead, truth can only be known through the scriptures or direct revelation about Christ, which God gives to the Christian. Its weakness is that it doesn’t appeal to most people for the simple reason that it rejects common ground and requires total conversion first.
Rational Presuppositional Apologetics
Rational presuppositionalism, meanwhile, accepts the basis of human reason to derive truth and then argues from basic self-evident truths such as meaning, good and evil, the nature of man, and the existence of a creator. These axioms are not to be argued but used as proof of the best worldview. Since the Bible aligns fully with these truths, it provides a superior guide to society and truth than other religions or atheism. In essence, it builds on presuppositions to demonstrate that the worldview presented in the Bible is true and results in a better lifestyle. Its weakness is that it isn’t likely to appeal to those who are totally depraved. It also rejects more traditional apologetic arguments as inconsistent.
While there remain adherents of each form of argument, in fact they each have their uses. Classical apologetics appeal to the philosophical or those opposed to God in a global sense. Evidential apologetics appeals to those interested in the details, provided that people can become familiar with major facts involved. Deconstructive or classical presuppositionalism might help the doubting Christian return to the fold, though it’s not likely to appeal to people who are unfamiliar with the Bible or are hostile to it. Rational presuppositionalism at least starts from agreement about basic values and so presents a middle ground. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.
What’s important is not which school is true, but which is most useful in reaching people. It’s axiomatic that every person is different and has a different background, education, emotions, and motivations. Assuming that every person will respond only to certain types of arguments is a mistake. Instead, we ought to be utilitarian in our apologetics by using and combining each school of thought according to what works best. If our goal is to reach as many people as possible, we cannot be selective in our approach and risk driving people away from the gospel. As with evangelism in general, we must rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us which approach to take.
In short, Christians must be utilitarian in their approach to apologetics, just as they are in evangelism. Paul said, “I have become all things to all people, so that I may by all means save some” (1 Cor. 9:22). If we are to bring others to salvation, we must be willing to use whatever arguments work. We must be ready to answer every challenge and provide sound arguments that remove intellectual obstacles from accepting Christ. Only then can unbelievers come to the truth.
