Popular Apologetics Methodologies—And Their Problems

Popular Apologetics Methodologies—And Their Problems 

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, November 3, 2025 (Donate) 

 

Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Apologetic Methods 

As a general reminder, apologetics is very powerful—if done correctly. 

When we, as Christians, offer a defense of the Christian faith, we are called an “apologist”. The Apostle Paul, for instance, was an apologist when reaching the Greeks. 

Recall, it doesn’t mean we apologize, but instead we offer logical and reasonable defenses and answers for the Christian faith, by standing firmly on the authority of God’s Word—from the very first verse (Genesis 1:1[1]). So, by using the Bible as our starting point, we are poised to use apologetics properly, thus giving us a basis for logic and reason, which can only come out of a biblical worldview. 

With this in mind, let’s evaluate various apologetic methodologies that have been commonly used by Christians throughout history, and see if these methods actually start with God and His Word as the absolute authority/standard. Apologetics is a biblical concept and predicated on the truthfulness of Scripture. And so, when we start with the Bible, we can know and understand how God wants us to respond and defend the faith, for instance: 

·       We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete. (2 Corinthians 10:4-5, ESV) 

·       Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. (2 Timothy 4:2, ESV) 

·       “…but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15, ESV) 

Many Apologists Give Up The Bible As The Starting Point 

Sadly, there are many apologists who (foolishly) want to leave the Bible out of the debate and make a case strictly on “human terms”. Naturally, of course, “apologists” for non-Christian worldviews also want to leave the Bible out of it. But when Christians take this tact, it is a very odd tactic. 

Think about it: if you give up the Bible at the onset, then why even bother doing apologetics, which is commanded in the Bible, in the first place? See the tension? Yet far too many Christians have done exactly this! 

Scripture is the supreme authority in all matters, and so our defense is to affirm that authority in our “argument” or response. So, if the Scriptures are the supreme authority, then it would be illogical (and sinful!) to toss them aside and argue as if there is some other “absolute authority”—in doing so, the Christian apologist has lost the debate before it even began! 

If you don’t start with God, then by default, you start with man. This is called “autonomous human reasoning”—reasoning apart from God and His Word. Essentially, man is seen as being the absolute authority, not God. 

Here’s the main point (so don’t miss this!): if an apologist does not start with God as the ultimate authority, then by default, he unwittingly starts with fallible man as the “supreme authority”—that is—whether they realize it or not—the religion of humanism. Why would a Christian argue for the Christian religion assuming the religion of humanism is true? That is quite a strange phenomenon and an irrational approach to defending the Christian faith, Yet, sadly, it’s more common that you might think! 

The goal of the Christian apologist is to always be honorable to God’s Word (i.e., as stated in 1 Peter 3:15, “in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy…”) and refute false claims about God and His Word—while preaching the good news (gospel) of Jesus Christ—His death, burial and resurrection. The gospel message really is good news because we, as born-again Christians, can now be saved from the infinite wrath of God, Who should rightly punishment us for our sins because He is a righteous judge. But in an amazing turn, God Himself in the person of Jesus Christ was able to take that infinite punishment on our behalf. 

In defending God’s Word and the Gospel therein, this must never be done by attempting to give up any of the 66 books of the Bible. But instead, by standing firmly on Scripture, an apologist is to effectively “silence” the opponent’s arguments using the Bible and not tossing it aside in one’s apologetic. Dr. Cornelius Van Til once wrote: 

“This view of Scripture, therefore, involves the idea that there is nothing in this universe on which human beings can have full and true information unless they take the Bible into account.”[2] 

The reason I’m harping on this idea of “leaving the Bible out of it” so much is because Christians often get caught up doing apologetics this way. I’m no exception, as I used to do it this way too in the past. Once I learned the intricacies of some of the common apologetics methods used today, I needed to leave those methodologies behind that didn’t start with God and His Word.

Methodology 

There are several popular methodologies that exist, but the three most common methodologies that Christians tend to use are Classical Apologetics, Evidential Apologetics, and Presuppositional Apologetics. As a quick note, the Classical and Evidential methodologies are similar in that they both have the same starting points, same processes, and have considerable overlap, but still have different focuses. I will deal with those nuances in a moment. 

The Presuppositional method (also called the Transcendental method) is starkly different in starting point, method, and overall commitment to an ultimate authority. So, the obvious question to ask is: which apologetic methodology is the best to use, or can they all be used in “conjunction with each other” (i.e., pick and choose depending on what you are discussing, like picking the right tool for the job out of your toolbox)? 

To answer this question, we need to (1) understand these methods and then (2) test them against the absolute authority of God’s Word. This may surprise you, but even apologetic methods that are used to defend God’s Word still need to be humbly tested against God’s Word (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 5:21[3]). 

It’s important to understand that in Christendom, there are several different types of apologetic approaches that have been used throughout the history of the church—though not all are correct—and therefore it is important to ensure one is being discerning. These will be discussed in much more detail, but as an introductory overview, the main types are: 

1. Classical: essentially this method assumes that autonomous rational thought (i.e., based on man’s reasoning alone) is the “absolute standard” regarding philosophical debates. Evidence can be (and often is) used in conjunction with the argument—though it is important to understand all evidence is interpreted based on a given worldview (i.e., autonomous rational thoughts first point to the possibility of the Bible’s truthfulness or the possible existence of a deity). Popular Classical apologists include men like William Lane Craig, Thomas Aquinas, Norm Geisler, R.C. Sproul, and J. P. Moreland. 

2. Evidential: like Classical, this method starts with autonomous rational thought (i.e., based on man’s reasoning alone) as the “absolute standard” and that when people evaluate evidence (e.g., miracles in the Bible, or any sort of historical evidence and scientific evidence), they might come to the right conclusion regarding Christianity in general (i.e., starting with human logic to look at the evidence first to then try to point to the Bible’s truthfulness). In a nutshell, this method really assumes autonomous people are “neutral” in their judgments about God and His Word (i.e., it’s the belief that people just need “more evidence” to be convinced of the truth of God’s Word). Popular Evidential apologists include men like B.B. Warfield, William Paley, and John Warwick Montgomery. 

3. Presuppositional (Van Tillian): God and His Word are the absolute and only standards of morality, logic, uniformity in nature, dignity, etc. The Bible provides the only basis for a worldview that makes knowledge possible. All other worldviews must subtly borrow from the Bible to even try to possibly make sense of the world (i.e., the Bible is the first and final “lens” we use to look at all things.) This method is sometimes called “Van Tillian” (named after Cornelius Van Til who articulated it in modern times). Along with Van Til, other popular Presuppositional apologists include men like Greg Bahnsen, Kenneth Gentry, Michael Butler, Jason Lisle, James White, Jeff Durbin, Doug Wilson, and many others. Early presuppositional apologetics examples are claimed from the Bible itself, as well as numerous others such as Augustine (in some aspects) and John of Damascus.

§  Other popular semi-presuppositional methods include:

§  Clarkian: The best worldview is the most logical and Christianity is the most consistent in its logic. So Christianity appears to be the best. Logic is God.^[4]

§  Shaeferian: The best worldview will give the best answers to life. Christianity gives the best answers to life. So, Christianity appears to be the best.^[5]

§  Carnellian: The best worldview is the most coherent. Christianity is the most coherent via the internal text. So, Christianity appears to be the best.^[6] 

4. Others^[7]
1. Cumulative Case
2. Reformed Epistemology
3. Fideism 

Of course, the apologetic methods listed above was not meant to be an exhaustive list, but it helps give you an idea of the different styles that have been used to defend the Christian faith. 

Starting Points For The Apologetic Methods 

I pointed out that these methods of defense of the faith differ on starting points. As repeated before, which I’ll continue repeating throughout this book, there is no greater authority on any subject than God—hence, He is our ultimate starting point. God started with Himself in Genesis 1:1 (the foundational verse of the rest of the Bible). It would be wise to mimic God and start with God, and by extension His Word, in our apologetic. As Christians who want to honor God with all our words, thoughts, and deeds, it would be utterly foolish and sinful of us to not start with God as our ultimate authority in our apologetic. 

To clarify, when I say God, I mean the triune God of the Bible—who is the Creator of all things including time, matter, and space (e.g., the heavens and the earth). God is omnipotent (He can do all His holy will), omnipresent (nothing can be hid from God), and omniscience (His knowledge and understanding are infinite). He is the absolute Truth, the Way and the Life and ultimate Love. God’s revealed Word—the 66 books of the Bible—come with the authority of God Himself. 

Don’t miss this important point: I am not arguing for a “generic god” or mere “theism” or even some concept of a “designer”. I am arguing for the God of the Bible alone, and I would join in arguing against any other false counterfeit God, god, gods or other false religious system. 

For Christian apologists to start anywhere other than God and His Word, then they are giving up God and His Word as the supreme authority in their argument. In other words, if you give up God’s Word, you forfeit the very thing you set out to prove before you even began! 

As an analogy, imagine you’re a solider in the past (back in the day when swords were a thing) during a battle and your opponent tells you: “before we begin, you must drop your sword, and be neutral in this fight…”—and you agree—while he still holds onto his weapon! That’d be pretty foolish, right? You’d for sure lose the fight right from the start! 

Yet the same foolish thing happens whenever Christians try to “leave behind” the Bible (i.e., their sword!) in their apologetic. Or here’s another analogy: imagine again you’re a soldier in battle and rather than using your sword to strike down your opponent, you decide that your strategy should be to first “convince” the other soldier that your sword is actually a real weapon. And so, you start describing everything about it, such as its metal composition, how it was made, where it came from, how long it is, how sharp it is, and so on. 

Of course, we all see how foolish of a strategy that would be… but again, that’s exactly what Christians are doing today with their apologetic! So, all that to say, if you’re a Christian, stop defending your sword by trying to “prove” its existence—just use it! (Ephesians 6:17[8]; Hebrews 4:12[9]). 

Let’s take this further, if you do not start with God, then where is your “new” absolute starting point? It’s man. Fallible, sinful, imperfect man. Man is seen as an “authority greater” than God. Again, this is the most basic form of the religion of humanism. So, whenever a Christian apologist tries using this method, he has already taken a sinful position that “man is greater”—whether the apologist realizes it or not. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that there is no such thing as “neutral” ground (i.e., neutrality is a myth): 

“He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad. (Matthew 12:30, NKJV) 

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. (Romans 8:7, NKJV) 

Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. (James 4:4, NKJV) 

There are other verses we can list here… but I think you get the point. (By the way, trying to take this supposed stance of “neutrality” is a prime example of what’s commonly called the pretended neutrality fallacy). 

Here's the bottom line: any defense of Scripture must be predicated on the Bible; that is, it ought to presuppose (and thus be foundationally presuppositional) that Scripture is the authority—not man’s word.[10] When we start with the Bible, we are thinking God’s thoughts after Him and emulating Him—which is what every Christian is commanded to do! The way He looks at things is the correct way and we should mimic this. 

The Methods Defined: Classical, Evidential, And Presuppositional Apologetics 

Classical and Evidential 

Classical and Evidential apologetic methods are like “twin sisters” in their methodology. Both are based out of the classical Greek methods where human logic is considered “supreme” (going back to the days of classical Greek philosophy with men like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle). Also bear in mind that this is the era when the Old Testament was coming to a close. 

In these methods, human logic is used as the “supreme authority” for one to build arguments. Simply, if the arguments are based strictly on reason and philosophy, then it is classical apologetics. And if the arguments are dealing with historical or scientific “facts” and evidence, then it is called evidential apologetics—hence the name evidential. There is a common misconception that evidential apologetics is the only method that “uses evidence”, but this is a farce. All methods use evidence—except Fideism (the method of blind faith alone). 

To summarize, the classical and evidential methodology is identical in their starting point and processes. This is why many evidential apologists will sometimes call themselves “classical” or vice versa, depending on what they are debating. Nonetheless, the takeaway here is that man’s logic/reasoning is the starting authority in both methods. (Of course, not to say logic or reasoning is bad, but rather that should not be a Christian’s starting authority in apologetics.) 

Logic 

Let’s now define what I mean by “human logic”. Again, logic is not a bad thing by any means, nor am I arguing that logic is errant. In fact, logic is essential in any form of debate.

When starting with the Bible, we have a basis for the existence of logic because we are made in the image of a logical God of truth who upholds all of existence in a consistent, logical way. Hence, when starting with the Bible, we have a true, justified belief for the existence of logic. On the other hand, when one starts with man and thereby rejects God’s Word as the supreme starting point…why should logic exist? There is suddenly no reason or basis for it to exist! So why have an apologetic method that starts like that? 

In any materialistic worldview (where “matter/energy is all that exists”), then logic cannot exist because it is not made of matter/energy! By the way, ironically, this is the most common worldview among secular scientists—those who use logic/reason daily when doing science for a living! 

In any Eastern religion (like Hinduism, Taoism, etc.) where “all is spirit” and “all is one” (monism), then being logical and being illogical are essentially one and the same (whether they realize it or not); hence, logic shouldn’t exist given that worldview. 

In any pagan, moralistic, or mythical religion where “man is the best there is” (such as in Buddhism, Confucianism, paganism, Greek Mythology, Wicca/Witchcraft, etc.) logic is purely human-dependent. And thus, logic becomes arbitrary and fallible because humans are arbitrary and can err, which means logic is ultimately meaningless in any of these religions. (You may not have realized it, but we just refuted the majority of the world’s manmade religions in these last two short paragraphs!)   

Again, only the biblical worldview—founded on the solid rock of God’s Word—gives us a basis for the existence of logic. So, when I say, “human logic”, there is no basis for its existence within any professed belief system or worldview that’s founded on man’s word! 

But of course, those who don’t start with God’s Word (usually) tend to agree that logic does exists (even though their worldview can’t account for it), so how do they get around this? To have any level of rationality, they must borrow or, more accurately, steal the basis and existence of logic from God whether they acknowledge it or not. They can’t help it (like a kleptomaniac who has an uncontrollable urge to steal things) because they’re made in the image of a logical God, living in His logically ordered world, whether they realize it or not.  

Back To Classical And Evidential 

When Christians fall into the trap of using the classical or evidential apologetic methods, they basically “set aside” the Bible as the absolute authority to then attempt to argue a “human-based logical case” (then utilizing philosophy or evidence, etc.). Consequently, by default, this means arguing for some sort of a generic theistic god’s existence (not the God of the Bible). Or perhaps in some cases, this results in arguing for the truthfulness of one verse or phrase in the Bible. 

One way to illustrate this method is to imagine a “stepping stone” to leap to the God of the Bible or to make a case that the Bible is trustworthy (e.g., at least one passage or this one part of the Bible is likely truth, so maybe all of it is too). This is called an inductive argument (as opposed to a deductive argument, where the claim isn’t necessarily shown as true but could be probable or likely. 

So, the idea here is that once you’ve “convinced” your opponent that the Bible might be true on some of its claims or that a god might exist (or at least a “good probability” of it), then you can “kind of” use the Bible after that. Or in the case of cults like Mormons, Muslims, Hinduism, Greek Mythologies, etc., they then leap to their alleged god(s) and use their alleged “holy” books or their myths. This is the basic method of Classical and Evidential apologetics (as coined together in their commonalities). As one can see, hosts of different religions can and do use this methodology. 

Aristotle used this style of methodology against Plato to argue for a singular deity (as opposed to polytheism) over two thousand years ago. 

Presuppositional/Transcendental Apologetics 

Transcendental apologetics (more commonly called Presuppositional) starts with God and His Word as the foundational starting point.  So, from a big picture, other religions are obviously not using this method. 

The presuppositionalist asks why Christians would even think to disregard the Bible and use the Greek (an unbiblical, man-centered) method at the onset of their argument. Why not start an apologetic (which is a concept derived from the Bible anyway!) by treating the Bible as the absolute authority—and then using the Bible’s method for apologetics by modeling the way God did it in Scripture? (Recall that God never argues for His existence in Scripture—He just is!) Keep in mind the Old Testament was written prior to Socrates and Plato’s deaths and before Aristotle was even born! 

Though many Christians in the past would refer to the Bible for apologetic use, Cornelius Van Til, in the 1900s systematically developed a biblically sound methodology that Christians could use that faithfully honors God and His Word.^[11] Obviously, Van Til thought Christians would rejoice at this (and rightly so), but instead some Christians attacked him for not starting with the Greek method like so many before. 

In short, the Transcendental (or Presuppositional) method essentially looks at philosophy, world religions, reason, facts, and evidence the same way every time—in light of God’s Word being the absolute authority. In the same way, an apologetic should start with God and His Word as the supreme authority on everything. My Statement of Faith says of the 66 books of the Bible: 

“The Bible is divinely inspired, inerrant, infallible, supremely authoritative, and sufficient in everything it teaches. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.”[12] 

I would dispute the sinful claim that man is “supreme” and point out that man (the creature) is fallible, and thus not in a position to usurp the authority of God (the Creator). I would dispute the irrational claim that facts and evidence “speak for themselves”[13] or that they are somehow “neutral”. My apologetic is to use God’s Word as our supreme starting point to then correctly interpret evidence and facts that confirm Scripture, not the other way around. In other words, we do not use facts/evidence to “prove” God’s Word is true—our powerful Creator has spoken and revealed Himself to us and that’s why we know His Word is true. 

When people reject God’s Word as supreme when looking at any kind of evidence, facts, or philosophy, they rely on man as supreme (again, this is “humanism” in its broadest sense). When man is seen as the authority, they are not neutral but have an active bias against the Word of God. Another way to put it, when man claims to be “neutral”, he’s already said the Bible is wrong (and thus, is not actually being neutral). 

At the foundation, Van Tillian presuppositional apologetics places God and His Word, the Bible, as the absolute authority in every area. God, who knows all things and cannot lie, has stated in the Bible that all other worldviews are wrong. By extension, all other worldviews have inconsistencies—and must borrow from the Bible to make any sense of the world at all—whether they realize it or not. The other worldviews just do so inconsistently. 

Christianity is not arbitrary—it is consistent—and provides the only basis for the preconditions of intelligibility (preconditions to make knowledge possible; e.g., we are made in the image of a logical and all-knowing God).  Other worldviews are arbitrary, inconsistent, and lack the preconditions that make knowledge possible . So, presuppositional apologists not only point out where false worldviews contradict God’s Word, but they also do an internal critique of the unbelievers’ worldview to show where it is arbitrary, inconsistent, and where they lack the preconditions necessary for knowledge (within their own story).  

Presuppositional apologetics is a well-known method by which apologists both defend and “go on the offensive” to confront false worldviews (hopefully in a gentle and respectful way, of course). In other words, an apologist destroys the foundation of false worldviews like secular humanism, atheism, Hinduism, Islam, cults, etc. If done properly, it exposes the weakness of defending false views and reveals the problems within their professed religions and philosophical systems. And while at the same time, point out clearly where these other religions borrow from the Bible to make sense of the world and reality in general.  

For example, when the Creation Museum opened in May of 2007, the atheists protesting the opening hired an airplane to fly above the museum pulling a banner that said “Thou shalt not lie.” The atheists have no reason not to lie in their own worldview, so they had to borrow from the Christian worldview to make this statement.^[14]  Interestingly, these atheists who generally say there is no “right and wrong” were arguing that the Creation Museum was teaching something wrong (Bible history). 

The only reason why right and wrong exist is because we have an absolute authority, the God of the Bible, who defines and sets the standard for what is right and wrong in the Bible. These atheists didn’t have a foundation to determine right and wrong—only their subjective opinion! In fact, given their worldview, atheists who try to say that something is “right” or “wrong” (“good” or “evil”) is really no different than saying “I don’t like putting relish on my hot dog because it doesn’t taste good” (i.e., just a personal preference).

What made this situation even better was that people driving to the museum knew right where to go (signage on roads wasn’t up yet). They thought the Creation Museum hired the plane and was telling the world to stop lying. It was a great win-win! 

Consider further that atheists who argue that we are just animals are almost always wearing clothes. Do animals wear clothes? No. (Unless their owner dresses them up…) So instead of making a consistent argument that we are only animals, atheists are instead confirming (whether they realize or not) a literal Genesis 3 where we wear clothes due to sin and shame! God gave Adam and Eve clothes after sin (Genesis 3:21[15]). 

This works with many other everyday things: Why do we have a 7-day week—the Bible. Why does logic/reason exist—the Bible. Why does knowledge exist—the Bible. Why is marriage defined as a man and a woman—the Bible. This list can go on for hours! But in an unbeliever’s worldview (not just atheism), they lack the very foundational basis for such things. 

Short-Comings Of Other Presuppositional Views 

There have been several “presuppositional” methods proposed over the years outside of the Van Tillian method.^[16] Many of these people have contributed some excellent material to the debate and mesh well with Van Tillian presuppositional apologetics in many areas.  Greg Bahnsen, a leading proponent of the Van Tillian method, points out that there are some overarching flaws that reduce the potency of their overall thrust. In short, Bahnsen points out: 

Clarkian: Gordon Clark essentially says that the best worldview is the most logical and Christianity is the most consistent in its logic. So, Christianity appears to be the best. 

Schaefferian: Francis Schaeffer essentially says that the best worldview will give the best answers to life. Christianity gives the best answers to life. So, Christianity appears to be the best. 

Carnellian: Edward J. Carnell essentially says that the best worldview is the most coherent. Christianity is the most coherent via the internal text. So, Christianity appears to be the best. 

Of course, there are other variations too like (e.g., Nash). But we cannot be exhaustive in this article.^[17] 

Clark’s view (one of the more popular views among Christian apologist circles) is in essence similar to the Evidential/Classical methods on a certain point. Even though he made some great presuppositional arguments in certain places, his overall viewpoint falls short of the typical presuppositional viewpoint. In other words, Clark argued for a position that man’s autonomous reasoning (man apart from God) should be used as the “absolute” starting point, over God’s Word in the particular instance—logic. This conflict led Clark to argue that “logic was God” to get around it. This is a clear problem that plagues his methodology. 

Carnell actually began with Van Tillian presuppositional apologetics but then moved to a form that was based on autonomous human reason in certain areas, focusing on coherency. 

Schaeffer’s apologetic (though beautifully presuppositional in many respects) does something similar as well, by ultimately appealing to man’s authority over God’s Word, placing humans as the “authority” to judge what is the best answers for life. 

Don’t get me wrong, I have great respect for these men, but they fell short in these areas. (Don’t get me wrong, I’ve fallen short on more areas than I can recall!). Here is the problem that each of these “presuppositional” methods all have in common—by what standard? Is it “best” to start with autonomous human reason or God’s Word? By moving away from God’s Word as the absolute standard, these other methods really move away from a true presuppositional apologetic. Such faulty “supposedly presuppositional” views still fall short. They actually fail because they still need to stand on the preconditions of intelligibility in regard to the Bible’s absolute standard, just to make their case. ^[18] 

Hence, each of these other methods are still inherently adopting a Van Tillian basis so there was no need to shift. Christianity, which is based on the Bible as the absolute truth, is the precondition that must be borrowed for knowledge to even be possible.  

Here’s the takeaway: each of these other views that are claimed to be “presuppositional” are partially-so at best because they all ultimately rely on fallible human logic as the absolute standard (in some area)—instead of God, who is the ultimate standard in all areas. (More specifically, the root problem with each of these views is that logic is trying to be “elevated” above God. Whereas, in a true presuppositional debate, logic is a tool, yet it is still subservient to God and His Word—the ultimate authority—since logic is only possible because God and the Bible are true.) 

Furthermore, each of their propositions are pseudo (false) presuppositional views since these views consequentially can’t really allow one to know the Bible is 100% true, or to be 100% certain that God even exists—or be 100% certain of one’s own salvation. For these other views, in essence, their position is that this is the “best possible worldview right now”, “likely the most coherent so far”, and “gives the best possible answers right now”—but could still be wrong. (Notice the lack of firm, faithful commitment to God’s authority in each of these statements!)    

Essentially, each of these other alleged “presuppositional” views are forced into a position that biblical matters are likely “true” or likely the “best” possible option—but we can never know it with complete (100%) confidence. Interestingly, the Bible says we can know numerous things, for example: 

·       And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. (Romans 8:28, NKJV) 

·       But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. (1 John 2:5, NKJV) 

·       These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. (1 John 5:13, NKJV) 

Classical Apologetics In Practice 

Got Questions defines Classical Apologetics accurately: 

“Classical apologetics is a method of apologetics that begins by first employing various theistic arguments to establish the existence of God. Classical apologists will often utilize various forms of the cosmological, teleological (Design), ontological, and moral arguments to prove God’s existence. Once God’s existence has been established, the classical apologist will then move on to present evidence from fulfilled prophecy, the historical reliability of Scripture, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus to distinguish Christianity from all other competing forms of theism.”[19] 

In Classical apologetics, the starting point is logic—human logic to be more specific. With this presupposition, there is an attempt to build a coherent case of a generic “theistic being” with supporting arguments. Again, this is a Greek method, used by ancient Greeks like Aristotle, to argue for the existence of a god. 

The classical apologist uses these types of arguments (starting with autonomous human logic[20]  as supreme) as the basis to develop supportive “cases” or “arguments” of some sort of “theistic presence” (often incorrectly called “proofs” of the existence of a god(s)). This is the first step of any classical apologist—to try to make a case that a god(s), supreme being, absolute reality, or universal principle might exist beyond nature—that is, to make a case for generic “theism”.  The primary four classical arguments for a generic god’s existence are: 

1.     Cosmological Argument

2.     Teleological Argument

3.     Ontological Argument

4.     The Moral Argument 

Regardless, a god in these arguments isn’t necessarily a case for the God of the Bible but for any possible generic god(s) nor is the initial goal to make a case that the Bible is true. This is very important to note—so don’t miss this point! Furthermore, these arguments are also probabilistic cases, not absolute, as they also rely on arbitrary starting points (human logic). And so, by using these typical classical arguments, the best you could argue for is that there might, probably, be some sort of “god”—maybe, probably. (I wonder, do these classical apologists have the same attitude while at church on Sundays, believing that they’re worshipping a “god” that probably exists? Note the inconsistency!) 

Nevertheless, if the apologist convinces the unbeliever that there might be a god, then they generally shift gears (usually out of nowhere!) to present a case of a specific historical or scientific evidence to argue that the Bible might be accurate in a few specific instances. For example, one might bring up an aspect of Christ’s resurrection or some external document that affirms something in the Bible (e.g., an archaeological find that the Hittites existed). Then they use this piece of evidence to build a case to suggest some sort of historical reliability of the Scriptures at a particular verse(s). 

Once again, these arguments are still probabilistic (not definitive). The hope is to get the unbeliever to jump to the conclusion that the whole Bible is true or at least trustworthy in some spots (usually texts that speak directly about Jesus in the New Testament). In doing so, they hope the argument becomes more or less “probably true”.  So how good are these arguments for the existence of a god? (Spoiler alert: they’re not good!) 

Cosmological Argument 

The cosmological argument assumes that a human understanding of logic is absolute, and then builds the argument specifically on the fundamental logical law of cause and effect. Simply put, it supposes that every effect has a cause (i.e., everything that had a beginning must have had a series or “chain” of causes). And if you go back far enough, there is a first cause or initial cause that is then defined as “deity”, “initial force”, Brahman, nothing (e.g., big bang), or “god” or what have you. Obviously, different people define this initial cause differently.  

Of course, there are still problems with the cosmological argument because it is assumed that the law of cause and effect, which exists in the observed universe (and is assumed to work in the whole universe), also works outside of time and prior to the existence of the universe and space-time. 

Another serious problem is that we don’t know if this alleged “theistic being” upholds logic and the universe consistently, at all times and in all places. Given this worldview, how does one really know that the law of cause and effect has not changed in the past? How does one really know this law works everywhere in the world? Or how does one really know this law will work the same tomorrow as it does today?   

Such things cannot be known—unless an all-knowing God, who is outside of space-time, has revealed that to us! The God of the Bible promised to uphold the world in a particular way (e.g., Genesis 8:22, etc.) so we can know the laws of logic and the laws of the universe have been held up in a certain unchanging way (except for the case of God’s miraculous working if He chooses to do so) and He promises to continue to uphold the universe in the future. 

But the Bible isn’t part of this discussion at this point in the cosmological argument, which means one can’t really know if the law of cause and effect goes prior to universe or even back into the past since one has left the Bible out of it! 

The unknown “god” in this view is also being subjected to the laws of the universe but not necessarily above and beyond them. Hence, this “god” may not be all-powerful—just “powerful enough” to get things started. Nevertheless, not only Christians but also many Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, etc., have used this argument over the years. 

Furthermore, this initial cause doesn’t necessarily have to have a mind but can be an impersonal force like the universe creating itself as in the big bang or an Eastern religion (e.g., impersonal Brahman’s manifestation of Brahma of Hinduism). 

In the secular view, the big bang (the naturalistic story that everything came from “nothing” on its own—no God required) would be that first cause. Sadly, many Christians today use this naturalistic story as an “apologetic/evangelistic tool” during witnessing encounters, saying “God used the big bang as the first cause to create the universe…”—which means God really didn’t do anything since big bang is model that says it did it itself with “no God required”. 

So having a first cause isn’t necessarily an exclusive argument for the God of the Bible—which even most atheists recognize! It would be consistent with the God of the Bible, the uncreated Creator of all things Jesus Christ, but it isn’t necessarily a case for the God of the Bible only. 

Teleological Argument 

The design argument (AKA, the teleological argument, which is really more of a secular argument rather than a biblical one) looks at nature to see if we can spot designs, and then presume a generic, “god-like” designer(s) was involved (e.g., intelligent design arguments). If we find design in the universe (fine-tuning of the solar system for life for instance) or nature (DNA for example), then one can argue that maybe there is an ultimate designer—or at least a designer(s) that is better or smarter than humans. 

Many people from various hosts of religions have used this argument to argue for their alleged god(s). In fact, atheists frequently use this argument to argue for extraterrestrial aliens or some sort of “higher intelligent” life that exists somewhere out in the cosmos. Yes, you read that right… even atheists (including scientists!) have used the teleological argument to argue that extraterrestrial aliens may have seeded life on the earth “millions of years” ago! So, this is not an argument exclusively arguing for the God of the Bible—not even close! 

When we start with the Bible (like Romans 1:20[21]) we expect to find design. God is the ultimate designer and engineer. In other words, design (and degradation of design in our sin-cursed world of nature) is a confirmation of Scripture. When we start with Scripture, we know that people have no excuse for God’s existence when looking at the world (Romans 1:18-21[22]). But the main thing to remember here is that every Classical argument, including the teleological argument, is not an argument that starts from the Bible. 

On top of that, one of the other major flaws in the teleological argument is the problem of “bad design” in the world (this is a common one that atheists will typically point out). That is, without the Bible, apologists who use this argument cannot provide a solid answer to the many examples of things that are not fine-tuned or “poorly designed” in the world. 

Thus, any generic “deity” that is shown to “probably” exist is seen as both equally good and bad in a consistent teleological understanding. Clearly, this doesn’t match the God of the Bible—who is purely good and the standard of what is good with no evil in Him (e.g., 1 John 1:5[23]). So, to suddenly make the jump from this generic deity to the God of the Bible based on this argument is actually quite the leap of blind faith. 

Of course, this argument is predicated on the concepts of good and bad existing (biblical concepts) and that man is made/designed in such a unique way as to study the world and have the ability to make conclusions about observations (i.e., being made in the image of the God of the Bible). 

So, here’s the point: unless the Bible is true, the teleological argument doesn’t even make sense at all in the first place. However, unlike this teleological (secular) argument, if we actually start our thinking on the Bible, then we can know with certainty that God made the world perfect originally, but now the world suffers under the curse due to sin (Genesis 1:31[24], Deuteronomy 32:4[25]), which explains why we see both “good” and “bad” design.[26]  

Ontological Argument 

The ontological argument is an odd argument. Again, it starts with the use of purely human reason alone (rather than observation of evidence or things in the universe). The most common forms of this argument were derived by Anselm of Canterbury (a Christian philosopher and theologian of the eleventh century) about 1,000 years ago. He defines God as a being which no greater can be conceived, and being the greatest, must exist as that is the best thing since it is better than not existing. Another way to put it: since God is the “greatest thing” possible, and since existing is better than not existing, then God must exist. (Clear as mud?) 

If this argument seems a little convoluted, it is. Aside from the ambiguity of what exactly the terms “great” and “exist” actually mean, the main problem with this argument is that the concept of God is predicated on the autonomous human mind and different people arbitrarily conceive different beliefs of who is the greatest “god” (Zeus, Allah, Brahman, God of the Bible, etc.). The concepts of good, great, greater, better, spiritual being, etc. comes from the Bible being true—so just to develop this argument, it has to be predicated on concepts from the Bible being true. If you notice, this basically defeats the purpose of an autonomous argument that tries to be distinct from the Bible.  

Naturally, Christians would want to define the greatest as the “God of the Bible”. But at this point, one must give up the ontological argument to still make the huge “leap” to the God of the Bible—without “proving” the God of the Bible via the ontological argument—which thus renders it pointless. Hence, the logic doesn’t follow, which is the second problem (which is also ironic because the whole argument relies on pure logic!). 

Granted, I agree there is none greater than the God of the Bible, but we can only know that because the absolute God of the Bible revealed it in His absolute Word—the 66 books of the Bible. But again, the Bible is not part of the discussion and that really is the fatal flaw of this autonomous ontological argument. 

Moral Argument 

The moral argument is based on the idea that all people have some sort of “moral code” (or something similar). That is, every person naturally knows that some things in our world are “right” (“good”) and some things are “wrong” (“evil”). Therefore, there must be some sort of (transcendent) moral lawgiver.[27] Though not all agree on a specific code, in many instances, people believe that “man is basically good”, and so there must be an ultimate perfect lawgiver. But why assume this alleged deity is ultimate or perfect? That doesn’t logically follow. 

In fact, there’s a lot of immorality in the world—does that mean there exists an ultimate immoral deity? That would be the religion of dualism (two distinct equal and opposite, good and evil, beings or gods). Of course, this is not the God of the Bible who is perfectly good. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that Satan (a created being) has no power next to our powerful Creator God. 

In this fallen world, there are a lot of “good” moral things and there are a lot of “bad” immoral things. So, in the moral argument, if there’s one generic “god” that is the lawgiver, then is this deity both equally good and evil? And who defines moral and immoral anyway? See the problem?  

This kind of argument was a similar one that Plato used with ideals and perfect forms that existed elsewhere. One of his students, Aristotle, eventually called out Plato’s error because there was no way to show how that ideal realm interacted with the real world. Though, one might say the God of the Bible can impose His moral will on His creation and that is true—however this means you’ve given up the argument and appealed to the Bible without the argument yielding any proof from the moral argument for the God of the Bible!  

If one merely assumes that there is a perfect standard of morality, and that our human morality reflects a broken aspect of that morality, then the moral argument ultimately fails. So why assume that a perfect standard exists instead of assuming a broken moral standard form of “god” exists? Here’s the point: this argument simply isn’t a good case for the God of the Bible. 

In fact, whenever sinful men start with man’s fallible and autonomous reasoning as their standard, it’s inevitable that they will make a case for a fallible god in our fallible sinful image. This is not the God of the Bible. There is always a huge “leap” to the God of the Bible that is required when using these fallible (manmade) arguments. 

But since man’s morals are not absolute, not invariant, and not unchanging, then why assume the nature of this generic deity is any different? This is ultimately why the ancient Greeks, who also used similar kinds of arguments, arrived at the conclusion that their “gods’ morality” was not absolute but had a changing nature (i.e., their “gods” were more like “super” humans that had fallible natures). 

Again, since this argument itself cannot lead to an absolute moral God, Christians who assert that God is the absolute moral lawgiver when using the moral argument, by necessity, have to make a gigantic leap to leave the moral argument behind. 

Also, when it comes to the standard of morality—who picks it? Who says? Without the Bible, then sinful man does. The only way to know that absolute morality exists is by revelation from an absolutely moral God. So, the moral argument doesn’t lead to an absolute God—but an absolute God does lead to absolute morality. Therefore, the argument is actually reversed (back to front)—when one starts with God and His revealed Word, we have a basis for absolute morality. 

How To Look At Philosophical Arguments Correctly 

To be fair, the heart of a Classical apologist really does want to help people realize the Bible is true—I have no doubt about that. As a former Classical apologist, I always wanted to point everyone to the God of the Bible. Yet each of these classical arguments for the existence of “a god” always required me to make a gigantic leap to say it was the God of the Bible. And I knew that. 

Furthermore, each of these four arguments that held out hope for the existence of the absolute, all-knowing (omniscient), all-powerful (omnipotent), present everywhere (omnipresent), perfectly truthful God of the Bible started by assuming that God’s absolute authority doesn’t apply in philosophy… How odd! 

We need to throw this rotten idea of autonomous (fallible) man’s reasoning in the trash can—and instead start with God and His (infallible) Word as the absolute authority. Have faith in God and His Word (Hebrews 4:12[28], 11:6[29]) and not lean on our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5[30]). By looking at matters the way God does in His absolute sense, we are thinking God’s thoughts after Him (Proverbs 1:7[31]). Only then can we begin to make sense of good and bad, design, first cause, logic and reasoning, morality, and so on. All of these things are a confirmation of what we expect because God’s Word is true. 

Do we expect to find design? Yes. When we do, it’s a confirmation of the Bible. Even when we find broken design, the Bible makes sense of that too—hence that is also a confirmation of the Bible. Is the God of the Bible the first cause? Yes, but we already knew that because of Genesis 1. The law of cause and effect exists because the God of the Bible upholds the world in such a way. 

God is the absolute—and we can know that with certainty because He revealed it to us. Absolute morality only comes out of a biblical worldview where God is the absolute moral Lawgiver (being a reflection of His perfectly moral nature). Morals are meaningless without God giving them meaning and cannot even be defined without God defining them! Seeing morality (even broken morality in a broken world) is a confirmation of the truthfulness of Scripture. 

Classical Apologetics In Practice

The classical apologist often uses these arguments to try to argue for the God of the Bible. However,  each of these arguments are not necessarily for the God of the Bible—without a huge leap in logic. Furthermore, these same kinds of arguments are often used by people of false religions (including cultists!) to attempt to point to their respective false god(s)—which should really give every Christian pause before attempting to use these kinds of man-made arguments. Christians cannot give up the absolute authority of God’s Word—in favor of man-made presuppositions—to then argue that maybe a “god” exists! 

Bluntly put, Classical methodology is not founded on Scripture as the authority—and thus is a sinful (not God-honoring) practice that Christians must avoid. At the same time, biblical creationists can appreciate the emphasis that classical apologetics places on the ability to possibly know God through what He has made (inadvertently using Romans 1). But again, because creation is fallen—including the mind of sinful man—creation’s witness to the Creator has been corrupted—and cannot lead one to Christ—it is merely enough to condemn them to have no excuse. 

Among the world's leading classical apologist (R.C. Sproul and his colleagues) wrote about the classical model: 

·       “Nevertheless, for Van Til, theoretically, the proper starting point is not man at all, but God. If man were the starting point, we all would have this in common and thus and initial point of contact. But this is not so, there is no point of contact – nothing in common”[32] and “The issue of starting point is crucial to the debate. The presuppositionalist maintains that you cannot get to God by starting with the self (cf. chap. 10), and the traditionalist argues that the self is the only possible starting place.”[33] 

·        “We must begin with ourselves, that is, autonomously” (emphasis in original).[34] 

In other words, the “natural” method in classical apologetics is to start with man—not God. This is why hosts of different religions will often use this method, ignoring the Bible altogether. 

Evidential Apologetics In Practice           

Evidential apologetics, to reiterate, is like the “twin sister” of classical apologetics. Both use the same structure and method but have different focuses. Think of it like twin sisters where one is wearing a dress, and the other is wearing overalls. In reality though, evidential (also called apologetical evidential[35]) is more of a subset of classical apologetics. 

So, how is the focus different? Where classical apologetics focus on philosophy and reason, the evidentialist focuses on evidence—like scientific observations or historical documents. This is where the name comes from (evidential). Of course, not to say that classical doesn’t use evidence or that evidential doesn’t use reason or philosophy. Rather, the key difference is the primary focus. 

Due to the explosion of scientific advancements over the last few hundred years, evidential apologetics has grown to become the most popular game in town, even more popular than classical apologetics—which had largely been more popular than evidential for much of church history. 

Like classical, evidential starts an argument with the assumption that autonomous man’s reason is “supreme” to look at evidence. (i.e., man is the judge.) 

To understand more about the evidential method, one of the world’s leading evidentialist apologists, John Warwick Montgomery, has said, 

·       “facts must carry their own interpretations,”[36]

·       “the very nature of legal argument (judgments rendered on the basis of factual verdicts) rests on the ability of facts to speak for themselves,”[37]

·       “Evidential apologists of all stripes hold in common a second crucial aspect: the conclusions of the apologetic arguments they employ are shown to be probable rather than certain,”[38] (emphasis added)

·       “Can one ‘begin with God’ (the Christian God) without benefit of objectively discoverable historical facts? I say No.”[39] 

Due to modern scientific data and treasured historical documents that have been discovered, as mentioned, the evidential method has largely surpassed the classical method in recent times. Evidentialists, like Classicalists, use their method in hopes of demonstrating that Christianity might be true (don’t miss this point!). Thus, the method only provides probabilistic results (i.e., the Bible might be true on a particular point here or there). So, this method cannot lead to any absolute certainty about anything at all. The best arguments that can be presented are only probable. 

Evidentialism is largely inductive, as opposed to deductive, in its logical format. This is why the arguments are probable and not absolute. The format further evaluates “facts” based on human logic and opinions to make a probabilistic case for Christianity on some point (such as the resurrection, existence of Daniel, or existence of Pontius Pilate, reliability of the Scriptures, etc.). 

This method also (falsely) presumes unbelievers can “interpret facts correctly” when they are presented to them—in other words, data and evidence are seen as not needing interpretation (i.e., “facts speak for themselves”). But scientific data, historical documents, archeological finds, or any other piece of evidence still require interpretation! And they are largely interpreted based on one’s already preconceived worldview. For instance, this is why creationists and evolutionists do not agree on the interpretation of many evidences (e.g., rock layers)—we interpret them differently. 

But take note, the evidentialists are still interpreting things based on man’s opinions when looking at evidence, attempting to judge God and His infallible Word by fallible human opinions.  It should be odd to an observer that God, who is the judge of all matters and who judges by His Word, is being judged by fallible, sinful beings! This is back to front! As an analogy, it’s like trying to put God “in the dock” of a courtroom to be interrogated—while man sits in the judge seat to pass his judgment. 

Simply put, God is the Creator and man is the creature—and it would be nothing less than arrogant foolishness to try to think otherwise. The Apostle Paul in Romans 9:20 NKJV (see also Isaiah 2:22[40]) put it this way: “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”?” 

Please don’t get me wrong here. I have many evidential friends and colleagues and I am not criticizing them personally. (I used to be in this classical/evidential camp too!) On the contrary, I am criticizing the method as being faulty, sinful, and utterly foolish at its very foundation. 

Recall that these arguments are probabilistic—not certain or absolute. That means in each case, the evidentialist cannot be certain that the resurrection actually happened, or that the Scriptures are 100% reliable, and so on. Thus, they leave open the possibility that the resurrection did not occur or that the Bible is not 100% reliable. 

This is a very critical point—because it’s the bedrock of Christianity that’s at stake here—and so it’s worth repeating: the evidentialist cannot have absolute certainty of anything written in Scripture—including the resurrection, which is the foundation of the gospel itself (1 Corinthians 15). Furthermore, these arguments, if successful, are only saying one small part of the Bible “might be true” (e.g., the resurrection, or certain prophecies) but not the whole of Scripture. 

The consistent evidentialist, when asked if he is saved, should respond in accordance with his methodology as, “probably”. (Again, I wonder if these apologists have the same attitude while at church on Sundays, believing that they’re worshipping a “god” that probably exists? Note the inconsistency!) 

Of course, the evidentialist doesn’t respond this way because they know they are saved—because the Scriptures say they can know (with 100% certainty!). But by their method, how do they really know that the Bible is 100% true, and thus that they are truly saved? Simply put, they can’t, given their methodology. (Again, note the inconsistency!) 

It is completely a blind faith jump from the Bible being “probably true” to being “100% true”. And yet, this is exactly what many evidentialists do in practice. They use a method to say the Bible “might be true”, but then say that they personally believe it to be 100% true. What just happened? Without any logical reason whatsoever, the evidentialists gave up his evidentialism (and its probabilism) and opted to stand on the Bible as true—without warrant.  

As a caveat, that doesn’t mean that certain evidential (or even classical) apologists don’t personally believe the resurrection to be certain or that the whole Bible is 100% reliable. But if they want to try to be consistent to their apologetic, then they would admit that their method cannot give them any level of absolute certainty!  

This is why many evidentialists will use language like “high levels of confidence”, “good possibility”, “best explanation”, “the odds are nearly 100%”, “we can be confident[41]”, and so on. In doing so, they are unwittingly yielding that the Bible may not be true, or that the resurrection may not have occurred, thus leaving open the possibility, albeit slim, that they the events recorded in the Bible didn’t happen. (And the reality is that unbelievers, given their fallen nature, will take that “slim chance” every time!) 

For example, Richard Swinburne, a professor of philosophy at Oxford University calculated in the early AD 2000s, that the probability of Jesus resurrection was about 97%.[42] (Again, I wonder if Professor Swinburne has the same attitude while at church on Sundays, believing with 97% confidence that he is worshipping the God of the Bible?) Others have also done this calculation and based on their personal study (e.g., Dr. Gary Habermas) are either higher or lower than Swinburne’s result. But in each case, did you realize that they leave open the possibility that the Bible is not true regarding the resurrection! Again, make sure you don’t miss this critical point! 

Ironically, I’ve found that many evidentialists will often cite Scripture as true to make an evidential case for the truthfulness of one of the Bible’s claims. Let’s again go back to the case for the resurrection. How do they argue for it being (probably) true? Typically, the evidentialist will quote from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark. Luke, and/or John as truth to understand specific circumstances surrounding the resurrection (such as timings, witnesses, events surrounding the resurrection, etc.) and then go on to make a probabilistic case for the resurrection while trying to counter the critics. 

Some evidentialists will go so far as to say that even unbelievers “agree” these passages are true—but do you realize what just happened? Given their system, truth is now dependent on unbelievers’ opinions! No. The Bible is the truth in all matters and not dependent on the fallible opinions of unbelievers—who are in hostile rebellion against their Creator. 

But notice that by appealing to Scripture here, one just “pulled the rug out from underneath” the evidential method! That is, appealing to Scripture defeats the very purpose of an evidential method! Appealing to these verses in the Gospel accounts—as though they were trustworthy and true—without first attempting to show that these verses are trustworthy, just exposed the method’s inadequacies. 

Did you catch it? The evidential method was essentially given up—to appeal to the Bible as the absolute truth—to then argue for the evidential method. So, the question for the evidentialist is simply this: What is the point of appealing to the evidential method, if the Bible is already treated as the absolute authority, when the goal of the evidential method is to argue for the possibility of the Bible being the absolute authority? (Did you follow along? It’s okay if you have to read that sentence again…). 

In the evidential method, one can’t know for certain that the passages being quoted were even 100% true! Yet even if the method was successful in giving a good probability of said passages, you still can’t know for sure! Thus, an evidential method, when you get down to the “nuts and bolts” renders the Bible useless in the debate. These are just some of the major problems when using an evidential method. 

Some evidentialists might argue that evidentialism mimics the modern legal system in the Western World (US, Canada, UK, Australia) of looking at evidence. However, it is important to note that our modern legal system is based entirely on human opinions being seen as the absolute truth—not God’s Word. In fact, the Bible was “tossed out” of the legal system generations ago! And as a result, look at the mess we are in—but of course, that is to be expected as consequences of secular and autonomous man’s opinions in our culture.  

In other words, humans are the judge in modern legal systems, and their autonomous opinions rule when they interpret the evidence in light of their own preconceived ideas, opinions, and worldview. This is why a piece of evidence can be given to five different people and get five different interpretations out of it. Simply, when man’s opinions are seen as “supreme”, then God and His Word isn’t. 

Though the presuppositions of the classical and evidential apologists lay with the fact that autonomous human reasoning, not God’s Word, is at its base starting point, unbelievers looking at the same evidence and “facts” are not always seen as straightforward. That is, rather than seeing the arguments as evidence for Christianity, the unbeliever will almost always interpret the evidence differently based on his or her humanistic worldview. And so, in an evidential methodology, it’s simply one person’s opinion vs. another person’s!  

Again, to be clear, most Christian evidentialists do believe the Bible is a sufficient source of information in and of itself. However, they do not believe this is the “most effective strategy” to use with unbelievers. But at the root, that response is really just a smokescreen of the real issue at hand—the world wants to keep the Bible out of the debate, and evidentialists seem content to compromise (or more accurately, bow down) to the world’s demand and happily go along with this premise, and thus leave the Bible out of it. 

Can an unbeliever be convinced of an evidential or classical apologetic? Sadly, yes. But that doesn’t mean the method is correct, it simply means some people can be convinced by a bad argument. And remember, it is still the Holy Spirit that convicts and saves—not the apologetic. Nevertheless, we should be honorable to God and do apologetic the way He does it in Scripture, not based on the whims of man. 

Presuppositional Apologetics In Practice 

The presuppositionalist takes an entirely different tact than both classical and evidential. As you might’ve already guessed… instead of starting with man’s reason or opinions as the “supreme” authority, this position opts to start with God and His Word (the 66 books of the Bible) as the absolute authority on all matters—including reason, logic, philosophy, science evidence, historical documents, archaeological finds, and so on. 

In other words, the presuppositionalist defers from his own thoughts and submits to God’s absolute Word as the starting point in all argumentation in every area of life and reality. In the presuppositional method, one tries to follow God’s thoughts after Him and let God’s Word be the authority, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Proverbs 1:7[43]; Colossians 2:3[44]). What greater authority is there than God? None! Or in the words of the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen: “If God is God, then who or what authority could be higher than His? There cannot be an authority higher than God’s.”[45] 

If one of the reasons for apologetics is argue for God’s Word being the absolute authority, then why give up the Bible as the absolute authority like the classical and evidential methods do? Think about it, how do believers stand on the Bible’s authority if they’re just willing to give it up? It would be illogical to do so, yet that has been the popular method over history, again going back to Greek thought (400-500 BC). 

So, the question is, why would Christians decide to give up God’s Word at the onset of the debate—and then decide to use methods derived by pagans to attempt to defend God’s Word? It is very odd when you think about it. And speaking of pagans, you need to realize this other very important point that (contrary to popular belief) unbelievers are NOT neutral—no matter how many times they say it! So, here’s the point: unbelievers are not neutral—and Christians shouldn’t try to be either! 

So, presuppositionalists treat God’s Word as the absolute authority from the word go. God and His Word are seen as the authority from the first verse of the Bible: “In the beginning, God…” (Genesis 1:1). And note that God didn’t stop part of the way through Genesis 1:1 and then suddenly deviate to using a classical argument for His possible existence, or using an evidential method to present all the scientific evidence and historical documents (written by people later) to say His statement “might be true”. No, He just says it! In other words, the Bible comes with God’s own self-attesting authority. 

And rightly so! God is the final authority, and only He can reveal Himself by final authority. God treats Himself as the ultimate authority, and that is why presuppositionalists also mimic what God does in His example by using God and His Word as the supreme authority. So, the method used in presuppositional apologetics is far different in all major aspects from that of classical and evidential. 

The presuppositionalist recognizes that God and His Word are the supreme presupposition, hence the name “presuppositionalism” or “presuppositional”.  Though, philosophically, this methodology is often known as “transcendental” apologetics. And here’s the thing that makes it so unique: unlike classical or evidential methods, people of false worldviews (like atheists, Hindus, or Buddhists) cannot use this methodology—otherwise they’d have to give up their worldview to do so! In starting with the Bible, the Word of God is not off limits from the onset of any debate or argument. On the contrary, this methodology presupposes the authority, sufficiency, and truthfulness of God’s Word—right from the start. 

For instance, when an objector says, “well I don’t believe the Bible” simply ask him by “what authority do you object to God’s absolute authority?” Logically speaking, the objector has committed the fallacy of faulty appeal to authority (a false authority fallacy/misplaced authority fallacy) in his objection. Thus, he is being illogical when trying to oppose God’s Word. 

By starting with God’s Word, and this is a key biblical point so don’t miss this: the Bible clearly says every person knows that not just some general “god/deity” exists, but rather they know that the God of the Bible (Yahweh/Jehovah) exists—in their heart of hearts (e.g., Romans 1:20-32)—but they actively suppress this knowledge (similar to trying to hold a beachball underwater). And as a result, God has given them over to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 

So, here’s the takeaway: the goal is not to convince them God exists—they already know God exists, but they are trying to hide that fact by either pretending (i.e., after becoming self-deceived) He doesn’t exist (e.g., atheism/agnosticism) or reinterpreting God (e.g., Hinduism, Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses) or convoluting Him to be one of many “gods” (e.g., Greek Mythology, Mormonism). So, one of the main goals of presuppositional apologetics is to expose the internal inconsistency in the unbeliever’s worldview (their mistaken nature of God, for instance). 

In a nutshell, the presuppositional apologist’s goal is to refute false beliefs from all other religions with Scripture and to ultimately point people to Jesus Christ. The presuppositionalist refutes false worldviews by showing not only their inconsistency with God’s Word, but also the internal inconsistency within their own story, where they are being arbitrary, and where they borrow from God’s Word unwittingly (e.g., wearing clothes, 7-day week, using logic, absolute morality, observable and repeatable science is possible, etc.).  

And while it’s important to expose the arbitrariness and inconsistencies in the unbeliever’s worldview, what’s more important to remember is that apologetics does not save anyone from the wrath of God to come. Remember that it is God that saves people—not us—but we present the gospel consistent with our apologetic—always using the Bible as the ultimate authority and Gospel in its pages. In other words, if we’re not pointing people to the Cross, then we’ve ultimately failed in our apologetic. 

In the same way that Jesus asked for the stone to be rolled away from Lazarus’ grave, so we remove those stumbling blocks, but only God can bring people back to life. As an analogy, you can think of apologetics as the “forklift” that removes the barriers and clears the way for the gospel.[46] But also remember that apologetics will NOT remove the barrier of pride—only the gospel can do that! (And be careful that apologetics doesn’t “puff” you up with pride!) This is why the apologist’s job is to humbly and respectfully “close the mouth” of the unbeliever and let the Holy Spirit convict the heart unto salvation (e.g., 1 Corinthians 12:3[47]). 

Contrary to the belief of many critics of this method, evidence is actually often used in presuppositional apologetic methods. The key, as we’ve previously discussed, is the interpretation of the evidence in light of one’s presupposed worldview. 

In presuppositionalism, all evidence must be interpreted in light of God’s Word. And when people misinterpret evidence for their respective religion, we need to correct their understanding of the evidence. Often in presuppositional methodology, one asks what must be true for this to be possible. For example, when someone asks the question, “how do we know the Bible is true?” we then must ask: “what must be true for someone to ask this question?” Or more simply, “how do we know anything is true?” The typical responses you’ll hear from people are, “I know things are true based on reason” (i.e., it has to be rational) or “I know things are true based on observation” (i.e., using our five senses), or sometimes they’ll say, “I know things are true based on experience” (i.e., it just works for me). 

Pause for a moment… did you realize that to even ask the question “how do we know the Bible is true?” (or even any question at all!) it is predicated on the Bible being true? Follow me for a moment… First, the question assumes absolute truth exists. Second, the question assumes knowledge exists. Third, the question assumes that human beings are made in such a way that we can use logic and reasoning to even understand the question itself. Of course, we could keep going with even more assumptions, but I think you get the point… 

To summarize: truth, knowledge, and the fact that man is made in the image of an all-knowing, logical God of truth are all predicated on the Bible being true. So just to ask the question means the Bible has to be true—it doesn’t mean the unbeliever has to “believe” the Bible is true (I can guarantee that he won’t!), but that the Bible has to be true to even make sense of his questions in the first place.[48] Another way to put it, the Bible has to be true because of the impossibility of the contrary—that is, if the Bible isn’t true, then we couldn’t know anything at all. In fact, apart from the Bible, one wouldn’t even be able to make sense of reality at all, and thus would be reduced to absurdity. 

Granted, we find many confirmations that the Bible is true in all different areas of science, archaeology, philosophy, and so on. But here’s the point: instead of these things being the basis to try to argue for the Bible, the Bible is the absolute—and these things are merely consistent with what we expect to find—because Scripture is true. 

Did you notice how the Bible is used as the authority, not man’s opinions nor fallible human reason? And did you notice that any argument, evidence, philosophy, and so on are merely predicated on the truthfulness of God and His Word? It should be very clear by now that the presuppositional apologetic is much different in methodology than the classical and evidential approach. Because the Bible is true, we expect to find design in nature, and we expect to find cursed design and deteriorations in design since the curse in Genesis 3 too. When we start with God’s Word, things make sense. 

Cornelius Van Til summarized it well when he said, 

“The best, the only, the absolutely certain proof of the truth of Christianity is that unless its truth be presupposed there is no proof of anything. Christianity is proved as being the very foundation of the idea of proof itself.”[49] 

So, the presuppositionalist acknowledges that logic, knowledge, truth, uniformity of nature (i.e., the assurance that the future will be like the past), absolute morality exists, and that these things are solely predicated on God and His revelation to man. Simply put, how we know things are true is because God has spoken. 

Critics may claim that other religions could also account for some of these things within their professed religion. However, that claim actually falls tragically short—having no basis whatsoever for such things if they were consistent! For example: 

·       Atheists, if they were consistent, would have no laws (moral, logical, or scientific) since they are not material and atheism is a materialistic religion (i.e., the only things that supposedly exist in atheism is matter and energy in the cosmos). In fact, given the atheistic worldview, whether something is “true” is actually meaningless! It’s impossible to get truth from a brain that’s just “fizzing” chemicals (like a can of soda) and so the atheist cannot even trust his own thoughts are telling him the truth. And on top of that, the atheist believes his worldview is “true”—not because he “freely” chose to believe it’s true—but rather as a result or “byproduct” of chemical reactions!

·       Hindus believe all is “one” (called “monism”) and therefore being moral and being immoral is “one and the same”, and it also means being logical and illogical are “one and the same”. In other words, per their worldview, logic and reasoning mean nothing.

·       Muslims (Islam) openly borrow from the Bible as the absolute standard for these things (e.g., Sura 2:40-42,126,136,285; 3:3,71,93; 4:47,136; 5:47-51, 69,71-72; 6:91; 10:37,94; 21:7; 29:45,46; 35:31; 46:11).

·       Etc. 

Like Islam, every man-made religion borrows from the biblical worldview, in order to have any level of rationality, whether they realize it or not. Muslims, as well as other cults of Christianity, often acknowledge it at least. (Actually, according to Islamic doctrine, their god Allah is said to be so “superior” that nothing in our human experience can even begin to compare. However, laws of logic are an essential part of our human experience—which means laws of logic cannot be a reflection of the way Allah thinks—and thus Islam cannot provide a basis for any kind of rationality, which is why Muslims have to borrow from the Bible to make sense of anything). 

The presuppositionalist shows unbelievers that their worldview is wrong at its very base, as they can’t make sense of logic, knowledge, and truth and so on. Then the presuppositionalist teaches them that correct worldview from God’s Word. 

Paul did this in Greece when he witnessed to them in Acts 17. He had to show the Greeks that their respective worldviews were wrong, and that God was the only one responsible for all things—life, breath, and all things (Acts 17:25[50]) which includes logic, truth, knowledge, and so on. In short, the Greeks’ false worldviews had no basis; and then Paul explained more about who God was, and then put Jesus and the resurrection on top. But notice from the text that Paul never asked them to judge God’s Word to see what their fallible opinions led them to—but instead used God’s Word as the authority to judge their false beliefs—and thus call them to repentance.    

We have demonstrated that this approach gets to the root of the worldview issue, while still allowing the use of evidence and reason within biblical parameters. We want to let God be God—and His Word be the authority that we follow in all areas—including our apologetic methodology. 

Concluding Remarks On The Methods 

While many apologetic methods have been used by Christians through the ages, they often separated themselves at the crucial point of starting point from God’s Word. All of those non-presuppositional methods fall short, and thus they are admittedly not the best. I want to encourage all Christians to unashamedly stand on the authority of the Bible in all areas, and thus stand presuppositionally on Scripture. 

The Christian should use the Bible to then judge all scientific evidence, historical data, philosophy, and archaeological finds against the Scriptures, and see how they are confirmations of His Word. We should refute and demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God and take captive every thought and make it obedient to Christ (Acts 18:28[51]; 2 Corinthians 10:4-5[52]). We should do this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15[53]) but it should also be bold in obedience with our love for Christ (e.g., Acts 9:29[54]; 2 Corinthians 5:12-15[55]. 

Let us also remember that while our defense of the faith can answer objections to the Christian faith and affirm the Bible’s truthfulness, it is the gospel that “is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16[56]). Thus, the apologist must always be ready to share the good news of Christ’s sacrificial death, burial, and resurrection.   

□

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.   

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.  

---

[1] Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. NKJV.

[2] Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics, Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1976, 2003, p. 20.

[3] 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good. NKJV.

[4] Variant developed by Gordon Clark.

[5] Variant developed by Francis Schaefer.

[6] Variant developed by Edward J. Carnell as well as a further variant form by Gordon Lewis.

[7] We simply can’t hit all the methods in this short introduction. So we are going to stick to the most popular views in the treatise.

[8] Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. NKJV.

[9] Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. NKJV.

[10] Though some would argue this is fallacious circular reasoning, this article explains why it is not: “Circular Reasoning.” [https://answersingenesis.org/apologetics/circular-reasoning].

 

[11] In this short section, we will merely hit a brief highlight of Van Tillian presuppositionalism. For a more complete treatment please see: Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis, Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, NJ, 1998.

[12] Biblical Authority Ministries, Statement of Faith, accessed 4/1/2024, https://www.biblicalauthorityministries.org/p/blog-page.html.

[13] Whenever I hear someone tell me this, I usually tell them to “run” or “seek help” immediately—because facts/evidence shouldn’t be speaking to you!

[14] Atheism has no God who sets what is right and wrong, so there is no ultimate basis not to lie. 

[15] Genesis 3:21 Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them. NKJV.

[16] Some say that they like Van Tillian [or even Bahnsen’s] presuppositional apologetic, but they don’t want to promote it because Van Til had specific denominational views that they do not agree with. Please do not get us wrong; our intent here is not to make people follow all of Van Til’s positions but to understand and make use of the philosophical method outlined in his works in regard to his apologetics method. 

[17] To understand these viewpoints and their overarching flaws please consult Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended, by Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Ed. Joel McDurmon, American Vision (and Covenant Media Press) Powder Springs, GA, 2009.

[18] Preconditions of intelligibility (knowledge) are the things that need to be in place for knowledge to exist. For example, the Bible gives a precondition for intelligibility where man is made in the image of an all-knowing logical God.  Hence, we can relate to logical reasoning about knowledge and knowledge transfer. Also, God being all-knowing is the basis for knowledge to exist, and so on. 

[19] What is classical apologetics?, Got Questions, Accessed 3/31/2023, https://www.gotquestions.org/classical-apologetics.html.

[20] As a reminder, autonomous human logic means doing logic—apart from God—with man as “supreme”. 

[21] Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. NKJV.

[22] Romans 1:18-21 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. NKJV.

[23] 1 John 1:5 This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. NKJV.

[24] Genesis 1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. NKJV.

[25] Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, His work is perfect; For all His ways are justice, A God of truth and without injustice; Righteous and upright is He. NKJV.

[26] Actually, whenever secularists claim that something in the world appears “poorly designed” (as an argument against God’s existence), it’s usually because they haven’t figured out or do not yet understand the intended purpose for that thing (e.g., vestigial organs).

[27] I’ve noticed Christian apologists will (sometimes unknowingly) present this argument in a way that commits a formal fallacy called Affirming the Consequent. (Reminder, this fallacy takes the form of: (1) if p, then q. (2) q. (3) Therefore, p.) For instance, the argument is sometimes presented in this form: (1) if a moral lawgiver exists, then people have a moral code. (2) People have a moral code. (3) Therefore, a moral lawgiver exists. Again, it’s important we point out fallacies in the unbeliever’s arguments, but we also must be careful not to make the same mistake ourselves!

[28] Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. NKJV.

[29] Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. NKJV.

[30] Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding. NKJV.

[31] Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction. NKJV.

[32] Classical Apologetics, R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley, Academie Books (through Zondervan Publishing House), Grand Rapids, 1984, p. 214.

[33] Classical Apologetics, R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley, Academie Books (through Zondervan Publishing House), Grand Rapids, 1984, p. 212.

[34] Classical Apologetics, R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley, Academie Books (through Zondervan Publishing House), Grand Rapids, 1984, p. 231.

[35] This is not to be confused with epistemological evidentialism, which is based on W. K. Clifford’s dictum that “it is wrong, everywhere, always, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”. This is wrong for hosts of reasons namely being openly arbitrary. This rare method is not for discussion but apologetical evidentialism is discussed in this article.

[36] Evidential Apologetic: Faith Founded on Fact, http://bible.org/seriespage/evidentialist-apologetics-faith-founded-fact

[37] Montgomery, “The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity,” in Evidence for Faith, 335.

[38] Evidential Apologetic: Faith Founded on Fact, http://bible.org/seriespage/evidentialist-apologetics-faith-founded-fact.

[39] Montgomery, J.W., The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark: A Festschrift, Ed. Ronald Nash, The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Philadelphia, PA, 1968, p. 383.

[40] Isaiah 2:22 Stop regarding man in whose nostrils is breath, for of what account is he? ESV.

[41] In science fields, confidence/confident is a calculated measurement that gives a % certainty of a calculation.

[42] Emily Eakin, So God's Really in the Details?, The New York Times, May 11, 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/11/arts/so-god-s-really-in-the-details.html.

[43] Ibid. Ref 31.

[44] Colossians 2:3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. NKJV.

[45] Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Defending the Christian Worldview Against All Opposition, Circular Reasoning

[46] Practically speaking, during witnessing encounters, I typically spend no more than 5-10 minutes with apologetics, sort of “tickling” the intellect (like a “fishing lure”) to get to the conscience by using God’s Law (to bring about the knowledge of sin)—always keeping “one eye” on the Cross, as I keep the unbeliever moving along toward it.

[47] 1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. NKJV.

[48] Someone might argue that before the Bible was fully written you couldn’t make this case, but that is also without warrant. God’s Word existed prior to creation and just because it wasn’t entirely revealed to man at different stages in history doesn’t means it wasn’t true from the moment God created time.

[49] Ibid., 298.

[50] Acts 17:25 “Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. NKJV.

[51] Acts 18:28 “Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. NKJV.

[52] 2 Corinthians 10:4-5 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ. NKJV.

[53] 1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear. NKJV.

[54] Acts 9:29 And he spoke boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus and disputed against the Hellenists, but they attempted to kill him. NKJV.

[55] 2 Corinthians 5:12-15 For we do not commend ourselves again to you, but give you opportunity to boast on our behalf, that you may have an answer for those who boast in appearance and not in heart. For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; or if we are of sound mind, it is for you. For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again. NKJV.

[56] Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. NKJV.