In this section, list the principles involved with each apologetic view.
Classical
Cumulative Case
Presuppositional
Reformed
Fairly eclectic in its use of
various positive evidences and
negative critiques, utilizing both
philosophical and historical
arguments, but tends to focus
chiefly on the legitimacy of
accumulating various historical
and other inductive arguments for
the truth of Christianity.
The nature of the case for
Christianity is not in any strict
sense a formal argument like a
proof or an argument from
probability. It is an informal
argument that pieces together
several lines or types of data into
a sort of hypothesis or theory that
comprehensively explains that
data and does so better than any
alternative hypothesis.
It is perfectly reasonable for a
person to believe many things
without evidence. Belief in God
does not require the support of
evidence or argument in order for
it to be rational.
1
The inner witness of the Holy
Spirit gives us an immediate and
veridical assurance of the truth of
our Christian faith
Consistency: a system of belief
must no lead to a contradiction.
2
Rational argument and
evidence may properly confirm
but not defeat that assurance.
The chief interest of this
method is the postulating and
developing of historical evidences
(one species of propositional data)
for the Christian faith.
Careful applications of
historical principles, tempered by
various sorts of critical analyses,
are necessary in order to
recognize and offset as much as
possible the subjective element.
Evidentialists engage freely in
“negative” apologetics, arguing
against the theses of those who
would seek to defeat Christian
theism.
It is impossible to force
anyone into the kingdom of God
by our use of logic and/or
evidences.
There is not enough common
ground between believers and
unbelievers that would allow
followers of the prior three
methods to accomplish their
goals. The apologist must simply
presuppose the truth of
Christianity as the proper starting
point in apologetics. The Christian
revelation in the Scriptures is the
framework through which all
experience is interpreted and all
truth is known (transcendental).
The goal of apologetics is to
evoke or strengthen faith, not
merely to bring intellectual
persuasion.
Correspondence: any belief
must correspond with reality.
Apologists, therefore, must
resist temptations to
contentiousness or arrogance.
It seems that God has given us
an awareness of Himself that is
not dependant on theistic
arguments.
Comprehensiveness: prefer
theories or systems of belief that
explain more of the evidence over
those that might account for less.
Belief in God is more like belief
in a person than belief in a
scientific theory.
This does not mean that there
is no common ground between
the believer and the unbeliever.
Livability: for a belief to be
true, it must be livable.
Our apologetic should take
special pains to present God as he
really is: as the sovereign Lord of
heaven and earth, who alone
saves his people from their sins.
As such, our argument should
be transcendental. It should
present the Biblical God, not
merely as the conclusion to an
argument, but as the one who
makes the argument possible.
We can reach this
transcendental conclusion by
many kinds of specific arguments,
including many of the traditional
ones.
SUMMARY
Evidential
Begins by applying natural
theology to establish theism as
the correct worldview.
3
4
5
Simplicity: instructs not to
multiply explanatory terms
unnecessarily. (Ockham’s Razor)
There are very few people who
have access to or the ability to
assess most theistic arguments.
Classical
6
7
8
Evidential
The Holy Spirit may work
through the use of apologetics
(just as he does through preaching
or witnessing), not only bringing
unbelievers to himself, but also in
providing full assurance to
believers (perhaps even apart
from evidences (that they are the
children of God.
The vast majority of
evidentialists are eclectic in their
approach to apologetics; while
they agree that their method is a
viable way, it is not the only way
to argue.
Not only is apologetics
exceptionally useful with
believers; that may even be its
major value.
Cumulative Case
Presuppositional
Fruitfulness: does it produce
fruitful consequences?
Negatively, we should not say
things to the unbeliever that tend
to reinforce his pretense to
autonomy or neutrality.
Conservation: when an
anomaly to a theory is found, first
choose solutions that require the
least radical revision of worldview.
The actual arguments we use in
an apologetic witness will vary
considerably, depending on who
we are talking to.
It is especially useful when we
can show hoe the errors of nonChristian worldviews arise, not
merely from logical mistakes or
factual inaccuracy, but from
religious rebellion.
Reformed
Contrasts with Classical
In this section, list the contrasts between each apologetic view.
Evidential
Cumulative Case
Presuppositional
Reformed
A historical argument from miracles to
God is an illegitimate move.
Emphasizing the witness of the Holy Spirit
is subjective.
Prefers to assert the epistemic rights of
the believer which does not appear to
address any specific question.
Too much distinction between knowing
and showing.
Classical argues for a two-step approach
to the defense of Christianity.
CC argues for a one-step method based
on arguments drawn from a variety of
elements that stand in need of
understanding- a Christian understanding of
God and reality best explain those
elements.
Classical places too much distinction
between knowing and showing.
CC stresses that basic beliefs are only
prima facie justified.
Classical argues that the Holy Spirit’s
witness is self-authenticating.
The role of the Word of God is almost
entirely missing from Classical.
The Holy Spirit does not tell us anything
beyond what the Bible says.
A third element (in addition to evidential
arguments and the Spirit’s testimony) is
necessary: the normative to set the rules for
thinking and knowing (for a Christian that is
God’s Word in Scripture).
Evidence is required for all human
knowledge; argument is not.
Classical holds that evidence can turn
against Christianity; presuppositional holds
that if the evidence appears to weigh
against Christianity, the evidence has been
misunderstood or misinterpreted.
Classical arguments for the necessity of
common ground to show the truths of
Christianity.
Argument is not equal to evidence.
Opposes the magisterial use of reason
when it comes to non-believers.
Fails to recognize our own human
cognitive functions.
Reason may be a guide to the truth, but it
is not an infallible guide.
Classical
Contrasts with
Evidential
Encouraging various forms of natural
theology with regard to arguments for
God’s existence does not qualify as a
distinct apologetic methodology or school
of thought, but is merely a personally
preferred style of argumentation.
Resistance to a miraculous explanation of
the gospel evidence arises in opposition to
a miraculous explanation of the gospel
evidence.
Natural theologians who argue intuitively
must confront in science the same obstacle
as Christian evidentialists do in historynamely, methodological naturalism
Cumulative Case
Cumulative Case would include all the
historical evidence for Christianity that
Evidential offers, but would see other
elements in human experience that need
explanation and point to the truth of
Christian theism.
Presuppositional
Reformed
Epistemological common ground
requires a more careful analysis.
Alongside agreements, there is
monumental bias toward disagreement.
Even when an unbeliever agrees with a
Christian, he does so in the interest of
fighting the truth.
Disagreements between believers and
unbelievers indicate inconsistency in one or
the other party.
Does not respond to those who reject all
supernatural explanations in principle.
Does not respond to the argument that
“extraordinary events require extraordinary
amounts of evidence.” (Hume)
Historical evidence alone proves little or
nothing.
Explanatory power is not the only factor
involved in the assessment of hypotheses;
hypotheses must also be judged to have
some initial likelihood of being true.
Contrasts with Cumulative Case
Classical
Claims that the witness of the Holy Spirit
is identical with the cumulative case for
Christianity and differentiates within it the
internal or subjective witness of the Spirit
and the external or objective witness of the
Spirit.
Affirms that while faith gives certitude
that our Christian faith is true, such a
subjective certitude is no indication that the
tenaciously held belief is true.
Never states what characteristics an
argument must have to qualify as a truth.
No reason is given for not regarding
ontological and cosmological argument as
probabilistically sound theistic proofs.
Criteria are not really tests for truth per
se, but rather are just criteria for
determining the best explanation.
Never shows how Christianity passes the
tests of CC.
Conservation leads to a pluralistic,
relativistic conception of truth, since
proponents of 2 contradictory views each
applying this test determines that their
view is true.
Evidential
Depends on Scripture in the apologetic
with people who don’t allow either the
trustworthiness or inspiration of the text.
Presuppositional
Reformed
The fact that non-theists will not accept a
premise in the ontological argument does
not prove that they do not have an
obligation to accept it.
Fails to prove that the traditional theistic
arguments are not demonstrably sound on
his definition. Arguments.
Does not solve the specific problem that
non-theists fail to grant some premises of
the theistic.
Increases the number of arguments to
which non-theists can object.
Omits “Scripturality”- the most important
Christian test of truth.
Not presupposing the authority and
consistency of Scripture, the non-Christian
will find in the inadequacy of these
reconciliations evidence that Scripture
contradicts itself.
Does not consider presuppositions.
Without a clearly developed Christian
epistemology, the whole cc will contain a
general implausibility that cannot be
remedied.
Does not consider the question as to the
rules of the rational game and the further
question of whether these rules are
religiously neutral.
Disagrees that there is only one
reasonable conclusion that a person can
come to given the evidence.
It is possible to construct a deductive
argument for the existence of God with
premises that non-theists are unlikely to
accept.
Disagrees that the failure of a compelling
argument is likewise a defect in the
believer’s rationality.
Disagrees that the failure of a compelling
argument leaves only fideism or CC as
options.
Disagrees that CC is the inference to the
best explanation, because there are
infinitely many logical explanations, so it is
difficult to ensure that one has the best
explanation. Reduces to inference to the
best explanation that finite humans have
come up with to this point.
Many belief systems could pass and have
passed all the tests for truth, but they can’t
all be true.
Evidential
Cumulative Case
Reformed
While regularly acknowledging the
importance of developing evidences of
Christian theism, even within a
presuppositional system, develops no
historical arguments.
All presuppositions are not created equal;
yet assumes more truth on behalf of
Christianity than is allowed for other
systems.
Presuppositionalism has long charged
that evidential treatments subject Scripture
to a more ultimate standard, but it seems
clear that God not only allows but actually
challenges his people to examine and
witness evidential manifestations that
confirm his revealed truth.
Debating an issue does not demand that
a position of neutrality is necessary.
Christians should not be afraid of the
evidence for their faith.
Christians should not fear that the whole
structure of reality might collapse if we
don’t presuppose the faith in our
arguments, or that it at least totters until
the apologist for Christianity wins the
debate.
Theistic proofs are not the only evidence
for God’s existence and the truth of
Christianity.
Implies that non-Christians cannot know
anything. Lacking explicit knowledge of
God, we cannot know things.
Presuppositionalists are often long on
assertions and short on argument.
Not all of the “impersonal” options are
the same- not all of them assume that all
that ultimately exists is matter, motion,
time and chance.
Given that all three (religions of the
book” can account for reason, it puts a
heavy burden of proof on the historical
evidence for the incarnation and
resurrection in order to demonstrate the
rational preference of Christianity over
Judaism and Islam, but fails to heed its own
assertions about the non-neutrality of
reason and seems to suggest that the
evidence is compelling to the sufficiently
open-minded.
Disparages “autonomous human reason,”
but no philosophers have suggested that
reason is the standard of truth.
Contrasts with
Presuppositional
Classical
It commits the informal fallacy of
petition principii, or, begging the question,
for it advocates presupposing the truth of
Christian theism in order to prove Christian
theism.
Confuses transcendental reasoning with
demonstratio quia, proof that proceeds
from consequence to ground.
Contrasts with Reformed
Classical
Evidential
Cumulative Case
Presuppositional
The 3 reasons why we are Christians
should believe that humans have a cognitive
faculty that produces in us belief in God fail
to show that belief in God is grounded in
natural instinct or inborn awareness of the
human mind rather than in the witness of
the holy spirit.
Externalism robs us of any assurance of
knowing the truth of the Christian faith.
Confuses apologetic strategy with
evangelistic strategy.
We must never think that because a
nonbeliever remained unconvinced by our
case that our apologetic has failed.
Even if people tend to end up where they
start, we must not forget that where they
start may well be partially the result of
argument and evidence.
Overlooks the leavening apologetics has
on culture.
If out of deference to the “postmodern
mentality” we abandon natural theology
and Christian evidences and tell people to
attend to the inner divine sense, we may
reap in the next generation a whirlwind of
religious relativism and pluralism.
After exaggerating the definition of
epistemic evidentialism and its relation to
classic foundationalism, Reformed
epistemologists frequently denounce both;
but by the very way they argue, the support
the notion that faith needs an adequate
basis.
Belief in God as properly basic opens
Reformed epistemology to an array of
criticisms.
The absence of detailed positive
(especially historical) evidences for Christian
theism creates a question how we can know
that Christian theism is actually true.
Various counseling strategies should be
employed when ministering to those who
suffer emotional quandaries regarding their
faith.
Needs a detailed investigation of the role
of the Holy Spirit’s testimony.
Rational believability is about the weakest
claim that can be made for Christian theism.
The Christian theistic revelation is the very
criterion of truth, the most certain thing we
know.
We are not merely permitted to believe in
God until we are persuaded otherwise;
father, we are obligated to believe in Him.
Scripture implies that our faith governs our
reason. Christian faith must be something
more than a belief we are rational in
holding.
Weak treatment of the role of the Bible
and Holy Spirit.
The starting point for our beliefs is not
only our socio-cultural upbringing, but also
from belief or unbelief in the true God. As
Christians, our socio-cultural background is
far less important in gove3rning our lives
than our covenant with the almighty God
who tells us to do all things to His glory.
In this section, list the similarities between each apologetic view.
Classical
Similarities with Classical
Classical
Similarities with Evidential
Evidential
Epistemologically, we need a
starting point for religious
knowledge.
Evidence is secondary to truth.
Apologetics does not exist in a
vacuum.
Bridges must be built between
theory and practice.
Arguments from miracles can be
part of a cumulative case for
theism.
Evidential
Cumulative Case
There is a significant difference
between the epistemic structures
of believers and unbelievers.
The role of the Holy Spirit
explains the tenacity of a
Christian’s belief.
Presuppositional
Reformed
The testimony of the Spirit is a
self-authenticating, immediate
apprehension of the truth of the
gospel, that it is not dependent on
arguments, and that it
“overwhelms” contrary
arguments.
For those who know Christ
through the Spirit’s witness,
arguments are subsidiary. The
spirit’s witness is infallible, our
arguments fallible.
Hyper-classical apologetics
assumes the magisterial use of
reason- it stands over and above
the gospel like a magistrate and
judges its truth or falsity.
The distinction between
knowing and showing seems both
to fit human experience and to
offer a genuine insight into human
cognition.
There is no simple or
unidirectional logic of believing.
Cumulative Case
Presuppositional
Reformed
Correct in claiming that a onestep approach to apologetics is
possible.
Commitment to evidentialist
apologetic approach does not
predetermine one’s
epistemological stance.
Realizes that there are no brute
facts; facts come to us through
theories about the world.
There is common ground
between believers and
unbelievers.
There are a variety of ways to
defend God’s existence and the
Christian faith.
Right in cautioning the apologist
on the use of scriptural evidence.
Apologetics may be done in one
step because every fact of creation
reveals God. Therefore the
apologist can begin anywhere.
Historical evidences won’t work
except in the context of a theistic
worldview.
Historical occurrences are not
brute facts that interpret
themselves.
Scripture has important things to
say about the way we study
history- some biases are good.
There is ontological common
ground between the believer and
unbeliever and these can be
apologetically useful.
Agrees that more often than not
we have come to a considered
judgment about some issue with
less than adequate or compelling
evidence.
Similarities with Cumulative Case
Classical
A successful apologetic for the
Christian faith should be in an
appropriate sense a cumulative
case and is best undertaken by a
community of scholars.
Evidential
Embraces an eclectic approach
to apologetics.
Seven tests for truth is helpful, if
standard, to those developing a
methodology.
Takes seriously the work of the
Holy Spirit.
Speaks highly of several
arguments for God’s existence.
Claims that religious experience
is superior to the non-religious
response.
Includes morality, human
nature, special revelation and
fulfilled prophecy.
Provides Jesus’ testimony as the
primary reason to believe God has
spoken to us.
Argues that postmodernists’
actions deny their own teachings.
Emphasizes constructing an entire
case rather than stand-alone
arguments.
Cumulative Case
Presuppositional
Reformed
Agrees with definition of
demonstrative soundness.
Agrees that other theistic
religions and atheism are systems
of unbelief.
Recognizes the problem of
epistemic normativity.
Agrees with other tests of truth.
Agrees that an argument for
God’s actual existence can remedy
some of the implausibilities of a
report of religious experience.
More often than not we have
come to a considered judgment
about some issue with less than
adequate or compelling evidence.
Similarities with Presuppositional
Classical
Evidential
Theological rationalism is a false
doctrine.
The Spirit creates faith in the
heart… and that faith may or may
not arise through an
argumentative process.
It is an epistemological
transcendental argument: an
argument for a reality based on
that reality’s being the very
conditions even of the denial of
that reality.
Glorify God in all our
apologetics.
Apologetic task is to be carried
out without pride.
Our personal systems are not as
important as honoring God and
serving others.
Our approaches are person
relative and individual responses
are necessary.
Both Christian and non-Christian
should view their worldviews
against the other paradigms, giving
each an equal hearing.
Accepts data where it is found.
Rightly attacks the notion of
neutrality.
Truth serves as our point of
contact, and the evaluation of
worldviews may come on several
fronts, such as cause, purpose, and
history.
Supports the notion of
probability, that many of our
arguments are only probable.
Cumulative Case
Reminds us that all arguments
have presuppositions.
It demonstrates that direct
“proofs” are not the only proofs.
Presuppositional
Reformed
Argument can play a positive
role in coming to faith.
Keenly aware of the limits of
arguments and the influence of
our presuppositions on our
believing.
Roots epistemological
commitments in Scripture and
finds their support for the view
that we can offer proof for our
beliefs.
Cognitive facilities are designed
by God.
Noetic effects of sin- our
cognitive faculties are distorted
primarily toward ends that
enhance a person’s self-interest.
Similarities with Reformed
Classical
Belief in God does not require
the support of evidence or
argument in order for it to be
rational.
The theistic arguments do
provide some non-coercive
evidence of God’s existence.
Few people are directly
converted through the
presentation of apologetic
arguments.
Evidential
Cumulative Case
Presuppositional
Combines foundationalism with
elements of existentialism.
Epistemic evidentialism needs to
be abandoned in favor of a less
restricted, more defensible system
of acquiring knowledge.
Espouses the use of evidences
regarding God’s existence- noncoercive, person-relative
arguments that are helpful for
some, though not all.
Encourages the use of negative
apologetics; i.e., critiques of
skepticism, relativism, and
pluralism.
Strategy of exposing unbelievers
to “situations where people are
typically taken with belief in God.”
Models epistemic and
methodological humility.
Encourages apologetic variety in
both systems and arguments.
Does not require evidence to
support all beliefs everywhere.
Most people do not have access
to, or the intellectual ability to
evaluate, the theistic proofs.
God has given us some
immediate, direct awareness of
Himself.
Personal relations require trust,
commitment, and faith.
We ought to pay greater
attention to how real people
actually acquire belief in God.
The Bible’s data on apologetic
methodology is compatible with a
vari8ety of approaches.
Arguments alone, no matter how
well constructed and defended,
will not produce faith.
It can be rational to believe in
God (and in other things) without
argument. Warranted belief does
not need to be based on
argument, but it does need to be
based on fact, on reality.
We can start with a belief in God
as a truth that we can just accept
and reason from.
Belief in God, like belief in other
persons, demands “trust,
commitment and faith.”
Multitudes of situations can
evoke belief in God, with or
without argument.
Theistic arguments aren’t of
such power and illumination that
they should be expected to
persuade all rational creatures.
Reformed