Program / Course 13: Foundations of Apologetics / Lesson 2.1
What you will learn
- Describe the two-stage structure of classical apologetics: arguments for God, then evidence for Christianity.
- Name the main kinds of argument for the existence of God that classical apologists use.
- State why classical apologists think theism must come first.
- Explain the strongest objections raised by critics from within and outside the Christian tradition.
The big idea
Classical apologetics holds that the case for Christianity should be built in order. First, show by reason that God exists. Then, given that God exists, show that God has acted in history in Jesus Christ, and that the evidence supports the claims of the New Testament. Its defenders trace it back to Thomas Aquinas and, in different forms, to earlier thinkers. They argue that miracles and prophecies mean little unless one first knows there is a God who could perform them. Critics ask whether the first stage can bear that weight.
Key terms
- Theism
- The belief that there is one God who is the creator and sustainer of the world and who is distinct from it.
- Cosmological argument
- An argument that starts from the existence or beginning of the world, or from motion and causation within it, and reasons to a first cause or necessary being.
- Teleological argument
- An argument from design or purpose in nature to an intelligent designer. The word comes from a Greek word for end or goal.
- Moral argument
- An argument that moral obligations or values point to God as their source.
- Ontological argument
- An argument, first stated by Anselm, that the idea of a greatest conceivable being implies that such a being exists. It is disputed even among Christian philosophers.
- Natural theology
- Knowledge about God that can be reached by reason from the created world, apart from special revelation.
- Miracle
- An event in which God acts in a way that goes beyond or interrupts the ordinary course of nature, as the term is usually defined.
- Neutral ground
- A starting point of shared standards of reasoning that both believer and unbeliever are said to accept.
Background
The classical method is named for its long history, not for being the only correct approach. It has roots in the Greek philosophers who argued from the world to a first principle, in the early Christian writers who used philosophy in their defense of the faith, and above all in the work of Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. In his Summa Theologiae he gives five short arguments for the existence of God, often called the Five Ways.
In the twentieth century the approach was revived and named by writers such as Norman Geisler and R. C. Sproul, and by philosophers such as William Lane Craig, who combines it with historical evidence. Classical apologists differ among themselves on many points. What they share is the conviction that a case for Christianity should begin with God and reason, and move on to Christ and history.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Stage one, reasons for God
In the first stage the classical apologist offers arguments that a God exists. Aquinas argued, for example, that things in the world are moved by other things, and that this chain of causes cannot stretch back forever if it is to explain anything, so there must be a first cause that is not itself moved. Other arguments focus on the apparent order of nature, on the existence of moral duties or on the universe having a beginning.
A modern form of the cosmological argument, defended by Craig, holds that whatever begins to exist has a cause, that the universe began to exist, and that therefore the universe has a cause. Whether the premises are true is disputed, and few defenders claim that the argument forces assent. Classical apologists often say only that the arguments make belief in God reasonable and are stronger than their alternatives.
Step 2: Why start with God
The classical apologist gives a reason for the order. Evidence about miracles, they say, requires a background belief. If there is no God, then an apparently inexplicable event is just that, an event not yet understood. If there is a God who acts in history, a miracle becomes a reasonable explanation. So an appeal to the resurrection of Jesus, taken alone, may not persuade a person who rules out God in advance.
This explains the phrase first God, then Christ. The point is not that Christ matters less. It is that the claims made about him presuppose a creator who could act in the world.
Step 3: Stage two, from God to Christ and the Bible
Once theism is established, the classical apologist turns to history. The argument runs: the Gospels and other New Testament writings are reliable historical sources, Jesus made remarkable claims about himself, and the best explanation for the evidence, including the empty tomb, the appearances and the rise of the church, is that God raised him from the dead. If this is so, then Jesus’ teaching, including what he said about Scripture, carries authority.
Notice that the second stage uses methods of historical inquiry. Some classical apologists use probability to describe how strong the case is. Others say the evidence is cumulative, with many small facts supporting each other. These emphases show the family resemblance between classical and evidential methods, which are the subject of the next lesson.
Step 4: What defenders say in its favor
Defenders give several reasons for preferring this method. It matches a long tradition of Christian thought. It addresses the question most skeptics ask first, whether there is any God at all. It respects the idea that all people share some capacity for reason, so that a conversation can begin on common standards. And it avoids a trap: if evidence for Christianity is offered without any theism, the skeptic can always say the miracle is not credible.
Defenders also point to Paul’s remarks about what can be known of God from creation (Romans 1:19-20) and to his speech in Acts 17 as signs that the method has biblical support.
Step 5: Objections to the method
Critics raise several objections. Philosophers such as David Hume and Immanuel Kant argued that the traditional arguments for God do not succeed, and many contemporary philosophers agree. Critics also say that the God reached by such arguments, a first cause or a designer, is far from the God of the Bible, who is personal and who loves, so the first stage proves too little.
Reformed critics, such as Cornelius Van Til and, in a different way, Alvin Plantinga, raise a theological objection. Van Til argued that no argument is truly neutral and that the classical method concedes too much to unbelief. Plantinga argues that belief in God can be reasonable without being the conclusion of an argument. Karl Barth, a Protestant theologian, rejected natural theology on the grounds that God is known only through his own revelation. Classical apologists answer that arguments need not be forced on the unwilling and that rational reflection is not opposed to revelation. The debate continues.
- What reasons do classical apologists give for putting arguments for God before arguments for Christ?
- What kinds of argument might be used in stage one, and what kind of evidence in stage two?
- Does a first cause or a designer amount to the God of the Bible? Why or why not?
- What does it mean to say that an argument starts from neutral ground, and is there such a thing?
- How might Paul’s words in Romans 1:19-20 support or complicate the classical approach?
- Which objection to the method seems most serious to you, and what could a defender reply?
Examples
A cosmological argument in outline
A first premise says that whatever begins to exist has a cause. A second says that the universe began to exist. The conclusion is that the universe has a cause. The classical apologist then adds that such a cause would have to be extremely powerful and not itself caused. A skeptic may question either premise, which is where the discussion begins.
The role of background belief
A person hears of a man who was seen alive after being dead. If she thinks the natural order is all there is, she will look for any other explanation. If she thinks a God exists who acts, she may consider the report seriously. This constructed example is the point classical apologists make about why theism comes first.
A reply from outside the method
A pastor in the Reformed tradition tells a student that he would not begin by proving God, because Scripture does not. He prefers to preach the gospel and to show that unbelief cannot account for reason itself. His method is discussed in a later lesson.
Different perspectives
Roman Catholic
Catholic teaching, expressed at the First Vatican Council, holds that God can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from created things. This supports the classical approach in principle, although the Church has not tied itself to one set of arguments. Aquinas has special standing among Catholic theologians.
Evangelical classical apologists
Writers such as Sproul and Geisler defend the method as faithful to Scripture and to the best of the Christian tradition. They treat the arguments as stronger than critics admit, while granting that argument is not enough for conversion.
Reformed presuppositionalists
These writers argue that the method concedes too much to the idea that human reason is neutral and unaffected by sin. They hold that the Christian worldview must be presented as a whole.
Eastern Orthodox
Orthodox theology has used philosophical arguments but cautions that God is beyond all human concepts. Many Orthodox writers prefer to speak of knowing God in worship and prayer. They do not reject reasons but do not rely on them in the same way.
Philosophers and skeptics
Many philosophers of religion, believers and unbelievers alike, think that the arguments for God raise real questions that are worth studying, though few regard them as proofs. Some hold that their premises are less obvious than their defenders claim.
Why it matters
The classical method is the oldest of the four approaches in this module, and it shapes the whole popular idea of what apologetics is. Knowing its structure helps a student read many books, and helps in noticing when an argument for a miracle quietly depends on an earlier argument for God. It also helps to see where the method is strong and where it is open to challenge.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Classical apologists claim to prove God’s existence beyond all doubt.
Correction: Most claim that the arguments make belief in God reasonable and are better than the alternatives. Few claim they cannot be doubted.
Misunderstanding: The classical method replaces faith with reason.
Correction: Classical apologists usually insist that faith is a gift of God and that reasons prepare the way. Aquinas himself held that some truths of faith exceed reason.
Misunderstanding: The method says nothing about Scripture until the end.
Correction: Classical apologists treat the Bible as a historical source in stage two. They do not deny its authority but present a route by which a skeptic can come to accept it.
Misunderstanding: All Christians accept the classical method.
Correction: Many Reformed and Orthodox writers criticize or qualify it, and so do some Catholic thinkers. The method is one of several.
Knowledge check
What are the two stages of classical apologetics?
The first stage offers reasons to believe that God exists, using arguments from causation, design, morality or the beginning of the universe. The second stage argues that God has acted in Jesus Christ, using historical evidence about his life, death and resurrection and about the reliability of the New Testament.
Why do classical apologists think theism must come first?
They argue that a miracle is only a reasonable explanation if there is a God who can act in the world. Someone who rules out God from the start will explain any event another way. So the case for God provides a background for the case for Christ.
Give one criticism that comes from outside the Christian tradition.
Philosophers such as Hume and Kant argued that the traditional arguments for God fail, for example because causal reasoning cannot be pushed beyond experience, or because existence is not a property that can be proved from a definition. Many contemporary skeptics repeat versions of these objections.
Give one criticism from within the Christian tradition.
Reformed writers like Van Til argue that the method wrongly assumes neutral ground, because sin affects all human thinking. Barth rejected natural theology because he held that God is known only through revelation. Plantinga argues that belief in God can be reasonable without an argument.
Is the God of a classical argument the same as the God of the Bible?
Classical apologists say that the arguments reach some truths about God, such as that he is a powerful first cause, and that these truths are consistent with the biblical God. Critics reply that the arguments reach only a thin idea of God. Stage two is supposed to fill in the rest.
Think it through
- Does the order first God, then Christ match how people you know have actually come to faith?
- If an argument for God has a premise you doubt, what should you do with the argument?
- What does it mean for an argument to make a belief reasonable but not certain?
- Which of the classical arguments (cause, design, morality, beginning) do you find most natural, and why?
Independent assignment
Map one classical argument
In your own notebook, write 400 to 600 words. Choose one of Aquinas’s Five Ways (read the short text in the library) or the argument from the beginning of the universe. State it in numbered premises and a conclusion. Then write the strongest objection you can find and a possible reply. Do not decide whether the argument succeeds. Your task is to state it fairly. Keep this for yourself.
Further study
- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, Q. 2: The Existence of God Read the short text and identify the premises in each way.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Cosmological Argument A careful survey of cosmological arguments and objections.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Teleological Arguments for God’s Existence A survey of arguments from design and the responses to them.
- William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics A modern statement of the two-stage method.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Hume on Religion Read for Hume’s criticisms of arguments from nature to God.
- Romans 1:19 Read this verse and the next for Paul’s remarks on what can be known of God from creation.