Program / Course 13: Foundations of Apologetics / Lesson 2.5
What you will learn
- Compare the classical, evidential, presuppositional and cumulative-case methods on starting point, kind of evidence and view of human reason.
- Identify the real disagreements that lie beneath the differences in method.
- Explain why many apologists combine methods in practice.
- Choose a method for a particular person or situation and give reasons.
The big idea
The four methods differ less in their conclusions than in their starting points and in what they think reason can do. Classical apologists begin with God, evidentialists with history, presuppositionalists with Scripture, and cumulative-case apologists with the whole picture. Behind these choices lie questions about sin, knowledge and the relation of faith to reason. No method is right for every person or conversation. A thoughtful apologist knows the strengths and risks of each and chooses according to the listener and the question.
Key terms
- Starting point
- The first claim or authority from which an argument proceeds.
- Foundationalism
- The view that knowledge rests on basic beliefs that need no support from other beliefs, and that other beliefs are built on them.
- Coherence
- The way in which the parts of a set of beliefs fit together and support one another.
- Common ground
- Beliefs, standards or experiences shared by speaker and listener.
- Audience
- The person or group that an argument is addressed to, with their background, questions and concerns.
- Fideism
- The view that faith should not be defended by reason, or that reason is irrelevant to religious belief.
Background
The previous four lessons described the methods as their own defenders describe them. Real apologists seldom use just one. William Lane Craig, for example, uses classical arguments for God and an evidential case for the resurrection. Swinburne combines natural theology with historical probability. Reformed thinkers who favor presuppositional arguments often use evidence at some stages. The categories are useful for study, but they overlap in practice.
It helps to ask what each method answers. The classical method answers the question of whether there is a God. The evidential method answers the question of whether the New Testament account is true. The presuppositional method answers the question of what makes reasoning possible. The cumulative-case method answers the question of which overall view makes the best sense of everything. These are different questions, and a person may be asking only one.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Compare the starting points
The classical method starts with common human reason and moves from the world to God. The evidential method starts with public facts, especially about Jesus, and argues to the best explanation. The presuppositional method starts with the authority of Scripture and the God who speaks in it, and argues that rival starting points fail. The cumulative-case method starts with the whole range of data and compares worldviews.
Each starting point has a cost. Beginning with common reason risks a thin conclusion. Beginning with history risks resting faith on the shifting results of scholarship. Beginning with Scripture risks seeming to beg the question. Beginning with the whole picture risks vagueness about how to weigh the parts.
Step 2: Compare the views of human reason
Behind the methods lie different views of how far fallen human reason can be trusted. Classical and evidential apologists tend to hold that reason, though affected by sin, still works well enough to judge arguments. Presuppositionalists hold that sin affects reasoning at its root, so that unbelievers will not accept truth when shown. Cumulative-case thinkers generally say that reason works as it does elsewhere: by weighing the evidence as a whole.
These views reflect theological traditions. Catholic teaching affirms that reason can know God, though wounded, and generally supports the classical and evidential approaches. Reformed teaching on the effects of sin supports presuppositional concerns, though many Reformed thinkers still use classical arguments. Orthodox writers tend to value reason but place the knowledge of God in worship. Wesleyan and Arminian writers often use evidential and cumulative approaches.
Step 3: Compare how each handles evidence
Evidence plays a different role in each. For the evidentialist, it is the main ground of the case. For the classical apologist, it comes second, after God. For the presuppositionalist, evidence is always interpreted within a worldview, and its use must be shaped by the Christian framework. For the cumulative-case thinker, evidence from many fields is brought together.
A student can test a given argument by asking what it takes for granted. If an argument about the resurrection assumes that no miracle can happen, the evidence will never matter. If it assumes the Bible is true, a skeptic will not follow it. If it assumes a theistic background, it should say so. The comparison shows the hidden assumptions in each style.
Step 4: Consider the audience
The right method depends partly on the person. A philosopher who doubts that God can be spoken of may need the classical arguments. A person who wonders whether the Gospels are reliable may need historical evidence. A person who thinks religion is only a product of culture may need an account of how any worldview justifies its claims. A person overwhelmed by many questions may need a picture of how things fit together.
Some people need none of these. A grieving person may need presence and silence, not argument. A child needs a story. The apostle Paul adapted his approach to each setting, as Acts shows, and the principle applies here: begin where the person is, and use the tool that fits.
Step 5: Choose with humility
Several questions can guide a choice. What is the person actually asking? What do speaker and listener share? What does this person trust? Where does the argument depend on a contested claim? Which method can the apologist carry out honestly, with present knowledge? A method used badly does more harm than a modest answer given well.
Honest apologists also admit disagreement. Serious Christians hold that some methods give up too much to unbelief, and others that they ask the unbeliever to accept what they cannot see. A student need not settle the dispute to learn from each side. Part of the aim of this course is to be able to describe each method well enough that its defender would recognize it.
- Which question does each of the four methods mainly try to answer?
- What does each method assume about how far human reason can be trusted?
- Where do you see overlap among the methods in the lessons you have read?
- What hidden assumptions can you find in a typical argument for the resurrection?
- How would you adapt your approach for a skeptical scientist, a grieving friend and a curious teenager?
- What should an apologist do when the methods give conflicting advice?
Examples
A scientist who doubts that God exists
A friend who is a chemist says she cannot see a reason to believe in any God. A classical or cumulative approach might begin with questions about why there is a universe at all. A historical argument may seem premature. A presuppositional challenge about the basis of scientific reasoning might interest her or might seem like a trick. A fair apologist listens before choosing.
A student who thinks the Gospels are legends
A student believes the Gospels were written long after the events and are mostly legend. Here the evidential approach is the natural one: discuss the dates, the sources and the way historians weigh such texts. Without it, arguments for God would not touch his objection.
A neighbor who has been hurt by a church
A neighbor says the church is full of hypocrites. None of the methods addresses this directly. A listening ear, honesty about failures and an invitation to read the Gospels may do more than any argument. This is a constructed example.
Different perspectives
Evangelical pluralists
Several evangelical writers argue that each method has a place and that apologists should draw on all of them, depending on the person. They warn against treating any one method as the only faithful one.
Roman Catholic
Catholic apologetics has historically leaned on natural theology and the evidence of history, while insisting that faith is a gift. The Church teaches that reasons make belief credible without compelling it.
Reformed
Reformed thinkers are divided. Some, with Van Til, stress the antithesis between believing and unbelieving thought. Others, with Sproul, defend classical reasoning. Others, with Plantinga, hold that belief in God can be reasonable without being the conclusion of an argument, a view treated in a later lesson.
Eastern Orthodox
Orthodox writers often say that the most convincing apologetic is a life of prayer and holiness, and they place less emphasis on method. They affirm that reasoning has a place when questions arise.
Secular observers
Some critics see the plurality of methods as a sign that no argument convinces on its own and that apologists choose methods to defend a conclusion held for other reasons. A fair reply is to admit that motives matter and that arguments should be judged apart from them.
Why it matters
Choosing among methods is a practical skill, not only an academic one. A student who knows only one method will use it in every situation, even when it does not fit. A student who knows several can ask what a person actually needs, and who knows the tradition well enough to be honest about where its defenders disagree. This also prevents the quiet pride of assuming that one’s own school has all the answers.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: The four methods are four rival religions or sects.
Correction: They are different ways of defending the same faith. Defenders often share the same creed and differ only on strategy and on the nature of reason.
Misunderstanding: One of the methods is the biblical one and the others are mistakes.
Correction: Each defender claims biblical support, and Scripture shows several approaches in use. Acts shows reasoning from Scripture, from nature and from public events.
Misunderstanding: Choosing a method means rejecting the others.
Correction: Most working apologists combine them. The differences matter chiefly in theory and in debates about what comes first.
Misunderstanding: The best method is the one that wins the most arguments.
Correction: Success in debate is not the measure. The better question is which method helps a particular person think clearly and honestly.
Knowledge check
What does each of the four methods take as its starting point?
The classical method starts with common reason and arguments for God. The evidential method starts with public historical facts, especially about Jesus. The presuppositional method starts with the authority of Scripture and the Christian worldview. The cumulative-case method starts with the whole range of data and compares worldviews.
What difference in the view of human reason lies behind the disagreement?
Classical and evidential writers generally hold that fallen reason can still judge arguments fairly. Presuppositionalists hold that sin affects reasoning at its root, so no neutral judgment is available. Cumulative-case writers treat reason as working by the weighing of evidence, as in other fields.
Why do many apologists combine methods?
Each method answers a different question and has its own costs. A single case may need an argument for God, evidence about Jesus and a comparison with rival views. Combining them lets the apologist use what fits the person and the question.
How should the audience affect the choice of method?
The right method depends on what a person is actually asking. Someone doubting God’s existence needs different help from someone doubting the reliability of the Gospels. Some people need listening and not argument. Starting where the person is follows the pattern seen in Acts.
What is a fair way to handle disagreement among the methods?
Describe each method as its defender would, identify the points of real disagreement, such as the effect of sin on reasoning, and admit that serious Christians differ. A student can learn from each without settling every dispute.
Think it through
- Which method feels most natural to you, and what might that say about your temperament or background?
- Which method do you find hardest to take seriously? Try to state its best reason.
- What would you do if a friend asked a question and you could not tell which kind of answer was wanted?
- Is it possible to be too attached to a method?
Independent assignment
A comparison chart and a recommendation
In your own notebook, write 500 to 700 words. Make a chart with the four methods across the top and these rows: starting point, role of evidence, view of reason, main strength, main risk. Fill it in from the four previous lessons. Then describe a person you know or can imagine, state what that person is asking, and recommend a method or combination with reasons. Keep this for yourself.
Further study
- William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics See how one apologist combines classical and evidential methods.
- Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God See how another uses a probability framework across several lines.
- Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief A challenge to the assumption that belief in God needs an argument at all.
- C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity A popular blend of moral reasoning and plain explanation.
- 1 Corinthians 9:22 Paul’s remark about becoming all things to all people, which bears on adapting to an audience.
- Acts 17:22 Read the beginning of Paul’s Athens speech again with the four methods in mind.