What are the Different Types of Apologetics?

What are the different types of apologetics? The problem is that apologists cannot seem to agree on the list of systems. Nonetheless, a list of systems is provided below.

There’s a joke in Judaism that says, “Ask two Jews, get three opinions.” This could easily be said about Christian apologists giving a list of different apologetic systems. Bernard Ramm starts with three.^[1] H. Wayne House gives four.^[2] Five Views on Apologetics, covers five. Brian Morley goes from five to ten.^[3] Phil Fernandes provides seventeen.^[4] Interestingly, Fernandes rewrote an earlier book on apologetics because he felt compelled that he and other apologists were completely ignoring some systems:

It is the contention of this author that there has been an oversimplification of the classification of the many different ways to defend the faith. There exists a variety of different ways to defend the faith, and several of these different methodologies are completely ignored. A brief survey of the leading books on apologetic methodologies will confirm this inadequate portrait of apologetic methodologies in books dealing with the subject.^[5]

Which apologetic system is the best? It would help by starting with a list of systems. But does such a list even exist? Can we really expect to find the best apologetic approach if there is no starting list where we can compare the different approaches? And why haven’t the major apologists provided such a list? Doesn’t this soften any statement from an apologist that their system is the only way to do apologetics? In the next section, I will combine the list from Fernandes with others from my research to create a list of twenty-eight!

A More Exhaustive List of Different Apologetic Systems

Not only do many apologists fail to provide a definitive list of systems (previous point) but virtually all recognize there is overlap in the list of systems. Norman Geisler wrote:

It is tempting to make logically exhaustive categories of apologetic systems. Two problems preclude this. First, the category may seem to work but the corresponding category that would logically oppose it is too broad. Second, divergent systems often are lumped into one category.^[6]

Despite the warning, we must put together a list to see whether the above quote from Geisler is true. This list reveals Geisler is correct. Here is a comprehensive list made from adding any missing systems to the list provided by Fernandes.^[7]

(1) Archaeological Apologetics. Uses evidence from archaeology to defend the accuracy of the Bible. This is a subcategory of Evidentialism.

(2) Classical Apologetics. This system uses two-steps. It argues theism from philosophy first, then Christianity from evidence second. The first step is the same as Rational Apologetics.^[8] The second step is the same as Evidentialism. Its strength is that it is comprehensive and thorough. But it can be overwhelming since the first step requires a philosophical mindset.

(3) Combinationalism. This combines different apologetical methods and is also known as Integrated Apologetics. This is the formal name for the method being argued in this paper. I prefer the simple name ‘Mixed Approach’ since there is already so much confusion.

(4) Comparative Religious Apologetics. This compares/contrasts Christianity with other religions and belief systems. After refuting others, Christianity is shown to be true. It can be very helpful and relevant for a person to see how Christianity fits with other beliefs.

(5) Cultural Apologetics. This defends Christianity by showing its positive effects on culture, as well as adverse effects when departing from the Christian worldview.

(6) Cumulative Case Apologetics. Christianity is shown to be more probable by combining different arguments for God. This is consistent with human reasoning. With limited access to data, people must usually infer the best explanation with limited data.^[9] This is like Combinationalism but stays within one method of apologetics (like Rational Apologetics).^[10]

(7) Dialogical Apologetics. This says the method used depends on the person being witnessed to. It reduces to Combinationalism or Integrated Apologetics.

(8) Dogmatic Presuppositionalism. This is Gordon Clark’s early view.^[11] He once held that we must presuppose the Triune God as well as laws of non-contradiction. Only what can be deduced from this is certain. While this attempts to add much needed clarity to presuppositionalism, it is still difficult to distinguish differences with other presuppositional views at times. Also, its founder, Gordon Clark, abandoned this for Scripturalism.

(9) Evidentialism. This is like Classical Apologetics, but without the first step. It stresses rational, historical, archaeological, prophetic and experiential evidence to show Christianity is true. This is a good approach for the modern, scientific world which values inductive reasoning from evidence.

(10) Experientialism. This is the view that experience is the only thing needed. Some are drawn to this approach because Christianity is something a person should experience. However, the challenge with this approach is that experience is too subjective (i.e., there are people of other religions who also claim to have experiences).

(11) Fideism. This system gets its name from the Latin word for ‘faith.’ It says we cannot ultimately prove Christianity. Instead, we must believe it through ‘leap of faith.’ This rightly emphasizes the importance of faith. But it is the weakest positional biblically.^[12] Critics also say it is too subjective and does not provide any certainty.

(12) Historical Apologetics. This really should be listed as a branch of Evidentialism. But some people do mention it by name, so it deserves a separate entry in this list. With this, the starting point for defending Christianity is the historicity of the New Testament documents and can include archaeological confirmation of biblical events.

(13) Legal Apologetics. This approach argues for Christ’s resurrection by using legal standards of weighing evidence. Simon Greenleaf and John Warwick Montgomery are examples. It is also a subcategory of Evidentialism but is referred to by name, earning it a place in this list.

(14) Moral Apologetics. Argues for an absolute moral lawgiver (God) from the existence of moral laws. This is a subcategory of Rational Apologetics.

(15) Narrative Apologetics. This creative approach defends Christianity through the telling of fictional stories. John Bunyan, C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien are examples. It appeals to a person’s imagination instead of reason, which Jesus often did with his parables. While it can be a good start, at some point other approaches must be used (emphasizing the need again for a mixed approach).

(16) Paranormal Apologetics. This explains modern paranormal events like UFOs, abductions and haunted houses from a biblical perspective. While arguably a bit bizarre, there is a need to address the growing number of people who are fascinated with this topic with answers from a Christian perspective.

(17) Pragmatism. We should accept what works. Since Christianity is true, it works, and will produce the best life we can have. There is a loose connection here with Experientialism and even Presuppositionalism.

(18) Prophetic Fulfillment. This argues Christianity from fulfilled prophecy. It is also a subcategory of Evidentialism.

(19) Presuppositionalism. In general, this view opposes Evidentialism. It says that our reason is too damaged from the Fall. It also opposes Rational Apologetics by saying all formal proofs for God are invalid. However, of all competing explanations for reality, Christianity alone is coherent. A person must presuppose Christianity in order to argue against it. Therefore, Christianity is true. Note there are more narrow flavors elsewhere in this list: Dogmatic Presuppositionalism and Transcendental Presuppositionalism.

(20) Psychological Apologetics. Argues Christianity from the psychological make-up of man. The Bible’s description of man is the most accurate one we have. Therefore, Christianity is true.

(21) Rational Apologetics. This offers formal proofs for God from reason. It often uses cosmological, teleological, moral and ontological arguments. It is typically lumped with Evidentialism.

(22) Reformed Epistemology. This view rejects Evidentialism and Rational Apologetics by arguing we cannot know anything for certain. However, it argues that people already have an immediate ‘sense of divinity’ or sensus divinitatis). Coming from the Reformers, it sees God’s sovereignty playing an important part in a person coming to faith.

(23) Scientific Apologetics. This would include ministries like Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, Reasons to Believe and BioLogos. These argue for God while emphasizing a young-earth, old-earth or creation-evolution understanding of science and the Bible.

(24) Scripturalism. This is the late view of Gordon Clark (his earlier view was Dogmatic Presuppositionalism).^[13] He argued later in life that truth can only be found in the Bible. No truth comes through the senses.

(25) Testimonial Apologetics. This says the best apologetic is simply to show how Christianity can change a person’s life. A person simply needs to give their own, unique, personal testimony. However, other religions can use this too.

(26) Transcendental Presuppositionalism. The philosopher Cornelius Van Til believed we cannot argue to God but only from God.^[14] This strict view said we cannot even test our presuppositions.

(27) Veridicalism. This view comes from Mark Hanna, a teacher at Veritas International University (where this paper is being submitted). Hanna argues that givens are known intuitively and can be corroborated. Since God is a universal given, God can be corroborated.^[15]

(28) Verificationalism. Francis Shaeffer had a view like presuppositionalism. He argued that presuppositions act like hypotheses that can be tested. This contrasts with Transcendental Presuppositionalism which argued they cannot be tested.

This list is overwhelming. But with it, it is easy to see that there is much overlap. For example, Historical Apologetics (12), Prophetic Fulfillment (18) and Archaeological Apologetics (1) are considered subcategories of Evidentialism (9). Both Evidentialism (9) and Rational Apologetics (21) together make up Classical Apologetics (2). Since there is overlap, we cannot help but follow different approaches.

__________

1. Bernard Ramm, Varieties of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979), 15-17. ↑
2. H. Wayne House in Joseph M. Holden, ed., The Harvest Handbook of Apologetics(Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2019), 38. ↑
3. Brian K. Morley, Mapping Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015), 28. ↑
4. Fernandes, The Fernandes Guide to Apologetic Methodologies, Kindle loc. 6569-6674. ↑
5. Ibid., 47. ↑
6. Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Reference Library, 1999), 41. ↑
7. Fernandes, Kindle loc. 6569-6674. ↑
8. I have broken convention and purposely capitalized references to other systems in the list for clarity. ↑
9. This is called an abduction in logic. ↑
10. Fernandes, Kindle loc. 6631-7. ↑
11. Ibid., Kindle loc. 6603-11. ↑
12. The Bible seems to be clear that we are to provide evidence. See Reason 5 below. ↑
13. Fernandes, Kindle loc. 6612-6. ↑
14. Fernandes, Kindle loc. 6594-6601. ↑
15. See Morley, Mapping Apologetics, 20, 21. ↑