Apologetics resource/ 3 styles of Apologetics

I thought I would post this issue of Modern Reformation (volume 15 number 2 March/April 2006) Modern Reformation mar/apr 2006, which is an awesome resource for apologetics. Here is an outline of the three styles of apologetics...1. the Classical approach, 2. The Evidential approach, 3. The Presuppositional approach. Apologetics Chart

I have frequently used elements of all three, but I'm probably considered more Presuppositional and a little Classical.

The "setting" of Presuppositionalism is Biblical (2 Cor. 4:2-6), meaning that I understand that the Word of God has the power to search out and change the heart of the person I'm speaking with in a way that I cannot. I also understand that if the truth of scripture is veiled to the lost, I must be in constant prayer that the Holy Spirit will both help me as I witness, and open the heart and mind of the person I'm speaking with.

I have found that with agnostics, the Classical approach when placed in the setting of Presupposition is a powerful defense. The scripture is not put to the side of a reasonable knowable base...they can and do coexist. Paul used this method in Acts when teaching the Romans and Greeks, who were philosophical in their approach. There are proofs of God's work...namely creation and the things unique to mankind that reflect the character of God, such as a sense of justice, conscience, creativity, desire for wisdom and knowledge, love, etc. that any reasonable person can understand, and that sets man apart from the rest of creation.

There are a few things I really like about the Evidentialist position, however I don't ascribe to the backward proof they use as far as they begin with the resurrection of Christ and work backward to the evidence of God. However, the evidence of the Resurrection is a very powerful defense. God became a man and thousands of people saw and talked about it. I also usually end up from this point on the martyrs when the person I am speaking with tries to discredit that evidence (which is easier for them to attempt, because 2,000 years makes history seem to not be absolute...especially to our generation). When I mention the first century martyrs, I usually make the point that swayed many Romans of that day, "If they really didn't see this, why are they willing to die rather than admit it?" I recommend reading "Foxe's Book of the Martyrs" for more study on the martyrs. Another argument I like from the Evidentialist position is fulfilled prophecy. Many of the people I speak with believe in a "god" but not the God of the Bible, and not Jesus Christ as the Son of God.


I find these three positions to be mostly useful in dealing with athiesm, agnosticism, and general unbelief. However, when speaking with a teacher or ascriber to false doctrine, Scripture is the best medium. It is the bedrock and central ground. Most of these people claim to believe in the God of the Bible, however, most have been reliant upon other people to tell them what it says or interpret it for them. They will tend to pull one scripture at a time, and often from a KJV (nothing against it, but it is far easier to cover bad interpretation in 17th century English). Therefore, your approach would be to first know what you believe, and what good doctrine is. Rely upon scripture alone for your doctrine, and it is helpful to read the ancient Christian creeds to see where the church has stood on basic doctrine. Secondly, you should understand the problematic doctrines of false teaching churches. These are most commonly: works based salvation, denial of the Trinity, loss of salvation, legalism, man inspired doctrine/denial of Sola Scriptura, liberal Christianity, denial of the Diety of Christ, denial of the resurrection, easy believism/denial of the doctrines of grace, and the prosperity gospel. And finally you should study your scripture. When you do defend against false doctrine, use a very respected contemporary translation (ESV, NKJV for example), and study the original language use in commonly disputed passages, always using scripture itself to prove scripture.