Overview of the Classical Method within Reformed Theology
Though all apologetic methods are useful in preparing people to hear the Gospel, the classical method does the best job at building a firm foundation for discipleship. The classical method is prescribed in scripture, most prominently in Romans 1. This chapter indicates that (1) though sin has made it impossible for man to save himself, it has left man’s reasoning and sense perception relatively undamaged, and (2) God has displayed His nature and character through creation in a way that leaves man without excuse. Thus, the starting point and common ground of the classical approach is the totality of reality described through metaphysical first principles. Using undeniability as the ultimate test for truth, these principles are used to establish theism as the foundational worldview through which data can be analyzed properly. From this starting point, the classical apologist can use rational arguments, empirical arguments, historical arguments, and virtually any other evidence to demonstrate that Christianity, in particular, is the only worldview that corresponds to reality and truth.
It is important to note that a person’s acceptance of Christianity as true is not equivalent to acquiring saving faith. Rather, according to the reformed tradition, the apologetic demonstration of the truth of Christianity is firmly pre-evangelistic. Classical apologetic arguments are not meant to save; instead, their purpose is two-fold. First, they remove the intellectual hiding places that keep people from interacting with the truth of Christianity. Second, they provide a path for individuals to discover, not determine, the truth of Christianity. When a person discovers either deductively or inductively that Christianity is true, reformed theology indicates that a person is able to respond to common grace, recognize the depth of his or her sin, and cry out to God for the born-again spirit. Thus, salvation remains firmly in God’s election and sovereignty. Additionally, certainty of Christianity and salvation remain firmly in the realm of divine revelation.
Classical apologetics offers substantial value for the success of ongoing discipleship. The classical method recognizes that secularism is the de facto standpoint of many non-Christians. In other words, no matter if a person is atheist, Hindu, or Buddhist, he or she rejects the idea that there is a “transcendent eternal God who is at the basis for the origin of all things and in whose hands is the destiny of all things.”[1] Those who hold to such a worldview will typically have a skewed way of thinking and analyzing facts, therefore the classical method seeks first to reform a person’s thinking. With a proper philosophical framework in place, a person can not only analyze the theistic worldviews appropriately, but upon converting to Christianity, he or she is cognitively ready to assimilate Christian truth into every aspect of his or her life.
Biblical Justification of Classical Apologetics
Romans 1:18-26 – Theoretical Justification
Though classical apologetics does not presuppose the Bible as the ultimate ground as presuppositionalism does, the Bible nonetheless should be used as the starting point to determine the legitimacy of any apologetic method. The cornerstone verses that argue for “reality” as the foundation of any apologetic endeavor are Romans 1:18-22. Verse 18 reads: “For God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.”[2] Paul argues that the fundamental evil of mankind is both an impiety (ungodliness/asebeia) and an immorality (unrighteousness/adikia) simultaneously.[3] This great evil is often translated as “suppress the truth;” however, an examination of the lexical range engenders a deeper meaning. When used with the notion of disproval, as in Romans 1:18, “katechō” reflects “being kept under by tyrants,” “placed under arrest,” “to be bound,” “withhold,” and “restrain.”[4] Humanity is guilty of holding truth “in prison,” preventing it from being heard, examined, exemplified, seen, tested, and embraced.[5]
Paul defines this imprisoned truth as “what can be known about God,” even stating that God has made this truth “evident” to the unbelievers because He Himself “has shown it to them.”[6] The entire classical approach depends upon the truth of this verse. The knowledge of God must be plain (phaneron), or “visibly manifest,” because if it is not then there is no point in attempting to make an apologetic case for theism or Christianity.[7] If knowledge of God cannot be obtained through the created order and mankind’s analysis of it, then attempting to utilize metaphysics, natural theology, or any other intellectually-based stratagem is an exercise in futility. Thankfully, God’s Word does indeed defend His revelation of Himself to mankind and mankind’s ability to rationally comprehend that truth, even if mankind is incapable of affirming that truth. Thus, according to God, apologists can elucidate and defend God’s “eternal power and divine nature” through “what He has made.”[8] The Bible affirms a metaphysical or natural theology approach to the discovery of the truth and knowledge of God.
John 3 and Acts 17 – Practical Justification
John 3 is a prime example of Jesus engaging in a rational/theological debate with a person who is “suppressing the truth.”[9] In John 3:1-21, Jesus is engaged by Nicodemus to a “social challenge dialogue.”[10] At the beginning of the debate, Nicodemus clearly and completely articulates the truth about God saying, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher, for no one could perform these signs You do unless God were with him.”[11] Even the statement “come from God” indicates a mental acknowledgement that Jesus’ origin is with God in heaven, not with mankind. However, debates of this kind often use the opponent’s claim as a form of mockery.[12] This is one of the clearest Biblical examples of how a person can know the truth and yet repress it.
Rather than write Nicodemus off as a lost cause and simply disengage with him, Jesus enters the debate and attempts to rationally explain what is clearly known. At one point, Jesus makes a claim similar to the one Paul makes in Romans saying, “Are you a teacher of Israel and don’t know these things?”[13] Jesus is making a plea to Nicodemus, stating that based on the Scriptures and Jesus’ teaching, he should be able to understand and accept the truth of the second birth and the knowledge of God. However, due to his position and power, Nicodemus is unable to accept the truth as presented.[14] Even in the face of rejection, the presentation of the truth through rational means is encouraged by the Son of God. It is thought that Nicodemus eventually came to accept the truth of Christ, based on his gift of burial spices for Jesus’ burial.[15] If he did come to faith, it must be assumed that Jesus’ interaction with him played an integral role. While classical apologetics does not always see immediate results, it is primarily concerned with preparing the mind for the reception of the gospel.
In Acts 17, Paul utilizes a classical approach in his evangelistic encounter with the Stoic philosophers. Paul “emphasizes points of contact shared with Stoicism” while challenging some of their aberrant metaphysical principles.[16] For instance, Paul challenged their (1) lack of a creator/creation distinction, (2) lack of the self-sufficiency of a supreme being, and (3) propensity to need multiple gods. Additionally, Paul utilized language that was “fully biblical, yet chosen also to be intelligible to his audience.”[17] Paul not only engaged their beliefs head-on, but also utilized their philosophical framework to do so. Through these arguments, Paul was able to deal the stoics an intellectual blow strong enough that “some of the elite” were indeed saved.[18] Paul’s evangelistic method outlined in Acts 17 utilizes metaphysical common ground, epistemic rationality, and the assumption that those listening could indeed understand, comprehend, and accept truth – all of which are key components to the classical method. With this biblical basis firmly established, it is necessary to move on to the starting point or common ground of the classical method.
Starting Point, Common Ground, and the Test for Truth
The Definition of Common Ground
The fundamental disagreement between apologetic methods from a presuppositionalist perspective vs. a classical perspective is that common ground is defined differently by each. The presuppositionalist argues that common ground is “something on which believers in Christianity and disbelievers agree.”[19] This definition sets up the straw man that Christians and non-believers must have “a common perception and perspective of reality” in order to meaningfully engage in discussion about facts and logical arguments.[20] Under this definition, it makes sense to require the non-believer to hold the presupposition that the Bible is the Word of God. However, it is not necessary. The classical view of common ground is as “a place where believer and unbeliever can stand on equal terms and engage in meaningful discourse.”[21] The believer and non-believer need not agree on interpretations of data, worldview concerns, or perspectives. It is simply a reflection of the fact that the believer and non-believer occupy the same physical/spiritual universe, and thus have reality as a common ground.
Under this view, those who reject God are not separated from Christians “by any portentous inferiority of intelligence or any perverse refusal to think;” rather, believers and non-believers are free to engage each other utilizing rationality that is relatively undamaged by sin.[22] This view is supported by reformed theologian William G. T. Shedd. In his book, Dogmatic Theology, he addresses mankind’s ability to know by stating that it is “a fixed and stationary faculty or mode of the soul.”[23] He further states concerning the noetic effects of sin on human understanding that “it can be vitiated and injured, but not radically changed.”[24] Thus, according to the reformed view, man’s ability to reason and comprehend has been left roughly intact. The combination of the fact that both Christians and non-Christians live in the same reality and the fact that their intellect and reasoning capabilities are intact form the complete basis for the classical apologist’s assertion that they act as a common ground.
The Test for Truth
With metaphysics and natural theology established as common ground, the quest for knowledge turns to finding a way to thereby establish truth. Geisler analyzes the predominant methodologies by which philosophers and apologists have attempted to test truth claims. Agnosticism, rationalism, fideism, experientialism, evidentially, pragmatism, and combinationalism: all fail to establish the truth of a single worldview because “all [are] testing a particular aspect of reality, but not reality (being) as such.”[25] While these truth tests are useful at testing parts of reality (history, ethics, science, etc.) they are not able to test metaphysics or being itself. Geisler rightly affirms that the only way to test being itself is through “first principles of being.”[26]
Self-Evident Metaphysical First Principles
One way in which to understand first principles of being is to ask oneself “What do I know intuitively or without needing any other proof?” Principles that are known in this way are called self-evident. This method of knowing and testing truth is called reductive foundationalism. Philosophically, statements that are first principles can have their predicate reduced to their subject.[27] For a statement to be a first principle of reality it must exhibit certain characteristics which include: (1) that the statement applies to the sum total of reality, (2) that the statement is self-evident, and (3) that the statement is undeniable.[28]
The Test of Undeniability
Of the three characteristics required for first principles, undeniability requires further explication as it is the test of truth by which worldviews will either be proven true or false. A worldview claim is directly undeniable when the content of the statement is self-defeating.[29] For example, the relativist assertion that “absolute statements do not exist” is directly undeniable as it is itself an absolute statement. Claims can also be indirectly undeniable which means that the act of expressing the statement or the process by which the statement came to be destroys the statement.[30] For example, the statement “I cannot think” is not internally self-contradictory, but one must think in order to make the statement, thus the statement is indirectly defeated. A third aspect of undeniability is when claims are definitionally undeniable. To pass the test of undeniability, a statement does not need to represent something that actually exists.[31] One example would be the statement that “all living people have hearts.” This statement is true whether or not there are any living people in existence. Finally, there is also existential undeniability which is only forced on one’s own existence. The statement, “I exist” is existentially undeniable because to deny it would require that one does not exist and thus could not make the statement.[32]
Validating/Invalidating Worldviews
There are six statements that qualify as self-evident, undeniable metaphysical claims: (1) “being is,” (2) “being is being,” (3) “being is not nonbeing,” (4) “either being or nonbeing,” (5) “nonbeing cannot produce being,” and (6) “being causes being similar to itself.”[33] When all of the major worldviews are held up against these six principles, only theism affirms all six. All of the other major worldviews attempt to deny at least one of these fundamental principles. For example, atheism asserts that the universe can come from nothing and that rational thinking beings can come from nonliving matter, which contradicts principles (5) and (6) above. With theism as the only viable option, the task falls to evidence and argumentation to differentiate between the three theistic religions: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
Discriminating between Systems within a Worldview
In order to demonstrate the differences between religions that utilize a specific worldview, the classical approach employs evidentialism; in essence, are the facts surrounding the resurrection of Jesus supported by the various systems? Under the classical approach, the reliability method is often used to establish the facts of the resurrection. The classical apologist attempts to establish that the gospel accounts are reliable eyewitness testimony.[34] If this can be established, then various facts about the death and resurrection, such as the appearances to women, disciples, and other believers, can be taken as true and the claims of other religions or systems can be judged by them.
A second method often used by classicalists is the evidentialist method of minimal facts. In this method, historiography is utilized to ascertain the reliability of 3-5 historical facts concerning the resurrection.[35] These facts are then used to judge all possible interpretations of the resurrection events, with the result that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the only possible explanation that accounts for them all.[36] While this approach is valid and useful, it lays minimal ground for ongoing discipleship. From this step, a person may know that Christianity is true, but not necessarily have a Christian worldview set in their mind. Only using this method leaves a person open to potential unanswered attacks about the problem of evil and the goodness of God, which could lead them to reject God even if he or she knew God was real. Thus, it is recommended to follow up this argument style with solid worldview training.
Addressing Weaknesses in Method
Does Classical Apologetics Place Human Reasoning Above God?
An initial criticism is that classical apologetics is rationalistic at heart, placing humanity’s reasoning capability above God and His Word.[37] This attack relies on a conflation of ultimate truth with the tools by which we can come to discover truth. In his book, The Doctrine of the Word of God, presuppositionalist John Frame appropriately makes a distinction between autonomous reasoning which is capable of providing “the ultimate criteria of truth and falsity … by which everything … is to be judged,” and reasoning that is understood as a “gift of God” and is best utilized in proper submission to God.[38] Frame then defines proper submission as the presupposition that God’s words are true.
However, that is an unnecessary step. One does not need to accept God as the ultimate grounding of reality to know that the basic principles of reality exist. For example, that “being is” is impossible to deny rationally no matter what one believes about the existence of God and the truth of the Bible. An analogous situation would be requiring that one believe in electrons to acknowledge that lightbulbs give off light when electricity passes through them. That a lamp gives off light when on is undeniable regardless of what one believes about electrons.
Unfortunately, requiring presuppositions like these detracts from what the non-believer can learn from reality and the world around him or her. If God has given mankind tools for discovering truth (reason and sensation), then it should be reasonable that mankind can discover truth even though people do not necessarily come to the right interpretations and applications of that truth. In this way, reason is not above God, nor does reason dictate what truth is. Reason is simply a tool to be used to discover God’s truth. It is only one tool among many. It is also important to note that reason does not convince anyone of truth, it merely allows one to state the truth and intellectually comprehend it.
Is Classical Apologetics Useless?
Along a similar line is the critique that the classical method’s test for truth is incapable of actually proving anything.[39] This attack is levied against the supposed inability of deductive proofs found in natural theology to authoritatively prove the Christian God. This critique is valid on face value; none of the traditional proofs of natural theology prove undeniably that the Christian God is the one true God. However, that was never the intention. They were simply meant to demonstrate that theism is the only rational worldview and to that purpose they work splendidly. Although many philosophers believe they have found defeaters and loopholes in some of the arguments, these arguments do not present serious hurdles to denying that a singular God exists.
Another criticism is that the second step of the classical method, the probabilistic evidentialist step, cannot demonstrate the truth of Christianity either. Rather, it can only show that Christianity is more likely true than other theistic religions and thus leaves people open to being swayed by new discoveries of the day.[40] However, this attack makes two false assumptions. First is the presumption that certainty of Christianity and full assurance of salvation come from and are based on the arguments presented in classical apologetics. Nothing could be further from the truth. The classical apologist is merely removing intellectual stumbling blocks that are making a person incapable of considering that Christianity might be true. Once these questions are removed, individuals are open to the Holy Spirit’s work of regeneration that convinces them of the absolute truth of Christianity. Second, this attack presumes that upon salvation, classical apologetics requires that one remain skeptical or neutral toward Scripture and the claims of God. Rather, due to its reliance on the Holy Spirit, classical apologetics in the reformed tradition would argue along the same lines as John Frame. He asserts that there is no problem with people using extrabiblical evidence to guide them to faith, but that upon accepting Christ “even the evidentiary procedures … must be reformed by the Bible.”[41] Thus, once a person comes to Christ their faith is protected by the Holy Spirit’s regenerating work and a renewed way of looking at evidence.
Primacy of Transcendental Argument
Presuppositionalists also criticize the classical method for not reasoning “transcendentally” and showing “that God is the very presupposition of rational meaning and that reasoning without this presupposition leads to meaninglessness.”[42] However, there is nothing keeping the classical apologist from utilizing the transcendental argument. In fact, the argument for theism from the first principles accentuates the transcendental argument. The metaphysical first principles immediately beg the question as to why they are present. While it is undeniable that existence exists, there remains the question of why? The transcendental argument gives those principles a purpose in that they are reflections of an eternal God. Thus, the transcendental argument complements the classical approach rather than undermining it.
The Role of the Holy Spirit in the Classical Method
Magisterial Vs. Ministerial Role of Argumentation and Evidence
One of the most common attacks on the classical method is the claim that it requires a person to fully comprehend metaphysics, philosophical arguments, and evidential proofs for Christianity in order to have true faith in God and belief in the truth of Christian claims.[43] This attack assumes that reason, logic, and evidence have a magisterial role in faith and belief. However, the tools people use to ascertain truth are not “standing over the gospel, judging it to be true or false without benefit of the work of the Spirit.”[44] Instead, classical apologist William Lane Craig states that argument and evidence have a ministerial role in knowing Christianity to be true whereby reason “submits to and serves the gospel.”[45]
Practically, this means that reason and evidence supplement faith rather than attempt to supplant or prove it. While the Spirit gives people direct revelation of the truth of Christianity and provides for certainty of the knowledge of God, arguments and evidence act as a way to connect the truth of God to reality. Seeing that connection can help the unbeliever by giving the Holy Spirit content about which to bring spiritual conviction. On the other side, believers can also benefit from seeing these connections; they serve to remind believers of the faithfulness and providence of God expressed in His creation. Again, the Holy Spirit can utilize these propositions to spur a person on to greater trust.
The Magisterial Role of the Holy Spirit in Faith
With this understanding of the ministerial role of evidence and reason in the classical method, a common fideist criticism of the classical method can be addressed. The fideist tends to argue that knowledge of Christ is not propositional; rather, knowledge of Christ is a relationship with the person of Christ. However, the classical position accounts for the personal element of faith as it asserts the magisterial role of the Holy Spirit in coming to know God. In both reformed theology and the classical method, “the experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical and unmistakable … for him who has it; such that a person does not need supplementary arguments or evidence in order to know and to know with confidence that he is in fact experiencing the Spirit of God.”[46]
In fact, Craig asserts that “the experience of the Holy Spirit will imply the apprehension of certain truths of the Christian religion.”[47] Thus, reason and faith do not overcome the work of the Holy Spirit, nor do they replace it. Rather, argumentation and evidence remove the blocks to faith, while the Holy Spirit does the work of regeneration which allows a person to have faith.[48] The fideist has no reason to call for the rejection of argumentation and evidence presented in the classical approach because those things are not meant to ensure faith or salvation. The Spirit presents a direct witness in the heart of believers.
Conclusion
The classical method is the most well-rounded method of addressing pre-evangelism. It is biblically defended by Jesus, Paul, and proclamation of God through the prophets. It utilizes reason, evidence, and direct revelation of the Holy Spirit, leaving out no part of God’s creation. It provides the new believer with a firm philosophical and worldview foundation through which Scripture and Christian principles can be assimilated. Additionally, the classical position asserts the truth of Scripture as the ultimate standard by which all else will be judged after a person comes to Christ. Though not necessary for salvation, the classical approach best prepares a person for their future life with Christ.
Bibliography
Boa, Kenneth D., and Robert M. Bowman Jr. Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005.
Craig, Willliam Lane. Reasonable Faith. 3rd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008.
Frame, John M. “Classical Apologetics: A Presuppositionalist’s Response.” In Five Views on Apologetics, edited by Steven B. Cowan. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000.
———. The Doctrine of the Word of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2010.
Geisler, Normon L. Christian Apologetics. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic/Baker Publishing Group, 2013.
Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic/InterVarsity Press, 2014.
Klink, Edward W. John. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016.
Lewis, Gordon R. Testing Christianity’s Truth Claims: Approaches to Christian Apologetics. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990.
Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones. “Faneron.” Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon, n.d. Accessed October 12, 2017. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kate%2Fxw&la=greek&can=kate%2Fxw0#lexicon.
———. “Katechō.” Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon, n.d. Accessed October 12, 2017. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kate%2Fxw&la=greek&can=kate%2Fxw0#lexicon.
Morley, Brian K. Mapping Apologetics: Comparing Contemporary Approaches. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015.
Shedd, William G. T. Dogmatic Theology. Edited by Alan Gomes. 3rd ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003.
Sproul, R.C., John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley. Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books/Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.
Van Til, Cornelius. Christian Apologetics. 2nd ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003.
[1] R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley, Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books/Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 7.
[2] Romans 1:18 (HCSB).
[3] Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley, Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics, 41.
[4] Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones, “Katechō,” Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon, n.d., accessed October 12, 2017, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kate%2Fxw&la=greek&can=kate%2Fxw0#lexicon.
[5] Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley, Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics, 43.
[6] Romans 1:19 (HCSB).
[7] Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones, “Faneron,” Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon, n.d., accessed October 12, 2017, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kate%2Fxw&la=greek&can=kate%2Fxw0#lexicon.
[8] Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley, Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics, 43.
[9] Romans 1:18 (HCSB).
[10] Edward W. Klink, John, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016), 5475, Kindle.
[11] John 3:2 (HCSB).
[12] Klink, John, 5519, Kindle.
[13] John 3:10 (HCSB).
[14] Klink, John, 5648, Kindle.
[15] John 19:39 (HCSB).
[16] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic/InterVarsity Press, 2014), 377.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid, 378.
[19] Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics, 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003), 84.
[20] Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley, Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics, 70.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Kenneth D. Boa and Robert M. Bowman Jr., Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 74.
[23] William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan Gomes, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003), 16106, Kindle.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Normon L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic/Baker Publishing Group, 2013), 127.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid 127-128.
[28] Ibid, 128.
[29] Ibid, 129.
[30] Ibid, 130.
[31] Ibid, 131.
[32] Ibid, 131.
[33] Ibid, 128-129.
[34] Willliam Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), 337-342.
[35] Brian K. Morley, Mapping Apologetics: Comparing Contemporary Approaches (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015), 338.
[36] Ibid, 338-340.
[37] Normon L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 130.
[38] John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2010), 21.
[39] Boa and Bowman Jr., Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith, 130.
[40] Gordon R. Lewis, Testing Christianity’s Truth Claims: Approaches to Christian Apologetics (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990), 67-69.
[41] Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God, 441.
[42] John M. Frame, “Classical Apologetics: A Presuppositionalist’s Response,” in Five Views on Apologetics, ed. Steven B. Cowan (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 81.
[43] Boa and Bowman Jr., Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith, 129.
[44] Morley, Mapping Apologetics: Comparing Contemporary Approaches, 224.
[45] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 47.
[46] Ibid, 43.
[47] Ibid, 43.
[48] Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 23870, Kindle.
Comments