(The following is taken from the Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, by Norman L. Geisler)
There are differing kinds of apologetics systems, and no universally-acknowledged way to categorize them. Divergent approaches seem to be determined by the perspective of the one categorizing them. Nonetheless, there are some generally understood terms one can employ to view in a meaningful way the distinctives among more popular approaches.
There are 5 major types of Christian Apologetics: Classical, Evidential, Experiential, Historical, and Presuppositional.
Classical Apologetics – Classical apologetics stresses arguments for the existence of God as well as the historical evidence supporting the truth of Christianity. Classical apologetics is characterized by two basic steps: theistic and evidential arguments. Theistic arguments are used to establish the truth of theism apart from an appeal to special revelation (e.g., the Bible).
The first step in classical apologetics involves drawing the logical inference that if a theistic God exists, miracles are possible; indeed, the greatest miracle of all, creation, is possible. The credibility of miracles is essential to the next step in classical apologetics—the historical one—but it flows logically from the first step.
Second, confirmed historical evidence substantiates the truth. The New Testament documents are shown to be historically reliable. The apologist also shows that these documents reveal that Jesus claimed to be, and was miraculously proven to be, the Son of God.
The difference between the classical apologists and the evidentialists on the use of historical evidence is that the classical see the need to first establish that this is a theistic universe in order to establish the possibility of and identity of miracles. Evidentialists do not see theism as a logically necessary precondition of historical apologetics. The basic argument of the classical apologists is that it makes no sense to speak about* the resurrection as an act of God unless, as a logical prerequisite, it is first established that there is a God who can act. Likewise, the Bible cannot be the Word of God unless there is a God who can speak. And Christ cannot be shown to be *the Son of God except on the logically prior premise there is a God who can have a Son.
Classical apologetics was practiced by Augustine, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas. Modern classical apologists include Norman L. Geisler, C. S. Lewis, J. P. Moreland, John Locke, R. C. Sproul, and B. B. Warfield.
Evidential Apologetics – Evidential apologetics stresses the need for evidence in support of the Christian truth claims. The evidence can be rational, historical, archaeological, and even experiential. Since it is so broad, it understandably overlaps with other types of apologetics. [A major difference between Evidentialists and Classicalists is that the former does not put as much importance on starting off with proving (attempting to) the existence of God, and then following a logical projection thereafter.]
Evidentialists operate as attorneys who combine evidences into an overall brief in defense of their position, trusting that the combined weight will present a persuasive case.
Many evidentialists focus on archeological evidence in support of the Bible. They stress that both the Old and the New Testaments have been substantiated by thousands of discoveries. This, they believe, gives reason to accept the divine authority of the Scriptures.
Some evidentialists appeal to experiential evidence in support of Christianity, most often from changed lives. The testimony of those converted to Christianity is offered as evidence of the truth of Christianity.
Prophetic evidence is often offered to substantiate Christianity. It is argued that only divine origin accounts for the numerous, precise biblical predictions that have been fulfilled. For the evidentialists prophetic and other evidences do not comprise a specific step in an overall logical order (as it is in classical apologetics). Rather, it is the sum total of all the interlocking evidences that offer high probability of the truth of Christianity.
The most widely distributed of evidentialist books is Josh McDowell’s Evidence That Demands a Verdict.
Unlike historical apologetics, the pure evidentialist does not appeal to historical evidence as the sole basis for his case.
Since the facts “speak for themselves” there is no need, according to evidentialists, to provide an independent reason for believing in God’s existence. By contrast, both classical and presuppositional apologetics insist that historical events can only be interpreted in the light of the framework of the worldview of which they are a part.
Experiential Apologetics – Some Christians appeal primarily, if not exclusively, to experience as evidence for Christian faith. Some appeal to religious experience in general. Others to special religious experiences. Within this second category are some who focus on mystical experiences and others who identify what they believe are particularly supernatural conversion experiences. There are obviously some significant differences under the broad experiential umbrella.
The value of general, unspecific religious experience is of limited value for a distinctly Christian apologetic. At best, general experience establishes credibility for belief in a supreme being of some kind (not necessarily a theistic God).
Those who appeal to such experiences reject apologetic approaches in the traditional sense. They spurn rational arguments or factual evidence in favor of what they believe to be a self-verifying experience.
Experiential arguments for God’s existence are sometimes used by classical apologists and evidentialists. The difference is that, for the experiential apologist, the only kind of evidence is non-rational, mystical, and existential. In other apologetic approaches, the argument from religious experience is just one kind of evidence among many.
Many other apologists, especially of the rational variety, reject purely experiential arguments as unverifiable and of subjective interpretation.
Some proponents of experiential apologetics include Soren Kierkegaard, Rudolph Bultmann, Karl Barth, Friedrich Schleiermacher, and Paul Tillich.
Historical Apologetics. Historical Apologetics apologetics stresses historical evidence as the basis for demonstrating the truth of Christianity. These apologists believe that the truth of Christianity, including the existence of God, can be proven from the historical evidence alone. In one sense historical apologetics belongs to the broad class of evidential apologetics, but it differs in that it stresses the importance, if not necessity, of beginning with the historical record for the truth of Christianity.
The historical apologist only begins with historical evidence as a basic premise. With historicity established, the apologist argues that certain claims are made in Scripture from which it can be inferred that God exists, the Bible is the Word of God, and Christ is the unique Son of God.
Both historical and classical apologetics use historical evidence. But the classical apologist believes that historical evidence is only a second step, logically preceded by theistic arguments which establish the necessary worldview evidence by which alone one can properly interpret the historical evidence.
Contemporary historical apologists include John Warwick Montgomery and Gary Habermas.
Presuppositional Apologetics – Presuppositional apologetics affirms that one must defend Christianity from the foundation of certain basic presuppositions. A presuppositionalist presupposes the basic truth of Christianity and then proceeds to show (in any of several ways) that Christianity alone is true.
Pre-suppositional apologists reject the validity of theistic proofs. Many believe there is no meaning to “facts” apart from the Christian worldview. [Thus, the ‘presuppositionalist’ begins with the presupposition that God exists; they don’t try and prove that God exists… rather, they presuppose it. Everything starts with God already existing.]
According to revelational presuppositionalism, one must posit that the Triune God has revealed himself in [the] Holy Scriptures before it is possible to make any sense out of the universe, life, language, or history. This is sometimes viewed as a transcendental argument.
The rational presuppositionalist also begins with the Trinity revealed in the written Word of God. But the test for whether this is true or not is simply the law of noncontradiction. Christianity demonstrates its own truth in that, of all religions, it alone is internally consistent.
Francis Schaeffer’s apologetic approach has occasionally been listed as a separate form of presuppositionalism, a kind of practical presuppositionalism. Schaeffer believes that false systems are unlivable, that only Christian truth is livable.
