Sunday, 21 September 2014


MODERN APPROACHES OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS


Introduction

Postmodernism has grown into its full shape in this twenty first century. And all the religious systems are breaking down from its stand for its foundation has been shaken badly. In the midst of all these threats and damages Christianity stands strong. Though the postmodernism has turned to be crucial for all kind of belief system, it is the Christian apologist who shielded the Christianity from all kind of criticism and made it so reasonable for all kind people. All Christian apologists of twenty first century became armour of Christianity and it belief. The profoundness of apologetics depends on the approaches that they hold. So now there are different types of apologists who follow different type’s approaches. These differences among the apologists and their approaches have led many to ask the questions that why there are many approaches? What are the different between them? The main goal of this paper is tracing out the origin and history of apologetics and to discuss the modern approach of apologetics.

1. DEFINING APOLOGETICS

1.1 Origin and Usages of the Term Apologia in History

The word apologetics has confused many into thinking that it refers to some kind of apologizing. The word apologetics did not derive from the English word apology as many think, but from the Greek word apologia. [1] The word apologia was originally used for a speech of defence or an answer given in reply. In ancient Athens it was used in the court room as part of the normal judicial procedure, usually after the accusation was made. When the defendant was allowed to refute the charge, he would attempt to speak away the accusation. The part of speaking away is called apologia (Apo-away, logia-speech). The best classical examples of such an apologia were Socrates and Plato: they made defence against the charge of preaching strange gods.[2]

1.2 Usages of the Term Apologia in New Testament

The word apologia appears seventeen times in the New Testament both in noun and verb form. When its presented by Luke, in one place, usually the word apologia referred to a speech made in one’s own defence (acts 19:33). But in other places like, where Christians and Paul were put to the trail for preaching something unlawful, Luke uses the apologia in reference to the situation in which they had to defend the charges made against them.
Apostle Paul himself has used word apologia in different context in his epistle. When the question rose concerning his apostleship, Paul felt the necessity of defending himself against the allegation. In one sense, even the letter to the Corinthian was an apologia intended for his apostleship. When Paul wrote the epistle to the romans he made mention of one things that; though the written law is not given to the gentiles but the God’s law which is written on their heart would judge or defend against them in the day of judgement.  In the second letter to timothy, towards the end of his life, Paul mentions the rejection on his first defence concerning his first trial. He also extents his appreciation towards the Philippians church for supporting him in the time of both in imprisonment and defence of gospel. In total the defence of Paul was not for him but for the gospel of Christ alone.
The key verse for apologetics was taken from one of the epistles (1 peter 3:15) of peter. In this verse peter asks the believer to be prepared to make a defence to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you. The context in which the verse was written is the similar to the Paul’s last epistles and to Luke’s writings.  The whole message of this verse is that, in the time of challenge or threating, Christians are to behave lawfully, maintain a good conscience, and give a reasoned defence of what they believe to anyone who asks.

1.3 Origin and Usage of the Word Apologetic in Church History

The word defence began to take a narrow sense to refer to group of writers who defended the belief and practices of Christianity against various attacks. In the second century, most notably Justin martyr and Tertullian wrote some treaties with the title apology and apologeticum to the government. Later these people were called as the apologetic. Until 1794 the use of the apologetic was not defined as a specific theological discipline.  After a long period of debate, in 1908 B.B.Warfield catalogued some of the alternate perception including his own conclusion:  they are as following philosophical apologetics, psychological apologetics, historical apologetics, biblical apologetics.  

1.4 Apologetic and Related Terms

As for present era the term apology refer to some specific effort or work in defence of the faith. The effort of apology might be a written document, a speech, even a film or any medium of communication which might possibly be used.an apologist is someone who make a practice of the defending the faith . Intellectual context is the place where the apologist develops his apology. The word apologetic refers to the particular approach to the defence of the faith. Apologetics is a closely related word to apologetic, and can be used synonymously. The word apologetics has been used at least in three ways. First it refers to the discipline concerned with the defence of the faith. Second, it refers to a general grouping of approaches or system developed for defending of the faith. Third, sometime it refers to the activity of presenting an apology.  The word metapologetics refers to the study of the nature and method of apologetics. This word is very recent one, and has been used very rarely.[3]

1.5 Functions of Apologetics

First, apologetics is used in a practical way to prove Christian truth and to bring the unbelievers to faith. This may involve arguments from history, philosophy, science, culture, logic, and testimony. The key element of this function is to remove intellectual stumbling block and to create an atmosphere in which belief can come to life.
Second, apologetics is used in defence against the criticism and attacks on the gospel. When the gospel is defended, the church will have opportunity of receiving more strong (health) faith. Defending gospel can also guard the church from false doctrine.
Third, apologetics strengthens the faith of believers when they are being attacked by voices of doubts, worldly influences, and personal crises. However, the apologetics can work as a key in anchoring the faith of Christian who faces with doubt.[4]
Fourth, apologetics stands against the opposing beliefs, in others words it refutes the opposing beliefs. In this, the arguments are made not for the Christian belief but against non-Christian beliefs.[5]

2. A BRIEF HISTORY OF APOLOGETICS

If we trace back the origin of the apologetics in god’s word, it goes a long way back to Old Testament.  Though it was not done in larger scale, yet we find the strong evidence for the word of apologetic. If we want to name them, they are very few, like Elijah Ezra, prophets, sometime god himself. But when we look at New Testament we find apologetics in greater scale. a careful study would study on new testament would tell about the great use  of apologetics in the new testament. The main intention of the apologetics in the New Testament is to prove the divinity of Christ. Therefore, anything that came against the claims for credential of Christ and resurrection upon which Christianity is built were rebutted. Even some of the writings were written in response to criticisms and false teachings.
The two volumes of the New Testament by Luke are most explicitly apologetically in purpose. When we look at the introduction of gospel by Luke, it is very obvious that Luke has gathered the materials in order to prove the historicity of the person Jesus Christ.  But at the same time even the very content and structure of acts suggests that the purpose acts is to defend Paul and the Christ whom he preached.  Resurrection of Jesus, fulfilment of prophecies, and charismatic phenomena are the main themes of the apologetical frame works. He also makes mention of Paul’s speech in which the apologetics arguments were presented. For instance, Act 17 contains the wonderful speech of Paul, in which Paul addresses to the non-Jewish congregation about resurrection. Actually the speech of Paul was intended to give a response to those people who misunderstood resurrection.
Even apostle John has followed the similar way of Paul in using Greek philosophical and religious term in the gospel, in which the preincarnate Christ is called logos. So, the term logos, to any gentile or Hellenistic Jewish reader would have immediately invoked up platonic and stoic notion of the universal reason that was govern the cosmos.[6]
In second century, Justine martyr (100-165) used the messianic prophecies from Old Testament. Since he was a convert from Platonism to Christianity he used platonic philosophy to prove Christianity. One of the prominent figures after Justine was Augustine (354-430).though Augustine had totally adapted to the view of Paul regarding salvation and sovereignty of God, he used the philosopher thought concerning the maker of cosmos. He was a greatly influenced by platonic philosophy. Anselm and Aquinas were the two Christian philosophers of middle of ages who stand out for their contribution to apologetics, and whose work were read and debated even today. Anselm was known for him argument for God through ontological theory. Many of the time this has been treated as a rational proof of the existence of God. At the same time, Thomas Aquinas was known for his five arguments for the existence of God. At the time of reformation, Martin Luther came up with doctrine of justification by faith in Jesus Christ alone. Later on John Calvin joined the reformation and worked against Roman Catholic denomination. But in the seventeenth century the skepticism began to knock down the Christianity. At this crucial period the French catholic mathematician and apologist Blaise Pascal brought a new approach. He rejected all the traditional arguments for God and emphasized the personal, relational aspect.[7]A century after Pascal, there emerged a group of modern apologist with new approaches. The rise of this modern apologetics and their approach were result of enlightenment, which took place in the beginning of seventeenth century. 

3. MODERN APPROACH OF APOLOGETICS

Early in the seventeenth century the skepticism of the Scottish philosopher David Hume laid a cornerstone for enlightenment. Enlightenment rejected all the revelation claims and all natural theology, and relied only on human reason. With his skepticism, Hume convinced many that the teleological argument, miracles and other Christian apologetical arguments were unsound. Another enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant also criticised the cosmological and ontological argument for the existence of God. These successive waves of attack on Christianity forced Christians to develop apologetic response.[8]  

3.1 Classical Apologetics
Classical apologetics is an approach that begins with natural theology and then move further to prove the truthfulness of Christianity and its claim. Reason is the substance of the classical apologetic in determining the truth[9].  Sproul, Grestner, And Lendsly argue that miracles cannot prove god. As the matter of fact it is god alone who makes miracles possible. They believe that without establishing the theistic world view no one will be able to give sense to miracle, historical facts, and empirical data. Even the historical event could be shown to be divine act within the theistic context. In other words, it is impossible to prove the existence of god by showing miracles as the evidence.  But it is not the point of the entire classical apologist. According to William Craig, the classical methodology need not insist on theoretical necessity in the order of these two, but only, given the nature of probability arguments.[10]
Since this approach has been used by many prominent apologist of early century it got named as classical apologetics. The historical root of this approach goes all the way back to first century, where Paul was using in Athens. When we look at second century, it was Justin martyr who had developed the element of classical apologetics. In doing so, he made use of philosophy in order to prove the existence of god. But in the later period it was continued through Augustine.  Augustine used the miracles, fulfilled biblical prophecies, and dramatic growth of church through persecution to prove that God has revealed himself in Christ. It was medieval period when the classical apologetics got a systematic formulation. At this time Anselm had brought his ontological argument into focus, which later became one of the most prominent arguments for the existence of God. Anselm believed that ontological argument would help the believers to edify and persuade unbelievers[11]. After Anselm it was Thomas Aquinas, the respected Roman Catholic theologian, who advocated a classical approach for the defence of Christian faith. In doing defence, Aquinas had five ways of argument for the God’s existence, which starts with argument from motion, the nature of efficient cause, possibility and necessity, the gradation found in tings, and the governance of the world.[12]
In nineteenth century we find another profound classical apologist William Paley, whose argument for the existence of God is being used unto present. Some people identify him with Evidentialism. British philosopher William Paley is the one who introduced the idea of watch maker. Sooner it became a kind of an eye opener to most of the apologist. By using the concept of watch maker the apologist intended to help the people to pre suppose a maker of universe. As for the modern apologist, it is William lane Craig who is the powerful apologist, who is also a well-known theologian and philosopher.  Though the Craig is a classical apologist, yet he differs on the role of Holy Spirit in conviction. According to Craig Holy Spirit is an authenticating person who confirms to the believer that what he subscribes to by placing his faith is the Christian message is true. Yet, it is up to the person to accept the invitation of God and allow the work to take place. As for the arguments are concerned it is a subsidiary ways to help the believers to understand that what he believes is reasonable.
Classical approach, generally be dependent on both the Holy Spirit and logical argumentation. The main arguments of the classical approach are Kalam Cosmological, Design, Moral, and Teleological. Since most of the apologists are following the classical approach, the work of the classical apologists must be taken into consideration by everyone who makes their own personal apologetic[13]
Classical apologetics was practiced by Augustine, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas. Modern classical apologists include Winfried Corduan, William Lane Craig, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Stuart Hackett, Peter Kreeft, C. S. Lewis, J. P. Moreland, and R. C. Sproul.
Despite of all the strength in classical argument, there are some weaknesses which have been exposed by the other apologist.  In classical approach the arguments for the existence god is called irrefutable proof. According to proponents other apologists the irrefutable proof cannot provide a formal proof beyond the bounds of rationality. In other words, even in the absence of irrefutable proof one can hold a rational set of beliefs about the world. The second case is that if a skeptic refuses all the argument for the existence of god, he is totally free from examining the historical evidence for the accuracy of scriptures. Probably this can put an end to the entire apologetic’s case.[14]

3.2 Evidential Apologetics

Evidential apologetics amounts to what the titles implies because they always go for real, tangible, historical, archaeological evidence in order to establish to the truth claims of Christianity. Though it has much in common with classical apologetics, it differs concerning the use of miracle as the primary evidence to prove god. Evidential method is unlike classical method which holds two way of approach to prove the Christianity. Evidential apologists disregard the two ways of arguments for the existence of god, instead they puts forth the evidences as the only way of proving god. The matter of fact is Evidentialist totally relies on probability.[15]
In the modern era, the evangelical apologists of America have been dominated by evidential approach. The only reason why American evangelical apologists have adopted evidential approach is that the evidential approach always emphasis on the presentation of Christianity as factual or verifiable by the examination of the evidence. By the early century eighteenth century modern science seemed to be explaining more and more about the natural world, requiring god as an explanation for the things less and less. Though it believed in the creator of the universe, god’s continuing process of control over the universe was rejected. According to deism god created everything and kept himself away the creation, and therefore the universe is without a sustainer. As a result of deism which eliminated God from universe, there emerged a group of apologist with the method called evidential on order to compete with science. One of the most notable apologists of Evidentialism is William Paley, who also counted as classical apologist. Evidentialist approach has over the past two century gradually as a significantly different model of apologetics. The reason for the development of evidentialist apologetics was the rise of deism.
The evidential approach is fairly free in its use of various positive evidences and negative critique, philosophical and historical. But the main focus of this method is to accumulating the various historical and inductive arguments. The notable thing about evidentialist is that they will argue both for theism and Christianity at the same time without the support of natural theology. Mostly they begin with the historical factuality of Jesus’ resurrection and then argue that such an event is explainable only if a Christian God exists.  Thus evidential would go on to argue that Jesus’ resurrection authenticates his claims to be God incarnate and his teaching on the divine authority of scripture.[16]
The primary criticism against evidentialist focused on the acceptance of the evidence by the evidential apologetics. As for the evidentialist, most of the time the scripture has been the centre focus of the evidentialist to prove the existence of god and validity of Christianity. Therefore, it is always not necessary that a skeptic should consider or accept the evidence that we provide for the veracity of the scripture. Another fact is that even if the evidentialist brings the skeptic in path to believe in the veracity of the scripture, there is no assurance that the skeptic would arrive at the conclusion where we want him to arrive at. Though both classicalist and evidentialist travel by two different directions, they trust in the Holy Spirit to work in the heart of the believers.[17]

3.3 Reformed Apologetics

Since the time of Enlightenment, there has been a demand to expose all of our beliefs to the searching criticism of reason. We are told that if a belief is unsupported by evidence of some kind, it is irrational to believe it. Therefore the Reformed epistemology began to challenge this evidentialist epistemological assumption. Those who advocate this view hold that it is perfectly reasonable for a person to believe many things without evidence. Most strikingly, they argue that belief in God does not require the support of evidence or argument in order for it to be rational.[18]
 In approach Reformed apologetics begins with an entirely different base. According to Reformed apologist the existence of God does not need to be proven, but is rather a properly basic belief. The reformed apologists move with the conclusion that God is a person, not a thing, and the belief of other beings outside us must be assumed, rather than proven. To prove that the say that the existence of other persons has never been proven through any philosophical means, and yet every person believes in the existence of other people, so the existence of other persons must be assumed to be properly basic, or acceptable without proof.
This observation uncovers a more difficult one for most people to accept, that all
Knowledge is essentially based on faith, rather than reason. Reformed apologists accept reason to believe anything, but reject that reason itself is something which can be reasonably proven. The reformed apologist does not believe that apologetic arguments are powerful and assume that they may be reasonably rejected by the skeptic. The rejection of arguments from reason, history, and other proofs, shows that the primary problem with belief is moral, rather than intellectual.[19]
Reformed apologists position is that one is perfectly rational for believing in God without having to actually prove it by resorting to external, empirical means to do so.  This method postulates at least three reasons to support its rationality: first, the impracticality of evidence for the majority of true believers; second, intuitive awareness of God's presence in the believer's life; and third, the quality of positive belief in God versus the negative belief in doubt. on the basis of above conclusion the reformed apologist argue that only few believers have the ways or means to validate their belief, but most of the believers still believe despite of having no means to validate their believe.[20]
The list of contemporary Reformed epistemologists includes this volume's contributor, already noted, Kelly James Clark. But four other names that would head that list would be Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, George Mavrodes, and William Alson.[21]
Criticism of the reformed apologetic centres around the presupposition of God’s
existence; while it is true that no convincing proof has been offered for the existence of another person, and yet all people believe in the existence of other people, this cannot be stretched to the existence  of God. The problem is the leap of logic between believing in the existence of a person in the ordinary sense, and believing in a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent creator. These are two different classes of persons; the existence of one class does not necessarily infer the existence of the other. Beyond this, even with the assumption of God’s existence, there is no path from this assumption to Christianity in particular. Assuming God exists does not prove he is, in fact, the God described in Christianity.[22]

3.4 Fideist Apologetic

Fideism is an approach to apologetics that argues that the truths of faith cannot and should not be justified rationally. In other words, fideists argue that the truths of Christianity are properly apprehended by faith alone. The word fideism derives from the Latin fide, meaning faith. Although fideism seems to be speaking against reason, they do not maintain that the truths of Christianity are actually irrational. Rather, by reason they mean that human reason or the use of reason by the human mind cannot reach god. The essential thing of fideism is that the belief and truths of Christianity are beyond our capacity to understand or express in a logically definitive fashion.[23]
Fideism holds that the only way we can know anything about God is by faith. Truth is subjective and personal, so we can believe it but not prove it.  According to fideism there are no rational proofs or empirical evidence that can lead us to knowledge of God. Therefore one must simply believe that what God has said in God Word and done in our lives is true.[24]When the empiricism went under the skepticism the rationalism lost the possibility of rationally demonstrating its first principles, and thus fideism becomes a more viable option in religious epistemology.[25]
Although fideists deny that human reason can prove or justify Christian beliefs, they do not conclude that we should offer no answer to the apologetic questions and challenges posed by non-Christians. Fideism does not rebuff t such challenges with non-replies like irrationalist who say- just believe. Fideists always answer those apologetic challenges by explaining why reason is incompetent to provide a satisfactory answer and then showing that faith does provide a way to deal with the problem.
Since critics of Reformed apologetics so often equate it with fideism, we should briefly explain where the two approaches diverge. Apologists of both traditions agree that Christian truth claims cannot be justified or verified on the basis of assumptions or methods of reasoning acceptable to non-Christians. Reformed apologists, however, argue that these truth claims are internally consistent and that they can show them to be rational from within a Christian system of thought which based on certain key Christian assumptions.[26]
Fideism has three major strengths.  First, fideists believe that since God is a person, people should accept God as a person whom we can have a relationship with.  Therefore, fideists focus on heart matters, God’s compassion, his love for humanity, and our basic need for a relationship with God. Secondly, fideism correctly acknowledges that humanity is fallen, and therefore our intellect and reasoning abilities will likely be damaged to some degree.  Therefore, fideists believe that it is wrong to believe that logic and reasoning can carry us all the way to a personal relationship with God.     
Thirdly, fideism is centred on Christ on whom true Christianity should be centred.  When it comes to the questions of faith, Christ is always the answer.  Sometime fideists are quick to charge the natural theologians for promoting evidences for the God of theism. For fideists, what people need is the person of Christ, not the religion or philosophy of Christianity which is merely an intellectual system of thought.
Although there are much positive things about fideism, it alone is insufficient as an apologetic methodology for two reasons.  First, the idea of God as a person is only comforting on an emotional level, but many Christian believers cannot accept the reality of God without evidences for him. When we fail to provide the evidence for what we believe many of us might be inclined to assume that both evolutionary biology and humanistic psychology is the correct explanation for reality. Therefore, when we fail to provide any evidence for our claims the idea of God will become pointless, scripture will be out dated, and resurrection will become a myth. 
Secondly, fideism is always being ready with an answer focuses on the emotional appeal of a life of faith.  The emotionally-based appeal requires almost no preparation, whereas the evidence-based answers, on the other hand, require doing some homework.  Many in the world today, and throughout the past two millennia, have been unwilling to consider the existence of God and the Christian faith until confronted by a challenge to examine the evidence for Christianity. Two popular examples of atheists-turned-Christians are C.S. Lewis and Lee Strobel. These men converted to a saving faith in Christ not because they were seeking an emotional uplift, although that certainly happened later, but because they were persuaded by the evidence.[27]   

3.5 Cumulative Apologetics

Though cumulative and evidential share lot of similarity, in presenting evidence for the truthfulness of Christianity Cumulative case apologists take a somewhat different approach. They have a similar interest in physical evidence, but also use logic and Classical arguments for the existence of God. Whereas evidential apologetics focus on hard evidence, cumulative case apologists are preoccupied with proving that belief in Christianity is reasonable and even incontrovertible.
According to advocates of cumulative apologetics, the nature of the case for Christianity is not in any strict sense a formal argument like a proof or an argument from probability. According to Mitchell, the cumulative case method does not conform to the ordinary pattern of deductive or inductive reasoning. The cumulative apologetics is more like a lawyer in a court of law. It is an theory that comprehensively explains that data and does so better than any alternative hypothesis.[28]
 There are four elements seem to characterize the cumulative position.. First, cumulative apologist presenting a broad range of information addressing the subject, with the express hope that combination of all information will provide a sufficient response.  Second, cumulative case apologetics is broadly based argument that is drawn from a number of elements in our experience, which in turn either require explanation or point beyond themselves. Third, it demonstrates what appears to be the disorganization inherent in the approach; none of the elements that constitute this case has any priority over any other. Fourth, the cumulative case is not simply a defence of God's existence or theism; it is an apologetic for Christianity. But ultimately it is depending on the argument on where the apologetic argument begins.[29]
According to Paul Feinberg, Christianity makes better sense of all the evidence available than does any other alternative worldview on offer, including atheism. The data that the cumulative case seeks to explain include the existence and nature of the cosmos, the reality of religious experience, the objectivity of morality, and certain other historical facts, such as the resurrection of Jesus. Beside Feinburg and Mitchell, Cumulativists also include C.S. Lewis , C. Stephen Evans, and Richard Swinburne.[30]
Criticisms of the cumulative case centre around the broadening of the apologetic case, the
Worldview tests provided and plausibility by the skeptic. Cumulative apologetic is not focused enough and it brings in too many variables and ideas too quickly. The cumulative case apologists counter this charge by showing the flimsiness of an apologetic built on a single minimal case. Two answers can be presented by the Cumulativist to this criticism. First, no single test stands alone; it is the cumulative effect of these tests the apologist is working towards. Second, these tests must be taken with an element of time. Though it is true that the atheist lives within a relativistic worldview at any given moment in time, but he cannot live within that worldview over longer stretches of time. Therefor all systems must attempt to find some common ground on which to challenge the skeptic. The cumulative case apologist simply seeks common ground with the skeptic across a broad array of points, rather than trying to force a single point of common ground on the skeptic[31]
3.6 Presuppositional Apologetics
Presuppositionalists usually hold that there is not enough common ground between believers and unbelievers that would allow followers of the prior three methods to accomplish their goals. The apologist must simply presuppose the truth of Christianity as the proper starting point in apologetics. For Presuppositionalists the Christian revelation in the Scriptures is the framework through which all experience is interpreted and all truth is known. Various evidences and arguments can be advanced for the truth of Christianity, but these at least implicitly presuppose premises that can be true only if Christianity is true. Presuppositionalists argue that all meaning, thought, and every fact logically presuppose the God of the Scriptures.
Cornelius Van Til is the one credited with the development of this method. A later exponent of the Presuppositional method was Greg Bahnsen. Presuppositionalists conclude the matter in this way that all knowledge is deposited in Christ; man's knowledge of the truth depends upon God's prior knowledge, begins with the fear of the Lord, and requires submission to God's word.[32]
According to John Frame, one should present the biblical God, not merely as the conclusion to an argument, but as the one who makes argument possible. Presuppositionalists try to show unbelievers that their own worldview is inadequate to explain their experience of the world and to get unbelievers to see that Christianity alone can make sense of their experience.
One thing that ought to be remembered about Presuppositionalism is that it does not frown upon the use of evidence to defend the Christian faith.  In fact, Presuppositionalists encourage it. But the evidence, philosophy, and logical argumentation are to be placed beneath the authority of Scripture, which is deemed as a declaration of the mind of God, who ultimately gives meaning to evidence found to support the Christian discovery of the truth.[33] Presuppositionalists include Cornelius Van Til and Gordon Clark, as well as Greg Bahsen and Francis Schaeffer as the promoters of presuppositionalism.[34]
Commonly Presuppositional apologetics has been criticized for two specific reasons. The first is that the presupposition of the existence of God in proving the existence of God. This way of approach is really viciously circular and hard to arrive at some conclusion. The second is that the skeptic isn’t so easy to convince that his thinking is not rational. This is something like cutting the nose and giving the flower to smell.  In order to convince a skeptic we should go with his world view and bring him to a common ground where we can prove our world to be true.[35]

CONCLUSION

Emerge of apologetics approaches are the result of skepticism on Christian faith. Throughout the history of Christianity, the skepticism has emerged with no regards to time and place. Therefore, defence against the skepticism became necessary and important to a great extent. As a result of skepticism many people gave up their faith and went apostate. This caused all the Christian leaders to come up with some kind of defence and arguments. Each and every time they had developed different kind of approaches for defending the truth claim of Christianity.  People those who came up with different approach in order to defend the Christian faith were called apologist. These were the people whom God used in order to keep the Christian faith alive throughout all the criticism. As for today there are many different between the apologetics approaches as to which one is best for defence. During the course of the clear study on all the approaches, one thing has become obvious that all the approaches have ups and downs. Therefore, it is meaningless to talk about what is best and what not, rather let us use all the approaches whenever and wherever it is need. This attitude of unity will bring great impact in Christian realm, and bring a great damage to all criticisms that are Christianity.




































BIBLIOGRAPHY




Apologetics Index. “Five Apologetic Methods: Classical”. http://www.apologeticsindex.org.(accessed on 30-7-14)

Auten, Brian. “A Case for Apologetics: Three Basic Functions of Apologetics”. http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/A-Case-for-Apologetics.pdf.(accessesd on 28-7-14)

Bible. “Fideist Apologetics: By Faith Alone”. https://bible.org/seriespage/fideist-apologetics-faith-alone (accessed on 27-7-14).

Boa, Kenneth d. and Robert bowman. Faith Has Its Reason: An Integrative Approach To Defending Christianity. Milton Keynes: paternoster, 2006.

Colley, Caleb . “Reasoning about Fideism”. http://espanol.apologeticspress.org/articles/3442 (accessed on 1-8-14)

Geisler, Norman L. Christian Apologetics. Michigan: baker book house, 1976.

Hroziencik, Randall L. “The History & Philosophy of
Fideism”http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Ars-Course-1-Paper.docx (accessed on 2-8-14)
Paul Derengowski. “Method of Apologetic Practice: Classical Apologetics”. http://capro.info/Apologetics/Methods_of_Apologetic_Practice.html (27-7-14)
Philip, Johnson C. & Saneesh Cherian, “Introduction to Integrated Christian Apologetics”. http://www.brethrenassembly.com/Ebooks/Apol_001A.pdf (accessed on 28-7-14).

Russ White. “Review of Apologetic Methods: Classical Apologetics”. http://thinkinginchrist.com/media/papers/REVIEW%20OF%20APOLOGETIC%20METHODS.pdf (accessed on 31-7-14)




[1] Dr. Johnson C. Philip & Dr. Saneesh Cherian, “Introduction to Integrated Christian Apologetics”. http://www.brethrenassembly.com/Ebooks/Apol_001A.pdf .(accessed on 28-7-14).
[2] Boa, Kenneth d. and Robert bowman jr, Faith Has Its Reason: An Integrative Approach To Defending Christianity. (Milton Keynes:paternoster,2006),1.
[3] Kenneth and bowman, Faith Has Its Reason,4.
[4] Brian Auten, A Case For Apologetics: Three Basic Functions of Apologetics. http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/A-Case-for-Apologetics.pdf.(28-7-14)
[5] Kenneth and bowman, Faith Has Its Reason,6
[6] Kenneth And Bowman, Faith Has Its Reason,12.
[7] Kenneth and bowman, Faith Has Its Reason,14-23.
[8] Kenneth And Bowman, Faith Has Its Reason,23.
[9] Kenneth And Bowman, Faith Has Its Reason,71.
[10] Apologetics Index, Five Apologetic Methods: Classical. http://www.apologeticsindex.org.(accessed on 30-7-14)
[11] Kenneth and bowman, Faith Has Its Reason,50.
[12] Paul Derengowski, “Method Of Apologetic Practice: Classical Apologetics”. http://capro.info/Apologetics/Methods_of_Apologetic_Practice.html (accessed on  27-7-14)

[13] Paul Derengowski, “Method of Apologetic Practice”.
[14] Russ White, “Review of Apologetic Methods: Classical Apologetics”. http://thinkinginchrist.com/media/papers/REVIEW%20OF%20APOLOGETIC%20METHODS.pdf. (accessed on 31-7-14)

[15] Paul Derengowski, “Evidential Apologetics”.
[16] Apologetics index, “Evidential Apologetic”.
[17] Russ White, “Evidential Apologetic”.
[18] Apologetics Index, “Reformed Apologetic”.
[19] Russ White, “Reformed Apologetic”.
[20] Paul Derengowski, “Reformed Apologetic”.
[21] Apologetics Index, “Reformed Apologetic”.
[22] Russ White, “Reformed Apologetic”.

[23] Bible, “Fideist Apologetics: By Faith Alone”.https://bible.org/seriespage/fideist-apologetics-faith-alone (accessed on 27-7-14).
[24] Caleb Colley, “Reasoning About Fideism”. http://espanol.apologeticspress.org/articles/3442( accessed on 1-8-14)
[25] Norman l. Geisler, Christian Apologetics: Fideism. Michigan: baker book house,47.
[26]  Bible, “Fideist Apologetics”.


[27] Randall L. Hroziencik ,”The History & Philosophy of Fideism”http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ARS-COURSE-1-PAPER.docx
[28] Apologetics Index, “Cumulative Apologetics”.
[29] Russ White, “Cumulative Apologetics”.
[30] Apologetics Index, “Cumulative Apologetics”.
[31] Russ White, “Cumulative Apologetic”.
[32] Paul Derengowski, “Presuppositional Apologetic”.

[33] Paul Derengowski, “Presuppositional Apologetic”.

[34] Apologetics Index, “Presuppositional Apologetics”.
[35] Russ White, “Presuppositional Apologetic”.