Introduction
The Definition and Scope of Apologetics
The Need for a Proper Method in Apologetics
Chapter 1: The Problem of Truth
The Ontological Problem
The Epistemological Problem
Chapter 2: The Two Competing Methodologies
Presuppositionalism
Evidentialism
Chapter 3: The Starting Point
Chapter 4: The Role of Natural Theology

In the field of apologetics there are basically two competing methodologies vying for supremacy in theological circles--presuppositionalism and evidentialism. These two systems are opposed to each other both ontologically and epistemologically. Within these two methodologies, there are several approaches used to accomplish the apologetic task. The question arises, "Is one approach better than another?" Or, "Is there one approach that is the correct approach?"

At its fundamental level, all approaches can be differentiated on the basis of where they begin their apologetic duties. In other words, different approaches usually differ in their starting point, the point where they begin doing apologetics.

This battle over methodology and approach is important because the position one holds will have a profound effect on the way in which one communicates the truth of the gospel to the unbelieving world. The purpose of this paper is to examine the logical starting point for apologetics and to suggest a method for building upon this beginning.

Before beginning this task, it is necessary to lay a basic groundwork as to the definition of apologetics. The word "apologetics" comes from the Greek word apologia. It was the common legal word used when making a defense in court. For example, it is used of Paul on several occasions when he made his defense before his accusers (Acts 19:33; 22:1; 24:10; 25:8, 16; 26:1, 2, 24).

Although apologetics refers to a reasoned defense of the Christian faith, it involves more than mere theology. Its scope includes not only theology, but also philosophy. It deals with such knotty issues as "Why this and not that" or What is truth?" As Ronald Mayers stated,

In fact, the foundation of apologetics is more philosophical than it is theological. There is a vast difference between apologetics and theology. Theology begins with the basic truths of Christianity as either already proven or as presupposed. On the other hand, the task of apologetics is to give validity to Christianity. As Gordon Lewis stated,

From this, it is evident that, in one sense, apologetics is prior to theology. It is the task of apologetics to lay the groundwork and give a reasonable basis for even attempting to build a theological structure.

Some may argue, as is discussed later, that a reasoned defense of Christianity leaves no room for faith. Those holding this view seem to consider faith and reason mutually exclusive. However, in actuality, they are complementary. Reason makes belief possible. As Lewis put it, "Apologetic argument may not create belief, but it creates the atmosphere in which belief can come to life."³ No sane individual, excluding neo-orthodox theologians, believes in something he considers irrational. A rational defense of the Christian faith builds a bridge for faith to be exercised.

Scripture commands Christians to be ready to make a defense (apologia) to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15 NASB). With this in mind, one can see that apologetics is the reasoned defense of the Christian faith--philosophically, logically and historically. As the author's of the book Classical Apologetics defined it:

A brief history of the underlying assumptions of American society will show why this debate over apologetic method and its logical starting point is so important. Before the 1930s, society, though not Christian, still held basic Judeo-Christian values. Even those who were anti-Christian still held the basic assumptions of Christianity.

Though this situation was good for both Christianity and society, it was detrimental to apologetics. Because of this, apologetics suffered from disuse. It went from being one of the three main disciplines of Christianity to a forgotten stepchild. The reason for its decline was simple. Since most people held to the basic tenets of Christianity, apologetics was not necessary to persuade them to accept Christianity as a world view. One could begin with theology since a majority of people already held to basic Christian assumptions. However, the situation has changed in the last few decades. No longer is this a nation anchored by Christian mores. It has now become a secular nation. This secularization has uprooted the entire cultural foundation of modern society. As one writer so aptly observed: 

American society has moved from a religious, Judeo-Christian foundation to a secular, naturalistic foundation. Where once the Scriptures were the authority, now nature is. To quote John Dillenberger, "The knowledge derived from nature was again superior to both Scripture and history...the attributes of God derived from nature could not be contradicted by revelation."⁶

Thus, the starting point from which one begins to evangelize has moved.⁷ No longer can one begin with theology. Now that scientism, skepticism, Kantianism, existentialism, and various other isms are dominating religious and secular thought, one must begin before theology, as was the case in earlier history. One must first show the validity and reasonableness of Christianity.

This is why apologetics, now more than ever, is so important. It is in the area of apologetics that Christians can make Christianity credible to the scoffer, believable to the skeptic and undeniable to the atheist.

However, even among apologists, many do not have a comprehensive system that is "able to give to every man a reason." Their systems give a reason to some men, but not all men. The problem is that they do not begin their apologetic arguments "far enough back." They begin too close to theology. They do not lay a sufficient philosophical groundwork to support their otherwise wonderful assertions.

This leads to the crux of this paper. Since apologetics is so foundational and important, then it stands to reason that one must have a good apologetic method to withstand the various onslaughts provided by the multiplicity of world views. Thus, the debate over apologetic method is more than semantic quibbling. One's apologetic method is crucial to the overall soundness of his apologetics. Without the proper method, one's whole apologetic superstructure will collapse.

Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to formulate a proper method for apologetics and discover the best starting point for using this method. This will be done by examining the debate between presuppositional and evidential apologetics and showing that a modified evidentialism based on natural theology is the best approach because its philosophical starting point is superior to that of presuppositionalism. This will be done by first exploring the basic philosophical methods used in developing an apologetic. Then, the problems of ontology and epistemology in apologetics will be discussed. Finally, a case will be built for a modified evidential approach based closely on natural theology.

The scope of this paper is limited basically to the question, "Where does one start when ‘apologizing?’" This starting point will be called the "upper end" of apologetics since this is where one begins. This paper will not deal with the "lower end" of apologetics. By "lower end" it is meant the specific details or evidences that are commonly used to "prove" Christianity by mere evidences. Those evidences, though wonderful, are beyond the scope of this paper.

Finally, it needs to be stated that at least a cursory knowledge of philosophy is helpful in such an endeavor as determining the starting point of apologetics since the answer to the question is more philosophical than Biblical.

The Problem of Truth

When Jesus stood before Pilate, Pilate asked Him, "What is truth?" Of all of the questions in life, there is none more basic. Truth can be defined as "that which corresponds accurately to reality." The goal of both philosophy and theology is to find "the truth." The problem is, what test or criteria can one use to determine the truth? This is the problem that has been the impetus of philosophy through the centuries.

John Wisdom, in his book Philosophy and Psychoanalysis, gave what has become a classic illustration of the problems encountered when trying to find "the truth."⁸ He told the story of two men who return to a neglected garden and find a few vigorous plants growing among the weeds. One of the men believes that it is the result of an invisible gardener, while the other man tries to find some other explanation.

Why do these two men, upon investigating the same situation, have different conclusions? Is it because one of them has found some evidence that the other one does not have? Or is it because one or both of them is reasoning illogically? Or do their attitudes skew their interpretation? Or is it that maybe they are basing their interpretations upon differing world views? As one can see, the problem of discovering the truth and knowing the truth is complex.

In the above illustration and in real life, the problem of knowing the truth involves two basic areas¾ ontology and epistemology. Ontology comes from two Greek words and deals with the study of being. It is concerned with the ultimate nature of reality. It asks the question, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" Epistemology, deals with the study of knowing. It is concerned with how a person knows what he knows.

In the area of apologetics, one attempts to build an apologetic model that begins at the most basic starting point. In order to determine where this starting point is (which will be done later), it is first necessary to have a brief understanding of the problem of ontology, for ontology is at the root of all apologetics. As Mayers stated, "The foundation of a Christian apologetic must be firmly based on the Christian understanding of ontology."⁹

The first problem encountered in ontology is the question, "Is the ultimate reality of the universe (its ontological makeup) one or is it pluralistic?" Put another way, is there an ultimate unity to the universe or is there an inherent diversity? This has been called the problem of the one and many. On the surface this may seem trivial or irrelevant. In reality, however, the answer to this question will have a profound effect on society.

For example, if all is one, then ultimately there are no particulars. Thus, there can be no "meaning" in the universe because even the idea of meaning suggests a separation, delineation, or a particularization. On the other hand, if all is particular, then everything (including morals) has its own meaning. Thus, there can be no right or wrong, no absolutes, because everything has its own "self-specified" meaning. Therefore, no matter which route one takes, the final result is meaninglessness.

As stated earlier, this has a profound effect upon society. Rousas Rushdoony gave two historical examples to show what happens to society when either of these ontological views is held. He explained how that in ancient Mesopotamia the unity or oneness of the universe was stressed.

Later, he tells how that in Greek thought the particulars were stressed. According to Rushdoony, this found Its most dramatic expression in the Cynics who, "denying all universals in favor of the purely particular meaning, they logically renounced all social controls, conventions, and moral standards they mocked the idea of moral law.''¹¹ He sums this up by stating, "Thus, to affirm the one means that a social order falls into the abyss of meaninglessness, and to affirm the many means the same collapse into the anarchy of meaninglessness [infinite meanings]."¹² Since affirming either a materialistic monism (the particulars) or an idealistic monism (oneness) leads to utter meaninglessness, philosophers and apologists have either ignored this problem or tried to devise some type of dialectical approach. One cannot, however, ignore the problem, since it is at the heart of reality and being. Thus, Mayers has devised a compromise view of ontology where he stresses both the universality and diversity of being.

He observed,

Thus, he stressed the fact that ontology should somehow combine both the ideas of universality and particularity. Since holding either to the exclusion of the other leads to utter meaninglessness, it seems necessary to agree with Mayers that reality is indeed both. This leads to metaphysical dualism.

Dualism asserts that there are two types of "being" in the universe--matter and mind. Not many philosophers have been dualists since it is

Thus far, the ontological problem can be summarized as follows. If the ultimate reality of the universe is an idealistic monism, then particulars have no meaning whatsoever. This leads to utter meaninglessness. At the same time, if the ultimate reality of the universe is a materialistic monism, then the infinite number of unrelated meanings to be found in the universe will also lead to a meaningless existence. Therefore, rather than trying to reduce reality into one or the other, it seems best to affirm that there are two types of reality in the universe, mind and matter, universals and particulars, the permanent and the changing. Dualism, then, is the only answer to the ontological problem.

After determining that dualism is the only logical answer to the ontological problem, one must answer the question, "How can two absolutely different ultimates exist in the universe?" To answer this question, it first needs to be noted that these two ultimate realities are not mutually exclusive. They cannot be separated. They do not exist apart from each other. If they were mutually exclusive, then there would be no debate about ontology because there would be no contact between the two ultimate realities.

Since they are not mutually exclusive, then the two ultimate realities must be related in some way to each other. This means that they are either equally interdependent or that one of the two is contingently dependent on the other. In the first position, it seems inconceivable that there could be two ultimate realities that are equally interrelated. If this were the case, then it would seem best to take both realities together and consider them one. However, doing so would revert the situation back to the problem of monism.

Thus, the two ontological realities must be related contingently. This is not an eternal dualism, but rather, one where the ultimate reality (God/Spirit) created a dependent, but interrelated reality (matter). Thus, there are two kinds of "stuff" in the universe. One is ultimate and eternal. The other, though just as "real" and different, is dependent on the first. Warren Young called this a contingent dualism.¹⁵ This interrelated dependent type of dualism seems to be the best ontological foundation upon which to establish an apologetic method.

After tackling the problem of ontology, the area of epistemology and how it relates to apologetics needs to be discussed. As stated earlier, epistemology is the "study of knowing." It deals with such questions as, "What does it mean "to know?" "How do we know what we know?"

This question is of great importance because it plays a significant role in determining how one approaches his apologetic method. In order to develop an adequate epistemology, it will be necessary to examine briefly the three ways in which knowledge is gained.

The first way knowledge is obtained is through the senses. This is known as empiricism. Empirical knowledge is gained through observation. One of the problems with empiricism is that it is possible for one's perceptions to be fooled. One can never be sure that what he senses is actually what is there. Empirical knowledge can only "prove" something with a high degree of probability. It can never prove with a 100 percent degree of certainty.

A second way of gaining knowledge is through rationalistic methods. Rationalism states that there are basic laws of logic which govern the universe. These laws are self-evident and undeniable. These laws are axioms upon which other truths may be derived. Without them, reasoning cannot take place. The law of non-contradiction falls into this category.
A final way of knowing is through intuition. This knowledge is innate in nature and is "built in." It is standard equipment for all "models" of humanity.

Throughout history, there have been various views that have tried to deny one or more of these methods of knowing. However, none has really succeeded. Each of these ways of knowing has its benefits as well as its drawbacks.

Then, too, various epistemological positions have been used throughout history which emphasize one of these ways of knowing over the others. For example, existential beliefs usually emphasize intuitive knowledge. Naturalistic beliefs tend to emphasize empirical knowledge, while idealistic beliefs lean toward rationalism.

From this, it seems that a balance is necessary. An epistemology needs to be developed that integrates all three ways of knowing. Thus, the approach taken here will be an eclectic one that makes use of all three. The exact way in which they will be integrated will be discussed later.

To summarize thus far, it has been shown that the best ontological foundation from which to work is a contingent dualism. Second, it has been stated (though not proven yet), that one's epistemology needs to be eclectic, including all three areas of knowledge.

With this as a background, the next step is to find an adequate starting point from which to build an apologetic system. Before doing so, however, it will be necessary to review the two main apologetic systems: presuppositionalism and evidentialism.

The Two Competing Methodologies

As stated earlier, there are basically two methodologies used by theologians in the apologetic task: presuppositionalism and evidentialism. These approaches are quite different. The approach one uses will have a profound effect upon the effectiveness of his presentation. Therefore, a brief review and critique of each is necessary.

Presuppositionalism is a methodology that, instead of proving the validity of the Christian world view, accepts it as a given. It begins with theology, rather than proving theology.

The presuppositional approach is best characterized by the writings of Cornelius Van Til. Van Til, rather than arguing philosophically to establish the Christian world view, presupposes both the Trinity and the authority of the Scriptures. He admits that historically, his presuppositional view is new and was not the method used by most theologians throughout church history.¹⁶ He condemns, however, the traditional method as having

Thus, Van Til sees the traditional method as making man the judge of God.

In defending the newness of his approach he traced the history of the doctrine of Christ as it has been more fully articulated through the centuries. He stated, "I have said that the development of the church's doctrine of Christ took place in three basic steps and that these steps were necessary prerequisites for a truly Biblical apologetics."¹⁸ He goes on to say that

From this, it is easy to see that Van Til's apologetic method comes directly from his strict Calvinistic theology. To Van Til, a proper method for apologetics was not even possible until Calvin's fully articulated Christology.

As far as other epistemological methods are concerned, Van Til dogmatically states that

Thus, in Van Til's system, not only can one not know the truth of Christianity apart from presupposing it, one cannot know anything apart from presupposing God.

In summarizing his view, Van Til states that "we use the same principle in apologetics that we use in theology: the self-attesting, self-explanatory Christ of Scripture."²¹ In other words, his methods for both theology and apologetics are identical. He goes on to say "that we no longer make an appeal to ‘common notions’ which Christian and non-Christian agree on, but to the 'common ground' which they actually have because man and his world are what Scripture says they are.''²² By this, he means that one does not find a common epistemological ground upon which to argue the validity of the Christian faith. Rather, one argues from the fact of Scripture that man is what God and Scripture say he is. As he stated, "The question of starting point is largely determined by one's theology.''²³

In summary, Van Til's method makes two presuppositions, one ontological and one epistemological. Ontologically, he assumes the existence of the Trinity as disclosed in the Scriptures. Epistemologically, he presupposes the authority of the Scriptures as the only means of knowing any truth.

There are several serious problems with Van Til's presuppositional view. To begin, in the normal sense of the word, his method is not even apologetics. He has begged the whole apologetic question and jumped directly into theology. As the authors of Classical Apologetics rightly assert, "If we presuppose rather than prove, have we not abandoned apologetics rather than performed it? Feasible as all the presuppositionalists' answers sound, do they not beg all the questions? If they displace evidentialism, do they not do so by abandoning apologetics in the process?"²⁵

Rushdoony, seeing the logic of the above criticism, adds, "If we begin thus with the ontological trinity [sic] as our concrete universal, we frankly differ from every school of philosophy and from every school of science not merely in our conclusions, but in our starting-point and in our method as well."²⁶

A second problem with Van Til's presuppositionalism is that, inherent within it, he denies the autonomy of man. Gordon Lewis, in comparing Carnell's explanation of presuppositionalism to that of Van Til's, rightly observes that at least

A third argument against Van Tilism is a charge that he often makes of evidentialists. In his opinion, evidential apologetics destroys the Reformed theology to which he clings so dearly. In My Credo, he states,

This charge, that evidential apologetics destroys the "self-attesting Christ" of Scriptures can be turned around and used to refute presuppositionalism. If the only way to know that Christianity is true is to presuppose it, then will this not destroy its legitimacy in the eyes of those who want a different test for truth? As the Ligoniers reply,

Another problem with presuppositionalism is that it gives no reason for accepting the Scriptures as the authority. If the fundamental doctrines must be presupposed and not proved, does this not detract from Christianity's credibility? Why should a person believe the Bible is the authority? Why should he presuppose the truth of the Trinity? Why not believe in the Koran? Why not presuppose a quadrune God? Norman Geisler addresses this issue when he quotes Carnell, a presuppositionalist, who states, "The appeal to special revelation...is like any other hypothesis¾ verified when it results in an implicative system which is horizontally self-consistent and which vertically fits the facts."³⁰

Van Til fails to give to the unbeliever any reason for beginning where he does. In fact, Van Til himself says that the non-Christian will "certainly find the Christian religion incredible because [it is] impossible and the evidence for it...inadequate."³¹ Now, if the Christian religion is incredible with evidences, just think how far-fetched it would be without them. If man is so depraved that he cannot see how reasonable Christianity is when confronted with evidences, then how is he ever going to presuppose such an inexplicable doctrine as the Trinity?!

Since Van Til offers no test for distinguishing between Weltanschauungs (world views), the unbeliever is left with the choice of deciding between the multiplicity of world views available. As John Warwick Montgomery stated,

One final problem with presuppositionalism is its similarity to neo-orthodoxy. The neo-orthodox theologian, believing Christianity irrational, but nevertheless subjectively true, makes an irrational "leap of faith." Likewise, the presuppositionalist, by-passing apologetics, makes a "leap of Calvinism" in order to presuppose Christianity.

In wrapping up this critique of presuppositionalism, Montgomery's words are fitting when he contended that

The second major apologetic method is an evidential approach. This approach relies heavily on facts to convince an unbeliever of the truth of Christianity. Some evidential approaches, such as that of Josh McDowell,³⁴ are based solely on historical and empirical evidences. Other evidential approaches, such as used by many throughout church history, combine rationalistic arguments with evidences to form an apologetic system.

The Bible abounds with appeals to both empirical and historical evidences of the Christian faith. When Thomas doubted that it was the Lord and that He was resurrected, Jesus told him, "Reach hither thy finger." Jesus was making an appeal to empirical evidence. In 1 Corinthians 10:11, Paul writes, "But these were given for our example." This is an appeal to historical evidences.

Evidences are a prerequisite for apologetics. In fact, the word "apologetics," since it means "a reasoned defense," implies that evidence will be used. As Montgomery states in the preface of his book, Faith Founded on Fact,

The material universe was created by God to be knowable through the senses. In His sovereignty, God planned for man to be able to receive and interpret evidence from the natural world. In fact, life would be impossible without this ability.

But, evidentialism has some problems also. First, the limitations of evidentialism need to be observed. Empirical evidences can never prove something to be 100 percent true. Empirical evidences can only ensure a high degree of probability. This is why some have feared the use of evidences because on the basis of evidence alone one could only ascertain with a high degree of probability that Christianity is true.

A second problem with evidentialism is that meaning does not necessarily arise out of bare facts. Facts need a context into which they are interpreted. Thus, facts are interpreted from within a person's existing worldview. As Geisler points out,

He goes on to state

A third problem with appealing to miraculous evidences is that it begs the question. For example, an anomaly in nature occurs. The evidentialist shouts, "Aha! See, A miracle! Therefore, there must be a God!" But, by calling the anomaly a miracle, he has begged the question. A miracle presupposes God. Who knows, the anomaly in question could be an unknown aberration of nature. Thus, it can be seen that evidences alone cannot "prove" God.

Thus far it has been shown that presuppositionalism is inadequate for building an apologetic system and that evidentialism, at best, can only give a high degree of probability to the truthfulness of Christianity. Because of this, many have settled for a less than proven Christianity. Many think that it is impossible to prove Christianity. The best that one can hope for is a high degree of probability. This view is held by such men as Gordon Lewis and Oliver Buswell. Lewis feels that of all of the alternatives, Christianity has the highest degree of certainty and that a person can be morally assured, though not logically assured, that Christianity is true. He explained,

After explaining various epistemological viewpoints and showing how Christianity is adequate empirically, rationally, and intuitively, Lewis concluded,

To summarize what has been said thus far, an apologetic method needs to be devised that will effectively reach the modern world. This apologetic will be grounded ontologically on a contingent dualism. Epistemologically, it will need to be eclectic, making use of empirical, rational, and intuitive knowledge. A purely presuppositional apologetic fails because it begs the apologetic question entirely. A purely evidential approach, or even a combinational approach, can only guarantee with a high degree of certainty that Christianity is true. Thus, for those who desire an "air-tight" argument, more needs to be done.

The Starting Point

As stated earlier, any apologetic method, if it is to "give an answer to every man," must start far enough back to reach every man. To illustrate what is meant by this, consider the following. One begins in evangelism where a man is. Thus, in the United States, prior to 1920, it was possible to begin with theology, even to the point of presupposing theology, because most men were at the point where they at least accepted the basic tenets of Christianity. However, in today's society, the starting point has moved back to where one must begin with the evidences to show that Christianity and theology are true. Further still, if one were to speak to someone who had been influenced by eastern religions, one would have to start even further back to show that theism is the correct worldview. Therefore, it is time to construct an apologetic that starts far enough back to reach every philosophical persuasion and yet argue correctly enough to get to Christian theology.

In constructing a universal apologetic, the single most important factor is the starting point. A point of contact, or common ground, must be found that both the Christian and non-Christian can agree upon. As C. S. Lewis said, "What we learn from experience depends [italics mine] on the kind of philosophy we bring to experience. It is therefore useless to appeal to experience before we have settled, as well as we can, the philosophical question.''⁴⁰ The problem is in finding a starting point that is common to all men. Some point of contact must be found that can be agreed on by all men. But, how does one find this point?

Norman Geisler, in his book Christian Apologetics, gives a unique approach to building his apologetic system. He begins his apologetic with a two-fold proposition. He explains it as follows:

Geisler's test of undeniability can be borrowed and used to find a universal starting point. The test of undeniability is a rational argument. It postulates that anything which is undeniable must therefore exist. An example of it is Rene Descartes' starting point. He lived in an age when skepticism was flourishing. Thus, he began his philosophy with his existence. He reasoned that his existence was true because it was undeniable. If he denied his existence he had to exist to make the denial. Therefore, he must exist.

This test can be used to find a universal starting point. Anything that can be said to be undeniable or self-evident must be true. Below is a list of at least six things that are undeniable and therefore provide a common starting point for apologetics.

2. The existence of others.

4.The validity of the law of non-contradiction.

5.The validity of the law of causality.

6.The basic reliability of sense perception.

Each of these needs to be discussed to show that it is undeniable.

One's existence is undeniable. To deny one's existence one must therefore exist. Augustine, almost in anticipation of the future skepticism that would be prevalent, wrote:

Descartes, who used skepticism as a springboard to certainty, argued that

This has been defended traditionally by an argument from analogy. Geisler and Feinberg state it this way,

Though the above is a reasonable argument, it is not necessarily convincing enough to make the existence of others undeniable. However, the existence of others is in fact a self-evident truth. Why have a debate over apologetical method if others do not exist? If solipsism were true, then why would a person ever argue? Why would they address other people in conversation? Solipsism is self-defeating and therefore false. Therefore, the existence of others must be taken as self-evident.

Again, this is self-evident. If these existent selves could not reason, then communication would be impossible. There would be no contact between selves, no sharing of information or ideas. The fact that one can use the test of undeniability implies the ability to reason. The fact that ideas are debated implies that these existent selves do reason.

The law of non-contradiction is foundational to all of reality. Formally, it can be defined: A cannot be not-A at the same time and in the same relationship.⁴⁵ It is undeniable because to deny it would make communication unintelligible. It is self-attesting because without it no reasoning could take place. As Mayers points out,

One cannot deny the law of non-contradiction without using it. It is undeniable, and therefore, it must be true.

5. The validity of the law of causality.
The universality of the law of cause and effect is also undeniable. Its proof is well stated by the authors of Classical Apologetics when they write,

Some, such as Hume, may argue that "causes and effects are discernable, not by reason but by experience."⁴⁸ This would prevent its use as a common ground starting point. However, this charge can be answered by stating that particular causes and effects (plural) are discerned by experience. However, the concept of cause and effect is not learned through experience. As stated above, it is tautological.

This is another self-attesting truth. Sense perception is the only means that a person has to gain information from the physical world. On the undeniability of sense perception, Montgomery writes,

Thus, it can be argued quite successfully that everyone who can argue can and must begin with at least these basic assumptions because they are all undeniable and therefore true. This is the starting point with which all can agree.

Now that the starting point has been established, it is necessary to build a sound argument that will move from these basic assumptions to a theistic world view.

The Role of Natural Theology

The arrangement of the argument thus far has been as follows. First, it has been shown that ontologically the universe must be a contingent dualism. Second, one's epistemology must recognize all three ways of obtaining knowledge. Third, it has been shown that presuppositionalism is woefully lacking as a basis for an effective apologetic. Fourth, in order to have an universal apologetic, a common starting point must be found upon which all men must undeniably agree. Now that those basic, undeniable assumptions have been delineated, the next step is to formulate some method of proving a theistic universe from these assumptions. This brings one to what is commonly called natural theology.

Some evidentialists try to move from the above heuristic assumptions to a proof for Christianity by stressing the historical evidences. However, this is too big of a jump. Evidences need a context, or a world view, from which they are interpreted. Thus, before the evidences can argue for any particular meaning, one must first decide upon a world view from which to interpret the evidences. But how does one do that?

Norman Geisler, in his book Christian Apologetics, argued that the test to use for deciding on a world view is the test of undeniability. The law of non-contradiction cannot be used because it is only a test for the falsity of a world view. The law of non-contradiction cannot establish a world view as correct. Thus, the only test that can be used to establish a world view is the test of undeniability because if something is undeniable, then it must be true.⁵⁰

Before the case is presented for the undeniability of theism, it needs to be said that all other world views, such as pantheism, panentheism, agnosticism, and atheism, have been shown to be false using various rational arguments.⁵¹ Now the case for theism must be presented.

The case for theism can be built using the six undeniable assumptions mentioned previously. This is where natural theology enters the picture. To begin, the difference between natural theology and general revelation needs to be mentioned. General revelation is a pr]or] in that it first admits that the world was created by God and then goes on to interpret the evidence in light of this fact.

On the other hand, natural theology is a posterlori in that it argues from nature to God irrespective of creation. Natural theology is based on the theistic arguments and is philosophical in nature. Thus, natural theology is the philosopher's path to God.

Basically, natural theology is based on the three classical theistic arguments for the existence of God: the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the ontological argument. All of these arguments can be constructed using the undeniable assumptions mentioned earlier. They also, when constructed properly, do provide proof for a theistic universe. Each of these will now be examined to show its cogency.

The most cerebral of the arguments is the ontological argument. This argument was first used by Anselm. In its most basic form it states: We have the idea of an absolutely perfect being. Existence is an attribute of perfection. Therefore, an absolutely perfect being must exist.

In this form, the argument breaks down (as many have objected) because having an idea of something does not necessarily prove its existence. It only proves that existence is part of the idea.⁵² Just because one can conceive of a perfect island does not mean that it must exist. However, if the form of the argument is changed to the formula espoused by Jonathon Edwards, then the argument takes on greater force. The authors of Classical Apologetics summarize Edwards' argument as follows:

Thus, the logic of this argument is that the existence of a necessary being is undeniable.

The second classical argument from natural theology for the existence of God is the cosmological argument. Of all of the arguments, this one is probably the best. It argues from effect to cause; from existence to necessary existence. It states that everything that exists must have a cause for its existence unless it is self-existent. But, if it is self-existent, then it must be the cause for all that exists.

The following is a summary of this argument as presented by the authors of Classical Apologetics.

If something exists, there are four possibilities for its existence. First, it could be an illusion. However, if it were, an illusion there must be a reason for the illusion. Plus, it is inconceivable to think of everything as an illusion because to do so would negate reality. Therefore, even if the thing under examination is an illusion, there must be something else which is not an illusion.

Second, if it exists, it could be self-created. Yet, this is impossible because for something to be self-created it must have existed prior to its self-creation. However, this is impossible.

Third, its existence could be caused by something else. This would mean that its existence is contingent upon something else.

Finally, it could be self-existent. From this, it can be seen that something must necessarily exist because: (1) something really exists other than a mere illusion, (2) this something cannot be self-created, (3) this something must either be contingently existent or self-existent, (4) if this something is contingently existent, then it must be dependent on something that is not contingently existent, (5) if this something is self-existent, then It must exist necessarily.

Now, whatever exists necessarily must be the cause of the existence of what exists contingently. Therefore, the thing that exists necessarily must be God because it is the cause of the existence of everything that exists contingently.⁵⁴

The third classical argument for the existence of God is the teleological argument. This argument argues from the presence of design in the universe to the existence of a designer. This argument is actually dependent upon the cosmological argument. Thus, if the case for the cosmological argument is sound, then the case for the teleological argument is sound also.

Those who object to this argument do so by claiming that it only requires a finite God. It does not require an omnipotent God, but only a God who is powerful enough to create this orderly universe.

On the surface, this criticism seems valid. But when one considers the aforementioned cosmological argument, the fallacy of this criticism is made evident. Since there exists a self-existent necessary being who is the cause of all that is (cosmological argument), then even if a "finite god" created this universe, there must be an infinite God behind the finite god. So, on its own, the teleological argument would only prove a powerful, though not necessarily omnipotent God. However, coupled with the cosmological argument, it does add weight to the theistic proofs.

From this discussion of the three main theistic proofs used in natural theology, the cosmological argument, based on the idea of cause and effect, is the main element in the argument. In fact, Geisler builds his whole argument for theism on this argument alone. He considers the ontological argument as rationally flawed and sees the teleological argument as only probable. Thus, he relies solely on the cosmological argument for demonstrable proof of theism.⁵⁵

In conclusion of this section, the words of Dr. Addison Leitch are worthy of notice when he says that the classical arguments

The theistic arguments, especially the cosmological argument, when stated in their strongest form, not only provide a strong probability for the existence of God, but do in actuality, provide a strong rational proof for the existence of God. As the Ligoniers state, "When properly formulated [the traditional theistic arguments] they are compelling certainties and not merely suggestive possibilities."⁵⁷

Now that the case for theism has been given, all that remains is to show that within theism Christianity is the single "brand" of theism that best fits the facts.

Earlier, Geisler's two-fold methodology was mentioned. In it, he stated that undeniability was the test for competing world views. Then, once a world view was established from which to interpret facts, then coherence and systematic consistency is used to determine the validity of competing views within a world view. At this point, one goes beyond the scope of this paper. Let it suffice to say that once theism is established as the only possible world view, then the facts, interpreted theistically, point most consistently to the Christian God described in the Bible.

In conclusion, the argument presented is this. First, an apologetic is needed that begins at an ultimate, universal starting point. The reason for this is that many today do not hold to Christian presuppositions. In the past, because of common assumptions that were a part of American culture, it was possible to begin with theology and evangelize. However, with the secularization of society, it is now necessary to begin apologetics before theology. Today, it is first necessary to show the validity of Christianity as opposed to other world views before one can move on to appealing to theology.

Next, ontologically it was shown that the universe is a contingent dualism. Then it was shown, or accepted, that it is possible to know things both rationally, innately, and empirically. From this, the test of undeniability was used to prove at least six undeniable axioms from which to build an apologetic system.

Next, using the undeniable axioms, the traditional theistic arguments were used to show the necessity of a theistic universe and the falsity of all other world views. Finally, from this theistic viewpoint, it can be further shown that Christianity is true.

One closing remark needs to be made about the role that the Holy Spirit, commitment, and reason play in apologetics. Though a rational argument for the existence of God has been proposed, this is not meant to imply that rational arguments alone are enough to convince the unbeliever. No person can be argued into heaven. It is the Holy Spirit who brings conviction of sin and who opens the "blind eyes" of the unbeliever. No matter how sound the arguments are for God, the work of the Holy Spirit is necessary. Then, too, a person must still make a commitment of the will to accept God for who He is. So, these arguments do not guarantee faith. However, they do provide an atmosphere in which faith can grow.

The proof is there for those who are willing to accept it. The rational arguments from natural theology prove the existence of a theistic universe. The evidential arguments prove Christianity to be the truth within the theistic universe. The Holy Spirit proves the truth of Christianity subjectively in the hearts of men. So, it can be said without a doubt, God is!

-----------------------------------------------------