I 3300 51 Apologetics Parts 1-4

S 3300 Apologetics
Course Overview

The Meyer Family!
Stan, Jacqui, Carrie
Maybelle & Ginger
Tree of Life Messianic Congregation
stan.meyer@treelifeministry.org
480-535-7826

Course Objectives
1. Explain the rationale & Biblical imperative to do apologetics
2. Acquire skills to do apologetics
3. Identify people’s worldviews & their assumptions about truth
4. Present the case for the reliability & inspiration of Scripture
5. Present the case for the Messiahship of Jesus
6. Respond to criticisms from today’s popular culture
7. Become confident in our own faith
8. Become passionate to present and defend the gospel

Course Textbooks
Brooks. 2014. Urban Apologetics: Answering Challenges to Faith for Urban
Believers
Cowan, and Wilder. 2013. In Defense of the Bible: A Comprehensive
Apologetic for the Authority of Scripture
Ham, and Hodge. 2006. The New Answers Book (Volume 1)
McLaughlin, Rebecca. 2019. Confronting Christianity: 12 Hard Questions
for the World’s Largest Religion
Rosen, Moishe. 1982. Y’shua: The Jewish Way to Say Jesus.

Course Format
Friday, March 19 at 5:00 - 10:00 pm
Saturday, March 20 at 8:00 am - 6:00 pm
Friday, April 23 at 5:00 - 10:00 pm
Saturday, April 24 at 8:00 am - 6:00 pm

Course Assignments
Ten Discussion Questions: read & respond to one person (5 points ea)
Three short papers: 500-word, 2-pages - book or movie reviews (200
points ea)
One large paper: a. Abstract, 100-words (10 points), b. Oral
presentation (180 points), c. peer-reviews (10 points), d. written paper,
2000-words (500 points).
Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) Author-Date format

My Teaching Philosophy
• Flipped Classroom: Read outside / Discuss inside

Sign-Ups
In-class short presentations
FRI APR 23 - SAT APR 24 NAME
Summarize the Ontological, Teleological, & Cosmological
arguments
Explain the Moral argument for the existence of God
Explain the Scientific argument for Creation
Present the case for the Resurrection
Why do innocent people suffer?
Why did God command the genocide of the Canaanites?

Sign-Ups
Devotions
WHEN NAME
Saturday, March 20 8:30 am
Saturday, March 20 1:00 pm
Friday, April 23 5:30 pm
Saturday, April 24 8:30 am
Saturday, April 24 1:00 pm

Describe a time you got stumped!

Do you know someone who just
stopped believing in Jesus

Yale University
Duke
University
Union
Theological

What challenges the faith of struggling
Christians today?

Apologetics Defined
Apologia - Apology
• ἀπολογία - (n) a speech in defence [Socrates]
• ἀπολογίζομαι— (v) to reckon up, give in an account, to give an account of the
receipts, Aeschin.

Apologetics Defined
The Discipline
The rational defense of Christian faith. Historically, apologetic
arguments of various types have been given: philosophical
arguments for the existence of God; arguments that the existence of
God is compatible with suffering and evil; historical arguments, such
as arguments from miracles and fulfilled prophecies; and arguments
from religious experience, including mystical experience.
(Evans, Stephen 2002, Pocket Apologetics Dictionary, p. 16)

Why answer objections?
1. Because the Bible tells us to
2. Because it strengthens the faith of other believers
3. Because it builds our own confidence

Jude 3
Earnestly contend for the faith that
was once for all handed down to the
God’s people.

(1 Pet. 3:15–16 ESV)
In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy,
always being prepared to make a defense to
anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope
that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and
respect, having a good conscience, so that,
when you are slandered, those who revile your
good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

1 Peter 3:15-16
1. Prepared
2. Defense (apologia)
3. Anyone
4. Reason
5. Gentleness and respect
6. Good conscience (integrity)

2. Defense
Apologia
Legal term

Apologia ἀπολογία
(n) A speech in defense of something
(v) To speak in defense or to defend oneself
Apologismos - to give an account for an invoice

All of Luke-Acts is an Defense
it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time
past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you
may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught (Luke 1:2-4,
ESV).
• Luke noted specific dates and places
• Luke named names of famous people
• Luke cited Roman court cases
• Luke cited decisions of Roman magistrates
• Luke recorded detailed apologetic speeches (ex. Acts 17)

A Defense is a response to an a
legal challenge

Our Audience
• Seekers & Inquirers
• New Christians
• Doubting Christians
• Confused Christians

Our Audience
• Secular atheists
• New Age spiritually minded
• Cults & sects
• Non-Western Religious
• Generational differences

Our Challenges
• Is Jesus the Messiah?
• Are Christians disloyal to Caesar?
• Are we saved by faith alone?
• Does science contradict the Bible?
• Don’t all religions have truth?

Can you think of two people having
very different objections to the
gospel?

4. Reason
Reason & Faith are not
mutually exclusive

Acts 17:1-4, ESV
They came to Thessalonica, where there was a
synagogue…And Paul went in, as was his
custom, and on three Sabbath days he
reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
explaining and proving that it was necessary for
the Messiah to suffer and to rise from the dead,
and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to
you, is the Messiah.” And some of them were
persuaded.

What if you jump?
And just close your eyes?
What if the arms that catch you,
Catch you by surprise?
What if He's more than enough?
What if it's love?
(Nordeman, Brave, 2005)

Can you remember someone who
explained that reason is the
opposite of faith?

5. Gentleness & Respect
Win the battle, lose the war
Success but at what cost?

When was a time you won the
argument but lost the relationship?

6. Good Conscience
Moral integrity
Academic integrity

What are things we can do to
preserve academic integrity?

Learn to say, “I don’t know!”

B. Strengthens the
faith of believers

+ 50% of our audience are
Christians

C. Strengthens our
own confidence

Wait!
But the message of the cross is foolishness to those who
are perishing (1 Cor 1:18 ESV)

Wait!
But we’re called to love people into the kingdom

Wait!
But we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against
the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness,
against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. (Eph 6:12 ESV)

Anti-intellectualism
in American Life

What are the origins of modern
anti-intellectualism?

1. Evangelical Revivalism
2. 1950s Fundamentalism
3. 1970s Counterculture

Floyd, “Another Brick in the Wall”, 1979

Barnett (2019) Anti-Intellectualism in the Church

Part of our job as apologists is
winning the church to see the value
in apologetics

Part 2
How to answer objections

A. Determine if a question is sincere
B. Develop sound bites
C. Seize opportunities
D. Keep discussion going

A. Determine if it’s a
sincere question

Determine
Some questions are not
questions
• Are you trying to convert me?
• If I don’t believe in Jesus will I go to
hell?
• If Hitler accepted Jesus, would he go
to Heaven?
• How can you say only you have the
truth and everyone else is wrong?

Don’t answer a fool according to his foolishness or you’ll be like him
yourself. (Prov. 26:4, HCSB)
Answer a fool according to his foolishness or he’ll become wise in his own
eyes. (Prov. 26:5 HCSB)
Don’t give what is holy to dogs or toss your pearls before pigs, or they will
trample them with their feet, turn, and tear you to pieces. (Matt. 7:6 HCSB)

Resist the temptation to always
answer every question

RATS
When a question is not a question
1. Ridiculous
2. Attack
3. Trap
4. Stumper

Ridiculous
A question whose inquirer denies its premise
At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since
the seven were married to her? (Mark 12:23 NIV)

Ridiculous
If I don’t accept Jesus as my savior, will I go to
hell??

Ridiculous
How do we recognize them?
How can we answer them?

Attack
A personal attack framed as a question
“By what authority are you doing these things?” They
asked “And who gave you authority to do them?”
(Mark 11:28 NIV)

Attack
Why do you shove your beliefs down my throat?

Attack
How do you recognize it?
How can you answer it?

Trap
A question designed to set you up
Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not? (Luke 20:22 NIV)
Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. [The Torah]
commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They
were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for
accusing him. (John 8:4–6 NIV)

Trap
If Hitler accepted Jesus would he have gone to
heaven?
What does God think of Gays?

Trap
How do we recognize them?
How can we answer them?

Stumper
A complex question designed to disqualify the gospel
Can God create a rock heavier than He can lift?
How can Jesus be the Messiah if his biological
ancestry was through the mother, and patriarchal
ancestry was not Davidic?

Stumper
A complex question designed to stump you and disqualify you
How do we recognize it?
How can we answer it?

Responding to insincere questions
• Explain the question is not a question
• Reply with a question
• Seek to discern a person’s real question
• Always be redemptive

D. Keep discussion going
1. Schedule a meeting
2. Find appropriate place/time
3. Limit it (45 minutes?)
4. Don’t answer all their Q’s
5. Make new appt or
6. Sugg. standing meeting

E. Strategize
• Heads
• Hearts
• Hands
• Holy Spirit
HOLY
SPIRIT

Head
Cognitive Component
Demonstration in Wisdom

Heart
Affective component
Demonstration in love & feeling

Rose Price, Holocaust Survivor

Heart
Affective component
What are things we can do to show
People that we care as we meet
With them?

Hands
Physical component
Demonstration in action

Inn of the Sixth Happiness, Ingrid Bergman, 1958

Holy Spirit
God’s Role in Apologetics
Mission of God

Apologetics is a Response
Defense implies a Charge
• Different Historical Periods in Civlization
• Different Cultures
• Different Religions & Worldviews
• Different Generations

Early Apologists
Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho (150 AD)
CHAPTER XLII -- THE BELLS ON THE PRIEST'S ROBE WERE A
FIGURE OF THE APOSTLES.
Justin Martyr said to Trypho: Moreover, the prescription that twelve bells be
attached to the [robe] of the high priest, which hung down to the feet, was a
symbol of the twelve apostles, who depend on the power of Christ, the
eternal Priest; and through their voice it is that all the earth has been filled
with the glory and grace of God and of His Christ. Wherefore David also
says: 'Their sound has gone forth into all the earth, and their words to the
ends of the world.' And Isaiah speaks as if he were personating the
apostles, when they say to Christ that they believe not in their own report,
but in the power of Him who sent them.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html

Early Apologists
Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho (150 AD)
And so he says: 'Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord
revealed? We have preached before Him as if [He were] a child, as if a root in a dry
ground.' (And what follows in order of the prophecy already quoted.) But when the
passage speaks as from the lips of many, 'We have preached before Him,' and adds, 'as
if a child,' it signifies that the wicked shall become subject to Him, and shall obey His
command, and that all shall become as one child. Such a thing as you may witness in the
body: although the members are enumerated as many, all are called one, and are
a body. For, indeed, a commonwealth and a church, though many individuals in number,
are in fact as one, called and addressed by one appellation. And in short, sirs," said I, "by
enumerating all the other appointments of Moses I can demonstrate that they were types,
and symbols, and declarations of those things which would happen to Christ, of those
who it was foreknown were to believe in Him, and of those things which would also be
done by Christ Himself. But since what I have now enumerated appears to me to be
sufficient, I revert again to the order of the discourse.

Early Apologists
Justin Martyr First Apology (150 AD)
CHAPTER XX -- HEATHEN ANALOGIES TO CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.
Sibyl and Hystaspes foretold that there should be a global destruction
by God of things corruptible. And the philosophers called Stoics taught
that even God Himself shall be destroyed into fire, and they say that
the world is to be formed anew by this revolution; but we understand
that God, the Creator of all things, is superior to the things that are to
be changed. If, therefore, on some points we teach the same things as
the poets and philosophers whom you honour, and on other points are
fuller and more divine in our teaching, and if we alone afford proof of
what we assert, why are we unjustly hated more than all others?

Early Apologists
Justin Martyr First Apology (150 AD)
For while we say that all things have been produced and arranged into a
world by God, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of Plato; and while we
say that there will be a burning up of all, we shall seem to utter the
doctrine of the Stoics: and while we affirm that the souls of the wicked,
being endowed with sensation even after death, are punished, and that
those of the good being delivered from punishment spend a blessed
existence, we shall seem to say the same things as the poets and
philosophers; and while we maintain that men ought not to worship the
works of their hands, we say the very things which have been said by
the comic poet Menander, and other similar writers, for they have
declared that the workman is greater than the work.

Early Apologists
• Response to Roman and early Rabbinic accusations
• Method employed Allegorical Bible interpretation and Greek
Philosophy
• Issues was the Messiahship of Jesus, and civil charges
against Christian beliefs (ex. Loyalty to Caesar)
• Participants were philosophers, Roman historians, rabbis
• Agreement on Logic, reason, and Roman law

Medieval Apologists
Anselm’s Ontological Argument for God’s Existence
1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which
none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal,
greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is
greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to
suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be
imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists.
https://iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/

Scholastic Apologists
• Argument of Scholasticism - systematic Christian theology
• Method - employed Aristotelian philosophy
• Issue - explaining existence of God in terms of Greek
philosophy
• Participants were philosophers and theologians
• Shared agreement over authority of Greek logic & reason

Disputation of Barcelona
1263
Pablo Cristiana v Nachmanides

Medieval Apologists
Disputation of Barcelona (1263)
Had the Messiah Arrived? – Proof from the Talmud:
Pablo Christians cited the Midrash concerning a [Jewish] ploughman
whose cow lowed while he was ploughing. A passing Arab called to him,
"Israelite, Israelite, untie thy cow, untie thy plough, take apart thy
ploughshare, for the Temple has been destroyed." So he untied the cow,
untied the plough and disassembled the ploughshare. The cow then lowed a
second time. The Arab said to him, "Tie thy cow, tie thy plow, tie thy
ploughshare, for your Messiah has been born."
Nachmanides Replied: ”I am disagree with this Midrash. It’s not what I
believe
http://www.sixteenthstreetsynagogue.org/classes_files/archive/rambandisputation.pdf

Medieval Apologists
Disputation of Barcelona (1263)
Pablo Christianos Shouted: , See! He is renouncing their own [sacred] books!"
Nachmanides replied: ”Truly, I do not believe that Messiah was born on the day of
the [Temple's] destruction. Either this homily is not true or it has another meaning,
[which lies] among the secrets of the Sages. Yet, [even if] I would accept its literal
meaning as you have expressed it, then it is a proof for my contention, for this
[Midrash] relates that the Messiah was born on the day of the destruction, after that
event. If so, the Nazarene could not be the Messiah as you have said, for he was
born and was killed before the destruction. According to the truth, his birth took place
about two hundred years before the destruction, and according to your reckoning, [it
occurred] seventy-three years [before the destruction]."
Pablo Christianos was thereupon silenced.
http://www.sixteenthstreetsynagogue.org/classes_files/archive/rambandisputation.pdf

Medieval Disputes
• Response to having Jews in Christian Europe who denied
Messiahship of Jesus (and rise of Christian Hebraists)
• Issues discussed - Is Jesus the Messiah and has God rejected
the Jews (therefore they need to convert)
• Participants - Princes, Priests, and Rabbis
• Venue - Royal palaces and Churches
• Shared Agreement over God’s existence and OT Authority

What works?
What doesn’t work?

Reformation Apologists
John Calvin Letter to Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto (1539)
We maintain that in this way man is reconciled in Christ to God the
Father, by no merit of his own, by no value of works, but by gratuitous
mercy. When we embrace Christ by faith, and come, as it were, into
communion with him, this we term, after the manner of Scripture, the
righteousness of faith.
What have you here, Sadolet, to bite or carp at? Is it that we leave no
room for works? Assuredly we do deny that, in justifying a man, they are
worth one single straw. For Scripture everywhere cries aloud, that all
are lost; and every mans’s own conscience bitterly accuses him.
https://www.monergism.com/john-calvins-letter-cardinal-sadoleto-1539

Reformation Apologists
John Calvin Letter to Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto (1539)
The same Scripture teaches, that no hope is left but in the mere goodness
of God, by which sin is pardoned, and righteousness imputed to us. It
declares both to be gratuitous, and finally concludes that a man is justified
without works, (Rom. iv. 7.)
But what notion, you ask, does the very term Righteousness suggest to us,
if respect is not paid to good works ? I answer, if you would attend to the
true meaning of the term justifying in Scripture, you would have no difficulty.
For it does not refer to a man’s own righteousness, but to the mercy of God,
which, contrary to the sinner’s deserts, accepts of a righteousness for him,
and that by not imputing his unrighteousness.
https://www.monergism.com/john-calvins-letter-cardinal-sadoleto-1539

Reformation Debates
• Response to historical Roman Catholic doctrines
• Discussion around faith v works, papal authority
• Venue was churches, and books (ex. The Institutes)
• Participants were princes, church leaders, and congregants
• Agreement on central tenets of Christian belief, and the Bible

Jewish Apologists
1800s - present
Alfred Edersheim (1825 - 1889)

Jewish Apologists
1800s - present
• Messianic Prophecies
• Response to Jewish polemics
• Jewishness of the gospels
• Israel as an evidence of God’s exists
• Israel as an evidence of Bible’s authority

Jewish Apologists
1800s - present
• Response to Jewish immigration from E Europe and interest in
Pre-millennialism, and Christian Zionism
• Discussion centered around Messiahship of Jesus, Jewishness of
Gospels, and preservation of Jews
• Participants were pastors theologians, academics, and Jewish
immigrants
• Venue was books, literature, church pulpits
• Agreement on the Old Testament

Modernist -Fundamental Debate
1920s - 1970s

Modernist -Fundamental
Debate
Early Twentieth Century
Scopes Monkey Trial 1925

Modernist - Fundamentalist Debates
• Response to Charles Darwin, Scientific findings, Biblical Higher Criticism
• Discussion around literal reading of the Bible, Creation or Evolution,
historicity of Gospels
• Venue was news media and public forums and facilities and church
pulpits
• Agreement on importance of religion, existence of God, importance of
Bible, and absolute truth, Judeo-Christian morality
• Participants: Educators, pastors, political leaders

Post-WWII Apologetics
• Response to growing secularization and resentment of religion
• Discussion around existence of God, validity of religion,
historicity of Bible or even importance of Bible in culture
• Venue was literature books colleges and universities salons
• Participants: scholars, college students, intellectuals
• Agreement on morality in general and the place of reason, and
western cultural framework for discussion

The Trilemma: Lord, Liar, or Lunatic
Mere Christianity
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really
foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready
to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t
accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we
must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the
sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral
teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with
the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he
would be the Devil of Hell.
Lewis 1952, Mere Christianity

The Trilemma: Lord, Liar, or Lunatic
Mere Christianity
You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the
Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can
shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a
demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God,
but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His
being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He
did not intend to …. Now it seems to me obvious that He was
neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange
or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view
that He was and is God.
Lewis 1952, Mere Christianity

Evidence that
Demands a Verdict
Historical / Legal Approach to Apologetics

Historical - Legal inquiry
Evidential Approach
• Scientific evidence can be reproduced in a laboratory
• Scientific inquiry is empirical and can be quantified
• Historical evidence consists of testimonies and artifacts
• Historical inquiry is a legal process

Response to Western Counterculture
• Response to counterculture
• Discussion around existence of God, faith v reason, existence of
evidence, historicity of the Bible, resurrection (center of the argument)
• Venue college campuses, and professional gatherings
• Audiences young people and college students
• Minimal agreement on absolute truth, place of morals, reason as a
framework for inquiry, and western cultural worldview

Pesponse to Postmodernism
• Response to religious & cultural pluralism, globalization
• Discussion around existence of religious truth, validity of other
truth claims, evaluation of other religious claims, and how
inquiry is carried out
• Venue was often college campuses, radio, and internet
• Audience was everyone

Apologetics in the 21st Century
• Response to Popular Media and culture criticisms
• Attempt to re frame Apologetics for popular audiences (using the
language of journalists and interviews)
• Discussions centered around faith cultural accusations, creation, and
many other itemized issues
• Venue radio, books, internet, and churches
• Agreement ????

Cultural Apologetics
Mars Hill Productions
Michael L. Brown, askdrbrown
Lee Strobel
Tim Keller

How has apologetics evolved over
time?

Part 4
Approaches to Apologetics

Approaches to Apologetics
Types
• Classical Apologetics
• Evidential Apologetics
• Presuppositional Apologetics
• Cumulative Case Apologetics
• Cultural Apologetics

Classical Apologetics
Classical apologetics is a method of apologetics that begins by first
employing various theistic arguments to establish the existence of God.
Classical apologists will often utilize various forms of the cosmological,
teleological (Design), ontological, and moral arguments to prove God’s
existence. Once God’s existence has been established, the classical
apologist will then move on to present evidence from fulfilled prophecy,
the historical reliability of Scripture, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus
to distinguish Christianity from all other competing forms of theism.
https://www.gotquestions.org/evidential-apologetics.html

Classical Apologists
R. C. Sproul
Norman Geisler
William Craig Lane

Classical Apologetics
Who are classical apologists responding to?
What arguments are they responding to?
What assumptions are they making?
When would we use it?

Evidential Apologetics
Evidential apologetics is a method of Christian apologetics that
emphasizes positive evidences in favor of the truth of Christianity. The
distinctive feature of evidential apologetics is its one-step approach to
establishing Christian theism. Evidentialists will utilize evidence and
arguments from several areas including archeology, fulfilled messianic
prophecy, and especially from miracles.

In distinction from classical apologetics, the evidential apologist
believes that the occurrence of miracles acts as an evidence for
God’s very existence. In this way, the evidential apologist does
not believe that the philosophical and scientific arguments for
God’s existence must logically precede arguments from miracles
to establish biblical Christianity

Evidential Apologists
Ken Ham
Henry Morris
Josh McDowell
Lee Strobel (also cultural)
Gary Habermas
J. P. Moreland
Michael L. Brown (also cultural)

Presuppositional Apologetics
Presuppositional apologetics is an approach to
apologetics which aims to present a rational basis for
the Christian faith and defend it against objections by
exposing the logical flaws of other worldviews and
hence demonstrating that biblical theism is the only
worldview which can make consistent sense of reality.

Presuppositional apologetics does not discount the use of evidence,
but such evidences are not used in the traditional manner—that is,
an appeal to the authority of the unbeliever’s autonomous reason.
Presuppositional apologetics holds that without a Christian
worldview there is no consistent basis upon which to assume the
possibility of autonomous reason. When the materialist attempts to
refute Christianity by appeal to deductive reason, he is, in fact,
borrowing from the Christian worldview, hence being inconsistent
with his stated presuppositions.

Presuppositional Apologists
C S Lewis (?)
Cornelius Van Til (founder)
Craig Bahnsen
John Frame
Gordon Clark

Cumulative Case Apologetics
It is a broad-based argument with many subjective and objective
elements. They require explanation and in some cases can be
seen as reinforcing one another to strengthen the case for
Christian theism. The case is like a lawyer’s brief. The claim is
that Christian theism gives the most plausible explanation of all
the evidence.there must be some tests for truth like those
outlined in the previous section that can help adjudicate
conflicting truth claims. It is my contention that Christianity
passes these tests where other worldviews fall short.
Feinberg, P. 2000. “Culmulative Case Apologetics” Five Views on Apologetics. Zondervan

• Courtoom Standards
• Best argument on presented
• Preponderance of evidence
• Personal Testimonies & Human Witnesses
• Scientific and Historical Evidence

Cumulative Case Apologist
Paul Feinberg

• Strengths
• Weaknesses

Cultural Apologetics
The term “cultural apologetics” has been used to refer to systematic
efforts to advance the plausibility of Christian claims in light of the
messages communicated through dominant cultural institutions,
including films, popular music, literature, art, and the mass media.
So while traditional apologists would critique the challenges to the
Christian faith advanced in the writings of certain philosophers,
cultural apologists might look instead at the sound bite philosophies
embedded in the lyrics of popular songs, the plots of popular
movies, or even the slogans in advertising.
Gould, Paul. 2019. Cultural Apologetics. Zondervan. p. 17

Cultural Apologists
• Paul Gould, Cultural Apologetics
• Fred Carpenter, Mars Hill Productions
• Justin Brierley, Unbelievable Radio Show
• Lee Strobel, Case for the Real Jesus
• Christopher Brooks, Urban Apologetics
• Rebecca McLaughlin, Confronting Christianity
• Tim Keller (sometimes)
• Michael L. Brown (also messianic)

Cultural Apologists
• Strengths
• Weaknesses

I 3300 51 Apologetics Parts 1-4

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to I 3300 51 Apologetics Parts 1-4

Similar to I 3300 51 Apologetics Parts 1-4 (20)

More from S Meyer

More from S Meyer (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

I 3300 51 Apologetics Parts 1-4

Editor's Notes