Title of Essay

Summarise the key distinctions between the different apologetic methods/approaches:

• Classical
• Evidentialism
• Presuppositionalism
• Relational
• Experiential
• Narrative

Furthermore, identity three reasons as to why you prefer one particular method/approach as well as outlining a major weakness found in the other methods/approaches.

Commentary:

This was a subject that I have not enjoyed at all. Nevertheless, after getting a poorer mark for my earlier assignment, I poured a fair amount of effort into this assignment. I also approached it somewhat differently. The overall lecturer feedback was glowing, but frankly scant within the text.

Ultimately, the result was a high distinction: 88%. (I’ll be honest, there are typos and other errors that I think detract from this assignment and I don’t actually think it deserves a high distinction, but I’ll take it.)

Apologetics, Approaches and a Preference

Abstract

Of the six common methods of apologetics, two are specifically engaged with the evidence and the other four with the audience.  Rational or classical apologetics engage in a “two step” approach of providing evidence for the existence of a God and then introducing the Christian Deity.  Evidentialism provides rational and historical evidence for the veracity of Christianity.  Presuppositionalism is a method that seeks to understand the underlying assumptions of the apologetics audience and then contrast these assumptions with the Christian viewpoint, showing the person the better worldview of the Christian.  Experientialists compare and contrast the human experience with the Christian experience in God.  Narrative apologists aim to engage their audience in the grand narrative of creation, fall and redemption.  Underpinning all of these approaches to Apologetics is the relational approach that seeks to engage in relationship with the audience.  The end goal of apologetics is to clear the way for evangelism to take place.  Neglecting relationship in favour of “winning the argument” is tantamount to winning the battle but losing the war.  Persuasion of the gospel must be based in gentleness and respect in line with 1 Pet 3:15. In approaching apologetics, it is important to understand that the apologetics task occurs in a context, typically one of both intellectual and existential enquiry.  Evidentialism and Classical apologetics might win arguments but may lose people.  Presuppositional apologetics may provide a more complete and even compelling worldview but may not win hearts.  All the methods must be concerned with engaging with the human in front of the apologist who often has an emotional and existential reason for the barriers and concerns that they raise, and that the apologist is seeking to clear away.  An apologist needs to be flexible and dynamic in their approach, rather than machinelike and focussed on method.  The task is not simply to convince, but to engender action based on that conviction.  Building a relationship underpinned by evidence, narrative and experience is far more effective than merely winning the argument.

Introduction

It is common to categorise apologists and the apologetic task into some fairly constricted boxes. In truth, some apologists refute such categorisation and almost all approach the task of overcoming barriers to faith by using a range of apologetic tools.  The apologetic task requires a dynamic approach to audience engagement with a focus on persuasion.  A mechanical approach, which may deny the human experience and the existential question that often prompts the engagement between the apologist and their audience, seems doomed to failure.

All apologetic approaches must be founded in relationship to be effective in the task of persuasion.  Evidence as isolated facts, is seldom completely effective in changing people.

The Apologetic Approaches

Douglas Groothuis and Andrew Shepardson[1] define classical apologetics as the ministry of defending and commending the knowledge of God revealed in the Bible and in the world around us. Alister McGrath[2] defines of five types of apologetics: Evidentialism asserts the rational and historical evidence for Christianity; Presuppositionalism appeals to the way people reason and their underlying assumptions; Rationalism argues for the underlying rational truth of Christianity in the “Age of Reason” by asserting evidence for a deity and then introducing the Christian God; Experientialism argues for a better way of making sense of the human experience; and Narrative apologetics describes Christianity as a better narrative for the realities of life than other narratives. Another method is Relational which may underlie the other methods, recognising relationship as key to a meeting of the minds.[3]  It draws on 1 Peter 3:15 “… do it with gentleness and respect.”  It recognises connectedness founded in relationship as well as shared experience.[4]  Josh McDowell in “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” argues for relationship over “winning the argument”.[5]

Groothuis and Shepherd[6] assert that ministry in apologetics is dependent on context.  The audience, the apologist and the intellectual environment all play a significant part in the toolbox used by the Apologist.

Apologetics and Engagement

Context

CS Lewis approaches apologetics through an existential exploration of what makes our lives meaningful.[7]  The backdrop of enquiry is an intellectual and existential struggle.[8]  The intellectual weight of both Classical and Evidential Apologetics may not go far enough in creating significant and meaningful connections with human experience and existence.[9]  Justin Bailey[10] queries the place of certain types of Apologetics in engaging an audience seeking internalised resonance and authenticity.  Francis Schaeffer’s approach was biblical, reasonable, relational[11], conversational and incarnational [12].  He embraced evangelism and refuted the distinction of “apologist”.[13]  It is important to distinguish Apologetics and the end goal of evangelism.[14]  A goal of evangelism makes relational engagement vital.  Therefore, the apologetic task is contextualised within the role of convincing a thinking person of the truth of Christianity.[15]  Josh McDowell notes, “Our motivation… is to glorify and magnify Jesus Christ, not to win an argument… Evidence [his book] is not for proving the word of God … but for providing a reasoned basis for faith.”[16]  Thus, begin the task with the end in mind.[17]

The Problem of Audience Engagement – Classical and Evidentialist Approaches

In Romans 1:21[18], Paul observes that although humanity may know God, “they do not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened.”  The task therefore, is not simply to convince someone of a deity and then introduce them to the Christian God as in Classical or Rational Apologetics; it is not just to supply the evidence for the Christian faith as an evidentialist.  The task engages with criticism, objection and concern[19] to clear the way for evangelism.  The apologetics task complements evangelism and supports it.  Effectively, it engages persuasively.  Other apologetic approaches may better tackle this problem of persuasive engagement.

How to Engage an Audience

Presuppositional Approach

Stephen Covey[20] recites an important principle when he urges us to “seek first to understand, then to be understood”.  Presuppositionalism[21] is a method for understanding another’s assumptions or worldview and then providing a Christian worldview[22].  It creates a deep engagement with one’s audience in the style of Covey’s principle.  Francis Schaeffer’s all-encompassing Christian worldview contrasts and with his cultural awareness enabled engagement with the presuppositions of his audience[23]. 

Experiential Approach

CS Lewis spoke to an experience common to most humans of a certain void in the absence of God in our lives[24]. This experience contrasted with the experience of Christian faith[25].  Therefore, through connectedness with an audience’s experience, the experiential methodology creates engagement with the audience with empathy and a solution[26]. 

Narrative Approach

Introducing one’s audience to the grand narrative of God’s engagement with humanity, enables engagement with the audience in the narrative, engaging mind and heart.[27]  Lewis, again, was a master of this approach.[28]

Relational Approach

Creating a relationship that allows deep engagement is crucial to overcoming the barriers to faith progressing to evangelising.  Bill Nyman[29] observes of Francis Schaeffer, that he “understood that one needs to be in tune with the thought patterns of secular society in order to … know how to bring the gospel to them in a way that is not only effective but also speaks to them…”

Moving Between Methods

Classical and evidentialist apologetics assert the “proofs” of Christianity.[30]  In preparing for conversion they often are underpinned with relational engagement[31].  It is likely that engagement with the audience will come from an engagement with their assumptions or worldview (presuppositionalism)[32], shared experiences (experientialism)[33] or engaging with them in narrative about how they fit in the grand story (narrative apologetics)[34].  There is no formula to an apologetic, and it must engage with authenticity in a context.[35] 

Complexity and Weakness

Acknowledging the validity of any method of apologetics in the right circumstances, there are limitations to all methods.  Douglas Groothuis identifies three such limitations that could be summarised as: the complexity limitation, the weakness limitation and the mystery limitation[36].  Scripture is voluminous, old and complex.  The apologist in weakness, tries to deal with the meaning of life and significance whilst limited by a finite mind and subject matter that at times defies simple explanation. God often does not tell us how or why certain things are a particular way and leaves things as a mystery to puzzle out.[37] 

Classical vs Postmodern Complexity

Voddie Baucham[38] argues that expository apologetics uses the power of the Word, applies simplicity and conversation.  Baucham is countering the complexity of postmodernity.[39]  Baucham[40] notes postmodern atheists are more likely to pursue a moralistic argument than a theological one highlighting the limitation of the classical and evidentialist apologetic.  In practice, the classical two step approach of evidencing a deity and then introducing an individual to the Christian Deity may not resonate today.  Paul Gould and JP Moreland point to a kind of apathy winning out over evidence and acceptance of deity or for that matter a Christian God.[41]  Baucham[42] notes objections based in post-modern culture that critique the consistency of Christian morals against modern mores.  The apologetic task today is often about defending objections of moral inconsistency.

Evidentialism and Persuasion

Groothuis[43] defines Evidentialism as proving that the evidence for Christianity can be established through proper historical argumentation, dispensing with arguments for a deity in favour of a one-step approach of arguing for Christianity.  A limitation of this method can be that atheists admit the evidence but are not persuaded by Christianity.[44]  Bailey[45] makes a case that the Evidentialist approach emerged in a particular historical context but that it has “positioned apologists to speak to a diminished version of the human person”.  Groothuis offers that “more apologetic reasoning is required than simply isolated facts…”[46]  Francis Schaeffer, however, saw Christianity as a rational religion that could be defended using rational arguments.[47]  Clearly, Evidentialism is useful as part of an apologetic process.

Objective Truth

Presuppositionalism asserts that there is no completely objective viewpoint or interpretation of the world and offering instead the Christian worldview.[48]  The gospel is not heard in isolation, but against a backdrop of worldview or culture.[49]  Sin has a profound effect on our ability to think, reason and use our minds.[50]  Paul in Romans (3:9-20) and Corinthians (2 Cor 4:4) identify this noetic effect of sin.   Francis Schaeffer is regarded as a presuppositionalist although he rejected the label.[51]   Alister McGrath points to Schaeffer’s presuppositionalist approach that there is no neutral or completely objective vantage point.[52]  The approach can be limited where it is not supported by the evidence base that either classical or evidential apologetics provides.[53]  In isolation, the method can be countered by claims of self-contradiction, double standards or irrationality.[54]  Finally, the method may be unsuited to a broader audience.[55]

A Better Way

McGrath[56] identifies experiential apologetic as arguing that Christianity offers a “better way of making sense of human experience than its rivals”.  Nyman[57] asserts that “Schaeffer denounces a Christ-less culture, shows its emptiness, holds out the gospel as a viable alternative…” The approach goes to the heart of the existential question of apologists such as CS Lewis.[58]  Sam Chan and D A Carson appeal to this. “I was feeling lonely, I came to the Bible looking for God’s comfort…”[59]  Groothuis asserts that Augustine, Aquinas and Pascal all defended the meaningfulness of the Christian experience against the experience of non-believers.[60]  Again, the limitation of this argument to comparative experience, is that it can fail to provide hard evidence for the solution it offers[61].  Reason and rational arguments cannot entirely be discarded in favour of experience.[62]

A Better Story

The original Narrative Apologetics were the parables of Jesus.  These stories provided a way of understanding how God works.  Christianity is reliant on these narratives as a way of explaining what the Bible says.[63]  Early theologians constructed a grand narrative in furtherance of Jesus’ approach.[64]  The grand narrative of Scripture is Creation groaning for its redemption (Rom 8:18-22).[65]  Paul’s grand narrative of all of Creation waiting with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God (v19).  It describes the idea of God’s covenantal purpose to redeem creation after the fall.[66]  The “Wandering and Returning” Narrative (cf. Luke 15:11-32) was key to the apologetics of Augustine, Aquinas and CS Lewis.[67]  Gould and Moreland’s commentary on “disenchantment” speaks to the limitation of narrative in that it presupposes a willingness of the audience to engage in the narrative without resorting to reductionist impulses that empty the world of the supernatural.[68]

An Underpinning Approach

Relational Apologetics appears to underpin other methods of apologetics.  Nyman’s points to the relational underpinning of Francis Schaeffer’s Apologetics.[69]  Gould and Moreland also make the case for “speaking the truth in love” (Eph 4:15) and with “gentleness and respect” (1 Pet 3:15).[70]  Bailey[71] explains that foundation of his apologetics is relational rather than propositional.  Nevertheless, ignoring the propositional for the relational is inconsistent with apologetics[72].  The witness of our lives must be underpinned by a basis for that witness.  Covenant is relational but requires a factual basis.[73]

Preferred Approach

The apologist who does not pay attention to the ultimate goal will likely be faced with Gould and Moreland’s experience – “God exists.  So what? Pass the beer and pizza”.[74]  Francis Schaeffer, one of the key presuppositionalists of the last century was well known for his relational approach, as his wife asserts, “Francis… never had time to sit in an ivory tower … he gave answers to real people with whom he had real discussions.”[75]  Those discussions formed relationships meaning the unbeliever disclosed more deeply the presuppositions that underpinned the unbelief.[76]  Nyman notes Francis Schaeffer, “… as we push unbelievers… off their false balance, we must be able to feel that we care for them.  Christian apologetics must involve the well-being of the person we talk to…”[77]  Relationship, coupled with virtually any other apologetic approach appears more effective than the other methods in isolation.

Engagement, understanding and ultimately conversion are good reasons to prioritise relationship in the apologetic task.

Conclusion

Shaeffer’s engagement with culture cannot be understated in his success as an Apologist.  Given the initial proposition that engagement with the audience is key, relationship facilitates the transition of a person from apologetics to evangelism and for the apologetic task to be successful within its overall conversion context, a relational engagement is key.  Apologetics is clearly a process involving an understanding of context, engagement with an audience, selection of the right tools based on that understanding and engagement and always underpinned by relationship.

---

[1] Douglas Groothuis and Andrew I. Shepardson, The Knowledge of God in the World and the Word: An Introduction to Classical Apologetics (Grand Rapids, UNITED STATES: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2022), 28, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dtl/detail.action?docID=29442082.

[2] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Apologetics: An Introduction (Hoboken NJ USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2024), 5–6.

[3] Bill Nyman, “Francis Schaeffer’s Relevance to Contemporary Apologetics,” KOERS – Bulletin for Christian Scholarship 85.1 (2020): 11, https://doi.org/10.19108/KOERS.85.1.2468.

[4] McGrath, Christian Apologetics, 88; Nyman, “Francis Schaeffer’s Relevance to Contemporary Apologetics,” 2; Paul M. Gould and J. P. Moreland, Cultural Apologetics: Renewing the Christian Voice, Conscience, and Imagination in a Disenchanted World (Grand Rapids, UNITED STATES: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2019), 138, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dtl/detail.action?docID=6121646.

[5] Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Sceptical World (Milton Keynes, UK: Authentic Media Ltd., 2017), xviii.

[6] Groothuis and Shepardson, The Knowledge of God in the World and the Word, 29.

[7] Norman L. Geisler, The Big Book of Christian Apologetics: An A to Z Guide (Grand Rapids, UNITED STATES: Baker Books, 2012), 105, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dtl/detail.action?docID=4448383.

[8] Nyman, “Francis Schaeffer’s Relevance to Contemporary Apologetics,” 4; Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Westmont, UNITED STATES: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 15, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dtl/detail.action?docID=6829199; Voddie Baucham Jr., Expository Apologetics: Answering Objections with the Power of the Word (Wheaton, UNITED STATES: Crossway, 2015), 18, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bst/detail.action?docID=6232808.

[9] McGrath, Christian Apologetics, 88; Nyman, “Francis Schaeffer’s Relevance to Contemporary Apologetics,” 4; Nb Chatraw and Allen’s classification of these approaches as “hard” or “soft” with “soft” recognising the need to combine these approaches with others Joshua D. Chatraw and Mark D Allen, Apologetics at the Cross: An Introduction for Christian Witnesses (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2018), 114–16.

[10] Justin Ariel Bailey, Reimagining Apologetics: The Beauty of Faith in a Secular Age (Westmont, UNITED STATES: InterVarsity Press, 2020), 11, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dtl/detail.action?docID=6326200; Bailey’s question is somewhat echoed in Gould where he notes a student’s response “So what? Pass the beer and pizza.” Gould and Moreland, Cultural Apologetics, 53.

[11] my emphasis

[12] Nyman, “Francis Schaeffer’s Relevance to Contemporary Apologetics,” 8–9.

[13] Nyman, “Francis Schaeffer’s Relevance to Contemporary Apologetics,” 9.

[14] Gould and Moreland, Cultural Apologetics, 53.

[15] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, Third Edition. (Illinois USA: Crossway, 2008), 17.

[16] McDowell and McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, xviii.

[17] Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Restoring the Character Ethic (New York, NY: Free Press, 2004), 97.

[18] Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The ESV Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version) copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.  Used by permission.  All rights reserved

[19] McGrath, Christian Apologetics, 3; Craig, Reasonable Faith, 15.

[20] Covey, 7 Habits, 239.

[21] McGrath, Christian Apologetics, 5.

[22] Chatraw and Allen, Apologetics at the Cross, 117.

[23] Nyman, “Francis Schaeffer’s Relevance to Contemporary Apologetics,” 5.

[24] Gould and Moreland, Cultural Apologetics, 29.

[25] Bailey, Reimagining Apologetics, 11.

[26] Chatraw and Allen, Apologetics at the Cross, 121.

[27] Gould and Moreland, Cultural Apologetics, 41; Chatraw and Allen, Apologetics at the Cross, 122.

[28] Consider CS Lewis’ Narnia series, designed to introduce his audience to the grand narrative of redemption.

[29] Nyman, “Francis Schaeffer’s Relevance to Contemporary Apologetics,” 5.

[30] McGrath, Christian Apologetics, 5.

[31] Baucham Jr., Expository Apologetics, 19; William Lane Craig appears to have moved between Classical and Evidential Apologetics with ease Chatraw and Allen, Apologetics at the Cross, 115.

[32] McGrath, Christian Apologetics, 5.

[33] McGrath, Christian Apologetics, 5–6.

[34] McGrath, Christian Apologetics, 6.

[35] Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 88.

[36] Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 88–89.

[37] Note also McGrath, Christian Apologetics, 7.

[38] Baucham Jr., Expository Apologetics, 19.

[39] Baucham Jr., Expository Apologetics, 56.

[40] Baucham Jr., Expository Apologetics, 119.

[41] Gould and Moreland, Cultural Apologetics, 53.

[42] Baucham Jr., Expository Apologetics, 122.

[43] Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 86.

[44] Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 87; Chatraw and Allen, Apologetics at the Cross, 110.

[45] Bailey, Reimagining Apologetics, 13.

[46] Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 87.

[47] Nyman, “Francis Schaeffer’s Relevance to Contemporary Apologetics,” 10.

[48] McGrath, Christian Apologetics, 5; Molly Worthen, “The Chalcedon Problem: Rousas John Rushdoony and the Origins of Christian Reconstructionism,” Church History 77.2 (2008): 7, http://www.jstor.org.theoref.idm.oclc.org/stable/20618492; Chatraw and Allen, Apologetics at the Cross, 117.

[49] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 16.

[50] Sam Chan and D. A. Carson, Evangelism in a Skeptical World: How to Make the Unbelievable News about Jesus More Believable (Grand Rapids, UNITED STATES: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2018), 252, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bst/detail.action?docID=5702675.

[51] Nyman, “Francis Schaeffer’s Relevance to Contemporary Apologetics,” 9.

[52] McGrath, Christian Apologetics, 5.

[53] Chatraw and Allen, Apologetics at the Cross, 118.

[54] John R. Shook, The God Debates: A 21st Century Guide for Atheists and Believers (and Everyone in Between), 1 online resource (x, 241 pages) : illustrations vols. (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 44, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=334244; Baucham Jr., Expository Apologetics, 122.

[55] Chatraw and Allen, Apologetics at the Cross, 118–19.

[56] McGrath, Christian Apologetics, 5–6.

[57] Nyman, “Francis Schaeffer’s Relevance to Contemporary Apologetics,” 14.

[58] Bailey, Reimagining Apologetics, 9.

[59] Chan and Carson, Evangelism in a Skeptical World, 136.

[60] Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 94.

[61] Chatraw and Allen, Apologetics at the Cross, 123.

[62] Nyman, “Francis Schaeffer’s Relevance to Contemporary Apologetics,” 11.

[63] Shook, The God Debates, 35; Chatraw and Allen, Apologetics at the Cross, 121.

[64] Shook, The God Debates, 36.

[65] Chan and Carson, Evangelism in a Skeptical World, 151.

[66] Gould and Moreland, Cultural Apologetics, 42; Chatraw and Allen, Apologetics at the Cross, 122.

[67] Gould and Moreland, Cultural Apologetics, 43.

[68] Gould and Moreland, Cultural Apologetics, 46; Chatraw and Allen, Apologetics at the Cross, 124.

[69] Nyman, “Francis Schaeffer’s Relevance to Contemporary Apologetics,” 11–12.

[70] Gould and Moreland, Cultural Apologetics, 138.

[71] Bailey, Reimagining Apologetics, 12.

[72] Chatraw and Allen, Apologetics at the Cross, 123.

[73] Bailey, Reimagining Apologetics, 124.

[74] Gould and Moreland, Cultural Apologetics, 53.

[75] Quoted in Nyman, “Francis Schaeffer’s Relevance to Contemporary Apologetics,” 11.

[76] Nyman, “Francis Schaeffer’s Relevance to Contemporary Apologetics,” 12.

[77] Nyman, “Francis Schaeffer’s Relevance to Contemporary Apologetics,” 12.

Bibliography

Bailey, Justin Ariel. Reimagining Apologetics: The Beauty of Faith in a Secular Age. Westmont, UNITED STATES: InterVarsity Press, 2020. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dtl/detail.action?docID=6326200.

Baucham Jr., Voddie. Expository Apologetics: Answering Objections with the Power of the Word. Wheaton, UNITED STATES: Crossway, 2015. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bst/detail.action?docID=6232808.

Chan, Sam, and D. A. Carson. Evangelism in a Skeptical World: How to Make the Unbelievable News about Jesus More Believable. Grand Rapids, UNITED STATES: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2018. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bst/detail.action?docID=5702675.

Chatraw, Joshua D., and Mark D Allen. Apologetics at the Cross: An Introduction for Christian Witnesses. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2018.

Covey, Stephen R. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Restoring the Character Ethic. New York, NY: Free Press, 2004.

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Third Edition. Illinois USA: Crossway, 2008.

Geisler, Norman L. The Big Book of Christian Apologetics: An A to Z Guide. Grand Rapids, UNITED STATES: Baker Books, 2012. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dtl/detail.action?docID=4448383.

Gould, Paul M., and J. P. Moreland. Cultural Apologetics: Renewing the Christian Voice, Conscience, and Imagination in a Disenchanted World. Grand Rapids, UNITED STATES: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2019. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dtl/detail.action?docID=6121646.

Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. Westmont, UNITED STATES: InterVarsity Press, 2011. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dtl/detail.action?docID=6829199.

Groothuis, Douglas, and Andrew I. Shepardson. The Knowledge of God in the World and the Word: An Introduction to Classical Apologetics. Grand Rapids, UNITED STATES: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2022. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dtl/detail.action?docID=29442082.

McDowell, Josh, and Sean McDowell. Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Sceptical World. Milton Keynes, UK: Authentic Media Ltd., 2017.

McGrath, Alister E. Christian Apologetics: An Introduction. Hoboken NJ USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2024.

Nyman, Bill. “Francis Schaeffer’s Relevance to Contemporary Apologetics.” KOERS – Bulletin for Christian Scholarship 85.1 (2020): 18. https://doi.org/10.19108/KOERS.85.1.2468.

Shook, John R. The God Debates: A 21st Century Guide for Atheists and Believers (and Everyone in Between). 1 online resource (x, 241 pages) : illustrations vols. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=334244.

Worthen, Molly. “The Chalcedon Problem: Rousas John Rushdoony and the Origins of Christian Reconstructionism.” Church History 77.2 (2008): 399–437. http://www.jstor.org.theoref.idm.oclc.org/stable/20618492.