Why I’m Not a Classical Apologist
Three quick reasons from my forthcoming volume on apologetics methodologies
Classical apologetics is a two-step approach to apologetics that appeals to a variety of evidences from reason and nature to establish the plausibility of God’s existence and then proceeds to defend Christian doctrines on the basis of historical and other evidences. My first formal awareness of apologetics methodologies can be traced back to R.C. Sproul, a classical apologist. I listened to his lectures on philosophy and apologetics on a set of cassette tapes until the tapes wore out. And yet, even with my profound respect for R.C. Sproul, I never did become a classical apologist.
Classical apologists at their best recognize—with Thomas Aquinas in Summa contra gentiles—that the two-step classical approach isn’t the only way to do apologetics. There is no one-size-fits-all protocol for effective engagement with a nonbeliever. An effective apologetics strategy should engage not only the intellect but also the imagination, the conscience, aesthetic sensibilities, and humanity’s intractable yearnings for formative fellowship and belonging.
So why am I not a classical apologist? Here are three quick reasons why—interspersed with some wild A.I.-generated depictions of Thomas Aquinas in combat with John Calvin.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to The Apologetics Newsletter by Timothy Paul Jones to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.