The Failure of Classical Apologetics

Classical apologetics attempts to rationally defend the Christian faith by employing, in most cases, the traditional proofs for God's existence. Offering proofs such as the cosmological, teleological, ontological and moral are the first in a two-step approach to establishing Christianity. The second being offering arguments from fulfilled  prophecy, miracles, resurrection, etc. Classical apologists aim to first establish that this is a theistic universe and then appeal to the arguments mentioned in the second step to distinguish Christianity from other forms of theism.

In my estimation, such an approach to apologetics proves inadequate and unsatisfactory for reasons I will spell out shortly. I will divide these reasons into two categories - theological and philosophical.

Theological

Since the conclusion of the classical approach is that Christianity is probably true or is the most probable amongst others, the unbeliever is always left with an excuse to reject the existence of God. There's always the probability, no matter how little, that God doesn't exist. Hence, the unbeliever is left with grounds upon which to reject God. But Scripture makes it clear that the unbeliever is without excuse. The reality of God's existence has been made abundant and plain to him. So reducing the Christian package to mere probability is to be inconsistent with Scripture.

Classical apologists also have problems when it comes to the incomprehensibility of God. They present a God who can be understood and known by these alleged proofs. This is inconsistent with Christian theology which presents a God who is knowable only by revelation.

The classical approach also assumes that man can accept God if he's just given enough evidence. But the Bible teaches than man, given his sinful nature, has a deep hatred for the things of God. The evidence, as has been pointed out already, is abundant and plain but the sin of the unbeliever prevents him from coming to the conclusion that God exists.

More could be said, but these would suffice. Let's move on to the philosophical problems with this apologetic methodology.

Philosophical

A serious philosophical problem that plagues classical apologetics is the problem of connecting the various arguments in the first step and then connecting the first step to the second step. It is hard to see what can be offered by way of argument for positing that the various entities established by the various arguments  (cosmological, teleological, ontological and moral ) are identical. This is a crucial step in the classical apologist's case. If these entities are distinct then it is unwarranted to tie them to the God of the Bible.

It might be argued that these arguments establish different attributes of one deity. But this also needs supports and it's hard to see how this can be supported. Even if it could somehow be established that they are one and the same being, it seems difficult to connect this being to the arguments from fulfilled prophecy and resurrection. How can it be shown that the First Cause raised Jesus from the dead? Or that theistic entity had anything to do with the production of the Bible? Without a worldview structure behind these arguments, it's hard to see how these questions can be sufficiently answered.

Another problem is the inability of classical apologetics to counter competing religions. How can classical apologists respond to religions that share the doctrines that they allegedly establish?

The classicalist may respond that he will appeal to evidences that favour Christianity such as fulfillment of prophecy and resurrection. But given the classical apologist's neutrality these alleged evidences have no bearing on the truth of Christianity. Even if it is shown that Christ rose from the dead - so what? What does that prove? It doesn't prove his deity. It proves nothing given the premise of neutrality which the classicalist adopts. He must prove every point of Christianity for the resurrection to have any relevance.

The classical approach at best leads us to a vague deism. And a deistic deity is not theistic and is definitely not the God of the Bible. The classical apologist has defended deism, not the faith. So it seems erroneous to call it a branch of Christian apologetics. There's nothing Christian about it.