Muller on Apologetic Method

The last post was a bit long, and at times like these, it’s always helpful to have an expert summarize the larger picture:

Philip Schaff, the two Hodges, and Benjamin B. Warfield placed apologetics first as a prolegomenon or propaedeutic and limited its function to the general ‘proof’ of the perfection or rectitude of Christianity, excluding both doctrinal discussion and ‘denominational differences’ from apologetics correctly so called. Defense of specific doctrinal points, according to these theologians, would belong to ‘polemics,’ which is seldom taught as a discipline in the twentieth century. This view of apologetics stands in continuity with the function given to the discipline in Schleiermacher’s Brief Outline, where it is identified as a fundamental form of philosophical theology, prior in function to the historical-exegetical disciplines. However, the Dutch Reformed school – Kuyper and Bavinck and, in America, Berkof and Van Til – insisted that apologetics follow dogmatics even as reason, when used in theology, must take its point of departure from faith. And since, in their view, dogmatics itself rested on the biblical and historical disciplines, apologetics would naturally come at the very conclusion of the work of theological formulation or of theological study – and would absorb the task of polemics.” 150, The Study of Theology

Richard Muller himself concludes (and I would generally agree):

Apologetics rests on the presuppositions of faith or belief and never stands entirely outside of other disciplines – i.e., it cannot be presuppositionless and absolutely preparatory or foundational – but its actual content must be dictated as much by the circumstances of the argument as by the content of the message…the apologetic task is an essentially interpretive function of the believing community in the present as the community interacts with its situation in the world. 151

By the way, the good blogger at Ancient Hebrew Poetry had a very insightful post on “When Apologetics incurs God’s wrath.” Let it be a reminder of how serious the apologetic task can be, and indeed, always is.