This paper was essentially a summary of Dr. House’s chapter in the recently released Reasons for Faith ed. Norman Geisler and Chad Meister. The following is my summary of his paper and reflects my understanding of the points Dr. House made.

The apologetic debate is over whether God intends to use general revelation to bring about salvific belief. The central question is: Do we share any common ground with the unbeliever?

Classical and Evidential apologetics acknowledge that unbelievers can understand some truth. The difference between them is the Classical begins at first principles and Evidential begins anywhere. Presuppostional apologetics deny unbelievers can understand any truth until after regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

A crucial distinction is needed between “believing in” and “believing that.” Evidential apologetics can be used to bring someone to the point of “believing that.” “Believing in” requires regeneration. For example, there have been Jewish scholars who have affirmed that the resurrection of Jesus is a historically verifiable event. But there differ regarding the meaning of the resurrection- whether or not Jesus is the messiah. They believe “that” but not “in.”

Evidence can assist a person to belief in Christ by removing factual obstacles. The task of apologetics is to show the truth of objective reality. The move to embrace belief in (from belief that) requires the subjective work of the Spirit. The Spirit makes meaning of the historically objective reality.

In Acts, the audience has no familiarity with the Hebrew scriptures- much like where our culture is going today. Paul started with creation: God’s existence and nature, and moved on to what God has done. His framework was provided by his theology found in Romans 1: that “they knew God.” Many people understand with their mind but do not receive in their hearts.

Paul sought common ground with his audience. Instead of wasting time with pointless rabbit trail debates, he pointed out that they both believed in God and kerygma. He moved from what they accepted to what they did not know. Paul also assumed that he was being understood- that those in his audience could follow the logic of his argument (another aspect of common ground).

I gave this very brief answer recently when asked, "Why does the argument for a first cause of the universe conveniently stop with God?  Where did God come from?"

An infinite regress of causes is logically impossible. That is, there could not have been an infinite number of successive events in the past because we never would have reached the events happening now.

This means, by necessity, if the world came into existence, there was a first cause beginning the world. Since nothing caused that first cause (by definition), the first cause 1) had to have begun this world by a decision of will (because the first event was not a natural result of an earlier event, and only a personal being can initiate something that's not an automatic result of a natural cause), and 2) had to be, as the first cause, a self-existent being that did not come into existence. That being is God. By definition, He does not have a cause.

If you ask, "Who created God?" you're really just asking, "Who is the real God--the true first, self-existent, personal cause?" because the one true God--the initiator of everything--does not have a cause.