The Apologetic Methodologies of Justin Martyr and Their Modern Applications

Dislaimer: The following is a paper submitted by Pastor Brian Chilton to Liberty University. This paper has been scanned and admitted through “Safe Assign” and will be detected by any and all accredited universities and colleges. No part of this paper may be copied and pasted into another paper without giving credit to the author. Failure to do so may, and most likely will, cause the student to be charged with plagiarism by his/her respected school. Charges of plagiarism can result in academic probation and/or expulsion. 

Justin Martyr1


 Justin Martyr was a second-century Christian who was known for being a powerful apologist, or defender of the faith. Justin was “born by pagan parents in Samaria”[1] and “taught in Ephesus.”[2] Justin’s apologetic methods were important for the church in the second-century as Justin defended the Christian faith against enemy accusations. However, it must also be said that the field of apologetics is just as necessary in modern times as it was in the second-century. This paper will seek to survey the apologetic methods used by Justin Martyr. How did Justin do apologetics? The paper will first note the nature of apologetics and will then examine the four apologetic methods used by Justin Martyr: philosophical, historical, prophetic, and experiential.


The Nature of Apologetics

What is apologetics and why is it needed? William Lane Craig, arguably one of the greatest apologists of the modern time, defines apologetics as “that branch of Christian theology which seeks to provide a rational justification for the truth claims of the Christian faith.”[3] Said in another way, apologetics offers a defense for the truth claims of Christianity. Some would argue that apologetics is not necessary only the preaching of the gospel. However, nothing further could be the case. Justin Martyr saw the need to employ apologetics in the second-century because “reason directs those who are truly pious and philosophical to honour and love only what is true.”[4] But is such necessary in post-modern times? Kreeft and Tacelli argue that “Western civilization is for the first time in its history in danger of dying. The reason is spiritual…The infection killing it is not multiculturalism—other faiths—but the monoculturalism of secularism—no faith, no soul.”[5] Justin Martyr met the similar problems in the second-century that the modern Christian meets in regards to secular challenges to the faith. Although the monoculturalism that Kreeft and Tacelli mention was in a different time and with different opponents, in many ways the times were strikingly similar to that of the current so-called post-modernworld. Both societies place a high value on entertainment, culture, and religious syncretism. Therefore, one might find that the approaches employed by Justin Martyr find a strikingly similar importance in the current world. William Lane Craig would seem to agree. Craig writes that apologetics serve in three different fashions, “…Shaping Culture…Strengthening believers…Evangelizing unbelievers…”[6] If Craig is correct, then apologetics can hold a spiritual and a cultural impact on a given society. Apologetics can create bolder Christians that are more prepared to evangelize and, therefore, have an impact upon the lost. So what were the methods used by Justin Martyr?


Justin’s Philosophical Apologetic Methodology

Justin had a profound interest in philosophy. It was through the philosopher’s attire that caused Trypho to begin to converse with the theologian. Justin records, “While I was going about one morning in the walks of Xystus, a certain man, with others in his company, having met me, and said, ‘Hail, O philosopher…I ought not to despise or treat with indifference those who array themselves in this dress.”[7] Justin would further state that “philosophy is, in fact, the greatest possession, and most honourable before God…”[8] When a person speaks of the philosophical apologetic method, one is referring to the use of reason and logic in one’s defense of the Christian faith and “emphasizes the importance of showing that the Christian worldview is reasonable.”[9] Philosophy was important for Justin Martyr. In the second and third chapters of the Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, Justin describes the importance that philosophy held to him by discussing the pathway that he took through several philosophies before conversion to Christianity.[10] Some scholars are skeptical concerning the historicity of Justin’s philosophical meanderings before his conversion. Troxel states that Justin’s “pilgrimage and conversion has been accused as being an idealization, a literary device and pure fiction.”[11] However, as Troxel later shows, Justin’s statements in his Acta Martydum are “consistent with his own account of passing gradually from ‘imperfect philosophies’ to the true and ‘perfect philosophy.’ Thus there is insufficient reason to deny the historical basis of Justin’s autobiography.”[12] This writer would agree. In addition, Justin’s astute reasoning skills and talents in rhetoric demonstrate one who was deeply intelligent and vastly educated. Although absolute certainty is impossible in this case, the evidence tends to favor the historicity of Justin’s historicity.

Justin’s apologetic use of philosophy opened the door for the Justin’s use of negative apologetics. Two forms of apologetics exist. Craig suggests that “Offensive apologetics seeks to present a positive case for Christian truth claims. Defensive apologetics seeks to nullify objections to those claims.”[13] Justin’s use of offensive apologetics will be examined later in the paper through the use of historical, prophetic, and experiential apologetic methods. For now, Justin’s use of negative apologetics will be addressed. Justin confronted other worldviews and exposed their weaknesses. In Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, Justin demonstrates that Jesus is the only Savior of the world even for Jewish individuals. Justin said to Trypho,

Since I bring from the Scriptures and the facts themselves both the proofs and the inculcation of them, do not delay or hesitate to put faith in me, although I am an uncircumcised man; so short a time is left you in which to become proselytes. If Christ’s coming shall have anticipated you, in vain you will repent, in vain you will weep; for He will not hear you.[14]

Justin then used the Old Testament, or Hebrew Bible, to demonstrate the validity of the Christian faith. Thus, Justin would defend Christ as the fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures. This will be examined further in the Justin’s use of prophetic apologetics.

Justin also demonstrated the inadequacies of Greek worldviews. In Justin’s Second Apology, the apologist writes,

And those of the Stoic school—since, so far as their moral teaching went, they were admirable, as were also the poets in some particulars, on account of the seed of reason [the Logos] implanted in every race of men—were, we know, hated and put to death,—Heraclitus for instance, and, among those of our own time, Musonius and others. For, as we intimated, the devils have always effected, that all those who anyhow live a reasonable and earnest life, and shun vice, be hated.[15]

In the text, Justin uses the worldview of the Greeks pertaining to Heraclitus and Musonius to demonstrate what the Greeks held as a virtuous lifestyle. Justin would show that Christians demonstrated the very virtues that the Greeks held sacred. Justin’s usages of Greek worldviews in his arguments have led some to consider that Justin was not exclusive in his views concerning salvation through Christ. Proponents of this idea hold that Justin believed that salvation came through other means than just Jesus Christ, or, as Adam Sparks would call, a “proto-inclusivist.”[16] While Justin was not as exclusive in his salvific claims as future theologians and apologists, it is agreed with Sparks that “in referring to Socrates and others as ‘atheists’ Justin was merely stating they had something significant in common with Christians.”[17] In fact, Justin would later write in the Second Apology,

And our doctrines are not shameful, according to a sober judgment, but are indeed more lofty than all human philosophy: and if not so, they are at least unlike the doctrines of the Sotadists, and Philænidians, and Dancers, and Epicureans, and such other teachings of the poets, which all are allowed to acquaint themselves with, both as acted and as written.[18]

Justin may have been vague in his claims of Christian exclusivity; however, Justin was explicit in defending the Christian faith as the most rational and reasonable of all worldviews. As a philosopher, Justin Martyr set the standard in philosophical apologetics. Perhaps it was not in Justin’s interest to promote a deep soteriological exegesis as Justin sought to find common ground with unbelievers in order to alleviate Christian suffering.

Some object to the use of philosophy in Christian apologetics for a couple of reasons. One, some reject philosophy in Christian work due to a misinterpretation of Paul’s statement that Christians should not be “taken captive through philosophy and empty deception.”[19]However, an examination of the text demonstrates that Paul was not addressing philosophy in general, but bad philosophy. For Paul goes on to address what the philosophy being addressed involved: “tradition of men…elementary principles of the world…rather than according to Christ.”[20] So, Paul is stating that one should avoid and address bad philosophical claims.

Secondly, some object to philosophy’s use in apologetics due to the belief that faith is all that is necessary and not reason. This objection to reason fails at the outset because the objector uses reason in order to object to the use of reason. Such arguments would claim that faith and reason are greatly opposed. However, faith and reason are not enemies, but companions. Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli demonstrate that,

…faith for a Christian is faith in a God who is himself love, our lover and our beloved; and the more our hearts love someone, the more our minds want to know about our beloved. Faith naturally leads to reason through the agency of love. So faith leads to reason, and reason leads to faith…Thus reason and faith are friends, companions, wedded partners, allies.[21]

Therefore, by nature, apologetics employs the use of logic and reasoning in addition to faith. The combination of faith and reason provide a catalyst for a balanced worldview. While some proclaim faith alone as necessary, and others claim that reason alone is necessary, Kreeft and Tacelli respond by offering another model in what they call,

Partial Overlapping…Most people would agree with us that the fifth position is the most reasonable and correct one. It distinguishes three different kinds of truths:

a. truths of faith and not reason,

b. truths of both faith and reason, and

c. truths of reason and not faith.

…If this is the correct position, it follows that the Christian apologist has two tasks: to prove the propositions in class b and to answer all objections to the propositions in class a.[22]

Hence, the philosophical apologist will desire to employ reason to prepare the way for faith. Justin would do exactly that as Justin defended Christianity’s faith claims against the assaults of those from the Roman Empire (First and Second Apologies) and Orthodox Judaism (Dialogue with Trypho). It is agreed that there are some things that must be taken by faith, such as the descriptions of heaven. However, many things can be known by reason (the historical claims of the faith) and some by a combination of reason and faith (existence of God). Justin would seek to prove the propositions that involved faith and reason, or reason alone, by the other methodologies addressed.


Justin’s Historical Apologetic Methodology

 Justin also used what is known as the historical apologetic method. This method “stresses the historical evidence as the basis for demonstrating the truth of Christianity…Historical apologists believe that the truth of Christianity, including the existence of God, can be proven from the foundation of historical evidence alone.”[23] Justin’s use of the historical apologetic method is evidenced in his use of Christ’s historical teachings and his use of evidence for the historical Jesus.

Justin sought to clear up misconceptions that the opponents of Christianity possessed pertaining to the teachings of Christ. In chapters fourteen through fifteen of the First Apology, Justin set out to “cite a few precepts given by Christ Himself. And be it yours, as powerful rulers, to inquire whether we have been taught and do teach these things truly. Brief and concise utterances fell from Him, for He was no sophist, but His word was the power of God.”[24] Justin then gave examples of Christ’s teachings from, primarily, Matthew and Luke’s Gospels. For instance; in chapter fifteen of the First Apology, Justin quoted Matthew 5 presenting Christ’s teaching on lust and divorce; then set out to show that those who practice such things are rejected, but then accepted through Christ’s grace; and quoted Luke 6 and Matthew 6 showing the importance of love for one’s enemies and Christ’s teachings on one who works for heavenly treasures (Matthew 6:19-20).[25] In the sixteenth chapter of the First Apology, Justin continues to demonstrate the historic teachings of Jesus as Justin quotes Christ’s teaching on letting one’s works shine before God as found in Luke 6:29; and then quotes the teachings of Jesus pertaining to swearing oaths before God and working for the glory of God also from Matthew and Luke’s Gospels.[26] Thus, Justin demonstrates the historical basis for the Christian’s moral code: the teachings of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, and then by giving examples in how this code of conduct had shaped the early Christians’ lives.

Justin also used the historical apologetic method to demonstrate the historicity of Jesus’ identity. Searches for the historical Jesus have made headlines in modern times. Justin conducted a second-century search for the historical Jesus by presenting evidence that Jesus was a man of history and not an allegory. For instance, Justin points the readers of the “First Apology” to the fact that the teacher of the Christians was,

Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judæa, in the times of Tiberius Cæsar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed.[27]

Justin directs the skeptic back to a real, historic person: Jesus of Nazareth. The faith that the Christian held was based upon a person that was the object of their faith. The Romans could easily check their records and find that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed crucified under Procurator Pontius Pilate. Furthermore, Justin would also hold that this “Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man”[28]was also the figure that appeared to many individuals at various times in the Hebrew Bible. The historical Christ was shown to be divine, and that would necessarily demonstrate the existence of God. Therefore, in contrast to the classical apologist, Justin Martyr used historical apologetics to show that Christ’s existence provides evidence for the existence of God.


Justin’s Prophetic Apologetic Methodology

 Justin also employed what is termed the prophetic apologetic method.  Tim LaHaye and Ed Hindson describe prophetic apologetics as the quotation of “biblical prophecies as evidence of the credibility of the Christian message.”[29] Biblical prophecy is a powerful apologetic. Geisler writes that biblical prophecy is “one of the strongest evidences that the Bible is inspired by God…Unlike any other book, the Bible offers a multitude of specific predictions—some hundreds of years in advance…”[30] If the apologist can demonstrate the Bible’s predictive properties, then it can be shown to some degree that the Bible holds divine inspiration.

Justin Martyr excelled at the use of prophetic apologetics. A. Craig Troxel notes of Justin Martyr that the “form, and the content of his two Apologies, were dominated by an orientation of argumentation fitted to his audience of Jews or Greeks, stressing Old Testament fulfillment with the former, and pagan categories with the latter.”[31] In the Dialogue with Trypho, Liftin notes that Justin “offered many Christian explanations of Old Testament prophecies and defended the divinity of Christ.”[32] Justin defended well the Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in Jesus in the Dialogue. For instance, in chapter thirty-three, Justin identifies Psalm 110 with Jesus; and in Dialogue chapter thirty-four, Justin identifies Psalm 72 as the king in which Solomon wrote.[33] In the fiftieth chapter of the Dialogue, Justin identifies Isaiah 40, particularly where Isaiah writes “A voice is calling, ‘Clear the way for the Lord in the wilderness; make smooth in the desert a highway for our God,”[34] with John the Baptist.[35] A great deal of time is spent by Justin in the Dialogue identifying Jesus with various prophecies.

Prophetic apologetics is important in connecting Jesus with the Old Testament, or Hebrew Bible. LaHaye and Hindson rightfully state that biblical prophecies are “ultimately intended to bring us to a personal point of decision and faith as well. If the Bible predicted these things would happen and they actually did happen, then we must take Jesus’ claims about Himself seriously.”[36] This form of apologetics is especially important when trying to reach those of Jewish descent. It was for this reason that Justin Martyr employed the use of prophetic apologetics in his conversation with Trypho. Trypho was Jewish and accepted the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, Justin wisely met Trypho at a point of agreement to demonstrate the veracity of the faith. It was individuals that were familiar with the Hebrew Bible that would benefit most from Justin’s prophetic apologetics.  


Justin’s Experiential Apologetic Methodology

Finally, Justin exercised the experiential apologetic method.  Experiential apologetics is the evidence from one’s own personal experience. One could in a sense call it eyewitness testimony. Norman Geisler defines experiential apologetics as “the form of defending the Christian faith that appeals to Christian experience as evidence for the truth of Christianity. In its appeal to internal, as opposed to external, evidence, it contrasts sharply with other apologetic systems.”[37] Some hold issues with the use of experiential apologetics. For instance, Geisler does not think that evidential apologetics “can demonstrate the truth of Christianity.”[38] Thus the Muslim could claim an experience with God just as much as the Christian and there would exist no means to decipher between the two experiences. However, experiential apologetics can demonstrate evidence by the change in character that comes from the Christian experience. Experiential apologetics is strengthened when supplemented with other more objective forms of apologetics. Justin Martyr does just that.

As noted in the previous portions of the paper, Justin implemented a variety of apologetic methods. Justin’s use of experiential apologetics heightens the defense as one sees that Justin does not merely accept Christianity as a philosophy but as a personal, intimate experience with the Risen Jesus. For instance, Justin tells Trypho,

But straightway a flame was kindled in my soul; and a love of the prophets, and of those men who are friends of Christ, possessed me; and whilst revolving his words in my mind, I found this philosophy alone to be safe and profitable. Thus, and for this reason, I am a philosopher. Moreover, I would wish that all, making a resolution similar to my own, do not keep themselves away from the words of the Saviour…If, then, you have any concern for yourself, and if you are eagerly looking for salvation, and if you believe in God, you may—since you are not indifferent to the matter—become acquainted with the Christ of God, and, after being initiated, live a happy life.”[39]

For Justin, the happiness that was experienced by the apologist was not only a philosophical peace from the intellect; it was an intimate peace stemming from a true relationship with Christ Jesus, the object of the Christian faith. The testimony of Justin makes the defense personal to his readers.

Furthermore, Justin used an experiential apologetic to describe the actions of the apologist’s Christian colleagues. In the First Apology, Justin defends the faith of the Christians in stating that “it is in our power, when we are examined, to deny that we are Christians; but we would not live by telling a lie.”[40] The reader should note the personal pronoun used by the apologist. Justin includes himself among the Christians, the race in whom the apologist sought to defend. The apologist was writing to the Roman Empire. To call such a tactic bold is an understatement. In fact the bravery of Justin is evidenced in the fact that, as Liftin states, “there is no question Justin eventually made his way to the capital city of the empire. There he served as a Christian teacher…”[41] Justin was on the front lines with the Christians. Justin was not writing books from a faraway place unengaged in the affairs of the people. In fact, the apologist was defending Christianity while waving at Rome as if to say, “Come get me if you dare. I belong to Christ.” The bravery of Justin was an experiential apologetic in and of itself.



 This paper has evaluated the apologetic methods of Justin Martyr. First, the nature of apologetics was examined and was shown to be multifaceted in his influence. Then, the four apologetic methods used by Justin Martyr were explored. It was shown that Justin Martyr used the philosophical apologetic method. As a philosopher, Justin used philosophy to defend the propositions of faith promoted by Christianity. Also, Justin would defend the reasonability of faith by using the historical apologetic method. Justin demonstrated the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth and the teachings that had impacted the Christians of his day. Justin used the prophetic apologetic method in presenting the Old Testament prophecies that found their fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Finally, Justin used the experiential apologetic method in showing that Justin had an encounter with the same Jesus that was being defended. Justin also counted himself among those who were giving their lives for the faith.

The modern Christian is encouraged in this paper to employ the same methods used by Justin Martyr. The demand for apologetics is only going to increase as society becomes more and more secularized and virulent against the Christian worldview. In many ways, the modern culture greatly resembles the syncretistic culture of the Roman Empire: a culture that accepted many religions except the Christian faith. But one may ask; do Christian apologetics work? The answer is found in the final response of Trypho to Justin Martyr,

You see that it was not intentionally that we came to discuss these points. And I confess that I have been particularly pleased with the conference; and I think that these are of quite the same opinion as I myself. For we have found more than we expected, and more than it was possible to have expected. And if we could do this more frequently, we should be much helped in the searching of Scriptures themselves.[42]

It is not known whether Trypho eventually came to faith in Jesus. But, from the response given, Trypho’s life had been greatly impacted by Justin’s apologetic methods. Trypho had been searching for answers and found them in the faith of Justin Martyr. The modern Christian may find that there are Tryphos in the current culture that might be equally pleased with the information provided by the modern apologist.


Note: Justin Martyr is called a “martyr” for good reason. In A.D. 165, Justin Martyr was executed by beheading in Rome. Many liturgical denominations recognize Justin Martyr on June 1st. May we all be found with the faith and reasoning capabilities of this giant of the faith: Justin Martyr.


 All Scripture, unless otherwise noted, comes from the New American Standard Bible. La Habra: Lockman, 1995.

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd Edition. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008.

Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.

Kreeft, Peter and Ronald K. Tacelli. Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1994.

LaHaye, Tim and Ed Hindson, “Apologetics, Prophetic.” The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence for the Truth of Christianity. Edited by Ed Hindson and Ergun Caner.  Eugene: Harvest House, 2008.

Litfin, Bryan M. Getting to Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2007.

Martyr, Justin. “Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew.” In The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, Volume 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

___________. “The First Apology of Justin.” In The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, Volume 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

___________. “The Second Apology of Justin.” In The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Volume 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Smith, Fred. “Apologetics, Philosophical.” The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence for the Truth of Christianity. Edited by Ed Hindson and Ergun Caner. Eugene: Harvest House, 2008.

Sparks, Adam. “Was Justin Martyr a proto-inclusivist?” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 43, 4 (September 1, 2008): 495-510. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. (Accessed April 12, 2014).

Troxel, A. Craig. “‘All Things to All People:’ Justin Martyr’s Apologetic Method.” Fides Et Historia 27, 2 (June 1, 1995): 23-43. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerial, EBSCOhost. (Accessed April 12, 2014).



[1] Norman L. Geisler, “Justin Martyr,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999), 395.

[2] Ibid.

[3]William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd Edition (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 15.

[4] Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe,  (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 163.

[5]Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1994), 23.

[6] Craig, 16-21.

[7] Justin Martyr, “Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 194.

[8] Ibid, 194.

[9] Fred Smith, “Apologetics, Philosophical,” The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence for the Truth of Christianity, Ed Hindson and Ergun Caner, eds (Eugene: Harvest House, 2008), 53.

[10] See Justin Martyr, “Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew,” 195-196.

[11]A. Craig Troxel, “‘All Things to All People:’ Justin Martyr’s Apologetic Method,” Fides Et Historia 27, 2 (June 1, 1995): 25.

[12]Ibid, 26.

[13] Craig, 23.

[14] Justin Martyr, “Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew,” 208.

[15] Justin Martyr, “The Second Apology of Justin,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds(Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 191.

[16] Adam Sparks, “Was Justin Martyr a proto-inclusivist?” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 43, 4 (September 1, 2008): 495.

[17]Ibid, 498.

[18] Justin Martyr, “The Second Apology of Justin,” 193.

[19] Colossians 2:8.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Kreeft and Tacelli, 22.

[22] Ibid, 37.

[23] Geisler, “Historical Apologetics,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 316.

[24] Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin,” 167.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin,” 166–167.

[28] Justin Marytr, “Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew,” 264.

[29] Tim LaHaye and Ed Hindson, “Apologetics, Prophetic,” The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence for the Truth of Christianity, 55.

 [30] Geisler, 609.

[31] A. Craig Troxel, “‘All Things to All People:’ Justin Martyr’s Apologetic Method,” Fides Et Historia 27, 2 (June 1, 1995): 28.

[32] Liftin, Bryan M, Getting to Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2007), 59.

[33] Justin Martyr, “Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew,” 211-212.

[34]Isaiah 40:3.

[35] Justin Martyr, “Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew,” 220.

[36] LaHaye and Hindson, 58.

[37] Geisler, 235.

[38] Ibid, 237.

[39] Justin Martyr, “Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew,” 198.

[40] Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin,” 165.

[41] Liftin, 60.

[42] Justin Martyr, “Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew,” 270.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s