The Top 20 Christian Apologists

Frank Turek with the world's most credentialed and likable apologist, Dr. John Lennox.

Frank Turek with the world’s most credentialed and likable apologist, Dr. John Lennox.


These are the Top 20 Christian Apologists from whom I’ve learned much.  They were the subject of today’s radio program.

Outside of Dr. Norman Geisler being in the top spot (since I studied under him for several years), the rest are not necessarily in order.  Do I agree with everything these men say?  No.  (I don’t even agree with everything I say!)  But I think you’ll find a wealth of wisdom and practical insights about the truth of Christianity from these men and organizations.  Many of these men have appeared on our radio program.  You can listen to them anytime by downloading our free app here.

  1. Norm Geisler:
  2. William Lane Craig:  Reasonable
  3. Ravi Zacharias:
  4. John Lennox: John
  5. Greg Koukl:
  6. J. Warner Wallace:
  7. Paul Copan:
  8. Ed Feser:
  9. Lee Strobel:  Lee
  10. Josh McDowell:
  11. Discovery Institute  (Dembski, Meyer, Richards, Luskin, Wells):
  12. C.S. Lewis:
  13. Gary Habermas:
  14. Timothy McGrew:
  15. Dr. Michael Brown:
  16. Richard Howe:
  17. Tim Keller:
  18. J. Budziszewski:
  19. Hank Hanegraaff:
  20. Hugh Ross:

Bonus (includes some cultural commentators):

R.C. Sproul

Wayne Grudem

J.P. Moreland

Mike Licona

Southern Evangelical Seminary 



David Limbaugh

Scott Klusendorf

Mike Adams

Ryan T. Anderson

Free Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
111 replies
  1. Robert says:

    “The very need for a thing called ‘apologetics’ is an example of the weakness of the theistic argument. ‘God’ always needs apologies, rationalizations, explanations, equivocations, excuses.” – Mark K. Bilbo

    These men make the worst arguments in the history of bad arguments. If you want to see how absolutely silly and deluded they are watch the debate between Sean Carroll and William Lane Craig. Craig is no different than Ken Ham. He makes the same arguments only couches them in pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo. I doubt Craig will ever debate another scientist

    • Joyce Clemons says:

      Apologetics isn’t apologizing, that’s a very disingenuous implication. Since Hawking made himself the “God” of modern thought by pronouncing philosophy dead, I have a very jaundiced eye toward the avocations of cosmologists and theoretical physicists, and the like, who are not satisfied to not believe, but have a jones to proselytize. It’s not as if they are needing to peddle the scientific method. It’s not as if they haven’t won the k-12 science classroom, in the courts. They have. They need and deserve to have diametric opposition. The debate is the right place for this. People as arrogant as Singer and Dennett (and you) need to be exposed to the possibility that empiricism is not all there is for finding truth. Kant said rightly, that the rational mind processes experience to then derive knowledge. Craig will most certainly debate a scientist again someday. You don’t really understand the people that you see, through your senses, do you? That’s kind of sad but instructive. Thanks for showing us the flaw in your argument. God doesn’t need anything. You need something.

      • Nate says:

        Very well stated. God bless!!very well stated, I pray for wisdom to reach Robert and that his eyes be opened. God bless.

      • Jesse says:


        To be fair to Robert, your comment is riddled with confusion. For starters, it’s not entirely disingenuous to compare apologetics to the act of apologizing. The English usage of “apology” is different, yes, but they are both based on the need to say something in response to being caught with your pants down, so to speak… hence the reason that the modern word “apology” was in fact derived from “apologia,” the Greek word for defending a position. So in the case of apologetics, the need for this discipline derives from the fact that religious explanations are not rooted in anything solid, and hence the holding of a tenuous religious position requires a “defense” or justification. This defense is generally given in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, in much the same way that an apology is often given in lieu of a good reason for having done something unacceptable. Mark K. Bilbo, in his quote, is perhaps having a little bit of fun and maybe even doing a little equivocation, but he’s not far from the mark.

        The fact is, many atheists like Robert use this sarcastic tone because they are frustrated… not by any weakness in their own position, but by the refusal of people on the other side to notice how many times their awful, vapid, silly apologetics have been debunked. It’s painful to see William Lane Craig repeatedly have simple concepts explained to him and then to watch him dance around the subject until he’s woven some “defense” that to a casual observer not well-trained in logic (you, for example) doesn’t seem to require further justification. Robert has a right to be annoyed. Apologetics are routinely based on false or unproven premises, e.g. “Something can’t come from nothing,” a statement that, while it might seem true, has never been necessarily “proven.” Craig begins every debate with the same unproven premise: “The universe had a beginning”… a statement that has never been justified. He then makes an art of NEVER addressing the opposition when they repeatedly — and repeatedly — call him out on it. Meanwhile, Joyce Clemons is sitting in the audience nodding like a sheep, repeating in her head, “Yes… there’s no chance that the universe never had a beginning… I guess this is an open and shut case…”

        The fact is that theism is a very, very weak position to hold if you’re in the logic business. Most believers, if asked, will admit that they aren’t. But there are some, like Craig, who claim to be… and spend their time trying to make up theistic justifications out of whole cloth. There’s nothing there, Joyce, and the entire institution of apologetics may as well be, for all intents and purposes, an apology for believing in “God.”

        • Al lawson says:

          How can you say, with a straight face that something can come from nothing? I would not show my stupidity with such an answer. If there is such why don’t you and all of your kind show one ???
          I know why. In all the years this ignorant statement has been used not one, not one, thing has ever been proven to exist with out some help from something else. Just like our universe, it had help from God. He created it. Simple and to the point. It seems to me that after all these years of saying something stupid you would find something else to say. On top of all that has been said,, what will you say when you face Jesus???? It will happen. al

          • Michael says:

            Your very ethos depends on something from nothing. Your God according to you created all life and matter but the problem for you is Your God came from NOTHING.
            Here is a true piece of wisdom written before your fictional Jesus was created:

            Now this terror and darkness of mind must surely be scattered,
            Not by rays of the sun, nor by gleaming arrows of daylight,
            But by the outward display and unseen workings of Nature.
            And her first rule for us from this premiss shall take its beginning;
            “Never did will of gods bring anything forth out of nothing.”
            For, in good sooth, it is thus that fear restraineth all mortals,
            Since both in earth and sky they see that many things happen
            Whereof they cannot by any known law determine the causes;
            So their occurrence they ascribe to supernatural power.
            Therefore when we have seen that naught can be made out of nothing,
            Afterwards we shall more rightly discern the thing which we search for:—
            Both out of what it is that everything can be created,
            And in what way all came, without help of gods, into being.

            Titus Lucretius Carus, De Rerum Naturum (On the Nature of Things) circa 50 BCE.

        • Sharon says:

          One would be hard pressed to not conclude your arrogance has blinded you , not that you could possibly agree, because you cannot acknowledged what you will not see.

        • Joel says:

          It is interesting that you don’t see the irony in your response Jesse. You say that it can’t be proven that something cannot come from nothing. While this is true at face value, it also goes completely against the scientific method because everything that we have ever observed coming into being has had a cause. We hear about things considered as being scientifically proven because the known observations support it, but it would seem that there is nothing that is more scientifically proven than this since we have no evidence that something can come from nothing. People hold neo-Darwinian. Evolution as scientific fact with a lot more holes in it than this premise. Additionally, I don’t see how one could call themselves an athiest, because in the same way we could never prove the non-existance of God even if everything we did know shows to the contrary. Starting to see the irony?
          But wait, in your own post there is a good reason for God. You say that theism is a very very weak position if you are in the logic business. But how can we know logic is true? Furthermore, how can the laws of logic be objectively true for all people at all times even if they don’t agree with them. Evidently we have a transcendent truth here that is not immaterial. It doesn’t sound like you are very familiar with Dr. Turek’s work. Read his book Stealing From God as his is one of the main points.

        • Simon says:

          Statements such as ‘the universe had a beginning’ and ‘something doesn’t come from nothing’ are used because they are premises that most people would hold to be true. If they didn’t, then they may not work as well.

      • John Gunia says:

        My personal favorite is Dr. James R. White–and I’m frankly surprised his name was nowhere to be found. He has over 150 moderated debates and is an extremely intelligent man who’s debated Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, atheists and Roman Catholics. Not even an honorable mention?

        • Richard Chelvan says:

          James R. White is not even mentioned here because he dared to challenge the likes of William Lane Craig (who uses middle knowledge or the Jesuit Molinist scientia media argument – which even the Sunni Muslims rejected long before Molina!) and Norman Geisler! This tells me that this site is not worth the bandwidth expended!

      • Tracey says:

        Joyce. So true.

        Yes, this is true, the non-believer/atheist/sceptic, always seem to look for these sites, to have their say, on what they, say as being true. So who is trying to peddle a personal opinion as grace and truth through Jesus Christ.
        Is there a bibliography for atheist/non-believer/sceptics? a journal, recent publication, ancient publication?
        God doesn’t need, have us the believer prove Him.
        Go ask God yourself, I see, these people, Hawking, Singer etc, as using God, as income earner…..a gainer?
        But, don’t forget, they don’t believe in what they are discrediting.

    • mike says:

      Hmmm. So, every discipline that matures and evolves over time should be labeled as defective, according to your rationale. Does that include science, which has seen profound reorganizations in its ideas, over time. Try this. Since the human mind is finite and prone to error, everything it conjectures (concepts, ideas, beliefs, current understanding of reality, etc.) will likely find correction in the future. Does that invalidate that which stands exterior to it? Of course not. Christianity is only strengthened by the assaults on it. Whether people choose to investigate or reject it is mostly determined by the filter through which people view it.

      • Tracey says:

        how do you, not science, how do you know, without doubt, that science is correct, facts only state what the questions asks.
        by your statement…human mind is finite and prone to error, then this statement can be used on your statement. No reason to believe you either.
        Christianity is belief in Jesus Christ, of whom needs no strengthening, God does not have to swear.
        God cannot lie.
        Non-belief is a personal choice, own it.

        • Miles Weaver says:

          If one chooses to not accept and believe in the God of the Bible, then, I’d like to be present when he or she is holding court defending their position after they have passed from this earthly life. Debating and defending God, ie. The book of Job, for all it’s hype is not necessary nor required. Contentment, peace, and joy are difficult to experience without a personal belief in a heavenly Father. ‘nough said. 🤔

    • Eduard C says:

      First, apologetics is not a need. It’s just being a part of the agora of noble ideas, of the community. And as it has more than a philosophical standing, it can legitimately debate. God does not need anything and anybody. But the lost sons sometime need reminding that they have a hope because they belong to Someone, their Creator and that science should not be debating against God. But then, after all, you misunderstood the term itself – it is not coming from apologies, but from the Greek ‘apologia’, which is a verbal defence. It’s the type of rhetoric people like Cicero or Demosthene have practiced in the old times. .

    • K.C says:

      I say, you utter fool. As of the lack of knowledge which you have, you have done is Googled “apologetics”, and adopted the first definition you saw. The people above are of no ridicule for it is you who is “silly and deluded”. Nevertheless Robert, God has given you innate value, please, use it well.

    • tom says:

      when ever a book claims its assertions are true, you have follow the book very closely. out of 2500 Holy Bible prophesies, nearly 2000 have been fulfilled and the remaining will be fulfilled…the odds for all these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance without error is less than one in 102000 (that is 1 with 2,000 zeros written after it). you can go to and check the accuracy of the prophesy. since God of the ‘Holy Bible exist out of time, he can prophesy events before they happen and his name is ‘Glorified’ in the process……..i can go on and on and on….you can watch ravi zach debating with people with other world view on youtube

      • toby says:

        Prophecies written down were then fulfilled later and written down. Or they weren’t fulfilled and just written as if they were. Because . . . it was written later and you could do that and would if you were trying to show that your candidate was the messiah.

        • James says:

          You could be right. But the Biblical prophecies were writen down before their events, we have historical evidence of this.

    • Jimmy says:


      William Lane Craig slaughtered Sean Carroll. Sean’s entire position rested upon misrepresenting the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem. After the debate, William Lane Craig got into e-mail contact with Alexander Vilenkin (one of the three founders of the BGV Theorem, the one I just listed), and had it personally confirmed to him that William Lane Craig had accurately represented the theorem, and that it does inquire that the universe had a beginning. Craig posted this e-mail to his website. Sean attempted to say the theorem does not say this by pointing to a video where Borde speaks merely of his opinion on the universe, not on the theory, and his view clearly contradicts his theory.

      • Andy Ryan says:

        I’ve not heard anyone else say that Craig even managed to hold his own against Carroll. To say he slaughtered Carroll is absurd. Craig was quoting Borde to back up Craig’s view, when Borde himself disagrees with that view.

    • Simon says:

      Apologetics can simply be a loving way to help people who are not thinking clearly for whatever reason.

      Objections often come from the same way of reasoning.

    • Joshua McCook says:

      LMBO!!! You have no idea what the definition of apologetics is nor an understanding of philosophy, science, humanities, or the history of humanity and education for that matter. Since humans have been able, we have used philosophy, literature, religion, art, music, history and language to understand and record our world. Providing reasonable understandings for “Truth” does not make that truth untrue. Your comment is really the epitome of dumbfounding. Not trying to be mean in any way but you really need to educate yourself about apologetics, philosophy, and science.

    • John Hanby says:

      Dr. Craig has debated plenty of Scientists including Peter Atkins and Lawrence Krauss, both of whom got decimated. Comparing Dr. Craig to Ken Ham is like comparing Michio Kaku to Bill Nye. That’s why Ken Ham debated the low hanging fruit. I do think David Bentley Hart, and Dr. John Lennox are better defenders of Christianity. Also, this idea that apologetics is silly demonstrates you do not understand it. Everyone uses apologetics to formulate reasons and evidence for why they believe what they believe, including Naturalists. Sean Carroll knows a lot about Quantum Cosmology, but get him talking about Philosophy (like debating Sam Harris on free will), and while he can keep up, he leaves a lot to be desired. Lastly, WLC would debate Dawkins if Dawkins wasn’t such a coward.

  2. Robert says:

    By the way all of these apologists have seen all of their arguments refuted and know every well they do not stand up to scrutiny. Frank Turek has seen the refutations of the First Cause argument. He knows it isn’t valid and knows why it isn’t valid. Yet he makes this argument on the air all the time. This makes me question Frank’s honesty, his ethics and his morals. This is because he has no objective basis for morality and ethics. Divine Command Morality can be used to defend any crime no matter how hideous as the Bible clearly states over and over and over again. So ignoring objections to your claims and repeating your claims over and over and over again as if no objections to them were ever made just seems like the right thing to do for a Bible believer.

    • Frank Turek says:

      Robert, thanks for participating on this blog. Please keep your comments to arguments rather than attacks on the person.



      • Paula says:

        Frank, I heard your show for the first time this last Saturday. Thanks for the list. I had to laugh a little when my husband said, “He didn’t include Augustine or Schaaf or…” and he went on to name a few more! He didn’t catch the show and I didn’t hear the first part. I assumed you were naming more contemporary apologists and thought it would have been a most difficult exercise to limit yourself to only 20!
        I’m going to have to listen on podcast…Saturday morning (on my station) at 9 a.m. isn’t a typical time for me to listen!
        I loved your show! Thanks for serving the community of believers. Blessings!

      • Henry9th says:

        it seems to me the realization that “so and So” is left off the list is playing on many a mind when all we have to remember that it is not an exclusive List of Apoligetical persons. Is there an Exclusive List? if not, maybe someone for sure should make one…and then of course there is the problem of rating them…Who is the best foremost modern or ancient, sucessful or brilliant (Dr. Ravvi ?) and the list goes on.
        Maybe there is a book out on this allready and I never heard of it.

    • mike says:

      You make very silly points. First, if Turek is convinced of the soundness of his argument, why should he abandon it? Second. The comment you make about no objective morality is foolish. To make that claim, I’d like to see you provide a coherent, logical defense of that statement with solid support for you premises. Many have tried but they all fail due to the fact that any other human being who decides to can simply claim his own moral superiority and refuse to bend to your ideas, claiming the absolute right of the Self to do so. That is the final fruit of moral relativism. It must remain relative. A free for all. Don’t agree? Just look at the sexual license of the 1960’s, the booming drug trade, and the coarsening of society since that time. Funny how most of that would have never happened if people had accepted the objective moral posture of the commandments of Christ. Like most atheist arguments, you just throw up canards to disguise the emotion that drives your unbelief.

    • Marty says:

      Funny Robert. You question Dr Turek’s morals but you say there is no objective basis for morality. Where did you get your basis for questions to his morals? Just wondering.

    • K.C says:

      If one is an atheist, as you are, then you are the one without the “basis for morality and ethics”; if you do not believe in God then there is nothing stopping you from doing anything you please. If one is a theist, we fear the Lord as much as we love him, thus we are to commit no crimes.

      • Andy Ryan says:

        “If one is a theist, we fear the Lord as much as we love him, thus we are to commit no crimes.”

        Right, that’s why no Christian ever commits crimes.

        • toby says:

          Absolutely right. All statistics indicating that the vast majority of prisoners in the USA are christian is a lie propagated by the liberal media.

      • David Stump says:

        “If one is an atheist, as you are, then you are the one without the “basis for morality and ethics”; if you do not believe in God then there is nothing stopping you from doing anything you please. If one is a theist, we fear the Lord as much as we love him, thus we are to commit no crimes.”

        I’m NOT an atheist, but your comment as per the quoted above, is simply ignorant. Here is why: People don’t necessarily need an invisible Deity in order to have a very real basis for morality and ethics. People sense, and feel, morality and ethics, and often, this sensing, is indeed, very very REAL on the personal plane. For example, at the thought of murdering or raping someone, sane people are quite naturally abhorred at this. Those that aren’t, we typically deem as sociopaths. The point is, the natural reactions that sane people have at what we label immoral, are VERY REAL, with or without a proposed deity to where the buck stops at, so to speak. In biblical parlance, does not the bible, teach that the “law of God” is written on the hearts of humankind, even those that don’t recognize that God? It would seem that many who don’t believe in God, do indeed, have a very REAL basis for being moral: every fiber of their being is against doing immoral things. I know plenty of atheists that are completely moral to the core. Secondly, and along the lines of that, no it is not the case that unless one believes in God then they could just do whatever they want. There is this thing called an inner sense of feeling good or bad about what we do, and atheists have it too. That inner sense, is VERY REAL. (however one wants to explain it, the fact is that in reality, there are plenty of non-theists and atheists that do indeed have very real inner states of being that prevent them from doing “whatever” they want) Lastly, there are plenty of full blown THEISTS that DO commit crimes, such as any number of priests, pastors and preachers who get caught in immorality or ripping off the church, etc etc. So uh, yeah, please do try to put a bit of the awake from the neck up thought in your ignorant apologistics nonsense. And remember, I’m NOT an atheist.

        • Tracey says:

          false prophets come in all disguises, this is written.
          Is God an invisible deity?
          Is the morale ethical philosophy the only reason, many people are Christians, Jews, etc?
          Maybe there are other, reasons?

    • Henry9th says:

      There seems to me an oversight in the recognition of the Superiority of “GOD” …
      There is no justifying of crime in the Law of God.
      Every crime deserves a just punishment. Period!
      All those terrible commands of God in the old testament of : “Go and wipe out men, women and children and don’t let anyone live or escape” etc. is all by Divine Decree in response to crimes committed against God. He only and justly commands punishment to be carried out as their crime against Almighty God deserves.
      Of course only a God fearing person can understand that. Society today has lost the concept of Absolute, Royal and Divine Authority.
      May God help us.

  3. Joe says:


    Really. Do you really believe that the universe and everything else came into being spontaneously? Why does life exist? Why does the church exist? I have to assume you resort to assertions because you have no real arguments.

    Frank, I would add JP Moreland and Peter Kreeft to this list!


  4. BJ says:

    You mentioned on air, that you don’t agree with any of these guys 100% and neither would I. So I think you missed an opportunity to include maybe 3 names on your honorable mention list that you wouldn’t agree with too. Weakest to strongest… Scott Hahn, Francis Beckwith, GK Chesterton. No, I’m not Catholic, however these guys have contributed greatly to my development.

    OK, maybe Hahn isn’t technically an Apologist, I’m not 100% sure, but he did help me to think through some basic Theology and his EWTN program called “Our Fathers Plan” grounded me in the birds eye view of scripture and the way the Bible is ONE story.

    I don’t think I need to tell you about Beckwith’s contributions before he converted BACK to Catholicism.

    Lastly, GK Chesterton is off the hook brilliant and even though to protestant ears he seems to put his Catholicism before his Christianity (like Hahn), I think we could say that about some Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed, Baptists etc. At the very least, Orthodoxy should be on everyone’s shelf who studies Apologetics. His Essays on Aquinas and St Francis are also edifying.

    It hits me while I write, that you didn’t mention Francis Schaeffer or his “protege” Nancy Pearcey. “How Should We Then Live” and “Total Truth” are textbooks on worldview. Other recent favorites are John Coe from Biola, and Frank Turek, whom I download and listen to while truck driving.

    To me, everything is Apologetics, because everything needs to be integrated with a Christian worldview to be more completely understood. Also, any and every topic may arise during witnessing, discussions on Theology and Doctrine we have to know the terrain to make better decisions about where to make a stand and what to let pass (not majoring in the minors).

    I don’t live in an AFR area so I’ve started downloading some of your podcasts. Great stuff, a real blessing.

  5. Ski says:

    I listened to the broadcast while I was driving – there were many book recommendations, including one for Systematic Theology. Could you please post those here as well – I didn’t have a chance to get the authors names & titles…

    Thanks for your ministry!

  6. says:

    What?!? James White is the best. He is the most consistent apologist and defends Christianity against soooo many different attacks, against the best of the other side. And wins over and over, doesn’t mater how elite is hes opponent.

    So my opinion – James R.White Nr.1

  7. Jonathan says:

    Where is Peter Kreeft?! I guess he was excluded for being Catholic… which is really a shame because he is excellent.

  8. Ed Phillips says:

    Why such hostility in some of the comments? It seems that some will go to great lengths to convince themselves and whoever will listen that there is no God. The implications of an all-powerful God who actually sets some limits on their behavior is a scary thought that brings about fear, irrationality and hostility. Frank, thank you for posting this list of great men. -Ed

    • H H Andrewson says:


      My guess is that it is not enough for some to be atheists only. They must also be anti-theists because of their outright disdain for Jesus Christ and his followers.

      Of course it is also possible this guy Robert is a simply a web troll who likes giving Christians a hard time. Those guys don’t just lurk in their caves anymore.

      My friend recently wrote an insightful note on Facebook called “Are you a critical thinker or an angry mob?” This guy Robert seems more like the angry mob type to me.


      H H Andrewson

  9. RickW says:

    Agree with some of the other posters who mentioned Plantinga, Kreeft and James White. All are brilliant apologists. Cornelius Van Til has also been very influential to later generations of apologists such as John Frame, Scott Oliphint and the great, late Greg Bahnsen. Bahnsen’s debate against atheist Gordon Stein in 1985 is a classic. Other useful mentions include Dinesh D’Souza and Robert Spencer.

  10. Steve Taylor says:

    Great list, Frank. I am truly disappointed with Robert’s contribution to this piece – seems he misunderstands what apologia means, and how apologists integrate the scientific discoveries with the theological and philosophical position supporting the existence of God. Seriously, I’d like to see Robert debate yourself, Bill Craig, Greg Koukl or John Lennox and see how he gets on.

    I know limiting the list to 20 must have been hard. I agree with others suggesting Augustine and Alvin Plantinga.

    Keep running the race.

    • Lynne says:

      Yes and add Henry Morris – Institute for Creation Research – his integration of the scientific viewpoint with Genesis is inspiring!

  11. Brian says:

    I would recommend Os Guinness being on the list. He is very good at Christian Apologetics through mostly the use of literature, both Christian and secular.

  12. Matt says:

    Belief in God can’t be refuted by Western rational thought for one simple reason, regardless of particular beliefs in the origin of the universe or humans. All explanations are either based on one of two patently irrational beliefs, which are that everything spontaneously came into existence at the hands of a divine being, or that everything spontaneously came into existence without the existence of a divine being. Both are equally irrational. Hence, the point that you missed the only choice for #1 – Blaise Pascal, who made the only apologist argument worth considering.

  13. Bryce says:

    Thank you, Frank, for posting this list. When I first found it when I was 15, I had just become a Christian, and I was looking for answers to a lot of questions that I had. I saw this list, and I started to look at these men and the way they defend the faith. Today, I am 17 years old with a faith in God and Jesus that I think is so strong that I will never, EVER walk away from it. So thank you so much for opening the door for me to study and learn under all of these men!

    Blessings to you forever, Frank!


  14. gands says:

    Your inspiration from Bilbo that God needs apologetics is flawed. It is a well thought of quotation but misplaced. God needs one thing, glory arising from his oneness with mankind. Atheists are on rampage against God and logic demands that theism responds. Not that God’s survival depends on it but the evidence of his existence overwhelms his defenders. Defining what God needs from outside the camp is like missing a memo on green hair day haha.

  15. Luke says:

    Mike said::”Don’t agree? Just look at the sexual license of the 1960’s, the booming drug trade, and the coarsening of society since that time. Funny how most of that would have never happened if people had accepted the objective moral posture of the commandments of Christ.”

    Mike, I don’t agree. When I look at things like crime rates, crime has gone down dramatically over the last 20 years. The number of teenagers having sex is lower than we’ve ever recorded. Drug use is down. Abortion numbers have been declining for decades. All of this has happened while religiosity has declined. (And less religious states in general have less abortion than the religious states.) Sure, the world and people’s behavior is far from perfect, but when I compare it to the 1960s, or 1950s, or 1850s, it seems that we have made great moral strides. “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” it has been wisely said. Can you honestly argue that our country today is not more just, more moral than it’s been through most of its history?

    In the 1950s, laws in this nation sent people to different water fountains and forced them into poor schools, based on nothing but the color of their skin. When they tried to stand up for justice, the authorities went after them with dogs and fire hoses. Some moral paradise that was.

    Want to look farther back, back to when our country was young, supposedly founded as a Christian nation? Yeah, we not only acquiesced to slavery, but with horrendous bureaucracy like the three-fifths compromise. And just look at what was done with the native Americans. A claim of some lost glorious past of morality is at best innocently mistaken.

    You asked for a logical example with premises of how Divine Command Theory allows for any action to be moral (therefore no action can be categorically labelled immoral). I can sketch that for you:

    1. G-d is omnipotent.
    2. G-d can command anything He wishes (follows from 1)
    3. Anything commanded by G-d is by definition moral.
    4. Since G-d can command anything, and anything commanded by G-d is moral, there is no action that can be categorically labelled immoral. (follows from 2 and 3).

    He said examples can be given. One famous example is Pslam 137: “How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones
    Against the rock.”

    Targeting babies in war is something that strikes almost every human alive as immoral, yet, under Divine Command Theory, we cannot say that dashing little babies against the rock is categorically immoral. (Note that this isn’t collateral damage of the sort we might see now “this was our chance to kill a terrorist leader, but unfortunately a small child died and there was no way to avoid it”. This is literally someone picking up a little baby, on purpose, and hurdling it’s innocent body against a boulder. And that man is blessed!)

    (This is probably best argued against by attacking Premise 2 and saying “G-d can’t just command anything” but then it sure begins to sound like either there is a standard G-d must follow — therefore people can just follow that, or it sounds like a lowly human telling His creator what the Creator can and cannot do.)

    Just to be clear, I’m not personally advancing this argument about DCT. You just seemed to want to see such an argument, so I thought I’d be nice and sketch it for you.



  16. Bill says:

    Thank you for the list. I happened onto it looking for podcasts that may offer some diversity to the standard fare. I did want to ask a question if I may.
    When assessing their credintials do you take into account the character of the man( or woman) or only the effectiveness with which he delivers his content, and the content itself?
    Having grown up with the greatest of regard for Dr. Geisler, my family and I have been sorely disappointed these last years with his tendency toward attacking fellow appologests. These have not been substantive criticisms, but ones so without basis as to seem personal in nature. When rebuffed by other mainstream contemporaries, he has turned his attacks on them. Are you keeping track of Dr. Geisler’ ministry? If so do think his rantings are of a man in his later years seeking a dwindling significance by creating debate where there is none?
    Or is it perhaps more innocent. Perhaps he is losing his faculties? Regardless, your placement of him at number 1 caused me concern. Anyone who is introduced to the man he has become will be confused by the seeming disconnect between the message and the messenger. Finally, because I do care about the endless recordings that have the ability to win the lost for years to come, I would appeal to you who have known him personally to have an eye on protecting his legacy. Perhaps whatever umbrella he has put himself under in an accountability position can begin to temper whatever is driving the man. Bless you for the honor you have given your mentor, and continued blessing as you give back what you have been given.

  17. Jason Martin says:

    I am suprised that James White from has been left out of this list considering his vast contribution to issue of debate and apolegetics. Over a 150 moderated debates on a wide variety of subjects and the lead when it come to debating Islam. Is there a bit of an issue as to why he was left out?

    (Please delete previous comment / wrong info for email/name)

  18. Manasseh N Mwangi says:

    Hi everyone.
    Romans 1:18-20 says:
    “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
    Thomas R. Schreiner writes, “God has stitched into the fabric of the human mind his existence and power, so that they are instinctively recognized when one views the created world.” The knowledge of God is present in the mind prior to any experience or observation of creation, so that no empirical data is ever required for one to recognize the innate propositions and thought categories given to him at birth. Charles Hodge, although somewhat of an empiricist, admits, “It is not of a mere external revelation of which the apostle is speaking, but of that evidence of the being and perfections of God which every man has in the constitution of his own nature, and in virtue of which he is competent to apprehend the manifestations of God in his works.” Accordingly, the NLT translates, “For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts.”
    Atheists don’t exercise hostility towards God in absolute ignorance, but Paul again emphasizes their innate knowledge of God in verse 32: “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.” They know what God requires, but refuse to acquiesce; moreover, they approve of those who rebel against him. This describes the unbelievers of our generation just as much as any other generation – not only do they defy God’s commands themselves, but they approve of others who do the same, so that they even support and encourage atheists, idolaters, homosexuals, abortionists, and all kinds of detestable and wicked people. In their hearts, they know about God and his commands. Just as God’s revelation to them is inescapable, their damnation is inevitable.
    The greatest scrutiny that truth can be subjected to is time. We may spend hours and years of engaging ourselves in argumentative yet enlightening discourses on this issue about God, but time will always tell. If God is there, then woe unto those that deliberately and arrogantly tried to blot Him out of the picture. As humans, we have intellectual reasoning capabilities. Now, if God doesn’t exist, what do we stand to lose surely? Totally Nothing. But if He exists as The Bible reveals, then we better think well on what side we want to be on, because we stand to lose everything if His existence is sure. I really wish we took these matters on a personal level, and really thought about our eternity in light of the claims in both the atheistic and the theistic world. Personally, I’d rather choose God than reject Him, only to find that I was wrong. Have a blessed day everyone.

  19. ARJAY says:

    Hi Good Day i just want to clarify if Jesus is the only son of God, but how come that many people say that Jesus is God also ? i am a believer but i just want a proof and verse in the bible that Jesus and God is one.

    Thank you God Bless

    • J says:

      Jesus said he and the father are one during the feast of dedication, which by the way is Haunakka. Here is his Haunakka speach:

      22And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. 23And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch. 24Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. 26But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. 30I and my Father are one.

  20. Olu Akinmboni says:

    I listened to the argument of a man from another faith on a video clip stating that how can Christians state that Jesus is God. His stand point was that the Psalm states that God neither slumbers or sleeps but in the New Testament in the gospel of John, Jesus slept on the boat with his disciples.

    His second point was that Jesus was circumcised. His point here was that God cannot be circumcised. Please how does one counter these two points and prove that our Jesus is indeed God.

  21. Michael says:

    Who are the people on these lists. A bunch of no bodies outside the community they minister too.
    On the other hand the list of Atheist apologists is headed by World Famous names like Hitchens and Dawkins. Not much of a match I fear. If it were a boxing match the referee would stop it before the Thiests get hurt.

    • David says:

      Would theists get hurt? Have you seen the debates? The atheist continually get their butts kicked, they’re just too stubborn to admit it. Far from being nobodies this list includes some of the most brilliant minds of the last century. I mean more people know who C. S. Lewis is than Christopher Hitchens or Daniel Dennett. C. S. Lewis is not a nobody. John Lennox is as least as well credentialed as Dawkins. I would put William Lane Craig up against Sam Harris any day of the week.

  22. Brandon Christian says:

    Dr. James White should be #1 on this list as he’s the most active Christian apologist in the world debating Muslim apologists, Roman Catholic apologists, Mormon apologists and others all over the world. See

  23. David says:

    I wouldn’t put James White on this list. He wastes any talent he might have by attacking other apologist, and a huge proponent of hyper Calvinism. I would pretty much agree with this list, although I would switch William Lane Craig’s name to the top. (No offense Dr. Geisler)

    • Trev Noceurt says:

      C’mon, David! Bwahahahahahahahaha!

      Your ignorance betrays you if you accuse James White of “hyper Calvinism” and defend WLC & NG, who often get their clocks cleaned in genuine debates. Maybe you can ask WLC why he keeps dodging debates with Dr. White, you know, if he’s #1, as you endearingly posit????????

    • Shawn says:

      James White is no hyper Calvinist. Be careful of false accusations against brothers and sisters. He is a Calvinist, biblical in belief. Hyper Calvinism is an abomination and I’ve never heard or read anything White has said even come close to it.

  24. Susan says:

    I can’t believe D’Souza didn’t make the list but that’s probably because of his involvement in politics or maybe he’s been less active lately. I loved the way he told the truth about the links between atheist and communist thought in the USSR and China when he debated which when researched is undeniable.

    Of course, I know it doesn’t really matter because it’s silly to hold a group of people accountable for the sins of another era because they share a label. That’s why God checks heart motives, words and deeds but it is impossible for people to check them so we carry mysterious grudges fooled by labels and judge people from them before they have testified for themselves and that is how we end up in the historical arguments.

    So Christianity can be indicted today for the sins of Christians of other eras but nobody can verify today what motivated that person. Was it deception?

    You can indict atheism for the crimes of the Miitant Society of the Godless and people will say it was communism but check what the stated doctrine was of those communist beliefs. Atheism was the official state’s position in both the USSR and China.

    Still is it rational to indict anyone because of a label today for a group’s past crimes? Especially when you can’t do a background check or get a testimony from the participants?

    But that is what an historical argument is…incomplete info where people indict the other side for crimes that occurred in the past and the people are no longer present to interview.

    I came across Tim Keller once apologizing for Christian crimes in the past and I liked his book “The Reason for God” but I finally figured out he had no business accepting guilt for the acts of people he didn’t know and apologizing. We don’t even know those people weren’t under pagan influences because Catholicism had paganistic influences on it for a really long time and we forget that because apologetics comes from both Catholic and Protestant thinkers. We defend the attacks but we don’t check Christian history enough to show true Christianity against paganized Christianity when the atheists come in and say Christianity is sun worship or Christianity is Mithraism. Catholicism may have strong elements of it. It has a lot of pagan symbology merged with Christianity but Protestantism had done it’s best to separate from that. This may be why there is such confusion in the historical arguing.

    So why does Keller need to apologize for the Inquisition today when he didn’t participate in it and the Catholics allowed an idol, the pope, to tell them what to do? Weren’t the Jesuits sworn to do whatever the pope deemed necessary? So hadn’t they surrendered their thinking faculties and consciences to the pope. Most Catholics didn’t read the Bible. The Church controlled everything in Latin so a good Catholic followed the pope’s orders. He didn’t question them any more than a good Nazi soldier questioned the Fuhrer.

    Better Christians know it is better to obey God than men and the popes declare themself in Christ’s place wielding his power on Earth but a pope gets there by human election not God’s, doesn’t he?


    … We [the pope] hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, …

    Source: Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae (The Reunion of Christendom), dated June 20, 1894, trans. in The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII (New York: Benziger, 1903), paragraph 5, page 304

    The word anti means ” in the place of ” in Greek not “against” as we use it in common usage in English today. Futuristic prophecy isn’t Protestant either though a lot of Protestant denominations have been adopting it since the 1800s. It is an interpretation that came in from Ribera a Jesuit servant of the pope in a move of the Counter-Reformation period to counter claims that the popes were the antichrists.

    Best book to read and easy: The Apologetics of Jesus by Geisler and Zukeran. The Bible says there is power in simplicity and this is a simple book. It also explains why the Christian faith has God given evidence.

    Good video: Habermas multi part youtube series on the Skeptic’s argument proving some Bible claims reasoning from the skeptic’s position.

    But my favorite apologist is probably Craig for demeanor. He actually seems to have a Philippians 2 attitude.

    I haven’t heard enough of all of them to determine who is the smartest but smart may not be the most important in God’s eyes anyway. He didn’t choose David because he was smart. He chose David because he wouldn’t tolerate blasphemy.

    I tend to think of apologetics as a “Davidic” minisitry which is a branch of prophetic ministry because the prophets are always the one God sends to set the world straight.

  25. EDDY says:


  26. Stephen Black says:

    There are very few who get apologetics on the very relevant issue of homosexuality than Dr. Robert Gagnon. “The Bible and Homosexual Practice – The Texts & Hermeneutics” -This is the gold standard! With all due respect, Dr. Gagnon is better than all our your list. Unfortunately his website lacks a good design, but the content is outstanding. Dr. Brown is the next best. Please check out Dr. Robert Gagnon. Thank you!

  27. Chad says:

    I am probably the least intellectual person posting. I have no need to prove or refute God. I simply humbled myself and asked Jesus into my heart, and God revealed himself to me. I have a relationship that has changed my life for the better. Life and existence make sense. Everyone has and deserves that opportunity, and all the bickering back and forth will not change that. The only need I have in this matter is to share the fact that I am a changed person from the inside out through Jesus Christ. Just know that He is there for you too. If anyone feels like getting out of his or her comfort zone, I present to you a challenge. In the privacy of your home, get down on your knees and sincerely ask God to reveal Himself to you. What could it hurt? Who’s to know? Nothing to be ashamed of, right? There’s absolutely nothing to lose; you don’t have to tell anyone. Liken it to trying a new food. The huge difference is you might have a life-altering experience. The choice is yours. Isn’t that what it really comes down to? Choice. Not who’s right or wrong, not even what is good or bad. Choice. You get to choose. Is not that the greatest freedom one could give someone else? Why does one give such freedom? Love and respect to all who have posted, and I must say I am quite impressed with many of the very well-spoken, well-educated, intelligent posts.

  28. John says:

    The list of Apologists here is fascinating simply because it makes Christianity look like a very very young faith. What about prosper of auitaine, St. Augustine, John Chrysostom, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Ambrose of Milan. The list provided here is very immature. Every single one of he listed apologists borrowed from the early church fathers…every single one of them.

  29. mark ott says:


    These people who lie to good but gullable people are the worst!

    The headlice of humanity!!

    How can anyone actually do this for a living?

    What a miserable empty existance that must be!

    I feel sorry for people who listen to them!!

    • Peter says:

      Oh dear.
      Apologetics, in it’s vanilla form, is about debating an issue.
      It is certainly not about venting one’s spleen via mindless rants.

  30. Emily Madsen says:

    Thanks for this list! It provides such a wealth of resources and really is just a beginning of such a broad topic. I noticed this list was originally published in 2014, so it would be nice to see an updated list with some of the upcoming apologists as well as a few of the women apologists that are making their mark on the world! With the first women apologetics conference being held this year at Biola in a few weeks, it might be a good opportunity to update this list. I would include some have already mentioned in the comments, but also include these awesome females: Nancy Pearcy, Hillary Morgan Ferrer, Maryjo Sharp, Natasha Crain, and Melissa Cain Travis. Of course these are just a few, but us women need encouragement!! We are strong and can provide a lot to apologetics. Grace and peace!

  31. Drew says:

    Kent Hovind was left off the list! I would highly recommend adding him to your top ten list of Christian Apologists! His work is very unique and at every turn he destroys the atheist professors that he debates!

  32. Anthony says:

    I would request that Ken Ham be added to the list. I know people have mixed feelings about him because the media loves to discredit him at every turn, because he dared to challenge the authority of their beloved icon: Bill Nye. But I’ve seen his seminars and he has a very competent grasp of apologetics, including the science and logical arguments for the Bible. Not to mention, he has done good work in teaching children how secular views of science do not have all of the answers they claim to have about our world/universe. But above all of that, he stands firmly on the Word of God and understands that all of the worlds morals originate from the Word. For those of you who enjoy apologetics but are skeptical of Ken Ham, I highly recommend watching the seminar he gives about his father raising him. Ken started with nothing, but was determined to defend the Word of God, and show others the evidence for the Bible, and that eventually grew into Answers in Genesis. Because of him, the United States houses the world’s first Creation Museum, and a life sized replica of the Ark. Ken’s done a lot of good for Christian apologetics, and I believe he deserves a much better reputation than atheists and the secular media love to give him.

  33. Freda Drake says:

    With all due respect, you forgot to add my father, Percival Davis, who coined the term “Intelligent Design” and co-authored the first book about it. He’s been honored by the CS Lewis Society.


Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Another good place to study more is the works of several Apologist from this list. See “Top 20 Apologist” […]

  2. […] Top 20 christian apologists crossexaminedorg […]

  3. […] scholarship. Go ahead and look at this link of 20 apologists (and other cultural commentators): . I suggest you look into how these people share their biblical […]

  4. […] The first of these questions ask who are the prominent apologists, atheists, and agnostics. gives a comprehensive list of the top 20 apologists in the world. Among them are William Lane Craig […]

  5. […] Top 20 Christian Apologists – Cross Examined […]

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *