The principle of analogy has historically played a significant role in both philosophy and historical studies, and its application directly impacts Christian apologetics. However, the principle has been used in two distinct ways. First, liberal theologian and historian Ernst Troeltsch (1865–1923) formulated a historical principle of analogy, arguing that we can only understand the past by analogy with the present. According to him, since biblical miracles are not observable today, we cannot affirm that they occurred in the past. This approach, however, rests on a flawed presupposition that denies divine intervention in history. The second usage of analogy relates to reasoning itself, where analogy serves as a fundamental tool in human thought and communication. This second sense of the principle is crucial for apologetics, as it demonstrates the rationality of Christian claims and enables effective argumentation rooted in sound reasoning.

This article examines the principle of analogy in its historical misuse by Troeltsch and its legitimate function as a principle of reason. It will explore its philosophical foundation, biblical support, and apologetic usefulness in defending the truthfulness of Scripture and the rationality of faith.

The Historical Principle of Analogy in Troeltsch’s Historicism

Ernst Troeltsch (1865–1923), a German liberal theologian and historian, is often associated with the historicist use of the principle of analogy. He asserted that “the probability of all historical occurrences is established by analogy with present occurrences.” By this reasoning, one could only affirm events in the past if they conformed to patterns observable in the present. In his view, since miracles such as the resurrection of Jesus or the parting of the Red Sea do not occur under present observation, they could not be affirmed historically.

This argument is deeply flawed, because it begins with a naturalistic presupposition—that divine intervention is impossible. Troeltsch’s reasoning essentially excluded supernatural events from history by definition. He replaced the openness of genuine historical investigation with the narrowness of philosophical naturalism. His method did not assess whether miracles occurred; it began by declaring them impossible.

The principle, when misused this way, collapses into circular reasoning. If one assumes that only present-day natural processes can explain past events, then miracles will automatically be dismissed, regardless of the evidence. Yet historical investigation requires openness to the possibility that the past may have contained events outside ordinary experience. The resurrection of Jesus in 33 C.E., for example, cannot be reduced to natural processes without distorting the evidence. Eyewitness accounts, the empty tomb, the transformation of the apostles, and the rise of the early church all point to a miraculous event, not a naturalistic explanation.

Troeltsch’s analogy is therefore illegitimate, as it imposes an a priori restriction on history that denies the biblical worldview from the outset.

The Principle of Analogy as a Principle of Reason

In its legitimate sense, analogy is a fundamental principle of human reasoning. An analogy draws a comparison between two things based on shared features in order to clarify, explain, or argue a point. It is not absolute identity, but a similarity in relevant respects. This principle is deeply embedded in logic, communication, and learning.

When Scripture uses analogy, it often clarifies divine truth by comparing it to something familiar. Jesus said, “I am the good shepherd” (John 10:11), which is an analogy. He is not literally a shepherd of sheep, but His relationship to His disciples is analogous to that of a shepherd to his flock—guiding, protecting, and sacrificing for them. Paul likewise uses analogy in Romans 11 when comparing Israel to an olive tree with branches grafted in. The analogy makes theological truth accessible by linking it to known realities.

In apologetics, analogy allows Christians to argue persuasively. For example, when explaining the rationality of believing in God, one might appeal to analogy with design. Just as a watch implies a watchmaker, so the intricate order of creation implies a Designer. This does not prove God’s existence with mathematical certainty but provides a rationally compelling argument by analogy.

Biblical Examples of Analogy in Reasoning

Scripture itself consistently uses analogy to communicate God’s truth. The prophets, apostles, and Christ Himself employed analogical reasoning, recognizing it as a universal principle of understanding.

In Isaiah 55:10–11, God compares His Word to the rain and snow that water the earth: “For just as the rain and the snow fall from heaven and do not return there without watering the earth and making it produce and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so My word that comes from My mouth will not return to Me empty, but it will accomplish what I please and will prosper in what I send it to do.” The analogy of rain illustrates the certainty and effectiveness of God’s Word.

Paul appeals to analogy in 1 Corinthians 15:35–44 when discussing the resurrection body. He compares the sowing of seed to the transformation of the resurrection body. Just as a seed is buried and then transformed into a new plant, so the human body is buried and raised in glory. The analogy demonstrates continuity and transformation in resurrection.

Jesus’ parables are built entirely on analogical reasoning. The parable of the sower (Mark 4:1–20) analogizes different soils to the condition of human hearts in receiving the Word. The parable of the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31–32) compares the kingdom of God to a seed that begins small but grows into something great.

These biblical examples show that analogy is not merely a rhetorical device but a principle of thought divinely endorsed and embedded in Scripture.

The Apologetic Usefulness of the Principle of Analogy

Apologetics depends upon clear reasoning and communication, both of which employ analogy. Several apologetic arguments, while not resting solely on analogy, derive much of their persuasiveness from analogical reasoning.

The cosmological argument, for example, reasons that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Since the universe began to exist, it must have a cause. The analogy lies in extending the principle observed in the present (every beginning has a cause) to the origin of the universe itself. This analogy is legitimate, because it is based on the principle of causality, which applies universally.

The teleological argument, often expressed as the argument from design, also relies heavily on analogy. The intricate complexity of the human cell or the fine-tuning of the universe is analogous to the design we see in human inventions. Just as a computer implies a programmer, so the informational code in DNA implies a Designer.

In defending miracles, analogy helps show the fallacy of Troeltsch’s reasoning. The fact that we do not see miracles regularly today does not prove they never occurred. By analogy, rare natural events—such as the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 C.E. or the Great Flood in 2348 B.C.E.—are not dismissed simply because we do not see them now. Historical uniqueness does not invalidate historicity. Likewise, the resurrection of Jesus is a singular event, but that does not render it irrational or impossible.

Misuse of Analogy and Apologetic Clarification

The misuse of analogy often comes when it is overstretched or applied inappropriately. Troeltsch’s error was assuming that analogy with the present rules out any unique event in the past. Likewise, skeptics often argue by false analogy, comparing miracles to myths or legends, ignoring the distinct historical grounding of biblical events.

Apologists must clarify that analogy does not mean identity. A watch and the universe are not identical, but their similarity in displaying order makes the analogy to a Designer valid. Analogical reasoning is not absolute proof but strong evidence, which when combined with historical facts, builds a compelling cumulative case.

Conclusion

The principle of analogy is indispensable for human reasoning and Christian apologetics. Troeltsch’s historicist misuse of the principle wrongly excluded miracles by assuming naturalism. However, when properly understood, analogy is a fundamental principle of reason, deeply rooted in Scripture and consistently employed in apologetics. It enables us to communicate truth, defend the rationality of faith, and demonstrate the consistency of biblical revelation with human experience. The Bible itself affirms the power of analogy as a tool for understanding and persuasion, making it a vital component in the defense of the faith once for all delivered to the holy ones.

You May Also Enjoy

Agnosticism: Definition, History, Arguments, and a Comprehensive Christian Apologetic Response Built on Scripture, Reason, and Historical Evidence

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS