withallyourmind.net

In my last post, I discussed the methodology in apologetics known as “classical apologetics.” The next method of doing apologetics, as discussed in Five Views on Apologetics, is called evidential apologetics. Gary Habermas presents evidentialism. I have found that there is a great deal of overlap with the methodology of the classical apologists and the evidentialists. The clearest way to differentiate the two methods is to think of classical apologetics as a two-step process and evidential apologetics as a one-step process. Instead of first arguing for God’s existence and then turning to specific evidences, the evidentialist proceeds directly to the historical arguments to both “prove” God’s existence and establish that Christianity is the true form of theism.

Habermas lists several tenets of evidentialist methodology:

1. This methods greatest contribution to apologetics is that its chief interest lies in postulating and developing historical evidences for the Christian faith.
2. Historical occurrences are not brute facts. In other words, they require interpretation which calls for careful application of historical principles.
3. Evidentialists also engage in “negative” apologetics.
4. It is impossible to force anyone into the kingdom of God by our use of logic and/or evidences. The Holy Spirit is responsible for converting unbelievers.
5. There is, however, an onotological common ground in areas such as general creation, God’s image in humans, and the data of history. These are accessible to both believer and unbeliever.
6. The Holy Spirit may work through apologetics in both bringing unbelievers to Himself and providing assurance to believers that they are God’s children.
7. Evidentialists are eclectic in their approach to apologetics. While viewing evidentialism as the best approach, they use other arguments, including natural theology.

So, in sum, the most characteristic feature of evidentialism is its emphasis on propositional evidences, of which historical evidences are the most prominent. It is a “one-step” approach which feels there is a common ground between the believer and unbeliever which enables the apologist to speak meaningfully to the unbeliever. Perhaps the best way to distinguish classical apologists and evidentialists is to see if they are willing to use historical evidences as a separate argument for the truth of God’s existence. The evidentialist would do so, while the classical apologist would not.

Habermas pursues what he calls a “minimal facts” approach. I have blogged on his approach on several occasions in the past. There are, of course, other approaches which may be used. The minimal facts approach takes the “minimal facts” which almost all scholars of all persuasions agree on and present the case that the Christian faith is the best explanation of those facts (particularly, the historical facts surrounding the resurrection of Christ). Habermas concludes:

One advantage of the evidential method is in presenting the gospel. Rather than necessarily having to make an additional, separate move by proving God’s existence before moving to the claims of jesus when time is often at a premium, evidentialism specializes in the one-step approach, arriving at a more direct presentation of the gospel by using data that are still very persuasive.

In Five Views on Apologetics, William Lane Craig presents the methodology known as “classical apologetics.” The best way to understand classical apologetics is to consider it a two-step task. The first step is to present arguments for theism in general. In doing so, one need not present conclusive “proof” of God’s existence, but that His existence is at least more probable than not. The second task is to present evidences for the Christian faith.

I think William Lane Craig does a wonderfully effective job at both tasks. First, using the kalam cosmological argument, he establishes the existence of a Personal Creator of the universe. Then, by examining the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth he shows that this Creator has revealed himself in Christ. Certainly, other arguments could be offered instead of these, but Craig finds this strategy particularly effective.

One important point that Craig makes is that there is a difference in knowing one’s Christian faith to be true and in showing it to be true. He considers Christian beliefs for an individual to be properly basic, warranted beliefs grounded in the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit. While rational arguments may confirm our Christian beliefs, a person can be considered completely rational in holding to their Christian beliefs even in the absence of rational argument and evidence. Showing Christian theism to be true, however, is done by presenting evidences and arguments which show that the Christian worldview is the most plausible one. Craig concludes:

This account also permits us to commend our faith to unbelievers, not merely by proclamation, but also by rational persuasion. Our appeal is to the whole person, not only to the heart, but to the head as well. We can show unbelievers that the most reasonable thing they can do with their lives is to commit them to Christ. At the same time, we are not so naive as to think that we can argue people into the kingdom of God. Conversion is exclusively the role of the Spirit. But we can rationally commend our faith to others in the confidence that some, whose hearts he has opened, will respond to the apologetic we present and place their faith in Christ.

I’m currently reading Five Views on Apologetics, edited by Steven Cowan, an in-house debate among Christian apologists over the proper approach or methodology in performing the task of apologetics. The majority of the posts which are found on this site are concerned with apologetics, which has to do with defending and/or making a case for the truth of Christianity. Apologetics is commonly felt to assist in accomplishing at least two things. First, the apologist hopes to strengthen the faith of the Christian believer. Second, she hopes to aid in the task of evangelism. One might further think about apologetics in another way, as either a positive or negative endeavor. Positive apologetics may be thought of as offensive (using a sports analogy) and involves making a positive case for Christianity. This might be done by using arguments for the existence of God or for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Negative apologetics might be construed as defensive apologetics and deals with refuting and answering objections to the Christian faith such as the problem of evil.

The various views on apologetics examined in the book differ primarily in the strategy or methodology used in defense of the faith. Five argumentative strategies are discussed:

1. Classical Apologetics
2. Evidentialist Apologetics
3. Cumulative Case Apologetics
4. Presuppositional Apologetics
5. Reformed Epistemological Apologetics

As I read through the book, I plan to discuss in a number of posts the similarities and differences inherent in each of these strategies. The first view will be Classical Apologetics.

Hugh Hewitt recently hosted “The Great God Debate” between Mark D. Roberts (one of my favorite bloggers who I had the opportunity to meet when I attended his church in Southern California last summer) and Christopher Hitchens, author of god is not Great. (HT: Smart Christian). A full transcript of the debate can be found here.

Mark Roberts is also beginning a series of blogs on his debate with Hitchens here. He is also coming out with a new book, Can We Trust the Gospels?, which I am looking forward to reading.

Pliny the Younger, a first century Roman lawyer, author, and philosopher wrote in a letter:

There is nothing more unequal than equality.

This proposition may seem strange to modern western thinking, but, upon further examination, seems profoundly true. In order to make sense of such a sentiment one must clarify what one means by the equality of men. It is certainly a Christian teaching that all men (and women, of course) are equally valuable. It is the imago dei, being made in God’s image, that gives humanity value. The Declaration of Independence expresses clearly this truth:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…

By virtue of being human, we are all of equal value. The Declaration further realizes that this equality, value, and the derivation of human rights is safeguarded by the realization that this equality comes from an endowment of the Creator. This truth of the equality of all men is corrupted, however, by those who propose this means all men should have equal place in society. This type of equality is most unequal. This type of justice is most unjust.

Cal Thomas, in the article, It Takes a Socialist Village, critiques Hillary Clinton’s proposed economic plans.

In a speech at Manchester School of Technology in New Hampshire, Clinton said it’s time to replace President Bush’s “ownership society,” which she called an “on your own” society, with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

Clinton said she prefers a “we’re all in it together” society: “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”

As Thomas clearly points out, this type of society is plentiful in the world…

It’s called socialism, where government has sought to make all things economically equal and the only equality is that all are equally poor. Wasn’t defeating such a society precisely why we fought and won the Cold War? Why does Senator Clinton wish to embrace the principles of the losing side?

Clinton has merely updated the old and discredited (except among socialist dictators) Karl Marx saying: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

In the name of justice, injustice is perpretrated. In the name of equality, inequality prevails. I would recommend Thomas’s entire article. He insightfully notes:

This is not the philosophy that made America what it is. This is not a land of equal outcome, but of equal opportunity commensurate with one’s talents, interests and drive.

I have always attempted to blog daily and have been mostly successful in this effort. However, over the last couple of weeks, the blogging has been sparse. There are numerous reasons for this, but nonetheless, I hope to return to at least near-daily blogging.

As a return to my duties, I’ll offer something light. My wife and I have been American Idol fans from the first season. I was happy to see 17 year old Jordin Sparks win this past season’s contest. Her Christian faith has been a part of her public life for some time. John Dawson, of WORLD Magazine, profiles her Christianity and involvement in various Christian causes here (HT: Between Two Worlds).