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.