Lesson 3 - Classical & Evidentialist

Question 1

Two stage approach to classical apologetics?

Answer 1

1. ) show that God exists through traditional theistic arguments
2. ) show that Jesus was the son of God using historical arguments

Question 2

What are the traditional theistic arguments?

Answer 2

1. ) Ontological Argument - the non-existence of God is not conceivable
2. ) Cosmological argument (first cause)
3. ) Teleological (design) argument
4. ) Moral Argument

Question 3

What are the historical Jesus arguments?

Answer 3

1. ) Preliminary - gospels are reliable documents
2. ) Prophecy - Jesus was foretold in OT
3. ) Character - Jesus was morally perfect and superior teacher
4. ) Miracles - Jesus’s miracles point to his supernatural origins
5. ) Resurrection - Jesus resurrection proves his divine claims

Question 4

What are the strengths of classical apologetics?

Answer 4

1. ) Strong historical pedigree
2. ) two stage approach is simple to understand
3. ) relies only on universally, or widely accepted principles of reason
4. ) Objective approach to defending Christianity
5. ) Many of the arguments are sound

Question 5

What are the weaknesses of classical apologetics?

Answer 5

1. ) Pays insufficient attention to the noetic affects of sin
2. ) Assumes that everyone agrees on basic principles of reason
3. ) Can give the impression that God’s revelation is ambiguous
4. ) Gives impression that human reason is religiously neutral
5. ) Gives impression that human reason is autonomous
6. ) 2nd stage Classical approach seem to hold the Christian faith hostage to historical evidence
7. ) Rationalist approach has problems when defending other major doctrines: Trinity, Incarnation, etc.

Question 6

What are the strengths of evidential apologetics?

Answer 6

1. Offers a familiar and intuitive approach to proving factual claims
2. Offers an approach that appears to objective and amenable to fair minded believers
3. The NT suggests that certain empirical observations do indeed give evidence for the claims of Jesus and the apostles
4. It seems possible to give a strong historical case for the Resurrection
5. It makes a lot of sense to focus on the Resurrection as the defining miracle of the Christian faith

Question 7

What are the weaknesses of evidential apologetics?

Answer 7

1. Insufficient attention to the noetic affects of sin
2. In its purest form, Evidentialist Apologetics fails to recognize that not every belief can be, or needs to be, justified by evidence.
3. Evidentialist Apologetics often does not do justice to the fact that evidence is always interpreted within a particular presuppositional framework or worldview.
4. Evidentialist Apologetics appears to compromise the self-attesting nature of Scripture by suggesting that we should accept the Bible only if its content meets certain external evidential standards.
5. A major weakness of Evidentialist Apologetics is highlighted in Jesus’ parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31). - “If they don’t hear moses and the prophets, then they won’t believe the resurrection.”
6. The biblical proof-texts for Evidentialist Apologetics do not stand up to scrutiny.
7. In the New Testament, the role of miracles seems to be that of confirming the truth of God’s Word, rather than proving the truth of God’s Word.
8. Evidentialist Apologetics seems to require Christians to adopt a different epistemology for apologetics than for everything else.
9. Evidentialist Apologetics can lead to problems when the Christian is faced with the task of proving or defending the doctrine of inerrancy.
10. Evidentialist Apologetics tends to fall flat when dealing with unbelievers who have a more postmodern mindset.

Question 8

What are the similarities and differences between Classical apologetics and Evidential apologetics?

Answer 8

Similarities

1. ) Both modernist approaches to apologetics that attempt to base faith in Christ on objective/outside material
2. ) Heavily based on natural revelation and take into consideration evidence such as historical arguments and scientific arguments
3. ) Both argue for apologetics based on neutral ground and begin their approach finding a common ground between the non-believer and believer, where they build a case for probable belief.

Differences

1. ) Method - 2 stage vs. 1 stage
   - - Miracles (classical - existence of God proves miracles; evidentialist - miracles prove God)
2. ) Classical approach is more broad trying to prove “faith is based on reason and logic”. Evidentialist is narrowly focusing on “faith based on evidence or observable facts in the world.” Evidentialist is more based on sense experiences.