This Week in Housekeeping

The Theological Term of the Week posts continue to be the most popular on this blog. That makes me very happy, but it also means that I need to keep all those posts up-to-date—you know, get rid of dead links and add  links to good content that has come online since the original post was first posted.

This week I’ve updated these:

modalism

• Added a new link to Martin Downes’s recent post: The Insufficient Explanatory Power of Modalism.
• Added a new link to Examining the Oneness Objections to the Doctrine of the Trinity from Department of Christian Defense.
• Added related terms: adoptionism and Arianism.

definite atonement

• Added a new link to Justin Taylor’s recent post: A Primer on Limited (or Definite) Atonement
• Added a new link to Thomas Schreiner’s sermon:  Particular Redemption (mp3) (He also prefers the term definite atonement to limited atonement.)
• Added related terms: substitutionary atonement, total depravity, unconditional election, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints.

anthropopathism

• Added related term: anthropomorphism
• Note: There are not many articles or other resources linked in this post because I just can’t find much on this term. Do you know of any I should be linking to?

Theological Term of the Week

evidential apologetics
An approach to apologetics that seeks to demonstrate the reasonableness of  the Christian faith from positive evidences drawn from history and experience; a method of apologetics that seeks to show the truth of Christianity by demonstrating its factuality using arguments based on archeology, textual criticism, fulfilled prophesies, miracles and more. Also called evidentialism.

• An example of an evidential argument:

   A. The Historical Argument (an inductive argument with a posteriori premises).

  1. Historiography, textual criticism, archaeology, etc. demonstrate that the Bible is a reliable history book.
  2. The Bible teaches that Jesus lived, and claimed to be God.
  3. Jesus could only be (l) Lord, (2) a liar, (3) a lunatic
  4. Various parts of the description of Jesus’ conduct and the response to his character rule out his being a lunatic.
  5. Other parts of his conduct and a lack of clear motive rule out his being a liar.
  6. Therefore Jesus was whom he said he was: Lord, and God.

  
  Additional Steps, tending to add verification to steps 4,5,6

  • Jesus fulfilled prophecy in a way that a liar or lunatic could not
  • Jesus performed miracles in a way that a liar or lunatic could not
  • The historical fact of the empty tomb and the resurrection account cannot be explained if Jesus was a liar or lunatic
  • The phenomenon of the faith, integrity, and sacrifices of the early Church cannot be explained if Jesus was a liar or lunatic

• From Evidential Apologetics: Faith Founded on Fact:

  Although there are different varieties of evidentialist apologetics, they have several crucial aspects in common. First, evidentialism is primarily inductive, rather than deductive, in its logical form. Inductive arguments reason from as many facts, or data, as can be mustered to a conclusion that is shown to be supported in some way by the facts. By contrast, deductive arguments, such as those favored in classical apologetics, reason from as few facts, or premises, as are needed to a conclusion that is shown to follow from the facts. Evidentialism makes induction, rather than deduction, the primary form of apologetic argumentation. logic and science, and only in the context of faith is a rational and orderly world possible.  …

  Evidential apologists of all stripes hold in common a second crucial aspect: the conclusions of the apologetic arguments they employ are shown to be probable rather than certain. This follows from the inductive nature of the arguments typically employed. Inductive reasoning assembles facts and argues that a particular conclusion offers the best or most probable explanation of the facts. Such reasoning does not absolutely close the door on other possible explanations of the facts, and for that reason inductive arguments do not attain certainty for their conclusions. … 

  The third point on which all evidential apologists agree is that evidentialism seeks to employ methods that are in principle acceptable to non-Christians as a means of convincing them of the truth of Christianity. These methods are modeled on those used by both Christians and non-Christians in various disciplines. The evidentialist goal is to avoid gratuitous or disputable assumptions about the nature of things…

Learn more:

1. GotQuestions.org: What Is Evidential Apologetics?
2. Christian Apologetics and Research Ministries: Evidential Apologetics
3. Bible.org: Evidential Apologetics: Faith Founded on Fact
4. Dr. Greg Bahnson: The Impropriety of Evidentially Arguing for the Resurrection
5. Dr. Greg Bahnson: Evidential Apologetics the Right Way
6. Gordon Clark and David Hoover: Presuppositional or Evidential Apologetics?(mp3)
   

Related terms:

• presuppositional apologetics

Filed under Apologetics.

Do you have a a theological term you’d like to see featured here as a Theological Term of the Week? If you email it to me, I’ll seriously consider using it.

I’m also interested in any suggestions you have for tweaking my definitions or for additional (or better) articles or sermons/lectures for linking. I’ll give you credit and a link back to your blog if I use your suggestion.

Clicking on the Theological Term graphic at the top of this post will take you to a list of all the previous theological terms organized in alphabetical order or by topic.

A Psychological Problem

In chapter 30 of Greg Bahnsen’s Always Ready, he tackles the problem of evil and shows that it is not a logical problem, for if God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists, there is no logical incoherence between an all-good, all-powerful God and the existence of evil. He further point out:

The problem which men have with God when they come face to face with evil in the world is not a logical or philosophical one, but more a psychological one. We can find it emotionally very hard to have faith in God and trust His goodness and power when we are not given the reason why bad things happen to us and others. We instinctively think to ourselves, “why did such a terrible thing occur?” Unbelievers internally cry out for an answer to such a question also. But God does not always (indeed, rarely) provide an explanation to human beings for the evil which they experience or observe. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God” (Deut 29:29). We might not be able to understand God’s wise and mysterious ways, even if He told us (cf. Isa. 55:9). Nevertheless, the fact remains that He has not told us why misery and suffering and injustice are part of His plan for history and for our individual lives.

So then, the Bible calls upon us to trust that God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which can be found in this world, but it does not tell us what that sufficient reason is. The believer often struggles with this situation, walking by faith rather than by sight. The unbeliever, however, finds the situation intolerable for his pride, feelings, or rationality. He refuses to trust God. He will not believe that God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists, unless the unbeliever is given that reason for his own examination and assessment. To put it briefly, the unbeliever will not trust God unless God subordinates Himself to the intellectual authority and moral evaluation of the unbeliever—unless God consents to trade places with the sinner.