Theological Term of the Week

transcendental argument for the existence of God
The argument which attempts to prove God’s existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately presuppose the Christian worldview, and that God’s absolute nature is the source of logic and morals.1

• Scripture that grounds a transcendental argument for the existence of God:

  And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:17 ESV)

• An example of a trancendental argument:

  When we go to look at the different world views that atheists and theists have, I suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist world view is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist world view cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to        understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist world view cannot account for our debate tonight. (A bit of Greg Bahnsen’s argument from Does God Exist? Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein)

• From Trancendental Arguments by John Frame:

  What, then, does transcendental argument add to the apologist’s arsenal, beyond the traditional arguments? First, it presents a goal for apologetics. The goal of the apologist is not only to show that God exists, but also who he is: that he is the source of all meaning and intelligibility in the universe.

  Further, it suggests apologetic strategies somewhat neglected in the tradition. Traditional apologists have often argued that causality (for example) implies God. A transcendental argument makes a stronger claim: that causality presupposes God. The difference between “implies” and “presupposes,” according to Peter Strawson and Bas Van Fraasen, is that in the latter case God’s existence is implied either by the assertion or the denial of causality. That is, not only does the existence of causality imply the existence of God, but even to deny (intelligibly, if it were possible) the existence of causality would be to invoke a framework of meaning that presupposes God’s existence. Don Collett argues that the Strawson-Van Fraasen kind of presupposition is identical with Van Til’s. So if creation presupposes God, even the denial of creation presupposes him, and the atheist is like the little girl slapping her father while sitting on his lap.

  The Bible does make this kind of radical claim, that creation not only implies, but presupposes God. For God is the creator of all, and therefore the source of all meaning, order, and intelligibility. It is in Christ that all things hold together (Col. 1:17). So without him everything falls apart; nothing makes sense. Thus Scripture teaches that unbelief is foolish (Psm. 14:1, 1 Cor. 1:20). There are many arguments to be made on the way to that conclusion. Not every individual apologetic argument needs to go that far.  But the apologist’s work is not done until he reaches that conclusion, until he persuades the objector that God is everything the Bible says he is. That is to say that a complete argument for Christian theism, however many sub-arguments it contains, will be transcendental in character.

Learn more:

1. GotQuestions.org: What is the trancendental argument for the existence of God?
2. RealApologetics.org Blog: A Concise Outline for the Trancendental Argument for God’s Existence
3. Doug Wilson: The Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence (The opening statement of a debate with Theodore Drange)
4. Greg Bahnsen: Transcript of Does God Exist? Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein

Related terms:

• presuppositional apologetics
• cosmological argument
• moral argument
• ontological argument
• teleological argument

1What is the transcendental argument for the existence of God? at GotQuestions.org

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.

Theological Term of the Week

classical apologetics
An approach to apologetics that first uses rational arguments to make the case for the existence of one God, and then uses evidence for the reliability of Scripture, the deity of Christ, etc. to show that Christianity is better than all other forms of theism.

• An example of a classical argument for the existence of God:

  II. Teleological or Design Argument

  A. Explained

  Argues that the presence of order in the universe requires the existence of an orderer.

  A typical formulation of the argument.

  1. The universe manifests evidence of design.
  2. All design demands a designer (which entails x,y,and z characteristics).
  3. Therefore, the universe must have a designer.
  4. This designer is the God of the Bible.

• From Apologetics and the Limits of Reason:

  Classical apologetics has the most positive view of philosophy in general, and even of non-Christian philosophy, of the four approaches to apologetics. The classical apologist views the apologetic task as articulating the Christian position in a way that communicates that position clearly and faithfully in terms that people of non-Christian worldviews and religions can understand. This does not mean that non-Christian philosophies are accepted without qualification, but that the Christian thinker uses the categories and insights of non-Christian systems of thought in order to make Christian thought intelligible to the non-Christian. Classical apologists tend to see a great deal of overlap in subject matter and method between apologetics and philosophy.

Learn more:

1. GotQuestions.org: What is classical apologetics?
2. Christian Apologetics and Research Ministries: Classical Apologetics
3. Bible.org: Classical Apologetics: It Stands to Reason, Classical Apologetics: A Reasonable Faith, The Rationality of the Christian Worldview, Apologetics and the Limits of Reason.

Related terms:

• presuppositional apologetics
• evidential apologetics
• cosmological argument
• moral argument
• ontological argument
• teleological argument

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.

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.