Edit post Follow this blog Administration + Create my blog

Published by jack elliot

Instead of trying to prove the existence of God through some form of rational proof, the evidentialist attempts to prove the existence of God through the truth of scripture and then using that truth to prove the existence and nature of God. To do this the evidentialist has to successfully defend his understanding of past events and his interpretation of texts and historical theories and ideology. The evidentialist also assumes a shared view of experiences, scientific theories, and the general rules of logic when engaging a skeptic, and there has to be some shared study and common ground of the nature and philosophy with the unbeliever to have a meaningful discussion. One of the advantages of being an evidentialist you can argue both for theism and for Christian theism at the same time without recourse to an elaborate natural theology. For instance, you can begin by arguing for the historical factuality of Jesus resurrection and then argue that such an unusual event is explicable only if a being like the Christian God exist. Having established God's existence via Christ resurrection although miraculous, this then leads the evidentialist to show that Jesus resurrection also authenticates his claims to be God incarnate.
The evidentialist method does not attempt to prove the existence of God or convert unbelievers through a direct application of logic or evidence, but to intellectually challenge skeptics regarding their claims and beliefs. The evidentialist seeks to prove the veracity of the scriptures, and to show the scriptures are a true record of historical events. This method makes use of standard methods, textual criticism, internal and external consistency test to show the scriptures are a true and accurate record of past events.
One has to distinguish the act of faith from the object of faith, and believing from what is believed. The object of faith means all the things believed. For the Christians, this means everything God has revealed in the Bible. Faith is expressed in propositions. Propositions are not expressions of the act of believing but expressions of the content believed. The ultimate object of faith is God's word and God himself. Faith must be based upon complete trust and trustworthiness. Reason often subject to doubts and skepticism and may become a hurdle to perfect faith. There are supernatural and miraculous elements in faith to which reason cannot attain. So true faith is not entirely a matter of reason. Blaise Pascal one of the greatest mathematicians the world has ever known said the supreme achievement of reason is to teach us that there is an end to reason. Pascal in his relationship between faith and reason struck a similar cord to Augustine and stated the proper function of reason is to aid the heart and will to submit to God. Pascal also suggested his famous wager. He asked his audience to consider what is gained and lost by either believing or failing to believe in God. If God exist and you believe there, is infinite reward; if God exist and you disbelieve, there is infinite punishment. If God does not exist and you believe you, have a finite loss. Pascal wager was clearly not a proof of God's existence, and not an attempt to encourage the unbeliever to believe in God. Pascal's statement was to use reason to encourage the skeptic to make a serious decision
In the comparison of the different methods- the evidentialist and the evidential method has much in common with the classical method except in solving the issue concerning the value of miracles as evidence. The Evidentialist with their apologetic method can be characterized as the "one step" approach. Miracles do not presuppose God's existence (as most contemporary classical apologists assert) but can serve as one sort of evidence for God. This method is eclectic in its use of various positive evidence and negative critique. It focuses chiefly on the legitimacy of accumulating various historical and other inductive arguments for the truth of Christianity.
Due to the effect of sin, presuppositionalist usually hold that there is not enough common ground between believers and unbelievers that would allow followers of the different apologetic methods to accomplish their goals. The apologist must simple presuppose the truth of Christianity as the starting point. Here the Christian revelation in the scriptures is the framework through which all experience is interpreted and all truth is known. Any argument and evidence that is advanced implicitly presupposes the premise that Christianity is true. Presuppositionalist attempt to argue and refer to things that lie beyond the practical experience of ordinary people, and cannot be discovered or understood by ordinary reasoning.
Experimentalist apologetics places emphasis on the necessity of experience. The Christian Faith is not an abstract set of concepts to be believed, but a life to be embraced, a life that includes all of a person, head, heart and hands, reason emotion and will. Experiential apologists do not rely on logical arguments or evidence, but their reason for rejecting an exclusively rational approach is different. They do not hold that the truth of Christianity must be presupposed; rather they hold it must be experienced. Consequently, while the experiential apologists do not offer outward, logical evidence for the non-Christian to believe, they do offer internal, subjective reason. For this reason, experiential apologetics might also be termed a one-step approach, although this one step is experiential, not logical.


To be informed of the latest articles, subscribe:
Comment on this post