Evidential Apologetics The Evidential Apologetic Method Group

Muna Haddad Apologetics 500 Dr. Rich Holland Aug 22. 2011

In a society where individuals are researching everywhere for the one true God, people need to always be prepared to give an account of the hope in which we hold so dear. This paper will summarize evidential apologetics as well as share the strengths and weaknesses of this approach. It will show how logic without faith may reach the mind but without the Holy Spirit it will not reach the soul. Summary and Critique Evidential apologetics holds great importance in a harmony where believer and nonbelievers are able to have a common ground while putting Gods existence, declarations and Holy Word on the side. Evidential apologetics try to find that common ground, which differs from one person to another. Commonality varies from either fundamentals in history, science and biblical truth, logic as well as commonality in God existence claims. After finding a common basis and proving their case the evidentialist continues by insisting that the non-believer at least listen to the true message of the Bible and take it seriously. Josh McDowell is a great resource in evidential apologetics. As he proves Gods existence by pressing mans wisdom. For many today, the study of history is combined with the idea that God does not exist, miracles are not conceivable, and there is no supernatural. What these men have done is to rule out the resurrection of Christ even before they start an historical investigation of the resurrection.1 Strength of evidential apologetics includes a less threatening approach to a non-believer since the apologist uses logic, science, historical proof, and facts. By finding a common interest with the non-believer, the apologist opens doors to a friendly thought provoking interesting topic. With
1

Josh, McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, San Bernardino: Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc., 1972. Pg. 8.

an inviting atmosphere, rather than a threatening one based on religious basics, and a common ground the non-believer may be more receptive to Christianity in an evidential approach. When man is given the opportunity to exercise the free will judgment on subjects that are evident, he becomes more receptive to Christian claims. Mc Dowell cites Burrows "The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural." 2 Another strength of Evidentialism is that it is biblical. We see throughout the Bible that the Lord did not condemn individuals for doubting instead He gave them evidence to calm their fears and doubts. For example when Thomas said he must see feel the nail marks in Jesus hands to believe, Jesus did not reprimand him he offered concrete proof. (John 20:25) After Jesus arose from the dead he gave solid, evidence of His rising from the dead. Jesus fulfilled many prophesies from the Old to New Testament. He also gave proof that He was God through his many miracles (John 10:3738)

There are also many disadvantages to this approach. First, the evidentialist asserts the ability to prove the truth of biblical doctorine without Christ being the center focus. No matter how much proof you may have to offer, that still may not convince someone who has not surrendered to Gods inherent authoritative word in faith (Luke 16:31). According to Van Till, an individual needs faith to believe that the events in the Word of God are true.
3

to simply present

fact after fact without challenging the unbeliever's presupposition ally rooted desire to live in death is guaranteed to lead to self-frustration on the part of the traditional apologist. The
2

Josh, McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, San Bernardino: Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc., 1972. Pg. 69.
3

Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, Phila.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 3d ed., 1967, p. 204.

unbeliever who does not work on the presupposition of Creation and Providence is perfectly steady with himself when he sees nothing to test his unbelief even in the fact of the resurrection of Christ. 4 For an evidentialist to say that the common ground should be objective sayings of logic and science is to reject the Christ should be the center of all things. Also Evidentialists may hold bias views since rational and explanation are always affected by a worldview one may hold.

Conclusion

Bridging a gap to bring the unbeliever to hear the Word of God using a common ground through evidential theology is great but without the focus being on Jeus and the reliance of scripture as well as the enlightenment by the Holy Spirit, the evidential apologetic cannot be successful in evangelism. Standing alone and separated from Gods intercession through the Holy Spirit, we are not able to truly reach the heart of the unbeliever. Evidential apologists include William Paley, John Locke, Thomas Sherlocks Joseph Butler, Richard Whately, James Orr, Clark H. Pinnock, John Warwick Montgomery, and Richard Swinburne.

Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, Phila.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 3d ed., 1967, p. 204.

Bibliography

Barth, Karl, "In Christ, God's unveiling is also veiling, and so man's relation to God Is always that of faith, never sight. The distance, the incommensurableness remains. One does not possess revelation as an object, but one is given the gift of faith." McDowell, Josh, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, San Bernardino: Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc., 1972. Van, Til, C., The defense of the faith. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1967.