Apologetics to the Glory of God

The Consequences of Evidentialism

If you were able to go back in a time machine and witness the tomb of Christ only to find that Christ did not raise from the grave, what would that do to your Christian faith?

(A Quick Question – @Parchment and Pen)

Note the poll to the side, and the responses.

What’s wrong with this? My wife nailed it in about 8 seconds. (She gets an A in my apologetics class!)


4 responses to “The Consequences of Evidentialism”

  1. Daniel Avatar

    Ok, I give. What’s the problem with the question?

  2. RazorsKiss Avatar

    It gives up the store at the outset. It posits an impossibility – which people are answering as if it is possible. As Ryft said:

    Only two people held that the question is intrinsically incomprehensible. I find that somewhat telling.

  3. jack Avatar

    Paul presents such a hypothetical in chapter fifteen of his first letter to the Corinthians, so we should be careful about just asserting the impossibility of something in lieu of thinking about it as a hypothetical for some insight. It is wrong to think some new evidence might destroy the faith though.

  4. RazorsKiss Avatar

    Actually, I addressed this with someone else the day of this post. I would posit that Paul is presenting an internal critique of the premise “there is no resurrection from the dead,” and the resultant absurdity that follows. From our (external to that premise) position, it is absolutely certain that Christ was raised. Therefore, from that premise – as believers in the infallible Word of God – it is, quite literally, impossible. Note the verse to follow Paul’s argument to absurdity – where the result is that “we are of al men most to be pitied”. “But He was raised.” Full stop, no supporting argumentation necessary. God’s Word said it, therefore it is both certain to be true, and worthy of belief. The reason I brought it up is because this is a blog concentrating on the presuppositional apologetic method. As a presuppositionalist, the question, as stated, is necessarily invalid. When we critique the opponent’s position, we assume the opponent’s premises solely for the purpose of arguing them to absurdity – then contrast the resultant absurdity with the certainty of God’s Word. A priori, given that the audience is entirely Christian, the assumption that such absurdity is possible is utterly invalid – as Paul demonstrates. Our faith does not, and should not rest on anything but the Word of God.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *