Current issues in Evidential apologetics?

[Laborer for the Lord]

I wasn't sure what to title this thread, as it is essentially a solicitation for apologetics resources from those "more in the know" regarding specific areas in the Evidentialist tradition of defending the faith.

With regards to upholding the veracity of the Genesis account of creation, this thread was immensely helpful in presenting the major viewpoints and highlighting some outstanding issues that might arise in the debate. Has there been any more recent discussion on starlight and time, CMBR, and the radiometric dating of isotopes seemingly 'proving' the validity geological "deep time", from the perspective of believing scientists or researchers? I understand that Dr. Jason Lisle has been busy on the first front, but I'm curious if there have been any developments on the latter topics. Any journal articles, online publications, lectures, or print resources will be immensely appreciated.

On a different tack, I am interested in perusing the most up-to-date scholarship on the Exodus' and the Canaanite conquest's historicity, particularly the dating. Tim Mahoney's documentary series, Patterns of Evidence, does a decent job at shedding light on the material and documentary body of evidence to support the Biblical narrative, however, a major issue of contention seems to be the actual dating of the event. Mahoney employs a dating scheme developed by Egyptologist David Rohl in order to precisely align the 'evidential time frame' of the Exodus and subsequent conquest of Canaan with the date that is derived from Scriptural data. This dating scheme has been and continues to be controversial among many archaeologists. Much of the nuance of the debate concerning the correction or alteration of the orthodox/mainstream dating of Near East chronology is lost upon me, though I am aware of its troublesome aspects, so I am simply wondering if any Christian-affiliated research organization (institute, university, or whatever) has commented on this dating theory or the body of evidence as it currently stands?

Lastly, since 2016 or thereabouts, increasing numbers of amateur explorers, Bible enthusiasts, and risk-takers have uploaded travelogues and other footage purportedly retracing the Israelite route to Mt. Sinai, which many of these same folks claim to be Jebel al-Lawz or one of the surrounding mountains in Saudi Arabia. In the early 2000s, such reports were repeatedly lambasted as outlandish and false by conservative evangelical outlets. However, I've not seen such criticism as of late. What do you folks make of both the footage furnished by these bloggers, as well as the general claim the Mt. Sinai is located in Arabia proper rather than in the Sinai peninsula?

Again, I don't expect exhaustive answers regarding each of these individual items; I just want to gather the 'lay of the land' and obtain some guidance as regards learning resources. May this thread be of some use to we who are called to boldly proclaim the gospel to a lost and dying world.

 

[TheInquirer]

May this thread be of some use to we who are called to boldly proclaim the gospel to a lost and dying world.

I’m curious and not trying to be a jerk, but how does this sentence fit into the rest of what you posted?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Jim, I'd say it fits in that we have well-thought-out and good historical evidences for defending the faith, confirming the reliability of the Scriptures.

 

[Laborer for the Lord]

I’m curious and not trying to be a jerk, but how does this sentence fit into the rest of what you posted?

I regularly engage university students in a campus ministry and while preaching the Word is the first and foremost means by which Christ draws sinners to Himself, many of these young men and women have serious questions concerning the faith that require answers. I've long been a student of classical apologetics, so I feel comfortable with addressing so-called 'scientific objections' to Scripture's veracity, as well as anthropological and historical arguments. This thread is intended for those who likewise engage in formal intramural discussion with unbelievers, with the aim of evangelism, to address certain topics that have proven to be 'conversation stoppers', in that there is no clear answer I can offer on account of my limited knowledge. Hence my solicitation for resources.

The Bible exhorts us to study to show ourselves approved, and I take that to mean not only a readiness to proclaim the whole counsel of God, but also providing an explanation as to why it should be trusted. After all, Jesus Himself engaged in evidential apologetics in defending His ministry to the Jews (John 5:36, John 10:37-38, John 14:10-11). In any case, I am looking to better equip myself to give an answer to those who question the hope that I have, and not for me only, but for all that have trusted in the Scriptures and the Christ that they show forth (1 Peter 3:15, Proverbs 22:20-21).

 

[jwithnell]

Have you done much with Francis Schaeffer's work? He certainly recognized the importance of answering questions. But facts can only go so far. That's especially true when discussing creation where your references may not be accepted at all in an academic setting. Even if you can get past that, there's always one more: "what about ..." and switching over to the significance of those facts will likely take you a lot further then dredging up a counter fact. You seem to be a lot more "on the front lines" than I am these days, but these principles likely still hold true. (And kudos for your effort! It's truly important.)

 

[TheInquirer]

I do not wish to derail the thread so I apologize in advance. My only concern is that many apologists seem to feel the gospel needs some sort of foundation underneath it before it can become effective (Ken Ham is an example) when the Bible tells us the gospel itself, along with the Spirit opening the heart and applying it, is God’s means of salvation.

Jim, I'd say it fits in that we have well-thought-out and good historical evidences for defending the faith, confirming the reliability of the Scriptures.

Steve, I understand why some would go that route but I do not believe the Scriptures need any support to confirm themselves. Even if you provide all the support in the world, the unbeliever in rebellion to God will not accept it.

When I read the Bible, I do not see a mandate to answer all the unbeliever’s answers and objections, I see a command for them to repent, believe, and bow before the Lord Jesus Christ. If they are unwilling to do so, it isn’t because they haven’t had enough questions answered.

Ultimately, I guess I am arguing for the sufficiency of the gospel and a trust in God’s Spirit bringing the elect to salvation through it’s dissemination rather than a need to add a whole lot of extra info to accommodate the darkened, rebellious mind of the unbeliever.

 

[DanSSwing]

On a different tack, I am interested in perusing the most up-to-date scholarship on the Exodus' and the Canaanite conquest's historicity, particularly the dating. Tim Mahoney's documentary series, Patterns of Evidence, does a decent job at shedding light on the material and documentary body of evidence to support the Biblical narrative, however, a major issue of contention seems to be the actual dating of the event. Mahoney employs a dating scheme developed by Egyptologist David Rohl in order to precisely align the 'evidential time frame' of the Exodus and subsequent conquest of Canaan with the date that is derived from Scriptural data. This dating scheme has been and continues to be controversial among many archaeologists. Much of the nuance of the debate concerning the correction or alteration of the orthodox/mainstream dating of Near East chronology is lost upon me, though I am aware of its troublesome aspects, so I am simply wondering if any Christian-affiliated research organization (institute, university, or whatever) has commented on this dating theory or the body of evidence as it currently stands?

+1

 

[No Other Name]

Steve, I understand why some would go that route but I do not believe the Scriptures need any support to confirm themselves. Even if you provide all the support in the world, the unbeliever in rebellion to God will not accept it.

I think you are correct in one way and incorrect in another.

You are correct in that Scripture needs no confirmation and anyone in rebellion to God (I prefer to term it: "in love with their lawlessness" but that is basically interchangeable) will not accept anything.

You are incorrect that this is an issue of sola Scriptura. Without denying sola Scriptura, many have studied further into philosophy, science, archaeology, etc and have discovered neat and really cool tie-ins with Scripture that lends itself to answering some questions earnest unbelievers are seeking. (An important distinction and they will not be found on social media typically).

When I was struggling with (what I had no idea at the time) was my new faith in Christ as Lord of all, Christian answers re: the problem of evil, evolution, etc. was revealing that the Bible is not - in fact - disproven by default at the philosophical and scientific levels which was what I absolutely needed at that time.

I am under no illusions that Sproul's (et al) teachings lead me to the Lord, rather showed me that the Scriptures are not de facto unreliable from a basic standpoint in logic. I was shocked how happy I was that the Scriptures are true! And then it struck me like a slap across the face: am I a Christian??

Thanks be to God for His Word and His saving faith that I could only get by His grace alone. I still am overwhelmed by it so much.

 

[jwright82]

Have you done much with Francis Schaeffer's work? He certainly recognized the importance of answering questions. But facts can only go so far. That's especially true when discussing creation where your references may not be accepted at all in an academic setting. Even if you can get past that, there's always one more: "what about ..." and switching over to the significance of those facts will likely take you a lot further then dredging up a counter fact. You seem to be a lot more "on the front lines" than I am these days, but these principles likely still hold true. (And kudos for your effort! It's truly important.)

That man was good. I personally take the approach of William Edgar here, Van Til's method but Schaeffer's style.

 

[jwright82]

I do not wish to derail the thread so I apologize in advance. My only concern is that many apologists seem to feel the gospel needs some sort of foundation underneath it before it can become effective (Ken Ham is an example) when the Bible tells us the gospel itself, along with the Spirit opening the heart and applying it, is God’s means of salvation.



Steve, I understand why some would go that route but I do not believe the Scriptures need any support to confirm themselves. Even if you provide all the support in the world, the unbeliever in rebellion to God will not accept it.

When I read the Bible, I do not see a mandate to answer all the unbeliever’s answers and objections, I see a command for them to repent, believe, and bow before the Lord Jesus Christ. If they are unwilling to do so, it isn’t because they haven’t had enough questions answered.

Ultimately, I guess I am arguing for the sufficiency of the gospel and a trust in God’s Spirit bringing the elect to salvation through it’s dissemination rather than a need to add a whole lot of extra info to accommodate the darkened, rebellious mind of the unbeliever.

I concur with No Other Name. You're absolutely right in that you are repeating the WCF chapter one on this but it also, after stating the self-attesting authority of scripture then goes on afterwards to give some evidences for it's authority. But the relationship is firmly stated, you're very much correct here, the authority of scripture is it's own foundation and evidences are not that foundation but supplemental to it.

Michael Krueger is very good at applying Van Til's method to the issue of canon and the self-attesting nature of scripture. Sorry I know this thread is about Evidential apologetics but with the track it's taking I thought introducing a good man's use of the evidences with starting where the confession starts and basically using it as a method to proceed. So you're fears and correct concerns have been accounted for by some apologists.

One error I've noticed Christian's make about apologetics, not saying this is what you're doing only Christian's in general, is thinking the person you're debating is the primary audience of concern they're not. They're too invested to look stupid in a public setting (like the internet or an open discussion at school) so I prefer to target the people following the discussion because they have no skin in the game.