What is the difference between the "apologetic" methods of N.T. Wright or critical realism and evidentialism?

__________________
Jeremy Ellis
Member of the Village Church of Bartlett
Bartlett, IL

Evidentialism in the Josh McDowell sense downplays the role of presuppositions.

Critical Realism does not. CR tries to say against postmodernity that we can actually know things, including Jesus rising from the dead. But against modernity and the Enlightenment it denies that we operate with a tabula rasa. It acknowledges that while we can know what a text is saying, we also bring our own cultural assumptions to the text and these will color (for good or for ill) what we are reading.

The best book on this is Jamie Smith's The Fall of Interpretation.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

Perhaps of interest; see James J. Cassidy, "Critical Realism & the Relation of Redemptive Act to Revelatory Word" in The Confessional Presbyterian 2 (2006) 79-88. Issues available for purchase at the link in my signature.

__________________
Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Dallas, Texas.
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• Westminster Letter Press
• The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
• The Blue Banner Archive

The Regulative Principle: The Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference” (Samuel Miller).

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum