Contemp Final Exam - Study Guide
In your preparations for the final exam please give special attention to the items given directly below
along with the 74 terms that follow (Quizlet linked on Bb). In the items below, you will find statements
and questions. The statements are things to remember for the exam. The questions require that you
revisit something from your notes or readings.
This exam will be taken on your laptop on Blackboard using the Lock-down Browser.
Qualification for extended time can be arranged with the AEC prior to the exam date.
Everything referenced in this guide could appear on the test as some kind of multiple-choice or essay
question. The majority of the questions will simply ask you to select the correct/best answer(s).
1. Theology and Apologetics
•
Know what McGrath says about the importance of Theology for Apologetics (pp87-96 of
McGrath, Selections from The Passionate Intellect).
•
Know St. Augustine’s phrase, “Our hearts are restless until they rest in thee.” And, Anselm’s
definition of theology — “faith seeking understanding”.
•
What does John 17:3 say eternal life is?
•
What are we created/saved for according to John 17:21?
•
Know Tim Keller’s introduction thesis on the polarization of views.
•
What is apologetics and where does the word come from? Distinguish negative and positive
apologetics.
•
What is the significance of 1 Peter 3:8-17 for the Christian discipline of apologetics? What
attitudes and dispositions are required of those called to give the reason for their hope?
2. Incarnation & Trinity
•
Be familiar with the main themes of Michael Reeves’ Delighting in the Trinity.
•
What reasons are there for thinking that the tri-unity of God is an essential Christian
doctrine? And what does it tell us about the nature of God?
•
Know that historical orthodox formulation of the doctrine of the Incarnation is that Christ is
“one person with two natures”. Know that the historical orthodox formulation of the
doctrine of the Trinity is that God is “one being in three persons.”
•
Recall Oliver Crisp’s point that the incarnation of Christ makes possible a special human
union with God by means of a participation offered to us in the redeemed humanity of Jesus
(1 Cor. 15:22 “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive”).
•
Why is it important to affirm both the full divinity and the full humanity of Christ?
•
Know what Oliver Crisp says is the importance of the incarnation (Bb reading, “By His Birth,
We Are Healed”).
•
What is Kenoticism or Kenotic Christology as taken from Phil 2:5-11?
•
Know that stressing the three-ness of the persons of God becomes heretical if it involves
thinking of God as 3 different beings, and stressing the unity of the nature of God becomes
heretical if it leads to blurring the distinctions between the persons of the Father, Son and
Spirit.
•
Recall that Jeremy Begbie described the Trinity as a musical chord—a three note resonance
of life.
•
One can defend the coherence of the doctrine of the Trinity (and other Christian doctrines)
without removing the mystery or claiming to have full understanding. Know that the
arguments discussed in class in connection with the Trinity and Incarnation were not
intended to remove the mystery or explain all facets of God’s being. On the contrary they
were instances of negative apologetics, intending to undermine objections that these
doctrines require believing in a contradiction.
•
Recall that it was argued that loving God with our minds invites us to seek to understand
(and make rational sense of) His nature as best we can, without over-estimating our rational
powers.
3. Faith and Reason
•
Epistemic dependence refers to our need to rely on God to give us the eyes to see and ears
to hear His revelation. The Holy Spirit offers divine illumination, by giving us the mind of
Christ.
•
What is the significance of the Fall for our knowledge of God? Read Romans 1:20-21 which
suggests that there is some general revelation of God to all people mediated through
creation, but that this knowledge is darkened by sin.
•
Know what epistemology is and what kinds of philosophical questions it addresses.
•
Know that J,T & B stand for ‘Justification’, ‘Truth’ and ‘Belief’ in classical conceptions of
knowledge.
•
Know how to translate credo ut intelligam, what it means and to which great Christian
theologian it’s attributed.
•
Be able to state what you think the proper relationship between faith and reason is? What
do we do when they clash?
•
Recall that it was argued that rational arguments may help bolster Christian faith, but that
without the work of the Holy Spirit giving us the capacity to grasp the truth of Christian
belief, they are powerless to produce faith.
•
Know that it was argued that, in its fullest Christian sense, faith is God’s gift of selfrevelation (through personal relationship, experience, reasoning, the community of
believers, etc.) which grows in us cognitive belief as well as personal trust. Under this
definition of faith, what is believed by faith is reasonably grounded in the event of God’s
giving faith and may therefore count as knowledge.
•
Modernism was defined as the optimistic pursuit of self-secured epistemic foundations for
belief upon which structures of knowledge could be built by inference such that what one
believed could be held with absolute certainty.
•
Postmodernism, it was noted, comes in many forms, all of which offer a critique of
modernism.
•
Critical realism was defined as the realist view that there is a truth about reality and that
theories and interpretations of reality attempt to correspond to that truth, balanced with a
critical appreciation for the role that worldviews, perspectives and human experience play
in framing one’s interpretations.
•
Recall that arguments for the probability of God's existence will be assessed differently by
people with differing worldviews.
•
Recall that it was argued that when encountering a seemingly valid argument against one’s
beliefs it may be rational to reject the argument merely because of its conflicting conclusion
if one has stronger reasons to believe the conclusion is false (this is the “G. E. Moore Shift”).
•
Recall that Tim Keller, in the introduction of Reason for God says that engaging one’s doubts
is a good thing for a believer. He says, “faith without doubt is like a human body without
antibodies.” A faith that ignores doubts may not be strong enough to stand through difficult
trials.
•
Recall the Bible’s teaching that so long as we keep ourselves from idols, we need not fear
that honest truth-seeking, undertaken with humility and prayer will damage our faith—we
abide in the One who is Truth (see 1 John 5:20-21—“20And we know that the Son of God has
come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in
him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. 21Little children,
keep yourselves from idols.”)
4. Miracles
•
Many arguments against miracles beg the question by defining miracles or the conditions
under which miracles could occur in such a way that miracles become impossible—or belief
in them becomes irrational. Also, most arguments against miracles are abstracted from
engagement with or and honest assessment of the evidence for any particular miraculous
claim.
•
How does Hume define a miracle and how is this a problem for his argument?
•
Evidence for a miracle can be persuasive, but it will depend in most cases on more than just
the evidence. It will especially depend on one’s assumptions about the world and where
one is at in terms of openness to the possibility of God’s existence.
5. Resurrection and the Bible
•
Why is the historical, bodily resurrection of Christ important to Christian theology?
•
The historical details of the resurrection are given in the New Testament accounts. To assess
the historical evidence of the resurrection one must decide on the historical reliability of the
New Testament.
•
What reasons are there to think that the Gospels were written within 20-40 years of the
events and based on reliable, first-hand, eyewitness testimony?
•
Why doesn’t the telephone game analogy/critique apply to the transmission and recording
of the eyewitness accounts in the Gospels?
•
There are more than 24,000 extant manuscripts of the New Testament. Their variance is less
than 99.5% and they vary in no way that would affect a substantial point of Christian
doctrine or its historical claims.
•
Why does Tim Keller say that “The content is far too counterproductive for the gospels to be
legends”?
•
Why does Tim Keller suggest that we have to choose to submit to the authority of Scripture
or sacrifice the possibility of intimate relationship with God (having a ‘Stepford God’)?
•
What evidence is there for or against the possibility that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a
hoax?
•
Why is the change in the disciples so significant?
•
What could be considered counter-evidence to John Dominic Crossan’s idea that the Jesus’
disciples made up the story of Christ’s resurrection?
•
What other explanations are there for the problem of the empty tomb? Are they tenable?
•
Why is it significant that the initial reports of the resurrection came from women?
6. The Supposed Conflict Between Science and Christianity
•
Why might someone hold the conflict view of the relationship between science and
Christian belief?
•
Recall that the trial of Galileo became a powerful cultural myth and argument against belief.
In fact, the Galileo affair shows that the standard Christian position assumed a fundamental
concord between faith and reason—involving bi-directional illumination. It was accepted
that reasoning in the sciences—if well established—could assist in the exegesis of Scripture.
History indicates that the church, much more often than not, encouraged and supported
the progress of scientific investigation.
•
What is meant by the notion of bi-directional illumination between science and Christian
belief?
•
What’s the difference between naturalism, methodological naturalism and scientism?
•
NOMA = Nonoverlapping Magisteria—Stephen Jay Gould’s description of the nature of the
relationship between science and religion. He sees them as spheres of inquiry that have no
intersection, overlap, or contact.
•
What is the problem with a “God of the Gaps” view of God’s relationship with the natural
order and why did it lead to a “contrast” view of the nature of the relationship between
science and Christian belief?
•
Does Christian belief support the scientific enterprise? In what way?
•
How do you work through the apparent tensions between the science of evolution and the
biblical creation account?
•
A worldview impacts how one assesses scientific theories by influencing how one weighs
evidence and what one considers to be the data needing to be explained.
•
Dr. Diller suggested a model for dealing with intellectual objections to Christian belief that
includes: beginning and continuing in prayer and fellowship, getting clear on the problem,
deciding if there is real conflict, deciding if the objection is reasonable, and finding the most
compelling and illuminating way to refine one’s beliefs if required.
•
Know what Keller contends in the section entitled ‘Isn’t Science in Conflict with
Christianity’? (pages 87–92 paperback ed.)
•
Know that Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN) argues that if
unguided naturalistic evolution is true, we have no good reason to trust our cognitive
faculties.
7. The Problem of Suffering and Evil
• Understand the difference between the rational and existential problem of evil.
•
Recall what considerations we discussed for relating in love to those suffering or wrestling
with the existential problem of evil.
•
Know the two forms of the rational problem of evil (Logical and Evidential).
•
Be able to reproduce some version of the logical problem of evil.
•
Know that evil is in classical theology seen to be parasitic on the good. i.e. evil is a privation
of good or a lack/corruption of good.
•
Know that the most common type of response to the problem of evil is to suggest that evil
may be permitted to enable a greater good.
•
Know that a Theodicy is a defense or justification for God’s allowing evil.
•
What is the danger in giving a full justification for evil? Why does N.T. Wright think that
trying to give a satisfactory answer to the problem of evil could be wrongheaded?
•
Know the details of and be able to distinguish the three “greater good” justifications for
allowing evil that we discussed in class:
- Skeptical Theism
- Soul Making Theodicy
- Free Will Defense
•
Know what William Rowe says to challenge Skeptical Theism—that so far as we can tell,
there is no reason that would justify God’s allowing evil; so, it is likely that there is no such
reason.
•
Understand that in the soul-making theodicy, evil features as an instrumental good,
whereas in the free will defense, it is only the permitting of evil that is required to enable
the greater good of human freedom.
•
Consider how one might deal with evils that don’t seem to be connected to humans—
natural disasters and animal suffering.
•
Know how one could use the G.E. Moore Shift in responding to the problem of evil.
•
Be able to outline the evidential problem of evil and know what is meant by the term
gratuitous evil.
•
Know that the evidential form of the argument merely suggests that it is reasonable to
believe God does not exist. It does not intend to be a conclusive disproof of God’s existence,
like the logical form, and is therefore easier to establish.
•
Know what Keller says about God and suffering (RFG, 29–34). Pay close attention to what he
says about the resurrection and suffering.
8. Divine Providence and Human Freedom
• Recall reasons we discussed for thinking that human beings have free will.
•
Know the difference given between a philosophical understanding of free will and a
theological understanding of freedom? As Keller notes, true freedom involves restrictions.
•
Know the difference between naturalistic and divine determinism.
- Naturalistic Determinism = Every event occurs by necessity from prior conditions
given the laws of nature.
- Divine Determinism = Every event occurs by necessity or is fixed exclusively and
directly by the will of God.
•
Know that on a libertarian view of human freedom, a free decision is one in which the agent
is able to choose from options, without external compulsion, when it was within their
power to have willed to do otherwise.
•
Known these three positions on human freedom and determinism:
-
Compatibilism = An understanding of free-will that is compatible with determinism.
As Calvin asserts, a decision may be necessarily bound, but free-will choices are
willed without any coercion.
Incompatibilism = An understanding of free-will is NOT compatible with determinism
(usually the libertarian view of human freedom).
Hard Determinism = There is no such thing as free-will. Humans never make
anything like ‘free’ choices.
•
Understand the argument against the compatibility of divine foreknowledge and human
freedom, and know the responses to it that we discussed:
a. Some say that the argument only raises an issue for libertarian human freedom (not
a compatibilist view of freedom).
b. Some note that foreknowledge can be distinguished from foreordination and that
foreknowledge can be argued to be compatible with libertarian human freedom.
c. Some believe that God’s knowledge may not contain knowledge of future free
decisions (open theism) or that God’s knowledge may not properly be said to be
“prior” to an event in time if God is timeless.
•
Know these alternative views:
a. Hard determinism (know that arguments against hard determinism are that it
prohibits a free, mutual loving relationship with God; God becomes the master of
puppets; obedience and love are compelled; God is in internal moral conflict—God
forces people to disobey him, contradicting his own commands; and, God is the
author of evil—therefore morally blameworthy.)
b. Molinism (Know that Molinism takes a libertarian view of human freedom and says
that God has Middle Knowledge: he knows what we would freely do in any
situation.)
c. Open Theism (God may know many things about the future but God does not know
or cannot know with certainty the outcomes of future free actions.)
9. The Love and Justice of God
• Know how you work through the question of the balance or ordering of God’s love, justice,
wrath, mercy, etc.
•
Know the various notions of justice, how do they differ, and how does that impact either
the critics objection or your response to that objection.
•
Know some aspects of the biblical notion of the love of God?
•
Know that MLK distinguishes agape love as the highest love (gift love) “Because it is
unmotivated; it is spontaneous; it is overflowing; it seeks nothing in return. It is not
motivated by some quality in the object.” He asserts that, “On all other levels we have a
need love, but when we come to agape we have a gift love. And so it is the love that
includes everybody. And the only testing point for you to know whether you have real
genuine love is that you love your enemy (Yeah), for if you fail to love your enemy there is
no way for you to fit into the category of Christian love. You test it by your ability to love
your enemy.”
•
Know the four different views of the atonement we discussed.
•
Know why critics charge that the Christian doctrine of the atonement is fundamentally
unjust; and, how you might respond to that charge.
•
Be able to articulate the differences between the contract and covenant views presented in
class, and know what your considered position is.
•
Know that in C.S. Lewis’ view, the goal of the atonement is our sanctification—i.e., our
transformation for full communion with God.
•
Consider your own view on the wages of sin. Must all sin be actively punished or are the
wages of sin better described as natural consequences?
•
Know how one might respond to questions about God’s love and justice in light of what you
take to be the requirements for salvation and the possibility of damnation.
10. Hell
• Have some thoughts about why questions about hell are so significant.
•
Know the contrasting views: eternal vs temporary; active punishment vs passive
consequences; literal vs metaphorical.
•
Know how one’s view of hell may impact one’s view of God.
•
Consider your own view on whether universalism be argued for from Scripture.
•
Know some of the things that most Christian’s agree on about hell.
•
Know what Keller says in the section “A Loving God Would Not Allow Hell” (78–82
paperback ed.; 76-79 hardcover ed.) including the comments on C.S. Lewis’ The Great
Divorce.
•
Know what annihilationism is and how John Stott defends his version of this view.
•
Consider your response to the charge that hell and punishment from God cause people to
do good for the wrong reasons—thereby revealing that the very structure of Christian
‘morality’ is flawed or immoral.
11. Christian Witness
• Consider your response to the argument that incongruity in the lives of Christians is a good
reason to reject the Christian faith.
•
Know what Tim Keller believes follows from this observation: “there is some violent impulse
so deeply rooted in the human heart that it expresses itself regardless of what the beliefs of
a particular society might be.” (p56 of the paperback edition)
•
Know what the significance is of Keller’s critique of the “moral improvement” view of
Christianity for the objection to Christian belief from hypocrisy? (p58, first introduced on
p19)
•
Recall that Tim Keller notes that “The typical criticisms by secular people about the
oppressiveness and injustices of the Christian church actually come from Christianity’s own
resources for critique of itself.” (61)
•
Know that the research shows that people say that the primary reason they go to church is
to be closer to God.
•
Racial division was a special focus for us as we looked at the witness of the Church. Recall
the insights from the Bible Project on the new multi-ethnic community of faith formed by
the power of the Spirit in Acts and stressed again in Ephesians.
•
Know from the handout on Social Identity Theory and Luke-Acts (the work of Aaron
Kuecker) the following terms: Out-group homogeneity, Terminal identity, In-group bias,
Superordinate identity, In-Group projection, and Allocentric Identity.
-
-
Out-group homogeneity: The assumption by members of a group that out-group members
are extremely similar to one another and that the group as a whole is more homogeneous
than the in-group. This results from the deindividuation of the out-group.
Terminal identity: The most significant social identity a person possesses, one which
‘embraces and integrates a number of lesser identities’. Usually, the terminal identity is
based upon the answer to the question, ‘Who are my people?’
In-group bias: ‘In-group bias follows from a sequence of social-categorization, social
identification, and social-group comparison driven by a pressure to positively differentiate
one's in-group from relevant out-groups’ and is the positive evaluation of the in-group over
against other social groups. High in-group bias often results in negative intergroup attitudes
or relations.
Superordinate identity: A new identity that transcends existing group categories and
incorporates diverse groups under a common identity.
In-Group projection: The projection of the characteristics of one’s own in-group or
subgroup as normative or prototypical within the broader group context. The in-group
projection of relative prototypicality leads to entitlement claims from subgroups.
Allocentric Identity: An identity denoting interest centered in persons other than oneself.
Allocentric identity entails the ability to overcome normal intergroup identity processes in
which positive social identity is maintained through the negative evaluation of the ‘other’.
Allocentric identity is capable of expressing in-group love and out-group love
simultaneously.
•
Know that Kuecker argues that “According to Luke, membership in the community of
believers – a social group composed of allocentrically oriented, Spirit-empowered
individuals – forms a common superordinate identity that transcends ethnicity and allows
for the supreme goal of ‘witness’: multi-layered reconciliation.” (Kuecker, 223) This new
social identity does not require the negation of ethnic identity. Ethnic hegemonies and
ethnocentrisms must be abandoned, as must all identity markers that oppose the lordship
of Jesus, but ethnic identification is unhindered and ethnic particularity is actually
celebrated by the Spirit.
•
Be aware that it was the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. who noted that “It is appalling that the
most segregated hour of Christian America is eleven o’clock on Sunday morning.”
•
From our scripture engagement in the book of Ephesians, recall the emphasis on God
joining His people in communion—using our uniqueness to bless our oneness in Him.
12. Sexuality and the Church
• Consider what apologetic benefits there are to listening to the reasons people give for
leaving the church and not quickly dismissing their explanations or reducing them to sinful
impulses.
•
Know that clarity with language can be very difficult in discussions of gender and sexuality.
Speaking carefully, listening to others, and asking questions is imperative.
•
What problems are encountered with a morality-only focus? How does the moralimprovement view fail to grasp the full transformation and communion that God desires?
•
Know what the Taylor University Statement on Human Sexuality asserts.
•
What cornerstones were discussed in the Biblical vision of human sexuality? (Image of the
Triune God; Fulfillment in the Triune God; Embodied in the new humanity of the
Incarnation)
•
What aspects of the Biblical vision of marriage were discussed? (Relational/unitive intimacy;
Children and the family; Imaging (and participating in) the life of the Triune God)
•
What benefits are there in seeing our sexuality as having good power, meaning and value
beyond our genitality (the part of our sexuality relating to our genitals)? Consider the
significance of eros-love, it’s distinction from lust. Consider that in the full humanity of Jesus
was a completely redeemed, chaste and celibate sexual experience.
•
Understand how Ron Rolheiser broader definition of “sexuality” includes a rich, generative
drive for communion with others.
•
Know that Wesley Hill argues in the “The Divine Accolade” that what pleases God is not
one's sexual orientation, but one's craving for holiness and the longing to live faithfully.
•
Understand what Wesley Hill argues in the “The Divine Accolade” reading, including why
Hill—who has decided to follow traditional Christian sexual ethical teaching—speaks of
homosexuality as a gift (see reflections from Martin Hallett on 148-150).
•
Be aware that there is division in the Church about the acceptability of gay marriage.
Followers of Christ on both sides of this debate profess allegiance to Jesus and submission
to Christian scripture. Have some familiarity with the passages in Scripture that are often
discussed in this debate. (Gen 1:27 and 2:24; Mark 10:6-9; Jude 7; Lev 18:22 and 20:13; Rom
1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:8-11)
13. Moral Objections and Arguments
• The landscape has changed in the post-911, post-‘new atheism’, post-2016-election
environment. Christianity is now commonly criticized as complicit in and promoting
immorality.
•
Does the Christian view of morality liberate or oppress, does it bring freedom or
totalitarianism?
•
Remember those two kinds of freedom: philosophical vs theological?
•
Why is God not necessary for providing the basis for morality according to Christopher
Hitchens and Sam Harris? Is this a tenable position?
•
How does the argument for the existence of God from evil work? How would you evaluate
it?
•
What is moral realism, and how does it function in the arguments for and against God?
•
How might you ground the notion that evil exists?
•
How can the argument from evil/moral realism be adapted as an argument from value(s) or
beauty?
•
What is Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)? Recall how Dr.
Diller attempted to adapt it into an argument against trusting our moral intuitions (see also
RFG Ch. 9 on The Problem of Moral Obligation and the Evolutionary Theory of Moral
Obligation)
14. Arguments from Beauty, Consciousness and Design
• Understand that arguments from transcendent or objective value are called axiological and
include arguments for God from morality and from beauty.
•
Understand the argument for the existence of God from mental life/consciousness.
•
Know Keller’s Argument for God from the Violence of Nature (pages 155–156 paperback
ed.) – “there is no way to derive the concept of the dignity of every individual from the way
things really work in nature.”
•
Be familiar with the kinds of teleological/design arguments we discussed and what
distinguishes them.
•
Be familiar with some of Hume’s objections (especially that the world is more like a
vegetable than a watch—the idea that the world has its own principles of development
embedded within).
•
If Darwinian evolution were a fact, would that offer a sufficient explanation for the apparent
design of the cosmos?
•
Be able to discuss some of the particularities of the argument from fine-tuning.
•
•
Know some of the responses to fine-tuning.
Know what responses are given (cf. Robin Collins and others) to the Atheistic ManyUniverses Hypothesis.
15. Arguments from First Cause
• Why are arguments for the truth of Christianity not a waste of time?
•
Be able to identify and distinguish the classical arguments for God’s existence:
Cosmological – first cause
Ontological – from perfect/necessary existence
Teleological – from design/order
•
Be familiar with the 3 kinds of cosmological arguments we discussed and what distinguishes
them.
•
Be familiar with some objections to cosmological arguments.
•
How does William Lane Craig argue that there must be a beginning to the universe?
16. Concluding Arguments
• Understand Pascal’s Wager, how it works and its relative strengths and weaknesses. Know
that it appeals to prudential reasoning.
•
Consider the range of experiential, intuitional, metacognitive data which points in favor of
the existence of God.
•
Take stock of the range of data explained by Christian theism.
•
What is a cumulative case approach? What is an inference to the best explanation?
— 74 Contemp Terms —
Apologetics
An enterprise aimed at providing a rational defense of and
reasons for Christian belief
Negative apologetics
A branch of apologetics aimed at providing a rational
defense of Christian belief by deflecting or undermining
arguments against Christian belief
Positive apologetics
A branch of apologetics aimed at providing reasons to
commend Christian belief
Increasing religious polarization
Tim Keller’s observation that the world is becoming both
more and less religious, that both sides feel threatened,
constructive dialogue is rare, and the winsome appeal of
the Gospel is all but lost
Credo ut intelligam
Anslem’s famous dictum: I believe that I may
understand—making sense of the data of the whole of our
life experience requires an interpretive framework which
illumines rather than distorts the truth of reality
Epistemology
The branch of philosophy concerned with the issues of
knowledge and justified or warranted belief
General revelation
The notion—most clearly articulated in Romans 1—that
God also mediates revelation of himself outside of
Scripture through our experience of the natural world;
although, sin corrupts our ability to perceive it
G. E. Moore shift
A legitimate philosophical maneuver (named after the
early 20th c. British philosopher G. E. Moore) where one is
rationally justified or even obliged not to accept the
conclusion to an argument in which no particular defect
can be discerned, simply on the basis of having a much
stronger and more secure ground for believing that its
conclusion is false
John 17:3
“And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true
God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”
Epistemic dependence
Our fundamental inability to rely wholly on our own
cognitive capacities in our pursuit of truth; particularly our
knowledge of God requires a dependence on God to reveal
himself, giving us the eyes to see and ears to hear
Ethical monotheism
The view that there is one God who defines morality and
requires all human creatures to conform their behavior
accordingly.
Nestorianism
The Christological position which held that Jesus Christ is
two persons with two divided natures; condemned at the
Council of Ephesus in 431 which affirmed that the divinity
and humanity of Christ are united in one person
Arianism
A Christological heresy which claimed that Jesus Christ was
not divine, but rather a created being; condemned at the
Council of Nicaea in 325 which declared that Jesus Christ is
one being with the Father
Monophysitism
A Christological view which holds that Jesus Christ has only
one nature—a divine nature; condemned at the Council of
Chalcedon in 451 which affirmed that the two natures of
Christ united in one person are without either confusion or
disjunction
Kenotic Christology
The view (taken from Phil. 2) that Christ emptied himself
of his access to the prerogatives of the divine nature
during his earthly life and ministry; this is one way of
maintaining the full humanity of Christ in light of the union
of his divine and human natures
The Two-Minds view
A way of maintaining the full humanity of Christ in light of
the union of his divine and human natures, by suggesting
that Jesus had an omniscient divine mind but according to
his humanity he lived only out of the resources of his
distinctly finite human mind
Appolinarianism
The Christological heresy which maintained that Jesus
Christ has a human body but a divine mind; condemned at
the Council of Constantinople in 381 which affirmed that
Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human
‘Stepford God’
Tim Keller’s view that if we don't submit ourselves to
Scripture that we greatly limit how God can speak to and
challenge our possibly mistaken preconceptions; we shape
God into the image we have rather than being shaped into
his image
Faith
A term which admits of several and often mutually
exclusive meanings, including: 1) a blind leap taken in the
absence of reasonable grounds for belief; 2) the historic
Christian faith, its teachings and practices; 3) one’s
personal response of yielding oneself to and putting one’s
trust in Christ; 4) a source of knowledge and ground of
belief given by God through the self-revealing work of his
Spirit—believing by the light of faith
Fides quaerens intellectum
Anselm’s definition of theology—“faith seeking
understanding”
Cultural relativism
The view that there is no objective truth about reality,
reason, value, beauty or morality; and, that such things are
strictly defined by one’s culture
Tritheism
The heretical view, which holds that Father, Son and Holy
Spirit are not one God but three
Modalism
The heretical view, which holds that God is not three
persons but one; the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not
three distinct persons but rather three modes of or names
for the same person
The Bibliographical Test
A test to assist in ascertaining the reliability of the
manuscript copies of the New Testament, consisting in
three questions: How many manuscript copies are there?
What length of time passed between the original the
earliest copies? How much difference is there between
them?
Tim Keller
Founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA)
in New York City, New York; and, author of The Reason for
God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism
Rational Problem of Evil
A challenge to Christian faith, which reasons either that
the existence of God is logically incompatible with the
existence of evil, or that the existence of God is highly
unlikely given the evidence of the kind of evil in the
world—responding to this objection may not address the
existential problem of evil.
Existential Problem of Evil
A challenge to Christian faith posed by the experience of
intense suffering, or loss, which may or may not involve
intellectual doubt about God’s existence
Logical Problem of Evil
The classical kind of rational problem of evil which reasons
that the existence of God is logically incompatible with the
existence of evil
Evidential Problem of Evil
A contemporary variation of the rational problem of evil
which reasons that the existence of God is highly unlikely
given the evidence of the kind of evil (gratuitous) in the
world
Theodicy
The technical name in philosophy and theology for an
attempt to give a justification for God’s allowing evil
Gratuitous evil
Evil, the permitting of which, serves in no way to achieve a
greater good or avoid a greater evil
1 Corinthians 15
A chapter of the New Testament focused on the
importance of the historical bodily resurrection of Christ
containing what many scholars believe to be a very early
Christian creedal statement
The Noseeum Inference
An inference William Rowe defends as part of his
evidential argument from evil, which suggests that if we
do not have a good reason for believing X that we should
withhold belief—if we cannot see what good reason God
would have for allowing certain evils we should believe
that God does not have a good reason.
Privation of Good
The view of evil held by Augustine and Aquinas that evil is
a lack of good—that evil is parasitic on and a corruption of
good
Free Will Defense
A defense against the problem of evil which suggests that
perhaps human freedom is worth the cost of permitting
evil
Soul-Making Theodicy
The view that God purposes evil to be used for our growth,
to allow opportunities for us to show courage,
compassion, and sacrificial love and thereby refine our
character
Annihilationism
The view that the lost will not be subject to eternal
torment in hell but will instead eventually fade out of
existence either immediately upon death or after a finite
period of punishment; also related to ‘conditional
immortality,’ the notion that human beings are only made
immortal by inheriting the gift of eternal life.
Retributive justice
Theory of justice which seeks a penalty proportionate to
the offence as a means of establishing justice
Restorative justice
Theory of justice which seeks reconciliation, reparation
and a righting of wrongs as a means of establishing justice
Sanctification
A process of transformation whereby a creature is made
holy, that is, built up into the fullness of what the creature
was intended to be—ultimately in perfect communion
with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
Freedom of contrary choice
The notion of freedom or independence that philosophers
have in view when they affirm that human beings are free
moral agents whose choices are not (or not usually) strictly
determined by any force of condition external to the will;
this notion of freedom may also be referred to as ‘freedom
from’ as distinct from ‘freedom for’. The biblical notion of
freedom is a ‘freedom for’ our flourishing in righteousness
and communion with God—not one of autonomous
independence but rather a freedom from enslavement to
evil.
John William Draper
19th century American philosopher/historian whose
influential History of the Warfare of Science with Theology
skews and fabricates historical data in order to popularize
the myth of the fundamental historical conflict between
Christianity and scientific progress
Galileo
An Italian philosopher/astronomer who championed the
Copernican heliocentric view in the face of the longstanding geocentric consensus; through his own lack of
diplomacy and insufficient evidence for his view along with
political pressures bearing on Pope Urban VIII, his views
were condemned and he was forced to recant them;
despite the historical realities the Galileo affair has
become iconic support for the view that Christianity is
fundamentally opposed to science
Naturalism
The position that there is no God or anything like God—
that the physical world studied by science is all there is,
therefore only empirical data and the conclusions drawn
from it count as evidence
Methodological Naturalism
A program of scientific investigation that attends only to
causal connections in the physical/material continuum
Richard Dawkins
A British biological theorist and original impetus for and
member of the ‘new atheism,’ known for books like The
Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion, he has
concentrated his efforts on taking his critiques of religion
and advocacy of atheism to the popular media
God of the Gaps
An approach to the relationship between religion and
science which appeals to God’s direct involvement to
explain events in the natural order for which we do not yet
have an explanation; this approach became less tenable as
more comprehensive theories were proposed (eventually
Laplace quips that he has no use for God as a hypothesis in
his astronomical theory)
Critical realism
The realist view that there is a truth about reality and that
theories and interpretations of reality attempt to
correspond to that truth, balanced with a critical
appreciation for the role that worldviews, perspectives
and human experience play in framing one’s
interpretations
NOMA: Nonoverlapping Magisteria
Stephen Jay Gould’s thesis that science and Christian belief
(or religion in general) have no contact but are altogether
unrelated, contrasting disciplines
Scientism
The belief that science and science alone is the only
reliable guide to truth
Moral Realism
An extremely common view/intuition that there is a moral
reality, that is, an objective truth about what is good and
what is evil independent of the opinions of a particular
person or society
Consequentialism
A moral theory which suggests that it’s the consequences
(or intended consequences) of an action that makes
something good or bad; which criteria are appealed to in
order to discern good from evil consequences will
determine if any particular version of this view is morally
realist or relative
Moral Relativism
Either 1) individual relativism, where an act is right or
wrong simply because the agent thinks it is; or 2) socially
constructed relativism, where an act is right or wrong
simply because the agent’s society says it is
Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)
Alvin Plantinga’s argument that because the probability is
extremely low that, given naturalism and current
evolutionary theory, we would develop reliable cognitive
faculties aimed at forming true beliefs, we can conclude
that anyone who subscribes to naturalistic evolution has a
defeater for their position because they have reason to
doubt the reliability of the cognitive faculties that gave rise
to that belief
Necessary truths
Things that must be true, had to be true, could not have
failed to be true, and are true in all possible worlds
Contingent truths
Things that are true, but did not have to be true, could
have failed to be true, are NOT true in all possible worlds
Logical Demonstration
A demonstrative proof, consisting of indubitable premises
and a valid argument structure, resulting in a sound and
undeniable conclusion
Cosmological Arguments
Arguments (a posteriori) which suggest that, given the
existence of the cosmos, in order to avoid an infinite
regress of causes, movers, reasons, or temporal moments,
there must be a first cause which has necessary existence
and is therefore rightfully uncaused
Principle of Sufficient Reason
The view that for anything that is so, the question why
that thing is so has an answer, a correct answer, an
informative answer, and a fully satisfying answer (Peter
van Inwagen).
Axiological Arguments
Arguments for the existence of God that appeal to the
need for a transcendent basis to anchor the objective
value/worth of things in the world (including arguments
from morality and beauty).
Teleological Arguments
Arguments (a posteriori) from the design, purpose, order,
regularity or seeming fine-tuning of the universe which
suggest that the cosmos is the product of a creative
intelligent agent (creator, designer, regulator, fine-tuner)
David Hume
An 18th century Scottish philosopher and ardent religious
skeptic whose Dialogues concerning Natural Religion
provide many of the classic objections to the traditional
arguments for theism
Multiverse
An atheistic many-universes hypothesis constructed to
avoid the unsavory appearance that our single-universe is
designed by diluting the enormous improbability of our
universe with an infinite number of actualized universes
Sensus Divinitatis
The name Calvin gave to a human faculty or instinctual
awareness of God
Cumulative Case
An approach either to apologetics or personal doubt
deflection which considers the cumulative weight of all the
arguments for the existence of God
Inference to the Best Explanation
An approach either to apologetics or personal doubt
deflection which considers the relative merits of Christian
belief as compared to other hypotheses for responding to
all the cognitive considerations and meta-cognitive data
George MacDonald
19th Century Scottish minister, author and poet, who
argued in favor of the universal fatherhood of God. He
wrote that love is the “deepest depth, the essence of
[God’s] nature, at the root of all His being.” He saw God’s
wrath and punishment as aspects of his love, noting, “If
God would not punish sin, or if He did it for anything but
love, He would not be the Father of Jesus Christ, the God
who works as Jesus wrought.”
Alvin Plantinga
Arguably the most influential living Christian analytic
philosopher. Over his life-time he helped to generate a
renaissance in Christian philosophy and has developed
many arguments aimed at undermining objections to
contemporary Christian belief.
Out-group homogeneity
The assumption by members of a group that out-group
members are extremely similar to one another and that
the group as a whole is more homogeneous than the ingroup. Results from the deindividuation of the out-group.
In-group bias
This follows from a sequence of social-categorization,
social identification, and social-group comparison driven
by a pressure to positively differentiate one's group from
relevant out-groups and is the positive evaluation of the
in-group over against other social groups.
Superordinate identity
A new identity that transcends existing group categories
and incorporates diverse groups under a common identity.
Terminal identity
The most significant social identity a person possesses,
one which ‘embraces and integrates a number of lesser
identities’. Usually this identity is based upon the answer
to the question, ‘Who are my people?’
In-group projection
Thinking of the characteristics of one’s own group or
subgroup as normative or prototypical within the broader
group context.
Allocentric identity
An identity characterized or denoting interest centered in
persons other than oneself. This entails the ability to
overcome normal intergroup identity processes in which
positive social identity is maintained through the negative
evaluation of the ‘other’. Such identity is capable of
expressing in-group love and out-group love
simultaneously.