Download: Restoration Theology Student Notes

Recap of Class Journey

• Covered interpreting Scripture: Primacy, perspicuity, textual criticism, translation bias, literary/historical contexts, application.

• Surveyed theologies: Biblical, systematic, analytic, historical, comparative.

• Ended with method to evaluate doctrines (objective rating on how well a doctrine is presented)

Addressing Criticisms of Restorationism

• Criticism 1 (Kevin DeYoung): Don’t interpret apart from creeds/traditions.

  • Response: Luther challenged traditions; Protestants shouldn’t act like Catholics. Traditions ok, but Bible critiques them.

• Criticism 2: “No creed but the Bible” is a creed.

  • Response: Everyone has creeds (beliefs); restorationists can use them but they should be editable

• Criticism 3: Overturn historic consensus.

  • Response: Not chaos; Bible is authority. Historic views ok if biblical; burden on unbiblical traditions.

• Criticism 4: Zipping back to 1st century ignores history.

  • Response: Not ignoring; learn from giants, but Bible first.

Benefits of Restorationism

• Clarity: Methodical approach resolves confusion; evaluates doctrines objectively.

• Unity: Denominations divide; restorationism unites via Bible.

• Evangelism: Intriguing label – “Restorationist” sparks questions.

Conclusion: Changing the World

• Restorationism combines inquiry/tech for authenticity.

• AI levels field; anyone can explore options.

• Time for disagreeing constructively: Debates, books, gatherings in love.

• Move toward truth/unity: Christianismi Restitutio.

Download: Restoration Theology Student Notes

Introduction

• Pull together components; rate doctrines 0-100.

• 4 categories: Biblical (8 pts), logical (6), historical (3), practical (3).

Twenty-question diagnostic tool to evaluate doctrine

1. Does the presenter show how the doctrine directly follows from relevant biblical prooftexts?
2. Does the presenter show evidence for the doctrine across multiple authors of scripture?
3. If including prooftext with manuscript uncertainties, does the presenter make a case for why his/her preferred reading is likely to be original?
4. If including prooftexts with translation ambiguities, does the presenter make a case for why his/her preferred translation is likely to be correct?
5. Does the presenter interpret each prooftext in its literary context, refusing to make the text mean something other than its authorial intent?
6. Does the presenter interpret each text in its historical context, refusing to make the text mean something it couldn’t have meant in its original setting?
7. Does the presenter account for the progressive revelation within scripture when assessing the applicability of texts to the doctrine under consideration?
8. Does the presenter offer explanations for the relevant difficult texts that seem to contradict the doctrine under consideration?
9. Does the presenter identify his/her assumptions as they relate to the doctrine under consideration?
10. Does the presenter define any terms or theological words that have multiple meanings?
11. Does the presenter express the doctrine simply and clearly?
12. Does the presenter show how the doctrine is logically valid?
13. Does the presenter refute any logical defeaters?
14. Does the presenter consider alternative positions on the doctrine and show why his/hers is preferrable?
15. Does the presenter identify individuals in church history who held the same doctrine?
16. If no explicit evidence of the doctrine is extant prior to Nicea, does the presenter offer an explanation why this doctrine wasn’t articulated in the first three centuries of Christianity?
17. If most Christians today do not hold the doctrine, does the presenter explain why the church got off track on this doctrine?
18. Does the presenter explain how this doctrine does or does not affect practical living today?
19. Does the application effectively bridge the gap between what they did then and what we do now? (comparable particulars and culturally relative customs)
20. Does the application account for the messiness and complexity of life in our world today? (e.g. an excommunicated person can go to another church in the same town, drug addiction, technology)

Examples

• Strobel’s Case for Heaven: 30/100 (weak biblical/logical).

• McCall’s Against God and Nature: 80/100 (strong, neutral survey).

Download: Restoration Theology Student Notes

Defining Comparative Theology

• Not well-known branch; historically used in several ways (apologetics, world theology, etc.).

• Restorationist interest: Compare competing Christian theologies/doctrines (not other religions).

• Opposes confessional approach (fides quaerens intellectum = faith seeking understanding).

• Restorationist posture: fides quaerens veritatem = faith seeking truth.

Why Do Comparative Theology?

• Not just understand others better; pursue actual truth.

• Individuals, churches, denominations should do this regularly.

• Current culture lacks this: Sunday services avoid debate; conferences rarely host real dialogue.

• Goal: Find space to engage alternatives constructively.

Step-by-Step Method for Comparative Theology

1. Identify main alternative positions on the doctrine.

2. Gather best resources (steelman, not strawman):

3. Systematically evaluate reasons for other position(s):

4. Systematically evaluate defeaters against your position:

5. Revise doctrine if evidence demands; invite feedback (debate, send to opponents).

Practical Tips

• Focus on reasons, not emotion or speaker charisma.

• One strong reason > five weak ones.

Conclusion

• Comparative theology essential for truth-seeking restorationists.

• Churches/denominations need open dialogue across lines.