God reveals who He is to His people through His name. When Moses asked for God’s name, the Lord answered, “I AM WHO I AM” (Exodus 3:14). The name Yahweh shows that God is self-existent and faithful. Throughout Scripture, God sometimes adds descriptive titles to His name to reveal how He is working for His people.

One of those names is Yahweh-Nissi — “The Lord is my Banner” (Exodus 17:15). When Israel was attacked by Amalek, Moses stood on the hill with the staff of God. As long as his hands were raised, Israel prevailed. When they lowered, Amalek gained ground. Aaron and Hur helped hold his hands up, and Israel ultimately won the battle. In ancient warfare a banner was a rallying point that told soldiers where to gather and under whose authority they fought. Likewise, God’s people fight under His name and identity.

Another name is Yahweh-Shalom — “The Lord is Peace” (Judges 6:24). When the angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon, he was hiding in fear while threshing wheat in a winepress. Yet the angel said, “The LORD is with you, mighty warrior” (Judges 6:12). Though Israel was still oppressed, Gideon trusted God’s promise and called Him peace.

Ultimately these names point forward to Christ. Jesus said, “If I am lifted up… I will draw all men to myself” (John 12:32), and “He Himself is our peace” (Ephesians 2:14). Whether in battle or fear, Yahweh is both our banner and our peace.

Pastor Joshua uses the Bible version NET

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.

Download: Restoration Theology Student Notes

Introduction and Purpose

• After biblical, systematic, analytic, and comparative theology, test your doctrine in the “laboratory of history.”

• If a belief is true, others likely saw it too over 2,000 years.

• Massive Christian literature survives:

  • 1st–15th centuries: 5,000–10,000 books

  • 16th–19th centuries: 200,000–300,000

  • 20th–21st centuries: 2–3 million + 20,000–25,000 new books/year

• Goal: Find doctrinal precedents; legitimacy if early voices agree.

Why Care About Historical Precedents?

• Restorationism is relentlessly past-focused: Aim to believe what apostles believed.

• Advances ok in uncovered areas, but consistency with early church preferred over contradiction.

• Full apostasy theory (whole church fell away) not supported: Jude 1:3–4 warns of intruders, but not total loss.

• Data shows slow evolution toward Catholic/Orthodox forms, not complete break.

• Historical theology explains how and why drift happened.

Defining Historical Theology

• Gregg Allison: “The study of the interpretation of Scripture and the formulation of doctrine by the church of the past.”

• Church history = events and people; historical theology = ideas/doctrines and how they changed.

Value of Historical Theology for Restorationists

• Early agreement gives legitimacy (e.g., if no evidence before Nicea, less likely original).

• No early articulation? Need explanation why not said in first centuries.

• If majority today reject your view, explain how/why church went off track.

• Protects against novel ideas; learns from past errors (e.g., indulgences, purgatory additions).

• Alister McGrath: Historical theology positive (learn from giants) and subversive (shows how theologians go astray).

Method and Challenges

• Use primary sources (original texts).

• Critical scholarship helps: authorship, dating, interpolations.

• Example: Victorinus’s Revelation commentary – Jerome edited out premillennialism; edited version copied more; original survives in modern editions.

• Tools: ANF/NPNF series (with caution), critical editions, recent translations.

Conclusion:

• Historical theology vital for restoration
• Seek old ideas, not new ones;
• Absence of early evidence requires explanation.

Download: Restoration Theology Student Notes

Introduction to Analytic Theology

• Analytic theology: Newer field (since ~2009); applies rigorous logic, philosophy, and clear reasoning to theological questions.

• Goal: Clarify doctrines, avoid fallacies, test arguments precisely.

• Complements other theologies: Biblical (content), systematic (synthesis), historical (precedents), comparative (alternatives).

• Key tool: Logic – careful reasoning that avoids errors and draws valid conclusions in pursuit of truth.

What Is Logic?

• Informal logic: Everyday reasoning (e.g., “If I eat too much, I feel bloated”).

• Formal logic: Symbolic, rigorous analysis using syllogisms.

• valid vs. invalid arguments

Major Types of Fallacies (5 Categories)

1. Fallacies of Relevance: Premises irrelevant to conclusion

• 1. Ad hominem (attack person, not argument)

  2. Appeal to authority/emotion/popularity

  3. Red herring, straw man, genetic fallacy

1. Fallacies of Presumption: Assume what needs proving

   1. Begging the question

   2. False dilemma

   3. Suppressed evidence

   4. False cause (post hoc, correlation ≠ causation)

2. Fallacies of Ambiguity: Unclear language

   1. Equivocation (word used two ways)

   2. Amphiboly, composition, division

3. Fallacies of Weak Induction: Insufficient evidence

   1. Hasty generalization

   2. Slippery slope

   3. Weak analogy

   4. Appeal to ignorance

4. Formal Fallacies: Errors in logical structure

   1. Affirming the consequent (If A→B, B true → A true)

   2. Denying the antecedent (If A→B, A false → B false)

7-Step Method for Analytic Evaluation of a Doctrine

1. Clearly identify the doctrine

2. Express the doctrine’s logical structure (premises → conclusion).

3. Identify assumptions and define key terms

4. List main reasons supporting the doctrine

5. Identify difficult texts / counter-evidence

6. Identify logical defeaters (objections) and offer explanations/counter-arguments

7. Revise doctrine in light of objections; invite feedback

Benefits of Analytic Approach

• Makes arguments precise and transparent.

• Reveals hidden assumptions and weak links.

• Hardens position against criticism or shows where revision needed.

• Encourages humility: Logic shows where we might be wrong.

Conclusion

• Analytic theology uses logic to evaluate doctrines rigorously.

• Strengthens restorationist method by testing coherence and validity.