Apologetics - Presuppositional or Evidential?

[Bulldog]

I'm looking for which of these other Reformed folks hold to.

 

[Jon_]

I'm more of a hybrid person, myself. I believe we can prove that God does exist evidentially and philosophically (Evidential and Thomistic apologetics), but when it comes to faith, morals, and all things anthropomorphic, they are entirely presuppositional. That is, if one does not accept Scripture as the Word of God, one will never know God, and therefore, will never know one's proper role as a vessel of his glorification.

To argue that God does not exist is pure folly, though.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Bulldog]

I'm more of a hybrid person, myself. I believe we can prove that God does exist evidentially and philosophically (Evidential and Thomistic apologetics), but when it comes to faith, morals, and all things anthropomorphic, they are entirely presuppositional. That is, if one does not accept Scripture as the Word of God, one will never know God, and therefore, will never know one's proper role as a vessel of his glorification.

To argue that God does not exist is pure folly, though.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

You sound pretty evidential to me, as I am speaking of the relation of the Christian worldview to other worldviews.

Why would you say that you accept the Christian faith?

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

I've always been more evidential in my apologetics. It's the way I've always been taught. But I have come to the belief that the Triune God must necessarily exist, and I cannot argue under any different presuppositions. I'm interested in exploring presuppositional apologetics.

 

[Bulldog]

I've always been more evidential in my apologetics. It's the way I've always been taught. But I have come to the belief that the Triune God must necessarily exist, and I cannot argue under any different presuppositions. I'm interested in exploring presuppositional apologetics.

I was brought up believing in evidential apologetics as well, but now I'm presuppositional.

 

[Jon_]

You sound pretty evidential to me, as I am speaking of the relation of the Christian worldview to other worldviews.

Why would you say that you accept the Christian faith?

On worldview (being encompassed in my original post as "all things anthropomorphic"), I uphold a presuppositional apologetic. I think all things pertaining to human life should be conformed to the Word, regardless of whether or not people accept it (I would be in favor of a Christian theocracy). So, I am actually not "pretty evidential," I'm more, "slightly evidential." The only thing evidential that I subscribe to is a) proving the existence of God, and b) the inerrency of Scripture. Both of these can be accomplished through presuppositional apologetics as well, but I favor classical apologetics (appeal to reason, logic) on these points.

I would say I accept the Christian faith because it is God's will. To ascribe any other cause to it would rob God of his due glory.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Tertiumquid]

My own 2 cents on this-

In general terms, most people make a broad distinction between presuppositional and evidential (or classical) apologetics. The classical method enjoys a rich history (for instance B.B. Warfield would be considered classical), while the Presuppositional approach really came to fruition with Van Til and Bahnsen (though i've read various things from different theologians in church history that have sounded very presuppositional).

Some will argue that only their way of doing apologetics is the only way. This to me is unfortunate. I am quite “ecumenical” in my approach to apologetics- I believe that one must be very ‘sensitive’ to where the non-believer is. Presuppositional arguments might be good for a hardcore atheist or a pseudo-intellectual type. For instance, a guy I work with is a left-wing liberal, and well educated. Presuppositional arguments are very effective to get him to think. An evidential approach though may be perfect for someone who assumes much of the Christian worldview already. Sharing the classical argument that Christ was either “liar, Lunatic or Lord” might be very helpful in getting to the gospel, quickly, for someone who's ready. So, from my viewpoint, both methods are possible. I recall hearing Michael Horton say he was presuppositional, but really, whatever "worked" for a particular person is what he would use. Amen to Horton here.


For those of you with the "5 Views of Apologetics" book, you'll note that the presuppositionalist John Frame, does not deny the use of evidences. Rather, they do indeed have a place within the presuppositional approach. I've met a few "up and coming" presuppositionalists that are over-reacting to Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel and abhor any type of "evidence". This is simply over-reaction.


Regards,

James Swan

 

[Tertiumquid]

The only thing evidential that I subscribe to is a) proving the existence of God, and b) the inerrency of Scripture. Both of these can be accomplished through presuppositional apologetics as well, but I favor classical apologetics (appeal to reason, logic) on these points.
Jon

Hi Jon,

Similar to Bulldog, I was about to reply to earlier comments you made along these lines, and then I had the brilliant idea (lol) to actually read through the rest of this thread to see if you clarified your position (every so often i'm smart enough to actually do this!).

Let me say that I greatly appreciate the work you put in to defining your own apologetic approach, and others reading this thread should likewise do the work neccesary to know why they believe what they believe.

I agree with you that both methods of apologetics are possible to prove the existence of God and the inerrancy of scripture. My own stance would be similar to yours with this clarification:

The Inerrancy of Scripture and the existence of God are core presuppositions- in other words, these are truths I begin with (rather than say, the errancy of scripture and the non-existence of God, which non-Christians begin with).

But, I can express these core presuppositions through the use of evidences. Bahnsen more-a-less makes this same point in his debate with Stien. Indeed, as Christians we have evidence for our core beliefs, in fact, all of reality can be used as evidence.

So, in talking with people, I will use the tools of classical apologetics in establishing the existence of God / Scripture, but I always have to keep the presuppositional argument close by: it's only because God exists and has spoken that any of reality makes any sense. In other words, for our world to have any sense whatsoever it's impossible for God not to exist and not to have spoken.

God Bless,
James Swan

 

[Tertiumquid]

I've always been more evidential in my apologetics. It's the way I've always been taught. But I have come to the belief that the Triune God must necessarily exist, and I cannot argue under any different presuppositions. I'm interested in exploring presuppositional apologetics.

I always assume most folks have heard the debate between the late Greg Bahnsen and the atheist Gordon Stien:

http://www.straitgate.com/gbgs.ram

This debate is one every christian should have a copy of. I recorded it off the Internet a few years back, and I listen to it a few times each year. It is presuppostional apologetics par exellence.

A transcription of the debate can be found here:

http://www.popchapel.com/Resources/Bahnsen/GreatDebate/

This is not "easy listening". It requires one's complete attention, and multiple listenings. It's not something one can put on and "multi-task" to.

It will be of tremendous benefit to anyone interested in presuppositional apologetics.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Bulldog]

I always assume most folks have heard the debate between the late Greg Bahnsen and the atheist Gordon Stien:

http://www.straitgate.com/gbgs.ram

This debate is one every christian should have a copy of. I recorded it off the Internet a few years back, and I listen to it a few times each year. It is presuppostional apologetics par exellence.

A transcription of the debate can be found here:

http://www.popchapel.com/Resources/Bahnsen/GreatDebate/

This is not "easy listening". It requires one's complete attention, and multiple listenings. It's not something one can put on and "multi-task" to.

It will be of tremendous benefit to anyone interested in presuppositional apologetics.

Regards,
James Swan

I just listened to that debate yesterday, which is what prompted me to make this thread.

 

[Tertiumquid]

I just listened to that debate yesterday, which is what prompted me to make this thread.

What did you think of the debate?


If you’ve only listened to it once, my opinion is that it gets better the more one listens to it- it really takes time to chew and digest the arguments from both sides. Quite frankly, the first time I listened to the debate, a lot of it went over my head. I subsequently burned off a copy on to CD in which I divided each segment up to individual tracks, and took the time to focus on each section. Sometimes driving to work, I’d listen to only Bahnsen’s segments, other times just Stein’s. If wasn't until I took a seminary-level class in presuppostional apologetics that it all really made sense to me. Presuppositional arguments are like dynamite. They are extremely powerful.


Note as you listen, Bahnsen doesn’t deny the use of reason, argument, and evidence. His point though is that these only make “sense” and find meaning in the context of a theistic worldview.


In response to the question “Is God good?” Bahnsen responds he knows God is good because:


“He saved me. He created me. He made the world and He made it good. He sent His son into the world to die for my sins. Many of these evidences are quite convincing to me, but I don’t use them outside of a word-view in which they make sense, in which they would be taken as true. If you mean is God good in such a way, or can I give you evidence that you would accept? That would depend on what your presuppositions are.”



In response to the question, “What solid evidence do you have to maintain that the Christian faith is the only true religion with a god? There are religions far older, and more or just as wide spread which millions of people consider valid,” Bahnsen answers,


“I have not found the non-Christian religions to be philosophically defensible, each of them being either internally incoherent or undermining human reason and experience… I will give just a couple of illustrations. Obviously I’m not going to cover all of them.


For instance, Hinduism assumes that God, or Raman is the impersonal and universal soul of the unchanging one of which all things are part (for instance). And because of that particular outlook, Hinduism says that everything in terms of my normal experience of the world and thinking is Maya, or illusion. Because everything in experience and thinking presupposes distinctions. But that is contrary to the most fundamental metaphysical fact, and that’s that there are no distinctions, all is one. So basically, Hinduism tells me that all my thinking, all of my reasoning is illusion. In so doing, it undermines reason.


You can take religions such as Shintoism, it’s view of Commi, the forces that permeate the universe, or Taoism, the ordering force of the universe. And they are impersonal forces, and as such are even less than human beings because they don’t have volition or intelligence.”



I point these things out to enforce the fact that presuppositional arguments are not an appeal to fideism. The employ reason, argument, and evidence. Bahnsen says elsewhere (not in the debate):


"God wishes for us to be rational: to exercise and improve our reasoning ability in understanding, propounding and defending the truths of Scripture. And as Locke observed, this reasoning ability does not begin or end with the teaching of Aristotle. To be rational is a trait much broader than the use of syllogisms (although they certainly have their place). The kind of rationality or reasoning that we will employ in defending the Christian faith involves not only study of formal logic (patterns or abstract forms of inference), but also attention to informal fallacies in ordinary language, the use of inductive reasoning, the handling of empirical evidence in history, science, linguistics, etc., and especially reflection upon the demands of an adequate worldview in terms of which all such thinking makes sense."


Bahnsen was keen on exposing the prejudice of non-Christians in regards to the "facts." In evaluating arguments against Scripture, Bahnsen uses arguments very similar to Josh McDowell:


"The third indication of prejudice in the criticism of the unbeliever is that he or she has not taken account of the actual evidence which is publicly available regarding the text of Scripture. If the critic had taken time to look into this subject, he or she would not have offered the outlandish evaluation that the Biblical text is unreliable. This came home to me with great force after taking an advanced course on Plato in graduate school, a course which took account of the textual criticism of the literary corpus of Plato's works. Our earliest extant manuscript of a work by Plato dates from right before 900 A.D. ("Oxford B," found in a Patmos monastery by E. B. Clarke), and we must remember that Plato is thought to have written roughly 350 years before Christ -- thus leaving us with a gap of over twelve centuries. By contrast, the earliest fragments of the New Testament date less than fifty years after the original writing; the bulk of our most important extant manuscripts dates from 200-300 years after original composition. The text of the New Testament is remarkably uniform and well established. The reliability of the Old Testament text has been demonstrated by the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls.

The overall authenticity and accuracy of the Biblical text is well known to scholars. Frederick Kenyon concluded: "The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation, throughout the centuries." Such assessments from competent scholars could be multiplied easily -- which only goes to show the prejudice that operates in the thinking of unbelievers who offhand criticize the Bible for "very likely" having a dubious text."



I point all these things out for any of you interested in learning about presuppositionalism. Sometimes those of us who spent years in evangelicalism will over-react to the multitudes of arminian apologetcs we've been exposed to, and wrongly embrace a form of presuppostionalism that is an over-reaction to folks like Strobel, Geisler, McDowell, Paul Little, etc. This was sort of what happened to me. When I first gripped presuppositional apologetics, it was just one more weapon against Arminian theology. The more though I learned about it, the more I learned to employ some of the fine work Strobel, Geisler, McDowell, et all have done.


Regards,
James Swan

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I have not read all the stuff here but I lean toward Van Til, Bahnsen et al.

Kenith

 

[Bulldog]

What did you think of the debate?

Well, to say it simply, I liked it. It strengthened my view of the vailidity of the presuppositional view.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

I'd love to tell you what I think about the debate, except I can't get that link to work.

EDIT: I found a different recording. I'm listening now.

 

[Tertiumquid]

I'd love to tell you what I think about the debate, except I can't get that link to work.

EDIT: I found a different recording. I'm listening now.

I just checked the link I posted, and it worked for me. It does require RealPlayer. I'm curious where the "different recording" you found is located.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

SermonAudio.com, in mp3 form.

 

[Tertiumquid]

SermonAudio.com, in mp3 form.

I just spent some time looking for the debate between Stein and Bahnsen and couldn't find it at Sermonaudio. If you have the link still, could you post it?

Thanks,
James Swan

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

It was titled pretty vaguely.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SermonID=870004713

 

[Tertiumquid]

It was titled pretty vaguely.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SermonID=870004713

Thanks- it's always good to have extra links to this debate, as I reccommend it often as a stellar example of presuppositional apologetics.

Thanks again,

James Swan

(feel free to comment on the debate at some point, also the transcript I mentioned is helpful in reviewing sections of the debate).

 

[Jon_]

Has anyone ever read anything by Vincent Cheung? I downloaded the Bahnsen-Stein debate from SermonAudio and one of the comments to the debate pointed to one in which Cheung destroys some guy named Sansone. It's obvious that poor Sansone was in way over his head. I'm not sure how many "presuppers" (Presuppositionsalists) he was into on his "binge," but if his arguments were anything like those he put forth to Cheung, my guess is very few.

For anyone interested: http://rmiweb.org/other/sansone-cheung.htm.

Cheung also has a number of free books available for download. I recommend them.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon