The Narrow Path Ministries

lee wrote:I don't think he meant presuppositional in that sense. There's a style of apologetics known as "presuppositional." It was formalized, I think, by Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen also wrote a book about it called Always Ready. On the other hand Jill, I have thought briefly from time to time about the concepts that you presented in your post. Taking one's own and others presuppositions (emotional, etc.) into consideration should be remembered while engaging in evangelism, though, I think, it should not affect the boldness or clarity with which one proclaims the gospel. Concerning presuppositional apologetics proper, I am finding this to be the most direct, clear, and effective way to argue and debate. It seems to leave no wiggle room for the anti-Christian. I haven't seen the anti-Christian ever seem to come up with any response to the fact that they don't have a foundation for the uniformity of nature, immaterial abstract universal laws (logic), and morality. Have you guys watched the debates between Greg Bahsen and Smith or Stein? They're really good demonstrations of presuppositional apologetics in action.

lee wrote:I've been listening to this new program and I began listening to your debate on atheism...
I was wondering if you've ever studied presuppositional apologetics as espoused by Van Til and later Greg Bahnsen.
If yes, why don't you employ these arguments (the TAG argument) against your opponents or those with whom you converse on an apologetic level?

Is there anyone here on the board that has delved into this side of apologetics?

darin wrote:Those are definitely the favorite approaches of today's "neo-Reformed" I think. I think they have a place, but from my perspective I don't think it gets you very far with a certain type of unbeliever. I think they like it because it appeals to those they would consider the "elect." In one sense, I think it sort of begs the question. In another sense, though, I think that is precisely what Steve has done in some of his discussions when he suggests that the atheist has no basis for things such as morals and values without a standard and that they have to "borrow" from the Christian worldview to reason their own worldview. He just uses different words and much more gentle approaches, I think, to express some of those same concepts.

I have even heard some of these guys refuse to let the atheist make any argument until they admit the existence of the God of the bible because they can't "legitimately" make any arguments without sharing our worldview. That seems counter-productive to me.

steve wrote: [Darin and I apparently posted simultaneously. We say some similar things]

Lee,

I am a simple man. I do not give much thought to labels about various apologetic approaches. Therefore, I could not tell you whether my approach would be closer to the "Thomistic" (classical) apologetics, or to "evidentialism" (I assume the latter, but only because of the sound of the word, not because I have analyzed it or any other approach).

When I talk with an unbeliever, I take whatever approach common sense would seem to commend, based upon my perception of what he/she already knows and what he/she is failing to consider. In other words, I don't enter the arena armed with a set of arguments, nor with a defined philosophy of apologetics. I guess I am just interested in genuine communication.

From what little I understand of presuppositionalism (I have read about it many times, but most of what I have read has gone right over my simple head), it is an outgrowth of the Calvinistic convictions of total depravity and divine sovereignty. It starts the argument with the presupposition that the Bible is true. Of course, I myself believe that the Bible is true, but I see no reason to expect an unbeliever to accept this as his starting point. To me, it is a proposition to be tested and reached as the conclusion of prior considerations.

I once was listening to a debate between an atheist and a presuppositionalist. The atheist gave his reasons for not believing in God (the typical attacks on religion and the scriptures). Then the Christian rose to speak. He said, "I believe that God exists because He said He exists [i.e., in the Bible]." Needless to say, he got nowhere with the atheist. I doubt that this bothered him. He could simply reassure himself that the atheist failed to be convinced because the man was not one of the elect. Had he been one of the elect, he would have been persuaded by the argument.

However, I am (arguably) one of the elect, but I was not impressed with his argument either.

lee wrote: From what I've read and heard about presuppositional apologetics hasn't been the declaration that the Bible is true to the unbeliever and the expectation that he/she will accept that. Rather, it's the idea that an individual can't explain anything without acknowledging that the Christian God exists. Basically, one can't expect to give an account of morality, uniformity of nature, universals (logic), and abstract immaterial entities (justice, love, etc.) within any other worldview except the Christian worldview. I've seen the evidentialist have difficulties because he/she presents evidence, then the unbeliever either simply interprets the evidence according to his/her worldview, or presents what they believe to be contrary evidence. The presuppositionalist approach cuts to the heart of the matter...perhaps a "radically Christian" apologetic?

CThomas wrote:Steve, I wanted to follow up on the issue of presuppositionalism, not in any way as a criticism of your debate performance or new show (both of which I enjoyed a lot and was impressed by) but simply as an effort to contribute to the dialogue.

I appreciate and agree with the idea that labels and schools of thought can get in the way of effective presentation of information, and that one should be less concerned with abstract formalistic approaches to apologetic method than in effectively presenting arguments and evidence appropriate to the situation. That said, I think that there is some real value and utility to some ideas that have been called "presuppositional" and that your brief treatment of those ideas is a little bit unfair. Like you, I disclaim any expertise in this area and base this on my own simpleminded and highly limited reading in this area.

The fact is that based on what little I've read, many presuppositionalists get very upset with the idea that their views amount to insisting that their views are true because the Bible says so, which they (rightly, I think) is a caricature of their arguments. To me the central persuppositional idea is what is sometimes called the "transcendental argument" (a poor choice of name, in my opinion), which essentially says, "Look, you have your worldview and I have mine. I'm not going to simply pound the table and insist that my worldview is correct and yours wrong. Rather, let's look at each of our worldviews and see which is self-consistent and which is self-defeating. If you believe in a purely materialistic worldview, where the universe is composed of nothing but matter and energy, then where do abstract universals like laws of logic or expectations of the uniformity of nature come from? No materialist to my knowledge has ever adequately explained that, and many people at least since Hume's treatment of the problem of induction have viewed it as fundamentally impossible. But my worldview (the Christian worldview) naturally can account for these phenomena. So any invocation of logic or evidence in order to support a materialist worldview (and atheists usually pride themselves on being rational and evidence-driven) actually tacitly borrows from my Christian worldview, thus revealing the self-defeating nature of yours." That's a highly simplistic account, and you may or may not agree with it, but it is a far cry from "The Bible says it so you have to believe it." Moreover, even Bahnsen said that evidence-based arguments have a proper role to play in apologetics, but he viewed foundational worldview issues like the one I summarized above as more fundamental to most apologetic situations. I actually think that these sorts of presuppositional arguments can be very effective, and are in no way inconsistent with the sorts of arguments you make in the debate. To the contrary, I see them as mutually reinforcing each other.

In any event, just my two cents on why I think there may be more from us to learn from presuppositionalists. I wonder if the Calivinistic zeal of some presuppositionalists might lead to an overreaction the other way.

Best regards,

CThomas