PRESUPPOSITIONAL APOLOGETICS

Presuppositional Apologetics

By Israel Wayne

Presuppositional Apologetics is the final category we will examine in this series. As I mentioned previously, Evidential Apologetics tends to be embraced most often by those with an Arminian theology. Among Reformed Calvinistic scholars there tends to be a split between Classical and Presuppositional approaches to Apologetics.

The Dutch Reformed Calvinists, such as Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) and Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977), tended towards more of a Classical Approach, which the Scottish Presbyterian Calvinists often leaned towards a more Presuppositional Approach.

The father of Presuppositionalism was Westminster Seminary professor, Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987). Two of his students, Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984) and R. J. Rushdoony (1916-2001), dramatically expanded the role of Presuppositionalism in the last half of the twentieth century. Schaeffer was, in my view, a mix of Presuppositional and Classical approaches, while Rushdoony and Greg Bahnsen (1948-1995), a younger student of Van Til, were stricter in their adherence to its propositions. Gary DeMar, Gary North, Doug Phillips and John Frame are all well-known modern-day adherents to this view.

Distinctives

One of the key components of Presuppositionalism is that everyone has a bias. We all have a grid or set of assumptions that we accept a priori when we approach any issue. There is no such thing as pure objectivity. Proponents of this view claim that everyone is influenced by their education, family, media, etc., and the information we receive from a young age influences our perspectives and shapes our worldview. Additionally, since the founders of this philosophy were staunch Calvinists, they believed that every person is born depraved and is biased by their sinful nature to reject the truth and embrace a lie.

Since, as they would say, only Christ, through the Holy Spirit, can draw a man to the Father, there is no point in arguing with a skeptic or atheist on his own terms. Van Til often quoted Proverbs 26:4-5: "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." In others words, the role of the Apologist is to:

1. Proclaim the truth. (1 Corinthians 2:4)

2. Help the antagonist see the self-contradictory nature of his own arguments. (Romans 1:22)

This approach is similar to Deductive Reasoning where you state certain axioms (or First Principles) that you accept as valid, and then seek to draw a definitive conclusion through rational deduction. The existence of God and the authority of Scripture are not proven by an external standard, but rather are accepted as Presuppositional givens. You start with the foundation that God exists, is personal, has revealed Himself through His creation and Word, and then you move out from there. As Van Til once said, "(T)he only proof for the existence of God is that without God you couldn't prove anything."

Proponents would say that the Bible itself never seeks to prove that God exists; it assumes it (Gen 1:1; Rom 1:20; Heb 11:6). Epistemologically, the Presuppositional argument would be that since it is impossible for God not to exist (there is no other reasonable explanation for life, meaning, creation, etc.), He exists.

Weakness

Critics of Presuppositionalism would claim that this approach is merely "Begging the question." You aren't proving your case, you are merely declaring it. Supporters of this approach would counter that we all have to begin with some premises or axioms that we merely accept, rather than attempt to prove. Presuppositionalists would say that they believe in God because of "the impossibility of the contrary," to quote Van Til once again. Their argument is a lot like when C.S. Lewis said, "I believe in the sun, not because I can see it, but because by it I can see everything else."

Conclusion

While I have tried to outline some generalities in the past few articles on Three Apologetic Methods, it is clear that there is quite a bit of overlap in these categories. Most apologists use more than one approach to defending the faith. For example, the folks at Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis are typically Presuppositionalists; even through they use many Evidentialist arguments, and are not particularly Calvinistic. Ravi Zacharias uses both Classical and Presuppositional methods. R.C. Sproul, a Presbyterian, leans to the Classical Approach. My personal assessment is that all three methods discussed in this series have their strengths and should be learned and utilized by those wanting to defend the Christian faith.

Copyright 2008, by Israel Wayne. All Rights Reserved.

Israel Wayne was home educated and currently serves as Marketing Director for the national publication Home School Digest, and the site editor for www.ChristianWorldview.net. He is the author of the book, Homeschooling from a Biblical Worldview, published by Wisdom's Gate. Israel and his wife Brook (also a homeschool graduate) have five young children. Write to: Wisdom's Gate, P.O. Box 374, Covert, MI 49043. 1-800-343-1943 or www.WisdomsGate.org

By Israel Wayne Click here for bio and archived articles

Not very Calvanistic? Posted On: 04/02/10 05:28:01 PM Age 50, OH AiG is very Calvanistic They say over and over we can't open their hearts it is up to the Holy Spirit because we are fallen and therefore incapable. Isn't that Calvanism? Presuppositional superiority Posted On: 03/23/10 06:15:03 PM Age 37, FL This is addressed to Mr. Wayne on his article summarizing Presuppositional apologetics. Briefly, you state "There is no such thing as pure objectivity" according to TAG (transcendental argument for God's existence- aka presuppositionalism). That is not accurate. The claim is that there is no neutrality, but objective, apodictic certainty is only within the bible. TAG deals with the preconditions of thought, that is how is it possible to know anything (epistemology) and argues that the method is to compare the unbelievers world views with the bible and see that the bible provides the precondition for intelligibility and the unbelieving worldviews do not. This also encompasses any arguments from evidence as they presuppose canons of logic and laws of science apart from dependence upon God. Bahnsen argues that this is immoral to do so and illogical. In other words logic and science and morality derive their intelligibility only within the Christian worldview (the whole of scripture) and should not be argued piece by piece. Neither should the unbelievers be granted the convenience that they are objectively neutral. Rather the apologist should point out to the unbeliever that his position on logic morality and science require presuppositions within a larger framework. And point out the failure of their worldview and thus their attack on the scripture falls. Similar to how C.S.Lewis as an atheist concluded that his argument that the existence of evil disproved the Christian God until he realized that his idea of evil fails without the Christian God, thus he had to abandon it. Van Til demonstrates the same thing with logic and science. It is absolutely the most rational and the most honoring to God to argue this way, because it gives him glory as the source of logic science and morality instead of pretending to be neutral on these preconditions of knowledge and evidence.