# Spurgeon--evidentialist, presuppositionalist, or neither?



## tmckinney (Jan 21, 2010)

I'm a presupper, but check out the following quote by Spurgeon.



> I am never at trouble about the attacks of infidels or heretics, however vigorously they may assault the doctrines of the Gospel, I will leave them alone; I have no answer for their logic; if they look to be resisted by mere reason, they look in vain; I have the simple answer of an affirmation, grounded upon the fact that God had said it. It is the only warfare I will enter into with them. If they must attack the rear let them fight with Jehovah himself. If the doctrines of the Gospel be as base as they say they are, let them cast discredit upon God, who revealed the doctrines; let them settle the question between God's supreme wisdom and their own pitiful pretensions to knowledge.--*Charles Spurgeon, The New Park Street Pulpit, "The Vanguard and Rereward of the Church"*



It is clear from the above that Spurgeon isn't an evidentialist; and it seems clear that he isn't a _*total *_ presuppositionalist because, as I understand presuppositionalism, you demostrate to the unbeliever the folly of his worldview by showing him that he cannot make sense out of the world with his worldview (i.e. logic, uniformity, morality). Spurgeon isn't going to do this. He simply says to the unbeliever that God has said it and we don't have a right to use our reason to judge Him or His word. I would classify Spurgeon as a partial presuppositionalist since he's not going to do the internal critique.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 21, 2010)

I think Spurgeon is arguing more for there being no right to argue or question God than Epistemology (how we know what we know). 
However, in the end he does say "let them cast discredit upon God, who revealed the doctrines; let them settle the question between God's supreme wisdom and *their own pitiful pretensions to knowledge*." The last few words would hint at Spurgeon showing that the atheist doesn't have _true_ knowledge, just a human _perspective_. 

The philosopher would argue that what Spurgeon is calling for is "blind faith" and that he isn't allowing for any skepticism to take place. Thats when Presuppositional Apologetics comes in handy in showing the flaws of their 'reasoning.'


----------



## Philip (Jan 21, 2010)

Well of course Spurgeon isn't a presuppositionalist: presuppositionalism didn't exist before Kuyper. Most of the apologetics of that period was coming out of the Princeton school of theology, which was heavily influenced by the Scottish school of common sense.


----------



## tmckinney (Jan 21, 2010)

Claudiu said:


> I think Spurgeon is arguing more for there being no right to argue or question God than Epistemology



That's exactly how I took it, but doesn't it appear that Spurgeon deems an 'internal critique' unecessary when engaging with unbelievers about their "reasons" for rejecting the Christian worldview? That's where presuppositionalism comes in handy as you said it. I'm just trying to understand Spurgeon's approach and why he would take his stance. In other words, would the quote in the OP show that Spurgeon would _use _the 'internal critique' by showing the fallacy of atheism?

---------- Post added at 05:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 PM ----------




P. F. Pugh said:


> Well of course Spurgeon isn't a presuppositionalist: presuppositionalism didn't exist before Kuyper.



This is a rabbit trail question, but are you saying that the evidentialist approach was the way Christians defended their faith from the times of the Apostles up to Kuyper?


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 21, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Well of course Spurgeon isn't a presuppositionalist: presuppositionalism didn't exist before Kuyper. Most of the apologetics of that period was coming out of the Princeton school of theology, which was heavily influenced by the Scottish school of common sense.


 
The Puritan *John Owen* was a presuppositionalist in practice although it did not bear that tag in those days.


----------



## Philip (Jan 21, 2010)

tmckinney said:


> This is a rabbit trail question, but are you saying that the evidentialist approach was the way Christians defended their faith from the times of the Apostles up to Kuyper?



Evidentialism was also a late 19th century phenomenon. I would suggest that something like a combination of both methods marked the church until the rise of evidentialism in the 19th century. Presuppositionalism as such is an epistemology that tries to Biblicize Kant's noumenal/phenomenal distinction.


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 21, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> tmckinney said:
> 
> 
> > This is a rabbit trail question, but are you saying that the evidentialist approach was the way Christians defended their faith from the times of the Apostles up to Kuyper?
> ...


 
That sure would come as a surprise to Owen!


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 21, 2010)

tmckinney said:


> This is a rabbit trail question, but are you saying that the evidentialist approach was the way Christians defended their faith from the times of the Apostles up to Kuyper?



I heard it said on Reformed Forum that Paul was originally the first to use presuppositionalism, or to be presuppositional. I think there were people before Van Til, or Kuyper, that used some of the elements similar to what we now know as the Presup approach. Van Til, and others, gave it more of the structure and form as we see it today. I may be wrong, but this is what I picked up on so far in looking more into Presup. Ap.


----------



## tmckinney (Jan 21, 2010)

OK fellows,

Back to the OP. Does my interpretation of Spurgeon's quote follow? Does he advocate an internal critique? If not, then would he not be a pure presuppositionalist but some sort of hybrid (for lack of a better word)?


----------



## Philip (Jan 21, 2010)

I'm not sure Owen would have recognized presuppositionalism because in his day he was writing to people who shared certain foundational beliefs such as the authority of Scripture. There are certainly merits to using presuppositional methodology (though I would argue it can cut both ways--or would you claim to have perfect consistency?), but it needs to be used extremely carefully. Again, I would argue that presuppositional-esque methods, rational arguments, and evidences have all been used throughout church history--and none of them has ever succeeded in converting a single soul--the Holy Spirit has done that.

As an epistemology, presuppositionalism presents a coherentist view that (I would say) is inconsistent with reality (as tautologous as that sounds).


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 21, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> I'm not sure Owen would have recognized presuppositionalism because in his day he was writing to people who shared certain foundational beliefs such as the authority of Scripture. There are certainly merits to using presuppositional methodology (though I would argue it can cut both ways--or would you claim to have perfect consistency?), but it needs to be used extremely carefully. Again, I would argue that *presuppositional-esque methods*, rational arguments, and evidences have all been used throughout church history--and none of them *has ever succeeded in converting a single soul-*-the Holy Spirit has done that.
> 
> As an epistemology, presuppositionalism presents a coherentist view that (I would say) is inconsistent with reality (as tautologous as that sounds).


 
An astute elucidation of the obvious! Could you help me see the relevance?


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 21, 2010)

Tracey, I would simply suggest that (at least from this quote), Spurgeon isn't being a "presuppositional apologist" in the modern sense of the term, simply because he isn't really doing "apologetics." He is, however, clearly presenting the traditional Reformed understanding that theology is inherently presuppositional in nature -- for which, see more below.

Phillip, what you are saying contains truth, but is not entirely accurate. Yes, modern "presuppositional apologetics" did not exist in the 16th and 17th century; and yes, the Reformed orthodox make use of evidences to demonstrate the existence (and sometimes certain attributes) of God: but it is of the utmost importance to understand why and to what purpose they brought forth such evidences. In the Reformed orthodoxy of the 16th and 17th centuries, it was understood that theology was inherently presuppositional: the "God hath said" was the foundation of our knowledge of Him. Yes, reason *rightly used* led to a knowledge of God (the rightly used is key, especially in light of man's corrupted use of reason), but no man's faith could have its foundation or starting point in such a knowledge.


----------



## Philip (Jan 21, 2010)

> but no man's faith could have its foundation or starting point in such a knowledge.



Basis for faith? No. Basis for apologetics? Yes. The Reformers consistently assumed a common sense sort of epistemology that included faith.


----------

