# Best “How To” for Presuppositional method



## TomVols (May 19, 2020)

Some works on Presuppositional apologetics are quite theoretical. Evidentialists and others critique that PA is short on real, practical, how to material.
So what do you recommend as “field guides” on doing Presuppositional apologetics?

Books in mind but anything accepted (podcasts, etc)


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2020)

How pure of a presuppositional method do you want it?


----------



## TomVols (May 19, 2020)

I guess that depends on your definition of “pure”


----------



## RamistThomist (May 20, 2020)

Some purists think guys like Frame sold out the project. The most pure application of presup method is found in Bahnsen's Van Til reader. He has a whole section on it.


----------



## TomVols (May 20, 2020)

I'll look at it again.

Seriously, all presuppositional hands on deck. I do not think it's a baseless claim that we presuppers are long on theory but short on practice.


----------



## Taylor (May 20, 2020)

I actually think this is one of the strengths of presuppositional apologetics, actually. It’s not merely about learning a method—"If they say X, you retort with Y." Rather, presuppositional apologetics, it seems to me, is about becoming so familiar and comfortable with the glory of the Christian worldview that any opposing worldview is easily demolished and exposed for the foolishness it is. I think that _is_ the practical application. It’s not just, "Here’s the cosmological argument as a syllogism. Now go repeat it." It’s, "Here is the Christian worldview. Now go live it, apply it, and proclaim it wherever you see it opposed."

Practically speaking, though (since that is what you’re asking about), the best way to learn to apply it is to go watch it in action. Go watch a Bahnsen debate. Go watch a Bahnsen lecture. Go watch Jeff Durbin do street evangelism, etc., etc.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 20, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Rather, presuppositional apologetics, it seems to me, is about becoming so familiar and comfortable with the glory of the Christian worldview that any opposing worldview is easily demolished



That works in theory, but if you are to make it work in practice you really need to be at the top of the game. A lot of us coming up simply memorized the Bahnsen/Stein debate (guilty here) and thought every situation would be like that.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (May 20, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That works in theory, but if you are to make it work in practice you really need to be at the top of the game. A lot of us coming up simply memorized the Bahnsen/Stein debate (guilty here) and thought every situation would be like that.



That’s a fair point. I am guilty myself. But, that’s why we should always be reading, so that we’re not just parroting what we’ve heard in certain apologetic situations. This is the case no matter the methodology.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TomVols (May 20, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I actually think this is one of the strengths of presuppositional apologetics, actually. It’s not merely about learning a method—"If they say X, you retort with Y." Rather, presuppositional apologetics, it seems to me, is about becoming so familiar and comfortable with the glory of the Christian worldview that any opposing worldview is easily demolished and exposed for the foolishness it is. I think that _is_ the practical application. It’s not just, "Here’s the cosmological argument as a syllogism. Now go repeat it." It’s, "Here is the Christian worldview. Now go live it, apply it, and proclaim it wherever you see it opposed."
> 
> Practically speaking, though (since that is what you’re asking about), the best way to learn to apply it is to go watch it in action. Go watch a Bahnsen debate. Go watch a Bahnsen lecture. Go watch Jeff Durbin do street evangelism, etc., etc.


I'll agree with you, disagree, then agree again 

Yes, that is a strength of the apologetic. However, I'm not looking for a script. I'm looking for theorists who display or model practical application. Sye Ten Bruggencate has argued that watching him do PA is _not_ the way to learn how to do it. Assuming he's right, then how? 

Formal debates are not necessarily the best ways, though I don't want to discount them. Not to derail the topic but have you seen the new Bahnsen book ?


----------



## TomVols (May 20, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> That’s a fair point. I am guilty myself. But, that’s why we should always be reading, so that we’re not just parroting what we’ve heard in certain apologetic situations. This is the case no matter the methodology.


I agree. That's why I asked the OP.


----------



## TomVols (May 20, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That works in theory, but if you are to make it work in practice you really need to be at the top of the game. A lot of us coming up simply memorized the Bahnsen/Stein debate (guilty here) and thought every situation would be like that.


Agreed. Which is why I asked the OP. (Seems like I said that before)


----------



## RamistThomist (May 20, 2020)

TomVols said:


> Agreed. Which is why I asked the OP. (Seems like I said that before)



There is no silver bullet method. There is no one-size fits all. That's the answer. Every person is different.


----------



## Taylor (May 20, 2020)

TomVols said:


> Sye Ten Bruggencate has argued that watching him do PA is _not_ the way to learn how to do it. Assuming he's right, then how?



I must respectfully disagree with Sye here. I did not understand presuppositional apologetics _at all_ until I saw it in action in the Bahnsen-Stein debate. Of course, I wouldn't recommend _exclusively_ watching debates to learn the method. Maybe that's what he meant. But to say we can't learn anything from watching debates is false.

At the same time, however—with all respect again to Sye—I actually partially agree with him, although not in what he intended. Namely, watching _him_ is not the best way to learn presuppositional apologetics. As a full-fledged, card-carrying presuppositionalist, I cringe almost every time I watch him debate. Even when he is paired with better debaters like Durbin, he ends up ruining the debate because his more experienced and cool-headed partners frequently have to clean up his messes right behind him. Just watch the debate I link there; it happens multiple times.


----------



## TomVols (May 20, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I must respectfully disagree with Sye here. I did not understand presuppositional apologetics _at all_ until I saw it in action in the Bahnsen-Stein debate. Of course, I wouldn't recommend _exclusively_ watching debates to learn the method. Maybe that's what he meant. But to say we can't learn anything from watching debates is false.
> 
> At the same time, however—with all respect again to Sye—I actually partially agree with him, although not in what he intended. Namely, watching _him_ is not the best way to learn presuppositional apologetics. As a full-fledged, card-carrying presuppositionalist, I cringe almost every time I watch him debate. Even when he is paired with better debaters like Durbin, he ends up ruining the debate because his more experienced and cool-headed partners frequently have to clean up his messes right behind him. Just watch the debate I link there; it happens multiple times.


Oh believe me, I know what you mean.


----------



## TomVols (May 20, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> There is no silver bullet method. There is no one-size fits all. That's the answer. Every person is different.


Again, not looking for a silver bullet method. Looking for _examples _ of presuppositional apologetics _in action_, be it in written form, etc. (take Scott Oliphint, for example, in covenantal Apologetics).


----------



## RamistThomist (May 20, 2020)

Frame has a dialogue in Apologetics to the Glory of God. Van Til has some dialogues between Mr Black and Mr White.


----------



## TomVols (May 20, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Frame has a dialogue in Apologetics to the Glory of God. Van Til has some dialogues between Mr Black and Mr White.


I don't have it with me....is that in his "Why I believe in God?"


----------



## RamistThomist (May 20, 2020)

TomVols said:


> I don't have it with me....is that in his "Why I believe in God?"



No. It's in _Defense of the Faith. _there is a discussion in Why I believe in God, but it is not that one.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PaulCLawton (May 20, 2020)

TomVols said:


> Some works on Presuppositional apologetics are quite theoretical. Evidentialists and others critique that PA is short on real, practical, how to material.
> So what do you recommend as “field guides” on doing Presuppositional apologetics?
> 
> Books in mind but anything accepted (podcasts, etc)



Scott Oliphint has some good sample dialogue in _Covenantal Apologetics._

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TomVols (May 22, 2020)

I went back and read "Every Thought Captive" yesterday and forgot there was good illustrative material there. To me, that's a very underrated book even though it was written for high schoolers.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 22, 2020)

PaulCLawton said:


> Scott Oliphint has some good sample dialogue in _Covenantal Apologetics._



That book is worth getting. I don't think his other, _The Battle Belongs to the Lord, _is worth getting. It was too basic.


----------



## jwright82 (May 23, 2020)

You have to learn the theory and then go practice it, with a lot of failure. That's what I did. Read Schaeffer, he is not pure but gives good illustrations.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 23, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> You have to learn the theory and then go practice it, with a lot of failure. That's what I did. Read Schaeffer, he is not pure but gives good illustrations.


Yes on one sense I would prefer someone more 'pure' than Schaeffer. But I have to say his Trilogy is very helpful. His "lifting the lid off" was very helpful to me when considering, in a practical way, how to gently expose the folly of the non Christian worldview. Schaeffer emphasises we do it with gentleness and gospel hope. We need to remember our opponents have worth because they are made in the image of God.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 23, 2020)

Also depends on who is your audience. Schaeffer was great in evangelizing stoner hippies. That's why his take on philosophy is better when dealing with the 20th century rather than, say, Aquinas or the Greeks or Hegel, in which he is just plain wrong.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000 (May 23, 2020)

There’s so much misunderstanding surrounding apologetics. Most who offer opinions can’t speak to any view. Partisan.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 24, 2020)

This book has some sample dialogues of how each school would approach apologetics. It's a fun book and I read through it many times in college. Disregard the last chapter, though. It bases which apologetic methodology you would use on Myers-Briggs tests. Silliest thing I ever heard of.





Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith - Kindle edition by Boa, Kenneth, Bowman Jr., Robert M.. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.


Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith - Kindle edition by Boa, Kenneth, Bowman Jr., Robert M.. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading Faith Has Its...



www.amazon.com

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (May 24, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> This book has some sample dialogues of how each school would approach apologetics. It's a fun book and I read through it many times in college. Disregard the last chapter, though. It bases which apologetic methodology you would use on Myers-Briggs tests. Silliest thing I ever heard of.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Koukls “Tactics” is worth a mention.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 24, 2020)

ZackF said:


> Koukls “Tactics” is worth a mention.


Yes. This work was recently revised.


----------



## Taylor (May 29, 2020)

This recently published book looks good.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 29, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> This recently published book looks good.



I wonder which lectures it is based on. I might have already technically listened to it.


----------



## Taylor (May 29, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I wonder which lectures it is based on. I might have already technically listened to it.



This video seems to indicate it is transcribed noted from this set of lectures.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 29, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> This video seems to indicate it is transcribed noted from this set of lectures.



Whoa. I thought only 2 or 3 videos of him existed. I remember this set, too.


----------

