From what I understand, it seems like many on this board are sympathetic to or were formerly presup, but don’t embrace the method wholeheartedly. For those that fall in this camp, what do you see as the primary issue(s) with presup (I’ve tried my hand at reading some of the other threads, but my lack of a phd in philosophy betrays me), and what does your methodology currently entail? Do you still incorporate some level of presup insight in evangelism/apologetics? I’m currently reading Frame’s Apologetics To The Glory of God, and while I find it very helpful, I want to make sure I’ve got a good direction set before sinking years of study into what some consider a dead end.
Presup evaluated/integrated by Non-Presuppers
- Thread starter WillofGod
- Start date
- Status
Cornelius Van Halen
Puritan Board Freshman
Presuppositional means different things to different people. It's hard to find a "pure" presuppositionalist. K. Scott Oliphint notes, regarding the confusion of presuppositionalism, that:
That two people can be presuppositional and disagree on important elements means it's hard to define who is, or isn't, a "wholehearted" presuppositionalist.
Many consider Van Til to be synonymous with presuppositional, so looking at what Van Til thought is helpful. Yet, so often people read 2nd hand Van Til and assume that this is the true line of presuppositional apologetics, or at least the true line of Van Til's thinking. At risk of sounding like a broken record, I'd suggest a particular essay by Cornelius Van Til. He ends the essay by laying out a clear methodology. I believe this to be Van Til's clearest piece of writing.
wm.wts.edu
Blessings!
That two people can be presuppositional and disagree on important elements means it's hard to define who is, or isn't, a "wholehearted" presuppositionalist.
Many consider Van Til to be synonymous with presuppositional, so looking at what Van Til thought is helpful. Yet, so often people read 2nd hand Van Til and assume that this is the true line of presuppositional apologetics, or at least the true line of Van Til's thinking. At risk of sounding like a broken record, I'd suggest a particular essay by Cornelius Van Til. He ends the essay by laying out a clear methodology. I believe this to be Van Til's clearest piece of writing.
Westminster Media - My Credo
wm.wts.edu
Blessings!
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
I'm full presup but, like anyone else, I reserve the right to be critical of Van Til. Mostly though the areas I don't talk about are areas I'm not comfortable weighing in on (his criticism of other great apologetics people). I don't think he's wrong per se but I haven't done the research to weigh in on some discussions about that topic.
Now the Transcendental Method of Argumentation is one area where I'm far more comfortable discussing. It seems to me that that's the one area most misunderstood by people in various ways.
I'm also comfortable with weighing in on his Reformed Orthodoxy, not as well as others though. As far as his criticisms go I will weigh in on general problems in an apologetical approach.
I'm also skeptical of the "Van Til can do no wrong crowd", which thankfully seems to be a loud but small group.
How do you feel about Frame's view that presuppositionalism can involve more than just TAG? Do modern day presuppers like James Anderson and his paper "The Lord of Non-Contradiction: An Argument for God from Logic" work from a more Van-Tillian angle, or would they be considered more in-line with Frame's approach?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Neither. Anderson is doing his own and very good work.
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
First off, excellent questions. I had to stop and really think about it. So good job. Well Anderson I believe, I'm going to answer out of order sorry, studied under Frame and defended him on the charge of "Theological Mutualism". I don't want to weigh in on that debate.
But Anderson's paper you mentioned is a good application of the Transcendental Method Of Argumentation, he just applies it to logic. You see that's the genius of the TA, you can start anywhere in creation and use the method to arrive at some kind of persuasive argument for Christian Theism.
So you can begin where the person is and move out from there. An intellectual objection from evil to CT is starting from a different place than a personal objection is (how could God have done this to me). Both are about the problem of evil but our strategy has to be different. We should be about helping people.
So my general critique of other methods are, although the individual people can be adaptable, the method itself isn't very adaptable. The Classical Method has some arguments for God and some arguments for the Bible, as well as critiques of opposing views (not very adaptable as a method in my opinion). An Evidential method will seek out evidence for the reliability of the texts themselves and historical evidence. Not very adaptable in my opinion. But I would gladly stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone of them giving the reason for the hope that is within us.
Van Til labeled both as Traditional Apologetics and subject to autonomous thinking. I don't go that far because like the adaptability problem, individuals can be very adaptable and may not be autonomous in practice. So as a blanket criticism it's very unfair. Rather one should say that certain arguments and applications of a method can be guilty of autonomy (this goes for Presups as well, I'm thinking of the "what's your authority" internet guys).
So I'm closer to Frame when it comes to evaluating other apologetics but closest to Van Til on the unique method of the TA. So long story short I think Anderson is closer to Van Til, I think he's in the same boat as me.
But there's so much more that can be said here. My personal favorite, who in my opinion is the greatest Christian Philosopher working today, is Christopher Watkins. He's an expert on contemporary Continental (or European philosophy) and I just don't see how a Traditional Apologetics person could ever deal with the sorts of issues and questions he tackles. Not to pat myself on the back (I absolutely hate bragging, I have no time for it in my life) but I often have to reread things he's saying just to try to get it. He's that deep but has a genuine, so it appears, humility and care for individuals.
I try to emulate that. Which is why as far as method goes I'm closest to Van Til but style wise I'm most influenced by William Edgar. He studied under Schaefer and then Van Til. His paper comparing both is as I and Oliphant would describe it "the best thing written on the subject". I'll try to find it.
I apologize for the length but I could on and on, this is a subject I'm very passionate about. Helping people to see the genius of Van Til's method, as flawed as he was, and how a philosophy major all the way to the epitomy of great people the lowly house wife and mother can apply and understand that method to share the gospel in their personal context. Without that Apologetics is pointless.
One last point, than I promise I'll stop, another very popular and interesting Apologetical Method is Reformed Epistemology (although I believe they've tried to change the name). This would be Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, and James Kelly or something (my apologies I don't remember his name offhand, I'll look it up).
It basically argues that belief in God is "properly basic", which just means that in the absence of reasons to doubt it your perfectly reasonable to believe it.
So the interesting thing about it is it flip's the question around to the critic "can you give me some reason to doubt it?" This is a somewhat new general style of argument in philosophy and I don't want to flood the discussion with too much technical philosophical history. But basically before this time people thought that you had to in general give a positive argument in favor of your beliefs or you had no reason to believe it. This is highly reducing the actual history but it should work. I incorporate elements of this method into my personal method. But again it has an adaptability problem, it's very limited in application.
[automerge]1767825522[/automerge]
Edgar's paper on Schaefer and Van Til. Enjoy.
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
Kelly James Clark is the guys name. Had to look it up. My personal opinion is that he's the more popularizers in this group. But Plantinga's work is the epitomy of Epistemology and ground breaking on it's own. Wolterstorff is very good at Christianity in the public sphere type stuff.
He defends, quite nicely, a believer's right to have religious reasons for their political opinions and voicing those reasons in favor of say how they vote on a particular issue.
But all of them are working from the perspective of "properly basic beliefs" to their own work. Outside of those particular things the method becomes a little useless and I've seen some people go off the deep end just to defend it. But that's just my two cents.
He defends, quite nicely, a believer's right to have religious reasons for their political opinions and voicing those reasons in favor of say how they vote on a particular issue.
But all of them are working from the perspective of "properly basic beliefs" to their own work. Outside of those particular things the method becomes a little useless and I've seen some people go off the deep end just to defend it. But that's just my two cents.
Last edited:
Ricardo Rossini
Puritan Board Freshman
Presuppositionalism is, frankly speaking, in my honest opinion, sin. It's an intellectual sin, though, of course, not maliciously done.
As far as I understand, it works by assuming your Christian Worldview, and then by assuming it, demonstrating that it is the truth.
So, if the above is indeed what is meant by "Presuppositionalism", it is not only a sin, but also easily dealt with by the guy you are arguing against, if he is smart and sees through it. All he has to do is assume his own worldview which makes him always in the right, whatever the case.
As far as I understand, it works by assuming your Christian Worldview, and then by assuming it, demonstrating that it is the truth.
So, if the above is indeed what is meant by "Presuppositionalism", it is not only a sin, but also easily dealt with by the guy you are arguing against, if he is smart and sees through it. All he has to do is assume his own worldview which makes him always in the right, whatever the case.
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
This is certainly a unique opinion.
faithandfreedom
Puritan Board Freshman
You are entitled to your opinion but I think you are wrong.
I am not a presuppositionalist but those who are, including Van Til, hold to this position because they think that it is the most faithful to Scripture. They may be wrong but it is not a sin.
Ricardo Rossini
Puritan Board Freshman
I categorize "being wrong" as sin, too. But as I said, that doesn't mean that it is also maliciously done, with an evil intent. There is a difference between sinning willfully or unknowingly. This is the second kind of sin.
For example, I believe John MacArthur is sinning by believing many dispensational things. That's sin, because it's wrong. But he doesn't know it's wrong, he believes it's what the Bible teaches. So he does it not willfully, but unknowingly. He just doesn't know any better. And I still love John MacArthur.
Cornelius Van Halen
Puritan Board Freshman
Well, the good news is that, unless you are a hypocrite, you begin by assuming that you're wrong!
And with that, I totally agree!
And with that, I totally agree!
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
Well, you do have a unique opinion. But your problem is in understanding how worldviews actually work. Because conveniently the critic removes the fact that it's a view of the world! The world dictates the truthfulness of our view of it.
The good news is that this world is still God's creation and can only be truly and fully understood from that biblical perspective. That truth cannot be escaped.
But I think you're simply misunderstanding how it works. The Transcendental Argument starts with our shared common grace experience as our image bearer's, who are totally depraved by sin and argues that the Christian Worldview is the only thing that can make sense of that experience.
But I could follow Van Til's criticism of the Traditional Apologetics and call it all autonomous thinking and therefore sinful. But I don't because it's sinful to accuse people of something they may not be guilty of. Be charitable to other people's personal ideas, we'll all see how wrong we were when we get to heaven.
Plus your understanding of an extreme view of "worldview" is nothing I've ever seen a Presuppositionalist ever say. So I guess you're right about whoever you're talking about but I don't think they exist. A straw man to be sure.
[automerge]1768162784[/automerge]
I'm not so sure that's the majority report among people. So your problem is you have to convince people that, your rather extreme view of sin, your view is correct and then that Presuppositionalist's are guilty of this. But you don't even get all the Presuppositionalist views that I've read correct, so by your own standard you're in sin.
When you call presuppositionalism "sin," you are using a category that only makes sense within a theistic moral framework. Sin presupposes a transcendent moral law, a lawgiver, and objective moral obligation. If your worldview does not supply those things, then the term becomes a borrowed piece of Christian vocabulary. In other words, you require presuppositionalism to make that claim.
SShaka
Puritan Board Freshman
I remember Mr. Sproul from his apologetic lectures at Ligonier, he saying that presuppositionalism would end in a tie vs. the unbeliever.
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
That's only if it's worldviews we're looking at, not in comparison to creation. I think Sproul misunderstood the point of the method of argumentation being considered.
SShaka
Puritan Board Freshman
I don’t understand? Isn’t presupp-apologetics evaluating creation based on worldview?
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
Steak dinner man c'mon now!
[automerge]1768612954[/automerge]
Sure but your quote only makes sense if it's WV vs WV. Once you compare it to creation and experience that's the tie-breaker.
Sometimes giving evidence to those who are curious can be helpful before showing how their worldview is absurd(reduces to nothing on its own presuppositions without providing the conditions for intelligibility)
Creation is proof of a creator is sometimes easier to explain to certain people than the Transcendental argument- that without God morality/science/logic wouldn't exist
People with short attention spans(that don't last longer than a tiktok/instagram reel) struggle to understand the basics of epistemology/It's really hard sometimes to explain such stuff to them
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
I completely agree. That's why a good apologist will Taylor the discussion to the person. Say they like human rights. I I can move to the TA from a back and forth discussion of morality (without ever getting into deep waters) and how we all deserve and long for that kind of recognition. From there I just explain why I think the Christian Worldview is the best answer to that longing, without ever attacking their worldview. I don't need to.
They can connect the dots. I think people too often take internet debates and think that's all there is. But someone like William Edgar can gently walk someone through an apologetical situation with ease to the Gospel. He's not flashy so no one notices him but we all should.
SShaka
Puritan Board Freshman
I don’t see how you can talk about WVs without referring to the world (creation) and experience. I am not even persuaded that classical apologetics is good or biblical, but I think Sproul made a valid point there concerning the presupps.
Cornelius Van Halen
Puritan Board Freshman
Why does it end in a tie?
SShaka
Puritan Board Freshman
Because the atheist, according to Sproul, can just assume meaninglessness, and then end up in meaninglessness. That’s the example he gives. But you can go many ways about this. Here in this thread another possibility has been given:
So by assuming I’m always right, I will be always in the right, no matter the conversation or whatever.
The problem I see (as does Sproul) is that as soon as you give the atheist the opportunity to just assume something, you’re in trouble, because then he can assume whatever he likes to “win” (in this case, to tie) the argument. And presuppositionalism, by its very nature, gives your opponent this opportunity. Argumentation can never be circular reasoning. That’s by nature and definition not an argument, then.
Last edited:
Cornelius Van Halen
Puritan Board Freshman
This doesn't answer my question - if you assume meaninglessness, then your argument is also meaningless. I win. It's not a tie; it's the equivalent of a kid plugging their ears and screaming that they won. We see this with things like the flying spaghetti monster - the result isn't a tie, it's a demonstration of the folly of unbelief. This is because anything the atheist assumes, if it is not the truth, will collapse under its own weight.
Second, as far as methodology, a presuppositionalist doesn't play Worldview Pokémon and run up to a person on the street saying, "Hey! Let's engage worldviews. I have an unbeatable worldview, so I'd like for you to assume one you think can win!"
(You used the teleological argument - it wasn't very effective!)
I think the caricature of presuppositionism that you've provided is inaccurate.
Also, I don't assume I'm always right. I stand on the foundation of God's Word, which is always right, whether or not an atheist believes it.
That's a major difference. I'm wrong quite often. God's Word is never wrong.
Finally, while arguments have a purpose, they don't create Christians. The Spirit does. Therefore, the question is which way is more consistent with the Scriptures?
SShaka
Puritan Board Freshman
You win according to your worldview.
I (the atheist) win according to mine.
The objective observer sees a tie, since both candidates win according to their own worldview. The one assumes God, the other meaninglessness. That's the problem.
I know you don't, and I don't claim you do. But I, considered as an atheist, may simply assume I'm always right, as you assume God, and then by means of assuming that I'm always right I am always right. Simple stuff.
I don't even believe in apologetics towards unbelievers. I don't see scriptural grounds for doing so. Therefore I don't even agree with Sprouls methodology when it comes to unbelievers. But again, he, in my judgment / opinion / estimation, has a really good point here.
Cornelius Van Halen
Puritan Board Freshman
Well, I guess that's the end of it.
SShaka
Puritan Board Freshman
End of what? Please clarify.
Cornelius Van Halen
Puritan Board Freshman
I wouldn't debate a vegan over the proper way to cook a steak, and I'm not going to spend time on the internet debating the effectiveness of apologetic methodology towards unbelievers with someone who doesn't believe in apologetics towards unbelievers.
You're welcome to your opinion. I just don't see a reason for me to defend the way I do with the way you don't.
- Status
