Terry:
I was not there, and I cannot comment on your observations, as to whether they are valid. They are your observations, and therefore appear valid to your understanding of things.
You are placing your impressions of Dr. Craig's debate with a Muslim as representative of all Evidentialism. And I can't say whether or not that is fair. I can only answer to the general approach which and Evidentialist would assume.
I would suggest that you revisit the debate, and try to see it from another angle, and see if the same conclusions still apply.
As to the rest, I will respond to you and to Paul as follows:
Again I will let your assertions stand on their own merit. I don't think I need to refute them. Instead I will use this opportunity to set forth my understanding of the theoretic milieu we live in in our time. I hope to defuse any inciteful rhetoric by doing this. I hope that by doing this we will begin to understand one another, rather than accuse one another.
As I understand general Evidentialism, which includes the Classical methodology, it is confident of being able to demonstrate God's authority in the area of persuasion on which the unbeliever relies, when he appeals to the absence of proof for God's existence. (The Muslim also denies God's existence, for he has replaced God for a lie as much as an atheist has. ) Doing this in no way sets aside the Bible at all. In fact it is in complete submission to it. To set aside the Bible for the purposes of argumentation is not setting aside the Bible as truth, setting aside God's authority, or setting aside Christ's lordship in the heart, as has been assumed. I would say that such is a misunderstanding of what Evidentialism, as a method for a certain purpose, is doing.
The believer steps outside and looks around and sees the glory of God all around him. The unbeliever steps outside and looks around him and snarls at the same thing, and then satisfies his obstinate heart that he sees no proof of God's glory. The former rejoices in the glory all around him; the latter rejoices in his "freedom" to ignore that glory and see only his own. To stand outside with an unbeliever in order to point out those things which he views as so much evidence of the things he denies is what men have called "Evidentialism".
But Evidentialism must involve more than that, if Dr. Craig, for one, was willing to show to a Muslim the same truths. It must involve the attempt to show that it is none other than the God of the Bible that is behind all the evidence that is presented. For it is not a god's glory, power and deity that is shown, but only God's glory, power, and deity. to have confidence in that is not a setting aside of any submission to the Word when one is willing to be challenged by the unbeliever for the hope one has in his heart, even while he explains the nature of creation to him.
Where I differ with Evidentialists is the outward exclusion of ontological necessities, all the while presupposing them. In other words, some of them too tend toward exclusive methodology, as if only they can show God's existence and the truth of the Word. To call Presuppositionalism fideist is uncalled for, unless the Evidentialist is willing to also call himself a fideist.
Presuppositionalism also has a witness in this area, for the objections get to be more sophisticated when the heart even refuses the plain evidences. No apologetic is going to convince the obstinate heart, no matter the evidence presented to the mind. The firmer the evidences, the more obstinate the heart, and the more heated the objections. A good presuppositionalist can show that an unbeliever cannot escape the burden of "unprovable" first principles. He knows the limitations of logic, that circular reasoning will not impress the unbeliever. And here, I believe, is the genius of the Presuppositional method: it can establish the certainty of first principles even though it is come at circularly. It actually does not "justify" circular reasoning as valid, but it can validate that which is understood circularly to the questioner.
This is how. The presuppositionalist has shown us that one must presuppose the end, namely only God's truth, in order to even begin at the beginning to reason; he has shown us that nothing else can be "exchanged" for this but a lie. Yet even the lie, in fact, has to presuppose the truth in order to lie, demonstrating the exact same circularity that the truth is being accused of. Whether we believe the truth or the lie, we make the beginning at the same point of reference. What remains is a question of consistency with the facts, and with the most basic of ends in sight, whether the truth or the lie is believed.
At least this is what I have gleaned from it.
I do not see anything proper to either Evidentialism or Presuppositionalism that requires exclusivity. Both are valid, and neither exhaust all reasoning. I do understand that many would like to make that of it, but I believe that such a notion results in many errors and wounded or broken fellowships. If all those who champion one method to the exclusion of another will only realize that all men are under the burden of truth equally, and that the very best of men's theories are less than a pale resemblance to the glorious truth to which they aspire, then we can embrace each other, and again be under the Word in forming our theories; rather than subjecting the Word to our theories and terms of reference, and interpreting it according to those norms.
If there is something that we really need to do in our day, more than anything else, as I see it, it is to subject our theories to the necessity of the Word's teachings. Whether it is apologetics or millennial eschatology, lapsarianism, or days of creation, or the legal place of works in justification, we need to be much more careful about what we propose and allow in our public circulations. If any of those things proffered in our time see the light of day in our churches, it will only make for a sectarian atmosphere: "I follow Apollos", "I follow Peter", "I follow Paul", "I follow Jesus". When we need men's theories as normative to interpret the Scriptures, then we have the necessary result that those interpreted texts are no longer Scripturally binding. That cannot be avoided. Scripture and Scripture alone must be binding upon us; if we make anything of man's doing binding, we defeat true authority in the churches.
An example: if the Framework Hypothesis, or the Archetype Day theory become acceptable as being within the Confessional standards, we can no longer have appeal to the confessions for asserting a six-day creation, regardless of what we mean by that term. The Framework Hypothesis or the Archetype Day theory has no binding effect on anyone, and is placed equal to the six-normal-day theory. The problem is that only the six-normal-day theory is inferred strictly from the Bible, without any general revelational contradiction. It is naturally gleaned from Scripture and has no other necessity placed on it. The other theories require an unproven theory to be assumed before the Bible is interpreted, instead of allowing the Scripture to interpret itself. This in every way is equal to allowing Evolutionism, whether one believes in it or not, because it negates the authority of the Bible for those chapters which relate the creation account. The liberals may have abandoned Theistic Evolution, but that does not men that the first eleven chapters of the Bible are safe again.
This is the serious danger of the Auburn heresy, as well as the Kinnaird case. It means to undermine the Bible's authority by trying to get us to impose man's theories over the Bible, thus undermining the Word's binding authority in the doctrines in question. As has been done in other areas, it is being done here: there will be a plurality of truths to be believed within the same doctrinal confession, allowing for a wider freedom to believe as you wish, at the cost of the precision and certainty of Biblical precept.
If we apply our submission to the Word as priority to other areas as well, such as the millennial theories, as has been done on this Board, then we live in such a blessed harmony; for none here needs give up his understanding since they are held strictly under the Scripture's revelation. When that was challenged, as was recently done, we stood together under the Word, not under our theories. We hold them to gain strength from each other, not to throw stones at each other.
Apologetics is only one field of interest here. It is not good to throw accusations which are unfounded. We must be careful not to believe men's teachings too quickly. I know there are some who teach exclusivity where there is none. That exclusivity belongs to God and His truth, not to man's theories. To aim these things at the church's ambassadors in order to divide is not good. To critique where the error is clear and deliberate is necessary. But if all those who are imperfect are disqualified, then all are disqualified, not just those who stand accused. We need to value each other's contributions, not criticize each other to the point of uselessness.
