Privileged2Preach
Puritan Board Freshman
I teach an apologetics class at the church where I serve as asst Pastor. While I use both classical and pre-suppositional methods, I see undeniable value in a pre-suppositional approach - even to be ABLE to make classical apologetic arguments.
I do see what I view as a problem in the commonly stated presuppositional explanations .... that they are largely "unreachable" for the average beleiver.
As such I've written this short paper and seek review and comment to improve my work.
KEEP IN MIND: this is aimed NOT at impressing the Van Til's and Bahnsens of the world, but to be understandable by average redeemed peoples of high school graduate level, and above.
_______________________________________
Presuppositional apologetics is a method for defending the Christian faith that begins with the assumption that the Bible is true. The believer stands firmly on God’s written word and interprets all of life through that Word. This means that the pre- suppositionalist approaches the apologetics conversation itself, in which he is seeking to defend the truth of Christianity, through Scripture. [1] In other words, if an assertion cannot be supported from Scripture, then in an ultimate sense it cannot be defended as anything more than an unsupported personal belief, a pre-supposition. Everyone has presuppositions, and many cannot be proven. Scripture – being from God - uniquely lies outside the arena of personal opinion, though in certain cases it also cannot be proven.
More fundamentally, a “pre-supposition” is something we assume to be true before we begin the process of reasoning through any issue. They lie (typically) outside the realm of full proof. The basic pre-supposition everyone everywhere holds to is that their minds work sufficiently well to properly gather the facts and understand their meaning. Their reasoning began with the pre-supposition that they are not clinically insane. They pre-suppose that their logical assessment of the issue has real hope of a successful end – finding the truth about that question or issue. Excluding those who reject all Christian dogma, there are two major methods / approaches for logical assessment of the facts for the purpose of finding the truth about any given issue, and communicating those findings: classical vs. presuppositional apologetics.
Classical Apologetics
Classical apologetics uses philosophical arguments to show that Christianity is reasonable. Classicalists begin by proving that a kind of bare theism (viz. belief in a god, of some sort) is the more sensible reading of the facts, and from there attempt to show that Christian truth claims are reasonable to believe.
Speaking personally, I find classical apologetic arguments to be very enjoyable to consider and articulate. I love philosophy (so much so, that I have a degree in it), and I like to see it used to establish Christian truth claims. However, classical apologetics does not really establish the specific truths of Christianity. The furthest it can go is to show that Christianity is intellectually valid and reasonable to believe. Note that this is not how we see Jesus and the apostles reasoning in Scripture. They defended the truth as absolutely certain, and beyond dispute. Classical apologetics begins with the notion that a person can, without bias, use reason to come to true conclusions on his own. Christ, however, doesn’t permit such intellectual independence. When it comes to biblical truth, there are two options… and only two:
“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” (Mt 12:30).
“For the one who is not against us is for us” (Mk 9:40)
“I am the way, truth, and life. No one comes to the Father (i.e. accurately grasps the truth from the Father) but through Me.” (John 14:6)
We could summarize that in this way: Christ sovereignly possesses and declares all truth. We are in the position of affirming or denying what He declares as true, and in so doing, affirming whether we are either for or against Him. In this way, truth is not an open-sourced commodity that we autonomously seek in our own wisdom or ability. The Triune God is truth’s gatekeeper. Adding in how sin has negatively impacted human reason, a self-skepticism seems justified, and classical apologetics’ base premises are shown to be less than certain.
Furthermore, classical apologetics is actually premised on certain assumptions that take for granted the presuppositions of the Christian worldview. For example, consider the law of non-contradiction, which states, “contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. “ Let us use an example: your car cannot be both inside and outside your garage at the same moment in time. Aristotle viewed the presupposition of the law of non-contradiction as fundamental to all logical thought, discussion and search for truth. We would agree. Psalm 19:1 clearly states the material creation (the heavens) indicate and exhibit God’s glory.
Further, Romans 1: 20 tell us God’s invisible attributes are understood, ever since creation, through the things made. We would assert that immaterial realities like the mathematical constant “Pi” and the laws of logic, and particularly the law of non-contradictions show many of God’s intangible attributes: eternality, unchangeableness, sovereignty, universal presence, and infinity, Here’s the challenge: where does the law of non-contradiction (and all the laws of logic) originate, and what makes them to demonstrate certain of God’s attributes? When classical apologetics employs these laws of logic, it relies on the presuppositions of the Christian worldview – a sovereign Creator God declared the law of non-contradiction and laws of logic, caused them to demonstrates Himself, and keeps them reliably true, and by means of minds made in His mage, enable us to use our minds to arrive at reasonable, true conclusions.
In contrast, an agnostic / atheistic worldview calls into question (or outright denies) the ability to know truth when they question (or deny) the existence of the God who created / declared the laws of logic to be used in seeking truth. Human Logic – and its conclusions - are at best suspect in a world where God’s existence is uncertain, where nothing holds the laws of logic reliably true for the purpose of drawing reasonable conclusions. A universal agnosticism is the strongest position available to those who doubt / deny biblical theism.
The Pre-Suppositional Method: Proving our Ability to Know Truth, with Certainty
In contrast to classical apologetics, pre- suppositionalism evaluates truth claims through evaluating the presuppositions on which they are built… i.e. accurate grasp of truth is aided by our choice of valid presuppositions. Invalid presuppositions often lead to error. Let’s re-visit our definition of presuppositions - something we assume to be true before we begin the process of reasoning through any issue. That includes more than assumptions about the functional viability of our minds to reach true conclusions. While that presupposition is fundamental to all reasoning, other presuppositions exist that affect our reasoning process. Examples of such fundamental presuppositions include:
· The existence and authority of God as Creator
· The reliability of Scripture, and its essential role in human reason
· The effects of sin on human reason and the recovery of reason through divine aid
What we conclude about those (and various other) presuppositions greatly affect both the reasoning process, and the potential outcomes / conclusion to which we arrive. For example, if we presuppose no Creator God exists (a negative which cannot be proven) , we are unlikely to seek His declared truth on His purposes for this world, and human’s existence in it. If we deny the essential role of Scripture in human reasoning, and Scripture’s claim regarding the negative effects of sin on human reason, we are likely to presuppose that man is an independent free agent, able to seek truth and draw conclusions apart from the authority of his Creator. Even a cursory review of how often – and egregiously – human reason has failed humanity shows the implications of that presupposition… man’s logical free-agency is basically equivalent to lacking a spaceship in getting us from earth to the moon.
Presuppositionalism in effect addresses the question of our ability to know anything at all, with certainty. In a world where it is likely no human knows more than 1% of all truth in the universe, and the whole of humanity knows no more than 10% of all truth ( the necessity of using such estimates underscores the fact of mankind’s ignorance with regard to a comprehensive grasp of the entire body of true truth) we are confronted by an unsettling question - How can we know with certainty that something is true? How can we claim we know anything at all, with confidence?
Presuppositionalism actually provides that answer. If we presuppose the existence of a good God who has never learned anything because He already knew all truth from the beginning, and we presuppose He reveals those truths to us, then we can possess certainty in our knowledge of that which we regard to be true, based on His revelation. If our presuppositions include the non-existence of an all- knowing God who truly reveals truth, then we are left to mankind’s relative ignorance, and great skepticism as to our ability to know anything at all is warranted. Such a presupposition makes a though-going agnosticism regarding our grasp of the truth about anything to be the most logical conclusion.
In a dialogue in which the Christian is using presuppositional apologetics, he will seek to expose the internal contradiction in the unbeliever’s position (E.g., God doesn’t exist to declare that murdering that unbeliever is always wrong. Yet he always believes that murdering him is always wrong) and then bring the unbeliever to the truth of the Christian worldview and the Gospel.” [2]
That would require a non-random world, where what is true now has always been true, and is true every place in the whole universe, under the control of a sovereign God, who has decreed the spiritual truth He reveals (e.g. murder is wrong) to be true, as He / His nature is causing that to be true, and He has existed everywhere for all time and seen all happenings, and so could reveal to us there are no exceptions to that spiritual truth which He reveals. Simply, the existence of knowable truth, and our certainty about it, requires the existence of the God of the Bible. Such a God and such a world cannot be proven to exist. He – and it - can only be presupposed to exist, and believed on by faith through divine revelation. “Without faith, it is impossible to please God.” (Heb 11:6) .
A List of Opposing Options
Returning to how Christ viewed man’s reasoning as an affirmation or denial of His person, we can develop a list of choices between alternating claims (which those who deny His person may regard as false dichotomies):
[1] https://thethink.institute/articles...etics-why-and-how-to-teach-it-beginners-guide
[2] Ibid.
I do see what I view as a problem in the commonly stated presuppositional explanations .... that they are largely "unreachable" for the average beleiver.
As such I've written this short paper and seek review and comment to improve my work.
KEEP IN MIND: this is aimed NOT at impressing the Van Til's and Bahnsens of the world, but to be understandable by average redeemed peoples of high school graduate level, and above.
_______________________________________
Pre-Suppositionalism
Presuppositional DefinitionPresuppositional apologetics is a method for defending the Christian faith that begins with the assumption that the Bible is true. The believer stands firmly on God’s written word and interprets all of life through that Word. This means that the pre- suppositionalist approaches the apologetics conversation itself, in which he is seeking to defend the truth of Christianity, through Scripture. [1] In other words, if an assertion cannot be supported from Scripture, then in an ultimate sense it cannot be defended as anything more than an unsupported personal belief, a pre-supposition. Everyone has presuppositions, and many cannot be proven. Scripture – being from God - uniquely lies outside the arena of personal opinion, though in certain cases it also cannot be proven.
More fundamentally, a “pre-supposition” is something we assume to be true before we begin the process of reasoning through any issue. They lie (typically) outside the realm of full proof. The basic pre-supposition everyone everywhere holds to is that their minds work sufficiently well to properly gather the facts and understand their meaning. Their reasoning began with the pre-supposition that they are not clinically insane. They pre-suppose that their logical assessment of the issue has real hope of a successful end – finding the truth about that question or issue. Excluding those who reject all Christian dogma, there are two major methods / approaches for logical assessment of the facts for the purpose of finding the truth about any given issue, and communicating those findings: classical vs. presuppositional apologetics.
Classical Apologetics
Classical apologetics uses philosophical arguments to show that Christianity is reasonable. Classicalists begin by proving that a kind of bare theism (viz. belief in a god, of some sort) is the more sensible reading of the facts, and from there attempt to show that Christian truth claims are reasonable to believe.
Speaking personally, I find classical apologetic arguments to be very enjoyable to consider and articulate. I love philosophy (so much so, that I have a degree in it), and I like to see it used to establish Christian truth claims. However, classical apologetics does not really establish the specific truths of Christianity. The furthest it can go is to show that Christianity is intellectually valid and reasonable to believe. Note that this is not how we see Jesus and the apostles reasoning in Scripture. They defended the truth as absolutely certain, and beyond dispute. Classical apologetics begins with the notion that a person can, without bias, use reason to come to true conclusions on his own. Christ, however, doesn’t permit such intellectual independence. When it comes to biblical truth, there are two options… and only two:
“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” (Mt 12:30).
“For the one who is not against us is for us” (Mk 9:40)
“I am the way, truth, and life. No one comes to the Father (i.e. accurately grasps the truth from the Father) but through Me.” (John 14:6)
We could summarize that in this way: Christ sovereignly possesses and declares all truth. We are in the position of affirming or denying what He declares as true, and in so doing, affirming whether we are either for or against Him. In this way, truth is not an open-sourced commodity that we autonomously seek in our own wisdom or ability. The Triune God is truth’s gatekeeper. Adding in how sin has negatively impacted human reason, a self-skepticism seems justified, and classical apologetics’ base premises are shown to be less than certain.
Furthermore, classical apologetics is actually premised on certain assumptions that take for granted the presuppositions of the Christian worldview. For example, consider the law of non-contradiction, which states, “contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. “ Let us use an example: your car cannot be both inside and outside your garage at the same moment in time. Aristotle viewed the presupposition of the law of non-contradiction as fundamental to all logical thought, discussion and search for truth. We would agree. Psalm 19:1 clearly states the material creation (the heavens) indicate and exhibit God’s glory.
Further, Romans 1: 20 tell us God’s invisible attributes are understood, ever since creation, through the things made. We would assert that immaterial realities like the mathematical constant “Pi” and the laws of logic, and particularly the law of non-contradictions show many of God’s intangible attributes: eternality, unchangeableness, sovereignty, universal presence, and infinity, Here’s the challenge: where does the law of non-contradiction (and all the laws of logic) originate, and what makes them to demonstrate certain of God’s attributes? When classical apologetics employs these laws of logic, it relies on the presuppositions of the Christian worldview – a sovereign Creator God declared the law of non-contradiction and laws of logic, caused them to demonstrates Himself, and keeps them reliably true, and by means of minds made in His mage, enable us to use our minds to arrive at reasonable, true conclusions.
In contrast, an agnostic / atheistic worldview calls into question (or outright denies) the ability to know truth when they question (or deny) the existence of the God who created / declared the laws of logic to be used in seeking truth. Human Logic – and its conclusions - are at best suspect in a world where God’s existence is uncertain, where nothing holds the laws of logic reliably true for the purpose of drawing reasonable conclusions. A universal agnosticism is the strongest position available to those who doubt / deny biblical theism.
The Pre-Suppositional Method: Proving our Ability to Know Truth, with Certainty
In contrast to classical apologetics, pre- suppositionalism evaluates truth claims through evaluating the presuppositions on which they are built… i.e. accurate grasp of truth is aided by our choice of valid presuppositions. Invalid presuppositions often lead to error. Let’s re-visit our definition of presuppositions - something we assume to be true before we begin the process of reasoning through any issue. That includes more than assumptions about the functional viability of our minds to reach true conclusions. While that presupposition is fundamental to all reasoning, other presuppositions exist that affect our reasoning process. Examples of such fundamental presuppositions include:
· The existence and authority of God as Creator
· The reliability of Scripture, and its essential role in human reason
· The effects of sin on human reason and the recovery of reason through divine aid
What we conclude about those (and various other) presuppositions greatly affect both the reasoning process, and the potential outcomes / conclusion to which we arrive. For example, if we presuppose no Creator God exists (a negative which cannot be proven) , we are unlikely to seek His declared truth on His purposes for this world, and human’s existence in it. If we deny the essential role of Scripture in human reasoning, and Scripture’s claim regarding the negative effects of sin on human reason, we are likely to presuppose that man is an independent free agent, able to seek truth and draw conclusions apart from the authority of his Creator. Even a cursory review of how often – and egregiously – human reason has failed humanity shows the implications of that presupposition… man’s logical free-agency is basically equivalent to lacking a spaceship in getting us from earth to the moon.
Presuppositionalism in effect addresses the question of our ability to know anything at all, with certainty. In a world where it is likely no human knows more than 1% of all truth in the universe, and the whole of humanity knows no more than 10% of all truth ( the necessity of using such estimates underscores the fact of mankind’s ignorance with regard to a comprehensive grasp of the entire body of true truth) we are confronted by an unsettling question - How can we know with certainty that something is true? How can we claim we know anything at all, with confidence?
Presuppositionalism actually provides that answer. If we presuppose the existence of a good God who has never learned anything because He already knew all truth from the beginning, and we presuppose He reveals those truths to us, then we can possess certainty in our knowledge of that which we regard to be true, based on His revelation. If our presuppositions include the non-existence of an all- knowing God who truly reveals truth, then we are left to mankind’s relative ignorance, and great skepticism as to our ability to know anything at all is warranted. Such a presupposition makes a though-going agnosticism regarding our grasp of the truth about anything to be the most logical conclusion.
In a dialogue in which the Christian is using presuppositional apologetics, he will seek to expose the internal contradiction in the unbeliever’s position (E.g., God doesn’t exist to declare that murdering that unbeliever is always wrong. Yet he always believes that murdering him is always wrong) and then bring the unbeliever to the truth of the Christian worldview and the Gospel.” [2]
That would require a non-random world, where what is true now has always been true, and is true every place in the whole universe, under the control of a sovereign God, who has decreed the spiritual truth He reveals (e.g. murder is wrong) to be true, as He / His nature is causing that to be true, and He has existed everywhere for all time and seen all happenings, and so could reveal to us there are no exceptions to that spiritual truth which He reveals. Simply, the existence of knowable truth, and our certainty about it, requires the existence of the God of the Bible. Such a God and such a world cannot be proven to exist. He – and it - can only be presupposed to exist, and believed on by faith through divine revelation. “Without faith, it is impossible to please God.” (Heb 11:6) .
A List of Opposing Options
Returning to how Christ viewed man’s reasoning as an affirmation or denial of His person, we can develop a list of choices between alternating claims (which those who deny His person may regard as false dichotomies):
Either … | Or… |
| A God exists who declares a thing to always be true…. | …randomness controls , and both truth itself and our grasp of it are tenuous, at best. |
| Through God’s existence, who made us in His image, we have a mind that functions properly…. | … there is no basis for relying on our minds, and we are subject to the circularity of our minds convincing our minds that we are able to grasp truth. |
| Morality is fixed, based in God’s nature (e.g. murder is always ways wrong, everywhere, for all time) | Morality is changeable, due to cosmological randomness, and / or personal opinion |
| God uses the observable scientific truths He declared to be true in order to prove His existence, or…. | All that we observe in a random world is changeable and lacks any ability to reveal truth to us |
[1] https://thethink.institute/articles...etics-why-and-how-to-teach-it-beginners-guide
[2] Ibid.
<grins>
