Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Presuppostionalism......an Approach to Apologetics

A few days ago, I offered the commentators on this blog, the opportunity to suggest some topics they would like to discuss. "graceupongrace" has graciously (pun intended) offered up this one for us. These are his/her words for us:


What do you think of when the word "apologetics" comes to mind? New believers who are unfamiliar with apologetics may immediately think of the word apology, which in modern English is used when someone is sorry about something. But in Christianity, apologetics refers to the defense of Christianity, coming from the Greek word "apologia," which means the defense of something. Thus, for many Christians, including many viewers of this website, "apologetics" brings to mind prominent Christians like Josh McDowell ("Evidence That Demands a Verdict") or Lee Strobel ("The Case for Christ"), and their rational arguments for Christianity.

However, what many Christians do not realize is that there is a debate about the proper methods to defend the Christian faith. Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987), former longtime professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, hammered out a method of apologetics known as "presuppositionalism," which has grown in popularity in Reformed circles through the years. In this post, I will endeavor the arduous task of explaining presuppositionalism as simply as possible.

As a preface to the explanation, I will outline a few things that are necessary to understanding presuppositionalism. There are four basic states in the history of mankind. First is creation: God, who is both infinite and personal, created man as a sinless, yet finite, being. Although he is finite, as all other created beings such as animals are, man IS personal, unlike the rest of creation (meaning he is spiritual, rational, moral and emotional). This is the Creator/ creation/ mankind distinction: the Creator is infinite and personal, but His creation is all finite and impersonal, except for man, who is finite yet finite. (I will discuss what it means for man to be finite soon).

The second stage is the fall. Adam's sin led all men to be born into sin, as "in Adam all sinned" (Romans 5). Thus, no longer was man in perfect communion with God; instead, in his fallen state, he is "hostile to God" (Romans 8), his every thought is evil (Genesis 6:5), and God's Word is foolishness to him (1 Corinthians 1:18). By the way, what exactly was Adam/Eve's sin? 1 Corinthians 10:9 warns, "We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents"; the "some of them," here, refers to Adam and Eve, of course. Eve sinned when she seriously weighed the options the serpent gave her. "Well, God says I shouldn't eat from this tree, but the serpent says I'll have more knowledge, etc..." She was not fully relying on God anymore: she was being independent in her thinking and was putting God to the test. This is a crucial point for the upcoming discussion on apologetics.

The third stage is redemption. The cross secured the redemption of all those who believe, and through Christ, true knowledge, holiness and righteousness are being regained (Colossians 3:10, Ephesians 4:22-24). However, this does not mean that man becomes perfect immediately. Instead, he continues to struggle with sin (Romans 7), though he is no longer a slave to sin.

The final stage is glorification. In heaven, Christians will become sinless again, and indeed not even able to sin. In heaven we will always be thinking God's thoughts! However, man will remain finite beings, as only God is infinite.

With these things in mind, let us now consider what it means for man to be "finite."

1. Because we are finite, we are dependent on God for the knowledge he has revealed, and cannot get that knowledge independently; thus we should not follow the world's fallen thinking. "8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority." – Colossians 2:8-9

"17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity." – Ephesians 4:17-18

2. Because we are finite, we as Christians should instead take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, as that is the only way to truly know things. "We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ." 2 Corinthians 10:5

"Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God." 1 Corinthians 2:12

3. But because we are finite, even if we're Christians, we can't understand everything. "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." – Deuteronomy 29:29


How does this rely to apologetics?

Presuppositionalism, at its heart, says that when we defend our faith, we should do so, first and foremost, from the Bible instead of relying on arguments which appeal to man's reason (i.e, arguments from history, science, etc), because the Bible is the ultimate source of truth, and man, in his fallen state, cannot be a proper judge of truth. "To trust any principle as more basic than total dependence on God Is to suppose that there is another authority over Christ" (Every Thought Captive).

If we are not dependent on the Bible in apologetics, then we are basically saying we are (1) committed to independence, just as nonbelievers are and just as Eve committed herself to independence when she considered eating the apple, which cannot be justified, because how can you know that you can discover truth on your own? Many other people do the same thing (search for truth independently) and reach different conclusions. We are also (2) buying into the myth of neutrality, that you can find truth if you try to be very objective. The truth is, no one is neutral. "30 Whoever is not with me is against me." Matthew 12:30;

Common question #1: We know that one cannot justify independence, but how can a Christian justify his dependence on the Bible and Christ? One knows the Bible is God's Word "by the testimony of the Holy Spirit and the redeeming work of Christ. God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and Scripture all verify themselves and each other for there can be no authority to which the ultimate authorities appeal. As far as the believer is concerned, there is no one greater by whom God may swear to His authority than Himself" (Every Thought Captive)

Common question #2: Isn't a commitment to Jesus itself initially based on a commitment to independence (being your own judge of truth)? "The Christian realizes this is not the case for he did not commit himself to dependence on God after an independent decision to do so. He was given the grace of God's regeneration apart from his own will. He was thereby enabled to commit himself to total dependence. (Romans 9:16). There is no independent human choice underlying commitment to Christ" (Every Thought Captive)

A Suggested Structure for Biblical Apologetics (the following comes completely from Every Thought Captive):

A. If an issue comes up that gives rise to the presentation of the gospel and an opportunity to defend the Christian faith, first admit your faith commitment, and then answer from dependent certainty or dependent uncertainty

1. Dependent Certainty: If the answer is known, give biblical answer and biblical evidence for the particular issue in question.

2. Dependent Uncertainty: If the answer is not known, give justification of your ignorance and show why Christianity is no less certain.

B. If the unbeliever is not convinced, show him that his disbelief is founded on his commitment to independence, and that this commitment to independence cannot be justified. He will have either established absolute certainty or total uncertainty.

1. Absolute Certainty: If the unbeliever is certain that the evidence is against Christianity, show him that he has not and cannot know enough to be sure he understands his evidence correctly.

2. Total Uncertainty: If the unbeliever is uncertain because there is not enough evidence to be sure, show him that he has not and cannot know enough to be sure that he must be uncertain.

C. Then, challenge the unbeliever to recognize his unjustifiable commitment to independence as the source of his futility, and present the gospel message of repentance and faith.

Remember:

A. When talking with unbelievers, we must first admit our faith commitment – we should not use independent reason to justify our beliefs.

B. The Bible is true whether one believes it or not; Romans 1 says men suppress the truth, and no matter how well we may do, not everyone will come to Christ.

1. 65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." John 6:65

2. "31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'" Luke 16:31

3. 29 Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." John 20:29

4. "49 And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?" 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. 51 But Jesus said, "No more of this!" And he touched his ear and healed him." Luke 22:29-51; the Bible does not say whether this man came to know Christ.

5. Luke 23:43; one man on a cross next to Jesus believed on Christ and was admitted into heaven, the other did not.

6. 11 While He was on the way to Jerusalem, He was passing between Samaria and Galilee. 12 As He entered a village, ten leprous men who stood at a distance met Him; 13 and they raised their voices, saying, "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!" 14 When He saw them, He said to them, " Go and show yourselves to the priests." And as they were going, they were cleansed. 15 Now one of them, when he saw that he had been healed, turned back, glorifying God with a loud voice, 16 and he fell on his face at His feet, giving thanks to Him. And he was a Samaritan. 17 Then Jesus answered and said, "Were there not ten cleansed? But the nine-where are they? 18 " Was no one found who returned to give glory to God, except this foreigner?" 19 And He said to him, "Stand up and go; your faith has made you well." Luke 17:11-19; only one healed leper came to Christ.

C. God has promised to use His word, that it will not return void (Hebrews 4:12, Isaiah 55:11).

D. Circular reasoning is impossible to avoid by anybody, but this does not invalidate one's approach. One apologist states, "Unless we are larger than God, we cannot reason about Him by any other way than by a transcendental or circular argument." He refers to this as "spiral reasoning. "We must go around and round a thing to see more of its dimensions and to know more about it, in general, unless we are larger than that which we are investigating" (Rushdoony, By What Standard?). Thus, "Man seeks to understand the infinite (he has eternity in his heart), but he must do it in a way consistent with his nature – in dependence upon His creator."


NOW:

I am not sure if my explanation of presuppositionalism is helpful or not, because I have not explained it to many people before. So you can help me now by asking any questions you have and I will try to answer them to the best of my ability.

I also highly recommend Dr. Richard L. Pratt's Every Thought Captive, from which I quoted several times (I don't have the page numbers because I've loaned the book to someone else, but I had copied several of these quotes down before). Another good book is Dr. John Frame's Apologetics to the Glory of God.



As a footnote : An excellent apologist for reformed doctrine is James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries. allofgrace (blog moderator)

16 comments:

anotheronepraying said...

May I recommend Cornelius Van Til's My Credo for a summary and defense of Van Til's presuppositional approach.

John Frame was a student of Van Til and a professor of mine at Westminster Seminary.

Dr. Steve J

allofgrace said...

anotheronepraying,
I thought your were reformed..lol..thanks for the tip...Westminster eh?...you Presby?

anotheronepraying said...

I am a strong four point Calvinist, credo-baptist, classic dispensational pastor of a non-denominational church.

I did my ThM at Dallas Seminary and my PhD (Reformation History) at Westminster Seminary - Philadelphia.

In doing my PhD I also took course work at Southwestern Baptist Seminary since my dissertation deal with the soteriology of Early English General Baptists.

I have no problem with the logic of particular redemption but I can't get there exegetically. I do believe saving faith is a gift given only to those unconditionally elected by the Father.

I started reading Van Til at Dallas and when I went to Westminster I got to meet him and chat a few times before his death.

I find Romans 1:18 ff. a critical passage for apologetics. It says that all know there is a God because God reveals it to them. They suppress the truth in unrighteousness. So they are hardly neutral in weighing evidence to make a verdict. They have predecided that they will not accept any evidence that challenges their pretended autonomy.

I appreciate your blog.

BTW, I was baptised by Dr Charles Stanley when I was an undergrad student at Ga Tech. I have a great appreciation for the SBC and am encouraged with the ascendancy of conservatives in the seminaries.

Dr. Steve J.

allofgrace said...

anotheronepraying,
I agree with your statement about neutrality...correct me if I'm wrong (apologetics is not my strong suite), but isn't that the basis of the presuppositional approach?...the absence of neutrality?

anotheronepraying said...

Yes, evidentialists see a point of contact in "neutral facts" of history, logic, etc. Presuppositionalists reject the concept of neutrality and affirm that fallen man will always "spin" the facts to avoid moral responsibility to the Sovereign Creator.

Presuppositionalists argue that the point of contact is that the unbeliever is suppressing the truth.

This is from my blog:

A Question to remove the "Intellectual Objection" Fog

After discussing the claims of Christ with a PhD student on the SMU campus and finding that the resp0nse was a barrage of the usual questions, I asked.

"If I could answer all of your questions to your satisfaction, would you accept Christ as your Savior and serve Him as your Lord?"

The answer was, "No."

My reply was, "Well then you do not have an intellectual problem with Christ."

He said, "What do you mean?"

I replied, "I mean you yourself said you would not accept Christ even if all your questions were answered to your satisfaction. So the issue can't be intellectual, I am wondering if it is moral. Moral in the sense that if you acknowledge Christ is Lord it places you under His authority and in need of repentence, forgiveness and surrender of your will to His. Could that be the real issue ??? -- you want to control your life and do not want to surrender that control."

He replied, "You are probably right."

Dr. Steve J.

allofgrace said...

anotheronepraying,
Thanks for your insight..and for sharing that experience...very wise question to ask. Please keep dropping in on us and contributing...we amateur theologians can use some help:)

graceupongrace said...

anotheronepraying,

I highly appreciate your input. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Dr. Frame is one of my favorite authors, and it's always great to talk to former students of his (and especially people who have met Van Til himself - wow!). I'm about to start reading Bahnsen's "Van Til's Apologetic," which puts much of Van Til's major writings on apologetics into one volume, along with comments, which should be interesting.

allofgrace said...

graceupongrace,
Didn't Bahnsen die in the last couple of years?

allofgrace said...

graceupongrace,
Seems I can't get anyone to comment on the church governance and discipline thread...I guess I'm going to have to wade in first..I was hoping to get a feel for where the rest of the commentators were first, before I waded into those shark infested waters. :)

graceupongrace said...

By the way,
Speaking of Greg Bahnsen (who I referred to in my previous post), he engaged in a debate about the existence of God using the presuppositionalist method here (or if you prefer to listen to it, here). It's interesting how the skeptic is never able to answer Bahnsen's questions.

Similarly, I thought you would be interested in a conversation I recently had with someone on another message board (he has a bachelor's degree in philosophy).

He posted a long article which was a dialogue between him and a friend about God, ethics, etc., using the Socratic method.

So I ask him:

"Interesting exchange You use the Socratic method with logic and reason in your conversation and you seem to put a big emphasis on this to discover facts, truth. But it seems to me that you've taken a leap to faith in your own reason, believing without justification that it can lead you to truth independently. You surely must recognize that you can't examine every piece of evidence for or against God to conclude that there is no God or that one can not know if there is a God. You are left in the futility of your own thinking. How can you justify trusting in yourself / logic / etc to discover truth?

"I think it's also worth noting that without an infinite-personal God - e.g. a worldview of agnosticism/atheism - this conversation would be meaningless, because these worldviews do not allow for laws of logic and the ability of the mind to understand the world."

He replied to me:

"How can one not put faith in one's own ideas and opinions? I suppose my faith in reason is no more futile than putting faith in God, and they are each probably quite similar. However, we must remember faith is a very relative entity--it is truly different for everyone. Still--logic is not the enemy of faith. Saying so would be counterintuitive. Faith in logic is necessary. Surely, faith in god is much more blind--to dismiss the truth in 2+2 being 4 is unbelievably difficult, while questioning the existence of a creator is rational and human. If "sin" is rational, than so be it."

I replied:

"Let me try to explain more; I often hear people say that one can only reach truth by logic, or the scientific method. But have they used the scientific method to validate that statement? Thus as you admitted you are making a leap to faith to believe one can find truth by himself using logic and reason that cannot be justified.

"I have not proposed any such dichotomy between faith and reason. Instead I am proposing that reason is absolutely futile without belief in God, because it depends on laws of logic, and if logic was created by men then there then there are indeed no laws of logic. Because one cannot come to answers on his own he should be dependent on the infinite-personal God.

"Biblical Christianity teaches that one does not make a baseless leap to faith in God, but in fact that God chooses us and enables us and instills in us a will to be dependent on Him. It's not a decision made on our own. I base this belief on the self-verifying word of God, an ultimate authority which by definition does not appeal to anything else for justification."

He replies:

"You're argument is ultimately based in faith, and therefore impossible to refute. I say "there is no god, logically." you say "there is no logic without God." I've never really been asked to "reason my faith" before. You've given me a challenge! I'll have to think about this one."

I've talked to him since and he now seems to be very interested in Christianity; he's picked up The God Who is There by Francis Schaeffer, which I recommended to him. So be in prayer for him; his name is Matt.

graceupongrace said...

And allofgrace,
Yeah, Bahnsen died in 1995; the book was published after his death, I think someone else completed it for him.

allofgrace said...

graceupongrace,
Will definitely be praying for Matt.

graceupongrace said...

Well allofgrace,
I've caved in and created a blog of my own.

http://manygraces.blogspot.com/

Evan said...

Allofgrace,
You said, "graceupongrace,
Seems I can't get anyone to comment on the church governance and discipline thread...I guess I'm going to have to wade in first..I was hoping to get a feel for where the rest of the commentators were first, before I waded into those shark infested waters. :)

12/28/2006 8:57 PM"

Well, you got your wish. Check it out.

HJ said...

graceupongrace
I will be praying for Matt also.

Lindon said...

Amatuer theologians! Please! I have had a dictionary, concordance and commentary out just trying to understand one paragraph! :o)

I am afraid my knowledge of Apologetics is limited to Frances Schaffer and Chuch Colson with some C.S. Lewis thrown in.