Approaches to Christian Apologetics and Critique of Presuppositionalism

For at least the last 60 years, the evangelical world has been torn between various apologetic approaches: Traditionally there have been three basic positions within mainstream evangelicalism— especially in this century: Classical Apologetics, Evidentialism, and Presuppositionalism.

However, more broadly speaking there are two dominant views of apologetics today: Evidentialism and Presuppositionalism. All evangelical Christians, in the actual task of doing apologetics, should be able move on together to a common goal, even though we have not ironed out all of our differences. As Michael Horton noted, "these debates are not about whether we speak to non-Christians; they are about our philosophical starting points when we speak to non-Christians."1

Classical and Evidential Apologetics

The main differences between classical apologetics and evidential apologetics would be in terms of their particular starting points. The starting point of a classical apologist would be reason, especially the classical theistic proofs, particularly those put forth by Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and others. The evidentialist would start with empirical data, such as historical evidence for the Christian faith, as found in archeology, biblical manuscript evidence, and especially evidence for the resurrection of Christ. The main emphasis of classical apologetics would be sound reason to lead to the truth. The evidentialist would emphasize sound investigation which will lead or point to the truth. The chief goal of classical apologetics would be to establish the reasonableness of theism. The chief goal of evidentialism would be to establish the reasonableness of Christianity.

Classical apologists include: Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, (and more recently) R.C. Sproul, Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland. Evidential apologists include: Josh McDowell, John Warwick Montgomery, Gary Habermas, Lee Strobel, and J. Warner Wallace.

The important role of historical, or evidential apologetics, is that it helps to remove intellectual obstacles to faith—fulfilling a vital function in the arsenal of the Christian apologist. "An appeal to history is far less demanding than an appeal to reason; it is far more interesting, and it avoids the sense of abstraction that makes the more theoretical types of apologetics so dull. Historical evidentialism serves to reinforce confidence in the historical foundations of faith."2

Historical evidentialism can have its limitations also. Historical facts in and of themselves do not give an anchor for meaning. Showing that a man called Jesus of Nazareth really did live and die, and that there are inescapable reasons for supposing that He rose again, does not necessarily demonstrate the proof of the gospel. These facts would eliminate significant objections to the gospel, and would undoubtedly create an intellectual atmosphere favorable to faith. The responsible evangelist and apologist will recognize that he cannot argue people into the kingdom of God with argumentation alone. Apologetics creates a climate favorable to faith- but does not create faith. It establishes a framework, making the "step of faith" easier to be made. But that step of faith eventually has to be made.

E. J. Carnell noted: "The Spirit of God draws men through the convicting power of evidences."3 By stripping away barriers to faith and the excuses people have that keep them from faith in Christ; their moral depravity is laid bare. Once you patiently answer all their intellectual questions about God—this may in turn, back them into a corner, where they are forced to make a choice, for, or against Christ.

Evidentialists believe that a person can (through arguments from fulfilled prophecy and miracles, and resurrection) come to the conclusion- that Jesus was in fact, the promised Messiah, and that His promises are true. It is not inconsistent to believe that God converts the will, and also that brute facts can be defended as open to all human minds. Evidentialist Rod Rosenbladt noted that, "If when Quirinius was governor of Syria, God became man and as John said, gave evidence of this—that He was who He said He was—then the distinction between "religious facts" and "non-religious facts" is gone. That is, when Christ became flesh, the evidence was made available to believer and unbeliever alike."4

Both classical and evidential apologists believe we can start with "common ground" with the unbeliever. In spite of the fall, non-Christian and Christians live in the same world of fact. The fall did not remove the imago Dei (image of God), including rationality. Therefore, in evangelism we can appeal to sound reason and neutral facts, and expect non-Christians to consider those facts. Of course only the Holy Spirit can bring about salvation through conviction- which in turn results in the sinner recognizing his state of fallenness- and repenting and trusting in Christ by faith.

Presuppositional Apologetics

The founder of presuppositionalism was Cornelius Van Til, who asserted that there are no neutral or "brute facts." Since the "facts" will always be interpreted through the eyes of autonomous, fallen man, who attempts to "suppress" his awareness of God. Hence, all presuppositional apologists are 5-point Calvinist—the most important of the Calvinistic distinctives being the "Total Depravity" of man which includes the idea that mankind from birth is unable to respond in faith to the gospel. They contend that man's nature is corrupt, perverse, and sinful throughout. The whole of man's being has been affected by sin, and has affected all (the totality) of man's faculties—his mind, his will, etc. As Westminster Confession of Faith states: "Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto." 

Total Depravity and Inability

Inability as part of depravity- is the fundamental premise in Reformed theology (or Calvinism) which has caused the 500 year debate on the Sovereignty of God and human responsibility- and the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism, and also other non Calvinist theological systems derived to understand sovereignty and human freedom, such as Molinism and Provisionalism. If one's starting point before they interpret passages on depravity include the premise of inability, then Calvinism follows; and Calvinism is an internally consistent system, as Norman Geisler noted. But as Geisler also said: "Problem is: I don't give all the premises." If one does not believe the Bible teaches the depravity of mankind includes inability, then 5 Point Calvinist does not follow, and therefore- Neither does Presuppositionalism, since it is rooted in 5 Point Calvinism. This overthinking of depravity to include inability, along with the overstated definition of sovereignty- is defined as what some refer to as Divine meticulous exhaustive determinism.

Reformed theologians interpret the phrase: "And you who were "dead in sins", in Ephesians 2:1 to mean dead like a corpse, and hold to the view of "inability", which interprets this passage as mankind from birth to be "unable to repent of sin and call on the Lord, or even "understand" the gospel when it's preached to them- unless God grants them the gift of faith and will to believe. Only Reformed theology interprets the passage to mean a corpse like state-to be in line with their underline premise of inability- which is seemingly read into various proof texts of Scripture. This is contrary to how most of the Christian Church interprets this passage; which is more of an idea of separation: “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God" Isaiah 59:2. 

What all Christians agree on is that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Mankind is fallen and sinful. Cannot save themselves. So mankind is depraved: But nothing follows from a correct interpretation of Scripture WITHOUT imposing the new concept of inability, as brought into Christian thinking in the 400's by Augustine; that mankind from birth -is UNABLE to respond to the life transforming power of the gospel. The Calvinist theological system asserts that since mankind from birth is unable to obey God or respond in faith to the gospel, therefore God must arbitrarily; it seems, to have chosen a select few; referred to as His elect, whom He loves alone, and only died for them, and leaves the rest of mankind condemned to hell, since they are unable in their fallen state to respond the gospel when it is preached -unless God gives them saving faith irresistibly.

Part of the problem Calvinism is the fact that this makes all of the commands and invitations by God to repent and believe on Christ throughout the Bible to NOT be genuine calls, and make God out to be deceptive- and the gospel to not mean GOOD NEWS for all, but only good news for SOME, which contradicts the message of the New Testament. God commands all men everywhere to repent, but He doesn't mean it- according to Calvinism. The "whosoever will believe and be saved" good news gospel of John 3:16,17 and Romans 1:16- and all of the calls by Christ and the apostles of "whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved", are NOT seen as genuine calls for all, but they only apply to the elect. So, although this is not a paper on the Calvinism debate, it's clear that this underline premise of inability in the Calvinist systematic underlines Reformed theology AND presuppositionalism, therefore this preferred starting point by some in the task of apologetics cannot be ignored.

Therefore, since presuppositionalism is rooted in 5 Point Calvinism (or reformed theology)—all presuppositionalists are Calvinists. However, not all Calvinists are presuppositionalists, such as R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner, Arthur Lindsley, Michael Horton, Kim Riddlebarger, Alister McGrath and others. These apologists would align themselves more with the "old Princeton" apologetic. Reformed theologian and Oxford professor, Alister McGrath noted that, the "apologetic system of Cornelius van Til represents a conscious and deliberate move away from the position of the "old Princeton school" of apologetics. This school of thought was developed in the writings of B. B. Warfield and others, which dominated American reformed thought until the 1920's, toward a position more similar to that associated with later Dutch Reformed writers such as Abraham Kuyper." McGrath contends that the "approach developed by van Til fails to make the maximum use of God-given resources for apologetics."5

Although presuppositionalism is the dominant view of apologists among Reformed or (Calvinist) theologians, this view was not even a minority view in church history. Charles Hodge once remarked that what is New is Not True, and what is True is Not New. If this is true, presuppositionalism, being relatively new, becomes suspect right from the start. Nevertheless, a movement of such influence deserves a fair hearing, and demands close attention.6

The pioneer in presuppositional apologetics was Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987). His first major syllabus produced by Van Til at Westminster Seminary was “A Survey of Christian Epistemology” in 1933. In it, he traced through history, various epistemological (theories of knowledge) positions, noting the "bearing of metaphysical convictions upon them, and advanced the necessity of a transcendental, presuppositional method of argumentation. He insisted that "Christians must reason with unbelievers, seeking to reduce the non-Christian worldview to absurdity—by exposing it to be epistemologically and morally self-contradictory"7 He noted that anti-theism actually presupposes theism. To reason at all, the unbeliever must operate on assumptions which actually contradict his presuppositions—which comport only with the Christian worldview. To Van Til, the apologist task is to challenge all of the philosophies which fall short of the Biblical view of knowledge. In doing this, he must demonstrate that their worldviews do not provide the philosophical preconditions needed for the intelligible use of logic, science, or ethics.

The foundational issue of presuppositionalism is the starting point of the apologetic task. The starting point of presuppositionalism is the Sovereign God who reveals Himself in Scripture. One must not appeal to alleged "neutral facts." Nor should one expect non-Christians to reach proper interpretations of saving facts. The Calvinists view of the fall of man and total depravity precludes this. This is evident in Van Til's introduction to Warfield's The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, "All is yellow to the jaundiced eye. As he [the Christian] speaks of the facts, the sinner reports them to himself and others as yellow every one. There are no exceptions to this. And it is the facts as reported to himself that is as distorted by his own subjective condition, which he assumes to be the facts as they really are."8

The starting points of presuppositionalism can be viewed as both negative and positive. Negatively, the inconsistencies of non-Christian worldviews are stressed. Positively, the Scriptures are shown to be necessary for even the unbeliever's rationality. The chief goal is to establish the sovereignty of God over human autonomy, and to show that the acceptance of the authority of Scripture will lead to the truth.

Van Til's philosophy was to devise an apologetic "consistent with the nature of Christianity."9 According to Van Til, “all other attempts to defend Christianity fail to do justice to man's total depravity, to divine grace, to covenant theology, or to Biblical authority.” Van Til denounces an evidential approach to Christian apologetics. Christian apologists invite men to start all their thinking with Christian presuppositions. They alone give meaning to all our experiences.10 "All knowledge begins with God, and thus we who wish to have knowledge must presuppose God's word and renounce intellectual autonomy."11 Van Til taught that there can be no uncompromising union of Scriptural authority and the authority of human reason. Whatever facts may be found, the apologist must challenge the natural man's presuppositions by arguing that "unless they are accepted for what they are according to the Christian interpretation of them, no facts mean anything at all."12

Ultimate reality according to Van Til is not nature, man, reason, causality, or the law of noncontradiction. The ultimate reality is the Triune God revealed in Scripture.13 Without His existence none of these reference points are meaningful. Van Til is noted for rejecting beliefs common to Christians and non-Christians that could form a point of contact from which to begin apologetics. Fallen man suppresses the God-consciousness by seeking to interpret himself and his environment apart from God. Since all share in the experience of violating God's law, we have common ground metaphysically, psychologically, morally, and spiritually. However, in the realm of knowledge, Van Til emphatically denies common ground. "We must start with explicitly Christian presuppositions. We must ask the non-Christian to accept the Christian's ultimate explanation, at least for argument's sake. He may then be shown that only upon such a basis do 'facts' and 'laws' appear ultimately intelligible."14 Van Til admits that unbelievers may have much truth. However, the ultimate source of truth in any field is Christ. "The world may discover much truth without owning Christ as Truth. Christ upholds even those who ignore, deny, and oppose him. A little child may slap his father in the face, but it can do so only because the father holds it on his knee. So modern science, modern philosophy, and modern theology may discover much truth.."15

Van Til's refusal to grant any common ground may have “died the death of a thousand qualifications.” When Van Til says that believer and unbeliever have no common ground, we must add, "no common ground in principle, ultimately; but, however inconsistently, there may be much truth in common relatively, proximately, formally, and linguistically!”16

Combining The Two Approaches?

Some evangelicals believe there can be a "halfway house" between presuppositionalism and evidentialism. The late Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, (1931-2024)- viewed by many in his day to be one the preeminent evidential apologist in the last 60 or more years, contends that logically, this is not possible. However, says Montgomery, "even if this is so, both of these systems of apologetics can have its own functional purpose in the overall evangelistic task."17

The reason it is impossible according to Montgomery, to combine the two approaches, is that the two views have different starting points. The starting point of presuppositionalism is ontological (the study of being)—it is a worldview taken as true from the outset. In the case of evidentialism, the starting point is epistemological (theory of knowledge)—"This starting point says that there are indeed neutral ways of investigating the world, and the non-Christian should be able to see that the "facts" do in fact point to the truth of Christianity in preference to competing worldviews."18

Montgomery admits that the great value of presuppositionalism is that all arguments do begin with presuppositions. This means it can be a great critical tool. When we are dealing with non-Christian viewpoints, what we need to do is to get at the presuppositions which are at the root of those viewpoints. In doing this, the faulty foundation of the non-Christian worldview can then be dismantled. However, presuppositionalism will be utterly inadequate as a means of justifying the Christian view. This is because in a contingent universe, there are an infinite number of worldviews that are possible. "Therefore to merely assert your worldview on the basis of its fundamental ontological presupposition, and to knock down other people's worldviews, never establishes your own."19 Evidentialism is valuable as a positive tool in apologetics. Whereas, presuppositionalism is valuable as a negative tool to get at the root difficulties in the non-Christian system.

Conclusion

Even though there are key philosophical differences among apologists, there are points of agreement among all schools of apologetics. They all agree that arguments are useful, but they do not in themselves bring salvation. There is common ground of some sort between believers and unbelievers, but not neutral ground. Sin has so darkened the mind and heart that we all, by nature, suppress the truth (Romans 1:18). There is a place for reason, evidences, and Scripture in apologetics. Only by the proclamation of the Gospel does one actually come to faith.

Reflections 

There is value in the presuppositionalists approach when appropriate—especially in dismantling non Christian world views and dealing with sophisticated skeptics and atheists. In a well known debate between presuppositional apologist Dr. Greg Bahnsen and atheist Dr. Gordon Stein, Bahnsen did an excellent job of putting Dr. Stein on the defensive for his own worldview; whenever Dr. Stein would ask him to give historical evidence, Bahnsen simply stuck to his transcendental argument for the existence of God. This argument, developed by Cornelius Van Til, demonstrates the inconsistency of the atheist in using deductive or inductive reasoning, or the laws of logic to try and refute the existence of God, since without God there would be no basis for abstract, universal, invariant, or unchanging laws, such as the laws of logic, rationality, mathematics, or even the ability to use inductive or deductive reasoning.

Although this debate is stimulating to listen to, it illustrates why theoretical types of apologetics can be dull at times; whereas historical apologetics avoids this sense of abstraction. The presuppositional "transcendental argument" is a good example of this. It seems that unless one is trained in philosophy, one could not effectively use this method in evangelism. However, the challenge of Scripture is that "all" Christians should be prepared to give an answer; and a reason for the hope that they have (1 Peter 3:15).

In my opinion, the best approach is a balance between classical and evidential apologetics. Paul gives a strong case in Romans chapter one that God has made His existence so clearly known in nature that man is "without excuse" (Rom. 1:18-20). Since classical apologists draws heavily from general revelation in their argumentation, this is compatible with Romans chapter one.

When non-Christians voice intellectual objections, they should receive concrete, verifiable answers that support the authenticity and authority of Christianity.20 We live in a world with many contradicting beliefs and claims. If we don't provide clear answers to the non-Christian's objections, they will assume we don't have any answers and seek religious truth elsewhere. Too much is at stake to allow this to happen, especially when we have the evidential resources to provide adequate answers to honest questions.

Our goal should be to not only "contend for the faith once and for all delivered to the saints" (Jude vs.3), but also to discover more powerful and creative ways to proclaim the faith. A solid Biblical foundation, a total commitment to Scripture, and a practical focus, will allow us to contend for the Christian faith in whatever cultural context we find ourselves.

William Edgar made this observation:

"The reason that today or any day represents a special opportunity—the reason that apologetics is relevant— is not primarily because we have a good understanding of the cultural context. Rather it is because of the message, the good news of the gospel. By definition, it is fresh and even surprising. If "nothing is new under the sun" in human history, the message itself, coming from another world not ruled by the sun, is fresh in every way today."21

Notes

1. Michael S. Horton, Apologetics, Modern Reformation (Philadelphia: Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, March/April, 1997), p. 2.

2. Alister E. McGrath, Intellectuals Don't Need God: And Other Modern Myths (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), p. 53.

3. E. J. Carnell, Quoted in Dan Story, Defending Your Faith (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1997), p. 16.

4. Rod Rosenbladt, Where Do We Start? Modern Reformation (Philadelphia: Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, March/April, 1997), p. 36.

5. Alister E. McGrath, Intellectuals Don't Need God & Other Modern Myths—Building Bridges To Faith Through Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), p. 217 & 221.

6. R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner & Arthur Lindsley, Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), p. 183.

7. Greg L. Bahnsen, Penpoint (Placentia: Southern California Center For Christian Studies, May, 1995), p. 1.

8. B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1948), p. 64.

9. Cornelius Van Til, Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, p.88. 10. Gordon R. Lewis, Testing Christianity's Truth Claims: Approaches to Christian Apologetics (New York: University Press, 1976), p. 126.

11. Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions For Defending The Faith (Texarkana: Covenant Media Foundation, 1996), p. 20.

12. Cornelius Van Til, Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, p.164.

13. Gordon R. Lewis, Testing Christianity's Truth Claims: Approaches to Christian Apologetics (New York: University Press, 1976), p. 130.

14. Cornelius Van Til, Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, p.117118.

15. Cornelius Van Til, The Case For Calvinism (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, p.148.

16. Gordon R. Lewis, Testing Christianity's Truth Claims: Approaches to Christian Apologetics (New York: University Press, 1976), p. 138.

17. John Warwick Montgomery, Presuppositionalism and Evidentialism Revisited (Edmonton, Alberta: Canadian Institute for Law, Theology and Public Policy Inc.), audio cassette.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. Dan Story, Defending Your Faith (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1997), p. 4.

21. William Edgar, Reasons of the Heart: Recovering Christian Persuasion (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), p. 26.