A Presuppositional Approach to Evidence

Gary Habermas, representing the evidentialist method of Christian apologetics in the book, “Five Views on Apologetics,” remarks, “While we cannot sift though all the details here, evidentialists insist that there are a number of epistemological similarities in areas such as sensory data (perception), scientific theories, and the general rules and application of inference.”[1] 

From the start, this method compromises the antithesis put down in Scripture regarding believing and unbelieving thought. It has been said that if you are taking a long journey, you only have to start an inch off your mark to miss it by miles when the journey is complete. William Lane Craig tells us, “Apologetics is that branch of Christian theology which seeks to provide a rational justification for the truth claims of the Christian faith.”[2] When Craig talks about a rational justification for truth, the Christian apologist has to step back and ask the question, “to whom?” If we mean rational to God, then we can buy into such a definition. But if we mean to the unbeliever, well, that is a different project entirely. Habermas and Craig are right that there is evidence and justification for believing that the God of Christian theism exists. Moreover, they are right that we must engage the unbeliever with the evidence within the context of rational discourse. However, there is clearly a variety of ways in which we may work through such a dialogue as we are thinking about and presenting that evidence. According to Cornelius Van Til and the presuppositional approach, there is really only one way to present the evidence that elevates the Lordship of God and takes serious the righteous demands of God on all of humanity.

Christian evidences have to be presented within the restrictions of the Christian doctrines of God, man creation, and sin. What is man? Originally created, man was perfect. He was capable of and willing to interpret the facts of the universe in light of God’s revelation, thinking God’s thoughts after him. Although he was finite, he was not rationally deficient. He was perfect, and perfectly capable of knowledge. Man’s epistemic problem was never his finitude. In contradistinction to the idea that man’s finitude is the problem, we believe that man’s epistemic problem entered upon the fall of our first parents headlong into the sinful curse. Now that man has fallen into corruption, into a depraved condition, his approach to the facts of the universe is remarkably deficient. Rather than submit to God’s prior interpretation of these facts as facts created by God for God, man now insists on interpreting all of reality according to his own standards of knowledge. Hence, the evidence for Christianity must be presented in a way that remains consistent with God’s plan, the original scheme, without compromising with the unbeliever in their epistemological rebellion against the Creator.

To begin with, Christian theism denies the idea of brute facts. Facts are not just there, independent entities waiting for the organizing principle of the human mind to come along and give them significance. Since the mind of fallen man is corrupted by sin, it is not capable of accomplishing such a lofty goal. In addition, unless the facts were facts in relation to one another and in relation to the whole, no one could possess knowledge of them to begin with. Facts are what they are first and foremost in relation to God. “In answering the fool a Christian apologist must aim to demonstrate that unbelief is, in the final analysis, destructive of all knowledge.”[3]

The evidences for Christianity regardless of whether they are historical or empirical or otherwise must always be presented as revealing God from the beginning. We do not argue from the evidence to God. We begin with God, with Scripture, with divine revelation in nature and show how that the evidence before us is everywhere revelational of the God we serve or reject as far as it goes. This method shows the unbeliever that not only is Christian theism rational, or just as rational as alternatives, but in fact it is the only system that does not end up destroying all rationality. The God of Christian theism is not the conclusion of our argument in which we being with supposed neutral facts about which both the Christian and non-Christian agree. We see the facts only in terms of their relationship with God and insist that unless they are viewed through that grid, they are not viewed correctly. And unless they are viewed correctly, they cannot be understood or known to be what they are.

The only proper way for Christian apologists to use the evidence for Christian theism is to begin with God and with the standard of God’s revelation as the only source for epistemic justification. Every other approach places autonomous, fallen, sinful man in the position of being the judge even of that which is holy. Such an approach is a true compromise of the gospel and lessons the demands of God upon His own creation.

---

[1] Gary B. Habermas, Five Views On Apologetics, ed. Steven B. Cowan; Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 97.

[2] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth And Apologetics (Wheaton, ILL: Crossway Books, 1984), 15.

[3] Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready, fifth printing ed (Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Press, 2002), 57.

The Ultimate Reference Point: God or man

In short, here is what we are doing in presuppositional apologetics and what I think every Christian should do. First, we are providing the atheist an account for the hope that is in us according to 1 Peter 3:15. We are under no obligation to provide them with an account that meets their finite and ungodly demands for evidence which is according to their false standards. Their demands may be dismissed out of hand. They have no right, nor any authority to make such demands. If man is the ultimate reference point, which man is it?

 We argue that Christian theism is true and as such is the only worldview that provides the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience.

We assert that if there is intelligibility, God exists. If there is no God, then nothing in human experience is genuinely intelligible. This means anyone arguing against God’s existence is actually presupposing God in order to argue against God. This is exactly correct.

The transcendental argument asks what else must be true in order for a particular claim to be true. Hence, we argue that Christian theism is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. And the contrary is only impossible if it involves contradiction. Hence, every version of the non-Christian worldview involves contradiction and is therefore impossible.

We step into the shoes of the unbeliever and ask him to provide us with an account of reality, of knowledge, and of morality that are consistent with one another. His metaphysic of pure chance makes it impossible for his own theory of knowledge and reduces his theory of morality to radically subjective nonsense. Whatever theory he invents, he always runs afoul in morality because he finds it impossible that morality can be transcendent, something that morality must be if it is to retain any meaning whatever.

Once we show the unbeliever that his position is self-refuting or involves contradiction, and hence reduce his view to absurdity, we ask him to see things from the Christian point of view.

We begin with the infinite, eternal, self-sufficient triune God of Scripture. And from there we show how God created all things, holds all things together, controls all things and that from this God all things flow. In Him we move and have our being. We show that we can have genuine knowledge because God reveals the truth about reality to us in nature and in Scripture. We show that morality is in fact transcendent and no human is above the divine moral law which is itself a reflection of God’s perfect nature.

We expect the unbeliever to reject this God because the unbeliever wants to make himself the ultimate reference point for reality, for knowledge, and for morality.

We realize that Peter did not command us to subject ourselves to the ungodly demands of unbelievers to meet their arrogant and ungodly standards. (1 Peter 3:15) We also realize that unbelievers hold the preaching of the cross of Christ in utter contempt. (1 Cor. 1:18) We realize that we do not shatter unbelieving worldviews with sophisticated rhetoric and clever logic. (1 Cor. 2:5; 2 Cor. 10:3-6) We understand that the world comes to Christ, not through their wisdom, but by the power of the Holy Spirit.

• Atheists are enemies of the cross of Christ and of God. (Rom. 8:6-8).
• Atheists are not able nor willing understand the message of the gospel. (1 Cor. 2:15)
• Atheists operate with an unregenerate mind that is useless and lacking in content.      (Eph. 4:17)
• Atheists minds have been blinded by the god of this world. (2 Cor. 4:4)
• Atheists will only come to Christ if the Lord opens their minds to respond to preaching of the gospel. (Acts 16:14)

We engage the world in order to stop the mouths of the critics and the skeptics. We engage the world because we love God and seek to glorify Him in all we do. We engage the world because Jesus commanded us to make disciples, not converts. No, they are not the same thing.

Christian apologetics is first and foremost giving the non-Christian an account of the hope that is you through the gospel of Jesus Christ. This activity involves a positive proclamation of truth as well as it’s defense and in many cases it also involves the dismantling of the non-Christian system confronting it.

Unbelief is about the substitution of God for man as the ultimate reference point in human predication. We see this ultimate reference point reach it’s pinnacle in atheism. From this pinnacle, as it moves down toward the jungle if you don’t mind the expression, it begins to take on more nuanced and subtle expressions.

For example, while sitting on a plane in Charlotte this week, waiting to deplane, a lady sitting next to me was complaining to her friend sitting next to her about people that emphasize that boys and girls are different. She made the statement that as soon as her son says he won’t wear pink, she will dress him in pink from head to toe. I could not help but wonder where the child’s dad was in all this. The story is a perfect example of modern culture seeking to take the throne of human predication for it’s own self and reconstruct and engineer cultural norms. This mom was her own reference point and no one else, especially no God would impose such a foolish idea on her that boys and girls are different.

We see this same phenomenon in Denver, CO. where young kids and teachers are walking out on the school system because the board favors a more positive portrayal of American history than the current one which paints America in a very negative light. The teachers and mindless teenagers who blindly follow them insist in this case on being the ultimate reference point even for history.

This same principle can be witnessed by the “gay Christian” movement. These people desire to be the ultimate reference point for what makes one a Christian. They will not have anything, especially Scripture, serving as the final authority over their thinking on this subject. They know better than the writers of Scripture and no one, not God, and certainly not thousands of years of biblical history will convince them otherwise. They demand to be the ultimate reference point.

The Christian gospel begins with the ultimate reference point of God speaking to us through Christ, in Sacred Scripture, by the power of the Holy Spirit. From this basic principle, the Christian proclamation and defense of the gospel must begin. It is here more than anywhere else that our difference becomes clear. A Christian apologetic that compromises in this area is doomed to compromise in every other area even if that compromise is so subtle that only experts can see it. Where Christian truth is concerned, there can be no compromise at any time, for any reason, with anyone, ever!

  

Thinking About the Transcendental Argument

We must point out to them that univocal reasoning itself leads to self-contradiction, not only from a theistic point of view, but from a non-theistic point of view as well. It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we must meet our enemy on their own ground. It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we reason from the impossibility of the contrary. [Cornelius Van Til]

Sounds a little intimidating to most Christians and for good reason. Most Christians do not read Van Til. Most Christians do not read philosophy. Most Christians do not read theology. Most Christians hardly read the Bible. In fact, many, many Christians hardly read at all. That is the very sad state of affairs that we are faced with in modern American culture. It must change!

What does Van Til mean by the little phrase “impossibility of the contrary?” Some would contend that Van Til’s argument fails precisely in this very place. They would argue that establishing the impossibility of the contrary is not really the same as showing that the non-Christian worldview is ipso facto untruthful simply on the basis that it is contrary to the Christian worldview. But this response demonstrates a lack of understanding of Van Til on this point. Let me explain what I mean.

Copi tells us that “Two propositions are said to be contraries if they cannot both be true – that is, if the truth of one entails the falsity of the other – but both can be false…Contraries cannot both be true, but unlike contradictories, they can both be false.” [Copi, Introduction to Logic, 177] The problem with applying the traditional square of opposition to Van Til’s transcendental argument is that the rule itself only applies to contingent propositions. Another problem with the claim that Van Til’s “impossibility of the contrary” fails is that the assertion seems to ignore the difference between Boolean and Aristotelian logic and the question of existential import. Can universal propositions have existential import? Whether A and E propositions (universal propositions) have existential import is an issue on which the Aristotelian and Boolean interpretations of propositions differ. [Loci, 190]

The real question here is who decides if universal propositions can have existential import? We must be prepared to answer that question. Christian theism must assert that universal propositions not only can, but some do have existential import. The Christian God is the God that actually exists. That is a universal proposition with existential import. Logic itself cannot settle the dispute and it certainly cannot be the final arbiter of truth in assessing the reliability of Van Til’s transcendental approach.

The accusation that the transcendental argument violates the traditional square of opposition is to subject the argument to the idea of contingency, something Van Til would forcefully, and rightly oppose. What then is Van Til attempting to do in his transcendental method? What does he actually mean, in simple terms, when he says that Christian theism is proved true because of the impossibility of the contrary?

First of all, it has everything to do with relating the facts of reality, as they are known, correctly and with the notion of human autonomy. The transcendental method seeks to demonstrate that unless God is our epistemological starting point in all predication that nothing can be made intelligible in human experience. The transcendental approach simply asks a very basic question: what must be the case in order for the intelligibility of human experience to be the case? It is uncontroversial that human experience is intelligible. But what has to also be the case if that intelligibility is the case?

There are only two options open to us from which to begin to answer this question. One position begins with human autonomy. Man is the ultimate reference point for rationality, for all knowledge from one perspective. The other perspective is that man is derivative of God, a creature, and as a creature his knowledge must also be derivative. In this view, God is the final reference point for knowledge. All facts must be viewed in terms of their relationship to God and His creation of them as facts.

Van Til writes, “The contrary is impossible only if it is self-contradictory when operating on the basis of its own assumptions.” Not only are contradictory claims to Christian theism unable to approach and challenge Christian truth seriously, they cannot even stand themselves up on their own two feet. The non-Christian worldview, in all its stripes, involves internal conflict, that is, self-contradiction. Hence, this alone is enough to place rational human beings in the position of abandoning it. But abandon the non-Christian worldview on purely a rational basis, fallen men do not do. Rather, fallen men hold firmly, in their spiritually dead and ethically depraved fingers, to an irrational outlook. And such behavior can only be explained by the supernatural revelation that is Scripture.

Van Til continues, “We do not really argue ad hominem unless we show that someone’s position involves self-contradiction, and there is no self-contradiction unless one’s reasoning is shown to be directly contradictory of or to lead to conclusions which are contradictory of one’s own assumptions.” How can man be free to gain knowledge in a deterministic system? Additionally, if everything is pure contingency, how could knowledge ever be gained when there can be no relationship between particulars and the general? Christians must be prepared to answer questions, but we must also be prepared to ask them as well.

I will conclude with another point that cannot be over-emphasized in Christian Apologetics. Van Til writes, “The miracle of regeneration has to occur somewhere, and all that we are arguing for is that we must ask where it is that the Holy Spirit will most likely perform this miracle. And then there can be no doubt but that the likelihood is in favor of that place where the non-theist has to some extent seen the emptiness and vanity of his own position.”

Apologetics According to Scripture - Presuppositional, Humble, Bold, Respectful

One does not have to be a gifted critical thinker to recognize that the field of Christian apologetics has become a crowded field full of all sorts of people doing all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons, all in the name of supposedly defending the Christian worldview these days. Unfortunately, what most Christians are doing when they do apologetics in modern culture amounts to little more than inflating their own ego. From what I read, most Christians are simply interested in winning the argument even at the expense of Christian values.

I am not suggesting that we be less than direct, less than honest or heaven forbid, politically correct when we practice apologetics. So please do not misunderstand me. However, it is clearly outside the pale of Christian virtue to engage in the sort of rude, condescending, snobbery so common these days among so-called Christian apologists. There is no reason for us to assign derogatory adjectives to those with whom we disagree even if they do not return the favor. In addition, Christian apologetics is not about proving that Christianity is the superior philosophy. Such an endeavor is terribly misguided. Apologetics is the opportunity afforded a Christian to provide others with an explanation for why they have the eternal hope in the eternal Christ dwelling within them. It is not a matter of intellectual pugilism. The apologetic encounter is not about winning a debate. What the apologetic encounter is actually about is representing the truth of Christ and the ethic of Christ simultaneously. Christian apologetics endeavors to reflect truth and virtue without sacrificing either to emphasize the other. Unfortunately, far too many young men and far too many Christians are engaging in Christian apologetics without realizing just how baptized in the culture they actually are.

What are we doing when we do apologetics?

The text that deals most directly with the idea of apologetics is 1 Peter 3:14b-16. “And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.”

Our attitude, according to Peter is first and foremost to make Christ LORD of all especially our defense of the Christian faith. This attitude of complete submission is far from the typical show-boating that I see in what passes as “Christian” apologetics in our culture. What we need is not to communicate a air of superior intellect or argumentation, but rather one of humility. After all, what we know, we know by gift not by our own intellectual dexterity.  On the other hand, Christians are not to be timid or afraid of the threats from the world, be they intellectual, emotion, or even physical. This includes the fear that we may be asked a question that we simply cannot answer in the moment. The Christian is to be in a constant state of readiness to put up a defense or give an answer to everyone who asks, but that does not mean we have all the answers or that there even are answers to some of the questions we might be asked.

Needless to say, the inference in Peter’s words clearly implies serious preparation on the part of the believer. That preparation is both spiritual and mental. Christians ought to be ready at all times to engage the unbelieving culture. Even the most cursory read of the NT informs us that the early followers of Jesus Christ were in constant contact with the hostile opposition of the world. Their faith was forever being challenged by threats without and within. If it was not the threat of Judaism and its legalism from within, it was the threat of Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Skepticism from without. The early Christians had to be prepared to deal with numerous threats to the Christian message.

As sad as it may sound, some Christians think all they need to be prepared to do is vacuum our plush carpet, paint our extravagant buildings, mow our manicured lawns, and build our elaborate sets for our Christmas and Easter performances and somehow Jesus is satisfied with that sort of service. I am convinced that the kind of preparation and service the NT writers had in mind was radically different from the typical modern Christian, especially those in the west.

We are not only commanded to always be ready to provide a defense for the faith, we are told that this defense must be done with gentleness and respect. The idea is that courtesy and profound respect must be extended to those making these demands. The whole idea is to protect the integrity and image of the Church and of her Lord, Jesus Christ. Far too many so-called Christian apologists display far too little Christian virtue in their defense of Christian truth. It is the epitome of irony to ignore virtue in defense of truth. It is much easier to listen to a humble fool than it is a rude genius.  

Setting reasonable expectations

It is best, first and foremost, for the apologist to set expectations for himself before he attempts to do so with certain antagonists in certain settings. We read of the great Paul himself before the Greek philosophers at Athens and how his presentation of Christian truth ended in widespread scorn because in included the non-negotiable claim of the resurrection. The apologist must remind himself that he is an instrument through which Christian truth should flow. His target is truth. His aim is to please God by accurate representing the state of affairs as it has obtained. His hope is that God might grant repentance through the power of the gospel contained in his apologetic. His expectation is that unless God should open the eyes of the opponent of Christian truth, there will be no happy agreement in the end. Either there will be a gentlemen’s disagreement or, as is the case in most instances, there will be a passionate and oft times rude and derogatory response and an abrupt end to the exchange. Nevertheless, the apologist must seek out these engagements in an effort to spread the gospel.

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. (1 Cor. 1:21) This text is clear that we do not win men to the faith because they were able to see the truth of Christ within their own intellectual or philosophical acumen. We must evangelize the world until Christ returns. And it is when we evangelize that we will surely find ourselves engaging in the discipline of apologetics.

A view toward Christian knowledge and understanding

In Matthew 16, Jesus asks his disciples who people were saying that He was. As one might imagine, the disciples had a variety of answers. But Jesus then placed the disciples on the spot and asked them who they thought He was. Peter responded with the profound claim that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. In His response to Peter, Jesus informs us how Christians come to the knowledge of His identity. Jesus informed Peter that flesh and blood had not revealed this to Peter, but His Father who is in heaven. Essentially, Jesus was telling Peter that a true knowledge of who Jesus is comes only by divine, supernatural revelation. Peter did not look at the prophets and other bits of information, put the puzzle together using his unaided human reason, and get the answer right. Jesus did look at Peter and say, “You are the brightest of them all Peter, good job.” Instead, Jesus sealed off true knowledge of His identity from natural means. True knowledge of Christ and subsequently of the Christian message only comes by way of supernatural revelation. Without such a revelation, men will never arrive at a true understanding of Christianity and will never be convinced of its truth.

Jesus was no empiricist

There is a remarkable incident recorded in John’s gospel that many apologists neglect, and in my view, to their own detriment. One of Jesus’ disciples, Thomas to be specific, refused to believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead unless he actually saw Jesus with his own eyes. To make a long story short, Jesus appeared to Thomas and Thomas believed that he had been raised from the dead. But Jesus rebuked Thomas for his unbelief and made this profound statement: blessed are they who do not see but still believe. Quite literally, “blessed are the not-seeing believing ones.” The empiricist demands empirical proof. For him, the standard of truth is what can be empirically demonstrated. For many apologists, this is exactly the kind of opponent they will encounter in the world. No amount of evidence offered from history, be it Scripture or secular, will satisfy their objections to the Christian message. But this incident points us up to the fact that Jesus did not hold empiricism in high regard. In fact, he thought very little about that epistemological method and his rebuke of Thomas if proof that Jesus was not an empiricist.

If you are engaging in apologetics because you want to honor God and be obedient to Scripture, then that is the right motivation. You do not require philosophical training to do that. What you do require is an adequate understanding of the Christian gospel. That is enough to get you started. If this is an area of passion for you, then training in apologetics and philosophy can prove indispensable for your ministry. We each have our calling and we should apply ourselves to that calling with all our being.

Apologetics is not about winning debates or arguments or showing that Christianity is superior to the non-Christian worldview. It is not about making others feel or look intellectually deficient. It is about the humble and yet bold articulation of the gospel of Jesus Christ in confronting the unbeliever with their unbelief. Enter the dialogue in love with humility and expect to be insulted and expect to be asked questions, the answers to which, you do not know. Be polite, be respectful, and be honest. When you are forced to say I don’t know, say it with confidence. No one has all the answers. Acknowledge good questions. Be hospitable. Be firm in your message, without wavering. Do not feel as though you have to present Christianity in such a way that unbelievers accept your method or your answers. Stay true to the truth!