Presuppositionalism: An Overview

Introduction

               Whether one is Catholic, Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, Protestant, Evangelical, atheist, agnostic, or any other religion, there are ways that followers of religion defend their beliefs. For the Christian, Cowen defines the term apologetics as “defending, or making a case for, the truth of the Christian faith”.[1] Major methods include classical apologetics, evidential apologetics, presuppositional apologetics, and reformed apologetics to name a few. This analysis presents presuppositional apologetics and includes a succinct summary including a list of adherents, as well as a critique, and a conclusion suggesting further study.

Summary

            Presuppositional apologetics goes below the surface of someone’s belief and brings to view the preconditions behind their views.[2] The presuppositionalist not only seeks the precondition of the other person, but they start with the presupposition that the Bible is God’s Word, inerrant in the sixty-six books of the evangelical canon.[3] Biblical presuppositions begin the role of presuppositional apologetics; they are not the result or conclusion of apologetics.[4] Bahnsen states, “The task of apologetics must be exercised upon the infallible and presupposed authority of the Word of Christ in Scripture.”[5]

            According to Frame, God’s rationality presupposes faith, and faith presupposes reason; because of this, faith in the Scriptures transcends human reasoning in three senses.[6] First, human reasoning alone cannot prove Scripture; second, the Scriptures contain mysteries and apparent contradictions that human logic cannot fully resolve; and third, only the Holy Spirit and not human reason can overcome sinful impulses and unbelief.[7] It is because of this unbelief that the presuppositionalist starts with the Bible. When the framework of apologetics or faith does not conform to biblical truth, then it is open to challenge.[8] Those who hold to the view of presuppositional apologetics include Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, John M. Frame, Gordon Clark, and Michael R. Butler to name a few.

Critique

             Coppenger lists five themes of presuppositional apologetics and this list will be used as the foundation of the critique.[9] (1) Traditional apologetics is essentially futile because the argument will not make it through the lens of natural or hedonistic filters that limit the unbelievers understanding apart from the work of the Holy Spirit.[10] William Lane Craig explains that the presuppositionalist is not alone, for he is a classical apologist and holds to a similar stance.[11]

            (2) The skeptic presupposes God’s existence whether they know it or not. Van Til argues that man’s self-consciousness presupposes God-consciousness.[12] This may well be true for the agnostic or the pagan, but atheist does not have such a presupposition. Biblically speaking, unregenerate man’s mind has been blinded (II Cor. 4:4), and this blindness includes the presuppositional stance that God does not exist.

            (3) Traditional apologetics foolishly honors the skeptic’s standards. Bahnsen states, “Apologetics does not first do obeisance to human philosophy and science and then proceed to encompass God in its sphere of reverence”.[13] This however does not account for Paul’s use of the “altar to the Unknown god” in Athens, Greece (Acts 17).

            (4) The burden of proof falls upon the skeptic, not the believer. Coppenger rightly questions, “Why should the one who thinks that the universe is eternal and that matter is all there is enjoy privileged status in the intellectual world”.[14]

            (5) Apologetics is best done at the system level, where reductions to absurdity are a favored method. This system is not unique to the presuppositionalist either. Norman Geisler, who is a historic apologist, presents methods with these conclusions.[15]

Conclusion

                        Presuppositionalism presents a unique approach to defending Christianity, namely starting with the view that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. This method would best be suited when discussing the true view of Christianity with the theistic cults such as Jehovah’s Witness, Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, and those groups that hold to the Bible as God’s Word. However, this approach seems rather weak when dealing with atheism, humanism, and postmodernism. The two strongest legs are putting the proof back on the skeptic and reducing false beliefs to absurdity.

            Two questions must be asked. First, what happens if the presupposition that God’s Word is inerrant is not agreed upon, does one just walk away? If that is the case, then no seed has been planted and the person is left without perhaps hearing of the saving grace of God. Second, neither Van Til nor Bahnsen have provided any external evidences even though they both state that external evidences are allowed- what are the evidences that a presuppositionalist would allow? Answering these questions would perhaps give more credence to this system of apologetics.

 Bibliography

Bahnsen, Greg L. Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended, edited by Joel McDurmon. NOOK EBook. Powder Springs, GA: The American Vision, 2011.

Coppenger, Mark. “Presuppositionalism”. In The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, edited by Ed Hindson and Ergun Caner. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2008.

Cowan, Steven B., ed. Five Views on Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Frame, John M. “The Presuppositional Method”. In Five Views on Apologetics, edited by Steven B. Cowan. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Geisler, Norman L. Christian Apologetics. 2^nd ed. Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 2003.

Van Til, Cornelius. Christian Apologetics, edited by William Edgar, 2^nd ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2003.

---

                [1] Steven B. Cowan, ed., Five Views on Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 8.

                [2] Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics, edited by William Edgar, 2^nd ed., (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2003), 8. A natural humanist, for example, teaches evolution because their precondition is that God cannot exist.

                [3] Mark Coppenger, “Presuppositionalism”. In The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, edited by Ed Hindson and Ergun Caner (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2008), 402.

[4] Ibid.

                [5] Greg L. Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended, edited by Joel McDurmon (NOOK EBook. Powder Springs, GA: The American Vision, 2011), 18.

                [6] John M. Frame, “The Presuppositional Method” In Five Views on Apologetics, edited by Steven B. Cowan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 210.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Van Til, 5.

[9] Coppenger, 402-403.

[10] Ibid, 402; Van Til compares this lens to a jaundiced eye which sees everything in yellow (p 98).

[11] William Lane Craig, “A Classical Apologist’s Response” in Five Views on Apologetics, edited by Steven B. Cowan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 232.

                [12] Van Til, 115.

[13] Bahnsen, 18.

[14] Coppenger, 402

[15] Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 2^nd ed., (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 2003), Preface page.