Massimo's Blog
Witnessing Without Fear
Featured Article
Featured Books
|
Frontline Ministries - Defending the Faith: An Introduction to the Presuppositional Method
Defending the Faith
An Introduction to the Presuppositional Method
Massimo Lorenzini
Christian apologetics is the science of defending the Christian faith against intellectual accusations and objections whether
they come from hostile skeptics or sincere seekers.(1)
"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer [or defense; Greek: apologia] to
everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15,
NIV).
What is the proper method and approach to use in fulfilling this biblical obligation?
There are two basic apologetic methods: evidentialism and presuppositionalism. Evidentialism (also called Classical
apologetics) is the method of Catholics, Arminians, and many inconsistent Calvinists.
Evidentialism
Evidentialism is the methodology that believes that there is epistemological(2) common ground between the between the
believer and the unbeliever. Evidentialists hold that man's mind is neutral and is capable of judging the credibility of truth claims. The evidentialist puts God on trial using the unbeliever's
mind as a neutral court. He appeals to reason and proceeds to faith using empirical evidences or historically verifiable facts
to argue a probability case for God.
They argue using laws of logic and so-called neutral evidences, seeking to avoid circular reasoning in favor of flat-line
reasoning. However, even evidentialists use circular reasoning as they begin with independent rationalism and empiricism as
their ultimate starting points (i.e. presuppositions).
The main problem with evidentialism is that it grants the unbeliever too much. The evidentialist grants the unbeliever the
right to think autonomously (independently) while at the same time asking him to give up his autonomy through conversion.
This is theologically impossible. The unbeliever will always employ his tools of reason to dismiss the arguments for
Christianity.
Evidentialism is thought of as a form of pre-evangelism; an intellectual preparation that precedes the actual gospel
presentation. It is a rational and empirical task that is logically prior to any theological considerations.
On the other hand, presuppositionalism presents the gospel first, then follows with an apologetic defense if objections to
faith are given.
Presuppositionalism
Presuppositionalism is the method that places the Christian worldview and it's starting point over against the non-Christian
worldview and its starting point. It places Christian presuppositions (or ultimate starting points) over against non-Christian
presuppositions.
While evidentialism seeks to walk side-by-side with the unbeliever intellectually, presuppositionalism attacks the
unbelieving worldview with a head-on collision. It understands that common ground is not "facts" upon which both agree,
but rather the inescapable sense of Deity (sensus divinitatis) that exists in every person (Rom 1:18-22) and the knowledge of
God we have via creation itself (Ps 19:1-4).
Therefore, we are not making a probability case, as the evidentialist, be we are making an absolute case. Christianity offers
absolute certainty:
1 Jn 5:13, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, the you may know that you have
eternal life."(3)
Acts 2:36, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly [for certain] that God has made this Jesus, whom you
crucified, both Lord and Christ."
John 3:33, "He who has received His testimony has certified that God is true."
Luke 1:4, "that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed."
John 20:31, "but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may
have life in His name."
Presuppositionalism presents reason and evidences within a biblical framework. Isaac Newton said, "The task of the scientist
is to think God's thoughts after Him." To do otherwise is to be a fool (Ps 14:1; 10:4; Prov 1:7). The presuppositionalist puts
the unbeliever on trial and exposes his true problem: His total commitment to autonomy.
Ultimately there are only two possible positions: Independence from God or dependence upon God; autonomous use of
reason or biblical reasoning that is under submission to the Lordship of Christ.
Fallen man's most ultimate epistemological commitment is not to logic and science but to his belief in the lie of
Satan--that man can be as God in the sense of being his own ultimate authority and do so successfully.
Since there can be only one truly ultimate authority, the most ultimate authority cannot be both the Word of God and the
word of man. Satan challenged man to put God on trial, elevating himself over the Word of God as its judge. If the Word of
God is true, it is only because man has judged it to be true. Man can successfully be as God. Man can be the measure of
all things and the master of his own destiny and his world won't fall apart. That is fallen man's most basic philosophical
commitment.
Before the fall, Adam and Eve lived happily in the Garden of Eden under the authority of God, recognizing the Creator-creature distinction. They lived in dependence upon God. However, God allowed their obedience to be tested (Gen 2:17).
God was testing Adam and Eve to see if they would recognize or deny the authority of God and their dependence upon
Him. In Gen 3:1-3 we see the serpent approached Eve and tempted her to forsake what God had commanded. The serpent
presented the woman with the most important choice of her life (Gen 3:4-5). Eat the forbidden fruit and the Creator-creature distinction would be removed, was the lie (v. 5).
The woman had the choice either to believe God or the serpent. We see essence of Eve's error in verse 6. Eve thought to
herself, "I don't need to listen to others, I will make laws myself; I will decide for myself what is right and wrong!" She
placed the revelation of the independent Creator God on the same level as the words of the dependent created serpent and
set herself up as ultimate judge between them. She ate and gave to her husband who also ate and the human race came
under the power of sin.
This, then, is the essence of sin; man's rebellion against recognizing his dependence upon God in everything and the
assumption of this ability to be independent of God.
God is the only source of true knowledge and of life itself. To be separated from God brings darkness of understanding
and ultimately death because man, contrary to what he foolishly believes, is utterly dependent upon God (cf. Acts 17:22-31).
Both before and after the fall, man psychologically started with himself as the immediate agent of his own thought and
experience. But only after the fall did man presuppositionally start with himself as the ultimate measure of reality. Before the fall, man sought to think God's thoughts after Him and to
interpret experience in the light of God's Word.
After the fall, man became a "free thinker" and sought to univocally give the "brute" facts of an impersonal universe their
original definition. (Brute facts are supposedly neutral facts that are uninterpreted.) Fallen man's commitment to Satan's lie
as his ultimate presupposition is the foundation of fallen man's total life orientation. The result is that fallen man has a radical
sin bias that blinds him to the truth about God and Christ and Scripture.(4)
This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of
their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in
them, because of the blindness of their heart (Ephesians 4:17-18).
The problem is not that natural man in the pagan environment has no witness to God's truth. The whole world is pulsating
with the revelation of God (Psalm 19); there is no escaping it. And man, the creature created in God's image, also has an
inner witness to God's truth (Romans 2:14-16). The problem is not a lack of revelation but natural man's interpretation of
this revelation. Knowledge of the true and living God bombards fallen man, but he "suppresses the truth in unrighteousness"
and "exchange(s) the truth of God for the lie" (Romans 1:18, 25). Fallen man takes the objective knowledge of general
revelation and subjectively filters it through his sin orientation throughout the cognition process. The route from revelation
to theology is interpretation, and natural man can only interpret in terms of his radical sin bias.
In spite of general revelation, the pagan world does not know the true and the living God because of the distorting nature of
worldly wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:21). Fallen man's intellectual sin bias is so basic and so complete that even when he is
exposed to God's truth in plain language through the special revelation of Scripture, he still does not know God's truth in
any spiritually significant sense (1 Corinthians 2:14). He knows but he does not know (Isaiah 6:9). The god of this age has
blinded his mind (2 Corinthians 4:4). He is like an illiterate man with an open book in his hands (Isaiah 29:12). He sees
God's truth spelled out before him but he cannot grasp its meaning, for to rationally comprehend God's truth is to be
persuaded by it and to submit to it in faith. To know the formal content of God's special revelation and not to believe is to
see without perceiving (cf. Acts 28:24-28).
The way to deal with fallen man is not to cater to his illusions by telling him he has the authority and ability to weigh the
truth of God on the scales of autonomous reason. The way to deal with fallen man is to argue against his illusions and to
expose Satan's lie for what it is. For man to reject the true and living God and to seek to be as God is to choose death. And
not just physical death but multidimensional death and radical death, death that reaches every area of life and penetrates to
the very heart of life.
Man through sin has separated himself from God, but God in common grace continues to uphold life for both the just and
the unjust. Fallen man continues to live and function not because of his worldview but in spite of it. Man experiences the
effects of sin in a limited way because of God's common grace, but in Hell unredeemed men will feel the effects of
independence completely.
We must seek to show fallen man that his worldview contradicts his own life experience. Man values logic, but apart from
God, there is no reason why the mental laws of logic should have any true correspondence to objective reality. Man values
science, but apart from God, there is no adequate basis for any real order and design in the universe or any assurance that
man is really in touch with objective reality through his senses. Man values ethics, but apart from God, morals are merely
changing conventions, and today's abomination can become tomorrow's virtue. Man values human personhood, but apart
from God, man is but a higher animal or even an advanced machine, and personal existence is a temporary evolutionary fluke
in an impersonal universe. Man values purpose and meaning, but apart from God, these have no real basis.
If fallen man is right in his worldview, then all in the world that is precious dies. The apologist must press home without
compromise the point that philosophy and science based not upon Christ but upon the first principles of the world are
"empty deceit" (Colossians 1:8) and "foolishness" (1 Corinthians 3:18-19).
Even as the skeptic argues against God, he is using logic and language, which exist and have meaning only because of God.
As Van Til has said, the skeptic is like the little girl who is able to slap her father's face only because she is sitting on her
father's lap.
Apart from the regenerating grace of God, fallen man will rebel against these arguments. He will continue to cling to his
lie. All the Christian can do is to argue from the Bible that the man who denies the Christian God is truly a fool and that the
forbidden fruit will indeed turn to gravel in his mouth. We plead and argue, but only God can cause the blind to see and the
deaf to hear.
After seeking to drive the non-Christian "below the line of despair" by demonstrating the self-contradictory nature of his
world, the Christian then points him to the one solid Rock upon which he can build a valid world and life view. And of
course that one solid Rock is Christ. The apologist presents Christ as the Sovereign Savior and Lord and proclaims His
Word as ultimate, self-authenticating truth. In the final analysis, we accept the authority of God's Word simply because it is
God's Word. God can swear by no one higher than Himself (Heb 6:13), there is therefore no higher authority than God's
Word upon which to base our acceptance of God's Word. The apologist cannot make human logic and science his self-authenticating authorities and then use these to prove God. Logic and science derive their authenticity and authority from
God, not vice versa.
What then is the proper place for evidence in the apologetic task? Evidences must be presented in the defining context of the
gospel message. It is in the context of the preached Word that God works His work of regenerating grace which enables the
spiritually blind to see and believe. Evidences, no matter how compelling, do not convince those who have not submitted
to God's Word in faith (Luke 16:31). Because of the noetic(5) effects of sin, fallen man must be born from above in order to
see the kingdom of God (John 3:3). Fallen man submits to the "arguments whereby [holy scripture] doth abundantly
evidence itself to be the word of God" only in the context of "the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and
with the word in our hearts" (Westminster Confession, 1.5).
In our witnessing, we do present evidence but only in the defining context of the Word. We have the historical evidences of
miracles, especially the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and fulfilled prophecy. We have the testimonies of changed
lives. We have a basis for science in the God who created an orderly universe of design and gave man both senses that really
are in touch with objective reality and rational minds with a logic that really does measure truth in the created realm. We
have a basis for purpose, meaning and morality, for the ultimate reality is the personal God of Scripture and not an
impersonal universe or impersonal axioms. We accept God as God and we find flowing out of this a world that is the real
world, and everyone in their heart of hearts knows it.
Here we find the true common ground between Christian and non-Christian. They both live in the real world created by God
and covered with His finger prints. They were both created in God's image. They both know in their heart of hearts that the
God of Scripture is the true and the living God and that the Bible is His Book. But, the Christian and the non-Christian do
not agree on this common ground. Only the born again Christian has admitted to himself what all men in their innermost
being know to be true. The non-christian remains self-deceived and is blinded by his love for Satan's lie of independence. All
non-Christians will reject the claims of Christ in their determination to be independent because they never think nor act
according to any principle other than their own supposed independence. Every thought contrary to Christianity which the
unbeliever has results from his desire to set himself up as the independent judge of truth.
Presuppositional apologetics does not throw out evidence but acknowledges that evidence can have its proper significance
and impact only in the context of saving faith. It defends the faith without idolatrously elevating human reason above God
(rationalism) or abandoning reason altogether (irrationalism).
There are traditionally three approaches to faith and reason:
- The rationalistic apologetic: Thomas Aquinas, "I believe because I understand."
- The irrational, fideistic apologetic: Tertullian, "I believe what is absurd."
- The presuppositional apologetic: Augustine, "I believe; therefore, I understand."
Contrary to rationalism, human reason is not a religiously neutral or independent realm that is philosophically prior to faith.
Contrary to irrationalism, human reason need not be a futile and impossible task that is contrary to true faith. Consistent
with presuppositionalism, the realm of true faith encompasses all and is prior to all, including logic and science, and only in
the context of faith is a rational and orderly world possible.
The Basic Structure of a Biblical Defense(6)
I. A Christian Witness
A. Begin with a clear presentation of the gospel with the full assurance that it is true and fully defensible.
1. Ask for the opportunity to present the Christian worldview.
2. Present God, creation, fall, sin, man's condition, Christ's person and work, salvation, repentance, faith, and
man's need for dependence on Christ rather than independence.
B. Call for the unbeliever to submit to his Creator and to use his mind to think dependently upon God rather than independently outside of God.
C. Answer honest questions of understanding and clarification.
1. Be sure to detect questions that are merely a smokescreen to keep the person from coming face to face with
his need for God. One way to do this if it's not totally obvious is to ask, "If I answered this question to your
satisfaction would it help you to become a believer?"
2. Present Christian answers and Christian evidences within the framework of the Christian worldview.
D. Call for repentance and faith.
II. A Christian Defense
Example: "I see no convincing evidence that the Bible is true; it's just a book written by men."
A. Answer from truth (Proverbs 26:4).
1. The principle: Do not answer a fool according to his philosophy or worldview lest you be like him. To
argue from within his worldview is to encourage his rebellion and commitment to independence from God.
2. The application: Reason with him from the Bible.
a) Press him back to the Bible.
b) Insist that the Bible is the only possible position.
3. Example:
a) My answer is rooted in the Bible (Acts 17:23-24).
b) Allow me to present the Christian explanation for this question:
(i) The evidence of Scripture, 1 Cor 15:3-4.
(ii) The evidence of the external world, 1 Cor 15:5-7.
(iii) The evidence of personal experience, 1 Cor 15:8.
c) Expose the reason why the unbeliever rejects your answer. Ask the "Why" question to push
him back to his starting point of self-authority or autonomy.
(i) Why do you reject the message of the Bible?
(ii) Why do you reject its claim of inspiration?
(iii) What authority gives you the basis to reject the Bible?
d) Appeal to the knowledge of God he already has.
(i) Divine image within man.
(ii) Revelation of God in creation.
(iii) God's Spirit working through his conscience bears witness to the truth of Scripture.
e) Conclusion: He has no credible reason as to why he rejects Christ, but his pride (1 Cor 1:20).
B. Answer from Folly (Proverbs 26:5).
1. The principle: Answer him according to his folly (what his folly deserves) by showing him what God says
about his worldview.
2. The application: Do a brief internal critique of his worldview showing him that his position reduces to
absurdity. Turn the unbeliever's beliefs back on him.
a) A worldview based on nothing cannot account for anything.
b) Show him that in his heart is a theist, for atheism presupposes theism in practice. He borrows
from the Christian worldview to make sense out of his experience (he uses the laws of logic,
has a judicial sentiment, lives according to basic moral standards, seeks relationships, etc.).
c) Example:
- Based on his worldview, knowledge is impossible. He cannot account for anything he believes from within his worldview.
He continues to make absolute or superstatements without authority.
- His worldview reduces to his own arbitrary self-invented ideas. His independent commitment is based on his own
independent commitment. "The god he believes in is the one he sees in the mirror," --John MacArthur.
- How can he possibly know enough to stand in judgment of the God of the Bible. His "certain" positions (i.e.
superstatements) are actually uncertain as they are based on his own limited conclusions.
- In denying theism, he has assumed theism. He is self-deceived, for in an effort to deny God he assumes God for the laws
of logic (such as the law of non-contradiction) that allow him to make assertions. In biblical terms, he is a fool (Ps 14:1;
Rom 1:21).
- The unbeliever is proving that Christianity is true by borrowing its foundation to assert its unbelief. He is saying--given
God's creation, man's reflection of God's image, and God's laws of logic--I choose to rebel against God.
C. Press your apologetic advantage.
1. The Bible can explain everything. God created everything and gives life, natural order, and laws of logic.
2. The unbeliever has no credible argument against God (1 Cor 1:20).
3. Return to the gospel and use God's Word to bring conviction.
a) Never underestimate the power of the Word of God and the gospel.
- "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the
Jew first and also for the Greek" (Rom 1:16).
- "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom 10:17)
- "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of
God" (1 Cor 1:18).
- "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word
of truth" (2 Tim 2:15).
- "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17).
- "Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and teaching"
(2 Tim 4:2).
- "For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul
and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature
hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account" (Heb 4:12-13).
Notes:
1. Some of the information here is drawn from Grover Gunn, A Short Explanation and Defense of Presuppositional Apologetics (Greenville,
S.C.: Southern Presbyterian Press, n.d.).
2. Epistemology is the study of the theory of knowledge. It answers the question, How do we know what we know?
3. All Scripture citations are from the New King James Version unless otherwise noted.
4. See the chart "The Depravity of Man" which immediately follows this chapter. Only presuppositionalism takes human depravity seriously in its
apologetic method.
5. The word noetic relates to the intellect or the process of knowing.
6. This structure is adapted from Richard L. Pratt Jr., Every Thought Captive (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.,
1979), 85-97.
Further Help in Presuppositionalism
Online resources:
To listen to the accompanying audio presentation of this lesson by Massimo go here.
Print resources:
- You can order Grover Gunn's articles (see above) in print from Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. Order
online at http://www.presbyterianbookshop.com or phone (864) 322-2717.
- Every Thought Captive: A Study Manual for the Defense of Christian Truth by Richard L. Pratt Jr.
- Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith by Greg Bahnsen.
- Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis by Greg Bahnsen.
The books may be ordered from our bookstore.
|
Got Life?
