Category Archives: Presuppositional Apologetics

Jan 08

Quote: Christian Apologists Defend A Worldview

Posted on by

I am reading through Pushing the Antithesis by Greg L. Bahnsen (really, compiled by his students/friends after his death). The quote below embodies a vital idea to all apologists:

[A] worldview forms a network of presuppositions, an entire system of assumptions. This network is a complex web of numerous beliefs organized in an interlocking, interdependent, self-contained truth system.

Unfortunately, many evangelical Christians generally think in a piecemeal fashion, focusing on stray individual doctrines and facts rather than a full-scale, coordinate3d system of beliefs. They tend to view the Christian faith as a random assortment of free-standing doctrines rather than as a coherent system of interlocking truth claims. In fact, we see this problematic tendency in the more popular “evidentialist” method of apologetics which defends the faith by focusing on this or that doctrine – for instance, on the “resurrection argument” or the “creation argument.” We must recognize that the Christian faith is a complex system of mutually-supported, intertwined beliefs filling out a broader interdependent worldview.

You must defend the Christian faith as a package deal. (p. 43)

Our apologetic method can tend to be lop-sided when we overemphasize certain arguments (which in and of themselves are good arguments) at the expense of others. We must not forget that our apologetic method must reflect our theological beliefs. For evangelical believers we understand our christian worldview to be an all-encompassing worldview, totally different from the unbeliever’s worldview. At conversion we give ourselves, ALL of ourselves to Christ. This includes not only our beliefs about, for instance, the resurrection and creation, but we also the presuppositions which make such doctrines intelligible.

“You must defend the Christian faith as a package deal.” As apologists we are bound to not only stick our necks out for what we consider the “central” or “core” doctrines, but also for the worldview (the network of interlocking beliefs and presuppositions) which makes them possible and actual.

For example, a historical argument regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ might be well constructed and sound for believers who are seeking to think in a way consistent with the worldview presented to us by God in Scripture. This argument, however, will not phase an atheist who questions the reliability of history, the accuracy of the transmission of ancient documents, the purpose and meaning of the resurrection asserted by the apologist, etc. These worldview issues lie underneath our historical argument and must be addressed alongside our argument if we are to have success in convincing our atheist friend that Jesus rose from the dead.

The goal of every apologist is (or should be) to provide a good defense of the Christian faith. The nature of the Christian faith demands that we defend not only the “big” doctrines, but the “little” or “supporting” doctrines, along with the biblical/theological presuppositions which comprise the biblical worldview. As evangelists we market the Christian faith as a “package deal,” a complete and total change, as apologists we must defend this “package deal.” We must defend the entire Christian worldview!

Jul 30

Arminian “Presuppositionalism” Continued…

Posted on by

Jamin Hubner mentioned my blurb about Kerrigan Skelly’s video on presuppositional apologetics on Pros Apologian (thanks!). He offered some good comments that bear repeating:

First is the rejection of natural theology. The unbeliever has knowledge of God, but due to his depravity (the first point of Calvinism TULIP) he suppresses it. The classical arguments will never suffice for the same reason 66 books of evidence won’t suffice: he’s spiritually dead, and he needs to be shown his bias against God before gaining a proper orientation of life. Without the Calvinist/biblical teaching of depravity, one could adhere to classicalism as much as presuppositionalism regarding this central issue.

Second is the absolute sovereignty of God and Lordship of Christ coupled with sola scriptura. Classical apologetics is built from a Roman Catholic foundation that does not require that a believer (a) develop an apologetic method from Scripture or (b) begin with Scripture to engage in apologetics. Both are distinctive of presuppositional apologetics. In short, presuppositional Arminians (ie Kerrigan Skelly, Tim Chaffey, etc.) are simply unaware of their inconsistency, and need to come into grips with the fact that our theology gives rise to our apologetic methodology. If that can be admitted, it is clear that only presuppositional apologetics fits Reformed theology – that is, only biblical apologetics fits biblical theology.

Jul 29

An Arminian Presuppositionalist?

Posted on by

I’m watching this video of this guy who runs, among other websites, www.refutingcalvinism.com (which re-directs to a YouTube Channel). What is odd about this video is that he is teaching presuppositional apologetics (which is a distinctively Calvinistic apologetic). I’m about 1/4 of the way though and I though I would share it with you and ask for your thoughts. The guy’s name is Kerrigan Skelly, btw.

My thoughts are this:
1. Calvinism (and presuppositional apologetics) has a distinct understanding of man. Specific to the topic, man is under the noetic effects of sin, his mind and its processes are corrupted by the fall into sin (this would be part of the T, Total Depravity). Presuppositional apologetics consciously attempts to address man as such, pointing out the inconsistencies between how he lives and what he professes to believe. (Consistent) Arminians deny Total Depravity as taught by most Calvinists, usually granting that fallen and unregenerate man has some capacity to understand and accept the things of God completely and entirely on his own. I just heard of Mr Skelly so I’m not sure where he falls on this scale.

2. Presuppositional apologetics was pioneered by Calvinists. If you read anything by Cornelius Van Til you will have no doubt that he was true to the reformed faith as true could be. He taught at Westminster Seminary, headed their apologetics department, he constantly quoted Abraham Kuyper, Benjamin Warfield, Herman Bavinck, Louis Berkhof, Archibald Hodge, Charles Hodge, etc. And of course the Theologian himself, John Calvin. Van Til’s students Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Rousas John Rushdoony, etc. How consistent can an Arminian be who attempts to utilize a distinctively Calvinistic apologetic? (Take this question as half polemic/half inquisitive)

I’ve never heard of Mr. Skelly before so any info would be cool if you know about him or his ministry (Pin Point Evangelism)

Jul 21

Theology Matters: Apologetic Method

Posted on by

Nearly a month ago James White dedicated 2/3′s of a Dividing Line broadcast to discussing the biblical basis for apologetics. He focuses primarily on Colossians 2:2-8, 1 Peter 3:15, and 1 Corinthians 1:18-24. The key thing to remember is that your theology will determine they way you do apologetics. The things you believe about man’s fallen nature and the extent of the effects of sin on his capacity to reason and evaluate evidence will guide how you present evidence for God’s existence. The question, for the Christian, becomes what does the Bible say about these things?

I listened to this episode twice (the second time I transcribed it) and was blown away by how true it is that when you turn to the Scriptures you are forced to re-evaluate your apologetic method. Below is the video of this discussion, followed by my transcript. Please forgive any errors that I have missed while editing. I pray this will help both presuppositionalists and evidentialists think about the role of theology in their defense of the Christian Faith.

Transcript of The Dividing Line, June 24, 2010

And good afternoon, welcome to The Dividing Line….

For by Him, all things were created, in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions, or rulers or authorities. All things have been created through Him and for Him, and He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the Church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He, Himself will come to have first place in everything.

This text from Paul’s epistle to the Colossians describes the relationship that Jesus holds to all created things. The apostle exhausts the Greek language to attempt to communicate the fact that there is nothing outside of the creative work of Jesus Christ. Listen to what he lists:

“All things were created” – Now you would think that would be enough, but mankind has an amazing ability to find ways around even the plainest statements. So Paul explains what he means by “all things.” He means things “in the heavens and on earth.” That’s pretty much everything. He means things “visible and invisible.” He means things such as “thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities.” All things have been created through Him and for Him. Continue reading →