30 thoughts on “Apologetics in the gospel of John: evidential or presuppositional?”

1. “I don’t see how anyone could read this gospel and come away with the impression that Christianity is in any way a faith that denigrates reason and evidence.”

   I’m curious as to what presuppositionalists you have read that would lead you to think that we denigrate reason and evidence. I’m inferring that you’re referring to presuppositionalists in this line, since you contrast evidentialism with pressupositionalism in your title.

   I’d recommend Greg Bahnsen’s short article that focuses on this very point, called “Evidential Apologetics: the Right Way” (http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa206.htm). Here’s the quote from the first paragraph:

   “In popular misconception today, the choice of an apologetical method facing a Bible-believing Christian is between arguing presuppositionally OR appealing to evidences from history and nature in support of Christianity. But that is entirely wrong. Presuppositional apologetics endorses and indeed encourages the use of evidences – but not evidences offered in the “traditional” manner as an appeal to the authority of the unbeliever’s (allegedly) autonomous reasoning. Unbelievers who are self-conscious in their autonomy will usually fight against the force of the “facts” to which we can appeal in favor of the Bible’s veracity.”

   Your post is giving the impression that we don’t care about reason and evidence. Nothing could be further from the truth. Case in point would be Nathan Busenitz’ Reasons We Believe: 50 Lines of Evidence that Confirm the Christian Faith. A presuppositionalist professor at The Master’s Seminary, he emphasizes evidence to the max in that book. I’d highly commend that book to you.

   I still find your posts enlightening (especially the ones related to studies related to marriage), even if I disagree with this post in particular. Keep up the good work! =)

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Yeah, so the gospel of John has Jesus recommending miracles as evidence to non-believers, and he urges them to do exactly what Bahnsen says not to do:

      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10%3A22-39&version=NASB

      This isn’t Bahnsen’s method, but it’s Jesus’ method. So we all have to choose who to believe.

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. How did Bahnsen denigrates reason and evidence?

         LikeLike

         Reply

   2. “Presuppositional apologetics endorses and indeed encourages the use of evidences – but not evidences offered in the “traditional” manner as an appeal to the authority of the unbeliever’s (allegedly) autonomous reasoning.”

      So if evidences aren’t offered in such a way that a non-Christian doesn’t reasonably accept them, exactly how are evidences used?

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. I believe the rest of the article gives a brief answer to your question. If you want to go more in-depth, Greg Bahnsen writes more about it in an article responding to Clark Pinnock and Dan Fuller, which I’d highly recommend plowing through: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/20/20-4/20-4-pp289-305_JETS.pdf

         LikeLike

         Reply

         1. So could you summarize it for me? I would appreciate an answer to the question.

            LikeLike

            Reply

            1. Here’s a couple quotes from the article (though I still recommend reading it):

               “He (Van Til) is highly critical of those who [quoting Van Til]

               saw no way of harmonizing the facts of the Christian religion with the “constitution and course of nature. They gave up the idea of a philosophical apologetics entirely, This FIDIESTIC attitude comes to expression frequently in the statement of the experiential proof of the truth of Christianity. People will say that they know that they are saved and that Christianity is true no matter what the philosophical or scientific evidence for or against it may be… But in thus seeking to withdraw from all intellectual argument, such fideists have virtually admitted the validity of the argument against Christianity. They will have to believe in their hearts what they have virtually allowed to be intellectually indefensible. [10]

               It might seem that there can be no ARGUMENT between them. It might seem that the orthodox view of authority is to be spread only by testimony and by prayer, not by argument. But this would militate directly against the very foundation of all Christian revelation, namely, to the effect that all things in the universe are nothing if not revelational of God. Christianity must claim that it alone is rational…. An evangelical, that is a virtually Arminian theology, makes concessions to the principle that controls a “theology of EXPERIENCE” … and to the precise extent that evangelicalism makes these concessions in its theology, does it weaken its own defense of the infallible Bible.[11]” (pp.293-294)

               “[N]ot only must one utilize inductive empiricism but he must press beyond this and examine the foundations of science and inductive method. That is, we must not stop short in our philosophical analysis but rather inquire into the presuppositions necessary for an intelligent and justified use of empiricism” (p.294).

               Quoting Van Til again:

               “The Reformed method of argument is first constructive. It presents the biblical view positively by showing that all factual and logical discussions by men take place by virtue of the world’s being what God in Christ says it is. It then proceeds negatively to show that unless all facts and all logical relations be seen in the light of the Christian framework, all human interpretation fails instantly…. What we shall have to do then is to try to reduce our opponent’s position to an absurdity. Nothing less will do…. 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” (p.295).

               “It is clear to anyone who will reflect seriously on this question that the statements of Scripture ABOUT Scripture are primary and must determine our attitude toward all the rest. Why is this so? (1) An exhaustive inductive examination cannot be carried out in practice. The doctrinal profession of the Bible’s absolute truthfulness such that alleged errors or discrepancies are only apparent could take inductive scholarship as its sole or central foundation only if each and every assertion had been examined and publicly vindicated (the requirements of which stagger the imagination), but even then all of the external inductive evidence cannot be presumed to be in (future discoveries and refinements of evidence might pervasively change the complexion of the pool of relevant data) — in which case the theologian could legitimately (i.e., by cautious, circumspect, presuppositionless, inductive warrant) profess only a provisional and qualified inerrancy, even if he had successfully completed the enormous task of inductively confirming all of the Bible’s numerous assertions. (2) By their very character, many Scriptural assertions cannot be tested inductively but must be accepted, if at all, on Scripture’s own attestation (e.g., Christ’s interpretation of his person and work as being divine and redemptive.[20] We must not forget that the necessity of special revelation does not arise as a shortcut for the intellectually ungifted who do not pursue their inductive homework thoroughly and accurately, but rather stems from the fact that there are divine truths that all men, especially as fallen, could never discover on their own but that must be unveiled by God to them (cf. Matt 16:17). Such revealed truths (e.g., that the ascended Christ now makes continual intercession for us to the Father) are not subject to our inductive examination and confirmation; they are accepted on the authority of God speaking in the Scripture itself. And yet they are just as much members of the set of Scriptural assertions (and as such included in the range of the set-reference statements) as are the apparently more mundane historical assertions (e.g., that Judas of Galilee rose up after Theudas). (3) As we have seen already, inductive study itself has crucial presuppositions that cannot be accounted for except on a Biblical basis, and therefore in a profound sense of inductive study is already committed to the content of these self-referential statements of Scripture” (pp.301-302).

               These quotes won’t do it full justice, but it’s a start. I think what we commented earlier is in the same vein about evidences.

               LikeLike

2. WK,
   First, I want to let you know that I really appreciate your blog and the work you do here, on apologetics, on cultural issues, on marriage, etc.

   But second, I would like to encourage a little more unity of thought among us, by asking you to realize that presuppositialists do not necessarily reject evidence.

   A. Where are you getting that Bahnsen says not to do this? In the linked article, he refers to “factual arguments which apologists can and should readily set before them to confirm or defend the Christian position…”

   B. Interestingly, presuppositionalists would point to some of the same passages in John–in fact, one verse after one of the quotes your source gave (hmm, context much?):
   John 10:26: “But you all do not believe, because you are not of my sheep.” So their response to his miracles-as-evidence was still unbelief, which was a matter of worldview, as they make clear in v. 33: “[We are stoning you] because you, being only a man, make yourself God.” That just wasn’t a category they could accept in their worldview–and Jesus precedes to attack that by showing an inconsistency in their view (presuppositionalism) and then pointing them back to the works (evidentialism). Of course, they still don’t believe; there are a number of other examples of this.

   C. I think another phrase in Bahnsen’s statement is important: “When unbelievers resist the factual arguments…” I’m sure you’ve faced this yourself. For example, someone who, when presented with the evidence for the resurrection, insists that eyewitness testimony is totally unreliable? What do we do at that point? Well, we point out that this claim “would not only preclude the facts of Scripture, but the very intelligibility of any facts about any subject whatsoever.” (Bahnsen) Presuppositionalism is helpful, I think, in highlighting the complexity and hidden premises of unbelief, to provide a way of continuing the apologetics when someone rejects the evidence.

   Anyhow, there are enough divisions among Christians that I would hope you could lessen the “either-or” rhetoric that closes your reply to Cesar, which honestly makes it sound like presuppositionalists are rejecting Christ’s method for a purely man-made one. That’s pretty harsh, and, frankly, unjust.

   Thanks again for your work here.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Strange, I didn’t see this comment until now.

      “That just wasn’t a category they could accept in their worldview–and Jesus precedes to attack that by showing an inconsistency in their view (presuppositionalism) and then pointing them back to the works (evidentialism).”

      I think this is one of the main points of contention: presuppositionalism offers evidence, just not with the same view of evidences that evidentialists have. Based on what you’ve written after, it looks like you’d agree, though pitting Jesus’ pointing out the inconsistency (presuppositionalism) against the pointing back to works (evidentialism) seems a little confusing.

      Another related point of contention is the reasoning faculties of unbelievers: though they can reason, they cannot in their worldview, account for reason. We would affirm Scripture’s view of man as dead in sin and unable to submit to God’s law, not wanting to please God (Romans 8:7-8), so all the evidence in the world is ineffective unless God uses it to bring sinners to Himself. Evidence is not the issue; sin is.

      LikeLike

      Reply

3. “Yeah, so the gospel of John has Jesus recommending miracles as evidence to non-believers,”

   The issue isn’t whether to give evidence to unbelievers (Bahnsen in that paragraph and the rest of the article states we should), but more so the fact that unbelievers are not neutral in their stance towards God, despite all the evidence that can be presented to them. They’re bent against any evidence in favor of God. This is clear in the passage you cited, since they wanted to hear Jesus say He is the Christ, so that they could find reason to stone Him.

   Even there, Jesus says, “the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. 26 But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.” He recognized the deeper issue: the Jews in that crowd were not believers, so even Jesus’ use of evidences (miracles) would not convince them. Only the Spirit of God can change their hearts to accept the evidence. Jesus rightly interprets the works He did as evidence that He comes from the Father, and they refused to accept His interpretation, given their prior (wrong) belief that God cannot take on flesh (v.33).

   If a non-Christian wanted evidence for Christianity, anything I present to them will be evidence (not just the traditional proofs), since I believe everything proves God’s existence. It would vary, depending on the type of person I’m speaking with. I remember witnessing to a student in college who thought he was rejecting the Bible because it was full of contradictions, but couldn’t present me a single one. I pointed out the consistency of his day-to-day actions (putting on a coat in the winter, driving on the right side of the road), but exposed the inconsistency of living like that, given his rejection of Christianity (why live with order when we come from chaos?). If he cared so much about contradictions in Scripture (which were demonstrated to be based on false assumptions/premises), but not in his own life (which were/are real), then should he really trust his own reasoning, given that glaring error?

   Of all people to give evidence, you would think the Jews would accept Jesus’ clear evidence, and yet they don’t. If that’s the case, do you think we would fare any better? Again, I’m not saying a presuppositionalist would not present evidence to an unbeliever. I know I would. We just also recognize that, apart from Christ, all would suppress the truth that they already know to be true, yet deny (Romans 1:18, 8:7-8). I would present evidence (even the proofs for God’s existence) as a clear indicator of their sinful rejection of the truth, pointing out that, given their worldview, cannot accept what is clear, unless God draws them to Himself. I hope this makes sense.

   I know evidentialists claim presuppositionalists are fideists, yet, despite the many attempts to further clarify their position, most evidentialists ignore the answers. Which presuppositionalists have you read? Van Til? Bahnsen? Frame? Oliphint?

   “and he urges them to do exactly what Bahnsen says not to do:”

   Jesus says, “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may [e]know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” Again, Jesus is telling them to believe Him not just because of what He says, but because of the things He’s done, which the Jews should have recognized as the same works as that of the Father (John 5:19). The implication is that they won’t believe, even if they see the Son doing the same works as the Father (whom they claim to believe). Bahnsen didn’t write, “don’t give them evidence.” What he’s getting at is the wrong worldview they possessed that led to faulty interpretations of Christian evidence. Seems consistent with what Jesus did here. Where’s the inconsistency?

   LikeLike

   Reply

4. I read an interesting article about evidential vs presuppositions apologetics here:

   http://theologui.blogspot.hu/2014/07/a-few-critical-thoughts-on-apologetic.html

   The article presents a good balanced view of the supposedly rival methods.

   My educational background is in the Arts/Humanities and as such I find the evidential approach question begging, as it tends to evade questions about knowledge and the knowability of truth.

   I read a lot of Van Til about 20 years ago, so it‘s not that fresh in my mind. He wrote in the 1950s, yet his method does seem to dimly forsee the type of postmodern thought that is so prevalent today. He was, in my opinion, over-critical of the weaknesses of classical apologetics, basically suggesting that they watered down Christianity with secular thought.

   Unfortunately evidentialism has to contend with the generalised abandonment of the idea of truth and in particular the moralizing suppression of any suggestion that any consensual sexual behaviour may be wrong. Like those in the passage of John that you quote, modern man doesn’t hear Jesus because they are not of his sheep fold.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Presuppositionalism is, of course, a logical outgrowth of Reformed Theology, and it assumes the full validity of that theology and all its various scriptural interpretations. These are heavy assumptions and if only a few of them are strained (and in various places they very much are), then the validity of its offspring, Presuppositional Apologetics is questionable as well.
      In particular, the Reformed view of the lost as “dead in sin” being equivalent to a lifeless corpse that, like the corpse can do absolutely nothing is problematic. For a corpse cannot commit sin, but the lost certainly can and do. One might claim that the lost who are dead in sin cannot do anything EXCEPT sin, but at that point, the metaphor of a lifeless corpse no longer holds and should be abandoned, for as the adherents of this view are so fond of reminding us, a corpse can do NOTHING.
      The core of the problem is the “belief is a choice” baggage that much of protestant theology (it is certainly not unique to Reformed theology alone) continues to carry. While it is true that refusal of evidence is accomplished through an active human choice, persuasion through evidence does not involve any positive action on the part of the one believing. It is entirely neutral and passive. The agency of the Holy Spirit’s conviction regarding the truth and implications of the evidence certainly plays a vital and indispensable part of the belief event as well.
      Presuppositionalism is simply the case of one flawed approach evolving from a flawed parent. The insidious and pervasive idea that one must take ALL of Divine revelation “by faith” (i.e. believe something for no tangible reason, or without any supporting evidence) is simply the logical grandchild of this theological system, whether it was originally intended by its makers or not.

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. jmg,

         I don’t mean to hijack the thread, but I have to protest what seems to me an egregiously poor understanding of Reformed or Calvinistic theology.

         First, we actually got the whole dead in sin thing from this guy named Paul. If you have an issue with that analogy, take it up with him.

         Second, there is a wide array of texts that we consider. Triablogue has recently posted a good survey of these:

         http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/07/annotated-prooftexts.html?m=1#comment-form

         If you’d like to discuss our supposedly strained interpretations, please go there.

         Lastly, please read the first few chapters of Calvin’s Institutes to see how we actually view faith and reason.

         LikeLike

         Reply

         1. He never denied what Paul said. He said it is interpreted incorrectly when it is used in defense of strict presuppositionalism (which, as he pointed out, treats the unsaved as no different than corpses in regard to reason).

            Also, he is entirely correct that you depend fully on reformed theology in order to draw your conclusions about epistemology regarding presuppositionalism. It is why such a view of apologetics is unique to that denomination (try as people might to expand it to other groups or figures). An honest analysis is directly tied to the denomination, for better or worse.

            LikeLike

            Reply

         2. Joshua, in case you haven’t noticed, this thread is titled as a question about whether John notes Evidentialism or Presuppositionalism as Jesus methodology in speaking to his audiences. I have made a comment quite apropos to the thread. I certainly don’t intend to hijack anything simply by offering a general comment on the flawed root and, therefore, flawed core of presuppositionalist theology.

            Saying that you get your “dead in sin”-like-a-corpse metaphor from some “guy named Paul” is a massive overstatement of the issue. You get the phrase or terminology of the idea from Paul, most certainly, but the Reformed interpretation of what Paul means when he says that hardly comes directly from Paul … unless of course you simply “presuppose” that’s what he must have meant. I have no problem with Paul’s statement, that is not the issue. The problem is certainly with the Reformed view of what I’m saying, so it only makes sense to address those who have come up with that particular “take” on Paul’s words and who seem to be self-convinced that theirs is the only one possible with not other options presenting themselves.

            I am quite aware of the various passages which Reformed theology attempts to utilize to defend its positions (YOU may want to note carefully that I made reference in my post to the “various scriptural interpretationS” found in the writings of those holding the Reformed position.

            You’ve given me a few good tips, now here is one that you would do well to heed:

            Don’t paint those who disagree with you as those who don’t understand you. It really contributes nothing toward any meaningful discussion.

            JMG

            LikeLike

            Reply

   2. The great irony is that denying the validity of reason -is- postmodern! Just as appealing to nothing -but- reason is modern.
      This is why the classical approach became classical (and the only approach for 1950 years; and the only approach outside of some protestant circles). It does not deny the power of reason, but does not declare that reason is all-powerful. It gives credit where it is due; no more or less. It assumes that, as all are created in the image of God, all can see natural revelation (as Paul says “having seen what has been made … they shall be without excuse).
      I see the problems of presuppositionalism inherent in many of the comments above. The thinking is muddy, to put it mildly. Muddy in the same way that postmodern thinking is muddy in other ways.
      It’s possible that Christians from the original apologists to Augustine to Aquinas have been wrong on their approach, but I doubt it.

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. Josh, please point out any examples of muddy thinking on my part or Cesar’s.

         LikeLike

         Reply

         1. My experience is that I had to read Cesar’s comments multiple times, scratch my head, read them again, and still only marginally know how he draws his conclusions from his premises. I’m a Christian, so I assume my brain thinks correctly (presuppositionally), and yet this just seems to be mud instead of thought.

            The easiest way to put it, though it probably won’t be sufficient for you, is that clear thinking is obvious, and the comments above are obviously not clear thinking.

            The best example I can think of is the line of thinking Cesar took (and I’ve seen taken by other pressupositional folks): That they value evidence, yet deny that non-Christians can even understand evidence. For instance:

            “In popular misconception today, the choice of an apologetical method facing a Bible-believing Christian is between arguing presuppositionally OR appealing to evidences from history and nature in support of Christianity. But that is entirely wrong. Presuppositional apologetics endorses and indeed encourages the use of evidences – but not evidences offered in the “traditional” manner as an appeal to the authority of the unbeliever’s (allegedly) autonomous reasoning.”

            So evidence is offered, but apparently not to the reasoning of the person it is offered to. What in the WORLD does that mean? Why are some evidences rejected (classical evidences, like the argument from motion) while others are not (Van Til or Bahnsen – approved, like the argument from transcendence).

            This is just sloppy thinking. It says “Here is some evidence, but you’re too depraved to understand it, so it won’t do you any good. So accept the premise (God exists) so that you can accept the conclusion (God exists).”

            LikeLike

            Reply

            1. Hi Josh,

               To my understanding of presuppositionalism, one main reason we value evidence is because of what/whom it points to: the Triune God of Scripture. The problem is that non-Christians are naturally bent against any type of evidence that supports belief in God (hence the quotation of Romans 1 and 8). Would you deny that non-Christians are biased against belief in God?

               Our employment of evidence in conversation with non-Christians also comes with the purpose of further revealing their deep rebellion against God, since they refuse to accept what has already been made clear to them by God Himself. I believe God uses means to draw people to Himself (preachers, apologists, books, sermons), and the use of apologetics and evidence can help clear away muddied thinking (to use your term) out of love for them, with the prayer that God will open their eyes to see the truth they know, yet willingly reject.

               For example, I think a presuppositionalist can use the cosmological argument for God’s existence (as most popularized by William Lane Craig) as a support for what Scripture already makes clear that God created the universe (Genesis 1:1, Psalm 19:1, 1 Corinthians 8:6). This type of argument can conclude that there is a First Cause, but Scripture identifies the First Cause.

               I can go further, but would ask how you interpret Romans 1:18 and 8:7-8 if you do believe non-Christians can understand the evidence. Again, I don’t believe non-Christians can’t understand the arguments/evidences, but that they willfully reject the evidence because of their selfish desires to not submit to their Creator. The use of evidences is not sufficient to bring them into the kingdom, but it can be used to further impress upon non-Christians their wicked hearts bent against the truth and the judgment that awaits them should they continue down that path.

               “This is just sloppy thinking. It says “Here is some evidence, but you’re too depraved to understand it, so it won’t do you any good. So accept the premise (God exists) so that you can accept the conclusion (God exists).”

               If we’re defending biblical Christianity, what better source is there to defend it but the Bible? Ultimately, Scripture is our final authority, and if our reasons/evidences come from Scripture, then those reasons/evidences come with divine authority. If you believe the Christian worldview makes the most sense of the evidence, then what leg does the non-Christian stand on to evaluate biblical (and extra-biblical, meaning scientific, philosophical, etc.) claims? To quote from Nathan Busenitz:

               “[E]xternal evidence does not establish (italicized) the truthfulness of the Christian faith. If Christianity is true, it is because there really is a God, and He has revealed Himself to us through His Son and in His Word. Nonetheless, external evidence does corroborate (italicized) the claims of Christianity. Because the God of the Bible is also the God of creation, time, and truth (cf. Psalm 19:1-6; Acts 17:26-28; John 17:17), the facts of science, history, and logic will necessarily correspond to what the Bible reveals. Such evidence therefore provides wonderful confirmation for believers, because it bears witness to both the reliability of Scripture and the authenticity of Jesus Christ….They also serve as powerful tools in witnessing to non-Christians” (Reasons We Believe, Kindle Location 246-247).

               Apologies if my previous comments haven’t been as clear. I hope this helps further the conversation.

               LikeLike

      2. By the way, you might want to consider the context if your own verse:

         V. 18 refers to those who suppress the truth in ungodliness. One of the main emphases of presupp. (as seen in Cesar’s comments) is that resistance to the evidence is moral–they refuse to acknowledge what is clear, so just adding more evidence might not get anywhere.
         V. 21 declares that, as a result of this moral refusal to recognize what is clear, they become vain in their reasonings and have their foolish hearts made dark. Again, presupp. emphasizes this: see Bahnsen’s comment in the linked article that the one who undermines Chistianity thus undermines all rational thought.

         Oddly enough, we presupps consider Romans 1 to be pretty foundational for our perspective.

         LikeLike

         Reply

         1. “By the way, you might want to consider the context if your own verse:

            V. 18 refers to those who suppress the truth in ungodliness. One of the main emphases of presupp. (as seen in Cesar’s comments) is that resistance to the evidence is moral–they refuse to acknowledge what is clear, so just adding more evidence might not get anywhere.
            V. 21 declares that, as a result of this moral refusal to recognize what is clear, they become vain in their reasonings and have their foolish hearts made dark. Again, presupp. emphasizes this: see Bahnsen’s comment in the linked article that the one who undermines Chistianity thus undermines all rational thought.

            Oddly enough, we presupps consider Romans 1 to be pretty foundational for our perspective.”

            I understand you consider it to be part of the foundation of your perspective, but consider that it also informs the classical approach. If mankind can reason enough to understand God from nature but then rejects Him, it is not man’s reason that hinders him, and it should not be treated with contempt as though it were incapable of rational decision.

            Rather, mankind is fallen and is hindered in a variety of ways (some rational, or emotional, or spiritual) and requires something more than knowledge to come to Christ. But knowledge and understanding -are- required in some capacity, and knowledge and understanding are things Christians can provide – the rest is the Holy Spirit at work.

            LikeLike

            Reply

      3. Finally, if muddy thinking is a problem, this statement seem to qualify:

         “Muddy in the same way that postmodern thinking is muddy in other ways.”

         Maybe all my irrational Calvinism and presupp. are getting in my way (oh, and all that Augustine, Boethius, Aquinas, and logic that I’ve been teaching for ten years), but I’m a little puzzled by this sentence. A is muddy in the same way that B is muddy in other ways?

         LikeLike

         Reply

         1. “A is muddy in the same way that B is muddy in other ways?”

            Since I already declared A to be in category B, your logic shouldn’t hinder you. I said that presuppositionalism -is- postmodern. I also find it to be based on a logical fallacy – the fallacy of assuming the consequent or begging the question.

            Interesting that you refer to Aquinas and Augustine. Perhaps there is hope yet that you’ll come around to classical apologetics.

            LikeLike

            Reply

5. Cesar, thanks for the interaction. It looks like I need to clarify: I wasn’t trying to pit those two things against each other, but rather to point out that in the very passage WK’s source was quoting, we Jesus both addressing presuppositions and setting forth evidence. So, a Christ-like apologetic would have both.
   My own view is that apologetics is not a matter of “isms.” One should know the evidences, one should know the classical arguments, and one should understand the role of worldview and presuppositions in people beliefs and reasoning. That’s the toolbox to draw from, depending on whom you’re talking with. Some folks might be at a place where they need the evidence, others need to have their assumptions challenged– I’ve even seen Pascal’s wager hit home.
   It’s about the person, not the system, the approach, the “ism.”

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Hi Joshua,

      I was pretty sure that’s where you were going, but thought I’d ask just to be on the safe side. =)

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. Cesar, there was no reply button below one of your previous comments, so I’ll have to tack my comment on here. Pardon the disconnect.
         In your long comment of 7/10/2014 @ 4:38 P.M., you make some statements that when laid side-by-side don’t seem to make much sense.
         First you said:
         “The problem is that non-Christians are naturally bent against any type of evidence that supports belief in God (hence the quotation of Romans 1 and 8).”
         A bit later when commenting on the value of evidence, you state the following:
         “The use of evidences is not sufficient to bring them [non-Christians] into the kingdom, but it can be used to further impress upon non-Christians their wicked hearts bent against the truth and the judgment that awaits them should they continue down that path.”
         If non-Christians have a natural bent against any type of evidence that supports belief in God, then the second statement runs directly counter to it. Certainly, I am not arguing that bare evidence alone is sufficient to make a non-christian into a christian, so that is not my point here. What I’m questioning is the value you attempt to place on the presentation of evidence to the non-christian for what amounts to a faux-secondary purpose. That being to “impress upon non-Christians their wicked hearts bent against the truth and the judgement that awaits them …” However, are not wickedness and judgment things that involve God’s standard or righteousness and even God himself, for that matter? So, by what you have said in the first statement that I quoted above, you have rendered futile any attempt through evidence to impress anything upon the non-Christian concerning God, including wickedness and the future judgement by a holy God which awaits those who persist in such behavior
         Essentially you place value upon evidence for the very same type of purpose that you have already disallowed by your first statement.
         And its in examples just like this one where the hobby-horse orientation of Presuppostiional apologetics constantly comes to the fore. While Presuppositionalists talk a good game, recognizing the irrationality of jettisoning evidence altogether, they are inevitably drawn by the very philosophical logic of their own system of thought to do precisely that.
         JMG

         LikeLike

         Reply

         1. Hi jmg123,

            Maybe you can present your interpretation of Romans 8:7-8, that all unbelievers, whose minds are set in the flesh, cannot please God, or submit under God’s law, with regards to the evidentialist view of evidence. Why do that if they cannot please God as non-Christians?

            The presentation of evidence is to further expose their twisted worldview that rejects what has already been made clear to them, according to Scripture: that God exists. It’s for them to see that despite all the evidence, they still choose to reject God, unless God works in their heart to realize their sinful bent against Him and turn from their sin. I’m saying God uses means to accomplish His purposes, and calls every believer to use whatever means He deems fit to either bring sinners to faith in Christ or further harden their hearts to the Gospel. Sometimes, exposing non-Christians to the evidence will reveal how wicked their hearts really are, trying to reach independence from God’s holy standard so that they can continue in their sin.

            I think the big hang up is that we use evidence for a different purpose and in a different way than evidentialists are accustomed to, leading to confusion over whether we value evidence or think it’s superfluous in using it (thus the charge that we’re fideists). We use it, just not with the same hope that evidentialists think it has. It corroborates the faith, builds up the believer, and demonstrates the futility of life apart from Christ; it doesn’t establish faith.

            There’s a helpful discussion that took place between K. Scott Oliphint and Kurt Jaros on the Unbelievable? radio program a little over a year ago now. I’d strongly recommend listening to it; you might find it more clear than I might have been: http://media.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/a1606bd8-ad1d-48e8-92cf-07c42a88ed07.mp3

            LikeLike

            Reply

            1. Hi Cesar,

               I don’t see Romans 8:7-8 as having really anything to do with the lost (non-Christian) at all.

               It is actually a statement made to believers warning them what the consequences are of catering to fleshly appetites that still exist within them in what Paul often calls “the flesh” or “the old man” and it is parallel to the what Paul says in Galatians 5:16 when he exhorts his audience of Christians to”

               “… walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.”

               You will note upon examination that the verb “walk” in this verse is in the imperative mood making it a command, and it is then strung together with the favorable consequences that they will obtain should they heed the command (“you will not gratify the desires of the flesh”). A few verses later in Galatians 5:25, Paul goes on to say that “If we (Christians) live in the Spirit (and all believers do indeed draw life from the Holy Spirit), then let us (Christians) also walk in the Spirit”. Here the verb “let us walk” is in the subjunctive mood which indicates possibility and potentiality, NOT inevitability. The point he makes is that they could and they should walk in the Spirit, but that there was also the real possibility that the opposite would take place and that they would fail to do so.

               Likewise, in the very context of the passage that you cite in Romans 8: 12-13, Paul echos his thoughts from the Galatian epistle. In verse 12 he addresses his readers as “brethren” indicating that they are in fact Christians. In verse 13 he says the following:

               “For if YOU [brethren] live according to the flesh YOU will die, but if by the Spirit YOU put to death the deeds of the body, YOU will live.”

               In the very words of Romans 8:13, we are told that there are in fact two possibilities for the Christian. One involves living according to the flesh and its negative consequences, and the alternative involves living (i.e. “walking”) according to the Spirit and its positive consequences.

               Therefore, I think it quite in error to attempt to take the passage in Romans as though it were some type of comparison of Christians and non-Christians. That it certainly is not. As I have demonstrated, it is actually addressed to Christians, outlining two possible paths of life before them in order to warn them of the negative consequences of one and exhorting them to instead follow the other to the benefits that it promises them.

               In a nutshell (yes, I know a rather sizable one!) that is how I view Romans 8:7-8. Therefore, the meaning that you have attempted to extract from the passage is incorrect and fails to provide any support to a Presuppositional apologetic.

               I’ll address some other points in your last comment in a separate response when I have a few additional moments to comment.

               JMG

               LikeLike

            2. Cesar,

               As I promised, I have some time now to finish my response to some additional items in your last comment.

               Again, as I look over what you said, I find things that simply don’t “jive” with other things you have said.

               For instance, at first, you say:

               “…all unbelievers, whose minds are set in the flesh, CANNOT PLEASE God, or SUBMIT under God’s law, with regards to the evidentialist view of evidence.” (Emphasis mine.)

               [Let me interject here that no Evidentialist that I have ever heard holds that the lost can be moved to please God through living a righteous life or submission to God’s law simply on the basis of the evidence that might be presented to them. The issue here is justifying faith, not living a righteous life in God’s sight. Man is justified on the basis of faith, not on the basis of his living a life pleasing to God or by any submission to God’s law. Evidentialists hold that evidence plays an integral role in bringing someone to faith, not in producing a moral reformation among the lost. So, here you make an accusation against Evidentialism that is simply off the mark.]

               However, on the heels of that statement you say things like:

               “The presentation of evidence is to FURTHER EXPOSE their twisted worldview that rejects what has already been made clear to them, according to Scripture: that God exists. IT’S FOR THEM TO SEE that despite all the evidence, they still choose to reject God, unless God works in their heart to realize their sinful bent against Him and turn from their sin.” (Emphasis mine.)

               and

               Sometimes, exposing non-Christians to the evidence WILL REVEAL how wicked their hearts really are, trying to reach independence from God’s holy standard so that they can continue in their sin.” (Emphasis mine.)

               As you have made clear in this and previous comments, you as a Presuppositionalist hold that non-Christians are simply unreachable in regards to the historical claims and evidence of Christianity. These claims obviously involve topics such as God, Jesus, sin, judgement, the crucifixion, the resurrection, etc. Yet, in the two statements above, you turn the tables and say that it IS quite possible that the lost can indeed find meaning in evidence. You say that evidence can “further expose” their twisted worldview. Expose it to whom? Obviously to the lost themselves, for you go on to say that the presentation of the evidence is made “for them to see” their twisted worldview. Yet, in order for them to have any concept that their twisted world view is indeed twisted, they would have to have a concept of the correct worldview as something to contrast it with, would they not? A similar idea follows in the second statement quoted above. Evidence can “reveal” something to the lost about themselves, yes? It can reveal their own wickedness (to them?) as contrasted with “God’s holy standard”. Again, the concept of wickedness is meaningless without an accompanying knowledge of the God who actually defines what wickedness is. Therefore, here you make evidence much more potent toward the lost than you paint it to be in other statements you have made.

               I do think you put your finger on the key issue when you say:

               “I think the big hang up is that we use evidence for a different purpose and in a different way than evidentialists …”

               Quite right. To the Presuppositionalist, evidence in regards to justifying faith is irrelevant. To the Evidentialist it is integral to the faith in that it provides the logical basis for it. You waive off the charge of Fideism made against Presuppositionalism, because Presuppositionalists don’t reject the usefulness of evidence altogether, but then you immediately outline the Presupp. understanding of the faith / evidence relationship that is the very picture of Fideism. You say:

               “It [evidence] corroborates the faith, builds up the believer, and demonstrates the futility of life apart from Christ; it doesn’t establish faith.”

               In each piece of your outline, the usefulness of evidence is antecedent to a faith which must already be present. “Corroboration” is simply an after-the-fact confirmation of an already existing faith. “Building up a believer” assumes that the person already has faith (“a believer”) and evidence is seen as merely a beneficial add-on to a faith that the person already has. In each case, faith must precede evidence in order for evidence to have any perceived meaning. It looks precisely like Fideism does because, like Fideism, your outline says quite clearly “Belief in the truth of a proposition must precede an understanding of why it is true.” In other words, we know something is true because we first believed it to be so. Granted, evidence does not, in and of itself, establish faith, but from the Evidentialist perspective, it does form the vital foundation without which faith cannot exist. I know of no one who has ever been persuaded that something is true on the basis of zero evidence.

               Again, it is evident that you truly want to find a place for evidence in the Presupp. framework [and rightfully so], but struggle to do so to the point where evidence can only find a place there by dislodging other tenets that run counter to it. To the Presupp. adherent, evidence is little more than an unfortunate, stray orphan that is invited into the system with the promise, “Don’t worry, I’ll find a place for you, just try not to get in the way”.

               JMG

               LikeLike

6. Note: I did say in the post:

   “Also, regarding miracles, in some cases the miracle is a witness against those who reject this evidence. John grieved: “Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him” (John 12:37). One result, though not the purpose, of miracles is condemnation of the unbeliever (cf. John 12:31, 37).”

   Miracles are evidence. But they don’t guarantee belief.

   LikeLike

   Reply