Introduction
I was unable to attend RC Sproul’s session at the Inerrancy Summit. After Sproul’s message there were several guys at the Conference that asked me what I thought about Sproul’s swipe against Presuppositional apologetics.
I finally got to see the video and if you want to see it yourself the video is below:
I thought it was ironic that Sproul spoke out against Presuppositional apologetics at the Inerrancy Summit in which many of the other speakers and audience subscribe to Presuppositionalism.
In what follows I can only give a quick response to Sproul’s objection found within the first eight minutes. However, I think the brief summary written here does pose serious challenges to Sproul’s objections to Presuppositionalism.
Issue #1: Did Sproul accurately represent Presuppositional apologetics’ argument?
Sproul’s discussion of Presuppositionalism first identified two proponents of Presuppositionalism: Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til. Keep this in mind as we want to see his description and criticism of Presuppositional apologetics being relevant to these two men rather than some random Internet keyboard warrior.
Sproul goes on to level his first charge against Presuppositional apologetics by giving what he claimed was the Presuppositionalist’s argument:
P1: The Bible is the Word of God
P2: The Bible claims to be the Word of God.
Conclusion: The Bible is the Word of God.
Then Sproul charged Presuppositionalists for being circular on the basis that the above is the Presuppositionalists argument. However, did Gordon Clark and Van Til argue in this way?
Clark definitely wouldn’t have presented the above argument. That’s because Clark’s apologetics is more axiomatic in his approach. Note Clark stated “Our axiom shall be, God has spoken. More completely, God has spoken in the Bible. More precisely, what the Bible says, God has spoken.”[1] In the same essay Clark also clarified how “axioms” cannot be proven: “But the axioms are never deduced. They are assumed without proof.”[2] If something cannot be proven than by definition it can’t be “argued” for (moving from one premise to another), since it is merely assumed. And assuming something is different than arguing for something.
If Sproul is talking about Van Til’s approach here it seems that Van Til is actually more complex than presented. The closest I can see Van Til saying something approximating with what Sproul claim of how Presuppositionalist argues is with the following quote below:
To admit one’s own presuppositions and to point out the presuppositions of others is therefore to maintain that all reasoning is, in the nature of the case, circular reasoning. The starting-point, the method, and the conclusion are always involved in one another.”[3]
While admitting the role of presuppositions and worldviews makes things “circular” in one’s reasoning as in the sense of it being in one’ system of beliefs, Van Til elsewhere has also shared the kind of argumentation needed to get around this potential impasse:
The Christian apologist must place himself upon the position of his opponent, assuming the correctness of his method merely for argument’s sake, in order to show him that on such a position the “facts” are not facts and the “laws” are not laws. He must also ask the non-Christian to place himself upon the Christian position for argument’s sake in order that he may be shown that only upon such a basis do “facts” and “laws” appear intelligible.[4]
Note here that Van Til’s argument is not merely providing “The Bible claims to be the Word of God” as a second premise. There is a lot more going on here.
Issue #2: Circular reasoning
We have noted above that Sproul did not do the best job representing the argument of the Presuppositionalist. With this straw man argument Sproul also fault the Presuppositional apologist for committing circular reasoning. Sproul notes that the Presuppositionalists are not bothered with this since they say all reasoning are circular. He counters this by asserting “Circular reasoning invalidate any argument.” But if circular reasoning invalidate any argument, can Sproul give further argumentation proving that this is true? And after he provides this argument can Sproul also provide additional supporting arguments which in turn be supported with additional round of arguments, etc? If one truly believes circular reasoning invalidates every argument then Sproul would need to ground every premise with an argument to be rational and here Sproul would be caught in an infinite regress. I would also encourage the readers to read this article that further address the issue: Is Circular Reasoning Always Fallacious?
Issue #3: Presuppositionalists commit a fallacy of equivocation?
Sproul also fault Presuppositionalists who argues “All arguments are circular” as commiting the fallacy of equivocation in that they change the definition of circularity within the discussion. Sproul’s assertion raises several questions: Where did the Presuppositionalists changed the definition of circularity during the discussion? If there is equivocation going on, what are the multiple different meanings of circularity being used by the Presuppositionalists? Sproul is obligated to demonstrate that there really is the fallacy of equivocation being committed and not merely assert it.
Those who are more familiar with Presuppositional apologetics will note that Van Til does talk about vicious circularity and broader circularity but the Presuppositionalists are not using those two terms equivocally since they are not switch-referencing the term “circularity.” Note also as well that just because Presuppositionalists sees different kinds of circularity that does not mean that the meaning of circuliarity itself is being changed. Rather the distinction between vicious and non-vicious circularity are seen by presuppositionalists as two different subset of circularity BUT NOT as two different meanings of circularity. I must note the obviously: Presuppositionalists wouldn’t want to equivocate the two kinds of circularity anyways lest they want to make all circularity equally fallacious (Sproul’s view, and a view which he acknoweldge is not that of the Presuppositionalists) or equally virtuous (which would make the endeavor of apologetics pointless if every circular argument is right). Sproul’s charge of an equivocation fallacy is unfounded.
Issue #4: What about other religious Scriptures?
According to Sproul anyone could make such claim that their book is the book of God such as the Book of Mormon and the Quran. He seems to be bringing this objection as a defeater to the Presuppositionalist’s commitment to the Bible as the Word of God in their apologetics. This is where Sproul’s misrepresentation of the way Presuppositionalists argues brings obstacles to the discussion rather than help it. If Presuppositionalists merely claim that the Bible claim to be the Word of God and therefore it is, then the defeaters with the example of other religious scripture might work. However, the Presuppositionalists view of Clark and Van Til include the element of examining the other worldview and demonstrating how they are internally problematic. In fact, one can adequately counter both Mormonism and Islam within a Presuppositionalists’ framework. For an example on Mormonism see my review of Presuppositional Apologetics Examines Mormonism: How Van Til’s Apologetic Refutes Mormon Theology by Mike Robinson. Concerning Islam see my outline WITNESSING TO MUSLIMS: THE QURANIC VIEW OF THE BIBLE.
Issue #5: What does Sproul believe is self-evidencing?
I want to turn the tables around. As a presuppositionalist I am aware that everybody presupposes something in their belief system that is so foundational it is taken as self-evidencing. Of course people disagree with what truths are self-evidencing. Sproul hinted at what he thinks is self-evidencing:
“Obviously if it were God speaking and we heard his voice directly from his lips we won’t have to construct to have an argument to defend his infallibility or his inerrancy because we know that God is incapable of deceit and lying.”
Apparently sensation of the supernatural physically taken place is self-evidencing enough in Sproul’s view to establish that God did speak and that God is incapable of deceit and lies. “Obviously.” That’s Sproul’s own words. Sproul brings this up in juxtaposition to his objection to the Presuppositionalists view that the Bible’s claim for itself is sufficiently self-evidencing. So we see here that on the one hand the supernatural hearing of God speaking audibly is obviously self-evidencingly while the Bible claims as God’s Word is not as obviously self-evidencing. Does the Scripture support Sproul’s perspective?
Jesus in Luke 16:31 tells a story in which Abraham tells someone how to weigh the evidential value between the miraculous with the Scriptures: “‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’””
[1] See more at: http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=50#sthash.73rgGFRo.dpuf
[2] Ibid.
[3] Cornelius Van Til, Apologetics, Chapter 4.
[4] Van Til, Defense of the Faith, Third Edition, 100-101.
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
Thanks for re-blogging this to your site!
You’re welcome Jim!
I haven’t listened to any of the conference yet. I need to get busy.
Let me know what you think!
Reblogged this on My Delight and My Counsellors.
Thank you for sharing our evaluation of Sproul’s argument against Presuppositional apologetics!
That talk from Sproul was truly terrible 😦
WCF 1:IV
“IV. The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.”
Westminster Calvinism begins with the self authenticating scriptures.
I was hoping he interact more with the doctrine of Scripture being self-authenicating; disappointing
So we see here that on the one hand the supernatural hearing of God speaking audibly is obviously self-evidencingly while the Bible claims as God’s Word is not as obviously self-evidencing. Does the Scripture support Sproul’s perspective?
Jesus in Luke 16:31 tells a story in which Abraham tells someone how to weigh the evidential value between the miraculous with the Scriptures: “‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”
That really is the long and short of it.
Does this mean we should go back to the law written on tablets of stone instead of our hearts too?
Good point
The law (written in stone Ex.20 and on our hearts Rom. 2:15, our conscience bearing witness) is a school-master to bring us to Christ. Gal. 3:24
SlimJim, good article, however, (and I hate to sound like the grammar nazi here) but it needs a serious spell check or proof read). You wrote “Concerning Mormonism see my outline WITNESSING TO MUSLIMS: THE QURANIC VIEW OF THE BIBLE.” for instance.
For a scholarly examination of the self-authenticating view of biblical canon, read Canon Revisited by Michael Kruger.
Zaphon,
Good point. I have an incredible weakness with grammar and writing. I’ve been praying for my grammar to get better and also I’ve been buying books to help me better. Please pray for me as I know it is important to have good grammar in order to be taken seriously, and rightly so.
I’ve made the correction you noted.
In the upcoming edition of Frame’s Apologetics to the Glory of God, many of the specific concerns shared by Sproul are addressed. He is rightly concerned with the kind of argument that says “Believe the bible because the Bible says its the word of God.” But no knowledgable presuppositionalist teaches that as a serious “argument” to support it’s claims.
Further, in his Scripture Alone, Sproul in principle agrees with a major point in Van Til’s system. As Sproul put it, “That all reasoning is ultimately circular in the sense that conclusions are inseparably related to presuppositions is not in dispute” (Scripture Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine, Phillipsburg, N.J: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2005, 70.)
Wow thanks for your comment Joe. I didn’t know Frame’s AGG was being updated!
Thank you also for that quote from Sproul. Interesting that he could say something like that and then go ahead say what he said during the Inerrancy Summit.
Only God has actually autonomous non circular logic or knowledge. Ours derives from Him and hence depends on Him for intelligibility. Left to ourselves it is tautology or infinite regress.
Our knowledge sure does depend on Him for it to be meaningful and inteliigble. Good point about the tautology and infinite regress Mr. Smith.
Sproul couldn’t be more wrong on the applicability and effectiveness of the Presuppositional method against Islam. I offered a presuppositional/internal critique of Islam in the following debate against Muslim apologist Andrew Livingston. You will have to wade through the first half of the debate which consisted of Andrew’s opening case, my response to it, and then his counter-response before getting to my case against Islam, which is where I introduce the argument in earnest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s5uB2RNEHY&spfreload=10
Anthony Rogers,
Thank you for all your work in defending the faith and witnessing to Muslims. I appreciate you and other brothers like Sam Shamoun on the frontlines with Islam. I just prayed for your ministry.
I appreciate you sharing that debate which I need to look at more carefully later. Thank you for sharing that! I love to see Presuppositional apologetics’ in action!
Maybe one of these days we can feature a written interview with you concerning Presuppositionalism and Islam if you are up for it.
That was a good debate Anthony
It’s good to see Sproul’s true colors shining thru. Too long has he hidden behind a “reformed” cloak and been a Roman sympathizer at the same time. Now we see what he thinks of the Word of God and it’s Author.
That’s slanderous. You can perhaps call Dr. Sproul “inconsistent”, but if is a positive falsehood to cast doubt upon the man’s Reformed credentials. Anyone who has read his material on Roman Catholicism knows he is not a “sympathizer,”
I have to agree with Joseph Torres. I lament that his theology does not properly inform his philosophy/apologetics, but that’s doesn’t mean his theology is not within reformed orthodoxy. He refused to to get on board Colson’s disastrous “Catholics and Evangelicals together” deal too and has been a consistent critic, in not full on condemner of Rome.
There are areas of theology that I disagree with Sproul but I am in agreement with Joseph Torres and Tiribulus in that I don’t think he’s a Romanist sympathizer.
Negative.
http://www.ligonier.org/store/are-we-together-hardcover/
Good grief, lemme fix those typos. Too much of a hurry.
=========================================
I have to agree with Joseph Torres. I lament that his theology does not properly inform his philosophy/apologetics, but that doesn’t mean his theology is not within reformed orthodoxy. He refused to to get on board Colson’s disastrous “Catholics and Evangelicals together” deal too and has been a consistent critic, if not full on condemner of Rome.
Yes, RCS did not sign the ECT I or II, but he was heavily involved in writing the “clarification statement” that did not refute the ECT, rather promoted it thru the back door. His connection to all the modern day ecumenicals can easily be seen by those that are more interested in the truth than they are in defending a man who has shown himself to be “double-minded” in all his ways and therefore unstable and definitely not qualified to preach the Gospel. But most would rather defend their icon (idol) than they would the Gospel.
Choose
Darrel
Where are these statements? Darrel if you are going to accuse him of something like this I would like to see documentations. Also if there is a specific 10 part series you are referring to mentioned in your other comments, let me know.
I am usually lenient in my policy towards comments but there is a limit to slander.
Believe as you will about RCS and then find his ten part radio program where he never once warns of the evils of the rcc, but rather praises what they do. As for his denial of the pre sup doctrine isn’t he trying to “replace” it with the same nonsense of tradition over inspiration of the Scriptures just like his “roman brothers”? Wake up guys
Darrel
I am happy to provide one of the links that shows Sproul for what he really is: a false prophet, charlatan, and fraud.
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/sproul/general.htm
Find the part concerning the ECT a little past the halfway mark and note the company he keeps throughout the article.
After listening to all 43:30 of his philosophical nonsense, it is obvious things are a lot worse with RCS than most people are willing to consider. For him to state that the Lord Jesus did not possess Divine Attributes in His human flesh is completely contrary to Scripture. Sproul offers NO Biblical text for this assertion (because there are none to support this erroneous teaching) but resorts to his wordy philosophical approach to the Gospel (as he always does). If Jesus did not possess any Divine Attribute in His physical flesh then how did He walk on the water? John 6:19-21. How did He know the thoughts of those around Him? Luke 9:46-48; Matt.9:4. It is often said that we cannot see into the heart of another, know his motives, etc. so how did Jesus know these things? By some enhanced human virtue unavailable to us or by the fact that He was GOD IN HUMAN FLESH? How about Nathanael in John 2:47-51? Sproul would have us believe anything but the fact that Jesus was God in human flesh. And then there is Luke 9:2, where in one verse all of what RCS teaches and believes on this matter is utterly destroyed: Jesus Christ had (and still has) the ability and right TO FORGIVE SINS. And here we have his back door affinity with Rome that says that a man can forgive sins, when Scripture plainly states that only God can forgive sins. Compare Matt. 9:1-8 and Mark 2:1-12.
Sproul’s entire speech was an exercise in futility for he sought to rationalize the authenticity and authority and complete sufficiency of Scripture in a philosophical manner referring to his speech to admitted naysayers and unbelievers. He, of all people, should have known his words would fall on deaf, dead ears and that no amount of reasoning would sway them to believe otherwise. Belief that the Bible is indeed the Word of God is reserved for the redeemed, with it being impossible for a lost man to see the Bible in that way. Isa. 6:9&10. Also, no where did RCS offer any support for his beliefs from the Word that he was supposedly defending.
Sproul has been given a pass for too many years. He hides behind the “reformed” label and is now afforded an untouchable status by his followers. Bereans are not allowed and are quickly shown the door. Few have the stomach to earnestly investigate this man (and those like him) for fear that the truth will bear out the fact that they have believed a lie.
The ten part series was one RCS did on his radio show some years (8=/-) ago. He had great praise for their traditions and little if any condemnation for their beliefs. I don’t know if it is still available. Yesterday was the first time I have listened to RCS since then and that was only to see if there was anything that would indicate repentance on his part. There wasn’t and things are much worse now than they were 8 years ago.
He will be judged by his own as will we all. If his own words are not enough to convince you of his errors, then are futile as well.
Darrel
Further inquiry shows that RCS is a believer of Thomism; a ‘school of philosophy’ and thought produced by St. Thomas Aquinas and is in direct opposition to the pre-suppositional (and Biblical) belief that the Word of God stands alone, in no need of aid, and superior to anything else that claims to be “truth”. It has also come to my attention that RCS is a preterist, a clearly heretical belief.
Darrel
[…] during the month I wrote a piece titled “Evaluating RC Sproul’s Objection to Presuppositional Apologetics at the Inerrancy Summit.” It proved to be a very popular post, generating thousands of hits and many comments. I […]
[…] Evaluating RC Sproul’s Objection to Presuppositional Apologetics at the Inerrancy Summit– Apologetic method is a debate I try to avoid generally because I think that we need to realize that different approaches will work better for different people and situations. I favor an integrated approach with different methods meshed together. Here’s a look at one objection to the presuppositional method and a response from a presuppositional apologist. What are your thoughts on the matter? […]
I appreciate and valued your interaction with Presup and I appreciate you sharing this.
Thanks for setting the record straight in response to Sproul’s uninformed attack on Van Til. It’s a shame that a strawman of Van Til is attacked and people are not able to learn the powerful argument that Van Til offered, linking the absolute authority of God with the absolute authority of Scripture.
Thanks Mike. By the way I’ve appreciate your website for years. I’m blessed to see you comment on our blog!
I came across this just now, Jim:
http://thereforegodexists.com/2015/06/against-presuppositional-apologetics/
Thanks I will check it out later today
SJ re the Luke 16:31 passage see
2 Peter 1:16-21
we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there was borne such a voice to him by the Majestic Glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: 18 and this voice we ourselves heard borne out of heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 And we have the word of prophecy made MORE SURE; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts: 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. 21 For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.
How beautiful when scripture interpret scripture
[…] Evaluating RC Sproul’s Objection to Presuppositional Apologetics at the Inerrancy Summit […]
On a different note, why is “Eden Fantasies: products for pleasure” being advertised on this site?
We don’t run any ads on here so it must be wordpress.com. By the way I don’t see any ads myself as the blogger.
Its a WordPress thing not this blog. You see ads on other blogs too.
[…] for example, took issue with it during a conference on inerrancy. The Domain for Truth responded HERE. K. Scott Oliphint answered some objections to Presuppositional Apologetics in a TGC article. See […]
This is very interesting! Very honest and practical! I really enjoyed reading the post.
[…] Longtime advocates of both Van Til and Sproul are well aware of epistemological disagreements between both camps. As recent as a few years ago, Dr. Sproul stated his strong objection to Presuppositional Apologetics. […]
Well organized and logical Slim. Its been
About a week and I’m leaning more Presup
Hi there! Someone in my facebook group shared this article with us so I came to give it a look. I’m definitely enjoying the information. I’m book-marking and will be tweeting this to my followers! Fantastic Presup blog.
Having read this essay twice, I must say Presuppositionalism makes sense and Sproul’s objection is weak.
I read this a few years back and I’m glad I found it again
While Sproul isn’t always right (no one is) I think he’s still helpful and biblical in the areas that matter
[…] R.C. made a number of critical comments regarding Presuppositional Apologetics. Ministries such as The Domain for Truth interacted with Dr. Sproul’s […]
Excellent! I thank you your input to this matter. It has been insightful. I saw this on your Twitter account.
[…] R.C. made a number of critical comments regarding Presuppositional Apologetics. Ministries such as The Domain for Truth interacted with Dr. Sproul’s […]
Well that settles it with Sproul’s objection to Van Til
Imagine if RC Sproul was still alive, what would he say about 2020 and the Social Justice Woke crowd with New Testament Christianity
Have you listened to his Reformed Theology or Bible Interpretation series? He sounds so Presuppositional when he’s teaching theology. Wished he was consistent when he did apologetics.
This was a fair criticism of Sproul’s rejection of Van Til’s apologetics
Sproul can be so smart yet so wrong when it comes to Presup
So gratefull to see this article.
“What is your response to criticism that Presuppositionalists believe in circular reasoning?” -the last thing a Classical or evidentialist said.