Misrepresentation: Do Presuppositionalists conflate the moral depravity in the Bible with human reasoning?

The last two weeks seems to have more internet controversies against Presuppositional apologetics from various quarters.  I think it is always unfortunate when Christians misrepresent other Christians and in this post I want to deal with an objection against Presuppositional apologetics.

I have wrote a previous post titled “A Schizophrenic Attack Against Presuppositional Apologetics” which dealt with this particular critic.  The critic have also wrote the following:

Further, I think that the presuppositionalist has just misunderstood the doctrine of total depravity. Depravity is a moral concept, not a qualitative concept. The whole of humanity is fallen, but not depraved. Human eyesight, for instance, is fallen. People need to wear glasses. It is not depraved. When a Christian is born again, they are not given new eyesight. Likewise, human reason is not qualitatively changed when they become a Christian. If that were the case, then non-Christians would be utterly unreasonable. The natural man would have no capacity to interact with the world on an intellectual level. But Paul said that the natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit of God (1st Corinthians 2:14). If we are going to engage with and against presuppositional apologetics, we need to understand that it is a foolish mistake to conflate the moral depravity in the Bible with human reasoning.

Here’s my thoughts:

• According to this critic “the presuppositionalist has just misunderstood the doctrine of total depravity” in that Presuppositionalists makes “a foolish mistake to conflate the moral depravity in the Bible with human reasoning.”  As we shall see it is actually the reverse in which it is this critic who misunderstands the doctrine of total depravity.
• What is Total Depravity?
  • Monergism Dot Com has provided a good paragraph definition: “Although total depravity does not mean that all men will display evil to the fullest extent possible, or that one man may never be good relative to another, or “in the right” when it comes to a particular situation; yet it does mean that no man can ever do anything whatsoever that is completely acceptable in the sight of God. The very best acts of fallen man are tainted and imperfect, and thus loathsome before the altogether holy God of creation. Basically, the doctrine of total depravity, in a calvinistic soteriology, intends two things: first, that no act of man is ultimately good or perfectly acceptable to God; and second, that man is so corrupted by sin, that he is utterly unable to contribute anything to his regeneration, even the simplest act of seeking God, believing in him, or coming to him.” (Source)
  • If you were to Google the term one find that Google gives a definition: “the Calvinist doctrine that human nature is thoroughly corrupt and sinful as a result of the Fall.” (Source)
• Our critic goes on to say “Depravity is a moral concept, not a qualitative concept. The whole of humanity is fallen, but not depraved. Human eyesight, for instance, is fallen. People need to wear glasses. It is not depraved.”
  • The critic makes a distinction between “fallen” versus “depraved.”  I think we should already be on guard whenever someone uses terms that is a bit different than it common theological usage.  Often the term “fall” in theology is associated with moral, ethics and sin.  But it is clear this critic doesn’t use the term in a moral sense given his analogy of human eyes being “fallen” but not morally depraved.
  • Our critic asserts that “The whole of humanity is fallen, but not depraved.”  That is problematic.
    • First off this is not the doctrine of total depravity.  The doctrine of total depravity asserts that all are depraved.
    • Secondly this is in fact a denial of Total depravity.
    • What’s even more weird is that the critic in the beginning of his essay said he’s part of the Reformed faith: “some, particularly of the reformed tradition (of which I would consider myself apart)…”  He even goes online to facebook groups that are Reformed and rather shows himself to be not Reformed or lack understanding of Reformed theology.
  • Also the critic’s use of the term “qualitative concept” in opposition to “moral concept” is very unhelpful because it is too vague.  Part of being a good philosopher, theologian or apologist means using terms carefully.  We don’t see that here.
  • Let’s not miss the mainpoint among the details: This critic misunderstood the doctrine of Total Depravity.
• The critic then go on to assert the following sentences: “Likewise, human reason is not qualitatively changed when they become a Christian. If that were the case, then non-Christians would be utterly unreasonable. The natural man would have no capacity to interact with the world on an intellectual level.”
  • For a guy who is supposedly an evidentialist and not Presuppositionalist, it is incredibly ironic how little the guy have any evidence of having study the primary source of Presuppositionalists firsthand.  There’s no citation, quotes or footnotes, etc.  I bring this up since his objection to Presuppositionalism that non-Christians would be utterly unreasonable if Presuppositionalism is true reveals a lack of understanding of the Presuppositionalists’ own perspective.
  • Note there is a sense that non-Christians are utterly unreasonable.  The nonbeliever is unreasonable with the fundamental issues at the worldview level.  But there’s also a sense that non-Christians are not utterly unreasonable.
  • But in Reformed Theology that Presuppositionalism is based upon there is also the doctrine of God’s Common Grace and that include God’s work of restraining evil from being fully unchecked.  So Presuppositionalism does account for why the natural man haven’t gone all out being “utterly unreasonable” but can have the capacity to engage the world with the intellect.
  • In summary this paragraph upon closer examination isn’t much helpful to his cause against Presuppositionalism.
•  Then the critic does something weird; he writes “But Paul said that the natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit of God (1st Corinthians 2:14)”
  • 1 Corinthians 2:14 is a verse that establish the implication of sins’ effect on the intellect concerning “understanding” of the things of God.
  • 1 Corinthians 2:14 supports the Presuppositonalist point about the noetic effect of sins.
• Finally the critic stated “we need to understand that it is a foolish mistake to conflate the moral depravity in the Bible with human reasoning.”
  • No where in my thousands of pages of reading Presuppositionalists have I ever seen one “conflate the moral depravity in the Bible with human reasoning.”
  • However noting the interrelationship of Total Depravity and its effects on human reasoning is a legitimate endeavor and is not “conflating” Total Depravity with human reasoning.
  • Human reasoning does have a moral dimension.  For instance we see this being taught in Scripture in Ephesians 4:17-19= “So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 being darkened in their understanding, [m]excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; 19 and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality [n]for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.“

This post should be filed as another strange objection to Presuppositionalism that has more problems than any positive contribution.  I am dealing with this because of it is being shared from time to time on social media and also because I was recently asked to look into the objections by a brother in Christ.

Advertisements