I hear too often people say Presuppositional apologetics don’t believe in evidence. That’s not true. Presuppositional apologetics does believe there’s a role for evidence in Christian apologetics.
But first off some might need to know what is Presuppositional apologetics in the first place. It might be helpful to listen to various different lectures on Presuppositional apologetics; check out our “Ultimate Collection of Free Presuppositional Apologetics Lectures.” Among the many lectures the ones I recommend would be Greg Bahnsen’s Van Tillian Apologetics and Jason Lisle’s one shot “Jason Lisle “The Ultimate Proof of Creation” Lecture at The Master’s Seminary”
Yet if Presuppositional Apologetics believes there’s a place for evidence how is a distinctly Presuppositional Apologetics’ approach different than the typical Evidentialism?
I can think of five ways.
Difference 1: There is no neutrality. This is a distinctive of Presuppositional apologetics: There is no religious neutrality. I’ve argued for this point in our “A BRIEF OUTLINE AGAINST RELIGIOUS NEUTRALITY.” I’ve met some traditional evidentialist or proponents of Classical Apologetics asserting that they approach the defense of the faith in a neutral fashion. Even before I was into Presuppositional Apologetics I felt that this might not always be true in practice; the apologist does have a bias of believing in the Bible. Yet when the skeptics say the Christian is bias in handling the evidences the Presuppositional apologists can point out the skeptics are also bias. They are not neutral. Far from it. In their state of not believing God’s Word they are rebelling against God our Creator. A Presuppositionalist talking about evidence with an unbeliever will expose the skeptics’ pretended neutrality in how they handle the evidence. Yet when a skeptic merely dismiss a Christian handling evidences as being bias the Presuppositionalist can argue that there is no neutrality.
Difference 2: Philosophy of evidence matters more than evidence per se. In the past I have mentioned this point in our blog that one’s philosophy of evidence matters more than evidences per se. That is because one’s philosophy of evidence will shape how one interpret the evidence. In other words one’s criteria of evidence will either dismiss something as evidence or accept something as evidence. If someone has a messed up criteria of evidence it might be better to first deal with the philosophy of evidence before you present any evidence. See Van Til, Evidence, and Philosophy of Evidence.
Difference 3: Even the prerequisite for talking about evidences such as the laws of logic, uniformity of nature, nature of truth, etc., requires the existence of God. This is a powerful argument. It is also a big claim. I am aware of that. Space doesn’t permit me to talk about this as much as I would like but I highly recommend Jason Lisle’s “Jason Lisle “The Ultimate Proof of Creation” Lecture at The Master’s Seminary” that develop this point further. An apologist conscious of Presuppositional apologetics when talking with an unbeliever about evidences will be on the look out for self-refuting presuppositions that makes nonsense of the tools necessary for discussing evidences. An apologist conscious of Presuppositional apologetics will also make a powerful argument that the skeptics’ own reasoning ability requires the existence of God.
Difference 4: Presuppositionalism believes in more evidences than the evidentialists. This is rather ironic. For instance the Presuppositionalist looks at the Bible and discover that Scripture is self-attesting according to Luke 16:31 and is thus another “evidence.” Actually the Bible is “the” evidence(s). Scripture also talks about the doctrine of the self-authorizing Christ. So instead of dismissing anything that is self-evidencing the Presuppositionalist sees these self-evidencing evidences must be in the apologist’s aresenal. That’s because that which is self-evidencing still has evidential value!
Difference 5: Presuppositionalism believes Romans 1:18 onwards that all people already know God but suppresses the truth. Which means the Presuppositionalist is not naive in how he handles evidences and is aware that very likely the skeptics will not accept Christian evidence as evidence. Instead when a Presuppositionalist discusses any evidences with a nonbeliever he will presents the argument in a stronger and more robust Presuppositional fashion. One should read “A Proposal on the Occasion and the Method of Presenting Evidence within a Van Tillian Framework” that is linked in this post “Van Til, Evidence, and Philosophy of Evidence.”
Thank you for this explanation, brother, this is so helpful! Time after time I’ve seen evidence fail, atheists and agnostics always have an excuse.
Outstanding points, thanks!
[…] Presuppositional Apologetics Believes in Evidence: Yet Five Ways its Different than Evidentialism — Excellent overview and great points. I really like this strategy for evangelism and defending the faith. […]
Wow! Thanks for this amazing summary. So very helpful. Your insight is making a huge difference in bringing the good news of our Master Jesus to unbelievers.
Blessings, blessings, blessings!
You’re welcome and wow thank you for sharing this too. I’m praying for you and CTC especially if there’s any thing going on for you guys this weekend!
Thanks. Much appreciated.
Reblogged this on Jesus Quotes and God Thoughts and commented:
Wow! Thanks for this amazing summary. So very helpful. Your insight is making a huge difference in bringing the good news of our Master Jesus to unbelievers.
Blessings, blessings, blessings!
My Theology 101 brain actually grasps the basics of your argument here of the advantages of presuppositionalism over evidentialism! Dr. Lisle’s book at least gave me a good foundation.
I think you are more than a theology 101 guy. Seriously. And I’m so glad that you read Jason Lisle’s book and I think that’s one of the top books on Presup I recommend for starting Presup. Is your neck of the wood freaking out with Corona virus? Seems people are shopping a little mad here in Los Angeles.
Thanks, brother, but my knees start to shake uncontrollably whenever I see Van Til, Frame, or Bahnsen mentioned. Funny you should ask about the Corona virus here in ROC. There have been 2 reported cases here so far. I hadn’t been to the grocery in three days and when I went this morning, the meats, paper goods, and canned goods were all sold out.
Great post! I really appreciated point two, that philosophy of evidence matters more than evidence. I am in a debate club, and often the same evidence can and is used on both sides. It matters more how the person interperets said evidence. If anyone has ever studied logic in any way they will know that a logical point is one that has been proved by reason. A logical fallacy is a point that seems to be proved by reason, but instead is proved by a, well, fallacy. So, when one says “we have evidence that proves you wrong,” they are really saying that we have evidence that provides basis for our logical assertion, and that logical assertion says that your assertions are incorrect. So in order to disprove a point, sometimes you have to break a hole in a logical (or illogical) train of thought. Sometimes that requires evidence, sometimes it does not, but it always requires using evidence within a philosophy of thought.
Sharing from your own experience in a debate club makes so much sense about the need to look at one’s reasoning utilizing a fact, evidence or clue. We need rationality to detect and correct or prevent irrationally calling something as “evidence” or refuting those who dismiss good evidence.
Reblogged this on My Logos Word.
Thank you.
You’re welcome and thank you for reblogging this! Is there big fear for the Corona virus down in Louisiana? Seems in the other LA (Los Angeles) people are getting a little hysterical with massive purchases…hope you are doing well Maw Maw.
Am well, Sweetie. louisiana is shut down, for the most part. We, who believe, are under His wing but are being careful. I hope the same for you, as you travel a lot. Love in Christ.
Interesting points .
[…] 2.) Presuppositional Apologetics Believes in Evidence: Yet Five Ways its Different than Evidentialism […]
Well done, my friend! I want to post the entire article Battle Cry, if I may. I think it’s a great step up from ‘Apologetics for Dummies”. Good comparisons really help sort things out!
Wow that would be a huge honor, go right ahead! I don’t know if you seen it yet that I just linked your Apologetics For Dummies in our Presup Round Up
I’ll post it tomorrow, with a short intro.
Reblogged this on ApoloJedi and commented:
ALL evidence confirms God’s revelation in scripture!
If you’re not familiar with the Kingdom work done at “VeritasDomain”, you should check them out. Amazing work!
Reblogged this on a simple man of God and commented:
This is a good summary of why I am a presuppositional teacher. Some evidence helped lead me to Christ, but I understood it took a change in how I thought. (Roman’s 12:1-2) This was seven years before even hearing the term “apologetics” for the first time (that I can recall)!
Daniel
This was what I have been long looking for, thank you.
Good to think more deeper on how we present evidences
I was wondering what the difference with Evidentialism and Pesuppositionalism and this corrected me not to think that you all are against evidence
This lays out the differences well. It also works out the implications of what Covenantal apologetics is!
Scroll down https://philosophical-theology.com/
Awesome to see another Presuppositionalist page
Always wonder what’s the difference when I hear Presuppositionalists say they still believe in evidence. Found these 5 ways helpful
God is the source of all truth and knowledge. It starts with Him and ends with Him. In a big circle. But that circle is wide and rational enough to include evidence.
I was first introduced to Presuppositionalism through Francis Schaeffer. He was foundational to my Biblical worldview. “How Should We Then Live” is a fabulous book.
These five points are very helpful. Especially with no neutrality
[…] in mind that Presuppositional Apologetics isn’t against evidence. See Presuppositional Apologetics Believes in Roles of Evidence: Yet Five Ways its Different than Eviden… and Van Til, Evidence, and Philosophy […]
Been looking for this! SDG!
Nice! Have a blessed weekend Jeff!
Amen.