If you read this blog you know that I subscribe to Presuppositional Apologetics. I won’t be rehearsing what Presuppositional Apologetics is but check out here for a compact definition and here for a lists of many lectures and of those many messages check out Apologetics: What Would Jesus Do? 4 Messages as my personal recommended series.
There’s a video titled “The Surprisingly Short History of Presuppositional Apologetics” on Youtube that attacks Presuppositional Apologetics by someone that I consider theologically unstable (this is having observed him with his various theological shifts over the years). I’ve ministered to someone that was his fan boi before and it seems the young man being interviewed in the video somehow produces a younger follower that is even more confused than he is. I think there’s some young guys that want to be apologists that might be a better equipped for future apologetics ministry if they grow in the Bible and pursue spiritual maturity and being more spiritually well-rounded by discipleship by sound men.
Here’s the video:
Here’s my thoughts:
- The channel on Youtube spends a lot of time attacking the apologetics of Cornelius Van Til. The video I shared here is part of a longer interview titled “Why I left Presuppositional Apologetics.” It must be pointed out that the person being interviewed who turned away from Presuppositional Apologetics was never to begin with a Van Tillian; he’s a follower of Gordon Clark, someone who rejected vehemently Cornelius Van Til’s methodology. I have linked here from webarchive the proof he was a Clarkian here, from his blog that was appropriately named “Rabid Clarkian.” So at minimum it is rather clickbait of the channel to make a video with the graphics for the video that says “Why this Presuppositional Apologist Left Presupp” when there’s an equivocation of the term “Presuppositional Apologetics” in the larger complete video. An equivocation fallacy is not a good start.
- A bigger elephant in the room from the video that is hinted in the beginning of the video is that the guy being interviewed is pushing for Greek Orthodoxy; by the way this person being interviewed has issues with the Gospel. Imagine being the host of a youtube channel that see problems with fellow Protestants over apologetic’s methodology as important enough to platform someone who question and undermine the Gospel.
- Considering point 2 I imagine there can be some who push back and say we can learn from others we disagree with, even with nonbelievers and those who question the Gospel, especially if they provide some knowledge or expertise of the matter. But the former Presuppositionalist doesn’t provide that either.
- As an example of point 3 concerning the guy being interviewed doesn’t even know what he’s talking about consider how in the video he said transcendental argument started with the philosopher Emmanuel Kant. While Kant was the first to use the term Transcendental Arguments to describe certain kinds of deductive arguments the concept of transcendental argumentation has existed long before Kant, and its use goes back as far back to Aristotle, see here. With the guy’s discussion about logical argumentations I was surprised he didn’t consider that types of argumentation can exists before it was formally identified; consider how people assume and intuitively operated with the laws of non-contradiction and modus tollens and modus pollens even before it was talked about by logicians in precise terminologies.
- The guy’s argument against Presuppositionalism is that unless the specific ways Cornelius Van Til argued for the Christian faith (and I gather also by that he expects also Van Til’s exact terminology) is found in the patristics and the Bible then it cannot be the Christian way of doing apologetics. He might be arguing this out of two possible motivation: (1) Presuppositionalists argue this way or (2) the guy’s Eastern Orthodoxy is operating, requiring that doctrines and practices be grounded in the early church. These motivations matter.
- If he argues this way because he thinks Presuppositionalists argues for the merit of this apologetics methodology on the basis that its found fully fleshed out before Van Til then I think he’s not representing presuppositionalists fairly.
- Surveying Van Til and his best students such as Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, etc., you see they argued for this apologetics’ method from the IMPLICATIONS of biblically rooted truths such as a biblical view of man, sin, special revelation, general revelation, salvation, etc. Those are the cornerstone for Presuppositionalism. That was the focus of these legacy Van Tillians rather than mining from Scripture and earlier Christians for an exact tactics in conversations with a nonbeliever of today’s Van Tillian. The guy doesn’t acknowledge this phenomenon in the academic literature of Presuppositional Apologetics let alone dealt with that in the video.
- Also the guy in the video doesn’t deal with the arguments that Presuppositonalists make that Presuppositional Apologetics have incipient forms in the Bible and church history. This is the view I take to avoid an anachronistic historical fallacy such as the one committed on the video. Part of the reason why I say Scripture has “Van Tilian” in incipient form is because Van Til is trying to base his apologetics on biblical truths to shape his method but of course his way of expressing it is historically conditioned with the theological and philosophical terminology of his time and also what are the specific unbelieving threats he was dealing with. Most of church history the intellectuals in the church were not dealing with atheism compared to our more recent time period so we shouldn’t be surprised that some of the things Van Til has to say is not found in the past historically while also we should find core biblical truths from the Bible that Van Til was applying to unbelief.
- If the individual being interviewed argues for all of Van Til’s concepts and language must be found in the Bible and church history is because the guy’s Eastern Orthodoxy is operating, requiring that doctrines and practices be grounded in the early church, then it is rather ironic.
- The individual cannot separate his theology from the discussion of apologetics methodology, which is a serious confirmation of the main thesis of Van Til!
- This Eastern Orthodox strict and anachronistic criteria is also something he himself doesn’t fulfill: Consider where in the Bible are icons are part of New Testament church practices and theology? Doesn’t that high criteria end up being a defeater of his theology?
- The guy in the video brought up one of the common misconception about Presuppositionalism that Presuppositionalists assert nonbelievers can’t know anything. My response to that can be found here: Does Presuppositional Apologetics Claim that Nonbelievers cannot know things?
- The guest also said Presuppositionalists are ambigious confusing polemics with Presuppositionalism. I think that’s rather unfair. The biggest Presuppositional Apologetics group on Facebook have often conservations where more mature presuppositionalists pointing out that merely pointing out self-refutation of unbelief isn’t doing Presuppositional Apologetics, or more precisely, it isn’t the only thing that define Presuppositional Apologetics.
- It is strange the video is titled “The surprisingly short history of presuppositional apologetics.” The host of the interview is Protestants and an Eastern Orthodoxy guy is telling him that Transcendental argument 500 years ago is “short” and new. Protestantism is around the same period (Reformation was earlier than Kant). Does this kind of argumentation provide the undercutting defeater to his Protestantism? Of course one might respond and say that is a rather shallow critique and I agree, so is the arguments in the video. One can also point out Arminianism which the host is sympathetic towards is “shorter” than Protestantism, Reformed, etc. Some of the people he interviewed used insights and argument that original Arminians and the early patristics didn’t used! I point this out is to note the foolishness of the whole video where there’s bad and simplistic historical arguments being given, such as not accounting for things in incipient forms, progressive developments, situational contexts of who and what’s being addressed, historical fallacies, etc.
Thanks for the overview and insight. I have seen several along similar lines lately. Mike Winger has one that is popular.
I appreciate your commitment to the truth.
Blessings.
Thank you! I was wondering if you can check to see if my comments on your cultural alternative blog have my comments under spam; I left a comment within the hour and it’s not there and I might have even commented there last night too
Howdy. Nothing in spam. There are comments from today but not last night. Blessings.
Once comment of Babylon Bee video and one on Chick-fil-A cop.
thanks. will watch later.
Hope you and your family are doing well! Will you be able to see the newest grandchild? =)
of course…He is smaller than the others but hopefully will catch up soon. i;ll send you a picture. Very much loves by the others.
Good point in item 4 that arguments based on the principle of non-contradiction go back to Aristotle. Van Til adds the Bible as inerrant to his presuppositions. When these arguments are made against atheism I don’t see why any Christian should object to them.
Also, good point in item 5 that the speaker’s presuppositions include accepting Eastern Orthodoxy’s church traditions. As someone who prefers Hebrew sources rather than Greek, I see the Greek church, Constantine’s church, as suspect. It is not necessarily wrong, but it is not a tradition that I trust.
Also, good point in item 8 that unbelievers can have useful knowledge, but they cannot consistently justify that knowledge given their worldviews.
As a way to formulate a transcendental argument against atheism, I see nothing wrong with presuppositional apologetics. No Christian should object to it.
The only place where I find it’s use questionable is when this argument is used against other Christians who accept that Jesus is Lord come in the flesh (1 John 4:2-3). I don’t think it works well there since all parties presuppose the Bible. Arguments among Christians will rely on some exegesis of the Bible to justify specific church traditions as additional presuppositions. An exegesis is an analysis of evidence. It is not neutral. Our worldviews can easily turn it into an eisegesis through circular reasoning that the other side won’t accept. That means it becomes more difficult (but not impossible) to derive a contradiction forcing the other party to question their worldview and more difficult for the party deriving the alleged contradiction to not be deceived.
Good comment! Wow you read my post and was tracking what I was saying; thank you. I do think with your last comment it is important to note disagreements among those who hold to the Bible will have to require exegesis and the Transcendental Argument is no substitute for exegesis. Hope you have a blessed day studying today!
This post and the video were mostly over my T-101 head, although the presup approach to apologetics makes perfect sense to me. Everyone sees circumstances from their personal worldview and I agree that God and the Bible are the only basis for rational thought. Thanks for continuing to tutor me in presup!
I did notice how this Eastern Orthodox gentleman claims EO sacramentalism is taught in Scripture. He’s an adroit apologetics polemicist, but methinks he’s probably not saved.
Your comment moved me to pray for this man. I’m concerned with him writing so many self published e-books for all the latest things he just think at the moment is true but he’s constantly jumping from one theology to another, from Protestantism to Judaism to charismatics to orthodoxy (I forgot the exact order). How are you today with your rest day??
Irenaeus of Pensacola reminds me of Kreeft, lots of head knowledge about theology, but not comprehending the Gospel. I prayed for him, too.
RE: Rest Day
Thanks! Moving real slow today. I snowblowed the driveway, but mostly just resting.
How’s your rest day going?
Good post Jim. I am beginning to believe everyone who speaks against presupp has to misrepresent it in some way first. Not sure if this is deliberate or not or just ignorance. Seems to be trendy here lately because, I think, reformed theology is on the rise therefore presupp is also.
I was going to listen to Mike Winger just to hear what he has to say. From what I’ve heard of his teaching, he’s OK but he is not reformed.
Anyway, good stuff as always
I recently saw this video from a large Facebook group I subscribe to. Love to see you addressing something so relevant to many people!
Wow is it an apologetics group that you are in over at FB that you saw this??
Yessir I do not believe I’m mistaken. A buddy of mine who graduated some time before me had seen it and made a few notes on it! It definitely caught my attention to see you addressing it. I love your content and how you dissect matters such as presuppositional apologetics.
Jason Peterson is so blind and full of himself
Thank you.
You are welcome! How are you and your sisters doing Bonnie?
We are in good shape for the shape we are in. :))
This is a good point:
” I think there’s some young guys that want to be apologists that might be a better equipped for future apologetics ministry if they grow in the Bible and pursue spiritual maturity and being more spiritually well-rounded by discipleship by sound men.”
Amen Jeff, hope you are doing well
Yes, brother. Thank you for your prayers.
I think you are gracious with the young host but went after the older guy being interviewed. That’s the way to do it. Funny how they accuse nonbelievers don’t know anything according to Presuppositionalist, seems he didn’t pay attention when he was one
[…] « The Surprisingly Bad Take on Presuppositional Apologetics […]
This is rather embarrassing even if you aren’t a fan of Presuppositional Apologetics
Does the host knows anything, I mean he’s interviewing someone that’s not even qualified to talk about Van Til’s apologetics
I don’t think Jason Peterson can recover after this response
He’s too egotistical to even let this get to him (even though it should)
It sounds so factual until I read your response
That makes me want to write more of these kind of posts. Thanks
The host should interview you instead