A Short Summary of Presuppositional Apologetics

     I wanted to try and make a post that didn't necessarily rely on the usage of citing many sources and would instead rely on my own words to type up the essay this time. So this is my short attempt to try and type up an essay to explain and briefly defend the usage of what has been called "Presuppositional Apologetics." To at least define it right now, Presuppositional Apologetics is the defense of the Christian Faith, by beginning with and reasoning with the Christian system of belief as the starting point. Meaning we don't begin neutral, but we reason and argue from the Triune God as our ultimate authority. We use the Bible as a defense for the existence of God and other subjects of debate with the non-Christian.

    When we come to the means of how it is done, we simply must put ourselves into this position: Imagine you are a Christian and you are walking around a park where people come to debate and go over several subjects. You encounter an atheist, Muslim and an Orthodox Jew. You see they each have objections towards your faith and they have varying objections based on their own particular worldview. While an atheist, for example, may try to ask you to prove that God exists, the Muslim might argue that you need to prove why your Bible should be reliable to them and answer why you do not affirm the Quran as being from God. You have to also consider where each person is coming from as well in order to deal with their objections.

    I will now consider some key elements in how one would engage in Presuppositional Apologetics. The first one is simple: Worldviews are fundamental when engaging in the debate of Presuppositional Apologetics. Whenever you engage with somebody, they each have their own worldview that frames how they operate and understand reality around them. There is Islam as its own worldview for example. But there also sub worldviews that operate within it such as the Sunni, Shia & Ahmadiyya worldview. The same can then be put to atheism as there is not just one "Atheist Worldview," but several. There is an atheistic form of Idealism, an atheistic dualism, nihilism, and even atheist worldviews which try to argue for objective moral values and objective dignity as opposed to the normal subjective case. It is important to deal with each worldview accordingly based on the individual you encounter. Sometimes this will mean even reading sources from the worldview's perspective such as the Quran for the Muslim or the Talmud for the Orthodox Jew.

    The second key element is to begin with affirming the Christian Worldview as true. You may call this the "presupposition" one affirms as this is your worldview and you begin with it to make sense of reality. This is both easy and yet difficult to do as there is still the need to vindicate or justify your worldview. Cornelius Van Til, the father of Presuppositional Apologetics, has once said that "the only proof for the existence of God is that without God you couldn't prove anything." To sum it up, this means simply that God is the necessary starting point to understand proofs or evidences. In other words, it would begin that we could observe the same evidences or data to use as proof for our worldview compared to others. One can examine certain biological data to come to different conclusions about evolution being true or false. Same in the case of different religions. A Christian will read certain verses in the Old Testament as prophecy of Jesus while a Muslim will try to use it to read as proof for Muhammad in the Bible. John 16 is a great example of this case in the New Testament where Christians view the Great Comforter is the Holy Spirit while Muslims think this is Muhammad.

    The third key element is the point of contact, or the element of mutual agreement that can be found. This is mostly in the Christian's affirmation of Romans 1:18-20. The text reads as such: "For God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, that is, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what he has made. As a result, people are without excuse." (CSB). So when we read this, we see that everybody knows God exists to some degree, though suppress it. There is at least key elements of that mutual knowledge found in the unbeliever's understanding of reality, knowledge and ethics as well as various other issues. In other words, they have to borrow from the Christian Worldview implicitly in order to justify their own worldview. As verses 21-23 point out: "For though they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or show gratitude. Instead, their thinking became worthless, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man, birds, four-footed animals, and reptiles." (CSB).

    The fourth key element is the use of transcendental reasoning/argumentation. There is a popular indirect argument for the existence of God by Van Til which argues that Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary. This is a difficult element to formulate into the a syllogism or formal argument for sure, but some have tried. A friend of mine from a while back certainly tried and has formulated this particular argument that I use today. I will show it as a way to hopefully somewhat explain the argument in a laid out structure.

P1: If Intelligibility did not exist, we would not be able to argue that intelligibility does not exist

P2: Intelligibility exists

P3: Christianity exhaustively provides both the metaphysical and epistemological grounds for intelligibility

P4: Any deviation whatsoever from Christianity no longer exhaustively provides both the metaphysical and epistemological grounds for intelligibility

P5: If intelligibility exists, Christianity is true.

C: Christianity is true.

    Though not exactly a perfect argument in formulation, it at least helps captures the essence of the method of arguing from a Presuppositionalist perspective of arguing for Christianity. One can at least then grasp the essence of this argument and put it forth in other arguments such as the Moral Argument, Cosmological Argument, etc. to then put forth a more Christianized version of this arguments by arguing for them in a transcendental reasoning.

    The fifth key element is to demonstrate that there is inconsistencies with the worldview of the non-Christian. This can be difficult and requires one to ask questions or study the other non-Christian worldviews to understand their foundations. One may point out to inconsistencies or double standards but be careful of doing so to the point of being guilty of the Tu Quoque Fallacy. One can also point out where foundational beliefs may themselves be self-contradictory. Once you can demonstrate the fault in the other's worldviews while also sustaining your own, you manage to show that your worldview has proper foundations while the other one will crumble apart.

     Though not a key element, I would call it something required for all Christians in apologetics. 1 Peter 3:15-16 is the overall apologetics verse that says something many tend to overlook: "But in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, ready at any time to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you. Yet do this with gentleness and reverence, keeping a clear conscience, so that when you are accused, those who disparage your good conduct in Christ will be put to shame." (CSB).

    We are not to just simply defend the faith or tear apart the other non-Christian worldviews with some sort of rudeness, arrogance or snobbery. We are instead called to be gentle and respectful doing so with a clear conscience. This is done so that when you are accused, those who disparage your good conduct in Christ will be put to shame. So, when some worry about being made fun of or having their own person attacked by the individual, the opposition will be put to shame because of your gentle and respectful good conduct. It is in this element that helps seal the Presuppositional method to full completion.