Not a what?! Sorry, I’m not trying to force you to go get another cup of coffee just to read this post. 🙂 Admittedly, however, I’ve chosen to deal with a more technical but important topic related to apologetics (1 Pet. 3:15), philosophy, and specifically epistemology.

Here are a few definitions to help us not get lost in the weeds:

• Epistemology is the study of how we know things. For example, how do we know God exists or what God is like? And, what’s our starting place for trying to figure that out? Descartes said, “I think; therefore, I am.” Do we, like Descartes, start with ourselves, with what we’re able to think or observe? If so, we might prefer to be associated with those called evidentialists in the tradition of Thomas Aquinas.[1]
• “Evidential (classical) apologetics deals, as the name implies, with the evidence for Christianity: the resurrection, the biblical manuscripts, fulfilled prophecy, miracles, and much else. It presumes, perhaps, that the listener, or questioner, is not necessarily prejudiced and should recognise truth, or at least, good evidence for truth, when it is made available. The classical apologist is usually well aware that ‘fallen depravity’ has affected all minds yet remains essentially optimistic that – in any particular case – the Holy Spirit could be at work in opening a person’s mind.”[2]
• Presuppositional apologetics, associated with Cornelius Van Til, starts with God as the foundation and takes “a far more cynical view… This methodology purposely sets out to deal with the presuppositions of those who oppose Christianity, because presuppositions affect how a person views evidence, reason, and the world in general…” No problem there. However, many presuppositionalists would “also want to confront the Arminian and Catholic, whereas more traditional Christian apologetics would refuse to bring denominational differences into the apologetics arena.”[3]

Although much has been written on the correct starting point for Christian apologetics, most obscures rather than gives light. I’m of the opinion articulated with simplicity and clarity by R.C. Sproul that proof for the existence of God is not just probable but compelling.[4] Sproul distinguishes what he calls a “classical” position from both the presuppositionalist and the evidentialist approaches mentioned above. (Although, as in the definition above, the classical position is usually combined with the evidential approach.)

Let me summarize Sproul’s teaching with the following points and a counterpoint, concluding with a bit of common ground and two practical take-aways:

• Point: Sproul’s starting assumption is that when it comes to the topic of how we know things (epistemology), a person can’t start with God unless he or she is God. We have to start, rather, with self-consciousness. As the song “Chasing Shadows” by Kansas says, “All of us are just an audience looking for evidence to help it all make sense.”[5] In other words, it is human to struggle with life’s questions. Part of life on planet earth is seeking and trying to understand what we experience.
• Counterpoint: Presuppositionalists counter, “You are not being biblical and are adopting the argument of the secularist, assuming the autonomy of the self, like Descartes or Adam and Eve.” For example, Van Til in his pamphlet, “Why I Believe in God,” says: “When Eve in the garden of Eden became neutral as between God and the Devil, weighing the contentions of each as though they were of equal value, she was already on the side of the devil.”[6]
• Point: But again, Sproul clarifies that we start with self-consciousness, not self-autonomy, because that is the only place we can start. We are not God; we are creatures! Sproul underscores well a point that many presuppositionalists fail to get: The existence of God is “first in the way of being, not first in the order of knowing.”[7] That is, yes, God is the beginning, first cause, and source of all things; however, our experience of this begins with ourselves, not God.

Common Ground: Despite these subtle yet important distinctions, both Van Til’s presuppositionalism and Sproul’s “classical” approach agree that God is supreme, not man, and the autonomous self is an arrogant delusion. They would further agree with the following statements:

• Saving faith is not possible and does not happen without regeneration (Eph. 2:1-5). In other words, God must act first; a person cannot be reasoned to faith without divine initiative and assistance (John 6:44a; Acts 16:14).
• We need greater confidence in “the secret things” God is doing behind the scenes (Deut. 29:29).

Although the above discussion may still seem a bit obscure, think about the implications of these last two bullets on your ministry, parenting, or grand-parenting. There’s plenty of incentive here to give ourselves more to prayer.

---

[1] I’m overgeneralizing and using broad categories here for simplicity and do not mean to imply that Aquinas and Descartes were two peas in the same pod. They were actually diametrically opposed in many ways, and Descartes’ God was nothing like Aquinas’. For example, those who are interested should see the work of Josef Pieper, a modern Thomist, who refutes Descartes with Aquinas.

[2] http://www.ukapologetics.net/07/presuppositional.htm

[3] Ibid.

[4] R.C. Sproul, “Presuppositional Apologetics” (video of lecture, 2010), accessed May 8, 2015, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4xyK1t6eyQ.

[5] Kansas, “Chasing Shadows,” by John and Dino Elefante on Vinyl Confessions, Epic, 1982, compact disc. 

[6] Cornelius Van Til, Why I Believe in God (Philadelphia: WTS), 6.

[7] R.C. Sproul, “Presuppositional Apologetics” (video of lecture, 2010), accessed May 8, 2015,  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4xyK1t6eyQ.