Evidential or Presuppositional?

[prism]

There are good Christians on both sides of the issue whether one's approach to apologetics is 'evidential' or 'presuppositional'.
My hunch (but not certain) is that the Reformed favors a presuppositional approach when it comes to apologetics. Yes/No/Maybe? Yours? Why/Why not?

 

[Carbon]

There are good Christians on both sides of the issue whether one's approach to apologetics is 'evidential' or 'presuppositional'.
My hunch (but not certain) is that the Reformed favors a presuppositional approach when it comes to apologetics. Yes/No/Maybe? Yours? Why/Why not?

I’m not sure. I know Sproul was evidential. My pastor is reformed and he is presuppositional. Me, I’m not sure. I also see good on both sides.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

I’m not sure. I know Sproul was evidential. My pastor is reformed and he is presuppositional. Me, I’m not sure. I also see good on both sides.

Presuppositional is for the unbeliever. Evidential is for the believer.

You're welcome.

 

[Carbon]

Presuppositional is for the unbeliever. Evidential is for the believer.

You're welcome.

That makes sense to me.

 

[prism]

Presuppositional is for the unbeliever. Evidential is for the believer.

You're welcome.

Here the brothers were unbelievers yet a presuppostional is advanced, but the evidential approach is turned down...

Luke 16:27-31 ESV
And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house- [28] for I have five brothers-so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' [29] But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' [30] And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' [31] He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"

Or am i seeing things that aren't there?

 

[Ladodgers6]

There are good Christians on both sides of the issue whether one's approach to apologetics is 'evidential' or 'presuppositional'.
My hunch (but not certain) is that the Reformed favors a presuppositional approach when it comes to apologetics. Yes/No/Maybe? Yours? Why/Why not?

Why can't it be both?

 

[prism]

Why can't it be both?

I had read a book about 20 years ago that took that position, but it has left me scratching my head even after those years.

 

[John Bauer]

My hunch (but not certain) is that the Reformed favors a presuppositional approach when it comes to apologetics. Yes/No/Maybe? Yours? Why/Why not?

I believe that presuppositionalism is Reformed theology applied to the enterprise of apologetics. If you truly and firmly believe in a Reformed covenant theology, presuppositionalism is the inevitable by-product.

 

[prism]

I believe that presuppositionalism is Reformed theology applied to the enterprise of apologetics. If you truly and firmly believe in a Reformed covenant theology, presuppositionalism is the inevitable by-product.

That's interesting, why would it be inevitable?

 

[Carbon]

Presuppositional is for the unbeliever. Evidential is for the believer.

You're welcome.

Well actually. Neither can convince the person of God.
But the believer needs to hear the word, absolutely, so presuppositional is also for the believer.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Well actually. Neither can convince the person of God.
But the believer needs to hear the word, absolutely, so presuppositional is also for the believer.

The unbeliever and the believer know that God exists. The unbeliever demands "proof". Presuppositionalism tells them that they have all the proof they need and are going to get. Presuppositionalism tells them that they are not the Judge...God is. The issue isn't proof. The issue is a heart issue.

Unregenerate man will not and cannot acknowledge God. His presuppositions point him away from God. Presuppositionalism calls the unbeliever on his faulty world view and presents the correct world view according too ( and by ) the Gospel. It's purpose is too tear down faulty worldviews and present the correct one. The atheists "belief" is irrelevant and has no ground here. And none is given. There is no neutrality. There is no middle ground. There is only rebellion or surrender too the Lord Jesus Christ.

The believer's world view can benefit from Presuppositionalism as his "suppositions" my not align with the Bible due to faulty teaching or understanding. But the believer acknowledges and desires the things of God. These things are best seen in evidential apologetics. This type of apologetic is a help in the building up and defense of faith.

Evidentialism is worthless too the unbeliever because no amount of "evidence" will be enough without the Spirit of God changing him/her on a fundamental level. Also it is insulting toward God to use this method in that it places the unbeliever in a position over God ( the unbeliever "judges" God by the evidence presented ).

 

[prism]

@CrazyCalvinistUncle , thanks, that tied together a lot of loose threads floating around my heart and mind, which I could not seem to piece together.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

I believe that presuppositionalism is Reformed theology applied to the enterprise of apologetics. If you truly and firmly believe in a Reformed covenant theology, presuppositionalism is the inevitable by-product.

I would say "believe in reformed theology" as I am Pre-Mil Futurist and I found it inevitable. Still...I am a "Calvinist" but I think the world is waking up to the fact that there are distinctions across Covenantal and other camps. I won't say "Non-Covenantal" simply because Dispensationalists acknowledge the existence of covenants.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

@CrazyCalvinistUncle , thanks, that tied together a lot of loose threads floating around my heart and mind, which I could not seem to piece together.

Glad, I hope, that I could be of help.

 

[prism]

So, even if one was able to convince through evidentiary means, that God existed, one would face an even more insurmountable problem in comparison, that thIs newly 'proven God', actually has a Son!

 

[Josheb]

There are good Christians on both sides of the issue whether one's approach to apologetics is 'evidential' or 'presuppositional'.
My hunch (but not certain) is that the Reformed favors a presuppositional approach when it comes to apologetics. Yes/No/Maybe? Yours? Why/Why not?

I think the difference or debate between the two is a false dichotomy. Both work best when practiced in tandem BUT learning proesuppositional approaches is much more difficulty than simply asserting a list of facts as evidence.

I am, for the record, Reformed.

I also think the best apologetic is a life well lived.

 

[Josheb]

So, even if one was able to convince through evidentiary means, that God existed, one would face an even more insurmountable problem in comparison, that thIs newly 'proven God', actually has a Son!

Facts alone never convert. No one comes to Christ unless the Father draws him. I even recently read of an atheist who believed Jesus was a real person who factually came back from the dead. His answer to how that did not persuade him was, "Strange things happen in real life." It does not mean a God exists! The only reason any facts ever persuade to a point of conversion is because God is also at work in that person for the purpose of salvation.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

So, even if one was able to convince through evidentiary means, that God existed, one would face an even more insurmountable problem in comparison, that thIs newly 'proven God', actually has a Son!

Worse...it doesn't matter which person of the Trinity you have "proven". If you can "convince" an unregenerate person with evidence then someone else can "convince" them otherwise. Again the issue isn't evidence.

 

[prism]

Worse...it doesn't matter which person of the Trinity you have "proven". If you can "convince" an unregenerate person with evidence then someone else can "convince" them otherwise. Again the issue isn't evidence.

Well I did stick a big 'if' in there...

So, even if one was able to convince...

 

[prism]

Facts alone never convert. No one comes to Christ unless the Father draws him. I even recently read of an atheist who believed Jesus was a real person who factually came back from the dead. His answer to how that did not persuade him was, "Strange things happen in real life." It does not mean a God exists! The only reason any facts ever persuade to a point of conversion is because God is also at work in that person for the purpose of salvation.

Agreed, my statement was just a comparison of sorts.