Evidentialism vs. Presuppositionalism

[robert]

Evidentialism supports the idea that the evidence of God can be argued from outside of Scripture, i.e natural revelation. Presuppositionalism supports the idea that God can only be known through special revelation, i.e. Scripture.

Specifically with respect to Scripture, the evidentialist would say that proof for Scripture's validity can be found outside of its source. The presuppositionalist would say that the Scripture itself holds its only truth claim, which can only be understood through the Holy Spirit's illumination. Otherwise, the non-believer would be called to judge the merits of Scripture, i.e. about God through a darkened lens.

What view do you support and why?

[Stephen Hatch]

Because God's word (the Bible) is true, in those areas where it touches on history and the created order (science)etc., the evidence from these disciplines rightly interpreted will line up with Scripture because truth is a unity. I am eclectic in my apologetics I can start with Scripture, the presupposition that it is God's word and proclaim it as such (which is preferable) or if needed I can bring in evidence from history, archeology, logic, science etc., to corroberate biblical truths and refute error, it depends on who you are talking to and what issues you are discussing. If I am speaking to someone who watched a shoddy documentary that claimed that Jesus' bones were found in an ossuary I can point out the evidence presented by leading archeologists that refutes this, but if it never comes I could proclaim that God through the Hebrew Scriptures foretold (thousands of years before Jesus' birth) Messiah would die for the sins of His people (Isaiah 53, Ps 22 etc.)and be raised bodily from the dead (Ps 16:10, Is 53 etc.) and that Jesus is the only one Who fits this criteria for the Messiah, and that we have eye-witness testimony in the NT of people who saw Him after His resurrection-verifying that He in fact is the promised Messiah, and doesn't this argument seem to both presuppositional in appealing to Scripture as God's word and evidential in presentling evidence from the Hebrew messianic prophesies and the eye witness accounts in the NT(or OT and NT Scripture) that Jesus is the promised Messiah Who suffered a substitutionary death for sinners and was raised from the dead?

[Stephen Hatch]

PS--an obvious reply to my question would be to say the evidence I presented was from Scripture, so that would go along with presuppositionalism and not an evidentialism, but what if we threw in some other arguments for the resurrection such as the eye-witnesses (Apostles) died for their witness and people don't willingly die for a lie when recanting would save them, the change from the worship day of the church (all Jews at the beginning) from Saturday to Sunday, that all the Jews and Romans had to do to snuff out the emerging church was to produce the body of Jesus which they could not do again these arguments are based on Scripture, but not entirely so, for example most of the deaths of the Apostles are not recorded in Scripture, it seems to me that we can effectively use both presuppostional and evidential argument to proclam and defend the gospel, but that Scripture is always paramount.

[robert]

Some random thoughts (not necessarily in opposition to you, I am just thinking out loud):


Point 1: Many do not know of Scripture and so construct their worldview based on what they see in nature; some groups even coming to a belief in one high God. The creation itself, even without the Bible, shows that there is a Creator.


Point 2: Presuppositionalists like the word "autonomous." Also, I have noticed a tendency for them to use a lot of big words.


Point 3: Most people that come to faith do not come to faith due to logical argumentation or because their arguments have been attacked and found wanting. Most people come to faith for reasons not solely nor mainly tied to logic. Most are attracted to the beauty of Christ or flee to Him as a means of escape, they do not logically deduce him.


Point 4: believers and unbelievers have more common ground than you think. A general deism or theism could produce a world with some hint of rationality

Point 5: Many mistake apologetics for evangelism and think that mastering more arguments will bring more folks into the kingdom. It seems that many, many reformed believers want to master apologetics, which seems to be a narrower discipline, than they do basic evangelism. I think evangelism and apologetics needs to be separated and seen clearly as two discipline or else apologetics needs to be subsumed under evangelism as a narrower discipline. I am afraid that we are focusing much effort on atheists who are mostly hardened and not on the normal unbeliever, who will be blessed a lot more by evangelistic appeals rather than presup argumentation.


What are your counter-thoughts to these thoughts? Again, I am not attacking, just throwing out some random, not-very-well-developed first thoughts.

[Stephen Hatch]

I agree many do not come to faith in Christ because of air tight logical arguments that convince the lost person that Christianity is the truth, many turn to Christ out of desperation after their life is a mess (like me)or they have tried the world's way and found it lacking or some other need (if any do genuinely repent and believe the gospel it is because of God's work, both His Spirit changing them internall and He providentially moving their outward circumstances brings them to that point). Because people come to Christ in many different ways and not necessarily based on a compelling case being presented that He is the truth that does not mean we should not know for ourselves and be able to communicate to others why Christianity is indeed the truth and can be shown to be by convincing proof, in good times and in bad times, whether our felt needs seem to be met or not we should hold tenaciously to Christ (and be thankful He holds onto those that are His) because we are certain that He is indeed the truth.

Believers and unbelievers have much in common they are both created in God's image and they are both fallen sinners, and they have knowledge of God from the created order and His law written in their hearts(Rom 1:19-20, 2;14-15) we certainly have some fundemental common ground from which to present the gospel to them.

I do agree that apologetics and evangelism are not the same thing but that they go together, all Christians should be evangelizing, apologetics is a tool that is sometimes needed in service of evangelism. For any who just make a hobby out of apologetics and arguing its fine points but have no concern for the lost and never present the gospel to them, to put it mildly, I think they have missed the mark.