IS APOLOGETICS BIBLICAL?
Published on: 03/17/2025
This site exists to be a resource library for Christians seeking to deepen and defend their faith. As such, Christian apologetics plays a critical role in our mission. Newcomers with some experience with apologetics may wish to know the methodology of Baseline Christianity. Are we Presuppositional or Evidential? While we are not against using resources provided by those on the Presuppositional side, we are decidedly evidential in our approach. Below is some of the material from the site editor's booklet A Thoughtful Look at Presuppositionalism. If you're coming from the "presuppositional only" approach, please take the time to read the full article and consider its implications. Thank you!
Presuppositionalism Considered
As a conservative evangelical Christian, I am exceedingly thankful for the many faithful gospel-centered believers who don’t hold to all of my secondary theological convictions. While I am not myself a disponsationalist, I owe a great debt to the faithful teaching of giants in the faith like John MacArthur. Likewise, while I am not an Anglican, some of my most memorable insights have come from the thoughtful writings of C.S. Lewis. The same is true of my Presuppotionalist brothers. While I do ultimately disagree with them on their conclusions (for reasons I’m about to outline, below), I think it’s especially important that I begin this booklet with an expression of how much I respect the many godly men and women in this movement. While I cannot speak for all people, one thing I deeply appreciate about many Presuppositionalists is their deep reverence for the Word of God. Too many people who bear the name of Christ ignore or outright reject the literal message of almighty God for humanity. We would all do well to adopt such an attitude of reverence held by our Presuppositionist brothers – and push back against the cultural apathy (and even outright hostility) against the scriptures. So, if you’re a Presuppositionist reading this booklet, please allow me to begin by thanking you. Thank you for considering God’s Word more important than the opinions of man. Know that what I’m about to say is not meant to be an attack on you, your motivations, or your commitment to the glory of God. On the essential issues, we can have unity. In the nonessentials, may we have liberty. In all things, let us speak with charity.
As someone who loves God as the source of all things good, lovely, and true, I deeply desire to know and teach truth. So, if my views are wrong, I endeavor to change my beliefs to adequately reflect reality as God has made it. For this reason, I believe it’s important that we approach complex topics like these with humility – that is, a true willingness to hear and consider the other side. After all, if what you believe is actually true, what do you have to fear? Perhaps I’m wrong. If that’s the case, I hope you will be able to spot my error(s) and gently point them out to me. On the other hand, perhaps I’m right in my understanding. If you’re someone who disagrees, all I ask of you today is that you approach my words in such as way that if I am right, you won’t prevent yourself from seeing it. Humility on both sides is essential to any productive conversation.
Examining Presuppositionalism
Presuppositionalism is a certain approach to sharing the gospel that states that Christians ought to presuppose the truthfulness of the Bible in their evangelistic efforts, citing scripture alone as the sole reason why a person ought to become a Christian. No evidence of any kind is to be given alongside the scriptures. Rather, the goal is to confront the unbeliever with the reality of the Word of God and let God do the rest. There are eight main reasons Presuppositionalists give for adopting this approach:
While there may be a few more minor arguments I’m forgetting, these are the big eight. In the following pages, I will be evaluating each of them individually to see if they hold water when considered carefully.
Reason 1: True Knowledge?
As we just mentioned on the last page, the first of the eight reasons given for Presuppositionalism states that knowledge must be certain in order to actually count as knowledge. After all, if you could be wrong about something, do you really know that thing to be true? To the causal reader, the answer appears to be obvious: no. But is this knee-jerk answer right?
Suppose for a moment that this assertion is right: and you can only have knowledge if it’s absolutely impossible for you to be wrong on the issue. What then? Shockingly, this would mean that no one could know anything – even the words of Scripture. How so? Because in order to know you actually understand the Bible correctly, you have first depend on your ability to see words on a page, understand the language of the text, and comprehend how those words form ideas to be understood. But do you really know with absolute certainty that your eyes are not deceiving you? Do you have the complete knowledge required to rule out the idea that the words on the page are just an illusion? In order to presuppose the truthfulness of the Bible as the foundation for all truth, you must first presuppose the truthfulness of the senses you use to read the Bible. Yet, if only certain knowledge counts as knowledge, we can’t have knowledge that our senses are accurate – meaning that we also can’t have knowledge of what the Bible says either. In other words, if this first reason for presuppositionalism is true, then knowledge of the scriptures (alongside everything else) is completely out of our reach.
Obviously, this understanding of knowledge is flawed. No one thinks like this – including Presuppositionalists. Yet, if this first reason for Presuppositionalism is true, then this absurdity is what we’re left with. Thus, we’re left to conclude that this reason is a bad one. It does not accomplish what it seeks to prove.
How then should we understand knowledge? How can we know something and at the same time have the possibility of being wrong? In order to answer that question, we need to define knowledge. Here is the standard largely-agreed open definition for us to consider:
Knowledge: Justified true belief.
What’s that mean? It means that in order for you to know something, you have to have three things. First, you have to have good reasons for it – that’s what the word justified means. Second, it has to match reality – that’s what the word true means. Third, it has to be something you actually believe. Put all three together and you have knowledge. Notice: none of those three things require certainty. In fact, certainty, if you really think about it, is just an emotional state that has more to say about your confidence in an issue then about reality. As a kid, I’ve been certain about quite a few things that I was wrong about. Likewise, it’s possible to be right about things you’re not certain about. Nervous people know exactly what I’m talking about! Certainty doesn’t determine knowledge or truth.
Likewise, the ability to be wrong about something doesn’t mean that the thing you believe is false. I could be wrong about my view on the end times. That doesn’t mean my view is false. I could also be wrong about even more basic things, like the reality of my senses. But that doesn’t mean my senses are unreliable. As finite human beings, we don’t have the ability to fact-check our beliefs with absolute perfection – even our beliefs that come from reading the Bible. Even fact-checking our own existence requires us to employ the laws of logic, which we can’t prove without first assuming their reality!
How should we respond to this lack of complete knowledge? By being as reasonable as we can, in our limited, finite condition. The fact of the matter is, we’re not God – and we shouldn’t try to be. It’s okay that we don’t have perfect knowledge. As finite beings, the most reasonable thing we can do is what most of us do without thinking about it: we start by taking our experiences in this world at face value unless/until we have overriding reason to think our assessment of these experiences are wrong. For example, it’s perfectly reasonable to think that the world around us is real and that the world isn’t one great big illusion. While in theory, we could be wrong (and be in a Matrix), the most reasonable thing is for us to take our experience at face value unless/until we have greater reason for believing its opposite. This might not make us feel perfectly comfortable, but we must remember that part of being human is not having perfect knowledge or perfect control. We’re creatures, not God himself.
To summarize, knowledge doesn’t require certainty to be knowledge. And while we don’t have the ability to perfectly fact-check our beliefs, the more evidence we have to support our beliefs, the more confident we can be that the things we think are true actually are true.
Reason 2: Only What’s Revealed?
The second of the eight reasons given for Presuppositionalism states that knowledge must either be exhaustive or revealed by God to be real knowledge. However, having just walked through the actual definition of knowledge above, the problem with this claim becomes readily apparent. While it is true that being intellectually infalliblei requires perfect knowledge of all things, knowing everything isn’t required to know some things. As we already mentioned, knowledge is “justified true belief,” not “infallible true belief.”
This assertion does have one important point we should keep in mind though – and that’s one of credibility. If it is true that the infallible God of the universe has indeed spoken through the Bible, then what He has to say is going to be much more credible then anyone else’s thoughts or opinions. So, if we can establish that the Bible really is from God, then that means we’d be fools to not submit to what He has to say. Of course, just a claim to be divine isn’t enough. The Qu’ran and the Book of Mormon both claim divine origins. One must first establish the legitimacy to a claim before consenting to it. But that leads us to the next of the eight reasons brought up by Presuppositionalists…
Reason 3: Judging God?
The third of the eight reasons for Presuppositionalism is that using evidence inappropriately places man as the authority over God. In fact, some Presuppositionalists will even go so far as to say that using evidence to evaluate the truthfulness of Christianity is damnable.1 This is a very serious assertion that deserves our attention. Is it true that using evidence places God under our authority?
Not in the slightest. In fact, this assertion is actually nothing more than a misunderstanding of how authority works. Allow me to illustrate. Suppose you were a government employee that was in charge of launching nuclear strikes against an enemy whenever ordered to by the United States president. Now suppose that you received two commands via secure messengers, both claiming to be from the president. One said, “Nuke Russia.” The other said, “Stand down; do not nuke anyone.” What do you do? Clearly, the true president is your authority, and your opinion on geopolitical politics is not permitted to play a role in your actions. You aren’t the authority; the president is. Even if you disagree with the president, you have to do what the president tells you to do. Period. End of discussion. But how do you figure out which command is from your actual authority and which one is the forgery? Would it be disrespectful of your authority to look at the evidence to determine which one is from the president? Would such an investigation be placing the president under your thumb as the judge over him? Clearly not.
In the same way, when we look at the evidence in order to figure out which belief system is true, we’re not placing our selves over the authentic Ruler of the universe. Rather, we’re just doing our due diligence in sorting out the forgeries so that we can submit ourselves fully to the real God over all. Once we find out who that God is and how He has revealed Himself, then we submit ourselves to Him, having first ensured we haven’t been deceived into opposing Him by mistake. Far from being disrespectful to our Authority, following the evidence is the best way we can ensure that we do honor Him. This third reason fails.
Reason 4: Just the Gospel?
The fourth of the eight reasons for Presuppositionalism is that using evidence alongside the gospel disrespects God, because it adds to the gospel, as if what God said wasn’t sufficient. But is this characterization true?
Well if by adding to the gospel, you mean communicating extra information, then yes, using evidence is “adding to the gospel.” This isn’t necessarily being disrespectful, however. After all, even the Presuppositionalist greets the unbeliever before sharing the gospel. Doesn’t that require extra words not contained in the gospel? Obviously, yes. Clearly, communicating extra information isn’t what’s in mind here. Probably what’s being thought of by “adding to the gospel” is distorting it. Does using evidence distort the gospel? No! The gospel presented by Christian apologists is the same gospel presented by Presuppositionalists: that Christ died for our sins and offers salvation to anyone who appropriates his atoning sacrifice by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. This fourth reason for Presuppositionalism fails.
Reason 5: No Common Ground?
The fifth of the eight reasons for Presuppositionalism is that because of man’s total depravity, believers and unbelievers have no common ground to reason together from. Is this true?
Well, I think this assertion is demonstratively false. If in nothing else, when the Presuppositionalist shares the gospel with unbelievers, are they not at least assuming the common ground of their common language? Likewise, when they make arguments for presupposing the Christian worldview, aren’t they assuming that the unbeliever will understand their arguments? At the bare minimum there is some overlap. Add to that minimum everything else common to all humanity (such as our desires for safety, security, and freedom from pain), and we see this reason is clearly false.
Reason 6: Only the Holy Spirit?
The sixth of the eight reasons for Presuppositionalism is that because of man’s total depravity, using evidence is fruitless; only the Holy Spirit can bring about conversion.
While the reasoning behind such an approach is understandable, especially for those who hold to reformed theology, I think there are some misunderstandings here. For, if reformed theology is true and the working of the Holy Spirit is needed for the unbeliever to express faith in Christ, this reality would still allow for a wide verity of means by which He accomplishes such a work. After all, even the most robust Calvinist evangelist would most certainly advocate for godly behavior and genuine hospitality towards unbelievers in evangelism as well as clarity in the words used to articulate the gospel. Even such a reformed theologian would agree that believers still have to act respectfully even if the ultimate deciding factor for a person’s salvation is not with the person sharing the gospel. Why? Because the same God who regenerates uses means to draw men to Himself. This, of course, opens the door to the possibility of God using not just the means of love and hospitality but also logical reasoning. Thus, while reformed theology does not require rational argumentation in evangelism, the Calvinist need not believe that it precludes such an approach either. If God can use Christlike character, He can also use Christlike reasoning. This sixth reason for Presuppositionalism fails.
Reason 7: The Bible Condemns Apologetics?
The seventh of the eight reasons for Presuppositionalism is that the Bible condemns the use of some of the key elements of evidential apologetics: philosophy, intellectual reasoning, and conversational cleverness. For example, notice the following passage from Paul’s letter to the Colossians:
Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elements of the world, rather than Christ. (Col 2:8)
At first glace, this passage might seem to indicate that philosophy itself is bad. But is that really what’s being said? A careful reading of the text reveals the real focus of the warning: false teachers of elemental traditions who were seeking to deceive the early church. Philosophy is way of communicating, just like preaching, teaching, or writing. That’s why, in this passage, Paul isn’t directing his warning against philosophy, but against the people who are using it to deceive the Christians in Colossi. Paul understood a simple truth that we would be wise to consider: just as falsei teachers don’t invalidatei thei practicei of teaching, wicked philosophers don’t invalidatei thei practicei of philosophy. Just because someone uses a method of communication for evil, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong for us to communicate.
But how do we know this is what Paul meant? Because Paul himself practiced philosophy! You see, the idea that Paul condemned this communication method is only persuasive when someone doesn’t understand what philosophy actually is: thei usei of logic to comei to conclusions. That’s all that it is! So, anytime someone makes an argument (including for Presuppositionalism), they’re using philosophy. Any argument against the practice of philosophy is self-defeating. It’s like using words to argue against using words!
Another passage commonly misunderstand to be condemning apologetics comes from the third chapter of the book of Titus, where Paul says:
But avoid foolish debates, genealogies, quarrels, and disputes about the law, because they are unprofitable and worthless. (Titus 3:9)
Based on a quick reading of this passage, we might conclude that debating itself is sin, right? But what does Paul actually say here? He says foolish debates, not debates in general, are wrong. And any proponent of apologetics worth their salt would say the same thing: mindless arguing isn’t something we should be doing. But even if this passage didn’t have the word “foolish” in it, we’d be wise to call attention to another word on Paul’s list: genealogies. Are we prepared to say that it was a sin for the Apostle Matthew to record the first chapter of the New Testament or for Moses to record all those lists of names we see scattered throughout the book of Genesis? Paul’s list wasn’t designed to be a catch-all rule for every situation; he had something very specific in mind when he wrote what he did. All this to say: using philosophy isn’t against the teachings of scripture.
But what about all those passages that speak of God humbling the wise of this world and uplifting those whom we consider foolish? For example:
Woe to those who consider themselves wise and judge themselves clever. (Isiah 5:21)
For it is written, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will set aside the intelligence of the intelligent.’ Where is the one who is wise? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn’t God made the world’s wisdom foolish? For since, in God’s wisdom, the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of what is preached. (1 cor 1:19-21)
My speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not be based on human wisdom but on God’s power. (1 Cor 2:1-5)
Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks he is wise in this age, let him become a fool so that he can become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, since it is written, He catches the wise in their craftiness; and again, The Lord knows that the reasonings of the wise are futile. (1 Cor 3:18-20)
The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and snared. They have rejected the word of the Lord, so what wisdom do they really have? (Jer 8:9)
We know that “we all have knowledge.” Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone thinks he knows anything, he does not yet know it as he ought to know it. But if anyone loves God, he is known by him. (1 Cor 8:1-3)
Don’t passages like these show us that intellectual argumentation is counter to the gospel? No. In each of these passages, the context shows us the reality of what’s being said. In fact, the last two passages make it so clear, it’s hard to miss. The type of wisdom scripture repeatedly condemns is the one that “rejects the word of the lord” and “does not love God.” Scripture is clear:
If I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I can move mountains but do not have love [for God], I am nothing. (1 Cor 13:2)
The type of “knowledge” that rejects Christ gets us nowhere. That’s the whole point of the book of Ecclesiastes. By contrast, the humility required to recognize that we can’t “smart ourselves” into heaven but need Christ to die for us often seems laughable to the outside world. To them, it appears foolish, but the reality is that it’s actually incredibly wise. For this reason, we see that the wisei man, not the foolish man, built his house on the rock of Christ. Wisdom aligned with Christ is truly honorable. There is nothing wrong with learning, becoming knowledgeable, and gaining wisdom. Otherwise, the book of Proverbs would not exist! The problem arises when we take that knowledge and use it against the maker and source of knowledge and wisdom Himself. That is why Paul can say with perfect consistency:
“And I pray this: that your love will keep on growing in knowledge and every kind of discernment.” (Isiah 55:8-9)
Reason 8: The Example of Scripture?
The final of the eight reasons for Presuppositionalism is that the Holy Spirit only (or at least primarily) uses the pure gospel message apart from arguments to save sinners in scripture. After all, we want to be biblical, right?
But is this so-called Biblical approach really what we see in the Bible? Well, let’s use the biblical book of Acts as a case study. How did the earliest followers of Jesus share the gospel with unbelievers? Does the earliest history of the church support Presuppositionalism? Not even close. In Luke’s Acts of thei Apostles, there are a total of 26 evangelistic encounters recorded for us, today. Notice how the early church shared the gospel:
From this brief overview, one can see that evangelism in the early church was quite often backed up with a wide variety of rational arguments. This common theme of apologetic evangelism throughout the Acts of thei Apostles is reflected perfectly in Paul’s beautiful description of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, where he states:
Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the gospel I preached to you, which you received, on which you have taken your stand and by which you are being saved, if you hold to the message I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I passed on to you as most important what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. Then he appeared to over five hundred brothers and sisters at one time; most of them are still alive, but some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one born at the wrong time, he also appeared to me. (1 cor 15:1-8)
Here, Paul recounted the life-giving reality of the gospel for anyone who believes: Christ Jesus died for sinners on the cross and rose mightily from the dead. He then immediately followed up on this claim with eyewitness testimony so that his hearers would be convinced and believe. Paul even went so far as to point out that many of the witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection were still alive at the time of his letter, allowing his hearers to check his sources. But this passage is more than just a part of Paul’s letter; New Testament historians are quite sure that most of what’s said in these eight verses actually comes from one of the oldest Christian creeds ever – some even dating it to within a few years of the resurrection.
If appealing to such evidence was so universally practiced by the early church – both in and outside of the Bible – how could appealing to it in evangelistic encounters today be anything but Biblical? Thus, it seems perfectly fitting for the Apostle Peter to exhort his readers to be “ready at any time to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you”9 and for the Apostle Paul to encourage Titus to train elders to “be able both to encourage with sound teaching and to refute those who contradict it.”10 Thus, it can be clearly seen from the Acts of thei Apostles, as well as the rest of the testimony of scripture, that using evidence in evangelism is most certainly Biblical. Presuppositionalism is not prescribed in the Bible as the only or even primary way for us to share the gospel.
A Special Warning
Before concluding this article, I want to make a special point about a troubling pattern I see in many (though not all) of my Presuppositionalist brothers. Within Reformed circles, there is a running joke about the “cage stage” of Calvinism. The idea is that when a Christian first becomes a Calvinist, they are so zealous for the TULIP that they behave so aggressively, it’s almost as if they should be caged up to protect society until they calm down a bit. The same is unfortunately true of many Presuppositionalists. In fact, I would even venture to say the problem is even more pervasive in these circles – even extending to many of its leaders. Friends, even if you’re not convinced by my arguments against the content of Presuppositionalism above, please hear me here. God does not want you to be a jerk. You can make the case for presupposing the truthfulness of the scriptures without getting red in the face. Don’t repeatedly jump in to interrupt unbelievers with repeated questions like, “By what standard?” Don’t listen for three seconds and then rapid-fire accusations of the unbeliever repressing the truth. Don’t condescendingly laugh at the foolishness of those who trip over their words. Don’t just give lip service to the command of 1 Peter 3:15 to defend the faith with “gentleness and respect.” Don’t say you’re being “loving enough to tell the truth” by telling them the truth in an unnecessarily aggressive and condescending way. Love certainly isn’t less then telling the truth, but it’s definitely more than just that. Otherwise, the command of Ephesians 4:15 to “speak the truth in love” would just be redundant. Love and truth are absolutely compatible, but they are not the same thing. You can speak the truth with real gentleness and legitimate respect. Be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry.
The reason I bring this up is because this is a big problem very specific to Presuppositionalists – even among the largest names in the movement. Commands to “answer the fool according to his folly” or Jesus’ stern words for the Pharisees are taken out of their context to justify a ministry characterized primarily by anger and extreme bluntness. Please, do not fall into this trap. Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you – and do so not with condescension, but with gentleness and respect. Then, you will be a much more effective evangelist and most importantly, will much better glorify God.
Conclusion
To conclude this section of the booklet, I wanted to say one more thing to my Presuppositionalist brothers and sisters: we’re in this together, and I love you. While we come to different conclusions on the issue of evangelism, I want you to know that what I said at the very beginning of this booklet is still true: I have great respect for you and agree with you wholeheartedly on the core truths of the gospel message. Just know that my words of disagreement are secondary to the more important reality we do have unity on: that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom we all are undeserving. Let’s talk through our disagreement together, and as we do, let’s join hands together as we boldly proclaim the wonderful truth of God’s glory to a lost world in need of His amazing grace!
As a conservative evangelical Christian, I am exceedingly thankful for the many faithful gospel-centered believers who don’t hold to all of my secondary theological convictions. While I am not myself a disponsationalist, I owe a great debt to the faithful teaching of giants in the faith like John MacArthur. Likewise, while I am not an Anglican, some of my most memorable insights have come from the thoughtful writings of C.S. Lewis. The same is true of my Presuppotionalist brothers. While I do ultimately disagree with them on their conclusions (for reasons I’m about to outline, below), I think it’s especially important that I begin this booklet with an expression of how much I respect the many godly men and women in this movement. While I cannot speak for all people, one thing I deeply appreciate about many Presuppositionalists is their deep reverence for the Word of God. Too many people who bear the name of Christ ignore or outright reject the literal message of almighty God for humanity. We would all do well to adopt such an attitude of reverence held by our Presuppositionist brothers – and push back against the cultural apathy (and even outright hostility) against the scriptures. So, if you’re a Presuppositionist reading this booklet, please allow me to begin by thanking you. Thank you for considering God’s Word more important than the opinions of man. Know that what I’m about to say is not meant to be an attack on you, your motivations, or your commitment to the glory of God. On the essential issues, we can have unity. In the nonessentials, may we have liberty. In all things, let us speak with charity.
As someone who loves God as the source of all things good, lovely, and true, I deeply desire to know and teach truth. So, if my views are wrong, I endeavor to change my beliefs to adequately reflect reality as God has made it. For this reason, I believe it’s important that we approach complex topics like these with humility – that is, a true willingness to hear and consider the other side. After all, if what you believe is actually true, what do you have to fear? Perhaps I’m wrong. If that’s the case, I hope you will be able to spot my error(s) and gently point them out to me. On the other hand, perhaps I’m right in my understanding. If you’re someone who disagrees, all I ask of you today is that you approach my words in such as way that if I am right, you won’t prevent yourself from seeing it. Humility on both sides is essential to any productive conversation.
Examining Presuppositionalism
Presuppositionalism is a certain approach to sharing the gospel that states that Christians ought to presuppose the truthfulness of the Bible in their evangelistic efforts, citing scripture alone as the sole reason why a person ought to become a Christian. No evidence of any kind is to be given alongside the scriptures. Rather, the goal is to confront the unbeliever with the reality of the Word of God and let God do the rest. There are eight main reasons Presuppositionalists give for adopting this approach:
- First, Presuppositionalists argue that any level uncertainty or potential to be wrong disqualifies a belief from being counted as knowledge. Thus, any belief not grounded in the Word of God (which alone provides certainty) isn’t knowledge and is inherently discredited.
- Second, Presuppositionalists argue that the only way to have true knowledge is to either (A) have complete knowledge, or be (B) presuppose knowledge revealed to you by someone with complete knowledge. Thus, the only way to know anything is to presuppose the truthfulness of God’s Word.
- Third, Presuppositionalists argue that using arguments to establish the truthfulness of Christianity disrespects God’s authority because it puts human reason over and above the Bible. Man becomes the judge and God becomes the subject of investigation. Thus, the only God-honoring way to present the gospel is to ask the unbeliever to presuppose the authority of scripture and believe the gospel.
- Fourth, Presuppositionalists argue that presenting anything in addition to the pure, simple gospel is inappropriately adding to the gospel. This demonstrates a disrespect for God’s word, deeming what He has said is sufficient as insufficient.
- Fifth, Presuppositionalists argue that since man is totally depraved (the reformed understanding of human nature), there is absolutely no common ground between believers and unbelievers on which to make rational arguments. The only hope for the unbeliever to know truth is to presuppose the Christian worldview.
- Sixth, Presuppositionalists argue that because of man’s total depravity, only the Holy Spirit can bring about conversion. As the phrase goes, “You can’t argue anyone into the Kingdom” – only the Holy Spirit can do that. Thus, any appeal to evidence is futile at best and a distraction from the gospel at worst.
- Seventh, Presuppositionalists argue that the Bible tells us to avoid using intellectual arguments and philosophical reasoning. Since we must obey scripture, we should not use evidential apologetics in evangelism.
- Eighth, Presuppositionalists argue that the Holy Spirit only uses the gospel itself and/or the other words of scripture as the means of convincing someone that Christianity is true. He never uses evidence to bring someone to faith. We know this because of the accounts of conversions contained in scripture.
While there may be a few more minor arguments I’m forgetting, these are the big eight. In the following pages, I will be evaluating each of them individually to see if they hold water when considered carefully.
Reason 1: True Knowledge?
As we just mentioned on the last page, the first of the eight reasons given for Presuppositionalism states that knowledge must be certain in order to actually count as knowledge. After all, if you could be wrong about something, do you really know that thing to be true? To the causal reader, the answer appears to be obvious: no. But is this knee-jerk answer right?
Suppose for a moment that this assertion is right: and you can only have knowledge if it’s absolutely impossible for you to be wrong on the issue. What then? Shockingly, this would mean that no one could know anything – even the words of Scripture. How so? Because in order to know you actually understand the Bible correctly, you have first depend on your ability to see words on a page, understand the language of the text, and comprehend how those words form ideas to be understood. But do you really know with absolute certainty that your eyes are not deceiving you? Do you have the complete knowledge required to rule out the idea that the words on the page are just an illusion? In order to presuppose the truthfulness of the Bible as the foundation for all truth, you must first presuppose the truthfulness of the senses you use to read the Bible. Yet, if only certain knowledge counts as knowledge, we can’t have knowledge that our senses are accurate – meaning that we also can’t have knowledge of what the Bible says either. In other words, if this first reason for presuppositionalism is true, then knowledge of the scriptures (alongside everything else) is completely out of our reach.
Obviously, this understanding of knowledge is flawed. No one thinks like this – including Presuppositionalists. Yet, if this first reason for Presuppositionalism is true, then this absurdity is what we’re left with. Thus, we’re left to conclude that this reason is a bad one. It does not accomplish what it seeks to prove.
How then should we understand knowledge? How can we know something and at the same time have the possibility of being wrong? In order to answer that question, we need to define knowledge. Here is the standard largely-agreed open definition for us to consider:
Knowledge: Justified true belief.
What’s that mean? It means that in order for you to know something, you have to have three things. First, you have to have good reasons for it – that’s what the word justified means. Second, it has to match reality – that’s what the word true means. Third, it has to be something you actually believe. Put all three together and you have knowledge. Notice: none of those three things require certainty. In fact, certainty, if you really think about it, is just an emotional state that has more to say about your confidence in an issue then about reality. As a kid, I’ve been certain about quite a few things that I was wrong about. Likewise, it’s possible to be right about things you’re not certain about. Nervous people know exactly what I’m talking about! Certainty doesn’t determine knowledge or truth.
Likewise, the ability to be wrong about something doesn’t mean that the thing you believe is false. I could be wrong about my view on the end times. That doesn’t mean my view is false. I could also be wrong about even more basic things, like the reality of my senses. But that doesn’t mean my senses are unreliable. As finite human beings, we don’t have the ability to fact-check our beliefs with absolute perfection – even our beliefs that come from reading the Bible. Even fact-checking our own existence requires us to employ the laws of logic, which we can’t prove without first assuming their reality!
How should we respond to this lack of complete knowledge? By being as reasonable as we can, in our limited, finite condition. The fact of the matter is, we’re not God – and we shouldn’t try to be. It’s okay that we don’t have perfect knowledge. As finite beings, the most reasonable thing we can do is what most of us do without thinking about it: we start by taking our experiences in this world at face value unless/until we have overriding reason to think our assessment of these experiences are wrong. For example, it’s perfectly reasonable to think that the world around us is real and that the world isn’t one great big illusion. While in theory, we could be wrong (and be in a Matrix), the most reasonable thing is for us to take our experience at face value unless/until we have greater reason for believing its opposite. This might not make us feel perfectly comfortable, but we must remember that part of being human is not having perfect knowledge or perfect control. We’re creatures, not God himself.
To summarize, knowledge doesn’t require certainty to be knowledge. And while we don’t have the ability to perfectly fact-check our beliefs, the more evidence we have to support our beliefs, the more confident we can be that the things we think are true actually are true.
Reason 2: Only What’s Revealed?
The second of the eight reasons given for Presuppositionalism states that knowledge must either be exhaustive or revealed by God to be real knowledge. However, having just walked through the actual definition of knowledge above, the problem with this claim becomes readily apparent. While it is true that being intellectually infalliblei requires perfect knowledge of all things, knowing everything isn’t required to know some things. As we already mentioned, knowledge is “justified true belief,” not “infallible true belief.”
This assertion does have one important point we should keep in mind though – and that’s one of credibility. If it is true that the infallible God of the universe has indeed spoken through the Bible, then what He has to say is going to be much more credible then anyone else’s thoughts or opinions. So, if we can establish that the Bible really is from God, then that means we’d be fools to not submit to what He has to say. Of course, just a claim to be divine isn’t enough. The Qu’ran and the Book of Mormon both claim divine origins. One must first establish the legitimacy to a claim before consenting to it. But that leads us to the next of the eight reasons brought up by Presuppositionalists…
Reason 3: Judging God?
The third of the eight reasons for Presuppositionalism is that using evidence inappropriately places man as the authority over God. In fact, some Presuppositionalists will even go so far as to say that using evidence to evaluate the truthfulness of Christianity is damnable.1 This is a very serious assertion that deserves our attention. Is it true that using evidence places God under our authority?
Not in the slightest. In fact, this assertion is actually nothing more than a misunderstanding of how authority works. Allow me to illustrate. Suppose you were a government employee that was in charge of launching nuclear strikes against an enemy whenever ordered to by the United States president. Now suppose that you received two commands via secure messengers, both claiming to be from the president. One said, “Nuke Russia.” The other said, “Stand down; do not nuke anyone.” What do you do? Clearly, the true president is your authority, and your opinion on geopolitical politics is not permitted to play a role in your actions. You aren’t the authority; the president is. Even if you disagree with the president, you have to do what the president tells you to do. Period. End of discussion. But how do you figure out which command is from your actual authority and which one is the forgery? Would it be disrespectful of your authority to look at the evidence to determine which one is from the president? Would such an investigation be placing the president under your thumb as the judge over him? Clearly not.
In the same way, when we look at the evidence in order to figure out which belief system is true, we’re not placing our selves over the authentic Ruler of the universe. Rather, we’re just doing our due diligence in sorting out the forgeries so that we can submit ourselves fully to the real God over all. Once we find out who that God is and how He has revealed Himself, then we submit ourselves to Him, having first ensured we haven’t been deceived into opposing Him by mistake. Far from being disrespectful to our Authority, following the evidence is the best way we can ensure that we do honor Him. This third reason fails.
Reason 4: Just the Gospel?
The fourth of the eight reasons for Presuppositionalism is that using evidence alongside the gospel disrespects God, because it adds to the gospel, as if what God said wasn’t sufficient. But is this characterization true?
Well if by adding to the gospel, you mean communicating extra information, then yes, using evidence is “adding to the gospel.” This isn’t necessarily being disrespectful, however. After all, even the Presuppositionalist greets the unbeliever before sharing the gospel. Doesn’t that require extra words not contained in the gospel? Obviously, yes. Clearly, communicating extra information isn’t what’s in mind here. Probably what’s being thought of by “adding to the gospel” is distorting it. Does using evidence distort the gospel? No! The gospel presented by Christian apologists is the same gospel presented by Presuppositionalists: that Christ died for our sins and offers salvation to anyone who appropriates his atoning sacrifice by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. This fourth reason for Presuppositionalism fails.
Reason 5: No Common Ground?
The fifth of the eight reasons for Presuppositionalism is that because of man’s total depravity, believers and unbelievers have no common ground to reason together from. Is this true?
Well, I think this assertion is demonstratively false. If in nothing else, when the Presuppositionalist shares the gospel with unbelievers, are they not at least assuming the common ground of their common language? Likewise, when they make arguments for presupposing the Christian worldview, aren’t they assuming that the unbeliever will understand their arguments? At the bare minimum there is some overlap. Add to that minimum everything else common to all humanity (such as our desires for safety, security, and freedom from pain), and we see this reason is clearly false.
Reason 6: Only the Holy Spirit?
The sixth of the eight reasons for Presuppositionalism is that because of man’s total depravity, using evidence is fruitless; only the Holy Spirit can bring about conversion.
While the reasoning behind such an approach is understandable, especially for those who hold to reformed theology, I think there are some misunderstandings here. For, if reformed theology is true and the working of the Holy Spirit is needed for the unbeliever to express faith in Christ, this reality would still allow for a wide verity of means by which He accomplishes such a work. After all, even the most robust Calvinist evangelist would most certainly advocate for godly behavior and genuine hospitality towards unbelievers in evangelism as well as clarity in the words used to articulate the gospel. Even such a reformed theologian would agree that believers still have to act respectfully even if the ultimate deciding factor for a person’s salvation is not with the person sharing the gospel. Why? Because the same God who regenerates uses means to draw men to Himself. This, of course, opens the door to the possibility of God using not just the means of love and hospitality but also logical reasoning. Thus, while reformed theology does not require rational argumentation in evangelism, the Calvinist need not believe that it precludes such an approach either. If God can use Christlike character, He can also use Christlike reasoning. This sixth reason for Presuppositionalism fails.
Reason 7: The Bible Condemns Apologetics?
The seventh of the eight reasons for Presuppositionalism is that the Bible condemns the use of some of the key elements of evidential apologetics: philosophy, intellectual reasoning, and conversational cleverness. For example, notice the following passage from Paul’s letter to the Colossians:
Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elements of the world, rather than Christ. (Col 2:8)
At first glace, this passage might seem to indicate that philosophy itself is bad. But is that really what’s being said? A careful reading of the text reveals the real focus of the warning: false teachers of elemental traditions who were seeking to deceive the early church. Philosophy is way of communicating, just like preaching, teaching, or writing. That’s why, in this passage, Paul isn’t directing his warning against philosophy, but against the people who are using it to deceive the Christians in Colossi. Paul understood a simple truth that we would be wise to consider: just as falsei teachers don’t invalidatei thei practicei of teaching, wicked philosophers don’t invalidatei thei practicei of philosophy. Just because someone uses a method of communication for evil, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong for us to communicate.
But how do we know this is what Paul meant? Because Paul himself practiced philosophy! You see, the idea that Paul condemned this communication method is only persuasive when someone doesn’t understand what philosophy actually is: thei usei of logic to comei to conclusions. That’s all that it is! So, anytime someone makes an argument (including for Presuppositionalism), they’re using philosophy. Any argument against the practice of philosophy is self-defeating. It’s like using words to argue against using words!
Another passage commonly misunderstand to be condemning apologetics comes from the third chapter of the book of Titus, where Paul says:
But avoid foolish debates, genealogies, quarrels, and disputes about the law, because they are unprofitable and worthless. (Titus 3:9)
Based on a quick reading of this passage, we might conclude that debating itself is sin, right? But what does Paul actually say here? He says foolish debates, not debates in general, are wrong. And any proponent of apologetics worth their salt would say the same thing: mindless arguing isn’t something we should be doing. But even if this passage didn’t have the word “foolish” in it, we’d be wise to call attention to another word on Paul’s list: genealogies. Are we prepared to say that it was a sin for the Apostle Matthew to record the first chapter of the New Testament or for Moses to record all those lists of names we see scattered throughout the book of Genesis? Paul’s list wasn’t designed to be a catch-all rule for every situation; he had something very specific in mind when he wrote what he did. All this to say: using philosophy isn’t against the teachings of scripture.
But what about all those passages that speak of God humbling the wise of this world and uplifting those whom we consider foolish? For example:
Woe to those who consider themselves wise and judge themselves clever. (Isiah 5:21)
For it is written, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will set aside the intelligence of the intelligent.’ Where is the one who is wise? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn’t God made the world’s wisdom foolish? For since, in God’s wisdom, the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of what is preached. (1 cor 1:19-21)
My speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not be based on human wisdom but on God’s power. (1 Cor 2:1-5)
Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks he is wise in this age, let him become a fool so that he can become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, since it is written, He catches the wise in their craftiness; and again, The Lord knows that the reasonings of the wise are futile. (1 Cor 3:18-20)
The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and snared. They have rejected the word of the Lord, so what wisdom do they really have? (Jer 8:9)
We know that “we all have knowledge.” Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone thinks he knows anything, he does not yet know it as he ought to know it. But if anyone loves God, he is known by him. (1 Cor 8:1-3)
Don’t passages like these show us that intellectual argumentation is counter to the gospel? No. In each of these passages, the context shows us the reality of what’s being said. In fact, the last two passages make it so clear, it’s hard to miss. The type of wisdom scripture repeatedly condemns is the one that “rejects the word of the lord” and “does not love God.” Scripture is clear:
If I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I can move mountains but do not have love [for God], I am nothing. (1 Cor 13:2)
The type of “knowledge” that rejects Christ gets us nowhere. That’s the whole point of the book of Ecclesiastes. By contrast, the humility required to recognize that we can’t “smart ourselves” into heaven but need Christ to die for us often seems laughable to the outside world. To them, it appears foolish, but the reality is that it’s actually incredibly wise. For this reason, we see that the wisei man, not the foolish man, built his house on the rock of Christ. Wisdom aligned with Christ is truly honorable. There is nothing wrong with learning, becoming knowledgeable, and gaining wisdom. Otherwise, the book of Proverbs would not exist! The problem arises when we take that knowledge and use it against the maker and source of knowledge and wisdom Himself. That is why Paul can say with perfect consistency:
“And I pray this: that your love will keep on growing in knowledge and every kind of discernment.” (Isiah 55:8-9)
Reason 8: The Example of Scripture?
The final of the eight reasons for Presuppositionalism is that the Holy Spirit only (or at least primarily) uses the pure gospel message apart from arguments to save sinners in scripture. After all, we want to be biblical, right?
But is this so-called Biblical approach really what we see in the Bible? Well, let’s use the biblical book of Acts as a case study. How did the earliest followers of Jesus share the gospel with unbelievers? Does the earliest history of the church support Presuppositionalism? Not even close. In Luke’s Acts of thei Apostles, there are a total of 26 evangelistic encounters recorded for us, today. Notice how the early church shared the gospel:
- In nine encounters, the evangelists appealed to immediately present miraculous signs as justification for the truth of the gospel. In other words, the evangelists presented the evidence of supernatural signs as the reason why the unbelievers should come to know Christ.
- In nine encounters, the evangelists appealed to Old Testament prophecy fulfilled in Christ as justification for the truth of the gospel. Even this isn’t presuppositionalism. While the Presuppositionalist wouldn’t have a problem with bringing up biblical prophecies, connecting them with what was at the time extrabiblical eyewitness testimony for their fulfillment wouldn’t fit with Presuppositionalism. It’s much more in line with how evidential apologists use biblical prophecy, today.
- In five encounters, the evangelists appealed to unknown facts in a rational way as justification for the truth of the gospel. In other words, the words of scripture aren’t clear about what’s said, except that it involved “reasoning.” In this instance, the most reasonable conclusion is that what was said was similar to what’s said in the accounts that we have more details for.
- In four encounters, the evangelists appealed to their own eyewitness testimony as justification for the truth of the gospel. In other words, they submitted themselves as witnesses to be cross-examined by the unbelievers about events they actually saw.
- In one encounter, the evangelists appealed to others' eyewitness testimony to justify the truth of the gospel. In other words, they build their case on what other people saw, inferring that you could ask those people directly if you wanted.
- In three encounters, the evangelists appealed to the eyewitness testimony of the recipient as justification for the truth of the gospel. In other words, they were making the connection for the unbeliever with information they already knew.
- In two encounters, the evangelists appealed to their own prior supernatural experience from God as justification for the truth of the gospel. In other words, they shared their testimony. The power of a changed life can be quite compelling.
From this brief overview, one can see that evangelism in the early church was quite often backed up with a wide variety of rational arguments. This common theme of apologetic evangelism throughout the Acts of thei Apostles is reflected perfectly in Paul’s beautiful description of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, where he states:
Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the gospel I preached to you, which you received, on which you have taken your stand and by which you are being saved, if you hold to the message I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I passed on to you as most important what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. Then he appeared to over five hundred brothers and sisters at one time; most of them are still alive, but some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one born at the wrong time, he also appeared to me. (1 cor 15:1-8)
Here, Paul recounted the life-giving reality of the gospel for anyone who believes: Christ Jesus died for sinners on the cross and rose mightily from the dead. He then immediately followed up on this claim with eyewitness testimony so that his hearers would be convinced and believe. Paul even went so far as to point out that many of the witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection were still alive at the time of his letter, allowing his hearers to check his sources. But this passage is more than just a part of Paul’s letter; New Testament historians are quite sure that most of what’s said in these eight verses actually comes from one of the oldest Christian creeds ever – some even dating it to within a few years of the resurrection.
If appealing to such evidence was so universally practiced by the early church – both in and outside of the Bible – how could appealing to it in evangelistic encounters today be anything but Biblical? Thus, it seems perfectly fitting for the Apostle Peter to exhort his readers to be “ready at any time to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you”9 and for the Apostle Paul to encourage Titus to train elders to “be able both to encourage with sound teaching and to refute those who contradict it.”10 Thus, it can be clearly seen from the Acts of thei Apostles, as well as the rest of the testimony of scripture, that using evidence in evangelism is most certainly Biblical. Presuppositionalism is not prescribed in the Bible as the only or even primary way for us to share the gospel.
A Special Warning
Before concluding this article, I want to make a special point about a troubling pattern I see in many (though not all) of my Presuppositionalist brothers. Within Reformed circles, there is a running joke about the “cage stage” of Calvinism. The idea is that when a Christian first becomes a Calvinist, they are so zealous for the TULIP that they behave so aggressively, it’s almost as if they should be caged up to protect society until they calm down a bit. The same is unfortunately true of many Presuppositionalists. In fact, I would even venture to say the problem is even more pervasive in these circles – even extending to many of its leaders. Friends, even if you’re not convinced by my arguments against the content of Presuppositionalism above, please hear me here. God does not want you to be a jerk. You can make the case for presupposing the truthfulness of the scriptures without getting red in the face. Don’t repeatedly jump in to interrupt unbelievers with repeated questions like, “By what standard?” Don’t listen for three seconds and then rapid-fire accusations of the unbeliever repressing the truth. Don’t condescendingly laugh at the foolishness of those who trip over their words. Don’t just give lip service to the command of 1 Peter 3:15 to defend the faith with “gentleness and respect.” Don’t say you’re being “loving enough to tell the truth” by telling them the truth in an unnecessarily aggressive and condescending way. Love certainly isn’t less then telling the truth, but it’s definitely more than just that. Otherwise, the command of Ephesians 4:15 to “speak the truth in love” would just be redundant. Love and truth are absolutely compatible, but they are not the same thing. You can speak the truth with real gentleness and legitimate respect. Be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry.
The reason I bring this up is because this is a big problem very specific to Presuppositionalists – even among the largest names in the movement. Commands to “answer the fool according to his folly” or Jesus’ stern words for the Pharisees are taken out of their context to justify a ministry characterized primarily by anger and extreme bluntness. Please, do not fall into this trap. Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you – and do so not with condescension, but with gentleness and respect. Then, you will be a much more effective evangelist and most importantly, will much better glorify God.
Conclusion
To conclude this section of the booklet, I wanted to say one more thing to my Presuppositionalist brothers and sisters: we’re in this together, and I love you. While we come to different conclusions on the issue of evangelism, I want you to know that what I said at the very beginning of this booklet is still true: I have great respect for you and agree with you wholeheartedly on the core truths of the gospel message. Just know that my words of disagreement are secondary to the more important reality we do have unity on: that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom we all are undeserving. Let’s talk through our disagreement together, and as we do, let’s join hands together as we boldly proclaim the wonderful truth of God’s glory to a lost world in need of His amazing grace!
IS APOLOGETICS BIBLICAL?
Published on: 03/17/2025
This site exists to be a resource library for Christians seeking to deepen and defend their faith. As such, Christian apologetics plays a critical role in our mission. Newcomers with some experience with apologetics may wish to know the methodology of Baseline Christianity. Are we Presuppositional or Evidential? While we are not against using resources provided by those on the Presuppositional side, we are decidedly evidential in our approach. Below is some of the material from the site editor's booklet A Thoughtful Look at Presuppositionalism. If you're coming from the "presuppositional only" approach, please take the time to read the full article and consider its implications. Thank you!
Presuppositionalism Considered
As a conservative evangelical Christian, I am exceedingly thankful for the many faithful gospel-centered believers who don’t hold to all of my secondary theological convictions. While I am not myself a disponsationalist, I owe a great debt to the faithful teaching of giants in the faith like John MacArthur. Likewise, while I am not an Anglican, some of my most memorable insights have come from the thoughtful writings of C.S. Lewis. The same is true of my Presuppotionalist brothers. While I do ultimately disagree with them on their conclusions (for reasons I’m about to outline, below), I think it’s especially important that I begin this booklet with an expression of how much I respect the many godly men and women in this movement. While I cannot speak for all people, one thing I deeply appreciate about many Presuppositionalists is their deep reverence for the Word of God. Too many people who bear the name of Christ ignore or outright reject the literal message of almighty God for humanity. We would all do well to adopt such an attitude of reverence held by our Presuppositionist brothers – and push back against the cultural apathy (and even outright hostility) against the scriptures. So, if you’re a Presuppositionist reading this booklet, please allow me to begin by thanking you. Thank you for considering God’s Word more important than the opinions of man. Know that what I’m about to say is not meant to be an attack on you, your motivations, or your commitment to the glory of God. On the essential issues, we can have unity. In the nonessentials, may we have liberty. In all things, let us speak with charity.
As someone who loves God as the source of all things good, lovely, and true, I deeply desire to know and teach truth. So, if my views are wrong, I endeavor to change my beliefs to adequately reflect reality as God has made it. For this reason, I believe it’s important that we approach complex topics like these with humility – that is, a true willingness to hear and consider the other side. After all, if what you believe is actually true, what do you have to fear? Perhaps I’m wrong. If that’s the case, I hope you will be able to spot my error(s) and gently point them out to me. On the other hand, perhaps I’m right in my understanding. If you’re someone who disagrees, all I ask of you today is that you approach my words in such as way that if I am right, you won’t prevent yourself from seeing it. Humility on both sides is essential to any productive conversation.
Examining Presuppositionalism
Presuppositionalism is a certain approach to sharing the gospel that states that Christians ought to presuppose the truthfulness of the Bible in their evangelistic efforts, citing scripture alone as the sole reason why a person ought to become a Christian. No evidence of any kind is to be given alongside the scriptures. Rather, the goal is to confront the unbeliever with the reality of the Word of God and let God do the rest. There are eight main reasons Presuppositionalists give for adopting this approach:
While there may be a few more minor arguments I’m forgetting, these are the big eight. In the following pages, I will be evaluating each of them individually to see if they hold water when considered carefully.
Reason 1: True Knowledge?
As we just mentioned on the last page, the first of the eight reasons given for Presuppositionalism states that knowledge must be certain in order to actually count as knowledge. After all, if you could be wrong about something, do you really know that thing to be true? To the causal reader, the answer appears to be obvious: no. But is this knee-jerk answer right?
Suppose for a moment that this assertion is right: and you can only have knowledge if it’s absolutely impossible for you to be wrong on the issue. What then? Shockingly, this would mean that no one could know anything – even the words of Scripture. How so? Because in order to know you actually understand the Bible correctly, you have first depend on your ability to see words on a page, understand the language of the text, and comprehend how those words form ideas to be understood. But do you really know with absolute certainty that your eyes are not deceiving you? Do you have the complete knowledge required to rule out the idea that the words on the page are just an illusion? In order to presuppose the truthfulness of the Bible as the foundation for all truth, you must first presuppose the truthfulness of the senses you use to read the Bible. Yet, if only certain knowledge counts as knowledge, we can’t have knowledge that our senses are accurate – meaning that we also can’t have knowledge of what the Bible says either. In other words, if this first reason for presuppositionalism is true, then knowledge of the scriptures (alongside everything else) is completely out of our reach.
Obviously, this understanding of knowledge is flawed. No one thinks like this – including Presuppositionalists. Yet, if this first reason for Presuppositionalism is true, then this absurdity is what we’re left with. Thus, we’re left to conclude that this reason is a bad one. It does not accomplish what it seeks to prove.
How then should we understand knowledge? How can we know something and at the same time have the possibility of being wrong? In order to answer that question, we need to define knowledge. Here is the standard largely-agreed open definition for us to consider:
Knowledge: Justified true belief.
What’s that mean? It means that in order for you to know something, you have to have three things. First, you have to have good reasons for it – that’s what the word justified means. Second, it has to match reality – that’s what the word true means. Third, it has to be something you actually believe. Put all three together and you have knowledge. Notice: none of those three things require certainty. In fact, certainty, if you really think about it, is just an emotional state that has more to say about your confidence in an issue then about reality. As a kid, I’ve been certain about quite a few things that I was wrong about. Likewise, it’s possible to be right about things you’re not certain about. Nervous people know exactly what I’m talking about! Certainty doesn’t determine knowledge or truth.
Likewise, the ability to be wrong about something doesn’t mean that the thing you believe is false. I could be wrong about my view on the end times. That doesn’t mean my view is false. I could also be wrong about even more basic things, like the reality of my senses. But that doesn’t mean my senses are unreliable. As finite human beings, we don’t have the ability to fact-check our beliefs with absolute perfection – even our beliefs that come from reading the Bible. Even fact-checking our own existence requires us to employ the laws of logic, which we can’t prove without first assuming their reality!
How should we respond to this lack of complete knowledge? By being as reasonable as we can, in our limited, finite condition. The fact of the matter is, we’re not God – and we shouldn’t try to be. It’s okay that we don’t have perfect knowledge. As finite beings, the most reasonable thing we can do is what most of us do without thinking about it: we start by taking our experiences in this world at face value unless/until we have overriding reason to think our assessment of these experiences are wrong. For example, it’s perfectly reasonable to think that the world around us is real and that the world isn’t one great big illusion. While in theory, we could be wrong (and be in a Matrix), the most reasonable thing is for us to take our experience at face value unless/until we have greater reason for believing its opposite. This might not make us feel perfectly comfortable, but we must remember that part of being human is not having perfect knowledge or perfect control. We’re creatures, not God himself.
To summarize, knowledge doesn’t require certainty to be knowledge. And while we don’t have the ability to perfectly fact-check our beliefs, the more evidence we have to support our beliefs, the more confident we can be that the things we think are true actually are true.
Reason 2: Only What’s Revealed?
The second of the eight reasons given for Presuppositionalism states that knowledge must either be exhaustive or revealed by God to be real knowledge. However, having just walked through the actual definition of knowledge above, the problem with this claim becomes readily apparent. While it is true that being intellectually infalliblei requires perfect knowledge of all things, knowing everything isn’t required to know some things. As we already mentioned, knowledge is “justified true belief,” not “infallible true belief.”
This assertion does have one important point we should keep in mind though – and that’s one of credibility. If it is true that the infallible God of the universe has indeed spoken through the Bible, then what He has to say is going to be much more credible then anyone else’s thoughts or opinions. So, if we can establish that the Bible really is from God, then that means we’d be fools to not submit to what He has to say. Of course, just a claim to be divine isn’t enough. The Qu’ran and the Book of Mormon both claim divine origins. One must first establish the legitimacy to a claim before consenting to it. But that leads us to the next of the eight reasons brought up by Presuppositionalists…
Reason 3: Judging God?
The third of the eight reasons for Presuppositionalism is that using evidence inappropriately places man as the authority over God. In fact, some Presuppositionalists will even go so far as to say that using evidence to evaluate the truthfulness of Christianity is damnable.1 This is a very serious assertion that deserves our attention. Is it true that using evidence places God under our authority?
Not in the slightest. In fact, this assertion is actually nothing more than a misunderstanding of how authority works. Allow me to illustrate. Suppose you were a government employee that was in charge of launching nuclear strikes against an enemy whenever ordered to by the United States president. Now suppose that you received two commands via secure messengers, both claiming to be from the president. One said, “Nuke Russia.” The other said, “Stand down; do not nuke anyone.” What do you do? Clearly, the true president is your authority, and your opinion on geopolitical politics is not permitted to play a role in your actions. You aren’t the authority; the president is. Even if you disagree with the president, you have to do what the president tells you to do. Period. End of discussion. But how do you figure out which command is from your actual authority and which one is the forgery? Would it be disrespectful of your authority to look at the evidence to determine which one is from the president? Would such an investigation be placing the president under your thumb as the judge over him? Clearly not.
In the same way, when we look at the evidence in order to figure out which belief system is true, we’re not placing our selves over the authentic Ruler of the universe. Rather, we’re just doing our due diligence in sorting out the forgeries so that we can submit ourselves fully to the real God over all. Once we find out who that God is and how He has revealed Himself, then we submit ourselves to Him, having first ensured we haven’t been deceived into opposing Him by mistake. Far from being disrespectful to our Authority, following the evidence is the best way we can ensure that we do honor Him. This third reason fails.
Reason 4: Just the Gospel?
The fourth of the eight reasons for Presuppositionalism is that using evidence alongside the gospel disrespects God, because it adds to the gospel, as if what God said wasn’t sufficient. But is this characterization true?
Well if by adding to the gospel, you mean communicating extra information, then yes, using evidence is “adding to the gospel.” This isn’t necessarily being disrespectful, however. After all, even the Presuppositionalist greets the unbeliever before sharing the gospel. Doesn’t that require extra words not contained in the gospel? Obviously, yes. Clearly, communicating extra information isn’t what’s in mind here. Probably what’s being thought of by “adding to the gospel” is distorting it. Does using evidence distort the gospel? No! The gospel presented by Christian apologists is the same gospel presented by Presuppositionalists: that Christ died for our sins and offers salvation to anyone who appropriates his atoning sacrifice by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. This fourth reason for Presuppositionalism fails.
Reason 5: No Common Ground?
The fifth of the eight reasons for Presuppositionalism is that because of man’s total depravity, believers and unbelievers have no common ground to reason together from. Is this true?
Well, I think this assertion is demonstratively false. If in nothing else, when the Presuppositionalist shares the gospel with unbelievers, are they not at least assuming the common ground of their common language? Likewise, when they make arguments for presupposing the Christian worldview, aren’t they assuming that the unbeliever will understand their arguments? At the bare minimum there is some overlap. Add to that minimum everything else common to all humanity (such as our desires for safety, security, and freedom from pain), and we see this reason is clearly false.
Reason 6: Only the Holy Spirit?
The sixth of the eight reasons for Presuppositionalism is that because of man’s total depravity, using evidence is fruitless; only the Holy Spirit can bring about conversion.
While the reasoning behind such an approach is understandable, especially for those who hold to reformed theology, I think there are some misunderstandings here. For, if reformed theology is true and the working of the Holy Spirit is needed for the unbeliever to express faith in Christ, this reality would still allow for a wide verity of means by which He accomplishes such a work. After all, even the most robust Calvinist evangelist would most certainly advocate for godly behavior and genuine hospitality towards unbelievers in evangelism as well as clarity in the words used to articulate the gospel. Even such a reformed theologian would agree that believers still have to act respectfully even if the ultimate deciding factor for a person’s salvation is not with the person sharing the gospel. Why? Because the same God who regenerates uses means to draw men to Himself. This, of course, opens the door to the possibility of God using not just the means of love and hospitality but also logical reasoning. Thus, while reformed theology does not require rational argumentation in evangelism, the Calvinist need not believe that it precludes such an approach either. If God can use Christlike character, He can also use Christlike reasoning. This sixth reason for Presuppositionalism fails.
Reason 7: The Bible Condemns Apologetics?
The seventh of the eight reasons for Presuppositionalism is that the Bible condemns the use of some of the key elements of evidential apologetics: philosophy, intellectual reasoning, and conversational cleverness. For example, notice the following passage from Paul’s letter to the Colossians:
Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elements of the world, rather than Christ. (Col 2:8)
At first glace, this passage might seem to indicate that philosophy itself is bad. But is that really what’s being said? A careful reading of the text reveals the real focus of the warning: false teachers of elemental traditions who were seeking to deceive the early church. Philosophy is way of communicating, just like preaching, teaching, or writing. That’s why, in this passage, Paul isn’t directing his warning against philosophy, but against the people who are using it to deceive the Christians in Colossi. Paul understood a simple truth that we would be wise to consider: just as falsei teachers don’t invalidatei thei practicei of teaching, wicked philosophers don’t invalidatei thei practicei of philosophy. Just because someone uses a method of communication for evil, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong for us to communicate.
But how do we know this is what Paul meant? Because Paul himself practiced philosophy! You see, the idea that Paul condemned this communication method is only persuasive when someone doesn’t understand what philosophy actually is: thei usei of logic to comei to conclusions. That’s all that it is! So, anytime someone makes an argument (including for Presuppositionalism), they’re using philosophy. Any argument against the practice of philosophy is self-defeating. It’s like using words to argue against using words!
Another passage commonly misunderstand to be condemning apologetics comes from the third chapter of the book of Titus, where Paul says:
But avoid foolish debates, genealogies, quarrels, and disputes about the law, because they are unprofitable and worthless. (Titus 3:9)
Based on a quick reading of this passage, we might conclude that debating itself is sin, right? But what does Paul actually say here? He says foolish debates, not debates in general, are wrong. And any proponent of apologetics worth their salt would say the same thing: mindless arguing isn’t something we should be doing. But even if this passage didn’t have the word “foolish” in it, we’d be wise to call attention to another word on Paul’s list: genealogies. Are we prepared to say that it was a sin for the Apostle Matthew to record the first chapter of the New Testament or for Moses to record all those lists of names we see scattered throughout the book of Genesis? Paul’s list wasn’t designed to be a catch-all rule for every situation; he had something very specific in mind when he wrote what he did. All this to say: using philosophy isn’t against the teachings of scripture.
But what about all those passages that speak of God humbling the wise of this world and uplifting those whom we consider foolish? For example:
Woe to those who consider themselves wise and judge themselves clever. (Isiah 5:21)
For it is written, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will set aside the intelligence of the intelligent.’ Where is the one who is wise? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn’t God made the world’s wisdom foolish? For since, in God’s wisdom, the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of what is preached. (1 cor 1:19-21)
My speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not be based on human wisdom but on God’s power. (1 Cor 2:1-5)
Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks he is wise in this age, let him become a fool so that he can become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, since it is written, He catches the wise in their craftiness; and again, The Lord knows that the reasonings of the wise are futile. (1 Cor 3:18-20)
The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and snared. They have rejected the word of the Lord, so what wisdom do they really have? (Jer 8:9)
We know that “we all have knowledge.” Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone thinks he knows anything, he does not yet know it as he ought to know it. But if anyone loves God, he is known by him. (1 Cor 8:1-3)
Don’t passages like these show us that intellectual argumentation is counter to the gospel? No. In each of these passages, the context shows us the reality of what’s being said. In fact, the last two passages make it so clear, it’s hard to miss. The type of wisdom scripture repeatedly condemns is the one that “rejects the word of the lord” and “does not love God.” Scripture is clear:
If I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I can move mountains but do not have love [for God], I am nothing. (1 Cor 13:2)
The type of “knowledge” that rejects Christ gets us nowhere. That’s the whole point of the book of Ecclesiastes. By contrast, the humility required to recognize that we can’t “smart ourselves” into heaven but need Christ to die for us often seems laughable to the outside world. To them, it appears foolish, but the reality is that it’s actually incredibly wise. For this reason, we see that the wisei man, not the foolish man, built his house on the rock of Christ. Wisdom aligned with Christ is truly honorable. There is nothing wrong with learning, becoming knowledgeable, and gaining wisdom. Otherwise, the book of Proverbs would not exist! The problem arises when we take that knowledge and use it against the maker and source of knowledge and wisdom Himself. That is why Paul can say with perfect consistency:
“And I pray this: that your love will keep on growing in knowledge and every kind of discernment.” (Isiah 55:8-9)
Reason 8: The Example of Scripture?
The final of the eight reasons for Presuppositionalism is that the Holy Spirit only (or at least primarily) uses the pure gospel message apart from arguments to save sinners in scripture. After all, we want to be biblical, right?
But is this so-called Biblical approach really what we see in the Bible? Well, let’s use the biblical book of Acts as a case study. How did the earliest followers of Jesus share the gospel with unbelievers? Does the earliest history of the church support Presuppositionalism? Not even close. In Luke’s Acts of thei Apostles, there are a total of 26 evangelistic encounters recorded for us, today. Notice how the early church shared the gospel:
From this brief overview, one can see that evangelism in the early church was quite often backed up with a wide variety of rational arguments. This common theme of apologetic evangelism throughout the Acts of thei Apostles is reflected perfectly in Paul’s beautiful description of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, where he states:
Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the gospel I preached to you, which you received, on which you have taken your stand and by which you are being saved, if you hold to the message I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I passed on to you as most important what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. Then he appeared to over five hundred brothers and sisters at one time; most of them are still alive, but some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one born at the wrong time, he also appeared to me. (1 cor 15:1-8)
Here, Paul recounted the life-giving reality of the gospel for anyone who believes: Christ Jesus died for sinners on the cross and rose mightily from the dead. He then immediately followed up on this claim with eyewitness testimony so that his hearers would be convinced and believe. Paul even went so far as to point out that many of the witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection were still alive at the time of his letter, allowing his hearers to check his sources. But this passage is more than just a part of Paul’s letter; New Testament historians are quite sure that most of what’s said in these eight verses actually comes from one of the oldest Christian creeds ever – some even dating it to within a few years of the resurrection.
If appealing to such evidence was so universally practiced by the early church – both in and outside of the Bible – how could appealing to it in evangelistic encounters today be anything but Biblical? Thus, it seems perfectly fitting for the Apostle Peter to exhort his readers to be “ready at any time to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you”9 and for the Apostle Paul to encourage Titus to train elders to “be able both to encourage with sound teaching and to refute those who contradict it.”10 Thus, it can be clearly seen from the Acts of thei Apostles, as well as the rest of the testimony of scripture, that using evidence in evangelism is most certainly Biblical. Presuppositionalism is not prescribed in the Bible as the only or even primary way for us to share the gospel.
A Special Warning
Before concluding this article, I want to make a special point about a troubling pattern I see in many (though not all) of my Presuppositionalist brothers. Within Reformed circles, there is a running joke about the “cage stage” of Calvinism. The idea is that when a Christian first becomes a Calvinist, they are so zealous for the TULIP that they behave so aggressively, it’s almost as if they should be caged up to protect society until they calm down a bit. The same is unfortunately true of many Presuppositionalists. In fact, I would even venture to say the problem is even more pervasive in these circles – even extending to many of its leaders. Friends, even if you’re not convinced by my arguments against the content of Presuppositionalism above, please hear me here. God does not want you to be a jerk. You can make the case for presupposing the truthfulness of the scriptures without getting red in the face. Don’t repeatedly jump in to interrupt unbelievers with repeated questions like, “By what standard?” Don’t listen for three seconds and then rapid-fire accusations of the unbeliever repressing the truth. Don’t condescendingly laugh at the foolishness of those who trip over their words. Don’t just give lip service to the command of 1 Peter 3:15 to defend the faith with “gentleness and respect.” Don’t say you’re being “loving enough to tell the truth” by telling them the truth in an unnecessarily aggressive and condescending way. Love certainly isn’t less then telling the truth, but it’s definitely more than just that. Otherwise, the command of Ephesians 4:15 to “speak the truth in love” would just be redundant. Love and truth are absolutely compatible, but they are not the same thing. You can speak the truth with real gentleness and legitimate respect. Be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry.
The reason I bring this up is because this is a big problem very specific to Presuppositionalists – even among the largest names in the movement. Commands to “answer the fool according to his folly” or Jesus’ stern words for the Pharisees are taken out of their context to justify a ministry characterized primarily by anger and extreme bluntness. Please, do not fall into this trap. Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you – and do so not with condescension, but with gentleness and respect. Then, you will be a much more effective evangelist and most importantly, will much better glorify God.
Conclusion
To conclude this section of the booklet, I wanted to say one more thing to my Presuppositionalist brothers and sisters: we’re in this together, and I love you. While we come to different conclusions on the issue of evangelism, I want you to know that what I said at the very beginning of this booklet is still true: I have great respect for you and agree with you wholeheartedly on the core truths of the gospel message. Just know that my words of disagreement are secondary to the more important reality we do have unity on: that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom we all are undeserving. Let’s talk through our disagreement together, and as we do, let’s join hands together as we boldly proclaim the wonderful truth of God’s glory to a lost world in need of His amazing grace!
As a conservative evangelical Christian, I am exceedingly thankful for the many faithful gospel-centered believers who don’t hold to all of my secondary theological convictions. While I am not myself a disponsationalist, I owe a great debt to the faithful teaching of giants in the faith like John MacArthur. Likewise, while I am not an Anglican, some of my most memorable insights have come from the thoughtful writings of C.S. Lewis. The same is true of my Presuppotionalist brothers. While I do ultimately disagree with them on their conclusions (for reasons I’m about to outline, below), I think it’s especially important that I begin this booklet with an expression of how much I respect the many godly men and women in this movement. While I cannot speak for all people, one thing I deeply appreciate about many Presuppositionalists is their deep reverence for the Word of God. Too many people who bear the name of Christ ignore or outright reject the literal message of almighty God for humanity. We would all do well to adopt such an attitude of reverence held by our Presuppositionist brothers – and push back against the cultural apathy (and even outright hostility) against the scriptures. So, if you’re a Presuppositionist reading this booklet, please allow me to begin by thanking you. Thank you for considering God’s Word more important than the opinions of man. Know that what I’m about to say is not meant to be an attack on you, your motivations, or your commitment to the glory of God. On the essential issues, we can have unity. In the nonessentials, may we have liberty. In all things, let us speak with charity.
As someone who loves God as the source of all things good, lovely, and true, I deeply desire to know and teach truth. So, if my views are wrong, I endeavor to change my beliefs to adequately reflect reality as God has made it. For this reason, I believe it’s important that we approach complex topics like these with humility – that is, a true willingness to hear and consider the other side. After all, if what you believe is actually true, what do you have to fear? Perhaps I’m wrong. If that’s the case, I hope you will be able to spot my error(s) and gently point them out to me. On the other hand, perhaps I’m right in my understanding. If you’re someone who disagrees, all I ask of you today is that you approach my words in such as way that if I am right, you won’t prevent yourself from seeing it. Humility on both sides is essential to any productive conversation.
Examining Presuppositionalism
Presuppositionalism is a certain approach to sharing the gospel that states that Christians ought to presuppose the truthfulness of the Bible in their evangelistic efforts, citing scripture alone as the sole reason why a person ought to become a Christian. No evidence of any kind is to be given alongside the scriptures. Rather, the goal is to confront the unbeliever with the reality of the Word of God and let God do the rest. There are eight main reasons Presuppositionalists give for adopting this approach:
- First, Presuppositionalists argue that any level uncertainty or potential to be wrong disqualifies a belief from being counted as knowledge. Thus, any belief not grounded in the Word of God (which alone provides certainty) isn’t knowledge and is inherently discredited.
- Second, Presuppositionalists argue that the only way to have true knowledge is to either (A) have complete knowledge, or be (B) presuppose knowledge revealed to you by someone with complete knowledge. Thus, the only way to know anything is to presuppose the truthfulness of God’s Word.
- Third, Presuppositionalists argue that using arguments to establish the truthfulness of Christianity disrespects God’s authority because it puts human reason over and above the Bible. Man becomes the judge and God becomes the subject of investigation. Thus, the only God-honoring way to present the gospel is to ask the unbeliever to presuppose the authority of scripture and believe the gospel.
- Fourth, Presuppositionalists argue that presenting anything in addition to the pure, simple gospel is inappropriately adding to the gospel. This demonstrates a disrespect for God’s word, deeming what He has said is sufficient as insufficient.
- Fifth, Presuppositionalists argue that since man is totally depraved (the reformed understanding of human nature), there is absolutely no common ground between believers and unbelievers on which to make rational arguments. The only hope for the unbeliever to know truth is to presuppose the Christian worldview.
- Sixth, Presuppositionalists argue that because of man’s total depravity, only the Holy Spirit can bring about conversion. As the phrase goes, “You can’t argue anyone into the Kingdom” – only the Holy Spirit can do that. Thus, any appeal to evidence is futile at best and a distraction from the gospel at worst.
- Seventh, Presuppositionalists argue that the Bible tells us to avoid using intellectual arguments and philosophical reasoning. Since we must obey scripture, we should not use evidential apologetics in evangelism.
- Eighth, Presuppositionalists argue that the Holy Spirit only uses the gospel itself and/or the other words of scripture as the means of convincing someone that Christianity is true. He never uses evidence to bring someone to faith. We know this because of the accounts of conversions contained in scripture.
While there may be a few more minor arguments I’m forgetting, these are the big eight. In the following pages, I will be evaluating each of them individually to see if they hold water when considered carefully.
Reason 1: True Knowledge?
As we just mentioned on the last page, the first of the eight reasons given for Presuppositionalism states that knowledge must be certain in order to actually count as knowledge. After all, if you could be wrong about something, do you really know that thing to be true? To the causal reader, the answer appears to be obvious: no. But is this knee-jerk answer right?
Suppose for a moment that this assertion is right: and you can only have knowledge if it’s absolutely impossible for you to be wrong on the issue. What then? Shockingly, this would mean that no one could know anything – even the words of Scripture. How so? Because in order to know you actually understand the Bible correctly, you have first depend on your ability to see words on a page, understand the language of the text, and comprehend how those words form ideas to be understood. But do you really know with absolute certainty that your eyes are not deceiving you? Do you have the complete knowledge required to rule out the idea that the words on the page are just an illusion? In order to presuppose the truthfulness of the Bible as the foundation for all truth, you must first presuppose the truthfulness of the senses you use to read the Bible. Yet, if only certain knowledge counts as knowledge, we can’t have knowledge that our senses are accurate – meaning that we also can’t have knowledge of what the Bible says either. In other words, if this first reason for presuppositionalism is true, then knowledge of the scriptures (alongside everything else) is completely out of our reach.
Obviously, this understanding of knowledge is flawed. No one thinks like this – including Presuppositionalists. Yet, if this first reason for Presuppositionalism is true, then this absurdity is what we’re left with. Thus, we’re left to conclude that this reason is a bad one. It does not accomplish what it seeks to prove.
How then should we understand knowledge? How can we know something and at the same time have the possibility of being wrong? In order to answer that question, we need to define knowledge. Here is the standard largely-agreed open definition for us to consider:
Knowledge: Justified true belief.
What’s that mean? It means that in order for you to know something, you have to have three things. First, you have to have good reasons for it – that’s what the word justified means. Second, it has to match reality – that’s what the word true means. Third, it has to be something you actually believe. Put all three together and you have knowledge. Notice: none of those three things require certainty. In fact, certainty, if you really think about it, is just an emotional state that has more to say about your confidence in an issue then about reality. As a kid, I’ve been certain about quite a few things that I was wrong about. Likewise, it’s possible to be right about things you’re not certain about. Nervous people know exactly what I’m talking about! Certainty doesn’t determine knowledge or truth.
Likewise, the ability to be wrong about something doesn’t mean that the thing you believe is false. I could be wrong about my view on the end times. That doesn’t mean my view is false. I could also be wrong about even more basic things, like the reality of my senses. But that doesn’t mean my senses are unreliable. As finite human beings, we don’t have the ability to fact-check our beliefs with absolute perfection – even our beliefs that come from reading the Bible. Even fact-checking our own existence requires us to employ the laws of logic, which we can’t prove without first assuming their reality!
How should we respond to this lack of complete knowledge? By being as reasonable as we can, in our limited, finite condition. The fact of the matter is, we’re not God – and we shouldn’t try to be. It’s okay that we don’t have perfect knowledge. As finite beings, the most reasonable thing we can do is what most of us do without thinking about it: we start by taking our experiences in this world at face value unless/until we have overriding reason to think our assessment of these experiences are wrong. For example, it’s perfectly reasonable to think that the world around us is real and that the world isn’t one great big illusion. While in theory, we could be wrong (and be in a Matrix), the most reasonable thing is for us to take our experience at face value unless/until we have greater reason for believing its opposite. This might not make us feel perfectly comfortable, but we must remember that part of being human is not having perfect knowledge or perfect control. We’re creatures, not God himself.
To summarize, knowledge doesn’t require certainty to be knowledge. And while we don’t have the ability to perfectly fact-check our beliefs, the more evidence we have to support our beliefs, the more confident we can be that the things we think are true actually are true.
Reason 2: Only What’s Revealed?
The second of the eight reasons given for Presuppositionalism states that knowledge must either be exhaustive or revealed by God to be real knowledge. However, having just walked through the actual definition of knowledge above, the problem with this claim becomes readily apparent. While it is true that being intellectually infalliblei requires perfect knowledge of all things, knowing everything isn’t required to know some things. As we already mentioned, knowledge is “justified true belief,” not “infallible true belief.”
This assertion does have one important point we should keep in mind though – and that’s one of credibility. If it is true that the infallible God of the universe has indeed spoken through the Bible, then what He has to say is going to be much more credible then anyone else’s thoughts or opinions. So, if we can establish that the Bible really is from God, then that means we’d be fools to not submit to what He has to say. Of course, just a claim to be divine isn’t enough. The Qu’ran and the Book of Mormon both claim divine origins. One must first establish the legitimacy to a claim before consenting to it. But that leads us to the next of the eight reasons brought up by Presuppositionalists…
Reason 3: Judging God?
The third of the eight reasons for Presuppositionalism is that using evidence inappropriately places man as the authority over God. In fact, some Presuppositionalists will even go so far as to say that using evidence to evaluate the truthfulness of Christianity is damnable.1 This is a very serious assertion that deserves our attention. Is it true that using evidence places God under our authority?
Not in the slightest. In fact, this assertion is actually nothing more than a misunderstanding of how authority works. Allow me to illustrate. Suppose you were a government employee that was in charge of launching nuclear strikes against an enemy whenever ordered to by the United States president. Now suppose that you received two commands via secure messengers, both claiming to be from the president. One said, “Nuke Russia.” The other said, “Stand down; do not nuke anyone.” What do you do? Clearly, the true president is your authority, and your opinion on geopolitical politics is not permitted to play a role in your actions. You aren’t the authority; the president is. Even if you disagree with the president, you have to do what the president tells you to do. Period. End of discussion. But how do you figure out which command is from your actual authority and which one is the forgery? Would it be disrespectful of your authority to look at the evidence to determine which one is from the president? Would such an investigation be placing the president under your thumb as the judge over him? Clearly not.
In the same way, when we look at the evidence in order to figure out which belief system is true, we’re not placing our selves over the authentic Ruler of the universe. Rather, we’re just doing our due diligence in sorting out the forgeries so that we can submit ourselves fully to the real God over all. Once we find out who that God is and how He has revealed Himself, then we submit ourselves to Him, having first ensured we haven’t been deceived into opposing Him by mistake. Far from being disrespectful to our Authority, following the evidence is the best way we can ensure that we do honor Him. This third reason fails.
Reason 4: Just the Gospel?
The fourth of the eight reasons for Presuppositionalism is that using evidence alongside the gospel disrespects God, because it adds to the gospel, as if what God said wasn’t sufficient. But is this characterization true?
Well if by adding to the gospel, you mean communicating extra information, then yes, using evidence is “adding to the gospel.” This isn’t necessarily being disrespectful, however. After all, even the Presuppositionalist greets the unbeliever before sharing the gospel. Doesn’t that require extra words not contained in the gospel? Obviously, yes. Clearly, communicating extra information isn’t what’s in mind here. Probably what’s being thought of by “adding to the gospel” is distorting it. Does using evidence distort the gospel? No! The gospel presented by Christian apologists is the same gospel presented by Presuppositionalists: that Christ died for our sins and offers salvation to anyone who appropriates his atoning sacrifice by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. This fourth reason for Presuppositionalism fails.
Reason 5: No Common Ground?
The fifth of the eight reasons for Presuppositionalism is that because of man’s total depravity, believers and unbelievers have no common ground to reason together from. Is this true?
Well, I think this assertion is demonstratively false. If in nothing else, when the Presuppositionalist shares the gospel with unbelievers, are they not at least assuming the common ground of their common language? Likewise, when they make arguments for presupposing the Christian worldview, aren’t they assuming that the unbeliever will understand their arguments? At the bare minimum there is some overlap. Add to that minimum everything else common to all humanity (such as our desires for safety, security, and freedom from pain), and we see this reason is clearly false.
Reason 6: Only the Holy Spirit?
The sixth of the eight reasons for Presuppositionalism is that because of man’s total depravity, using evidence is fruitless; only the Holy Spirit can bring about conversion.
While the reasoning behind such an approach is understandable, especially for those who hold to reformed theology, I think there are some misunderstandings here. For, if reformed theology is true and the working of the Holy Spirit is needed for the unbeliever to express faith in Christ, this reality would still allow for a wide verity of means by which He accomplishes such a work. After all, even the most robust Calvinist evangelist would most certainly advocate for godly behavior and genuine hospitality towards unbelievers in evangelism as well as clarity in the words used to articulate the gospel. Even such a reformed theologian would agree that believers still have to act respectfully even if the ultimate deciding factor for a person’s salvation is not with the person sharing the gospel. Why? Because the same God who regenerates uses means to draw men to Himself. This, of course, opens the door to the possibility of God using not just the means of love and hospitality but also logical reasoning. Thus, while reformed theology does not require rational argumentation in evangelism, the Calvinist need not believe that it precludes such an approach either. If God can use Christlike character, He can also use Christlike reasoning. This sixth reason for Presuppositionalism fails.
Reason 7: The Bible Condemns Apologetics?
The seventh of the eight reasons for Presuppositionalism is that the Bible condemns the use of some of the key elements of evidential apologetics: philosophy, intellectual reasoning, and conversational cleverness. For example, notice the following passage from Paul’s letter to the Colossians:
Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elements of the world, rather than Christ. (Col 2:8)
At first glace, this passage might seem to indicate that philosophy itself is bad. But is that really what’s being said? A careful reading of the text reveals the real focus of the warning: false teachers of elemental traditions who were seeking to deceive the early church. Philosophy is way of communicating, just like preaching, teaching, or writing. That’s why, in this passage, Paul isn’t directing his warning against philosophy, but against the people who are using it to deceive the Christians in Colossi. Paul understood a simple truth that we would be wise to consider: just as falsei teachers don’t invalidatei thei practicei of teaching, wicked philosophers don’t invalidatei thei practicei of philosophy. Just because someone uses a method of communication for evil, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong for us to communicate.
But how do we know this is what Paul meant? Because Paul himself practiced philosophy! You see, the idea that Paul condemned this communication method is only persuasive when someone doesn’t understand what philosophy actually is: thei usei of logic to comei to conclusions. That’s all that it is! So, anytime someone makes an argument (including for Presuppositionalism), they’re using philosophy. Any argument against the practice of philosophy is self-defeating. It’s like using words to argue against using words!
Another passage commonly misunderstand to be condemning apologetics comes from the third chapter of the book of Titus, where Paul says:
But avoid foolish debates, genealogies, quarrels, and disputes about the law, because they are unprofitable and worthless. (Titus 3:9)
Based on a quick reading of this passage, we might conclude that debating itself is sin, right? But what does Paul actually say here? He says foolish debates, not debates in general, are wrong. And any proponent of apologetics worth their salt would say the same thing: mindless arguing isn’t something we should be doing. But even if this passage didn’t have the word “foolish” in it, we’d be wise to call attention to another word on Paul’s list: genealogies. Are we prepared to say that it was a sin for the Apostle Matthew to record the first chapter of the New Testament or for Moses to record all those lists of names we see scattered throughout the book of Genesis? Paul’s list wasn’t designed to be a catch-all rule for every situation; he had something very specific in mind when he wrote what he did. All this to say: using philosophy isn’t against the teachings of scripture.
But what about all those passages that speak of God humbling the wise of this world and uplifting those whom we consider foolish? For example:
Woe to those who consider themselves wise and judge themselves clever. (Isiah 5:21)
For it is written, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will set aside the intelligence of the intelligent.’ Where is the one who is wise? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn’t God made the world’s wisdom foolish? For since, in God’s wisdom, the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of what is preached. (1 cor 1:19-21)
My speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not be based on human wisdom but on God’s power. (1 Cor 2:1-5)
Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks he is wise in this age, let him become a fool so that he can become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, since it is written, He catches the wise in their craftiness; and again, The Lord knows that the reasonings of the wise are futile. (1 Cor 3:18-20)
The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and snared. They have rejected the word of the Lord, so what wisdom do they really have? (Jer 8:9)
We know that “we all have knowledge.” Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone thinks he knows anything, he does not yet know it as he ought to know it. But if anyone loves God, he is known by him. (1 Cor 8:1-3)
Don’t passages like these show us that intellectual argumentation is counter to the gospel? No. In each of these passages, the context shows us the reality of what’s being said. In fact, the last two passages make it so clear, it’s hard to miss. The type of wisdom scripture repeatedly condemns is the one that “rejects the word of the lord” and “does not love God.” Scripture is clear:
If I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I can move mountains but do not have love [for God], I am nothing. (1 Cor 13:2)
The type of “knowledge” that rejects Christ gets us nowhere. That’s the whole point of the book of Ecclesiastes. By contrast, the humility required to recognize that we can’t “smart ourselves” into heaven but need Christ to die for us often seems laughable to the outside world. To them, it appears foolish, but the reality is that it’s actually incredibly wise. For this reason, we see that the wisei man, not the foolish man, built his house on the rock of Christ. Wisdom aligned with Christ is truly honorable. There is nothing wrong with learning, becoming knowledgeable, and gaining wisdom. Otherwise, the book of Proverbs would not exist! The problem arises when we take that knowledge and use it against the maker and source of knowledge and wisdom Himself. That is why Paul can say with perfect consistency:
“And I pray this: that your love will keep on growing in knowledge and every kind of discernment.” (Isiah 55:8-9)
Reason 8: The Example of Scripture?
The final of the eight reasons for Presuppositionalism is that the Holy Spirit only (or at least primarily) uses the pure gospel message apart from arguments to save sinners in scripture. After all, we want to be biblical, right?
But is this so-called Biblical approach really what we see in the Bible? Well, let’s use the biblical book of Acts as a case study. How did the earliest followers of Jesus share the gospel with unbelievers? Does the earliest history of the church support Presuppositionalism? Not even close. In Luke’s Acts of thei Apostles, there are a total of 26 evangelistic encounters recorded for us, today. Notice how the early church shared the gospel:
- In nine encounters, the evangelists appealed to immediately present miraculous signs as justification for the truth of the gospel. In other words, the evangelists presented the evidence of supernatural signs as the reason why the unbelievers should come to know Christ.
- In nine encounters, the evangelists appealed to Old Testament prophecy fulfilled in Christ as justification for the truth of the gospel. Even this isn’t presuppositionalism. While the Presuppositionalist wouldn’t have a problem with bringing up biblical prophecies, connecting them with what was at the time extrabiblical eyewitness testimony for their fulfillment wouldn’t fit with Presuppositionalism. It’s much more in line with how evidential apologists use biblical prophecy, today.
- In five encounters, the evangelists appealed to unknown facts in a rational way as justification for the truth of the gospel. In other words, the words of scripture aren’t clear about what’s said, except that it involved “reasoning.” In this instance, the most reasonable conclusion is that what was said was similar to what’s said in the accounts that we have more details for.
- In four encounters, the evangelists appealed to their own eyewitness testimony as justification for the truth of the gospel. In other words, they submitted themselves as witnesses to be cross-examined by the unbelievers about events they actually saw.
- In one encounter, the evangelists appealed to others' eyewitness testimony to justify the truth of the gospel. In other words, they build their case on what other people saw, inferring that you could ask those people directly if you wanted.
- In three encounters, the evangelists appealed to the eyewitness testimony of the recipient as justification for the truth of the gospel. In other words, they were making the connection for the unbeliever with information they already knew.
- In two encounters, the evangelists appealed to their own prior supernatural experience from God as justification for the truth of the gospel. In other words, they shared their testimony. The power of a changed life can be quite compelling.
From this brief overview, one can see that evangelism in the early church was quite often backed up with a wide variety of rational arguments. This common theme of apologetic evangelism throughout the Acts of thei Apostles is reflected perfectly in Paul’s beautiful description of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, where he states:
Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the gospel I preached to you, which you received, on which you have taken your stand and by which you are being saved, if you hold to the message I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I passed on to you as most important what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. Then he appeared to over five hundred brothers and sisters at one time; most of them are still alive, but some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one born at the wrong time, he also appeared to me. (1 cor 15:1-8)
Here, Paul recounted the life-giving reality of the gospel for anyone who believes: Christ Jesus died for sinners on the cross and rose mightily from the dead. He then immediately followed up on this claim with eyewitness testimony so that his hearers would be convinced and believe. Paul even went so far as to point out that many of the witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection were still alive at the time of his letter, allowing his hearers to check his sources. But this passage is more than just a part of Paul’s letter; New Testament historians are quite sure that most of what’s said in these eight verses actually comes from one of the oldest Christian creeds ever – some even dating it to within a few years of the resurrection.
If appealing to such evidence was so universally practiced by the early church – both in and outside of the Bible – how could appealing to it in evangelistic encounters today be anything but Biblical? Thus, it seems perfectly fitting for the Apostle Peter to exhort his readers to be “ready at any time to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you”9 and for the Apostle Paul to encourage Titus to train elders to “be able both to encourage with sound teaching and to refute those who contradict it.”10 Thus, it can be clearly seen from the Acts of thei Apostles, as well as the rest of the testimony of scripture, that using evidence in evangelism is most certainly Biblical. Presuppositionalism is not prescribed in the Bible as the only or even primary way for us to share the gospel.
A Special Warning
Before concluding this article, I want to make a special point about a troubling pattern I see in many (though not all) of my Presuppositionalist brothers. Within Reformed circles, there is a running joke about the “cage stage” of Calvinism. The idea is that when a Christian first becomes a Calvinist, they are so zealous for the TULIP that they behave so aggressively, it’s almost as if they should be caged up to protect society until they calm down a bit. The same is unfortunately true of many Presuppositionalists. In fact, I would even venture to say the problem is even more pervasive in these circles – even extending to many of its leaders. Friends, even if you’re not convinced by my arguments against the content of Presuppositionalism above, please hear me here. God does not want you to be a jerk. You can make the case for presupposing the truthfulness of the scriptures without getting red in the face. Don’t repeatedly jump in to interrupt unbelievers with repeated questions like, “By what standard?” Don’t listen for three seconds and then rapid-fire accusations of the unbeliever repressing the truth. Don’t condescendingly laugh at the foolishness of those who trip over their words. Don’t just give lip service to the command of 1 Peter 3:15 to defend the faith with “gentleness and respect.” Don’t say you’re being “loving enough to tell the truth” by telling them the truth in an unnecessarily aggressive and condescending way. Love certainly isn’t less then telling the truth, but it’s definitely more than just that. Otherwise, the command of Ephesians 4:15 to “speak the truth in love” would just be redundant. Love and truth are absolutely compatible, but they are not the same thing. You can speak the truth with real gentleness and legitimate respect. Be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry.
The reason I bring this up is because this is a big problem very specific to Presuppositionalists – even among the largest names in the movement. Commands to “answer the fool according to his folly” or Jesus’ stern words for the Pharisees are taken out of their context to justify a ministry characterized primarily by anger and extreme bluntness. Please, do not fall into this trap. Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you – and do so not with condescension, but with gentleness and respect. Then, you will be a much more effective evangelist and most importantly, will much better glorify God.
Conclusion
To conclude this section of the booklet, I wanted to say one more thing to my Presuppositionalist brothers and sisters: we’re in this together, and I love you. While we come to different conclusions on the issue of evangelism, I want you to know that what I said at the very beginning of this booklet is still true: I have great respect for you and agree with you wholeheartedly on the core truths of the gospel message. Just know that my words of disagreement are secondary to the more important reality we do have unity on: that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom we all are undeserving. Let’s talk through our disagreement together, and as we do, let’s join hands together as we boldly proclaim the wonderful truth of God’s glory to a lost world in need of His amazing grace!
Copywrite © 2024 | Baseline Christianity