What Can Presuppers Learn from Classical Apologists?

are super helpful and useful in their own right. So my next question, what do you think is some important things that we could learn if we're presuppositionalist primarily in our methodology, what are some things that we can learn from folks in this more classical tradition?

Because obviously it's not, there's one group over here, one group over here and never shall the twain meet. I mean, there's obviously crossover, some important useful things that we can grab from the different traditions.

What in your estimation are some important things that presuppositionalists should be paying attention to with regards to our classical brothers?

Yeah, that's a great question. And I'm very much in favor of saying, what can we agree on?

How can we learn from one another and try and not overstate the differences?

There are, I think, some real substantive differences. In terms of what we can learn,

I think many classical apologists are very adept at philosophical thinking.

Okay, they're familiar with the philosophical literature. They can engage in philosophy at a fairly high level.

So someone like William Lane Craig, even though I have my differences with him theologically for sure and in some philosophical issues as well, he's a first rank philosopher, doing some really good work, very rigorous work and engaging at a scholarly level.

And I think that in itself is commendable. And I hope that presuppositionalists will aspire to do the same kind of rigorous, philosophical work in defense of their views.

I think that some of the classical arguments for the existence of God are sound arguments.

Now, I know that sets me apart from some other presuppositionalists who want to draw sharp lines between what they understand to be the transcendental argument and then other theistic arguments.

That's not a position I take. My view is that if a theistic argument is sound, if it has true premises and the conclusion follows from the premises, then it's a serviceable argument.

Some are more useful than others. But I think, for example, that there are versions of the ontological argument that are sound arguments.

I don't tend to use them in apologetics, but I think that there's nothing logically wrong with the arguments.

I think that there are versions of the cosmological argument that are quite respectable, versions based on the principle of sufficient reason.

There are teleological arguments. The fine -tuning argument, I think, has a lot of weight to it.

And actually, the more we discover about the scientific nature of the universe, the stronger the design argument becomes.

So this is an area where I think presuppositionists and classical apologists can say, look, there are some arguments that we can use together.

Now, how you actually deploy those arguments may differ a little bit, or some of the assumptions, particularly the epistemological assumptions behind these arguments, there's gonna be some differences there.

And on the historical side as well, you know, if you are a presuppositionalist like me, who thinks that there is a place for historical apologetics,

I think Van Til thought that there was a place for historical apologetics, as long as it was done in the right way with a sort of presuppositional sensitivity to it, there is a wealth of historical evidence.

Why not use that? Why not appeal to that? Why not point to documentation that we have from the first century supporting the claims of the

New Testament, supporting what was going on there in the founding of the

Christian church. There are some really good arguments to be made there. And it's tended to be the classical and the evidentialist apologists who have done the hard scholarly work there.

And presuppositionists, I think, should say, thank you. We're not gonna, we're not taking everything that you're selling, but certainly there can be some crossover here.

Very good, very good. With regards to, well, basically what you're saying then, and this is,

I think there's an important point to keep in mind because there's so much, so many misconceptions of what presuppositionalism is, is that a lot of people will think, okay, if I'm a presuppositionalist,

I can't use all these other cool arguments that everyone talks about, you know? So, but I like these arguments, so I don't wanna be presuppositional because I feel like I'm limited.

So basically what you're saying, being a presuppositionalist does not prohibit you from using some of the more traditional arguments.

If they're valid, they have use, and you could incorporate them within your apologetic encounters while doing it within a consistently presuppositional framework.

Is that pretty much what you're saying? Yeah, that's basically my position. I make a distinction between the arguments that people might use and the methodology that is driving those arguments and that is gonna condition how those arguments are deployed.

So whereas someone like R .C. Sproul and myself might agree on a particular argument, maybe there's a version of the cosmological argument that we both endorse, in terms of the underlying epistemology by which we justify that argument and some of the presuppositional considerations that we are gonna be taking into account when we're using those arguments with people who doubt the existence of God or claim to doubt the existence of God, there's gonna be some methodological differences there.

And a lot of this actually, I think, is background, going on in the background.

As I say, it's a lot of it has to do with the epistemological assumptions by which we justify the arguments and how we deploy them in practice.

Right, and I like how you said that it's in the background because practically speaking, just looking, if you were to walk in on a presuppositionalist talking to an unbeliever, or you walk in on a classicalist talking to an unbeliever, there are many cases where they will be saying many of the same things while having different presuppositions with how to frame those things.

Yeah, so there's important crossover. It's not just you only can use the transcendental argument or you only can use,

I love the cosmological argument. People who know me, I'm a presuppositionalist, but I've sat down with an unbeliever and wrote out the

Kalam cosmological argument on a napkin. Like it was part of our discussion and it was useful, but of course, within that context, which