Presuppositional Response to William Lane Craig #apologetics #presup #WLC #reasonablefaith

Apologetic Method and the Role of Scripture

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host, Eli Ayala, and today I'm going to be doing a brief response to a video that was put out by Reasonable Faith. It is, it looks like an interview with Dr. William Lane Craig, and the video is a really short video.

It's around 48 seconds long, so we'll be able to play the whole thing. And the video is entitled Should Apologists Assume, Should Apologists Assume the Inspiration of Scripture? And so I wanna play that with you, and then use that as an opportunity to kind of expand on what I think are very important apologetic issues, okay?

So this video is gonna be primarily about apologetic methodology, and so we're gonna be digging into some important issues in just a moment. But first, let us play the video here, and then we'll interact a bit.

Here we go.

I don't think that we should simply assume that the biblical text is inspired by God, and therefore truthful, in doing apologetics. We should assume that in doing systematic theology. But in doing apologetics, we're trying to provide some kind of warrant for the truth of Christian belief that is independent of divine inspiration and authoritative revelation.

To simply assume that the biblical text is inspired, and therefore true, would be to be reasoning in a circle. It's assuming the truth of that which you intend to prove. So I think when doing apologetics, we do not assume the inspiration and truth of the Scripture.

Theology, Apologetics, and Biblical Commitment

All right, well, let's interact with this a little bit, okay? So in this video, I think it's important that we are quick to remember, as the saying goes, that theology matters, it really does. Now, I want you to notice that Dr. Craig begins this segment with making the clear distinction between what we presuppose when doing apologetics and what we presuppose when doing systematic theology.

He says, quote, I don't think that we should simply assume that the biblical text is inspired by God, and therefore truthful, in doing apologetics. We should assume that in doing systematic theology. And then he goes on to say that in doing apologetics, we're trying to give some kind of warrant for the truth of Christian belief that is independent of divine inspiration and authoritative revelation.

Well, I have a few thoughts here that I wanna share, and I think it's important that we recognize that our apologetic is not independent of our theological and biblical commitments, okay? I strongly believe that our apologetic method flows from the soil of our theology, which itself must be grounded in Scripture.

Now, of course, I think that not only does the Bible command us to do apologetics, I think a strong case can be made that it also provides for us the proper method by which we are to do apologetics. Now, that's not to say that the Bible is a sort of apologetics manual where it lays out a step-by-step process for defending the faith, but it most definitely provides the principles and essential ingredients for a method of defense.

And of course, without arguing for that here, I am of the conviction that a consistent application of biblical principles, reflected also in a solid biblical theology, provides us with a presuppositional method of defending the faith.

Now, our apologetic, I think this is so key, our apologetic is theological in nature, okay? Apologetics, I think, has been rightly defined by some theologians as the application of Christian theology to unbelief.

And I think that's very true. Now, Dr. Craig mentioned that in doing apologetics, we're also trying to give some kind of warrant for the truth of Christian belief that is, as he said, independent of divine inspiration and authoritative revelation.

And as presuppositionalist, we're gonna wanna take note of, and this is so important here, okay? We wanna identify things that stand behind a statement like this. We're gonna want to take note of the inherent principles of neutrality and autonomy baked into that statement, that line of reasoning.

For instance, we wanna present the case in such a way that the unbeliever can simply follow the evidence wherever it leads. That's what we'll be told, right? And I've seen this in other contexts, specifically in Dr. Craig's debate with Christopher Hitchens.

And I remember in his opening statement, he said something along the lines of, he said that, now, if I know Biola students, this was at Biola University, if I know Biola students, I know that they're going to leave their bias outside and follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Now, of course, this is not the case at all, given that at the fundamental level, we all have our presuppositional commitments. Isn't that right? In other words, while neutrality is encouraged here, in reality, neutrality is a myth, all right?

The Myth of Neutrality and the Need for a Christian Justification

Now, this is not to say, this is important, this is not to say that we shouldn't give warrant or justification for the truth of Christian belief. Presuppositionalists are often accused of saying that what we should do is simply assert that Christianity is true, and then simply preach to the unbeliever.

And that, of course, is a misrepresentation. Now, this is not what Dr. Craig brings up in this video here, but it is a common misrepresentation. So what is the nature of our justification? If I believe, as presuppositionalists, that we ought to provide a justification for the Christian position, what is the nature of that justification?

Is it a neutral and presuppositional-less presentation of the bare facts, with the hopes that the unbeliever, who is, what the scriptures say, by nature a child of wrath, whose mind is at enmity with God, will simply follow the evidence wherever it leads?

Well, no.

Our justification comes with a form of argument that does not cater to the unbeliever's standards, but rather exposes the knowledge of God that the scriptures says that he has. Our justification and our argumentation does not sacrifice biblical consistency on the altar of the unbeliever's standards of warrant and justification.

This is so important. Now, Dr. Craig says that if we assume the inspiration and truth of the Bible, that we would then be reasoning in a circle. Now, of course, we've addressed this quite a bit on this channel, but let's take a closer look nonetheless.

Is it always logically inappropriate to engage in this sort of circularity? Well, let's illustrate the nature of the situation with some observations made by the late Dr. Greg Bonson, and he writes this in his biblical introduction to apologetics on pages 33 through 34, and I think this is a great quote that I think highlights the nature of the situation here.

He says, quote, all argumentation about ultimate issues eventually comes to rest at the level of the disputant's presuppositions. If a man has come to the conclusion and is committed to the truth of a certain view, P, when he's challenged as to P, he will offer supporting argumentation for it, Q and R.

But of course, as his opponent will be quick to point out, this simply shifts the argument to Q and R. Why accept them? The proponent of P is now called upon to offer S, T, U, and V as arguments for Q and R.

But all argument chains must come to an end somewhere. One's conclusions could never be demonstrated if they were dependent upon an infinite regress of argumentative justifications. For under those circumstances, the demonstration could never be completed, and an incomplete demonstration demonstrates nothing at all.

Dr. Bonson goes on to say, eventually all argumentation terminates in some logically primitive starting point of view or premise held as unquestionable. Apologetics traces back to such ultimate starting points or presuppositions.

In the nature of the case, these presuppositions are held to be self-evidencing. They are the ultimate authority in one's viewpoint, an authority for which no greater authorization can be given," unquote.

Ultimate Presuppositions and Transcendental Argumentation

Now, I think it's at this level where we're going to have circularity at these ultimate presuppositions, right? These ultimate presuppositions are not justified or warranted by appealing to something more fundamental than they are, right?

Otherwise, they would cease to function as ultimate starting points. And I think at this level, circularity is going to be unavoidable. Now, that said, I want to point out that the way in which the presuppositionalist would seek to justify his ultimate starting point would be through, and I've mentioned this multiple times on this channel and I have a bunch of videos on this, we want to provide a justification through providing a transcendental argument.

And this allows for a powerful argument for the truths of Christian belief without catering to categories of neutrality and autonomy. Furthermore, the way in which the transcendental argument is typically laid out, it is never the case in which it's argued like this, in which the conclusion is also in one of the premises of the argument.

And it's here where I think it's important that we'll want to make the distinction between the presupposition of an argument and the premise of an argument. When arguing for the truth of the Bible, for instance, the proposition, the Bible is true, is not fallaciously asserted in both the premise of the argument and the conclusion of the argument.

However, we do want to argue for the truth of the Bible, indeed, the truth of the biblical worldview, which includes the doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible by the impossibility of the contrary. We argue for it transcendentally.

So I want you to pay close attention to this. Should the apologist simply assume the inspiration, reliability, and the truth of the Bible? I want you to listen. No, they shouldn't simply assume the inspiration, reliability, and truth of the Bible.

If you mean by that, that we don't also argue for it. But then on the other hand, I'm gonna say, yes, we should assume or presuppose the inspiration, reliability, and the truth of the Bible in everything that we do, because it is God's word.

And that doesn't magically change when we do apologetics. The unbeliever's rejection of the authority of the Bible should not cause us to not presuppose its truth when interacting with the unbeliever.

Biblical Presuppositions in Every Area of Life

Now, I think the biblically consistent thing to do is to demonstrate the absurdity that results when the inspiration, reliability, and the truth of God's word is not assumed or presupposed. John 17, 17 tells us that we are sanctified by the truth.

And what does Jesus say? He says, thy word is true, right? We don't give up this presupposition for the unbeliever's sake, right? I have my starting point that the unbeliever rejects and the unbeliever has his starting point that the believer rejects.

By the very nature of the case, we both have a burden of proof. So where do we go from there? We compare worldviews. We demonstrate the truth of our own by the impossibility of the contrary. We argue that only the Christian worldview, which includes biblical inspiration, provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility.

What we do not do, what we do not do is that we operate on one set of presuppositions when doing systematic theology, which acknowledges the authority of Christ. And then when we're doing apologetics, we don't presuppose that.

We presuppose neutral and autonomous categories. That is to be inconsistent. The presuppositions of systematic theology are the same when doing apologetics. Indeed, apologetics is theological in nature.

And so as Christian apologists, we're going to want to be consistent all the way through. We presuppose the truth, the reliability, the inspiration of scripture, when we're doing apologetics, when we're doing science, when we're doing philosophy, when we're doing mathematics, and when we go shopping, whatever the case is.

Biblical presuppositions don't get replaced when depending on the person that we're speaking with. And so this is an issue, I think, of consistency. So theology matters. Your theological convictions and whether you see apologetics as a theological thing to begin with is going to impact how we interact with unbelievers.

All right? Now, this is not to say that, and I've mentioned this in other places as well, this isn't to say that we don't use evidences, we don't provide justifications, but there's a very key thing I want folks to keep in mind, that the presuppositional apologist is not allergic to providing evidence for their position, but we do not provide those evidences within a neutral and autonomous framework, right?

And we want to make the distinction between the utilization of evidence and the utilization of evidentialism as a methodology. They are not the same, okay? And so contrary to what others have said, you do not go back and forth between a presuppositional method and an evidential method.

Those methodologies are mutually exclusive, right? When I use evidence, I use evidence as a presuppositionalist. I do not use evidence as an evidentialist, okay? Because evidentialism and presuppositionalism have different epistemological starting points, and that's very important to keep in mind.

As Cornelius Van Til has told us, that we need to try very hard to be self, or what does he say? He says that we want to be epistemologically self-conscious. We want to be self-conscious of our epistemology.

And from a biblical perspective, what is our epistemology? Well, it's a revelational epistemology. Knowledge comes from God's revelation. He's revealed himself both in general and special revelation, and he's revealed himself such that all men know this God, whether they know him in salvation or whether they know him in rebellion, as it has been said by others, that there are only two kinds of people in the world.

There are covenant keepers and covenant breakers, but indeed, let's be clear. We are all, we all stand in some way, shape, or form in a covenantal relationship with our maker. And so we do not do apologetics to the best of our ability when we cater to man's rebellion.

Covenant, Revelation, and Consistency in Apologetics

Now, this is not moral grandstanding. I'm not trying to say this to be pious. I genuinely believe that an approach that caters to man's autonomy and neutrality is not a biblical approach. And I can say this, even while also admitting that even with respect to Dr. Craig's debates, I've benefited greatly from a lot of his debates and various lectures.

Now, of course, I'm gonna disagree with Dr. Craig on a lot of areas, theological and very vital areas, very important areas. But at the same time, I could acknowledge that there are as many things that he said that I've actually learned from and benefited from.

But all that said, we do need to be very careful, right? In the way that we do apologetics, we want to remain consistent in our commitment to the place of the authority of God's word. And so we do not presuppose the truth, inspiration, and reliability of the Bible in doing theology, but then we don't assume that or presuppose that when doing apologetics.

That's just inconsistent. And so I think it's important to point that out. All right, well, that's it for this brief video. Hope this is helpful and generates some kind of discussion with respect to the importance of our starting points and the issue of consistency.

So hopefully I've accomplished at least initiating interesting discussion. So until next time, guys, thank you for watching. Take care, God bless, bye-bye.