Presuppositionalism and Reformed Theology

I'm going to go to them anyways, and we're going to talk to Ian up in Utah.

Hi Ian. Hi Dr. White. How are you doing? Doing good. I am a long time listener, first time caller. I'm a big fan.

I'm privileged to talk to you. And you found it at the right time even. I'm very proud of that. Yes. I wasn't deterred of the time change.

There you go. There you go. You recognized that you all had engaged in artificial time behavior over the weekend, and we just don't do that.

So anyway, artificial time behavior. Well, I've never come up with that one before, but anyway. What can I do for you?

Well, I'm a student at Columbia Evangelical Seminary. I'm getting ready to write my dissertation.

I'm choosing an apologetic topic. And I'm basically a presuppositionalist, and I listen to you a lot.

I've listened to a lot of your debates. However, I was wondering if you have read

R .C. Sproul's book on classical apologetics. I've signed it as a textbook in classes when

I taught Christian philosophy of religion as far back as... When did that come out?

I'm trying to remember. I think something like that. Yeah. I've used it many times as the counterpoint to Always Ready or something like that, so we can discuss the differences and compare and contrast.

Yes. And in fact, I will tell you that when... I will ask the man behind the soundboard here.

It was like September of 2009. Is that when the Ligonier Conference was in Scottsdale?

Is that about right? How did I remember that? I'm horrible at things like that. What? September of 2008?

Okay. The rookie says September of 2008. Anyway, it was ironic that there is the

Ligonier Conference, and R .C. Sproul is speaking at Scottsdale Bible Church in the big, big, big auditorium.

And during the Q &A, he's just ripping on presuppositionalism while I'm in another building with a line of guys that I'm talking to about presuppositionalism.

So at least the dialogue can take place. But hey, I love R .C. I just think this is a blind spot because the book has been,

I think, soundly and properly criticized by a wide range of people.

John Frame and others, students of Greg Bonson, have pointed out that the representation of the presuppositional perspective that is presented there just isn't overly robust or accurate, shall we say?

I thought it was a little weak. That's a nice way of putting it. Yeah. It didn't really fill in the gaps.

No, no, it didn't. And did you hear the debate that took place between Sproul and Bonson?

Yes, I did. I did. All right. That helps to give some context. Okay. I did, and actually

I thought there were some weak points on both sides. Okay. But I was wondering, well, first of all, one of the things

I was wondering is, what is the answer? Because R .C. Sproul says that these presuppositionalists are wrong because they say, well, we have to start with God.

And he basically makes the argument, how can you start outside of yourself? You have to start with yourself because you can't escape yourself.

And I was just wondering if there was an answer to that or if you could point me to maybe some resources that would help me with that.

Well, I mean, that is a fundamental epistemological assertion that all of our knowledge, including our knowledge of God, has to be based upon mankind and upon our own experience.

That is one of the huge differences, and that's where, from a reform perspective,

I just don't understand Dr. Sproul's assertion of that. We cannot escape ourselves, but what are we?

We are created in the image of God. Right. And the very connecting point that we assert as presuppositionalists is exactly that, that we are individuals created in the image of God and that there is no morally neutral point or any other kind of neutral point whatsoever because God has created everything as it is to have true knowledge of anything in creation.

This comes from our radical belief that God is the creator of all things, that Jesus Christ is the creator of all things, and that all things have a purpose.

If you start there, and that's not just a reformed idea, that's pretty much just a Christian theistic idea,

I would think, but if you start there, then what does that do to that assertion that, well, we cannot escape ourselves?

Well, we cannot escape our creatureliness, but does that mean that creatureliness...

Do you think R .C.'s saying more than that? Because that's kind of what he always comes back to, is that we are limited as creatures, and that's why we have to start with ourselves.

Well, but see, I would say our limitedness as creatures makes us dependent upon God's revelation.

That's why we don't start with ourselves. Because, again, and this is where the reformed issue comes in, is if we were unfallen creatures, you might at least be able to make the argument that it's

God's intention that as unfallen creatures, for some purpose that, you know,

I can't imagine what it would be, but some purpose God wants us to function in that way. My concern is that we are not unfallen creatures.

We are fallen creatures, and therefore we have to have that type of external source which is found in Revelation.

But I would argue that even Adam, in his unfallen state, was still dependent upon divine revelation.

God had to tell him what his purpose was. God had to provide revelation for him. I never see a time when man could ever start with himself alone outside of the priority and centrality of the divine revelation of God.

And to be perfectly honest with you, I think R .C. and others drive this from Thomas Aquinas, their love of Aquinas. And he was just inconsistent at this point.

I just don't believe his philosophy is consistent with a reformed epistemology. I would agree with a lot of the criticisms that Van Til aims that direction.

And that's why I felt that the debate that took place between Bonson and R .C.

was rather telling along those lines and very useful. I'm awful glad they did it.

Again, I mentioned in Bellflower just a couple nights ago that it really bugs me when certain people will say, well,

I'm not going to debate Christians. We should be the people that are the best at doing interpersonal and inter -varsity debates because we can show each other respect and go to the

Word of God. But I'm awful glad that they did that so that we can hear those two perspectives. And from my perspective, the radical purposefulness of divine creation, and hence the reality of God's decree, the fact that he's accomplishing something, and that we are created in such a way that we can interact with that purpose and are central to that purpose.

I mean, certainly it's the glorification of the triune God and the salvation of a specific people that is central to what

God is doing. That gives us a ground of understanding who man is, how man's to function, how we're to know

God is found in that radical purposefulness. And I just don't see how asserting an epistemology that says we start with ourselves rather than start as creatures.

Do you think we might be equivocating over the word start with? Well, he's one who's...

I mean, you have to... What is the weight of the argument that R .C.'s

making if it is not to change the starting point to our interaction with the world around us and hence to something like a cosmological argument or some type of observation of the created universe?

What's the weight of the argument if that's not what start with means? Yeah, yeah.

He means start with ontologically, but I think he also means start with logically, too.

Yeah, yeah. I mean, he says we can't escape ourselves, and therefore logically we have to begin from ourselves and work our way to God.

Yeah, and I honestly believe that if man begins with himself, he will never work his way to the triune

God of Scripture. I just... From my perspective, if we start with ourselves, we will end up creating an image of God that is compatible with us and pleasing to us.

We are dependent upon divine revelation for so much of the truth about who

God is. And I understand... You know, I was mentioning...

I mentioned this Saturday night in Bellflower. Lane's going to have the videos up sometime soon, and you'll notice that I did address this.

But there was a philosophy major from Biola who asked me a question similar to this.

And so the two sort of piggybacked off of each other, even though he wasn't asking about Sproul, he was just talking about general presuppositionalism.

But one of the things that I emphasized in that context, that I'm emphasizing here, is this.

When we look at who we are and what we are and how God has created us, the starting point has to be found in the radical creator, the one who has made all things.

When we start with ourselves, it's sort of like as Calvin said, our eyes are always going to be upon the ground rather than looking up and seeing the bright light of the sun.

And I think that's a great illustration that Calvin used. And I just don't believe that if we start with ourselves, that the line of argumentation is going to lead us to the kind of argumentation that's used.

But I also recognize that there are connections between the arguments that we use.

For example, you're obviously familiar with the transcendental argument. And you are aware of the fact,

I'm not sure if you've heard this particular phraseology, but there is something called PSR, the principle of sufficient reason.

And you can hear the dependence of the transcendental argument upon PSR in the

Bonson -Stein debate, where Bonson says to Stein, well, you're appealing to brute facts, and brute facts are irrational.

That is, when Stein kept saying, well, that's just the way things are. It just is. Well, that's a violation of PSR, the principle of sufficient reason.

The principle of sufficient reason says there has to be a reason why things are the way they are. You can't just simply appeal to brute facts.

Well, the best form of the cosmological argument really boils down to whether PSR is valid or not.

If PSR is valid, then the cosmological argument is valid as well. So there's a connection between the two.

But I firmly believe that any argument, no matter how you phrase it, it's the interpretive framework that you fit it into that has to be first and foremost in our mind.

And if you're dealing with an individual who is a creature of God who's rejecting his creatureliness, he's going to find a way to fit any argument into that continued rejection.

That's not only the epistemological, but the moral connection point that we need to be going for.

Because our argumentation isn't just simply to provide an argument. Our desire is to see this person repent of their sins and bow the knee to the

Lord Jesus Christ. And so that doesn't fit into the strict philosopher's handbook of how you do things, but that's another reason why functioning under the

Lordship of Christ means you're going to do things differently than the world does. And so if I'm dealing with somebody,

I'm going to deal with them as the Bible describes them to be, and I'm going to go ahead and press upon that conscience that is hurting because they are suppressing the knowledge of God.

And I'm going to pry up those fingers from him withholding and suppressing the knowledge of God. That's what

I view my role as. And that's, I think, the power of the presuppositional perspective is because the evidential perspective basically leaves you appealing to that person as if they are an autonomous authority to judge your evidences as if they have the authority to judge whether they are or are not a creature of God.

I just don't see how that fits with the authoritative proclamation that we see in Acts 17 where Paul says

God has appointed a day where he will judge every man by a man that he has appointed having raised him from the dead.

I mean, there is a day of judgment coming and you're going to be judged by somebody else and you don't have the right to say, well,

I'm going to opt out of that. No, you're not. That day of judgment is coming and God has fixed it and set it and that's the way it is.

And that's authoritative proclamation. That's not, well, you know, I'd like to suggest these things to you and maybe if you think about it long enough you might find the distance.

No, because Paul recognizes these are idolaters. They're already suppressing the knowledge of God.

What are they going to do with more knowledge of God? They're going to suppress it too. So what does he do? He pries up the fingers. That's what

I see. But there's some disconnect there between suppressing the knowledge of God and whether or not the arguments are valid arguments.

The suppression is a moral suppression. But it has epistemological ramifications because it is systemic.

It's not just in the moral realm, but it is a part of the very definition of the creature. Just as, for example, look at how overarching and invasive homosexuality becomes amongst homosexuals themselves.

It becomes their identity. The suppression of the knowledge of God becomes part of the very identity of the person who is in rebellion against God.

And so it creates an epistemological methodology where you can find a place for any argument as long as it allows you to suppress the knowledge of God.

I've seen this happen. Yeah, we've seen it happen, but they do it with the transcendental argument too.

It's not like somebody listens to the transcendental argument and says, oh, I'm going to be a

Christian. Here's much better argumentation. Right, but the difference is the form of argumentation you're using does not appeal to the sinner to continue in his rebellion and grant to him the grounds to judge the existence of God.

When you present the cosmological argument, which, by the way, I think is valid. Given the validity of PSR, I believe that it's valid.

Why do I believe that? Because it is consistent with a Christian worldview. There's reason to it.

But when I present it in such a way that the atheist, I'm saying, well, you know,

I think if you'll examine this, you'll come to the same conclusion that I'm coming to, and if you do so, then these are the things you need to do on the basis of that.

That's different in saying, well, I would like you to judge the existence of God, and you can make up your mind one way or the other from there.

That's very different from saying, you, to even consider the argumentation I'm using, are having to steal from the

God whose existence you are suppressing. There is an immediate moral pressure in the transcendental argument that is not present in the cosmological.

Now, you can call that just a functional thing, but I think it's very, very important to observe and to recognize.

And from my perspective, you have to have a big enough theology to substantiate that, and that's why you don't find too many non -reformed folks using a presuppositional approach, because I just don't think their theology is big enough to support it.

So what you're saying, if I can maybe boil it down, you can tell me if I'm right about this or not, is that within the transcendental or the presuppositional argument, it intrinsically carries with it a moral requirement.

Given the nature of the person to whom we're making it, yes. Which you're saying the cosmological argument doesn't, it just says, here are the facts.

Right, right. And then you make up your own mind, but the presuppositional argument you would say is...

It's not just, here are the facts, right. You don't have the rights. Your mind has already been made up and you need to change that mind.

In other words, there's an implicit call to repentance. Yes. And that doesn't fit with theologies that don't have repentance in it anymore either.

That's what I've found odd about my Reformed brethren who reject it, because it just seems to...

This is something I've said many, many times, and that is our apologetics must flow from our theology.

We shouldn't just simply have our theology and try to come up with an apologetic that at least will fit without too much of a difficulty.

It should just be the natural flow and conclusion of our theology.

And it just seems to me that the presuppositional perspective flows so naturally from what we believe about God, and what we believe about His decree, and what we believe about man, and His suppression of the knowledge of God, and all these other things.

There's just this flow that is, to me, the real strength of the entire argument.

Well, thank you. You've cleared up quite a bit for me. Okay, Ian. I would love to see what you come up with when you write your work.

Oh, thank you. I might have to call you again and clarify a couple of things. Okay. I know you don't have time just for me on your show.

Well, I appreciate your recognition of that. Okay. All right, thanks, Ian. Bye. Hey, that's how you start off.