Image of Gordon Haddon Clark
©John W. Robbins, 1989.

By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. -Hebrews 11:3 ESB

The key discriminator of this school is that it maintains that the Christian apologist must assume the truth of the supernatural revelation contained in the Bible (that is, the Christian worldview) because there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian. In other words, presuppositionalists say that a Christian cannot consistently declare his belief in the necessary existence of the God of the Bible and simultaneously argue on the basis of a different set of assumptions (presumably those of the non-Christian) in which God may or may not exist.

Comparison with other schools of apologetics

Photo of Cornelius Van Til from The
Works of Cornelius Van Til, 1895-1987,
CD-ROM (New York: Labels Army Co.,
1997), ISBN 0875524613
(larger image)

Presuppositionalists believe that many of the classical arguments are logically fallacious, or don't prove enough, when used as arguments to prove the existence or character of God.

They criticize both the assumption of neutrality and the "block house" or "piecemeal" method for failing to start at the level of the controlling beliefs of worldviews and implicitly allowing non-Christian assumptions from the start, thereby trying to build a Christian "house" on a non-Christian "foundation". Evidentialists demur from this assessment, claiming that presuppositionalism amounts to fideism because it rejects a neutral starting point for reasoning between the Christian and non-Christian.

The conclusion of evidential apologetics is that the Bible is more probably accurate about what it reports than not, thus the whole of Biblical revelation is probably true, and where we don't have absolute certainty we must accept the most probable theory. The goal of presuppositional apologetics, on the other hand, is to argue that the assumptions and actions of non-Christians require them to believe certain things about God, man and the world which they claim they do not believe. This type of argument is technically called a reductio ad absurdum in that it attempts to reduce the opposition to holding an absurd position; in this case, both believing in facts of Christian revelation (in practice) and denying them (in word). So in essence, evidential apologetics attempts to build from a common starting point in neutral facts, while presuppositional apologetics attempts to claim all facts for the Christian worldview as the only framework in which they are intelligible.

Presuppositionalists consider such arguments dishonoring to God for slightly different reasons. While they don't think classical arguments are good enough on the grounds that they don't show enough about God, they think evidentialists simply haven't given a strong enough demonstration. The evidentialist's conclusion is that the Bible is accurate about what it reports, and thus the whole of biblical revelation follows. The problem is that evidentialists' arguments lack certainty. They show, at most, only that the best explanation is Christianity. Other explanations could be possible. Presuppositionalists think this is dishonoring to God because God's existence is metaphysically necessary. Evidentialists might agree that God's existence is metaphysically necessary as well, but they don't think they can show that God's existence is epistemologically necessary, i.e. that we can prove it for sure. These are clearly different kinds of necessity, and evidentialists don't believe they are dishonoring God by denying epistemological necessity, but presuppositionalists want to keep these two kinds of necessity together.

History of presuppositional apologetics

John Frame

By 1952, presuppositional apologetics had acquired a new advocate in the Presbyterian theologian Gordon Haddon Clark. He embraced the label "presuppositional" since his approach to apologetics, following his Platonic epistemology, was more closely concerned with the logical order of assumptions than was Van Til's. The differences between the two views on presuppositionalism, though few in number, caused a significant rift between the two men, and even after both Clark and Van Til had died, John W. Robbins (a theologian and former student of Clark's) and Bahnsen feuded often and publicly.

As of 2005, presuppositional apologetics has established itself securely as a legitimate perspective on apologetics, although its appeal remains largely limited to Christians whose theology is Calvinist in origin. In a recent book outlining the major schools of apologetics, the presuppositional approach was given equal time alongside much older and well-established schools of thought (the "classical" and "evidential" noted above, for example). In general, Van Til's approach is far more popular and widespread than Clark's.

Apologists who follow Van Til earned the label "presuppositional" because of their central tenet that the Christian must at all times presuppose (that is, assume from the beginning) the supernatural revelation of the Bible as the ultimate arbiter of truth and error in order to know anything. Christians, they say, can assume nothing less because all human thought presupposes (that is, requires by prerequisite) the existence of the God of the Bible. They claim that by accepting the assumptions of non-Christians, which fundamentally deny the Trinitarian God of the Bible, one could not even formulate an intelligible argument. Though Van Tillians do, at one point, "put themselves in the shoes" of the opponent, "for the sake of argument", to demonstrate where that position would lead, they claim that they can only do so because this is actually God's world, and man is actually God's creature, made in God's own image, and as such can never completely shut God out (in living or thinking) — hence there is always a common basis for dialogue, even though it is a basis which the opponent is not usually willing to acknowledge.

According to Frame, "[Van Til's] major complaints against competing apologetic methods are theological complaints, that is, that they compromise the incomprehensibility of God, total depravity, the clarity of natural revelation, God's comprehensive control over creation, and so on." Within their presuppositionalist framework, Van Tillians do often utilize foundational concepts for Thomistic and Evidentialist arguments (belief in the uniformity of natural causes, for example), but they are unwilling to grant that such beliefs are justifiable on "natural" (neutral) grounds. Rather, Van Tillians employ these beliefs, which they justify on Biblical grounds, in the service of transcendental arguments, which are a sort of meta-argument about foundational principles in which the non-Christian's worldview is shown to be incoherent in and of itself and intelligible only because it borrows capital from the Christian worldview. Van Til summarized the transcendental method thus:

"(T)he only proof for the existence of God is that without God you couldn't prove anything."

Van Tillians also stress the importance of reckoning with "the noetic effects of sin" (that is, the effects of sin on the mind), which, they maintain, corrupt man's ability to understand God, the world, and himself aright. In their view, as a fallen creature, man does know the truth in each of these areas, but he seeks to find a different interpretation — one in which, as C. S. Lewis said, he is "on the bench" and God is "in the dock." The primary job of the apologist is, therefore, simply to confront the unbeliever with the fact that, while he is verbally denying the truth, he is nonetheless practically behaving in accord with it. (Van Til illustrated this alleged inconsistency as a child, elevated on the father's knee, reaching up to slap his face, and Bahnsen used the analogy of a man breathing out air to make the argument that air doesn't exist.)

Another important aspect of the Van Tillian apologetical program is the distinction between proof and persuasion. According to the first chapter of the epistle to the Romans, man has ample proof in all of creation of God's existence and attributes but chooses to suppress it. Van Til likewise claimed that there are valid arguments to prove that the God of the Bible exists but that the unbeliever would not necessarily be persuaded by them because of his suppression of the truth, and therefore the apologist, he said, must present the truth regardless of whether anyone is actually persuaded by it. (Frame notes that the apologist is here akin to the psychiatrist who presents the truth about the paranoid's delusions, trusting that his patient knows the truth at some level and can accept it—though Frame would say the action of God in the Holy Spirit is also required for the unbeliever to accept ultimate truths.) An implication of this position is that all arguments are "person relative" in the sense that one non-Christian might be persuaded by a particular argument and another might not be, depending on their background and experiences.

Clark and his followers treat the truth of the Scriptures as an axiom of their system, which cannot be proven or disproven. Rather it, like all axioms, must be tested for consistency within the worldview. This test for internal contradiction exemplifies Clark's strict reliance on the laws of logic (He famously translates the first verse of the Gospel of John as "In the beginning was the Logic, and the Logic was with God, and the Logic was God." By contrast, some Van Tillians have suggested that God might be "above the laws of logic" in some sense.). Thus, in order to invalidate non-Christian worldviews, one must simply show how a different presupposition results in necessary logical contradictions.

Clark admitted, however, that there could be more than one apparently coherent worldview and that one could not test all the implications of any worldview without omniscience. Nonetheless, he believed that this method was effective in many practical cases (when arguing against, for instance, secular humanism or dialectical materialism) and that, in the end, each of us must simply choose (that is, make an informed selection) from among seemingly consistent worldviews the one that most adequately answers life's questions and seems the most internally coherent. (Some Van Tillian critics suggest that the concept of coherence itself must be defined in terms of Christian presuppositions but is instead being used by Clark as a "neutral" principle for discerning the truth of any proposition.)

Using this approach, Clark labored to expose the contradictions of many worldviews that were in vogue in his day and to defend the Christian worldview by proving its consistency over against those who attacked it. His unflagging use of logic sometimes led him to what most Reformed theologians consider rather unorthodox ideas on such topics as the problem of evil — topics which are most often treated by theologians as paradoxes or apparent contradictions not resolvable by human logic.

With regard to other schools of apologetics, Clark suggested that the cosmological argument was not just unpersuasive but also logically invalid (because it begged the question), and he similarly dismissed the other Thomistic arguments. As a staunch critic of empiricism, he did not tend to make much use of evidential arguments, which yield likelihoods and probabilities rather than logical certainties (that is, either coherence or incoherence).

The chief criticism of presuppositionalism is that it uses circular reasoning, which is generally considered a logical fallacy. Many opponents of presuppositional apologetics would characterize the presuppositional argument as resting on a belief in the Bible as the source of truth because it is inspired by God, in whom we can believe because the Bible affirms it and the Bible is the source of truth. While some logicians accept tautology as a legitimate form of argument, most find it impossible to counter, since each premise is only acceptable if the other premise is also found acceptable. This charge seeks to subsume presuppositionalism within fideism, which holds that belief in God cannot be justified by reason at all, but must be accepted or rejected wholly upon faith.

Van Tillians do not deny the charge of circularity. Rather, they insist that all worldviews are ultimately circular and cannot justify their foundational principle except by that principle itself. Therefore, while presuppositionalists agree that circularity makes for an invalid argument in some circumstances, they contend that in the case of ultimate presuppositions, there is no other option. So when considering worldviews, the concern must not be for vicious (or "small") circularity, but for internal coherence ("large circularity"). In other words, presuppositionalists believe that the question to be asked is not, "Do I begin with my ultimate presupposition?" but rather, "Do my beliefs and practices comport with my ultimate presupposition?"

If this reasoning is true, however, it means that all argumentation is ultimately circular. This assertion makes many critics question the line of reasoning proposed by presuppositional apologists. In allowing for the validity of circular arguments by calling all arguments circular, presuppositionalists seem to have denied the validity of all arguments.

Van Tillians insist that the alleged fact of ultimate epistemological circularity does not mean that the apologetical endeavor is reduced to a philosophical "standoff," where one simply chooses a set of presuppositions by a voluntary act (fideism) and then uncritically holds on to them despite all arguments to the contrary or in lieu of any in favor. They endorse an approach that looks for internal consistency of a system wherein the initial premise (the existence of the Biblical God) is also the culmination of all knowledge. To extend an analogy of Van Til, if one starts with the belief in the existence of the Sun, and then all of the tests one can perform because of the light of the Sun confirm the initial belief, then the belief is sound. This is not vicious circularity as demonstrated in the inference pattern "A because B, B because A". So, they claim, even though all arguments may be considered to be circular in one sense, not all are circular in the same sense, and not every sense involves logically fallacious reasoning.

Clarkians, on the other hand, believe that all philosophical systems start with axioms, which by definition are not capable of proof. Clarkians choose the propositions of Scripture as their axioms (fideism). Circular reasoning (of the fallacious sort) involves trying to prove premises from their conclusions, while axioms are not to be proved at all. Clarkians claim to deduce theorems from the axioms of Scripture.

Presuppositionalists posit that there is a logical necessity that attaches to a certain set of presuppositions (the ultimate of which being the existence of the God revealed in the Bible) and that one simply cannot reject that set of presuppositions without destroying the very foundations of knowledge, science, and ethics. That is to say, presuppositionalists argue that without the Christian-Theistic circle, human experience would be unintelligible, and the very objection to "circular reasoning" would be nothing more than a random, disconnected, and ultimately meaningless utterance, not in principle different from any other utterance. Like the man in Bahnsen's analogy who breathes out air to make the argument against the existence of air, by raising the "circular reasoning" objection the unbeliever is thereby demonstrating the truth of Christian Theism, according to presuppositionalists.

It should not be thought, however, that all presuppositionalists repudiate empirical or rational evidences in favor of heavily philosophical argumentation about the nature of conceptual schemes, the nature of arguments and the like. Van Tillians in particular utilize evidence from many other disciplines (physical sciences, archaeology, philosophy, etc.) — as understood according to the Christian presuppositions — to argue in even "broader circles," seeking to demonstrate that all the universe, when understood correctly, plainly declares the wonders of the Creator.

Notes

• Frame (1994): p. 2.
• Sproul et al. (1984): p. 183.
• Frame (2006).
• However, Thomas Aquinas never speaks of "proofs" for the existence of God per se, and on one reading, his "ways" may be taken as demonstrations of the inner coherence of belief in God, rather than proofs. See Alister McGrath The Dawkins Delusion?. Taken in this sense, Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, et al., have embraced the Traditional arguments.
• Van Til (1967): pp. 122-23, 126-29, 131-32.
• Bahnsen (1998): pp. 266-68.
• Carnell (1948): pp. 113-18.
• Frame (1987): pp. 135-36.
• Van Til (1969): pp. 18-19.
• Oliphint (1991).
• Fernandes (1997).
• Butler (2002): pp. 64-124.
• Hoover (1984).
• See, for instance, Bahnsen response to Robbins, Flood's response to Bahnsen, and Bahnsen's response to Flood - all from Journey magazine.
• Frame (2000).
• Van Til (1967): pp. 351-56.
• Frame (n.d.).
• Refer the Bahnsen-Stein debate, where Bahnsen argued that inductive reasoning cannot be justified on an Atheistic worldview.
• Lewis (1970).
• See Schwertley and Harrison.
• Bahnsen (2002): pp. 37-40.
• Frame (1995): pp. 413-15.
• Frame (1994): pp. 62-3.
• Crampton (1990).
• Bahnsen (1998): p. 518 n. 122.
• Bahnsen (1998): p. 170 n. 42.
• Bahnsen (2002): pp. 144.
• Bahnsen (2002): pp. 72-75.
• Frame (1995): pp. 299-309.
• Frame (1994): pp. 229-30.
• Bahnsen (1998): pp. 518-20.
• Bahnsen (1998): pp. 634-48.

References

• Greg L. Bahnsen (1998). Van Til's Apologetic: Readings & Analysis. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co. ISBN 0-87552-098-7.
• Bahnsen, Greg L. (2002). Booth, Robert R., ed. Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith. Covenant Media Press. ISBN 0-915815-28-1
• Edward John Carnell (1948). An Introduction to Christian Apologetics: A Philosophic Defense of the Trinitarian-Theistic Faith. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.
• Greg L. Bahnsen (2002). in Robert R. Booth: Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith. Nacogdoches: Covenant Media Press. ISBN 0-915815-28-1.
• Michael Butler (2002). "The Trancendental Argument for the Existence of God", in Steven M. Schlissel: The Standard Bearer: A Festschrift for Greg L. Bahnsen. Nacogdoches: Covenant Media Press, pp. 64-124.
• Gordon Clark (1998). A Christian View of Men and Things, 3rd edition. Trinity Foundation. ISBN 1-891777-01-7
• Gordon Clark (1995). Religion, Reason, and Revelation, 3rd edition. Trinity Foundation. ISBN 0-940931-86-9
• W. Gary Crampton (November/December 1990). Does the Bible Contain Paradox?. The Trinity Foundation.
• Phil Fernandes (1997). Cornelius Van Til.
• John M. Frame (n.d.). Van Til: The Theologian.
• John M. Frame (1987). The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Theology of Lordship). Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co. ISBN 0-87552-262-9.
• John M. Frame (1994). Apologetics to the Glory of God. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co. ISBN 978-0875522432.
• John M. Frame (1995). Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought. Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co. ISBN 0-87552-220-3.
• John M. Frame (2006). "Presuppositional Apologetics". New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics. Ed. W. C. Campbell-Jack, Gavin J. McGrath, and C. Stephen Evans. InterVarsity Press. ISBN ISBN 978-0830824519. Retrieved on 2007-03-12.
• John M. Frame (2000). "Presuppositional Apologetics", in Steven B. Cowan: Five Views on Apologetics. ISBN 0-310-22476-4.
• Geehan, E. R., ed. (1980). Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Philosophy and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til. Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co. ISBN 0-87552-489-3
• James M. Harrison. The Presuppositional Apologetic. Retrieved on 2007-05-11.
• David P. Hoover (1984). Gordon Clark's Extraordinary View of Men and Things. ISBN ISBN 0-944788-22-X.
• C. S. Lewis (1970). God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 0-8028-0868-9.
• K. Scott Oliphint (1991). "Cornelius Van Til and the Reformation of Christian Apologetics", in B. J. van der Walt: Die Idee Van Reformasie: Gister En Vandag.
• Brian Schwertley. Secular Humanism. Retrieved on 2007-05-11.
• R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley (1984). Classical Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ISBN 978-0310449515.
• Cornelius Van Til (1967). The Defense of the Faith. Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co.
• Cornelius Van Til (1969). A Christian Theory of Knowledge. Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co.
see also: Kalam cosmological argument
• VanTil.info - writings by and about Van Til and his apologetic.
• The Trinity Foundation - the shorter writings and audio of Gordon Clark and his disciples for free as well as printed books and audio for a fee.
• The Works of John Frame and Vern Poythress
• Reformed Perspectives' Apologetics - a number of papers and books by John Frame.
• The Hall of Frame - papers by students of John Frame as well as material for Frame's courses at Reformed Theological Seminary.
• Christian Apologetics course taught by John Frame at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, available for free from iTunes U
• The Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics - many articles and books about the presuppositional approach to apologetics.
• Monergism's Apologetics Articles - extensive collection of essays on presuppositional apologetics
• Frontline Ministries Apologetics Articles - collection of essays on explaining and applying presuppositional apologetics.
• Covenant Media Foundation which offers a variety of audio resources related to presuppositional apologetics by Greg Bahnsen, Douglas Wilson, and some by Van Til himself.
  • "Presuppositional Procedure", by Greg Bahnsen.
  • "The Crucial Concept of Self-Deception in Presuppositional Apologetics" by Greg Bahnsen.
• First Word - articles about Van Til's apologetic.
• Reformation Ministries International e-books espousing a Clarkian presuppositionalism

Presuppositional apologetics

• The Great Debate: Does God Exist? - transcript of a formal debate between Christian Greg Bahnsen and atheist Gordon Stein.
• The Martin-Frame Debate A written debate between skeptic Michael Martin and Christian John Frame about the transcendental argument for the existence of God.
• The Drange-Wilson Debate A written debate between skeptic Theodore Drange and Christian Douglas Wilson.
• "Is Non-Christian Thought Futile?" A written debate between Christian Doug Jones and skeptics Keith Parsons and Michael Martin in Antithesis magazine (vol. 2, no. 4).
• "Biblical Rationalism versus Psycho Assertionism" an informal email debate between Christian Vincent Cheung and atheist Derek Sansone

Debates and discussions on apologetic method

• "Presuppositional or Evidential Apologetics?" An audio debate in MP3 format between Gordon Clark (who speaks first) and David Hoover. (Warning: 25 MB download; no streaming available.)
• "Van Til and the Ligonier Apologetic" An article by John Frame from the Westminster Theological Journal analyzing the book Classical Apologetics by R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley (ISBN 0-310-44951-0), which itself includes "a friendly refutation of Cornelius Van Til's presuppositional apologetics."
• "A Critique of the Evidentialist Apologetical Method of John Warwick Montgomery", an article by Greg Bahnsen.
• "The Resurrection of Thomism" An article by Doug Erlandson critiquing Thomistic apologetics.
• "Presuppositionalism vs. Evidentialism", a question-and-answer from Creation Ministries International that takes a semi-Clarkian approach to apologetics.
• "Agnostic asks whether biblical Christians commit circular reasoning: role of axioms, internal consistency and real world application", a semi-Clarkian question-and-answer from Creation Ministries Internationala>.