Matt Postiff's Blog

I recently read a paper by David Haines entitled "A Potential Problem with Presuppositionalism." It can be found on academia.edu.

I think the title would be better without the word potential because the author is not claiming that there is a potential problem, but rather he is asserting there is a fatal problem.

Haines wrote on page 5 two claims that underlie his argument:

1. All rational beings use an interpretive scheme from which they cannot escape, and
2. There is no common ground

These two claims do not match what I understand of Van Til's apologetic. (I was schooled in this approach and adopted it for myself some years ago, so I am somewhat of an "insider.")

Quick comments on the two claims:

1) All rational beings use an interpretive scheme: true. The believer interprets life through the truth revealed by God in Scripture. The unbeliever uses some other means to interpret life, but never comes to the table "presupposition-less." This is because their minds are darkened by sin. Depravity affects not only the moral system in man, but also the rational/intellectual system. Therefore, the unbeliever's interpretive scheme, of whatever variety it may be, is rooted in unbelief and proud rebellion against the creator, and self-deception about the deity and power of God.

From which they cannot escape: false. Regeneration causes an unbeliever to quickly reach 'escape velocity' from their presuppositions and plants them onto another presuppositional foundation. So in fact, the person can escape from one foundation to another; what he cannot escape is the fact that he is standing on some kind of foundation, never in free space, utterly neutral.

2) There is no common ground: false. As I understand the presuppositional apologetic, it claims that there IS in fact common ground between people, and that is rooted in God, His creation, and specifically the image of God in man (conscience, etc.). There is NOT common ground where the unbeliever wants it--in purely empirical or rationalist terms, nor even where the rational apologist wants it--in rationalism. This is because the mind of the unbeliever is darkened.

For me, it boils down to this: we live in the world. The world and all that is in it was created by God. Neither this world nor the truth about its creation can be escaped. That is the ultimate common ground. You cannot postulate a world which was not created by God, because in order to do so, you are using your mind and world in which you exist, which was created by God. It is utter deception to use a God-given mind to suggest that God doesn't exist!

Some time ago we prepared a quick guide on some topics for witnessing to people who hold different belief systems. This can be greatly improved, I'm sure, but it is offered "as is" and will hopefully be a help to you. The image below is a preview; if you click it, the PDF will download.

Please contact us if you want to suggest additions or corrections. Thank you!

During an examination of Acts 17:2-3, I thought to connect it back to Isaiah 53 (a significant section of "the scriptures"). Paul was using the Scriptures to demonstrate that the Messiah had to suffer and rise again. Then he connected those prophecies to the actual historical happenings in the life of Jesus of Nazareth to show his audience the need to believe in Christ.

When I took a look at Isaiah, here is what I found (verses quoted from NKJV unless otherwise noted):

The apostle was showing that Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead. Isaiah 53 does this. It focuses on the suffering. But it also teaches the resurrection because it says that God will prolong the days of His servant (Isaiah 53:10), and He will give Him a portion with the great and spoil with the strong (Isaiah 53:12). These things clearly imply that He must come to life again in order to receive these blessings.

I am just completing an expositional series in 2 Peter in our church, and yesterday I delivered a message at the chapel service of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary from Peter's letter. In preparation for the message, I noted that Peter appeals to two witnesses as the basis of his apologetic, that is, his defense of the gospel.

The first of these witnesses is found in 2 Peter 1:16-18. There, Peter flatly denies the charge that he is propagating a clever myth. Rather, he personally eyewitnessed the majesty of the Lord Jesus Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration. But far more than a mere "experience," Peter has recorded for us a heavenly revelation with apostolic authority. Jesus, God the Father, James, John, Peter, Moses, and Elijah were present at this unveiling of the regal glory of King Jesus. Peter's letter, and all the NT writings, are classed the same way--as apostolic revelation. So Peter's first witness boils down to this: the New Testament of the Bible.

The second of Peter's witnesses is found in 2 Peter 1:19-21. There he writes of the prophetic word that is altogether reliable. It did not originate in man, but rather with the activity of the Holy Spirit superintending the authors of the Old Testament. And that is why it is entirely trustworthy, because it originates with God.

Peter reiterates these two witnesses once again in 2 Peter 3:2:

That you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior...

We have the Old Testament in the mention of the holy prophets, and the New Testament in the phrase "commandment of...the apostles."

By two or three witnesses, let every word be established (Deut. 19:15, Matt. 18:16, 2 Cor. 13:1). You cannot get more reliable witnesses than the Old and New Testaments. The Christian faith is founded upon solid, historical, revealed truth from heaven. There is no reason to abandon it for the speculations and scoffing of men.

Reading in 1 and 2 John the last couple of days reminded me that several truths about Jesus must be believed by all Christians.

First, Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah (1 John 2:22-23). Anyone who denies this is, as John says, a liar and antichrist who not only denies the Messianic credentials of Christ, but also denies God the Father. Note that this does not mean that the person explicitly denies God the Father and the Son. He may claim to acknowledge God the Father while rejecting the Son; however John pushes back that anyone who denies the Son also denies the Father. This is reinforced by another text authored by John: John 5:23.

Second, Jesus has come in the flesh (1 John 4:2-3; 2 John 7). This means that He existed prior to His coming and then took up his fleshly dwelling subsequent to that prior existence. Anyone who denies this truth is not from God.

Third, Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 5:5). Whoever does not hold this faith has not overcome the world, is not born of God, and does not love God.

So far so good. But prominent cults can claim to believe all of the above in some sense. A couple more truths will set some obvious distance between the Biblical view and that of the cults.

Fourth, Jesus is the creator of all things (John 1:3). It is clear from that text that any "made thing" was made by Christ. This explicitly puts Christ into a different category than "made things."

Fifth and finally, Jesus is God (John 1:1). The Word, the one which became flesh (John 1:14), existed in the beginning, existed with God, and "was God."

What do you think about using this set of questions as a "spiritual conversation starter"?

I found these amongst the piles of papers I was cleaning out from the 2014 version of my office; evidently I had picked it up somewhere along the way, but I don't remember where.

Theologically, this list of questions is not very good. I don't have a problem with using something of this sort, but these particular questions need a lot of improvement.

In general, the questions place a heavy emphasis on the desires of the person being interviewed. The final question sounds Osteen-ish and is based on wrong theology. The way that a non-Christian hears "best life possible" is "best life right now." But those who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution (2 Timothy 3:12), so there is no promise of a "best life now" for the new believer. True, in the long run the benefits of the Christian life are way better than the alternative, but that is not what the interviewee is thinking when asked this question.

There are many better surveys than this. One better one would simply be to cut to question 6, but change it to something like this: "What do you know about Jesus?" When they answer, inquire if you could tell them what the Bible says about Him, and see where the conversation goes.

Dr. Kevin Bauder has just written a very helpful article on the proper use of common ground in the Christian's apologetic method. A statement in the opening paragraph caught my attention as one that could be further clarified. Bauder writes,

"Presuppositionalists reject the notion of common ground and insist upon the antithesis between revealed truth and all human attempts to discover truth while denying revelation."

Most presuppositionalists will understand the point, namely that the "Van Til" method rejects all grounds which the unbeliever would consciously accept. However, the first part of the sentence is a bit overstated. Presuppositionalists do use common ground--it just happens to be ground that the unbeliever does not want to accept as common but which, because he lives in God's world, he is standing on anyway.

Some quotes from Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics, will show that this use of the term common ground is legitimate.

Page 115, last line: "The common ground between believer and skeptic is metaphysical."

Page 129, second line: "Because the believer and unbeliever do not stand on epistemological common ground..."

Page 141, favorably quoting Gordon Clark in the middle of the page: "A point of connection in the sense of a common principle is a logical impossibility... . But Reformed theology, while denying a common epistemological ground, has always asserted a common psychological or ontological ground."

Page 288, last paragraph: "Only if Christianity is true when it claims that all men have a presupposed knowledge of God can there be any common ground on which to maintain an argument at all..."

Page 289, first full paragraph: "The only point of contact between any skeptic and believer who argue with each other must be the truth that the non-Christian is attempting to disprove!"

Page 289, bottom of the page: "...the Christian apologist must not carry on his dispute with the unbeliever on the unbeliever's own terms or opinion of himself. Common ground cannot be found at this level...the Christian apologist should show the suppressed beliefs that make the unbeliever's formal reasoning and knowledge possible and that offer common ground for legitimate argumentation."

The bottom line is that there is a proper common ground, and an improper common ground. The presuppositionalist insists on using only the proper common ground and rejects the improper type of common ground.