Presuppositionalism: A Biblical Approach to Apologetics

Dr. Paul S. Nelson, Associate Pastor at Sovereign Grace Baptist Church of Silicon Valley,  has released a book entitled "Presuppositionalism: A Biblical Approach to Apologetics" for free. 

The book is a compilation of lectures and articles on biblical apologetics.



Lecture by Dr. Nelson that goes with his book:

Innocent Idols?

Some of the greatest revelations from God, about Himself, are often forgotten. I think there are a lot of things that can be pointed to as reasons for forgetting what God has revealed. Insecurity and laziness are some specific reasons. These can become idols that enslave. For example, we feel insecure about studying doctrines that are deep and difficult. So we excuse ourselves from this task by reserving this task strictly to our Pastors' (after all, they have degrees in theology). Insecurities help us become lazy by relying too much on our Pastors' sermons instead of studying for ourselves. These idols of insecurity and laziness begin to shape how we view God. They control us, even to the point that they motivate us to keep control over our lives from God. They can lead to God being ignored from the Bible. Such that, we become more susceptible to throwing out Biblical exegesis and systematic theology. In turn, our idols "tell us" God has become untrustworthy and/or distant.

The solution is to: (1) identify any given idol of our hearts, and (2) regard it for what it is in light of God's revelation, namely an idol; finally, (3) turn from any given idol to the only true God, whom paid the penalty for sins at Calvary, so that in Him and through Him God can conform us to His image. By the eyes of faith , we can repent, believe, and rejoice in what Christ has done on our behalf. He died in our place to rescue us from sin--from idolatry-- that in Him we would become the children of God. The rags to riches story come true. So we are to no longer live ruled by idols for meaning, purpose or value. Idols cannot give any of these things. All they can do is enslave us on an endless search for meaning, purpose and value where it cannot be found. Meaning, purpose and value can only be found in Christ. Only in Him do we see God's goodness, love and grace poured out for us on the cross. He who is beautiful become ugly for us that we might be beautiful in God's sight. He who was invulnerable become vulnerable that we might find safety and security in Him.  Despair and defeat is conquered, by hope and victory in, and through, Christ's death, burial and resurrection.    

Primer on Presuppositional Apologetics

I want to share a lecture by Pastor Dr. Paul S. Nelson on Presuppositional apologetics. He is a friend that, over the years, has helped me greatly understand the depth of Presuppositional Apologetics.

Calvinism and Molinism

 Greg Koukl gives a great explanation on why Christians ought not to take up middle knowledge as articulated by William Lane Craig.

"Cosmic Lottery" Examined

Thoughts on an article against the teleological argument.

Criticisms of Dr. Wai hung-Wong’s article the “Cosmic Lottery.”

1. Dr, Wong is arbitrary or at best begs the question on how the universe is life permitting rather than not.
2. Dr. Wong assumes with the analogies of a lottery and pulling of straws that the universe by chance could have taken on different states of affairs. The difficulty is that this assumption means chance could have produced either a world with or without laws that would allow life to exist. But it sounds very similar to the pop theory. Such a view things cannot be explained, so people say that things just pop into being by nothing. Or worse, the anthropic principle is by luck or coincidence. Why not just say the universe magically came to be life permitting. Dr. Wong seems to be saying that if the universe randomly is life permitting out of all the possible universes, it does not require an explanation, since it has peculiar features as other possible universes. He ultimately is saying it is the drop of the dice. Such a view seems just as arbitrary to say it was by magic we have a life permitting universe. Both answers seem to beg the question on giving an explanation on how the universe came to be life permitting with laws (e.g. the laws of gravity) that preserve life.    

My Experience at Thrive Apologetics Conference

What happens when you get a local mega-church and some of the top ranked apologists together? You get the Thrive apologetics conference with about 3000 people attending. I went to this conference in my local area primarily to hang out with a friend and be encouraged by the conference. It was a two day conference and I could only attend the 2nd day.

The first lecture I went too was entitled, " A House Needs a Floor: Foundationalism and Postmodernity." The apologists lecturing were Dr. Scott Smith of Biola and Dr. Holly Ordway of Houston Baptist University. The lecture outline prima facie gave me the impression the lecture was going to center on Alvin Plantinga's contributions to foundationalism and its immunities to postmodernism. Instead, the lecture was like a roundtable discussion of foundationalism (of the Reidian sort), and postmodernism's backlash to modernism. The discussion was interesting until I heard Dr. Smith speak of worldviews and presuppositions.

He stated the common analogy of a worldview is the glasses one wears to see the world a certain way. The presuppositions one espouses comprises his or her worldview. Presuppositions are what one uses to interpret reality. So far so good, but then Dr. Smith says we can change our worldview.  One can choose to take his/her glasses off and put on a different pair since his/her original glasses are not cemented on. He stressed that we can judge presuppositions which use to interpret reality by facts. Thus, he says, one can have direct acquaintance with reality without requiring mediatory presuppositions to interpret reality. His proof for such a view was an appeal to human experience. It got worse, he said if what he was arguing wasn't true, then we would be left with everyone having different presuppositions comprising different worldviews with no objective standard to justify one worldview over another. All worldviews would be incommensurable. Ultimately, such a view, in Dr Smith's estimation, leaves worldviews at a mexican stand off. He thinks such a view entails fideism so he opts for his view. After I heard all this, I wanted to ask Dr. Smith one question, "If there are presuppositions (e.g. logic, induction, knowledge, and truth) that can only be justified by the Christian worldview then doesn't that give us an argument against all non-christian worldviews?" Due to time constraints I didn't get to ask Dr. Scott my question. But if I am correct then Dr. Scott has no good reason to accept his view. Yet assuming he is right, how could one rightly evaluate facts apart from presuppostions? It sounds like this view entails autonomy? What makes facts the ultimate standard that ought to judge presuppositions? Further, if one doesn't know all facts, how can one properly understand a fact apart from all facts? Dr. Smith says we can have knowledge directly by acquaintance with reality, but how? If Dr. Smith is an empiricist, knowledge is conveyed "through" the 5 senses. So how can knowledge be "directly" acquaintanced? What bridges the gap from the subject to the object in Dr. Smith's model? It seems we are left with the Ding an sich of Kant?

We all have presuppositions (or ultimate beliefs) that come about by experience. But there are certain presuppositions that all man possess. We must acknowledge God's revelation as the ultimate authority over presuppositions and it alone must be the standard our presuppositions ought to conform too. We are made in God's image and so we can know truths by our 5 senses. We all know the Triune God and His law (though men are habitually suppressing this knowledge as Rom 1:16-23, and 2:12 states).  In fact we presuppose many things, taken for granted, because we are made in the image of God living in His world ( i.e. rationality, knowledge, morality, and the regularity of nature).