Thread: Evidentialism and Presuppositionalism ?

I've been doing some reading on inspiration and the authority of Scripture and came across this debate.

supports the idea that the evidence of God can be argued from outside of Scripture, i.e natural revelation. supports the idea that God can only be known through special revelation, i.e. Scripture.

Specifically with respect to Scripture, the evidentialist would say that proof for Scripture's validity can be found outside of its source. The presuppositionalist would say that the Scripture itself holds its only truth claim, which can only be understood through the Holy Spirit's illumination. Otherwise, the non-believer would be called to judge the merits of Scripture, i.e. about God through a darkened lens.

What view do you support and why?

-Side note-
I cam across this from another website-

Originally Posted by DeoOpt

I've been doing some reading on inspiration and the authority of Scripture and came across this debate.

supports the idea that the evidence of God can be argued from outside of Scripture, i.e natural revelation. supports the idea that God can only be known through special revelation, i.e. Scripture.

Specifically with respect to Scripture, the evidentialist would say that proof for Scripture's validity can be found outside of its source. The presuppositionalist would say that the Scripture itself holds its only truth claim, which can only be understood through the Holy Spirit's illumination. Otherwise, the non-believer would be called to judge the merits of Scripture, i.e. about God through a darkened lens.

What view do you support and why?

-Side note-
I cam across this from another website-

Presuppositionalist. Because God says so.

All theology begins with propositional revelation. Even the evidentialist gets his justification for evidentialism from the presupposed scriptures. There cannot be anything ‘higher’ than the word of God to justify the word of God or it (that is the other thing) becomes the word of God by default (and that’s heretical). By definition, the word of God must stand alone as its own authority. Scripture is does not merely constitute the content of dogmatics, it must serve as the alone justification for dogmatics as an enterprise. If the locus of justification resides outside of the scriptures, its own self-attesting witness to its own self-justification would be contradicted. In other words, the bible teaches that’s its ground for veracity does not subsist in environs external to itself (Luke 16:27-31). Thus, theological content must determine apologetic method. The scriptures are the starting point of all knowledge. We must begin with propositional revelation and then interpret the world (not the reverse!).

Presuppositionalist. If you haven't read it yet, check out "The Attestation of Scripture" by John Murray. Better yet, get the entire Infallible Word volume it was published in. Take a look at where Clark Pinnock is now to see what happens when you base the veracity of Scripture on the attestation of natural revelation.

Romans 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

I believe in the importance and efficacy of evidentialism based on the presuppositional truth that there is a God and He's revealed himself in His Word, the Bible; hence, evidentialism is presuppositionally true.

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Presuppositionalist. Because God says so.

Ooooh, I will have to use that answer!

I'm what they call a common sense presuppositionalist or maybe a presuppositional classicist. In essence, I have a common sense epistemology while taking into account the presuppositions of my audience.

No good presuppositionalist ignores evidence just as no good classical apologist will ignore presuppositions.

Shouldn't this be in the apologetics forum?

Even Van Til believed in the use of evidences, in a presuppositional way.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Even Van Til believed in the use of evidences, in a presuppositional way.

Yes, and he provides an excellent illustration as well:

"We cannot prove the existence of beams underneath a floor if by proof we mean that they must be ascertainable in the way that we can see the chairs and tables of the room. But the very idea of a floor as the support of tables and chairs requires the idea of beams that are underneath. Thus there is absolutely certain proof for the existence of God and the truth of Christian theism...." The Defense of the Faith, p. 103.

He explains in more detail what is meant by "absolutely certain proof for the existence of God:"

"It is the weakness of the Roman Catholic and the Arminian methods that they virtually identify objective validity with subjective acceptability to the natural man. Distinguishing carefully between these two, the Reformed apologist maintains that there is an absolutely valid argument for the existence of God and for the truth of Christian theism. He cannot do less without virtually admitting that God's revelation to man is not clear. It is fatal to the Reformed apologist to admit that man has done justice to the objective evidence if he comes to any other conclusion than that of the truth of Christian theism.

As for the question whether the natural man will accept the truth of such an argument, we answer that he will if God pleases by his Spirit to take the scales from his eyes and the mask from his face. It is upon the power of the Holy Spirit that the Reformed preacher relies when he tells men that they are lost in sin and in need of a Savior..." ibid. p. 104.

If someone asks me, "why should I believe in scripture?", I imagine I ought to give him some good reasons to think scripture is reliable.

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

If someone asks me, "why should I believe in scripture?", I imagine I ought to give him some good reasons to think scripture is reliable.

"Good reasons" are only such as meet the preconditions for rationality, and the ultimate precondition is the divine self-revelation.