“True wisdom consists in two things: Knowledge of God and Knowledge of Self.” John Calvin

I recently watched the video floating around concerning the James White and Jeff Durbin debate with Greg Clark and Dan Ellis. Like many, I found the debate to be a bit odd given the extremely embarrassing responses and reactions from the atheist side of the conversation. If you haven’t seen the debate, I would encourage you to give it a look. However, I would point out it is not one of James White’s best debates…not that he did poorly…he never does. But the debate never really gives him much intellectual space to shine given that the opposing side, due to lack of professionalism and maturity, never offer anything substantial by way of positive argument. Durbin does quite well despite not having much time in public debate, no doubt a byproduct of his more informal street conversations of which this debate was more akin to. Nevertheless, as I watched White and Durbin maturely and professionally put Clark and Ellis to intellectual shame, I found myself wondering, “Will anyone actually prepare and provide a good argument against contemporary presuppositionalism?”



For those unaware of the apologetic method, presuppositionalism is a particularly post reformation apologetic methodology that focuses on exposing opposing worldviews to a type of reductio ad absurdum while putting forth no positive arguments of its own. I say that not as a derogatory jab, but rather as defining mark of the methodology itself. Many presuppositionalist believe that by putting forth any positive arguments for God’s existence one, by consequence, makes themselves judge over God. Therefore the presuppositionalist offers instead the Christian worldview as the only means of making sense of the intelligible world. I know for some this may sound extremely odd, but it’s actually quite crafty. The point of presuppositionalism is to essentially call into question the epistemic foundations of the opponent’s worldview and then demonstrate that the Christian worldview is the only viable option to make sense of all the beliefs we typically take for granted. Beliefs like the existence of the material world, other minds, the reality of the past, and the continuity of causality.



While in college, I was employed as a campus minister where I taught classical apologetics. So I’ll admit I’m a bit bias to methodologies. However, I also recall during college putting forth a counterclaim to the presuppositional position that saw quite a bit of success. That counter argument is what I would like to provide here. Well, some of it. First however, I would like to point out some issues with the methodology itself.



For many presuppositionalist, there is this assumption that this method is uniquely reformed and derived from John Calvin’s own work. The former is correct while the latter couldn’t be further from the truth. I say the former is correct because the contemporary reformed camp is so diluted with water down versions of Calvin’s theology it would be hardly noticeable by the Genevan magisterial himself. Even when I previously identified as a Calvinist, I never truly saw this apologetic method as uniquely his. Therefore it goes without saying that you won’t find presuppositionalism in Calvin writings, rather in his first chapter of his Institutes you will find Calvin discussing whether one should begin the subject of knowledge with human self knowledge or knowledge of the divine. He argues that it would seen normative to begin from self inferential experience, yet concludes we must start with knowledge of God given the due honor that it solely Gods. I read Calvin’s Institutes well before being exposed to presuppositionalism and can conclude the theory is nowhere explained or supported in Calvin’s work. Moreover, better theories of epistemology have been developed out of Calvin’s opening chapter. Alvin Plantinga has developed a theory of knowledge called “Reformed Epistemology” where he details, in my opinion, a far more Calvinistic view of how one comes to justified true belief in God.



Presuppositionalism also seems to be biblically suspect. What I mean is that this view does seem to tout itself as the most honorable biblically, but never do you see anyone use this methodology within the bible itself. Granted this method is a post reformation development and many protestants will read back into the texts of scripture their own views. This is protestant theology in general, but with this view particularly there is a very aggressive push within its own defenders that any other apologetic method is unbiblical and dishonorable. Yet, within this assumption, the presuppositionalist put themselves in a bit of a strange position. Arguably just a byproduct of sola scriptura, presuppositionalism fails to notice that neither Paul or any New Testament author seem to be familiar with the methodology used by them. Not to mention the first real mention of apologetics within the early church is all based in pagan philosophy.

I think an honest investigation of presuppositionalism will reveal that by “biblical” they mean a unique interpretation of Romans 1 with a blind acceptance of Sola Scriptura…



Finally, one last thing to point out is that this method of apologetics has been deemed to be incoherent and circular. Once again, this is something typically admitted by self proclaimed presuppositionalist. Many more academically minded individuals find this view simple child’s play in relation to real philosophy. But it’s worth a mention because it would appear that every debate with a presuppositionalist seems to ends with extreme frustration on both sides. This could be, in part, due to the fact that most people have very little knowledge of introductory philosophical principles but, whatever it may be, it needs to be asserted that the position is considered a bit non intellectual by most Christian apologists. But this forces me to ask why so many good and educated men would align themselves with such a foolhardy methodology? A bit of study into philosophical history and one will find that Socrates was making a very similar claim given that he thought no one could know anything for similar reasons put forth by contemporary presuppositionalist. Yet the work done by Socrates would not produce some early form of presuppositionalism. Quite the contrary, following early forms of Platonism several schools of thought arise including the Skeptics, the Epicureans, and the Stoics. Ironically, it was the Skeptics who both argued like the presuppositionalist, yet chose to bite the metaphysical bullet admitting nothing could be known. Yet, from these early dialogues from antiquity we have the first steps towards what many now call classical foundationalism. In my opinion, foundationalism seems to resolve any issue put forth by the presuppositionalist. Yet, I don’t want to just give a defense; I would also like to provide a positive argument as well. I would like to demonstrate that there is a superior foundation for the intelligibility of the uniformity of nature and a worldview far better at epistemology altogether.



As mentioned above, the first school of thought to come from the Socratic dialogues was Platonism. Now I would love to see a debate between a consistent Platonist and a presuppositionalist. Both hold to transcendental universal and could argue very similar points however, I would like to offer something a bit different. Seneca, a Stoic philosopher in the first century, in his letter titled, “How many causes?”, objects to the previous theories put forth by Aristotle and Plato concerning causes. This is a rather elaborate topic but to try to simply, Aristotle was known for his four causes and Plato for his five. By cause what is under study is the science of causality and change. Regardless, Seneca critiques both Plato and Aristotle for having such elaborate systems suggesting that a theory of causation should be simple. Seneca argues, “The Stoics maintain that there is only one cause, the maker.” What Seneca is doing here is challenging previous assumptions about causation based on a simpler metaphysic and epistemology that was uniquely Stoic. It is this methodology, theory of physics, and epistemology that I would like to argue provides a better precondition for the intelligibility of the uniformity of nature and grounds for rational thought.



I’d like to break this into two primary focuses: 1) A positive assertion concerning Stoic principles and 2) demonstrating problematic internal structures within the presuppositionalist worldview.



The Stoic framework, in brief, would provide the preconditions for the intelligibility of the natural phenomenon based in like fashion to the presuppositionalist position due to the fact that, Seneca states, there is one cause, God. This is what usually gives the presuppositionalist the higher ground in a debate, a reference to a universal and unchanging standard of truth. However, Stoicism has an advantage here in multiple ways. The Stoic concept of God, Logos, while most likely the referential concept used by early Christians in explaining Christ’s deity (see John 1), is the embodiment of truth and the active cause of all things in nature. Moreover, the Stoics, being Panentheists, believe God permeates all of nature. In the Stoic mindset, the cosmos is entirely material but consists of an active and passive substance. God is the active and the material is the inactive. According to Seneca, God permeates the Cosmos like a body and soul mixture. However, to avoid any deep, and possibly confusing, details about Stoic metaphysics…the point is that given the Stoic view of God’s immanence, we therefore possess a piece of the divine within us insofar as we maintain a noble character. This essence of the divine, Seneca calls the holy spirit, is simply a portion of God within the material world. This is important because the presuppositionalist maintains that all have knowledge of God, yet the reason they have the high ground in discussions of superior worldviews is due to the fact that in their view, God has spoken. The Bible is the objective means for the presuppositionalism to come to any object knowledge outside of God’s existence. Whereas for the Stoic, since God is within all noble persons via the soul, one can simple use their faculty of reason to arrive at such conclusions. This provides for a superior epistemology given that this resource of knowledge can be immediately known without the aid of direct revelation.



Now I acknowledge that James White and Jeff Durbin engaged in a debate over whether the triune God of scripture exists. I think this is because by specifying the topical material it gives the appearance of making it more difficult for them to argue in support of, whereas in reality the presuppositionalist believes that the triune God is necessary for any epistemological certainty. However, therein lies the problem. The triune God is far too complex an explanation and can be simplified. Furthermore, presuppositionalism does not offer epistemic certainty, but a model for having epistemic certainty…big difference.



In defense of my first assertion, that the triune God is too complex, I am using both Seneca’s critique and also a modern convention called Occam’s Razor. The idea behind this is that plurality should not be proposed without necessity. My argument is that three persons within one substance is unnecessary and, to counter, argue that the Logos of the Stoic worldview is sufficient for the preconditions needed for logic and reason. The presuppositionalist may protest that for God to be perfectly loving or personal he must be eternally in relation with himself, thus demanding multiple persons. However, even if this were true, we need only increase the personas to two, not three. So it would appear God may be foundationally necessary but not the triune God. Thought I think there could be further exploration on whether God’s immutability is affected by his being personal.



Furthermore, the presuppositionalist isn’t offering the justification for nature’s intelligibility, rather they are offering a model. This is important because several times you will hear that the presuppositionalist claim they can make sense of the world given their view, yet this only seems to work against atheistic systems. When compared to simpler theistic worldviews it would appear that while the Christian worldview does seem favorable, it is not superior. There is no way to provide certainty about the certainty contained within the Christian framework. All that the presuppositionalist can claim is that if their view is true then certainty would be possible.



So while brief, it does appear that Stoicism offers a superior worldview in relation to those inferential claims about the world we take for granted.



But these are just my passing thoughts. I’ve seen a number of James White’s public debates and Jeff Durbin’s street conversations…and I do enjoy them. Both men are very astute and seem to have a high level of integrity, which I can appreciate. However, I think their apologetic methodology remains so heavily revered because it has gone without any real challenge. This is not to say there is no legitimacy to their claims or beliefs…or that White hasn’t done excellent apologetic work in Muslim and Mormon communites. But when it comes to these discussions of God’s existence, I feel there is something lacking. There needs to be real push back in this area…but these are just my opinions. Maybe one day I’ll flesh out more of my thoughts on this lacking area of Christian apologetics…until then I guess we are just left with a man and his antifreeze. You’ll have to watch the debate to understand…(laughs)

