Chapter Two - A Consideration of Presuppositions
1. PRESUPPOSITIONS ARE UNAVOIDABLE
1.1 Characteristics of Presuppositions
We have already seen in Chapter 1 that when a person begins a logical argument, he always adopts certain presuppositions. In Pure Mathematics, Geometry, Theory of Evolution and Geology, etc, there are axioms or assumptions which are accepted without proof, and the mathematician and scientists proceeds to argue logically to prove theorems and corollaries. The apologist does likewise when demonstrating the truthfulness of the biblical position.
1.2 Biblical Presuppositions and the Problem
One truth is evident: the Bible never attempts to prove that God exists, as the opening statement in Genesis 1:1 shows. Furthermore, the Scripture declares that He has revealed Himself in creation (Psalm 19:1-2) and in His special revelation, the Word (2 Timothy 3:16).
However, this line of reasoning will not satisfy those who rely heavily upon human rationalization or scientific methodology. They will be quick to question the claims made by Christians, and the argument usually proceeds, "You say there is a God, how do you know?" The believer replies, "Well, the Bible says so." The critic will press the point further, "How do you know that the Bible is right?" The Christian then replies, "God says that the Bible is true; it is His Word." It is plain to see that the argumentation is back to where it began, and the believer will be accused of circular reasoning.
1.3 Presuppositions and Conclusions - Circular?
1.3.1 All argumentation is circular
In reply to the critics and their charge of circular argumentation, Christians must realize that all argumentation is circular. If we do not realize it, we might become frustrated when trying to find a reasonable test for faith.
The believer can turn the tables on the critics on this matter of presuppositions. To the naturalist who does not believe that God and the supernatural exist,
the believer can ask, "How do you know that God does not exist?"
the naturalist replies, "I have examined this world and the universe through the scientific method, and I have found no traces of Him."
the Christian should persist, "But how do you know that the scientific method is valid to tell you that God does not exist? Perhaps the God might be outside this material world or universe, the present scope of scientific research is not wide enough or inadequate to verify the existence of God."
to this the naturalist will confidently assert, "Nothing outside of this world exists, including God!".
Now we see how the argument is turned on the naturalist with his circular reasoning.
1.3.2 Can we escape presuppositions?
It is best to start with the biblical presuppositions as hypotheses, and then proceed to test the hypotheses, applying them to problems to see if this approach best answers our concerns. When the biblical hypotheses appear to answer all questions better than any others, we can be assured with a high degree of probability that the biblical position merits the faith we place in it.
2. IMPORTANT PRESUPPOSITIONS FOR A BIBLICAL APOLOGETIC
2.1 Test for Truth
When presuppositions are adopted to establish an apologetic system, one important factor which must be taken into account is which test for truth is most plausible.
2.1.1 Philosophical tests
There are numerous tests for truth, they are:
Some apologists use a test for truth already accepted by various philosophers.
Bishop Butler has a methodology which is both empirical and inductive, but he indicates that it is foolish to insist upon absolute proof for ultimate knowledge. The most one could have is a probability of the truth of Christianity.
Carnell wants to use what he calls "systematic consistency." In defining this phrase, Carnell indicates that truth must take into account all experience. We cannot have complete truth until we have considered the concrete facts of history, as well as what can be ascertained through the rules of logic, including the law of contradiction. In the latter phrase, this law declares that nothing can be itself and its contradiction. For example, one cannot be rich and poor. Carnell has set forth consistency as:
Horizontal, where all major assumptions are so related that they placate the rules of formal logic, chief of which is the law of contradiction; and
Vertical, which takes into account the interpretation of the real concrete facts of human history.
Gordon Clark, on the other hand, feels that the only test for truth is logic in the law of non-contradiction:
Logical consistency is the essence of truth; and
Logical contradiction, is the core of falsity.
2.1.2 Existentialists
Existentialists are another class of apologists adopt a more radical test.
Kierkegaard felt that nothing could be tested in the objective world of reason. He preferred the method of individual choice, which emphasizes the subjectiveness of personal commitment and involvement;
Karl Barth felt that we can only know the Bible as God's Word in the sense that God speaks through it;
Emil Brunner suggested two criteria for truth. There is a knowledge of God as He speaks directly to man through His Word. He also thought it was possible for man to know something of God through natural revelation. Barth could not agree; for him, the image of God in man suffered such destruction in the Fall that it is not possible for man to know anything of God through natural theology.
2.1.3 The Reformers
The Reformers, e.g. the views of Calvin and Luther, can be called, "The Epistemology of the Holy Spirit," wherein the Spirit imparts biblical knowledge to believers. For these men, as well as for us, the Bible is objective truth regardless of what anyone says about it. The Scriptures is not a mere record of what God says through the Holy Spirit. It is the Word which the Spirit of God uses to speak to people. The Reformers had no doubt that there is truth in the biblical position.
2.2 The Danger of Presuppositions
The choice of presuppositions presents an acute problem for those who are not believers, because a basic moral is involved in their choice. When commenting on Romans 1:21-23, Kenneth Pike declared, "I came to the conclusion that in Heaven, at the judgment seat, God will hold will men responsible for their basic philosophical assumptions, and that this choice of an epistemology is a moral choice." When a non-Christian believes that God does not exist, his presupposition is not a neutral choice. Pike further states, "God will point out to every man the very moment or period when, years before, he took the crucial step toward choosing an inadequate philosophical base or system as a cloak to hide his moral responsibility." It is a warning we need to share with those who choose presuppositions contrary to the biblical position with regard to the consequences of wrong choices.
3. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER STUDY