In recent weeks a few of my friends over on the Christian Philosophy discord server have been asking me how I approach apologetics. They are mostly aware that I take a presuppositional stance, and several have even noticed my “Schaefferian” name-tag. I should clarify that I am not a pure Schaefferian, but I find my apologetic more similar to his than the two primary presuppositional streams, Clarkianism and Van Tillianism. In this article, I’d like to give an overview of how I approach the practice of evangelistic conversations with unbelievers.

~=~=~

First, let me lay out common ground. All (most?) presuppositionalists would agree that every individual holds some set of presuppositions as basis for a worldview. The presuppositions are the basic beliefs held in things like the laws of logic, natural law, naturalism or nihilism or theism. These act like anchors for a web of other related beliefs, that then inform everything from one’s opinion of basic human nature to one’s opinion on bell-bottoms. They are the filter through which one interprets the external world, and builds the inner world.

Furthermore, presuppositionalists would agree that non-Christian worldviews inevitably contain inconsistencies. The differences tend to arise when we consider the precise nature of those inconsistencies, how we can identify them, and how Christianity avoids the same inconsistencies.

Rather than rambling on about the distinctions of the presuppositional camps, let me try to explain how I would approach someone who holds an unbelieving worldview. Presumably this is someone who is willing to hold a conversation with me about the topic, so I would ask them why they are interested in the subject, and what their own views are on the subject. Disagreement will naturally arise, as we approach the subject from opposing worldviews. Statements like, “Well, I’m a Christian, so I obviously disagree with you on X,” are common, but at this point we haven’t yet discussed why the Christian position is superior. I then briefly lay out the gospel, providing myself with philosophical and theological groundwork for further development, then start asking a few more questions about their worldview.

The general response tends to be positive up to this point, as I try to start probing for their presuppositions. Not every person from the same religion (or lack thereof) will have the same presuppositions; a STEM student might be very excited about the scientific method, a Catholic might hold the teachings of the RCC primary, etc. I try to be very curious here, asking lots of, “Why do you believe X?” questions. It’s almost like being a detective, trying to understand how someone else fits the evidence together. We know, of course, from Romans 1 that even unbelieving man has knowledge of God enough to condemn himself, but every man suppresses that knowledge in a way that seems right in his own eyes. In fact, most people I talk to in this way have never even considered their own presuppositions, so it’s important not to be overly pushy, but let them slowly understand how their beliefs about the most trivial subjects have deep underlying causes, and how their deepest beliefs have ramifications in every field of thought.

Eventually with a few, “Well, I don’t think I agree with you about topic T. Why do you take that position?”s the conversation will come to the true source of disagreement: presuppositions. The key to understanding when this point has been reached is when the answer to, “Why do you believe that?” is, “I just do,” or, “It’s self-evident.” This may be accompanied by a certain amount of squirming when the subject is pressed.

Here it is necessary for the apologist to be clear about his own position, and unafraid to stand upon it without excuse. The precise details of that position may vary, but in general it can be summarized as, “Biblical (i.e. Reformed) theology is true.” The cornerstone of this position, of course, is the revelation of the self-justifying I Am through His Son, as faithfully recorded in scripture. If this statement or some variation is taken as the apologist’s presupposition, by the grace of God it will weather all attacks the unbeliever may make against it.

At this point I would ask the unbeliever to confirm their belief in their presupposition(s). This is just to make sure that they can’t go back and say, “Well, I don’t actually believe that.” I’d then start to ask questions about the implications of their presuppositions. By this point, I have probably identified the basic class of their presuppositions, whether that be belief in naturalism, general theism, deism, nihilism, etc. Each of these has certain inconsistencies that can then be used to point out why the presuppositions lead to unpleasant and paradoxical ends. For example, a naturalist will have trouble building a moral code or addressing the problem of induction, while a polytheist will have to deal with Euthyphro’s Dilemma.

Again, I will be primarily asking questions, using the Socratic method to help the unbeliever really understand the consequences of his beliefs. Often once he realizes an inconsistency, there will be an attempt to “patch” it with another belief, but these tend to be haphazard and contradictory.

Note that I do not require all of a person’s beliefs to be derivative of a single presupposition. Most people don’t have a single presupposition. In this case examining the way all the pieces of their worldview fit together can be more useful than drilling down on one particular statement. For example, someone who holds a naturalistic view of the universe may hold to a libertarian political viewpoint, with objective moral beliefs about the sanctity of life, liberty, and property. How then do they reconcile their belief in, say, evolution, with a belief in the value of human life? Whence does that value arise?

Often I go through several cycles of questioning this kind of reasoning. One may be epistemic, one may be moral, one may be historical, one may be aesthetic. “Evidences” can often be used here, as this portion tends to involve a fair amount of back and forth. “So if my position fails here, how does Christianity solve the problem?” Ultimately, we run to scripture for our defense.

The key is that just as surely as our theology informs all spheres of Christian belief and understanding, so does the unbeliever’s rejection of Christ inform his every interpretation of and interaction with the world we share. The purpose here is not to drive the person to the wall and force him to concede that he is being inconsistent on a singular position. Instead, it is to help him acknowledge that his entire system of beliefs is built on a faulty foundation. The former method leads to patches, the latter to jealousy of the Christian who possesses such a firm foundation!

Finally, it is important to keep the gospel primary in these discussions. If not, they are merely vain philosophizing. At the end of the conversation, the unbeliever may still reject the gospel. That’s okay. Salvation is of the Lord, not us. We are called to give a defense of our faith and to preach the gospel with gentleness, praying that God will change the hearts of those who reject Him, as we all did once. We reveal the futility of a life without Christ, but only He can cause someone mired in that life to repent and believe.

~=~=~

In a nutshell, this is the way I approach apologetics. It’s fairly informal and very conversational, and can be used in short, to-the-point conversations or drawn-out, nitty-gritty ones. It doesn’t have the, “I’m going to prove you are wrong,” or even the, “I don’t have to prove you’re wrong,” attitude that many presuppositional approaches favor (hi STB!). The conversational style is great for keeping interactions respectful, but is probably difficult to apply in the context of a formal debate. It draws from both the Van Tillian notions of trinitarian comprehensibility and natural revelation, and the Clarkian appeal to scriptural authority and the necessity of foundational belief(s). I hope the clarification helps.