In Light of the Gospel

When I was studying philosophy during my undergraduate days, I would not be exaggerating to say that Cornelius Van Til [see the Van Til web-site] and his apologetic known as persuppositionalism literally saved my convictions (and faith) on several occasions. During struggles with both theory and faith, many of Van Til’s arguments for the Christian faith were very influential in developing my “worldview.”

In the process of studying presuppositionalism, Greg Bahnsen’s introductory book on presuppositionalism is a great place to start, but be sure to move on to his large book on Van Til’s apologetics because it is as comprehensive as they come. At the risk of frustrating some, I might as well admit that I benefited from John Frame’s book on apologetics and Van Til .

One of the more helpful resources in pulling some of the loose threads together and seeing how it works practically is the so-called “Great Debate” between Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein. This was the first time I had heard someone use presuppositionalism in a debate format, and Bahnsen did it as well as anyone else.

Now you can see it worked out practically in the current debate between Doug Wilson and Christopher Hitchens over at Christianity Today. In this first round, Wilson is giving Hitchens an introduction to the basics of presuppositionalism. He is forcing Hitchens to come to terms with his own [i.e., Hitchens] presuppositions, and Wilson is pointing out each step along the way how Hitchens cannot make the claims he is making given his own worldview.

Notice a few of Wilson’s questions:

But why should this “damnation by history” matter to any of us reading Bible stories to kids, or, for that matter, to any of the people who did any of these atrocious things, on your principles?

Or again, Wilson says,

On your principles, why should he care?

Now notice the wave of questions at the end of Wilson’s exchange:

Given your atheism, what account are you able to give that would require us to respect the individual? How does this individualism of yours flow from the premises of atheism? Why should anyone in the outside world respect the details of your thought life any more than they respect the internal churnings of any other given chemical reaction? That’s all our thoughts are, isn’t that right? Or, if there is a distinction, could you show how the premises of your atheism might produce such a distinction?

Wilson is forcing Hitchens to come to terms with his own presuppositions, and Wilson is going to argue that Hitchens cannot give a satisfactory answers to these questions without borrowing from the Christian worldview.

Let us attend to Presuppositionalism 101.