Why Presupps Have Bad Rep...

All Presuppositionalists are not created equal.

More precisely, all Presuppositionalists are not the same.

Being a presuppositionalist can sometimes be frustrating, especially if one spends time doing “Internet apologetics”. As presuppositionalists, our main goal is to engage unbelievers and defend the Christian faith (at least, it should be). However, in some cases, when your interlocutor discovers the fact that you are a presuppositionalist, they lose all interest in engaging in a fruitful dialogue. A few reasons are given for this, ranging from “Presupps cannot be taken seriously because they are ignorant” to “Presupps are not worth talking to because they are dishonest, obnoxious, etc.” 

Obviously, these are sweeping generalizations. Not all presuppositionalists are ignorant or obnoxious. There are well-informed and gracious presuppositionalists. However, one cannot ignore the fact that these generalizations have some basis. This may be surprising or not depending on who you ask, but there is a kind of divide in the Presupp community. This divide is not based on disagreement. In fact, it is not easy to recognize this divide unless one pays attention, studies presuppositionalist literature, and really engages with a lot of presuppositionalists. Even some presuppositionalists do not recognize this divide. But both critics and sympathizers have noticed and pointed out this divide.

This is the divide between the anti-intellectual, philosophically illiterate, obnoxious kind of Presuppositionalism—“crude” Presuppositionalism as some put it—and the astute, philosophically nuanced, and gracious kind of Presuppositionalism. It should be noted that this divide, in reality, is not as clearly defined as this. Obviously, being obnoxious or gracious is not a function of one’s philosophical literacy. However, it just appears as though the philosophical illiteracy and the obnoxious nature are most of the time found together. The former kind are the most vocal and the kind that people encounter the most on the Internet. This motivates the kind of sweeping generalizations we saw above.

But we have to ask ourselves why such a divide even exists. 

In my opinion, it exists due to the fact that, over the last decade or so, the recent popularity of Presuppositionalism was due to certain “popularizers” who presented a version of the method that is easy to understand and can be easily deployed by the average man in the street. The method was condensed into a few short questions and a kind of “script” one can use to “win” any engagement with the unbeliever. A few short and quick responses were provided to possible objections, and armed with this, the “average man” is ready to employ the Presuppositional method of apologetics. Van Til would be proud! We are taking Presupp to the streets!

The inherent motivation for such a version of the method is understandable and is something I sympathize with greatly. Bahnsen maintained that the beauty of Van Til’s method was in its flexibility—it can be applied at the level of the common man and at the level of the most erudite academics with equal force and potency. However, what these popularizers provided was not a version of the method tailored for the man on the streets but rather a stunted and distorted method that is wholly unrecognizable from the original. Rhetoric is favored over substance and nuance. Questions are favored over well-reasoned arguments in the hopes of getting a “gotcha” moment. The entire Van Tilian programme is reduced to a “script”, losing all its nuance. This version, when compared to what Van Til and Greg Bahnsen advocated and employed and to what the more “astute” presuppositionalists employ, is unrecognizable.

This version is characterized by a lack of understanding of key philosophical issues. In extreme cases, study of philosophy is repudiated. When philosophically informed unbelievers engage such types, they get the impression that presuppositionalists in general are ignorant of basic philosophy. But this is not the case. Van Tilians are usually quite philosophically knowledgeable—or at least they should be, since Scripture instructs us to take every thought captive.

What is the way forward then? Is some form of intellectual elitism being advocated? Definitely not. I believe that Van Til’s insights can be tailored to the average man. Not everyone has to be well-versed in philosophy in order to be a competent presuppositionalist. However, when “dumbing down” the method, we should be careful not to strip it of its nuance. Nothing can take the place of careful study. There is no “quick fix” way to do apologetics. Intellectual humility and careful study should be in the toolbox of any apologist regardless of their literacy. What I advocate is a kind of re-teaching of the method. We must recapture the essence of Van Til which has been lost especially in the pop Presupp culture. Objections should be thoughtfully answered. Arguments should be carefully presented. We must not divorce the rhetorical force of the method (and trust me, it has plenty) from the argumentative force of the method. The two should be combined. And most of all, we should always be gracious and ready to learn.