Presuppositional Apologetics
This is a very useful tactic in defending the faith, but Pastor Kim wants to give a big warning about this too: there’s a problem with this tactic. Pastor Kim has some of his favorite debaters and people who defend the Christian faith who have used this tactic before. Dr. Gene Kim’s favorite creationist who debunks evolution. Dr. Gene Kim’s favorite debater against atheism also took a little bit of a gist of that one as well. A lot of people who are actually defending the faith started to use this tactic, and it became very useful against evolutionists and atheists.
What is presuppositional apologetics?
First of all, let Dr. Gene Kim explain about the usefulness of this tactic, and then talk about the problems with it.
Before you come up with an argument, there’s a presupposition behind it. How you can deal with an atheist or an evolutionist: you notice how they always try to make you Christians take the burden of proof, right? This one is very useful where you turn the tables on them and make them give you the burden of proof.
For example, “Come on, you have to prove to me that there is a God. So what’s your scientific evidence that proves there is a God?”
And what you do is critique that: “Even if Pastor Kim gives scientific evidence and proof, you’re not going to believe it.” They won’t. And what you do is question their scientific evidence: “Why scientific evidence to prove there is a God?” Then they’re going to explain to you why: probably because it’s something that can be naturally seen and observed, and we can experiment, and we can prove it.
And what you do is keep questioning them on that: “So it’s by what you see? It’s by what you test and observe, right? How do you know that’s really dependable? You could be wrong on what you test and observe.”
Then they’ll probably say after that, “Well, that’s the reason why we do peer reviews, and then we’ll go through different people just to make sure, cross all the T’s and make sure that we get everything right.”
And what you do is keep questioning that.
Now what happens when you keep critiquing and questioning them on that, in the end, what they’re going to have to admit is that where they’re building up their argument, thinking, and logic, the foundation of their own argument is based on pretty much worthlessness—not just worthlessness, but chaos.
What you do is attack their foundation: “How do you know that logic has substance for the argument if we’re all born out of soup?”
So then that logic, that scientific or historical argument, all came from what? What’s the beginning of the source? Primordial soup. It has not that much substance then. It’s something that we conjure up in our mind on what we believe to be rational and logical. “We”—but who is “we”? Where do we all come from? Primordial soup.
If you give them a question concerning morals, what’s the foundation and standard for their morals?
Let’s say, for example, we’re talking about questions concerning the Bible, why it’s wrong, or even in science, why it’s right and wrong. Then you ask them: “What does right mean? What does wrong mean? How do you know that definition for right and wrong is right, so to speak? Where did that come from?”
What you do is keep nitpicking them on where it comes from. And when you do, their definition of why it’s rationalized, why it makes sense, or why it’s scientific all came from worthlessness, primordial soup without substance, or from having no absolute standard for right and wrong. It’s from nothing, confusion, chaos. That’s why in evolution they teach about the Big Bang: it all comes from an explosion, accident, confusion, chaos. That’s the source and foundation of all their arguments.
So when you keep picking them on that, they start to question their own definition of evidence, logic, and argument, because it all came from worthlessness and chaos; it has no firm substance.
This is why the Christian argument is very useful: we assume that all logic, argument, and foundation is not from worthlessness and chaos, but from something all-powerful. Call it God or whatever you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that it came from something that has substance, absolute reality, and power as a standard.
That’s why a lot of Christians love using presuppositional apologetics: it seems more biblical. It’s like a matter-of-fact statement that the Bible says this. “Well, how do you know that what the Bible says is right?” and then they might question your belief. Then the tactic a lot of Christians use after that is trying to use historical, scientific, or philosophical evidences. But what good is historical, philosophical, or scientific evidence if it all came from worthlessness, confusion, and chaos to begin with?
If you start out with simply the beginning: the Bible says this, and this has substance, absolute perfection. That’s why they like to use presuppositional apologetics—it sounds more Christian. We can simply say, “The Bible says this, the Bible says that, God said this, Jesus said this,” rather than, “Well, if you look from a historical standpoint, mathematical standpoint, let’s weigh all the evidences in logic and arguments.”
Those things are called classical apologetics. A lot of presuppositional apologetics guys criticize that because they say, “Then you’re just at the playing field of the world.” And God, when He argues about His truth, doesn’t play on their field, they insist. God just states as a matter of fact:
“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.” (Psalm 19:1)
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” (Psalm 14:1)
“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” (1 Corinthians 3:19)
“Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (1 Corinthians 2:8)
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)
So Christians who are in presuppositional apologetics criticize when Christians resort to: “We know the two laws of thermodynamics that prove the existence of God,” or “We know all the mathematical equations and calculations when we study from a non-biased scientific empirical standpoint.” Some Christian debaters criticize that, saying God never resorted to that tactic; it starts out with what He says.
The problem with presuppositional apologetics
Now, the problem with this tactic is: sure, we can start out with God and the Bible. Basically, it doesn’t change the fact that it starts out with something supernatural. Because you can’t just simply say “God and Bible,” because how do you know it’s not the Muslim God or the Muslim Quran? How do you know it’s not the Mormon God and the Mormon Book of Mormon?
We can say God and the Bible as a starting point, but if you want to be honest, what this translates to is some kind of absolute, all-powerful substance. That’s why we can use that argument against the atheist and the evolutionist: we have to start with something absolute, powerful, strong, and having substance. But that doesn’t prove that it’s only Christian, because someone could put the Muslim God there, the Mormon God, or the Catholic and theosophist kind of god. So that’s a flaw that they have to think about.
Presuppositional apologetics have Calvinist roots
Here’s another thing: this is why Dr. Gene Kim has a disdain toward presuppositional apologetics. You know where this was born from? Calvinists. Calvinists are known to be philosophers as well as scholars, which is why they come up with clever arguments. Presuppositional apologetics is clever because you make the atheist and evolutionist bear the burden of proof: all you have to do is ask them why they think scientific or historical evidence is truth, and then you question the meaning of truth and the meaning of evidence. When you keep critiquing, it comes down to these two as the beginning no matter what.
That’s why Calvinists like this argument. But the problem is that they automatically assume it is God and the Bible. That’s not necessarily the case—you can plug in some other kind of absolute substance and power. So it becomes a matter of picking and choosing: how do we know which absolute power is right or wrong? That’s what it comes down to later on.
Aside from that, Calvinists are philosophers and scholars, and why this is dangerous is that because they believe it starts strictly with God and the Bible, when some apologists argue for their faith and an atheist dismantles and asks, “Well then, how can Dr. Gene Kim believe? How can Dr. Gene Kim get saved?”, that Calvinist thinks God has to do some kind of sovereign awakening within their spirit to make them understand it.
We fully deny that. Calvinists think some kind of magic touch is going to happen where the atheist feels a warm feeling in the heart and says, “Okay, Dr. Gene Kim believes there is a God now; Dr. Gene Kim believes in the Bible.” That’s not how it works. Did it work that way for you, or did you have to do research, think, and come to that conclusion?
One of the presuppositional apologetics is Sye Ten Bruggencate. He had a documentary about this, but he’s a hard Calvinist. He is able to dismantle the atheist, and when he completely dismantles him, at the end they ask, “Okay, what do I do?” And Sye says, “There’s nothing you can do. All you can do is wait for God to show you something, enlighten you, and awaken you.” Because they’re Calvinists, they don’t believe in free will—that you have to do something about it—but rather that God and the Bible are supposed to do something within you. That’s why Dr. Gene Kim doesn’t like this. You have to watch out for this.
God wants you to reason
Now, one of Dr. Gene Kim’s favorite debaters against atheism stood in a more honest way. He uses presuppositional apologetics too, but that’s not his sole source; he is more for classical apologetics. In other words, it’s what Pastor Kim does at times when he argues for his faith: he uses logic, philosophy, history, math, and rational reason.
This man mentioned that while God does open a person’s eyes, that doesn’t mean God does not use logic, history, math, and science as His tools to open the person’s eyes. Don’t we do that in soul winning? We pray for God to open the person’s eyes, and then we argue from a rational point where that person can see the truth.
Is that our kind of God?
“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” (Isaiah 1:18)
God is asking you to use your head here. He’s not saying, “Dr. Gene Kim am going to warm your heart and make you see it, and you’re going to say you saw the light.” God wants you to do something about it: “Come now, and let us reason together.” God uses logic and reason to open up a person’s eyes.
Paul used one of their Grecian philosophers’ quotes to witness to them the gospel of Jesus Christ:
“For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.” (Acts 17:23)
Those Grecian philosophers were largely agnostics, yet the Bible says some of them converted and got saved:
“Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.” (Acts 17:34)
What about Solomon? The Bible says he was wiser than any man on earth:
“And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore. And Solomon’s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt. For he was wiser than all men…” (1 Kings 4:29-31)
He knew history, math, and science far beyond human reasoning, and royalty was amazed by the wisdom God gave him. God uses logic, philosophy, history, science, and math to prove His creation, His working, and His truth.
Another example is Jesus Christ. Whenever He argued with the religious leaders, He outwitted them using logic. There were the Herodians representing politics, and the Pharisees representing religion. They trapped Jesus with a money question: “Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?” If Jesus said no, the Herodians would accuse Him of rebellion against the government. If Jesus said yes, the Pharisees would accuse Him of supporting Caesar’s wicked, pagan sacrifices with their tax money.
So what does Jesus do? He says:
“Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.” (Matthew 22:19-22)
Jesus Christ did not just say, “God said, and the Bible said.” At that point, He refuted them with clever logic and reason.
“And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.” (Luke 2:52)
Jesus Christ used wisdom, logic, and reason. Furthermore, in the parable of the unjust steward, Jesus noted:
“And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.” (Luke 16:8)
Why can’t believers learn from lost people and use wisdom to benefit their lives?
Conclusion
That is the problem with presuppositional apologetics. What can you use it for? What Dr. Gene Kim can use this for is to put the burden of proof on the atheist and evolutionist. You give them the burden of proof and make them see that they have no absolute substance for their arguments—their foundation came from nothing and chaos, whereas ours has absolute substance.
From there, you have to use logic, history, and weigh the evidence to demonstrate which absolute standard makes the most sense: Christianity, God, and the Bible. The Quran and the Book of Mormon have no evidence backing them up like the Christian God and the Bible.
Here is a warning: when people promote presuppositional apologetics, they often have Calvinist influences—like Ray Comfort, Jason Lisle, and maybe William Lane Craig. Those debaters whom Dr. Gene Kim looks up to have Calvinist influences and friends because this tactic came from them. Birds of a feather flock together; keep the right company.