Caner and Presuppositionalism?

“Walking into Ergun Caner’s theology class, I was a bit skeptical of what the day had in store. Rumors were flying (they still are) and I didn’t know what to believe (that has changed now).  I love theology, but most students at Liberty don’t wait until their Junior year to take it. I did….

We also discussed the various approaches to apologetics. I do not agree with the presuppositional view. This approach is often known as the Limited Atonement approach. Believes that Christ only died for the elect, and that only the elect can understand the evidence. They must first agree on certain presuppositions before the Gospel can be effectively presented.

I would definitely agree more closely with the evidential view: which would be commonly defined as a General Atonement approach. Basically, the evidential view says that Christ died for the world (John 3:16, right) and that each living soul has a God-shaped hole that can only be filled by God. Therefore, each person is created in the image of God (imago Dei) and can be shown using evidence that a personal God loves them.”

Of course, what this dear college student meant is, “I do not agree with Ergun Caner’s representation of presuppositionalism.” And, of course, neither would I.

Another student of the same class said:

In addition, there are two approaches to apologetics.  The first is evidential which represents the concept that Jesus died for the whole world.  This is what I believe.  The other approach is presuppositionalism which exemplifies the concept that Jesus died only for the elect.

Honestly, in the two years of research that I put into The Portable Presuppositionalist, not once did I come across a direct association between limited atonement and presuppositional apologetics. The most common (and accurate) statement is “Not all Calvinists are presuppositionalists. But all presuppositionalists are Calvinists.” That’s fine. But this is much different; we’re talking about apologetic methods being directly associated with the atonement of Jesus Christ.

…and, also, apparently election! (“Christ only died for the elect”) …and epistemology! (“only the elect can understand the evidence”). I honestly have no idea why this is all muddled together. I’d like to think that the student was being incoherent and the Professor was being clear (one is being “educated” while another is the “educator”). The student is, after all, paying hard cash for a good education. But, given Caner’s demonstrated, documented, historical (mis)understanding of Reformed theology (don’t forget, “Calvinists are worse than Muslims!”) and Christian apologetics in general (“Hadith 9:57″?), it is most likely that Caner simply doesn’t understand biblical apologetics as represented by presuppositionalist apologists, or perhaps the debate over apologetic methodology at all.

“They must first agree on certain presuppositions before the Gospel can be effectively presented.”

This is a bit of a mis-statement of what presuppositional apologists believe. We believe that the gospel can be effectively presented to anyone, at least in a general sense, regardless if they first agree on certain presuppositions or others. The condition of the unbeliever doesn’t change how and what is being proclaimed by the believer. That’s obviously because evangelism and apologetics is a duty before God that doesn’t build itself around the unbelieving mindset. What I think this student/Caner really means to say, is that “until we challenge the unbeliever’s presuppositions, the unbeliever will misinterpret and not see the need for the gospel.” Challenging someone’s presuppositions is a bit different than agreeing with them. After all, if the unbeliever must agree to the gospel (“certain presuppositions”) “before” being confronted with the gospel, what then is the need to present the gospel, since they’ve already agreed to it? The statement is just off the mark.

Basically, the evidential view says that Christ died for the world (John 3:16, right) and that each living soul has a God-shaped hole that can only be filled by God.

Talk about a categorical error! This is like saying “the libertarian view says that George Washington was the first President,” or “I’m not a Muslim, and I’m not a Christian, I’m African.” Evidentialism is entirely indifferent to one’s view of the atonement. Apologetic methodology has to do with one’s method concerning apologetics, not with how many people Christ died for. Evidentialism simply has nothing to do with the nature and extent of the atonement, nor does presuppositionalism have a different view regarding that “each living soul has a God-shaped hole that can only be filled by God.”

“Therefore, each person is created in the image of God (imago Dei) and can be shown using evidence that a personal God loves them.”

I’m really not sure what’s being asserted here. I mean, Reformed theologians, presuppositionalist Reformed theologians, limited atonement presuppositionalist Reformed theologians, are masters of the doctrine of man being made in the image of God (see Bavinck’s Prolegomena, Van Til’s Prolegomena, Berkof’s Systematic Theology, Hoekema’s Created in God’s Image, etc.). Evidentialists aren’t the only one’s who believe man is made in God’s image, or that a personal God loves man!

So, what can we conclude? The obvious answer is most probable: Caner continues to fake his way through Christian academia, even at the undergraduate level. Either the students have no idea what Caner is saying, or Caner has no idea what Caner is saying. Obviously, I’m a baptist brother, a seminary student, who is willing to debate Dr. Caner over Calvinism and/or apologetic method. But, given that Caner has never participated in any public moderated debates, I doubt he would find this opportunity any more appealing than the other offers given to him.