Friday Foondazzle: Arminian Presuppositionalism?

Swindoll is still doing a great job in his preaching series on Romans. Though dispensationalist and known for some cheesy work in the 80s and 90s, Swindoll’s teaching has definitely improved since his (unofficial) conversion to Reformed soteriology a number of years ago; he has always said his biggest influence was Spurgeon.

I also finished downloading the ESV Audio Bible (“Hear the Word”) narrated by David Heath. Other than something like flashcards, I’m not sure what other invention man can come up with to better assist mass-Scripture memory. I’ve done a number of narration contract jobs for various advertising purposes, and I know what goes into good narration (I’ve even attempted my own audio Bible at one point). Heath’s work is excellent, and I find it much more comfortable to listen to for long periods than a more dramatic and eccentric voice like Max McLean.

On the less exciting side, the mishandling of presuppositional apologetics continues. Glenn Hendrickson has a decent response here. Essentially, Arminians are presenting presuppositional apologetics without either (a) presenting the primary sources of the debate, and pretending the basics of presuppositional apologetics (and dozens of direct quotes by Bahnsen) are their own ideas, or (b) pretending as if Arminianism can peacefully and productively co-exist with presuppositional apologetics.

It can’t. Granted, thinking presuppositionally is quite flexible. For example, Paul Copan in his excellent book True For You But Not For Me comes from the Bill Craig/classicalist line of thought, and yet demonstrates “thinking presuppositionally” – addressing people’s worldview and presuppositions in a way that leaves the skeptic challenged. However, one cannot avoid the fact that presuppositional apologetics emerges from Reformed theology in at least two major respects.

First is the rejection of natural theology. The unbeliever has knowledge of God, but due to his depravity (the first point of Calvinism TULIP) he suppresses it. The classical arguments will never suffice for the same reason 66 books of evidence won’t suffice: he’s spiritually dead, and he needs to be shown his bias against God before gaining a proper orientation. Without the Calvinist/biblical teaching of depravity, one could adhere to classicalism as much as presuppositionalism on this central issue.

Second is the absolute sovereignty of God and Lordship of Christ coupled with sola scriptura. Classical apologetics is built from a Roman Catholic foundation that does not require that a believer (a) develop an apologetic method from Scripture or (b) begin with Scripture to engage in apologetics. In short, presuppositional Arminians (ie Kerrigan Skelly, etc.) are simply unaware of their inconsistency, and need to come into grips with the fact that our theology gives rise to our apologetic methodology. If that can be admitted, it is clear that only presuppositional apologetics fits Reformed theology – that is, only biblical apologetics fits biblical theology.