“Caner’s Apologetics Book” and Presuppositionalism

A few hours ago I received A Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, edited by Ergun Caner and Ed Hindson (both editors, as well as over a dozen of the contributors, are professors at Liberty University and Seminary; thus, the book might be said to be a “product of Liberty”). I admit, I had a bad taste in my mouth upon opening up the package – not merely because an editor faked huge chunks of his conversion story and lied countless times behind the pulpit – but because the last apologetics reference book I bought (A New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics) didn’t contain “Greg Bahnsen,” or even (if I remember correctly) “Presuppositional apologetics” in its pages. You’d think a 779 page dictionary on Christian apologetics might have something about the Copernican Revolution of Christian apologetics. (Well, I guess it doesn’t matter, since I sold it a week later).

Fortunately, Caner and Hindson’s book contains a decent biography of Van Til ( by Linda Gottschalk), as well as an essay on “Presuppositionalism” by Mark Coppenger (p. 401). Coppenger’s article is a rather accurate representation of what the non-Reformed and non-presuppositional Christian community thinks of biblical apologetics as told by Bavinck, Van Til, Bahnsen, White, Wilson, Cook, myself and others. As such, it commits a number of basic fallacies.

Coppenger’s “Presuppositionalism”

I was pleased to find the general points of “presuppositionalism” fairly represented from 401-403. However, I think Coppenger (Professor of Apologetics at SBTS)missed the elephant in the room: presuppositional apologetics claims to be synonymous with biblical apologetics, and that’s why its so important. There is no indication in Coppenger’s essay that this is even the belief of presuppositionalists, let alone central to the debate. After all, it’s not as if presuppositional apologists are what they are because they find the method clever, effective, and meaningful (which it is) – they argue presuppositionally because that is precisely how God reveals the task of defending the faith in His Word. Again, apologetic methods clash on their most basic assumption: one view finds Scripture completely sufficient to reveal to us how to defend the faith (“presuppositional”), while another view finds Scripture merely supplemental and, consequently, secondary (“classical”/”evidential”).

More disappointing was the popular “Van Tillians say that unbelievers don’t know anything!” fallacy: “Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987) was quite radical in his teaching. He essentially denied that lost men could know anything significant at all,” (403). This is the same or similar fallacy committed by Dr. Richard Howe, Professor of Apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary, who is also a contributor to the book (see my response here; Howe recently responded to his critics regarding his thoughts on presuppositional apologetics; but his response to my work is “forthcoming”), when he commented on Bahnsen and the unbeliever’s use of logic. I won’t repeat my response at length, but two quotes from the book Presuppositional Apologetics will be enough to summarize the correct position:

Because fallen man cannot escape the knowledge of God he is still able to acquire knowledge through his contact with general revelation in the world; as a creature of God he retains an irradicable knowledge of his Creator, knowledge of himself always bringing knowledge of his God as well…the unbeliever…can and does use his mind to know things; he is able to do so despite of what he thinks about his epistemological situation. (16-17)

…the unbeliever has a great deal of knowledge about the world in spite of the fact that his unbelieving  presuppositions are incapable of leading to, or theoretically grounding, knowledge and truth. (38)

Coppenger then asserts that Greg Bahnsen denied that believers can have “common ground” with unbelievers, saying:

Van Til and Clark’s apologetical “children” have developed presuppositionalism along their two divergent paths, the former denying intellectual common ground with non-Christians, the latter affirming it. So one can distinguish between the hardline Greg Bahnsen and the more accommodating John Frame. (A Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, 403)

The “common ground” issue has been controversial since Van Til released The Defense of the Faith in 1955. That’s why I briefly addressed it on page 103 of The Portable Presuppositionalist. I won’t paste the whole thing here because it’s too lengthy. But, in answer to the question “do we have common ground with unbelievers?” we respond with “it depends on what you mean.” Or, in Bahnsen’s clever summary:

The foregoing considerations not only establish that there is no neutral ground between the believers and unbelievers, but also that there is ever present common ground between the believer and the unbeliever. What must be kept in mind is that this common ground is God’s ground. All men have in common the world created by God, controlled by God, and constantly revealing God. In this case, in any area of life or any fact can be used as a point of contact. The denial of neutrality secures, rather than destroys, commonality. (Always Ready, 43)

So,  the entire paragraph by Coppenger on the common ground issue and “two divergent paths” is a bit misconstrued. Bahnsen explicitly says “there is ever present common ground between the believer and unbeliever.” I have yet to hear a critic of presuppositional apologetics respond to this assertion in any way, let alone understand what we mean by “common ground” and unbeliever’s knowledge.

The classic circular reasoning fallacy can be found on the same page (bottom right). See my response here (transcendental arguments) and here (the Bible’s self-authorizing status).

Then, Coppeneger summarizes and ends on a somewhat positive note:

By taking the Fall very seriously, and by showing unabashed boldness in both their disdain for skeptical criticism, they have infused Christian apologetics with a new spirit of confidence and strategic imagination. (404)

These are kind words, but, again, this is not the goal or the ultimate reality of presuppositional apologetics. Let us rephrase it to put it in more accurate terms,

By taking the Fall very seriously, and by showing unabashed boldness in both their disdain for skeptical criticism, they have developed a method of Christian apologetics according to the teachings of God’s Word since, indeed, theology determines apologetic methodology.

“Popular” Apologetics?

Perhaps the worst part of the essay was the lack of any and all citations. There are no footnotes, parenthetical citations, or any reference of any kind in the essay.

There is, however, a “bibliography” at the end. Maybe I’m just spoiled from the 200-400 entries at the end of each chapter in a work like Carson and Beale’s Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. But, I thought three books, which are hardly primary sources of presuppositionalism (Five Views on Apologetics, Schaeffer’s Escape from Reason, and Van Til’s Christian Theistic Evidences) is a bit weak! One might think Van Til’s The Defense of the Faith or Introduction to Systematic Theology or Bahnsen’s Always Ready or Van Til’s Apologetic or Frame’s Apologetics to the Glory of God or any of the other major primary works of presuppositionalism would be listed. I feel like a tour guide just tried to describe Yellow Stone National Park by looking at three photos – none of which are specifically pointed at Yellow Stone. Or, at the very least, Coppenger is suggesting that by looking at these three photos, one can adequately understand what Yellow Stone is like. Please don’t tell me this the standard Christians should follow.

But, I suppose we should remember that this is a “popular” encyclopedia, and not necessarily an “accurate” one. Perhaps Caner’s leadership (both as editor and Seminary President) has had a trickle-down effect. Your guess is as good as mine. But, it is once again a call towards real apologetics, not popular apologetics.

We, as the church, need sound guidance and instruction where growth and serious learning is encouraged, not anecdotal spoon-feeding. Granted, the lay person often doesn’t have the interest or time to understand academic jargon and read libraries of books, and for that reason, good teachers make appropriate accommodations.

But God still calls His people to a higher standard – especially those who are teachers. Bavinck, Van Til, Bahnsen, White, Carson, Beale, Dever, and a host of other Christian scholars have set the bar high while at the same time offering the means for the ordinary Christian to reach that standard. Real scholarship and apologetics – work competent and God-honoring – is always possible for the Christian who takes their faith seriously. But the sad reality is, books like The Popular Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics often don’t encourage that kind of progress. Politics and mass demand seem to win the day instead of truth and academic justice.