Proposed Way of Framing the Evidentialist vs. Presuppositionalist Split

Those familiar with Christian apologetics are aware that there is a major split in methods among apologists. This divide is largely between the “Evidentialists” and the “Presuppositionalists” (there are other divides that some try to draw, but most of those other camps can be fairly filed under the Evidentalists).

I have an interest in Christian apologetics at large and also in this split. There are several fascinating things, not least of which is that Christians see it as worth their time to chastise one another for taking a different approach than they themselves do. Another thing of interest in this split is the subject of this post: namely, that I often see each as looking at the issue of apologetics entirely wrong.

The way I wish to propose we see the divide is as follows: The Presuppositionalist is fundamentally trying to account for the things of the Enlightenment while the Evidentalists is fundamentally trying to use the tools of the Enlightenment. This is the box which I see both to be trapped in. The Evidentalist shows he is in the box when we require Enlightenment-type evidence for Christianity and the Presppositionalist shows he is in the box when he demands that the Bible is the only way we can have these Enlightenment-type methods of inquiry.

I wish that we would approach Christian apologetics not ignoring the Enlightenment (for it was a great corrective social movement, in many ways), but also with the ability to step beyond it. We must, as the Presuppositionalist insists, work from First Principles which can properly account for all of our following arguments, while also, as the Evidentalist insists, work with “evidence” (whatever that means) which show something to be either right or wrong. All I propose that we deny is the Enlightenment-centric nature of most apologists today.

To give them their credit, some apologists try to bridge this gap betwixt the Presuppositionalist and the Evidentialists—like I just did—but they still stick to their Enlightenment concentration. I see this attempt at bridging more often among “Presuppositional” apologists in that they first say there must be God for evidence and then proceed to present this evidence is in a fashion with which any Evidentalists would approve. However, because their presuppositions only reach so far as Enlightenment categories,. I find them in want. The Evidentalists, on the other hand, often reason themselves to the same “presuppositions” as their counterparts; the thing is that that the reason themselves there instead of just “presupposing” (a thing which stringent Presups would whine an eternity over.

I bring up these examples of some merging of the divide to show that not only is such a thing possible, but it is also necessary. And yet, I hope that when we do close the gap, we can then move on together past the Enlightenment. Perhaps we should call these new apologetics to approach the “First Principles” apologetic strategy (just throwing things out there). We must start with our First Principles and then consistently apply them to prove (or not prove, I suppose) Christianity.

Will such gap-closing and Enlightenment bye-bye-ing ever come to pass? I know not. Should it? I would think so, at least right now—but, maybe, I’m wrong. We’ll see. Nevertheless, whatever does happen and whatever we do, I hope that that would be to the glory of Jesus.

Thanks for reading.