A Sound Refutation of Presuppositionalism with Dr. Richard Howe

In this in-person interview, I sit down with Dr. Richard Howe to discuss his objections to Presuppositionalism. He makes some very important distinctions that help clarify where the view goes wrong.

-------------------------------- GIVING --------------------------------

Special thanks to all of my supporters for your continued support as I transition into full-time ministry with Capturing Christianity! You guys and gals have no idea how much you mean to me.

---------------------------------- LINKS ----------------------------------

---------------------------------- SOCIAL ----------------------------------

--------------------------------- MY GEAR ----------------------------------

I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).

--------------------------------- CONTACT ---------------------------------

#Apologetics #Presupp #God

[matthewfisher]

My understanding was that Vantil and even Bahnsen were not absolutely opposed to classical arguments or evidence. They used them in debates or writings. Their point was that without transcendentals exposed for what they are the classical arguments were much weaker than they had to be. And that they could never open up the Scriptures and speak directly about Jesus Christ. They would say that the classical approach gives way too much ground to the Ps 14 fool at the beginning and makes the arguments so much weaker than they have to be.

[JMUDoc]

The problem with presup is that it _asserts_ a god as the necessary precondition, but does not _demonstrate_ it.

[omarenriqueberrios]

I don't understand how people can be against either pressup or evidentialist apologetics. They are BOTH tools to be used properly in developing arguments in the defense of the faith. We can present evidence while at the same time understanding that no other worldview can give an account of the facts like Christianity can given our foundation.

Francis Schaeffer is a great example of this avenue. Francis always reasoned through worldviews and philosophy all the while knowing what grounds Christianity rationally, philosophically and theologically.

[paulviggiano]

I do appreciate the irenic spirit and the thoughtful discussion. I am a little troubled by the title, "A Sound Refutation..." Presuppositionalism was discussed but it certainly wasn't soundly refuted, IMO.

[robb]

"God as the necessary condition is different than the presupposition of God for knowledge." -- Right. "We wouldn't be having this epistemological dispute, if we got the metaphysics right." -- Exactly ;)

[orange]

Norm Geisler always brought the message back to the Gospel in his apologetics talks at Universities. That's what impressed me so much when first hearing him.

[GHanBax]

I remember sharing the gospel to a chinese man in his late teens who went to the Philippines just to learn English and observe at a factory something like that, and the encounter was very new to me. First off, he was very open and kind, he was friendly because he didn't had many friends especially in our country, so that made him listen to me when I tried to tell him something. I was surprised when he responded to my introduction that he didn't know what religion was, nor understood what a "God" is. I tried sharing the gospel but it was hard to explain since he didn't know about the entities I was talking about. So I had to explain the concept of God to him first. At that moment, I realized pressup was useless and ineffective, and so I immediately used the classical/evidential approach and arguments, and it was fun because each of the arguments' conclusion was like a puzzle piece to let him see the bigger picture of what kind of being I was talking about till He got the idea he never once in his life thought of, said he. And then proceeded to go back to the gospel. Later that night, he said he wanted to know more of Jesus and also wanted him to be his God because I told him about my testimony as well. We prayed for his life and also for his safety since he then flew back to China about 3 days later. I didn't remember his name that quick because Chinese names don't really stick to me as a Filipino, tho it was close to "Chen", he also didn't leave any contact information since he has no social media but I sure do hope he's doing well and is walking on the path of faith and reason.
Wherever you are brother, I hope the best for you. God bless!

[UriesouBrito]

Some generalities, but as a presuppositionalist, this was the most gracious presentation I've heard. His latter argument on other religious expressions has been dealt with well by Greg Bahnsen focusing on the internal inconsistencies and the impossibility of the contrary arguments.

[EricHernandez]

Your video skills are incredible! Love Dr. Howe!

[hondotheology]

He actually argued in a circle:

God exists and has given us faculties (reason and sense). We then learn truths about reality by which we construct arguments for God's existence.

[r.c.apologist]

When will an interview be arranged with John Frame, K. Scott Oliphint, James White, Matt Slick, Vocab Malone and maybe even some of the guys from Reformed Forum on this topic? Seems a bit one sided without allowing the other side to offer their view accurately.

[nathanaelculver]

Dr. Howe and I are of the same generation. I was saved at a Josh McDowell talk, and yes, I had a large collection of Josh McDowell cassettes.

[joshuaolson]

Thinking to maintain neutrality with respect to Scripture, any natural theology that reasons autonomously from logical and/or empirical grounds to God results in an exclusion of revelational necessity and authority endorsing some other imperious philosophy. Knowledge of God must be rooted in His own self-disclosure. Because the clear revelation of God in nature’s and man’s constitution is suppressed in unrighteousness, it is impossible for theology or apologetics to base their efforts in a rebellious understanding of the world or history, independently working up to a verification of God’s written revelation. Faith must necessarily start with the clear, authoritative, self-attesting, special revelation of God in Scripture coordinated with the Holy Spirit’s inner testimony to the regenerated heart.

Dr. Greg Bahnsen

"Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended"

[jadrienmarkimperial]

a summary on how presuppostionalism works : Since Immaterial Pixie Exists, therefore logic exists because it is in the mind of Immaterial Pixie, therefore Immaterial Pixie exists. Is the proposition “immaterial pixie exists” objectively true? Yes. Since, apart from presupposing immaterial pixie we can’t account for valid human experience.”

[TomAnderson_]

Presup is closer to the argument from ignorance and circularity. It assumes the premise without proving the premise.

[NeoDemocedes]

Debating a presuppositionalist is like playing cards with a two-year-old. Whatever cards they happen to be holding is always the winning hand. The rules are what they say they are and you will never convince them otherwise. They think they have found the secret to winning arguments because most people avoid debating them.

[reformedchristian]

I’m curious how anti-presuppositionalists respond concerning Christ’s answer to the rich man in Luke 16. He appears to imply that evidence - even the most miraculous - would not convince the lost, if they have not already believed the Scripture available to them. This principle could only be all the more applicable today, when we have the now complete canon of Scripture available.

[CubixEdits]

Dr. Howe! As an alumni of the philosophy program at SES, I say this is a nice grab!

[jrood]

At 7:40 thank you, thank you! Years ago when I was struggling deeply with my own faith, presuppositionalism made things very frustrated for me. I even attended Reformed Forum and talked with K. Scott Oliphint in person (who I certainly do respect), but I could see in it this equivocation between "the assumption of God" and "God" being the precondition of knowledge. It feels very relieving and actually means a lot to me personally to hear this equivocation called out directly, because recognizing this and giving myself permission to have a non-presuposition epistemology was integral to the rebuilding of my own faith!

[aisthpaoitht]

People are just mad that presuppositionalism is "easy" and cuts through atheistic arguments like a hot knife through butter, while all their "hard work" apologetics gain no ground. They think it's cheating.