You are invited to join a group discussion of Greg Bahnsen's book, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith.  A few of us have committed to reading and discussing two chapters a week.  Bahnsen's chapters are very short, often only four pages long.  But he does a very good job at presenting concepts in a concise, readable, engaging style.  This book is a classic read in the field of Presuppositional apologetics.  Personally, over the years I have moved away from a previous commitment to Evidential apologetics to an embrace of the Presuppositional method. Entire books have been written to cover the details of the differences between the two methods.  Here is a very quick summary.  To be brief, the methods reveal their disagreement by the answer they give to the following question:  to what extent is apologetics dependent on or directly related to theology? The answer given by the presuppositionalist is that apologetics is ultimately, a branch of theology. Evidentialists tend to downplay the direct connection between apologetics and theology, instead preferring a much broader "common ground" of "unbiased, neutrality" mutually shared between believer and unbeliever.  This leads to another difference between the methods in that presuppositionalists almost always believe in total depravity while evidentialists do not.  In the book, Rational Faith: Catholic Responses to Reformed Epistemology, Catholic epistemologist Linda Zagzebski discusses why she and other Catholic scholars find Reformed Epistemology so troubling. Her reason (pg. 4) is that

"Catholic philosophy also has a long tradition of natural law, which implies that our reason is a potent source of knowledge about moral matters. The extension to matters metaphysical is relatively easy. The idea is that both moral and metaphysial knowledge have important underpinnings in the knowledge of human nature, and the knowledge of human nature is within the reach of ordinary human reason."

Calvinists tend to downplay the epistemic "reach of ordinary human reason."  This is due to the noetic effects of sin preventing humans unaided by the Holy Spirit to grasp and yield to God.  Zagzebski also comments (pg. 3) further on the noetic effects of sin.

"In my paper in this volume I suggest that the difference between Catholic and Calvinist attitudes towards natural theology is connected with the difference between Catholic and Calvinist views on the Fall.  Although both traditions agree that natural human faculites have suffered damage as a result of original sin, Catholic theology has commonly maintained that the will suffered more than the intellect, and that our powers of reasoning can still hope to achieve much that points the way to Christian belief."

 

The point is that many evidentialists do not share the Calvinist's belief in total depravity.  This is not to imply that all evidentialists are Catholic.  Many are not.  But a denial of total depravity often leads one into the evidentialist camp.  I have benefited from reading many excellent books using the evidentialist method. John Warwick Montgomery's Faith Founded on Fact and The Suicide of Christian Theology deserve everyone's careful attention. A final difference between the two methodologies concerns the "logical time interval" of using or exposing a person's "first principles" (also called, "ultimate presuppositions"). The presuppositionalists argue that the Christian apologist will have to more quickly (understood from a logical sequential standpoint, not chronological) expose or define one's ultimate presuppositions than does the evidentialist. This point does not mean that the presuppositionalist is guilty of fallaciously using "circular reasoning." After all, everyone (the atheistic naturalist, the New Age tree hugger, the Arminian evidentialist, and the solipsist) uses "circular reasoning" at some point. The key question is, are you using a "vicious circle" (bad---also called "begging the question") or a "virtuous circle" (good---different arguments that together, cumulatively, entail a comprehensive worldview).  For example, look at the obvious circular reasoning ("vicious circle") below:

Nature and Nature alone exists. We know that to be true, since Naturalism plainly tells us that Nature exists. And we know that what Nature tells us is true, since Naturalism is the key criterion or epistemological method for discovering truth about reality.

The key premises already assume the truth of the conclusion in the above faulty argument.

But Presuppositional apologetics do not necessarily commit the "begging the question" fallacy.  The presuppositionalist only argues that there will be a "quicker" need to raise ultimate "first principles".  On the contrary, the evidentialist argues that there is much more "common ground of unbiased neutrality" that both believer and unbeliever can "make progress on." Let me explain using a personal example.  A couple of years ago during a session of my Introduction to Philosophy class at Indiana University, the professor made an argument for gay marriage. I argued, using the evidentialist method, that there are many innate differences between men and women that have led many to conclude rationally that gay marriage is simply "un-natural," and counter productive for society. The negative reaction of the class, composed of mostly non-philosophy majors, to my argument was not surprising considering that we live in a postmodern age. Our postmodern age tries to redefine everything so that nothing can be unquestioned except the hollow chants of "tolerance," "narcissism", along with more government funding to pay for like-minded professors who detract our attention away from the classics and the rich philosophy of the past rooted in reality.  The point is that my evidential argument went nowhere because our postmodern climate forces Christian apologists to more quickly address ultimate presuppositions than in a more previous so-called "Christian" age.  In a previous era in America, maybe there was more apparent "mutually shared beliefs" between Christian and nonChristian, even though there was hostility at the level of the heart. I find presuppositional apologetics to be more worthwhile today simply because our postmodern age questions everything (except for "tolerance") at the beginning of any discussion leading to almost no "common ground of neutrality".

Time constraints may prevent many of us from wanting to join another book discussion.  There are a lot more fun and exciting things to do with our free time than picking up another book to read.  But imagine if we can better explain how to show to others that Jesus Christ Himself is our Supreme Treasure, wouldn't that be a worthwhile endeavor?

Of course one's theology will likely dictate what apologetical method one adopts. I think all of us will benefit from this exercise in the value of Presuppositional apologetics.  No prior reading experience with the book or author is required.  My intention is to read a few chapters, stop, and then make some reflective comments for group discussion.  Then we will jointly begin the next couple of chapters, etc.  We will start the book discussion in about three weeks in order to allow everyone interested to purchase the book.  You are encouraged to return to this thread to post your comments about the book.