The Simplest Apologetics Approach for Beginners: Presuppositional
Apologetics can seem daunting for the beginner. Listening to the professionals pull from decades of knowledge in debate can make a beginner feel like defending the faith is out of reach. But, it doesn’t have to be. In this post, I’m going to give you a few simple approaches that you can apply today in a conversation with a skeptic from any level of knowledge.
The Word of God does not return empty (Isaiah 55:10-13). If all you do is communicate the gospel, even if they scoff, you’ve done something worthwhile. In fact, that’s the most important thing.
First, there are a few things that you need to remember:
The Word of God does not return empty (Isaiah 55:10-13). If all you do is communicate the gospel, even if they scoff, you’ve done something worthwhile. In fact, that’s the most important thing.
The Lord is with you (Matthew 28:18-1). God is the One Who sends laborers like yourself into the harvest (Luke 10:2), He’s the One Who provides opportunities to witness (Col. 4:3), He’s the One Who empowers witnessing through the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8), and He is the One Who draws the lost to Christ (John 6:44). Further, He planned all this before the world was formed (Ephesians 1). In short, you can’t mess this up, because you are not the one making this happen.
Second, here is a simple approach that you can apply with minimal knowledge:
Presuppositional apologetics begins with the acknowledgement that everyone has presuppositions (Christians, skeptics, progressives, etc.). However, presuppositional apologetics (presup) also affirms that every other worldview unwittingly borrows from Christianity….even atheism. The presuppositional approach leverages this for the defense and affirmation of the faith while applying the Word of God and friendly conversation.
One particularly beneficial aspect of presup is that it puts the skeptic’s worldview on the defensive in a way that few other approaches leverage.
The view is based on a few key elements:
There is no such thing as an atheist. Romans 1 reminds the believer that unbelievers know that the God of Scripture is real, but they suppress that knowledge in their unrighteousness. Their primary hurdle to faith is sin. This is why even when a skeptic is beaten in debate, he doesn’t immediately become a Christian.
The Word of God is powerful and incites faith. 2 Cor. 10:1-7 reminds the believer that the Word of God itself is powerful. In fact, it is the Word of Christ that brings about faith (Romans 10:17). The unbeliever does not have to accept the validity of Scripture for it to penetrate their heart and destroy their false arguments. In fact, the Word of God is what makes them able to hear and understand the logic of your argument.
Every other worldview unwittingly borrows from the biblical worldview. The simplest example of this is atheism (better called “anti-theism”). Anti-theists generally claim that there is no objective law or Lawgiver and that the universe exists as a result of accidental causes, yet they regularly assume that the universe has order, that they are capable of knowledge (even though they claim their minds are accidental mutations), and that there are objective logical and ethical principles that govern behavior. The anti-theistic worldview cannot account for it’s own epistemological foundations, so they must borrow (unwittingly) from the biblical worldview to leverage knowledge and logic against the biblical worldview. The classic like is that this is like standing on God’s chest in order to argue He doesn’t exist.
Does this seem complicated? Let’s explain it with a dialogue example.
As you read this dialogue look for appeals to objective moral standards and which worldview provides a consistent worldview to account for moral claims. The key phrase of presuppositional apologetics is “By what standard?”
Note: this is directly based off of an actual conversation with an anti-theist. Details have been changed to save him embarrassment, but the concepts remain consistent.
Anti-theist: Conservatives are morally culpable for not following mask and vaccine mandates. They are essentially just killing people!
Christian: I understand your concern for the wellbeing of others. In fact, I’m glad for it. But, I’m a little confused. I thought that as an atheist you didn’t believe in moral absolutes. Can I ask what standard of ethics you would apply to this situation? I’m not giving you a hard time. I’m genuinely curious.
Anti-theist: Well, isn’t it obvious?! It’s wrong to cause harm to another person. Why would I need to give a reason?
Christian: I understand. I agree that concern for the wellbeing of others is an obvious moral obligation, but my worldview accounts for this. As I understand, yours doesn’t. In the biblical worldview, God gives clear commands about caring for others. In fact, it is the second greatest commandment (Mark 12:30-31). But, the atheistic worldview has no objective Lawgiver to give such objective moral standards. In fact, in the atheistic framework, everything exists by accident. There is no right or wrong in the atheistic framework.
Anti-theist: Atheists don’t have a framework.
Christian: Clearly.
Atheists: Wouldn’t it make sense to assume that since everyone agrees that murder is wrong, it should be condemned, and that murderers should be sequestered from society?
Christian: Not everyone agrees that murder is wrong. This is why it is a problem. Murderers assume that in their situation, murder is acceptable as a means to their particular desired ends.
Atheist: Isn’t this why we have democratic societies? We vote by majority on what is right and wrong and punish those who go against that law?
Christian: So is majority rule the decider of morality? What about minorities? Wasn’t your initial concern that a hegemony of people are causing harm to a weaker subset of the population? Couldn’t the majority leverage democratic power against minority groups?
Anti-theist: (stuck)
Christian: We are in hearty agreement that things like murder and rape are evil. My point is that the biblical worldview does so consistently. If you are to be consistent as an atheist, you can’t make any moral claims. I’m glad you are inconsistent in this regard, but I’m asking you to consider where the idea of morality in you comes from. Genesis 1:26-27 indicates that you are created in the image of God. Your ability to engage in logic as well as your moral concern comes from God.
Atheist: Well…I don’t…(stuck)
Christian: Can I give a quick overview of why all this matters?
Anti-theist: I won’t agree, but that’s fine.
Christian: Have you considered the fact that every human has an innate moral code that we don’t live up to? Christians and atheists both appeal to ethical standards, but none of us live up to them perfectly? This is why the gospel is necessary. God is perfect, and He has set the standard of righteousness. But, “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). “The wages/payment of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). But, Jesus is God in the flesh. He lived a perfect life, gave believers His righteousness, took on their sin, and paid for that sin on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). This is why salvation is a free gift. He paid for it. “The gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23). The way to be saved is to believe in the atoning death and resurrection of Christ and to turn from sin and acknowledge Christ’s authority (Romans 10:9-10). What are your thoughts on this? I know I just gave a lot of information.
Anti-theist: It sounds nice, but I don’t think I agree.
Christian: I understand. But, can you account for your ethical concerns any other way?
Anti-theist: I don’t really have a response right now. This has been a good conversation, but I have to go.
Analysis and Review:
Notice a few things about the interaction: The burden of proof was on the anti-theist. He made the moral claim, and the believer simply engaged. Here’s the process he followed:
Ask “by what standard?” Plenty of conversational language was added for congeniality, but that’s essentially all that happened. When the anti-theist gave a response, the Christian simply brought the conversation to the central question: Why are you holding people to a universal moral standard when you don’t believe there is any objective reason to do so?
Keep asking for clarification. This requires being genuinely kind and interested, not accusative.
Present the Gospel using Scripture. Remember that the Word of God is powerful. Present the gospel, and use Scripture as much as you can.
Leave them with a “rock in their shoe.” Greg Koukl talks about asking questions in a kind and curious way. It forces them to be self-reflective and to identify the inconsistencies in their view without realizing that they are the ones on the defensive. If you finish the conversation in a kind way, you can be assured that the Holy Spirit can use your questions, their self-reflection, and ,more importantly, God’s Word to water the gospel seed in them.
Pray for them to repent and believe the Gospel. It is effective.
Daniel Samms
Daniel is a Worldviewish contributor who pastors Restoration Church and teaches theology for Liberty University Online. He is also the overseer for Underground Seminary. You can find him online:
www.undergroundseminary.net
www.restorationhcn.org
@undergroundseminary
