Biblical Support for Evidentialism?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael V. Frazier on January 31, 2011 at 12:27pm

Evidentialism is not annulled in the presuppositional mindset; evidence has its place.  Presuppositionalism simply says that evidence is unable to be an absolute proof because evidence is subjective.  People will always view the evidence based on their worldview.  In truth, no one should truly deny miracles and fulfilled prophecy for they are a great testimony.  But as has been said, what is and what should be are separate issues.

 

One point that can be made in regards to the verses you've mentioned is that in each case the audience's presuppositions are generally the same as those of the writer.  They share the same or similar worldviews.  However, compare the Pharisees' viewpoint of Christ's miracles in Matthew 12 -- "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul."  The evidence was clear, but they were unable to accept it based on their presupposition.  See also the encounter of the formerly blind man in John 9.  The Jewish leaders were first unwilling to accept the validity of the man's former blindness, and then they were unwilling to accept the idea that Jesus had anything to do with the man's healing.  Again, the evidence was clear, but their presupposition disabled their ability to accept the truth.  We can biblically understand that their minds were blinded (2 Cor. 3:14), but presuppositionalism helps us to better understand how they were blinded.

Permalink Reply by Justin Mooney on January 31, 2011 at 10:52pm

Good points, thanks! I agree that evidence has a place in presuppositionalism. Definitely the Luke passage makes more sense in light of what you have pointed out, since John the Baptist had essentially the right worldview, so he was in a position to correctly interpret such evidence. The same could probably be said of the Acts passage, since it is addressed to the Israelites. Same for Isaiah 52:6. 

 

The other Isaiah passages seem a little more problematic though, since it appears that he is addressing believers in false Gods. Do you have any thoughts specifically on Isaiah 44:6-8? It seems at first glance to be considering fulfillment of prophecy as a legitimate way to prove the Biblical worldview. 

Michael V. Frazier said:

Evidentialism is not annulled in the presuppositional mindset; evidence has its place.  Presuppositionalism simply says that evidence is unable to be an absolute proof because evidence is subjective.  People will always view the evidence based on their worldview.  In truth, no one should truly deny miracles and fulfilled prophecy for they are a great testimony.  But as has been said, what is and what should be are separate issues.

 

One point that can be made in regards to the verses you've mentioned is that in each case the audience's presuppositions are generally the same as those of the writer.  They share the same or similar worldviews.  However, compare the Pharisees' viewpoint of Christ's miracles in Matthew 12 -- "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul."  The evidence was clear, but they were unable to accept it based on their presupposition.  See also the encounter of the formerly blind man in John 9.  The Jewish leaders were first unwilling to accept the validity of the man's former blindness, and then they were unwilling to accept the idea that Jesus had anything to do with the man's healing.  Again, the evidence was clear, but their presupposition disabled their ability to accept the truth.  We can biblically understand that their minds were blinded (2 Cor. 3:14), but presuppositionalism helps us to better understand how they were blinded.

Permalink Reply by Michael V. Frazier on February 1, 2011 at 12:05am

I'm glad that it helped. 

Regarding the Isaiah passages (especially 44), I again suggest that Israelite idolaters (and even pagan idolaters) would still share a similar, albeit perhaps not identical, worldview as Isaiah.  They both allowed for the supernatural -- that god(s) existed and intervened in human affairs -- and to a certain degree, since they were Israelites, they would have probably understood just what Isaiah was (a prophet) and exactly who he spoke for (the God of their ancestors).  As such, Isaiah could write the inspired words of the LORD to an audience that would clearly understand the significance of what was being expressed. 

For example, at Mt. Carmel where Elijah contended with the prophets of Baal, the people of Israel were confused as to which god should be worshiped.  Their worldview allowed for the supernatural, and even apparently for a multiplicity of gods.  They had been persuaded by false prophets to turn away from the true God; yet, because of their underlying presuppositions, the evidence of God's miracle was enough to convince them of the truth.

The passages in Isaiah address that kind of worldview -- that the supernatural is real. Yet the God of Israel speaks definitively that He is alone (Isaiah 44:6,8); he is the first and the last, and there is none other beside Him.  Within this framework of presuppositions, evidence such as fulfilled prophecy would prove very convincing, especially since only God could consistently provide such evidence.

Let's take another example from the New Testament.  When Paul spoke to the men of Athens, he already understood that they believed in the supernatural; their worldview allowed for divine beings.  Thus, Paul directed part of his argument to them by using their own poets' words against them, specifically noting that their "inspired" poets wrote of a singular god.  Now we may understand, as well as those Athenians, that the poetry Paul quoted was originally referring to Zeus. But Paul used it in an attempt to remold their starting presupposition into an understanding of genuine truth. In essence, Paul was working to get Greeks to "think" like Jews.  Their original worldview was enough to allow for "new gods," and that was enough for Paul to begin with.

Justin Mooney said:

The other Isaiah passages seem a little more problematic though, since it appears that he is addressing believers in false Gods. Do you have any thoughts specifically on Isaiah 44:6-8? It seems at first glance to be considering fulfillment of prophecy as a legitimate way to prove the Biblical worldview.

Permalink Reply by Justin Mooney on February 1, 2011 at 9:05am

It seems like as soon as we get to the point where we are arguing with people who believe in other gods, that kind of reasoning (you believe in the supernatural, therefore prophecy is good evidence to use) almost sounds like the evidentialist approach of assuming that there is more neutral common ground than their actually is, and buliding on wolrdviews one belief at a time (you believe in the supernatural? Good, now just add the belief that there is only one God), rather than contrasting whole worldviews. How is the presuppositional approach to evidence distinguished from the evidentialist approach to evidence in these instances? 

Michael V. Frazier said:

I'm glad that it helped. 

Regarding the Isaiah passages (especially 44), I again suggest that Israelite idolaters (and even pagan idolaters) would still share a similar, albeit perhaps not identical, worldview as Isaiah.  They both allowed for the supernatural -- that god(s) existed and intervened in human affairs -- and to a certain degree, since they were Israelites, they would have probably understood just what Isaiah was (a prophet) and exactly who he spoke for (the God of their ancestors).  As such, Isaiah could write the inspired words of the LORD to an audience that would clearly understand the significance of what was being expressed. 

For example, at Mt. Carmel where Elijah contended with the prophets of Baal, the people of Israel were confused as to which god should be worshiped.  Their worldview allowed for the supernatural, and even apparently for a multiplicity of gods.  They had been persuaded by false prophets to turn away from the true God; yet, because of their underlying presuppositions, the evidence of God's miracle was enough to convince them of the truth.

The passages in Isaiah address that kind of worldview -- that the supernatural is real. Yet the God of Israel speaks definitively that He is alone (Isaiah 44:6,8); he is the first and the last, and there is none other beside Him.  Within this framework of presuppositions, evidence such as fulfilled prophecy would prove very convincing, especially since only God could consistently provide such evidence.

Let's take another example from the New Testament.  When Paul spoke to the men of Athens, he already understood that they believed in the supernatural; their worldview allowed for divine beings.  Thus, Paul directed part of his argument to them by using their own poets' words against them, specifically noting that their "inspired" poets wrote of a singular god.  Now we may understand, as well as those Athenians, that the poetry Paul quoted was originally referring to Zeus. But Paul used it in an attempt to remold their starting presupposition into an understanding of genuine truth. In essence, Paul was working to get Greeks to "think" like Jews.  Their original worldview was enough to allow for "new gods," and that was enough for Paul to begin with.

Justin Mooney said:

The other Isaiah passages seem a little more problematic though, since it appears that he is addressing believers in false Gods. Do you have any thoughts specifically on Isaiah 44:6-8? It seems at first glance to be considering fulfillment of prophecy as a legitimate way to prove the Biblical worldview.

Permalink Reply by Michael V. Frazier on February 1, 2011 at 10:00am

Presuppositionalism understands that everyone interprets evidence based on their beliefs.  Pure evidentialism, when you get right down to it, assumes that everyone starts with the same presuppositions, and thus the evidence should stand on its own.  This is the primary debate between evolutionists and many creationists.  Even when those creationists understand that interpretation of the evidence is the real problem, they still fail to realize that we must back away from the evidence somewhat and begin to deal with the underlying worldviews.

"Common ground" is not the same as "neutrality." Neutrality assumes that both parties can discuss the issue without any prior presuppositions.  Common ground understands that both hold to presuppositions, and that both will share some similar presuppositions.  Presuppositionalists, as you know, stress that without God knowledge is impossible.  The fact that each party can breath, speak, and reason shows that they both share some common ground.  The presuppositionalist understands that the evolutionist is borrowing from our worldview.  That borrowed foundation is the common ground that allows each party to discuss.  The presuppositionalist then performs an internally critique on the additional beliefs that have been built over that foundation. 

The same is true in theological debates.  The polytheists were borrowing from the Biblical worldview by their presupposition of the supernatural.  Now, the biblical worldview had been twisted in their minds by the addition of multiple gods, but they really could not believe in any supernatural realm without first assuming the true God of creation.

Evidence is good and useful, but it will not matter to one who holds a worldview where that evidence can be rationalized away.  To the atheist, miracles cannot exist; thus any miracle will ultimately have some scientific, naturalistic explanation. However, to one that believes in the supernatural, miracles and prophecy are possible; thus miracles and fulfilled prophecy become an evidential tool of the apologist that can be used as support to the argument.  Paul used the Greeks' poetry as an evidential tool even while he was performing a subtle internal critique of their worldview.  The poetry was not the sum total of his argument, but it was supportive of his overall argument.

I feel safe in saying that most Americans believe in God.  Statistical studies can be provided to illustrate this.  But many of those people also hold some strange ideas about God; they've added other presuppositions.  However, miracles and prophecy can still be used with good effect on such folks (this is how I see the passages in Isaiah), and presuppositional apologetics will aide in critiquing those added presuppositions. 

Justin Mooney said:

How is the presuppositional approach to evidence distinguished from the evidentialist approach to evidence in these instances?

Permalink Reply by Justin Mooney on February 1, 2011 at 4:05pm

So would you say that evidence like prophecy and miracles can be used in some subtle form of internal critique? It seems like any other use of them would be just be reinterpreted to fit false views of God. 

 

(By the way thanks for the clarification of neutral vs. common ground)

Michael V. Frazier said:

Presuppositionalism understands that everyone interprets evidence based on their beliefs.  Pure evidentialism, when you get right down to it, assumes that everyone starts with the same presuppositions, and thus the evidence should stand on its own.  This is the primary debate between evolutionists and many creationists.  Even when those creationists understand that interpretation of the evidence is the real problem, they still fail to realize that we must back away from the evidence somewhat and begin to deal with the underlying worldviews.

"Common ground" is not the same as "neutrality." Neutrality assumes that both parties can discuss the issue without any prior presuppositions.  Common ground understands that both hold to presuppositions, and that both will share some similar presuppositions.  Presuppositionalists, as you know, stress that without God knowledge is impossible.  The fact that each party can breath, speak, and reason shows that they both share some common ground.  The presuppositionalist understands that the evolutionist is borrowing from our worldview.  That borrowed foundation is the common ground that allows each party to discuss.  The presuppositionalist then performs an internally critique on the additional beliefs that have been built over that foundation. 

The same is true in theological debates.  The polytheists were borrowing from the Biblical worldview by their presupposition of the supernatural.  Now, the biblical worldview had been twisted in their minds by the addition of multiple gods, but they really could not believe in any supernatural realm without first assuming the true God of creation.

Evidence is good and useful, but it will not matter to one who holds a worldview where that evidence can be rationalized away.  To the atheist, miracles cannot exist; thus any miracle will ultimately have some scientific, naturalistic explanation. However, to one that believes in the supernatural, miracles and prophecy are possible; thus miracles and fulfilled prophecy become an evidential tool of the apologist that can be used as support to the argument.  Paul used the Greeks' poetry as an evidential tool even while he was performing a subtle internal critique of their worldview.  The poetry was not the sum total of his argument, but it was supportive of his overall argument.

I feel safe in saying that most Americans believe in God.  Statistical studies can be provided to illustrate this.  But many of those people also hold some strange ideas about God; they've added other presuppositions.  However, miracles and prophecy can still be used with good effect on such folks (this is how I see the passages in Isaiah), and presuppositional apologetics will aide in critiquing those added presuppositions. 

Justin Mooney said:

How is the presuppositional approach to evidence distinguished from the evidentialist approach to evidence in these instances?

Permalink Reply by Michael V. Frazier on February 1, 2011 at 6:18pm

Well, I suppose you could say that, but it would only be in that sense for those who hold the same or similar worldviews.  The New Age movement's general worldview, for example, is too different from the Christian worldview to use prophecy as a supportive proof. They, like you've indicated, would just reinterpret the evidence to fit their own perspective.

Justin Mooney said:

So would you say that evidence like prophecy and miracles can be used in some subtle form of internal critique? It seems like any other use of them would be just be reinterpreted to fit false views of God.