Journal: Global Journal of Classical Theology
Volume: GJCT 03:1 (Apr 2002)
Article: Greg Bahnsen, John Warwick Montgomery, and Evidential Apologetics
Author: Gary R. Habermas

---

Greg Bahnsen, John Warwick Montgomery, and Evidential Apologetics

Gary R. Habermas

Chairman, Department of Philosophy and Theology
Liberty University
Lynchburg, Virginia

The subject of apologetics has long interested certain Christians, especially those desirous of sharing their faith or building the confidence and assurance of believers. Other times it may simply be necessary to defend Christian theism against attacks and challenges. In this essay, I will address several internal issues regarding apologetic methodology. I will begin by briefly introducing some of the classic disputes between evidentialists and presuppositionalists that took place during the last third of the Twentieth Century. Then I will propose a number of rejoinders to the late Greg Bahnsen’s presuppositionalist critique of evidentialist John Warwick Montgomery’s system.1

Some Background

Long time observers of the relevant issues in later twentieth century apologetic methodology will probably be aware of discussions between two of the chief positions, presuppositionalism and evidentialism.2 About three or four decades ago, the classic protagonists of each view were probably Cornelius Van Til and John Warwick Montgomery, respectively. Other scholars like Gordon Clark and Clark Pinnock were also regularly involved in the dialogues, arguing for one side or the other. Time and again, volleys were fired, sometimes striking their intended mark and sometimes not. Over the years, other participants also got involved.3

At the close of the Twentieth Century, however, the discussions have proceeded in new directions. As is so often the case in ongoing dialogues, additional issues have taken center stage, while some of the older ones have receded into the background. Perhaps foremost among the new trends is that the discussions have been significantly less pointed in recent years. Even more importantly, the two sides (as well as other positions) have unquestionably moved closer together, finding some significant agreement on several issues that used to be more divisive.4 Steve Cowan concludes that there is “a growing consensus that the various apologetic methods are not as polarized as they once seemed . . . . apologetic methodologists of various schools have been willing to concede views that they once would have opposed.”5

Still, we must add quickly that there are many important issues yet to resolve.6 For example, questions concerning the ...

visitor : : uid: ()