I recently listened to a radio debate (listen here) that James White from Alpha & Omega Ministries had with 3 Mormons quite some time ago after his book Letters to a Mormon Elder was published. In this debate one of the Mormons raised the issue of inerrancy and asked White why he believed that the Bible was the Word of God as opposed to the Qur'an or the Baghavad Gita, etc. and what evidence he had for its inerrancy or inspiration. Now most folks would hear this and get all riled up and think of a few insults to hurl at the Mormon who asked the question, but in all honesty it's a fair question. James White made a claim that he believes to be true and was asked for support of this claim.
But here is where my disappointment comes in... James White responded by saying that he believes the Bible to be the Word of God and inerrant on the authority of Jesus Christ. He then appealed to the Old Testament Scriptures and Jesus' use of and attribution of authority to said Scriptures. He carried this over into the New Testament and Paul's pronouncement of 'all scripture' being 'God-Breathed' (2Tim. 3:16) and basically closed his initial answer by saying that we cannot seek something beyond God to establish the authority of Scripture.
So what's the problem? Well, it should be obvious to anyone with a rational mind... James White has merely begged the question! He was asked why he believed the Bible was the Word of God and inerrant and then appealed to the Bible as being the inerrant Word of God to answer the question! But this is what presuppositionalists are forced to do--they must begin with a presupposition that they hold as a truth (without actually proving it) and then argue that it is proved by the 'impossibility of the contrary' (as Bahnsen used to say). This is no different than an atheist beginning with naturalist presuppositions and arguing against the existence of God based on said assumptions and then claiming to have made their case because the contrary is impossible.
So my real problem with this approach to apologetics is that it sets up a double-standard that allows the Christian theist to do what he would never allow of the non-Christian (theist or atheist). James White can claim that there is no authority above and beyond God (which of course is true and I wouldn't argue with that at all) and then refuse to provide a real reason for believing the Bible to be the Word of God, but one can see why the Mormons with whom he was speaking were not impressed.
He made mention of fulfilled prophecy and internal consistency but said that he would never use these things to establish the God-Breathed nature of Scripture... Well, why not? These would be exactly the things that would prove such a point. This is why I favor evidential apologetics--it deals with evidence. It doesn't simply assume a position and hold to it blindly, with a finger in each ear, shouting 'nanny, nanny, boo, boo, I can't hear you' when opposing arguments are presented. It is my opinion that presuppositionalism leads to the worst kind of fundamentalism.
A good example of this is the KJV Only Crowd to which White has labored intensely in refuting. Why does he not accept their presupposition that the Textus Receptus and the King James Version of the Bible are free from error while all others are corrupt? Why does White appeal to textual evidence in this scenario to support his position and refute theirs? Now I don't wish to attack James White personally as my problem is not with him specifically, but rather with his brand of apologetics. I see it as inconsistent and hypocritical.
Anyway, that's my two cents on presuppositonal apologetics... I'll stick with the evidence and let that form my approach to defending the faith...
