Why is it that when people are presented with facts, evidence, and claims of the Christian faith they do not believe? Does not the evidence declare that Jesus is the Son of God who rose from the dead? Why are they denying the resurrection amidst the evidence? Why are they denying that Jesus even existed when the evidence overwhelmingly declares otherwise? What seems to be going on here? Can’t they see all the evidence we are presenting? What has happened is that most people have already made up their minds through their worldview. And any new claims are going to get processed and made sense of through that already existing framework. It may be pictured in the following example:

Evidence of Christ’s resurrection --> Naturalistic Worldview = Mythological interpretation

In this example, we see that Christ’s resurrection is processed through the already existing view of naturalism which results in a mind interpreting Jesus’ resurrection to be a myth. The claims and evidences are processed to fit their pre-existing worldview. Therefore, there is a struggle when presenting evidence because of presuppositions.

What are we to do with minds already made up based on preexisting worldviews? We may seek to present a cumulative case.¹ The cumulative case approach helps to present “enough evidence that cannot be neatly explained away.”² The cumulative approach thus seeks to lead others to a worldview that better makes sense of all the evidence.

Sam Chan advocates for a cumulative case approach that contains both presuppositional and evidentialist apologetics. Presuppositional apologetics seeks to “gently dismantle the person’s worldview” and evidentialist apologetics offers “them with evidence for the Christian truth claims.” Chan explains, “With the cumulative case method, the strategy is to deliver an informal argument that presents the evidence, surveys how different worldviews might explain the evidence, and then present the Christian worldview as the hypothesis that best explains the evidence. The aim is to provide an explanation of best fit.”³ The implication of using the cumulative case method is that faith in Jesus Christ “in our post-Christian era is more of a journey to belief.”⁴ We must be careful not to pressure ourselves to take them all the way in that single moment. Our goal is to get them to Christ yes, but it may take a few years. Therefore, look to play your part in encouraging them closer to that final step of faith. Chan describes it excellently when he says, “evangelism is a cumulation of all the things that we do to promote the gospel, such as listening, inviting, offering hospitality, having coffee or dinner, going to the movies, being there for our friend, as well as presenting a reasoned case for our belief.”⁵

The goal with “Modified Presuppositional Apologetics,” as Chan calls it, is to address presuppositions others are holding onto in their questions while presenting evidence at the same time. Chan does this in three outlined steps.

1. Resonate: Describe, understand and empathize with their presuppositions.

• “My aim is not merely to echo their objection but also to restate that objection in a stronger version—both emotionally and intellectually—so that our friend is now thinking, ‘Yes! That is exactly what I’m saying. He’s saying it better than what I’m trying to say!’”⁶

2. Dismantle: Show a deficiency or dissonance in their presuppositions.⁷

• Are their presuppositions standing on evidence or faith?
• Are they holding onto two contradictory ideas?

3. Gospel: Complete their cultural storyline with the gospel.

Example: The following example is taken directly from Sam Chan.⁸

Defeater Belief: How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?

Resonate: The strategy here is to resonate with the presupposition that hell is unloving. “Yes, hell sounds so wrong, doesn’t it? How can a good, loving, forgiving God send people to hell, just for what they believe? It sounds so unfair and unloving. It sounds so excessive. Who is God to judge us for who we are?”

Dismantle: The strategy is to demonstrate the deficiency in this presupposition. Where is the evidence for a loving God? Is it an a priori assumption? If so, why should we accept it as true? “But that’s just it. We all want to believe that God ought to be good, loving, and forgiving. But where do we get this idea from? In Greek mythology, the gods are immoral. In Asian mythology, the gods are mischievous. Out of all the major and minor world religions, it’s only the God of the Bible who is good, loving, and forgiving.”

Gospel: The strategy here is to offer the gospel as the best completion to their storyline. If we want to believe that God is loving, then the gospel is the best guarantee that such a God exists: “So if we want to believe the bits in the Bible where God is good, loving, and forgiving, we have to believe all the other bits in the Bible about God. We can’t just choose the bits we like. It’s either all of the Bible or none of the Bible. That means we also have to believe in the bits in the Bible about hell.”

Discovering the presuppositions people hold to in their arguments and questions takes time. Figuring out the wisest way to respond to these with truth takes time. This model may feel overwhelming and impossible for you but it is not. It takes practice and growth. Begin to use this model in your thinking and you will get better at using it.

Pastor Sean