Common Ground, Part 2

The main problem presuppositionalists have with views such as classical apologetics is the issue of neutrality for the sake of the argument. The argument on the side of classical apologetic method (as well as others) holds that one valid way to defend the claims of Christianity is to argue from a neutral position (not holding to theism or atheism at the outset) to theism, and subsequently to Christianity by using evidence and/or logical arguments.

At this point, the presuppositional apologist may object, stating that this is a sinful way of thinking for the Christian, and is thus off limits. How can a Christian ever start from a position of neutrality, thus being open to atheism, without compromising his argument as well as his submission to the Lordship of Christ? John Frame claims that “They [traditionalists] do, however, tell the unbeliever to think neutrally during the apologetic encounter, and they do seek to develop a neutral argument, one that has no distinctively biblical presuppositions… I do believe that its position is unbiblical” (Apologetics to the Glory, 6).

In this quote, Frame argues that developing neutral arguments is unbiblical, and thus out of the question for Christians. This statement, however, introduces the straw man fallacy, namely in the premise that traditionalists seek to develop a neutral argument that has no distinctively biblical presuppositions. Are these neutral arguments unbiblical? Is there even such a thing as a neutral argument? If not, would these arguments assume God or atheism?