Presuppositional or New Historiographical?

***1/26/2020– I want to make a special note related to this article. I was tasked to write an article on Carl F. H. Henry’s view of presuppositional apologetics. At one time I would have embraced elements of this presuppositional approach, but after further research and reflection I have returned to my Reformed Classical Apologetics approach similar to that of Paul Helm or RC Sproul. I would also affirm the thesis argued by J. V. Fesko in Reforming Apologetics: Retrieving the Classic Reformed Approach to Defending the Faith.


Two cross currents from the twentieth century have affected evangelical apologetics: apologetic methodology and Carl F. H. Henry. Henry was considered the dean of American evangelicalism, who shaped the movement by providing a rational and propositional apologetic. Henry also engaged the issues in the midst of a larger question of apologetic methodology, primarily, between presuppositionalists and evidentialists. This article continues to address the two cross currents by offering a Henrecian evaluation of Michael Licona’s new historiographical approach to defending the resurrection. In particular, the article attempts to evaluate Licona’s evidentialist approach through the lens of Henry’ s presuppositional approach.

This article is included in a whole journal by Perichoresis dedicated specifically to Carl F. H. Henry. My article is an extension of my doctoral dissertation, which focused specifically on Carl F. H. Henry’s epistemology and hermeneutical method.

I also want to state that I realize there are other apologetic methodologies (i.e., classical apologetics). I am not trying to create a false bifurcation between these two methods. Rather, I am setting out the purpose of the article: Comparing and contrasting Henry’s presuppositionalism and Licona’s evidentialism.

Please click this link to download the article: