1. Introduction to the Presuppositional Method
Biblical presuppositional apologetics begins with the recognition that the triune God, who created and sustains all things, speaks authoritatively in His Word. In other words, God’s self-attesting revelation—recorded in Scripture—must serve as our ultimate standard for truth and knowledge. This central principle refuses to treat human reason as a neutral arbiter, standing over and above divine revelation. Instead, it insists that every human being approaches questions of knowledge, meaning, and morality from within a web of presuppositions or worldview commitments. Consequently, we do not look to weigh Scripture on the scale of autonomous human reason, but rather to receive and interpret all facts in light of God’s self-disclosure.
To better understand how this approach differs from other apologetic models, it is helpful to name two further presuppositional tenets. First, there is the myth of neutrality—the recognition that no one comes to the text or to any fact with a perfectly uncommitted mind. All individuals, whether professing Christians, atheists, or adherents of another faith, reason within a worldview framework. Second, we embrace the impossibility of the contrary: if one rejects God as the ultimate reference point—if one fails to presuppose the triune God and the inerrant Scriptures—then the entire edifice of meaning, rational inquiry, and moral judgment collapses into irrationality. In simpler terms, presuppositional apologetics says that only by starting with God can we make coherent sense of anything at all.
John Owen, one of the leading Puritan theologians of the 17th century, reflects in his writings a deep trust in Scripture’s own self-attestation. While the word “presuppositionalism” was not available in Owen’s time in the manner it is today (this label being a 20th-century category, especially after the work of Cornelius Van Til), many of the central themes of modern presuppositional thought can be seen clearly in Owen’s approach. This is especially evident in Volume 16 of his Works, where he engages controversies around the authority of Scripture (Why do we believe it?), its inspiration (How is it truly God’s Word?), and its preservation in Hebrew and Greek manuscripts (Has it been reliably transmitted over centuries?).
By examining these Scripture treatises of Owen, we can see how he begins with an unwavering commitment to God’s authoritative revelation, refuses to grant final authority to human judgment or ecclesiastical tradition, and shows why, without this firm foundation, Christian faith and knowledge would be rendered uncertain or even impossible. True to a presuppositional perspective, Owen points out that any alternative—where human autonomy claims the final word—collapses under its own weight. The internal testimony of Scripture, grounded in the work of the Holy Spirit, becomes the definitive answer to skeptical challenges. This stance is not just an add-on or a defensive measure. Rather, it shapes Owen’s entire method of addressing the Bible’s trustworthiness, upholding the principle that if one sets the Word of God aside or treats it merely as an object of neutral analysis, one has already conceded the starting point that properly belongs to God alone.
Thus, from the outset, this presuppositional review will highlight three core observations: (1) Owen elevates Scripture over all forms of human tradition or reason, showing it to be self-authenticating and spiritually affirmed, (2) he sees the “myth of neutrality” in those who would claim to weigh Scripture by autonomous standards of textual criticism or church tradition, and (3) he contends that, without the God of Scripture, no stable ground exists for knowledge, morality, or redemption. These are hallmarks of the apologetic principle of the impossibility of the contrary. When we analyze the relevant portions of Owen’s Volume 16, it becomes clear that although the language of “presuppositions” is not explicit, the underlying commitments are thoroughly consistent with what we now call presuppositionalism.
2. Identifying the Author’s Presuppositions
A. View of Scripture and Divine Revelation
The first major area to assess is John Owen’s doctrine of Scripture and his method of defending it. Throughout Volume 16, he is responding to controversies involving Roman Catholic apologists, Socinian rationalists, and other opponents who challenged the sufficiency, purity, or final authority of Scripture. Owen’s recurring theme is that the Bible is the Word of God—so fully inspired that it is the direct speech of God to humanity. He does not argue that Scripture first needs to be tested by human reason to become authoritative; rather, its authority stems from the fact that it was “God-breathed.”
In the treatise “Of the Divine Original of the Scriptures,” Owen underscores that the Bible does not rely on human institutions or councils for its standing. In presuppositional terms, Scripture is self-attesting. He denies the possibility that the final say belongs to church tradition or secular scholarship. This position is distinctly at odds with the notion that “we will evaluate Scripture’s claims neutrally to see if it passes or fails the test.” Instead, Owen’s posture is that Scripture stands above the test itself. The guiding assumption—his presupposition—is that God speaks with inherent authority and clarity, so those who hear or read Scripture are confronted with the voice of God Himself.
B. Role of the Church, Confessions, and Historical Theology
While Owen regularly quotes church fathers, leans upon Reformed confessions, and deals with textual-historical questions, he clearly articulates that such aids support but never create or invest Scripture with authority. He champions the principle of sola Scriptura: the church recognizes the canon of Scripture, but the church is not the ultimate cause or ground of biblical authority. This is especially important in his arguments against Roman Catholicism, where the role of tradition was often elevated as a parallel or higher authority. Owen’s perspective is that the Bible’s authority exists independently. The consistent, underlying assumption is that God’s revelation carries supreme weight, and that humans are never the final arbiters of divine truth.
This understanding firmly reflects a presuppositional framework. Rather than letting historical theology or conciliar pronouncements override the plain teaching of Scripture, Owen regards them as subordinate, helpful for historical testimony or clarifying doctrinal controversies, but not coequal with Scripture. Thus, the hallmark presuppositional note—that Scripture functions as the “sun” in the solar system of theology, while everything else orbits around it—is indeed present in Owen’s approach.
C. Starting Point: God’s Sovereignty vs. Human Autonomy
Presuppositional apologetics insists that all human inquiry must start with the sovereign Creator’s revelation, not with an imagined neutral vantage point of autonomous human reason. Owen’s work exemplifies this principle. A central theme is that human beings, being fallen and finite, cannot claim a vantage that tests or decides divine truth. Rather, in reading Scripture, we are confronted by a God who has every right to command our assent by virtue of His infinite authority.
In controversies about textual criticism or whether the Masoretic points were late additions, Owen still presumes that God has protected His Word in history, and that this providential care invalidates attempts to depict Scripture as hopelessly corrupted. God’s sovereignty, in short, covers the giving of Scripture and the preserving of it. This is in direct tension with any approach that would say, “Well, we start with purely naturalistic assumptions to see whether the text is reliable.” Owen’s perspective is that the reliability of Scripture is guaranteed by the One who gave it. Thus, we see precisely that line dividing God’s sovereignty from attempts at human autonomy or neutrality.
D. Apologetic Aims: Proof or Probability?
A final question in identifying Owen’s presuppositions is whether he defends Scripture as merely probable—one religious text among others—or whether he insists that Scripture is the necessary foundation without which we cannot even speak cogently of God or redemption. Owen is resolutely in the latter camp. He argues that if Scripture were not truly the Word of God, if it were not self-authenticating and Spirit-wrought, then we could have no sure confidence in spiritual truth at all.
He is not content with offering Scripture as an option that is “more likely than not” to be God’s Word. Instead, he treats it as the only basis for understanding salvation, the nature of God, and the moral order. This is a hallmark of the presuppositional posture: it says that if someone denies Scripture, they lose the foundation that makes theological discourse meaningful. In effect, Owen’s aim is to confirm that the biblical revelation stands not as a hypothesis but as the necessary reference point for faith, knowledge, and life in Christ.
3. Presuppositional Critique
A. Two-Step Method (Prov. 26:4–5)
Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen often illustrate presuppositional argumentation by referencing Proverbs 26:4–5: (1) “Do not answer a fool according to his folly,” meaning do not let the unbeliever’s erroneous assumptions stand unchallenged, and (2) “Answer a fool according to his folly,” meaning conduct an internal critique of the unbeliever’s worldview, showing its inability to ground rational thought or truth. Though Owen did not cite that proverb in precisely these terms for an apologetics framework, we can observe these two strands in his defense of Scripture.
Not Answering According to Folly (Positive Presentation of God’s Revelation)
Owen first presents the self-authenticating nature of Scripture, affirming that all believers must regard Scripture as divine testimony. He discusses its intrinsic excellencies: its consistency, majesty, spiritual efficacy, and harmony, along with the Holy Spirit’s internal witness in the hearts of believers. By presenting this positive, biblical worldview, Owen bypasses the idea that we must wait for secular or ecclesiastical authorities to grant Scripture credibility. Instead, the Word itself—and the God who gave it—defines the very criteria of truth.Answering According to Folly (Internal Critique of Opposing Views)
Owen engages Roman Catholic arguments that the church’s magisterium confers authority on Scripture. His rebuttal is that if that were so, then Scripture itself would be subject to the authority of men, forfeiting the distinctive claim of divine speech. This critique shows how, within Romanism, the very concept of God’s Word can be overshadowed by institutional prerogatives, and so they cannot maintain a consistent stance that Scripture is the ultimate judge of all doctrine. Likewise, he meets rationalistic objections head-on by demonstrating that if the critics hold purely naturalistic or humanistic assumptions, they lose any transcendent vantage from which to critique Scripture. Their skepticism self-destructs because it undermines the conditions necessary for genuine knowledge—namely a trustworthy, sovereign God who can reveal Himself.
In both lines of argument, we see Owen applying a method that parallels the presuppositional approach. He does not adopt their presuppositions, nor does he treat them as if they were neutral. Instead, he presses them to see that Scripture alone can sustain the truth-claims they are either ignoring or rejecting.
B. Impossibility of the Contrary
A hallmark of presuppositionalism is the “impossibility of the contrary”—the notion that every non-biblical worldview ultimately crumbles under analysis. Owen’s writings on the divine original of Scripture reflect that principle strongly. He shows that once you unmoor Scripture from its place as God’s own voice, grounded by the Spirit, you no longer have a stable anchor for the knowledge of salvation or the nature of God. If Scripture must be subjected to purely human standards, the entire project of theology becomes guesswork.
Take his stance on the textual integrity of the Hebrew and Greek texts: he proclaims that God has providentially preserved them. If someone denies that possibility, believing that chance, scribal errors, or conspiracies entirely overshadowed God’s oversight, then we lose any basis for claiming to know what God has said. The text becomes a purely human production, subject to indefinite corruption, leaving us without final certainty. Owen’s point is that this path is untenable for Christianity. If we cannot rely on God’s faithfulness in preserving His Word, the message of the gospel stands perpetually in doubt. Thus, non-theistic assumptions lead to intellectual and spiritual chaos, which is precisely the “impossibility of the contrary” argument: you cannot consistently hold a Christian theology if you will not stand on the God-breathed text.
C. Transcendental Challenge
Van Til often emphasized a “transcendental” proof that only the Christian worldview provides the foundation for logic, morality, and knowledge. A similar strand appears in Owen when he questions how adversaries—be they Romanists claiming church-centered authority or skeptics denying scriptural authenticity—can justify their claims to truth and moral guidance without resting ultimately on God’s own declared revelation. By pushing the internal logic of their positions, he reveals contradictions:
- Roman Catholics: If the magisterium stands above the Word, we never truly submit to God’s Word in the final sense; the Word itself must pass through the lens of the church’s interpretive decree. But then we lose the biblical truth that God’s Word can judge the church rather than vice versa.
- Rationalistic Critics: If human reason or modern textual skepticism can override the Spirit’s witness and the text’s self-evidence, we lose any coherent reason to hold that Scripture is God’s Word. Yet, ironically, the critics often still want to retain certain moral or theological claims that implicitly rely on the authority of Scripture (like the moral excellence taught by Jesus). Owen’s analysis reveals such critics have no stable ground for these claims apart from the divine Word they call into question.
Through these challenges, Owen’s method parallels a presuppositional “transcendental critique.” He aims to show how only a submission to God’s revealed Word can consistently undergird the claims about God’s character, human duty, or salvation.
4. Theological and Practical Consequences
Authority of God’s Word vs. Autonomy of Man
A central implication of Owen’s presuppositional stance is the affirmation of sola Scriptura at the highest possible register, thereby dethroning human autonomy. Whether in daily Christian living or theological debate, the point remains that man does not stand in judgment over the Word; rather, the Word stands in judgment over man. If one were to treat Scripture like any other text, subject to purely secular canons of proof, the outcome would be the elevation of man’s mind over God. Owen observes that this effectively empties the Word of its power to judge the hearts of its readers (Heb. 4:12). By holding Scripture supreme, he calls believers to a posture of reverential submission—intellectually and morally—to the authority of God who speaks.
Role of the Holy Spirit and Regeneration
Presuppositional apologetics is more than just an intellectual framework; it acknowledges that acceptance of God’s truth is a spiritual matter (1 Cor. 2:14). Owen highlights that belief in Scripture’s divine origin ultimately springs from the Holy Spirit’s internal witness, enlightening the mind to receive and trust the Word. Intellectual arguments alone, though important in removing misunderstandings, cannot produce saving faith. It is the Spirit who opens blinded eyes. Owen’s frequent emphasis on this dynamic underscores a crucial presuppositional element: man’s fundamental inability, apart from divine grace, to yield to God’s truth. Merely constructing an evidential argument will not suffice if the sinner’s heart remains unrenewed.
Worship and Intellectual Life
Owen saw theological reflection, textual study, and polemical engagement not as purely academic exercises, but as acts of service and worship. This, too, fits well with presuppositional principles that stress “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” If the triune God is the source of all knowledge, then every inquiry into the nature and transmission of Scripture should be suffused with reverence and humility. Owen exemplifies that posture by devoting extensive effort to show the faithfulness of God in preserving Scripture, to the end that Christians may be confident in their Bibles and, thus, worship God in spirit and in truth.
Polemic Aims: Humility and Gentleness
Although Owen’s writings can be forceful—he did not mince words when refuting heretics or criticizing misguided Catholics—there is a decidedly pastoral emphasis. This resonates with the presuppositional call for “apologetics with gentleness and respect” (1 Pet. 3:15). Owen’s goal is never merely to defeat an opponent but to awaken readers to the glorious certainty of God’s Word and the necessity of the Spirit’s testimony. To the degree that presuppositional apologetics insists on confronting unbelief directly, it also calls for charity and compassion, aware that the issue ultimately involves souls in need of divine grace. Owen’s approach acknowledges that the Scripture stands judge over us all, humbling every proud pretension.
5. Conclusion: A Clash of Worldviews
Summary of the Author’s Presuppositional (or Non-Presuppositional) Coherence
In analyzing John Owen’s Scripture treatises in Volume 16, we observe that his fundamental commitments align robustly with what is now called presuppositional apologetics. He begins with God’s revelation, not with an external standard. He hammers home the point that Scripture is authoritative by nature of its divine origin, not through any subsequent human recognition or validation. He also constantly challenges rivals—Romanists, rationalists, etc.—to account for their own positions in a way that does not undermine the very foundation of knowledge and faith that they otherwise claim.
Where Owen Reflects the Van Til/Bahnsen Approach Most Clearly
- Self-Attesting Word: Owen’s unrelenting emphasis on the Bible as God’s direct speech parallels presuppositionalism’s hallmark: that Scripture is the inerrant foundation for all truth-claims in Christian theology.
- Internal Critique: By showing how alternative positions end in contradiction or subject God’s Word to human courts, Owen demonstrates the incoherence of unbelieving (or sub-biblical) methods.
- God’s Sovereignty: At every turn, he underscores that the Creator/creature distinction places man under divine authority, not side by side with God as a neutral judge.
Key Observations
- Myth of Neutrality: Owen never grants that those who question Scripture’s purity or authority are simply following neutral reasoning. He sees a spiritual conflict of presuppositions at play.
- Impossibility of the Contrary: Owen insists that the surety of salvation and truth rests in the Spirit-enabled reception of Scripture. Opponents cannot consistently critique the Bible without borrowing some capital from the biblical worldview (like moral absolutes or the idea of a knowable God).
Final Reflection / Exhortation
Owen’s entire approach to Scripture challenges believers to stand firmly under the authority of the Word, trusting in the Spirit’s internal witness, and to confront critics by exposing their reliance on worldview presuppositions contrary to the gospel. He calls us to remember that every created fact and every theological claim is ultimately grounded in the triune God’s self-revelation. Rather than placing God on trial, presuppositional apologetics urges us to place the unbeliever’s worldview under the light of God’s Word. The sum of Owen’s message is one of unwavering commitment to the Lordship of Christ in all thought, a robust confidence in the clarity and finality of Scripture, and a demonstration that any attempt to dethrone God’s Word reduces to confusion.
Such a stance is valuable today as believers confront modern biblical skepticism, postmodern relativism, and, in some cases, renewed attempts to subordinate Scripture to ecclesiastical pronouncements. If we learn from Owen, we see the necessity of a thorough acknowledgment that God’s Word stands supreme—and that its self-authenticating power is, in fact, the only coherent ground for Christian faith, genuine worship, and rational consistency.
