Engaging Epistemology in Your Conversational Witness

In a world drowning in information yet starving for truth, one of the most profound questions we can ask another person is: How do you know what is true? This epistemological question—the question of how we acquire and validate knowledge—sits at the heart of worldview and shapes every conversation about faith, meaning, and reality. As followers of Christ engaged in His mission, understanding epistemology equips us not merely to argue for Christianity’s truthfulness, but to invite others into a relationship with Jesus, who declared Himself to be the Truth incarnate.

This exploration of epistemology within Christian witness is not an academic exercise reserved for philosophers and theologians. Rather, it represents a practical skill for every believer called to participate in God’s redemptive mission. When we engage someone’s epistemology—their underlying assumptions about how truth is known—we touch the foundations upon which their entire worldview rests. This article explores how a biblical understanding of epistemology shapes our conversational witness and enables us to engage diverse belief systems with both grace and conviction.

 

The Biblical Foundation: Truth Is Personal and Relational

Christian epistemology begins not with abstract propositions but with a person. When Thomas asked Jesus, ‘Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?‘ Jesus responded with one of Scripture’s most profound declarations: ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me‘ (John 14:6). This statement revolutionizes our understanding of truth itself. Jesus did not say He would show us truth or teach us truth; He claimed to be truth personified.

This relational dimension of Christian epistemology fundamentally distinguishes it from other systems of knowledge. Truth, in the biblical framework, is not merely a set of correct propositions we intellectually assent to; it is a person we know and trust. The Apostle Paul expressed this when he wrote, ‘I know whom I have believed‘ (2 Timothy 1:12), emphasizing personal relationship over mere doctrinal correctness. This does not diminish the importance of propositional truth—Scripture clearly affirms objective truth claims about God, humanity, sin, and salvation. Rather, it establishes that all truth finds its ultimate source and coherence in the person of Christ.

In John 8:31-32, Jesus declares, ‘If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.’ Notice the progression: discipleship precedes knowing, and knowing produces freedom. Truth is discovered through relationship and obedience, not through detached rationalism. This stands in stark contrast to Enlightenment epistemology, which sought to establish knowledge on supposedly neutral, autonomous human reason. Christian epistemology insists that all knowledge of ultimate truth requires submission to Christ as Lord—we cannot know God truly while remaining in rebellion against Him.

For our conversational witness, this means we are not primarily trying to win intellectual arguments or prove Christianity through supposedly neutral evidence. Rather, we are inviting people into relationship with the living God who is Truth itself. Our apologetic task is to show that only in Christ do the categories necessary for knowledge—logic, reason, morality, meaning—find their ultimate foundation and coherence.

 

God’s Dual Revelation: General and Special

Scripture teaches that God has revealed Himself in two distinct yet complementary ways: through general revelation and special revelation. Understanding this dual revelation is essential for engaging diverse worldviews in conversational witness, as it affirms truth wherever we find it while pointing to Christ as the ultimate revelation of God.

General Revelation: Truth Written in Creation and Conscience

Romans 1:19-20 declares, ‘What may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.’ This passage establishes that all people, everywhere, have access to genuine knowledge of God through the created order. The heavens declare God’s glory (Psalm 19:1); the intricate design of nature points to an intelligent Designer; the moral law written on human hearts testifies to a moral Lawgiver (Romans 2:14-15).

This general revelation serves several vital purposes in God’s redemptive plan. First, it renders all humanity accountable to God. No one can claim ignorance as an excuse for unbelief, for creation itself bears witness to the Creator. Second, general revelation provides common ground for dialogue. When Paul addressed the Athenian philosophers in Acts 17, he began with their own poets and philosophers, affirming the truth they had glimpsed through general revelation before declaring the fullness of truth in Christ. This demonstrates that Christians can legitimately appeal to natural theology, moral intuitions, and rational arguments in our witness, recognizing these as genuine though limited sources of truth about God.

However—and this is crucial—general revelation alone is insufficient for salvation. While creation reveals God’s existence and attributes, it does not reveal the gospel of grace through Jesus Christ. General revelation tells us that God exists; special revelation tells us who God is and how we can be reconciled to Him. This is why Paul, after acknowledging the Athenians’ partial knowledge, declared, ‘Now [God] commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed‘ (Acts 17:30-31).

Special Revelation: God’s Self-Disclosure in Scripture and Christ

While general revelation provides universal access to basic knowledge of God, special revelation—God’s self-disclosure through Scripture and supremely through Jesus Christ—provides the specific knowledge necessary for salvation. Hebrews 1:1-2 beautifully captures this progression: ‘In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.’

Scripture claims divine inspiration and authority for itself. Paul writes in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, ‘All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.’ The Bible is not merely a collection of human reflections about God; it is God’s authoritative Word to humanity, providing the interpretive framework for understanding all of reality.

Moreover, Christ Himself represents the culmination and fullness of God’s special revelation. He is the Word made flesh (John 1:14), the exact representation of God’s being (Hebrews 1:3), and the one in whom ‘are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge‘ (Colossians 2:3). This means that all true knowledge ultimately finds its source, meaning, and coherence in Christ. He is not simply a way to know truth; He is the foundation of all truth.

For conversational witness, this dual revelation shapes our approach. We can affirm truth wherever we find it—in science, philosophy, art, or other religions—recognizing it as flowing from general revelation. Simultaneously, we maintain that all such truth is partial, preliminary, and finds its fulfillment only in Christ. We are not claiming that Christians have a monopoly on facts; we are claiming that only the Christian worldview provides the epistemological foundation that makes knowledge of facts possible in the first place.

 

The Human Response: Suppression and Seeking

Understanding how humans respond to God’s revelation is critical for effective witness. Romans 1:18 introduces a sobering reality: ‘The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness.’ This passage teaches that the primary barrier to knowing God is not intellectual but moral. People do not reject God because the evidence is insufficient; they reject God because they love their sin more than they love truth.

Paul elaborates in verses 21-23: ‘For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.’ Notice the progression: knowledge of God, rejection of God, futile thinking, darkened hearts, idolatry. The suppression of truth leads to intellectual and moral degradation.

This biblical diagnosis of the human condition has profound implications for apologetics and evangelism. It means that providing more evidence or better arguments, while valuable, cannot by itself convert the unbeliever. The problem is not primarily cognitive but volitional—a matter of the will, not merely the intellect. First Corinthians 2:14 confirms this: ‘The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.’

Yet Scripture also reveals that God actively works to open blind eyes and soften hard hearts. The same Spirit who inspired Scripture illuminates it to readers (1 Corinthians 2:10-16). God’s prevenient grace works in every human heart, drawing people to Himself (John 6:44). Our role in conversational witness is not to manufacture faith but to faithfully present the gospel, trusting the Spirit to do His converting work.

Contemporary Epistemological Responses to Divine Revelation

In our pluralistic culture, we encounter various epistemological frameworks that represent different ways people suppress or distort God’s truth. Understanding these responses helps us engage specific worldviews more effectively.

Epistemological Relativism claims there is no accessible absolute truth—only ‘your truth’ and ‘my truth.’ This view, while claiming to promote tolerance and humility, actually makes genuine dialogue impossible. If truth is merely subjective preference, there is no common ground for meaningful conversation. In witness encounters, we can expose this self-refuting position by asking, ‘Is your claim that there is no absolute truth itself absolutely true?’ The relativist cannot escape the contradiction without abandoning relativism.

Secular Rationalism limits truth to empirically verifiable claims, dismissing as meaningless anything that cannot be tested in a laboratory. This scientism is self-refuting, as the claim ‘only empirically verifiable claims are true’ cannot itself be empirically verified. Moreover, this view cannot account for logic, mathematics, moral values, or the reliability of our cognitive faculties—all of which are necessary for science itself but none of which are empirically observable.

Mystical Subjectivism seeks truth through internal experience divorced from objective revelation. While Christianity affirms the role of spiritual experience, it insists that such experience must be tested against the objective standard of Scripture. Religious feelings without doctrinal content easily lead to self-deception.

Postmodern Skepticism deconstructs metanarratives and remains suspicious of all truth claims, viewing them as power plays rather than genuine knowledge. While postmodernism rightly critiques the hubris of modernist rationalism, its radical skepticism becomes self-refuting. The claim ‘all truth claims are merely power plays’ is itself a truth claim that aspires to power over other views.

In each case, we find that non-Christian epistemologies cannot account for the very things they presuppose: the reliability of reason, the existence of truth, the possibility of knowledge. This brings us to presuppositional apologetics, a powerful tool for conversational witness.

 

Presuppositional Apologetics: Exposing Epistemological Foundations

Presuppositional apologetics, developed primarily by Cornelius Van Til and refined by scholars such as Greg Bahnsen and John Frame, offers a distinctly biblical approach to defending the faith. Rather than trying to prove Christianity on supposedly neutral grounds, presuppositionalism argues that the Christian worldview provides the only coherent foundation for knowledge, logic, science, and morality.

The Transcendental Argument: The Necessity of God for Knowledge

At the heart of presuppositional apologetics lies the transcendental argument for God’s existence. This argument does not merely claim that God probably exists or that belief in God is reasonable. Instead, it argues that God must exist as the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of human experience. Without God, we cannot account for the uniformity of nature, the laws of logic, the validity of reasoning, or the existence of objective moral values.

Consider the laws of logic—such as the law of non-contradiction (something cannot be both true and false in the same sense at the same time). These laws are universal, invariant, and abstract. They do not depend on material substances or change with time or location. Yet in a purely materialistic universe, how can we account for such immaterial, unchanging realities? The atheist must use logic to argue against God, but cannot explain why logic exists or why we should trust it.

Similarly, science depends on the assumption that the universe operates according to consistent natural laws—that the future will resemble the past. But why should we expect this in a godless universe where matter and energy merely exist by chance? David Hume recognized this problem, calling induction (reasoning from past experience to future expectations) logically unjustifiable. Only a Christian worldview, which grounds the uniformity of nature in God’s faithful governance of creation, provides rational justification for scientific inquiry.

The Impossibility of the Contrary

Presuppositional apologetics seeks to demonstrate what Bahnsen called ‘the impossibility of the contrary’—that is, that non-Christian worldviews cannot provide rational justification for the very things they assume. Every non-Christian system must ‘borrow capital’ from the Christian worldview to function.

For example, atheistic materialism claims that all reality consists of matter and energy, that humans are merely evolved biological machines, and that our thoughts are the product of chemical reactions in our brains. But if this is true, why should we trust our reasoning processes? If our beliefs are determined by non-rational physical causes rather than by evidence and logic, then we have no reason to believe our beliefs are true—including the belief in materialism itself! The position is self-refuting.

C.S. Lewis made this point memorably in his argument from reason: ‘If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark.’ Our ability to reason about truth and meaning presupposes that we are more than mere matter—we are made in the image of a rational God.

The Myth of Neutrality

One of presuppositionalism’s key insights is that there is no neutral ground on which to stand when evaluating truth claims. Every person approaches evidence through the lens of their worldview commitments. The question is never whether we have presuppositions, but whether our presuppositions are true and can account for what we observe.

Proverbs 1:7 declares, ‘The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.‘ This means that right knowledge begins with acknowledging God as Lord—submitting to His authority and viewing all reality through the lens of His revelation. Those who reject this starting point do not thereby gain a neutral, unbiased perspective. Rather, they adopt an alternative starting point—autonomous human reason, materialistic naturalism, or some other foundation—that proves inadequate to support the weight of knowledge they try to build upon it.

In practical terms, this means we should not feel obligated to ‘prove’ Christianity using standards of evidence borrowed from anti-Christian worldviews. We can and should use evidence, reason, and argument in our witness. But we must always remember that the unbeliever’s claimed standards of proof themselves rest on unexamined assumptions that only make sense in a Christian framework.

 

Practical Application: Asking Excellent Questions in Conversational Witness

Understanding epistemology equips us for more effective conversational witness by enabling us to ask excellent questions that reveal the deep beliefs shaping how people interpret reality. Rather than immediately defending Christianity or attacking another’s views, we can gently expose the inadequacy of non-Christian epistemologies by helping people think through their own presuppositions.

Key Questions for Epistemological Conversations

1. How do you know what you know? This fundamental question invites people to examine their own epistemological foundations. Most people have never thought carefully about why they believe what they believe or what justifies their truth claims. This question opens the door to deeper dialogue.

2. What would it take to change your mind? This question reveals whether someone is genuinely open to truth or has already decided what they will and will not accept. If someone cannot articulate any conceivable evidence that would change their view, they have moved from rational inquiry to dogmatic commitment.

3. Why should we trust our reasoning abilities? For those committed to naturalistic evolution, this question exposes a profound problem. If our brains evolved solely for survival value rather than truth-tracking, why should we trust them to give us accurate information about reality? This challenges the atheist to justify rationality itself.

4. Where do you get your standard for what counts as good evidence? This question helps people see that everyone operates with prior commitments about what qualifies as legitimate evidence. The person who says ‘I only believe what science can prove’ is making a philosophical claim that science itself cannot prove.

5. Can you live consistently with your stated beliefs? This question moves from theory to practice. The person who claims all truth is relative still expects others to keep their promises and tell the truth. The materialist who denies free will still deliberates about choices and holds others morally responsible. These inconsistencies reveal that people know more than their worldview can account for.

Demonstrating the Gospel as Ultimate Truth

After helping someone recognize the inadequacy of their epistemological foundations, we have the privilege of presenting the Christian alternative. We can show how the gospel alone provides:

• A rational basis for rationality: Because we are made in the image of a rational God, we can trust our reasoning faculties to give us genuine knowledge of truth.
• A foundation for science: Because God created an orderly universe and governs it faithfully, we have reason to expect natural laws to operate consistently.
• A basis for objective morality: Because God is the ultimate standard of goodness, moral values and duties are not arbitrary human conventions but reflect the character of our Creator.
• Meaning and purpose for human existence: Because we are created by God for relationship with Him, our lives have cosmic significance rather than being merely accidents of evolution.
• Freedom from the bondage of sin: Jesus promised that knowing the truth would set us free (John 8:32). This liberation is not merely intellectual but comprehensive—freedom from guilt, shame, meaninglessness, and death itself.

Most importantly, we present Christ Himself as the one in whom ‘are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge‘ (Colossians 2:3). We are not offering Christianity as merely a better philosophical system, but inviting people into personal relationship with the living God who is Truth incarnate.

 

Epistemological Humility in Witness

While we confidently proclaim that Christianity provides the only adequate epistemological foundation, we must also practice genuine humility in our witness. This humility flows from several biblical truths:

First, we acknowledge that our grasp of truth remains partial and progressive. Paul writes, ‘For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known‘ (1 Corinthians 13:12). We possess authoritative revelation in Scripture and know Christ personally, yet our understanding remains finite and fallible. We distinguish between the objective certainty of God’s Word and our subjective interpretation of it.

Second, we recognize that we too are influenced by cultural blind spots and biases. Western Christians may emphasize different aspects of biblical truth than believers from other cultures, not because Scripture itself changes but because our cultural context shapes what we notice and emphasize. This calls for theological dialogue within the global church, learning how Christians in different contexts understand and apply God’s revelation.

Third, we maintain that our confidence rests not in our own reasoning abilities but in the faithfulness of God who reveals Himself. This prevents pride while maintaining conviction. We are not claiming to be intellectually superior to those who reject Christ; we are testifying to God’s grace in opening our eyes to truth we were blind to (Ephesians 2:1-5).

Fourth, we practice what missiologists call ‘epistemological humility’ without falling into relativism. We can acknowledge that we see through cultural lenses while maintaining that objective truth exists and can be known. We listen carefully to how others understand reality, seeking first to understand before being understood (James 1:19). We ask questions more than we make pronouncements. We genuinely respect the dignity and perspective of those we engage, even as we lovingly challenge their assumptions.

 

Contextualization Without Syncretism

Understanding epistemology helps us engage in biblical contextualization—translating the gospel into different cultural frameworks without compromising its truth. Every culture has built-in categories for understanding reality, approaches to knowing truth, and assumptions about the nature of knowledge. Effective witness requires understanding these epistemological frameworks.

For example, many Western cultures prioritize empirical evidence and logical argumentation. Witness in such contexts might emphasize historical evidence for the resurrection, fulfilled prophecy, and logical consistency. Asian cultures often emphasize experiential knowledge and community wisdom over individual rational analysis. Witness in these contexts might give greater weight to testimony, lived demonstration of faith, and communal validation. African cultures frequently maintain a strong sense of the spiritual realm’s reality. Witness here can affirm the reality of spiritual forces while showing Christ’s supremacy over them.

However, contextualization must never become syncretism—the blending of Christian truth with incompatible beliefs. While we adapt our communication methods and starting points, we cannot compromise the exclusive claims of Christ or accommodate worldviews that contradict Scripture. The gospel judges all cultures, including our own, even as it affirms truth wherever found.

This requires what missiologists call ‘critical contextualization’—a careful process of: (1) understanding the other person’s worldview and epistemology, (2) evaluating these assumptions against Scripture, (3) affirming what is true and good, (4) challenging what contradicts biblical truth, and (5) presenting Christ as the fulfillment of legitimate longings and the answer to ultimate questions.

 

Conclusion: Living as Ambassadors of Truth

The question ‘How do you know what is true?’ lies at the foundation of every worldview and shapes every spiritual conversation. As followers of Christ engaged in His mission, we are called to be ambassadors of Truth Himself—not merely defending propositions about God but inviting people into relationship with the living God who is the source of all truth.

This calling requires us to understand epistemology at both theoretical and practical levels. We must grasp the biblical teaching that God has revealed Himself through creation and conscience (general revelation) and supremely through Scripture and Christ (special revelation). We must recognize how humans suppress this truth through various epistemological systems—relativism, rationalism, subjectivism, skepticism—that ultimately prove inadequate to support the knowledge they claim.

Presuppositional apologetics equips us to expose these inadequate foundations by asking questions that reveal presuppositions and demonstrate that only the Christian worldview provides rational justification for logic, science, morality, and meaning. Yet we engage in this task with genuine humility, acknowledging our own limitations while confidently pointing to Christ as Truth incarnate.

Most importantly, we remember that our goal is not winning arguments but winning people. We seek to build authentic relationships characterized by respect, compassion, and genuine dialogue. We listen attentively, ask thoughtful questions, and present the gospel as the answer to humanity’s deepest longings and most profound questions.

In every conversation, we pray for the Holy Spirit to illuminate minds and transform hearts. We recognize that apart from God’s gracious work, no amount of argumentation will convert the unbeliever. Yet we also trust that God works through our faithful witness, using our words and lives to draw people to Himself.

May we, as participants in God’s redemptive mission, grow in our ability to engage epistemological questions with both conviction and compassion, always pointing to Jesus Christ, who is the way, the truth, and the life. In a world confused about truth, may we be faithful witnesses to the One who is Truth itself, inviting all people to know Him and be set free by His truth.

 

Sources

• Bahnsen, Greg L., and Gordon H. Clark. Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended. Edited by Joel McDurmon. Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Press, 2010.
• Bahnsen, Greg L., and Gordon Stein. “A Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence.” In Christian Apologetics: An Anthology of Primary Sources, edited by Khaldoun A. Sweis and Chad V. Meister. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012.
• Frame, John M. “Presuppositional Apologetics.” In Five Views on Apologetics, edited by Steven B. Cowan. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000.
• Frame, John M. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1987.
• Knudsen, Robert D. The Transcendental Perspective of Westminster’s Apologetic. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1986.
• Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. New York: HarperCollins, 2001.
• Lewis, C.S. Miracles: A Preliminary Study. New York: HarperCollins, 2001.
• Oliphint, K. Scott. Covenantal Apologetics: Principles and Practice in Defense of Our Faith. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013.
• Oliphint, K. Scott. “Answering Objections to Presuppositionalism.” The Gospel Coalition, April 28, 2019.
• Otto, Randall. “Renewing Our Mind: Reformed Epistemology and the Task of Apologetics.” Evangelical Quarterly 88, no. 2 (April 2016): 111-125.
• Plantinga, Alvin. Knowledge and Christian Belief. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015.
• Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith. 4th ed. Edited by K. Scott Oliphint. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2008.
• Van Til, Cornelius. Christian Apologetics. 2nd ed. Edited by William Edgar. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2003.