A few months ago a close relative of mine visited a church gathering. The person who “preached” that day is a well known evidentialist apologist. If I wrote the name of the person the majority of the readers would undoubtedly know this person.
So what happened? Well, according to my close relative, the Bible was never opened during the entire course of the “sermon”. I told her that I was not surprised.
One’s apologetic is generally indicative of and affects one’s view of Scripture. Evidentialism is grounded in philosophy. If we are to compare it to presuppositionalism, the chart might look something like this:
Philosophy -> Apologetics -> Theology
Theology -> Apologetics -> Philosophy
Many presuppositionalists describe theology, apologetics, and philosophy as being the same thing viewed from different perspectives or as theology with a greater emphasis placed here or there. Meanwhile the evidentialists build their worldview by starting with philosophy. This allows plenty of room for the secularization of their thoughts. Indeed, philosophy divorced from Scripture is encouraged. Once this secular base is present apologetic arguments follow suit and it is often the case that theology is afterward molded to fit the unbiblical scheme laid out “in defense of the faith”.
Please note that this is not to say that such consistency always exists in any school. There are obviously those with a high view of Scripture who are not presuppositionalists (R.C. Sproul) and those who adhere to presuppositionalism but still somehow manage to let Scripture drop out of the picture (do not let it be your name here). What has been presented are generalities. A lack of consistency is often to blame when it comes to an inability to categorize positions into such nice little packages.
May you be challenged to be consistent and to let what you claim to believe shape everything else rather than the other way around.