“…Fundamentalists reject all higher criticism as the work of the devil. Conservatives are not opposed to higher criticism in principle, but they do believe that liberal higher critics have fallen into error because of certain presuppositions with which they work. In the first place, charges the conservative, the liberal higher critic presupposes that the Bible is just another ancient book and that it does not require a special method to be understood. Failing to take the Bible on its own terms as a special revelation, the higher critic naturally misinterprets it. In the second place, says the conservative, the liberal higher critic presupposes a world view which is, in fact, without proof. According to this worldview, no event can have occured if it is not explainable in terms of our contemporary understanding of the world and man.”

(William E. Horden, A Layman’s Guide to Protestant Theology, New York: The Macmillan Co. 1971, Rev. Ed., 63-64)

“Because the higher critic has presuppositions and a world view which are unproved and which are often held unconsciously, he searches for the naturalistic causes of the Bible. As a result the higher critic distorts the Bible.”

(William E. Horden, A Layman’s Guide to Protestant Theology, New York: The Macmillan Co. 1971, Rev. Ed., 64)

“…foundational presuppositions. These include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are one two-volume book, Luke-Acts.
2. These volumes thus have the same author, who is traditionally identified as the New Testament character Luke.
3. Both volumes are also of the same genre—namely, historical narrative.
4. Luke’s narrative is historically reliable.
5. Though the genre of Luke-Acts is historical narrative, Luke reports sacred history and therefore writes with didactic and theological purposes.
6. Luke is, therefore, both a unique and an independent theologian among New Testament writers.

The above presuppositions illustrate that I write from within the tradition of evangelical scholarship. I also write from within the tradition of Pentecostalism—that is, as one who has been baptized in the Holy Spirit with the attesting sign of speaking in other tongues. A believer who has spoken in tongues, been empowered by the Spirit, manifested the gifts of wisdom and knowledge, received visions, and so on, is not likely to interpret Luke’s reports about the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit as simply words—sentences and paragraphs on a page to be analyzed and pushed and pulled in any and every direction. The twenty-first-century pentecostal scholar knows in part by tangible experience that Luke has reported earlier tangible experiences of like kind.”

(Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke: Trajectories from the Old Testament to Luke-Acts, 2nd. ed.,Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012, ebook edition, Loc 103, 110, 119 of 3018)

“There is something still more fundamental on which agreement has to be reached before there can be profitable discussion, namely, the question of the existence of God. The Biblical narratives throughout presuppose the grand truth ‘that God is and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him,’ Heb. 11, 6.”

(W. Arndt. Bible Difficulties: An Examination of Passages of the Bible Alleged to be Irreconcilable with Its Inspiration, St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1932, 18)