Cornelius van Til developed the Presuppositional Apologetic approach of engaging with non-biblical worldviews, that can be simplified in a twostep process. First, the apologist must assess the competing worldview honestly by using its own logic and principles. This will show that any worldview not based on Scripture will always be self-contradicting and logically incoherent. Second, the apologist must present the Biblical response to the different aspects of the worldview to show that one may find hope and a coherent understanding of the world. This process will be applied to the worldview of the SACP. To do this, its worldview will be divided into five aspects based on James Anderson’s TAKES method – namely, Theology, Anthropology, Knowledge (epistemology), Ethics, and Salvation. Following this method, various logical and ethical problems of the SACP’s worldview will be clear, as well as the Christian response to them. The following article aims to give a Reformed presuppositional critique of the South African Communist Party’s (SACP) worldview. The TAKES method of worldview analysis is used (Anderson, 2018), because it speaks to the most important aspects of a worldview, namely those of Theology, Anthropology, Knowledge (Epistemology), Ethics and Salvation. The twofold approach of the presuppositional method is used while considering these five aspects. In his introduction to a new edition of Van Til’s book, Christian Apologetics, William Edgar gives a helpful summary of the presuppositional method, breaking it down in two steps. The heart of Van Til’s apologetic approach is twofold. These are not meant to be sequential steps, but complementary moves. First, the apologist must get over onto the ground of the unbeliever for argument’s sake and show him that his claims cannot succeed. This does not mean conceding ground, but, rather, patient exploration, as though a particular form of unbelief were true, in order to show how impossible it is. With confidence, the apologist will know that there is no sufficient basis for meaning and value (or “predication†as Van Til liked to put it) in his friend’s view. Gently, but firmly, he will “remove the iron maskâ€, or “take the roof off†the house of unbelief, to show how dark it is without the Lord ... Second, the apologist should invite the unbeliever over onto Christian ground, for argument’s sake, and show him how meaning and value are established by the biblical worldview. This is the equivalent of saying, with the psalmist, “O taste and see how good the Lord is.†In so many ways, this means preaching the gospel (Van Til, 2003:7). Following this twofold approach, this article will first evaluate each of the five aspects of the SACP’s worldview to determine whether it is logically coherent and consistent. The internal contradictions within and between each of the five areas will be investigated. This can be done because “the natural man is never fully consistent†in his worldview, and the apologist should “seek to make men ever more epistemologically self-conscious†(Bahnsen, 1998:411, 416). Accordingly, the Christian apologist can and should show that any worldview not based on God’s revelation will never be consistent. By showing the contradictions inherent in a non-Christian worldview, the apologist seeks to prove how weak and incoherent these worldviews truly are – in this case, that of the SACP. In the second place, this article seeks to provide the biblical alternative to what the SACP believes and show how this is more logically consistent and more in line with human flourishing. The apologist’s job is not only to point out the untenability of other worldviews, it is also to offer hope. This article assumes that the only sure source of hope is found in a consistent Christian worldview. Cornelius van Til developed the Presuppositional Apologetic approach of engaging with non-biblical worldviews, that can be simplified in a twostep process. First, the apologist must assess the competing worldview honestly by using its own logic and principles. This will show that any worldview not based on Scripture will always be self-contradicting and logically incoherent. Second, the apologist must present the Biblical response to the different aspects of the worldview to show that one may find hope and a coherent understanding of the world. This process will be applied to the worldview of the SACP. To do this, its worldview will be divided into five aspects based on James Anderson’s TAKES method – namely, Theology, Anthropology, Knowledge (epistemology), Ethics, and Salvation. Following this method, various logical and ethical problems of the SACP’s worldview will be clear, as well as the Christian response to them. The following article aims to give a Reformed presuppositional critique of the South African Communist Party’s (SACP) worldview. The TAKES method of worldview analysis is used (Anderson, 2018), because it speaks to the most important aspects of a worldview, namely those of Theology, Anthropology, Knowledge (Epistemology), Ethics and Salvation. The twofold approach of the presuppositional method is used while considering these five aspects. In his introduction to a new edition of Van Til’s book, Christian Apologetics, William Edgar gives a helpful summary of the presuppositional method, breaking it down in two steps. The heart of Van Til’s apologetic approach is twofold. These are not meant to be sequential steps, but complementary moves. First, the apologist must get over onto the ground of the unbeliever for argument’s sake and show him that his claims cannot succeed. This does not mean conceding ground, but, rather, patient exploration, as though a particular form of unbelief were true, in order to show how impossible it is. With confidence, the apologist will know that there is no sufficient basis for meaning and value (or “predication” as Van Til liked to put it) in his friend’s view. Gently, but firmly, he will “remove the iron mask”, or “take the roof off” the house of unbelief, to show how dark it is without the Lord ... Second, the apologist should invite the unbeliever over onto Christian ground, for argument’s sake, and show him how meaning and value are established by the biblical worldview. This is the equivalent of saying, with the psalmist, “O taste and see how good the Lord is.” In so many ways, this means preaching the gospel (Van Til, 2003:7). Following this twofold approach, this article will first evaluate each of the five aspects of the SACP’s worldview to determine whether it is logically coherent and consistent. The internal contradictions within and between each of the five areas will be investigated. This can be done because “the natural man is never fully consistent” in his worldview, and the apologist should “seek to make men ever more epistemologically self-conscious” (Bahnsen, 1998:411, 416). Accordingly, the Christian apologist can and should show that any worldview not based on God’s revelation will never be consistent. By showing the contradictions inherent in a non-Christian worldview, the apologist seeks to prove how weak and incoherent these worldviews truly are – in this case, that of the SACP. In the second place, this article seeks to provide the biblical alternative to what the SACP believes and show how this is more logically consistent and more in line with human flourishing. The apologist’s job is not only to point out the untenability of other worldviews, it is also to offer hope. This article assumes that the only sure source of hope is found in a consistent Christian worldview. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]