# Apologetical dilemma



## steven-nemes (Jan 3, 2009)

Used to be, I was a capital-P Presuppositionalist, but having read some books, listened to debates, considered objections here and there, I seem to find that I don't know what apologetical method to align myself with. In fact, I was recently thinking that if I took part in a debate on God's existence, I don't know how I would even start! I am currently reading a book called Conspiracies and the Cross which defends the four gospels against various criticisms, including Bart Ehrman's and The Da Vince Code, etc., but I know that this type of apologetic method might not be very popular amongst the presuppositionalists on this board (if I understand you all correctly). 

But to tell you the truth, it seems to me that I _should_ know why the gospels are considered authentic and reliable. If someone says to me "How do you know what the gospels say about Jesus are reliable?" I dare say I shouldn't reply with "If you negate the gospels and the Bible, you make all of existence unintelligible and absurd," firstly because that's not really a direct response and secondly because that is not an argument that any average Joe will be able to comprehend. An average Joe _would_ be able to understand that the gospels were written within the first century, during the time while the apostles were still alive and able to correct people if they were misinterpreting or misrepresenting any of them or their teachings, and were accepted as authoritative in the churches while being identified with the authors that we accept these days before the start of the second century.

On the other hand, it seems that the arguments that the presuppositional method is the Biblical method is persuasive, and I do want to do apologetics the biblical way. I don't want to abandon the Bible, but at the same time, I have my doubts whether or not any one method may actually be "the Biblical method". 

I am thinking that perhaps the proper apologetic method to use depends on the situation; it wouldn't make much sense to use a transcendental argument when my friend from school asks "How do you know there is a God?" A dumbed-down version of the cosmological argument might make more sense to him and seem more reasonable. And to the average atheist, it seems the Reformed Epistemology might work just fine when someone says "Where is the evidence for God? I don't believe things without evidence..."

I donno... Anyone else ever have the same dilemma?


----------



## PresbyDane (Jan 3, 2009)

This will be your shortest answer and only affirm what you yourself have already said, I think it is good for a person who wants to do apologetics to evaluate (in a hurry) what person one is talking to and then as you say adapt ones apologetic accordingly.

The Idea is to get the person to hear the (right thing) thing you want to communicate and not something else, and that not only may, but will force you to use more than One method, if you want them to hear you corretly.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 5, 2009)

There is no reason why Presups can't use evidences. Van Til made that point numerous times. He said something to the effect that "my colleagues do a better job on the evidences than do I," meaning he accepted the use of evidences. Now is there a worked-out presuppositional theory of evidences? Not really, but there could be.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Jan 5, 2009)

Van Til wrote of the big guns (artillery) and little guns (riflemen) of warfare. Presuppositional arguments are the big guns. Both are necessary.


----------



## cih1355 (Jan 5, 2009)

How do you know what the gospels say about Jesus are reliable?

The entire Bible, which would include the gospels, is reliable because the Bible originates from God and God cannot lie or make mistakes. God is always reliable and trustworthy. God used human authors to write down His word. What the human authors were writing did not originate from themselves. God did not allow the human authors to write down any false claims. 

One could ask, "How do you know that the Bible originates from God?".

In the book, _Faith Has Its Reasons_, there is a fictitious dialogue between a presuppositionalist, Cal, and two non-Christians, Sarah and Murali. 
Sarah asks Cal why should she accept the claim that the Bible is God's word. Below is the dialogue taken from that book. 

Sarah: But why should we accept your claim that the Bible is God’s word? Why can’t we
simply dismiss that as your opinion? Can’t you offer us some kind of proof?


Cal: I can, but it may not be the kind of proof you want. The proof that the Bible is God’s
word is that if you don’t accept what it says as the truth, you will not be able to give an account
of anything you think you know to be true. In fact, every reason you can possibly give against
belief in the Bible in one way or another really assumes the truth of what it says.

Sarah: Huh? That doesn’t make any sense. Can you explain that?

Cal: Let me try. Why don’t you tell me why you don’t believe in the God of the Bible.

Sarah: That’s easy; it’s just what we were talking about before. The God of the Bible is
supposed to have created everything, which means he created evil, or at least created the
creatures that became evil. He is supposed to be all-powerful, which would mean that he could
stop evil anytime he wants to. He is supposed to be all-loving, which would mean that he’d want
to stop evil right away, maybe even before it got started. But evil has been around for a long
time, and God hasn’t done anything to stop it. So it seems that either God doesn’t exist at all, or
that if he does exist he either isn’t all-powerful or he isn’t all-loving. Which is it?

Cal: Actually, in a kind of backwards way your argument proves that the God of the
Bible must exist.

Sarah: How can that be?

Cal: Well, the argument as you have stated it assumes that there is such a thing as evil.
But how do you determine what is evil and what is not? Calling things “evil” assumes that there
is a standard of good that transcends the world or the human race. That standard of good is God.
So your argument against God’s existence is self-contradictory, because you’re saying that there
cannot be a Being who is the standard of goodness because there are departures from that
standard of goodness in the world.

Sarah: Why do we have to believe in a God to recognize something as evil? Are you
saying that atheists or agnostics can’t tell right from wrong? That’s pretty insulting.

Cal: No, actually I’m saying the opposite. I’m saying that you are quite correct in seeing
evil in the world. But that evil wouldn’t be evil if there were no God. What we call evil would
just be stuff that happens that we don’t like, or at least that some of us don’t like. Atheists and agnostics can and do recognize much evil for what it is. They are right to regard ignorance, superstition, murder, child abuse, and the like as evils. Atheists are like people who can tell right away when a fine painting has been spoiled by vandalism, but who don’t believe that an artist
produced the painting. What I am saying is that if there is no God, then these things aren’t really
evils; they’re just things we don’t like.

Murali: You have raised some interesting points. But I see now that the snowstorm is
lifting and they are getting ready for us to board our plane.

Sarah: We still don’t have a good reason why God would want our flight to be delayed.

Cal: I don’t know that I agree. Perhaps one of the many good things God was doing was
setting things up so that we would have this discussion. Murali, do you have a copy of the Bible?

Murali: Actually, no, I don’t think I do.

Cal: If you give me your address, I’d be happy to send one to you at no cost or
obligation. After all, you can’t hear God speaking in Scripture if you never read it.

Murali: That is most kind of you. I would be happy to receive a Bible.

Sarah: I’ve already got one—two, actually.

Cal: I hope that you will read it again and consider what we’ve talked about. Thanks for letting me horn in on your discussion.


----------



## Confessor (Jan 5, 2009)

First off, there is a section of _Van Til's Apologetic_ that deals with "epistemological loafers," such as the mailman who doesn't seem to care that existence would be unintelligible without the Bible's truthfulness. There is a way to deliver TAG without sounding pretentious or...unintelligible. 

Second, here is the way to use presuppositionalism and evidences. It's actually very simple. Rather than taking a fact and saying, "Now, where does this fact lead us?", you take that fact and say, "Now, this fact makes sense given my presupposition or system [the entirety of Christian theism], but it does not given your presupposition or system." BTW, the reason the seemingly innocent method of "following the facts" is wrong is because it already presupposes an autonomous worldview. The latter method is the only logically consistent (and honest!) one.

That is, not only could you show the other guy that there is evidence for the historicity of the Gospels, you could also show him that the evidence itself wouldn't make sense in the first place if Christianity were not presupposed. You can tell him, "Look at this evidence that the Gospels really were written at this time by these people, etc.; in fact, this evidence can only exist if Christianity is true!"

That is, rather than going from the evidence ==> the Bible's veracity, you show how the evidence meshes very well with Christianity, and cannot possibly mesh with any other philosophical system. What you cannot do is say, "Well, look at this evidence: where does it logically lead us?" That is the traditional/evidential method, and it is neither logical nor biblical, as I said above.

-----Added 1/5/2009 at 04:48:53 EST-----

This is actually why some people have confused presuppositionalism as another shade of evidentialism, because they think it's just arguing from the existence of logic to the Bible's veracity, or from the existence of objective morals, etc., rather than stating and demonstrating that objective morals (or any other fact which any person is obliged to accept) make sense given the Christian's worldview but not given the non-Christian's.

This is the mistake John Frame makes about presup, if I am not mistaken


----------

