# Presuppostionalism "Eventually bogs down?"



## TomVols

One frequent critique I've heard about presuppositionalism is that it invariably leads to a debate about the Bible. That is, once you lay your cards on the table about Biblically-based presuppositions, the attack on the truthfulness of the Bible begins and bogs down there.

See this attack often? What would the Presuppositionalist say in response to this attack?


----------



## ZackF

TomVols said:


> One frequent critique I've heard about presuppositionalism is that it invariably leads to a debate about the Bible. That is, once you lay your cards on the table about Biblically-based presuppositions, the attack on the truthfulness of the Bible begins and bogs down there.
> 
> See this attack often? What would the Presuppositionalist say in response to this attack?


There is not always something to say. People reject to the truth and the nature of scripture. People can attack anything from natural law to the Bible. A conversation can end up bogging down anywhere. It’s a mistake to ever think there is a verbal elixir that will cause Christianity to be accepted. If someone rejects the word of God, he is bogged down indeed. That’s the issue. He doesn’t have eyes to see. We can rest in the confidence that His word doesn’t return void.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## TomVols

ZackF said:


> There is not always something to say. People reject to the truth and the nature of scripture. People can attack anything from natural law to the Bible. A conversation can end up bogging down anywhere. It’s a mistake to ever think there is a verbal elixir that will cause Christianity to be accepted. If someone rejects the word of God, he is bogged down indeed. That’s the issue. He doesn’t have eyes to see. We can rest in the confidence that His word doesn’t return void.



Let me clarify. I'm not necessarily talking about the arguments used with the one who doubts/questions the Bible's veracity. I'm talking about the critique of presuppositionalism. Is this a fair critique, and what would the presuppositionalist say to the evidentialist, for instance, who makes this critique?


----------



## RamistThomist

Strictly speaking, the Clarkian would say that it comes down to the axiom of Scripture. The Van Tillian will say it comes down to the covenantal God. 

I have problems with presuppositionalism, but I don't really use this argument against it.


----------



## TomVols

BayouHuguenot said:


> Strictly speaking, the Clarkian would say that it comes down to the axiom of Scripture. The Van Tillian will say it comes down to the covenantal God. .


Elaborate a bit, please


----------



## RamistThomist

TomVols said:


> Elaborate a bit, please



Clarkian: Unless you presuppose the Protestant Canon and the axioms derived from it, you can't know anything.

Van Tillian: Unless you presuppose the self-contained Triune God you can't account for unity and particularity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TomVols

BayouHuguenot said:


> Clarkian: Unless you presuppose the Protestant Canon and the axioms derived from it, you can't know anything.
> 
> Van Tillian: Unless you presuppose the self-contained Triune God you can't account for unity and particularity.



That's where I thought you were going, but just wanted to make sure.

Truth be told, couldn't the same "bogged down" argument be made against presupposing the existence of God? Truthfully, I see this as a strength of presuppositionalism. All of us come to the table with presuppositions. We are just honest about it or at least quicker to lay our cards on the table perhaps.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> Clarkian: Unless you presuppose the Protestant Canon and the axioms derived from it, you can't know anything.
> 
> Van Tillian: Unless you presuppose the self-contained Triune God you can't account for unity and particularity.


Or anything else


BayouHuguenot said:


> Clarkian: Unless you presuppose the Protestant Canon and the axioms derived from it, you can't know anything.
> 
> Van Tillian: Unless you presuppose the self-contained Triune God you can't account for unity and particularity.


----------



## jwright82

TomVols said:


> One frequent critique I've heard about presuppositionalism is that it invariably leads to a debate about the Bible. That is, once you lay your cards on the table about Biblically-based presuppositions, the attack on the truthfulness of the Bible begins and bogs down there.
> 
> See this attack often? What would the Presuppositionalist say in response to this attack?


I'm not sure I understand the question? How would it be bogged down? I guess some examples would do.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Keith Mathison has just published a lengthy essay entitled Christianity and Van Tillianism, which I am hoping to read in its entirety shortly.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## TomVols

jwright82 said:


> I'm not sure I understand the question? How would it be bogged down? I guess some examples would do.


Whether theodicy, God's existence, the resurrection, Christianity being the only true religion, the instance the Bible is appealed to or introduced into the argument, the critic immediately can fire away: "Whoa.....you're citing the Bible as proof of ________? You can't trust the Bible! It's (pick your argument against Scripture- myth, errant, human, one book among many, etc.) and now the discussion about Christianity being true turns into a debate about the veracity of Scripture.

So posits the critic. Does that help? Or do I need to go Peter Kreeft and have a dialogue


----------



## jwright82

Keep in mind pressupossitonalism is a method of apologetics firstly. When we say we need to presuppose Christian theism we mean the biblical doctrines. The only reason to quote scripture, methodologically, is if our doctrines are challenged (or for evangelistic purposes). 
We don't set aside our faith as if there's some neutral space we all can agree on.


----------



## jwright82

Also we must use the bible (doctrines) to correct misinformation about the bible.


----------



## TomVols

jwright82 said:


> Also we must use the bible (doctrines) to correct misinformation about the bible.


This is precisely where many cry foul. “Circular reasoning” at best or the trail goes down bibliology and stays there. So say the critics. I’m not agreeing mind you. I’m just discussing with fellow presuppositionalists.


----------



## jwithnell

It's not a chess match. What are your own presuppositions?

The Bible is truth and the Holy Spirit will illuminate it to bring about new life. Speak with confidence. Is the person truly inquiring about the veracity of scripture? Show its self-attestation, its consistency across time, space, and genre , and the respect that has been accorded it across many academic fields even among non-belivers.

If the person shows interest but doubts, ask him how he evaluates something to be true. Keep asking questions: no other philosophical system can be self-consistent. Know that and speak accordingly. (Another presupposition  )

If a person just wants to argue, why cast pearls before swine? You may not get the last word in, but maybe you've planted seeds.

This might be way watered down from Dr. Van Til and his mid-century approximaters, but it reflects time engaging folks across many settings from academic to the hiking trail.


----------



## jwright82

TomVols said:


> This is precisely where many cry foul. “Circular reasoning” at best or the trail goes down bibliology and stays there. So say the critics. I’m not agreeing mind you. I’m just discussing with fellow presuppositionalists.


Yeah well circular reasoning was a bad choice of words for Van Til. On this side of Postmodernism the sort worldview and pressupossinal analysis that he was referring to would not be viewed as circular reasoning. Perhaps it was his time in history that caused him to label it that way. Had he developed his views 50 years later he might have had better "lingo" to describe what he meant.
Frame does a good job of defending him here. As well Bahnsen describes "circulatory" as another name for consistency. I think Van Til referred to the kind of C.R. you're referring to as "viscous C.R."
Your second point, I don't think it is "bibliology" to use Van Til's method. And why would you get stuck there? I don't understand that? So "Mr. Kreeft" let's dialogue away! I think you mean to say is it's like Fundamentalists arguing that just throw their favorite verses at each other that "prove" their point while ignoring verses that are problematic for them, is that kind of what your talking about?


----------



## jwright82

jwithnell said:


> It's not a chess match. What are your own presuppositions?
> 
> The Bible is truth and the Holy Spirit will illuminate it to bring about new life. Speak with confidence. Is the person truly inquiring about the veracity of scripture? Show its self-attestation, its consistency across time, space, and genre , and the respect that has been accorded it across many academic fields even among non-belivers.
> 
> If the person shows interest but doubts, ask him how he evaluates something to be true. Keep asking questions: no other philosophical system can be self-consistent. Know that and speak accordingly. (Another presupposition  )
> 
> If a person just wants to argue, why cast pearls before swine? You may not get the last word in, but maybe you've planted seeds.
> 
> This might be way watered down from Dr. Van Til and his mid-century approximaters, but it reflects time engaging folks across many settings from academic to the hiking trail.


First I think Van Till would love your "watered down" version. Yeah good practical advice. I remember seeing that guy, Sye Bennington, I think, debate people in the most rude and unbecoming of Christians way. Why not remember these are human beings! 
I remember one of my great failures as an Apologist, if I can claim such a thing, was 20 years ago (wow I feel so old saying that). This girl was raped at some time and wanted to know "why would God let that happen to her?" I went into my explanation about God not being responsible for evil and yada yada. I felt great and proud intellectually, but looking back I shouldn't have done that. I should have hugged her and said "I'm sorry that happened to you." Sometimes, often, love is the best apologetics. I still remember the pain in her eyes today every time I converse with an unbeliever. I failed her but I learned my lesson. I can be hard at times but only when necessary. I think Van Til would approve.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Henry Hall

jwright82 said:


> Sometimes, often, love is the best apologetics. I still remember the pain in her eyes today every time I converse with an unbeliever. I failed her but I learned my lesson. I can be hard at times but only when necessary. I think Van Til would approve.



Sure, _suaviter en modo, _but if you're not also _fortiter en re,_ you're not doing Reformed apologetics according to CVT.


----------



## jwright82

Henry Hall said:


> Sure, _suaviter en modo, _but if you're not also _fortiter en re,_ you're not doing Reformed apologetics according to CVT.


Insulting people is not right. Plus I have no idea what those Latin? Phrases mean.


----------



## jwright82

Oh an uninsulting manner of what needs to be done?


----------



## jwright82

Is that Aramaic? I appreciate the lesson but don't see the relevance to this topic? I am probably ignorant so please forgive.


----------



## jwright82

Henry Hall said:


> Sure, _suaviter en modo, _but if you're not also _fortiter en re,_ you're not doing Reformed apologetics according to CVT.


Also why can't Reformed apologetics be done with love? Unless I misunderstand you.


----------



## RamistThomist

That's why I appreciate Dallas Willard's _Allure of Gentleness_. It doesn't really address the typical method arguments. It shows how you can do apologetics and be a kind person in the process.


----------



## Chad Hutson

jwright82 said:


> On this side of Postmodernism the sort worldview and pressupossinal analysis that he was referring to would not be viewed as circular reasoning. Perhaps it was his time in history that caused him to label it that way.


Presuppositionalism, as all apologetics, is a method for *us* to use to give a reasonable defense of the faith. It is not to convert people, only the gospel can do that. As an apologetic, it is to pinpoint one's source of self-delusion, their suppression of the truth. Once that is identified, then go on to dismantle it as an absurd position. 
As an example, postmodernist thoughts and beliefs are very easy to identify and expose as absurd. Ultimately, proving that they don't really believe what they are saying can be attained by exposing the reality that postmodernism taken to its logical conclusions leads one to nihilism. If their postmodernism is true, then what's the use? Why fight, protest, organize, seek justice, etc.? Why not jump from the nearest bridge, since nothing really matters? They seek these things because under the layers of delusion they are vested with a moral nature by a Creator God who is the very source of the things they desire. 
Again, presuppositionalism is a tool to use to get to the crux of the issue, it is not an end in itself. Once we get to the source, we then present the truth. No apologetic or work of evangelism is a silver bullet. It may (and mostly does) take time. We may never get to see the end result as the Spirit of God has the final say. Our role is to defend the faith and share the gospel.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's why I appreciate Dallas Willard's _Allure of Gentleness_. It doesn't really address the typical method arguments. It shows how you can do apologetics and be a kind person in the process.


Amen. I'm trying to correct pressupossitonialists image of guys like Sye and be gentle and caring.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF

jwright82 said:


> Amen. I'm trying to correct pressupossitonialists image of guys like Sye and be gentle and caring.


I'm guessing you're referring to Sye Ten Bruggencate. He's been accused of oversimplifying but a continuous jerk he is not. If you've listened to interviews and talks he's given in the past couple of years he regrets some his earlier emphases. I've heard him say he doesn't want presuppositionalists to replace 6 hours of evidences with 6 hours of epistemology.


----------



## Henry Hall

jwright82 said:


> Also why can't Reformed apologetics be done with love? Unless I misunderstand you.



I'm sorry...CVT often used the expression _suaviter en modo, fortiter en re_: gentle in manner, strong in word.

I don't know what any of this has to do with "presuppositionalism eventually breaks down," as it were. It really has nothing to do with apologetics, mods.

Is the argument, "presupp doesn't work because some presuppers have been jerks"?


----------



## Taylor

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Keith Mathison has just published a lengthy essay entitled Christianity and Van Tillianism, which I am hoping to read in its entirety shortly.



I hope to read it soon, too. But, I must say, with the history of titles such as "Christianity and Liberalism" (Machen) and "Christianity and Barthianism" (Van Til)—titles which themselves are meant to make a provocative statement—a title like "Christianity and Van Tillianism" frankly doesn't give me much hope for a charitable article.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82

Henry Hall said:


> I'm sorry...CVT often used the expression _suaviter en modo, fortiter en re_: gentle in manner, strong in word.
> 
> I don't know what any of this has to do with "presuppositionalism eventually breaks down," as it were. It really has nothing to do with apologetics, mods.
> 
> Is the argument, "presupp doesn't work because some presuppers have been jerks"?


So it breaks down because you think it amounts to "the bible says it therefore its true"?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Taylor Sexton said:


> I hope to read it soon, too. But, I must say, with the history of titles such as "Christianity and Liberalism" (Machen) and "Christianity and Barthianism" (Van Til)—titles which themselves are meant to make a provocative statement—a title like "Christianity and Van Tillianism" frankly doesn't give me much hope for a charitable article.



I have just finished reading the article. There is nothing uncharitable about it - at least not that I could see. The essay is a fair-minded critique, which no reasonable person should find offensive - even if they disagree with some of the author's conclusions. The title is probably meant to be click-bait.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Henry Hall

jwright82 said:


> So it breaks down because you think it amounts to "the bible says it therefore its true"?



I don't think it breaks down; I was just referring to the OP, and how the insinuation that presuppers are mean is irrelevant.


----------



## jwright82

Henry Hall said:


> I don't think it breaks down; I was just referring to the OP, and how the insinuation that presuppers are mean is irrelevant.


Oh. My apologies.


----------



## TomVols

jwithnell said:


> It's not a chess match. What are your own presuppositions?
> 
> The Bible is truth and the Holy Spirit will illuminate it to bring about new life. Speak with confidence. Is the person truly inquiring about the veracity of scripture? Show its self-attestation, its consistency across time, space, and genre , and the respect that has been accorded it across many academic fields even among non-belivers.
> 
> If the person shows interest but doubts, ask him how he evaluates something to be true. Keep asking questions: no other philosophical system can be self-consistent. Know that and speak accordingly. (Another presupposition  )
> 
> If a person just wants to argue, why cast pearls before swine? You may not get the last word in, but maybe you've planted seeds.
> 
> This might be way watered down from Dr. Van Til and his mid-century approximaters, but it reflects time engaging folks across many settings from academic to the hiking trail.


Well, it is and it isn't  Remember, I'm in a greater sense talking about this as a critique of the presuppositional. Does this happen in the "nitty gritty?" Sure.

And if a person just wants to argue, why? There's a reason they're arguing, and to assume they're just being a jerk should not be a default. Maybe there's a reason they're antithetical. Paul persuaded people, and so should we.


----------



## TomVols

jwright82 said:


> Yeah well circular reasoning was a bad choice of words for Van Til. On this side of Postmodernism the sort worldview and pressupossinal analysis that he was referring to would not be viewed as circular reasoning. Perhaps it was his time in history that caused him to label it that way. Had he developed his views 50 years later he might have had better "lingo" to describe what he meant.
> Frame does a good job of defending him here. As well Bahnsen describes "circulatory" as another name for consistency. I think Van Til referred to the kind of C.R. you're referring to as "viscous C.R."
> Your second point, I don't think it is "bibliology" to use Van Til's method. And why would you get stuck there? I don't understand that? So "Mr. Kreeft" let's dialogue away! I think you mean to say is it's like Fundamentalists arguing that just throw their favorite verses at each other that "prove" their point while ignoring verses that are problematic for them, is that kind of what your talking about?


Sort of.

As to the point about stuck defending the Bible, as I alluded before, if a person objects to the idea that there can be only one true (or any true) religion, the moment we invoke Biblical teaching, critics note that 99.9% of the time the other person is now going to shift from engagement over Christ's unique claims to our claims about the Bible and how it's erroneous and it's full of myths and so on.

I don't have Kreeft's book in front of me where he makes this statement (he's not the only one). I'm going to get crucified for this but Kreeft is an engaging writer and worth reading even for us presuppers.


----------



## TomVols

ZackF said:


> I'm guessing you're referring to Sye Ten Bruggencate. He's been accused of oversimplifying but a continuous jerk he is not. If you've listened to interviews and talks he's given in the past couple of years he regrets some his earlier emphases. I've heard him say he doesn't want presuppositionalists to replace 6 hours of evidences with 6 hours of epistemology.


That's a great point. One of the attractions of presupp is that you can get right to the heart of the matter. I borrowed that thought from Tim Keller (hiding so I don't get rocks thrown at me).


----------



## jwright82

TomVols said:


> That's a great point. One of the attractions of presupp is that you can get right to the heart of the matter. I borrowed that thought from Tim Keller (hiding so I don't get rocks thrown at me).


You won't. Sue is confrontational, at least he used to be.


----------



## jwright82

TomVols said:


> Sort of.
> 
> As to the point about stuck defending the Bible, as I alluded before, if a person objects to the idea that there can be only one true (or any true) religion, the moment we invoke Biblical teaching, critics note that 99.9% of the time the other person is now going to shift from engagement over Christ's unique claims to our claims about the Bible and how it's erroneous and it's full of myths and so on.
> 
> I don't have Kreeft's book in front of me where he makes this statement (he's not the only one). I'm going to get crucified for this but Kreeft is an engaging writer and worth reading even for us presuppers.


As far as them pointing out myths and so on, those arguments can be proven wrong. The bigger underlying point that you are alluding to is the implication that we're being biased not neutral (and they aren't either). You didn't say that but it's implied in your question. Well first they're not being neutral either. They have a worldview as well, with pressupossiton and all. They're arguments pressupose things about the bible, which are generally wrong. So on one level bringing the bible and theology in is to correct the context of their arguments.
An example. The argument from God's sovereignty destroying free will, and his being responsible for evil, rests on unbiblical assumptions and category mistakes. Since the God their proposing isn't the biblical God we are under no obligation to refute their argument.
I generally agree with them that that God, whoever it is, can't exist. Then I'll say "good thing that's not the biblical God I believe in." That move subtly brings in the issue of pressupossiton. I generally don't use the term pressupossiton because there's too much to unpack with that term, I use assumptions. 
Practically I try to gently move the conversation to the deeper issues involved and then I get a little more harder with the questions. Like why can they bring in their assumptions (religious, philosophical, scientific, etc.) But I can't? When they cry that they're not doing that I'll try to show them that they are.
The conversation can develop any number of directions from here. That's why I say Van Til gave us a method of doing apologetics first, not so much an argument. But the method can be applied to any situation. So in conclusion they're being just as circular, in the broad sense, as I am and if they can do it so can I. Is that better at answering your questions? 
As far as myths and scholarship questions about the bible, that area isn't my strongest suit (mine is philosophical and theological questions). I know enough to deal with the average persons arguments but I also have access to resources that I can go to to answer those (books and such).
Two practical points here: 1. Don't ever be afraid to say I don't know but I know where I can get the answer. This will not only almost always guaranty a second conversation (which is always good) but it shows your humble and take the issues seriously enough to find an answer. Being part of the PuritanBoard is a great resource to find answers. 2. Don't get in over your head. If a liberal professor of theology tries to argue with you and you don't have their level of credentials he/she does it may not go well. And then your faith might be shaken. Find someone with their credentials to match to converse with them and observe how they handle it. I hope this helps. 
One last story and I'll close. When I was much younger I witnessed a Christian girl outside of a book store debating 5 guys who were destroying her with questions she couldn't answer. Her response was always "I don't know, I just have faith". To which they laughed and she just coiled away in shame and embarrassment, she didn't start the conversation BTW. I said "maybe I can answer your questions". They snuggly took my challenge and within 5 minutes I had all 5 backed into 5 different corners they couldn't logically get of. I don't think any of them were converted but I kept looking at the girl and could tell that her faith was strengthened at observing the debate. She couldn't do it but at least she could see that someone could, that blessed me very much.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwithnell

TomVols said:


> And if a person just wants to argue, why? There's a reason they're arguing, and to assume they're just being a jerk should not be a default. Maybe there's a reason they're antithetical. Paul persuaded people, and so should we.


I'm calling for wisdom. And to answer the OP a bit more directly, presuppositionalism does not get weighed down in the nitty gritty. God's word is truth axiomatically. Answer honest questions and trust the Holy Spirit to illuminate the Word. Ask questions and draw out the incoherence of every worldly system. I suspect that was part of the reason Dr. Van Til taught the history of western philosophy to first-year seminary students -- so students could recognize the "wisdom" of man and deal straight-up with the weakness inherent in a thought-system that does not recognize God as the truth-giver He revealed Himself to be. The moment you slip into classical apologetics, and try to argue for the truth of God's word, you are accepting the possibility of, at most, universal negation, or at least, particular negation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

jwithnell said:


> The moment you slip into classical apologetics, and try to argue for the truth of God's word, you are accepting the possibility of, at most, universal negation, or at least, particular negation.



I don't know. "Classical" apologetics is a slippery time. I have no problem with the so-called "5 Ways," but I am not a Thomist like Sproul was. 

And if Van Til is right, most of Reformed prolegomena for the past four hundred years is wrong. Not saying that van Til isn't right. History doesn't make truth. On the other hand, that is a huge burden of proof.

As to arguing for the truth of God's word, ultimately you are going to appeal to outside sources, like how do we determine the contents of the canon of the NT. Scripture isn't really clear on what books should or shouldn't be in there.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwithnell

BayouHuguenot said:


> if Van Til is right, most of Reformed prolegomena for the past four hundred years is wrong.


I'll concede he didn't agree with too many folk. 

We should at least see his work as a check against the ascent of man's reason over the ~200 years prior to his work. So much of what comes after him seems more of leap of faith than solid reasoning. A strident, I'm-gonna-beat-you-with-my-intellect doesn't have any root in the man himself, though what people remember of him is fading rapidly. 

Though I should add, the history of theology is not my strong suit. I've taken what I've learned and filtered through a lifetime of trying to apply that knowledge.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't know. "Classical" apologetics is a slippery time. I have no problem with the so-called "5 Ways," but I am not a Thomist like Sproul was.
> 
> And if Van Til is right, most of Reformed prolegomena for the past four hundred years is wrong. Not saying that van Til isn't right. History doesn't make truth. On the other hand, that is a huge burden of proof.
> 
> As to arguing for the truth of God's word, ultimately you are going to appeal to outside sources, like how do we determine the contents of the canon of the NT. Scripture isn't really clear on what books should or shouldn't be in there.


There have been some essays written that show he was simply wrong about Reformed Scholasticism, and much closer to their thinking.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh

TomVols said:


> I'm talking about the critique of presuppositionalism. Is this a fair critique, and what would the presuppositionalist say to the evidentialist, for instance, who makes this critique?



I have a rather odd way of defending at least one aspect of presuppositionalism. My argument is that the Bible itself is presuppositional, and its declarations of what is and is not true are understandable to all men. Nowhere does the bible present God's existence evidentially, as if at least some people might not already know who ad what He is. God's existence is known by all men innately. All sound preaching is presuppositional in that it presupposes that its hearers, made in the image of God, can and do understand the implications of what is being said. Preaching states the truth, commands people to obey and believe the truth, and holds them eternally responsible if they reject that truth. (Romans 1) That's presuppositionalism at its highest level.


----------



## RamistThomist

Ed Walsh said:


> Nowhere does the bible present God's existence evidentially, as if at least some people might not already know who ad what He is.



Psalm 19. 


Ed Walsh said:


> God's existence is known by all men innately.



Not mutually exclusive


Ed Walsh said:


> All sound preaching is presuppositional in that it presupposes that its hearers, made in the image of God, can and do understand the implications of what is being said.



That's trading on a different meaning of "presuppositional." Every classical apologist affirms what you just said. Even foundationalists and common sense realists like Thomas Reid say that.


----------



## Ed Walsh

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's trading on a different meaning of "presuppositional." Every classical apologist affirms what you just said. Even foundationalists and common sense realists like Thomas Reid say that.



I guess you are right. I probably should get it out of my repertoire. I said it was odd and you corrected me.

Thanks,

Ed

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Henry Hall

jwright82 said:


> Oh. My apologies.



No problem, Brother.


----------



## RamistThomist

I think the OP is trying to ask something like, "Say there are apparent contradictions (e.g., one gospel says Jesus was going to Jericho. Another gospel says concerning the same incident he was coming from Jericho). Presupposing the Bible doesn't really address these contradictions. 

The presup will say, "Without presupposing the Bible is true, you can't even use the concept of contradiction." 

Perhaps, but that doesn't really address the question. This is a bigger problem for the Clarkian than it is for the Van tillian.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Though Van Til was often critical of the "scholastics" his prolegomena was actually was closer to their own. Jeff Jui makes this point in "Theologia Naturalis, A Reformed Tradition" in the book _Revelation and Reason_. 

But regarding the OP, I can see how the conversation could get bogged down into a debate on the veracity of Scripture. But my experience has usually been on the opposite side, getting bogged down in exploring the unbeliever's fragmented epistemology and trying to help them see the incoherence. Perhaps the presup critic in mind in the OP has seen presupps jumping too quickly to appeal to the authority of Scripture instead of thoroughly listening to the unbeliever to identify their specific idols and objections. I know I wrestled with that temptation in my early presup days, jumping to answer the initial stated objections, rather than listening for the real objections underneath. Just a thought...

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> I think the OP is trying to ask something like, "Say there are apparent contradictions (e.g., one gospel says Jesus was going to Jericho. Another gospel says concerning the same incident he was coming from Jericho). Presupposing the Bible doesn't really address these contradictions.
> 
> The presup will say, "Without presupposing the Bible is true, you can't even use the concept of contradiction."
> 
> Perhaps, but that doesn't really address the question. This is a bigger problem for the Clarkian than it is for the Van tillian.


True but that gets more into evidential arguments, which are fine. And as far as I can tell has nothing to do with Van Til's method. It simply doesn't address the same things. But nice clarification.


----------



## Henry Hall

jwright82 said:


> True but that gets more into evidential arguments, which are fine. And as far as I can tell has nothing to do with Van Til's method. It simply doesn't address the same things. But nice clarification.


Van Tilian presuppositionalism addresses every fact, no matter how small. In the case of BayouHuguenot's example, it is appropriate for the apologist to say, "You have complained about a 'contradiction.' *But please make your argument intelligible to me. *In your worldview, what is a 'contradiction'? In virtue of what is a contradiction a contradiction?


----------



## RamistThomist

Henry Hall said:


> ' *But please make your argument intelligible to me. *In your worldview, what is a 'contradiction'? In virtue of what is a contradiction a contradiction?



They can bite the bullet and respond, "Can you at least address the contradiction?"


----------



## jwright82

Henry Hall said:


> Van Tilian presuppositionalism addresses every fact, no matter how small. In the case of BayouHuguenot's example, it is appropriate for the apologist to say, "You have complained about a 'contradiction.' *But please make your argument intelligible to me. *In your worldview, what is a 'contradiction'? In virtue of what is a contradiction a contradiction?


True one could examine their assumptions like it is merely a human document so it contradicts itself. Or if it's divine than it should be perfect. Both are false assumptions but one would still have to examine the texts to show there really is no problem.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

BayouHuguenot said:


> They can bite the bullet and respond, "Can you at least address the contradiction?"



Honest question: Why should we proceed to honor their request as if their worldview can account for the law of non-contradiction, and an accompanying moral injunction never to violate it?


----------



## RamistThomist

Taylor Sexton said:


> Honest question: Why should we proceed to honor their request as if their worldview can account for the law of non-contradiction, and an accompanying moral injunction never to violate it?



Because we are trying to lead them to the truth. This might very well be an intellectual stumbling block for them and the Holy Spirit might be wanting us to remove it. 

True, they could just be arrogant and are playing the "Yeah, but whattabout" game, but I'll assume they are not for the moment.

I used to do apologetics by beating the intellectual mess out of someone. I then realized that was the polar opposite of 1 Peter 3:13-17.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

BayouHuguenot said:


> Because we are trying to lead them to the truth. [...] I used to do apologetics by beating the intellectual mess out of someone. I then realized that was the polar opposite of 1 Peter 3:13-17.



Does such a method _de facto_ constitute "beating the intellectual mess out of someone"? It would seem to me that this is more of a question of motive and goal rather than method. I have seen presuppositionalists (of which I am) who are only interested in beating someone up, and plenty of them who are interested in leading people to the truth. But it had to do more with the person than the method.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> I think the OP is trying to ask something like, "Say there are apparent contradictions (e.g., one gospel says Jesus was going to Jericho. Another gospel says concerning the same incident he was coming from Jericho). Presupposing the Bible doesn't really address these contradictions.
> 
> The presup will say, "Without presupposing the Bible is true, you can't even use the concept of contradiction."
> 
> Perhaps, but that doesn't really address the question. This is a bigger problem for the Clarkian than it is for the Van tillian.


But in presuposing the bible we presuppose the worldview of the bible, even about itself. First we analyze their assumptions about the bible and see if they hold water. No reputable Vantillian would stop there, then we would show them the biblical view of itself and show how based on that there is no contradictions. Like one event being told from different perspectives is no problem at all. It is to be expected. 
In showing the facts interpreted through a biblical worldview there is no problem. If they cry fowl then we simply show that they neutral like they claim and if they can do it so can we.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> Because we are trying to lead them to the truth. This might very well be an intellectual stumbling block for them and the Holy Spirit might be wanting us to remove it.
> 
> True, they could just be arrogant and are playing the "Yeah, but whattabout" game, but I'll assume they are not for the moment.
> 
> I used to do apologetics by beating the intellectual mess out of someone. I then realized that was the polar opposite of 1 Peter 3:13-17.


Yeah then play the game in love and humility.


----------



## RamistThomist

Taylor Sexton said:


> Does such a method _de facto_ constitute "beating the intellectual mess out of someone"? It would seem to me that this is more of a question of motive and goal rather than method. I have seen presuppositionalists (of which I am) who are only interested in beating someone up, and plenty of them who are interested in leading people to the truth. But it had to do more with the person than the method.



It doesn't have to be that way. Let's go another route:

The person might be asking a sincere question about the Bible, and shifting the discussion to the nature of contradiction and then saying 'your worldview cannot account for that' seems like dealing from the bottom of the deck.

What they will take home from the discussion is that the person didn't actually answer the question.


jwright82 said:


> But in presuposing the bible we presuppose the worldview of the bible, even about itself



But that involves the actual text of the Bible, so we really haven't escaped that.


----------



## Ed Walsh

BayouHuguenot said:


> "Say there are apparent contradictions (e.g., one gospel says Jesus was going to Jericho. Another gospel says concerning the same incident he was coming from Jericho). Presupposing the Bible doesn't really address these contradictions.



NOTE: This post has nothing to do with Presuppositionalism! 

I couldn't be farther from the subject, but I couldn't resist inserting R. Lenski's solution to this "apparent contradiction."
Here's the first part of his commentary on Luke 18:35-43

35) And it came to pass while he was drawing near to Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the side of the road begging. Now, when he heard a crowd passing through, he began inquiring what this was. And they reported to him that Jesus the Nazarene was passing by. And he shouted, saying, Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me! And those leading began rebuking him, that he be silent. He, however, kept yelling much more, Son of David, have mercy on me!

See 1:8 for ἐγένετο plus a finite verb and for ἐν τῷ with the infinitive. Jesus had crossed the Jordan and was following the usual route through Jericho, near the river, up to Jerusalem.

At first glance there seems to be a decided discrepancy between Luke and both Matthew and Mark. Luke has the miracle performed as Jesus draws near the city, Matthew and Mark as he leaves the city. Strange solutions are offered, even to postulating as many as three different healings. Yet the matter is simple, and all shadow of contradiction fades away when we have all the facts. Jesus passed through Jericho (19:1), and yet, although it was late in the day, no one in the whole town invited him to be his guest. On the other side of the town, out along the highway, Zacchaeus was waiting to see Jesus pass by. Jesus calls him down from the tree, invites himself to this publican’s house, retraces his steps into Jericho, and spends the night with Zacchaeus. It was on this return to the city that the blind men were healed. Luke separates the events because he wants to tell the story of Zacchaeus in one piece, without inserting into it the story of the blind men. So Matt. 21:18–22 tells the story of the blasted fig tree in one piece, whereas Mark 11:12–14; 20–23 relate the two events separately.

Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel (p. 931). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.
There's more, but this will do for now.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

BayouHuguenot said:


> What they will take home from the discussion is that the person didn't actually answer the question.



That may be the case. And, of course, wisdom is required. A presuppositional approach may not be necessary. Be that as it may, that they conclude that we didn’t answer the question isn’t necessarily our problem, is it? In fact, it’s a big problem for them, because they don’t even understand the death their worldview brings.


----------



## RamistThomist

Taylor Sexton said:


> Be that as it may, that they conclude that we didn’t answer the question isn’t necessarily our problem, is it?



It could be on several counts. The Holy Spirit might have wanted that stumbling block removed. It also may tell them that we simply can't answer the question.


Taylor Sexton said:


> In fact, it’s a big problem for them, because they don’t even understand the death their worldview brings.



They probably won't care. In all the evangelistic conversations I've had over the past decade and a half, I can count on one mutilated hand how many people would even understand that.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> It doesn't have to be that way. Let's go another route:
> 
> The person might be asking a sincere question about the Bible, and shifting the discussion to the nature of contradiction and then saying 'your worldview cannot account for that' seems like dealing from the bottom of the deck.
> 
> What they will take home from the discussion is that the person didn't actually answer the question.
> 
> 
> But that involves the actual text of the Bible, so we really haven't escaped that.


Escape what? If you're referring to circulatory I've already addressed that.


----------



## Henry Hall

BayouHuguenot said:


> The person might be asking a sincere question about the Bible, and shifting the discussion to the nature of contradiction and then saying 'your worldview cannot account for that' seems like dealing from the bottom of the deck.


It *will* seem like that to the unbeliever, because whether he is aware of it, he has ultimate commitments—different from those of the Christian—and thinks that everyone should be arguing assuming assuming his worldview. Too often Christians have been willing to answer the fool according to his folly. Proverbs 26:4,5.

How dare the Christian make the unbeliever back up what he has to say against the One True God!

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Henry Hall said:


> It *will* seem like that to the unbeliever, because whether he is aware of it, he has ultimate commitments—different from those of the Christian—and thinks that everyone should be arguing assuming assuming his worldview. Too often Christians have been willing to answer the fool according to his folly. Proverbs 26:4,5.



I know all the Van Tillian talking points. I am not denying that people bring ultimate commitments to the table. I am simply questioning the wisdom of doing a post-Kantian master's course seminar on the sidewalk in an evangelistic encounter.


Henry Hall said:


> How dare the Christian make the unbeliever back up what he has to say against the One True God!



Dialing it back about 40 notches, I would respond that no one is saying "get the unbeliever off the hook." Sometimes press them on inconsistencies in their worldview. Fair enough. But maybe some unbelievers simply want some answers. Assuming they aren't there to be jerks, I'm perfectly fine to remove stumbling blocks to the faith and maybe, just maybe the Holy Spirit will convert them.

I've had more fruitful evangelistic encounters by simply giving knowledge in a kind way that cornering them with the impossibility of the contrary.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Henry Hall

BayouHuguenot said:


> I've had more fruitful evangelistic encounters by simply giving knowledge in a kind way that cornering them with the impossibility of the contrary


This is not opposed to Van Tilian presuppositionalism.

Apologetics are not evangelism. Sometimes both occur in the same conversation. Other times, apologetics serve, as Calvin said, “to shut the mouths of the obstreperous.”

Van Til said that in some conversations, the only appropriate thing to do is to preach the Gospel “the same old way.”

*Of course* the presuppositionalist is ready to do that, and is hoping and praying for the conversion of his interlocutor.

To assume anything other than that about the presuppositionalist would not be “kind.”


----------



## RamistThomist

Henry Hall said:


> Apologetics are not evangelism.



I probably agree, but is it Van Tillian to separate the two? I remember Bahnsen and Van Til criticizing Schaeffer on this point. My Bahnsen reader is packed up, but I think I have the quote somewhere. I'll try to find it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

BayouHuguenot said:


> It also may tell them that we simply can't answer the question. [...] They probably won't care.



You are very right. I've experienced it many times. I just realize that I shouldn't necessarily question my apologetic—especially when I believe it is supremely biblical—simply because a God-hating reprobate mind continues to do what it does best. It doesn't mean I don't care for their souls. It just means that I won't be too concerned about my apologetic simply because the fool walks away thinking _I_ am the fool.


----------



## Taylor

BayouHuguenot said:


> ...is it Van Tillian to separate the two? I remember Bahnsen and Van Til criticizing Schaeffer on this point.



I could be wrong, but I believe you are correct here in your assessment of Van Til and Bahnsen.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Henry Hall

You may be thinking of p. 57ff of Bahsen's _Van Til's Apologetic_, a section entitled "Different Ways of Speaking: Theology, Philosophy, Apologetics, Witnessing" in which the distinct disciplines are compared.

Yet apologetics are "the vindication of the Christian philosophy of life over against the non-Christian philosophy of life," which is not evangelism.


----------



## jwright82

Taylor Sexton said:


> I could be wrong, but I believe you are correct here in your assessment of Van Til and Bahnsen.


They criticized Schaefer for regarding it as an "hypothesis" to be tested by evidence and reason. Whether that's fair I don't know.


----------



## Henry Hall

BayouHuguenot said:


> I probably agree, but is it Van Tillian to separate the two? I remember Bahnsen and Van Til criticizing Schaeffer on this point.


I don't remember that. I'm interested in what inconsistency Schaeffer was engaged, that they would criticize him. FAS certainly had his share.


----------



## Taylor

jwright82 said:


> They criticized Schaefer for regarding it as an "hypothesis" to be tested by evidence and reason. Whether that's fair I don't know.



Sorry, I mainly meant that I think Jacob was correct about the separation of apologetics and evangelism. But @Henry Hall may have corrected me above.


----------



## jwright82

Henry Hall said:


> It *will* seem like that to the unbeliever, because whether he is aware of it, he has ultimate commitments—different from those of the Christian—and thinks that everyone should be arguing assuming assuming his worldview. Too often Christians have been willing to answer the fool according to his folly. Proverbs 26:4,5.
> 
> How dare the Christian make the unbeliever back up what he has to say against the One True God!


True but I personally advocate a indirect method of challenging the unbeliever. And In my personal experience that works well.


----------



## Henry Hall

jwright82 said:


> They criticized Schaefer for regarding it as an "hypothesis" to be tested by evidence and reason. Whether that's fair I don't know.


Bahnsen criticized Schaeffer for saying in _Death in the City_ that he encourages people to look at non-Christian worldviews and the Christian worldview side-by-side, and on that basis see the superiority of Christianity and choose it.


----------



## jwright82

Taylor Sexton said:


> Sorry, I mainly meant that I think Jacob was correct about the separation of apologetics and evangelism. But @Henry Hall may have corrected me above.


No problem brother. Keep posting!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82

Henry Hall said:


> Bahnsen criticized Schaeffer for saying in _Death in the City_ that he encourages people to look at non-Christian worldviews and the Christian worldview side-by-side, and on that basis see the superiority of Christianity and choose it.


But i know that in the Bahnsen reader that was the main critique.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> I know all the Van Tillian talking points. I am not denying that people bring ultimate commitments to the table. I am simply questioning the wisdom of doing a post-Kantian master's course seminar on the sidewalk in an evangelistic encounter.
> 
> 
> Dialing it back about 40 notches, I would respond that no one is saying "get the unbeliever off the hook." Sometimes press them on inconsistencies in their worldview. Fair enough. But maybe some unbelievers simply want some answers. Assuming they aren't there to be jerks, I'm perfectly fine to remove stumbling blocks to the faith and maybe, just maybe the Holy Spirit will convert them.
> 
> I've had more fruitful evangelistic encounters by simply giving knowledge in a kind way that cornering them with the impossibility of the contrary.


I think all in all your second part of your response was spot on, dont see what that has to do with Van Til. As far as the post Kantian remark I'm not following you?


----------



## Henry Hall

Bahnsen also criticized Schaeffer for his telling the unbelieving scientist that he did well; he had "half the orange." Now he just needed to get Christianity into his project; then he would have the other half of the orange.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## jwright82

Henry Hall said:


> I don't remember that. I'm interested in what inconsistency Schaeffer was engaged, that they would criticize him. FAS certainly had his share.


Is Christianity merely an hypothesis or the truth?


----------



## jwright82

Henry Hall said:


> Bahnsen also criticized Schaeffer for his telling the unbelieving scientist that he did well; he had "half the orange." Now he just needed to get Christianity into his project; then he would have the other half of the orange.


Nice Van Till quote.


----------



## Henry Hall

jwright82 said:


> Is Christianity merely an hypothesis or the truth?


The truth. I'm sorry; I don't get the point of your question. Are you just amenning?


----------



## Henry Hall

jwright82 said:


> Nice Van Till quote.


Again, I don't understand. Are you saying that Schaeffer got the orange illustration from Van Til?


----------



## jwright82

Henry Hall said:


> Again, I don't understand. Are you saying that Schaeffer got the orange illustration from Van Til?


No I'm wrong I heard Dr. Oliphint say it. I'm sorry.


----------



## jwright82

Henry Hall said:


> The truth. I'm sorry; I don't get the point of your question. Are you just amenning?


I'm saying we know what the truth is. Why not go from there? Is it an hypothesis or the truth?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

jwright82 said:


> As far as the post Kantian remark I'm not following you?



Preconditions of intelligibility. The TAG.


----------



## RamistThomist

Henry Hall said:


> I'm interested in what inconsistency Schaeffer was engaged, that they would criticize him.



I wasn't talking about Schaeffer's inconsistencies, but that Bahnsen criticizing his separation of apologetics and evangelism.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> Preconditions of intelligibility. The TAG.


Does that make Van Til Post Kantian or did he borrow a method? If borrowing a method makes him Post Kantian than that's a very Vantillian critique of Van Til. I follow Frame in thinking that Van Til wasn't always his best at criticism. Although his worst still had some merit. I do think he nailed Karl Barth despite what some people think, probably his best.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> I wasn't talking about Schaeffer's inconsistencies, but that Bahnsen criticizing his separation of apologetics and evangelism.


Have you read Dr. Edgar's paper on the subject? Well worth the read. Again it seems to me that his critique of Schaeffer was the same as Carnell.


----------



## jwright82

Henry Hall said:


> The truth. I'm sorry; I don't get the point of your question. Are you just amenning?


Like Carnell, Schaefer thought Christianity was a hypothesis to be tested. Does that make more sense? If it is, in theory, merely a hypothesis than that gives the unbeliever the right (Practically or otherwise) to their autonomy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

jwright82 said:


> Does that make Van Til Post Kantian or did he borrow a method? If borrowing a method makes him Post Kantian than that's a very Vantillian critique of Van Til. I follow Frame in thinking that Van Til wasn't always his best at criticism. Although his worst still had some merit. I do think he nailed Karl Barth despite what some people think, probably his best.



I am not saying Van Til is Kantian because he talks like a post-Kantian. I am saying he used the discourse he inherited from post-Kantian idealism. That's not good or bad. It just is. the larger question is whether that discourse is the best way to do philosophy. I don't think it is.

My comment didn't have anything to do with Barth (who himself abandoned Kant after his discovery of the anhypostatic distinction). 

My point is that when you talk about preconditions of intelligibility, you are following the discussion Kant laid down.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> I am not saying Van Til is Kantian because he talks like a post-Kantian. I am saying he used the discourse he inherited from post-Kantian idealism. That's not good or bad. It just is. the larger question is whether that discourse is the best way to do philosophy. I don't think it is.
> 
> My comment didn't have anything to do with Barth (who himself abandoned Kant after his discovery of the anhypostatic distinction).
> 
> My point is that when you talk about preconditions of intelligibility, you are following the discussion Kant laid down.


Would you agree it was methodological in nature, his use of post Kantian philosophy? And I only brought up Barth as an example.


----------



## jwright82

If it's merely methodological than it just a method and it doesn't matter. Others have used different methodology to describe his thinking.


----------



## RamistThomist

jwright82 said:


> Would you agree it was methodological in nature, his use of post Kantian philosophy? And I only brought up Barth as an example.



I wouldn't know exactly what a Kantian method is. He uses Kantian concepts ('limiting term,' 'concrete universal,' 'preconditions of intelligibility). That's not a method. It doesn't mean he was a Kantian, to be fair. I don't think he was. But it did structure how he presented the existence of God. He *had* to talk in terms of precondition of intelligibility.

That's a problem for the guy on the street. He's not going to follow it. Contrast it with the Kalam argument. It's fairly simple to follow.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> I wouldn't know exactly what a Kantian method is. He uses Kantian concepts ('limiting term,' 'concrete universal,' 'preconditions of intelligibility). That's not a method. It doesn't mean he was a Kantian, to be fair. I don't think he was. But it did structure how he presented the existence of God. He *had* to talk in terms of precondition of intelligibility.
> 
> That's a problem for the guy on the street. He's not going to follow it. Contrast it with the Kalam argument. It's fairly simple to follow.


Sorry, yeah neither would I. I mean pretty much what said. I do think he utilized the structure of their arguments, which would in a sense be methodological.
Yeah some of his lingo is impossible to convey to someone on the street. That's why I've worked very hard to translate his method to people the street.


----------



## jwright82

It is possible to translate it though, I have.


----------



## Henry Hall

jwright82 said:


> Have you read Dr. Edgar's paper on the subject? Well worth the read. Again it seems to me that his critique of Schaeffer was the same as Carnell.


I have not. Thanks for the tip.


----------



## Taylor

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's fairly simple to follow.



It’s very easy to follow, I just don’t like where it leads.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Taylor Sexton said:


> It’s very easy to follow, I just don’t like where it leads.



I just take it as it stands. You can't traverse an actual infinite (George Cantor proved that). 

As to my other comment on "methodology," Roderick Chisholm wrote _The Problem of the Criterion_. He didn't address this question on TAG (since no one outside of Reformed circles is aware of it), but it bears on it. I might develop it later.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Taylor

BayouHuguenot said:


> As to my other comment on "methodology," Roderick Chisholm wrote _The Problem of the Criterion_. He didn't address this question on TAG (since no one outside of Reformed circles is aware of it), but it bears on it. I might develop it later.



I would be interested in that.


----------



## RamistThomist

Taylor Sexton said:


> I would be interested in that.



The problem of the criterion addresses what happens when we demand a particular method prior to knowledge, which turns into justifying the method, but then we would need a justification for the justification, ad infinitum
https://www.iep.utm.edu/criterio/

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> The problem of the criterion addresses what happens when we demand a particular method prior to knowledge, which turns into justifying the method, but then we would need a justification for the justification, ad infinitum
> https://www.iep.utm.edu/criterio/


It seems to me that the problem only arises when we treat the two questions as reffering to the same things. They refer to two different things. In Wittgensteinian language we're mixing language games and getting a confusion. A method is not the same thing as stating a true statement. Therefore they can't have a one to one relation.
Also the whole justifying a justifying statement seems off. Demanding a method prior to knowledge, which I haven't said (that I know of), is not what Vantillians are about it's a method for defending the faith. But another problem here is that a method is empty of content, other than how it works, it is only when you fill it with content that it spits something out.
This self referential quality is exactly how Van Til used the phrase "circular reasoning".


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> I just take it as it stands. You can't traverse an actual infinite (George Cantor proved that).
> 
> As to my other comment on "methodology," Roderick Chisholm wrote _The Problem of the Criterion_. He didn't address this question on TAG (since no one outside of Reformed circles is aware of it), but it bears on it. I might develop it later.


But they are aware of transcendental arguments.


----------



## RamistThomist

jwright82 said:


> Demanding a method prior to knowledge, which I haven't said (that I know of), is not what Vantillians are about it's a method for defending the faith



I am using "method" loosely, and any time Van Tillians are asking someone to account for how they know things, that is exactly what they are doing.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> I am using "method" loosely, and any time Van Tillians are asking someone to account for how they know things, that is exactly what they are doing.


Perhaps the problem could be solved by saying that asking for an account might be, ?, more of a meta epistemological question? Because that would make two different questions. If I ask whether something is right or wrong verses why it's right or wrong seem like two different questions.


----------



## TomVols

jwright82 said:


> I generally don't use the term pressupossiton because there's too much to unpack with that term, I use assumptions.
> Practically I try to gently move the conversation to the deeper issues involved and then I get a little more harder with the questions. Like why can they bring in their assumptions (religious, philosophical, scientific, etc.) But I can't? When they cry that they're not doing that I'll try to show them that they are.
> The conversation can develop any number of directions from here. That's why I say Van Til gave us a method of doing apologetics first, not so much an argument. But the method can be applied to any situation. So in conclusion they're being just as circular, in the broad sense, as I am and if they can do it so can I. Is that better at answering your questions?


I think there's good wisdom here. I don't know that it escapes the OP. But I have no problem asking people "So your problem is the Bible makes my God out to be a monster, an exclusivist, Correct? But your worldview is exclusivist, also. Have you ever considered how often science gets it wrong? Or how scientists are baffled by the mysterious or miraculous?"

Or for the person who is ok with any and all views: "So all thoughts about God are correct? Nothing is out of bounds? NOTHING?"

I've often wondered if Kreeft didn't accidentally give a shout out to Van Til here. A tiny one.


----------



## jwright82

TomVols said:


> I think there's good wisdom here. I don't know that it escapes the OP. But I have no problem asking people "So your problem is the Bible makes my God out to be a monster, an exclusivist, Correct? But your worldview is exclusivist, also. Have you ever considered how often science gets it wrong? Or how scientists are baffled by the mysterious or miraculous?"
> 
> Or for the person who is ok with any and all views: "So all thoughts about God are correct? Nothing is out of bounds? NOTHING?"
> 
> I've often wondered if Kreeft didn't accidentally give a shout out to Van Til here. A tiny one.


Great post. Yeah take them to scripture to show them their assumptions are wrong.


----------



## jwright82

TomVols said:


> I think there's good wisdom here. I don't know that it escapes the OP. But I have no problem asking people "So your problem is the Bible makes my God out to be a monster, an exclusivist, Correct? But your worldview is exclusivist, also. Have you ever considered how often science gets it wrong? Or how scientists are baffled by the mysterious or miraculous?"
> 
> Or for the person who is ok with any and all views: "So all thoughts about God are correct? Nothing is out of bounds? NOTHING?"
> 
> I've often wondered if Kreeft didn't accidentally give a shout out to Van Til here. A tiny one.


I think that I'm not understanding the OP then. I don't see how scripture "bogs" anything down? To have debate about the bible involves the bible, what it says etc. You can't do anything else. Maybe phrase the question more specifically so I can answer. Thanks, nice discussion though.


----------



## RamistThomist

jwright82 said:


> To have debate about the bible involves the bible, what it says etc. You can't do anything else.



I think what he is getting at is that would involve evidences (e.g., resolving bible contradictions, archealogy, etc) than worldview commitments.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> I think what he is getting at is that would involve evidences (e.g., resolving bible contradictions, archealogy, etc) than worldview commitments.


That makes more sense. But why should we presups not use evidences?


----------



## RamistThomist

jwright82 said:


> That makes more sense. But why should we presups not use evidences?



No one says you can't, but when you do that you will have to evaluate the evidences and not use arguments like, "Well, on my worldview it isn't a problem." I've heard Doug Wilson say that in debates.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> No one says you can't, but when you do that you will have to evaluate the evidences and not use arguments like, "Well, on my worldview it isn't a problem." I've heard Doug Wilson say that in debates.


Ok but a proper way to use worldview and evidences is to examine the context (worldview) that the evidences are being examined by. A naturalist might agree that Christ rose from the grave but that it was a freak accident and nothing more. There are no uniterpreted facts.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> No one says you can't, but when you do that you will have to evaluate the evidences and not use arguments like, "Well, on my worldview it isn't a problem." I've heard Doug Wilson say that in debates.


Perhaps Doug Wilson is not aquainted with the evidence. Plus I don't know the context of when he said it. I'm not his biggest fan.


----------



## RamistThomist

jwright82 said:


> Ok but a proper way to use worldview and evidences is to examine the context (worldview) that the evidences are being examined by. A naturalist might agree that Christ rose from the grave but that it was a freak accident and nothing more. There are no preinterpretid facts.



I am familiar with the Van Tillian talking points. That's not what the issue would be. Even evidentialists believe that evidences must be in context. We are talking about perceived contradictions et al, not on hypotheticals whether Christ could rise from the dead on naturalistic accounts.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> I am familiar with the Van Tillian talking points. That's not what the issue would be. Even evidentialists believe that evidences must be in context. We are talking about perceived contradictions et al, not on hypotheticals whether Christ could rise from the dead on naturalistic accounts.


Im not sure i understand what contradictions you're reffering to? I hope I'm not simply giving "talking points" but clarification. My hypothetical was an example to clarify what I'm saying. I post not only for the person I'm talking to but anyone's edification.


----------



## RamistThomist

jwright82 said:


> Im not sure i understand what contradictions you're reffering to? I hope I'm not simply giving "talking points" but clarification. My hypothetical was an example to clarify what I'm saying. I post not only for the person I'm talking to but anyone's edification.



Of course I don't believe there are actual contradictions. I'm simply guessing what unbelievers usually say


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> Of course I don't believe there are actual contradictions. I'm simply guessing what unbelievers usually say


I thought you meant contradictions in pressupossitonalism. Sorry.


----------



## RamistThomist

jwright82 said:


> I thought you meant contradictions in pressupossitonalism. Sorry.



I see. We were talking past each other. I disagree with presup but I can't think of any actual contradictions in it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> I see. We were talking past each other. I disagree with presup but I can't think of any actual contradictions in it.


Sounds good. As always a pleasure talking with you. I like talking with you, even if I think you're wrong I still have to think about it. And sometimes I'm wrong and you point that out for me, iron sharpening iron.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Henry Hall

BayouHuguenot said:


> I think what he is getting at is that would involve evidences (e.g., resolving bible contradictions, archealogy, etc) than worldview commitments.


For the unbeliever even to open his mouth with a mind to challenging the Christian with respect to resolving bible contradictions, archealogy, etc, he should be ready to warrant his use of language, and ultimately his use of induction. 
If he can't, as Wittgenstein would say, "Of what he cannot speak, keep silent."


----------



## RamistThomist

Henry Hall said:


> For the unbeliever even to open his mouth with a mind to challenging the Christian with respect to resolving bible contradictions, archealogy, etc, he should be ready to warrant his use of language, and ultimately his use of induction.
> If he can't, as Wittgenstein would say, "Of what he cannot speak, keep silent."



That's the kind of response I was talking about. Ironically, for presups to talk about the Bible a lot, this is an example of not going to it. Why not just answer the question about the Bible?


----------



## Taylor

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's the kind of response I was talking about. Ironically, for presups to talk about the Bible a lot, this is an example of not going to it. Why not just answer the question about the Bible?



I'm confused. Are you objecting to this because of the method or because of the tone?


----------



## RamistThomist

Taylor Sexton said:


> I'm confused. Are you objecting to this because of the method or because of the tone?



Method. I see a lot of evasion among some presups when it comes down to the factual issues. Sure, some will talk about "evidences," but usually it is more of a transcendental "Yeah, but you can't even account for knowledge."


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's the kind of response I was talking about. Ironically, for presups to talk about the Bible a lot, this is an example of not going to it. Why not just answer the question about the Bible?


Dr. Poythress has some wonderful books on this. I can only speak for myself here, usually I will go straight to the bible on verses they think are wrong and/or contradictory. The last time I spoke with my atheist brother, we spoke about how he claimed that Jesus sinned we went through each "evidence" he had and I showed him based on a biblical worldview the he was wrong. Than after dealing, not to his satisfaction, with them he basically accused me of sophistry and I was able to challenge his assumptions about the bible, and how they were unwarranted. For instance if it's the Word of God it should be a seamless stack of simple facts that should easily makes sense to him. Any complexity meant either the bible is wrong or the Christian is just trying to complicate interpretations to make it look better.. 
So to deny that Jesus sinned by some appeal to theological facts or deny that the bible teaches God's responsibility in evil is just trying to get around the plain teaching of scripture. 
Not only did he want his own assumptions to be the ones we used, not the biblical ones, in interpreting the bible but he also didn't want those assumptions challenged at all. 
That is a pressupossitional challenge. I think you've be reffering to presups that want to go straight to our differing assumptions and give the impression we either don't want to deal with the texts or can't. That unfortunately happens. I start with whatever thing they want to. If it's the text than I start with the text, knowing that always those assumptions are going to play a part in our discussion. 
My assumptions must defended just like theirs. Mine are biblical theirs are not. Two different standards in interpreting the evidences.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> Method. I see a lot of evasion among some presups when it comes down to the factual issues. Sure, some will talk about "evidences," but usually it is more of a transcendental "Yeah, but you can't even account for knowledge."


Dr Poythress, Machen, and myself don't do that. Also who are these people?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

BayouHuguenot said:


> Method. I see a lot of evasion among some presups when it comes down to the factual issues. Sure, some will talk about "evidences," but usually it is more of a transcendental "Yeah, but you can't even account for knowledge."



But isn’t not being able to account for knowledge a serious problem?


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> Method. I see a lot of evasion among some presups when it comes down to the factual issues. Sure, some will talk about "evidences," but usually it is more of a transcendental "Yeah, but you can't even account for knowledge."


Jacob I read a post a post you gave on a thread about Natoro's book on Van Til. It was spot on, I agreed with everything you wrote there. Is that kind of the essence of your critique, that we Vantillians are great in theory just not in practice when it comes to evidences? I couldn't agree more. 
Hopefully the examples I've given might reveal more of how it's done, albeit brief, and I do highly recommend Dr. Poythress' books on this subject for a more practical approach. 
As far as my examples go I have only so much space and can't into anything other than broad strokes.


----------



## RamistThomist

Taylor Sexton said:


> But isn’t not being able to account for knowledge a serious problem?



I haven't yet met an unbeliever who was bothered by that. And a clever unbeliever can reverse the problem and say that the desire to "account for knowledge" can easily turn into an infinite regress.


----------



## RamistThomist

jwright82 said:


> Dr Poythress, Machen, and myself don't do that. Also who are these people?



It's debatable to what extent Machen was a presup. I think Bahnsen overcooked the evidence (no pun) on that. And most of those who knew Machen (e.g., Allan Macrae) denied he was presup.

Poythress is a legend among humans, and a NT scholar, so he will go to the text.


----------



## Taylor

BayouHuguenot said:


> I haven't yet met an unbeliever who was bothered by that.



Unbelievers aren’t bothered my their sin, either. Should we avoid talking about that, too? I’m not trying to be snarky, brother; I’m just having a hard time seeing how your objection is valid. I’ve just never heard of altering our apologetic method based upon whether or not an unregenerate does not (or, as it is more often than not, _will_ not) understand what we are saying.



BayouHuguenot said:


> And a clever unbeliever can reverse the problem and say that the desire to "account for knowledge" can easily turn into an infinite regress.



How?


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> I haven't yet met an unbeliever who was bothered by that. And a clever unbeliever can reverse the problem and say that the desire to "account for knowledge" can easily turn into an infinite regress.


The question of accounting for knowledge is a meta epistemological question, not an epistemological per se. Hence no infinite regress, two different language (thought) "games". To account for knowledge involves only the why not the what.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's debatable to what extent Machen was a presup. I think Bahnsen overcooked the evidence (no pun) on that. And most of those who knew Machen (e.g., Allan Macrae) denied he was presup.
> 
> Poythress is a legend among humans, and a NT scholar, so he will go to the text.


But he is a Vantillian who uses evidences from a pressupossitional point of view. The Machen is unique. But he does seem to have a pressupossitional bent in his writings and why did he go through so much trouble get him to join the school?


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> I haven't yet met an unbeliever who was bothered by that. And a clever unbeliever can reverse the problem and say that the desire to "account for knowledge" can easily turn into an infinite regress.


I've met very few atheist's that really that worried about being formally logical, lay atheists that is. But they demand we are. I have a lot of guilty fun with those people.


----------



## jwright82

Taylor Sexton said:


> Unbelievers aren’t bothered my their sin, either. Should we avoid talking about that, too? I’m not trying to be snarky, brother; I’m just having a hard time seeing how your objection is valid. I’ve just never heard of altering our apologetic method based upon whether or not an unregenerate does not (or, as it is more often than not, _will_ not) understand what we are saying.
> 
> 
> 
> How?


From what I understand it's basically the question of justifiers. If I claim to need a justifier for apiece of knowledge than what about a justifier for the justifier and a justifier for that justifier and on and on infinitum.
That is a problem if knowledge or justifier is used in exactly the same sense. So a knowledge question is not exactly the same as an accounting of knowledge question, either specifically or generally. The problem only arises by a confusion of the two different kinds of questions. Or categories of questions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

jwright82 said:


> The question of accounting for knowledge is a meta epistemological question, not an epistemological per se. Hence no infinite regress,



Kurt Godel showed with his incompleteness theorem that meta-epistemological questions can quite easily become metametaepistemological questions, and so on.


----------



## RamistThomist

Taylor Sexton said:


> Unbelievers aren’t bothered my their sin, either. Should we avoid talking about that, too? I’m not trying to be snarky, brother;



Talk about it all you want. It's going to convince (to those few who can even understand it) zero people. 


Taylor Sexton said:


> I’ve just never heard of altering our apologetic method based upon whether or not an unregenerate does not (or, as it is more often than not, _will_ not) understand what we are saying.



I could have phrased it differently: the post-Kantian framework is wrong.


Taylor Sexton said:


> How?



In short, I am not obligated to _keep on giving justifications for my beliefs_ (which in turn will force me to give justifications for my justifications, and on to infinity). 

If I am to know how I know something, I must have both an object of knowledge (_p_) and a criterion to validate _p_ (we will call _q_.). I must also have something else: _r_, the fact that _p _satisfies _q_.

But this raises a problem. One can now ask “How do you know _q _and _r_?” What justifies my choosing this as a criterion? I must now satisfy the conditions with _q’ _and _r’_. But that isn’t good enough. How do I know _q’ _and _r’_? I must now satisfy those new conditions with _q”_ and _r”_.


----------



## Taylor

BayouHuguenot said:


> Talk about it all you want. It's going to convince (to those few who can even understand it) zero people.



This just isn’t a good objection, though. If we want to be technical, it’s the Spirit that convinces (WSC 31), not us or our arguments, or our methods. So, by this reasoning, _all_ apologetic efforts are pointless and should be avoided.

That’s why I’m just a little taken aback by someone’s objection to an apologetic method being, “Nobody will understand it.” It’s not a good objection, especially given the natural oppositional disposition of _all_ unbelievers to begin with.

The fact is, though, is that I’ve had plenty of conversations with people about this where thy understand perfectly. They get angry about it, sure, but that shows just how well they understand the death which their worldview only provides. In fact, I’ve had _more_ conversations along these presuppositional lines where my interlocutor understood than when they didn’t!



BayouHuguenot said:


> In short, I am not obligated to _keep on giving justifications for my beliefs_ (which in turn will force me to give justifications for my justifications, and on to infinity).



I agree with @jwright82 that this is a category error. The very nature of a presuppositions is that they cannot be justified the way all other things known are. Otherwise words have no meaning.


----------



## RamistThomist

Taylor Sexton said:


> This just isn’t a good objection, though. If we want to be technical, it’s the Spirit that convinces (WSC 31), not us or our arguments, or our methods. So, by this reasoning, _all_ apologetic efforts are pointless and should be avoided.



There has been a slight shift in terms. I don't see the transcendental argument as a Spirit-laden argument, so I don't believe the analogy applies. 


Taylor Sexton said:


> I agree with @jwright82 that this is a category error. The very nature of a presuppositions is that they cannot be justified the way all other things known are. Otherwise words have no meaning.



It is not a category error. If you are asking someone to justify their knowledge, this is precisely the format of the discussion. See Chisholm, _The Problem of the Criterion_. Also see Ronald Nash essay on same topic.

In any case, show that it is a category error. Show why p and q don't need r, and all their subsequent primes.


----------



## Taylor

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't see the transcendental argument as a Spirit-laden argument...



I’m not sure what this means.



BayouHuguenot said:


> It is not a category error. If you are asking someone to justify their knowledge, this is precisely the format of the discussion.



I don’t think I’m asking someone to justify their knowledge—i.e., _what_ they know. I’m asking them to show me _how_ they know what they know. When an unbeliever says they know something, I’m not necessarily disputing that they in fact know it (unless what they say they know is false, of course). What I am disputing is _how_ they know what they know _given the worldview they profess to embrace_, which, if consistently applied, would eradicate the possibility of knowledge. Those are different things. All this is is attempting to show the blessedness of the Christian worldview.

Please, brother, don’t confuse me with the caricature of a presuppositionalist you commonly put forth, the one who constantly retorts, “Well, how do you know that?” I’m not that guy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> Kurt Godel showed with his incompleteness theorem that meta-epistemological questions can quite easily become metametaepistemological questions, and so on.


All he showed was that any formal system rich enough to capture a system like math is either consistent or complete never both at the same time. His theorems referred to basic axioms. I don't think they were referring the infinitum problem you're referring to of meta_meta _meta problems. But even if your right it would only prove my point about the problem arising from category mistakes. They do apply to all formal systems, epistemological ones too (this a problem for classical Foundationalism).


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> Talk about it all you want. It's going to convince (to those few who can even understand it) zero people.
> 
> 
> I could have phrased it differently: the post-Kantian framework is wrong.
> 
> 
> In short, I am not obligated to _keep on giving justifications for my beliefs_ (which in turn will force me to give justifications for my justifications, and on to infinity).
> 
> If I am to know how I know something, I must have both an object of knowledge (_p_) and a criterion to validate _p_ (we will call _q_.). I must also have something else: _r_, the fact that _p _satisfies _q_.
> 
> But this raises a problem. One can now ask “How do you know _q _and _r_?” What justifies my choosing this as a criterion? I must now satisfy the conditions with _q’ _and _r’_. But that isn’t good enough. How do I know _q’ _and _r’_? I must now satisfy those new conditions with _q”_ and _r”_.



How can you know that knowing q and r is the same as a method for knowing q and r? Your language justifiers of justifiers only makes sense if justify means the same than you have a problem, if they mean different things problem solved. Also is there ever an end to the chain of reasons? Or are we doomed to either an infinite series of justifiers or the warrant system your advocating for?, no third option? 
I think points are well with evidences, an unfair burden of proof to which we are asked to keep giving evidences.


----------



## Henry Hall

BayouHuguenot said:


> Why not just answer the question about the Bible?


Who said not to answer the question?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Henry Hall

BayouHuguenot said:


> I haven't yet met an unbeliever who was bothered by that.


By the inability to account for knowledge? 
You haven't met the unbeliever's I've met.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> There has been a slight shift in terms. I don't see the transcendental argument as a Spirit-laden argument, so I don't believe the analogy applies.
> 
> 
> It is not a category error. If you are asking someone to justify their knowledge, this is precisely the format of the discussion. See Chisholm, _The Problem of the Criterion_. Also see Ronald Nash essay on same topic.
> 
> In any case, show that it is a category error. Show why p and q don't need r, and all their subsequent primes.


Not sure what that has to with a category error. If p is statement of knowledge, I know such and such, than q is a metaepistemological statement about how or why I know p, or account for p. The r I can only assume is the point that overlaps the two, hence a proper analogy. If p and q are two different categories of statements and r is meant to bridge the gap, than what is r?


----------



## RamistThomist

jwright82 said:


> The r I can only assume is the point that overlaps the two, hence a proper analogy.



R is not an analogy. It is not an overlap. It is the fact that P measures up to Q.


----------



## RamistThomist

Henry Hall said:


> Who said not to answer the question?



Nobody said that, but when these issues come up, I don't see presups really going to the nitty gritty texts of the Bible. I see master's level seminars on the preconditions of intelligibility.


----------



## RamistThomist

jwright82 said:


> How can you know that knowing q and r is the same as a method for knowing q and r? Your language justifiers of justifiers only makes sense if justify means the same than you have a problem, if they mean different things problem solved. Also is there ever an end to the chain of reasons? Or are we doomed to either an infinite series of justifiers or the warrant system your advocating for?, no third option?
> I think points are well with evidences, an unfair burden of proof to which we are asked to keep giving evidences.



It's what Chisholm and Moreland and Willard called "particularism." I don't have to worry about having to keep justifying my foundations or worried about the preconditions of intelligibility. It's what phenomenology ultimately got right: when I know a fact, I know the fact as it is presented to me (though this might take us too far afield on phenomology).


----------



## RamistThomist

Taylor Sexton said:


> I’m not sure what this means.



It means if I say that I don't think we should use Kantian-laden arguments with unbelievers who have no clue about this stuff means that I am similarly saying that we shouldn't tell them about sin.

Preaching the gospel is one thing. It's not on the same level on whether I ought to use "preconditions of intelligibility" arguments.


Taylor Sexton said:


> Please, brother, don’t confuse me with the caricature of a presuppositionalist you commonly put forth, the one who constantly retorts, “Well, how do you know that?” I’m not that guy.



Fair enough. Which major presup debater is the only one squaring off against unbelievers today, and what type of arguments does he use? I would love to be proven wrong. His name rhymes with Tuggencate.

The truth is presups never really had their successor to Bahnsen. Michael Butler failed to launch. Poythress and Frame do not do debates (Frame even dislikes the idea of debates--he was my apologetics prof, for what it's worth).

I hate to say it, but Doug Wilson is the closest thing to Bahnsen's successor.

Jeff Durbin doesn't really count, since most of his street evangelism is aimed at Mormons and abortionists (and God bless him for that).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's what Chisholm and Moreland and Willard called "particularism." I don't have to worry about having to keep justifying my foundations or worried about the preconditions of intelligibility. It's what phenomenology ultimately got right: when I know a fact, I know the fact as it is presented to me (though this might take us too far afield on phenomology).


I don't see what this has to do with metaepistemological questions verses epistemological questions. Are they same kinds of questions? Enough of a similarity to avoid a category mistake by treating them as the same thing? If that's not what your doing than clarify the difference, I don't want to misunderstand you. But you're avoiding, answering that question.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> Nobody said that, but when these issues come up, I don't see presups really going to the nitty gritty texts of the Bible. I see master's level seminars on the preconditions of intelligibility.


I think you are confusing internet "trolls" with guys like Poythress who has done the nitty gritty. There are others as well.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> It means if I say that I don't think we should use Kantian-laden arguments with unbelievers who have no clue about this stuff means that I am similarly saying that we shouldn't tell them about sin.
> 
> Preaching the gospel is one thing. It's not on the same level on whether I ought to use "preconditions of intelligibility" arguments.
> 
> 
> Fair enough. Which major presup debater is the only one squaring off against unbelievers today, and what type of arguments does he use? I would love to be proven wrong. His name rhymes with Tuggencate.
> 
> The truth is presups never really had their successor to Bahnsen. Michael Butler failed to launch. Poythress and Frame do not do debates (Frame even dislikes the idea of debates--he was my apologetics prof, for what it's worth).
> 
> I hate to say it, but Doug Wilson is the closest thing to Bahnsen's successor.
> 
> Jeff Durbin doesn't really count, since most of his street evangelism is aimed at Mormons and abortionists (and God bless him for that).


I've given you examples of how to do it on the street to people, so segregating one sect of presups off and take that as the gold standard isn't close to being right. Plus how does arguing with them have anything to do with Van Til's method in the general sense? If I as a Vantillian don't do that why do I care what they do? Also you said, or implied at least, presups don't go to the bible but Poythress has written several books on that topic. The collection of essays "Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics" the whole first section is nothing but exegesis. Kline, whatever you think of him, dedicated at least one book to him.


----------



## Taylor

BayouHuguenot said:


> Which major presup debater is the only one squaring off against unbelievers today, and what type of arguments does he use? I would love to be proven wrong. His name rhymes with Tuggencate.



I’m not Sye Ten.

Why is it that only “major” debaters count? Do not the conversations I’ve had count? Why can’t I be my own apologist? How is it fair that you get to brush over me and others here with Sye-Ten-colored paint?

You’re not being fair here.



BayouHuguenot said:


> Jeff Durbin doesn't really count, since most of his street evangelism is aimed at Mormons and abortionists (and God bless him for that).



Why doesn’t he count? He is debating unbelievers using strong presuppositional arguments, all done with love and respect. Is it because Durbin thus invalidates the typical caricature you so often present of presuppositionalists?

By what authority do you get to decide who does and who does not “count”?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Taylor Sexton said:


> Why is it that only “major” debaters count? Do not the conversations I’ve had count? Why can’t I be my own apologist?



Sure, it counts. But the reason that William Lane Craig represents classical apologetics and I do not is because he has visibility.


Taylor Sexton said:


> Is it because Durbin thus invalidates the typical caricature you so often present of presuppositionalists?



yes. 


Taylor Sexton said:


> By what authority do you get to decide who does and who does not “count”?



You have to presuppose my system before you can even make sense of that question.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist

jwright82 said:


> Kline, whatever you think of him, dedicated at least one book to him.



I like Kline. His _Images of the Spirit _is truly ground breaking work. But Kline never saw himself as an apologist.


----------



## RamistThomist

jwright82 said:


> I think you are confusing internet "trolls" with guys like Poythress who has done the nitty gritty. There are others as well.



Poythress isn't an apologist.


----------



## Taylor

BayouHuguenot said:


> yes.



Thank you for your honesty. This is not an intellectual objection; this is prejudice.


----------



## RamistThomist

Taylor Sexton said:


> Thank you for your honesty. This is not an intellectual objection; this is prejudice.



You didn't see the irony in the post, did you? I grant that there are presups who don't embody the "Yaah, howdoya know?" Approach. That's great. They also don't have the status or public visibility of Bahnsen. They aren't debating in major university forums. That's why I don't focus on them.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> Poythress isn't an apologist.


Some of what Kline and Poythress wrote is apologetics. "The Structure of Biblical Authority" by Kline is very apologetical in nature and dedicated to Van Til. The books on worldview and the bible by Poythress are also apologetical.


----------



## RamistThomist

jwright82 said:


> Some of what Kline and Poythress wrote is apologetics. "The Structure of Biblical Authority" by Kline is very apologetical in nature and dedicated to Van Til. The books on worldview and the bible by Poythress are also apologetical.



Sure, they have apologetic value. Neither man, though, considered himself an apologist.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> Sure, they have apologetic value. Neither man, though, considered himself an apologist.


That doesn't mean it isn't apologetic. Just because they don't claim to be apologists, and I'm not sure about that claim, doesn't mean they weren't doing apologetics. You seem, if I understand you correctly, to be restricting apologetics so that they can be ruled out as apologists. Am I right there?


----------



## RamistThomist

jwright82 said:


> That doesn't mean it isn't apologetic. Just because they don't claim to be apologists, and I'm not sure about that claim, doesn't mean they weren't doing apologetics. You seem, if I understand you correctly, to be restricting apologetics so that they can be ruled out as apologists. Am I right there?



They do apologetics, but they aren't apologists like Bahnsen. Neither one did formal debates on the existence of God, or even appeared on CNN discussing this with atheists.


----------



## Taylor

BayouHuguenot said:


> Neither one did formal debates on the existence of God, or even appeared on CNN discussing this with atheists.



Neither did Van Til, as far as I am aware.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> They do apologetics, but they aren't apologists like Bahnsen. Neither one did formal debates on the existence of God, or even appeared on CNN discussing this with atheists.


True but the point is you said there are no presups doing "nitty gritty" scriptual apologetics. Those are two major scholars that did.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> You didn't see the irony in the post, did you? I grant that there are presups who don't embody the "Yaah, howdoya know?" Approach. That's great. They also don't have the status or public visibility of Bahnsen. They aren't debating in major university forums. That's why I don't focus on them.


It seems to me that God utilizes thousands upon thousands of people to do apologetics from all traditions and only hundreds upon hundreds to do it in a popular setting.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82

Taylor Sexton said:


> But isn’t not being able to account for knowledge a serious problem?


Accounting for anything, not just knowledge.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> Sure, it counts. But the reason that William Lane Craig represents classical apologetics and I do not is because he has visibility.
> 
> 
> yes.
> 
> 
> You have to presuppose my system before you can even make sense of that question.


You can't possibly decide who does or doesn't count. That is up to the individual to decide whether they represent it or not. You also can't decide what a pressupossitional apologetics is by picking and choosing who counts, which seems to be the worst of us, and say "that's what pressupossitonalism is" (that's a straw man fallacy).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

jwright82 said:


> True but the point is you said there are no presups doing "nitty gritty" scriptual apologetics. Those are two major scholars that did.





jwright82 said:


> It seems to me that God utilizes thousands upon thousands of people to do apologetics from all traditions and only hundreds upon hundreds to do it in a popular setting.





jwright82 said:


> You can't possibly decide who does or doesn't count. That is up to the individual to decide whether they represent it or not. You also can't decide what a pressupossitional apologetics is by picking and choosing who counts, which seems to be the worst of us, and say say "that's what pressupossitonalism is" (that's a straw man fallacy).



To be honest, brother, I don’t know how far this conversation is capable of going. I have a strong feeling we are dealing with some special pleading and some Texas sharpshooting. The difficult thing about that is that it’s very difficult to dialogue with it, since everything that is said in response will never meet the arbitrary criteria of the interlocutor.

So far, the only two objections I’ve gotten are these:

1) “The unbeliever on the street doesn’t understand it.”

2) “Sye Ten Bruggencate”

I’m not sure how to move forward with this.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82

Taylor Sexton said:


> To be honest, brother, I don’t know how far this conversation is capable of going. I have a strong feeling we are dealing with some special pleading and some Texas sharpshooting. The difficult thing about that is that it’s very difficult to dialogue with it, since everything that is said in response will never meet the arbitrary criteria of the interlocutor.
> 
> So far, the only two objections I’ve gotten are these:
> 
> 1) “The unbeliever on the street doesn’t understand it.”
> 
> 2) “Sye Ten Burggencate”


I'm willing to conversate with anyone as long as they want to. You've given great posts BTW, very Insightful.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82

Taylor Sexton said:


> To be honest, brother, I don’t know how far this conversation is capable of going. I have a strong feeling we are dealing with some special pleading and some Texas sharpshooting. The difficult thing about that is that it’s very difficult to dialogue with it, since everything that is said in response will never meet the arbitrary criteria of the interlocutor.
> 
> So far, the only two objections I’ve gotten are these:
> 
> 1) “The unbeliever on the street doesn’t understand it.”
> 
> 2) “Sye Ten Bruggencate”
> 
> I’m not sure how to move forward with this.


What is Texas sharpshooting? I lived there for 4 years and I never heard that before. It's funny.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

By the way, I consider James White to be an example of someone who is a presuppositionalist who does nitty-gritty apologetics. I also think Ravi Zacharias's worldview structure of Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny is a form of presup. I've found Van Til to be helpful but I agree with some criticisms that have been leveled against really strict approaches that focus primarily on the issue of epistemology. 

I've tried to follow the philosophical debates over the years over whether or not common sense realism or idealist approaches are philosophically sound. Some blame the former for Princeton's slide into heterodoxy. 

I tend to see philosophy as a useful tool but the more fundamental issue is a respect for the Creator-creature distinction and a theological commitment to God's Word as God-breathed. People like the Socinians are more committed to the idea that they can philosophically pin God down before they are committed to God's Revelation to creatures. There's a whole crop of Christian intellectuals in the William Lane Craig mold who are more committed to arguments that are philosophically sound first according to the creature's standards and then subjecting the Scriptures to what is theologically fruitful to truth as measured by man.

I personally think that 2 Tim 2:24-25 is a solid foundation upon which any apologetic should proceed. The Christian no longer lives in bondage, soul and mind to idolatry. He never loses track of the fact that the person whom he is interacting with is enslaved just as he once was and should be patient in answering objections. He must never forget, however, that he's not converting people to a sound philosophical argument or to a worldview but from death to life. The person born in Adam is altogether like him as a man created in the image of God but is ethically hostile to God. He has the "machinery" of thought but it is weaponized in hostility to the Creator. We can and should defeat all arguments that deny God but in a spirit of humility and pity. It's a tall order.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Semper Fidelis said:


> I also think Ravi Zacharias's worldview structure of Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny is a form of presup.



Ravi endorsed Norman Geisler's apologetics. Ravi did admit, though, that he is more of an existential apologist.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BayouHuguenot said:


> Ravi endorsed Norman Geisler's apologetics. Ravi did admit, though, that he is more of an existential apologist.


Fair enough. Wherever he falls he is a warm person who engages hard questions and challenges people to think through their assumptions I don't always agree with the way some of his team is soft on certain assumptions they are committed to the idea that faith in Christ is more than an intellectual movement and aren't as speculative as WLC.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> Ravi endorsed Norman Geisler's apologetics. Ravi did admit, though, that he is more of an existential apologist.


Ravi is amazing his way of talking alone is amazing. I do like the existential side of things, thet tend to get more personal, like the examples I gave.


----------



## Henry Hall

BayouHuguenot said:


> master's level seminars on the preconditions of intelligibility.


Is that what you see coming out of Sye Ten Bruggencate?


----------



## Henry Hall

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's what Chisholm and Moreland and Willard called "particularism." I don't have to worry about having to keep justifying my foundations or worried about the preconditions of intelligibility. It's what phenomenology ultimately got right: when I know a fact, I know the fact as it is presented to me (though this might take us too far afield on phenomology).


But do you know that fact only inasmuch as you presuppose the Christian God, or do you know it denying that that fact was preinterpreted by God?


----------



## jwright82

Henry Hall said:


> Is that what you see coming out of Sye Ten Bruggencate?


Well for me, I hope some humility. I'm glad that he's changed. There's no reason to engage people like he used to.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Henry Hall

jwright82 said:


> Well for me, I hope some humility. I'm glad that he's changed. There's no reason to engage people like he used to.


I think part of what people didn't like about him was that he would destroy them in debates. When you do that, and may be you don't have the tact of Pastors Bahnsen and Durbin, then people--I'm sorry...like some women I've known--will start complaining about the WAY you're arguing.
*But my point was, here's a guy who applies presup at the in a popular, less academic, street-level way.*


----------



## RamistThomist

Henry Hall said:


> But do you know that fact only inasmuch as you presuppose the Christian God, or do you know it denying that that fact was preinterpreted by God?



I don't really worry abuot those questions, to be honest.


----------



## RamistThomist

Henry Hall said:


> I think part of what people didn't like about him was that he would destroy them in debates.



Isn't one of his lines, "I don't do bible studies with unbelievers?"


----------



## jwright82

Henry Hall said:


> I think part of what people didn't like about him was that he would destroy them in debates. When you do that, and may be you don't have the tact of Pastors Bahnsen and Durbin, then people--I'm sorry...like some women I've known--will start complaining about the WAY you're arguing.
> *But my point was, here's a guy who applies presup at the in a popular, less academic, street-level way.*


I'm a guy who does "less academic, street-level" pressupossitional apologetics with people and I've never treated them that way. The value of Van Till is you can let start wherever they want and go from there.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> Isn't one of his lines, "I don't do bible studies with unbelievers?"


That's just a sorry line for him say. Why?


----------



## TomVols

How much value is in the “In your Face” street style? Tim Keller said once he wasn’t a fan of doing CNN etc because it led to “sound-byte apologetics” and I have to agree. That said, I want public engagement in congenial ways. Again, Keller and others have addressed Google and Veritas. But Keller did say that presuppositional apologetics is the best method if you’re in that circumstance because it quickly addresses the root of the issue involved rather than lengthy proofs.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BayouHuguenot said:


> Isn't one of his lines, "I don't do bible studies with unbelievers?"


Yes. I've heard it on The Unbelievable Podcast. The host is a pretty welcoming guy to viewpoints that are even Christian heresies but Sye hasn't been asked back.

I think his point when unpacked, actually makes some sense but one needs to take the time in a dialog to demonstrate folly rather than simply stating it upfront. Even Jesus took the time to make his opponents see themselves in His Parables to demonstrate the folly of their thinking rather than just saying, upfront, that He wasn't going to waste His time talking to them.

Most of the hard-core atheists are just professional skeptics who want to be skeptical of everything and will abuse the Scriptures or even claim a morality for themselves that makes no sense. It takes some work to get them to see it and you can't just cut them down if your goal is hopeful for them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Henry Hall

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't really worry abuot those questions [such as whether one knows a fact presupposing the Christian God or denying His existence and preinterpretation of the fact], to be honest.


But that conditions everything about any knowledge there could be of a fact!
And would represent a pivotal moment in the apologetical encounter.


----------



## Henry Hall

BayouHuguenot said:


> Isn't one of his lines, "I don't do bible studies with unbelievers?"


He was just saying that it is premature to get into a discussion of Bible exegesis with those whose worldview is 180 degrees different.


----------



## RamistThomist

Henry Hall said:


> He was just saying that it is premature to get into a discussion of Bible exegesis with those whose worldview is 180 degrees different.



That's true to an extent but it can also be an excuse to not do the hard work.


----------



## RamistThomist

Henry Hall said:


> But that conditions everything about any knowledge there could be of a fact!
> And would represent a pivotal moment in the apologetical encounter.



That assumes that one should follow Kant instead of Reid.


----------



## Henry Hall

BayouHuguenot said:


> That assumes that one should follow Kant instead of Reid.


To believe that God has an interpretation/plan for any fact which is different than that of the one who suppresses the truth in unrighteousness, is not to follow Kant or Reid, but the Bible.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## jwright82

TomVols said:


> How much value is in the “In your Face” street style? Tim Keller said once he wasn’t a fan of doing CNN etc because it led to “sound-byte apologetics” and I have to agree. That said, I want public engagement in congenial ways. Again, Keller and others have addressed Google and Veritas. But Keller did say that presuppositional apologetics is the best method if you’re in that circumstance because it quickly addresses the root of the issue involved rather than lengthy proofs.


No value whatsoever. The thing I like Van Til for the most is you can start anywhere and do apologetics, not that other traditions don't have that only Van Til seems to be the best. Schaeffer certainly had an apologetical method that could start anywhere but not quite like Van Till. In fact a anecdote about Schaeffer is that he was on a riverboat in France talking to a guy on his honeymoon and the guy basically came to the view "you can't know anything is real or true". Now that's a crackerjack philosophy to say the least but Schaeffer responded with "you mean to tell me that when you below deck and embrace your wife in love there will be any doubt in your mind that she's real?" Now he could have gone any number of directions but he chose to go to the heart of the matter. Good choice.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> That assumes that one should follow Kant instead of Reid.


I'm confused do you mean follow as in the substance of their philosophy or merely their particular method of argumentation? When you don't qualify your statements it hard to see what you're saying. Those are two different things BTW.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's true to an extent but it can also be an excuse to not do the hard work.


I've already cited people that do the hard work.


----------



## RamistThomist

jwright82 said:


> I'm confused do you mean follow as in the substance of their philosophy or merely their particular method of argumentation? When you don't qualify your statements it hard to see what you're saying. Those are two different things BTW.



Substance of the philosophy.


----------



## RamistThomist

Henry Hall said:


> To believe that God has an interpretation/plan for any fact which is different than that of the one who suppresses the truth in unrighteousness, is not to follow Kant or Reid, but the Bible.



What am I really supposed to make of this? Thomas Reid's philosophy is how we understand concept- and belief-formation--how the mind relates to objects. To bring in Van Tillian rhetoric is like criticizing orange juice because it has a bad sound.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> Substance of the philosophy.


Oh so a guy who criticized Kant endlessly agrees with him in substance philosophically. Could you please qualify your statements, flesh them out a little so as to make sense. I mean I hate to say it but that statement is incorrect. What are you getting at? Explain and we can discuss it.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> What am I really supposed to make of this? Thomas Reid's philosophy is how we understand concept- and belief-formation--how the mind relates to objects. To bring in Van Tillian rhetoric is like criticizing orange juice because it has a bad sound.


For one that's harsh. For two someone who criticized Vantillians for being mean and behaves this way is like the pot calling the kettle black. You don't qualify your statements we have no idea what your talking about. He's right Van Til wanted a biblical basis for apologetics. Please qualify your statements so we're not going around in circles here. I really want to continue this conversation but your making it hard.


----------



## RamistThomist

jwright82 said:


> For one that's harsh. For two someone who criticized Vantillians for being mean and behaves this way is like the pot calling the kettle black. You don't qualify your statements we have no idea what your talking about. He's right Van Til wanted a biblical basis for apologetics. Please qualify your statements so we're not going around in circles here. I really want to continue this conversation but your making it hard.



I can literally say word for word to the other side. I don't have to qualify every statement. Reid is talking about concept-formation in the mind. The post-Kantian tradition is talking about the necessary structures that must exist to make intelligibility possible. They are talking about two different things. That's why I said when Van Tillians criticize Reid, it's like saying orange juice has a bad sound to it. It's two different things.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

jwright82 said:


> Could you please qualify your statements



No. I am not going to do that. Over the years here I have posted numerous posts and essays on Thomas Reid's philosophy. There isn't really a method to it (and that's true for most philosophers. There isn't a recipe or a formula on how to "do it.").
https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/tag/thomas-reid/


----------



## Henry Hall

BayouHuguenot said:


> What am I really supposed to make of this? Thomas Reid's philosophy is how we understand concept- and belief-formation--how the mind relates to objects. To bring in Van Tillian rhetoric is like criticizing orange juice because it has a bad sound.


You presented the conditioning of one’s knowledge of a fact by either accepting God’s preinterpretation of it on authority or suppressing the truth in unrighteousness as “following Kant” as opposed to following Reid (why not Plantinga?)
But God is the All-Conditioner. *His conditioning comes first.* God’s works of Providence are His most holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing all His creatures, and all their actions. (You’re probably going to call that “Westminsterian rhetoric “ or “talking points.”
How is that “following Kant”? Is God really in the noumenal realm?
Accepting God as the All-Conditioner is neither Kantian nor Reidian.


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> I can literally say word for word to the other side. I don't have to qualify every statement. Reid is talking about concept-formation in the mind. The post-Kantian tradition is talking about the necessary structures that must exist to make intelligibility possible. They are talking about two different things. That's why I said when Van Tillians criticize Reid, it's like saying orange juice has a bad sound to it. It's two different things.


For one qualifying your statements would make it edifying for those who don't understand the lingo. You maintain though that Van Til, who criticized Kant endlessly, has the same substance (not just method) as Kant please elaborate?


----------



## jwright82

BayouHuguenot said:


> No. I am not going to do that. Over the years here I have posted numerous posts and essays on Thomas Reid's philosophy. There isn't really a method to it (and that's true for most philosophers. There isn't a recipe or a formula on how to "do it.").
> https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/tag/thomas-reid/


Every philosopher has a method.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82

Henry Hall said:


> You presented the conditioning of one’s knowledge of a fact by either accepting God’s preinterpretation of it on authority or suppressing the truth in unrighteousness as “following Kant” as opposed to following Reid (why not Plantinga?)
> But God is the All-Conditioner. *His conditioning comes first.* God’s works of Providence are His most holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing all His creatures, and all their actions. (You’re probably going to call that “Westminsterian rhetoric “ or “talking points.”
> How is that “following Kant”? Is God really in the noumenal realm?
> Accepting God as the All-Conditioner is neither Kantian nor Reidian.


I agree.


----------

