# For presuppositionalists....Senses or Scripture first?



## Afterthought (Sep 2, 2011)

Okay, a (hopefully) quick question for those who like presuppositional apologetics of any stripe....

Perhaps it may be my own misunderstanding, but which is supposed to be our first presupposition and ultimate authority? Scripture? Or our senses/logic? I ask because it seems to me that presupposing (although it would really mean something closer to "assuming" here, I think) Scripture as our final authority presupposes the functioning of a number of other things such as senses, logic, and language. Or perhaps I'm missing the point and you all do acknowledge that all these things must be presupposed but our ultimate and final authority is Scripture alone (maybe I'm thinking of the presuppositional apologetics as akin to what Descartes did and that is not what is going on here?)?

Because I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of the different stripes of presuppositional apologetics, I'd appreciate it if in your answer you could give what perspective you are answering from (if you know what that perspective is).


----------



## MW (Sep 2, 2011)

Afterthought said:


> Perhaps it may be my own misunderstanding, but which is supposed to be our first presupposition and ultimate authority? Scripture? Or our senses/logic?


 
In reformed theology, the "principia theologiae" are distinguished into "cognoscendi," the cognitive foundation, and "essendi," the essential foundation. The former is external, the written word, and internal, faith. The latter is God, who is truth itself, and without Whom there would be no truth for man; indeed, there would be no man.

The only genuine presuppositionalism is that taught by Van Til, that we presuppose the self-attesting God of Scripture. What Van Til says with regards to paradox essentially disintegrates this foundation, but the foundation itself is the only true one. There have been sensualistic presuppositionalists, called positivists, who tend towards atheism. There have also been logical presuppositionalists, who like to speak of logic and axioms as if they were eternal, and thereby remove the God of Scripture from His rightful place as transcendent over creation. Reformed theology maintains God is transcendent and incomprehensible to man, and that man can know nothing about God unless He condescendingly reveals Himself. This revelation is always an act of God's will, and never an act of mere "nature."


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 2, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> In reformed theology, the "principia theologiae" are distinguished into "cognoscendi," the cognitive foundation, and "essendi," the essential foundation. The former is external, the written word, and internal, faith. The latter is God, who is truth itself, and without Whom there would be no truth for man; indeed, there would be no man.


That is fascinating and very informative. Thanks a bunch!

My question has been answered, but if anyone else wants to add anything, I'll be happy to hear it.

---------- Post added at 10:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 PM ----------




armourbearer said:


> This revelation is always an act of God's will, and never an act of mere "nature."


A bit off topic, but I just was thinking about this statement some more. I suppose then that general revelation is actually concerned with revealing things about God, even God Himself, rather than mere facts about the universe? So many people seem to use "general revelation" or "natural revelation" in the latter sense, namely as "the facts about the universe, especially those discoverable by science."


----------



## MW (Sep 2, 2011)

Afterthought said:


> A bit off topic, but I just was thinking about this statement some more. I suppose then that general revelation is actually concerned with revealing things about God, even God Himself, rather than mere facts about the universe? So many people seem to use "general revelation" or "natural revelation" in the latter sense, namely as "the facts about the universe, especially those discoverable by science."


 
Natural revelation is, technically, what can be known about God by "nature," i.e., the universe which He has made. It presupposes a creation and a Creator. The creation itself, once admitted as a witness to God and His attributes, becomes involved in the process of revelation; and so every "fact" which can be discovered by man is, by an extension of the idea, a part of natural revelation. It is just a matter of distinguishing what is being said.


----------



## JWY (Sep 3, 2011)

Though some may disagree, I recommend John M. Frame's 'A Theology of Lordship' Series; particularly, his book 'The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God.'


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 3, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Natural revelation is, technically, what can be known about God by "nature," i.e., the universe which He has made. It presupposes a creation and a Creator. The creation itself, once admitted as a witness to God and His attributes, becomes involved in the process of revelation; and so every "fact" which can be discovered by man is, by an extension of the idea, a part of natural revelation. It is just a matter of distinguishing what is being said.


Thanks again! I think I get it now. It's not the facts in and of themselves or even what the facts reveal about the universe in and of itself but rather what the "facts"--which may or may not (because science can be wrong) reveal something about the universe itself too--reveal about God.


----------



## jwright82 (Sep 7, 2011)

Keep in mind that presupposition is a slipperly term. It can, it seems to me, mean at least three things: 
1. An almost unconscience assumption we use without thinking about it in interpreting reality or going about our daily duties.
2. A conscience assumption used in interpreting things, like being on a jury and consciencsly assuming the defendent is innocent until proven guilty.
3. Or a logical presupposition which states what beleifs must also be true in order for your current beleif to be true. If I say that "murder is wrong" than the beleif that "there is such a thing as right or wrong" must also be true whether I have even thought about it or not. 

Often times people take the second meaning and think only of that as what a presupposition is and than criticize Van Til on those grounds or get confused about it all. I think he used at least all meanings whether or not he clearly expressed them or not. So it is Scripture that we develop our conscience presuppositions about ourselves, God, and the world. We unconsciencly use these presuppositions to interpret things in our daily lives. They also make up our logical presuppositions in our trascendental argument for apologetics. Does that make any sense?


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 9, 2011)

^Yup, that makes sense (though I'm sure you meant "conscious" not "conscience"). It's a shame Van Til didn't use a key word for his ideas the same way each time.


----------



## jwright82 (Sep 9, 2011)

Afterthought said:


> ^Yup, that makes sense (though I'm sure you meant "conscious" not "conscience"). It's a shame Van Til didn't use a key word for his ideas the same way each time.



Yeah I am working on my horrible typing and spelling, I don't believe that people should put up with it. I type slower than I think and I get ahead of myself. He used it in these ways implicitly but that is why followers of him like me must flesh these subtles out.


----------

