# Why not both?



## PuritanCovenanter

I feel the presups just don't get it. I do know that evidence is important or Jesus wouldn't have said, " Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he." Joh 13:19 And this also, "And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe." Joh 14:29 

I wish there was some way to approach apologetics from both angles. I believe Presup and Evidentialism are both means to bringing ourselves in line with truth. 

Well, Paul and Jacob, you can lambast me now.
Not all things are either or. Some things are both and.

Have I revealed my ignorance enough yet?


----------



## RamistThomist

*I AM NOT MAD AT YOU!!!!!*

You ask a good question, and presuppostionalists haven't been all that consistent in answering it. What about evidence? At first glance presupps seem to get confounded by "evidentiary" false worldviews (think evolution). Presuppositionalists are starting to realize (and this isn't new with me) that we can use evidences, too!

I never doubt that God can use Josh McDowell to bring someone to the faith. In fact, i was a BIG J.W. Montgomery fan (and there is much good that Montgomery has to offer--JWM is one of the sharpest legal minds alive today, even if I disagree with him on a lot).

At the risk of annoying some on this board, this is where I found John Frame to be most helpful. We can presuppostionally use evidence in our arguments. Here is how I think it would work.

1) Presuppostionalists teach that there are no *brute* facts. All facts are interpreted (and we would say "pre-interpreted" by God). Facts only make sense within a worldview. For instance, if I said, "That is a shoe on your foot." That statement--which both of us understand--is only meaningful (or, more fully meaningful) if I know: a. what shoes are; what they do, what your leg is; whta it does, etc). 

Those are all basic propositions about a shoe which we take for granted. But at the same time, we are interpreting the above propositions within a framework. Brute facts are mute facts.

I will use some of Manata's blog on evolution as a test case:


> They present "facts" and then we say how should I treat this "neutral" fact? Remember, facts are interpreted within a context or, a philosophy of fact. With that in mind, let's look at evolutionISM.



If an evolutionist presents you with a "fact" how do you look at it? Do you take a neutral view or are you presupposing Christian Theism? You will do the following (and so will I and so will most on this board)--you (and me) have a deeper commitment to Christian Theism and all "facts" will be interpreted in that light. BTW, as the rest of Paul M's blog points out, the evolutionist is desperately interpreting all of his facts within a philosophical--not scientific--framework.

(my computer is about to crash. I am going to go ahead and post this incomplete post so I don't lose my information. I still have a few more observations to make).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I don't think evolution is a good place to debate this. The reason being is that it is still only a theory based upon assumption concerning how some material things may be interpreted in light of a philosophical view. In the light of other monotheistic religions that confirm a deity should we always assume they are truth also. I would think we should do as Jesus taught us. Look to the evidence to conclude which is truth. I do think that all men everywhere do know there is a creator. In that reguards pressup is true. But who is the creator is answered by evidence and revelation.

Epistomology can be a difficult thing. We do rely upon our senses. Eye sight and hearing are most vital to communication. Even for the deaf and blind who are taught by the hearing and seeing. But two plus two does equal four in all communication. There are substantial places to start with outside of scripture. Two of anything is always two of anything. We do have starting places besides God. They ultimately come from and point to our Creator but a circle doesn't always have the same starting point in relation to a certain position.

Am I making myself clear as mud yet?

[Edited on 9-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## RamistThomist

*ROARS WITH WRATH!!!!!!!!
I just lost a very important post!*


----------



## crhoades

From: COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF VAN TIL'S APOLOGETIC
Part 2 of 2 
by Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr.

http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/th/TH.h.Pratt.VanTil.2.html

*Misconception #7: "œVan Til rejected the use of rational arguments and empirical evidences to support the claims of Christ. He simply told unbelievers that they must believe." *
On the contrary, Van Til affirmed that apologists should use every available rational argument and empirical evidence to present a convincing case for Christian theism. Traditional theistic proofs, archaeological evidences, and the like are part of the arsenal for believers engaged with the world of unbelief. They are tools that the Spirit uses to bring men and women to saving faith. 

Van Til did not, however, emphasize the use of particular rational and empirical resources. He was more concerned with alerting his readers to the basic outlooks people use to evaluate such evidences. Van Til believed that every fact of the universe confirms the truth of Scripture. How could it be otherwise? Nonetheless, appealing to particular facts or arguments to defend the faith often proves vain because unbelievers have alternative explanations that rise out of their basic world views. 

For instance, the empty tomb does not prove that Jesus is the Son of God, unless we adopt a fuller Christian outlook on the world. Perhaps his body was stolen; maybe Jesus was a freak accident in a chance universe, the only mere man to come back to life. Likewise, the principle of cause and effect does not prove the existence of God, unless we operate with a host of other Christian ideas. Many leading physicists today simply respond that the universe is infinite and eternal; perhaps there is an infinite series of physical causes, or a multiplicity of gods and demons that formed the universe as we know it. 

Van Til affirmed that in reality most traditional arguments used in support of Christian theism are absolutely conclusive; they objectively demonstrate the truth of Christianity. But unless the Spirit is at work, unbelievers will dispute their decisiveness because they operate out of a false world and life view that keeps them from drawing the proper conclusions. When this occurs, Christian apologists must be ready to address the deeper issues that mislead unbelievers, especially their commitment to human autonomy. Van Til believed that these more basic commitments were neglected in other apologetic methods. So he stressed dealing with presuppositions over particular arguments and evidences. 

In a word, Van Til never disputed the value of rational arguments and empirical evidences. He simply called attention to how we should use them. On a practical level, Van Til followed the counsel of Proverbs 26:4,5: 

Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you will be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes. 
He proposed a two-step approach. First, believers should invite unbelievers to consider the evidence for Christian theism on its own terms, making certain that we do not follow the principles of unbelievers (Prov. 26:4). Does it cohere? Does it make sense of the world? If Christianity is true, does it not explain reality? Here apologists use every argument, great and small, to demonstrate the credibility of the claims of Christ. On the deepest (transcendental) level, we urge that the only sufficient basis (or presupposition) for human knowledge is Christian theism. 

Second, believers should help unbelievers examine their own outlooks on life, so that they will not be so wise in their own eyes (Prov. 26:5). Do they cohere? Do they make sense of the world? If their world view is true, then why doesn´t it explain reality? Here evidences and arguments are used to demonstrate the futility of trying to understand anything on the basis of human autonomy. With the false self-confidence of unbelievers shaken, the truth of the gospel stands out clearly. If the Spirit is at work, it will become plain that Christ alone is "œthe way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). 

*Support from Van Til´s writings: *

"œI would therefore engage in historical apologetics. (I do not personally do a great deal of this because my colleagues in the other departments of the Seminary in which I teach are doing it better than I could do it.) Every bit of historical investigation, whether it be in the directly Biblical field, archaeology, or in general history, is bound to confirm the truth of the claims of the Christian position. But I would not talk endlessly about facts and more facts without ever challenging the non-believer´s philosophy of fact. A really fruitful historical apologetic argues that ever fact is and must be such as proves the truth of the Christian theistic position" (DOF 258).

"œThe method of reasoning by presupposition may be said to be indirect rather than direct. The issue between believers and non-believers in Christian theism cannot be settled by a direct appeal to "œfacts" or "œlaws" whose nature and significance is already agreed upon by both parties to the debate. The question is rather as to what is the final reference-point required to make the "œfacts" and "œlaws" intelligible. The question is as to what the "œfacts" and "œlaws" really are. Are they what the non-Christian methodology assumes that they are?" (DOF 117).

"œThe Christian apologist must place himself upon the position of his opponent, assuming the correctness of his method merely for argument´s sake, in order to show him that on such a position the "œfacts" are not facts and the "œlaws" are not laws. He must also ask the non-Christian to place himself upon the Christian position for argument´s sake in order that he may be shown that only upon such a basis do "œfacts" and "œlaws" appear intelligible" (DOF 117-118).

"œAccordingly I do not reject "œthe theistic proofs" but merely insist on formulating them in such a way as not to compromise the doctrines of Scripture" (DOF 256).

"œThat is to say, if the theistic proof is constructed as it ought to be constructed, it is objectively valid, whatever the attitude of those to whom it comes may be" (CTK 292).

"œIn not challenging this basic presupposition with respect to himself as the final reference point in predication the natural man may accept the "œtheistic proofs" as fully valid. He may construct such proofs. He has constructed such proofs. But the god whose existence he proves to himself in this way is always a god who is something other than the self-contained ontological trinity of Scripture" (DOF 94).

"œThe truly Biblical view, on the other hand, applies atomic power and flame-throwers to the very presupposition of the natural man´s ideas with respect to himself. It does not fear to lose a point of contact by uprooting the weeds rather than by cutting them off at the very surface. It is assured of a point of contact in the fact that every man is made in the image of God and has impressed upon him the law of God. In that fact alone he may rest secure with respect to the point of contact problem. For that fact makes men always accessible to God. That fact assures us that every man, to be a man at all, must already be in contact with the truth. He is so much in contact with the truth that much of his energy is spent in the vain effort to hide this fact from himself. His efforts to hide this fact from himself are bound to be self-frustrative" (DOF 111-112).

"œThe Reformed apologist will point out again and again that the only method that will lead to the truth in any field is that method which recognizes the fact that man is a creature of God, that he must therefore seek to think God´s thoughts after him" (DOF 119).

"œIf one follows Calvin there are no such troubles. Then one begins with the fact that the world is what the Bible says it is. One then makes the claims of God upon men without apologies though always suaviter in modo. One knows that there is hidden underneath the surface display of every man a sense of deity. One therefore gives that sense of deity an opportunity to rise in rebellion against the oppression under which it suffers by the new man of the covenant breaker. One makes no deal with this new man. One shows that on his assumptions all things are meaningless. Science would be impossible; knowledge of anything in any field would be impossible. No fact could be distinguished from any other fact. No law could be said to be law with respect to facts. The whole manipulation of factual experience would be like the idling of a motor that is not in gear. Thus every fact--not some facts--every fact clearly and not probably proves the truth of Christian theism. If Christian theism is not true then nothing is true" (DOF 266-267).

"œIt is not as though the Reformed apologist should not interest himself in the nature of the non-Christian´s method. On the contrary he should make a critical analysis of it. He should, as it were, join his "œfriend" in the use of it. But he should do so self-consciously with the purpose of showing that its most consistent application not merely leads away from Christian theism but in leading away from Christian theism leads to destruction of reason and science as well" (DOF 119).

"œIntellectually sinners can readily follow the presentation of the evidence that is placed before them. If the difference between the Christian and the non-Christian position is only made plain to them, as alone it can be on a Reformed basis, the natural man can, for argument´s sake, place himself upon the position of the Christian. But though in this sense he then knows God more clearly than otherwise, though he already knew him by virtue of his sense of deity, yet it is only when by the grace of God the Holy Spirit removes the scales from men´s eyes that they know the truth existentially. Then they know him, whom to know is life eternal" (DOF 397).

"œThis is, in the last analysis, the question as to what are one´s ultimate presuppositions. When man became a sinner he made of himself instead of God the ultimate or final reference point. And it is precisely this presupposition, as it controls without exception all forms of non-Christian philosophy, that must be brought into question. If this presupposition is left unquestioned in any field all the facts and arguments presented to the unbeliever will be made over by him according to his pattern. The sinner has cemented colored glasses to his eyes which he cannot remove" (DOF 94).

"œOur argument as over against this would be that the existence of the God of Christian theism and the conception of his counsel as controlling all things in the universe is the only presupposition which can account for the uniformity of nature which the scientist needs. But the best and only possible proof for the existence of such a God is that his existence is required for the uniformity of nature and for the coherence of all things in the world. We cannot prove the existence of beams underneath a floor if by proof we mean that they must be ascertainable in the way that we can see the chairs and tables of the room. But the very idea of a floor as the support of tables and chairs requires the idea of beams that are underneath. But there would be no floor if no beams were underneath. Thus there is absolutely certain proof for the existence of God and the truth of Christian theism. Even non-Christians presuppose its truth while they verbally reject it. They need to presuppose the truth of Christian theism in order to account for their own accomplishments" (DOF 120).

"œChristian theism must be presented as that light in terms of which any proposition about any fact receives meaning. Without the presupposition of the truth of Christian theism no fact can be distinguished from any other fact" (A 73).

"œThe proofs may be formulated either on a Christian or on a non-Christian basis. They are formulated on a Christian basis if, with Calvin, they rest clearly upon the ideas of creation and providence. They then appeal to what the natural man, because he is a creature of God, actually does know to be true. They are bound to find immediate response of inward assent in the natural man. He cannot help but own to himself that God does exist.

"œWhen the proofs are thus formulated they have absolute probative force. They are not demonstrable in the sense that this word is often taken. As often taken, the idea of demonstration is that of exhaustive penetration by the mind of man; pure deduction of one conclusion after another from an original premise that is obvious. Such a notion of demonstration does not comport with the Christian system. That system is analogical. Man cannot penetrate through the relations of the Creator to the creature. But this does not in the least reduce the probative force of the proofs. Man is internally certain of God´s existence only because his sense of deity is correlative to the revelation of God about him. And all the revelation of God is clear" (DOF 196).

"œThe argument for the existence of God and for the truth of Christianity is objectively valid. We should not tone down the validity of this argument to the probability level. The argument may be poorly stated, and may never be adequately stated. But in itself the argument is absolutely sound. Christianity is the only reasonable position to hold. It is not merely as reasonable as other positions, or a bit more reasonable than other positions; it alone is the natural and reasonable position for man to take. By stating the argument as clearly as we can, we may be the agents of the Holy Spirit in pressing the claims of God upon men. If we drop to the level of the merely probable truthfulness of Christian theism, we, to that extent, lower the claims of God upon men" (CG 62).

"œHence Warfield was quite right in maintaining that Christianity is objectively defensible. And the natural man has the ability to understand intellectually, though not spiritually, the challenge presented to him. And no challenge is presented to him unless it is shown him that on his principle he would destroy all truth and meaning. Then, if the Holy Spirit enlightens him spiritually, he will be born again "œunto knowledge" and adopt with love the principle he was previously anxious to destroy" (DOF 364).

"œThe indicia of divinity in Scripture are therefore part of the same process and act of the self-attestation of God. All the facts of the universe attest God. They are all inter-related in their testimony. If there is a cumulative effect produced by the evidence for the existence of God and for the truth of Christianity it is cumulative because each fact says the same thing, proves the same point in a different manner" (DOF 395).

"œGod has continued to reveal himself in nature even after the entrance of sin. Men ought, therefore, to know him. Men ought to reason analogically from nature to nature´s God. Men ought, therefore, to use the cosmological argument analogically in order thus to conclude that God is the creator of this universe. Men ought to realize that nature could not exist as something independent. They ought to sense that if anything intelligible is to be said about nature, it must be in relation to the absolute system of truth, which is God. Hence, they ought at once to see nature as the creation of God. Men ought also to use the ontological argument analogically. Men ought to realize that the word "œbeing" cannot be intelligently applied to anything unless it be applied to God without limitation" (IST 102).

"œOrder, when viewed from the point of view of the passage of time, is purpose. Men should therefore also have used the teleological argument analogically. It is in connection with the rational and moral activity of the mind of man that the concept of purpose comes out most strikingly. So then man should see that all things in this universe, and, in particular, all things in the mind and moral activity of man, would be at loose ends if it were not for God and his purpose with respect them" (IST 105).

Abbreviations in this article:


CG = Common Grace
MA = Metaphysics of Apologetics
SCE = Survey of Christian Epistemology
CTE = Christian Theistic Evidences
CTK = Christian Theory of Knowledge
A = Apologetics
TRA = Toward a Reformed Apologetics
IST = Introduction to Systematic Theology
DOF = Defense of the Faith


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I don't think evolution is a good place to debate this. The reason being is that it is still only a theory based upon assumption concerning what some material things may be combined with a philosophy.



That's right. A case in point. You maintain that it is a philosophy that is cut and pasting facts. I agree with you 100%. I think all un-believing worldviews do that.


> Epistomology can be a difficult thing. We do rely upon our senses. Eye sight and hearing are most vital to communication. Even for the deaf and blind who are taught by the hearing and seeing. But two plus two does equal four in all communication. There are substantial places to start with outside of scripture. Two of anything is always two of anything. We do have starting places besides God. They ultimately come from and point to our Creator but a circle doesn't always have the same starting point in relation to a certain position.



In a chance worldview (and my lost post answered all of your questions, btw. I am ruefully kicking myself) 2+2 is meaningless. Sorry, I had a better answer that was lost and right now I am too depressed as a result of losing that post to think clearly.
Christian theism provides the "pre-conditions" of intelligibility. In other words, for two plus two to make sense, what must first be true?


----------



## crhoades

Do take time to read the quotes from Van Til's own writings...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I will read it Chris, I was just editing my above post and will add it here also.

In the light of other monotheistic religions that confirm a deity should we always assume they are truth also. I would think we should do as Jesus taught us. Look to the evidence to conclude which is truth. I do think that all men everywhere do know there is a creator. In that reguards pressup is true. But who is the creator is answered by evidence and revelation.
Two of anything is always two of anything. We do have starting places besides God. They ultimately come from and point to our Creator but a circle doesn't always have the same starting point in relation to a certain position.



[Edited on 9-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> *ROARS WITH WRATH!!!!!!!!
> I just lost a very important post! *


*

Done that before. 




*


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> *ROARS WITH WRATH!!!!!!!!
> I just lost a very important post! *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Done that before.
> 
> 
> 
> *
Click to expand...

*

Yea, my wrath burns hot at the moment.*


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> When man became a sinner he made of himself instead of God the ultimate or final reference point.



Chris, 

Here is my point made clear. Man is separate from God now. His reference point doesn't always start with a presupposition that God is watching him or even if He exists. Things alert mans intelligence toward truth and knowledge. If reference points were not made as evidence, man would be lost forever. Mankind might as well be deaf, mute, and mentally incapable of learning such as a severally retarded person is. Man is ultimately corrupt and cannot ascend but he can discern certain things. He can't love or act correctly but he can discern in a corrupt way and acknowledge.
Reference points that are evident must be present. That is why I referenced Jesus in John 13:19 and John 14:29. He was giving evidence.

When I was born and raised I didn't know there was a God. I wasn't raised in a religious home. I am not even sure we had a Bible. My first lesson about God came from my Dad who attempted to calm my fears of death and separation from himself. My Great Grandpa had died and I didn't want to. I didn't want to grow up and leave my Dad and Mom. I didn't want them to leave me by dying. That was the beginning of my religious education. My Dad told me about a God who created us. He also told me if I was good I would get to go to heaven. It didn't comfort me at all. I still didn't want to see life through this supposition.

My point is that we as fallen humans don't start from the same point. We are all broken but we don't all start at the same place. Some start off with the supposition that God is. I didn't. I started off with death and ended up with Christ.


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Epistomology can be a difficult thing. We do rely upon our senses. Eye sight and hearing are most vital to communication. Even for the deaf and blind who are taught by the hearing and seeing. But two plus two does equal four in all communication. There are substantial places to start with outside of scripture. Two of anything is always two of anything. We do have starting places besides God. They ultimately come from and point to our Creator but a circle doesn't always have the same starting point in relation to a certain position.
> [Edited on 9-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]



As far as the concept of non-Christian mathematics here is an excerpt...
_______________________________

http://www.christianciv.com/ChristCivEssay_Pt2.htm#_ednref85

*Mathematics*

A Christian view of mathematics seems absurd to many people. It is often cited as the prime example of the folly of integrating academics with Christian theology. However, this view displays an ignorance of philosophical issues that have been debated for ages.
One of the earliest known philosophers was Parmenides. He was a strict rationalist and taught that, since the changing world perceived by the senses is contradictory (e.g., A becoming B), all plurality is an illusion. Everything is one. On the basis of such a philosophical commitment, 1+2 does not equal 3; it equals 1. Everything equals 1, a pure emptiness.
Another early philosopher was Heraclitus, whose famous saying was panta rei, all things flow. You can´t step into the same river twice. All unity is an illusion. On this view, there can be no mathematical laws, or any other laws. Language and mathematical symbolism would have no fixed meaning. Experience would have no regularity, so that apples might disappear or turn into something else while they were being counted. In short, such a view destroys the possibility of mathematics, as well as rationality in every area of life.
Naturalistic empiricism dominates the present age, and this worldview emphasizes particulars over universals. Mathematics cannot be built on such a worldview. A person can write "3" on a piece of paper so that it can sensed empirically. But if the "3" is erased, does the number "3" no longer exist? No, because the numeral "3" (the symbol) is not the same as the number "3." Yet by strict empiricism, there is no number to know if nothing sensible exists. The atheist takes the existence of such things as mathematics, logic and morality for granted, yet they are excluded on the assumptions of his worldview. Numbers, laws of logic, and moral laws do not grow on trees; they cannot be isolated in test tubes. They are not material objects.
There are many numbers and mathematical concepts that are further beyond our experience than threeness, such as complex numbers, abstract algebra, and thousand-sided objects. We can understand what a thousand-sided object is even though we have never had an experience of one. Most people have experienced three apples, but who has experienced 2,646,123 apples + 10,126,484 apples = n apples? We can solve the equation for n, not because we have experienced the result, but because we follow abstract laws of mathematics. 
Atheists often answer that we generalize from experience to the more complex mathematical concepts; however, generalization goes beyond what is strictly experienced (see my comments on Hume, above). In generalization general rules are applied to experience to produce a generalization involving the particulars of experience. This process is not possible in terms of a worldview that excludes universals from particulars from the outset.
Conventionalists try to solve the problem by saying that mathematics is simply how our society uses language. But this is an appeal to abstract universals that have no connection to the particulars of experience. Since universals are arbitrary on this view, two apples plus two apples might equal five apples in some other society. On the conventionalist view there is no reason to expect different societies to be able to communicate mathematical knowledge to one another so as to promote the development of global human civilization. Furthermore, advocates of this view want us to believe that mindless molecules produced finite minds that are then supposed to produce abstract concepts that can be known to apply throughout the universe. The conventionalist view turns out to be just another failed attempt to relate universals to particulars.
Beginning with unity or plurality in complete abstraction from the other cannot yield rationality, only the void and chaos. Only on the basis of the existence of a concrete universal God, in whom unity and plurality are eternally related, is mathematics possible.
Another implication of Christianity for mathematics is the ethical use of mathematics. Because ultimate reality is amoral in the non-Christian worldview, there is no basis for ethics every coming into existence. Thus in the non-Christian worldview there are no ethical restraints on the use of mathematics. There is nothing to say that cooking the books is wrong on such a view. Only because the ethical is ultimate in the Christian worldview is it possible to have ethical restraints in the use of mathematics. [85] 
[85] For more on the Christian philosophy of mathematics, see Poythress, "A Biblical View of Mathematics," pp. 158f.; and James Nickel, Mathematics: Is God Silent? (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 2001), p. 229-33.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Chris I wish you would answer me instead of cutting and pasting.



> One of the earliest known philosophers was Parmenides. He was a strict rationalist and taught that, since the changing world perceived by the senses is contradictory (e.g., A becoming B), all plurality is an illusion. Everything is one. On the basis of such a philosophical commitment, 1+2 does not equal 3; it equals 1. Everything equals 1, a pure emptiness



I don't concern myself with dilusional people or people who just want to argue for arguments sake. 
We are told to avoid such.
2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. 
This goes along the lines of, 
"(Pro 26:4-5) Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

To this kind of thinking I will just add something I heard years ago. 

At the end of a class a professor of philosophy asked the students if they had any questions. A student stood up and thinking he was intelligent asked, "How do I know if I am even here?" The prof just answered back, "To whom may I address an answer to the question."

Everyone knows if you have two sticks and obtain two more you have four sticks. 

Maybe I am simplistic.


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Chris I wish you would answer me instead of cutting and pasting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the earliest known philosophers was Parmenides. He was a strict rationalist and taught that, since the changing world perceived by the senses is contradictory (e.g., A becoming B), all plurality is an illusion. Everything is one. On the basis of such a philosophical commitment, 1+2 does not equal 3; it equals 1. Everything equals 1, a pure emptiness
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't concern myself with dilusional people or people who just want to argue for arguments sake.
> We are told to avoid such.
> 2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
> This goes along the lines of,
> "(Pro 26:4-5) Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
> 
> To this kind of thinking I will just add something I heard years ago.
> 
> At the end of a class a professor of philosophy asked the students if they had any questions. A student stood up and thinking he was intelligent asked, "How do I know if I am even here?" The prof just answered back, "To whom may I address an answer to the question."
> 
> Everyone knows if you have two sticks and obtain two more you have four sticks.
> 
> Maybe I am simplistic.
Click to expand...


The question is, will their worldview account for it? The fool says in there heart there is no God. If someone wants to deny God and embrace materialism then they need to be shown that they can't even add 2+2 on their worldview. 2+2 only makes sense from a Christian worldview. That is a bold statement but it is true. This is right in line with answering/not answering a fool according to their folly.

The reason that everyone knows how to count sticks is because they are created in the image of God. They repress it but they are on borrowed capital.

As far as cutting and pasting is concerned...I'm at work and don't have time at the moment to interact with all points that are made as much as I would like to (deadlines... ). Also, if I were to discuss the concept of Christian mathematics and 2+2 stuff, why would you want to read my tripping over myself trying to explain things intelligently when someone else has already done a better job of it? Plus, sometimes when I copy and paste stuff in here it might not be just to address something that you or someone else has requested. Someone else might happen along this thread and see that and be edified by it. They might click on the link and be taken to a very valuable website that condenses down a lot of Van Tillian thoguht. I know a lot of people don't like to be footnoted to death...I'm not one of them. I am of the opinion that we will not sort through everything in this type of medium. I've been pointed to works like Jus Divinum etc. that will give me more time to read in-depth further than looking up a thread here.

I'll try to take more time and interact directly at lunch.

[Edited on 9-1-2005 by crhoades]


----------



## RamistThomist

Given the (usually) Chance universe of the sceptic, 2 + 2 doesn't always make sense. I mean, yes, it works today but how do we know that by some _chance_ it will be like that tomorrow? Of course, they don't worry about stuff like that, but that is an honest question that they have to face.

As for Parmenides, this isn't just drawing historical nuts out of the closet.



> One of the earliest known philosophers was Parmenides. He was a strict rationalist and taught that, since the changing world perceived by the senses is contradictory (e.g., A becoming B), all plurality is an illusion. Everything is one



All reality is One. Okay, let's assume his position for a moment. If all reality is one, can we make distinctions? No. Can we account and practically work out morality? No. If I slept with my (non-existent) wife, that would be okay. If I slept with my best friend's wife, that's cool too, because ALL is ONE {edit: there is no difference between my friend's wife and mine, nor between my friend and me, nor between, well, you get it}. (Think of many eastern worldviews at the moment--the ones flooding america). {The above was a reductio and was not mean to be taken seriously}

[Edited on 9--1-05 by Draught Horse]

[Edited on 9--1-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> The question is, will their worldview account for it? The fool says in there heart there is no God. If someone wants to deny God and embrace materialism then they need to be shown that they can't even add 2+2 on their worldview. 2+2 only makes sense from a Christian worldview. That is a bold statement but it is true.



This is just not true. 2+2=4 to the Muslim or Morman also. They could make the same claim as you are making based upon there presuppositions concerning the creator.



> This is right in line with answering/not answering a fool according to their folly.


I don't agree with you on this either based upon the fact that if a person has four items, they are in possession of four items.



> The reason that everyone knows how to count sticks is because they are created in the image of God. They repress it but they are on borrowed capital.



This is true.

Does your work allow you to do the forum while you are being paid for your time? I was questioned about witnessing to a customer once. I explained it was just conversation. My boss understood.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> The question is, will their worldview account for it? The fool says in there heart there is no God. If someone wants to deny God and embrace materialism then they need to be shown that they can't even add 2+2 on their worldview. 2+2 only makes sense from a Christian worldview. That is a bold statement but it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is just not true. 2+2=4 to the Muslim or Morman also. They could make the same claim as you are making based upon there presuppositions concerning the creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is right in line with answering/not answering a fool according to their folly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't agree with you on this either based upon the fact that if a person has four items, they are in possession of four items.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason that everyone knows how to count sticks is because they are created in the image of God. They repress it but they are on borrowed capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is true.
Click to expand...




> This is just not true. 2+2=4 to the Muslim or Morman also. They could make the same claim as you are making based upon there presuppositions concerning the creator.



We do not say that the unbeliever cannot count. We said that he cannot account for counting. Furthermore, the Muslim/Mormon god is finite and non-existent and suffers from absurdities. If I were with a Muslim Mormon I would have to answer those questions; that's fine. I believe by the grace of God I can do that. I would still insist, however, that he cannot account for counting.


----------



## crhoades

> This is just not true. 2+2=4 to the Muslim or Morman also. They could make the same claim as you are making based upon there presuppositions concerning the creator.



They could make the same claim but they would be refuted. They do not believe in a trinitarian God who alone allows for unity and diversity. {insert long philosophical copy and paste here} 



> Does your work allow you to do the forum while you are being paid for your time? I was questioned about witnessing to a customer once. I explained it was just conversation. My boss understood.


I come in early, work through lunch, stay late and travel with a ton of unpaid time on the road. If I pop in and out of the PB, I do not feel that I have stolen from them. If anything, I will have stolen time from my wife...Of course she has accused me of that before with the PB!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

No one has touched my St. John passages. Jesus gave them as evidence that pointed to him as being Messiah the Prince. If a person hardens himself against God that doesn't mean that the evidence is not there. I can claim to be a three headed monster with a tail. I can claim to be omniscient and live in fantasy. But the evidence and revelation will always point me ultimately toward Christ if it is truth. Self deception and this argumentation about 2 not being 2 is stupid. This is the foolish argumentation that we are warned against doing.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> They could make the same claim but they would be refuted. They do not believe in a trinitarian God who alone allows for unity and diversity.



AT this point that is why we need the evidence of whether the scriptures are God's word or not. The doctrine of the Trinity comes from written revelation. Either the Holy Bible is God's word or maybe the Koran is. Where is the evidence? 

I know where it is but I don't believe Christianity is as presupposed in us as you might claim.


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> No one has touched my St. John passages. Jesus gave them as evidence that pointed to him as being Messiah the Prince.


There is no need to touch your John passages. I'm all for it as was Van Til, Bahnsen etc. Read the Van Til quotes above. He was for facts and evidences. But at a certain point we have to push the unbeliever to say that he is arrogantly presuming upon our worldview to account for facts.


> If a person hardens himself against God that doesn't mean that the evidence is not there.


We're not saying that it isn't. We agree.



> I can claim to be a three headed monster with a tail. I can claim to be omniscient and live in fantasy.


 You have a tail?



> But the evidence and revelation will always point me ultimately toward Christ if it is truth.


You are a believer with the mind of Christ and are not trying to repress everything against God. The unbeliever will take every fact and seek to do that.



> Self deception and this argumentation about 2 not being 2 is stupid. This is the foolish argumentation that we are warned against doing.


And here all along I thought I was doing: 2Co 10:5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, . I would be a little more charitable than to say something is stupid and foolish. Take some time and read Van Til and Bahnsen et.al. that is all I ask. They deal with Scripture etc. I'm not going to convince you otherwise in a few short sentences. Also notice that we agree here in most things.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> No one has touched my St. John passages. Jesus gave them as evidence that pointed to him as being Messiah the Prince. If a person hardens himself against God that doesn't mean that the evidence is not there. I can claim to be a three headed monster with a tail. I can claim to be omniscient and live in fantasy. But the evidence and revelation will always point me ultimately toward Christ if it is truth. Self deception and this argumentation about 2 not being 2 is stupid. This is the foolish argumentation that we are warned against doing.



No one addressed because it didn't say anything against presuppositionalism. All it said is that Christ said that people would believe in him because: 1)he said so; 2) he militates against the idea of "brute fact" ( a key evidentialist premise). 

Presuppositionalists, contrary to legend, do not have a problem with evidences. We simply maintain that for evidences to be meaningful they must already be pre-interpreted by God (which is what happened in John). Case in point:

Matthew 28:17, "And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted."

How can someone who has seen the Risen Christ in all of his glory--the best evidence ever imagined--doubt? Because there are no brute facts. All facts are interpreted within a worldview. 

Back to Muslims and Mormons:

1)The Muslim god is a monad (Allah is One). As a result he cannot make predications, nor can his people logically predicate about him. He cannot reconcile Universals and Particulars. Remember, Allah is One. He is universal--so goes the argument--but that is it. Following that out to its logical conclusion Allah merely becomes abstract. Remember, Allah is One; there is no Many in Allah. He cannot be logically predicated. As a result, there can be no Particulars in a muslm worldview. Therefore, there can be no counting. But Muslims do count! And in doing so, they borrow my worldview. 

2) The Mormon god is not self-existing from all eternity; he is not self-knowing; he cannot know all facts. He cannot interpret those facts within a worldview. Since he was created (multiple times?) he has problems with the laws of logic and morality. Who knows if they were existent before he was created? {EDIT: As such, the laws of logic/morality can be conventional for the mormon. Therefore, he cannot consistently live within his worldview}

[Edited on 9--1-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> But the evidence and revelation will always point me ultimately toward Christ if it is truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a believer with the mind of Christ and are not trying to repress everything against God. The unbeliever will take every fact and seek to do that.
Click to expand...


As an unbeliever I wasn't trying to repress truth. I just didn't care because I didn't understand or know. I discovered Christ by reading the Word. I wasn't introduced to Christianity be means of a human teaching me truth. I had never heard the Gospel when I read the Gospel. I didn't know anything about Jesus.





> Self deception and this argumentation about 2 not being 2 is stupid. This is the foolish argumentation that we are warned against doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here all along I thought I was doing: 2Co 10:5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, . I would be a little more charitable than to say something is stupid and foolish. Take some time and read Van Til and Bahnsen et.al. that is all I ask. They deal with Scripture etc. I'm not going to convince you otherwise in a few short sentences. Also notice that we agree here in most things.
Click to expand...


Paul said things were foolish. I have definitely been stupid and foolish many a time. I was implying that to argue about facts that are so simple is just not right. Is that not the proclamation of Proverbs 26:4,5? I wasn't trying to be uncharitable.


----------



## Apologist4Him

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> No one has touched my St. John passages. Jesus gave them as evidence that pointed to him as being Messiah the Prince.



Yes, but Jesus' authority is self-attesting, self-authenticating (where ours is not), for Christ is God in the flesh, and in the Son, the Father has made Himself known. Jesus, the sinless Son of God, had the luxury to say; "you want evidence, look to me, I am all the evidence you'll ever need"! We are sinful human beings lacking the luxury of being able to say that. Not only that, but Jesus could perform a miracle at will, where we do not have that luxury. But I think presuppositionalism could also be demonstrated in the words and actions of Christ found in the Scriptures. If I am not mistaken, He refused to do miracles for certain people. Why didn't He give everyone evidence? 



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_Self deception and this argumentation about 2 not being 2 is stupid. This is the foolish argumentation that we are warned against doing.



Self-deception is based on total depravity and the effects of sin on the heart, mind, and soul. If you were to spend a reasonable amount of time debating nonbelievers, you would begin to notice a couple of things. Not only worldview differences but presuppositonal differences. I understand your "common sense realism", but is your common sense realism, common sense realism outside of your presuppositions? Outside of the presuppositon that God exists? So, in the mind of a nonbeliever, your just as self-deceived to them, as they are to you!

[Edited on 9-1-2005 by Apologist4Him]


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I was implying that to argue about facts that are so simple is just not right.



And herein is the beauty of presupp...We weren't arguing _whether_ 2 +2 =4 with the unbeliever. That all parties would grant. We take the unbeliever to look at his own worldview, his own presuppositions, as he espouses them and show him that it is folly and that it is so absurd to not even allow them to add. A darwinist can no doubt balance his checkbook but he cannot account for his accounting.

You take any "fact" in all of the universe and prove that God exists from it. You don't have to understand the anthropic principle in physics, you don't have to have all archaeological knowledge, etc. And don't get me wrong, we continually show them positively from Scripture the law and gospel for the conversion of souls. We just ask that in their repentance that they also turn from autonomous thinking as well and acknowlege with their lips that _all_ the riches of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ including their capacity to add.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _DH_
> Presuppositionalists, contrary to legend, do not have a problem with evidences. We simply maintain that for evidences to be meaningful they must already be pre-interpreted by God (which is what happened in John). Case in point:



By this pre-interpretation do you mean foreknowledge? He is omniscient. He defined things before their substance or laws. Is this what you mean?

What do you mean by "brute fact"? Something that just appears by fiat of it's own? 

I could argue the cults but think it would detract from the discussion at this point.

[Edited on 9-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I was implying that to argue about facts that are so simple is just not right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And herein is the beauty of presupp...We weren't arguing _whether_ 2 +2 =4 with the unbeliever. That all parties would grant. We take the unbeliever to look at his own worldview, his own presuppositions, as he espouses them and show him that it is folly and that it is so absurd to not even allow them to add. A darwinist can no doubt balance his checkbook but he cannot account for his accounting.
> 
> You take any "fact" in all of the universe and prove that God exists from it. You don't have to understand the anthropic principle in physics, you don't have to have all archaeological knowledge, etc. And don't get me wrong, we continually show them positively from Scripture the law and gospel for the conversion of souls. We just ask that in their repentance that they also turn from autonomous thinking as well and acknowlege with their lips that _all_ the riches of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ including their capacity to add.
Click to expand...


I am not understanding you Chris. Are you asking a convert to presuppose something or to arrive at a belief based upon pressupositions? That is what it sounds like you are saying. Or are you asking a convert to come to conclusions based upon the evidence that scripture is reliably the Word of God?


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I was implying that to argue about facts that are so simple is just not right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And herein is the beauty of presupp...We weren't arguing _whether_ 2 +2 =4 with the unbeliever. That all parties would grant. We take the unbeliever to look at his own worldview, his own presuppositions, as he espouses them and show him that it is folly and that it is so absurd to not even allow them to add. A darwinist can no doubt balance his checkbook but he cannot account for his accounting.
> 
> You take any "fact" in all of the universe and prove that God exists from it. You don't have to understand the anthropic principle in physics, you don't have to have all archaeological knowledge, etc. And don't get me wrong, we continually show them positively from Scripture the law and gospel for the conversion of souls. We just ask that in their repentance that they also turn from autonomous thinking as well and acknowlege with their lips that _all_ the riches of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ including their capacity to add.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not understanding you Chris. Are you asking a convert to presuppose something or to arrive at a belief based upon pressupositions? That is what it sounds like you are saying. Or are you asking a convert to come to conclusions based upon the evidence that scripture is reliably the Word of God?
Click to expand...


I'm lost...could you rephrase your question, please? This was what I was referring to about me tripping over myself. By the end of this, you'll be begging for long quotes of Van Til!


----------



## Apologist4Him

> _Originally posted by crhoades_I'm lost...could you rephrase your question, please? This was what I was referring to about me tripping over myself. By the end of this, you'll be begging for long quotes of Van Til!



 While lacking it myself, a quality I can appreciate in others, is someone who doesn't take his self too seriously. 


[Edited on 9-1-2005 by Apologist4Him]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

O K A Y A M I G E T T I N G C L E A R E R ?

Are you asking a convert to presuppose something or arrive at a conclusion or belief based upon pressupositions? 

In other words are you just asking someone to believe something just because you believe it? Just because it is supposed truth? i.e. Christianity. Or are you asking someone to believe something about Christ and the Scriptures based upon evidence? i.e. blind faith vs. faith based upon evidence.


----------



## Apologist4Him

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_As an unbeliever I wasn't trying to repress truth.



But you were, and people do, whether consciencely or subconsciencly. Supressing the truth, is perhaps the most common sin to all mankind, that is, not acknowledging or giving God the glory He deserves.

"...the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so." (Romans 8:7)

The nature of sinful nature is to supress the truth...in unrighteouness.

"...whatever is not from faith is sin." (Romans 14:23)



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_ I just didn't care because I didn't understand or know.



In other words, your primary justification for being a non-believer had more to do with pragmatism than the actual truth of the matter.. 



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_ I discovered Christ by reading the Word. I wasn't introduced to Christianity be means of a human teaching me truth. I had never heard the Gospel when I read the Gospel. I didn't know anything about Jesus.



Praise God for giving you the desire to read the Word and opening your eyes to the truth of His Word.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> O K A Y A M I G E T T I N G C L E A R E R ?
> 
> Are you asking a convert to presuppose something or arrive at a conclusion or belief based upon pressupositions?
> 
> In other words are you just asking someone to believe something just because you believe it? Just because it is supposed truth? i.e. Christianity. Or are you asking someone to believe something about Christ and the Scriptures based upon evidence? i.e. blind faith vs. faith based upon evidence.



He is saying, "Assume for the sake of the argument." In other words, I have already shown (hypothetically) that unbeliever x's worldview cannot account for science/logic/morality. I would then ask him, for argument's sake, to assume the premises of my worldview. Then, reality makes sense. But he does this anyway in his life. He sins by not giving God glory in doing so.

The answer to your other question: Pre-interpreted fact--God omnisciently interprets it? Yes, I meant something like that. But that touches on other aspects.

What is a brute fact? Have you ever heard the phrase, propounded by cocky apologists and naturalists, "Let the facts speak for themselves?" They are assuming that facts are neutral and are processed the same to both believer and unbeliever. These apologists go down the quickest in debate. Go to infidel.org and see them shred McDowell to pieces.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_As an unbeliever I wasn't trying to repress truth.




OOPs. I was born a liar. See I proved it again in the above statement.
Let me clarify. What I was trying to say.
I was trying to convey the fact that I didn't know anything about Christianity to oppose it. When I was faced with certain facts about God I was subdued. I was to sinful not to acknowledge my sinfulness. I found myself in Christ. If you have ever heard me testify I acknowledge that I didn't choose Christ. He definitely chose me. 

I was trying to imply that not everyone is as hardened against the truth as others are.

[Edited on 9-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Jacob,

Give me a link to an article at the blasted site? Please.


> What is a brute fact? Have you ever heard the phrase, propounded by cocky apologists and naturalists, "Let the facts speak for themselves?" They are assuming that facts are neutral and are processed the same to both believer and unbeliever. These apologists go down the quickest in debate. Go to infidel.org and see them shred McDowell to pieces.



Facts can not be neutral. They are positively facts. But I don't believe all facts point directly to the Saviour either. I am having a hard time believing that an evidentialist believes that everyone interprets all facts the same way. 

p.s. I have a football game to go to so I won't be back for a few hours. Thanks for your help guys.

[Edited on 9-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Apologist4Him

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_Facts can not be neutral. They are positively facts. But I don't believe all facts point directly to the Saviour either. I am having a hard time believing that an evidentialist believes that everyone interprets all facts the same way.



Because the facts do not interpret theirselves, we should acknowledge two kinds of facts (in the present world), man centered facts, and God centered facts, autonomous "facts", and Theonomous facts.

But how can anybody prove that a fact is a fact? With a fact? I remember listening to Ronald Nash's free online apologetics course lecture where he refutes evidentialism, and does it unsophisticatedly, with a simple question, along the lines of, where is the evidence which proves evidentialism is the correct method of interpreting the facts? There is no empirical evidence that proves empiricism is the method we should be using to interprete the facts, and so the problem of induction becomes even more unerving for the unbeliever as the unbeliever is forced into the irrationality of subjectivism and skepticism.


----------



## Apologist4Him

> _Originally posted by crhoades_And herein is the beauty of presupp...We weren't arguing _whether_ 2 +2 =4 with the unbeliever. That all parties would grant. We take the unbeliever to look at his own worldview, his own presuppositions, as he espouses them and show him that it is folly and that it is so absurd to not even allow them to add. A darwinist can no doubt balance his checkbook but he cannot account for his accounting.



Yesterday, I was listening to Greg Bahnsen's lecture "Impossibility, Immorality, and Robbery of Neutrality" from the "Seminary Apologetics" series. It's kinda funny to be reading the same message today.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

In other words are you just asking someone to believe something just because you believe it? Just because it is supposed truth? i.e. Christianity. Or are you asking someone to believe something about Christ and the Scriptures based upon evidence? i.e. blind faith vs. faith based upon evidence.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> In other words are you just asking someone to believe something just because you believe it? Just because it is supposed truth? i.e. Christianity. Or are you asking someone to believe something about Christ and the Scriptures based upon evidence? i.e. blind faith vs. faith based upon evidence.



I haven't forgotten you. My computer crahsed and I have to leave for themoment. KCEaster asked a similar question in another thread (for presups only), see my respones to hm.


----------



## Apologist4Him

If I may, I would like to give an example of self-deception. According to the testimony of others, there are cases of preachers, converting to Christianity AFTER they had been preaching from a pulpit. How is it that an unregenerate man, having never experiened the new birth, could stand in front of an audience, including regenerate men, and speak as though he were regenerate? Could you imagine any unregenerate preacher ever making a statement like; "Of course I'm not a Christian, I just like the power and authority of preaching and doing it for a share of their hard earned money"? I couldn't imagine those words coming from the mouth of a preacher. In the same way, many people have deceived theirselves into thinking they are Christians, when they're not. The difficult part of accepting the concept of self-deception, is the fear of being judgemental of people. The last thing I would ever want to be is a judgemental Christian. Nevertheless, the concept of self-deception is crucial to apologetics, and unavoidable really.

[Edited on 9-1-2005 by Apologist4Him]


----------



## Apologist4Him

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> In other words are you just asking someone to believe something just because you believe it? Just because it is supposed truth? i.e. Christianity. Or are you asking someone to believe something about Christ and the Scriptures based upon evidence? i.e. blind faith vs. faith based upon evidence.



The truth is, I have never converted a single person to Christianity. If I have ever said anything that led to a conversion, it wasn't me who converted them, God the Holy Spirit converted them from self-centered evidence to God centered evidence. To be sure, both Dr. Van Til and Dr. Bahnsen have been accused of being fideists ("faithism") but that couldn't be further from the truth. Fideists hold a non-complimentary view of faith and Science. A Van Tillian presuppositonalist holds a complimentarian view of faith and Science (facts). As revelational epistemologists we hold that "all facts are God's facts". Which is why the facts are not neutral, they belong to God, they are part of God's knowledge, they are common sense to Him. 

To answer your question, I would ask someone to believe Christianity because it can't be any other way, because of the impossibility of the contrary.

Anywho, thank God there will not be any need for apologetics in Heaven, but until then, we must tarry on..

[Edited on 9-1-2005 by Apologist4Him]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Apologist4Him_
> If I may, I would like to give an example of self-deception. According to the testimony of others, there are cases of preachers, converting to Christianity AFTER they had been preaching from a pulpit. How is it that an unregenerate man, having never experiened the new birth, could stand in front of an audience, including regenerate men, and speak as though he were regenerate? Could you imagine any unregenerate preacher ever making a statement like; "Of course I'm not a Christian, I just like the power and authority of preaching and doing it for a share of their hard earned money"? I couldn't imagine those words coming from the mouth of a preacher. In the same way, many people have deceived theirselves into thinking they are Christians, when they're not.



Okay, but I don't understand what you are getting at. 




> The difficult part of accepting the concept of self-deception, is the fear of being judgemental of people. The last thing I would ever want to be is a judgemental Christian. Nevertheless, the concept of self-deception is crucial to apologetics, and unavoidable really.



I don't mind being a judgemental person. I judge and discern constantly. Everyone does. I just hope I can do it lovingly. I am not called upon to be condemning though. That is God's job.

The main problem is not self deception. The main problem is that sin has rendered us dead in sins and trespasses. We are spiritually blind and spiritually deaf. We are spiritually dead and cannot respond or discern spiritual things without corruption in our hearts blinding us from the truth. Self deception is only a symptom of spiritual death.


Again I have a simple question that I want a simple answer to. Are you just asking someone to believe something just because you believe it? Just because it is supposed truth? i.e. Christianity. Or are you asking someone to believe something about Christ and the Scriptures based upon evidence? i.e. blind faith vs. faith based upon evidence.

I am hoping Jacob will answer this also.

[Edited on 9-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Apologist4Him

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_I don't mind being a judgemental person. I judge and discern constantly. Everyone does. I just hope I can do it lovingly. I am not called upon to be condemning though. That is God's job.



I just prefer to make the distinction between being judgemental, and making sound judgements. You're right, everyone does, and it's unavoidable.



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_The main problem is not self deception. The main problem is that sin has rendered us dead in sins and trespasses. We are spiritually blind and spiritually deaf. We are spiritually dead and cannot respond or discern spiritual things without corruption in our hearts blinding us from the truth. Self deception is only a symptom of spiritual death.



 I think we're agreeing now, just expressing our thoughts differently. The main problem is sin, which led to spiritual death. One of the primary symptoms of sin is self-deception, which should always be acknowledged in doing apologetics, especially with nonbelievers.


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Or are you asking someone to believe something about Christ and the Scriptures based upon evidence? i.e. blind faith vs. faith based upon evidence.



Hmmm...fideism vs. evidentialism. I choose neither horn on that dilemma. I also wouldn't choose between fideism vs. rationalism either.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Or are you asking someone to believe something about Christ and the Scriptures based upon evidence? i.e. blind faith vs. faith based upon evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm...fideism vs. evidentialism. I choose neither horn on that dilemma. I also wouldn't choose between fideism vs. rationalism either.
Click to expand...


Let me ask another question. Does Presumption possess a quality of assuming something?


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Or are you asking someone to believe something about Christ and the Scriptures based upon evidence? i.e. blind faith vs. faith based upon evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm...fideism vs. evidentialism. I choose neither horn on that dilemma. I also wouldn't choose between fideism vs. rationalism either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me ask another question. Does Presumption possess a quality of assuming something?
Click to expand...


Are you working towards saying that presuppositionalism = fideism or am I missing your train of thought?

Which definition of presumption are we working with?

1. Behavior or attitude that is boldly arrogant or offensive; effrontery. 
2. The act of presuming or accepting as true. 
3. Acceptance or belief based on reasonable evidence; assumption or supposition. 
4. A condition or basis for accepting or presuming. 
5. A conclusion derived from a particular set of facts based on law, rather than probable reasoning.

ditto to assuming?

1. To take upon oneself: assume responsibility; assume another's debts. 
2. To undertake the duties of (an office): assumed the presidency. 
3. To take on; adopt: "œThe god assumes a human form" (John Ruskin). 
4. To put on; don: The queen assumed a velvet robe. 
5. To affect the appearance or possession of; feign. 
6. To take for granted; suppose: assumed that prices would rise. See Synonyms at presume. 
7. To take over without justification; seize: assume control. 
8. To take up or receive into heaven.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _ Paul Manata_
> Are "evidences" the *basis* of your belief?



If Christ is not risen from the dead than I am hopeless. I have been persuaded that this was an historical event. There is historical evidence for this. It isn't just a wives tale or myth, so to speak. If it is a hoax than everything I believe is bunk.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I meant to say presuppose not presume. And I was referring to assumption as in assume. 




> *asÂ·sumpÂ·tion* ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-smpshn)
> n.
> The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.
> The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command.
> The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
> Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.
> Presumption; arrogance.
> Logic. A minor premise.
> Assumption
> Christianity. The taking up of the Virgin Mary into heaven in body and soul after her death.
> A feast celebrating this event.
> August 15, the day on which this feast is observed.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Middle English assumpcion, from Latin assmpti, assmptin-, adoption, from assmptus, past participle of assmere, to adopt. See assume.]






> *preÂ·supÂ·pose* ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prs-pz)
> tr.v. preÂ·supÂ·posed, preÂ·supÂ·posÂ·ing, preÂ·supÂ·posÂ·es
> To believe or suppose in advance.
> To require or involve necessarily as an antecedent condition. See Synonyms at presume.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> preÂ·suppoÂ·sition (-sp-zshn) n.
> preÂ·suppoÂ·sitionÂ·al adj.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Middle English assumpcion, from Latin assmpti, assmptin-, adoption, from assmptus, past participle of assmere, to adopt. See assume.]




By these definitions Historical relevence matters not. That maybe what is confusing me. I am using the worlds definitions and not yours.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

(Rom 1:19) For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

(Rom 1:20) For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

According to this passage creation declares the glory of God. We are held accountable because God has shown us His invisible attributes in creation. Not because we just know. Something is declararing it. So that we are without excuse. Something is pointing to and giving evidence of the Creator. I am not assuming or presupposing something here am I?

[Edited on 9-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Apologist4Him

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_Let me ask another question. Does Presumption possess a quality of assuming something?



*Before saying anything, I should first assert a non-authoritative disclaimer. I am an ignorant man thinking these issues though to the best of my God given ability. It's quite possible I've goofed somewhere in my thinking.* 

At the foundational (not to be confused with "foundationalism") presuppositional level, there is, at best, no avoiding circular reasoning. The rationalist cannot prove rationalism without appealing to reason, but who in their right mind denies the law of contradicion? The presuppositionalist is asking for unity, knowing that nobody denies the law of contradiciton, inquiring how we account for it. I think your question raises an interesting point, does presuppositionalism presuppose presuppositionalism? Yes, it does, it's circular, and valid because a properly basic (eek I'm using Plantinga terminology) presupposition is axiomatic, or stated differently, a properly basic belief, something which must be assumed, in order to make the argument. We postulate that the existence of a particular God must be assumed, in order to know anything, that is, in order for the "facts" to be intelligible.


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I meant to say presuppose not presume. And I was referring to assumption as in assume.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *asÂ·sumpÂ·tion* ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-smpshn)
> n.
> The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.
> The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command.
> The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
> Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.
> Presumption; arrogance.
> Logic. A minor premise.
> Assumption
> Christianity. The taking up of the Virgin Mary into heaven in body and soul after her death.
> A feast celebrating this event.
> August 15, the day on which this feast is observed.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Middle English assumpcion, from Latin assmpti, assmptin-, adoption, from assmptus, past participle of assmere, to adopt. See assume.]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *preÂ·supÂ·pose* ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prs-pz)
> tr.v. preÂ·supÂ·posed, preÂ·supÂ·posÂ·ing, preÂ·supÂ·posÂ·es
> To believe or suppose in advance.
> To require or involve necessarily as an antecedent condition. See Synonyms at presume.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> preÂ·suppoÂ·sition (-sp-zshn) n.
> preÂ·suppoÂ·sitionÂ·al adj.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Middle English assumpcion, from Latin assmpti, assmptin-, adoption, from assmptus, past participle of assmere, to adopt. See assume.]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By these definitions Historical relevence matters not. That maybe what is confusing me. I am using the worlds definitions and not yours.
Click to expand...


In order to ensure that we are not talking past each other...here is a working definition of presupposition that any presuppositionalist would be comfortable with: 

A "presupposition" is an elementary assumption in one's reasoning or in the process by which opinions are formed. In this book, a "presupposition" is not just any assumption in an argument, but a personal commitment that is held at the most basic level of one's network of beliefs. Presuppositions form a wide-ranging, foundational _perspective_ (or starting point) in terms of which everything else is interpreted and evaluated. As such, presuppositions have the greatest authority in one's thinking, being treated as one's least negotiable beliefs and being granted the highest immunity to revision.

Greg Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis, P&R, pg. 2 ff.4


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> (Rom 1:19) For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
> 
> (Rom 1:20) For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
> 
> According to this passage creation declares the glory of God. We are held accountable because God has shown us His invisible attributes in creation. Not because we just know. Something is declaring it. So that we are without excuse. Something is pointing to and giving evidence of the Creator. I am not assuming or presupposing something here am I?
> 
> [Edited on 9-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]



Randy, it seems to me you're doing just fine...and are on the right track. Only one tweak:

There are 2 categories of God's self-revelation: General revelation: creation/nature, includes awareness of God and His law written on our hearts. We like to hear about the Law because we think we can do it; though it drives us to despair. And Special revelation: the knowledge of Christ/the Gospel which is outside of us and not naturally in our hearts. We all hate this, btw. Even the Christian fights against it.

The unbeliever knows God exists, is powerful and that he is guilty before Him - hence he suppresses the truth. But pride goads him on to attempt perfection (self-help books sell!) But the unbeliever CAN NEVER learn about God's redemption unless he hears the message of the work of Christ. That message (1 Cor. 15) is toxic to unbelief. Explaining and teaching what the Message is and means is the persuasion against every idea against the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10.) A battle for ideas. Here's another couple of categories to help...

I don't spend too much time with arguing philosophy becuase the heart of unbelief loves to hear about "doing & knowing things." ("Always learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth"...) I also don't let folks get away with assertions. I presume they know better, though they deny it. Instead of fussing about worldviews, the Bible gives us better models: Greek and Jew. The "Jew" is self-righteous/religious; the "Greek" thirsts for knowledge yet does not want wisdom. These two categories best explain the human sinful condition. We see this today - it's repackaged as the science-guys (Greek) and the "spiritual-" guys (Jew); Carl Sagan and Depak Chopra. 

The Apostle Paul teaches us how to deal with such (see his speech in Acts 17 as well as his arguments with the Jews.) Jesus teaches us how to deal with the self-righteous religious category, clarifying between Law and Gospel. Those perishing love to hear the law, thinking it a means of self-confidence. They hate to hear the Gospel because it strips them of self-sufficiency.

Don't worry about apologetics style -- keep studying your Bible and how the NT writers handled unbelief. We are all there. The Apostle's teaching is best. Meanwhile, here's a great article on how the Reformed "do" pre-evangelism, apologetics and evangelism:

http://www.christreformed.org/resources/sermons_lectures/00000069.shtml?main



Robin


----------



## rgrove

It's not blind faith, this would be "fideism" which Van Til, Bahnsen, etc have argued heavily against. It's proving "the impossibility of the contrary" as I've heard Bahnsen describe it. It's impossible that the Christianity isn't true because no other understanding of the world around us provides "the preconditions of intelligibility". I don't find it helpful to argue these points endlessly, though. In my experience, and this is just my experience, unbelievers start getting really hot when you begin to pin them with presuppositionalist arguments. I generally like to use the presuppositionalist approach to attain a degree of credibility of what I'm saying and get to the gospel. So in my view presuppositionalism is just another method of getting to the gospel and I won't argue endlessly for my position. I figure I'm planting seed and causing them to question whether they're able to account for what they are doing in life. Perhaps someday the Holy Spirity will be pleased to use something I say to convert someone, at least that's my fervent prayer, but I haven't had it happen yet... But I am comforted that no other worldview can make sense of things and won't hesitate to make use of this whenever the opportunity arises.


----------



## rgrove

We'll have to agree to disagree, Paul. If you're not directly discussing salvation, but discussing 2+2=4, you're not talking about the gospel in my opinion. You're doing something that leads up to the gospel.


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by rgrove_
> We'll have to agree to disagree, Paul. If you're not directly discussing salvation, but discussing 2+2=4, you're not talking about the gospel in my opinion. You're doing something that leads up to the gospel.



I gotta agree with Paul on this one...No 2+2=4 is not the gospel but if you are not bringing up the effects of creation/fall/redemption and its affect to metaphysics/epistemology/ethics then it's not exactly the presuppositional method in toto. Van Til always said that you argue system vs. system. so gospel is included in the apologetic. 

I think the disagreement here might be a semantical one...


----------



## crhoades

Schaeffer viewed apologetics as pre-evangelism - Bahnsen and Van Til both critiqued him on that.


----------



## rgrove

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> I gotta agree with Paul on this one...No 2+2=4 is not the gospel but if you are not bringing up the effects of creation/fall/redemption and its affect to metaphysics/epistemology/ethics then it's not exactly the presuppositional method in toto. Van Til always said that you argue system vs. system. so gospel is included in the apologetic.
> 
> I think the disagreement here might be a semantical one...


It may or may not be a semantical one, but presenting the Gospel does not require all of the above. It had absolutely nothing to do with my conversion and I haven't personally met anyone in the two churches I've gone to that were converted that way. Therefore I'm not interested in presenting a system "en toto", but presenting the gospel and bringing down walls that are in the way of accepting that gospel. I feel challenges to the gospel are best met with a presuppositional method, but that's it's proper place. In support of the Gospel where the focus is on using the law to demonstrate sin before a just and holy God, that sin demands satisfaction and that satisfaction was provided in the work of Christ on the cross. I refuse to come to anyone with a philisophical system first and Christ as a result. I start with Christ crucified and defend from then on using the presuppositional method. In this sense I employ it as a "post-evangelism". I've already delivered the gospel, now I'm tearing down barriers.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I'd read "The Intellectual Challenge of The Gospel" by Van Til.


I will when I get some time. I'm at work.



> I'd listen to the Bahnsen/Stein debate.


I have many times.



> I'd study the presupp method a bit more.


I've read or own as reference every major work on it. If I don't reach the same conclusions you have it's a little cocky to claim it's because I haven't studied enough. Perhaps your conclusion is wrong. 



> I am directly discussing salvation. Men need to be saved intellectually, as well.


They are saved intellectually, but after they are saved by the Gospel.



> Basically it goes like this: "sin has affected you so much that you are not only lost morally but intellectually. You're so lost you can't find your way home. Christ can save you from your intellectual foolishness, and this salvation begins now. Currently, you wallow in the intellectual swine trough, but you can come home just like the Prodigal! You can only do this by changing your foolish worldview (read: repenting) and accepting the Christian worldview. Flee to Jehoavh, who is the *beginning* of knowledge. Do not walk as the gentiles walk, "in the vanity of their *mind,* but be "renewed in your mind." Right now you have been "robbed by a philosophy after the tradition of men." But you can become rich because "all the *treasures* of wisdom and knowledge are deposited in Christ." So, if you continue to reject Jesus then you must also reject reason. By doing that you will live the rest of this life in intellectual hell, only to die and spend eternity in hell. Repent, change your worldview, say with me: "Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world."


Like I said, Christ is not presented crucified in the above presentation. No law, no deomonstration of being in sin before a just and holy God, no discussion of what Christ did on the cross. What you presented is true as far as it goes, but it isn't the Gospel. I remain unconviced by your assertion, which is all I feel it is. A person doesn't need to have any knowledge of this method of apologetics to present the gospel to an unbeliever. The Holy Spirit will use a proper presentation of the Gospel which presents Christ crucified in place of sinners like to save people. The law goes straight to the imago dei in every person and will touch their conscience in some way because they know it to be true. I still contest the presuppositional method is a way of "giving reason for the hope that is within us" and can be very helpful, but it's not required and there's no reason to employ it "en tot" unless the person is continuously argumentative. And if that's the case, then at some point you need to walk away and let the Holy Spirit do His work.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I meant to say presuppose not presume. And I was referring to assumption as in assume.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *asÂ·sumpÂ·tion* ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-smpshn)
> n.
> The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.
> The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command.
> The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
> Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.
> Presumption; arrogance.
> Logic. A minor premise.
> Assumption
> Christianity. The taking up of the Virgin Mary into heaven in body and soul after her death.
> A feast celebrating this event.
> August 15, the day on which this feast is observed.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Middle English assumpcion, from Latin assmpti, assmptin-, adoption, from assmptus, past participle of assmere, to adopt. See assume.]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *preÂ·supÂ·pose* ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prs-pz)
> tr.v. preÂ·supÂ·posed, preÂ·supÂ·posÂ·ing, preÂ·supÂ·posÂ·es
> To believe or suppose in advance.
> To require or involve necessarily as an antecedent condition. See Synonyms at presume.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> preÂ·suppoÂ·sition (-sp-zshn) n.
> preÂ·suppoÂ·sitionÂ·al adj.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Middle English assumpcion, from Latin assmpti, assmptin-, adoption, from assmptus, past participle of assmere, to adopt. See assume.]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By these definitions Historical relevence matters not. That maybe what is confusing me. I am using the worlds definitions and not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to ensure that we are not talking past each other...here is a working definition of presupposition that any presuppositionalist would be comfortable with:
> 
> A "presupposition" is an elementary assumption in one's reasoning or in the process by which opinions are formed. In this book, a "presupposition" is not just any assumption in an argument, but a personal commitment that is held at the most basic level of one's network of beliefs. Presuppositions form a wide-ranging, foundational _perspective_ (or starting point) in terms of which everything else is interpreted and evaluated. As such, presuppositions have the greatest authority in one's thinking, being treated as one's least negotiable beliefs and being granted the highest immunity to revision.
> 
> Greg Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis, P&R, pg. 2 ff.4
Click to expand...


Let me ask a question? This is one of the problems with language and epistlemology. Why should I accept your definition which has been made to fit a theological idea in my opinion(I may be incorrect) over the definition of common language from which the words were taken?

Is it permissable for me to redifine words to fit my understanding?

[Edited on 9-2-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> In order to ensure that we are not talking past each other...here is a working definition of presupposition that any presuppositionalist would be comfortable with:
> 
> A "presupposition" is an elementary assumption in one's reasoning or in the process by which opinions are formed. In this book, a "presupposition" is not just any assumption in an argument, but a personal commitment that is held at the most basic level of one's network of beliefs. Presuppositions form a wide-ranging, foundational _perspective_ (or starting point) in terms of which everything else is interpreted and evaluated. As such, presuppositions have the greatest authority in one's thinking, being treated as one's least negotiable beliefs and being granted the highest immunity to revision.
> 
> Greg Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis, P&R, pg. 2 ff.4



Let me ask a question? This is one of the problems with language and epistlemology. Why should I accept your definition which has been made to fit a theological idea in my opinion(I may be incorrect) over the definition of common language from which the words were taken?

Is it permissable for me to redifine words to fit my understanding?

[Edited on 9-2-2005 by puritancovenanter] [/quote]
No you can't

Of course you can...For sake of discoursing with most people who would call themselves presuppers who have read Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, Oliphant, Edgar, etc. - if you are able to define the words the same as their writings it makes it easier. Call it snark - just so we both understand the concepts behind the words. The reason I posted that was that I thought I was seeing that we were using the word 'presupposition' differently. I showed you mine, now you show me yours. 

If the word presupposition is a tripping point, we could just as easy use the word transcendental.

[Edited on 9-2-2005 by crhoades]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _ Paul Manata_
> Are "evidences" the *basis* of your belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Christ is not risen from the dead than I am hopeless. I have been persuaded that this was an historical event. There is historical evidence for this. It isn't just a wives tale or myth, so to speak. If it is a hoax than everything I believe is bunk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you fail to see that a miracle *always* has a theological meaning attached to it. The bare fact of a resurrected body is nothing without the *meaning* or *reason* for the resurrection, this cannot be empirically verified but is klnown only through revelation. Take revelation away, all you have is a resucitated corpse.
> 
> But, I guess you missed my point. Having read your response I think it is sad and a devestating argument against yourself if you think that "evidences" are the foundation of your faith.
> 
> Furthermore, it is philosophically naive to deny that all observation is theory laden.
> 
> Lastly, you never dealt with my refutation of your evidentialist constraint, you know, the infinite regress argument. You can't just come here, attack presuppositionalism, and then when the tables get turned just wave your hand and tell people to "pay no attention to the man behind the mirror."
> 
> [Edited on 9-2-2005 by Paul manata]
Click to expand...


You are assuming that I am failing to see this. That is not the case. I believe miracles and historical things are meant to define God's working and invisible attributes. You can not have a resuscitated corpse without God. You are twisting my implications.

As far as not dealing with your refutation. It may have been I didn't understand it and I didn't want to answer it because I was already dealing with another line of thought. I am not a multi-tasked person. I actually started this thread to figure out what was being said on an elementary level. It seems that evidence and pres suppositions need to be dealt with together. All people have presuppositions and some people deal with evidence. I want to understand why you guys think the way you do.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

BTW the 8th grade won their game 28 to 13 last night and the 7th grade team tied. I love my kids football games. I gotta go racing tonight and hope the thread doesn't take off from here so that I can stay up with it. I need to read through the posts still.
I really appreciate you guys taking time to discuss this with me. I am not sure how much time will lapse till I get to work through this some more. My Dad and Sister are Drag Racing this Weekend out at Indianapolis Raceway Park for the US National Drags. It is the Biggest Drag race in the world. Plus my extended family...Uncle, Aunt, and cousing are in town for a Reunion. Please be patient with me. Thanks Chris, Jacob, and Paul...

Very appreciative, Randy


----------



## JohnV

R. Martin:

I want to get in on it too, but haven't had time to read through all the posts. Keep your seat belt on. Or, take it off for a while 'til I get around to all this heavy reading. I'm with you on the the original question; I've been asking that for a while.


----------



## RamistThomist

i am back in jackson miss. I just got electricity but have highly irregular internet access. i don't want yall to think i have bailed you.

Jacob.


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> i am back in jackson miss. I just got electricity but have highly irregular internet access. i don't want yall to think i have bailed you.
> 
> Jacob.



Watch out for those dropped posts!


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry about apologetics style
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what if a particular style is not God-honoring?
> 
> What if my apologetic style was to hit unbelievers about the head, face, chest and neck area with a baseball bat? Should we nopt "worry" abotu that style?
> 
> If no, then what you said is problematic.
> 
> If yes, then what you said was false.
> 
> You said you don't like 'assertions." But your approach seemd to suggest that you would just give, say, the "jews" the law. So, you'd just "assert" that they can never keep the law and they need a savior? What happens when they ask you how you *know* that God exists? What happens when they offer a challenge? Will you just "assert" that they need a savior? Or will you give answers to their questions?
> 
> If the former, then you refute yourself.
> 
> If the latter, then you refute yourself.
> 
> I'd actually like to see you in an apologetic encounter with a hardened atheist. I can set up an encounter, if you'd like? We can then copy and paste the discussion here and let people see the "strength" of your particular approach to defending the faith.
Click to expand...


You have a point. But I meant if the Christian is first, grounded in the Faith, obedient to honoring Christ FIRST, the so-called "method" will be fine....because the Holy Spirit lives in us. Jesus told the disciples to not worry about what they would say....neither should we "worry". Rather, pursuade men because we "fear God." Skill in this can only come from deep understanding of the fear of God and His mercies.

There are no athiests, btw. There is no such animal.

I could be wrong...and don't wish to be presumptuous...but all the fussing over methods and "heroes" of so-called successful apologetics appears like so much idolatry; fear of Satan's tactics; hyper-concern of how so and so does such and such. All this breeds the sins the Corinthian church suffered (1 Cor. 1.)

A short anecdote: ...after graduating from college, having studied with many significant master apologists,...I discovered something interesting....God began to reform my thinking (which didn't go well in the Arminian college, btw.) I gradually began to depend upon the Bible's "method" of apologetics rather than the celebrity apologists.

True Biblical apologetics is a natural outgrowth of a solid footing in sound doctrine (the Reformed creeds; confessions; Berkof is quite helpful.) All this should come from proper equipping from one's local church - as per NT models. This surprised me and pulled me away from methods. I have opportunity to engage many opponents (no need to go find them) as the Lord leads (using the Evengellyfish term) and am able to have that "'answer, to anyone who asks..." 

As Calvin attests, apologetics as an organic/humane element of the Christian life: meaning, opportunities naturally arise from the mundane and regular parts of life. I think true, God-honoring apologetics happens this way --- because it is God-ordained, in a sense. Of course, a call to the ministry is different. This applies to church order. Meanwhile, I (a lowly lay-person) do "pre-evangelism" engaging any sort of contrary worldview...as need be. I am not tied to any one teacher, having my own thoughts about culture and truth. (What a relief!) But, gratefully, I'm under the authority of my pastor and elders. Their theological protection and support means so much to me!

I am more concerned about my own proclivity to pride and conceit. Humility is more important than the thrill of victory in battle. Honoring Christ will always reveal humility. An attitude toward opponents should avoid all "sons of thunder" traits. Negligence and sin ignore this first responsibility to the Lord; as He was humble, so should we be. The NT is clear.

Last points, I am awed at the privilege to represent Christ to those who hate Him. I am not driven by anger, worry or fear of man. I do get amazed at times....mostly, because it seems that someone more qualified should get the gigs. I walk, cautiously, (and I hope) caringly in feeble and inept attempts to honor God in these moments. As for opponents: my heart is heavy with grief, sadness and sometimes great horror at the state of their souls. They are not targets or trophies to prove my great knowledge or prowess (which I have none.) I must trust Christ that whatever my contribution, it will be in accord with His ordinations.

God help me.

As to the quip about posting a debate...I think such events boastful, leaning towards pride. I have no problem corresponding with an opponent; but I oppose most so-called debates because they border on "Christian voyerism." It also breeds disunity in the Church due to idolatry (1 Cor. 1.)

Unbelievers are people, made in God's image. They are not "apologetics fodder." in my opinion

At least, this is the way I see things, so far....



Robin



[Edited on 9-3-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> You have a point. But I meant if the Christian is first, grounded in the Faith, obedient to honoring Christ FIRST, the so-called "method" will be fine....because the Holy Spirit lives in us. Jesus told the disciples to not worry about what they would say....neither should we "worry". Rather, pursuade men because we "fear God." Skill in this can only come from deep understanding of the fear of God and His mercies.



I fully agree with the observation that we persuade men because we fear God and that skill in that comes only from that understanding and fear, as I'm sure all the other presuppositionalists here would as well. But I have a problem with saying that that skill and a biblical understanding of apologetics "will be fine" automatically if we simply love Christ and strive to honor Him. I say that because there are Arminians who truly love Christ and strive to honor Him, yet have a faulty understanding of a significant aspect of His work - not because they don't love Him or aren't striving to honor Him, but because they are misreading Scripture and failing to be consistent in their systematic theology. Likewise, it is equally possible to love Christ and be genuinely focused on Him and striving to honor Him, yet have a faulty understanding of biblical apologetics for the same reason.

Thus, one cannot simply dismiss apologetical "methods" as being vain to focus on and automatically following from a love of Christ any more than an Arminian can dismiss the doctrines of grace as "unimportant technicalities," saying that proper doctrine will always necessarily follow simply from a true love for Christ. On the contrary, both the true nature of salvation and the biblical nature and means of apologetics must be exegetically and systematically established from Scripture, and just as doing the former constitutes a distinguishing between correct and incorrect "technicalities" on salvation as many Arminians label them, so doing the latter constitutes a distinguishing between correct and incorrect "methods" on apologetics as we are using the term.



> _Originally posted by Robin_
> I could be wrong...and don't wish to be presumptuous...but all the fussing over methods and "heroes" of so-called successful apologetics appears like so much idolatry; fear of Satan's tactics; hyper-concern of how so and so does such and such. All this breeds the sins the Corinthian church suffered (1 Cor. 1.)



But could not the same thing be presumably claimed about us as Calvinists for fussing over technicalities and pointing to "heroes" of the Reformation? Of course we would answer such claims by saying that our beliefs are fully based on Scripture, as were theirs, and they are simply people who have articulated that position from the Scriptures quite well, and can thus be helpful in explaining and defending that biblical doctrine. Likewise, we say the same thing with regard to presuppositional apologists like Van Til and Bahnsen and their relation to the Bible's authoritative revelation on the true nature and role of apologetics.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Does anyone know of a Chart or page of comparison between the two views? (Simplistic overview) That would be helpful also.

One of my main stumbling blocks concerning the presup position is that I see presuppositionalism assuming blindly that Man should innately know about God because of what is in himself. Am I misunderstanding this?

Evidentialism has it's downfall in that facts are still only percieved truth. We all see things through corruption. That is why scientific so called facts are changing daily. 

[Edited on 9-3-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Does anyone know of a Chart or page of comparison between the two views? (Simplistic overview) That would be helpful also. One of my main stumbling blocks concerning the presup position is that I see presuppositionalism assuming blindly that Man should innately know about God.



We assume, but not blindly.




> Am I misunderstanding this?
> Evidentialism has it's downfall in that facts are still only percieved truth. We all see things through corruption. That is why scientific so called facts are changing daily.
> 
> [Edited on 9-3-2005 by puritancovenanter]



Facts changing daily? In other words, facts are only meaningful within an interpretive framework (which is another word for presuppositions).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Sorry, Jacob but I edited some of my questioning. There still is fact. It doesn't change. Just as the fact that creation will always reveal to man the invisible attributes of God. That comes from God to show man. It is communication from outside of man directed toward man. Do you know of a chart of comparison?

[Edited on 9-3-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Sorry, Jacob but I edited some of my questioning. There still is fact. It doesn't change. Just as the fact that creation will always reveal to man the invisible attributes of God. That comes from God to show man. It is communication from outside of man directed toward man.



I never denied there was fact. I just denied that it could exist without meaning/interpretation, etc.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Sorry, Jacob but I edited some of my questioning. There still is fact. It doesn't change. Just as the fact that creation will always reveal to man the invisible attributes of God. That comes from God to show man. It is communication from outside of man directed toward man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never denied there was fact. I just denied that it could exist without meaning/interpretation, etc.
Click to expand...


That is good.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Sorry, Jacob but I edited some of my questioning. There still is fact. It doesn't change. Just as the fact that creation will always reveal to man the invisible attributes of God. That comes from God to show man. It is communication from outside of man directed toward man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never denied there was fact. I just denied that it could exist without meaning/interpretation, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is good.
Click to expand...


Would an evidentialist say fact could exist without meaning and interpretation? I guess I want to know where you guys agree and disagree. A chart is usually good for something like that.

[Edited on 9-3-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Sorry, Jacob but I edited some of my questioning. There still is fact. It doesn't change. Just as the fact that creation will always reveal to man the invisible attributes of God. That comes from God to show man. It is communication from outside of man directed toward man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never denied there was fact. I just denied that it could exist without meaning/interpretation, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would an evidentialist say fact could exist without meaning and interpretation? I guess I want to know where you guys agree and disagree. A chart is usually good for something like that.
> 
> [Edited on 9-3-2005 by puritancovenanter]
Click to expand...


This brings up analogical reasoning within Van Til's thoughts...or archtypal and ectypal...All facts are preinterpreted by God who is the Creator of all 'facts'. There are no facts that are not known by God and imbued with a proper meaning. We are called to think God's thoughts after him. If He calls something evil and we call it good - then our interpretation is wrong - even if we try to 'reason' or appeal to 'facts' to back up our interpretation.

As for a simple comparison, check this out -
http://puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=13211


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Sorry, Jacob but I edited some of my questioning. There still is fact. It doesn't change. Just as the fact that creation will always reveal to man the invisible attributes of God. That comes from God to show man. It is communication from outside of man directed toward man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never denied there was fact. I just denied that it could exist without meaning/interpretation, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would an evidentialist say fact could exist without meaning and interpretation? I guess I want to know where you guys agree and disagree. A chart is usually good for something like that.
> 
> [Edited on 9-3-2005 by puritancovenanter]
Click to expand...


If the evidentialist says that "the facts speak for themselves" or that "we should interpret the facts without the underlying assumption that presuppositions govern our interpretation (J.W. Montgomery)," then an evidentialist is saying that facts exist without meaning.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> If the evidentialist says that "the facts speak for themselves" or that "we should interpret the facts without the underlying assumption that presuppositions govern our interpretation (J.W. Montgomery)," then an evidentialist is saying that facts exist without meaning.



Can you give me an example using the knowledge we have concerning the atom or the knowledge we have concerning the patterns of the stars? i.e. Psalm 19


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> If the evidentialist says that "the facts speak for themselves" or that "we should interpret the facts without the underlying assumption that presuppositions govern our interpretation (J.W. Montgomery)," then an evidentialist is saying that facts exist without meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give me an example using the knowledge we have concerning the atom or the knowledge we have concerning the patterns of the stars? i.e. Psalm 19
Click to expand...


Maybe, can you clarify your question? I think I understand but I want to make sure we are on the same page.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

What kind of facts are the examples telling us. What are the facts saying to us? What are the facts impying? Or maybe it isn't facts but what are these things revealing? For example what is the atom telling us?

[Edited on 9-3-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Let me also explain why I use the atom and stars. I have heard a few testimonies (including mine) where the stars played a role in pointing to God. The fact that it is not a chaotic Universe points to design. Physical laws come into play. But they don't point to specific revelation. They point to the invisible attributes of design and if there is design there is a designer. Thus my understanding of 1+1=2.
Or better yet Y+1=2. I don't know Y.

[Edited on 9-3-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> maybe Allah designed things? Thus how do you get to the God of the Bible?



Yes this may be true if you pressupose Mohammad was a profit.



> what about chaotic elements of nature? Do those point to the non-existence of a designer?



Are you speaking of things as Natural disaster? Even in those things order is found. 



> what about your argument:
> 
> Everything I see appears to have design.
> 
> Something that has design must have had a desinger.
> 
> Therefore the universe, as a whole, was designed.
> 
> But this is a falacious argument from the parts to the whole. You jumped from particular examples to a universal conclusion. A notorious fallacy.



God used an Ass one time. Maybe my conclusion about a designer was falacious because I saw it's witness in the heavens. 



> Does God need a designer?



I wasn't sure about this when I was made to acknowledge the fact of design. In fact I questioned this also. 



> Why do we have so many physical problems if we've been desiged? Is God a bad designer? You may speak of sin. But how do you know this? From the Bible? But that's what you're trying to prove!



I didn't consider this. I did know that I was causing pain in life for others by the way I was behaving. I did know I was being restrained by the fact that I couldn't do whatever I wanted to do. I was being held to laws of boundary. Divine Soveriegnty wasn't apart of my understanding when I started looking for evidence concerning what I should believe. I did know there where historical facts that needed exploring though. I did read pro and con literature about Christ. He was Historical. So was Allah. I was in the Navy and we had many different cultures involved. I was also introduce to Hinduism. I needed more than pressuppositions.

[Edited on 9-3-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I have no clue how your post interacted with what I said  ???



Experience also plays a part of my interaction. I was just answering your questions and charges as they presented themselves.

Example the first statement.

Quote: 
Originally posted by Paul manata

_maybe Allah designed things? Thus how do you get to the God of the Bible? _ 

My response, after I corrected the spelling.

_Yes this may be true if you pressupose Mohammad was a profit._


In other words you do not get to the God of the Bible through pressuppossitons. They can start off false.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> who said I "get to the God of the Bible through presuppositions?" Not me. Not any other presuppositionalist. Randy, you're arguing against an apologetic school of your making, not the one I, or any others here, hold to.



That is what I am trying to discover. I am using language and assumption myself so that I can understand what is being said. I told you I was at the elemetary level. It just seemed that you guys are pounding on evidentialism which interpreted itself to me that you were pounding away at evidences for faith.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

What kind of evidences for faith do you consider to be viable? I want to know how you guys use them. You seem to bash McDowell and I think he presents some pretty reasonable stuff.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> who said I "get to the God of the Bible through presuppositions?" Not me. Not any other presuppositionalist. Randy, you're arguing against an apologetic school of your making, not the one I, or any others here, hold to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what I am trying to discover. I am using language and assumption myself so that I can understand what is being said. I told you I was at the elemetary level. It just seemed that you guys are pounding on evidentialism which interpreted itself to me that you were pounding away at evidences for faith.
Click to expand...


If so then my apologies for speaking past one another. We thought that you were equaling evidences for the faith with evidentialism (an enlightenment view for or against the faith). If the evidences are interpreted within a worldview that borrows from the Enlightenment then we will attack it to the hilt.

However, if the evidences are interpreted within a Christian Theistic worlview, then we will gladly supply more.

But notice that I am saying that evidences are interpreted within a worldview. In other words, I am precluding the brute factness of evidence.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Don't brute facts point ultimately to God though? Ultimately if one is honest (or can be honest) all brute facts point ultimately toward God don't they? An unregenerate will never be totally honest because he us so flawed by spiritual death and sin.

[Edited on 9-3-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> What kind of evidences for faith do you consider to be viable? I want to know how you guys use them. You seem to bash McDowell and I think he presents some pretty reasonable stuff.



All facts are evidences for God. _All_ facts! Yes I have witnessed to my friend at work using 2+2=4 as an evidence for God and that on a non-Christian worldview he couldn't make sense of it. I have appealed to nature. But I did all of the above not claiming a *neutral* common ground - but rather argued presuppositionally. I never grant an unbeliever logic, morality, empirical evidences without challenging their basis for it. Like Bahnsen argued in his debate with Stein - even showing up for the debate was admitting defeat!


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> What kind of evidences for faith do you consider to be viable? I want to know how you guys use them. You seem to bash McDowell and I think he presents some pretty reasonable stuff.



Doesn't matter which evidences you bring forth. I think they are all good (sort of). The problem with McDowell is that he presents them as though they are neutral. He assumes a Christian worldview when he presents them. Of course, he won't admit that. 

Assume the contrary for a moment. When a naturalist presents evidence "against" the Christian faith, he is presupposing a number of things from the outset: the uniformity of nature, causation, the inductive principle, the universality of morality (something which not all Reformed Christians agree to, sadly)--all of which can not be proven by his standards.

The problem is not the evidence being presented--they are fine and dandy and I would gladly use them given the right context. The problem is that the unbeliever will intepret them differently (see the dead man bleeding illustration).


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Don't brute facts point ultimately to God though? Ultimately if one is honest (or can be honest) all brute facts point ultimately toward God don't they. An unregenerate will never be totally honest because he us so flawed by spiritual death and sin.



What do you mean by *brute* facts? Uninterpreted facts? or facts that most people agree on? Facts outside of God?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I don't believe any fact is necessarily neutral. All of Creation declares the Glory of God. Even unregenerate man.


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I don't believe any fact is necessarily neutral. All of Creation declares the Glory of God. Even unregenerate man.


No disagreements from anyone in the peanut gallery...

From John Frame's - A Van Til Glossary (excellent starting place for all of us to talk the same way...)



> Brute fact: (1) (in VT) fact that is uninterpreted (by God, man, or both) and therefore the basis of all interpretation; (2) objective fact: fact not dependent on what man thinks about it.



So when you hear myself, Jacob, Chris, Paul etc. argue _against_ brute facts - we are arguing against definition #1 and deny the fact (pardon the pun) that there are *any* non-interpreted facts because God is the pre-conditioner/pre-interpreter in fact he gives meaning to all things. I think you (Randy) would agree with this. 

I really think we are getting caught up in semantics...

Randy, other than not liking some of the terminology at this point, has their been anything said on any of our parts or postings from Van Til etc. that you would *disagree* with?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _ Draughthorse_
> The problem is that the unbeliever will intepret them differently (see the dead man bleeding illustration).



Jacob, Your dead man illustration stinks. The gentleman is not reasonable nor looking at any evidence. He is delusional.

Chris, In what I have read from your posts I am comfortable with Van Til so far.


----------



## Me Died Blue

Robin, how would you answer my above questions to you on the nature of apologetics and its relation to Christ and the other theological elements of the faith?



> _Originally posted by Robin_
> I'm compelled to ask, where in the Bible does it teach Christians to attack other Christians about their use of apologetics? (Is the doctrine of Justification is at risk here.) ?
> 
> Let me be perfectly CLEAR....is "tearing apart" another brother/sister's walk in the Faith, due to differences in non-essential (meaning the Gospel is not endangered) issues, something the Bible teaches?
> 
> Are you making skill in apologetics a "test of orthodoxy?"



Why would justification be the only issue that warrants a critique of another believer's view? Baptism does not put the doctrine of justification at risk, and we on this board certainly believe it is biblical to critique each other's views on that issue to get to the biblical truth on the matter. So how is apologetics any different? Now I of course agree that we should do such critiquing in a charitable manner, but that likewise holds true just as much with baptism and even justification.

And if I may speak for Paul, I don't think he is trying to make it an issue of "skill" any more than a proper understanding of the doctrines of grace would constitute having "skill" at biblical exegesis. Rather, like those doctrines, the real issue in the apologetic debates is to get at what the biblical position is on the nature of truth, how that truth is to be approached in dealing with unbelievers and what the systematic truth of the Bible looks like when properly applied to the realm of defending the faith. In other words, just like justification, providence or baptism, it is an issue of _doctrine_, not one of skill.



> _Originally posted by Robin_
> I totally GET it, Paul. You are devoted to Bahnsen and Van Til. (Btw, Van Til didn't help to establish the Reformation - he's no comparison to Calvin.)
> 
> I also understand you have a fair amount of distaste for my pastor and the other teachers I subscribe to. So I must assume you disdain the Confessions, as well as the work of pastors to protect and equip the flock. ???
> 
> I also understand that you apparently have no regard for the real loyalty I must have as a member of a local body, subscribing to Confessions and under the authority of pastors and elders.



Again, if I may offer my perception, I think you misunderstood Paul's comments on your pastor and other teachers. I do not believe he was denouncing your respect for them and their views, but was rather pointing out that that respect of yours parallels his respect for the views of Van Til and Bahnsen, thus illustrating that he is not looking to them as some sort of guru any more than you are the teachers of yours that he mentioned. The reason the analogy between Van Til and Calvin works is that _neither of them are on the same level as Scripture_, and there should be a mutual acknowledgment between all of us here that none of us are following any of them on such a level.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> You have a point. But I meant if the Christian is first, grounded in the Faith, obedient to honoring Christ FIRST, the so-called "method" will be fine....because the Holy Spirit lives in us. Jesus told the disciples to not worry about what they would say....neither should we "worry". Rather, pursuade men because we "fear God." Skill in this can only come from deep understanding of the fear of God and His mercies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fully agree with the observation that we persuade men because we fear God and that skill in that comes only from that understanding and fear, as I'm sure all the other presuppositionalists here would as well. But I have a problem with saying that that skill and a biblical understanding of apologetics "will be fine" automatically if we simply love Christ and strive to honor Him. I say that because there are Arminians who truly love Christ and strive to honor Him, yet have a faulty understanding of a significant aspect of His work - not because they don't love Him or aren't striving to honor Him, but because they are misreading Scripture and failing to be consistent in their systematic theology. Likewise, it is equally possible to love Christ and be genuinely focused on Him and striving to honor Him, yet have a faulty understanding of biblical apologetics for the same reason.
> 
> Thus, one cannot simply dismiss apologetical "methods" as being vain to focus on and automatically following from a love of Christ any more than an Arminian can dismiss the doctrines of grace as "unimportant technicalities," saying that proper doctrine will always necessarily follow simply from a true love for Christ.
Click to expand...


Chris -

I am NOT dismissing apologetics. Read my post more *carefully*. I am NOT referring to any confession of Christ BUT the solid grounding in the Reformed doctrines -- and/or the sound Biblical teachings (as per Romans.) The "will be fine" reference points to trust in the Holy Spirit to do what He promised. I am NOT a "neutralist" ( Bahnsen sets-up a false dilemma, characturizes and attacks all Christians different from him.) I am saying there are Christians who do a true, Godly task of apologetics who don't "fit a mold" as per Bahnsen, Van Til (or whoever else comes along.) Imagine that? God actually equips His people in such a way, that it cannot be _packaged for sale_ (books/tapes, etc.) It must be accomplished through true discipleship.

Space will not permit...but I am emphasizing "honor" to Christ as taught in Scripture:

*2 Timothy 2:24-26* 
And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. 


*1 Corinthians 12:14-31*
For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. 

The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. 

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts.

And then the Apostle goes onto describe in Chapter 13 *L O V E*.

This is the definition of love I point to! Not a vague, subjective thing.

R.

[Edited on 9-3-2005 by Robin]


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Chris, In what I have read from your posts I am comfortable with Van Til so far.



And for the sake of all who visit the board - ultimately it is not to agree with Van Til because he is a hero or anything. Anyone who wants to be a Van Tillian just wants to be as Biblical in their apologetic as possible. We just think that Van Til has distilled and systematized the Bible apologetically the best.

In reality, most people that do not follow Van Til haven't read Van Til. That's why I do my best to keep putting quotes from him out there. It would be the height of strawmanism to openly say that Van Til is this or that with quotes staring you in the face. But surprisingly, people do that all the time. 

(Randy - this was a general post - don't take any of this personally.)


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _ Draughthorse_
> The problem is that the unbeliever will intepret them differently (see the dead man bleeding illustration).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob, Your dead man illustration stinks. The gentleman is not reasonable nor looking at any evidence. He is delusional.
> 
> Chris, In what I have read from your posts I am comfortable with Van Til so far.
Click to expand...


I agree that the man is delusional. That was the whole point. My argument is that unbelieving man is morally and intellectually insane. He is dead in sins and trespasses. 
The point of the illustration was that men, if desperate, will interpret facts within a framework. 

If an unbeliever came up to you and presented what appeared to be "indestructible proof" against the existence of God, would you accept it or would you brush that fact off since it (rightly) didn't coalesce with your worldview?

Look at it another way--evidentialism is a purely arminian apologetic. Almost all arminians are evidentialists or classicists. Furthermore, evidentialism requires an appeal to man's autonomous reason. Why not go a step further and appeal to his autonomous will?


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Paul,
> 
> Let me be perfectly CLEAR....is "tearing apart" another brother/sister's walk in the Faith, due to differences in non-essential (meaning the Gospel is not endangered) issues, something the Bible teaches?


 Nobody defines apologetics that way. Again, you are strawmanning it.





> I totally GET it, Paul. You are devoted to Bahnsen and Van Til. (Btw, Van Til didn't help to establish the Reformation - he's no comparison to Calvin.)



That's not the point. From your posts one gathers that it is okay for you to be devoted to Dr Riddlebarger (a man that I generally have high regard for) but its not okay for me or Paul to have a high regard for Dr Bahnsen (a man not alive to defend himself).

Furthermore, Van Til didn't establish the Reformation because he probably wasn't alive then. If you read Van Til you will note that he was a militant disciple of Calvin. He applied Calvin's Institutes to apologetics/philosophy and the result was the utter (potential)destruction of paganism.



> I also understand you have a fair amount of distaste for my pastor and the other teachers I subscribe to. So I must assume you disdain the Confessions, as well as the work of pastors to protect and equip the flock. ???



I doubt that Paul is doing that, but are you equating agreeing with your teachers in all matters with Confessional Orthodoxy?


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _ Draughthorse_
> The problem is that the unbeliever will intepret them differently (see the dead man bleeding illustration).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob, Your dead man illustration stinks. The gentleman is not reasonable nor looking at any evidence. He is delusional.
Click to expand...


While that would probably never actually happen with a living man in our world, notice that that is _only_ because nearly everyone in our world maintains that dead people will not bleed, and holds that belief at a very central, fundamental place in their web of beliefs. In other words, I believe that a dead person will not bleed, and I also believe that an Energizer battery lasts longer than a generic brand battery - yet it would be _much_ easier for someone to change my mind on the latter belief than on the former, and that is solely because I believe the former at a more fundamental level than I believe the latter. It might take no more than a couple observations to change my view on the latter, _since simple observations are the only reason I even hold that view_ - but it would take some thorough re-workings of some of my most basic assumptions and understandings to change my view on the former, _since those deeper types of convictions are the reasons I hold that view_.

So the dead man analogy is simply trying to illustrate the principle of the varying "centrality" or "fundamentalness" that different beliefs and assumptions of people's can have in their mind. In other words, the person believes that (1) he is dead, and that (2) dead people don't bleed. The combination of those two beliefs logically requires him to also believe that he doesn't bleed; so when he surprisingly is shown that that belief is false, and that he _does_ in fact bleed, it likewise lets him know that one of his two supporting beliefs must be false - so which is it? His answer to that question will reveal which of those beliefs is more foundational and central to his system of beliefs or worldview: If he believes the latter more strongly than he believes the former, he would assume the latter to still be true and say, "Wow, I guess I'm not dead after all." But if, on the other hand, he believes the former at heart more strongly than he believes the latter, he would in fact assume the former to still be true and say, "Wow, I guess dead people do bleed after all." 

To use a parallel example than might be more tangible, if I see a piece of red gum that I believe to be cherry flavored, and I also believe that cinnamon is the only red gum that is spicy, suppose I chew the gum and find that it tastes spicy. At that point, there are two possibilities for what I will think: I will either think "Wow, I guess this gum is cinnamon rather than cherry after all," or else I will think, "Wow, I guess some cherry gum can be spicy after all." Notice that which one of those options comes to my mind immediately after chewing the gum is _solely_ dependent on, and thus reveals, which initial assumption of mine (the gum is cherry, or only cinnamon gum is spicy) I believed more strongly, or which one was more "fundamental" in my whole system of thought.

*All in all, those examples simply illustrate the point that people interpret "facts" and and experiences they encounter within the broader scheme of their entire system of thought, which includes all of their past thoughts and experiences. So when a hardened, unregenerate man becomes convinced through some archaeological and manuscript evidence that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead, will he conclude, "Wow, I guess Jesus actually was more than an ordinary human being," or will he conclude, "Wow, I guess ordinary human beings actually can rise from the dead"? His belief that ordinary humans can't rise from the dead is a belief he has come to by external observations and experiences, but his belief that Jesus was not God is much more deeply ingrained into his fundamental beliefs and assumptions, since his unregenerate heart prevents him from believing otherwise. That is why archaeological and manuscript evidences are vain defenses without being pre-interpreted within the Christian worldview, since someone who rejects the Christian worldview could and always would change their views on science and history to explain those evidences before they would ever change their views on Jesus to explain those evidences, as illustrated by the unbelieving man I mention above.*

[Edited on 9-4-2005 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Chris -
> 
> I am NOT dismissing apologetics. Read my post more *carefully*. I am NOT referring to any confession of Christ BUT the solid grounding in the Reformed doctrines -- and/or the sound Biblical teachings (as per Romans.) The "will be fine" reference points to trust in the Holy Spirit to do what He promised. I am NOT a "neutralist" ( Bahnsen sets-up a false dilemma, characturizes and attacks all Christians different from him.) I am saying there are Christians who do a true, Godly task of apologetics who don't "fit a mold" as per Bahnsen, Van Til (or whoever else comes along.) Imagine that? God actually equips His people in such a way, that it cannot be _packaged for sale_ (books/tapes, etc.) It must be accomplished through true discipleship.



OK, I think I understand what you're saying now - you're not saying that a love for and knowledge of Christ will necessarily, naturally lead one to biblical apologetics, but you are saying that a properly biblical Reformed systematic theology as a whole will naturally do so. Am I perceiving that correctly? If so, I still have a problem with that, as the example of baptism illustrates. Reformed, Particular Baptists agree with you and myself on so much of the substance of Covenant Theology and the rest of Reformed systematic theology as well, yet you and I both agree that they fail to take those beliefs to their logical, biblical extent on that one point. So why could the same thing not often happen with apologetics? I basically see it as the same thing, since I personally see presuppositional apologetics as being the only theology of defending the faith that logically follows from, and is consistent with, the rest of Reformed theology, yet presuppositionalists such as myself believe some are in error by their rejection of that doctrine even though they agree with us on the rest of Reformed systematic theology, just as you and I both believe some are in error by their rejection of paedobaptism even though they agree with us on the rest of Reformed systematic theology.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Chris -
> 
> I am NOT dismissing apologetics. Read my post more *carefully*. I am NOT referring to any confession of Christ BUT the solid grounding in the Reformed doctrines -- and/or the sound Biblical teachings (as per Romans.) The "will be fine" reference points to trust in the Holy Spirit to do what He promised. I am NOT a "neutralist" ( Bahnsen sets-up a false dilemma, characturizes and attacks all Christians different from him.) I am saying there are Christians who do a true, Godly task of apologetics who don't "fit a mold" as per Bahnsen, Van Til (or whoever else comes along.) Imagine that? God actually equips His people in such a way, that it cannot be _packaged for sale_ (books/tapes, etc.) It must be accomplished through true discipleship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I think I understand what you're saying now - you're not saying that a love for and knowledge of Christ will necessarily, naturally lead one to biblical apologetics, but you are saying that a properly biblical Reformed systematic theology as a whole will naturally do so. Am I perceiving that correctly? If so, I still have a problem with that, as the example of baptism illustrates. Reformed, Particular Baptists agree with you and myself on so much of the substance of Covenant Theology and the rest of Reformed systematic theology as well, yet you and I both agree that they fail to take those beliefs to their logical, biblical extent on that one point. So why could the same thing not often happen with apologetics? I basically see it as the same thing, since I personally see presuppositional apologetics as being the only theology of defending the faith that logically follows from, and is consistent with, the rest of Reformed theology, yet presuppositionalists such as myself believe some are in error by their rejection of that doctrine even though they agree with us on the rest of Reformed systematic theology, just as you and I both believe some are in error by their rejection of paedobaptism even though they agree with us on the rest of Reformed systematic theology.
Click to expand...


I think St Anselm is the perfect example. He wasn't a full presuppositionalist, obviously. However, he did ask the right questions and was on the road to the right epistemology, even if he wasn't fully consistent. He and many others can be read with much profit. Same with St Augustine.

*This is not an endorsement of the Ontological Argument.


----------



## crhoades

Unbelief, mathematics, and anti-thesis -
Just read through this and thought it would be a valuable addition to our conversation -
Greg Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis, pg. 414-15



> Van Til stressed the absolute personal hostility and philosophical opposition between the essential nature of unbelief (resistance to God) and that of belief (submission to God's word and authority). In distilled form, we have death set over against life, or utter ignorance versus genuine knowledge. This kind of antithetical teaching left Van Til vulnerable to misinterpretation and criticism. Critics could easily construct a straw man out of his hard-hitting words, and then knock it down. For example, William Masselink claimed that Van Til's position, "results in an _absolute antithesis_" "For the natural man," he alleged, "the fact that 2X2=4 is just as certain as it is for the Christian. The Reconstructionists 19 however assert that also this is annihilated by sin." 20 But Van Til never taught that the natural man is so consistent and successful in his rebellion against God that he actually reaches the stage of knowing nothing whatsoever, becomes a blithering idiot, and never reaches true conclusions (or believes true propositions) in any sense on any subject at all. Asked whether he means to assert that unbelievers do not actually discover any truth by the methods they emply, Van Til replied firmly and categorically: "We mean nothing so absurd as that."21 Indeed, if the unbeliever were to be utterly ignorant on everything, he would no longer be responsible before God for his sin and rebellion. Because he is made as God's image, confronted with God's inescapable revelation, and restrained by the common grace of the Holy Spirit, the unbeliever cannot fail to know God and, by extension, to understand something of himself and God's world. Van Til thus taught: "There is a sense in which he knows something about everything, about God as well as about the world. ...Many non-Chrisitians have been great scientists. Often non-Christians have a better knowledge of the things of this world than Christians have. ... From a relative point of view he knows something about all things."22
> 
> 19. Although I rather like this term, it was not used here int he sense that is current in American Reformed circles today. Masselink distinguished the views of the "Reconstructionists" Van Til, Schilder, Vollenhoven, and Dooyeweerd (as he amalgamated them) from what he called "the Historic Reformed view" of men like Kuyper, Warfield, Bavinck, Hodge, Machen, Hepp and Berkhof.
> 
> 20. _General Revelation and Common Grace_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 161. Claims such as this are found throughout the book. In his copy of Masselink's book, Van Til at various places scrawled comments like "Outrageous!" and "I do not."
> 
> 21. Defense of the Faith, 120.
> 
> 22. Introduction to Systematic Theology, 83.


----------



## fredtgreco

MODERATOR:

I think that the baiting and name calling will stop now. As a matter of fact, I am sure of it -- yep, my delete button still works.

Paul, remember to be more gentle. Not everyone is a wrestlin' gumba. And listen to Randy (about gentleness, not evidentialism)

Robin, this is a forum about apologetical methods. It is for discussing the merits of such. That is what it is for. It is perfectly appropriate to go back and forth about what is the proper or best method. It is actually inappropriate to try and hijack a thread here and say it is unimportant; just like it would be to say that a point of theology did not matter in the theology forum.

This is a good example of audience analysis. If a Christian was having a discussion with an unbeliever using Evidentialism, I would not stop an dbop him over the head. But I might _afterwards, and in private_ discuss the merits of such with him. We all want to get to the same place. We all have our hot buttons and our pet theologies and teachers (me included). Anyone who has been on this board for more than a month knows BOTH Paul's and Robin's. (Yep).

Let's get back to the regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> All in all, those examples simply illustrate the point that people interpret "facts" and and experiences they encounter within the broader scheme of their entire system of thought, which includes all of their past thoughts and experiences. So when a hardened, unregenerate man becomes convinced through some archaeological and manuscript evidence that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead, will he conclude, "Wow, I guess Jesus actually was more than an ordinary human being," or will he conclude, "Wow, I guess ordinary human beings actually can rise from the dead"? His belief that ordinary humans can't rise from the dead is a belief he has come to by external observations and experiences, but His belief that Jesus was not God is much more deeply ingrained into His fundamental beliefs and assumptions, since his unregenerate heart prevents Him from believing otherwise. That is why archaeological and manuscript evidences are vain defenses without being pre-interpreted within the Christian worldview, since someone who rejects the Christian worldview could and always would change their views on science and history to explain those evidences before they would ever change their views on Jesus to explain those evidences, as illustrated by the unbelieving man I mention above.



 Good job Chris

As I stated elsewhere. I do not believe facts exist on their own. Just as we can not exist on our own. He holds all things together. They are not neutral. All facts point back to God somehow. 

[Edited on 9-4-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I feel the presups just don't get it. I do know that evidence is important or Jesus wouldn't have said, " Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he." Joh 13:19 And this also, "And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe." Joh 14:29
> 
> I wish there was some way to approach apologetics from both angles. I believe Presup and Evidentialism are both means to bringing ourselves in line with truth.



Randy....I agree that the best Biblical apologetics is a mix of both. (I don't know if it can be distilled and packaged for consumption in the "how to" books.) But I think Scripture portrays both presupp and evidential apologetics. We just need to remember that this is what they were teaching and defending:

Acts 3:42 And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as The Christ. 

Some insightful questions include, what kind of apologetics was Peter using? see:

Acts 2:14-41 
Acts 3:22

What style was Stephen's apologetic? Acts 6:14-7:53

Paul's many apologetics: proving Jesus was the Christ Acts 9:22;
speaking to and disputing with Hellenists, Acts 9:29; Acts 17; his appeal to eyewitness accounts 1 Cor. 15:3-8. Etc.

There are repeated statements of "explaining and proving" throughout. 

These are only a few references; Jesus' apologetical approach is fascinating, also.

Do we think we have people holding to worldviews new or different than the early church? Sure, things are in "new packages"....but I don't think there is an opposition that is new or unique.



R.


----------



## JKLeoPCA

The only apologetic that is effectual 100% of the time is the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. 
WSC.




> Q. 31. What is effectual calling?
> A. Effectual calling is the work of God´s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, *he doth persuade and enable *us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.



Other then that I just try to keep my foot out of my mouth, and keep notes about what's been agreed upon in the debate thus far. I dont know that I would call anything I've tried before an exact method, although I'm sure i've used bits and pieces of what all has been discussed so far. 


Peace and Grace



[Edited on 9-4-2005 by JKLeoPCA]


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> All in all, those examples simply illustrate the point that people interpret "facts" and and experiences they encounter within the broader scheme of their entire system of thought, which includes all of their past thoughts and experiences. So when a hardened, unregenerate man becomes convinced through some archaeological and manuscript evidence that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead, will he conclude, "Wow, I guess Jesus actually was more than an ordinary human being," or will he conclude, "Wow, I guess ordinary human beings actually can rise from the dead"? His belief that ordinary humans can't rise from the dead is a belief he has come to by external observations and experiences, but His belief that Jesus was not God is much more deeply ingrained into His fundamental beliefs and assumptions, since his unregenerate heart prevents Him from believing otherwise. That is why archaeological and manuscript evidences are vain defenses without being pre-interpreted within the Christian worldview, since someone who rejects the Christian worldview could and always would change their views on science and history to explain those evidences before they would ever change their views on Jesus to explain those evidences, as illustrated by the unbelieving man I mention above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good job Chris
> 
> As I stated elsewhere. I do not believe facts exist on their own. Just as we can not exist on our own. He holds all things together. They are not neutral. All facts point back to God somehow.
> 
> [Edited on 9-4-2005 by puritancovenanter]
Click to expand...


That's what presuppositionalists have always been saying about evidence.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_



 Good job Chris

As I stated elsewhere. I do not believe facts exist on their own. Just as we can not exist on our own. He holds all things together. They are not neutral. All facts point back to God somehow. 

[Edited on 9-4-2005 by puritancovenanter] [/quote]

That's what presuppositionalists have always been saying about evidence. [/quote]

Jacob....

(You've got a better head than I for this)....I'm curious....

Examine the content of Stephen's speech (Acts 7), what is his apologetic-style, in your opinion? Compared to Paul's speech (Acts 17)? I'm wondering what your take is on the quality of these two approaches? (Plus, do you think there are parallel applications for us?)



Robin


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> Jacob....
> 
> (You've got a better head than I for this)....I'm curious....
> 
> Examine the content of Stephen's speech (Acts 7), what is his apologetic-style, in your opinion? Compared to Paul's speech (Acts 17)? I'm wondering what your take is on the quality of these two approaches? (Plus, do you think there are parallel applications for us?)
> 
> Robin



Robin,

Stephen's speech was not a general apologetic. It was a very specific covenant lawsuit ( ×¨Ö´×™×‘ ) against the covenant breaking people of Israel. It is muhc more like a declamation of the prophets than an apologetic encounter. It was not meant to convince or evangelize, but bear testimony.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> Jacob....
> 
> (You've got a better head than I for this)....I'm curious....
> 
> Examine the content of Stephen's speech (Acts 7), what is his apologetic-style, in your opinion? Compared to Paul's speech (Acts 17)? I'm wondering what your take is on the quality of these two approaches? (Plus, do you think there are parallel applications for us?)
> 
> Robin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robin,
> 
> Stephen's speech was not a general apologetic. It was a very specific covenant lawsuit ( ×¨Ö´×™×‘ ) against the covenant breaking people of Israel. It is muhc more like a declamation of the prophets than an apologetic encounter. It was not meant to convince or evangelize, but bear testimony.
Click to expand...


Thanks, Fred. What about the use of this passage for the Jew today? It's probably a touchy issue...but, isn't this somehow an "evidential" type reference in pointing to perhaps some reasons for Israel's conflicts today? Is there a tie-in?

r.


----------



## crhoades

For two excellent expositions on Acts 17:

Van Til - Paul At Athens (10 pgs.) Attached as a html page to this post.
Greg Bahnsen The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens (23 pgs.)

[Edited on 9-4-2005 by crhoades]


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> Jacob....
> 
> (You've got a better head than I for this)....I'm curious....
> 
> Examine the content of Stephen's speech (Acts 7), what is his apologetic-style, in your opinion? Compared to Paul's speech (Acts 17)? I'm wondering what your take is on the quality of these two approaches? (Plus, do you think there are parallel applications for us?)
> 
> Robin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robin,
> 
> Stephen's speech was not a general apologetic. It was a very specific covenant lawsuit ( ×¨Ö´×™×‘ ) against the covenant breaking people of Israel. It is muhc more like a declamation of the prophets than an apologetic encounter. It was not meant to convince or evangelize, but bear testimony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks, Fred. What about the use of this passage for the Jew today? It's probably a touchy issue...but, isn't this somehow an "evidential" type reference in pointing to perhaps some reasons for Israel's conflicts today? Is there a tie-in?
> 
> r.
Click to expand...


Again, we don't have a problem with evidences. I have a problem with evidences that are being seen as neutral. Paul did not give the ontological/cosmological/teleological argument on Mars Hill. He took the unbelieving worldview, assumed its premises for the "sake of argument," and showed it to be absurd in light of the Triune God.

You had a long time ago your distaste for Bill Craig's methodology in theology (under which I would include apologetics). You get annoyed when he ends his apologetic with an arminian appeal. I agree with you. That is why I find it odd that many Reformed people accept a purely arminian approach to man's reason.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Thanks, Fred. What about the use of this passage for the Jew today? It's probably a touchy issue...but, isn't this somehow an "evidential" type reference in pointing to perhaps some reasons for Israel's conflicts today? Is there a tie-in?
> 
> r.



Robin,

I think that Stephen's speech has _some_ relevance for use with Jews today. But I don't think that it is either "Evidential" or "Presuppositional." Why? Because it does not consist of attacking a non-theistic worldview (after all, the Pharisees thought that they were doing God's work by killing Stephen), and it does not consist of providing "proofs" for Christianity either.

It is basically an indictment of the hard hearts of the Jews, for all that they have done. It is pretty unique - I take its main purpose as to show the taking of the Kingdom from the Jews to the Gentiles.


----------



## RamistThomist

chris, 
my u2u is down. what is the email i can reach you on right now?


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Thanks, Fred. What about the use of this passage for the Jew today? It's probably a touchy issue...but, isn't this somehow an "evidential" type reference in pointing to perhaps some reasons for Israel's conflicts today? Is there a tie-in?
> 
> r.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robin,
> 
> I think that Stephen's speech has _some_ relevance for use with Jews today. But I don't think that it is either "Evidential" or "Presuppositional." Why? Because it does not consist of attacking a non-theistic worldview (after all, the Pharisees thought that they were doing God's work by killing Stephen), and it does not consist of providing "proofs" for Christianity either.
> 
> It is basically an indictment of the hard hearts of the Jews, for all that they have done. It is pretty unique - I take its main purpose as to show the taking of the Kingdom from the Jews to the Gentiles.
Click to expand...


I agree, while on one hand i want to say it is purely presup, I don't see it. Of course, I don't see it as purely evidential either.


----------



## RamistThomist

emailed you


----------



## crhoades

*Acts 17 & 26 and the apologetic enterprise in relation to theology, evangelism, philosohpy*

From Van Til's Apologetic - Greg Bahnsen pgs.53-54

This is not at all true, however, to the New Testament witness. When
we examine the speeches in Acts or the discourses in the epistles, it
is extremely difficult to offer any objective line of demarcation between
theology, apologetics, and evangelism. The apostles simply did
not work in terms of a strict separation between these things. Where,
for instance, in the Areopagus address of Acts 17 does Paul leave
apologetics and begin evangelizing? For that matter, precisely where
was he doing theology, and where apologetics? Such questions are futile,
for they rest on muddled conceptions. The reason we cannot
draw strict lines between the theology, apologetics, and evangelism
of the Areopagus address is that in all three of these tasks Paul equally
presupposed the authority of the word of God and was working in
them all to apply it (whether positively stating the truth, defending
the truth, or appealing to people to be changed by the truth).40 The
same thing is true of Paul's apologia recorded in Acts 26. We find testimony
(his background and conversion, vv. 4-5, 16). We find theological
commitment to the foundational authority of Scripture (vv.
6-7, 22, 27) and the lordship of Christ (vv. 13-15, 19). We find philosophical
consideration given to the issue of what is possible and credible,
distinguishing truth from madness (vv. 8, 25). We find apologetical
claims to historical evidence (v. 26). We find evangelistic appeal
for a changed heart and mind through faith and repentance (vv. 18,
20). Here again it would be unnatural to dissect Paul's discourse into
rigid categories of theology, philosophy, apologetics, and evangelism.
All of these concerns run together.

We should say, therefore, that apologetics is not separate from, or
preparatory to, systematic theology or evangelistic proclamation. It
partakes of both, developing the truth about God and offering witness
to it. Like them both, it does not strive to act independently of
God's word and authority. *Apologetics works to develop a method of*

40. Cf. Greg L. Bahnsen, "The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens," Ashland Theological
Bulletin 13 (1980): 4-40, now published in Always Ready: Directions for Defending
the Faith (Texarkana, Ark.: Covenant Media Foundation, 1996).

54 THE TASK OF APOLOGETICS

*gospel presentation that is consistent with the full teaching of Scripture
and anticipates the personal needs of the unbeliever.* To answer
the objections of the unbeliever, the apologist needs to understand
issues about truth, knowledge, interpretation of experience, philosophical
worldview, etc., _better than_ the unbeliever himself; the apologist
must know the unbeliever and his world better than he himself
does. When apologetical theory sets forth principles for responding
to the unbeliever's attacks, then, these principles will touch on philosophical
questions such as those in epistemology (the theory of knowledge)"”
in which case apologetics obviously entails philosophical considerations,
just as much as it entails theological and evangelistic ones.
Moreover, the specific kind of epistemological position taken by the
apologist must be derived from the word of God, even as his theological
and evangelistic positions and practices are, lest the manner
in which he defends the faith prove inconsistent with (or philosophically
undermine) the message he is defending.

It could be said that Van Til has labored to rid our thinking about
apologetics, theology, philosophy, and evangelism of misleading dichotomies
between them"”polarizations that serve to overlook the
ethically qualified character of man's every intellectual ability and
effort. There are to be no other gods before the face of the Lord
(according to the first commandment, Ex. 20:3), no other authorities
over our thinking that detract from submission to the revealed
word of God. The Lord's claim upon us, even upon our thinking and
reasoning, is absolute and unchallengeable"”just because He is the
Lord (Rom. 3:4; 9:20; 11:33-34). Therefore, "take heed lest there
shall be anyone who robs you by means of his philosophy, even vain
deceit, which is after the tradition of men, after the rudimentary principles
of the world, and not after Christ" (Col. 2:8). *In that light, we
must not artificially separate positive statement (theology) from its
defense (apologetics), or separate the appeal for mental change
(evangelism) from the intellectual reason for such change (apologetics)
, or separate general reflection upon conceptual foundations
(philosophy) from the particular content of Christian concepts (theology,
apologetics).* Van Til rejects each of these dichotomies in
order that our thinking and scholarship will not be divided into two
phases, the first being autonomous and religiously neutral, and the
second being submissive to Christ and biblically faithful. For Van Til,
like Augustine, reason is not the platform (precondition) for faith,
but vice versa.

[Edited on 9-4-2005 by crhoades]


----------



## RamistThomist

*Speaking of Spiderwebs...*

Presuppositionalists approve of the use of evidences, yet we see them as connected via a "spiderweb" or network of beliefs. So, even if you attack "one" line of evidential testimony that the pagan holds dear, he can always revert to another line of defense. However, if you destroy the very foundation of his beliefs (taking out the middle of the spiderweb), he has nothing left to turn and must admit that his worldview is absurd.

Therefore, presuppositionalists love evidence. Using it this way it can effectively destroy the unbeliever's worldview.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> *Speaking of Spiderwebs...*
> 
> Presuppositionalists approve of the use of evidences, yet we see them as connected via a "spiderweb" or network of beliefs. So, even if you attack "one" line of evidential testimony that the pagan holds dear, he can always revert to another line of defense. However, if you destroy the very foundation of his beliefs (taking out the middle of the spiderweb), he has nothing left to turn and must admit that his worldview is absurd.
> 
> Therefore, presuppositionalists love evidence. Using it this way it can effectively destroy the unbeliever's worldview.



Francis Schaeffer calls this "taking the roof off."

r.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Again, we don't have a problem with evidences. I have a problem with evidences that are being seen as neutral. Paul did not give the ontological/cosmological/teleological argument on Mars Hill. He took the unbelieving worldview, assumed its premises for the "sake of argument," and showed it to be absurd in light of the Triune God.
> 
> You had a long time ago your distaste for Bill Craig's methodology in theology (under which I would include apologetics). You get annoyed when he ends his apologetic with an arminian appeal. I agree with you. That is why I find it odd that many Reformed people accept a purely arminian approach to man's reason.



J - I'm tracking you...and agree...and still wonder, what is meant by "neutral" evidences - by this, do you mean disconnected from God's truth?

Plus, what do you mean specifically about Reformed folk accepting the Arminian approach...you mean "evidential" references? Forgive my blockheadedness, what Reformed persons do that? (I'm think I use a blend of both P & E.)



r.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Again, we don't have a problem with evidences. I have a problem with evidences that are being seen as neutral. Paul did not give the ontological/cosmological/teleological argument on Mars Hill. He took the unbelieving worldview, assumed its premises for the "sake of argument," and showed it to be absurd in light of the Triune God.
> 
> You had a long time ago your distaste for Bill Craig's methodology in theology (under which I would include apologetics). You get annoyed when he ends his apologetic with an arminian appeal. I agree with you. That is why I find it odd that many Reformed people accept a purely arminian approach to man's reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J - I'm tracking you...and agree...and still wonder, what is meant by "neutral" evidences - by this, do you mean disconnected from God's truth?
> 
> Plus, what do you mean specifically about Reformed folk accepting the Arminian approach...you mean "evidential" references? Forgive my blockheadedness, what Reformed persons do that? (I'm think I use a blend of both P & E.)
> 
> 
> 
> r.
Click to expand...


I will temporarily use evidentialism synonymously with classical apologetics: J Gerstner, RC Sproul, Art Lindsley, BB Warfield, etc.

Also, Dr Rosenblatt is an evidentialist.

I agree with you on the Fran Schaeffer reference. Schaeffer asked the right questions and used the right terminology, but he drew the antithesis in the wrong places. I like him a lot, still.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Let me ask a question. Does Presup Position mean we try to give an apologetic based upon the unbellievers presuppositions, or are we giving an apologetic based upon our presupposition, or are we doing both?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I try to find our anothers Presuppositions first and address issues from there. It isn't real hard to break through most persons defences when you do this.


----------



## pastorway

I would presuppose that it has become evident that this is a classically long thread.......


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> I would presuppose that it has become evident that this is a classically long thread.......


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Paul is that like showing them there is no basis for their view of morality since they have nothing to point to for it's basis? And then showing them I have a basis of morality based upon a Creator?


Addition to post.....
I asked this before reading your last post and looking at the threads. I have been doing the above for years. Looks like we are in agreement.Humanity the Moral Standard?

[Edited on 9-5-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> A common confusion is that of mixing evidenCES and evidentialISM



I think this is part of my problem. Only part. I didn't undertand the differences between the uses of evidences and evidentialism. I still don't understand the relationship between the need or needlessness of evidences. There is obviously a need. Or we couldn't come to any logical conclusions.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> A common confusion is that of mixing evidenCES and evidentialISM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is part of my problem. Only part. I didn't undertand the differences between the uses of evidences and evidentialism. I still don't understand the relationship between the need or needlessness of evidences. There is obviously a need. Or we couldn't come to any logical conclusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no presupp has ever said there isn't a need, or a use for evidenCES. We reject the *methodology* of evidentialISM.
Click to expand...


Translation: don't use Josh McDowel's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" (or things like it...???)



r.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> Are you asking a convert to presuppose something or arrive at a conclusion or belief based upon pressupositions?
> 
> In other words are you just asking someone to believe something just because you believe it? Just because it is supposed truth? i.e. Christianity. Or are you asking someone to believe something about Christ and the Scriptures based upon evidence? i.e. blind faith vs. faith based upon evidence.



Neither!

Presuppositionalism is NOT blind faith.

And Presuppositionalism is NOT "based on evidence", per se.

Rather, Presuppositionalism is a manner of analyzing one's presuppositions to see whether or not they jive with _already agreed upon_ facts.


Here is a simplistic illustration:

Some guy says, "I don't believe in logic."
Then you say, "Why not?"
Then he starts giving you reasons why he doesn't believe in logic.

What is the best reponse at this point? Simply point out to him that, if logic doesn't exist, then there can't be any "reasons" for anything. Thus, his "reasons" for the nonexistence of logic are self-defeating. You both agree that reasons should be given. But his very use of "reasoning" is _proof_ that he believes in logic. 

Thus, you point out that his worldview does not jive with his actual beliefs. His presuppositions do not account for his actions.


Similarly, and atheist and I _already agree_ that 2 + 2 = 4. But his atheistic presuppositions cannot account for the existence or dependability of mathematics. (This can philosophically be shown to be true regarding non-christian theistic religions, as well.) The Christian's triune God is the ONLY valid presuppositional foundation for mathematics (or anything else, for that matter).

Make sense?

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Let me ask a question. Does Presup Position mean we try to give an apologetic based upon the unbellievers presuppositions, or are we giving an apologetic based upon our presupposition, or are we doing both?



My understanding is that we look at both. We look at the unbeliever's presups, and demonstrate that reality would be unintelligible according to them. Then we look at our presups, and demonstrate that reality is perfectly accounted for by them. Thus, we show the other person that he is unwittingly living and acting according to beliefs hijacked from the Christian worldview. The Triune God is the only One who can make the world make sense.


----------

