# Presuppositional Tract



## ThomasCartwright (Sep 23, 2009)

Am just preparing a simple tract "Is there a God?" for students here and would appreciate some constructive suggestions/criticisms. One of the major problems with the endless philosophical/theological disputes on Presupp vs Evident is that almost nothing in the way of practical apologetics seems to result. This board in many ways typifies this trend.

So, may be we can reverse the trend and produce something collectively. In this tract, I have sought to keep it presuppositional (to my knowledge). I set out a basic framework below:

IS THERE A GOD?

All men know that God exists from three sources:

INTERNAL

(1) Conscience - Law of God in their hearts

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. 

(2) Intuitive - Eternity planted in their hearts

Ecc 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. 

EXTERNAL

(3) Creation (Rom 1:19-20)

(a) Teleology 
- Macro - planets (Psa 19:1;Isa 40:22 )
- Micro - e.g. cell, brain (Psa 143:5

(b) Cosmological - First Cause based on evidence for beginning of univese e.g. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics 

Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 
Heb 1:11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 

(c) Morality - Objective Moral Lawgiver needed by universal objective moral norms.

(d) Consciousness - life is more than materialism.

(e) Meaning of Life - without God there is no meaning or purpose

As Donald Barnhouse says, "Will God give man brains to see these things and will man then fail to exercise his will toward that God? The sorrowful answer is that both of these things are true. God will give a man brains to smelt iron and make a hammerhead and nails. God will grow a tree and give man strength to cut it down and brains to fashion a hammer handle from its wood, and when man has the hammer and the nails God will put out 'His hand and let men drive those nails through it and place Him on a cross in the supreme demonstration that men are without excuse."


----------



## rbcbob (Sep 23, 2009)

Strictly speaking the Cosmological and Teleological Arguments are part of the Thomistic Proofs and would be more consistent with Evidentialism.


Have you looked at Richard Pratt's *Every thought Captive* 



> 5.0 out of 5 stars Yes, it's the Best Intro. to Biblical Apologetics!..., July 25, 2001
> By Chang Yuon (Emeryville, CA USA) - See all my reviews
> Pratt gives us a very short and condensed form of what is known as Pressupositional Apologetics (following after VanTil). Although Pratt hardly defends this approach from all it's critics, he lays down clearly what is at the heart of biblical apologetics. He does this by first showing his readers that God-centered apologetics arises from love for God and the gospel.
> 
> ...


----------



## MMasztal (Sep 23, 2009)

I teach a theology/apologetics course to my school’s 11th & 12th grade students. I don’t see where the Presup/Evid debate here at the PB doesn’t lead to any practical apologetic methods. 

First, use presuppositional apologetics is to dismantle the unbeliever’s worldview and show it to be nonsensical. Then you can lead him to the Scriptures to learn truth.


----------



## ThomasCartwright (Sep 23, 2009)

rbcbob said:


> Strictly speaking the Cosmological and Teleological Arguments are part of the Thomistic Proofs and would be more consistent with Evidentialism.



Thanks for the reference. 

I do not accept the argument that the Teleological argument is evidential because from the presuppositions of Psa 19 and Romans 1 we are told that the handiwork of God in creation declares His existence to all men. That can be seen in the intelligent design around us. Even John Frame in his book Intro to Apologetics accepts the use of the TA but for a slightly different reason.

Re the Cosmological pt, I think Heb 1:10-11 as well as Isa 40:22 indicate that the scientific evidence fits perfectly with the Biblical presuppositions there. That is why I think it is valid to point to these testifying evidences grounded on the Biblical premises.

The fact that Aquinas used them to establish the existence of God without reference to Scripture does not invalidate evidences used in light of the premises of Scripture. Frame and Bahnsen make the point that Van Til accepted the use of evidence in respect of the latter. 

Michael

I hope we do not end up in one of these longwinded hyper Van Tilian vs Van Tilian lite arguments. Would prefer if we kept those to another thread. 

I am not against strong arguments here (I have been the one arguing on translations thread for a consistent presuppositional approach to the Greek and Hebrew texts). However, I am hoping that this thread could be used to produce something for practical apologetics such as a tract.


----------



## MMasztal (Sep 23, 2009)

ThomasCartwright;692259
Michael
I hope we do not end up in one of these longwinded hyper Van Tilian vs Van Tilian lite arguments. Would prefer if we kept those to another thread.
I am not against strong arguments here (I have been the one arguing on translations thread for a consistent presuppositional approach to the Greek and Hebrew texts). However said:


> Maybe a "tract" isn't an appropriate method of conducting apologetics. A booklet would give you enough room to develop your arguement.


----------



## jason d (Sep 23, 2009)

Might I suggest that the tract include,...um,... THE GOSPEL 

No but seriously, I like the idea that this tract have presupposition apologetics in it but if it doesn't have the gospel then I don't think it very beneficial.


----------



## rbcbob (Sep 23, 2009)

> I do not accept the argument that the Teleological argument is evidential because from the presuppositions of Psa 19 and Romans 1 we are told that the handiwork of God in creation declares His existence to all men. That can be seen in the intelligent design around us. Even John Frame in his book Intro to Apologetics accepts the use of the TA but for a slightly different reason.
> 
> Re the Cosmological pt, I think Heb 1:10-11 as well as Isa 40:22 indicate that the scientific evidence fits perfectly with the Biblical presuppositions there. That is why I think it is valid to point to these testifying evidences grounded on the Biblical premises.
> 
> The fact that Aquinas used them to establish the existence of God without reference to Scripture does not invalidate evidences used in light of the premises of Scripture. Frame and Bahnsen make the point that Van Til accepted the use of evidence in respect of the latter.



Point taken and appreciated. I was indeed referring to the classical Thomistic Proofs in the way that Aquinas used them.


----------



## ThomasCartwright (Sep 23, 2009)

MMasztal said:


> Maybe a "tract" isn't an appropriate method of conducting apologetics. A booklet would give you enough room to develop your arguement.



Unfortunately we need to mass produce these in a simple and economical format for the many universities here. 

Jason - obviously the gospel will be included. I did not include it here as I supposed we all agreed on those elements. Sorry that has not been made clear - we are all presuppositionalists!


----------



## cih1355 (Sep 23, 2009)

ThomasCartwright said:


> Am just preparing a simple tract "Is there a God?" for students here and would appreciate some constructive suggestions/criticisms. One of the major problems with the endless philosophical/theological disputes on Presupp vs Evident is that almost nothing in the way of practical apologetics seems to result. This board in many ways typifies this trend.
> 
> So, may be we can reverse the trend and produce something collectively. In this tract, I have sought to keep it presuppositional (to my knowledge). I set out a basic framework below:
> 
> ...



After talking about God's existence, you can also discuss God's authority over everyone and that God judges everyone. Then, you can talk about the sinfulness of man and God's plan to save His people.


----------

