# A question regarding presuppositionalism - Why only Christianity?



## Confessor

The title pretty well expresses my question: I do not have any difficulty seeing why an atheistic worldview is unacceptable because it cannot justify the accountability of reason, science, etc., but I want to know how Islam or Judaism or possibly some newly concocted hoax cannot equally well explain them.

Why does the Christian God account for reason but not Allah? Further, what is stopping a person confronted with presuppositional tactics from just saying he believes in a separate God that can create reason, but not a god represented by any world religion today?

I see this as one of my final hurdles to fully embracing the presuppositional apologetic method, and I would deeply appreciate your responses.


----------



## Zenas

packabacka said:


> The title pretty well expresses my question: I do not have any difficulty seeing why an atheistic worldview is unacceptable because it cannot justify the accountability of reason, science, etc., but I want to know how Islam or Judaism or possibly some newly concocted hoax cannot equally well explain them.
> 
> Why does the Christian God account for reason but not Allah? Further, what is stopping a person confronted with presuppositional tactics from just saying he believes in a separate God that can create reason, but not a god represented by any world religion today?
> 
> I see this as one of my final hurdles to fully embracing the presuppositional apologetic method, and I would deeply appreciate your responses.



Because the other competing ideas of religion are all false and illogical on their face. 

While presuppositionalism will lead you naturally away from atheism and into theism, it is not hard to surmise that one would be led to Christianity, assuming they are following the logical trail. 

Judaism, Islam, etc. can all and have been proven false and/or incomplete in the face of serious criticism. Christianity remains, however. Judaism denies the Messiah that was promised to them, and Islam is a form of Christian heresey. Buddishm et al are also easily disposed of as the notion karma is illogical on it's face, at least according to my understanding, which may be flawed. 

At the end of the day, however, keep in mind that it is not the presuppositionalist argument that will lead one to God, but that God will draw to Himself all of those who are His. What you are asking of this apologetic stance is something that it, and indeed no apologetic approach does or can offer, i.e. a path for the unbeliever to Christ. God is the only one that can work in their hearts and lead them to Him. 

I would also suggest you re-examine you view on what exactly apologetics is, as you might be confusing it with evangelism. Certainly, in our apologetic task we want to call the unbeliever to faith and repentence in Christ, but seeing their conversion isn't the point, or at least I don't think so, and niether did John Calvin or Greg Bahnsen. Both these men saw the purpose to be closing the blasphemous mouth of the unbeliever, and presuppositionalism certainly does that, see generally the Bahnsen v. Stein debate (as I'm told). 



Does anyone know where one can view the Bahnsen v. Stien debate? I would really like to see that man get taken to the intellectual woodshed.


----------



## RamistThomist

Because other worldviews are boring and are easily out-narrated.

Islam cannot account for love because their god is a monad who could only communicate/relate by sheer power.


----------



## Confessor

Zenas said:


> While presuppositionalism will lead you naturally away from atheism and into theism, it is not hard to surmise that one would be led to Christianity, assuming they are following the logical trail.



It's not so much that I am unsure of what atheists would do once they abandon atheism; rather, I want to see if there are any true "safety valves" that could hinder belief in Christ, any outlets that would falsely set themselves up as equal to Christ, setting each to be simply options.



> Judaism, Islam, etc. can all and have been proven false and/or incomplete in the face of serious criticism. Christianity remains, however. Judaism denies the Messiah that was promised to them, and Islam is a form of Christian heresey. Buddishm et al are also easily disposed of as the notion karma is illogical on it's face, at least according to my understanding, which may be flawed.



I don't know if this is fit for a separate thread, but what exactly about Judaism (assuming it maintains a trinitarian belief as the OT mandates) and Buddhism are illogical? The belief that Judaism denies its promised Messiah seems to be viciously circular, and I need to see how exactly karma is illogical, for my understanding of it and of Eastern religions is very limited.



> At the end of the day, however, keep in mind that it is not the presuppositionalist argument that will lead one to God, but that God will draw to Himself all of those who are His. What you are asking of this apologetic stance is something that it, and indeed no apologetic approach does or can offer, i.e. a path for the unbeliever to Christ. God is the only one that can work in their hearts and lead them to Him.
> 
> I would also suggest you re-examine you view on what exactly apologetics is, as you might be confusing it with evangelism. Certainly, in our apologetic task we want to call the unbeliever to faith and repentence in Christ, but seeing their conversion isn't the point, or at least I don't think so, and niether did John Calvin or Greg Bahnsen. Both these men saw the purpose to be closing the blasphemous mouth of the unbeliever, and presuppositionalism certainly does that, see generally the Bahnsen v. Stein debate (as I'm told).



Very true. What I am trying to do is see how a truly intellectually honest person (who would have to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit in order not to suppress the truth) could arrive at Christianity. I am not trying necessarily to find a perfect persuasion to Christianity, but rather a flawless proof of it.



Also, I think you might have missed an earlier question of mine: what prevents people from concocting religious beliefs to justify a worldview? For example, if a person said that he doesn't believe in any world religion, but that he believes in a trinitarian god that allowed for logic, science, etc. who was explicitly NOT of the Judeo-Christian variety, what would be a way to logically convince him of Christianity? Assume in this situation, again, that the person is intellectually honest and not suppressing any truth.

Also, thanks for the response.


----------



## christianyouth

Hey Ben, welcome to the Puritan Board. 

There is nothing that stops someone from concocting a religious world view that is consistent. Ultimately, the farthest you can take the atheist would be to a generic Deism. Christian belief is ultimately based upon subjective religious experience. The Gospel is a foolish message, and would be foolish to us too had not God opened our hearts to receive the message. 

I'll be back to post later, you are perceptive, Ben. What you pointed out is the problem with both approaches to apologetics, evidentialism and presuppositionalism. 

We are fools for Christ.


> (1Co 1:19) For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.


----------



## Davidius

I have had similar concerns about presuppositionalism. In what way have Judaism and Islam been proved false that some haven't applied to Christianity? I assume that many would disagree with the idea that Judaism and Islam, unlike Christianity, have been objectively proven false.

The approach has seemed to me at times to beg the question. "Logic and morality cannot exist unless God exists" assumes that God is the only explanation for logic and morality. Is this claim verifiable? Why can't I use the TAG to prove the existence of Allah, or, for that matter, Zeus?


----------



## beej6

Not sure that this is presuppositional but here goes anyways:

Judaism and Islam are false because they fall short of the standard of Christianity; that is, neither accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Part of your argument, Davidius, is correct: No argument by itself can prove anything more than a generic God. The God of natural revelation. Only Scripture, or a Scriptural argument, can lead one to Christ.


----------



## RamistThomist

They are boring and are out-narrated. They don't have a compelling story. Our metanarrative incorporates theirs'.


----------



## Davidius

Ivanhoe said:


> They are boring and are out-narrated. They don't have a compelling story. Our metanarrative incorporates theirs'.



But there's a difference between being compelling and being true. I don't understand how this answers the question whether there can only be one explanation for the existence of logic and morality.


----------



## RamistThomist

Davidius said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are boring and are out-narrated. They don't have a compelling story. Our metanarrative incorporates theirs'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But there's a difference between being compelling and being true. I don't understand how this answers the question whether there can only be one explanation for the existence of logic and morality.
Click to expand...


On face-value, it doesn't.


----------



## RamistThomist

Davidius said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are boring and are out-narrated.** They don't have a compelling story.* Our metanarrative incorporates theirs'.
> 
> 
> 
> But there's a difference between being compelling and being true.* I don't understand how this answers the question whether there can only be one explanation for the existence of logic and morality.
Click to expand...


I understand and appreciate what you are getting at.* That is why I don't hold to the hard version of TAG.* Most Van Tillians don't.* I used to.* I had good argments, too.* But I no longer found them convincing.* 

I made comments about "outnarrating."* I say that, not because I think that whoever has the best story wins, but because everyone's belief-system tells a story (well, the more refined ones.* I don't feel any urge to rebut Aboriginal claims to truth at the moment).But my reading has carried me byond some of the Van Til-Classical-Evidential debates.*

I hesitate to say more at the moment.* Perhaps when I submit a book review on John Milbank I might add a few other comments.*


----------



## RamistThomist

ok, this might address all the claims at once (never mind the TAG implications, that wasn't intended!)

Triablogue: Islam: The Muslim Message, Menace, and Meltdown

This is an example of how one would argue against Islam, both internally and externally.

Here's Hays and Frame interacting with the claim that Islam can step up to the plate and do what we can do:

Part 1: Johnson on Van Til

Part 2: Triablogue: Van Til v. Muhammad

And James Anderson gives his own thoughts:

Comments on John Johnson's Response to Frame & Hays

Ben said: I do not have any difficulty seeing why an atheistic worldview is unacceptable because it cannot justify the accountability of reason, science, etc., but I want to know how Islam or Judaism or possibly some newly concocted hoax cannot equally well explain them.

My reply: I've actually found the atheist position also resistant to certain critiques. My guess is that a weak understanding of what an atheist could proffer is being used, here. I also don't know what "etc" is? Is that "salvation?" How does Islam and Judaism "explain" them, and is it a consistent explanation (e.g., their own book says "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness). Are we going to say that a works based view of salvation is really "just as good as" the Christian story?

Ben said: Why does the Christian God account for reason but not Allah?

My reply: This is an unfair demand. Presuppositionalists, not even most hard-core TAGsters, say that each worldview cannot explain precisely the same thing. So, if a Muslim could explain reason, that doesn't mean he can explain how God is immanent and transcendent, revealing and interact with men. Explaining reason doesn't mean they can explain how man can get out of his predicament. I mean, they give an explanation ("Be good!"), but that is inadequate.

Ben said: "Further, what is stopping a person confronted with presuppositional tactics from just saying he believes in a separate God that can create reason, but not a god represented by any world religion today?"

My reply: Nothing "stops them." But note that this move won't work for the committed: atheist, Muslim, Jew, Mormon, Moonie, Buddhist, etc. So, the person would have to *drop* their previous worldview in exchange for a made up worldview. One without any historical credentials, I might add. At least Jesus was a real person. How do they explain salvation? By works? Or did someone have to die for our sins? Who was it? An historical figure? As you can see, once someone tries to spell out the details, that's when problems come. These kinds of "what if" stories usually work better in the abstract. At the end of the day, I guess I'll just point out that my opponent had to "make up" a worldview to beat me. They can't be serious if they think this really provides them a refuge from the God revealed in the Bible.

Ben said: "I see this as one of my final hurdles to fully embracing the presuppositional apologetic method, and I would deeply appreciate your responses."

My reply: But of course "presuppositionalism" doesn't *require* one to hold to the "impossibility of the contrary", silver bullet type arguments.
Andrew said: "Christian belief is ultimately based upon subjective religious experience."

My reply: Of course this confuses *reasons* for belief with *causes* of belief. I also wouldn't agree. Certainly there are some people out there that believe based on reasons. Perhaps this is misguided, but at least *they* think they believe based on reasons and not on subjective experience. I certainly don't have any in principle objections to someone believing based on reasons, but I don't think it is necessary one believe based on reasons for their belief to be rational. Furthermore, one can have reasons for almost all his Christian belief. Indeed, a Christian who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible has a reason for his religious beliefs: God told me. If God says X, then X is true. Now, someone might say that that is not a *proof* for why *they* should believe, but of course I didn't say it was a proof for why they should believe. I said it was a reason *for the believer*. I would add that it is a proof that the unbeliever *should* believer, whether they *will* is another matter. A matter of *persuasion*. And the argument from the inerrant text usually isn't a "persuasive" argument.

Davidus said: "The approach has seemed to me at times to beg the question. "Logic and morality cannot exist unless God exists" assumes that God is the only explanation for logic and morality."

My reply: This is a rather weak and truncated distillation of a presuppositionalists argument. Christians need to progress beyond the simplistic expressions of the argument. They need to move beyond the (admitted!) *high school level* formulations of the argument that Bahnsen gave to kids and beginning college students in an effort to "dumb down" Van Til. I think, sometimes, that Bahnsen actually did the apologetic community more harm than good. He fosters intellectual laziness. E.g., "Look at how he beat down Stein, guess I don't need to study ever again. I'll just ask everyone n the world where logic came from."

Davidus said: "Why can't I use the TAG to prove the existence of Allah, or, for that matter, Zeus?"

My reply: Well, perhaps TAG could be employed by a made up worldview, but no concrete ones I know of can do the job. See the above links."


----------



## Confessor

First of all, I sincerely thank you for those links. I am sure I will enjoy reading the "Muslim Message" article, as well as the other links. Though, I do not think this thankfulness is consummated, as I can not find how to officially "thank" to improve your tally. Further help would be appreciated. 



Ivanhoe said:


> My reply: I've actually found the atheist position also resistant to certain critiques. My guess is that a weak understanding of what an atheist could proffer is being used, here. I also don't know what "etc" is? Is that "salvation?" How does Islam and Judaism "explain" them, and is it a consistent explanation (e.g., their own book says "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness). Are we going to say that a works based view of salvation is really "just as good as" the Christian story?



By "etc." I refer to principally basic entities, such as the existence of an objective, rational, external world, the reliability of the senses, the aforementioned reliability of science and logic, and so on. Also, I would be very pleased to hear why you think an atheistic position can still account for such entities. I guess what is important, though, is (as you said) that the explanations are consistent: not so much that a certain worldview can account for any one of these entities, but that it can account for all of them and remain internally coherent.



> Ben said: Why does the Christian God account for reason but not Allah?
> 
> My reply: This is an unfair demand. Presuppositionalists, not even most hard-core TAGsters, say that each worldview cannot explain precisely the same thing. So, if a Muslim could explain reason, that doesn't mean he can explain how God is immanent and transcendent, revealing and interact with men. Explaining reason doesn't mean they can explain how man can get out of his predicament. I mean, they give an explanation ("Be good!"), but that is inadequate.



Can you explain this a bit further please? I mean, I think I know what you are saying (that the explanation of one entity does not sufficiently entail a worldview, and that more coherence and other explanations are also required), but please tell me if otherwise.



> My reply: Nothing "stops them." But note that this move won't work for the committed: atheist, Muslim, Jew, Mormon, Moonie, Buddhist, etc. So, the person would have to *drop* their previous worldview in exchange for a made up worldview. One without any historical credentials, I might add. At least Jesus was a real person. How do they explain salvation? By works? Or did someone have to die for our sins? Who was it? An historical figure? As you can see, once someone tries to spell out the details, that's when problems come. These kinds of "what if" stories usually work better in the abstract. At the end of the day, I guess I'll just point out that my opponent had to "make up" a worldview to beat me. They can't be serious if they think this really provides them a refuge from the God revealed in the Bible.



That's a good point. I never really expected anyone to pragmatically create a new worldview, and the reason I brought up the point was more as a means of silencing an objection. If someone brought up the fact that a new worldview could be concocted alongside Christianity, I thought, then they would have reason to see my presuppositional view as flawed.



> Davidus said: "The approach has seemed to me at times to beg the question. "Logic and morality cannot exist unless God exists" assumes that God is the only explanation for logic and morality."
> 
> My reply: This is a rather weak and truncated distillation of a presuppositionalists argument. Christians need to progress beyond the simplistic expressions of the argument. They need to move beyond the (admitted!) *high school level* formulations of the argument that Bahnsen gave to kids and beginning college students in an effort to "dumb down" Van Til. I think, sometimes, that Bahnsen actually did the apologetic community more harm than good. He fosters intellectual laziness. E.g., "Look at how he beat down Stein, guess I don't need to study ever again. I'll just ask everyone n the world where logic came from."


 
Can you recommend some reading or links to help with a more sophisticated presuppositional apologetic, please?

Also, I just want to let you know how much of a relief this quote is to me; although I just had my last official day of high school today, I still recognized that the whole "logic requires the Christian God" argument seemed a bit too "high school" and was sincerely hoping that presuppositional apologetics had much more to offer.

Thanks again!


----------



## ChristianTrader

beej6 said:


> Not sure that this is presuppositional but here goes anyways:
> 
> Judaism and Islam are false because they fall short of the standard of Christianity; that is, neither accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
> 
> Part of your argument, Davidius, is correct: No argument by itself can prove anything more than a generic God. The God of natural revelation. Only Scripture, or a Scriptural argument, can lead one to Christ.



If natural revelation leads only to a generic God, then would not those who never get a chance to read the Bible, or only hear it taught poorly can be with excuse?

The best analogy of my current view of natural revelation is that it is God leaving his fingerprints or ID on the world. One can then look at that ID verses the ID of every other religion and only Christianity matches the fingerprints.

When people in some far out place sacrifice their children to the Sun god etc. They have no excuse because all the evidence they need to know that Sun god is not "The: God is before them. 

CT


----------



## RamistThomist

Ben said: "By "etc." I refer to principally basic entities, such as the existence of an objective, rational, external world, the reliability of the senses, the aforementioned reliability of science and logic, and so on."

My reply: Okay, but there's more to a worldview than that. Also, what is meant by "and so on?" Is it "morality?" Sin? Salvation? There are secular answers to how man might be saved (e.g., Prozac!), New Age (e.g., learn to become one with everything, btw, that's how Zen Buddhists ask for hot dogs: "Make me one with everything!"), other Religions (e.g., works).

Ben said: "Also, I would be very pleased to hear why you think an atheistic position can still account for such entities."

My reply: Well that would involve a whole lotta explication. Minimally, one example might be if they just denied the deontologist demand of an "account." (Depending on how you're using the term). Why couldn't they, say, following Alston, take, say, the reliability of the senses as a "basic belief" in need of no more "basicer" warrant for it? And, this gets into what it even means to come at the atheist with the worn-out sayings: "You can't account for X." Why think that? How would it be proven? By saying that atheists only believe in materialism, and so logic isn't material, so they can't believe in it? But not all atheists are materialists, and, furthermore, materialism only states that all *substances* are physical, not everything whatever, e.g. properties, propositions, etc. So, what's the argument even? What Bahnsen gave against Stein (forgetting the above point about materialists) in "the Great Debate?" But there he only dealt with (i) a priori, (ii) a posteriori, and (iii) linguistic justifications for logic; and specific positions *within* those branches, at that! On top of that, in his paper he quoted from in the debate, he said it was only a *program* for how one "might* show how an atheist cannot account for, say, logic. But where's the universal argument? The atheists who wither (a) don't hold to (i) - (iii), or don't hold to the sub-positions attacked in (i) - (iii), are left asking "What about us, Dr. Bahnsen? Why can't *we* account for logic?" So, even if I didn't take the time to go through the more sophisticated attempts on the part of atheists, I could just as well say, "Why do *you* think that *no* atheist *can* account for said entities?" On a related note, we need to stop saying "Atheism can't account for _____." There is no such worldview or position called "Atheism." Atheists have disparate views on logic, science, ethics, etc. You simply can't lump them together and kill the whole lot with a silver bullet.

Ben said: "Can you explain this a bit further please? I mean, I think I know what you are saying (that the explanation of one entity does not sufficiently entail a worldview, and that more coherence and other explanations are also required), but please tell me if otherwise."

My reply: Sure. It is a mistake for presuppositionalists to think that they can run every worldview through the same gauntlet. For example, to say that A worldview can't account for x, y, and z, doesn't mean that B worldview can't account for x, y, and z. Perhaps B can account for x but not z or y. So, for example, a critique against naturalistic evolution might argue that they cannot account for how we got here, for how life began from non-life. But it doesn't follow that, say, Islam can't account for *this*. Surely they can tell us how life got started: "Allahdidit!" 

Ben said: "If someone brought up the fact that a new worldview could be concocted alongside Christianity, I thought, then they would have reason to see my presuppositional view as flawed."

My reply: They would only have said reason because you puffed your chest out and said, "I can prove my position by the IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE CONTRARY." But if you scale it down a bit, argue against their specific worldview, hit them where they are at, deal with the person-variable nature of apologetic discussions, then this out isn't open to them. And it will be more persuasive too. 

Ben said: "Can you recommend some reading or links to help with a more sophisticated presuppositional apologetic, please?"

My reply: I'm afraid there isn't much. You can take the general gist of persuppositionalism: worldview vs. worldview. Presuppositions color your word and help determine what is accepted as fact or good evidence. Etc. I'd recommend becoming conversant with the philosophical landscape (broadly: metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics), and then studying through a couple good reformed systematic theologies so that you are fully versed in the internal coherence of your own worldview. Become somewhat able in exegetical abilities so as to deal with the variations of the text of Scripture you will come up against, and to be able to show how you derived your view from the text. I'd also recommend familiarity with church history. The best apologist is a mixture between a theologian and a philosopher. The better you are at both, the better apologist you will be. Unfortunately, many apologists.philosophers are horrible at theology, and many theologians are incoherent and sloppy and imprecise, ambiguous and vague, which is all a symptom of their lack of philosophical tools.

Ben said: "Also, I just want to let you know how much of a relief this quote is to me; although I just had my last official day of high school today, I still recognized that the whole "logic requires the Christian God" argument seemed a bit too "high school" and was sincerely hoping that presuppositional apologetics had much more to offer."

My reply: Better to find out now than when you're old ! And, presuppositionalism does have more to offer, but to stay inside a "presuppositionalist-only" box will be to miss all the other great thinkers God gave the church. Become a MMA apologist. Don't focus on the ground game to the detriment of your stand-up game. Don't focus on power over against conditioning. Don't study to beat only one variation of wrestling. Study Greco Roman, Freestyle, etc. To have the killer move against Greco Roman wrestlers is good as far as it goes, but if that's all you've studied, and then you puff your chest out and claim you can beat anyone, and then a freestyle guys comes along, you might make a few good moves, but you may very well lose.


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> Can you recommend some reading or links to help with a more sophisticated presuppositional apologetic, please?



http://www.owenanderson.net/reviews/Augustine.doc

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Reason-Worldviews-Plantinga-Revelation-Apologetics/dp/0761840389/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212608371&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Reason and Worldviews: Warfield, Kuyper, Van Til and Plantinga on the Clarity of General Revelation and Function of Apologetics: Owen Anderson: Books[/ame]


My Philosophy Notes - Philosophy of Religion

These are the books/articles that have most influenced me and my current views.

CT


----------



## a mere housewife

Some of the things said remind me of my favorite part of Pascal's _Pensees_ (Chapter 8, 'The Funamentals of the Christian Religion'). I could quote the whole section from 555 to 567 (this numbering in my paperback is somehow different than the numbering online, 556-668) --it's the one of most intensely satisfying and suggestive trains of reasoning as regards apologetics that I have read (and the last thought is like being hit with a brick). Here anyway, are some snatches & a link to the chapter: Pensees by Blaise Pascal



> Those who fall into error err only through failure to see one of these two things [that 'there is a God whom men can know, and that there is a corruption in their nature which renders them unworthy of Him'. HZ]. We can then have an excellent knowledge of God without that of our wretchedness, and of our own wretchedness without that of God. But we cannot know Jesus Christ without knowing at the same time both God and our own wretchedness.
> Therefore I shall not undertake here to prove by natural reasons either the existence of God, or the Trinity, or the immortality o the soul, or anything of that nature; not only because I should not feel myself sufficiently able to find in nature arguments to convince hardened atheists, but also because such knowledge without Jesus Christ is useless and barren. Though a man should be convinced that numerical proportions are immaterial truths, eternal and dependent on a first truth, in which they subsist, and which is called God, I should not think him far advanced towards his own salvation.
> The God of Christians is not a God who is simply the author of mathematical truths, or of the order of the elements; that is the view of heathens and Epicureans. He is not merely a God who exercises His providence over the life and fortunes of men, to bestow on those who worship Him a long and happy life. That was the portion of the Jews.....
> All who seek God without Jesus Christ, and who rest in nature, either find no light to satisfy them, or come to form for themselves a means of knowing God and serving Him without a mediator. Thereby they fall either into atheism, or into deism, two things which the Christian religion abhors almost equally.
> If the world existed to instruct man of God, His divinity would shine through every part in it in an indisputable manner; but as it exists only by Jesus Christ, and for Jesus Christ, and to teach men both their corruption and their redemption, all displays the proofs of these two truths.
> All appearance indicates neither a total exclusion nor a manifest presence of divinity, but the presence of a God who hides Himself. Everything bears this character. ....
> There are two ways of proving the truths of our religion; one by the power of reason, the other by the authority of him who speaks.
> We do not make use of the latter, but of the former. We do not say, "This must be believe, for Scripture, which says it, is divine. But we say that it must be believed for such and such a reason, which are feeble arguments, as reason may be bent to everything.
> There is nothing on earth that does not show either the wretchedness of man, or the mercy of God...
> We understand nothing of the works of God, if we do not take as a principle that He has willed to blind some, and enlighten others....
> 
> [listing objections of the unbelievers, and his answer -HZ] Do you think that the prophecies cited in the Gospel are related to make you believe? -No, it is to keep you from believing.




My hesitancy with regard to presup is that even on the level of stopping people's mouths with trying to make them account for such things as morality and beauty it seems to deal too exclusively as if unbelievers were merely a reasonable consciousness and the world were some sort of logic puzzle. Whereas even the people whose mouths we are stopping have a consciousness of sin and of God that is more involved than one faculty of reason. Christ as the center in which all things cohere doesn't seem like an argument that can be laid out so neatly and easily because it involves the consciousness of wretchedness through sin and unworthiness of God, and the more complicated evidence of a 'God who hides Himself'.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Davidius said:


> I have had similar concerns about presuppositionalism. In what way have Judaism and Islam been proved false that some haven't applied to Christianity? I assume that many would disagree with the idea that Judaism and Islam, unlike Christianity, have been objectively proven false.
> 
> The approach has seemed to me at times to beg the question. "Logic and morality cannot exist unless God exists" assumes that God is the only explanation for logic and morality. Is this claim verifiable? Why can't I use the TAG to prove the existence of Allah, or, for that matter, Zeus?



When looking at other theistic worldview, I think it is good to think of what the differences are between Islam, Christianity and Non-Biblical Judaism. Or put another way, what is the different "gospels" that each one teaches and if any of them are consistent with general revelation.

Concerning most other categories of worldviews: Dualism, Material Monism (all is matter), and Idealism (all is mind) all collapse.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader

Heidi,
Do you think saying that God "hides" himself is consistent with Romans 1?

CT


----------



## a mere housewife

I think it's consistent with election. (Note that Pascal is not saying that God is not everywhere revealed and that the atheists are not suppressing a consciousness of Him; but that God who is everywhere revealed is the God who is only accessible in Christ, and who chooses to reveal Himself in Christ to some and not to others.)


----------



## ChristianTrader

a mere housewife said:


> I think it's consistent with election.





My main point is that one not push hiding to the point that anyone has an excuse for not seeing God. Or put another way, Unbelief is irrational.

CT


----------



## a mere housewife

"Unbelief is irrational" I agree. I understand the concern for not wanting to take the hiding thing too far. I think Pascal's arguments leave unbelievers with less, rather than greater, excuse in their irrationality.


----------



## Ravens

I am not an apologetics "guru", and it hasn't been a prevailing interest of mine throughout life. There is my disclaimer. That being said, here are my thoughts:

It seems as if the core point of presuppositionalism has been around for a long time. I remember reading this roughly a year ago in "On the Resurrection", which some believe to have been written by Justin Martyr:



> *Chapter I.—The self-evidencing power of truth.*
> 
> The word of truth is free, and carries its own authority, disdaining to fall under any skilful argument, or to endure the logical scrutiny of its hearers. But it would be believed for its own nobility, and for the confidence due to Him who sends it. Now the word of truth is sent from God; wherefore the freedom claimed by the truth is not arrogant. For being sent with authority, it were not fit that it should be required to produce proof of what is said; since neither is there any proof beyond itself, which is God. For every proof is more powerful and trustworthy than that which it proves; since what is disbelieved, until proof is produced, gets credit when such proof is produced, and is recognised as being what it was stated to be. But nothing is either more powerful or more trustworthy than the truth; so that he who requires proof of this is like one who wishes it demonstrated why the things that appear to the senses do appear. For the test of those things which are received through the reason, is sense; but of sense itself there is no test beyond itself. As then we bring those things which reason hunts after, to sense, and by it judge what kind of things they are, whether the things spoken be true or false, and then sit in judgment no longer, giving full credit to its decision; so also we refer all that is said regarding men and the world to the truth, and by it judge whether it be worthless or no. But the utterances of truth we judge by no separate test, giving full credit to itself. And God, the Father of the universe, who is the perfect intelligence, is the truth. And the Word, being His Son, came to us, having put on flesh, revealing both Himself and the Father, giving to us in Himself resurrection from the dead, and eternal life afterwards. And this is Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Lord. He, therefore, is Himself both the faith and the proof of Himself and of all things. Wherefore those who follow Him, and know Him, having faith in Him as their proof, shall rest in Him. But since the adversary does not cease to resist many, and uses many and divers arts to ensnare them, that he may seduce the faithful from their faith, and that he may prevent the faithless from believing, it seems to me necessary that we also, being armed with the invulnerable doctrines of the faith, do battle against him in behalf of the weak.



When I read that I was terribly impressed, especially with his comments regarding "proof." He made the same connections that I had made in my own personal life (e.g., my sins and corruptions, at one point in my life, really had me wondering what was real, whether sensation was reliable, whether other minds existed, etc., in a very heart-crushing way, and not just as philosophical fun). Not only that, but he seems to essentially draw the same conclusion that Plantinga has, at least from what I know of him: Namely, that certain beliefs (reliability of sensation, existence of other minds, existence of outside world, personal continuity over time [possibly], etc.) are properly basic. Perhaps this is roughly the same approach taken by Common Sense Realism. 

Granted, all of those schools of thought probably have their own flavors, tweaks, and emphases. But at the end of the day, the fragment above, Hodge's discussion of Innate Knowledge of God, Van Til, Clark, and Bahnsen, and even Plantinga, are saying something fundamentally the same, namely, that certain things are presupposed in our knowledge, foundational to our knowledge, and properly basic.

Thus, many of the beliefs and mental processes that affect and guide our live day by day, around which we frame our lives, can 100% not be proven. So it isn't quite fair to say that God "must be proven". Many atheists and unbelievers live in hypocrisy on that point, that is, if they resist faith in God due to a "lack of argument", when they frame their lives around unprovable things.

However, I would argue (and maybe others have argued before; I'm really not well-read in many things), that God, by definition, *cannot* be proven. Now, I'm not prepared to have a philosophical and etymological discussion of "proof." That's out of my league. But I'm using "proof" in the way that "On the Resurrection" did above, and in the way it might be used in a courtroom and in common parlance.

When we "prove" something, we take something that is in doubt, or dubious, or shady, and "validate it", "demonstrate it", or "prove it" by something that is clear, reliable, and steadfast. So in that sense, in order to "prove" God, by definition, one would need to find something clearer, more reliable, and more trustworthy than He is. I don't think that's sophistical or "escapist" in the least. I think that's 100% obvious. God by nature cannot be proven in that sense, because there is nothing by which to "prove" Him. And if we found something by which to "prove Him", then He would not be "God" as we understand Him. 

Perhaps it is fair to ask for "corroborating evidence" of God or something like that. What we could reasonably expect, other than "proof", (i.e., corroboration) would probably need to be hashed out by clearer minds than mine.

That being said, right find myself using what I think some have called a "cumulative case". In that respect it can probably incorporate Jacob's metanarrative and Hermonta's fingerprints, simply in the sense of, many different things, whether it's history in general, or the history of religion, or science, or the existence of morality and moral law, laws of logic, etc., science, anthropology, corroborate the Christian message.

In that respect, even though the "silver bullet" sometimes eludes us, really, we are blessed to live in the world we do live in. There are an innumerable number of "threads" that can be teased out and dealt with to corroborate the Christian God and His word.

Just off the top of my head (since this is just a post, and not a paper); some random ones:

1) The simple existence of the Jews. This never really occurred to me that much. It's so obvious. But odd as this sounds, over the past couple months, I've just been struck by the fact that this tiny nation was, by and large, and absolutely unique phenomenon of world history. You might have a burp of Akhenaton here and there, or a nebulous tribal concept of some faraway "High God', but by and large, you could sweep your eye across the Aztecs, the North American plains, Africa, Asian, the fjords of the Northmen, and elsewhere, and find nothing remotely resembling Jewish monotheism and their historically rooted faith. Absolutely nothing. As I said, that's common knowledge, but recently it has struck me:

If this one nation claims that it is only in Israel and Judah that God is known, and that the Living God has set them apart to be His people... and no one else on earth is making that claim, and, indeed, the rest of the earth is left in foolish mythology and darkness... maybe that isn't just cultural arrogance? Maybe there's something to it?
*
That is what we would expect to find if*, indeed, their God was real, and had chosen a people for Himself.

2) The great looming figure of a Messiah cast His shadow over all of the Jewish Scriptures and Jewish history. To leave aside all the other prophecies for a moment, I think of two in Daniel. Daniel said that roughly 490 years (I don't know if anyone is sure *exactly* how that all works out, and I might be off here...) the Messiah would come, and that the Messiah would be "cut off" (taken from the land of the living), "but not for Himself."

Roughly 490 years later, a man appears in Israel who claims to be the I AM, the Messiah. He fulfills a vast number of Messianic prophecies and ends up being "cut off" from the land of the living, claiming that it was "for others."

3) This man, while He was here, said that Jerusalem would be destroyed within a generation, and that the church that He founded would extend to every tribe, nation, tongue, and language.

Within a generation Jerusalem was wiped off the face of the earth, more or less, and this tiny group of nobodies, with all the might of synagogue and iron Empire aimed squarely against their eradication, within 300 years was elevated to the pinnacle of the Empire, despite all persecution. And, indeed, this church spread to the Romans, spread to the North Africans, spread to the Greeks, to the barbarians, to the Germans and Celts and Norsemen, and later on to the Americas, to Africa, to Asia, all of which last three continents it is now blossoming in.

I think sometimes grasping it in that fashion is very helpful.

There are just a variety of other "little things" that very much strike me, that Christianity can account for.

4) It finds the balance between a "pagan" sacralizing of nature and an creation, and a Gnostic/Eastern slander against the Creator and His creation. To loosely quote Ken Ham, this world is like some exquisite, ancient, profound piece of Greek sculpture... except that it's broken. So many traditions only focus on the sculpture, or the brokenness, and I would say that Christianity best accounts for both.

5) It accounts for anthropological "cultural constants". We take these things for granted. What a poor and beleaguered position we would be in if we had writings to defend which claimed a global flood and mankind's coexistence with dinosaurs (and we must claim that now), and yet no evidence thereof was found anywhere else in the world? Yet I dare say, and even secular anthropologists know this, that almost every culture in world history has two things: Some form of a flood myth, and tales of a time when mankind coexisted with large, aggressive, reptilian creatures, regardless of what they are called. It also accounts for the fact that almost every culture felt, in some sense, estranged from the gods, and approached them with animal and human sacrifices. 

All of these things are exactly what we would expect to find among a lost mankind that descended from Noah.

It's just curious to me that an absolutely unique people and religious phenomena gave birth to an absolutely unique book which prophesied and absolutely unique figure, and that we have amazing historical verification (aside from Scripture, considering what we can reasonably expect from that era) that this figure existed, and that He made some very astounding claims which have, amazingly, come to pass. So He fulfilled the past and successfully gave us the "plot line" of the future, all of which has happened. Every argument made *against* this God (Problem of Evil, etc.) is easily disproved. 

I'm kinda just typing before I go to work, so this isn't really thought out. Just stream of thought. I'm just impressed that our position, in my opinion, is unassailable. Atheists and Eastern mystics must deny their very constitution and things that are "common sense" to all of us just to hold on to their worldview. They were stitched and woven together in order to live in our world, not the one of their own creation. Which really leaves us with the foolish dreams of the pagan animists and their pantheons, about 500 years of hostile Western philosophers, a great enemy in Islam (and devastating critiques are easily made against it), and various cults and what not.

At the end of the day, more and more I'm coming to see that the problem of the unbelievers is not epistemological. It is ethical. They want to bide their time and dilly-dally with silly arguments and what they think to be philosophy, all the while ignoring the axeman who is about to lop off their head. God has not "come" in order to reason with them about obscure philosophical questions, even though those questions will ultimately be resolved in His favor. His command is repentance. 

And in that respect, I think what Christ said in John's Gospel is pertinent. I don't remember the exact reference, but it's something along the lines of, "If any man is willing to do my doctrine, He shall know whether it is from God." The crucial point for modern man is repentance and submission. Were he to "commune with his own heart" and acknowledge his guilt before the LORD, the reality of Whose shadow He has lived under his whole life, then he would have more than enough "proof" and epistemology to satiate Him. But he is trying to put the cart before the horse, in some respect.

Ultimately I hope that some very bright Christian mind writes a veritable tome, touching on history, anthropology, science, ancient texts and the reliability of Scripture, internal cues (re: Calvin et al.) on the reliability of Scripture, properly basic beliefs, etc., and just combines it into a tour de force juggernaut. I think it can be done.

I think this world is like a very complex lock. All of the different worldviews are just keys. Some are more sophisticated than others. Some have more of the nodules and bumps and grooves in the right place than others do. But there are crucial points where the key just doesn't line up with the lock. We've lived our whole lives with an exhaustive knowledge of "the lock", and the only key that meets any and every point that our heart and the world might raise, is Christianity. What prevents us from acknowledging that, inserting the key, and having the doors to understanding and everlasting life thrown open, is our recalcitrant, self-justifying, ethically rebellious stance towards our Creator and His Son. So Christian apologetics can show that our Key is the only one that fits the Lock, but it takes the Holy Spirit to give a hear that wants to turn it.

And I imagine that a thorough-going apologetic would incorporate "presuppositionalism", "evidentialism", metanarratives, emotions, etc. To paraphrase Bill Steward before sending the underdog Mountaineers into last year's Fiesta Bowl against highly touted Oklahoma, "We're not going to leave one bullet left in our gun when all is said and done." Neither should we.


----------



## Confessor

Ivanhoe said:


> My reply: Okay, but there's more to a worldview than that. Also, what is meant by "and so on?" Is it "morality?" Sin? Salvation? There are secular answers to how man might be saved (e.g., Prozac!), New Age (e.g., learn to become one with everything, btw, that's how Zen Buddhists ask for hot dogs: "Make me one with everything!"), other Religions (e.g., works).



Well, by "and so on" (which, of course, is "etc."  ), I wasn't referring to morality, sin, or salvation, although you are definitely correct in saying that those are part of a worldview. I was merely referring to only the beliefs I had already mentioned, but now I realize that I should have involved more.



> My reply: Well that would involve a whole lotta explication. Minimally, one example might be if they just denied the deontologist demand of an "account." (Depending on how you're using the term). Why couldn't they, say, following Alston, take, say, the reliability of the senses as a "basic belief" in need of no more "basicer" warrant for it? And, this gets into what it even means to come at the atheist with the worn-out sayings: "You can't account for X." Why think that? How would it be proven? By saying that atheists only believe in materialism, and so logic isn't material, so they can't believe in it? But not all atheists are materialists, and, furthermore, materialism only states that all *substances* are physical, not everything whatever, e.g. properties, propositions, etc. So, what's the argument even? What Bahnsen gave against Stein (forgetting the above point about materialists) in "the Great Debate?" But there he only dealt with (i) a priori, (ii) a posteriori, and (iii) linguistic justifications for logic; and specific positions *within* those branches, at that! On top of that, in his paper he quoted from in the debate, he said it was only a *program* for how one "might* show how an atheist cannot account for, say, logic. But where's the universal argument? The atheists who wither (a) don't hold to (i) - (iii), or don't hold to the sub-positions attacked in (i) - (iii), are left asking "What about us, Dr. Bahnsen? Why can't *we* account for logic?" So, even if I didn't take the time to go through the more sophisticated attempts on the part of atheists, I could just as well say, "Why do *you* think that *no* atheist *can* account for said entities?" On a related note, we need to stop saying "Atheism can't account for _____." There is no such worldview or position called "Atheism." Atheists have disparate views on logic, science, ethics, etc. You simply can't lump them together and kill the whole lot with a silver bullet.



Well, how would you go about systematically dissecting any type of those worldviews? How would, for example, a typical naturalistic, materialistic, atheistic worldview be untenable?



> My reply: They would only have said reason because you puffed your chest out and said, "I can prove my position by the IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE CONTRARY." But if you scale it down a bit, argue against their specific worldview, hit them where they are at, deal with the person-variable nature of apologetic discussions, then this out isn't open to them. And it will be more persuasive too.



 



> My reply: I'm afraid there isn't much. You can take the general gist of persuppositionalism: worldview vs. worldview. Presuppositions color your word and help determine what is accepted as fact or good evidence. Etc. I'd recommend becoming conversant with the philosophical landscape (broadly: metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics), and then studying through a couple good reformed systematic theologies so that you are fully versed in the internal coherence of your own worldview. Become somewhat able in exegetical abilities so as to deal with the variations of the text of Scripture you will come up against, and to be able to show how you derived your view from the text. I'd also recommend familiarity with church history. The best apologist is a mixture between a theologian and a philosopher. The better you are at both, the better apologist you will be. Unfortunately, many apologists.philosophers are horrible at theology, and many theologians are incoherent and sloppy and imprecise, ambiguous and vague, which is all a symptom of their lack of philosophical tools.



Alright...thanks for the good advice!



> My reply: Better to find out now than when you're old ! And, presuppositionalism does have more to offer, but to stay inside a "presuppositionalist-only" box will be to miss all the other great thinkers God gave the church. Become a MMA apologist. Don't focus on the ground game to the detriment of your stand-up game. Don't focus on power over against conditioning. Don't study to beat only one variation of wrestling. Study Greco Roman, Freestyle, etc. To have the killer move against Greco Roman wrestlers is good as far as it goes, but if that's all you've studied, and then you puff your chest out and claim you can beat anyone, and then a freestyle guys comes along, you might make a few good moves, but you may very well lose.



I like that, an MMA apologist. Isn't the main beef that presuppositionalists have with evidentialists anyway that the latter try to find a neutral common ground while the concept of neutrality in worldviews is mythical? Beyond that, presups could still use evidential arguments, as long as everybody understands *why* those kinds of arguments can work.

Thanks again.


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you recommend some reading or links to help with a more sophisticated presuppositional apologetic, please?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.owenanderson.net/reviews/Augustine.doc
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Reason-Worldviews-Plantinga-Revelation-Apologetics/dp/0761840389/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212608371&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Reason and Worldviews: Warfield, Kuyper, Van Til and Plantinga on the Clarity of General Revelation and Function of Apologetics: Owen Anderson: Books[/ame]
> 
> 
> My Philosophy Notes - Philosophy of Religion
> 
> These are the books/articles that have most influenced me and my current views.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


Thank you!


----------



## beej6

ChristianTrader said:


> beej6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure that this is presuppositional but here goes anyways:
> 
> Judaism and Islam are false because they fall short of the standard of Christianity; that is, neither accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
> 
> Part of your argument, Davidius, is correct: No argument by itself can prove anything more than a generic God. The God of natural revelation. Only Scripture, or a Scriptural argument, can lead one to Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If natural revelation leads only to a generic God, then would not those who never get a chance to read the Bible, or only hear it taught poorly can be with excuse?
> 
> The best analogy of my current view of natural revelation is that it is God leaving his fingerprints or ID on the world. One can then look at that ID verses the ID of every other religion and only Christianity matches the fingerprints.
> 
> When people in some far out place sacrifice their children to the Sun god etc. They have no excuse because all the evidence they need to know that Sun god is not "The: God is before them.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


“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.” (Rom 1.20 ESV)

There is no guarantee that all will hear the Gospel, never mind respond to it. It may be because they lived far from Israel in OT times... or because one's ancestors rejected it a hundred years ago... or even in our own day because one's heart is desperately wicked and He has not seen fit to change it.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

I think one more point must be clarified, and that is that Presuppositionalism is not some abstract philosophical system to combat other philosophies, but it is a method which seeks to be faithful to the testimony of Scripture. Scripture is the final authority for presuppositional method, and they are unapologetic about that. The reason that no other religions can give an account for logic or morality is because Scripture clearly tells us there are none. There is only one God. That rules out any other possibility. The presuppositionalist is just working out the philosophical implications of that truth in interacting with unbelievers. The presuppositional method is not just debating worldviews but debating ultimate authorities (autonomy vs. Theo-nomy). Any other worldview is living in rebellion against both God's general and special revelation. In apologetics we are both tearing down intellectual strongholds, but also setting forth the reason for our hope. 

This leads me to a final note about proof. God gives us the standard by which to judge Him. Does his Word come to pass? Does he keep his promises? etc. He has given us plenty of evidence in both general and special revelation. It may not meet the arbitrary standard by which unbelievers judge, but it does meet God's standard and all men are held accountable to it.


----------



## a mere housewife

JD, thank you for quoting the excerpt from _On The Resurrection._ It's amazing. I will have to find the whole book (or treatise?) and read it.


----------



## Peairtach

*Presuppositionalism and false gods*

I believe it is time that an able presuppositionalist wrote a book on presuppositional apologetics and the major world religions/cults. If such a book already exists please tell me. John Owen wrote "A Display of Arminianism". What about an able Van Tillian philosopher writing "A Display of the False Gods" ? This would be of profound and inestimable service to Christ's church.

John Frame in "Apologetics to the Glory of God" touches on the subject but does not go into detail.

"Gods" that are impersonal and absolute are philosophically inadequate because they cannot be offended by sin or logical flaws and therefore do not provide a basis for the laws of morality and logic. They are not intelligent and therefore do not provide a basis for the uniformity of nature/laws of science.

"Gods" that are personal but not absolute are philosophically inadequate because they do not provide a basis for _universal and timeless_ laws of morality and logic and for the uniformity of nature.

That leaves the monotheistic religions. To the extent that Judaism and Islam borrow from the Bible they are formally correct in saying that God is One. Frame points out that the teaching that God is One, Personal and Absolute is a doctrine of biblical revelation. He also gives various philosophical reasons for rejecting Islam and Judaism, which I can't remember here, and forgive me if I have at all misrepresented his position.

See also:-
http://http://www.rim.org/muslim/presupp.htm

http://http://www.emnr.org/papers/downs04.htm

http://http://chaosandoldnight.wordpress.com/2007/01/25/presuppositional-apologetics-and-other-religions/

As Bahnsen points out from Deuteronomy 32:31, "their rock is not like our Rock". The next line of the text is also relevant to (presupp) apologetics: "as even our enemies concede". 

We have to show how - just as with atheism - the fundamental beliefs of the religious about their god(s) do not provide the preconditions/foundations for reality that the I AM THAT I AM (Ex.3:14) provides. 

Richard.


----------



## JohnGill

*The Bible - non-contradictory, self-authorizing authority*



packabacka said:


> The title pretty well expresses my question: I do not have any difficulty seeing why an atheistic worldview is unacceptable because it cannot justify the accountability of reason, science, etc., but I want to know how Islam or Judaism or possibly some newly concocted hoax cannot equally well explain them.
> 
> Why does the Christian God account for reason but not Allah? Further, what is stopping a person confronted with presuppositional tactics from just saying he believes in a separate God that can create reason, but not a god represented by any world religion today?
> 
> I see this as one of my final hurdles to fully embracing the presuppositional apologetic method, and I would deeply appreciate your responses.



No religion has a non-contradictory, self-authorizing authority save Christianity. That is why it cannot be anything but Christianity.

Bahnsen vs. Stein Debate

PDF: http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf

Youtube: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6iEUanJbsw]YouTube - Greg Bahnsen vs Stein - The Great Debate (part 1 of 14)[/ame]

Myth of Neutrality vid series on Youtube: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPn8AX6Ru3E&feature=related]YouTube - Greg Bahnsen - The Myth of Neutrality (part 1)[/ame]


----------



## brandonadams

I don't want to derail the thread, but I haven't seen it mentioned yet:

Presuppositional Apologetics has more than one meaning. Van Til's TAG argues that one must presuppose the Christian worldview in order to make sense of it, therefore an attempt to make sense of things proves Christianity true (this is what he means by presuppositional). Clark's presuppositional apologetic argued that everyone starts from a presupposition, an axiom, that cannot be proven (because it is the presupposed starting point), including Christianity (the Bible is true). You can disprove other presuppositions by showing their inconsistency, but that doesn't prove Christianity true. (I think this addresses the original question in this thread). What makes someone believe the Christian axiom is the work of the Holy Spirit.

There is an interesting discussion of this at Bring the Books... right now

Also,
Van Til's Apologetic: Reading and Analysis (a Review)


----------



## pilgrim3970

> Does anyone know where one can view the Bahnsen v. Stien debate? I would really like to see that man get taken to the intellectual woodshed.




right here on youtube


----------

