# I Need Assistance with Presup!!!



## Confessor

I'm sorry to keep asking questions on the topic, but I want to refine my apologetic until it is flawless.

Van Til made a huge deal about arguing for Christianity as a whole, but I'm not sure exactly how to do it. The "piecemeal" method seems unavoidable.

This problem arose when I was trying to see how to definitely point unbelievers to Christ so that they are “without excuse.” I was trying to see what aspect of our universe would point to Christ as Redeemer, and not some generic desire for salvation. I fear from this that I am still trapped in the remnants of the traditional apologetic method.

How do we avoid the “piecemeal” nature of the method? It seems we have to build up one by one the doctrines of Christianity, through a transcendental method (e.g. the transcendence of a deity is established through the existence of universal laws, then the equally ultimate plurality and unity [triunity] are established with the one and the many problem, then the personal aspect is added with the notions of love). 

For example, if we engaged with an unbeliever on the nature of uniformity, and I demonstrated that the notion is intelligible on Christian presuppositions but not on atheistic presuppositions, the atheist could take whatever aspect of Christianity that allows for uniformity and replace his old belief with that. He would no longer be an atheist, but he would also not be a Christian. In such a case, I would have to argue further to get closer to Biblical Christianity, but he could just keep refining his presuppositions to accommodate my arguments without turning to Christ. He could keep doing this until the entirety of Christianity was proven transcendentally.

Rather than causing a devastating shift of presuppositions from unbelief to Christ, all the argument seems to do is modify the starting presupposition closer and closer to Christianity, thus leaving man’s autonomy untouched inasmuch as it is short of the Reformed faith. As close as it can get to Christianity (establishing the necessity of a personal Triune God, or even further), such a method would have to prove all of Biblical doctrines by transcendental argumentation, which would annihilate the authority of the Bible by subjecting it to an external standard (as well as be very difficult to do).

Have I discovered a fatal flaw in presuppositionalism or am I doing something terribly wrong? I’m strongly hoping for the latter.


----------



## Confessor

Nothing? Come on, this is killing me!


----------



## Zenas

packabacka said:


> I'm sorry to keep asking questions on the topic, but I want to refine my apologetic until it is flawless.



Herein lies one problemo. 

I'll try to help in a second. I'm eatin an apple.


----------



## TimV

> This problem arose when I was trying to see how to definitely point unbelievers to Christ so that they are “without excuse.”



The whole point of that Romans text is that they are already without excuse.


----------



## Zenas

The modification of the worldview shouldn't involve a slow slide toward a more Christian worldview, but remember that you're dealing with fallen human beings who hate God and will do everything they can, including being illogical and dishonest, even with themselves and you, to avoid acknowledging that Christ is Lord. 

The unbeliever is already a defeated adversary. As Mr. Tim has already pointed out, the unbeliever is already without excuse because natural revelation is sufficient enough to convey that God is there. Any aspect of natural revelation can be used to show this, from the existence of morality to the existence of existence itself. One of these alone being necessarily used by the unbeliever to complete their farce of a worldview is enough to warrant an intellectual conversion to Christianity, but conversions are not worked in the mind alone, but in the heart by God. 

The whole point of it is thus:

If A, then C.
A.
C.

If you believe in morality, then you must use the Christian morality.
You believe in morality.
You must believe in Christian morality. 

From there, logic would warrant a conversion to Christianity because God is the one who penned Christian morality, but this probably isn't the case.

The unbeliever at this point could just simply assent to this one outcome and make no move toward Christ, but we wouldn't expect them to. Although it would be logically and intellectually consistent to do so, they won't without God working in their heart. This is not a fatal flaw in the approach, but the nature of depravity; their reasoning is depraved, along with everything else. 

Remember the purpose of apologetics. Both Calvin and Bahnsen agreed that its purpose was not to convert the heart of the unbeliever, it's to shut their mouths.


----------



## Confessor

Zenas said:


> Remember the purpose of apologetics. Both Calvin and Bahnsen agreed that its purpose was not to convert the heart of the unbeliever, it's to shut their mouths.



That's my problem -- how do you get them to shut their mouths if they can offer a non-Christian worldview that accounts for everything? All they intellectually must do is modify their presuppositions to account for all the transcendental arguments presented. For the morality argument towards Christianity, the unbeliever could just take whatever he wanted from Christianity that accounts for morality, change his worldview accordingly, and reject the rest of Christianity. This is the problem I'm facing. It's hypothetical, but it's nonetheless a problem.

I know that unbelievers are already without excuse, but obviously they will deny this, since they are blinded by sin. My problem is getting them to understand why they are without excuse.


----------



## Davidius

Have you looked at past discussions in which the shortcomings of the TAG was discussed?


----------



## Christusregnat

packabacka said:


> I know that unbeliever are already without excuse, but obviously they will deny this, since they are blinded by sin. My problem is getting them to understand why they are without excuse.



Packa,

The unbeliever's denial of his blindness is one of the strongest weapons in your arsenal. The wickedness of man's heart is the issue. If you want to get them to acknowledge that they are so desperately wicked that they denial was is plain and evident, that will take a supernatural work of God the Holy Spirit. His appointed method is the declaration and application of Holy Writ. Do this, and you will slay demons (and, no, not in a charismatic sense). 

Cheers,


----------



## Confessor

Davidius said:


> Have you looked at past discussions in which the shortcomings of the TAG was discussed?



Yeah, I just looked at the "TAG Questions" thread, and I do not see anything similar to the problem I have expressed here. Certainly there are problems regarding certainty in transcendental argumentation, since it is really a form of deductive reasoning which is never 100% reliable as long we are humans, but that thread did not mention anything about the problem I have expressed.



Christusregnat said:


> Packa,
> 
> The unbeliever's denial of his blindness is one of the strongest weapons in your arsenal. The wickedness of man's heart is the issue. If you want to get them to acknowledge that they are so desperately wicked that they denial was is plain and evident, that will take a supernatural work of God the Holy Spirit. His appointed method is the declaration and application of Holy Writ. Do this, and you will slay demons (and, no, not in a charismatic sense).
> 
> Cheers,



I know that it's not my job to change their heart and realize their wickedness, but it is my job to shut their mouths. If they can have an adequate philosophical system by accepting all of the characteristics their worldview must have (that I prove through transcendental argumentation), but they do not accept all of Christianity, then they are excusable before God. That is a problem.


----------



## JohnGill

*Free Articles by Bahnsen*

At this site, Free Articles, they have many free articles on Apologetics written by the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen. The majority of the book published after his death, Always Ready, is contained in these free articles. They also sell his lectures in mp3 format. I would recommend buying the DVD Basic Training for Defending the Faith with the book 'Pushing the Antithesis.' It lays a good foundation. I would follow this up with the mp3 lecture 'Practical Apologetics', then "Transcendental Argumentation", follow these with the 3 part series on the History of Apologetics and then his Seminary Apologetics. For money's sake you can leave out the History of Apologetics. Another good series is "Challenge to Unbelief" which was once available online for free.


Concerning your post:



> For example, if we engaged with an unbeliever on the nature of uniformity, and I demonstrated that the notion is intelligible on Christian presuppositions but not on atheistic presuppositions, *the atheist could take whatever aspect of Christianity that allows for uniformity and replace his old belief with that*. He would no longer be an atheist, but he would also not be a Christian. In such a case, I would have to argue further to get closer to Biblical Christianity, but he could just keep refining his presuppositions to accommodate my arguments without turning to Christ. He could keep doing this until the entirety of Christianity was proven transcendentally.



What justification under an atheist worldview does he have for accepting as true the uniformity of nature? The Presuppositional argument is that one cannot appeal to the uniformity of nature without first appealing to the God which makes nature uniform.

The following is a list of links for the debate between Gordon Stein (atheist) and Dr. Greg Bahnsen:

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

The audio files: [video=youtube;u6iEUanJbsw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6iEUanJbsw[/video]

Here is a link to the DVD series I mentioned above posted at YouTube: [video=youtube;vPn8AX6Ru3E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPn8AX6Ru3E&feature=related[/video]

Hope this helps.


----------



## JohnGill

*Could You Clarify*



packabacka said:


> I know that it's not my job to change their heart and realize their wickedness, but it is my job to shut their mouths. *If they can have an adequate philosophical system by accepting all of the characteristics their worldview must have (that I prove through transcendental argumentation), but they do not accept all of Christianity, then they are excusable before God.* That is a problem.



If I've read this right, you're already starting off with an incorrect presupposition that the atheist worldview is 'an adequate philosophical system.' Another point I just thought of, atheists already accept many premises from the Christian worldview. Here are a few examples: uniformity of nature, laws of logic, murder is wrong, 1+1=2, the ability to read, etc. In the apologetic encounter you show the atheist that he has no right to these beliefs under his worldview. If he wishes to use them, then he must reject atheism and accept Christianity. Without the operation of the Holy Ghost he will naturally refuse to do this, but by this point you have reduced his position to absurdity and have left him without the ability to speak without first presupposing the existence of the Christian God. All he can then do is sit there saying nothing. His mouth has been stopped, and now you can share the gospel with him.


----------



## Confessor

Thanks for the links. I've pretty much read through all of _Van Til's Apologetic_ by Dr. Bahnsen, so I've got a relatively firm grasp on the material. Although, I don't think you understand my problem with it.



JohnGill said:


> For example, if we engaged with an unbeliever on the nature of uniformity, and I demonstrated that the notion is intelligible on Christian presuppositions but not on atheistic presuppositions, *the atheist could take whatever aspect of Christianity that allows for uniformity and replace his old belief with that*. He would no longer be an atheist, but he would also not be a Christian. In such a case, I would have to argue further to get closer to Biblical Christianity, but he could just keep refining his presuppositions to accommodate my arguments without turning to Christ. He could keep doing this until the entirety of Christianity was proven transcendentally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What justification under an atheist worldview does he have for accepting as true the uniformity of nature? The Presuppositional argument is that one cannot appeal to the uniformity of nature without first appealing to the God which makes nature uniform.
Click to expand...


When the Christian shows the atheist that uniformity in nature is a belief only on Christian grounds, the atheist can ask what character of uniformity requires the entire Bible to be true. The Christian couldn't say the entire Bible -- he could only say something about the transcendence of God (or possibly the triunity) -- but the entire Christian worldview could not be proven on one single aspect.

Therefore, the atheist could modify his worldview to contain a theistic and even a triune god without having to believe in the Christian God. He could therefore account for the uniformity of nature and tell the Christian to tell him why the rest of Christianity is true. He would no longer be an atheist, to be sure, but he would also fall short of Christ. He would not be rationally required to be a Christian.

This could go on for a long time until the entirety of the Bible is proven, but that would mean the Bible loses its authority. It seems like a very large problem to me.


----------



## Confessor

JohnGill said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that it's not my job to change their heart and realize their wickedness, but it is my job to shut their mouths. *If they can have an adequate philosophical system by accepting all of the characteristics their worldview must have (that I prove through transcendental argumentation), but they do not accept all of Christianity, then they are excusable before God.* That is a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I've read this right, you're already starting off with an incorrect presupposition that the atheist worldview is 'an adequate philosophical system.' Another point I just thought of, atheists already accept many premises from the Christian worldview. Here are a few examples: uniformity of nature, laws of logic, murder is wrong, 1+1=2, the ability to read, etc. In the apologetic encounter you show the atheist that he has no right to these beliefs under his worldview. If he wishes to use them, then he must reject atheism and accept Christianity. Without the operation of the Holy Ghost he will naturally refuse to do this, but by this point you have reduced his position to absurdity and have left him without the ability to speak without first presupposing the existence of the Christian God. All he can then do is sit there saying nothing. His mouth has been stopped, and now you can share the gospel with him.
Click to expand...


Yeah, my point is that the Christian can't demonstrate why this leads wholly to Christianity, and not some generic belief in a triune theistic deity.


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that it's not my job to change their heart and realize their wickedness, but it is my job to shut their mouths. *If they can have an adequate philosophical system by accepting all of the characteristics their worldview must have (that I prove through transcendental argumentation), but they do not accept all of Christianity, then they are excusable before God.* That is a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I've read this right, you're already starting off with an incorrect presupposition that the atheist worldview is 'an adequate philosophical system.' Another point I just thought of, atheists already accept many premises from the Christian worldview. Here are a few examples: uniformity of nature, laws of logic, murder is wrong, 1+1=2, the ability to read, etc. In the apologetic encounter you show the atheist that he has no right to these beliefs under his worldview. If he wishes to use them, then he must reject atheism and accept Christianity. Without the operation of the Holy Ghost he will naturally refuse to do this, but by this point you have reduced his position to absurdity and have left him without the ability to speak without first presupposing the existence of the Christian God. All he can then do is sit there saying nothing. His mouth has been stopped, and now you can share the gospel with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, my point is that the Christian can't demonstrate why this leads wholly to Christianity, and not some generic belief in a triune theistic deity.
Click to expand...


What does belief in a generic triune theistic deity look like?

CT


----------



## JohnGill

*Nope, don't understand, need more clarification*



packabacka said:


> When the Christian shows the atheist that uniformity in nature is a belief only on Christian grounds, *the atheist can ask what character of uniformity requires the entire Bible to be true.* The Christian couldn't say the entire Bible -- he could only say something about the transcendence of God (or possibly the triunity) -- but the entire Christian worldview could not be proven on one single aspect.
> 
> Therefore, the atheist could modify his worldview to contain a theistic and even a triune god without having to believe in the Christian God. He could therefore account for the uniformity of nature and tell the Christian to tell him why the rest of Christianity is true. He would no longer be an atheist, to be sure, but he would also fall short of Christ. He would not be rationally required to be a Christian.
> 
> This could go on for a long time until the entirety of the Bible is proven, but that would mean the Bible loses its authority. It seems like a very large problem to me.



What do you mean by the bolded statement? 

If I understand your intent correctly, the atheist has attempted to flip the tables. The problem for him in doing this is that in his worldview there is no reason for the uniformity of nature. Why is nature uniform? Atheist response: it's just so. 

The Bahnsen/Stein debate deals with this issue. Stein tries the 'just so' argument and Bahnsen tears the argument to shreds showing its futility. In the end Bahnsen demonstrates that an atheist cannot make any claims to uniformity without first presupposing the Christian God. But if the atheist is going to do that, then he has lost the argument.

Make the atheist explain why he believes in uniformity.


----------



## JohnGill

ChristianTrader said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I've read this right, you're already starting off with an incorrect presupposition that the atheist worldview is 'an adequate philosophical system.' Another point I just thought of, atheists already accept many premises from the Christian worldview. Here are a few examples: uniformity of nature, laws of logic, murder is wrong, 1+1=2, the ability to read, etc. In the apologetic encounter you show the atheist that he has no right to these beliefs under his worldview. If he wishes to use them, then he must reject atheism and accept Christianity. Without the operation of the Holy Ghost he will naturally refuse to do this, but by this point you have reduced his position to absurdity and have left him without the ability to speak without first presupposing the existence of the Christian God. All he can then do is sit there saying nothing. His mouth has been stopped, and now you can share the gospel with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, my point is that the Christian can't demonstrate why this leads wholly to Christianity, and not some generic belief in a triune theistic deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What does belief in a generic triune theistic deity look like?*
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


Which lecture is that covered in Practical Apologetics by Bahnsen? I think it's in either the 1st two or the last two.


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> What does belief in a generic triune theistic deity look like?
> 
> CT



The non-Christian's response could be that they don't have to explain it, as long as they explain the characteristics of it that make the universe intelligible, they don't have to explain any further.

It would be the burden of the Christian to explain why belief in a triune god must be belief in The Triune God.


----------



## Confessor

JohnGill said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Christian shows the atheist that uniformity in nature is a belief only on Christian grounds, *the atheist can ask what character of uniformity requires the entire Bible to be true.* The Christian couldn't say the entire Bible -- he could only say something about the transcendence of God (or possibly the triunity) -- but the entire Christian worldview could not be proven on one single aspect.
> 
> Therefore, the atheist could modify his worldview to contain a theistic and even a triune god without having to believe in the Christian God. He could therefore account for the uniformity of nature and tell the Christian to tell him why the rest of Christianity is true. He would no longer be an atheist, to be sure, but he would also fall short of Christ. He would not be rationally required to be a Christian.
> 
> This could go on for a long time until the entirety of the Bible is proven, but that would mean the Bible loses its authority. It seems like a very large problem to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by the bolded statement?
> 
> If I understand your intent correctly, the atheist has attempted to flip the tables. The problem for him in doing this is that in his worldview there is no reason for the uniformity of nature. Why is nature uniform? Atheist response: it's just so.
> 
> The Bahnsen/Stein debate deals with this issue. Stein tries the 'just so' argument and Bahnsen tears the argument to shreds showing its futility. In the end Bahnsen demonstrates that an atheist cannot make any claims to uniformity without first presupposing the Christian God. But if the atheist is going to do that, then he has lost the argument.
> 
> Make the atheist explain why he believes in uniformity.
Click to expand...


Maybe a mock response will help (I'm going to oversimplify the argument against uniformity, but my point will still stand):

Christian - Atheism can't support uniformity, because that requires a necessary cause for uniformity, some kind of being that transcends the universe and gives order to it. Christianity satisfies this, but not atheism.
Atheist - Okay, that's cool. I'll believe in a transcendental being that gives uniformity.

Note that he would no longer be an atheist, but he would be rationally justified in his beliefs without resorting to Christianity.


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does belief in a generic triune theistic deity look like?
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The non-Christian's response could be that they don't have to explain it, as long as they explain the characteristics of it that make the universe intelligible.
> 
> It would be the burden of the Christian to explain why belief in a triune god must be belief in The Triune God.
Click to expand...


They have to claim that they have a different triune god than Christianity, right? That would require some details. I would ask them how they know it is not the same god?

CT


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does belief in a generic triune theistic deity look like?
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The non-Christian's response could be that they don't have to explain it, as long as they explain the characteristics of it that make the universe intelligible.
> 
> It would be the burden of the Christian to explain why belief in a triune god must be belief in The Triune God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have to claim that they have a different triune god than Christianity, right? That would require some details. I would ask them how they know it is not the same god?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


They could say they have no reason to believe that their triune god sent his son to die; therefore, to believe in such a thing would require further evidence. Again, the burden of proof would be on the Christian to tell the unbeliever what his worldview is lacking, or else the unbeliever is justified in his beliefs and therefore justified before God.


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> The non-Christian's response could be that they don't have to explain it, as long as they explain the characteristics of it that make the universe intelligible.
> 
> It would be the burden of the Christian to explain why belief in a triune god must be belief in The Triune God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have to claim that they have a different triune god than Christianity, right? That would require some details. I would ask them how they know it is not the same god?
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could say they have no reason to believe that their triune god sent his son to die; therefore, to believe in such a thing would require further evidence. Again, the burden of proof would be on the Christian to tell the unbeliever what his worldview is lacking, or else the unbeliever is justified in his beliefs and therefore justified before God.
Click to expand...


Your ending here hit the key point on the head. He sees no need to be justified before God. That has to be handled first or really really close to first. If he sees no need for this, then why should he care about his worldview being right or wrong?

The clearest answer is that if the God-man did not die then you are dead in your sins.

Also at this point, we no longer have generic truine theism. That was my core point, there is no such thing as generic truine theism.

CT


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have to claim that they have a different triune god than Christianity, right? That would require some details. I would ask them how they know it is not the same god?
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They could say they have no reason to believe that their triune god sent his son to die; therefore, to believe in such a thing would require further evidence. Again, the burden of proof would be on the Christian to tell the unbeliever what his worldview is lacking, or else the unbeliever is justified in his beliefs and therefore justified before God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ending here hit the key point on the head. He sees no need to be justified before God. That has to be handled first or really really close to first. If he sees no need for this, then why should he care about his worldview being right or wrong?
> 
> The clearest answer is that if the God-man did not die then you are dead in your sins.
> 
> Also at this point, we no longer have generic truine theism. That was my core point, there is no such thing as generic truine theism.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


If the unbeliever's worldview is completely rational, that is, if all the transcendental arguments presented by the Christian have been accepted by the unbeliever, then the unbeliever is *not* rationally required to believe in Christianity. All he has to do is believe in a god who is transcendent, triune, etc. -- whatever fulfillments are needed to make his worldview intelligible.

Why can't he have generic triune theism? Say you went to a neighbor's house and he told you he had ordered some computer from a store that was to be delivered in the next couple days. He doesn't know what its more specific characteristics are, but he knows it's a computer. Is it alright for you to tell him exactly what type of computer it must be if you can't prove this to him, or is it alright for him to settle on not knowing the specific characteristics? Obviously the latter. He knows for sure that there are more specific characteristics (it's not a blank computer), but he doesn't know _what_ they are.

Likewise, you can't assert that an unbeliever must "fill in the details" on his triune god. You can agree with him that some details must be there, but you can't prove whose details are correct without evidence.


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> They could say they have no reason to believe that their triune god sent his son to die; therefore, to believe in such a thing would require further evidence. Again, the burden of proof would be on the Christian to tell the unbeliever what his worldview is lacking, or else the unbeliever is justified in his beliefs and therefore justified before God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ending here hit the key point on the head. He sees no need to be justified before God. That has to be handled first or really really close to first. If he sees no need for this, then why should he care about his worldview being right or wrong?
> 
> The clearest answer is that if the God-man did not die then you are dead in your sins.
> 
> Also at this point, we no longer have generic truine theism. That was my core point, there is no such thing as generic truine theism.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the unbeliever's worldview is completely rational, that is, if all the transcendental arguments presented by the Christian have been accepted by the unbeliever, then the unbeliever is *not* rationally required to believe in Christianity. All he has to do is believe in a god who is transcendent, triune, etc. -- whatever fulfillments are needed to make his worldview intelligible.
Click to expand...


One problem is that you seem to be abstracting a lot of things. These characteristics stated above have implications in the world. It is not like you just order cheese on your whopper.



> Why can't he have generic triune theism? Say you went to a neighbor's house and he told you he had ordered some computer from a store that was to be delivered in the next couple days. He doesn't know what its more specific characteristics are, but he knows it's a computer. Is it alright for you to tell him exactly what type of computer it must be if you can't prove this to him, or is it alright for him to settle on not knowing the specific characteristics? Obviously the latter. He knows for sure that there are more specific characteristics (it's not a blank computer), but he doesn't know _what_ they are.



The problem with this analogy is that you want him to be able to argue over what kind of computer it is. If he is in the dark, then he cannot argue that it is an Intel instead of an AMD.

There is also a question of whether the computer will be working or not.



> Likewise, you can't assert that an unbeliever must "fill in the details" on his triune god. You can agree with him that some details must be there, but you can't prove whose details are correct without evidence.



I never spoke against evidence. Everything is evidence for something. The issue is how to rationally interpret that evidence.

CT


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> One problem is that you seem to be abstracting a lot of things. These characteristics stated above have implications in the world. It is not like you just order cheese on your whopper.



I know they have implications in the real world -- they actually go towards modifying worldviews, entire views of life. I just don't see how the entirety of Christianity -- the whole Bible -- can be justified through presuppositional argumentation.



> Why can't he have generic triune theism? Say you went to a neighbor's house and he told you he had ordered some computer from a store that was to be delivered in the next couple days. He doesn't know what its more specific characteristics are, but he knows it's a computer. Is it alright for you to tell him exactly what type of computer it must be if you can't prove this to him, or is it alright for him to settle on not knowing the specific characteristics? Obviously the latter. He knows for sure that there are more specific characteristics (it's not a blank computer), but he doesn't know _what_ they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with this analogy is that you want him to be able to argue over what kind of computer it is. If he is in the dark, then he cannot argue that it is an Intel instead of an AMD.
> 
> There is also a question of whether the computer will be working or not.
Click to expand...


How can you demonstrate that he's in the dark with regards to the computer? If you try to demonstrate that he doesn't know why he should believe Scripture because Scripture says the only reason he's not believing is because he's in the dark, then you're arguing in vicious circles.


----------



## cih1355

Packabaca,

Are you trying to find a single argument that can prove Christianity in its entirety?


----------



## Confessor

cih1355 said:


> Packabaca,
> 
> Are you trying to find a single argument that can prove Christianity in its entirety?



That's what Van Til's apologetics endeavor is all about. Showing the unbeliever why he is completely without excuse. All unbelieving worldviews, all worldviews that are not explicitly Reformed Christianity, crumble.

Am I setting my standards too high? Should I settle for less than what Van Til did, and attempt to only show that Christianity is the best worldview, rather than the only one?

It doesn't have to be one single argument, either.


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Packabaca,
> 
> Are you trying to find a single argument that can prove Christianity in its entirety?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Van Til's apologetics endeavor is all about. Showing the unbeliever why he is completely without excuse. All unbelieving worldviews, all worldviews that are not explicitly Reformed Christianity, crumble.
Click to expand...


They will crumble, but to do that does not mean that you have to explicitly prove every verse of the Bible.



> Am I setting my standards too high? Should I settle for less than what Van Til did, and attempt to only show that Christianity is the best worldview, rather than the only one?
> 
> It doesn't have to be one single argument, either.



I think Romans 1 leads one to go down the path that you are following. There are definitely more than one worldview, however the claim is that all other worldviews are at bottom irrational.

CT


----------



## Jaymin Allen

packabacka said:


> Christian - Atheism can't support uniformity, because that requires a necessary cause for uniformity, some kind of being that transcends the universe and gives order to it. Christianity satisfies this, but not atheism.
> Atheist - Okay, that's cool. I'll believe in a transcendental being that gives uniformity.



I've run into similar bricks utilizing the presuppositional method. It seems silly to use the transcendental argument against; Muslims, Jews, or anyone who has a "rational" basis for their beliefs. Once in a debate with a Muslim that endorses the transcendental argument and even uses it against atheists, it's superfluous to employ this type of reasoning against that Muslim. 

It seems inevitable that you'll have to get into Christian Particulars (nature of prophecy, historical confirmations and veracity, etc.) vs. opposition particulars. We'll have to stop arguing with the "the only proof for God's existence is that without God, you cannot prove anything" reasoning, for that's already covered in whatever god they've endorsed.


----------



## JohnGill

*Not the FULL presuppositional argument*



Jaymin Allen said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christian - Atheism can't support uniformity, because that requires a necessary cause for uniformity, some kind of being that transcends the universe and gives order to it. Christianity satisfies this, but not atheism.
> Atheist - Okay, that's cool. I'll believe in a transcendental being that gives uniformity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've run into similar bricks utilizing the presuppositional method. It seems silly to use the transcendental argument against; Muslims, Jews, or anyone who has a "rational" basis for their beliefs. Once in a debate with a Muslim that endorses the transcendental argument and even uses it against atheists, it's superfluous to employ this type of reasoning against that Muslim.
> 
> It seems inevitable that you'll have to get into Christian Particulars (nature of prophecy, historical confirmations and veracity, etc.) vs. opposition particulars. We'll have to stop arguing with the "the only proof for God's existence is that without God, you cannot prove anything" reasoning, for that's already covered in whatever god they've endorsed.
Click to expand...


This isn't the complete presuppositional argument. Just because a Muslim endorses the transcendental argument and uses it, does not mean he has a right to it. He has no self-authorizing authority upon which to rely. If he appeals to the Koran then he appeals to a book which claims to be an expression of Allah in human language. However the Koran also claims that nothing about Allah can be expressed in human language. The koran is its own worst enemy. And without such a self-authorizing authority he has no foundation upon which to begin a transcendental argument.


----------



## Jaymin Allen

JohnGill said:


> This isn't the complete presuppositional argument. Just because a Muslim endorses the transcendental argument and uses it, does not mean he has a right to it. He has no self-authorizing authority upon which to rely. If he appeals to the Koran then he appeals to a book which claims to be an expression of Allah in human language. However the Koran also claims that nothing about Allah can be expressed in human language. The koran is its own worst enemy. And without such a self-authorizing authority he has no foundation upon which to begin a transcendental argument.



John Gill, 
If it were that easy, there wouldn't be any Muslims. I'm inclined to agree with you, yet I am sure your objection to the Koran isn't impervious to rebuttal from the followers of Islam. Not to mention the Koran honors the writings of Moses, David, etc. as previous revelations of God. Muslims could appeal to these, just as the Jew, and argue transcendence against the atheist. 

What is your understanding of the complete presuppositional argument?


----------



## JohnGill

Jaymin Allen said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't the complete presuppositional argument. Just because a Muslim endorses the transcendental argument and uses it, does not mean he has a right to it. He has no self-authorizing authority upon which to rely. If he appeals to the Koran then he appeals to a book which claims to be an expression of Allah in human language. However the Koran also claims that nothing about Allah can be expressed in human language. The koran is its own worst enemy. And without such a self-authorizing authority he has no foundation upon which to begin a transcendental argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Gill,
> *If it were that easy, there wouldn't be any Muslims*. I'm inclined to agree with you, yet I am sure your objection to the Koran isn't impervious to rebuttal from the followers of Islam.
> 
> What is your understanding of the complete presuppositional argument?
Click to expand...


Sure there would; self-deception does that to us. Just because you have demonstrated the absurdity of their position does not mean they will give it up. But as far as the apologetics side of the coin goes, you have done your job. You have reduced the fool to foolishness. (Prov 26:4,5) Now the task switches to sharing the gospel. Of course this can take years of constantly reminding the muslim/atheist/JW/mormon/etc. that you have already refuted his position and then sharing the gospel with him at each encounter. 

Yes, there are rebuttals to the above argument. I think your referring to the writings of the muslims (forget the name they give to them) in which the contradictions have supposedly been worked out. There are other contradictions besides the one I mentioned. But offering a rebuttal does not disprove the self-contradiction of the koran. The best use of presuppositional apologetics in dealing with muslims was in a radio program Greg Bahnsen did with a muslim and a jewish Rabbi. He also deals with the objections in his series on Practical Apologetics.

As to your question, how detailed do you want it? I think I have a flowchart I put together for a church class.


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> They will crumble, but to do that does not mean that you have to explicitly prove every verse of the Bible.



Then how would you show that a worldview believing in an abstract triune deity that solves the problem of the one and many, and establishes universal laws, etc. crumbles?


----------



## Confessor

Jaymin Allen said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christian - Atheism can't support uniformity, because that requires a necessary cause for uniformity, some kind of being that transcends the universe and gives order to it. Christianity satisfies this, but not atheism.
> Atheist - Okay, that's cool. I'll believe in a transcendental being that gives uniformity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've run into similar bricks utilizing the presuppositional method. It seems silly to use the transcendental argument against; Muslims, Jews, or anyone who has a "rational" basis for their beliefs. Once in a debate with a Muslim that endorses the transcendental argument and even uses it against atheists, it's superfluous to employ this type of reasoning against that Muslim.
> 
> It seems inevitable that you'll have to get into Christian Particulars (nature of prophecy, historical confirmations and veracity, etc.) vs. opposition particulars. We'll have to stop arguing with the "the only proof for God's existence is that without God, you cannot prove anything" reasoning, for that's already covered in whatever god they've endorsed.
Click to expand...


Well...trying to give historical facts, while they can be _persuasive_ in argumentation, are not objective _proof_ that would rationally oblige someone to alter philosophical systems. As long as Muslims retain a Muslim philosophy of fact, they will interpret all facts, even a resurrection of Jesus, on such terms. That is rationally acceptable, as counterintuitive as it may sound.

The way to attack the Muslim God is to remember that not all gods are the same when it comes to transcendental proofs -- Allah is one essence and one person (as opposed to the Trinity), and therefore he cannot account for the one and many problem of philosophy. Also, he cannot account for love or any kind of interpersonal emotions/relationships. Seeing as we clearly have these on earth, Islam self-destructs.

The problem I am having is getting people not to stop at the necessity of triunity, theism, salvation, etc. While it may be extremely counterintuitive (as it was in the earlier example) to believe in some sort of depravity, salvation, and a theistic triune deity and _not_ believe in Christianity, I want to make sure that Christianity is completely rationally compelling. I want objective proof to shut the blasphemous mouth of the unbeliever.


----------



## Grymir

Hi Packabacka! A single objective proof will be hard, because of the Rom 1 statement about the lost suppressing the truth. A couple of thoughts. One thing I learned was the principle of self-steathification. Which is to say that if I shut up long enough (ha ha, that is sooo hard for me to do!), they would inevitably contradict themselves and show that their own arguments are invalid. Another thing would be to read some Ayn Rand. Getting a grasp of her objective philosophy has really helped me when talking to people that are talking about objective truths, because they really don't know what 'objective' is. They usually are using 'subjective' truths. ie, in your statements, you say " but he could just keep refining his presuppositions to accommodate my arguments without turning to Christ." A person who 'refines' his presuppositions isn't really talking about presuppositions, but what follow from them. Just dig deeper. Ask questions. Have fun - Grymir


----------



## Confessor

Grymir said:


> Hi Packabacka! A single objective proof will be hard, because of the Rom 1 statement about the lost suppressing the truth. A couple of thoughts. One thing I learned was the principle of self-steathification. Which is to say that if I shut up long enough (ha ha, that is sooo hard for me to do!), they would inevitably contradict themselves and show that their own arguments are invalid. Another thing would be to read some Ayn Rand. Getting a grasp of her objective philosophy has really helped me when talking to people that are talking about objective truths, because they really don't know what 'objective' is. They usually are using 'subjective' truths. ie, in your statements, you say " but he could just keep refining his presuppositions to accommodate my arguments without turning to Christ." A person who 'refines' his presuppositions isn't really talking about presuppositions, but what follow from them. Just dig deeper. Ask questions. Have fun - Grymir



Well, Romans 1 would show that the unrighteous will resist the arguments. The arguments won't necessarily be _persuasive_ even if they are proof. I'm going for the latter.

My problem isn't one that would be encountered too often, if at all, because as I said, if people believe in a sense of man's depravity and a triune theistic god, they're going to believe in Christianity. However, this is a case where the persuasion is not necessarily proof. Those holding to a more abstract belief in triune theism aren't rationally obliged to believe in Christianity (from what I know), and I want to give some kind of proof to negate this perceived shortcoming.

Also, speaking of Ayn Rand's objectivism, that would definitely be something for me to look into. I remember reading about this one dude's "Objectivist Atheology," and he seemed to specialize (or at least focus on) attacking presuppositional apologetics. Although, I have personally seen some of his arguments and he still fails as does all of atheism.

Thanks for the input.


----------



## Jaymin Allen

JohnGill said:


> Sure there would; self-deception does that to us. Just because you have demonstrated the absurdity of their position does not mean they will give it up. But as far as the apologetics side of the coin goes, you have done your job. You have reduced the fool to foolishness. (Prov 26:4,5) Now the task switches to sharing the gospel. Of course this can take years of constantly reminding the muslim/atheist/JW/mormon/etc. that you have already refuted his position and then sharing the gospel with him at each encounter.
> 
> Yes, there are rebuttals to the above argument. I think your referring to the writings of the muslims (forget the name they give to them) in which the contradictions have supposedly been worked out. There are other contradictions besides the one I mentioned. But offering a rebuttal does not disprove the self-contradiction of the koran. The best use of presuppositional apologetics in dealing with muslims was in a radio program Greg Bahnsen did with a muslim and a jewish Rabbi. He also deals with the objections in his series on Practical Apologetics.
> 
> As to your question, how detailed do you want it? I think I have a flowchart I put together for a church class.



I see your point. I was just skeptical to give antinomic argument much weight given their abuse against Christianity. 

I'd like it as detailed as your conception of presuppositionalism extends  That flow chart, seems helpful. That Bahnsen debate spoken of would be amazing. I don't see how the presuppositional argument, my understanding of the argument at least, would be effectual on an individual that can account for transcendental arguments adduced by the Christian apologist...


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will crumble, but to do that does not mean that you have to explicitly prove every verse of the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then how would you show that a worldview believing in an abstract triune deity that solves the problem of the one and many, and establishes universal laws, etc. crumbles?
Click to expand...


You are going to have to show me your reasoning on how it is an either/or question.

Remember the central claim that one wants to justify is that belief in anything but the God proclaimed in the Bible is inexcusable. That means that people who die without ever seeing the Bible are without excuse, correct? This would imply that one would be able to show that non Christian worldviews are wrong without even appealing to the Bible, or the non Christian would seem to be able to have an excuse.

The claim is not that unbelievers have no excuse only when introduced to the Bible and come face to face with TAG. They had no excuse way before then.

CT


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will crumble, but to do that does not mean that you have to explicitly prove every verse of the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then how would you show that a worldview believing in an abstract triune deity that solves the problem of the one and many, and establishes universal laws, etc. crumbles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are going to have to show me your reasoning on how it is an either/or question.
> 
> Remember the central claim that one wants to justify is that belief in anything but the God proclaimed in the Bible is inexcusable. That means that people who die without ever seeing the Bible are without excuse, correct? This would imply that one would be able to show that non Christian worldviews are wrong without even appealing to the Bible, or the non Christian would seem to be able to have an excuse.
> 
> The claim is not that unbelievers have no excuse only when introduced to the Bible and come face to face with TAG. They had no excuse way before then.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


The reason that all unbelievers are without excuse, even without some sort of debate, is because God's revelation, both natural and divine, is self-attesting. It essentially bears His signature, and any right-minded creation would immediately and non-inferentially recognize His Creator's work. Of course, since the Fall, they are ethically hostile to this and self-blinded, so they can only deceive themselves.

Even though everyone already knows this (as Van Til or Bahnsen would say, "in their heart of hearts"), they will still present a view contrary to Scripture so as to retain their autonomy. And it is the job of the apologist to shut them up.

So, I was mistaken earlier when I said that unbelievers would be without excuse if we couldn't demonstrate their futility. Basically, there _is_ something wrong with their view (God would never create a possibility of a successful worldview contrary to Christianity), and I just want to find out what the problem is. It's not as if I can fall short and thus justify sinners. God would have to fall short, but that is absurd. You are correct about that.

With that in mind, can you think of the shortcomings of the contrary worldview I put forth earlier?


----------



## Confessor

Also, I was just reading about the self-attesting revelation of God by Van Til, and the fact that unbelievers can be meaningful despite the complete lack of meaning in their philosophical systems goes to show that they have some innate knowledge which they are necessarily suppressing, proving the point of Romans 1.

Now, again, at this point it would be extremely intuitive to just accept the Bible as the supreme authority that it is, but would any unbeliever be allowed to accept (in addition to the belief in a triune, theistic deity) some inner _sensus divinitatis_ and a sense of "fallenness" to account for their suppression of unrighteousness, and not be rationally obliged to accept Christianity?


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then how would you show that a worldview believing in an abstract triune deity that solves the problem of the one and many, and establishes universal laws, etc. crumbles?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are going to have to show me your reasoning on how it is an either/or question.
> 
> Remember the central claim that one wants to justify is that belief in anything but the God proclaimed in the Bible is inexcusable. That means that people who die without ever seeing the Bible are without excuse, correct? This would imply that one would be able to show that non Christian worldviews are wrong without even appealing to the Bible, or the non Christian would seem to be able to have an excuse.
> 
> The claim is not that unbelievers have no excuse only when introduced to the Bible and come face to face with TAG. They had no excuse way before then.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason that all unbelievers are without excuse, even without some sort of debate, is because God's revelation, both natural and divine, is self-attesting. It essentially bears His signature, and any right-minded creation would immediately and non-inferentially recognize His Creator's work. Of course, since the Fall, they are ethically hostile to this and self-blinded, so they can only deceive themselves.
Click to expand...


I have no problem with saying that the knowledge is inferential.



> Even though everyone already knows this (as Van Til or Bahnsen would say, "in their heart of hearts"), they will still present a view contrary to Scripture so as to retain their autonomy. And it is the job of the apologist to shut them up.



I do not have a problem with a person's "autonomy". The issue is rational vs. irrational. Also there is somewhat of a debate about whether people actually know God or if they could possibly not know God but be morally culpably for not knowing such, because such is clear and one has to be irrational to not know such.

It is the job of the apologist to shut them up.



> So, I was mistaken earlier when I said that unbelievers would be without excuse if we couldn't demonstrate their futility. Basically, there _is_ something wrong with their view (God would never create a possibility of a successful worldview contrary to Christianity), and I just want to find out what the problem is. It's not as if I can fall short and thus justify sinners. God would have to fall short, but that is absurd. You are correct about that.
> 
> With that in mind, can you think of the shortcomings of the contrary worldview I put forth earlier?



Well I would first point out that non-theistic options are prima facia absurd and collapse quickly. Then the next step is to use natural revelation to point out the need for redemption from the wrath that is to come for sinners. Then you just ask a competitor to Christianity, what is their gospel. All competing Gospels are not consistent with general revelation.

You can add odds and ends to the end, but that is pretty much the core of a successful counter.

CT


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> Well I would first point out that non-theistic options are prima facia absurd and collapse quickly. Then the next step is to use natural revelation to point out the need for redemption from the wrath that is to come for sinners. Then you just ask a competitor to Christianity, what is their gospel. All competing Gospels are not consistent with general revelation.
> 
> You can add odds and ends to the end, but that is pretty much the core of a successful counter.
> 
> CT



I think we're getting somewhere!

Now, do you think it's acceptable for someone to accept some kind of belief system that is not in written form? If it's extremely similar to Christianity (belief in triune theism, a _sensus divinitatis_, a sense of fallenness and consequent need of redemption by grace, etc.), is there any possible outlet for the unbeliever, or is he simply professing belief in Christianity without using the word "Christianity"?

Is there some fatal flaw that applies to all abstract systems like these? Are they just masks for actual human autonomy?


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I would first point out that non-theistic options are prima facia absurd and collapse quickly. Then the next step is to use natural revelation to point out the need for redemption from the wrath that is to come for sinners. Then you just ask a competitor to Christianity, what is their gospel. All competing Gospels are not consistent with general revelation.
> 
> You can add odds and ends to the end, but that is pretty much the core of a successful counter.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we're getting somewhere!
> 
> Now, do you think it's acceptable for someone to accept some kind of belief system that is not in written form?
Click to expand...


If it is not in written form then they need to show it from general revelation. (Even if it is written, it still has to reconcile with general revelation) 



> If it's extremely similar to Christianity (belief in triune theism, a _sensus divinitatis_, a sense of fallenness and consequent need of redemption by grace, etc.), is there any possible outlet for the unbeliever, or is he simply professing belief in Christianity without using the word "Christianity"?



It might be helpful to think of the reasons for unbelief. It mainly comes down to saying that man is inherently good or at least good enough to satisfy any standard set before them. Once one gives up that, then the need for something other than Christianity goes out the window.



> Is there some fatal flaw that applies to all abstract systems like these? Are they just masks for actual human autonomy?



Yes, the fatal flaw is the need to remove the need for redemption, that you cannot fulfill.

An interesting line of philosophical thought is the relationship between God and abstract objects/thoughts/possibilities.

CT


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> Yes, the fatal flaw is the need to remove the need for redemption, that you cannot fulfill.



Why is an unfulfilled need of redemption a fatal flaw?


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the fatal flaw is the need to remove the need for redemption, that you cannot fulfill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is an unfulfilled need of redemption a fatal flaw?
Click to expand...


It is like being required to make a square circle.

CT


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the fatal flaw is the need to remove the need for redemption, that you cannot fulfill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is an unfulfilled need of redemption a fatal flaw?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is like being required to make a square circle.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


So if someone's worldview is that all mankind is hopelessly fallen and doomed for eternal punishment, but the worldview doesn't give a means to overcome this (even if by grace), then the worldview logically contradicts itself?


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is an unfulfilled need of redemption a fatal flaw?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is like being required to make a square circle.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if someone's worldview is that all mankind is hopelessly fallen and doomed for eternal punishment, but the worldview doesn't give a means to overcome this (even if by grace), then the worldview logically contradicts itself?
Click to expand...


There are no theistic worldviews that don't attempt to give a way of redemption. My comment about fatal flaw was that they will give a way of redemption that somehow puts man in the center as if man could earn redemption, while man in fact could only possibly do what is required of him from here on out, instead of making up for the evil that they do/will do. It is inconsistent with God's revealed infinite justice.

One could state the fatal flaw as putting God's mercy over against his justice.

CT


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is like being required to make a square circle.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone's worldview is that all mankind is hopelessly fallen and doomed for eternal punishment, but the worldview doesn't give a means to overcome this (even if by grace), then the worldview logically contradicts itself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no theistic worldviews that don't attempt to give a way of redemption. My comment about fatal flaw was that they will give a way of redemption that somehow puts man in the center as if man could earn redemption, while man in fact could only possibly do what is required of him from here on out, instead of making up for the evil that they do/will do. It is inconsistent with God's revealed infinite justice.
> 
> One could state the fatal flaw as putting God's mercy over against his justice.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


I'm not sure exactly what you're saying -- how do you demonstrate that a works-based salvation is inconsistent with God's revealed justice?


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone's worldview is that all mankind is hopelessly fallen and doomed for eternal punishment, but the worldview doesn't give a means to overcome this (even if by grace), then the worldview logically contradicts itself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theistic worldviews that don't attempt to give a way of redemption. My comment about fatal flaw was that they will give a way of redemption that somehow puts man in the center as if man could earn redemption, while man in fact could only possibly do what is required of him from here on out, instead of making up for the evil that they do/will do. It is inconsistent with God's revealed infinite justice.
> 
> One could state the fatal flaw as putting God's mercy over against his justice.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what you're saying -- how do you demonstrate that a works-based salvation is inconsistent with God's revealed justice?
Click to expand...


Well given Creation ex nihilo theism, it is inconsistent to claim that God's justice can be meet with some mixture of Good and bad actions. You would have to challenge God's justice in order to make that argument. But then you would have to challenge general revelation.

CT


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what you're saying -- how do you demonstrate that a works-based salvation is inconsistent with God's revealed justice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well given Creation ex nihilo theism, it is inconsistent to claim that God's justice can be meet with some mixture of Good and bad actions. You would have to challenge God's justice in order to make that argument. But then you would have to challenge general revelation.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


Why does _ex nihilo_ creation point to the necessity of only good actions? Why does that challenge God's justice? I'm sorry that I keep probing you; I just really want to understand how to go about explaining this concept. Thanks for your help.


----------



## Zenas

packabacka said:


> That's my problem -- how do you get them to shut their mouths if they can offer a non-Christian worldview that accounts for everything?



They can't. That's the whole point is that they have to borrow some aspect of Christianity at some point in order to make their worldview make sense.


----------



## Confessor

Zenas said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's my problem -- how do you get them to shut their mouths if they can offer a non-Christian worldview that accounts for everything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't. That's the whole point is that they have to borrow some aspect of Christianity at some point in order to make their worldview make sense.
Click to expand...


I understand that. The problem I have is in demonstrating it for worldviews that are extremely close to Christianity. I think I'm getting somewhere, though. This stuff by Jonathan Edwards is quite helpful:

Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume Two | Christian Classics Ethereal Library


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what you're saying -- how do you demonstrate that a works-based salvation is inconsistent with God's revealed justice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well given Creation ex nihilo theism, it is inconsistent to claim that God's justice can be meet with some mixture of Good and bad actions. You would have to challenge God's justice in order to make that argument. But then you would have to challenge general revelation.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does _ex nihilo_ creation point to the necessity of only good actions? Why does that challenge God's justice? I'm sorry that I keep probing you; I just really want to understand how to go about explaining this concept. Thanks for your help.
Click to expand...


God is completely/infinitely good and just, correct? All bad actions would be worthy of infinite punishment, right? So it would be inconsistent to say that works based righteousness could somehow make up for the bad that is done by doing good. You already owe God completely obedience and goodness.

CT


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well given Creation ex nihilo theism, it is inconsistent to claim that God's justice can be meet with some mixture of Good and bad actions. You would have to challenge God's justice in order to make that argument. But then you would have to challenge general revelation.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does _ex nihilo_ creation point to the necessity of only good actions? Why does that challenge God's justice? I'm sorry that I keep probing you; I just really want to understand how to go about explaining this concept. Thanks for your help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is completely/infinitely good and just, correct? All bad actions would be worthy of infinite punishment, right? So it would be inconsistent to say that works based righteousness could somehow make up for the bad that is done by doing good. You already owe God completely obedience and goodness.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


I understand the doctrine, but I don't understand how you could demonstrate this by just pointing to natural revelation.


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does _ex nihilo_ creation point to the necessity of only good actions? Why does that challenge God's justice? I'm sorry that I keep probing you; I just really want to understand how to go about explaining this concept. Thanks for your help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is completely/infinitely good and just, correct? All bad actions would be worthy of infinite punishment, right? So it would be inconsistent to say that works based righteousness could somehow make up for the bad that is done by doing good. You already owe God completely obedience and goodness.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand the doctrine, but I don't understand how you could demonstrate this by just pointing to natural revelation.
Click to expand...


What part are you having problems with understanding. What do you currently see natural revelation as saying/revealing?

CT


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is completely/infinitely good and just, correct? All bad actions would be worthy of infinite punishment, right? So it would be inconsistent to say that works based righteousness could somehow make up for the bad that is done by doing good. You already owe God completely obedience and goodness.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the doctrine, but I don't understand how you could demonstrate this by just pointing to natural revelation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part are you having problems with understanding. What do you currently see natural revelation as saying/revealing?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


Why does natural revelation naturally point to a belief in salvation by grace? Why, from just viewing nature, is it unnatural (no pun intended) to believe that a works-based salvation can suffice?


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the doctrine, but I don't understand how you could demonstrate this by just pointing to natural revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part are you having problems with understanding. What do you currently see natural revelation as saying/revealing?
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does natural revelation naturally point to a belief in salvation by grace? Why, from just viewing nature, is it unnatural (no pun intended) to believe that a works-based salvation can suffice?
Click to expand...


Okay, now I am confused as to why my above argument is not sufficient? Are you asking why natural revelation does not reveal God to be partly just/partly unjust?

Again what do you think natural revelation is saying. If I know what you think it is saying, then I can at least know your starting point and then we could proceed from there.

CT


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part are you having problems with understanding. What do you currently see natural revelation as saying/revealing?
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does natural revelation naturally point to a belief in salvation by grace? Why, from just viewing nature, is it unnatural (no pun intended) to believe that a works-based salvation can suffice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, now I am confused as to why my above argument is not sufficient? Are you asking why natural revelation does not reveal God to be partly just/partly unjust?
> 
> Again what do you think natural revelation is saying. If I know what you think it is saying, then I can at least know your starting point and then we could proceed from there.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


I don't know how to demonstrate that natural revelation shows the infinite justice of the Creator, and why that justice must account for every sin (thus showing that all men are guilty of condemnation). So, two things that I would love for you to demonstrate, for my sake:

1. That natural revelation shows that the Creator must have justice as an attribute.
2. That the justice is one that disallows all sins -- In other words,, there must be no sin at all, not just less sin than good.

I believe that natural revelation is clear and that all men know this, but how can it be formulated in an argument or demonstration?


----------



## ChristianTrader

What do you currently see natural revelation as saying/revealing?

CT


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> What do you currently see natural revelation as saying/revealing?
> 
> CT



I _know_ from Romans 1 that it reveals the Christian God, but I don't know how to _show_ anything that it reveals. That's why I'm asking you.


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you currently see natural revelation as saying/revealing?
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I _know_ from Romans 1 that it reveals the Christian God, but I don't know how to _show_ anything that it reveals. That's why I'm asking you.
Click to expand...


So what you are saying is that when you look around at the created order, you cannot make out anything concerning the existence of God, his power and people's obligations?

My question was not what you think you should be able to see, but what you actually see now. It is something similar to a person asking for math help concerning calculus. The next question what math do you currently know. Once we are clear what level of math one is comfortable, then one can work out a plan to get you to the level that you need to be.

CT


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you currently see natural revelation as saying/revealing?
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I _know_ from Romans 1 that it reveals the Christian God, but I don't know how to _show_ anything that it reveals. That's why I'm asking you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that when you look around at the created order, you cannot make out anything concerning the existence of God, his power and people's obligations?
> 
> My question was not what you think you should be able to see, but what you actually see now. It is something similar to a person asking for math help concerning calculus. The next question what math do you currently know. Once we are clear what level of math one is comfortable, then one can work out a plan to get you to the level that you need to be.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


I see that all sin is naturally punished. E.g. if someone drinks too much, he can die from alcohol poisoning. He can't do some good deeds to counter-act the effects.


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does natural revelation naturally point to a belief in salvation by grace? Why, from just viewing nature, is it unnatural (no pun intended) to believe that a works-based salvation can suffice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, now I am confused as to why my above argument is not sufficient? Are you asking why natural revelation does not reveal God to be partly just/partly unjust?
> 
> Again what do you think natural revelation is saying. If I know what you think it is saying, then I can at least know your starting point and then we could proceed from there.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how to demonstrate that natural revelation shows the infinite justice of the Creator, and why that justice must account for every sin (thus showing that all men are guilty of condemnation). So, two things that I would love for you to demonstrate, for my sake:
> 
> 1. That natural revelation shows that the Creator must have justice as an attribute.
Click to expand...


Well belief in creation ex-nihilo theism gets you the infinite God part (eternal, independent, self-existent, not dependent on or limited by anything besides himself etc.)

If it is not an attribute of God then from where does man receive the concept?



> 2. That the justice is one that disallows all sins -- In other words,, there must be no sin at all, not just less sin than good.
> 
> I believe that natural revelation is clear and that all men know this, but how can it be formulated in an argument or demonstration?



Well I think 2 is entailed by 1. By being infinite in justice, God would perfectly make sure that every wrong doing is met with its proper consequence. To do less would contradict the belief of infinite justice.

And every sin against an infinite God would be more than any finite being could make up for committing.

CT


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> And every sin against an infinite God would be more than any finite being could make up for committing.



...which establishes the necessity of punishment after death (for those not covered by Christ), and salvation by grace. Thank you for your help.

Haha, I was re-reading your older posts, and now they all make sense.


----------

