# Debate b/t Mr Naturalist and Mr Evidentialist



## RamistThomist (Sep 3, 2005)

Whose Facts are the Best?

This is an interchange between a naturalist (Mr N.) and an evidentialist (Mr E). 

Mr N: Hey, did you see that documentary on the history channel last night?

Mr E: No, what was it about?

Mr N: They just found the "missing link" that proves evolutionism.

Mr E: I disagree. The facts, if honestly observed and interpreted, most likely prove that Christianity is true.

Mr N: That's odd. I agree with the first part of your statement. I too think the facts are neutral, except I think they prove naturalism to be the case. If the facts speak for themselves--which we both agree--then how come we have vastly different conclusions?

Mr E: Your just not looking at them rightly!!! You need to have the right--pres--um--your just not---yeah.

Mr N: It sounded like you were about to quote Van Til, but you reject presuppositions as a determinative factor, don't you?

Mr E: Yes, I do. Listen, the Bible is the most reliable book in history. It has thousands upon thousands of reliable witnesses, much more reliable than those of Homer and Plato. The Bible says that Christ rose from the dead. Given the nature of the evidence, Christ probably rose from the dead.

Mr N: Sure, why not?

Mr E: What?!? Do you believe in Christ's resurrection?

Mr N: Let me ask you another question first...

Mr E: Go ahead.

Mr N: Do you believe in brute factuality?

Mr E: Yes

Mr N: Okay, then I do believe that a corpse resucitated. Strange things happen, you know? I am sure there is a scientific explanation somewhere. Listen, when you said that facts were brute and neutral, you made them devoid of theological meaning. In other words, I can believe that Christ rose from the dead without being a Christian. When you divorced theological meaning from the facts, you precluded the necessity of me submitting to the theological force of that fact.

Mr E: Where did you hear all of that?

Mr N: I debated some Van Tillians. They are pretty salty characters. Give me an evidentialist anyday. Van Tillians usually have my back to the wall. 

That Greg Bahnsen guy--he was a Holy Terror. The Christian church never fully saw the potential destruction he could have done to Secularia, had they supported him. But you never answered my question, "What do you think of that show on the history channel?"

Mr E: Maybe facts do have meaning.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 3, 2005)

> Jacob, maybe you could tell me why, in front of EVIDENCE PAR EXCELLENCE-THE RESURRECTED MESSIAH, people didn't believe?



Paul, this is a tough one but is it because "the facts don't speak for themselves?"

*Do dead People bleed?*

Wife to doctor: Can you help us, Doctor? My husband thinks he is dead.

Doctory: have you told him that he is not dead? Have you fed him, etc? 

Wife: Yes to all of that, but he still maintains that he is dead.

Doctor: We will try an experiment. Physiologically, dead people do not bleed.

Wife: That sounds good.

Wife (to husband): Dear, we shall fix this morbid fascination of yours. You know that dead people do not bleed, don't you.

Husband: Yes, everybody knows that.

Wife: Do you still maintain that you are dead?

Husband: Yes.

(Wife sticks husband with needle. Blood flows.)

Husband: "Well, I'll be....Dead people _do_ bleed!"


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Jacob, maybe you could tell me why, in front of EVIDENCE PAR EXCELLENCE-THE RESURRECTED MESSIAH, people didn't believe?



An easy one, Paul:



> "˜They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.´ 30 And he said, "˜No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.´ 31 But he said to him, "˜If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.' (Luke 16:29-31)



Just another text that shows that there are no brute facts! Good work!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 3, 2005)

How does revelation and the spiritually dead ever come to acknowledgement of facts? Spiritually dead people can not take in fact fully because they are spiritually dead. Presuppossition nor evidence will bring one to the correct conclusion. A dead body can bleed for a short time. But a dead body can not reason and communicate. The question should be can the husband communicate in a physical way with his wife still.

I may be wrong but it looks like a straw man set up to fall down when you blow on it.

[Edited on 9-3-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## crhoades (Sep 3, 2005)

http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/th/TH.h.Pratt.VanTil.1.html
COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF VAN TIL'S APOLOGETICS
Part 1 of 2
by Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr. 

*Misconception #1: "œVan Til denied the doctrine of general (natural) revelation by arguing that unbelievers are incapable of deriving true knowledge of God from nature." *

Throughout his writings Van Til vigorously affirmed the standard Reformed doctrine of general (natural) revelation. He consistently argued that the first chapter of Romans teaches not only that all people can know God through nature, but that they do know God and his moral requirements because of natural revelation. We may deny the revelation of God in all things, but we cannot escape it. Because the universe reveals God to all, all know him. 

In fact, Van Til went so far as to see this knowledge as a source of assurance for apologists. Believers may approach unbelievers with confidence because all people remain the image of God and know deep within that Christian assertions about God and the world are true. For Van Til the God-consciousness within each person is the point of contact between Christians and non-Christians. We can have meaningful dialogue with them because they are images of God and have knowledge of God and their status before him. 

This understanding was so vital to Van Til´s thought that he described apologetic arguments as restatements and explanations of general revelation in a persuasive manner. We enter apologetic situations with sinners who are dead in their sins (Eph. 2:1), but these sinners are still image bearers. Their reason, will, and emotions bear witness against them. The whole universe bears witness against their denial of the truth, and they know it. 

*Support from Van Til´s writings: *

"œWe thus stress Paul´s teaching that all men do not have a mere capacity for but are in actual possession of the knowledge of God" (DOF 109).

"œBut Reformed theology, as worked out by Calvin and his recent exponents such as Hodge, Warfield, Kuyper and Bavinck, holds that man´s mind is derivative. As such it is naturally in contact with God´s revelation. It is surrounded by nothing but revelation. It is itself inherently revelational. It cannot naturally be conscious of itself without being conscious of its creatureliness. For man self-consciousness presupposes God-consciousness. Calvin speaks of this as man´s inescapable sense of deity" (DOF 107).

"œGod has never left himself without a witness to men. He witnessed to them through every fact of the universe from the beginning of time. No rational creature can escape this witness. It is the witness of the triune God whose face is before men everywhere and all the time. Even the lost in the hereafter cannot escape the revelation of God. God made man a rational-moral creature. He will always be that. As such he is confronted with God. He is addressed by God. He exists in the relationship of covenant interaction. He is a covenant being. To not know God man would have to destroy himself. He cannot do this. There is no non-being into which man can slip in order to escape God´s face and voice. The mountains will not cover him; Hades will not hide him. Nothing can prevent his being confronted "˜with him with whom we have to do.´ Whenever he sees himself, he sees himself confronted with God.

"œWhatever may happen, whatever sin may bring about, whatever havoc it may occasion, it cannot destroy man´s knowledge of God and his sense of responsibility to God. Sin would not be sin except for this ineradicable knowledge of God. Even sin as a process of ever-increasing alienation from God presupposes for its background this knowledge of God.

"œThis knowledge is that which all men have in common" (DOF 172-173).

"œThe point of contact for the gospel, then, must be sought within the natural man. Deep down in his mind every man knows that he is the creature of God and responsible to God. Every man, at bottom, knows that he is a covenant-breaker. But every man acts and talks as though this were not so. It is the one point that cannot bear mentioning in his presence" (DOF 111).

"œWith Calvin I find the point of contact for the presentation of the gospel to non-Christians in the fact that they are made in the image of God and as such have the ineradicable sense of deity within them. Their own consciousness is inherently and exclusively revelational of God to themselves. No man can help knowing God for in knowing himself he knows God. His self-consciousness is totally devoid of content unless, as Calvin puts it at the beginning of his Institutes, man knows himself as a creature before God" (DOF 257).

"œDisagreeing with the natural man´s interpretation of himself as the ultimate reference-point, the Reformed apologist must seek his point of contact with the natural man in that which is beneath the threshold of his working consciousness, in the sense of deity which he seeks to suppress. And to do this the Reformed apologist must also seek a point of contact with the systems constructed by the natural man. But this point of contact must be in the nature of a head-on collision. If there is no head-on collision with the systems of the natural man there will be no point of contact with the sense of deity in the natural man" (DOF 115-116).


----------



## crhoades (Sep 3, 2005)

From the same source...

*Misconception #2: "œVan Til asserted that non-Christians cannot understand truth because sin has so corrupted their minds." *

Van Til emphasized that the mind did not remain intact through the Fall; we are totally depraved, corrupted by sin in all of our faculties. As a result, unbelievers have a sinful propensity toward misconstruing reality that cannot be completely eradicated. Just as unbelievers´ basic moral conviction "” the denial of God´s Law as the absolute standard "” corrupts even the "œgood" that they do, so their most basic epistemological commitment "” the denial of God as the source of truth "” corrupts all the "œtruths" that they affirm. In this matter, Van Til followed the biblical teaching that unbelievers´ minds are darkened, futile, and lacking in understanding (Eph. 4:17-18; Rom. 3:10-11). 

Nevertheless, Van Til never suggested for a moment that unbelievers become as corrupt in their thinking as they could become. In principle, non-Christians have rejected the epistemic foundation that makes understanding truth possible. But in practice they do not carry through with their principle. God´s common grace enables unbelievers to have a degree of true understanding about many things. They are inconsistent with their commitment to rebellion against God, and borrow from God´s general and special revelation. Van Til affirmed his appreciation for the contributions of non-Christians to the sciences and arts, but he always reminded us that these advances are the result of God´s common grace working against the sinful tendencies of unbelievers. Left to themselves, unbelievers would become epistemologically self-destructive. They would utterly reject every truth that confronts them. 

In Romans 1:18 Paul asserted that unbelievers "œsuppress the truth by their wickedness." These words display the two sides of non-Christian thinking that Van Til recognized. They possess the truth and suppress it. You can´t suppress something you don´t possess. Van Til observed that both conditions are true to varying degrees at different times (Rom. 2:14). To be sure, he emphasized unbelievers´ suppression of the truth. His approach is oriented toward the "œworst case scenario" in which unbelievers follow their sinful tendencies and remain significantly unaffected by common grace. However, Van Til also acknowledged a "œbest case scenario" in which God influences unbelievers to be inconsistent with their sinful tendencies and to agree with key Christian beliefs like the existence of God, the order of nature, the principles of logic, et al. 

Van Til´s perspective has significant implications for the practice of apologetics. When common grace has enabled unbelievers to acknowledge certain true ideas, we can build a case for Christianity on these truths. For instance, if people agree that the world is orderly, we may use that biblical idea as we challenge them to respond to the gospel. If other people believe that there are moral absolutes, we may build on this concept as well. 

Nevertheless, our preparation for apologetics must also equip us to handle situations in which such basic truths are denied. We live in a day when much of the common grace Christian consensus has crumbled. Sometimes it is difficult to find much in common with unbelievers´ acknowledged beliefs. People deny the order of the universe; they reject moral absolutes; they even deny the possibility of knowledge. We must be ready to challenge the most consistent unbeliever. In these circumstances, Van Til´s insights are particularly helpful. 

*Support from Van Til´s writings: *

"œThe first objection that suggests itself may be expressed in the rhetorical question "˜Do you mean to assert that non-Christians do not discover truth by the methods they employ?´ The reply is that we mean nothing so absurd as that. The implication of the method here advocated is simply that non-Christians are never able and therefore never do employ their own methods consistently" (DOF 120).

"œWhy waste words on the idea that non-Christians do not have good powers of perception, good powers of reasoning, etc. Non-Christians have all these. If that were the issue, then the contention should be made that non-Christians are blind, deaf, and have no powers of logical reasoning at all; in fact, they should be non-existent" (DOF 292).

"œEvery man has capacity to reason logically. He can intellectually understand what the Christian position claims to be. Conjoined with this is the moral sense that he knows he is doing wrong when he interprets human experience without reference to his creator. I am therefore in the fullest agreement with Professor Murray when, in the quotation you give of him, he speaks of the natural man as having an "˜apprehension of the truth of the gospel that is prior to faith and repentance´" (DOF 257).

"œNow the question is not whether the non-Christian can weigh, measure, or do a thousand other things. No one denies that he can. But the question is whether on his principle the non-Christian can account for his own or any knowledge. I argued that when two people, the one a Christian and the other not a Christian, talk things out with one another, they will appear to differ at every point" (DOF 288).

"œIt is this fact, that the natural man, using his principles and working on his assumptions, must be hostile in principle at every point to the Christian philosophy of life, that was stressed in the writer´s little book, Common Grace. That all men have all things in common metaphysically and psychologically, was definitely asserted, and further, that the natural man has epistemologically nothing in common with the Christian. And this latter assertion was qualified by saying that this is so only in principle. For it is not till after the consummation of history that men are left wholly to themselves. Till then the Spirit of God continues to strive with men that they might forsake their evil ways. Till then God in his common grace, in his long-suffering forbearance, gives men rain and sunshine and all the good things of life that they might repent. The primary attitude of God to men as men is that of goodness. It is against this goodness expressing itself in the abundance of good gifts that man sins. And even then God prevents the principle of sin from coming to full fruition. He restrains the wrath of man. He enables him by this restraint to cooperate with the redeemed of God in the development of the work he gave man to do.

"œBut all this does not in the least reduce the fact that as far as the principle of the natural man is concerned, it is absolutely or utterly, not partly, opposed to God. That principle is Satanic. It is exclusively hostile to God. If it could it would destroy the work and plan of God. So far then as men self-consciously work from this principle they have no notion in common with the believer. Their epistemology is informed by their ethical hostility to God.

"œBut in the course of history the natural man is not fully self-conscious of his own position" (DOF 189-190).

"œThe reason why the scientific, the philosophic, and the theological efforts of non-Christians contribute to the discovery of the true states of affairs is the fact that the world is what Christians say it is and it is not what fallen men say it is. It is only because man is created in the image of God, because the world about him together with himself is created and directed by God through Christ, that even non-Christian thinkers can do constructive work" (TRA 11).

"œIt is thus in the mixed situation that results because of the factors mentioned, (1) that every man knows God naturally (2) that every sinner is in principle anxiously striving to efface that knowledge of God and (3) that every sinner is in this world still the object of the striving of the Spirit calling him back to God, that cooperation between believers and unbelievers is possible. Men on both sides can, by virtue of the gifts of God that they enjoy, contribute to science. The question of ethical hostility does not enter in at this point. Not merely weighing and measuring, but the argument for the existence of God and for the truth of Christianity, can as readily be observed to be true by non-Christians as by Christians. Satan knows all too well that God exists and that Christ was victor over him on Calvary. But the actual situation in history involves the other factors mentioned. Thus there is nowhere an area where the second factor, that of man´s ethical hostility to God, does not also come into the picture. This factor is not so clearly in evidence when men deal with external things; it is more clearly in evidence when they deal with the directly religious question of the truth of Christianity. But it is none the less present everywhere" (DOF 190-193).

"œAs to the possibility and likelihood of the sinner´s accepting the Christian position, it must be said that this is a matter of the grace of God. As the creature of God, made in the image of God, he is always accessible to God. As a rational creature he can understand that one must either accept the whole of a system of truth or reject the whole of it ... He knows right well as a rational being that only the Reformed statement of Christianity is consistent with itself and therefore challenges the non-Christian position at every point. He can understand therefore why the Reformed theologian should accept the doctrine of Scripture as the infallible Word of God. He can understand the idea of its necessity, its perspicuity, its sufficiency and its authority as being involved in the Christian position as a whole" (DOF 166-167).

"œReformed Christians should realize that the non-Christian may have, and often does have a brilliant mind. It may act efficiently, like a sharp circular saw acts efficiently. We may greatly admire such a mind for what, in spite of its basic principle and because of the fact that God has released its powers in his restraining grace, it has done. For all that, it must not be forgotten that this mind is still, be its name Aristotle, a covenant-breaker in Adam" (DOF 298).

"œWe readily allow that non-Christian science has done a great work and brought to light much truth. But this margin of truth which science has discovered is in spite of and not because of its fundamental assumption of a chance universe. Non-Christian science has worked with the borrowed capital of Christian theism, and for that reason alone has been able to bring to light much truth" (CTE 69).

"œAnyone who says, "˜I believe in God,´ is formally correct in his statement, but the question is what does he mean by the word God? The traditional view assumes that the natural man has a certain measure of correct thought content when he uses the word God. In reality the natural man´s "œGod" is always a finite God. It is his most effective tool for suppressing the sense of the true God that he cannot fully efface from the fibers of his heart" (DOF 262).

"œWhat then more particularly do I mean by saying that epistemologically the believer and the non-believer have nothing in common? I mean that every sinner looks through colored glasses. And these colored glasses are cemented to his face. He assumes that self-consciousness is intelligible without God-consciousness. He assumes that consciousness of fact is intelligible without consciousness of God. He assumes that consciousness of laws is intelligible without God. And he interprets all the facts and all the laws that are presented to him in terms of these assumptions. This is not to forget that he also, according to the old man within him, knows that God exists. But as a covenant breaker he seeks to suppress this. And I am now speaking of him as the covenant breaker. Neither do I forget that no man is actually fully consistent in working according to these assumptions. The non-believer does not fully live up to the new man within him which in his case is the man who worships the creature above all else, any more than does the Christian fully live up to the new man within him, which in his case is the man who worships the Creator above all else. But as it is my duty as a Christian to ask my fellow Christians as well as myself to suppress the old man within them, so it is my duty to ask non-believers to suppress not the old man but the new man within them" (DOF 259-260).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 3, 2005)

Okay Paul. I will look at it again. But can I still have a cigar even if I get it wrong in your eyes. Oh never mind, I would rather have a puff on a good bowl. Wanna join me?

Paul do you know a chart that exemplifies the differences?

[Edited on 9-3-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 3, 2005)

You can have the beer. I like the sippin stuff. I must be persuaded first that you are correct before I can enjoy the fact that I am correct either way.

I still believe that evidence plays an important role.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 3, 2005)

> If you're not persuaded, that doesn't mean I'm not right



That will always be a correct statement.[/quote]



> Can you show me where I (or any other presuppositionalist for that matter) said evidences don't play an important role?



That is what I am trying to find out. That is why I asked the question.....Why Not Both?

I appreciate this statement by Van Til. 


> For that reason Van Til was adamant that the apologist not make the mistake of pretending to be neutral or autonomous in reasoning, but present his factual defense in the right way and in the right light to the unbeliever. "Christianity does not thus need to take shelter under the roof of a scientific method independent of itself. It rather offers itself as a roof to methods that would be scientific."[



We ought to be honest. Scientific evidence is usually flawed and changes often. It is all tainted with a philisophical perception.

As I have stated before I think the word Presuppose implies blind faith or existentialism. I may be incorrect but that is where I am coming from. I am trying to understand and get it settled.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > As I have stated before I think the word Presuppose implies blind faith or existentialism.
> ...



In the Why Not Both thread I pulled some definitions out from the dictionary. 




> *preÂ·supÂ·pose * ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prs-pz)
> tr.v. preÂ·supÂ·posed, preÂ·supÂ·posÂ·ing, preÂ·supÂ·posÂ·es
> To believe or suppose in advance.
> To require or involve necessarily as an antecedent condition. See Synonyms at presume.
> ...


----------



## crhoades (Sep 3, 2005)

I replied with:


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



If you grant us for sake of argument, Bahnsen's defition of presuppositionalism - would you be o.k. with it? I agree with you that if we mean by presuppose or presupposition a 'blind faith' or fideistic assumption then that is not what we are about. Yes we can use evidences - but not evidences with blind faith


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...



Fair enough, but that definition(s) doesn't prove that I am operating on "blind faith."

You originally wrote,



> As I have stated before I think the word Presuppose implies *blind faith* or existentialism.



Without the Triune God of the Bible there would be no rational basis at all to say that person x is operating on "blind faith." You see, no other worldview can provide a coherent basis for rationality (as against my blind faith), causation, or induction. The truth of the Christian God is the impossibility of the contrary. Take x (oughtness of morality) and then apply that to a non-Christian worldview. The non-Christian worldview cannot show that such a decision is moral or immoral while _operating on its own terms_. However, the adherents of such a worldview do appear to do such things that they know to be moral. They are, in other words, using borrowed capital from the Christian worldview.

To even say that one is operating (hypothetically) on blind faith presupposes from the outset what the laws of logic are, how they are justified, or even why one should live according to them. The Christian worldview supplies the answer to all of the above. Therefore, the objector (not necessarily you) is already presupposing my worldview to suggest that my faith is blind or not.

This also presupposes a reconciliation between faith and reason.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 3, 2005)

When all else fails I use pop culture to illustrate truth. 

To be meaningful a fact must be interpreted within the context of a worldview. Brute facts are mute facts. 

Similarly, in destroying a non-Christian worldview the apologete will have more effeciency in attacking the heart of the heathen's worldview. Sure, one can show him that this or that fact about evolution or gay-marriage is inaccurate, but if the unbeliever is consistent he will have a ready explanation for each of the attacks (so much for reason being neutral).

Therefore, to be successful, the apologete must destroy the heart and soul of the unbeliever's worldview. In taking down a spiderweb you do not merely snip a few strands on the outside; rather, one must shatter the very heart of the web, thus making all the facts (if I may wax innovative for the moment) destroy each other (think of an imploding building).

Here is an example of this in the movie Shrek 2:

Fiona:"Shouldn't you be getting home to dragon?"
Donkey:"Oh... yeah that. I don't know... she's been all moody and stuff lately... so I thought I'd move back in with you guys!"
Fiona:"Well you know we're always happy to see you Donkey."
Shrek:"But Fiona and I are married now. We need a little time... you know... to be together.... just with each other.... alone."
Donkey:"Say no more! Say no more! You don't have to worry about a thing! I will always be here to make sure nobody bothers you!"
Shrek:"Donkey!"
Donkey:"Yes roommie?"
Shrek:"Your bothering me!" 
Doneky: "Oh, I see. Well, me and Pinnochio was going to catch a tournament later on."

exit stage

At first Shrek did not attack the very heart of Donkey's presuppostions, thus rendering most of his attack fruitless.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 3, 2005)

I am not sure I understand this neutrality. How can anyone say something is neutral. No one comes into the world with a clean slate of neutrality. Even Gerstner in his Primer on Predestination acknowledged this when he was talking about inclination. Isn't Gerstner suppose to be an evidentialist or something other than presuppositional?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> I replied with:
> 
> 
> ...



I am not sure I like redefining words just because someone wants to. And that is why wouldn't grant you a redefinition clause, so to speak.


----------



## crhoades (Sep 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by crhoades_
> ...



I only asked you to grant it *for the sake of argument*. Just posted in the other thread something along this lines...I'm trying to see conceptually if we all agree and we are debating over language that everyone is comfortable with or if there is indeed some point in the theory that we call presuppositional that you disagree with. 

Take the definition above and instead of redifining the word presupposition - use transcendental.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by crhoades_
> ...



Call it Covenantal Apologetics then. All men are either covenant-keepers or covenant-breakers. There is no neutrality.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 3, 2005)

What if I am neutral and have not entered into any covenant?


----------



## crhoades (Sep 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> What if I am neutral and have not entered into any covenant?



Randy denies the Covenant of Works! Randy denies the Covenant of Works! LOL...sorry - Adam screwed you on that one.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



No I Don't. No I don't. No I don't. You assumed that. You assumed that. I was only making a funny. I was acting neutral to protray obsurdity.


----------



## crhoades (Sep 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by crhoades_
> ...



It actually illustrates a great point. Even for the unbeliever to cast off God and shake his/her fist at Him and say I don't believe still doesn't alter the fact that:
1. They are a creature of God - no amount of washing with Lava soap will wash away the Imago Dei (just lead to rashes..)
2. They are in the Adamic covenant whether they want to believe it or not - they _are_ covenant breakers
3. Original sin is still a reality.
4. They are rebels, enemies of God in thought word and deed.
5. Their only hope is in Christ Jesus.
6. They need to repent and turn away from all autonomy in their thinking and living.
Could go on but you catch my drift. As you and Jacob pointed out - unbelief is insanity.

I'll end with a Van Til quote (imagine that!)
from here
...we present the message and evidence for the Christian position as clearly as possible, knowing that because man is what the Christian says he is, the non- Christian will be able to understand in an intellectual sense the issues involved. In so doing, we shall, to a large extent, be telling him what he "already knows" but seeks to suppress. This "reminding" process provides a fertile ground for the Holy Spirit, who in sovereign grace may grant the non-Christian repentance so that he may know him who is life eternal.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Randy, as any logic text will tell you, it is bad form to go to the dictionary for a definition in a debate like this. Actually, a dictionary is something like a history book, telling you how a word has been or is currently used. Look through dictionaries over the years and you'll see definition change. Therefore you cannot go to a dictionary, which simply reports how a word has been used (it's not normative or prescriptive), to argue against me. As I said before, the adherents of the system get to define how they are using words. Furthermore, many philosophers use the word different as well as did Kant (which is more aplicable to our discussion). Laslty, if you want to see your "dictionary view" refuted I'd read the definition of the word "science" and if you can't see that it doesn't provide necessary and sufficient conditions for "science" by your own intellectual abilites then I'd suggest you read J.P. Moreland's book: "Christianity And The Nature of Science" for a good critique of the ignorant view that you can just go to a dictionary to define positions in a debate like this.
> 
> Moreover, since you must presuppose that nature is uniform, and since you rely on the uniformity of nature for almost everything you do (eat, drive, drink, smoke, talk, write, etc), then I guess your entire life is based on blind faith!



Paul, Have you ever noticed that most of the time you seem to be attacking someone. I am trying to discover and develop understanding and you are so busy attacking that I also don't want to discuss things with you. I appreciate the way Chris and Jacob have helped me. You just loose me in your train of thought sometimes. Your last appraisal of my thought is the very opposite of what I want to have. I don't believe your assesment is correct. I studied epistlemology a long time ago. It is not an easy subject. I do know that words have definition. Some things are concrete. That is something to work from. Redifining words is how we end up with Liberal Theologians. i.e. N.T. Wrights definition of the righteousness of God.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 3, 2005)

I notice that a lot of my posts can be pointed, too. The reason that is because of the medium we use to communicate. The medium is not the message, but it does condition the meaning. Message boards lack the "humaness" that personal conversation has. When people act sharp with me, I give them the benefit of the doubt until I know better. 

A lot of people, people who know me well, have told me that I can be a jerk on message boards (actually, what they said is, "Jacob, people don't realize what a sweet, wonderful man you really are.") Moral of the story--message boards condition the response.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I notice that a lot of my posts can be pointed, too. The reason that is because of the medium we use to communicate. The medium is not the message, but it does condition the meaning. Message boards lack the "humaness" that personal conversation has. When people act sharp with me, I give them the benefit of the doubt until I know better.
> 
> A lot of people, people who know me well, have told me that I can be a jerk on message boards (actually, what they said is, "Jacob, people don't realize what a sweet, wonderful man you really are.") Moral of the story--message boards condition the response.



I semi disagree with you Jacob. Tersness and harsh name calling are two different things. An attitude can be detected. If that wasn't true you wouldn't be able to see the passion and compassion in the scriptures.

By the way. As a man I am not so sure I am comfortable with being called sweet by the guys.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



A girl called me sweet (rock on!). Is it wrong to call names? Paul and Christ did repeatedly. I am not saying I would in this context. I probably wouldn't. However, the nature of the verse, as I interpret it, is to avoid vexing oneself--even if one is in the right--with a person who knows better, has had the issues explained to them, and continues with the same arguments. I don't think Paul was reducing people to the level of pigs here.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 3, 2005)

> However, the nature of the verse, as I interpret it, is to avoid vexing oneself--even if one is in the right--with a person who knows better, has had the issues explained to them, and continues with the same arguments. I don't think Paul was reducing people to the level of pigs here.



That comment was in the other thread Jacob. You are combining threads now.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



No, but you do blitzkrieg a bit. Slow down and let others catch up. You just might find they agree with you!


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



She did not call me sweet in a romantic context, in case she reads this thread, nor did I take it in such a way. The girl who said this to me is one of my best friends.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...



We are like Reformed Bezerkers. We go crazy charging the enemy and break his ranks and allow the other Reformed to finish the job.

{EDIT: When I said "enemies" I meant covenant-breakers, not fellow Christians on this board.}

[Edited on 9--4-05 by Draught Horse]

[Edited on 9--4-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 3, 2005)

> I studied epistlemology a long time ago. It is not an easy subject. I do know that words have definition. Some things are concrete. That is something to work from. Redifining words is how we end up with Liberal Theologians. i.e. N.T. Wrights definition of the righteousness of God.



Randy, you also have to keep in mind that even though these words have a basic meaning which you may find in the dictionary, they can take on more nuance and specific applications in the various communities in which they are used. Presuppositionalism is fighting in the community of philosophy, hence the more philosophical spin on their words. 

Let's take for example the word "format." 
For computer folks, it becomes a verb indicating the rearranging of your disk, or a noun as the layout of a program. 
For philosophers it is the structure of debate and discussion. 
For publishers, it is the structure and layout of the printed text. 

The same basic meaning, but difference applications within the community it is used. 

If you want to understand Bahnsen and VanTil, you have to do more than just read the dictionary, but understand the context in which they are arguing. If you tried to read a technical manual for the electrical system of a nuclear powered steam turbine, you would be thrown for a loop because the words would seem foreign, and the dictionary would not help you one bit. You would have to first learn the vocab use in that tech field. 

This, I think is one of the main obstacles to Evidentialists and Presuppositionalist coming to agreement over many things. Evidentialism tends to have a larger following among the laymen and speak in more simple language. They try to read Vantil (if they've even heard of him) and it's a completely foreign language. But a philosophy student would know exactly what VanTil is saying. 

All this to say, that we all need to exercise more caution and patience to ensure we understand what the other is saying before we jump to incorrect conclusions and strain fellowship with brothers who would otherwise agree if we understood each other better.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > I studied epistlemology a long time ago. It is not an easy subject. I do know that words have definition. Some things are concrete. That is something to work from. Redifining words is how we end up with Liberal Theologians. i.e. N.T. Wrights definition of the righteousness of God.
> ...



I understand that. I even understand that you define a word in context also. But I am sure that my point still stands valid. I wasn't necessarily trying to understand Van Til or Bahnsen. I was asking some questions about Presup based upon common knowledge which is the level most people operate on. I have heard the charges between Clark and Van Til. I read about them years ago. I have forgotten so much. When Chris asked me what I thought of the quotes I read I said I agreed with what I read. I am sure others could bring out other things that they disagree with concerning Van Til that I may find rather existential in nature.

My main concern in my original question was why don't we get on the same page and acknowledge that evidence is important as well as a persons presuppositions.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



Did I say you called me a name? You claimed you were called names such as heretic in another thread we were discussing similar stuff. I do think you are to harsh in your attitude sometimes. You turn people off more by how you say stuff than by what you say. If you called me a name or I thought you did, I have already forgotten about it. I was just pointing out that harshness and other emotion can be detected in posting. I do disagree with you about my having a blind faith. I guess you believe that a uniform creation can only exist in a persons blind faith, or did I missunderstand you?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 5, 2005)

Paul,

How do you define actual proof?

As in an illustration I expounded earlier, a student questioned a Prof about his existence. The Prof replied, "To whom shall I address an answer concerning the question?"

At what level is reality acknowledged as fact?

[Edited on 9-5-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 5, 2005)

Okay, I am asking you these questions because you have worked on this at a much more farther level of understanding than I have. I want to know your conclusions. 

Is there a point where blind faith is acceptable and not only acceptable but necessary?


----------

