# Article about presuppositional apologetics



## cih1355 (Apr 25, 2006)

I found a good article online about presuppositional apologetics. Below is the link.

http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj12m.pdf

[Edited on 4-25-2006 by cih1355]


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 25, 2006)

Thanks for posting that article Curt. I've dl'd it and look forward to reading it later. I breezed through the headings and it looks good. He seems to write it from the point of view of the inefectiveness and inconsistency of neutrality. I especially like the heading - Why are christians so eager to be neutral? Good point.


----------



## cih1355 (Apr 25, 2006)

The reason why some Christians take a neutral starting point when doing apologetics is because they think that a neutral starting point ensures that they will not commit circular reasoning. The logical conclusion of their belief is that God's word is not self-authenticating; Something else authenticates God's word. In another thread, I wrote a paragraph explaining why God's word is self-authenticating. How would the Christians who take a neutral starting point respond to the paragraph that I wrote? Below is the paragraph that I wrote.

"According to presuppositional apologetics, God's word is self-authenticating. If something else besides God's word authenticates God's word, then there is something else that has more authority than God's word. One might ask, 'Why does there have to be a self-authenticating authority?'. The answer is that if there were no self-authenticating authority, then the process of justifying one's belief would go on forever. "


----------



## Vytautas (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by cih1355_
> If something else besides God's word authenticates God's word, then there is something else that has more authority than God's word.



If the Bible is self-authenticating, then all that is needed to authenticate the Bible is to have a claim in the Bible that it is true. So if a book says that the Bible is true, thus authenticating it, then that book is true regardless of the book´s contents because it has more authority than God´s word. This is an absurd conclusion so it is false that evidence that authenticates the Bible is of a higher authority than the Bible.


----------



## fivepointcalvinist (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by cih1355_
> ...



i may be wrong but i think he was implying that for the bible to be self authenticating, it needs no other "evidence" to prove it is true, and thus stands on its own as verification to its truth. since the bible is the highest form of "proof" and the standard by which truth is judged, asserting that something else could verify its authenticity would undermine the assertion that it proves itself and has ultimate authority.


----------



## Vytautas (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> i may be wrong but i think he was implying that for the bible to be self authenticating, it needs no other "evidence" to prove it is true, and thus stands on its own as verification to its truth. since the bible is the highest form of "proof" and the standard by which truth is judged, asserting that something else could verify its authenticity would undermine the assertion that it proves itself and has ultimate authority.



Evidence could be marshaled when the claim to truth is under attack. What do you mean highest form of proof? Are some things truer than others? So, there are things that are ultimate truths, very sure truths, moderately true things, and not so certain truths. However, the words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. This means that the words are on an equal level. How can there be different levels of truth? So that anything that is true outside of Scripture is on an equal footing with Scripture. If this is not true that how much quantitatively is Scripture any truer than something else?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 25, 2006)

it's not good unless Paul Manata say's it's good


----------



## Vytautas (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> it's not good unless Paul Manata say's it's good



What is good? And why is Paul Manata an authority? Is it because of his background?


----------



## Vytautas (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> ...



Hegel says we get our personality in the State. Are you not part of the State?


----------



## fivepointcalvinist (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> 
> Evidence could be marshaled when the claim to truth is under attack. What do you mean highest form of proof? Are some things truer than others?



by proof i mean something that authenticates something else. this does not exclusively mean that something is true. for example, mormons have "proof" that their faith is right and so do muslims etc but this does not make their assertions correct, or true. how do i know that they are wrong? because i think so? how do i verify the falsity of the muslim assertions? those claims to truth contradict the bible which is the standard by which all other claims to truth may be judged.



> So, there are things that are ultimate truths, very sure truths, moderately true things, and not so certain truths.



youre building straw men. i never asserted there were different levels of truth. i would agree there can be relative or subjective truth and then there can be objective truth. the bible is not what i would define as subjective or relative truth. by highest for of proof, i simply meant that it needs no verification as to its own authority. 



> However, the words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. This means that the words are on an equal level.



which words? the actual greek? or hebrew? or small amount of aramaic? heres the kicker: God uses words of all languages to communicate truth to men. are english speaking bibles Gods word and chinese bibles not? words are merely tools to relay conceptions. which "words" are more important? try reading Gods Word in context.

[Edited on 4-26-2006 by fivepointcalvinist]


----------



## Vytautas (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> ...



When I think of proof, I think of a step-by-step process going from premises to a conclusion. The way you find something false in a proof is that you look for any fallacies committed in the proof. This is more easily done on paper. Let´s say the Muslim goes to the Koran and proves Islamic doctrine without committing any fallacies. You must agree to the Muslim´s conclusions if you accept his premise that the Koran is true. 



> _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> So, there are things that are ultimate truths, very sure truths, moderately true things, and not so certain truths.





> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> youre building straw men. i never asserted there were different levels of truth. i would agree there can be relative or subjective truth and then there can be objective truth. the bible is not what i would define as subjective or relative truth.



Sorry if I misunderstood you. Is all objective truth on the same level? I mean that it is the case that some objective truths are truer than others. 



> _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> However, the words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. This means that the words are on an equal level.





> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> which words? the actual greek? or hebrew? or small amount of aramaic? heres the kicker: God uses words of all languages to communicate truth to men. are english speaking bibles Gods word and chinese bibles not? words are merely tools to relay conceptions. which "words" are more important? try reading Gods Word in context.



The language does not matter. The point was all of God´s word is on the same level. Not one Scripture is more true than the others such as the red letters of Christ.


----------



## Vytautas (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> ...



Then what do you mean by nobody if it is not a personality? Is it status?


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 25, 2006)




----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> ...



Well I was joking but Paul is our resident apologist extrordinare. I didnt mean to infer that he was the end all that of course is God and God's Word.

Blade


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 25, 2006)

"now back to our regularly scheduled program"


----------

