# How would classical apologists or evidentialists respond to this?



## cih1355

The Bible is the highest authority. If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible. Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority. How would classical apologists or evidentialists respond to this?


----------



## Scynne

I don't know how clever people would respond, but, at a quick glance of the stated question, it seems that it is a mere case of logic, and/or science simply _agreeing_ with the Bible, not superseding it. This seems like too simple an answer, though. I think I have failed to see the full spectrum of the issue.


----------



## VictorBravo

cih1355 said:


> The Bible is the highest authority. If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible. Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority. How would classical apologists or evidentialists respond to this?



I am neither, particularly, but I'd say the above is simply a restatement of the problem of induction, identified by Hume long ago.

The short version: inductive methods cannot prove an absolute truth. The nature of the method precludes it. 

Science and archaeology are inductive and empirical. There is always the possibility of a contrary observation out there. As for logic, it needs something to work with or start from. In other words, it needs a connection from the abstract to the concrete. On its own it cannot prove anything.


----------



## Confessor

They might say that the Bible is deemed as authoritative once we show the unbeliever why even on his terms it is reasonable to do so (although I doubt that this is possible), but that we are forced to appeal to lesser authorities to avoid fideism.

Of course, this is not really an answer to the question. I don't think evidentialists can answer this convincingly.


----------



## cih1355

If something were to prove that the Bible is the word of God, then would it have more authority than the Bible?


----------



## Prufrock

I think it is kind of a moot question: how can anything prove that the bible is the word of God? The only way of asking that question would be to ask God: and the only way of hearing is answer is to look at the record of what he has spoken -- scripture.

An impossible hypothetical is normally impossible to answer without contradiction.

(Side note: this is partly why our confessions deny the use of external means to prove scripture to be from God: the only "proof" is the spirit bearing witness in our hearts.)

My 

-----Added 12/1/2008 at 04:38:11 EST-----

Sorry, I just realized I misread the opening post, and this in no way answers your question.


----------



## ChristianTrader

cih1355 said:


> The Bible is the highest authority. If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible. Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority. How would classical apologists or evidentialists respond to this?



How about this analogy: Lets say that you are a fed and you want to make a big case against a mafia boss. You get a henchman to talk and eventually you make the case against the big boss. Did you have to assume the henchman was bigger/more authoritative/a higher authority etc than the big boss?

CT


----------



## Confessor

cih1355 said:


> If something were to prove that the Bible is the word of God, then would it have more authority than the Bible?



1. If we were to _believe_ that the Bible is God's Word due to some rationalistic proof then that proof would be viewed as more authoritative by us.

2. There is no way to prove that the Bible is the Word of God from some external, non-Christian framework. And this is the case because there is no way to prove _anything_ from outside a Christian framework.

-----Added 12/1/2008 at 04:50:38 EST-----



ChristianTrader said:


> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is the highest authority. If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible. Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority. How would classical apologists or evidentialists respond to this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about this analogy: Lets say that you are a fed and you want to make a big case against a mafia boss. You get a henchman to talk and eventually you make the case against the big boss. Did you have to assume the henchman was bigger/more authoritative/a higher authority etc than the big boss?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


I'm not sure exactly how to respond to this. It is difficult because it appears you are equivocating on the meaning of "authority." The Bible is not more authoritative than logic in the same sense that a mob boss is more authoritative than a henchman. Further, even the mob boss is subject to other, more authoritative things, such as God's law.


----------



## yeutter

cih1355 said:


> Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority. How would classical apologists or evidentialists respond to this?



Firstly, I would disagree and say that we something we know as a lesser authority can indeed authenticate something of greater authority in the mind of a skeptic.
Secondly, part of the job of the apologist is to demonstrate based on evidence the skeptic will accept.


----------



## Confessor

yeutter said:


> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority. How would classical apologists or evidentialists respond to this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, I would disagree and say that we something we know as a lesser authority can indeed authenticate something of greater authority in the mind of a skeptic.
> Secondly, part of the job of the apologist is to demonstrate based on evidence the skeptic will accept.
Click to expand...


(1) Then how would such an entity actually have greater authority, if it is subject to the lesser one? Further, how does that work in the mind of a skeptic? (I'm not trying to put you on the spot.)

(2) Presuppositional apologetics attempts to show that the skeptic's standard for acceptable evidence is nonsensical (and unethical), leading to the destruction of knowledge.


----------



## ChristianTrader

cih1355 said:


> The Bible is the highest authority. If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible. Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority. How would classical apologists or evidentialists respond to this?



I was less than clear in my first response. Let me try again.

The Bible in some sense is not the highest authority. God is the highest authority. Because He is the highest authority, whatever He says is of the highest authority (in a derivative sense). It would be very hard to push forward the point that the Bible is the highest authority without making some points about the God who speaks through the Bible.

I would think that a classical apologist would say that the foundational points about God can be made through natural theology.

Since one can be certain that God exists, the only question is which book is His word.

CT

-----Added 12/1/2008 at 05:29:19 EST-----



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is the highest authority. If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible. Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority. How would classical apologists or evidentialists respond to this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about this analogy: Lets say that you are a fed and you want to make a big case against a mafia boss. You get a henchman to talk and eventually you make the case against the big boss. Did you have to assume the henchman was bigger/more authoritative/a higher authority etc than the big boss?
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure exactly how to respond to this. It is difficult because it appears you are equivocating on the meaning of "authority." The Bible is not more authoritative than logic in the same sense that a mob boss is more authoritative than a henchman. Further, even the mob boss is subject to other, more authoritative things, such as God's law.
Click to expand...


1)Analogies break down at various points, hopefully at a point that is non essential to the point being made (if it was exact, it would not be an analogy)

2)The Bible is not more authoritative than logic, neither does it need to be. If it was then it could critique logic (for example the law of non contradiction etc) For example, we use the law of non contradiction to rule out various interpretations of the Bible.

3)My main point was that something lesser could point to something greater without making the lesser the end all be all.

CT


----------



## yeutter

We take the authority the skeptic accepts and confront him with the fact that it proves that scripture is reliable and that Christ rose from the dead is a historical fact. For example, we can takes the arguements advanced by Locke to show a Muslim that to believe Christ rose from the dead is good history.
We do not need to show the skeptic that his standards are nonsensical. We attempt to use his standards to prove to his satisfaction that the Bible is good history. Therefore he must accept the Bibles message or he is irrational


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> 1)Analogies break down at various points, hopefully at a point that is non essential to the point being made (if it was exact, it would not be an analogy)
> 
> 2)The Bible is not more authoritative than logic, neither does it need to be. If it was then it could critique logic (for example the law of non contradiction etc) For example, we use the law of non contradiction to rule out various interpretations of the Bible.
> 
> 3)My main point was that something lesser could point to something greater without making the lesser the end all be all.



(1) I'm aware that analogies must break down; it simply seems to me that your analogy breaks down before making its point (therefore at an essential point).

(2) It is more authoritative than man's use of logic, and it does need to be. You are right in the sense that God and His Word are not supreme over or subordinate to logic itself, but fallible human reasoning is clearly inferior.

(3) How does your analogy demonstrate that in the same way a use of human reasoning could retain the Bible's authoritativeness?

-----Added 12/1/2008 at 06:25:42 EST-----



yeutter said:


> We take the authority the skeptic accepts and confront him with the fact that it proves that scripture is reliable and that Christ rose from the dead is a historical fact. For example, we can takes the arguements advanced by Locke to show a Muslim that to believe Christ rose from the dead is good history.
> We do not need to show the skeptic that his standards are nonsensical. We attempt to use his standards to prove to his satisfaction that the Bible is good history. Therefore he must accept the Bibles message or he is irrational



Regardless of the theoretical methodology, the question, ""Is the skeptic's standard nonsensical?" is strongly relevant. Without doing this he can hide behind it.

For instance, even if he were to admit that Jesus Christ was previously dead and subsequently alive, he would not have to concede His deity or any type of theological significance. The skeptic can see the resurrection as a naturalistic anomaly; he is rationally obliged to see it so given his presupposition. Further (and I don't know why I didn't think of this before), he could also point out that Lazarus and other people were raised from the dead.


----------



## yeutter

packabacka said:


> (2) Presuppositional apologetics attempts to show that the skeptic's standard for acceptable evidence is nonsensical (and unethical), leading to the destruction of knowledge.


The presuppositionalist attempts to convince the skeptic that his standard for acceptable evidence is nonsensical by using and glorying in circular reasoning which is nonsensical and offensive to the skeptic. 
The approach of the presuppositionalist gives scandal to the skeptic. The cross gives scandal to the unbeliever; we should not add to it.


----------



## Confessor

yeutter said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> (2) Presuppositional apologetics attempts to show that the skeptic's standard for acceptable evidence is nonsensical (and unethical), leading to the destruction of knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> The presuppositionalist attempts to convince the skeptic that his standard for acceptable evidence is nonsensical by using and glorying in circular reasoning which is nonsensical and offensive to the skeptic.
> The approach of the presuppositionalist gives scandal to the skeptic. The cross gives scandal to the unbeliever; we should not add to it.
Click to expand...


Is your objection to presuppositionalism that it has an aspect of circularity?

What exactly should we not add to the cross? You were advocating a different form of apologetics earlier.


----------



## MW

Someone once testified that Jesus is the Holy One of God, and the Lord Jesus Christ rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, Mark 1:25. Not all testimonies given on behalf of Jesus Christ are favourable to a sound reception of the truth. The quarter from which such testimony is given may prejudice the authority of Christ.


----------



## yeutter

packabacka said:


> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The presuppositionalist attempts to convince the skeptic that his standard for acceptable evidence is nonsensical by using and glorying in circular reasoning which is nonsensical and offensive to the skeptic.
> The approach of the presuppositionalist gives scandal to the skeptic. The cross gives scandal to the unbeliever; we should not add to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is your objection to presuppositionalism that it has an aspect of circularity?
> 
> What exactly should we not add to the cross? You were advocating a different form of apologetics earlier.
Click to expand...

In my experience the circularity of presuppositionalism is offensive to Muslims and unbelieving Catholics. 
We should not add to the cross an apologetic approach that gives scandal to the skeptic. The cross is scandal to the unbeliever in and of itself.
I do not believe traditional Thomism, or old Princeton gives scandal the way presuppositionalism does.


----------



## MW

yeutter said:


> I do not believe traditional Thomism, or old Princeton gives scandal the way presuppositionalism does.



That is because they functioned in a philosophical context which did not overtly announce its presuppositional framework.


----------



## Confessor

yeutter said:


> I do not believe traditional Thomism, or old Princeton gives scandal the way presuppositionalism does.



Well, I do not believe presup gives scandal the way evidentialism does. Do you understand the defense of presuppositionalism's circularity?


----------



## yeutter

armourbearer said:


> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe traditional Thomism, or old Princeton gives scandal the way presuppositionalism does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because they functioned in a philosophical context which did not overtly announce its presuppositional framework.
Click to expand...

Lets assume that is correct for a minute. I think it is a good idea to not discuss the presuppositional framework when talking with my Muslim friends.
Not overtly announcing the presuppositional framework allows us to discuss the protestant Christian evidences and not be distracted by aarguements over wheather or not circularity is in and of itself irrational.


----------



## Confessor

yeutter said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe traditional Thomism, or old Princeton gives scandal the way presuppositionalism does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because they functioned in a philosophical context which did not overtly announce its presuppositional framework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets assume that is correct for a minute. I think it is a good idea to not discuss the presuppositional framework when talking with my Muslim friends.
> Not overtly announcing the presuppositional framework allows us to discuss the protestant Christian evidences and not be distracted by aarguements over wheather or not circularity is in and of itself irrational.
Click to expand...


It is impossible to set presuppositions aside.


----------



## MW

yeutter said:


> Lets assume that is correct for a minute. I think it is a good idea to not discuss the presuppositional framework when talking with my Muslim friends.
> Not overtly announcing the presuppositional framework allows us to discuss the protestant Christian evidences and not be distracted by aarguements over wheather or not circularity is in and of itself irrational.



The theistic worldview you share with your Muslim friend will eventually lead to a disagreement wherein it will become necessary to discuss an underlying belief and the way it works itself out in the competing systems of Christianity and Mohammedanism. To do otherwise would be to attempt to trick your Muslim friend into believing Christianity is true without actually examining its ultimate truth claim.


----------



## yeutter

armourbearer said:


> The theistic worldview you share with your Muslim friend will eventually lead to a disagreement wherein it will become necessary to discuss an underlying belief and the way it works itself out in the competing systems of Christianity and Mohammedanism. To do otherwise would be to attempt to trick your Muslim friend into believing Christianity is true without actually examining its ultimate truth claim.


True, when I show the Muslim that he has no reason to see the New Testament documents as anything other then historically reliable; the usual responce is to raise all sorts of other objections. It is at that point that a discussion of ultimate truth claims of Christianity and presuppositions becomes of some value.
When I talk with unbelieving papists, I have never seen how presuppositionalism would have been of any value. On the contrary they give me a hearing an tell me how irrational some of my fellow evangelical are.
I either case they have been shown that the New Testament is reliable and are left without excuse.

-----Added 12/1/2008 at 09:25:55 EST-----



packabacka said:


> It is impossible to set presuppositions aside.



If that is the case knowledge of truth is impossible because none of us can get past our own presuppositions. This is the kind of circular reasoning my Muslim friends view as irrational.


----------



## MW

yeutter said:


> When I talk with unbelieving papists, I have never seen how presuppositionalism would have been of any value.



The self-attesting authority of Scripture is a fundamental starting point for a Protestant in discussions with Romanists. For Romanists, following Aquinas, reason leads to faith; whereas for Reformed Protestants, following Anselm, faith seeks reason.


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)Analogies break down at various points, hopefully at a point that is non essential to the point being made (if it was exact, it would not be an analogy)
> 
> 2)The Bible is not more authoritative than logic, neither does it need to be. If it was then it could critique logic (for example the law of non contradiction etc) For example, we use the law of non contradiction to rule out various interpretations of the Bible.
> 
> 3)My main point was that something lesser could point to something greater without making the lesser the end all be all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1) I'm aware that analogies must break down; it simply seems to me that your analogy breaks down before making its point (therefore at an essential point).
Click to expand...


My point three should answer this.



> (2) It is more authoritative than man's use of logic, and it does need to be. You are right in the sense that God and His Word are not supreme over or subordinate to logic itself, but fallible human reasoning is clearly inferior.



How does that work out in practice? Do we not (as fallible humans) use the law of non contradiction to critique other interpretations of scripture besides our own? How is that not letting man's use of logic be more authoritative than God's word?



> (3) How does your analogy demonstrate that in the same way a use of human reasoning could retain the Bible's authoritativeness?



My analogy was supposed to be about God and logic not scripture and logic.

CT


----------



## yeutter

armourbearer said:


> The self-attesting authority of Scripture is a fundamental starting point for a Protestant in discussions with Romanists. For Romanists, following Aquinas, reason leads to faith; whereas for Reformed Protestants, following Anselm, faith seeks reason.


That is an interesting observation I will have to think about.


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> How does that work out in practice? Do we not (as fallible humans) use the law of non contradiction to critique other interpretations of scripture besides our own? How is that not letting man's use of logic be more authoritative than God's word?



We are not using human reason to say that Scripture contradicts itself.

To disprove a false interpretation of Scripture is not to supercede God's Word with human reasoning but to supercede a fallible human interpretation with a more faithful one. Reason here is a tool in submission to God's authority.



> My analogy was supposed to be about God and logic not scripture and logic.



Regardless: Scripture is God's Word and would carry with it whatever authority which God Himself possesses.

-----Added 12/1/2008 at 09:59:23 EST-----



yeutter said:


> If that is the case knowledge of truth is impossible because none of us can get past our own presuppositions. This is the kind of circular reasoning my Muslim friends view as irrational.



Knowledge of truth is possible only because God does not give us over entirely to our unbelieving presuppositions (common grace). The entire presuppositional apologetic is built on the fact that everyone possesses believing presuppositions, metaphysically speaking, though everyone may not espouse the same presupposition. Only by starting with Christianity may anything make sense at all.

With a Muslim, you can show him inconsistencies within his system.


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does that work out in practice? Do we not (as fallible humans) use the law of non contradiction to critique other interpretations of scripture besides our own? How is that not letting man's use of logic be more authoritative than God's word?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not using human reason to say that Scripture contradicts itself.
> 
> To disprove a false interpretation of Scripture is not to supercede God's Word with human reasoning but to supercede a fallible human interpretation with a more faithful one. Reason here is a tool in submission to God's authority.
Click to expand...


Umm, that is the whole point of the discussion over several threads. Reason can simple be used as a tool in submission to God's authority. To use it to challenge God is to abuse reason.



> My analogy was supposed to be about God and logic not scripture and logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless: Scripture is God's Word and would carry with it whatever authority which God Himself possesses.
Click to expand...


That counter would only work if logic was something opposed to God and not dependent on God. Since that is not the case, I fail to see the force of your statement?

CT


----------



## yeutter

packabacka said:


> Knowledge of truth is possible only because God does not give us over entirely to our unbelieving presuppositions (common grace). The entire presuppositional apologetic is built on the fact that everyone possesses believing presuppositions, metaphysically speaking, though everyone may not espouse the same presupposition. Only by starting with Christianity may anything make sense at all.
> 
> With a Muslim, you can show him inconsistencies within his system.



1. I do not believe in common grace, at least not as it is defined by the Christian Reformed Church.
2. Natural law should reveal to man the existance of the Law Giver who inhabits eternity.
3. Starting out with the presuppositional apporach does not allow you to have that conversation with a Muslim. He will quickly identify you as someone who is irrational as evidenced by your engaging in ciruclar reasoning.


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> Umm, that is the whole point of the discussion over several threads. Reason can simple be used as a tool in submission to God's authority. To use it to challenge God is to abuse reason.



I understand. My point is that correcting false interpretations is an example of this, not a counterexample. Using reason to correct (e.g.) an Arminian view is not tantamount to using reason to contradict God Himself.



> That counter would only work if logic was something opposed to God and not dependent on God. Since that is not the case, I fail to see the force of your statement?



How does my statement regarding God's authority being tantamount to Scripture's (God's Word's) authority require that logic be opposed to God?

I was simply asking how your analogy worked. I did not see how it demonstrated that human reason can prove God (non-transcendentally) in the same sense that a henchman can rat out the mob boss.

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 12:09:06 EST-----



yeutter said:


> 1. I do not believe in common grace, at least not as it is defined by the Christian Reformed Church.
> 2. Natural law should reveal to man the existance of the Law Giver who inhabits eternity.
> 3. Starting out with the presuppositional apporach does not allow you to have that conversation with a Muslim. He will quickly identify you as someone who is irrational as evidenced by your engaging in ciruclar reasoning.



1. I agree with you on denying common grace, but I use the term to cover a broad meaning. Regardless, surely you believe in _some_ sort of providential benevolence, i.e., that God's blessings towards reprobates are at least like "fattening cattle for the slaughter." The explanation works given either view.

2. Natural law outside a framework of authoritative special revelation (i.e. Scripture) is meaningless. Considering that the unbeliever must select some type of presupposition prior to reasoning (it's impossible to reason otherwise), and considering that it won't be the Christian presupposition (since he's an unbeliever), he cannot make a "brute" interpretation of law ==> Lawgiver. He can simply view it as a natural phenomenon, and given his presupposition, he's rationally obliged to do so.

3. Discussions regarding absolute authorities are necessarily circular, and they are not irrational. To do otherwise would be to deny your presupposition's authority and thus concede the argument.

What is clear is that the Christian and the Muslim have completely different starting points. If you were to try to convince that Islam is wrong on Christian terms, he would necessarily disagree; if he were to try to convince you that Christianity is wrong on Muslim terms, you would necessarily disagree. You must step inside his shoes and show him why Islam is wrong even on Muslim terms (i.e. internal inconsistency). This is transcendental argumentation.


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, that is the whole point of the discussion over several threads. Reason can simple be used as a tool in submission to God's authority. To use it to challenge God is to abuse reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand. My point is that correcting false interpretations is an example of this, not a counterexample. Using reason to correct (e.g.) an Arminian view is not tantamount to using reason to contradict God Himself.
Click to expand...


Okay. I never said otherwise.



> That counter would only work if logic was something opposed to God and not dependent on God. Since that is not the case, I fail to see the force of your statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does my statement regarding God's authority being tantamount to Scripture's (God's Word's) authority require that logic be opposed to God?
Click to expand...


My point is that logic is not opposed to God and that using it to defend God/ prove God etc is not a problem.



> I was simply asking how your analogy worked. I did not see how it demonstrated that human reason can prove God (non-transcendentally) in the same sense that a henchman can rat out the mob boss.



I was assuming that you were attempting to advance a point of view. The only way to rule out a proof of God is to rule it out apriori on some other grounds. Which I am not sure those grounds could be.

CT


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

armourbearer said:


> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I talk with unbelieving papists, I have never seen how presuppositionalism would have been of any value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The self-attesting authority of Scripture is a fundamental starting point for a Protestant in discussions with Romanists. For Romanists, following Aquinas, reason leads to faith; whereas for Reformed Protestants, following Anselm, faith seeks reason.
Click to expand...


Exactly, per Hebrews 11.3: We believe in order to understand.


----------



## yeutter

When I talk with unbeliefing papists I usually start by showing them that the Church Fathers including Augustine, Anselm, & Aquinas all believed that the Bible was inerrant. From there I proceed to show them what the Bible says about justification by faith. Usually, though not always, I am interrupted an ask to prove the New Testament documents are historically reliable. From there I proceed to a discussion of reasons we should believe the documents to be reliable.
At this point, if not at the beginning of the conversation, a presuppositionalist would raise the issue of the ultimate truth claims of the Christianity. I do not. I want them first to come to grips with what the Bible teaches and recognize they have no reason to doubt that this is what Jesus and St. Paul taught.


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand. My point is that correcting false interpretations is an example of this, not a counterexample. Using reason to correct (e.g.) an Arminian view is not tantamount to using reason to contradict God Himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. I never said otherwise.
Click to expand...


Then how does the fact that we may correct interpretations falsify what I said regarding God's authority over human reasoning?



> My point is that logic is not opposed to God and that using it to defend God/ prove God etc is not a problem.



But the sense which people use logic to prove God is the sense which implies that logic is some entity existing separate from and not presupposing God. That is a misuse of a God-given tool.


----------



## cih1355

ChristianTrader said:


> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is the highest authority. If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible. Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority. How would classical apologists or evidentialists respond to this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about this analogy: Lets say that you are a fed and you want to make a big case against a mafia boss. You get a henchman to talk and eventually you make the case against the big boss. Did you have to assume the henchman was bigger/more authoritative/a higher authority etc than the big boss?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


When you say, "authority", are you talking about having the right to give orders or being the standard of what is true?


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand. My point is that correcting false interpretations is an example of this, not a counterexample. Using reason to correct (e.g.) an Arminian view is not tantamount to using reason to contradict God Himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. I never said otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how does the fact that we may correct interpretations falsify what I said regarding God's authority over human reasoning?
Click to expand...


From what I have understood from you thus far, you have been attempting to place scripture above human reasoning. That does not work because if scripture was against human reasoning then you would reject it as "false" scripture. We already reject certain interpretations of scripture (Arminianism) because it is against (correct) human reasoning.

Everything: Human reasoning, logic, scripture etc is dependent on God and there is no need to pit one against another.



> My point is that logic is not opposed to God and that using it to defend God/ prove God etc is not a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the sense which people use logic to prove God is the sense which implies that logic is some entity existing separate from and not presupposing God. That is a misuse of a God-given tool.
Click to expand...


That just is not true. The only way you can make a semblance of an argument is that because one does not explicitly lay out, in the beginning, that one is arguing towards the Theistic God found in the Bible, one is therefore presupposing that such a God does not exist. That would be crazy talk.

CT


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> Everything: Human reasoning, logic, scripture etc is dependent on God and there is no need to pit one against another.



Protestants usually distinguish between the magister, Scripture, and the minister, reason. For reason to competently function in dependence on God it must be "captive to the Word."


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> From what I have understood from you thus far, you have been attempting to place scripture above human reasoning. That does not work because if scripture was against human reasoning then you would reject it as "false" scripture. We already reject certain interpretations of scripture (Arminianism) because it is against (correct) human reasoning.
> 
> Everything: Human reasoning, logic, scripture etc is dependent on God and there is no need to pit one against another.



When I said that human reasoning is below Scripture, I meant merely that it cannot be used to disprove Scripture. Doing so would be an attempt to remove the foundation for human reasoning itself.

There is no need for me to view reason as false Scripture rather than a God-given tool in submission to Scripture.

We use human reasoning to correct poor use of human reasoning, such as Arminianism.




> That just is not true. The only way you can make a semblance of an argument is that because one does not explicitly lay out, in the beginning, that one is arguing towards the Theistic God found in the Bible, one is therefore presupposing that such a God does not exist. That would be crazy talk.



That's what the entire presuppositional apologetic is all about! God is not a god who can be proved; He is the requisite for proof itself. Accordingly, we must show why the starting point of God is consistent with itself and with the parts of experience which cannot be distorted by depravity due to God's common grace (e.g. the existence of laws of logic, uniformity of nature, etc.). No other starting point has these consistencies, especially the supposedly "neutral" method where we see what we've got and "humbly" try to discern what it all means, a.k.a. autonomy. If we were to try to do that, we would be stuck in an abyss of epistemological nothingness.

It's not just some random piety I am trying to convey when I say that God cannot be proved; He really cannot. If we were to try to prove Him from the ground up in any situation, we would _never_ approach the truthfulness of Christianity, rationally speaking -- only by inconsistently applying our approach and hiding our presupposition could we arrive there. I can play devil's advocate for you if you wish to try that.

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 06:11:49 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything: Human reasoning, logic, scripture etc is dependent on God and there is no need to pit one against another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Protestants usually distinguish between the magister, Scripture, and the minister, reason. For reason to competently function in dependence on God it must be "captive to the Word."
Click to expand...


Now, there's a cool word: magister. I shall add that to my vocab.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything: Human reasoning, logic, scripture etc is dependent on God and there is no need to pit one against another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Protestants usually distinguish between the magister, Scripture, and the minister, reason. For reason to competently function in dependence on God it must be "captive to the Word."
Click to expand...


At a certain level I do not have a problem with the statement, but at other levels I do. For example, reason must be captive to what is first determined to be God's word. Reason is not captive is the Korah or other so called scriptures. So there must be some sort of differentiation between false scriptures and true scriptures.

I am not sure how you are going to do that without reason and natural theology.

CT


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> At a certain level I do not have a problem with the statement, but at other levels I do. For example, reason must be captive to what is first determined to be God's word. Reason is not captive is the Korah or other so called scriptures. So there must be some sort of differentiation between false scriptures and true scriptures.
> 
> I am not sure how you are going to do that without reason and natural theology.



What the presuppositionalist is doing when he provides evidence for his beliefs is showing how these are "consequences" which confirm his faith, not the "causes" why he believes. There is quite a difference in the two highlighted words, as they indicate diverse approaches to the use of rational argumentation.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> At a certain level I do not have a problem with the statement, but at other levels I do. For example, reason must be captive to what is first determined to be God's word. Reason is not captive is the Korah or other so called scriptures. So there must be some sort of differentiation between false scriptures and true scriptures.
> 
> I am not sure how you are going to do that without reason and natural theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the presuppositionalist is doing when he provides evidence for his beliefs is showing how these are "consequences" which confirm his faith, not the "causes" why he believes. There is quite a difference in the two highlighted words, as they indicate diverse approaches to the use of rational argumentation.
Click to expand...


If a person said that they believe because it is the only thing consistent with natural revelation/natural theology, in which category would you put that in "causes or consequences"?

CT

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 06:40:32 EST-----



packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I have understood from you thus far, you have been attempting to place scripture above human reasoning. That does not work because if scripture was against human reasoning then you would reject it as "false" scripture. We already reject certain interpretations of scripture (Arminianism) because it is against (correct) human reasoning.
> 
> Everything: Human reasoning, logic, scripture etc is dependent on God and there is no need to pit one against another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I said that human reasoning is below Scripture, I meant merely that it cannot be used to disprove Scripture. Doing so would be an attempt to remove the foundation for human reasoning itself.
Click to expand...


But does it not have to be first used to determine which book is actual scripture? Or is the Muslim justified in his belief because he read the Koran before he ever saw a Bible?



> There is no need for me to view reason as false Scripture rather than a God-given tool in submission to Scripture.



Huh?



> We use human reasoning to correct poor use of human reasoning, such as Arminianism.



We do, but we also use it to correct and critique poor Scripture alternative such as the Koran.



> That just is not true. The only way you can make a semblance of an argument is that because one does not explicitly lay out, in the beginning, that one is arguing towards the Theistic God found in the Bible, one is therefore presupposing that such a God does not exist. That would be crazy talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the entire presuppositional apologetic is all about! God is not a god who can be proved; He is the requisite for proof itself. Accordingly, we must show why the starting point of God is consistent with itself and with the parts of experience which cannot be distorted by depravity due to God's common grace (e.g. the existence of laws of logic, uniformity of nature, etc.). No other starting point has these consistencies, especially the supposedly "neutral" method where we see what we've got and "humbly" try to discern what it all means, a.k.a. autonomy. If we were to try to do that, we would be stuck in an abyss of epistemological nothingness.
Click to expand...


No one is assuming autonomy or neutrality. I am assuming that People are without excuse even when they have never read a Bible or even heard of a Bible. Natural Revelation actually tells us/allows us to know things. If a person gets to judgment day without ever having seen a Bible, can they tell God, "Hey I never saw a Bible so how was I supposed to know how I was supposed to act, and how I was supposed to believe?"



> It's not just some random piety I am trying to convey when I say that God cannot be proved; He really cannot. If we were to try to prove Him from the ground up in any situation, we would _never_ approach the truthfulness of Christianity, rationally speaking -- only by inconsistently applying our approach and hiding our presupposition could we arrive there. I can play devil's advocate for you if you wish to try that.



Go for it.

CT


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> If a person said that they believe because it is the only thing consistent with natural revelation/natural theology, in which category would you put that in "causes or consequences"?



It depends. Where has the natural theology been learnt from? If it is a part of the system of Christianity to begin with, then the "consistency" is obviously consequential to the presupposition that Christianity is true. At that point you are looking at the system as a whole, foundations and superstucture together, rather than taking mud from foreign soil and making bricks to form a superstructure without foundations.


----------



## yeutter

packabacka said:


> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Starting out with the presuppositional apporach does not allow you to have that conversation with a Muslim. He will quickly identify you as someone who is irrational as evidenced by your engaging in ciruclar reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Discussions regarding absolute authorities are necessarily circular, and they are not irrational. To do otherwise would be to deny your presupposition's authority and thus concede the argument.
> 
> What is clear is that the Christian and the Muslim have completely different starting points. If you were to try to convince that Islam is wrong on Christian terms, he would necessarily disagree; if he were to try to convince you that Christianity is wrong on Muslim terms, you would necessarily disagree. You must step inside his shoes and show him why Islam is wrong even on Muslim terms (i.e. internal inconsistency). This is transcendental argumentation.
Click to expand...

1. By starting with your presuppositionalism you are not attempting to show him why Islam is wrong even on Muslim terms. He will identify what you are doing as circular reasoning which is alien to and repugnant to his conception of Islamic thought. Thus the conversation will end and he will brand you as irrational. 
2. I do not initially try to show him Islam is wrong. I try to show him that the Bible is reliable. From there we proceed to what the Bible says about Jesus Christ. Then we talk about the ultimate truth claims of the Christian faith and the error of Islam


----------



## Confessor

yeutter said:


> 1. By starting with your presuppositionalism you are not attempting to show him why Islam is wrong even on Muslim terms. He will identify what you are doing as circular reasoning which is alien to and repugnant to his conception of Islamic thought. Thus the conversation will end and he will brand you as irrational.
> 2. I do not initially try to show him Islam is wrong. I try to show him that the Bible is reliable. From there we proceed to what the Bible says about Jesus Christ. Then we talk about the ultimate truth claims of the Christian faith and the error of Islam



1. Not if you explain to him the necessary circularity that accompanies transcendental argumentation, or the necessary transcendental argumentation that comes with worldview discussion.

2. How do you show him it's reliable? By appealing to manuscript evidence? Evidence for the resurrection? Until you show him that Islam is internally inconsistent, he can grasp to his Qur'an and assertions that an impostor was killed on the cross in Christ's place.

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 08:28:00 EST-----



ChristianTrader said:


> But does it [human reasoning] not have to be first used to determine which book is actual scripture? Or is the Muslim justified in his belief because he read the Koran before he ever saw a Bible?



No, it does not. Scripture is entirely self-attesting, and we are brought to know this truth by the non-inferential witness of the Holy Spirit. We know God's Word is God's Word because it says so. To appeal to reason to confirm or otherwise undergird this -- rather than confirm it -- would be to put reason on a pedestal above God's Word.



> There is no need for me to view reason as false Scripture rather than a God-given tool in submission to Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
Click to expand...


That is, the fact that reason is subordinate to Scripture does not mean it cannot be used absolutely, nor does it mean that reason cannot be used to argue about matters pertaining to Scripture other than the matter of Scripture's truthfulness (e.g. regarding Arminian interpretations).



> We do, but we also use it to correct and critique poor Scripture alternative such as the Koran.



Agreed.



> No one is assuming autonomy or neutrality. I am assuming that People are without excuse even when they have never read a Bible or even heard of a Bible. Natural Revelation actually tells us/allows us to know things. If a person gets to judgment day without ever having seen a Bible, can they tell God, "Hey I never saw a Bible so how was I supposed to know how I was supposed to act, and how I was supposed to believe?"



I understand that you believe people are without excuse. I just think you have a false view concerning the implications of Scripture's absolute authority. I do not deny that you believe in Scripture's authority; I merely think that you misperceive the apologetical implications of that.

If we start from a standpoint which does not presuppose the Bible's truthfulness and ask the question, "Which is the correct revelation?" then we are assuming that God's Word is not self-attesting, but rather that our reason or experience is self-attesting. If we reason from what we perceive of natural revelation ==> the appropriately fitting divine revelation, then our allegiance lies within ourselves and not completely to God.



> Go for it.



Haha, I was assuming you'd give me specific argument to go against. I guess I'll just use your methodology of searching for the right revelation.

How do you know you are perceiving revelation correctly? How do you know there _must_ be a currently available divine revelation? Why can't it be "extinct" or lost in some distant civilization? If you say that God would sovereignly disallow that, how do you know that He would? I have more (i.e. the existence of causality rather than succession, the reliability of sense perception, the uniformity of nature, etc.), but I want to see if you can answer these more peripheral critiques first.


----------



## cih1355

Are there any truth claims that are self-justifying? If there were no self-justifying truth claims would that lead to the conclusion that there is an infinite regress of justifying one's truth claims? 

If there has to be a self-justifying truth claim in order to avoid an infinite regress of justifying one's truth claim, would the justification of that truth claim involve circular reasoning?


----------



## ChristianTrader

cih1355 said:


> Are there any truth claims that are self-justifying? If there were no self-justifying truth claims would that lead to the conclusion that there is an infinite regress of justifying one's truth claims?
> 
> If there has to be a self-justifying truth claim in order to avoid an infinite regress of justifying one's truth claim, would the justification of that truth claim involve circular reasoning?



What do you mean by self-justifying? Do you mean a truth claim to which no right reasoning person can object to or something else?

CT


----------



## yeutter

packabacka said:


> 1. Not if you explain to him the necessary circularity that accompanies transcendental argumentation, or the necessary transcendental argumentation that comes with worldview discussion.
> 
> 2. How do you show him it's reliable? By appealing to manuscript evidence? Evidence for the resurrection? Until you show him that Islam is internally inconsistent, he can grasp to his Qur'an and assertions that an impostor was killed on the cross in Christ's place.


I think that your glorying in the circular reasoning is just a bit of post kantianism that Van Tillians are wed to. My muslim friends think that is a prime example of the irrationality of Christianity, and reason not to talk to Christians about spiritual things. In short, your presupposiitionalism is, for them, a conversation stopper. 
How do I show my muslim or papist friends that the New Testament documents are historically reliable. By a comparison with other documents from antiquity that he knows to be reliable. My starting point is not the self attesting character of Scripture. I may tell a fellow Christian that we know the Bible is God's Word because it says so. When talking with my Romish or Muslim friends I appeal to reason. Does this put reason on a pedestal above God's Word? No. It is just meeting the Muslim where he is. 
Sure a Muslim may grasp and hold tight to the Qur'an and say "this I believe." He will also see that the New Testament is an entirely different kind of document then the Qur'an.


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any truth claims that are self-justifying? If there were no self-justifying truth claims would that lead to the conclusion that there is an infinite regress of justifying one's truth claims?
> 
> If there has to be a self-justifying truth claim in order to avoid an infinite regress of justifying one's truth claim, would the justification of that truth claim involve circular reasoning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by self-justifying? Do you mean a truth claim to which no right reasoning person can object to or something else?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


He means an axiomatic starting point, if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any truth claims that are self-justifying? If there were no self-justifying truth claims would that lead to the conclusion that there is an infinite regress of justifying one's truth claims?
> 
> If there has to be a self-justifying truth claim in order to avoid an infinite regress of justifying one's truth claim, would the justification of that truth claim involve circular reasoning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by self-justifying? Do you mean a truth claim to which no right reasoning person can object to or something else?
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He means an axiomatic starting point, if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...


And that would fall into the "truth claim to which no right reasoning pseron can object", right?

CT


----------



## Confessor

yeutter said:


> [I think that your glorying in the circular reasoning is just a bit of post kantianism that Van Tillians are wed to. My muslim friends think that is a prime example of the irrationality of Christianity, and reason not to talk to Christians about spiritual things. In short, your presupposiitionalism is, for them, a conversation stopper.



If your Muslim friend continues to ignore the arguments for necessary circularity, then it is clearly not just some intellectual problem. Thus far the only objection you have raised (and apparently the only objection he has raised) to circularity has been _ad hominem_ or otherwise fallaciously assertive.



> How do I show my muslim or papist friends that the New Testament documents are historically reliable. By a comparison with other documents from antiquity that he knows to be reliable. My starting point is not the self attesting character of Scripture. I may tell a fellow Christian that we know the Bible is God's Word because it says so. When talking with my Romish or Muslim friends I appeal to reason. Does this put reason on a pedestal above God's Word? No. It is just meeting the Muslim where he is.
> Sure a Muslim may grasp and hold tight to the Qur'an and say "this I believe." He will also see that the New Testament is an entirely different kind of document then the Qur'an.



If you act as if reason is some entity which does not require the framework of Christianity, then you are denying Christianity. I know that you are sincerely trying to show them the truth, and I know that you have no intention of denying Christianity by any means, but if God's Word is not authoritative in the persuasion of an unbeliever, then it never has to be authoritative at any point. And you cannot present that caricature under the guise of Christianity.

On the other hand, what I have found is that there can exist some peripheral evidences which are impossible to deny -- e.g. if I were to see with my own two eyes that the disciples stole Christ's body and He were never resurrected, I could not interpret that and rationally remain a Christian. It would be irreconcilable to have the Bible affirm sense perception (I'm not a Clarkian) and to have my own eyes see Christ never be physically resurrected. That would be an absolute contradiction.

Of course, such evidences do not come by very often. But if you think the NT historical evidences can not possibly be misconstrued by a Muslim presupposition, then that should be fine to use. Of course, you can never forget to display the fact that this is a battle of authorities; afterwards you can proceed to show why the Christian's authority is consistent with the undeniable fact of NT historical reliability. In other words, you should start from the authority of the Bible and show how it is consistent with the fact of NT historicity (and why the Muslim presupposition is not) rather than start with NT historicity and say that it "proves" the Bible. In such a manner, you would be using a consistently Reformed methodology while getting to use the evidence which you claim is so powerful. I personally would not use such evidences because the Muslim could easily distort that and not believe it -- if he truly accepts the Qur'an as authoritative, that is. However, if you think the evidence is that overwhelming -- i.e. so much that the presupposition of Qur'anic inerrancy could not _possibly_ be coherent with it -- then by all means use it.

I guess you could do the same thing with your Catholic friend, but I'm not sure why you would have to: if he doesn't think the Bible is historically reliable, then he's not a Catholic in the first place.

I hope this helps, brother.

-----Added 12/3/2008 at 03:37:09 EST-----



ChristianTrader said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by self-justifying? Do you mean a truth claim to which no right reasoning person can object to or something else?
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He means an axiomatic starting point, if I'm not mistaken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that would fall into the "truth claim to which no right reasoning pseron can object", right?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


Kind of. It's not that people can't reject them in language (e.g. in denying the law of contradiction one must affirm the law of contradiction in the same sentence), but rather that people can't reject them in practice.

Understanding this latter denotation, then, we attempt to show the unbeliever why God's existence is axiomatic. Without the living God of the Bible as a starting point, life does not make sense.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a person said that they believe because it is the only thing consistent with natural revelation/natural theology, in which category would you put that in "causes or consequences"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends. Where has the natural theology been learnt from? If it is a part of the system of Christianity to begin with, then the "consistency" is obviously consequential to the presupposition that Christianity is true. At that point you are looking at the system as a whole, foundations and superstucture together, rather than taking mud from foreign soil and making bricks to form a superstructure without foundations.
Click to expand...


Is the question, "Where has the natural theology been learnt from?" a question that would have been asked by Calvin et. al? Would he not as well as others, say instead that you either have done natural theology, correctly or wrongly?

CT


----------



## Spinningplates2

Logic, science and archaeology already confirm the Bible. What more proof are we missing, the Ark? I simply do not see how the Bible could ever be supplanted.

Could we go back to the first comment and get some idea of what proofs could possibly have been in mind?


----------



## Confessor

Spinningplates2 said:


> Logic, science and archaeology already confirm the Bible. What more proof are we missing, the Ark? I simply do not see how the Bible could ever be supplanted.
> 
> Could we go back to the first comment and get some idea of what proofs could possibly have been in mind?



The point is if such entities (i.e. logic, science, and archaeology) are not confirmatory but are foundational, then we have a problem. It is my contention that all traditional evidentialism and natural theology view such things as foundational, which is why I find fault in those schools of apologetics.

I don't think any coherent evidentialist response could satisfy the question posed in the OP, but I guess it's worth a shot for anyone who wants it.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> But does it [human reasoning] not have to be first used to determine which book is actual scripture? Or is the Muslim justified in his belief because he read the Koran before he ever saw a Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not. Scripture is entirely self-attesting, and we are brought to know this truth by the non-inferential witness of the Holy Spirit. We know God's Word is God's Word because it says so. To appeal to reason to confirm or otherwise undergird this -- rather than confirm it -- would be to put reason on a pedestal above God's Word.
Click to expand...


So the first question is what do you take self-attesting to mean? 

Next, could a muslim make a counter claim about his version of divine revelation? If not then why not?

Next, why do we need the Holy Spirit in order to know the truth of Scripture?
Is it because it is not clear, or is it because we are morally opposed to it and therefore will reject it?

Next, if another book says that it is God's word, then we can we adjudicate between the two or must we just sit back and say we have no idea which one is the true word of God?

Lastly, again, is/can the Muslim be justified in his belief in the Koran as God's Word?



> That is, the fact that reason is subordinate to Scripture does not mean it cannot be used absolutely, nor does it mean that reason cannot be used to argue about matters pertaining to Scripture other than the matter of Scripture's truthfulness (e.g. regarding Arminian interpretations).



I do not see how arguing over matters of interpretation do not reach to questions of truth. When you attack Arminian interpretations, then you are basically saying, if the Arminian was correct then the Bible contradicts reality, or the Bible contradicts itself.

Or put another way, if a book claimed to be God's word and said what the Arminian said, then it would be a false book.



> No one is assuming autonomy or neutrality. I am assuming that People are without excuse even when they have never read a Bible or even heard of a Bible. Natural Revelation actually tells us/allows us to know things. If a person gets to judgment day without ever having seen a Bible, can they tell God, "Hey I never saw a Bible so how was I supposed to know how I was supposed to act, and how I was supposed to believe?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you believe people are without excuse. I just think you have a false view concerning the implications of Scripture's absolute authority. I do not deny that you believe in Scripture's authority; I merely think that you misperceive the apologetical implications of that.
> 
> If we start from a standpoint which does not presuppose the Bible's truthfulness and ask the question, "Which is the correct revelation?" then we are assuming that God's Word is not self-attesting, but rather that our reason or experience is self-attesting. If we reason from what we perceive of natural revelation ==> the appropriately fitting divine revelation, then our allegiance lies within ourselves and not completely to God.
Click to expand...


Actually I made a challenge to you in my statement here, but it seems that you punted. I have yet to see someone from your position, issue a coherent response to such a challenge.

Reason is self-attesting and I have no idea how you would try to object to that without attacking God.

If you want to play the "human reasoning" card then the human interpretation of the Bible card plays just as well.

Lastly, if we cannot reason from what we perceive of natural revelation to the correct revelation, then it looks like one has to say that natural revelation is not good enough leave one without excuse.

Our allegiance is still to God because Reason is dependent on God. If we are dependent on Reason then we have to be dependent on God.




> Go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, I was assuming you'd give me specific argument to go against. I guess I'll just use your methodology of searching for the right revelation.
> 
> How do you know you are perceiving revelation correctly?
Click to expand...


The same way that you know the Arminian interpretation of Scripture is wrong. It is inconsistent with itself and with reality. (If you have another way of knowing, then I would be happy to hear it)



> How do you know there _must_ be a currently available divine revelation? Why can't it be "extinct" or lost in some distant civilization? If you say that God would sovereignly disallow that, how do you know that He would? I have more (i.e. the existence of causality rather than succession, the reliability of sense perception, the uniformity of nature, etc.), but I want to see if you can answer these more peripheral critiques first.



You do understand that all Revelation of God is divine Revelation, and that would include General Revelation, right?

I think you mean Special Revelation and that is how I will respond.

What you are asking is akin to someone living in a far off land and never gets the Bible into their language their entire life, correct? I do not see a difference between someone who never sees a Bible and the Bible not existing at all.

In these cases, a person would still be required to live holy lives and would still fail miserably and still be worthy of Hell. What exactly beyond this are you looking to see?

CT


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> Is the question, "Where has the natural theology been learnt from?" a question that would have been asked by Calvin et. al? Would he not as well as others, say instead that you either have done natural theology, correctly or wrongly?



Given his "idol factory" comment, I think it is safe to say that Calvin regarded corrupt man as creating God in his own image; hence the need of special revelation and the renewal of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the question, "Where has the natural theology been learnt from?" a question that would have been asked by Calvin et. al? Would he not as well as others, say instead that you either have done natural theology, correctly or wrongly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given his "idol factory" comment, I think it is safe to say that Calvin regarded corrupt man as creating God in his own image; hence the need of special revelation and the renewal of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...


True enough, but Calvin also would not have said that man was someone how "reasoning properly" when they made idols and attempted to make God into their image.

CT


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> True enough, but Calvin also would not have said that man was someone how "reasoning properly" when they made idols and attempted to make God into their image.



That's the problem which the presuppositional approach seeks to expose -- the noetic effects of sin.


----------



## cih1355

ChristianTrader said:


> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any truth claims that are self-justifying? If there were no self-justifying truth claims would that lead to the conclusion that there is an infinite regress of justifying one's truth claims?
> 
> If there has to be a self-justifying truth claim in order to avoid an infinite regress of justifying one's truth claim, would the justification of that truth claim involve circular reasoning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by self-justifying? Do you mean a truth claim to which no right reasoning person can object to or something else?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


It is my understanding that a self-justifying truth claim is a claim that proves itself to be true. Truth claim A proves that truth claim A is true. Nothing else proves that truth claim A is true. It is an axiomatic starting point.


----------



## ChristianTrader

cih1355 said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any truth claims that are self-justifying? If there were no self-justifying truth claims would that lead to the conclusion that there is an infinite regress of justifying one's truth claims?
> 
> If there has to be a self-justifying truth claim in order to avoid an infinite regress of justifying one's truth claim, would the justification of that truth claim involve circular reasoning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by self-justifying? Do you mean a truth claim to which no right reasoning person can object to or something else?
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is my understanding that a self-justifying truth claim is a claim that proves itself to be true. Truth claim A proves that truth claim A is true. Nothing else proves that truth claim A is true. It is an axiomatic starting point.
Click to expand...


Okay, then the next question is how does it prove itself to be true? Is it because it says that it is true, or because it fulfills a set of conditions for truth?

CT


----------



## cih1355

ChristianTrader said:


> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by self-justifying? Do you mean a truth claim to which no right reasoning person can object to or something else?
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is my understanding that a self-justifying truth claim is a claim that proves itself to be true. Truth claim A proves that truth claim A is true. Nothing else proves that truth claim A is true. It is an axiomatic starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, then the next question is how does it prove itself to be true? Is it because it says that it is true, or because it fulfills a set of conditions for truth?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


A claim can prove itself to be true if it is true by definition. A claim can also prove itself to be true in the situation where a denial of the claim leads to a contradiction. 

If a denial of a claim leads to a rejection of the preconditions of rationality, then would this mean that the claim proves itself?


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> So the first question is what do you take self-attesting to mean?



It means that it gives evidence of itself. The veracity of a self-attesting proposition or authority is obvious and self-evident.



> Next, could a muslim make a counter claim about his version of divine revelation? If not then why not?



They could claim it, but it would be due to a false feeling. The best way I can describe it is thus: you know the situation where you may be arguing with someone about a topic about which you clearly know more than he does? In those situations, you simply _know_, you have the feeling that you are "on top" of the situation, and he is just wrong -- moreover, you know this without having your counter-argument exactly formulated and laid out. Then you later go on to elaborate and demonstrate why he is wrong, confirming -- but not outright proving -- that you were right in the first place. The same applies to our conviction of Scripture: we simply _know_ it to be correct. We know who our Father is, and we know this without a possible disputation. We are "on top" of the situation; we understand that everyone else is wrong and they they have a warped view. We later go on to confirm this _via_ transcendental argumentation. We are not right because of TAG; we were right in the first place, and TAG was confirmatory of that truth.

I know that sounds arrogant to some people, but that is the certainty we have of the faith. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise.



> Next, why do we need the Holy Spirit in order to know the truth of Scripture?
> Is it because it is not clear, or is it because we are morally opposed to it and therefore will reject it?



We already know of the truth without a doubt. In fact, every single man does, as Romans 1 tells us. However, we need the Holy Spirit to embrace it. As you said, we are morally opposed to it.



> Next, if another book says that it is God's word, then we can we adjudicate between the two or must we just sit back and say we have no idea which one is the true word of God?
> 
> Lastly, again, is/can the Muslim be justified in his belief in the Koran as God's Word?



See the lengthier explanation above about the Muslim's claim (starting with "They could claim it...").



> I do not see how arguing over matters of interpretation do not reach to questions of truth. When you attack Arminian interpretations, then you are basically saying, if the Arminian was correct then the Bible contradicts reality, or the Bible contradicts itself.



No, when I attack Arminian interpretations, I am saying that Arminian doctrine does not cohere with Scripture itself. The Bible is perspicuous. If you deny that (even hypothetically), you will inevitably run into problems of apologetical methodology.



> Actually I made a challenge to you in my statement here, but it seems that you punted. I have yet to see someone from your position, issue a coherent response to such a challenge.



Sorry, for whatever reason I answered the wrong question. Here is what I was answering in the first place:



ChristianTrader said:


> No one is assuming autonomy or neutrality. I am assuming that People are without excuse even when they have never read a Bible or even heard of a Bible. Natural Revelation actually tells us/allows us to know things. If a person gets to judgment day without ever having seen a Bible, can they tell God, "Hey I never saw a Bible so how was I supposed to know how I was supposed to act, and how I was supposed to believe?"



The problem is that you think natural revelation and common grace give way to valid natural theology, but that is not true. In fact, Van Til has written at length to deny this evidentialist tenet. By natural revelation, people know they are condemned before God Himself. They _know_ He exists non-inferentially, and they cannot be saved without the preaching of the Gospel.

If you think that they know He exists inferentially (i.e. by natural theology), then your interpretation runs into a host of problems: 1. Not everyone is capable of following the cosmological and teleological arguments, especially with all their newer subtleties over the years. 2. Not everyone even thinks about such arguments. 3. If even one person does not think about it, then he cannot be condemned because he never suppressed any truth. The knowledge of God must be non-inferential. And if it's non-inferential, then it does not constitute an argument. And if it doesn't constitute an argument, then it cannot be natural theology.

Natural revelation, instead, by means of the _sensus divinitatis_, serves to condemn man and act as common grace. The former is fairly explicit in Romans 1, and the latter is so because all men would be completely self-destructive if we followed our own autonomous, sinful mindsets to their logical conclusions. Natural revelation was never intended to be interpreted apart from supernatural revelation: even in the Garden of Eden God was speaking to Adam.



> Reason is self-attesting and I have no idea how you would try to object to that without attacking God.



It is self-attesting in the sense that it is undeniable, not in the sense that it can be used "by itself" or as a starting point, i.e. authoritatively. Reason cannot be used without reference to its Creator.



> If you want to play the "human reasoning" card then the human interpretation of the Bible card plays just as well.



I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.



> Lastly, if we cannot reason from what we perceive of natural revelation to the correct revelation, then it looks like one has to say that natural revelation is not good enough leave one without excuse.



No, I am merely denying the inferential aspect. Romans 1 must teach a non-inferential understanding, as I argued above.



> Our allegiance is still to God because Reason is dependent on God. If we are dependent on Reason then we have to be dependent on God.



Then why don't you show it in your argument? If reason is dependent on God, then why do you keep using it apart from Him?



> How do you know you are perceiving revelation correctly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way that you know the Arminian interpretation of Scripture is wrong. It is inconsistent with itself and with reality. (If you have another way of knowing, then I would be happy to hear it)
Click to expand...


I know the Arminian interpretation is wrong because it is inconsistent with the Bible, not necessarily because it is internally or externally inconsistent (at least, not foremost).

Otherwise, your answer seems to be very vague. Are you trying to say there's only way to perceive natural revelation apart from Scripture's guidance? I wouldn't mind debating any Thomistic argument with you, if that is what you are promoting.



> You do understand that all Revelation of God is divine Revelation, and that would include General Revelation, right?
> 
> I think you mean Special Revelation and that is how I will respond.



Well, I have seen "divine revelation" used to refer to Scripture. If you prefer "special revelation," we can use that, yes.



> What you are asking is akin to someone living in a far off land and never gets the Bible into their language their entire life, correct? I do not see a difference between someone who never sees a Bible and the Bible not existing at all.



No, I'm asking why the entire world cannot be without a copy of God's word. Why must one of the available holy books (the Bible, the Qur'an, etc.) be the right one? If your answer is that God would surely retain His Word throughout history, what evidence _from natural revelation_ do you have to support this claim?

Moreover, it seems as if you're only proving a part of Christianity. This is similar to Norm Geisler's apologetic: he tries the "thread" approach of going from evidence for the resurrection as proof of His deity ==> Christ's claim that the entire Bible is inspired ==> Christianity as a whole is true. It doesn't actually prove the entire Bible. It carries with it so many unsurfaced Christian presuppositions (e.g. God cannot lie, God is sovereign and would never let His canon be defiled, etc.) it's not even funny -- in fact, at root it's dishonest, though unintentionally.

It seems you are trying the same thing. You are saying that natural revelation aligns with only one of the available holy texts, and consequently we have to accept the entirety of that text. But the entire text has not been proven. Even if it had, it would not be authoritative to whatever you just used to prove it with.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> True enough, but Calvin also would not have said that man was someone how "reasoning properly" when they made idols and attempted to make God into their image.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem which the presuppositional approach seeks to expose -- the noetic effects of sin.
Click to expand...


Well if the question is proper reasoning, then why not deal with it, instead of asking from where you learned your natural theology?

CT


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> Well if the question is proper reasoning, then why not deal with it, instead of asking from where you learned your natural theology?



The source of natural theology is germane to the question of "right reason," because "right reason" leading to belief in the existence of God is dependent on some form of natural theology. Again, we are led back to a view of the system of Christianity as a whole.


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the first question is what do you take self-attesting to mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means that it gives evidence of itself. The veracity of a self-attesting proposition or authority is obvious and self-evident.
Click to expand...


Something can be self-attesting without being obvious or the famously ambiguous phrase self-evident. It does have to be ultimately unquestionable. It might take some work to see that it is self-attesting though.



> Next, could a muslim make a counter claim about his version of divine revelation? If not then why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They could claim it, but it would be due to a false feeling. The best way I can describe it is thus: you know the situation where you may be arguing with someone about a topic about which you clearly know more than he does? In those situations, you simply _know_, you have the feeling that you are "on top" of the situation, and he is just wrong -- moreover, you know this without having your counter-argument exactly formulated and laid out. Then you later go on to elaborate and demonstrate why he is wrong, confirming -- but not outright proving -- that you were right in the first place. The same applies to our conviction of Scripture: we simply _know_ it to be correct. We know who our Father is, and we know this without a possible disputation. We are "on top" of the situation; we understand that everyone else is wrong and they they have a warped view. We later go on to confirm this _via_ transcendental argumentation. We are not right because of TAG; we were right in the first place, and TAG was confirmatory of that truth.
> 
> I know that sounds arrogant to some people, but that is the certainty we have of the faith. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise.
Click to expand...


I would ask how do you know that X is correct and Y is not? One normal way is that you know the X does not lead to contradictory implications while Y does. That is what normally what happens when someone knows a lot more than the other person.

Also is knowing just a tightly held conviction that you have not been disabused of yet?



> We already know of the truth without a doubt. In fact, every single man does, as Romans 1 tells us. However, we need the Holy Spirit to embrace it. As you said, we are morally opposed to it.



Actually depending on how you wish to interpret Romans 1, one can make an issue about what exactly is known. One can be without excuse without knowing something.

Also if the Holy Spirit breaking the rebellion that you have against God then it should be easy to show how the unbeliever is acting irrationally in his unbelief.



> No, when I attack Arminian interpretations, I am saying that Arminian doctrine does not cohere with Scripture itself. The Bible is perspicuous. If you deny that (even hypothetically), you will inevitably run into problems of apologetical methodology.



Actually that was one of the options that I gave. Remember I said, "contradicts reality or contradicts the Bible itself". So what you are claiming is that if the Arminian theology was the theology taught in the Bible, then the Bible would be wrong. Therefore the Arminian theology is to be rejected.



> Sorry, for whatever reason I answered the wrong question. Here is what I was answering in the first place:
> 
> The problem is that you think natural revelation and common grace give way to valid natural theology, but that is not true. In fact, Van Til has written at length to deny this evidentialist tenet. By natural revelation, people know they are condemned before God Himself. They _know_ He exists non-inferentially, and they cannot be saved without the preaching of the Gospel.



First off you missed the question again. I asked you what could this person say to God on judgment day? Is it impossible for such people to exist? I know there is much work being done to translate the Bible into every language, but that work is not done yet.

Next, I think you are just lacking in Reformed History. From Calvin onward, the Reformed have not rejected Natural Theology. It is the recent century or so where this issue of Rejecting natural theology has come up.

Next, I would not say that Natural Revelation says that there is a Gospel to be preached.

Next, Natural Theology does not imply the either/or of non inferential knowledge of God or non inferential knowledge of God. It can take the form of a both/and. Certain things known non inferentially and certain things not. I think you would be hard pressed to argue that full trinitarian theism is known by being born.



> If you think that they know He exists inferentially (i.e. by natural theology), then your interpretation runs into a host of problems: 1. Not everyone is capable of following the cosmological and teleological arguments, especially with all their newer subtleties over the years. 2. Not everyone even thinks about such arguments. 3. If even one person does not think about it, then he cannot be condemned because he never suppressed any truth. The knowledge of God must be non-inferential. And if it's non-inferential, then it does not constitute an argument. And if it doesn't constitute an argument, then it cannot be natural theology.



So if you go up to a person who has never seen or heard of a Bible, and ask them if they know that God is Trinitarian, they will either say of course, or they are guilty of suppressing the truth? Or if they know that Jesus died on the cross for the sin of the world, they will either say, of course or they are suppressing the truth?

Next, your questions almost assume that people do not naturally make idols and depend on as well as worship those idols. Everyone has a God slot. Either they will put God in it or put something else in it.

The complicated arguments are just formalizations of things that should be easily accepted but man is rebellious. Because you cannot follow the complicated arguments would not be an excuse, because the answer is/ and should be accepted as clear that non God is not God and God is God.



> Natural revelation, instead, by means of the _sensus divinitatis_, serves to condemn man and act as common grace. The former is fairly explicit in Romans 1, and the latter is so because all men would be completely self-destructive if we followed our own autonomous, sinful mindsets to their logical conclusions. Natural revelation was never intended to be interpreted apart from supernatural revelation: even in the Garden of Eden God was speaking to Adam.



So every language has special or supernatural revelation available so that all have access to the Bible?

Also could you agree with Calvin here: He stated that men who make idols of various physical objects, are proof of the sensus divinitatis. Would you agree with that statement?



> It is self-attesting in the sense that it is undeniable, not in the sense that it can be used "by itself" or as a starting point, i.e. authoritatively. Reason cannot be used without reference to its Creator.



Reason with the God's natural revelation should be enough to get you where you need to go. If it does not then there are three options for where the problem is:

1)Reason is deficient (Since this is dependent on God then it will be hard to attack this)
2)Natural Revelation is deficient (Again it will be hard to attack without attacking God)
3)One's interpretation of one or the other is deficient



> No, I am merely denying the inferential aspect. Romans 1 must teach a non-inferential understanding, as I argued above.



I do not deny that there is a non inferential portion of our understanding of God. However hardly anyone has ever argued that full Trinitarian theism is built into a constitutions as human beings.



> Then why don't you show it in your argument? If reason is dependent on God, then why do you keep using it apart from Him?



If I do not say "Premise 3: Reason is dependent on God" then I am denying it?



> I know the Arminian interpretation is wrong because it is inconsistent with the Bible, not necessarily because it is internally or externally inconsistent (at least, not foremost).



Or put another way, An Arminian Bible would be a false scripture because it is self contradictory.



> Otherwise, your answer seems to be very vague. Are you trying to say there's only way to perceive natural revelation apart from Scripture's guidance? I wouldn't mind debating any Thomistic argument with you, if that is what you are promoting.



I am saying that you reject it because "the undeniable reason" dictates that it must be rejected.

Arguments predate St. Thomas, but sure, I would not have a problem debating some with you.



> You do understand that all Revelation of God is divine Revelation, and that would include General Revelation, right?
> 
> I think you mean Special Revelation and that is how I will respond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I have seen "divine revelation" used to refer to Scripture. If you prefer "special revelation," we can use that, yes.
Click to expand...


Alright.



> What you are asking is akin to someone living in a far off land and never gets the Bible into their language their entire life, correct? I do not see a difference between someone who never sees a Bible and the Bible not existing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm asking why the entire world cannot be without a copy of God's word. Why must one of the available holy books (the Bible, the Qur'an, etc.) be the right one? If your answer is that God would surely retain His Word throughout history, what evidence _from natural revelation_ do you have to support this claim?
Click to expand...


Do you believe that everyone has access to the Bible now, not even talking about years ago?

The Bible does not have to exist just as Jesus did not have to come and save us (assuming a promise was never made). We would just die in our sins and go to Hell.



> Moreover, it seems as if you're only proving a part of Christianity. This is similar to Norm Geisler's apologetic: he tries the "thread" approach of going from evidence for the resurrection as proof of His deity ==> Christ's claim that the entire Bible is inspired ==> Christianity as a whole is true. It doesn't actually prove the entire Bible. It carries with it so many unsurfaced Christian presuppositions (e.g. God cannot lie, God is sovereign and would never let His canon be defiled, etc.) it's not even funny -- in fact, at root it's dishonest, though unintentionally.



Argue with me not Geisler.



> It seems you are trying the same thing. You are saying that natural revelation aligns with only one of the available holy texts, and consequently we have to accept the entirety of that text. But the entire text has not been proven. Even if it had, it would not be authoritative to whatever you just used to prove it with.



If the Bible did not exist, then natural revelation would not align with any of the texts.

According to standard Classical Apologetics, one would prove God first, then worry about what that God would do/act.

Your question would assume that I would not trust, the infinite, eternal, creator of the world over finite, fallen me. Would that make any sense?

CT


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> Something can be self-attesting without being obvious or the famously ambiguous phrase self-evident. It does have to be ultimately unquestionable. It might take some work to see that it is self-attesting though.



When you say it might take some work to see that it is self-attesting, do you mean that in the sense that its self-attestation needs to be _proven_? That's what you seem to be implying in the rest of your post, and obviously I would have to disagree with that.



> I would ask how do you know that X is correct and Y is not? One normal way is that you know the X does not lead to contradictory implications while Y does. That is what normally what happens when someone knows a lot more than the other person.



By asking how I know that Scripture is a self-attesting authority, you are tearing down Scripture's authority. If reason were necessary to justify one's belief in God (i.e. if the belief would be unjustified prior to that), then reason would be authoritative over Scripture. While apologetics is about demonstrating that other starting points are incoherent, we first _know_ that our position is absolutely right, and that from the Holy Spirit. Just as one can know one will win an argument prior to having his argument in place (have you never felt that before?), one can also simply _know_ that Scripture has marks of the divine and is therefore God's Word without a shred of doubt. If you continue to think that we have to prove that the Holy Spirit is leading us to the right book, then you have enthroned human reason as your king.



> Also is knowing just a tightly held conviction that you have not been disabused of yet?



Are you asking for a definition of knowledge?



> Actually depending on how you wish to interpret Romans 1, one can make an issue about what exactly is known. One can be without excuse without knowing something.



Rom. 1:20: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

God's attributes have been clearly seen. The point of whether or not people can be without excuse when they don't know something is irrelevant.



> Also if the Holy Spirit breaking the rebellion that you have against God then it should be easy to show how the unbeliever is acting irrationally in his unbelief.



Yes, but this doesn't mean it is easy if we use the wrong method, which is of course the topic of discussion.



> Actually that was one of the options that I gave. Remember I said, "contradicts reality or contradicts the Bible itself". So what you are claiming is that if the Arminian theology was the theology taught in the Bible, then the Bible would be wrong. Therefore the Arminian theology is to be rejected.



In all fairness, you said, "contradicts reality or the Bible contradicts itself," which carries an entirely different connotation. By reality it appears you are implying such things as laws of logic, causality, and other undeniable things; however, if the substance of the Bible is embedded in your use of the word "reality," then I guess I would agree with that.

Nonetheless, the reason behind the falsity of Arminian theology is foremost because it contradicts what the Bible teaches -- which is entirely different from saying that the reason Arminianism is false is because if the Bible taught it we would reject the Bible. The Bible does not teach it, and it is pointless to even speak of it as some sort of hypothetical. 

Appropriately, the fact that Arminianism contradicts reality (i.e. it has a false philosophy of the will, among other things) is only secondary, because our judgments our ministerial to the Bible's substance.



> First off you missed the question again. I asked you what could this person say to God on judgment day? Is it impossible for such people to exist? I know there is much work being done to translate the Bible into every language, but that work is not done yet.



They would be without excuse due to their _sensus divinitatis_.



> Next, I think you are just lacking in Reformed History. From Calvin onward, the Reformed have not rejected Natural Theology. It is the recent century or so where this issue of Rejecting natural theology has come up.



Calvin's affirmation of natural theology is irrelevant, and it was never a topic of my discourse. I was critiquing natural theology qua natural theology, not making a historical argument.



> Next, I would not say that Natural Revelation says that there is a Gospel to be preached.



I agree. I merely said that they cannot be saved without the Gospel, not that they know they cannot be saved without that exact means.



> Next, Natural Theology does not imply the either/or of non inferential knowledge of God or non inferential knowledge of God. It can take the form of a both/and. Certain things known non inferentially and certain things not. I think you would be hard pressed to argue that full trinitarian theism is known by being born.



I'm not saying the entirety of Christianity is non-inferential. I am merely arguing that the part which makes men without excuse must be non-inferential; otherwise, the many people who do not follow the natural-theological arguments would be with excuse, which is contrary to Romans 1. And if the part which makes men without excuse in Romans 1 is non-inferential, then natural theology is not taught in that chapter.



> Next, your questions almost assume that people do not naturally make idols and depend on as well as worship those idols. Everyone has a God slot. Either they will put God in it or put something else in it.



My question does not assume that. Again, I was not saying that all of Christianity must be non-inferential, only that the knowledge which makes men without excuse must be. In fact, the God-slot is evidence of the _sensus divinitatis_, which is of course non-inferential, supporting my position.



> The complicated arguments are just formalizations of things that should be easily accepted but man is rebellious. Because you cannot follow the complicated arguments would not be an excuse, because the answer is/ and should be accepted as clear that non God is not God and God is God.



No, they're not. Both the cosmological argument and teleological argument, apart from explicitly Christian presuppositions, beg the question. People try to make it more complicated to give themselves a probability factor supporting their position (William Craig does this a ton), and it is not clear at all who is winning the debate.

What do you mean the answer is clear that non God is not God and God is God? How does that stem from natural theology?



> So every language has special or supernatural revelation available so that all have access to the Bible?



My point is that natural revelation cannot be _properly_ interpreted except in light of supernatural revelation; not that no one can make an interpretation without it. The plethora of false religions in uncivilized tribal areas is evidence of this.



> Also could you agree with Calvin here: He stated that men who make idols of various physical objects, are proof of the sensus divinitatis. Would you agree with that statement?



Yes, I agree with him.



> Reason with the God's natural revelation should be enough to get you where you need to go. If it does not then there are three options for where the problem is:
> 
> 1)Reason is deficient (Since this is dependent on God then it will be hard to attack this)
> 2)Natural Revelation is deficient (Again it will be hard to attack without attacking God)
> 3)One's interpretation of one or the other is deficient



4) Reason is used outside of the context which it was intended to be used in. Objectively speaking, there is nothing wrong with reason or with natural revelation, and if we were not depraved we would interpret it correctly -- with Christian presuppositions. However, we _are_ depraved, and therefore we _refuse_ to use Christian presuppositions. And of course, natural theology does not use Christian presuppositions, preferring autonomous axioms which accept reason as an entity independent from God, and thus the system is not a reliable means of truth.

Thus, man's _use of reason_ is deficient, because he uses it in a way which does not honor or glorify God as the King over human reason.



> If I do not say "Premise 3: Reason is dependent on God" then I am denying it?



Yes! Insofar as you pretend that you are being "neutral" and use reason as some common ground between you and the unbeliever, you will be deceiving him into thinking that reason is independent from God.



> Or put another way, An Arminian Bible would be a false scripture because it is self contradictory.



That is not the point I'm making. You're trying to get me to admit to a position which would place reason above Scripture in practice (e.g. we would have to test the Bible through the filter of "reality" to make sure it's acceptable, making reality epistemologically ultimate). See what I said above about this. It is foolish to speak of Arminianism as hypothetically being taught in the Bible. That's akin to saying that God's Word would not be authoritative if it were not God's Word. It's pointless speculation which provides no truth in apologetical methodology.



> I am saying that you reject it because "the undeniable reason" dictates that it must be rejected.
> 
> Arguments predate St. Thomas, but sure, I would not have a problem debating some with you.



I reject natural theology because it's unreasonable -- because it is built on autonomous presuppositions, if that's what you're trying to say. Yeah.

You can make a new thread to debate the cosmological or teleological arguments, if you so wish.



> Do you believe that everyone has access to the Bible now, not even talking about years ago?
> 
> The Bible does not have to exist just as Jesus did not have to come and save us (assuming a promise was never made). We would just die in our sins and go to Hell.



Exactly! It's possible that we would not have received a specific special revelation which matches with natural revelation. Therefore, inasmuch as you try to "prove" the Bible by saying that it "fits" with natural revelation, you're only proving a part of it when some other currently nonexistent holy book might be the _real_ special revelation.

If you only prove part of Christianity, you have not necessitated the acceptance of all of Christianity, and if you haven't proven all of Christianity, then you have proven nothing.



> Argue with me not Geisler.



I was merely trying to show a parallel between your and his methodologies. They both seem to take the "thread" approach, trying to get specific parts to match up and then claiming that the entirety of Christianity is necessarily true, but that doesn't logically follow.



> It seems you are trying the same thing. You are saying that natural revelation aligns with only one of the available holy texts, and consequently we have to accept the entirety of that text. But the entire text has not been proven. Even if it had, it would not be authoritative to whatever you just used to prove it with.





> If the Bible did not exist, then natural revelation would not align with any of the texts.



I'm afraid you misunderstand my objection. If your main criterion of accepting a holy text is its coincidence with natural revelation, then it is plausible that the correct holy text might have "gone extinct." Therefore, the fact that the Bible aligns with natural revelation does not necessitate its full acceptance. How, then, can you persuasively tell someone to accept the entirety of the Bible based on one part coinciding with reality?



> According to standard Classical Apologetics, one would prove God first, then worry about what that God would do/act.



Then they're not proving God. They're proving a blank entity which they call God. They're proving a nothing.



> Your question would assume that I would not trust, the infinite, eternal, creator of the world over finite, fallen me. Would that make any sense?



How do you know that the creator of the world is infinite and eternal without special revelation from him? The entire crux of my argument is that you are relying on yourself too much rather than on the Bible. You keep trying to neutrally prove your position from reason without a framework of God; this is not proving the God of the Bible.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if the question is proper reasoning, then why not deal with it, instead of asking from where you learned your natural theology?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The source of natural theology is germane to the question of "right reason," because "right reason" leading to belief in the existence of God is dependent on some form of natural theology. Again, we are led back to a view of the system of Christianity as a whole.
Click to expand...


So the question is then can one say that the form of natural theology that leads to something other than Christianity is the wrong form and the one that lead to Christianity is the right one?

CT


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if the question is proper reasoning, then why not deal with it, instead of asking from where you learned your natural theology?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The source of natural theology is germane to the question of "right reason," because "right reason" leading to belief in the existence of God is dependent on some form of natural theology. Again, we are led back to a view of the system of Christianity as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the question is then can one say that the form of natural theology that leads to something other than Christianity is the wrong form and the one that lead to Christianity is the right one?
Click to expand...


Yes, with the only one leading to Christianity being the only one presupposing Christianity.


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The source of natural theology is germane to the question of "right reason," because "right reason" leading to belief in the existence of God is dependent on some form of natural theology. Again, we are led back to a view of the system of Christianity as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the question is then can one say that the form of natural theology that leads to something other than Christianity is the wrong form and the one that lead to Christianity is the right one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, with the only one leading to Christianity being the only one presupposing Christianity.
Click to expand...


Which would be the one presupposing General revelation which gives one no excuse for overlooking or rejecting it.

CT


----------



## yeutter

The question is if the Bible is proved to be the Word of God by logic, science, archaeology ect then are not logic science ect the final authoriy instead of the Bible.

Let me answer by saying firstly that a pagans failure to recognize it does not negate the truth. A pagans discovery that something is true without acknowledging God does not make it any less true.

Presenting the historical evidence for, logical arguements for, archeological evidence for, or scientific arguements for the historic reliability of the Bible does not make the Bible suppordinate to logic, archaeology, science or the study of history.

The arguements from the various secular disciplines do not prove that the Bible is the Word of God. The arguements from the various secular disciplines prove that the Bible is historically reliable. Therefore the Ressurrection is a historical fact. Since Jesus made certain claims about Himself, and said he would rise from the dead; therefore the claims He made about Himself should be accepted. If you accept the claims Jesus made about Himself you should also accept our Lord's view of the nature and extent of scriptural authority.

Circular reasoning. This approach seems inherently illogical to me. To Muslims this approach is offensive. Muslims are scandalized by by presuppositionalism. The Gospel alone gives offense. There is no need to use an approach that gives additional offense. 

Francis Schaeffer was an inconsistant presuppositionalist. He has shown how a presuppositionalist approach may have some value when talking with post modernist intellectuals. No one has shown me the value of presuppositionalism when talking with real people.


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> So the question is then can one say that the form of natural theology that leads to something other than Christianity is the wrong form and the one that lead to Christianity is the right one?



Yes, with the qualification that natural theology -- theology defined as the study of God in relation to the world -- already presupposes the existence of God and the revelation of Himself. Hence a presupposed starting point is undeniable.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the question is then can one say that the form of natural theology that leads to something other than Christianity is the wrong form and the one that lead to Christianity is the right one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, with the qualification that natural theology -- theology defined as the study of God in relation to the world -- already presupposes the existence of God and the revelation of Himself. Hence a presupposed starting point is undeniable.
Click to expand...


I buy all of that. And all the needed info is found in general revelation.

CT


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> I buy all of that. And all the needed info is found in general revelation.



"Sufficient," yes, but for the limited purpose of leaving unbelievers without excuse, not for proving that natural reason has some virtue in and of itself.


----------



## Confessor

yeutter said:


> Presenting the historical evidence for, logical arguements for, archeological evidence for, or scientific arguements for the historic reliability of the Bible does not make the Bible suppordinate to logic, archaeology, science or the study of history.



I do not deny for a second that they are true. But -- and surely you can agree with me on this -- if they are used incorrectly they will not point to the truth of Christianity.

And, of course, one of the ways to use them incorrectly is to assume that they are coherent outside of a Christian framework. To assume this would be to deny the doctrine of God's sovereignty.



> The arguements from the various secular disciplines do not prove that the Bible is the Word of God. The arguements from the various secular disciplines prove that the Bible is historically reliable.



Actually, this could be heavily disputed. There are some oft-changing standards of historical reliability, and the Bible is not accepted by most people as historical fact (e.g. Genesis 1, the Exodus, the Virgin Birth, etc.).



> Therefore the Ressurrection is a historical fact.



This is _far_ from being accepted. First of all, the general historical reliability of the Gospels would not point to the specific historicity of all its events, much less the supernatural claims of Scripture. There are many trustworthy Roman historians who spoke of miracles that occurred with the emperors, in an attempt to deify them. Should we accept those too?



> Since Jesus made certain claims about Himself, and said he would rise from the dead; therefore the claims He made about Himself should be accepted.



Why does this follow? This assumes several Christian presuppositions: that God cannot lie, that God is sovereign, that God can predict the future, etc. We would have to presuppose the Bible first to make significant these connections.



> If you accept the claims Jesus made about Himself you should also accept our Lord's view of the nature and extent of scriptural authority.



Why? Why must God be so consistent in all that He says? Why is God inerrant?



> Circular reasoning. This approach seems inherently illogical to me. To Muslims this approach is offensive. Muslims are scandalized by by presuppositionalism. The Gospel alone gives offense. There is no need to use an approach that gives additional offense.



Please, brother, point out the actual flaws you see. You keep claiming how it's so "scandalizing" and "offensive," which causes me to offer a rebuttal in defense. In reply to my defense, you repeat how offensive it is. Please, critique my defense if it honestly causes you and your friends such grief.



> Francis Schaeffer was an inconsistant presuppositionalist. He has shown how a presuppositionalist approach may have some value when talking with post modernist intellectuals. No one has shown me the value of presuppositionalism when talking with real people.



I lol'ed at postmodernists not being "real people." I know what you meant though.


----------



## cih1355

yeutter said:


> The question is if the Bible is proved to be the Word of God by logic, science, archaeology ect then are not logic science ect the final authoriy instead of the Bible.
> 
> Let me answer by saying firstly that a pagans failure to recognize it does not negate the truth. A pagans discovery that something is true without acknowledging God does not make it any less true.
> 
> Presenting the historical evidence for, logical arguements for, archeological evidence for, or scientific arguements for the historic reliability of the Bible does not make the Bible suppordinate to logic, archaeology, science or the study of history.
> 
> The arguements from the various secular disciplines do not prove that the Bible is the Word of God. The arguements from the various secular disciplines prove that the Bible is historically reliable. Therefore the Ressurrection is a historical fact. Since Jesus made certain claims about Himself, and said he would rise from the dead; therefore the claims He made about Himself should be accepted. If you accept the claims Jesus made about Himself you should also accept our Lord's view of the nature and extent of scriptural authority.
> 
> Circular reasoning. This approach seems inherently illogical to me. To Muslims this approach is offensive. Muslims are scandalized by by presuppositionalism. The Gospel alone gives offense. There is no need to use an approach that gives additional offense.
> 
> Francis Schaeffer was an inconsistant presuppositionalist. He has shown how a presuppositionalist approach may have some value when talking with post modernist intellectuals. No one has shown me the value of presuppositionalism when talking with real people.



Presuppositionalists argue that not all circular reasoning is fallacious. They argue that in the case where one is proving that something is the final authority, circular reasoning is unavoidable. Circular reasoning is not fallacious in the case where you are proving your final authority. They believe that you have to use your final authority in order to prove your final authority. They would disagree with you that a lesser authority can authenticate a higher authority.

-----Added 12/4/2008 at 10:25:41 EST-----

If you were to prove that the Bible is God-breathed by showing that Jesus fulfilled all of the Old Testament prophecies pertaining to Him, then would this be an instance of the Bible proving the Bible? I was just wondering because fulfilled prophecy is in the Bible. It is not outside the Bible.


----------



## Confessor

cih1355 said:


> If you were to prove that the Bible is God-breathed by showing that Jesus fulfilled all of the Old Testament prophecies pertaining to Him, then would this be an instance of the Bible proving the Bible? I was just wondering because fulfilled prophecy is in the Bible. It is not outside the Bible.



Not quite. The Bible's self-attestation is derived from its status as God's Word, and this is evident from its _indicia divinitatis_, or marks of deity, which are clearly perceived through illumination of the Holy Spirit.

That is, the Bible is authoritative due simply to the fact that it is God's Word. Trying to use fulfilled prophecies to prove that it is God's Word would be concealing the assumptions that God knows the future, that fulfillment of prophecy yields the truth of the whole Bible, etc. -- all of which are explicitly Christian. Using fulfilled prophecy as an avenue to prove that the Bible is God's Word would be using reason to prove the Bible as well. Trying to tell an unbeliever that the Bible is God's Word because it has fulfilled prophecy is not a cogent argument.

Also, although this is a secondary reason to above, the argument from fulfilled prophecy usually depends on evidences outside the Bible -- e.g. proof that the OT was written in a way that the NT couldn't just be a continuation or self-fulfilled prophecy.


----------



## brianeschen

packabacka said:


> Not quite. The Bible's self-attestation is derived from its status as God's Word, and this is evident from its _indicia divinitatis_, or marks of deity, which are clearly perceived through illumination of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> That is, the Bible is authoritative due simply to the fact that it is God's Word.



There is a good summary of this biblical teaching in the WLC . . .



> Question 4: How does it appear that the Scriptures are the Word of God?
> Answer: The Scriptures manifest themselves to be the Word of God, by their majesty and purity; by the consent of all the parts, and the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God; by their light and power to convince and convert sinners, to comfort and build up believers unto salvation: but the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very Word of God.


----------



## ChristianTrader

brianeschen said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. The Bible's self-attestation is derived from its status as God's Word, and this is evident from its _indicia divinitatis_, or marks of deity, which are clearly perceived through illumination of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> That is, the Bible is authoritative due simply to the fact that it is God's Word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a good summary of this biblical teaching in the WLC . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question 4: How does it appear that the Scriptures are the Word of God?
> Answer: The Scriptures manifest themselves to be the Word of God, by their majesty and purity; *by the consent of all the parts*, and the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God; by their light and power to convince and convert sinners, to comfort and build up believers unto salvation: but the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very Word of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Does not the part in bold imply that consistency is a part of being self attesting? That would seem to be saying that it reason has a part to play in the claim that the Bible is the Word of God.

CT


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> brianeschen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. The Bible's self-attestation is derived from its status as God's Word, and this is evident from its _indicia divinitatis_, or marks of deity, which are clearly perceived through illumination of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> That is, the Bible is authoritative due simply to the fact that it is God's Word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a good summary of this biblical teaching in the WLC . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question 4: How does it appear that the Scriptures are the Word of God?
> Answer: The Scriptures manifest themselves to be the Word of God, by their majesty and purity; *by the consent of all the parts*, and the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God; by their light and power to convince and convert sinners, to comfort and build up believers unto salvation: but the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very Word of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does not the part in bold imply that consistency is a part of being self attesting? That would seem to be saying that it reason has a part to play in the claim that the Bible is the Word of God.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


In order for that to be the case, there would have to be some authoritative rule which states or implies that "that which is internally consistent is God's Word" and place such consistency on a throne above God. Of course, the problems with that are (1) there is no such rule, and (2) that would demean God's sovereign authority.

The bold statement, along with its adjacent descriptors, is rather just an elaboration of what God's Word entails. In other words, they are evidence that the Bible is God's Word, but they are not _proof_ which must be rationally established prior to the Bible being accepted as God's Word. They are confirmatory and not foundational.


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brianeschen said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a good summary of this biblical teaching in the WLC . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does not the part in bold imply that consistency is a part of being self attesting? That would seem to be saying that it reason has a part to play in the claim that the Bible is the Word of God.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order for that to be the case, there would have to be some authoritative rule which states or implies that "that which is internally consistent is God's Word" and place such consistency on a throne above God. Of course, the problems with that are (1) there is no such rule, and (2) that would demean God's sovereign authority.
> 
> The bold statement, along with its adjacent descriptors, is rather just an elaboration of what God's Word entails. In other words, they are evidence that the Bible is God's Word, but they are not _proof_ which must be rationally established prior to the Bible being accepted as God's Word. They are confirmatory and not foundational.
Click to expand...


1)Would you say that consistency is one of God's attributes?
2)If yes, then how could using that as a key in identifying what is God's special revelation, be placing it about the throne of God.
3)If no, then what is it?
4)I never said that consistency is the only thing that one looks for when identifying truth (in any sphere), for one can be consistently wrong.
5)If it is not foundational, then you could accept something as God's word if it was not consistent?

CT


----------



## kalawine

armourbearer said:


> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe traditional Thomism, or old Princeton gives scandal the way presuppositionalism does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because they functioned in a philosophical context which did not overtly announce its presuppositional framework.
Click to expand...


YEP!


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> 1)Would you say that consistency is one of God's attributes?
> 2)If yes, then how could using that as a key in identifying what is God's special revelation, be placing it about the throne of God.
> 3)If no, then what is it?
> 4)I never said that consistency is the only thing that one looks for when identifying truth (in any sphere), for one can be consistently wrong.
> 5)If it is not foundational, then you could accept something as God's word if it was not consistent?



1) Yes

2) Because it would demean the witness of the Holy Spirit and the perspicuity of God's authoritative revelation. If we determine that the Bible is God's Word because it is consistent -- rather than merely seeing consistency as an aspect of God's Word, and one that confirms what the Holy Spirit has told us -- then we have logically placed the criterion of consistency above God's own authority.

3) A confirmatory aspect, but not a foundational one: i.e. we are confirmed that our conviction is true, but the Bible is not _proven_ to be God's Word as a result of its consistency (or any other attribute).

4) I know. I am pointing out that the bolded statement was not positing some criterion by which we can determine which revelation is God's Word. Just as its majesty and purity, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, its power to convince and convert sinners, and its power to comfort and build up believers unto salvation do not prove that the Bible is God's Word.

5) Inconsistency could evince that something is not special revelation, but only because _God has sovereignly established consistency as a tool under His authority_. In other words, the answer to your question is "yes," but not because consistency is some independent criterion outside of God's purview.


----------



## kalawine

yeutter said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe traditional Thomism, or old Princeton gives scandal the way presuppositionalism does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because they functioned in a philosophical context which did not overtly announce its presuppositional framework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets assume that is correct for a minute. I think it is a good idea to not discuss the presuppositional framework when talking with my Muslim friends.
> Not overtly announcing the presuppositional framework allows us to discuss the protestant Christian evidences and not be distracted by aarguements over wheather or not circularity is in and of itself irrational.
Click to expand...


But the fact that we and the Muslims both have presuppositions is a great starting place, is it not? They need to see their own "presuppositionalism." Besides, what are our "protestant Christian evidences?"


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)Would you say that consistency is one of God's attributes?
> 2)If yes, then how could using that as a key in identifying what is God's special revelation, be placing it about the throne of God.
> 3)If no, then what is it?
> 4)I never said that consistency is the only thing that one looks for when identifying truth (in any sphere), for one can be consistently wrong.
> 5)If it is not foundational, then you could accept something as God's word if it was not consistent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Yes
Click to expand...


Good


> 2) Because it would demean the witness of the Holy Spirit and the perspicuity of God's authoritative revelation. If we determine that the Bible is God's Word because it is consistent -- rather than merely seeing consistency as an aspect of God's Word, and one that confirms what the Holy Spirit has told us -- then we have logically placed the criterion of consistency above God's own authority.



How does God have authority over an essential attribute? If God has authority over it, then he can change it right?

Next, we agreed that the witness of the Holy Spirit was needed to break our rebellion against that which is already clear, not to make something unclear clear. It seems that now you want to make it necessary in order to make something unclear clear.



> 3) A confirmatory aspect, but not a foundational one: i.e. we are confirmed that our conviction is true, but the Bible is not _proven_ to be God's Word as a result of its consistency (or any other attribute).



But as I said, if it is God's attribute or "calling card" to be/do something then how can my looking for this undermine him?



> 4) I know. I am pointing out that the bolded statement was not positing some criterion by which we can determine which revelation is God's Word. Just as its majesty and purity, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, its power to convince and convert sinners, and its power to comfort and build up believers unto salvation do not prove that the Bible is God's Word.



If such things are not foundational then they can be removed and one still accept it as being what it is. That is not true with the claim that the Bible is God's word and self-attesting.



> 5) Inconsistency could evince that something is not special revelation, but only because _God has sovereignly established consistency as a tool under His authority_. In other words, the answer to your question is "yes," but not because consistency is some independent criterion outside of God's purview.



So God is sovereign over the things that make him God? He is sovereign over Holiness, Justice, Eternality, etc

CT


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> How does God have authority over an essential attribute? If God has authority over it, then he can change it right?



I didn't say He has authority over the attribute which is part of His character (that's an entirely different discussion and unrelated to apologetics); I implied that His witness has authority over man's determining whether a text is consistent or not.



> Next, we agreed that the witness of the Holy Spirit was needed to break our rebellion against that which is already clear, not to make something unclear clear. It seems that now you want to make it necessary in order to make something unclear clear.



How so? I talked about "the perspicuity of God's authoritative revelation."



> But as I said, if it is God's attribute or "calling card" to be/do something then how can my looking for this undermine him?



Looking for consistency _per se_ is not undermining; seeing it as an entity which necessarily must be established prior to its acceptance as God's Word (e.g. arguing with an unbeliever that God's Word is authoritative _because_ it is consistent) is undermining it, however.



> If such things are not foundational then they can be removed and one still accept it as being what it is. That is not true with the claim that the Bible is God's word and self-attesting.



That's not at all what I meant by "foundational." I used the word in the sense that foundational propositions are premises of an argument, and the Bible's veracity is the conclusion of the argument -- i.e. rather than they stemming from the Bible's truthfulness (being confirmatory), the Bible's truthfulness is stemming from them. _That_ is what I meant by being foundational.



> So God is sovereign over the things that make him God? He is sovereign over Holiness, Justice, Eternality, etc



Again, we are not speaking of God's attributes. That's not what I was referring to when I said that consistency (or anything else) was on a throne above God. I meant "consistency" in the sense of man accepting the Bible because he saw it to be consistent.

In like fashion, man should not accept the Bible because it appears holy to him (or consistent or majestic, etc.), but rather because it is indisputably God's Word due to its marks of deity. As a result of being God's Word, then, the book's holiness and majesty are confirmatory of the Holy Spirit's leading.


----------



## yeutter

packabacka said:


> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presenting the historical evidence for, logical arguements for, archeological evidence for, or scientific arguements for the historic reliability of the Bible does not make the Bible suppordinate to logic, archaeology, science or the study of history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not deny for a second that they are true. But -- and surely you can agree with me on this -- if they are used incorrectly they will not point to the truth of Christianity.[/guote]
> 
> I do not agree with you that if Protestant Christian evidences are used incorrectly they will not point to the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, of course, one of the ways to use them incorrectly is to assume that they are coherent outside of a Christian framework. To assume this would be to deny the doctrine of God's sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not have a clue why you believe this. Exactly the opposite would seem to be true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The arguements from the various secular disciplines do not prove that the Bible is the Word of God. The arguements from the various secular disciplines prove that the Bible is historically reliable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this could be heavily disputed. There are some oft-changing standards of historical reliability, and the Bible is not accepted by most people as historical fact (e.g. Genesis 1, the Exodus, the Virgin Birth, etc.).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The skeptic might not acknowledge the historical reliability of the New Testament when he would accept similar evidence to prove the historical reliability of some other document in antiquity. The fact that he does not accept the proof only means he is flying from reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circular reasoning. This approach seems inherently illogical to me. To Muslims this approach is offensive. Muslims are scandalized by by presuppositionalism. The Gospel alone gives offense. There is no need to use an approach that gives additional offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please, brother, point out the actual flaws you see. You keep claiming how it's so "scandalizing" and "offensive," which causes me to offer a rebuttal in defense. In reply to my defense, you repeat how offensive it is. Please, critique my defense if it honestly causes you and your friends such grief.
Click to expand...

I have never seen a rational defense of the circular reasoning that Post Kantians, including VanTillians and Dooyeweerdians insist on asserting. The mere assert of a thing is something to which I can not offer a rebuttal.
One muslim friend, a physician from the Indian subcontinent, equated the presuppositional arguement a Christian had advanced to the kind of introspection of ones naval that hindus and sikhs engage in.

-----Added 12/5/2008 at 08:16:04 EST-----



kalawine said:


> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is because they functioned in a philosophical context which did not overtly announce its presuppositional framework.
> 
> 
> 
> Lets assume that is correct for a minute. I think it is a good idea to not discuss the presuppositional framework when talking with my Muslim friends.
> Not overtly announcing the presuppositional framework allows us to discuss the protestant Christian evidences and not be distracted by aarguements over wheather or not circularity is in and of itself irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the fact that we and the Muslims both have presuppositions is a great starting place, is it not? They need to see their own "presuppositionalism." Besides, what are our "protestant Christian evidences?"
Click to expand...

No!!!!! It is most assuredly not a great starting point. They do not believe they are proceeding from a set of presuppositions. They think they are just being logical.


----------



## MW

yeutter said:


> One muslim friend, a physician from the Indian subcontinent, equated the presuppositional arguement a Christian had advanced to the kind of introspection of ones naval that hindus and sikhs engage in.



If he provided the basis for this judgment, and then gave some account of his authority, he would then be seen to be making a circular argument and engaging in the same Hindu introspection. Presuppositions are a fact of rationality. All conclusions are based on premises which themselves are conclusions based on premises which ultimately are derived from a fundamental authority regarded as the source of rationality.


----------



## kalawine

yeutter said:


> No!!!!! It is most assuredly not a great starting point. They do not believe they are proceeding from a set of presuppositions. They think they are just being logical.



Then you need to attempt to show them that EVERYONE has presuppositions! Even basing your foundation on logic is a presuppostion. Thus your comment, "They do not _believe_..." In order to NOT believe we have to have a positive belief in something which would be our _pressumed_ belief.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

ChristianTrader said:


> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is the highest authority. If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible. Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority. How would classical apologists or evidentialists respond to this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about this analogy: Lets say that you are a fed and you want to make a big case against a mafia boss. You get a henchman to talk and eventually you make the case against the big boss. Did you have to assume the henchman was bigger/more authoritative/a higher authority etc than the big boss?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


I don't think this is a correct analogy. The point being made is that if the mafia boss himself admitted to being a mafia boss and the feds still felt the need to find a henchman to finger him, the feds would be claiming the henchman is more authoritative than the mafia boss himself. The bible claims to be God's word. For someone to need other proof than what the bible claims shows the denial of biblical authority.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

cih1355 said:


> The Bible is the highest authority.


God is the highest authority. The bible is God's word, but ultimately the authority stems from him. 



cih1355 said:


> If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible.


I see no reason to think that "logic, science, or the findings of archaeology" have more authority than the bible if it proves what the bible says is *true*. Why would they? 



cih1355 said:


> Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority.


Why suppose this? At this point these are just assertions, which I don't see as following at all. That's probably how they would respond.


----------



## Confessor

yeutter said:


> I have never seen a rational defense of the circular reasoning that Post Kantians, including VanTillians and Dooyeweerdians insist on asserting. The mere assert of a thing is something to which I can not offer a rebuttal.
> One muslim friend, a physician from the Indian subcontinent, equated the presuppositional arguement a Christian had advanced to the kind of introspection of ones naval that hindus and sikhs engage in.



We can't have an infinite regression of justifying claims. For example, if I were asked how I knew that this computer screen was in front of me, I could answer that I see it; then after being asked how seeing it entails knowledge, I could respond that a faithful God has given me reliable sense perception to reality; then asked how I know that, I could say that He has revealed Himself through the Bible; then asked how I know that He has done that, I couldn't really go further. Even if I could, there would have to be some axiomatic starting point in order to avoid an infinite regression. There _necessarily_ is a self-authenticating starting point, and by being self-authenticating, it _necessarily_ is circular. Presuppositionalists are being honest about this point, not fallacious.

Autonomous philosophies use logic, the uniformity of nature, sense perception, etc. as axiomatic and go from there to attempt to explain the world. Christians start from God's Word as axiomatic and go from there. Muslims may either start from the Qur'an or from the same axioms as autonomous philosophies do.

_Everyone has a starting point, even if they think that it is logic or some other "common ground."_ You must expose why this is not neutral, namely because it presupposes that a God who is sovereign over such entities (logic _et al._) does not exist. If asked wfor what rational reasons they should believe that God is the starting point, you give 'em TAG.



> No!!!!! It is most assuredly not a great starting point. They do not believe they are proceeding from a set of presuppositions. They think they are just being logical.



Of course they don't think they are being antitheistic. They, just like we were, are totally depraved. You have to point out their obvious misotheism and not just assume that they are being neutral because they claim to be.

-----Added 12/6/2008 at 02:12:43 EST-----



Cheshire Cat said:


> God is the highest authority. The bible is God's word, but ultimately the authority stems from him.



This isn't really a dichotomy. Just as if God were to speak to you directly and tell you something, the Bible carries the exact same authority. It is essentially God's own words written down in a book graciously given to us.



> I see no reason to think that "logic, science, or the findings of archaeology" have more authority than the bible if it proves what the bible says is *true*. Why would they?



They don't prove the Bible true, because they're based on presuppositions that the Bible is not true, and moreover, Christian apologists who use such arguments are actually deceivingly concealing their own presuppositions before the unbeliever.



> Why suppose this? At this point these are just assertions, which I don't see as following at all. That's probably how they would respond.



Because it's logical. If proposition X were to authenticate proposition Y, then Y could not possibly be authoritative over X, since its authority would be stemming from something outside itself, removing any intrinsic potency from which it can have authority over X. If X gives Y its authority, then X is necessarily authoritative over Y. The relationship couldn't arbitrarily reverse.

Furthermore, if this is just an assertion, then so is your claim that something lesser can justify something greater. You would need to positively justify that.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

packabacka said:


> This isn't really a dichotomy. Just as if God were to speak to you directly and tell you something, the Bible carries the exact same authority. It is essentially God's own words written down in a book graciously given to us.


Did I say it was a dichotomy? No, I didn’t. The bible is God’s word, but it is not God. Of course it carries the same authority, because it is God’s word, but it is awkward at best to say “The Bible is the highest authority”. 



> I see no reason to think that "logic, science, or the findings of archaeology" have more authority than the bible if it proves what the bible says is *true*. Why would they?





packabacka said:


> They don't prove the Bible true, because they're based on presuppositions that the Bible is not true, and moreover, Christian apologists who use such arguments are actually deceivingly concealing their own presuppositions before the unbeliever.



1. I was answering a hypothetical which presumed they *did* prove the bible true. To quote the OP, “If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible.” Like I said, I don’t see why this follows, and it is just an assertion. Surely you can see that. 

2. How are science, logic, and the findings of archaeology based on presuppositions that the bible is not true?!?

3. It is not a matter of “concealing” presuppositions. In fact, in what way are the arguments being used? Especially using logic, it can be a presuppositional argument. Anyway, in some argument presuppositions don’t enter the picture. So one shouldn’t fault another for “concealing” presuppositions. They aren’t germane to the argument. 



> Why suppose this? At this point these are just assertions, which I don't see as following at all. That's probably how they would respond.





packabacka said:


> Because it's logical. If proposition X were to authenticate proposition Y, then Y could not possibly be authoritative over X, since its authority would be stemming from something outside itself [INSERT ARGUMENT HERE FOR WHY AUTHORITY WOULD BE OUTSIDE ITSELF], removing any intrinsic potency from which it can have authority over X.


If X, then Y. Say X is ‘objective morality’. Say Y is God’s existence. If X then Y. X, therefore Y. X is “authenticating” Y. Objective morality “authenticates” God’s existence. Uh oh, guess objective morality is outside God. Wrong. 



packabacka said:


> Furthermore, if this is just an assertion, then so is your claim that something lesser can justify something greater. You would need to positively justify that.


Eh? I didn’t claim something lesser can justify something greater. The OP said, “Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority.” I asked, “Why suppose this”? And yes, what I responded to is just an assertion. There isn’t any supportive argument to see why it is the case.


----------



## Confessor

Cheshire Cat said:


> Did I say it was a dichotomy? No, I didn’t. The bible is God’s word, but it is not God. Of course it carries the same authority, because it is God’s word, but it is awkward at best to say “The Bible is the highest authority”.



Well, it seemed you implied a meaningful distinction between God's authority and the Bible's when you said, "God is the highest authority. The bible is God's word, but ultimately the authority stems from him." Regardless, we are agreed on this point. We both understand that the Bible is authoritative.



> 1. I was answering a hypothetical which presumed they *did* prove the bible true. To quote the OP, “If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible.” Like I said, I don’t see why this follows, and it is just an assertion. Surely you can see that.



The fact that they couldn't prove the Bible true apart from a Christian framework is in fact a form of TAG. Also, I answered your accusation that it is merely an assertion below, so I will deal with it there.



> 2. How are science, logic, and the findings of archaeology based on presuppositions that the bible is not true?!?



They aren't _per se_, and I never claimed such a thing. I merely said that the way evidentialists have handled them is a way which presupposes that God does not exist. They use all the entities as if they are intelligible apart from God and therefore not absolutely contingent on His sovereignty.



> 3. It is not a matter of “concealing” presuppositions. In fact, in what way are the arguments being used? Especially using logic, it can be a presuppositional argument. Anyway, in some argument presuppositions don’t enter the picture. So one shouldn’t fault another for “concealing” presuppositions. They aren’t germane to the argument.



When evidentialists use their arguments, they absolutely are concealing their presuppositions. As a most obvious example, the argument from evidence for the resurrection to the truthfulness of the entire Bible would be concealing the presuppositions that God does not lie, that a resurrection is proof of deity, that God can know the future, etc. If they were to do this without using the Bible as a spiritual authority (so as to remain "neutral"), then they would never _possibly_ be able to enter those presuppositions into the argument. The Christian apologist could make no meaningful connection between these events _unless the Bible were accepted as true beforehand_.

Also, I obviously know that in some arguments presuppositions don't enter the picture. But when it comes to the truthfulness of worldviews, of entirely different scopes of life, transcendental argumentation and its consequent honesty regarding presuppositions is necessary.



> If X, then Y. Say X is ‘objective morality’. Say Y is God’s existence. If X then Y. X, therefore Y. X is “authenticating” Y. Objective morality “authenticates” God’s existence. Uh oh, guess objective morality is outside God. Wrong.



I'm not saying that argument would not work, absolutely speaking. But the fact is that it would only work if the Bible were true. In order to establish "If objective morality, then God," one would have to presuppose the Bible's veracity, for without that there would be no meaningful connection between the two. Objective morality only authenticates God's existence in a confirmatory, and not foundational, sense.

See, if you hold objective morality (and the connection between its existence and God's corollary existence) as some existing truths apart from God's sovereignity -- as some "obvious fact of life" or something -- then you are admitting that God is not sovereign over everything and thus denying the Bible's veracity.

But back to the point you were trying to make -- such an argument does not prove that lesser things can prove greater things' authority. If you held objective morality as a criterion independent of God, then you now have two authorities in your system: the Bible and whatever objective morality implicates. The Bible is not absolutely authoritative, and that is a problem indeed.



> Eh? I didn’t claim something lesser can justify something greater. The OP said, “Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority.” I asked, “Why suppose this”? And yes, what I responded to is just an assertion. There isn’t any supportive argument to see why it is the case.



Well, then I guess until you can prove that, you can not possibly defend the faith. I don't mean this disparagingly; that is the unfortunate conclusion to your assertion of my argument's falsity.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Cheshire Cat said:


> I was answering a hypothetical which presumed they *did* prove the bible true. To quote the OP, “If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible.” Like I said, I don’t see why this follows, and it is just an assertion. Surely you can see that.


Do you believe the bible makes the claim of being authoritative? I think the entire argument hinges on that. If the bible *claims* the authority but we still go to science, archaeology, and history before we are convinced of biblical authority then it shows that we see science etc. as having the greater authority. Your response may be that the lost person will not accept our presupposition of biblical authority and I have no problem agreeing with you. 

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

It is only God who regenerates the lost enabling them to believe so why is it acceptable to appeal to what the lost man finds convincing (science, history, etc)? Was Paul wrong to know "nothing" among them but "Jesus Christ and him crucified"?


----------



## Confessor

ManleyBeasley said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was answering a hypothetical which presumed they *did* prove the bible true. To quote the OP, “If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible.” Like I said, I don’t see why this follows, and it is just an assertion. Surely you can see that.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe the bible makes the claim of being authoritative? I think the entire argument hinges on that. If the bible *claims* the authority but we still go to science, archaeology, and history before we are convinced of biblical authority then it shows that we see science etc. as having the greater authority. Your response may be that the lost person will not accept our presupposition of biblical authority and I have no problem agreeing with you.
> 
> "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14
> 
> It is only God who regenerates the lost enabling them to believe so why is it acceptable to appeal to what the lost man finds convincing (science, history, etc)? Was Paul wrong to know "nothing" among them but "Jesus Christ and him crucified"?
Click to expand...


His argument is that the Bible is authoritative, but lesser authorities can still prove the Bible's authority.


----------



## ChristianTrader

ManleyBeasley said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was answering a hypothetical which presumed they *did* prove the bible true. To quote the OP, “If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible.” Like I said, I don’t see why this follows, and it is just an assertion. Surely you can see that.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe the bible makes the claim of being authoritative? I think the entire argument hinges on that. If the bible *claims* the authority but we still go to science, archaeology, and history before we are convinced of biblical authority then it shows that we see science etc. as having the greater authority. Your response may be that the lost person will not accept our presupposition of biblical authority and I have no problem agreeing with you.
> 
> "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14
> 
> It is only God who regenerates the lost enabling them to believe so why is it acceptable to appeal to what the lost man finds convincing (science, history, etc)? Was Paul wrong to know "nothing" among them but "Jesus Christ and him crucified"?
Click to expand...


If your view is correct, then what difference does it make what argument is given? The natural man will reject it regardless and if the person is draw by the Holy Spirit, he will accept the Bible for what it is, regardless of how good or bad the argument is.

CT


----------



## cih1355

Cheshire Cat said:


> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is the highest authority.
> 
> 
> 
> God is the highest authority. The bible is God's word, but ultimately the authority stems from him.
> 
> 
> 
> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see no reason to think that "logic, science, or the findings of archaeology" have more authority than the bible if it proves what the bible says is *true*. Why would they?
> 
> 
> 
> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why suppose this? At this point these are just assertions, which I don't see as following at all. That's probably how they would respond.
Click to expand...


Suppose that there is a test of truth that decides whether or not something is true. Suppose that this test of truth is not the Bible; it is not God and it is outside of the Bible. In order for the Bible to be judged true by this test, the Bible would have to submit to that test's standard. If the Bible has more authority than this test, then why does the Bible have to submit to that test's standard? Shouldn't the test submit itself to what the Bible says is true?


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something can be self-attesting without being obvious or the famously ambiguous phrase self-evident. It does have to be ultimately unquestionable. It might take some work to see that it is self-attesting though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you say it might take some work to see that it is self-attesting, do you mean that in the sense that its self-attestation needs to be _proven_? That's what you seem to be implying in the rest of your post, and obviously I would have to disagree with that.
Click to expand...


My point is that something does not cease to be self-attesting (nor does it become self attesting when an objection is not made) when an objection is made to it. The objection could be either incoherent or rest on an incoherency.



> I would ask how do you know that X is correct and Y is not? One normal way is that you know the X does not lead to contradictory implications while Y does. That is what normally what happens when someone knows a lot more than the other person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By asking how I know that Scripture is a self-attesting authority, you are tearing down Scripture's authority. If reason were necessary to justify one's belief in God (i.e. if the belief would be unjustified prior to that), then reason would be authoritative over Scripture.
Click to expand...


First off let me say that when I talk of reason, I am not necessarily talking about a formal proof (Premise 1, Premise 2, Conclusion). A person can identify contradictions etc. without taking formal logic classes.

I would say that reason is authoritative over Scripture in the sense, that if I believed that Scripture was contradictory (or containing contradictions), then I would reject it as being God's word. That would automatically rule out the ability of Scripture to be self attesting.



> While apologetics is about demonstrating that other starting points are incoherent, we first _know_ that our position is absolutely right, and that from the Holy Spirit. Just as one can know one will win an argument prior to having his argument in place (have you never felt that before?), one can also simply _know_ that Scripture has marks of the divine and is therefore God's Word without a shred of doubt. If you continue to think that we have to prove that the Holy Spirit is leading us to the right book, then you have enthroned human reason as your king.



We should know it because it is clear that it is right. However due to moral and ethical problems we do not. The Holy Spirit helps us here.

I have had feelings that I would win an argument and lost, so I am not sure if that segment of your statement means very much.

Next, I am not sure if you can apologetically demonstrate that other starting points are incoherent if your opponent attempted to mirror your argumentation. For example, "I believe that the Koran is correct because Allah has allowed me to know and sense that such is the case. Reason cannot be used to critique it because that would make reason more authoritative than the Koran."

Now if you can demonstrate an incoherency without reason, I would love to hear how.

I also know that Scripture has the marks of the Divine and one part of those marks is that it is coherent with reason.



> Also is knowing just a tightly held conviction that you have not been disabused of yet?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you asking for a definition of knowledge?
Click to expand...


I was not but instead asking how you would identify the difference between tightly held conviction (which could be wrong) and one that could not be.



> Actually depending on how you wish to interpret Romans 1, one can make an issue about what exactly is known. One can be without excuse without knowing something.
> 
> 
> 
> Rom. 1:20: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
> 
> God's attributes have been clearly seen. The point of whether or not people can be without excuse when they don't know something is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


God's attributes are clearly seen, the problem is when one attempts to infer things from what is clearly seen.

A pagan can agree that God's attributes are clearly seen and then sacrifice their first born to the Sun god.

The issue is attempting to identify what God is clearly seen. The problem is going from the attributes seen to Full Trinitarian Theism espoused in the Bible.




> Actually that was one of the options that I gave. Remember I said, "contradicts reality or contradicts the Bible itself". So what you are claiming is that if the Arminian theology was the theology taught in the Bible, then the Bible would be wrong. Therefore the Arminian theology is to be rejected.
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness, you said, "contradicts reality or the Bible contradicts itself," which carries an entirely different connotation. By reality it appears you are implying such things as laws of logic, causality, and other undeniable things; however, if the substance of the Bible is embedded in your use of the word "reality," then I guess I would agree with that.
Click to expand...


I was simply saying that if the Bible taught Arminian Theology then it would contradict the passage that teach non Arminian Theology, which would be problematic.



> Nonetheless, the reason behind the falsity of Arminian theology is foremost because it contradicts what the Bible teaches -- which is entirely different from saying that the reason Arminianism is false is because if the Bible taught it we would reject the Bible. The Bible does not teach it, and it is pointless to even speak of it as some sort of hypothetical.



So you would use reason against the Arminian in defense of Calvinism?

As another point, lets say you have never seen a Bible before but a Evangelical Arminian comes up to you and attempt to tell you the gospel. Would you just have to say, "okay, cool" or could you say, wait a minute..."



> Appropriately, the fact that Arminianism contradicts reality (i.e. it has a false philosophy of the will, among other things) is only secondary, because our judgments our ministerial to the Bible's substance.



It is not secondary, if you do not know that the Bible teaches Calvinism, is it? Or is that something the Holy Spirit tells you when you accept the Bible as true?



> First off you missed the question again. I asked you what could this person say to God on judgment day? Is it impossible for such people to exist? I know there is much work being done to translate the Bible into every language, but that work is not done yet.
> 
> 
> 
> They would be without excuse due to their _sensus divinitatis_.
Click to expand...


So they know how they should act but choose to do something different?



> Next, I think you are just lacking in Reformed History. From Calvin onward, the Reformed have not rejected Natural Theology. It is the recent century or so where this issue of Rejecting natural theology has come up.
> 
> 
> 
> Calvin's affirmation of natural theology is irrelevant, and it was never a topic of my discourse. I was critiquing natural theology qua natural theology, not making a historical argument.
Click to expand...


So if no one has ever argued as you have for the first 1900 years of Church History, you would not find that problematic? Would you still call yourself Reformed?



> Next, I would not say that Natural Revelation says that there is a Gospel to be preached.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. I merely said that they cannot be saved without the Gospel, not that they know they cannot be saved without that exact means.
Click to expand...


Okay, we agree here.



> Next, Natural Theology does not imply the either/or of non inferential knowledge of God or non inferential knowledge of God. It can take the form of a both/and. Certain things known non inferentially and certain things not. I think you would be hard pressed to argue that full trinitarian theism is known by being born.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying the entirety of Christianity is non-inferential. I am merely arguing that the part which makes men without excuse must be non-inferential; otherwise, the many people who do not follow the natural-theological arguments would be with excuse, which is contrary to Romans 1. And if the part which makes men without excuse in Romans 1 is non-inferential, then natural theology is not taught in that chapter.
Click to expand...


To be without excuse does not imply that you know something. So there is no problem with that part being inferential.



> Next, your questions almost assume that people do not naturally make idols and depend on as well as worship those idols. Everyone has a God slot. Either they will put God in it or put something else in it.
> 
> 
> 
> My question does not assume that. Again, I was not saying that all of Christianity must be non-inferential, only that the knowledge which makes men without excuse must be. In fact, the God-slot is evidence of the _sensus divinitatis_, which is of course non-inferential, supporting my position.
Click to expand...


A God slot does not imply that you have God in that slot. You can put a golden calf in that slot.

I agree that a God-slot is non-inferential, but I do not see God being in it also being non-inferential.



> The complicated arguments are just formalizations of things that should be easily accepted but man is rebellious. Because you cannot follow the complicated arguments would not be an excuse, because the answer is/ and should be accepted as clear that non God is not God and God is God.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're not. Both the cosmological argument and teleological argument, apart from explicitly Christian presuppositions, beg the question.
Click to expand...


Where does the Bible tell you that?



> People try to make it more complicated to give themselves a probability factor supporting their position (William Craig does this a ton), and it is not clear at all who is winning the debate.



Who said anything about probability?



> What do you mean the answer is clear that non God is not God and God is God? How does that stem from natural theology?



For example, is it clear that the Sun is not the Eternal, Holy, Infinite God proclaimed in natural revelation/theology?



> So every language has special or supernatural revelation available so that all have access to the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that natural revelation cannot be _properly_ interpreted except in light of supernatural revelation; not that no one can make an interpretation without it. The plethora of false religions in uncivilized tribal areas is evidence of this.
Click to expand...


Where does the Bible tell you that natural revelation cannot be properly interpretated except in light of supernatural revelation? I would counter that SD, natural revelation, and right reason should get you where you want to go. The reason people don't get there is due to rebellion.



> Also could you agree with Calvin here: He stated that men who make idols of various physical objects, are proof of the sensus divinitatis. Would you agree with that statement?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree with him.
Click to expand...


Alright, then can you see Calvin saying, that the same person knows that the Bible is true?



> Reason with the God's natural revelation should be enough to get you where you need to go. If it does not then there are three options for where the problem is:
> 
> 1)Reason is deficient (Since this is dependent on God then it will be hard to attack this)
> 2)Natural Revelation is deficient (Again it will be hard to attack without attacking God)
> 3)One's interpretation of one or the other is deficient
> 
> 
> 
> 4) Reason is used outside of the context which it was intended to be used in. Objectively speaking, there is nothing wrong with reason or with natural revelation, and if we were not depraved we would interpret it correctly -- with Christian presuppositions. However, we _are_ depraved, and therefore we _refuse_ to use Christian presuppositions. And of course, natural theology does not use Christian presuppositions, preferring autonomous axioms which accept reason as an entity independent from God, and thus the system is not a reliable means of truth.
Click to expand...


Is being depraved:
1)Moral/Ethical
2)Logical/Reasoning

Natural Theology does not assume that reason is independent from God. You would need to show some argumentation for that claim.



> Thus, man's _use of reason_ is deficient, because he uses it in a way which does not honor or glorify God as the King over human reason.



Man could use reason in a non God honoring way but I take that as akin to not using "Right Reason".



> If I do not say "Premise 3: Reason is dependent on God" then I am denying it?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! Insofar as you pretend that you are being "neutral" and use reason as some common ground between you and the unbeliever, you will be deceiving him into thinking that reason is independent from God.
Click to expand...


Nope, try again. I am assuming that natural revelation actually has content. If it does then I should not have a problem doing so. If you have a problem still then you have to say assuming natural revelation is somehow dishonoring to God.



> Or put another way, An Arminian Bible would be a false scripture because it is self contradictory.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the point I'm making. You're trying to get me to admit to a position which would place reason above Scripture in practice (e.g. we would have to test the Bible through the filter of "reality" to make sure it's acceptable, making reality epistemologically ultimate). See what I said above about this. It is foolish to speak of Arminianism as hypothetically being taught in the Bible. That's akin to saying that God's Word would not be authoritative if it were not God's Word. It's pointless speculation which provides no truth in apologetical methodology.
Click to expand...


How do you argue against Islam and other faiths, if you do not argue in this fashion. And if you argue against them in this fashion, why cannot they argue against you in the same way?

I am saying that something that claims to be God's Word would be found to be false if it claimed certain things.



> I am saying that you reject it because "the undeniable reason" dictates that it must be rejected.
> 
> Arguments predate St. Thomas, but sure, I would not have a problem debating some with you.
> 
> 
> 
> I reject natural theology because it's unreasonable -- because it is built on autonomous presuppositions, if that's what you're trying to say. Yeah.
Click to expand...


You have shown no reason to reject natural theology. You have made a number of claims, but that is about it.



> You can make a new thread to debate the cosmological or teleological arguments, if you so wish.



If you want to do it, then we can do such.



> Do you believe that everyone has access to the Bible now, not even talking about years ago?
> 
> The Bible does not have to exist just as Jesus did not have to come and save us (assuming a promise was never made). We would just die in our sins and go to Hell.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! It's possible that we would not have received a specific special revelation which matches with natural revelation. Therefore, inasmuch as you try to "prove" the Bible by saying that it "fits" with natural revelation, you're only proving a part of it when some other currently nonexistent holy book might be the _real_ special revelation.
Click to expand...


No position will succeed if one denigrates faith. Now one should denigrate Blind faith, but that is not our situation here.

Now the Bible says more than what natural revelation says, but it does not contradict natural revelation. Now unless you assume something about yourself that is against natural revelation, then that should not be a problem at all.


> If you only prove part of Christianity, you have not necessitated the acceptance of all of Christianity, and if you haven't proven all of Christianity, then you have proven nothing.



Now that statement is just nonsense. If I have proven 1+1=2 but have not proven square root of 100 = 10, then I have proven nothing. Good beliefs can exist with false ones.



> Argue with me not Geisler.
> 
> 
> 
> I was merely trying to show a parallel between your and his methodologies. They both seem to take the "thread" approach, trying to get specific parts to match up and then claiming that the entirety of Christianity is necessarily true, but that doesn't logically follow.
Click to expand...


Christianity parallels Islam in certain areas, do you feel the need to bring such up?

Also, you do know that TAG is not going to help you here, right?

Next, the whole approach is more like, being faithful in little then ask to be faithful in much. Because one is faithful in little does not imply that one is faithful in much, but if you are unfaithful in little then why should one expect the same to be faithful in much.




> If the Bible did not exist, then natural revelation would not align with any of the texts.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid you misunderstand my objection. If your main criterion of accepting a holy text is its coincidence with natural revelation, then it is plausible that the correct holy text might have "gone extinct." Therefore, the fact that the Bible aligns with natural revelation does not necessitate its full acceptance. How, then, can you persuasively tell someone to accept the entirety of the Bible based on one part coinciding with reality?
Click to expand...


I think you objection assumes that Natural Theology/Natural Revelation does not tell us much. If it does then the objection goes by the way side.



> According to standard Classical Apologetics, one would prove God first, then worry about what that God would do/act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they're not proving God. They're proving a blank entity which they call God. They're proving a nothing.
Click to expand...


Who said anything about a blank. That would only be the case, if natural revelation does not have any content, and if that is the case, then Romans 1 is false.



> Your question would assume that I would not trust, the infinite, eternal, creator of the world over finite, fallen me. Would that make any sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know that the creator of the world is infinite and eternal without special revelation from him?
Click to expand...


Are you making a claim that such cannot be known outside of natural revelation? But you said that man knows by Natural Revelation the attributes of God, which include infinite and eternal. (Unless you do not believe that such are attributes of God.)



> The entire crux of my argument is that you are relying on yourself too much rather than on the Bible. You keep trying to neutrally prove your position from reason without a framework of God; this is not proving the God of the Bible.



Well that objection only works if there is a framework that works without God. If such a framework does not exist, then why not just attack my arguments and say that they do not work, versus arguing over non explicitly Christian frameworks being icky.

CT

-----Added 12/7/2008 at 02:23:44 EST-----



cih1355 said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is the highest authority.
> 
> 
> 
> God is the highest authority. The bible is God's word, but ultimately the authority stems from him.
> 
> 
> I see no reason to think that "logic, science, or the findings of archaeology" have more authority than the bible if it proves what the bible says is *true*. Why would they?
> 
> 
> 
> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why suppose this? At this point these are just assertions, which I don't see as following at all. That's probably how they would respond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suppose that there is a test of truth that decides whether or not something is true. Suppose that this test of truth is not the Bible; it is not God and it is outside of the Bible. In order for the Bible to be judged true by this test, the Bible would have to submit to that test's standard. If the Bible has more authority than this test, then why does the Bible have to submit to that test's standard? Shouldn't the test submit itself to what the Bible says is true?
Click to expand...


Natural Revelation is from God, right? If you test the Bible against Natural Revelation (to test against something it implies some sort of reason). This would be an example of testing God's revelation against something that claims to be God's revelation, right? Is there harm in that?

CT

-----Added 12/7/2008 at 02:30:54 EST-----



packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does God have authority over an essential attribute? If God has authority over it, then he can change it right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say He has authority over the attribute which is part of His character (that's an entirely different discussion and unrelated to apologetics); I implied that His witness has authority over man's determining whether a text is consistent or not.
Click to expand...


The problem is that one has to determine what is his witness. The most basic thing we have is general revelation. So we test something that claims to be his witness vs. something that we know is His witness. If it fails then we reject the thing that makes the claim.



> Next, we agreed that the witness of the Holy Spirit was needed to break our rebellion against that which is already clear, not to make something unclear clear. It seems that now you want to make it necessary in order to make something unclear clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so? I talked about "the perspicuity of God's authoritative revelation."
Click to expand...


Alright, and since there are Christians who make bad interpretations of Scripture at almost everyone point, I am not sure how you can attempt to argue to the perspicuity of special revelation over natural revelation.




> Looking for consistency _per se_ is not undermining; seeing it as an entity which necessarily must be established prior to its acceptance as God's Word (e.g. arguing with an unbeliever that God's Word is authoritative _because_ it is consistent) is undermining it, however.



If it is not consistent with the revelation that we know by being born (General Revelation) then why should we accept it?




> So God is sovereign over the things that make him God? He is sovereign over Holiness, Justice, Eternality, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we are not speaking of God's attributes. That's not what I was referring to when I said that consistency (or anything else) was on a throne above God. I meant "consistency" in the sense of man accepting the Bible because he saw it to be consistent.
Click to expand...


If you did not see something as consistent, would you accept it, in any area?



> In like fashion, man should not accept the Bible because it appears holy to him (or consistent or majestic, etc.), but rather because it is indisputably God's Word due to its marks of deity. As a result of being God's Word, then, the book's holiness and majesty are confirmatory of the Holy Spirit's leading.



And consistency is a mark of deity.


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> [I would say that reason is authoritative over Scripture in the sense, that if I believed that Scripture was contradictory (or containing contradictions), then I would reject it as being God's word. That would automatically rule out the ability of Scripture to be self attesting.



This denies that the witness of the Holy Spirit is infallible and results in the dangerous position of theological rationalism. I do not deny that Scripture can be approached and reasoned with, but not with any intention of finding contradiction or with any belief that contradiction is _possible_. I will deal with the example of another person mirroring this below.



> I have had feelings that I would win an argument and lost, so I am not sure if that segment of your statement means very much.



Regardless of those experiences, have you _ever_ had an argument where you completely understood the opponent's position, and also that he did not understand your position? You have a feeling of victory even before you have presented your case fully. That is what I am referring to.



> Next, I am not sure if you can apologetically demonstrate that other starting points are incoherent if your opponent attempted to mirror your argumentation. For example, "I believe that the Koran is correct because Allah has allowed me to know and sense that such is the case. Reason cannot be used to critique it because that would make reason more authoritative than the Koran."



First of all, I'm not saying we can't use reason on Scripture, not by any means. It has to do with the intent of its use, as I said above. We should always be willing to go about our exegeses honestly and with reason, and with the knowledge that we are reading God's Word.

Now, here's the thing with unbelievers: although they may attempt to mimic the same method I am using, they would necessarily run into some glaring contradiction in their system. They may believe sincerely that the Qur'an is above reason, but there is a clear difference between paradox and outright contradiction. When they come across these, they will know they are wrong and can either righteously come to Christ with the Holy Spirit's help or unrighteously suppress it and remain in their unbelief.



> I also know that Scripture has the marks of the Divine and one part of those marks is that it is coherent with reason.



And the only way you could know it was such a mark is if it were authoritatively taught to you that reason was such a criterion! Just as you might claim that the veracity of reason is an "obvious" claim, even more obvious is the veracity of the Scriptures itself, non-inferentially. Reason is a mark of deity and thus _derived_ from divine authority, not vice versa. You should reflect this in your apologetic.



> I was not but instead asking how you would identify the difference between tightly held conviction (which could be wrong) and one that could not be.



Like the specific feelings one would feel for each of these? I'm sorry, but I'm not sure this question is answerable. You're asking me to put something non-inferential in inferential terms.



> God's attributes are clearly seen, the problem is when one attempts to infer things from what is clearly seen.
> 
> A pagan can agree that God's attributes are clearly seen and then sacrifice their first born to the Sun god.
> 
> The issue is attempting to identify what God is clearly seen. The problem is going from the attributes seen to Full Trinitarian Theism espoused in the Bible.



"Clearly seen" would certainly imply that one cannot infer from the clearly seen attributes anything _other_ than the living God of the Bible. You even said that a pagan "agreed" that God's attributes are clearly seen and then worshiped the wrong god. But that evidences that he never actually agreed that God's attributes are clearly seen, in the sense that they are accepted. You are granting that the pagan is right! Rather than telling him that he's suppressing the truth, you are telling him that he is just doing his best with what he's got, in the sense that he is excused until a Bible comes around.

And as I already explained, this knowledge (just this condemning type, not the totality of Christianity which you thought I meant earlier) cannot possibly be inferential knowledge, or else not all people would be "without excuse."



> So you would use reason against the Arminian in defense of Calvinism?
> 
> As another point, lets say you have never seen a Bible before but a Evangelical Arminian comes up to you and attempt to tell you the gospel. Would you just have to say, "okay, cool" or could you say, wait a minute..."



Of course I would use reason against the Arminian. Why? Because the dispute is not over whether the Bible is authoritative, but on a grievous misinterpretation of an obvious principle. I would probably accept the Arminian's explanation of the Gospel because I would know about the Bible in order to know that he is wrong. Of course, if he gave me a Bible and I happened to look at certain passages I would be able to see that he is wrong.



> It is not secondary, if you do not know that the Bible teaches Calvinism, is it? Or is that something the Holy Spirit tells you when you accept the Bible as true?



Yes, the fact that Arminianism contradicts _reality_ absolutely is secondary (e.g. contradictory to experience, a false philosophy of free will). The fact that it contradicts the _Bible_ is primary. Of course, I'm not saying that the Bible is disconnected from reality, but rather I am using "reality" as a synonym for "experience," since that is the way you used it in the question. (Otherwise there would be distinction between the two in your question.)



> So they know how they should act but choose to do something different?



Well, the sense of deity terrifyingly lets people know that they are absolutely condemned, and most people suppress _that_ knowledge.



> So if no one has ever argued as you have for the first 1900 years of Church History, you would not find that problematic? Would you still call yourself Reformed?



The fact that people have done or not done something in the past does not imply that anyone in the present is necessarily wrong (such is a Catholic argument), but rather that we should give strong consideration and reconsideration to our position, which I can assure you I have done.

Of course, also, I _do_ think that people argued presuppositionally for the entirety of church history; I just don't think they did it completely honestly or consistently.



> To be without excuse does not imply that you know something. So there is no problem with that part being inferential.



Regardless of whether or not someone can possibly be without excuse without knowing something (which I would deny), the Bible says that all people _do_ know it. One cannot suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18) without holding the truth! In fact, Rom. 1:20 says that God's attributes "have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." In other words, men are without excuse _because_ God's attributes have been "clearly seen" and are "being understood." This cannot mean anything but actual knowledge.



> A God slot does not imply that you have God in that slot. You can put a golden calf in that slot.
> 
> I agree that a God-slot is non-inferential, but I do not see God being in it also being non-inferential.



Okay, I think you're straying off course a little bit because of whatever you conceived the God-slot to be. The sense of deity tells us that the living God is the only God who exists. It does not open the doors to harmless guessing (e.g. a golden calf). In other words, it _does_ imply that God is in it that slot. How else could He be suppressed? Also, as I showed in Rom. 1 immediately above, God being in the God-slot is necessarily non-inferential as well.



> Where does the Bible tell you that?



Simple logic can tell me that. I never claimed that the Bible told me it.



> Who said anything about probability?



Traditional apologetics necessarily utilizes probability, since reason is itself fallible, among other things.



> For example, is it clear that the Sun is not the Eternal, Holy, Infinite God proclaimed in natural revelation/theology?



Curiously enough, it's not. Why couldn't a divine presence who manifests himself in a cosmic fireball be the uncaused cause, the designer of the universe, etc.?



> Where does the Bible tell you that natural revelation cannot be properly interpretated except in light of supernatural revelation? I would counter that SD, natural revelation, and right reason should get you where you want to go. The reason people don't get there is due to rebellion.



Well, first of all, at all points in history God is either speaking directly to His people or He has given them His Word. God's Word is always seen as a final authority and final court of appeal. Considering that not interpreting things in light of revelation would mean we interpret things in light of something else which is _not_ God's Word, we will necessarily run into problems (and that is in fact the presuppositional apologetic!).

You say that right reason should help us get where we want to go! Well, how does one use right reason? Only by submitting to and understanding the source of that reason!



> Alright, then can you see Calvin saying, that the same person knows that the Bible is true?



No, I bet he would say that they know they are condemned and that the idols are not truly saving them, which is of course my position.



> Is being depraved:
> 1)Moral/Ethical
> 2)Logical/Reasoning
> 
> Natural Theology does not assume that reason is independent from God. You would need to show some argumentation for that claim.



Depravity is ethical, and it affects the way we reason (i.e. by not honoring God as the foundation of all knowledge).

Natural theology uses reason without assuming God's existence and therefore assumes that God is not necessary for reason to exist and therefore assumes that reason is independent from God.



> Man could use reason in a non God honoring way but I take that as akin to not using "Right Reason".



_Exactly!_ And how would we know how to reason in a God-honoring way (use "right reason") if we did not accept God's Word as true and reliable?



> Nope, try again. I am assuming that natural revelation actually has content. If it does then I should not have a problem doing so. If you have a problem still then you have to say assuming natural revelation is somehow dishonoring to God.



I am not denying that natural revelation is objectively unreliable, only that man's subjective interpretation of it apart from the truthfulness of the Bible is unreliable. Natural revelation has content. Man's sinful reasoning (not honoring God as Creator) distorts that content.



> How do you argue against Islam and other faiths, if you do not argue in this fashion. And if you argue against them in this fashion, why cannot they argue against you in the same way?



I point out drastic internal inconsistencies, which as I explained above is perfectly consistent with the certain knowledge we have of Christianity's veracity.



> I am saying that something that claims to be God's Word would be found to be false if it claimed certain things.



I can agree with that, as long as we keep the Holy Spirit out of the discussion. If we are talking merely about claims to be God's Word -- and not at all of the Spirit infallibly leading us to the right one -- then I agree with you.



> You have shown no reason to reject natural theology. You have made a number of claims, but that is about it.



I wrote a brief little thing about natural theology for my philosophy class. I can post a topic with that if you would like.



> No position will succeed if one denigrates faith. Now one should denigrate Blind faith, but that is not our situation here.



If you want to admit that it's just a leap of faith (it honestly seems like a large jump to me), then that's fine with me.



> Now the Bible says more than what natural revelation says, but it does not contradict natural revelation. Now unless you assume something about yourself that is against natural revelation, then that should not be a problem at all.



Again, I have no problems with natural revelation, objectively speaking, just with its interpretation, subjectively speaking.



> Now that statement is just nonsense. If I have proven 1+1=2 but have not proven square root of 100 = 10, then I have proven nothing. Good beliefs can exist with false ones.



What I meant when I said that "you have proven nothing" is that the nonbeliever has no reason to accept Christ. So, you've proven him that part of the Bible is consistent with natural revelation. Why ought he go the next step and become a Christian? You haven't rationally supported that claim yet.



> Christianity parallels Islam in certain areas, do you feel the need to bring such up?
> 
> Also, you do know that TAG is not going to help you here, right?
> 
> Next, the whole approach is more like, being faithful in little then ask to be faithful in much. Because one is faithful in little does not imply that one is faithful in much, but if you are unfaithful in little then why should one expect the same to be faithful in much.



I'm not sure how the Islam question is relevant.

TAG absolutely does help me here. I had problems in the past with avoiding the piecemeal method but I have since solved them, by God's grace.

I don't understand how the "faithful in little/much" analogy is pertinent to apologetics. Could you explain that?



> Who said anything about a blank. That would only be the case, if natural revelation does not have any content, and if that is the case, then Romans 1 is false.



Actually, considering that natural theology _decisively_ proves a blank, it would support my claim that man's interpretation of natural revelation is severely distorted, not that natural revelation is objectively distorted contrary to Romans 1.



> Are you making a claim that such cannot be known outside of natural revelation? But you said that man knows by Natural Revelation the attributes of God, which include infinite and eternal. (Unless you do not believe that such are attributes of God.)



I deny they can be known inferentially (i.e. by natural theology).



> Well that objection only works if there is a framework that works without God. If such a framework does not exist, then why not just attack my arguments and say that they do not work, versus arguing over non explicitly Christian frameworks being icky.



No -- _your methodology_ only works if there is a framework that works without God. My objection works because God actually does exist and it is impossible to leave this framework in practice, though it is possible in speech.



> Natural Revelation is from God, right? If you test the Bible against Natural Revelation (to test against something it implies some sort of reason). This would be an example of testing God's revelation against something that claims to be God's revelation, right? Is there harm in that?



Well, you'd be testing the objective veracity of God's Word against your subjective and faulty interpretation of natural revelation, so yeah, there'd be harm in that.



> The problem is that one has to determine what is his witness. The most basic thing we have is general revelation. So we test something that claims to be his witness vs. something that we know is His witness. If it fails then we reject the thing that makes the claim.



You keep speaking of "something that we know is His witness," but you don't take this seriously. You keep thinking that King Reason can supercede this definite knowledge which the Holy Spirit provides.



> Alright, and since there are Christians who make bad interpretations of Scripture at almost everyone point, I am not sure how you can attempt to argue to the perspicuity of special revelation over natural revelation.



First of all, if you deny the perspicuity of Scripture, then you're denying a central confessional tenet. Second, perspicuity is an attribute of the Bible, not of persons; therefore the fact that people disagree does not mean that the Bible is problematic, only that people are sinfully misinterpreting it.

You know all those threads where we say things like, "Oh, this passage is so obvious; how can people deny this?" In one thread about Calvinist trouble verses, someone jokingly said that Arminian trouble verses are Genesis-Revelation. The fact is that the Bible, in its most key points, is obvious.



> If it is not consistent with the revelation that we know by being born (General Revelation) then why should we accept it?



_I am not saying we should accept it despite inconsistency._ I am saying that consistency should not be a criterion which prompts our acceptance of the Bible. We accept the Bible foremost because we know without a doubt _via_ the Holy Spirit that it is God's Word.

This is what I mean when I say that the attribute of consistency in the Bible is confirmatory and not foundational.



> If you did not see something as consistent, would you accept it, in any area?



Of course not, but you misunderstand my point. See above.



> And consistency is a mark of deity.



See what I said above (_way_ up there) about reason being a mark of the divine.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

packabacka said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was answering a hypothetical which presumed they *did* prove the bible true. To quote the OP, “If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible.” Like I said, I don’t see why this follows, and it is just an assertion. Surely you can see that.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe the bible makes the claim of being authoritative? I think the entire argument hinges on that. If the bible *claims* the authority but we still go to science, archaeology, and history before we are convinced of biblical authority then it shows that we see science etc. as having the greater authority. Your response may be that the lost person will not accept our presupposition of biblical authority and I have no problem agreeing with you.
> 
> "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14
> 
> It is only God who regenerates the lost enabling them to believe so why is it acceptable to appeal to what the lost man finds convincing (science, history, etc)? Was Paul wrong to know "nothing" among them but "Jesus Christ and him crucified"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His argument is that the Bible is authoritative, but lesser authorities can still prove the Bible's authority.
Click to expand...

I understand that but to say that the bible's claim of authority must be proven by other authorities is to say that those authorities are superior to the biblical claim. It's a question of epistemology. The evidentialist denies pressupositions by saying you must have evidence for warranted belief. The problem is that the statement is a pressuposition; there is no evidence for evidentialism. I was attempting to show that this is not a philosophical issue but a biblical one. According to 1 Corinthians the Jews looked for signs (a sign is a physical proof) and the Greeks wanted wisdom (philosophical argumentation) but God uses the foolishness of preaching so that their faith would rest on the power of God.


----------



## Confessor

ManleyBeasley said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe the bible makes the claim of being authoritative? I think the entire argument hinges on that. If the bible *claims* the authority but we still go to science, archaeology, and history before we are convinced of biblical authority then it shows that we see science etc. as having the greater authority. Your response may be that the lost person will not accept our presupposition of biblical authority and I have no problem agreeing with you.
> 
> "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14
> 
> It is only God who regenerates the lost enabling them to believe so why is it acceptable to appeal to what the lost man finds convincing (science, history, etc)? Was Paul wrong to know "nothing" among them but "Jesus Christ and him crucified"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His argument is that the Bible is authoritative, but lesser authorities can still prove the Bible's authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that but to say that the bible's claim of authority must be proven by other authorities is to say that those authorities are superior to the biblical claim. It's a question of epistemology. The evidentialist denies pressupositions by saying you must have evidence for warranted belief. The problem is that the statement is a pressuposition; there is no evidence for evidentialism. I was attempting to show that this is not a philosophical issue but a biblical one. According to 1 Corinthians the Jews looked for signs (a sign is a physical proof) and the Greeks wanted wisdom (philosophical argumentation) but God uses the foolishness of preaching so that their faith would rest on the power of God.
Click to expand...


Oh, I agree with you. I was just letting you understand that he _knows_ he is trying to justify the Bible with lesser authorities.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

packabacka said:


> The fact that they couldn't prove the Bible true apart from a Christian framework is in fact a form of TAG. Also, I answered your accusation that it is merely an assertion below, so I will deal with it there.


So? For the last time, the OP was assertions. You can certainly argue for the claims, and you have, but the claims in the OP were not argued for in the OP, which is why I said they were assertions. 


packabacka said:


> I merely said that the way evidentialists have handled them is a way which presupposes that God does not exist. They use all the entities as if they are intelligible apart from God and therefore not absolutely contingent on His sovereignty.


Just because an argument is not at the presuppositional level, it doesn’t follow that the argument presupposes God does not exist. 


packabacka said:


> When evidentialists use their arguments, they absolutely are concealing their presuppositions. As a most obvious example, the argument from evidence for the resurrection to the truthfulness of the entire Bible would be concealing the presuppositions that God does not lie, that a resurrection is proof of deity, that God can know the future, etc.


Being omniscient and omnibenevolent is part of the concept of God, so it’s not concealing anything. The argument for the resurrection is not an argument for the truthfulness of the entire bible.


packabacka said:


> I'm not saying that argument [the moral argument] would not work, absolutely speaking. But the fact is that it would only work if the Bible were true. In order to establish "If objective morality, then God," one would have to presuppose the Bible's veracity, for without that there would be no meaningful connection between the two.


Actually there would be. One might argue that a personal being must ground duties. An argument for God’s existence need not prove every attribute of God. 


packabacka said:


> See, if you hold objective morality (and the connection between its existence and God's corollary existence) as some existing truths apart from God's sovereignity -- as some "obvious fact of life" or something -- then you are admitting that God is not sovereign over everything and thus denying the Bible's veracity.


Objective morality isn’t some “existing truth apart from God’s sovereignty”, whatever that means. 


packabacka said:


> But back to the point you were trying to make -- such an argument does not prove that lesser things can prove greater things' authority. If you held objective morality as a criterion independent of God, then you now have two authorities in your system: the Bible and whatever objective morality implicates. The Bible is not absolutely authoritative, and that is a problem indeed.


Objective Morality is not a criterion independent from God. That is the whole point of the argument.

You seem to that there is only a negative aspect of TAG, that shows that non-Christian worldviews cannot account for objective morality. But there is a positive part too, which *argues* that the Christian worldview *can* account for objective morality. The moral argument for God's existence does the same thing.

-----Added 12/7/2008 at 09:52:20 EST-----



cih1355 said:


> Suppose that there is a test of truth that decides whether or not something is true. Suppose that this test of truth is not the Bible; it is not God and it is outside of the Bible. In order for the Bible to be judged true by this test, the Bible would have to submit to that test's standard. If the Bible has more authority than this test, then why does the Bible have to submit to that test's standard? Shouldn't the test submit itself to what the Bible says is true?



Okay, i'll say this test of truth is the correspondence theory of truth: that something is true if it corresponds with reality. If the bible is true, it should correspond to reality. I believe this to be the case. Am I making the correspondance theory of truth a higher authority than God? No, i'm not. It isn't a matter of authority.

-----Added 12/7/2008 at 10:11:09 EST-----



ManleyBeasley said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe the bible makes the claim of being authoritative? I think the entire argument hinges on that. If the bible *claims* the authority but we still go to science, archaeology, and history before we are convinced of biblical authority then it shows that we see science etc. as having the greater authority. Your response may be that the lost person will not accept our presupposition of biblical authority and I have no problem agreeing with you.
> 
> "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14
> 
> It is only God who regenerates the lost enabling them to believe so why is it acceptable to appeal to what the lost man finds convincing (science, history, etc)? Was Paul wrong to know "nothing" among them but "Jesus Christ and him crucified"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His argument is that the Bible is authoritative, but lesser authorities can still prove the Bible's authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that but to say that the bible's claim of authority must be proven by other authorities is to say that those authorities are superior to the biblical claim. It's a question of epistemology. The evidentialist denies pressupositions by saying you must have evidence for warranted belief. The problem is that the statement is a pressuposition; there is no evidence for evidentialism. I was attempting to show that this is not a philosophical issue but a biblical one. According to 1 Corinthians the Jews looked for signs (a sign is a physical proof) and the Greeks wanted wisdom (philosophical argumentation) but God uses the foolishness of preaching so that their faith would rest on the power of God.
Click to expand...

Then by all means, don't give arguments. Preach.


----------



## cih1355

> Originally Posted by cih1355
> Suppose that there is a test of truth that decides whether or not something is true. Suppose that this test of truth is not the Bible; it is not God and it is outside of the Bible. In order for the Bible to be judged true by this test, the Bible would have to submit to that test's standard. If the Bible has more authority than this test, then why does the Bible have to submit to that test's standard? Shouldn't the test submit itself to what the Bible says is true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, i'll say this test of truth is the correspondence theory of truth: that something is true if it corresponds with reality. If the bible is true, it should correspond to reality. I believe this to be the case. Am I making the correspondance theory of truth a higher authority than God? No, i'm not. It isn't a matter of authority.
Click to expand...


Does the Bible teach the correspondence theory of truth?


----------



## Confessor

Cheshire Cat said:


> So? For the last time, the OP was assertions. You can certainly argue for the claims, and you have, but the claims in the OP were not argued for in the OP, which is why I said they were assertions.



They were not assertions at all. Manley even demonstrated this to you, to which your response was that he should just preach. Saying so does not prove your position; it only demonstrates that you think you have disproved apologetics in general.

Lesser authorities cannot justify greater authorities. Otherwise the greater authorities would not be authoritative over the lesser authorities. It's logical, it's necessary by the definitions of the concepts, and it is not an assertion.



> Just because an argument is not at the presuppositional level, it doesn’t follow that the argument presupposes God does not exist.



Of course. But evidentialists use arguments with the presupposition that God does not exist. They assume that logic, science, reasoning, etc. can all be done on neutral grounds with the unbeliever, but in doing so they are embracing the unbeliever's antitheistic presupposition.



> Being omniscient and omnibenevolent is part of the concept of God, so it’s not concealing anything. The argument for the resurrection is not an argument for the truthfulness of the entire bible.



But if the Bible is not supposed to be introduced as a premise of the argument, and we only know of God's specific characteristics through the Bible, then we cannot introduce this as anything specifically true. Why couldn't the resurrection evidence a pretty strong, pretty smart magic sky-rabbit? The only way we get to introduce omniscience and omnibenevolence is by assuming some authority in the Bible prior to "proving" that the Bible is true in those regards.



> Actually there would be. One might argue that a personal being must ground duties. An argument for God’s existence need not prove every attribute of God.



This doesn't really prove an attribute of God though; it just says there must be lawgiver. The possibilities are extremely open at that point.



> Objective morality isn’t some “existing truth apart from God’s sovereignty”, whatever that means.



If you don't know what it means, then you can't say that it isn't. Do you believe that the morality which exists today is not because of God? Do you believe it is self-existent? If so, then you have denied the doctrine of God's sovereignty. If not, then you agree with me.



> You seem to that there is only a negative aspect of TAG, that shows that non-Christian worldviews cannot account for objective morality. But there is a positive part too, which *argues* that the Christian worldview *can* account for objective morality. The moral argument for God's existence does the same thing.



I know that one would demonstrate Christianity's consistency as an aspect of TAG. But that doesn't mean I do it with the antitheistic presuppositions that the moral argument typically uses.


----------



## cih1355

If a non-Christian were to ask you, "How do you know that the Bible originates from God?", how would you respond? Would you argue that without Christianity, one could not have the laws of logic, science, morality, meaning in life, and so on?


----------



## Confessor

cih1355 said:


> If a non-Christian were to ask you, "How do you know that the Bible originates from God?", how would you respond? Would you argue that without Christianity, one could not have the laws of logic, science, morality, meaning in life, and so on?



I would tell him that Christianity is the only starting point (or the Bible's truthfulness, or the Christian God's existence, same thing) to have any sort of knowledge whatsoever, and then I could demonstrate this on any instance or fact at all.

For example, I could take the proposition, "I think; therefore, I am," and show why this is intelligible on Christian presuppositions but not on the opponent's.

EDIT: Sorry, I kind of missed your question there...if they were to ask me how I straight up know that, I would say unashamedly that I have been regenerated, and that it's obvious.

...which would probably make them mad, which is when you would change the subject to apologetics.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

packabacka said:


> They were not assertions at all


Let’s cash out the OP shall we: 
“The Bible is the highest authority”. I’ll grant that God is the highest authority, and the bible is God’s word, so *whatever is said within the bible* carries that same authority. 
Here comes the argument form If P then Q: “If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible.”
Sure in form that is an argument (technically he would have to say, P, therefore Q), but we aren’t given any reason to suppose that follows. It is asserted. For example, I could say, “If packabacka is a presupper, then ice cream is nutritious”. Okay, well why suppose that follows? Clearly you see that in the OP we aren’t given reasons to suppose why logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the bible if they prove that the Bible is the word of God. 
“Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority.”
It is not clear why this is the case. This is an assertion. The OP wasn’t argued for, which is why my point that the OP was just a bunch of assertions still stands. 


packabacka said:


> Lesser authorities cannot justify greater authorities.


Not sure what you mean by “justify”, but the OP said “authenticate”. 


packabacka said:


> Manley even demonstrated this to you, to which your response was that he should just preach. Saying so does not prove your position; it only demonstrates that you think you have disproved apologetics in general.


He demonstrated nothing. CT’s gave him an adequate response. 



packabacka said:


> But evidentialists use arguments with the presupposition that God does not exist.


No they don’t. They do suppose we can reason with the unbeliever. 


packabacka said:


> But if the Bible is not supposed to be introduced as a premise of the argument, and we only know of God's specific characteristics through the Bible, then we cannot introduce this [omniscience and omni benevolence] as anything specifically true.


The classic idea of a perfect being [God] is one that is all knowing and all good. 


packabacka said:


> Why couldn't the resurrection evidence a pretty strong, pretty smart magic sky-rabbit?


? If the resurrection argument works it proves the…resurrection…


packabacka said:


> This doesn't really prove an attribute of God though; it just says there must be lawgiver. The possibilities are extremely open at that point.


In what ways are they extremely open? 


packabacka said:


> Do you believe that the morality which exists today is not because of God? Do you believe it is self-existent? If so, then you have denied the doctrine of God's sovereignty. If not, then you agree with me.


Of course I believe it is because of God. That is the point of the moral argument. 


packabacka said:


> I know that one would demonstrate Christianity's consistency as an aspect of TAG. But that doesn't mean I do it with the antitheistic presuppositions that the moral argument typically uses.


Christianity’s consistency? TAG argues that the Christian worldview *makes sense* out of objective morality, makes it *intelligible*. And this is proved by positive argument, no different in *content* from the moral argument. What antitheistic presuppositions does the moral argument ‘use’?


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> What antitheistic presuppositions does the moral argument ‘use’?



What becomes of positive commandment? E.g., morality teaches "thou shalt not kill;" but God commanded the Israelites to kill the Canaanites.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What antitheistic presuppositions does the moral argument ‘use’?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What becomes of positive commandment? E.g., morality teaches "thou shalt not kill;" but God commanded the Israelites to kill the Canaanites.
Click to expand...

Morality doesn't teach "though shalt not kill", it's "though shalt not *murder*". Not sure what your point is though.


----------



## Confessor

Cheshire Cat said:


> “Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority.”
> It is not clear why this is the case. This is an assertion. The OP wasn’t argued for, which is why my point that the OP was just a bunch of assertions still stands.



Have you completely ignored the arguments I have given? This has been quite frustrating. You keep re-asserting the fact that the proposition "lesser authorities cannot authenticate/justify [they're synonymous the way I used them] greater authorities" is an assertion, essentially forgetting the fact that at the very least I have _attempted_ to explain why this is true. For what's it worth, I could just assert that the entirety of what you say is an assertion, keep repeating this, and "win" the argument -- to me, it honestly appears that you are doing nothing more than this, hence my frustration. You have to realize there's a degree of obviousness involved. Quit thinking that it is just an assertion. Try to understand your opponent and critique him. If you're right, his argument can be critiqued. Now, for the last time:

If greater authorities were justified by lesser authorities, then "lesser" authorities would be more authoritative than greater authorities because the lesser ones were the ones that gave the "greater" authority its authoritativeness. But that is absurd. A greater authority's authority cannot possibly stem from a lesser authority; that is an incoherent notion.



> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> But evidentialists use arguments with the presupposition that God does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> No they don’t. They do suppose we can reason with the unbeliever.
Click to expand...


...by using the unbeliever's presuppositions, that God is not sovereign over everything! That is assuming that the God of the Bible does not exist!



> The classic idea of a perfect being [God] is one that is all knowing and all good.



Where do you think we got that idea from?



> ? If the resurrection argument works it proves the…resurrection…



Exactly, and any kind of speculation on the cause of this (e.g. natural causes, the Christian God, a sky rabbit, etc.) is meaningless on naturalistic presuppositions. The resurrection does _nothing_ for the case for Christian theism.



> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't really prove an attribute of God though; it just says there must be lawgiver. The possibilities are extremely open at that point.
> 
> 
> 
> In what ways are they extremely open?
Click to expand...


Why couldn't this lawgiver be a natural cause? A sky rabbit? Anything _other_ than the Christian God? (Do you notice that I get to use the same non-Christian explanations often?)



> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that the morality which exists today is not because of God? Do you believe it is self-existent? If so, then you have denied the doctrine of God's sovereignty. If not, then you agree with me.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I believe it is because of God. That is the point of the moral argument.
Click to expand...


I know that that's the point of the moral argument -- but the moral argument fails in its purpose. The Christian God cannot come close to being established from the existence of objective morality alone. It must be placed in a Christian framework.



> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that one would demonstrate Christianity's consistency as an aspect of TAG. But that doesn't mean I do it with the antitheistic presuppositions that the moral argument typically uses.
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity’s consistency? TAG argues that the Christian worldview *makes sense* out of objective morality, makes it *intelligible*. And this is proved by positive argument, no different in *content* from the moral argument. What antitheistic presuppositions does the moral argument ‘use’?
Click to expand...


TAG is entirely different from the moral argument. The moral argument starts with morals and says that the existence of morality necessitates God's existence. TAG (at least, a TAG pertaining to objective morality) starts with the entire Christian worldview as a unit, and shows how the fact of objective morality is consistent with this unit and not with the unbeliever's worldview.

The antitheistic presuppositions of the moral argument are what I said above: it assumes that objective morality exists as some entity outside of God's _necessary_ sovereignty, denying the doctrine of God's sovereignty as espoused in the Bible. Again -- if you believe that God is sovereign over morals, then you cannot make the moral argument, but rather you are a presuppositionalist.


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What antitheistic presuppositions does the moral argument ‘use’?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What becomes of positive commandment? E.g., morality teaches "thou shalt not kill;" but God commanded the Israelites to kill the Canaanites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morality doesn't teach "though shalt not kill", it's "though shalt not *murder*". Not sure what your point is though.
Click to expand...


The point is, if morality proves God, doesn't God Himself become bound by the code of morality?


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What becomes of positive commandment? E.g., morality teaches "thou shalt not kill;" but God commanded the Israelites to kill the Canaanites.
> 
> 
> 
> Morality doesn't teach "though shalt not kill", it's "though shalt not *murder*". Not sure what your point is though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is, if morality proves God, doesn't God Himself become bound by the code of morality?
Click to expand...


If morality does not disprove the justice of God, then I do not see the problem with God commanding the killing of the Canaanites.

Also if we believe that God is just, then unless we take all the content out of the word, then does that not imply a code of morality?

CT


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> Also if we believe that God is just, then unless we take all the content out of the word, then does that not imply a code of morality?



But the code of morality is clearly labelled God's law for man. In the moral argument you have to assume a code of morality exists before you conclude God exists.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also if we believe that God is just, then unless we take all the content out of the word, then does that not imply a code of morality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the code of morality is clearly labelled God's law for man. In the moral argument you have to assume a code of morality exists before you conclude God exists.
Click to expand...


That one is concluded/assumed first is not a problem. If morality could be concluded and then no God, then we could have problems.

CT


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> That one is concluded/assumed first is not a problem. If morality could be concluded and then no God, then we could have problems.



If morality without God poses problems, then obviously God is presupposed in any discussion of morality. So again, we see the argument is a consequence of belief in God, not a cause for belief in God.


----------



## Confessor

CT,

His point is that if morality were treated as some entity which could exist apart from God (even for a second), then antitheistic presuppositions are being used.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> That one is concluded/assumed first is not a problem. If morality could be concluded and then no God, then we could have problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If morality without God poses problems, then obviously God is presupposed in any discussion of morality. So again, we see the argument is a consequence of belief in God, not a cause for belief in God.
Click to expand...


I mean problems for Christians and arguing for God.

Here is an analogy (I am not saying that it is perfect). Lets say that I want to prove that the square root of 4 is 2, but on the way, I first prove/assume that 1+1=2. That I accept it first does not imply that it is more important than the square root of 4 etc. It also does not assume that the square root of 4 is something other than 2.

CT


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> That I accept it first does not imply that it is more important than the square root of 4 etc. It also does not assume that the square root of 4 is something other than 2.



If 1+1=2 were not true, then the consequence could not follow, hence, yes, it is more basic and in that sense more important. But all you are showing here is that mathematics can't be done outside of a system. So we are back to foundations and superstructures again. We do not assess beliefs apart from their systems.


----------

