# The Presuppositional Defense of the Reliability of the Bible



## natewood3 (Mar 2, 2006)

What would a presuppositional defense of the Bible look like in practice? If someone objects to Christianity and says that they do not believe the Bible is the Word of God or historically reliable, how does a presuppositional defense differ from that of a classical or evidentialist approach?

Does Bahnsen have any articles or lectures on this that would be a good resource?

Nate


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 2, 2006)

I would ask the person to justify his stance. "Why, guy?" When I've asked before, I got complete irrationalism. "Oh, I just don't think the Bible is reliable, and that's all. I don't need a justification."

When you do get some supposed rational answer, you just show how useless and arbitrary it is. In the end, there is no reasonable excuse for rejecting Scripture and its authority. The excuse is based on the _a priori_ stance the person bears against the God of Scripture, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. There is no neutrality _vis a vis_ God and his Word.


----------



## crhoades (Mar 2, 2006)

Here are some good starting places:

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa044.htm
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt042.htm
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt006.htm
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt034.htm

Also check out Cornelius VanTil - Doctrine of Scripture - Vol. I in the Defense of the Faith Series


----------



## Civbert (Mar 2, 2006)

God's Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics by Gordon Clark.

From the website:


> This collection of essays on the inspiration, authority, and infallibility of the Bible is one of the best volumes on the subject available today. In the sixteenth century, sola Scriptura was the rallying cry of the Reformers; but it is rarely heard today. In the twentieth century the Bible was subjected to relentless attack by those who wish to erect another authority "“ the state, the clergy, tradition, or a professorial elite. It is at those Biblical subversives that Clark directs his devastating defense of the Bible.


----------



## crhoades (Mar 2, 2006)

And for giggles:

WCF I.IV

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; *but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.* {Insert Reductio Ad Absurdem here for anyone who disagrees}

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, *our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts*

And who said the WCF was not a presuppositional document and allowed for evidentialism?

[ducks the tomatoes]

[Edited on 3-2-2006 by crhoades]

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ron (Mar 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> And for giggles:
> 
> WCF I.IV
> ...



GHK affirmed these confessional statement as the foundation for his "axiom." Accordingly, Clark's Axiom was not a blind Axiom that he did not know was true. 

Ron

[Edited on 3-3-2006 by Ron]


----------



## natewood3 (Mar 3, 2006)

How would a presuppositional defense of the reliability of the Bible look different than the classical and evidentialist defenses? Would the presuppositional defense use evidence to prove that the Bible is truly what it says it is? Would the presuppositionalist _only_ appeal to the Bible to prove that the Bible is the Word of God?

Like I have said in the other thread I started, I am having a hard time applying presuppositionalism to the actual defense of the faith, which is probably because I haven't read enough on it yet...


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> How would a presuppositional defense of the reliability of the Bible look different than the classical and evidentialist defenses? Would the presuppositional defense use evidence to prove that the Bible is truly what it says it is? Would the presuppositionalist _only_ appeal to the Bible to prove that the Bible is the Word of God?
> 
> Like I have said in the other thread I started, I am having a hard time applying presuppositionalism to the actual defense of the faith, which is probably because I haven't read enough on it yet...



Ultimate authority claims. The classicist (most of them anyway, Warfield in particular) would use right reason to establish the ultimate authority of the bible.

Right reason is the ultimate authority but leads us to conclude that Christ is the ultimate authority. 

Flaws:
Schizophrenia of making Christ your final authority only after he has been authorized by right reason. If right reason is your ultimate authority then it will always be your ultimate authority. If right reason leads me to conclude that Jesus is the final authority then right reason must be satisfied that nothing Jesus said/did will contradict the dictates of right reason. Two ultimate principles are conceptually impossible. Right reason wouldn´t allow me to hold to the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc.


----------



## natewood3 (Mar 3, 2006)

So if someone asks, "Why do you believe the Bible is reliable and inspired?" and we simply respond that it is self-attesting and claims to be the Word of God on its own account, is there any way to further the debate if they simply reject the Bible's claims for itself or if they accuse us of circular reasoning?

I suppose that it is possible to turn the tables and argue that they must appeal to their ultimate authority to prove their ultimate authority so that circular reasoning is unavoidable when it comes to justifying ultimate presuppositions, but does that really prove that the Bible is the Word of God? Just because I reduce an unbeliever's position to absurdity, how does that necessarily prove that the Christian worldview is the correct worldview? How can we say that ALL worldviews are unable to account for intelligibility if we have not examined all the possible worldviews?

Once again, maybe I am missing some basic points I should already know...


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> So if someone asks, "Why do you believe the Bible is reliable and inspired?" and we simply respond that it is self-attesting and claims to be the Word of God on its own account, is there any way to further the debate if they simply reject the Bible's claims for itself or if they accuse us of circular reasoning?
> 
> I suppose that it is possible to turn the tables and argue that they must appeal to their ultimate authority to prove their ultimate authority so that circular reasoning is unavoidable when it comes to justifying ultimate presuppositions, but does that really prove that the Bible is the Word of God? Just because I reduce an unbeliever's position to absurdity, how does that necessarily prove that the Christian worldview is the correct worldview? How can we say that ALL worldviews are unable to account for intelligibility if we have not examined all the possible worldviews?
> ...



You are on the right track. Everyone has an ultimate authority claim. It is circular reasoning, but not all circles are valid. If you have to go beyond your ultimate authority to prove your ultimate authority, then it is no longer your ultimate authority. 

If you want to, take their ultimate authority and reduce it to absurdity. Granted, this isn't as easily done as said to be, but it is valid. 

Greg Bahnsen notes:


> Greg Bahnsen notes, "œThe Christian realizes that every argument chain must end in a self-authenticating starting point; every worldview has its unquestioned and unquestionable assumptions, its primitive commitments. All religious debate will develop into a question of ultimate authority."--Greg Bahnsen, ALWAYS READY, p. 69.


----------



## natewood3 (Mar 4, 2006)

Draught Horse,

So if my opponent rejects that my appealing to the Bible to prove the Bible's inspiration as circular, my next move is to prove that my opponent appeals to his/her ultimate authority as well to prove his/her presuppositions, which is exactly what he/she has accused me of doing. Once I have done this, I suppose I should show that the person is not justified in using such things as the laws of logic, morality, and science because his/her worldview cannot account for them, which is nothing more than an internal critique of my opponents worldview. Is the Van Tillian method to next ask my opponent to assume my worldview and show that my worldview can account for such laws and prove that it is coherent and reliable?

If I reduce my opponent's position to absurdity and show that his reasons for rejecting the Bible as the Word of God is irrational, does that necessarily prove that the Bible IS the Word of God just because my opponents worldview is irrational and absurd? Could not a Muslim reduce an atheist's worldview to absurdity and while not necessarily proving that his worldview is true or that the Quran was the Word of God?

Concerning the presuppositional method in general, why do they always worldviews cannot account for the laws of logic instead of using laws of morality? Do not the laws of logic imply morality? Since they do, could a presuppositional apologist begin by showing that they cannot account for the laws of morality? Or would this only work on an atheist, since I suppose that worldviews that have an ultimate standard of truth, such as Muslims and the Quran, can say that they CAN account for the laws of morality? However, even in a Muslim worldview, their idea of sin and morality causes many problems within their worldview, which I do not believe they can solve. Anyhow, I appreciate any answer you can give...


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Draught Horse,
> 
> So if my opponent rejects that my appealing to the Bible to prove the Bible's inspiration as circular, my next move is to prove that my opponent appeals to his/her ultimate authority as well to prove his/her presuppositions, which is exactly what he/she has accused me of doing. Once I have done this, I suppose I should show that the person is not justified in using such things as the laws of logic, morality, and science because his/her worldview cannot account for them, which is nothing more than an internal critique of my opponents worldview. Is the Van Tillian method to next ask my opponent to assume my worldview and show that my worldview can account for such laws and prove that it is coherent and reliable?



Yes.



> If I reduce my opponent's position to absurdity and show that his reasons for rejecting the Bible as the Word of God is irrational, does that necessarily prove that the Bible IS the Word of God just because my opponents worldview is irrational and absurd?



I believe so but this has been quite a debate here recently. I will try to get back to you on this. 


> Could not a Muslim reduce an atheist's worldview to absurdity and while not necessarily proving that his worldview is true or that the Quran was the Word of God?


He could, but its highly doubtful. The muslim god is not personal and that would make much of his argument flawed. Also, the Quran is riddle with open contradictions and internal consistencies.



> Concerning the presuppositional method in general, why do they always worldviews cannot account for the laws of logic instead of using laws of morality? Do not the laws of logic imply morality? Since they do, could a presuppositional apologist begin by showing that they cannot account for the laws of morality? Or would this only work on an atheist, since I suppose that worldviews that have an ultimate standard of truth, such as Muslims and the Quran, can say that they CAN account for the laws of morality? However, even in a Muslim worldview, their idea of sin and morality causes many problems within their worldview, which I do not believe they can solve. Anyhow, I appreciate any answer you can give...



It doesn't matter. You can use either laws of logic or laws or morality. Usually it is logic because that is what the god of modernity was. 
At this point you would continue to do the same thing that you have been doing. Take their ultimate standard, the Quran, and ask if Allah is so graet that nothing can be likened unto him (that's in the quran). He will say yes. Then say, "If nothing can be likened unto him, including human speech, then how can the quran eve say _that_?


----------



## natewood3 (Mar 4, 2006)

Draught Horse,




> I believe so but this has been quite a debate here recently. I will try to get back to you on this.



I would appreciate it. It is not that I think the Christian worldview is the only worldview that can make sense of reality and the world, but I am not sure if it actually proves the Christian worldview when you reduce another position to absurdity.

Is it possible to show an unbeliever that there are only two worldviews? I believe that on the basis of Scripture. Another thought that has came to my mind is what about those denominations or other "Christian" sects that disagree with what we as Reformed Christians would believe, such as unitarians, JW, Mormons, and possibly even Catholics and those who believe in a works salvaton? Can they argue presuppositionally and show an atheist that since their worldview is "Christian," it makes sense of the world just as a Reformed Christian would? Do we argue presuppositionally with other denominations?




> It doesn't matter. You can use either laws of logic or laws or morality. Usually it is logic because that is what the god of modernity was.



Does not Frame use a moral argument more so than an argument from the laws of logic argument in ATTGG? I understand that he believes the TAG is probably not enough in and of itself to prove Christianity true, but he seems to make use of the moral argument in a transcendental nature more than any other...

Sorry for so many questions, but when I begin to think on these things, question arise that I feel once they are answered, it would clear up alot of issues...so I really do appreciate your time and answers.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 4, 2006)

No, you are raising good questions taht all presupps have to deal with. With all due respect to Brother Frame (and I have benefitted tremendously from his works), I do not think his criticisms of TAG are substantial. I plan to relisten to a lot of Bahnsen lectures on TAg and I will throw some things out here concerning ultimate claims, worldviews, etc. Many will disagree but it will get a lot of people thinking the right sort of questions.


----------



## natewood3 (Mar 4, 2006)

Well, I have never really studied philosophy or logic, so I may be ignorant to alot of what I shouldn't be, but I have just become interested in apologetics in the last 6 or 7 months, so I am trying to learn all I can. I am in my second semester at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary working on my M.Div in Biblical and Theological Studies, so it is hard to have time to read all that I want to read on apologetics with all my other studies. When I found this forum a few days ago, it started answering alot of questions as well as raising alot of questions. I have benefited alot from some of Paul Manata's earlier posts concerning presuppositionalism, as well as from your posts. 

As of right now, I have not had time to get any of Bahnsen or Van Till books, but I have read some of Bahsen's articles and have started listening to some of his lectures. Anyway, I appreciate your responses, being as I need someone who I can ask these questions and get an answer...


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Well, I have never really studied philosophy or logic, so I may be ignorant to alot of what I shouldn't be, but I have just become interested in apologetics in the last 6 or 7 months, so I am trying to learn all I can. I am in my second semester at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary working on my M.Div in Biblical and Theological Studies, so it is hard to have time to read all that I want to read on apologetics with all my other studies. When I found this forum a few days ago, it started answering alot of questions as well as raising alot of questions. I have benefited alot from some of Paul Manata's earlier posts concerning presuppositionalism, as well as from your posts.
> 
> As of right now, I have not had time to get any of Bahnsen or Van Till books, but I have read some of Bahsen's articles and have started listening to some of his lectures. Anyway, I appreciate your responses, being as I need someone who I can ask these questions and get an answer...



The more philosophy you know (and I don't know that much. I have only taken a history of philosophy class, philosphy of religion, and logic) the better. the best bahnsen book, practically speaking, is ALWAYS READY. Van Til's good, if you can understand him. Just curious, what lectures are you listening to? His best ones, I think, are:

1) Short Synopsis of Van Til
2) Van Til Seminar
3) Transcendental Arguments (you have to have this oen to really understand and work with TAG)
4) Theistic Proofs, Rationality, and Fideism.
5) The first 3 or 4 tapes in his Philosophy of Christianity are phenomenal. He really takes the rationalism-irrationalism tension and implodes non-christian thought.

granted, rts, surprisingly*, has most of these, so that helps on the cost.


*I said surprisingly because a lot of the lectures have crucial tapes conveniently missing, so they pull the whole set and I don't get to listen to any of it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 4, 2006)

I have found the following quite helpful. 

Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen note that metanarratives make a total claim upon the lives of their hearers. Seeing the value of such an approach for missions, they note,


> "They [stories] offer answers to the origin and destiny of world history"¦and human life within it. The Bible is universal history"¦It is the true story of the world, and all other stories are at best partial narratives, which must be understood within the context of the biblical story"¦Since both stories (Christian and non-Christian) make comprehensive and absolute claims, only one story can be the basic and foundational story for life."



(Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen, "Story and Biblical Theology," _Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 151-152, emphasis added. The authors go on to add, "Worldviews operate at the presuppositional and precognitive level and have to do with the ultimate concerns that grip people's lives" (155). ).


----------



## natewood3 (Mar 4, 2006)

Draught Horse,

I didn't take any kind of logic of philosophy class in college, except a Christian worldview class, which was just an introduction. My wife goes to Murray State University, and I have considered taking a logic class and possibily an intro to philosophy class in the summer. I have to order a couple books for my Church History class (Revival and Revivalism and also Theology of the Reformers, ya read either of them?), so I might go ahead and order Always Ready while I am placing the order. Amazon.com has a deal where you can get both Always Ready and Van Til's Apologetic for $40. Would you recommend me getting VTA and reading it after Always Ready, or should I read some of Van Til's books first before reading VTA?

As far as lectures, I had started downloading College Preparation in Apologetics just as an introduction, but I also found Challenging Unbelief from a website for free, so I was gonna try to listen to that first...


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Draught Horse,
> 
> I didn't take any kind of logic of philosophy class in college, except a Christian worldview class, which was just an introduction. My wife goes to Murray State University, and I have considered taking a logic class and possibily an intro to philosophy class in the summer. I have to order a couple books for my Church History class (Revival and Revivalism and also Theology of the Reformers, ya read either of them?), so I might go ahead and order Always Ready while I am placing the order. Amazon.com has a deal where you can get both Always Ready and Van Til's Apologetic for $40. Would you recommend me getting VTA and reading it after Always Ready, or should I read some of Van Til's books first before reading VTA?
> ...



I would hold off on VTA for a while. I would get more comfortable with that line of thinking. Same with Van Til books. But once you think you are ready, go for it. Most definitely get ALWAYS READY.

I have read Revial and Revivalism. It is good.


----------



## Ron (Mar 4, 2006)

> If I reduce my opponent's position to absurdity and show that his reasons for rejecting the Bible as the Word of God is irrational, does that necessarily prove that the Bible IS the Word of God just because my opponents worldview is irrational and absurd? Could not a Muslim reduce an atheist's worldview to absurdity and while not necessarily proving that his worldview is true or that the Quran was the Word of God?



Good question, Nate. No, by showing that one system is arbitrary and inconsistent another system is not shown to be necessarly true. 

1. However, if there are ultimately two worldviews then all non-Christian worldviews posit that intelligible experience is possible apart from God´s revelation. Accordingly, all we need to do is refute the arbitrariness and inconsistency of the one non-Christian worldview, leaving the Christian worldview as the only one that provides the necessary precondition for intelligible experience. 

2. Donald Davidson, "On the Very Idea of Conceptual Scheme," in_ Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation_ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984) pp. 183-98, argues that in order to argue something as an alternative conceptual scheme, we would need to map it according to our own conceptual scheme. If we are unable to do so, then we cannot properly call the hypothetical conceptual scheme a "conceptual scheme" since it would be unrecognizable as such to us. 

3. Let's consider a conceptual scheme that apes Christianity and posits for instance:

An _absolute_ God: who makes _ethics_ possible

A God of unity and diversity (e.g. _Triune -- three persons on God_): who unifies particulars of human experience (i.e. brings _unity to diversity_)

A _Sovereign_ God who governs providence: who _makes science possible_

An _all-powerful and good _ God: who _creates_ our minds and the world, so there can be a fruitful connection between the two, allowing us to _trust our senses_

In such cases, objection 3 is no objection at all, for it is simply parroting the Christian worldview and changing nothing. (Please note the relationships emphasized above in italics.)

3.1) If the opponent changes something within the worldview that is "œsignificant", then we'd have to know the specifics. A significant change, however, would no doubt impinge upon other doctrines since the Christian doctrine is systematic. Would this significant change disrupt coherence within the worldview? First off, the opponent cannot answer this question since he is not acquainted with the conceptual scheme to begin with. Accordingly, we cannot subject the worldview in question to an internal critique. (Bring on the next non-hypothetical competitor, we might say.) The real rub, however, is that one would be using rationality in order to posit a hypothetical conceptual scheme, yet without warrant for rationality. If one is willing to stand up to the microphone and say, "œI have no basis for my reasoning" the apologist´s work is done. After all, such a person who denies reason cannot give credence the an argument for God´s existence. 

3.2) If they change something "œinsignificant", like remove Jude from the Bible, then they have not introduced a relevantly different worldview. All they would have done is to have counterfactually about the Christian canon.

(With respect to 3.1 and 3.2, if one changes something significant, then I would think that the worldview would not be coherent, since Christianity is systematic and one doctrine impinges on another. In any case, he´d have to give us something to critique. If he changes something insignificant, then I´d say that he has aped Christianity and posited our worldview.) 

Since man knows that God exists through general revelation, can man justify knowledge by the use of general revelation apart from Scripture? I have no doubt that he _cannot_. Although man knows God and is guilty before him, he cannot account for this knowledge. The best way to internalize this notion is not for me to explain it, but to think about how man could justify knowledge apart from the Scriptures, which speak of God as the one who created our minds and the world, and has provided the fruitful connection between the two. 

Apart from Scripture, one might posit a creator-God in order to save himself philosophically from skepticism, but what would be the end result? The end result would be a "œnecessary conceptual scheme", but would this conceptual scheme be true or merely a convention to organize experience? As Mike Butler has noted, "œthe necessity of a conceptual scheme cannot guarantee anything about the way the world must be; for while such a scheme may organize our experience, it itself is dumb and mute and cannot, definitionally, tell us anything about the world itself"¦" In other words, conceptual necessity does not equate to ontological necessity. Accordingly, God´s revelation in Scripture is needed to interpret God´s revelation in nature. The only way we can begin to tackle the problem of the one and the many found in ethics, reality and knowledge, is to begin with God´s revelation in Scripture and apply it to his revelation in the world. This is how we can justify that there is a real, mind-independent world that is intelligible. God must tell us so. 

Unconverted men are justified in their true beliefs. They have knowledge. However, they cannot give an account for what they know. They believe God exists; it is true that God exists; and they are justified because God has revealed this truth to their consciences. Accordingly, they know God exists. However, they cannot justify this knowledge that they have. They know, but they cannot articulate a justification for what they know! We need Scripture to speak to us about this world and our place in it.

As for a formal argument, that's no problem. The question is whether the unbeliever will accept our ultimate authority, Scripture. If he doesn't, our argument does not become philosophically unsound.

In his grace,

Ron


----------



## natewood3 (Mar 5, 2006)

Ron,

What about those worldviews that seem to have an ultimate authority, such as Muslims or Mormons? Would they not appeal to God's revelation? Why is it that they could not argue presuppositionally as Reformed Christians try to do?

Even though I have asked the questions above and I am looking for an answer, I do understand that those worldviews are internally incoherent...I suppose another way to ask what I am wanting to know is how do we argue against those have an ultimate authority to appeal to and who would seemingly have an answer for why there can be universals laws, since they do not deny the existence of God?

It seems that the TAG works best on materialist and atheists. I do not see how presuppositionalism would differ from the traditional method when debating worldviews who do not deny the existence of God, such as Muslims. It seems there is nothing more than an internal critique of their worldview, which is what the traditional method would seem to do. Maybe I am missing something...if so, please fill me in.

Nate


----------



## Ron (Mar 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Ron,
> 
> What about those worldviews that seem to have an ultimate authority, such as Muslims or Mormons? Would they not appeal to God's revelation? Why is it that they could not argue presuppositionally as Reformed Christians try to do?



Nate,

If they are appealing to God's revelation in a sound fashion, then they'd be giving the right answer. Even infidels can parrot truth.



> It seems that the TAG works best on materialist and atheists. I do not see how presuppositionalism would differ from the traditional method when debating worldviews who do not deny the existence of God, such as Muslims.



Traditional methods are always fallacious deductive arguments with inductive premises. Evidentialism is inductive at its core but without grounds for induction.

Thoughts?

Good Lord's Day!

Ron


----------



## natewood3 (Mar 5, 2006)

Ron,



> Traditional methods are always fallacious deductive arguments with inductive premises. Evidentialism is inductive at its core but without grounds for induction.



Could you give me an illustration of these two examples, if you don't mind?

Also, I asked: how do we argue against those have an ultimate authority to appeal to and who would seemingly have an answer for why there can be universals laws, since they do not deny the existence of God?

You may have already answered this, and I am just not seeing it...


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Ron,
> 
> 
> ...



1. Evidentialism is based, partly, on the uniformity of nature. But to argue for the resurrection, they must temporarily abandon the uniformity of nature. In short, they are using the uniformity of nature to argue against the uniformtiy of nature (ie, the Resurrection).

2. New Revelation must be in harmony with previous revelation (Dt, Revelation 22). Muslims say that they believe in Moses, the Psalms, and Jesus. Good. They believe Jesus was a Son of God. Good. Given that they hold to previous revelation, they must then agree with its conclusions, but here they backtrack. They now deny, based upon newer revelation, that Christ died on a cross. Ergo, contradiction. They now have a contradiction in their premises. Of course, they will now say that the prior revelation was wrong, but taht is begging the question and denies one of their other claims, namely, that they indeed believe in Moses, Psalms, and Jesus.

2a. see Paul manata's critique of Islam http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_presstheantithesis_archive.html
2b. You used the phrase, "claim they have an ultimate standard." press them on this. The Islamic god cannot provide the preconditions of intelligibility. He is a monad and devoid of personality. Etc. etc. The mormon god is also finite.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by natewood3_
> ...



This is from Paul's site;



> It is also interesting to note that the Koran calls the Bible the "Word of God" (S. 2:75). Regarding the word of God being able to be changed, or texts altered, the Koran has this to say:
> 
> "No change can there be in the words of Allah" (Sura 10:64).
> 
> ...


----------



## Ron (Mar 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Ron,
> 
> 
> ...



Nate,

The traditional cosmological argument fallaciously moves from the premise that every effect has a cause to the conclusion that the world must be caused. The issue of debate, however, is whether the world is an effect or not! If the world is not an effect, then God cannot be the first cause of the world. If God can be eternal without an antecedent-cause, then why not the world? Moreover, the Cosmological argument not only presupposes causality without justification, it fallaciously moves from observable natural causes, which are inductively assumed, to a supernatural, non-physical first cause. More than that, it posits one-single spiritual cause without proving that there aren´t multiple first causes. Finally, the argument concludes that the first single cause must be Divine, which well exceeds the scope of the premises.

As for inductive arguments, let me offer you this wonderful article by the late Dr. Bahnsen. http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PA003.htm 

I agree with the article, so if you have any questions I think I can field them.

Blessings,

Ron


----------



## natewood3 (Mar 5, 2006)

Draught Horse and Ron,

Thanks for the comments.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 5, 2006)

Btw, nate, every question you have just asked I also asked Paul Manata. If we can't field every question, it wouldn't hurt to read a lot of manata's old posts in the apologetics et al sections.


----------



## natewood3 (Mar 5, 2006)

Draught Horse,

It makes me feel better than I am not the only one asking seemingly obvious answers to everyone else here! I actually have went through and read quite a bit of Paul's old posts (BTW, does he post here anymore). They have been helpful, and alot of what I have asked has come from reading some of his posts. I cannot say that I always understand exactly everything you or Paul or Ron say in your post as of right now, but I think I have learned alot within just the past week of reading alot of what has been posted. I plan to teach in seminary when I am finished with school (which will be sometime from now), and I will be 22 in April, so I feel I have alot of time to figure alot of this out before I finish my degrees. I sometimes wonder if I will ever learned as much as people like Bahnsen or even someone like Michael Butler, because it really seems impossible at this moment to understand the Christian worldview, as well as other worldviews as well as they do. I am not sure that I would teach apologetics, but I have been really thinking seriously about it the more I study it...

How long have you been a student at RTS?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 5, 2006)

1. I have been at RTS for 1.5 semesters now.
2. You will never learn as much as Bahnsen. Few will. When he went to take his PhD exams, he had 5 semester to take 5 eight hour exams. He took them all in one week and passed with the highest score possible! He would stay up until 4 or in the morning doing doctorate level research and then teach 8 hours the next day. Nothing phased him. But we are not called to his level of learning, only to his level of faithfulness to the gospel. So, you and I should take heart.
3. Paul doesn't post here anymore. He is quite active with his blog, finishing up school, and of course, he just got married!!!!!!!! Rock on, Paul!

4. Email me sometime and I can go into more detail on apologetics et al without getting sidetracked here.

Take care, brother


----------



## natewood3 (Mar 5, 2006)

Draught Horse,

I am in my second semester at Southern...

I didn't really mean that I expect to learn anything like Bahnsen, because God hasn't gifted me with his kind of intelligence, but even most of my seminary professors are pretty intelligent for the most part and are knowledgable about most things. I just find it hard to see myself that knowledgable in 10 years; I suppose it is possible with many hours of study and reading...

I will probably email you sometime soon...maybe within the next few days actually. I am sure you could tell me stuff I need to know and understand. BTW, I ordered Always Ready, and it will probably be here in a couple weeks...so I am sure I will have questions once I begin to read it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 2. You will never learn as much as Bahnsen. Few will. When he went to take his PhD exams, he had 5 semester to take 5 eight hour exams. He took them all in one week and passed with the highest score possible! He would stay up until 4 or in the morning doing doctorate level research and then teach 8 hours the next day. Nothing phased him.



To add insult to injury. When he was teaching at RTS he required his students to do the amount of reading that Southern Cal required of him in philosophy: He said that graduate level students should be able to read 2 pages per minute (and he had in mine Kant, Hegel, etc). His students said that wasn't possible, so he relented to a page a minute.

Just for giggles, time yourself next time you read hard-core theology.


----------



## natewood3 (Mar 7, 2006)

Draught Horse,

It is obvious that God gifted Bahnsen with an intelligence level far beyond most. He reminds me of people like Edwards or Spurgeon, who accomplished more in their lifetime than we could ever imagine accomplishing. It is ridiculous the level of study that was normal for those men, including Bahnsen. I suppose it takes that kind of diligence and perseverance to become anything close to what they were...


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Draught Horse,
> 
> It is obvious that God gifted Bahnsen with an intelligence level far beyond most. He reminds me of people like Edwards or Spurgeon, who accomplished more in their lifetime than we could ever imagine accomplishing. It is ridiculous the level of study that was normal for those men, including Bahnsen. I suppose it takes that kind of diligence and perseverance to become anything close to what they were...



My claims to fame is that I once read 100 pages of ridderbos in an hour, with decent comprehension.

[Edited on 3--7-06 by Draught Horse]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> My claims to fame is that I once read 100 pages of ridderbos in an hour, with decent comprehension.



I want your secret!


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



Driven by fear and a desire to get it over with (it was the last chapter and a half, or so, in the book). That, and I had a test on it the next day.


----------



## natewood3 (Mar 7, 2006)

Here is another question that came to mind...

When we argue for the _reliability_ of the OT and NT, how we use evidence in a way that does not make the Scriptures inferior? How we use evidence presuppositionally and non-autonomously?

It is obvious from that the OT and NT manuscripts are in fact reliable, but the rub is how do we use that evidence in such a way that we are not testing Scripture's reliability by some outside standard?

[Edited on 3-8-2006 by natewood3]


----------



## Ron (Mar 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Here is another question that came to mind...
> 
> When we argue for the _reliability_ of the OT and NT, how we use evidence in a way that does not make the Scriptures inferior? How we use evidence presuppositionally and non-autonomously?
> ...



You'll remember that in Bahnsen's debate with Stein, GB noted that there are all sorts of evidences for God's existence but that evidence will always be interpreted according to one's pre-commitments. Accordingly, although we can give these "indicators," outside the Christian worldview they will not be accepted; so rather than look at the "facts," which cannot be "brute facts," we must deal with the philosophy of fact.

Ron


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 9, 2006)

another slogan that is helpful:
Brute facts are mute facts


----------



## Ron (Mar 9, 2006)

....we want to make sure that we don't communicate that man simply needs more evidence, for such would imply that man does not already know that which he rejects (and make God out to be a liar). Secondly, we don't want to communicate that we come to "know" by inference as opposed to revelation. Within that framework, one may properly show the rationality of Christianity, but always in the light that rationality presupposes the Christian worldview......ron


----------



## Civbert (Mar 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> ....we want to make sure that we don't communicate that man simply needs more evidence, for such would imply that man does not already know that which he rejects (and make God out to be a liar). Secondly, we don't want to communicate that we come to "know" by inference as opposed to revelation. Within that framework, one may properly show the rationality of Christianity, but always in the light that rationality presupposes the Christian worldview......ron



Except for your last clause, I agree. I think in a sense, we become aware of the things we already know through inference. Much of what we know, we are not aware of. The knolwedge is there in our minds, but we do not always access that information. Sometimes reason is be used to draw that knowledge forward. It can also be used to seperate knowledge from opinion.

It's not unlike the way you will forget someone's name. You know the name, but you can not recall it.


----------



## natewood3 (Mar 10, 2006)

Ron,

I have already began to find that people interpret the "facts" according to their worldview. Most will presuppose God does not exist when arguing that God does not exist. Their worldview would not allow for God to exist, just as it would not allow for the resurrection, etc.

I think I am starting to understand more of presuppositionalism and what it teaches. I am at least beginning to discuss it without having to ask question after question. You and Jacob have been a big help, although it is by the grace of God that we know anything.:bigsmile:


----------



## Ron (Mar 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Ron,
> 
> I have already began to find that people interpret the "facts" according to their worldview. Most will presuppose God does not exist when arguing that God does not exist. Their worldview would not allow for God to exist, just as it would not allow for the resurrection, etc.
> ...



Excellent! Hard work and lots of prayer.

Ron


----------

