# For Presuppositionalists Only



## cupotea (Dec 5, 2003)

I have a question. It's not a trick question, but it IS one that I am intrigued by. I am not a presuppositionalist, but I am not really well acquainted with it either. I do have a strong love for Gordon Clark and his book &quot;The Christian View of God and Men,&quot; but I'm not really sure what to think, yet. Here is my question:

How would you answer a person whom you are witnessing to who tells you that he thinks the Bible contradicts itself, for example, they say, &quot;The Bible contradicts itself because one Gospel says Judas hung himself, but Acts says that Judas' guts spilled out onto the field.&quot;

This is a simple question, it seems to me, but would a presuppositionalist deal with this question any differently than an evidentialist? My friend who is a Classical Apologist seems to think so.


----------



## cupotea (Dec 5, 2003)

Please forgive me, everyone. I just realized that I posted this under &quot;General Discussion&quot; when I should have put this topic under &quot;Apologetics.&quot;


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2003)

Nope no differently. 

If four people tell the same story, they will tell it each from their own perspective.

The thomist and the presuppositionalist will say the same thing.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Dec 5, 2003)

On this whole matter of alleged &quot;contradictions&quot; in the Bible, we should remember that the Bible does not ever claim absolute precision in historical details. John Frame's discussion of inerrancy is extremely helpful.


----------



## Preach (Dec 9, 2003)

What is Vantil's apologetic (biblical apologetics) in a nutshell? &quot;Anti-theism presupposes theism&quot;. Anyone who can unpack these three words probably has a good idea what biblical presuppositional apologetics is all about


----------



## 2legit2quit (May 31, 2004)

Paul, refering to your comment about how the Christian worldview is the *only* worldview that accounts for the laws of logic, can you explain to me how the Jewish (by Jewish I mean the modern form(s) of Judaism) worldview doesn't make sense of the laws of logic?


----------



## AnonymousRex (Jun 7, 2004)

[quote:9db1ef5e73][i:9db1ef5e73]Originally posted by Preach[/i:9db1ef5e73]
What is Vantil's apologetic (biblical apologetics) in a nutshell? &quot;Anti-theism presupposes theism&quot;. Anyone who can unpack these three words probably has a good idea what biblical presuppositional apologetics is all about [/quote:9db1ef5e73]

Based on my understanding, this has much to do with laws of logic (among other things), about which Greg Bahnsen waxes so eloquently in his debate with Dr. Stein. 

For the atheist to validate her* position, she must furnish proof, and to do this she must exercise reason, and to do this she must utilize laws of logic. The problem is, according to Bahnsen, that the atheistic worldview, as materialistic as it is, cannot adequately account for these (inherently abstract and invisible) laws. Only the Christian worldview can account for them. Therefore, in using these laws of logic to defend her postulation, the atheist is presupposing their reliability (otherwise she wouldn't be using them), and in doing that, she must necessarily be presupposing the truth of the only worldview in which these laws have any meaning and coherence. In fact, I could go one step further by saying that only Christianity can vouch for such categories as &quot;meaning&quot; and &quot;coherence&quot; , but now we're getting really abstract and I don't know if God has gifted me with enough intelligence to offer comprehensive explanation  .

Of course, the presuppositionalist must establish how it is that laws of logic are explicable only in the Christian framework. To do this, she must demonstrate the impossibility of the contrary. In other words, she must confirm how every other epistemological system fails to account for laws of logic, therefore establishing the validity of the one left standing: Christian theism.

I'm sure this will leave you with more questions than answers as it has with me. 

AnonRex


*I'm using the feminine third person pronoun out of sensitivity to those who feel strongly about this (you know who you are).


----------



## AnonymousRex (Jun 7, 2004)

Paul,

[quote:e74ffccbab]First, there are only two worldviews, or else one can always say... well there may be X worldview out there that can account for logic, etc. Also, it is not just a last man standing. You need to show how logic is intelligible on our worldview, hence the &quot;two-fold&quot; method of Bahnsen et al. Van Til says that after we show that the unbeliever could not make sense of a given &quot;fact&quot; that we then need to show him that on our worldview the facts and laws are made intelligible.[/quote:e74ffccbab]

Based on my understanding, demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary automatically establishes the validity of our own worldview. In other words, disproving the antithesis proves the thesis. You seem to demonstrate this in the first part of this paragraph by suggesting that for TAG to work there can be only two worldviews with which to contend. Since the alternative explanation allows for both to be wrong, then only two worldviews therefore truly exist.

Assuming that what you're saying is true, how then does one prove that Christianity is the only system that accounts for laws of logic apart from demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary?

AnonRex


----------



## AnonymousRex (Jun 7, 2004)

Paul,

I see what you mean, but I guess I have difficulty understanding how one goes about doing this without lapsing into evidentialism (i.e. &quot;here are incontestable proofs that Christianity is true that any rational mind would accept&quot where logic is presupposed as existing apart from God.

Also, how can one be an atheist and not a materialist? 

Now I'm the one who's hit a brick wall with this.

AnonRex

[Edited on 6-8-2004 by AnonymousRex]


----------



## JohnV (Jun 7, 2004)

[quote:50d48506c2][i:50d48506c2]Originally posted by AnonymousRex[/i:50d48506c2]
Paul,

I see what you mean, but I guess I have difficulty understanding how one goes about doing this without lapsing into evidentialism (i.e. &quot;here are incontestable proofs that Christianity is true that any rational mind would accept&quot where logic is presupposed as existing apart from God.

Also, how can one be an atheist and not a materialist? 

Now I'm the one who's hit a brick wall with this.

AnonRex[/quote:50d48506c2]

May I ask, AR, how it is that you define evidentialism in such a way that if includes: &quot;logic is presupposed as existing apart from God&quot;? I'm just curious. Because, you see, I'm variously viewed as being either evidentialist or classicist, but I have never seen that as inherent in either one. Is logic under the sole propreitorship of Presuppositionalism, in your view?


----------



## AnonymousRex (Jun 8, 2004)

John,

[quote:6561fe1051]May I ask, AR, how it is that you define evidentialism in such a way that if includes: &quot;logic is presupposed as existing apart from God&quot;? I'm just curious. Because, you see, I'm variously viewed as being either evidentialist or classicist, but I have never seen that as inherent in either one. Is logic under the sole propreitorship of Presuppositionalism, in your view?[/quote:6561fe1051]

I phrased it that way because Michael Martin, in his critique of Greg Bahnsen, suggested that God &quot;created&quot; logic, and I disagree with this proposition. I do not believe that logic exists apart from God; rather, I believe that it is a reflection of God's character, since laws of logic are constant and unchanging. In the same way that God is love, God is truth (John 14:6). It is therefore not under the &quot;sole proprietorship&quot; of anyone. In other words, we can't &quot;own&quot; truth in the same sense that we can't &quot;own&quot; God. If you are in agreement with my opinion, then you and I have no quarrel over this issue. 

AnonRex

[Edited on 6-8-2004 by AnonymousRex]


----------



## AnonymousRex (Jun 8, 2004)

Paul,

[quote:f9c2bd6ae7]The structure of a positive transcendental argument is like this: if X is the case then Y is the case because Y is a precondition for X. X is the case therefore Y is the case. Now the form of modus ponens isn't what is unique. What is unique is the scope. We argue that every aspect of human experience is only intelligible upon our presuppositions. That is to say, TAs are broad in scope.[/quote:f9c2bd6ae7]

I guess this is where Van Til would state that all reasoning is inherently circular, because that is precisely what I see here. Now I am more certain that presuppositionalism is not easily concretized at all.

[quote:f9c2bd6ae7]Easy. They have an pluralistic ontology where material entities make up only one kind of entity in their ontology. Bertrand Russle, for example, did not believe that numbers were reducible to material states. Many atheists are not materialists.[/quote:f9c2bd6ae7]

Interesting. Now that I think about it, the Romans accused first-century Christians of &quot;atheism&quot; because they denied the existence of the Capitoline gods. It's a word that I suppose has a wide range of meaning. However, I don't believe anyone can be an &quot;atheist&quot; in the strictest sense of the word, because I believe everyone has what I call a &quot;theos&quot; principle, which doesn't necessarily entail a personal god, but this is just an aside.

AnonRex


----------



## JohnV (Jun 8, 2004)

[quote:5f2e2f4000][i:5f2e2f4000]Originally posted by AnonymousRex[/i:5f2e2f4000]
John,

[quote:5f2e2f4000]May I ask, AR, how it is that you define evidentialism in such a way that if includes: &quot;logic is presupposed as existing apart from God&quot;? I'm just curious. Because, you see, I'm variously viewed as being either evidentialist or classicist, but I have never seen that as inherent in either one. Is logic under the sole propreitorship of Presuppositionalism, in your view?[/quote:5f2e2f4000]

I phrased it that way because Michael Martin, in his critique of Greg Bahnsen, suggested that God &quot;created&quot; logic, and I disagree with this proposition. I do not believe that logic exists apart from God; rather, I believe that it is a reflection of God's character, since laws of logic are constant and unchanging. In the same way that God is love, God is truth (John 14:6). It is therefore not under the &quot;sole proprietorship&quot; of anyone. In other words, we can't &quot;own&quot; truth in the same sense that we can't &quot;own&quot; God. If you are in agreement with my opinion, then you and I have no quarrel over this issue. 

AnonRex[/quote:5f2e2f4000]

You know me, AR, I wouldn't quarrel with you.

I would agree with you whole-heartedly. As long, of course, as you agree that in the sense in which we do own God, or rather are owned by God, we own logic and truth too. God has given us His truth as a gift. It is ours. But it does not change in character in the holding of it. It is we who are the weak vessel, not the truth.


----------



## Saiph (Jun 8, 2004)

God did create logic.

God is not limited by logic, because logic is linear and three dimensional.

God's gnosis is supra-logical.

Logic merely reflects some infinitesimal aspect of order, instead of chaos.

God communicates to the creature in a creaturely measure.
So he speaks within a framework of logic. Yet there are truths that reveal a higher, unlimited understanding. Like the incarnation, determinism/free will, virgin birth, resurrection, Trinity.

These transcend logic.

If you think God's thoughts are logical you are worshipping an idol.

God only speaks to us through the temporal conduit of logic.


----------



## JohnV (Jun 8, 2004)

Mark:
I disagree. But we may not be talking about the same thing. I hold that truth is rooted in God's very character, and that it is necessarily self-consistent. That is logic. It is a tool of truth's knowability, a characteristic of truth itself, and not something that was added in the creation. It speaks to the relationship of truths. I think you are referring to cognitive ability, which indeed was created. In that sense logic is an attribute of the human senses working in concert with the ability of thought. As such it is far below the ability to reach to height of God's absolutes. 

The reason I hold to the former is that I believe that all that God does is ultimately reasonable and is consistent with His will, even if it transcends our ideas of logic. So, in essence, our logic is not necessarily always logical, for it is not always consistent with truth. So a limited extent to logic in a fathomless truth seems to be not logic at all.


----------



## Saiph (Jun 8, 2004)

[quote:cc49a28855]
I hold that truth is rooted in God's very character, and that it is necessarily self-consistent. That is logic.[/quote:cc49a28855]

Truth != Logic

I can make logical statemants all day that are not valid.

And, not all truth is logical.

The incarnation is true.
Yet it is also illogical.

How can one being, be totally man and totally God at the same time ?

How can three persons share one being ? ?

How can you explain mathematically, scientifically and logically the virgin birth ? ?

Logic works when the knowledge is empyrical, but not when it is spiritual or &quot;covenantal&quot;.


----------



## JohnV (Jun 8, 2004)

[quote:bfe175c77f][i:bfe175c77f]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:bfe175c77f]
[quote:bfe175c77f]
I hold that truth is rooted in God's very character, and that it is necessarily self-consistent. That is logic.[/quote:bfe175c77f]

Truth != Logic

I can make logical statemants all day that are not valid.

And, not all truth is logical.

The incarnation is true.
Yet it is also illogical.

How can one being, be totally man and totally God at the same time ?

How can three persons share one being ? ?

How can you explain mathematically, scientifically and logically the virgin birth ? ?

Logic works when the knowledge is empyrical, but not when it is spiritual or &quot;covenantal&quot;. [/quote:bfe175c77f]

Mark: 
As I said, I think that we are working with two different idea here. I'll tell you what my idea of it is. I don't believe that God conforms to truth, for that would insinuate that truth is higher than God. What I do believe is that all that God does is true, and therefore something like the virgin birth is not untrue or inconsistent with truth. It may be new to us, and may seem to transcend our norms for truth, but it is not untrue or inconsistent. In fact, the virgin birth is marvelously consistent, and wondrously true. 

But I sure would like to know how you can make logical statements that are not valid, make them all day long, and still have a notion of logic = truth. You're talking about limited formal structure, but the as yet unfilled barrel of exceptions, which we call logical fallacies, is a clear testimony of the open-endedness of our understanding of what the extent of logic is. 

It is for that reason that you can make invalid logical statements all day long, because the truth value in many cases is unknown or not involved. In these cases the interest of logic is not truth itself, but it's own form. But in the end that is not what logic really is. Logic is a tool we have that derives from the unity of truth, the charater of truth itself. The attributes of truth allow us to reason, and that is what I call logic. Conforming to God's Word is more logical than conforming to our understanding of the form of this world, where we percieve that they contradict. So the Trinity, the Two nature/One Person Christ, the virgin birth, they are logical; our understanding that forbids such things must be illogical. For the fact remains that they are true, whether or not we comprehend them. They are most reasonable. God's doings and thoughts are reasonable; ours are not. We live in a world of God's paradigms; it is not God working in a world of our paradigms. Our understanding has to conform to God' revelation of Himself; not God's revelation conform to our standards. 

At least, this is the idea I'm working with so far. It helps me to submit all my perceptions to His Word and His revelation of Himself in nature. Maybe in the world's eyes I am grossly illogical, but I'd rather be that and follow my Lord than follow the world's lead and make God my servant, either in interpretation of His Word, or in reasoning it into my life's situations.


----------



## AnonymousRex (Jun 8, 2004)

Mark,

It is dangerous to suggest that God &quot;created&quot; logic because all that God creates is contingent upon Him and subject to change. If laws of logic were subject to change then they would be self-contradictory, which is inconceivable. &quot;A&quot; can never be &quot;non-A.&quot; Also, if laws of logic exist apart from God's character then nothing He says is meaningful; &quot;coherence&quot; would constantly be re-defined and a simple statement such as &quot;thou shalt not murder&quot; would be incomprehensible.

Besides, there are no passages in Scripture that suggest this, whereas there are others that state that He &quot;is truth&quot; (e.g. John 14:6).

AnonRex


----------



## Saiph (Jun 8, 2004)

Yes Iam saying logic and ethics are created and contingent by nature.

However, He has explained to us the nature of these things will remain until the new heaven and new earth.
And He does not lie.

We need not fear their contingency.

(For instance, a law like thou shalt not commit adultery will have no meaning in the eternal state. Since there will be no marriage. Also, there would be no need of a sabbath either I guess.)


----------



## AnonymousRex (Jun 9, 2004)

Mark,

[quote:537be42935]However, He has explained to us the nature of these things will remain until the new heaven and new earth.
And He does not lie.[/quote:537be42935]

Where in Scripture does God say this?

[quote:537be42935]We need not fear their contingency.[/quote:537be42935]

I'm assuming that both of us respect that only God does not change. Everything he has created that is necessarily contingent upon him changes in one manner or another. Having stated this, I must ask you: in what way could, for example, the law of non-contradiction, if it is created as you suggest, change without evolving into something contradistinctive to its original form? (in other words, to the point where &quot;a&quot; [i:537be42935]is[/i:537be42935] &quot;non-a&quot;?)

[quote:537be42935](For instance, a law like thou shalt not commit adultery will have no meaning in the eternal state. Since there will be no marriage. Also, there would be no need of a sabbath either I guess.) [/quote:537be42935]

These laws will be fulfilled in the glorified state in the same way that ceremonial laws in the Old Testament were fulfilled in Christ. That does not mean that these laws that have been fulfilled cease to have meaning. If anything, we will have an even greater (a full) understanding of what not committing adultery truly entails in heaven, just as we have a fuller understanding of dietary laws in the context of the new covenant and Christ's work on the cross.

AnonRex


----------



## Saiph (Jun 9, 2004)

There are different laws governing the holy angels and fallen angels.

And the laws He has given us do not apply to either of them.

Animals also live within different moral categories.

We cannot act as the animals do in many things without violation the Decalogue.

Making ethics or logic contingent in no way diminishes the immutability of God.

But to say they are part of His nature or attributes limits God.

I am willing to say the laws of logic in some way reflect the perfect holy reason and will of God, and the same goes for ethics and His character. But He is not bound by them in any way, nor are they the fulness of His attributes displayed.

If creation does not exist, logic and ethics do not exist.

God does not think, in the sense of linear progression through equations or syllogisms. He eternally knows. 
It is sheer folly if not blasphemy to presume to comprehend the wisdom and methods of that knowledge. To say God uses logic is absurd. logis is not eternal, it is temporal and linear.

And the same goes for ethics. He is not bound by any moral law because there is no one for Him to sin against. His nature, and character, being perfect, has no dilemma in the sense that we find within ourselves. He is only good, only self-willed, and perfectly content within the bliss of His own eternal being.

We must live by laws generated from outside ourselves. He does not. Again I will admit the ethics of Scripture in some small measure reflect His character, but they are not the sum of it.


----------



## Saiph (Jun 9, 2004)

I withdraw my statement.

Whether logic is created or not I do not know.

I just think that to say God thinks logically is silly.
Logic is always linear, and I cannot imagine God working through syllogisms in His mind.

Logic, as we know it, merely reflects some infinitesimal aspect of Divine wisdom.


----------



## AnonymousRex (Jun 9, 2004)

Mark,

[quote:92757b7ebf]Whether logic is created or not I do not know.

I just think that to say God thinks logically is silly.
Logic is always linear, and I cannot imagine God working through syllogisms in His mind.

Logic, as we know it, merely reflects some infinitesimal aspect of Divine wisdom. [/quote:92757b7ebf]

I hope I have not come across as someone who claims to know the full extent of God's mind, and if I have, I apologize. Some of what you have said has caused me to think through my position more indepthly, and I would agree that logic is not the sum and substance of who God is. With respect to your final statement, you and I are in full agreement.

AnonRex


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2004)

Can God make a stone so big he can't lift it? If not, why not?

Curious


----------



## JohnV (Jun 10, 2004)

Mark:
Sorry, but this thread is &quot;for Presuppositionalists only.&quot; I'm not one, so I will forbear to answer. How's that for a cop-out?


----------



## AnonymousRex (Jun 10, 2004)

Westmin,

[quote:1b230c2ea2]Can God make a stone so big he can't lift it?[/quote:1b230c2ea2]

I'm assuming that this question is an attempt to scrutinize what I have said on this board. As Van Til himself would no doubt say, &quot;no matter.&quot;

To answer your question, no, I do not believe that God can do such a thing. Of course, I believe that God is omnipotent, but I do not believe that omnipotence must inevitably result in logical contradiction. Since logic reflects God as truth and is defined by Him, everything He does is necessarily logical.

The following illustration may help you understand what I'm saying: Consider the eternal fate of an unrepentant, unregenerate reprobate (don't you just love the subtle nuances of Calvinistic language?) God [i:1b230c2ea2]cannot[/i:1b230c2ea2] permit that sinner into heaven. Does this mean God lacks omnipotence? No. What it means is that it is inconceivable to imagine Him violating His eternally just standards. In this case we see that God [i:1b230c2ea2]is[/i:1b230c2ea2] just.

In the same way, God [i:1b230c2ea2]is[/i:1b230c2ea2] truth (John 14:6). Therefore, everything He does is truthful, which necessarily entails logical consistency.

Hope this helps,

AnonRex


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:e2b5fe4ea7]
I'm assuming that this question is an attempt to scrutinize what I have said on this board. As Van Til himself would no doubt say, &quot;no matter.&quot; 
[/quote:e2b5fe4ea7]

No actually it wasn't directed at you. But no matter. If it was directed at all it would have been more toward Wintermute who seems to view logic as something other than an aspect of the divine nature. I was just fishing more or less.


[quote:e2b5fe4ea7]
Does this mean God lacks omnipotence? No. What it means is that it is inconceivable to imagine Him violating His eternally just standards. In this case we see that God is just.
[/quote:e2b5fe4ea7]

But as long as you provided an answer of sorts I'll respond to the part quoted above. I wouldn't say divine consistency is God not violating His standards as if those standards were something ordained by God as opposed to reflections of his being. So while I understand what you mean when you say He doesn't violate His standards, I think it more accurately expressed if we say He cannot deny Himself.

Blessings,

Mark


----------

