# Bahsens way



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 7, 2005)

Would pressupositional apologetics involves hitting the archelles heal of all the major worldviews and philosophies?

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 7, 2005)

Probably,
But I don't understand your question. Yes, we destroy worldviews and every thought that raises itself against King Jesus, but there is more to it. Could you elaborate?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> Would pressupositional apologetics involves hitting the archelles heal of all the major worldviews and philosophies?
> 
> [Edited on 8-2-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]



I think the strength in presupp apologetics is the fact that it forces the unbeliever to acknowledge his false assumptions, and that the criticism they make against Christianity really apply to their own worldview. Is it an achilles heal? no. Only the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit hits that weakness.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 7, 2005)

Or, both: It's an Achilles heel that sinners suppress and that only the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit can make them see.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> ...



By heal I mean revealing inconsistencies within their argument that makes it collapse.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...



Yes, but more specifically, revealing either what doesn't exist within their system or what is taken for granted without warrant within their system, and thus showing that their system can't even account for the things that do exist within it.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 8, 2005)

Why the need for pressupositional apologetics in evangalism?? Why not just lay out the gospel and then let God do his thing.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 8, 2005)

Tim:
In a way, Tim, apologetics is God doing His thing. It's not just for unbelievers; its also for believers who live with doubts and questions and inconsistencies of their own while they try to live in faith. If apologetics is not aimed at the heart of a person, with love, then no matter how right it might be technically, its not apologetics. Not even close. The work of God in a person is to love justice and mercy, and to walk humbly with God. So if a person is spouting his own knowledge and expertice, and glibly walking all over unbelievers, he is not doing the work of God, and it is not apologetics. He is presenting a character wholly foreign to God's. The apologist is also under the same necessity as the unbeliever, a humble recipient of redeeming and refreshing grace, even in his thinking. There is no room for pride. 

So apologetics is the work of God, working His gospel in the hearts of people. Tearing down strongholds is not meant to leave people without footing, but to set their feet on solid ground. It is just that most everyone is quite surprised at the ground they end up standing on. Its the very one they ere thought was the furthest from solid. 

Honesty is the most important aspect of this effort. In order to be believable one must himself be honest to the truth first. That is so, because he cannot hope to understand truth illegitimately, by the back door. Truth is not that way. It must be gotten at with integrity. So apologetics hopes to call a person to integrity, to honesty in his correspondences in thought, and hope to establish a root of truth in him. From there its a mere cake-walk to faith. But in order for that root to take hold, one must see that it is initially the work of the Holy Spirit, and subsequently His work through the expession of truth to his heart. We, as apologists, are mere messengers for Someone else. That's why there's no room for pride.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 21, 2005)

Could someone help me understand this Bahnsen quote better?

"When the perspective of God's revelation is rejected, then the unbeliever is left in foolish ignorance because his philosophy does not provide the preconditions of knowledge and meaningful experience. To put it another way: the proof that Christianity is true is that if it were not we would not be able to prove anything"


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> Could someone help me understand this Bahnsen quote better?
> 
> "When the perspective of God's revelation is rejected, then the unbeliever is left in foolish ignorance because his philosophy does not provide the preconditions of knowledge and meaningful experience.


The unbelievers philosophy, no matter what it may be, cannot account for what he knows and experiences. He knows that gravity holds him to the earth, but his philosophy can't explain how it got there without contradicting himself. If he's a materialist, then he can't explain conscious thought, or the laws of logic, since those things are not material but immaterial. He can't account for his own morality either, for that is ultimately his own preference. There is no morality in a bunch of atoms. Morality or values are immaterial not material. Every unbeliever knows their are laws of logic, and some form of morality. They know by nature that there is suppose to be more to life than just atoms. They know there is a just God who will hold them to account and their conscience must be quenched. But they refuse to acknowledge the true and living God who made them, so they must construct their own philosphies (or more accurate, fairy tales) to explain what they know and experience. 



> To put it another way: the proof that Christianity is true is that if it were not we would not be able to prove anything"



The only reason people do know some things, is because they presuppose the Christian worldview without realizing it. Morality is a key illustration in this. Why be moral at all? Materialism can't account for that. They may argue the whole survival of the fittest nonsense, but hten why does nature behave that way? Why would nature "desire" to survive at all in a meaningless existence? How do molecules desire anything? They can't even account for that system of "survival of the fittest" in their philosophy. It is just assumed. Only the Christian worldview can account for that innate sense of morality which expresses itself in every culture and philosphy of mankind no matter how depraved or pagan. Some how they must have a way to justify their actions and settle their conscience. 
The same with the laws of logic. Materialism can't account for laws of logic. First, how do atoms, or collections of atoms, possess logic? How, in a world of constant evolution, can there be consistency of immaterial concepts like logic? Logic requires conscious thought and reason. Molecules don't think, they just exist. They may argue that logic is a material substance, then you must ask, can it evolve? Eveything else can. Why not logic? Can the laws of logic evolve into a system that makes complete sense with rational contradictions? They can't account for those laws. 
The only way they can think rationally, is to do so inconsistently from their worldview, by presupposing the truths of logic and morality as described in Scripture. They will deny this, but they can't escape. Because they are made in God's image they must think rationaly. It is only because they are hostile to God in their fallen state, that they refuse to do so consistenly with the living God. 
If the Christian God does not exist, then there is no rational non-contradicting way to explain anything we do or experience.


----------



## Apologist4Him (Mar 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_Would pressupositional apologetics involves hitting the archelles heal of all the major worldviews and philosophies?



Good question. With the exception of the presupposed Christian worldview, yes. In other words,, pressupositional apologetics involves assuming a worldview is true, a worldview without an achilles' heel. I think everyone assumes their worldview is true, whether spoken or unspoken. However, pressupositional apologists do critique their own worldview, perhaps more than any of the apologists from other "schools of apologetics" (so to speak). Pressupositional apologists also critique the methodology (empiricism, rationalism, fideism, etc.) used by other apologists. 



> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_Why the need for pressupositional apologetics in evangalism?? Why not just lay out the gospel and then let God do his thing.



Another good question. A person could probably write a short book answering that question in detail. But I will try to give a brief and to the point answer. Pressupositional apologetics is need in evangalism when objectictions are raised and after the gospel has been laid out. Consider the epistemology (revelational or reformed) of the Christian pressupositionalist. In other words,, a revelational epistemologist is far more likely to do just that....lay out the gospel and then let God do his thing! However, if objections are raised, if other knowledge is raised up against the knowledge of God, the Christian pressupositionalist (revelational epistemologist) can critique the presuppositions, the underlying foundation of the knowledge raised up against the knowledge of God. 



> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> Could someone help me understand this Bahnsen quote better?



Sure, Patrick did a fine job in answering, but I'll try...

"When the perspective of God's revelation is rejected,"...

Let's call this perspective revelational epistemology (theory of knowledge)...

"then the unbeliever is left in foolish ignorance because his philosophy does not provide the preconditions of knowledge and meaningful experience."

In other words, God provides the preconditions of knowledge and meaningful experience, but the unbeliever rejects God, and therefore the unbeliever has rejected the PREconditions. Which brings us to autonomy and theonomy (for reference http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe180.htm ). The unbelievers claims to knowledge and meaningful experience are autonomous. From a philosophical standpoint, the achilles' heel of autonomy is subjectivism, as opposed to objectivism. Theonomy can account for the absolute the universal and objective, where the subjectivism of autonomy cannot.



> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_To put it another way: the proof that Christianity is true is that if it were not we would not be able to prove anything."



Consider the consequences of denying the law of contradiction, which an autonomous theory of knowledge cannot account for.

Indeed, if the basic laws of logic are not absolute (unchanging), universal (applicable within all of time and space), and objective, we would not be able to prove anything.

Christianity is theonomous, and can account for the basic laws of logic. 

I hope that helps despite being loaded with terminology (which saves me from having to write so much, yes, I am lazy  ).


----------



## knight4christ8 (Mar 18, 2005)

So I have one brief question. According to your apologetic, how do you guys exposite Paul's intent when he states, "But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief . . ." - 1 Tim. 1:13b?

Thanks.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 19, 2005)

1 Tim. 1:16
16However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> So I have one brief question. According to your apologetic, how do you guys exposite Paul's intent when he states, "But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief . . ." - 1 Tim. 1:13b?
> 
> Thanks.



Don't isolate every verse and build a doctrine out of it. During the pre-conversion days Saul never needed to be told that God exists; that was an easy given. He just needed to bow down to the God-revealed-in Christ.


----------

