sotzo
Puritan Board Sophomore
Have we something to learn from Rome with respect to reason's role in epistemology? I know that is a strange question with which to begin a post, but it's really a "did the baby go out with the bathwater" question. To presuppose God and His Word involves the use of reason (and other elements of natural theology). For example, the presupposition that God exists and His Word is true is often tested to see where it leads one's epistemology. When Bahnsen, et al debate(ed) they are not merely saying "I believe God is and His Word is true and that's the end of it"...rather, they would compare the logical outworkings of such presuppositions compared to atheistic presuppositions or non-Christian theistic presuppositions. Without God there can be no objective foundation for morality, without God there cannot be immaterial laws of logic, etc. This appears to be testing the presuppositions using reason to do so and it certainly appears in line with what Proverbs and other wisdom passages in Scripture teach about where foundational knowledge comes from...that it begins with the knowledge of God, but is tried (using reason) and subsequently known to be wisdom by its benefits.
So, there appears to be a sense in which reason does interact with presuppositions in a way that requires us to respect the former much more than we do in Reformed circles...as Calvin said in Chapter 1 of the Institutes it is hard to know where man's knowledge of himself begins as that beginning relates to his knowledge of God.
Two questions based on the above:
1. If this is the case (and correct me if I'm wrong above), should we be more open to use of reason, even evidentialism, since in practice even our presupps are subject to such testing?
2. When we say we presuppose the Bible and its veracity, should we state more specifically what that means with respect to certain epistemological areas (ie, moral law, teleology, etc) and how such a presupposition creates a different life vs other presuppositions?
-----Added 12/4/2008 at 06:50:17 EST-----
Any thoughts on this one?
So, there appears to be a sense in which reason does interact with presuppositions in a way that requires us to respect the former much more than we do in Reformed circles...as Calvin said in Chapter 1 of the Institutes it is hard to know where man's knowledge of himself begins as that beginning relates to his knowledge of God.
Two questions based on the above:
1. If this is the case (and correct me if I'm wrong above), should we be more open to use of reason, even evidentialism, since in practice even our presupps are subject to such testing?
2. When we say we presuppose the Bible and its veracity, should we state more specifically what that means with respect to certain epistemological areas (ie, moral law, teleology, etc) and how such a presupposition creates a different life vs other presuppositions?
-----Added 12/4/2008 at 06:50:17 EST-----
Any thoughts on this one?