Autonomously reasoning to the rationality of presuppositionalism

[Hilasmos]

Agreed, once you incorporate Romans 1 into it, it is even more obvious.

 

[heymike]

The solution is not to deny that man "starts with himself" in knowing; as my chain of arguments above were trying to demonstrate that it is impossible to do. The simple answer is to say, yes they do, and that's okay, because that is not what presuppositionalists mean by "autonomy" when they condemn autonomous reasoning.

I think we may be on the same track, and it does seem to be similar to the issue of how an evangelist appeals to an unbeliever. Certainly the Bible shows that an unbeliever can be appealed to as if it was in his or her ability to believe. So it would also seem that Van Til could have appealled to "autonomous reason" or logical arguments for the existence of God, without having done a disservice to Christ.

 

[jwright82]

The solution is not to deny that man "starts with himself" in knowing; as my chain of arguments above were trying to demonstrate that it is impossible to do. The simple answer is to say, yes they do, and that's okay, because that is not what presuppositionalists mean by "autonomy" when they condemn autonomous reasoning.

I think we may be on the same track, and it does seem to be similar to the issue of how an evangelist appeals to an unbeliever. Certainly the Bible shows that an unbeliever can be appealed to as if it was in his or her ability to believe. So it would also seem that Van Til could have appealled to "autonomous reason" or logical arguments for the existence of God, without having done a disservice to Christ.

Well Van Til did not do himself any services here in how he discussed these matters. Van Til brought the transcedental argument over from western philosophy. He also used an historical method of analyzing schools of thought that became standered in continental philosophy since Hegel. He talked about autonomous reason in an abstract or "ideal" sense in that left the impression, unfortuanetly, that everything unbeleiving thinkers say is wrong. He did admit that they cannot consistantly live this out in their lives. Therefore what is autonomous in an unbeleiver's thinking must be seperated from what is "true" in their thinking and therefore inconsistant with their autonomous thoughts.

 

[Apologist4Him]

I have been slowly studying the presuppositional approach for a few years, find merit in it, and generally think through issues the best I can in this way. However, one issue keeps nagging in my mind which I am wondering how to sort out.

A problem with the classical/evidential approach is that it ultimately appeals to man's autonomous reasoning etc. (among other things). However, by reasonining with someone that they cannot reason without God, are you not appealing to their autonomous reasoning to understand their inability to account for reasoning without God. That is, still, at the base level there is an appeal for them to see the logic of the logic of presuppositionalism.

Not sure if that makes sense, any suggestions?

I see your point, in that explaining and understanding presuppositionalism involves using reasoning and logic, but Biblical presuppositonalism is still the default, whether academic or not, whether logic is acknowledged or not. The rationality aspect of Biblical presuppositionalism is based on revelational epistemology, where classical rationality is not (at least in how it is commonly used) based not on special revelation from God, on the Holy Scriptures. The Biblical presuppositonalists' apologetic begins and ends with Jesus Christ as Lord, without [falsely] assuming a "neural" ground of rationality. This is also why presuppositonal apologetics tend to be more negative than positive, or more criticism than positive argument, which people find more offensive, the gospel is offensive to those who do not believe though, how much more the defense of it?

 

[heymike]

I see your point, in that explaining and understanding presuppositionalism involves using reasoning and logic, but Biblical presuppositonalism is still the default, whether academic or not, whether logic is acknowledged or not. The rationality aspect of Biblical presuppositionalism is based on revelational epistemology, where classical rationality is not (at least in how it is commonly used) based not on special revelation from God, on the Holy Scriptures. The Biblical presuppositonalists' apologetic begins and ends with Jesus Christ as Lord, without [falsely] assuming a "neural" ground of rationality. This is also why presuppositonal apologetics tend to be more negative than positive, or more criticism than positive argument, which people find more offensive, the gospel is offensive to those who do not believe though, how much more the defense of it?

I do not see how the Bible forbids the use of natural revelation, in fact I think it actually encourages the use of whatever form of revelation is meaningful to the people at hand. Of course there is the Apostle Paul's declaration of preaching only Christ crucified in 1 Corinthians, but what other passages are there like this? With regard to 1 Corinthians, I have to read Paul here with respect to what he said in Acts.