steven-nemes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Used to be, I was a capital-P Presuppositionalist, but having read some books, listened to debates, considered objections here and there, I seem to find that I don't know what apologetical method to align myself with. In fact, I was recently thinking that if I took part in a debate on God's existence, I don't know how I would even start! I am currently reading a book called Conspiracies and the Cross which defends the four gospels against various criticisms, including Bart Ehrman's and The Da Vince Code, etc., but I know that this type of apologetic method might not be very popular amongst the presuppositionalists on this board (if I understand you all correctly).
But to tell you the truth, it seems to me that I should know why the gospels are considered authentic and reliable. If someone says to me "How do you know what the gospels say about Jesus are reliable?" I dare say I shouldn't reply with "If you negate the gospels and the Bible, you make all of existence unintelligible and absurd," firstly because that's not really a direct response and secondly because that is not an argument that any average Joe will be able to comprehend. An average Joe would be able to understand that the gospels were written within the first century, during the time while the apostles were still alive and able to correct people if they were misinterpreting or misrepresenting any of them or their teachings, and were accepted as authoritative in the churches while being identified with the authors that we accept these days before the start of the second century.
On the other hand, it seems that the arguments that the presuppositional method is the Biblical method is persuasive, and I do want to do apologetics the biblical way. I don't want to abandon the Bible, but at the same time, I have my doubts whether or not any one method may actually be "the Biblical method".
I am thinking that perhaps the proper apologetic method to use depends on the situation; it wouldn't make much sense to use a transcendental argument when my friend from school asks "How do you know there is a God?" A dumbed-down version of the cosmological argument might make more sense to him and seem more reasonable. And to the average atheist, it seems the Reformed Epistemology might work just fine when someone says "Where is the evidence for God? I don't believe things without evidence..."
I donno... Anyone else ever have the same dilemma?
But to tell you the truth, it seems to me that I should know why the gospels are considered authentic and reliable. If someone says to me "How do you know what the gospels say about Jesus are reliable?" I dare say I shouldn't reply with "If you negate the gospels and the Bible, you make all of existence unintelligible and absurd," firstly because that's not really a direct response and secondly because that is not an argument that any average Joe will be able to comprehend. An average Joe would be able to understand that the gospels were written within the first century, during the time while the apostles were still alive and able to correct people if they were misinterpreting or misrepresenting any of them or their teachings, and were accepted as authoritative in the churches while being identified with the authors that we accept these days before the start of the second century.
On the other hand, it seems that the arguments that the presuppositional method is the Biblical method is persuasive, and I do want to do apologetics the biblical way. I don't want to abandon the Bible, but at the same time, I have my doubts whether or not any one method may actually be "the Biblical method".
I am thinking that perhaps the proper apologetic method to use depends on the situation; it wouldn't make much sense to use a transcendental argument when my friend from school asks "How do you know there is a God?" A dumbed-down version of the cosmological argument might make more sense to him and seem more reasonable. And to the average atheist, it seems the Reformed Epistemology might work just fine when someone says "Where is the evidence for God? I don't believe things without evidence..."
I donno... Anyone else ever have the same dilemma?