Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Apologetical Methods' started by Hilasmos, Dec 12, 2011.
Agreed, once you incorporate Romans 1 into it, it is even more obvious.
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.
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.