Classical vs Presuppositional Apologetics

[jwright82]

Why do you think infants and development are irrelevant? I view infants as a great illustration of the fact that order of being is different from order of knowing. Self exists as a distinct thing from other selves, long before a self is aware of that.

Actually just because they're different doesn't mean one is better than the other. I think what you're trying to say is that "order of being is prior to order of knowing", but that seems to be a value judgment at this point.
But you have to be in order to know, as you pointed out, and then you have to know in order to reflect on that to get to a value judgment. Or you could start with knowing that you exist and all the Cartesian issues there to a value judgment.
Or you can start with a value judgment about either what you are/what you know and move out from there. It seems to make the whole statement irrelevant in practical terms. Why must we proceed like that? Is it because of the particular method you choose to use in your argument? Well fine and dandy but that opens the possibility for other methods to be viable.
Or you can argue for the logical reason why your method is the only/best method. I haven't seen that from anyone, merely proclaiming "order of being vs order of knowing". Then a value judgment about that being the only acceptable trail, but no proof.

 

[MW]

Why do you think infants and development are irrelevant? I view infants as a great illustration of the fact that order of being is different from order of knowing. Self exists as a distinct thing from other selves, long before a self is aware of that.

But we are talking about the order of knowing. This is an order we experience here and now without having to delve into the development of knowledge in a child.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Since all knowledge is ultimately a form of revelation, it seems to me that arguing that man somehow begins with a knowledge of himself places that knowledge as something extra-revelational. God's wrath is said to be poured out precisely because there is no point at which the creature can know anything other than that he is created.

 

[Ploutos]

But we are talking about the order of knowing. This is an order we experience here and now without having to delve into the development of knowledge in a child.

The development of knowledge in a child demonstrates that, conceptually, many things exist before they are known. Many things that are first in order of being are not first in order of knowing.

 

[MW]

The development of knowledge in a child demonstrates that, conceptually, many things exist before they are known. Many things that are first in order of being are not first in order of knowing.

Here is the original statement which started this off: "What that means is God is first in the order of being, but, as Sproul pointed out, in the order of knowing I begin with self-consciousness, not God-consciousness." My point, in response, is that "in the order of knowing" we do NOT start with self-consciousness. To have a consciousness of self, we must have a consciousness of non-self. To have consciousness, as an effect, there must be a sense of something that causes this consciousness. And it is only because of this "cause-effect" awareness that we can argue from effect back to a cause in demonstration of a First Cause. There is a God-consciousness in the very fact of self-consciousness, otherwise there could not be any theistic proofs. And I remember reading Sproul to this effect in some place; I only regret that I cannot lay my hands on it for this discussion.

At any rate, the discussion on self-consciousness has to do with the order of knowing, not the order of being.

 

[RamistThomist]

To have a consciousness of self, we must have a consciousness of non-self. To have consciousness, as an effect, there must be a sense of something that causes this consciousness. And it is only because of this "cause-effect" awareness that we can argue from effect back to a cause in demonstration of a First Cause. There is a God-consciousness in the very fact of self-consciousness,

I grant that there is Something that causes the effect. I simply dispute being aware of this Other Consciousness is the same thing as starting with God-consciousness.

 

[Pomopu]

Here is the original statement which started this off: "What that means is God is first in the order of being, but, as Sproul pointed out, in the order of knowing I begin with self-consciousness, not God-consciousness." My point, in response, is that "in the order of knowing" we do NOT start with self-consciousness. To have a consciousness of self, we must have a consciousness of non-self. To have consciousness, as an effect, there must be a sense of something that causes this consciousness. And it is only because of this "cause-effect" awareness that we can argue from effect back to a cause in demonstration of a First Cause. There is a God-consciousness in the very fact of self-consciousness, otherwise there could not be any theistic proofs. And I remember reading Sproul to this effect in some place; I only regret that I cannot lay my hands on it for this discussion.

At any rate, the discussion on self-consciousness has to do with the order of knowing, not the order of being.

It is highly speculative, in my mind. Yet there is some paradox here; it is the voice of the mother that first echoes in the soul of the child floating in her fluid, yet so the soul was floating before the voice of the mother; and before the soul-bodied baby heard the voice of the mother it was propelled in the world by the conjunction of energy and noise of father and mother, yet that alone was insufficient, it was created by the Creator, at the moment of biological connection, perhaps before, perhaps after, perhaps at the instant, there is spiritual connection, and body and soul unite, and there is a person--but because that infant is created, since we are products of a Creator, it seems that that the "seeds" of other-knowledge are. there, but our first massive step in imago deiness is to know that we are an "I," which happens immensely early, 2 or 3, and surely before one can know of God one must know there is an I to know God? Because what does it mean to know God? That there is an I to know God. But because it is God the Creator creating us from the start, there is a sense that he precedes our self-knowing; but functionally, self-knowledge precedes other-knowledge, and yet because it is the mother cooing in pregnancy that sparks the baby's knowledge of self, as it were, I grant that there is no "self" without other. Thus, the Trinity. So those horrid experiments of placing people in a place without any human contact, no language, and they come out as animals, as it were.

 

[MW]

I grant that there is Something that causes the effect. I simply dispute being aware of this Other Consciousness is the same thing as starting with God-consciousness.

How do you propose to argue, in classical style, from self-consciousness to God? How are you going to move from effect to Cause; from contingency to Necessity; from non-material mind to an All-knowing Mind, from order to a Designer, from morality to a Judge? There is nothing in your consciousness that requires it, that demands it, that makes you inexcusable if you do not embrace it. It is a mental exercise, and that is all. Without God-consciousness there is nothing to constrain you to view the evidence in any particular way, no internal persuasion that carries the weight of conviction.

 

[RamistThomist]

How do you propose to argue, in classical style, from self-consciousness to God? How are you going to move from effect to Cause; from contingency to Necessity; from non-material mind to an All-knowing Mind, from order to a Designer, from morality to a Judge? There is nothing in your consciousness that requires it, that demands it, that makes you inexcusable if you do not embrace it. It is a mental exercise, and that is all. Without God-consciousness there is nothing to constrain you to view the evidence in any particular way, no internal persuasion that carries the weight of conviction.

I do not deny God-consciousness. I simply deny that I start there.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

If I do not know that I exist, then I do not have consciousness of my existence. But I do know. What I do not know is the origin of my existence. And so I go through life, not knowing whence I came, and what I am.

And so I search for answers. Many answers present themselves, none of them sure. But one day someone tells me of God in Christ, and He reveals Himself to me by the word of His Gospel.

As I study the word of this Christ I learn of Him, and I learn whence I came, and what and who I am. Apart from His presence and word, I exist, but in darkness and death, blind and doomed.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm willing to admit I'm wrong on a few angles. And I've come to see I need to develop new emphases. In terms of "street level apologetics," I have used the cosmological argument to unbelievers in hostile situations. It worked in terms of silencing them (but not converting them). I've had Christians on their death bed, wanting to be strengthened in their faith, ask me to explain aspects of the teleological argument. The traditional arguments are very useful. Not once did I think I was capitulating to autonomous reason.

On the other hand, I realize that dizzying discussions of possible world semantics will leave people cold. That's why I am exploring Pascal's angle. (I think his Wager is better than people give it credit for).

 

[jwright82]

I do not deny God-consciousness. I simply deny that I start there.

Why do you keep saying that? I know of no credible Vantillian who says that. I've layed out ultimate vs proximate before why not deal with that distinction before you keep saying "start with God" like a syllogism or something. I'm really confused about you keep insisting it in every conversation.
If you choose to take the internet trolls you've encountered as what Vantillianism is, well I can't help that. But c'mon man that muddies the water. I don't say ridiculous things like "well (even though I believe Bahnsen did this in the Van Til reader, I'll go back and check) the cosmological argument says everything must have a cause, well that includes God so what caused him? ". That's clearly not true and not being fair to my brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with me here.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I've heard every approach "fail" if the purpose of the argument is to convince the skeptic.

My concern is much more basic, and that is I believe most root unbelief in something that requires an explanation other than what the Scriptures ascribe to it.

Even when we write about belief, it seems to many of us to require some sort of power of the mind. I acknowledge that there is an aspect of the will in belief, but the Confessions speak of us being made willing to believe. When John lept in Elizabeth's womb, do we seriously think that he had a fully formed mind? Do you suppose he was the only child in history who remembers being in the womb of his mother, hearing about Christ, and responding with joy?

I'm not downplaying the necessity for knowledge to mature, but at what point does someone go (really) from non-knowledge to knowledge? The issue isn't an apologetic one where we're asking at what point can we present apologetic arguments to someone to believe, but whether or not man the creature has knowledge that is independent of a revealing God.

Sin and misery from the Fall are the only reason unbelief exists. Children born in believing households don't know when they started to believe in God any more than when they started to believe in their mother. We'd like to think that they don't truly "know" God until they have language and we can explain it to them, but this is a sort of Kantian notion that the mind is the organ that provides categorical differentiation and God is just another object for the mind to differentiate.

This is why I find a debate about which "order" a person knows to be something that demonstrates the folly of philosophy to argue about whether a creature first knows himself when the very nature of a creature is that he has a Creator.

 

[RamistThomist]

Why do you keep saying that? I know of no credible Vantillian who says that. I've layed out ultimate vs proximate before why not deal with that distinction before you keep saying "start with God" like a syllogism or something. I'm really confused about you keep insisting it in every conversation.
If you choose to take the internet trolls you've encountered as what Vantillianism is, well I can't help that. But c'mon man that muddies the water. I don't say ridiculous things like "well (even though I believe Bahnsen did this in the Van Til reader, I'll go back and check) the cosmological argument says everything must have a cause, well that includes God so what caused him? ". That's clearly not true and not being fair to my brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with me here.

Fair enough. I'll lay off that angle then. I only brought up Bahnsen because I thought he was a foremost representative of presuppositionalism.

 

[jwright82]

Fair enough. I'll lay off that angle then. I only brought up Bahnsen because I thought he was a foremost representative of presuppositionalism.

For the record I agree with you. We can't start anywhere other than ourselves but, as you know, a transcendental argument starts with facts and "our" experience and then reasons to what must be the case for it to be what it is.
I found an interesting paper on Richard Rorty's take on TA'S that I'm sure is negative but his genius is in you think his criticism is superficial until you realize he found some chink in the armor and is exploiting it. That's why, with Nietzsche, he's my secret pleasure to read (like cheating on a diet with ice cream or something).

 

[jwright82]

Fair enough. I'll lay off that angle then. I only brought up Bahnsen because I thought he was a foremost representative of presuppositionalism.

Also I think you're correct in the endless dribble of presuppositionslism online is of the variety you mentioned, unfortunately. But I try to focus on the best for people, on all sides instead of focusing on the worst. They need to disagree with the best of a position.
I think people should learn the great Classical Apologists and engage with that thinking.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm almost finished reading a book on Francis Schaeffer's apologetic method. I've finally realized what I am: cumulative case apologetics. Not only does it explain the evidence better, it also works nicely with how the human mind processes evidence (cf. works by Esther Lightcap Meek and Michael Polanyi).

 

[Ploutos]

I'm almost finished reading a book on Francis Schaeffer's apologetic method. I've finally realized what I am: cumulative case apologetics. Not only does it explain the evidence better, it also works nicely with how the human mind processes evidence (cf. works by Esther Lightcap Meek and Michael Polanyi).

Care to elaborate? That's a new term for me.

 

[RamistThomist]

Care to elaborate? That's a new term for me.

It's also known as "inference to the best explanation." It combines some aspects of evidential apologetics while open to other views. I acknowledge presuppositions and what Charles Taylor calls "social imaginaries."

 

[jwright82]

It's also known as "inference to the best explanation." It combines some aspects of evidential apologetics while open to other views. I acknowledge presuppositions and what Charles Taylor calls "social imaginaries."

I love Charles Taylor's work. What's the book on Francis Schaefer called? He's always been inspirational to me. Love him or hate him, he did apologetics in the trenches. That's why my favorite Vantillian is William Edgar.
He has the personal experience of watching Schaefer in action, his style, with the method of Van Til. He's anything but a "By What Standard" type of internet trolls who cares very deeply about people. I'm sure you've listened to it before, or are aware of it at least, his introduction to apologetics class on the WTS website. Amazing! I encourage everyone to listen to it and to read Schaefer.

Oh. Cumulative case apologetics is one of the "five views" in the "Five Views on whatever subject" series by IVP I believe? Y'all should check out that book.

https://www.amazon.com/Five-Views-Apologetics-Steven-Cowan/dp/0310224764/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?adgrpid=129228881456&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.h_RRChpqmw-02K5ygqiu7kVLPSHPEP1fm6a7XWRhIHeHUjkI2nm9q6X1D4cOFYnI3R9Dea47bk7dMLloSqxU0kBvqLtLNME4MfMsX_jySXvnOa9iammCmo2p0xhUXoSldFw2OEtvGg1EopOqltEwZFjbKKylOgqwHDV8Q1NOPkDnt3uNXA4su26kJE0H5hMG6LFCvjo3apTfLbcQg5anpg.kBmcdy4xhc9Aufyf4q6TIJ2goSJh8BCRZXXCti33tcw&dib_tag=se&hvadid=580829964889&hvdev=m&hvlocphy=9051573&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=2815057906937337936&hvtargid=kwd-308495149144&hydadcr=15148_13523056&keywords=five+views+on+apologetics&qid=1730554135&s=books&sr=1-1

 

[RamistThomist]

. What's the book on Francis Schaefer called?

Morris, Tom V. Francis Schaeffer's Apologetics: A Critique. It isn't an attack on Schaeffer but more of a "polishing up" some of his looser statements

Oh. Cumulative case apologetics is one of the "five views" in the "Five Views on whatever subject" series by IVP I believe? Y'all should check out that book.

We read it when I took apologetics with John Frame. But that was 18 years ago, so I should probably revisit it.

 

[jwright82]

Morris, Tom V. Francis Schaeffer's Apologetics: A Critique. It isn't an attack on Schaeffer but more of a "polishing up" some of his looser statements


We read it when I took apologetics with John Frame. But that was 18 years ago, so I should probably revisit it.

Have you read Edgar's paper comparing/contrasting Schaefer and Van Til? It's well worth your time.

 

[RamistThomist]

Have you read Edgar's paper comparing/contrasting Schaefer and Van Til? It's well worth your time.

When did he write it? I read a lot of that stuff in the 2000s.

 

[jwright82]

When did he write it? I read a lot of that stuff in the 2000s.

Awhile back. Let me see if I can find it.

 

[jwright82]

I don't know how to link to other threads but I posted it awhile ago under the title "Edgar On Van Til and Schaefer". But if you search for the same thing you'll find it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I don't know how to link to other threads but I posted it awhile ago under the title "Edgar On Van Til and Schaefer". But if you search for the same thing you'll find it.

TWO CHRISTIAN WARRIORS: CORNELIUS VAN TIL AND FRANCIS A. SCHAEFFER COMPARED

 

[jwright82]

You're a gentleman and a scholar. Thanks. I rely on 16-18 years old girls at work to show me how to use my phone. That probably explains a lot.

 

[Grant Van Leuven]

As an "unapologetic" (pun intended, can't resist) "Clarkian" presuppositionalist, I volunteer the following for consideration:

While not wishing to be misunderstood as anachronistic, I believe the Westminster Confession of Faith essentially expresses the view of presuppositionalism logically with a place for evidence as supportive but without effective power to convict or convert without the Holy Spirit making one alive to His Own Self-revelation that doesn't depend on anything else to do so and all which is never effective unless the Holy Spirit quickens (even done "right" as I would argue, it is not effective to save unless the Lord grants the Holy Spirit-given salvific response--consider all the examples of some believing and some not believing the same message(s) in Acts; 1 Cor. 2:4-14; 2 Cor. 2:14-17:

WCF 1.4. "The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God." [Emphasis added.]

The Bible is true because it is God’s Word [and it is His Own Self-revelation]. This teaches the self-sufficient and self-authenticating authority of Scripture where God speaks for Himself about Himself. 2 Sam. 23:2, Acts 20:32; 2 Tim. 3:15-17, 2 Pet. 3:16; James 1:21.

WCF 1.5. "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." [Emphasis added.]

For believers, inner “evidences” are an encouragement to us and help our faith grow in the Scriptures. Only the Holy Spirit convicts a person the Bible is God’s Word. Only God's Word converts and saves.

This relates to the question I believe we most need to be asking, not what is effective but what is Biblical (bowing to God's providence to effectually call Whom He wills through the message and method He prescribes). That is, noting God's Word does not only give a message but a method of sharing it (in preaching and evangelism as well, though certainly we see variety depending on the audience ultimately it is a message one way or the other of "Thus saith the LORD!") No one tries to prove God in the Bible they simply proclaim Him, it seems to me. Also related, there is a method not only a message for how to do missions from the Bible. I was taught this by my seminary professor now with the Lord, Rev. Steven Miller (OPC, later RPCNA) this focus in an RPTS class on missions; here is a link to a lecture I gave reflecting his class and required books: Theology and Method of Missions (it includes a PDF reflecting his class and these books). It is the same idea and overlaps with apologetics (and evangelism, and frankly, how to explain why society isn't worse than it could be and we have ample confessional language in the Westminster Standards already to do so).

I'm not in my office to check and quote (and it's been some time since I've looked at this section), but my memory is Robert Reymond in his New Systematic Theology gives a very good defense of presuppositionalism (while amply addressing other views of apologetic methods).

More recently, stirred while reviewing similar threads at the time I was moved to preach this at the end of my sermon, "God is Gloriously Himself!" that was part of a series through WSC Q&A 4 with this message on Exodus 3:14:

... He is continually Who He Is, the reliable I AM.

... all people know this as creatures of God and his image due to general revelation [See WCF 1:1]. Rom. 1:19-20: Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Thus, how utterly ridiculous for anyone to question whether God exists, or to deny His existence!

God is existence. And thus so is His Name! We only exist because He IS absolute existence! Rather, if anything, you and I should question the validity and justification for OUR existence before Him a thrice holy God!

We only exist to audaciously, foolishly in self-denial, possibly question His existence ... we only exist to even be able to stupidly do that because He exists! Because He is existence. He is I AM! He is YAHWEH.

Even Paul said to the superstitious Greeks on Mars Hill in Acts who kept a monument to this unknown god, Acts 17:28: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Our existence is because of the fact that God is infinitely, eternally, and unchangeably His self-existent Being. Glory in that! In Him!