No Other Name
Puritan Board Sophomore
My question for all is in the title.
My backstory regarding this query is presented here:
In reading Van Till and listening to old Bahsen audio recordings and watching it in action, it seems that the transcendental argument for the existence of God does not account for the work of the Spirit in salvation. I mean that they make it seem like one could *think* oneself into a string of reasoning that leads to what amounts to a confessional faith with no pre-requisite need for the Word or the Spirit.
When I defended my faith to a friend recently, I told him would proceed on two axioms I accept on faith: 1) God exists (Christian God of the Bible) and 2) the Bible is His inerrant Word for all.
He only took me up on that because he was certain the Bible was full of inconsistencies and errors that he was eager to go along with my not needing to proves these statements as he had many errors he was looking forward to introduce that would disprove the Bible's inerrancy and ergo prove the Christian God is non-existent. It was interesting in that his claims seemed to be loaded up for an Arminian free-will type of believer.
And I only found the existence of the laws of logic (ie presuppostionalism) needed when he started doubting any possible God at all. But that only happened when he felt cornered on the fact he actually did not understand the doctrine of God's sovereignty.
My backstory regarding this query is presented here:
In reading Van Till and listening to old Bahsen audio recordings and watching it in action, it seems that the transcendental argument for the existence of God does not account for the work of the Spirit in salvation. I mean that they make it seem like one could *think* oneself into a string of reasoning that leads to what amounts to a confessional faith with no pre-requisite need for the Word or the Spirit.
When I defended my faith to a friend recently, I told him would proceed on two axioms I accept on faith: 1) God exists (Christian God of the Bible) and 2) the Bible is His inerrant Word for all.
He only took me up on that because he was certain the Bible was full of inconsistencies and errors that he was eager to go along with my not needing to proves these statements as he had many errors he was looking forward to introduce that would disprove the Bible's inerrancy and ergo prove the Christian God is non-existent. It was interesting in that his claims seemed to be loaded up for an Arminian free-will type of believer.
And I only found the existence of the laws of logic (ie presuppostionalism) needed when he started doubting any possible God at all. But that only happened when he felt cornered on the fact he actually did not understand the doctrine of God's sovereignty.