How would classical apologists or evidentialists respond to this?

[Confessor]

So the first question is what do you take self-attesting to mean?

It means that it gives evidence of itself. The veracity of a self-attesting proposition or authority is obvious and self-evident.

Next, could a muslim make a counter claim about his version of divine revelation? If not then why not?

They could claim it, but it would be due to a false feeling. The best way I can describe it is thus: you know the situation where you may be arguing with someone about a topic about which you clearly know more than he does? In those situations, you simply know, you have the feeling that you are "on top" of the situation, and he is just wrong -- moreover, you know this without having your counter-argument exactly formulated and laid out. Then you later go on to elaborate and demonstrate why he is wrong, confirming -- but not outright proving -- that you were right in the first place. The same applies to our conviction of Scripture: we simply know it to be correct. We know who our Father is, and we know this without a possible disputation. We are "on top" of the situation; we understand that everyone else is wrong and they they have a warped view. We later go on to confirm this via transcendental argumentation. We are not right because of TAG; we were right in the first place, and TAG was confirmatory of that truth.

I know that sounds arrogant to some people, but that is the certainty we have of the faith. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise.

Next, why do we need the Holy Spirit in order to know the truth of Scripture?
Is it because it is not clear, or is it because we are morally opposed to it and therefore will reject it?

We already know of the truth without a doubt. In fact, every single man does, as Romans 1 tells us. However, we need the Holy Spirit to embrace it. As you said, we are morally opposed to it.

Next, if another book says that it is God's word, then we can we adjudicate between the two or must we just sit back and say we have no idea which one is the true word of God?

Lastly, again, is/can the Muslim be justified in his belief in the Koran as God's Word?

See the lengthier explanation above about the Muslim's claim (starting with "They could claim it...").

I do not see how arguing over matters of interpretation do not reach to questions of truth. When you attack Arminian interpretations, then you are basically saying, if the Arminian was correct then the Bible contradicts reality, or the Bible contradicts itself.

No, when I attack Arminian interpretations, I am saying that Arminian doctrine does not cohere with Scripture itself. The Bible is perspicuous. If you deny that (even hypothetically), you will inevitably run into problems of apologetical methodology.

Actually I made a challenge to you in my statement here, but it seems that you punted. I have yet to see someone from your position, issue a coherent response to such a challenge.

Sorry, for whatever reason I answered the wrong question. Here is what I was answering in the first place:

No one is assuming autonomy or neutrality. I am assuming that People are without excuse even when they have never read a Bible or even heard of a Bible. Natural Revelation actually tells us/allows us to know things. If a person gets to judgment day without ever having seen a Bible, can they tell God, "Hey I never saw a Bible so how was I supposed to know how I was supposed to act, and how I was supposed to believe?"

The problem is that you think natural revelation and common grace give way to valid natural theology, but that is not true. In fact, Van Til has written at length to deny this evidentialist tenet. By natural revelation, people know they are condemned before God Himself. They know He exists non-inferentially, and they cannot be saved without the preaching of the Gospel.

If you think that they know He exists inferentially (i.e. by natural theology), then your interpretation runs into a host of problems: 1. Not everyone is capable of following the cosmological and teleological arguments, especially with all their newer subtleties over the years. 2. Not everyone even thinks about such arguments. 3. If even one person does not think about it, then he cannot be condemned because he never suppressed any truth. The knowledge of God must be non-inferential. And if it's non-inferential, then it does not constitute an argument. And if it doesn't constitute an argument, then it cannot be natural theology.

Natural revelation, instead, by means of the sensus divinitatis, serves to condemn man and act as common grace. The former is fairly explicit in Romans 1, and the latter is so because all men would be completely self-destructive if we followed our own autonomous, sinful mindsets to their logical conclusions. Natural revelation was never intended to be interpreted apart from supernatural revelation: even in the Garden of Eden God was speaking to Adam.

Reason is self-attesting and I have no idea how you would try to object to that without attacking God.

It is self-attesting in the sense that it is undeniable, not in the sense that it can be used "by itself" or as a starting point, i.e. authoritatively. Reason cannot be used without reference to its Creator.

If you want to play the "human reasoning" card then the human interpretation of the Bible card plays just as well.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Lastly, if we cannot reason from what we perceive of natural revelation to the correct revelation, then it looks like one has to say that natural revelation is not good enough leave one without excuse.

No, I am merely denying the inferential aspect. Romans 1 must teach a non-inferential understanding, as I argued above.

Our allegiance is still to God because Reason is dependent on God. If we are dependent on Reason then we have to be dependent on God.

Then why don't you show it in your argument? If reason is dependent on God, then why do you keep using it apart from Him?

How do you know you are perceiving revelation correctly?

The same way that you know the Arminian interpretation of Scripture is wrong. It is inconsistent with itself and with reality. (If you have another way of knowing, then I would be happy to hear it)

I know the Arminian interpretation is wrong because it is inconsistent with the Bible, not necessarily because it is internally or externally inconsistent (at least, not foremost).

Otherwise, your answer seems to be very vague. Are you trying to say there's only way to perceive natural revelation apart from Scripture's guidance? I wouldn't mind debating any Thomistic argument with you, if that is what you are promoting.

You do understand that all Revelation of God is divine Revelation, and that would include General Revelation, right?

I think you mean Special Revelation and that is how I will respond.

Well, I have seen "divine revelation" used to refer to Scripture. If you prefer "special revelation," we can use that, yes.

What you are asking is akin to someone living in a far off land and never gets the Bible into their language their entire life, correct? I do not see a difference between someone who never sees a Bible and the Bible not existing at all.

No, I'm asking why the entire world cannot be without a copy of God's word. Why must one of the available holy books (the Bible, the Qur'an, etc.) be the right one? If your answer is that God would surely retain His Word throughout history, what evidence from natural revelation do you have to support this claim?

Moreover, it seems as if you're only proving a part of Christianity. This is similar to Norm Geisler's apologetic: he tries the "thread" approach of going from evidence for the resurrection as proof of His deity ==> Christ's claim that the entire Bible is inspired ==> Christianity as a whole is true. It doesn't actually prove the entire Bible. It carries with it so many unsurfaced Christian presuppositions (e.g. God cannot lie, God is sovereign and would never let His canon be defiled, etc.) it's not even funny -- in fact, at root it's dishonest, though unintentionally.

It seems you are trying the same thing. You are saying that natural revelation aligns with only one of the available holy texts, and consequently we have to accept the entirety of that text. But the entire text has not been proven. Even if it had, it would not be authoritative to whatever you just used to prove it with.

 

[ChristianTrader]

True enough, but Calvin also would not have said that man was someone how "reasoning properly" when they made idols and attempted to make God into their image.

That's the problem which the presuppositional approach seeks to expose -- the noetic effects of sin.

Well if the question is proper reasoning, then why not deal with it, instead of asking from where you learned your natural theology?

CT

 

[MW]

Well if the question is proper reasoning, then why not deal with it, instead of asking from where you learned your natural theology?

The source of natural theology is germane to the question of "right reason," because "right reason" leading to belief in the existence of God is dependent on some form of natural theology. Again, we are led back to a view of the system of Christianity as a whole.

 

[ChristianTrader]

So the first question is what do you take self-attesting to mean?

It means that it gives evidence of itself. The veracity of a self-attesting proposition or authority is obvious and self-evident.

Something can be self-attesting without being obvious or the famously ambiguous phrase self-evident. It does have to be ultimately unquestionable. It might take some work to see that it is self-attesting though.

Next, could a muslim make a counter claim about his version of divine revelation? If not then why not?

They could claim it, but it would be due to a false feeling. The best way I can describe it is thus: you know the situation where you may be arguing with someone about a topic about which you clearly know more than he does? In those situations, you simply know, you have the feeling that you are "on top" of the situation, and he is just wrong -- moreover, you know this without having your counter-argument exactly formulated and laid out. Then you later go on to elaborate and demonstrate why he is wrong, confirming -- but not outright proving -- that you were right in the first place. The same applies to our conviction of Scripture: we simply know it to be correct. We know who our Father is, and we know this without a possible disputation. We are "on top" of the situation; we understand that everyone else is wrong and they they have a warped view. We later go on to confirm this via transcendental argumentation. We are not right because of TAG; we were right in the first place, and TAG was confirmatory of that truth.

I know that sounds arrogant to some people, but that is the certainty we have of the faith. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise.

I would ask how do you know that X is correct and Y is not? One normal way is that you know the X does not lead to contradictory implications while Y does. That is what normally what happens when someone knows a lot more than the other person.

Also is knowing just a tightly held conviction that you have not been disabused of yet?

We already know of the truth without a doubt. In fact, every single man does, as Romans 1 tells us. However, we need the Holy Spirit to embrace it. As you said, we are morally opposed to it.

Actually depending on how you wish to interpret Romans 1, one can make an issue about what exactly is known. One can be without excuse without knowing something.

Also if the Holy Spirit breaking the rebellion that you have against God then it should be easy to show how the unbeliever is acting irrationally in his unbelief.

No, when I attack Arminian interpretations, I am saying that Arminian doctrine does not cohere with Scripture itself. The Bible is perspicuous. If you deny that (even hypothetically), you will inevitably run into problems of apologetical methodology.

Actually that was one of the options that I gave. Remember I said, "contradicts reality or contradicts the Bible itself". So what you are claiming is that if the Arminian theology was the theology taught in the Bible, then the Bible would be wrong. Therefore the Arminian theology is to be rejected.

Sorry, for whatever reason I answered the wrong question. Here is what I was answering in the first place:

The problem is that you think natural revelation and common grace give way to valid natural theology, but that is not true. In fact, Van Til has written at length to deny this evidentialist tenet. By natural revelation, people know they are condemned before God Himself. They know He exists non-inferentially, and they cannot be saved without the preaching of the Gospel.

First off you missed the question again. I asked you what could this person say to God on judgment day? Is it impossible for such people to exist? I know there is much work being done to translate the Bible into every language, but that work is not done yet.

Next, I think you are just lacking in Reformed History. From Calvin onward, the Reformed have not rejected Natural Theology. It is the recent century or so where this issue of Rejecting natural theology has come up.

Next, I would not say that Natural Revelation says that there is a Gospel to be preached.

Next, Natural Theology does not imply the either/or of non inferential knowledge of God or non inferential knowledge of God. It can take the form of a both/and. Certain things known non inferentially and certain things not. I think you would be hard pressed to argue that full trinitarian theism is known by being born.

If you think that they know He exists inferentially (i.e. by natural theology), then your interpretation runs into a host of problems: 1. Not everyone is capable of following the cosmological and teleological arguments, especially with all their newer subtleties over the years. 2. Not everyone even thinks about such arguments. 3. If even one person does not think about it, then he cannot be condemned because he never suppressed any truth. The knowledge of God must be non-inferential. And if it's non-inferential, then it does not constitute an argument. And if it doesn't constitute an argument, then it cannot be natural theology.

So if you go up to a person who has never seen or heard of a Bible, and ask them if they know that God is Trinitarian, they will either say of course, or they are guilty of suppressing the truth? Or if they know that Jesus died on the cross for the sin of the world, they will either say, of course or they are suppressing the truth?

Next, your questions almost assume that people do not naturally make idols and depend on as well as worship those idols. Everyone has a God slot. Either they will put God in it or put something else in it.

The complicated arguments are just formalizations of things that should be easily accepted but man is rebellious. Because you cannot follow the complicated arguments would not be an excuse, because the answer is/ and should be accepted as clear that non God is not God and God is God.

Natural revelation, instead, by means of the sensus divinitatis, serves to condemn man and act as common grace. The former is fairly explicit in Romans 1, and the latter is so because all men would be completely self-destructive if we followed our own autonomous, sinful mindsets to their logical conclusions. Natural revelation was never intended to be interpreted apart from supernatural revelation: even in the Garden of Eden God was speaking to Adam.

So every language has special or supernatural revelation available so that all have access to the Bible?

Also could you agree with Calvin here: He stated that men who make idols of various physical objects, are proof of the sensus divinitatis. Would you agree with that statement?

It is self-attesting in the sense that it is undeniable, not in the sense that it can be used "by itself" or as a starting point, i.e. authoritatively. Reason cannot be used without reference to its Creator.

Reason with the God's natural revelation should be enough to get you where you need to go. If it does not then there are three options for where the problem is:

1)Reason is deficient (Since this is dependent on God then it will be hard to attack this)
2)Natural Revelation is deficient (Again it will be hard to attack without attacking God)
3)One's interpretation of one or the other is deficient

No, I am merely denying the inferential aspect. Romans 1 must teach a non-inferential understanding, as I argued above.

I do not deny that there is a non inferential portion of our understanding of God. However hardly anyone has ever argued that full Trinitarian theism is built into a constitutions as human beings.

Then why don't you show it in your argument? If reason is dependent on God, then why do you keep using it apart from Him?

If I do not say "Premise 3: Reason is dependent on God" then I am denying it?

I know the Arminian interpretation is wrong because it is inconsistent with the Bible, not necessarily because it is internally or externally inconsistent (at least, not foremost).

Or put another way, An Arminian Bible would be a false scripture because it is self contradictory.

Otherwise, your answer seems to be very vague. Are you trying to say there's only way to perceive natural revelation apart from Scripture's guidance? I wouldn't mind debating any Thomistic argument with you, if that is what you are promoting.

I am saying that you reject it because "the undeniable reason" dictates that it must be rejected.

Arguments predate St. Thomas, but sure, I would not have a problem debating some with you.

You do understand that all Revelation of God is divine Revelation, and that would include General Revelation, right?

I think you mean Special Revelation and that is how I will respond.

Well, I have seen "divine revelation" used to refer to Scripture. If you prefer "special revelation," we can use that, yes.

Alright.

What you are asking is akin to someone living in a far off land and never gets the Bible into their language their entire life, correct? I do not see a difference between someone who never sees a Bible and the Bible not existing at all.

No, I'm asking why the entire world cannot be without a copy of God's word. Why must one of the available holy books (the Bible, the Qur'an, etc.) be the right one? If your answer is that God would surely retain His Word throughout history, what evidence from natural revelation do you have to support this claim?

Do you believe that everyone has access to the Bible now, not even talking about years ago?

The Bible does not have to exist just as Jesus did not have to come and save us (assuming a promise was never made). We would just die in our sins and go to Hell.

Moreover, it seems as if you're only proving a part of Christianity. This is similar to Norm Geisler's apologetic: he tries the "thread" approach of going from evidence for the resurrection as proof of His deity ==> Christ's claim that the entire Bible is inspired ==> Christianity as a whole is true. It doesn't actually prove the entire Bible. It carries with it so many unsurfaced Christian presuppositions (e.g. God cannot lie, God is sovereign and would never let His canon be defiled, etc.) it's not even funny -- in fact, at root it's dishonest, though unintentionally.

Argue with me not Geisler.

It seems you are trying the same thing. You are saying that natural revelation aligns with only one of the available holy texts, and consequently we have to accept the entirety of that text. But the entire text has not been proven. Even if it had, it would not be authoritative to whatever you just used to prove it with.

If the Bible did not exist, then natural revelation would not align with any of the texts.

According to standard Classical Apologetics, one would prove God first, then worry about what that God would do/act.

Your question would assume that I would not trust, the infinite, eternal, creator of the world over finite, fallen me. Would that make any sense?

CT

 

[Confessor]

Something can be self-attesting without being obvious or the famously ambiguous phrase self-evident. It does have to be ultimately unquestionable. It might take some work to see that it is self-attesting though.

When you say it might take some work to see that it is self-attesting, do you mean that in the sense that its self-attestation needs to be proven? That's what you seem to be implying in the rest of your post, and obviously I would have to disagree with that.

I would ask how do you know that X is correct and Y is not? One normal way is that you know the X does not lead to contradictory implications while Y does. That is what normally what happens when someone knows a lot more than the other person.

By asking how I know that Scripture is a self-attesting authority, you are tearing down Scripture's authority. If reason were necessary to justify one's belief in God (i.e. if the belief would be unjustified prior to that), then reason would be authoritative over Scripture. While apologetics is about demonstrating that other starting points are incoherent, we first know that our position is absolutely right, and that from the Holy Spirit. Just as one can know one will win an argument prior to having his argument in place (have you never felt that before?), one can also simply know that Scripture has marks of the divine and is therefore God's Word without a shred of doubt. If you continue to think that we have to prove that the Holy Spirit is leading us to the right book, then you have enthroned human reason as your king.

Also is knowing just a tightly held conviction that you have not been disabused of yet?

Are you asking for a definition of knowledge?

Actually depending on how you wish to interpret Romans 1, one can make an issue about what exactly is known. One can be without excuse without knowing something.

Rom. 1:20: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

God's attributes have been clearly seen. The point of whether or not people can be without excuse when they don't know something is irrelevant.

Also if the Holy Spirit breaking the rebellion that you have against God then it should be easy to show how the unbeliever is acting irrationally in his unbelief.

Yes, but this doesn't mean it is easy if we use the wrong method, which is of course the topic of discussion.

Actually that was one of the options that I gave. Remember I said, "contradicts reality or contradicts the Bible itself". So what you are claiming is that if the Arminian theology was the theology taught in the Bible, then the Bible would be wrong. Therefore the Arminian theology is to be rejected.

In all fairness, you said, "contradicts reality or the Bible contradicts itself," which carries an entirely different connotation. By reality it appears you are implying such things as laws of logic, causality, and other undeniable things; however, if the substance of the Bible is embedded in your use of the word "reality," then I guess I would agree with that.

Nonetheless, the reason behind the falsity of Arminian theology is foremost because it contradicts what the Bible teaches -- which is entirely different from saying that the reason Arminianism is false is because if the Bible taught it we would reject the Bible. The Bible does not teach it, and it is pointless to even speak of it as some sort of hypothetical.

Appropriately, the fact that Arminianism contradicts reality (i.e. it has a false philosophy of the will, among other things) is only secondary, because our judgments our ministerial to the Bible's substance.

First off you missed the question again. I asked you what could this person say to God on judgment day? Is it impossible for such people to exist? I know there is much work being done to translate the Bible into every language, but that work is not done yet.

They would be without excuse due to their sensus divinitatis.

Next, I think you are just lacking in Reformed History. From Calvin onward, the Reformed have not rejected Natural Theology. It is the recent century or so where this issue of Rejecting natural theology has come up.

Calvin's affirmation of natural theology is irrelevant, and it was never a topic of my discourse. I was critiquing natural theology qua natural theology, not making a historical argument.

Next, I would not say that Natural Revelation says that there is a Gospel to be preached.

I agree. I merely said that they cannot be saved without the Gospel, not that they know they cannot be saved without that exact means.

Next, Natural Theology does not imply the either/or of non inferential knowledge of God or non inferential knowledge of God. It can take the form of a both/and. Certain things known non inferentially and certain things not. I think you would be hard pressed to argue that full trinitarian theism is known by being born.

I'm not saying the entirety of Christianity is non-inferential. I am merely arguing that the part which makes men without excuse must be non-inferential; otherwise, the many people who do not follow the natural-theological arguments would be with excuse, which is contrary to Romans 1. And if the part which makes men without excuse in Romans 1 is non-inferential, then natural theology is not taught in that chapter.

Next, your questions almost assume that people do not naturally make idols and depend on as well as worship those idols. Everyone has a God slot. Either they will put God in it or put something else in it.

My question does not assume that. Again, I was not saying that all of Christianity must be non-inferential, only that the knowledge which makes men without excuse must be. In fact, the God-slot is evidence of the sensus divinitatis, which is of course non-inferential, supporting my position.

The complicated arguments are just formalizations of things that should be easily accepted but man is rebellious. Because you cannot follow the complicated arguments would not be an excuse, because the answer is/ and should be accepted as clear that non God is not God and God is God.

No, they're not. Both the cosmological argument and teleological argument, apart from explicitly Christian presuppositions, beg the question. People try to make it more complicated to give themselves a probability factor supporting their position (William Craig does this a ton), and it is not clear at all who is winning the debate.

What do you mean the answer is clear that non God is not God and God is God? How does that stem from natural theology?

So every language has special or supernatural revelation available so that all have access to the Bible?

My point is that natural revelation cannot be properly interpreted except in light of supernatural revelation; not that no one can make an interpretation without it. The plethora of false religions in uncivilized tribal areas is evidence of this.

Also could you agree with Calvin here: He stated that men who make idols of various physical objects, are proof of the sensus divinitatis. Would you agree with that statement?

Yes, I agree with him.

Reason with the God's natural revelation should be enough to get you where you need to go. If it does not then there are three options for where the problem is:

1)Reason is deficient (Since this is dependent on God then it will be hard to attack this)
2)Natural Revelation is deficient (Again it will be hard to attack without attacking God)
3)One's interpretation of one or the other is deficient

4) Reason is used outside of the context which it was intended to be used in. Objectively speaking, there is nothing wrong with reason or with natural revelation, and if we were not depraved we would interpret it correctly -- with Christian presuppositions. However, we are depraved, and therefore we refuse to use Christian presuppositions. And of course, natural theology does not use Christian presuppositions, preferring autonomous axioms which accept reason as an entity independent from God, and thus the system is not a reliable means of truth.

Thus, man's use of reason is deficient, because he uses it in a way which does not honor or glorify God as the King over human reason.

If I do not say "Premise 3: Reason is dependent on God" then I am denying it?

Yes! Insofar as you pretend that you are being "neutral" and use reason as some common ground between you and the unbeliever, you will be deceiving him into thinking that reason is independent from God.

Or put another way, An Arminian Bible would be a false scripture because it is self contradictory.

That is not the point I'm making. You're trying to get me to admit to a position which would place reason above Scripture in practice (e.g. we would have to test the Bible through the filter of "reality" to make sure it's acceptable, making reality epistemologically ultimate). See what I said above about this. It is foolish to speak of Arminianism as hypothetically being taught in the Bible. That's akin to saying that God's Word would not be authoritative if it were not God's Word. It's pointless speculation which provides no truth in apologetical methodology.

I am saying that you reject it because "the undeniable reason" dictates that it must be rejected.

Arguments predate St. Thomas, but sure, I would not have a problem debating some with you.

I reject natural theology because it's unreasonable -- because it is built on autonomous presuppositions, if that's what you're trying to say. Yeah.

You can make a new thread to debate the cosmological or teleological arguments, if you so wish.

Do you believe that everyone has access to the Bible now, not even talking about years ago?

The Bible does not have to exist just as Jesus did not have to come and save us (assuming a promise was never made). We would just die in our sins and go to Hell.

Exactly! It's possible that we would not have received a specific special revelation which matches with natural revelation. Therefore, inasmuch as you try to "prove" the Bible by saying that it "fits" with natural revelation, you're only proving a part of it when some other currently nonexistent holy book might be the real special revelation.

If you only prove part of Christianity, you have not necessitated the acceptance of all of Christianity, and if you haven't proven all of Christianity, then you have proven nothing.

Argue with me not Geisler.

I was merely trying to show a parallel between your and his methodologies. They both seem to take the "thread" approach, trying to get specific parts to match up and then claiming that the entirety of Christianity is necessarily true, but that doesn't logically follow.

It seems you are trying the same thing. You are saying that natural revelation aligns with only one of the available holy texts, and consequently we have to accept the entirety of that text. But the entire text has not been proven. Even if it had, it would not be authoritative to whatever you just used to prove it with.

If the Bible did not exist, then natural revelation would not align with any of the texts.

I'm afraid you misunderstand my objection. If your main criterion of accepting a holy text is its coincidence with natural revelation, then it is plausible that the correct holy text might have "gone extinct." Therefore, the fact that the Bible aligns with natural revelation does not necessitate its full acceptance. How, then, can you persuasively tell someone to accept the entirety of the Bible based on one part coinciding with reality?

According to standard Classical Apologetics, one would prove God first, then worry about what that God would do/act.

Then they're not proving God. They're proving a blank entity which they call God. They're proving a nothing.

Your question would assume that I would not trust, the infinite, eternal, creator of the world over finite, fallen me. Would that make any sense?

How do you know that the creator of the world is infinite and eternal without special revelation from him? The entire crux of my argument is that you are relying on yourself too much rather than on the Bible. You keep trying to neutrally prove your position from reason without a framework of God; this is not proving the God of the Bible.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Well if the question is proper reasoning, then why not deal with it, instead of asking from where you learned your natural theology?

The source of natural theology is germane to the question of "right reason," because "right reason" leading to belief in the existence of God is dependent on some form of natural theology. Again, we are led back to a view of the system of Christianity as a whole.

So the question is then can one say that the form of natural theology that leads to something other than Christianity is the wrong form and the one that lead to Christianity is the right one?

CT

 

[Confessor]

Well if the question is proper reasoning, then why not deal with it, instead of asking from where you learned your natural theology?

The source of natural theology is germane to the question of "right reason," because "right reason" leading to belief in the existence of God is dependent on some form of natural theology. Again, we are led back to a view of the system of Christianity as a whole.

So the question is then can one say that the form of natural theology that leads to something other than Christianity is the wrong form and the one that lead to Christianity is the right one?

Yes, with the only one leading to Christianity being the only one presupposing Christianity.

 

[ChristianTrader]

The source of natural theology is germane to the question of "right reason," because "right reason" leading to belief in the existence of God is dependent on some form of natural theology. Again, we are led back to a view of the system of Christianity as a whole.

So the question is then can one say that the form of natural theology that leads to something other than Christianity is the wrong form and the one that lead to Christianity is the right one?

Yes, with the only one leading to Christianity being the only one presupposing Christianity.

Which would be the one presupposing General revelation which gives one no excuse for overlooking or rejecting it.

CT

 

[yeutter]

The question is if the Bible is proved to be the Word of God by logic, science, archaeology ect then are not logic science ect the final authoriy instead of the Bible.

Let me answer by saying firstly that a pagans failure to recognize it does not negate the truth. A pagans discovery that something is true without acknowledging God does not make it any less true.

Presenting the historical evidence for, logical arguements for, archeological evidence for, or scientific arguements for the historic reliability of the Bible does not make the Bible suppordinate to logic, archaeology, science or the study of history.

The arguements from the various secular disciplines do not prove that the Bible is the Word of God. The arguements from the various secular disciplines prove that the Bible is historically reliable. Therefore the Ressurrection is a historical fact. Since Jesus made certain claims about Himself, and said he would rise from the dead; therefore the claims He made about Himself should be accepted. If you accept the claims Jesus made about Himself you should also accept our Lord's view of the nature and extent of scriptural authority.

Circular reasoning. This approach seems inherently illogical to me. To Muslims this approach is offensive. Muslims are scandalized by by presuppositionalism. The Gospel alone gives offense. There is no need to use an approach that gives additional offense.

Francis Schaeffer was an inconsistant presuppositionalist. He has shown how a presuppositionalist approach may have some value when talking with post modernist intellectuals. No one has shown me the value of presuppositionalism when talking with real people.

 

[MW]

So the question is then can one say that the form of natural theology that leads to something other than Christianity is the wrong form and the one that lead to Christianity is the right one?

Yes, with the qualification that natural theology -- theology defined as the study of God in relation to the world -- already presupposes the existence of God and the revelation of Himself. Hence a presupposed starting point is undeniable.

 

[ChristianTrader]

So the question is then can one say that the form of natural theology that leads to something other than Christianity is the wrong form and the one that lead to Christianity is the right one?

Yes, with the qualification that natural theology -- theology defined as the study of God in relation to the world -- already presupposes the existence of God and the revelation of Himself. Hence a presupposed starting point is undeniable.

I buy all of that. And all the needed info is found in general revelation.

CT

 

[MW]

I buy all of that. And all the needed info is found in general revelation.

"Sufficient," yes, but for the limited purpose of leaving unbelievers without excuse, not for proving that natural reason has some virtue in and of itself.

 

[Confessor]

Presenting the historical evidence for, logical arguements for, archeological evidence for, or scientific arguements for the historic reliability of the Bible does not make the Bible suppordinate to logic, archaeology, science or the study of history.

I do not deny for a second that they are true. But -- and surely you can agree with me on this -- if they are used incorrectly they will not point to the truth of Christianity.

And, of course, one of the ways to use them incorrectly is to assume that they are coherent outside of a Christian framework. To assume this would be to deny the doctrine of God's sovereignty.

The arguements from the various secular disciplines do not prove that the Bible is the Word of God. The arguements from the various secular disciplines prove that the Bible is historically reliable.

Actually, this could be heavily disputed. There are some oft-changing standards of historical reliability, and the Bible is not accepted by most people as historical fact (e.g. Genesis 1, the Exodus, the Virgin Birth, etc.).

Therefore the Ressurrection is a historical fact.

This is far from being accepted. First of all, the general historical reliability of the Gospels would not point to the specific historicity of all its events, much less the supernatural claims of Scripture. There are many trustworthy Roman historians who spoke of miracles that occurred with the emperors, in an attempt to deify them. Should we accept those too?

Since Jesus made certain claims about Himself, and said he would rise from the dead; therefore the claims He made about Himself should be accepted.

Why does this follow? This assumes several Christian presuppositions: that God cannot lie, that God is sovereign, that God can predict the future, etc. We would have to presuppose the Bible first to make significant these connections.

If you accept the claims Jesus made about Himself you should also accept our Lord's view of the nature and extent of scriptural authority.

Why? Why must God be so consistent in all that He says? Why is God inerrant?

Circular reasoning. This approach seems inherently illogical to me. To Muslims this approach is offensive. Muslims are scandalized by by presuppositionalism. The Gospel alone gives offense. There is no need to use an approach that gives additional offense.

Please, brother, point out the actual flaws you see. You keep claiming how it's so "scandalizing" and "offensive," which causes me to offer a rebuttal in defense. In reply to my defense, you repeat how offensive it is. Please, critique my defense if it honestly causes you and your friends such grief.

Francis Schaeffer was an inconsistant presuppositionalist. He has shown how a presuppositionalist approach may have some value when talking with post modernist intellectuals. No one has shown me the value of presuppositionalism when talking with real people.

I lol'ed at postmodernists not being "real people." I know what you meant though.

 

[cih1355]

The question is if the Bible is proved to be the Word of God by logic, science, archaeology ect then are not logic science ect the final authoriy instead of the Bible.

Let me answer by saying firstly that a pagans failure to recognize it does not negate the truth. A pagans discovery that something is true without acknowledging God does not make it any less true.

Presenting the historical evidence for, logical arguements for, archeological evidence for, or scientific arguements for the historic reliability of the Bible does not make the Bible suppordinate to logic, archaeology, science or the study of history.

The arguements from the various secular disciplines do not prove that the Bible is the Word of God. The arguements from the various secular disciplines prove that the Bible is historically reliable. Therefore the Ressurrection is a historical fact. Since Jesus made certain claims about Himself, and said he would rise from the dead; therefore the claims He made about Himself should be accepted. If you accept the claims Jesus made about Himself you should also accept our Lord's view of the nature and extent of scriptural authority.

Circular reasoning. This approach seems inherently illogical to me. To Muslims this approach is offensive. Muslims are scandalized by by presuppositionalism. The Gospel alone gives offense. There is no need to use an approach that gives additional offense.

Francis Schaeffer was an inconsistant presuppositionalist. He has shown how a presuppositionalist approach may have some value when talking with post modernist intellectuals. No one has shown me the value of presuppositionalism when talking with real people.

Presuppositionalists argue that not all circular reasoning is fallacious. They argue that in the case where one is proving that something is the final authority, circular reasoning is unavoidable. Circular reasoning is not fallacious in the case where you are proving your final authority. They believe that you have to use your final authority in order to prove your final authority. They would disagree with you that a lesser authority can authenticate a higher authority.

-----Added 12/4/2008 at 10:25:41 EST-----

If you were to prove that the Bible is God-breathed by showing that Jesus fulfilled all of the Old Testament prophecies pertaining to Him, then would this be an instance of the Bible proving the Bible? I was just wondering because fulfilled prophecy is in the Bible. It is not outside the Bible.

 

[Confessor]

If you were to prove that the Bible is God-breathed by showing that Jesus fulfilled all of the Old Testament prophecies pertaining to Him, then would this be an instance of the Bible proving the Bible? I was just wondering because fulfilled prophecy is in the Bible. It is not outside the Bible.

Not quite. The Bible's self-attestation is derived from its status as God's Word, and this is evident from its indicia divinitatis, or marks of deity, which are clearly perceived through illumination of the Holy Spirit.

That is, the Bible is authoritative due simply to the fact that it is God's Word. Trying to use fulfilled prophecies to prove that it is God's Word would be concealing the assumptions that God knows the future, that fulfillment of prophecy yields the truth of the whole Bible, etc. -- all of which are explicitly Christian. Using fulfilled prophecy as an avenue to prove that the Bible is God's Word would be using reason to prove the Bible as well. Trying to tell an unbeliever that the Bible is God's Word because it has fulfilled prophecy is not a cogent argument.

Also, although this is a secondary reason to above, the argument from fulfilled prophecy usually depends on evidences outside the Bible -- e.g. proof that the OT was written in a way that the NT couldn't just be a continuation or self-fulfilled prophecy.

 

[brianeschen]

Not quite. The Bible's self-attestation is derived from its status as God's Word, and this is evident from its indicia divinitatis, or marks of deity, which are clearly perceived through illumination of the Holy Spirit.

That is, the Bible is authoritative due simply to the fact that it is God's Word.

There is a good summary of this biblical teaching in the WLC . . .

Question 4: How does it appear that the Scriptures are the Word of God?
Answer: The Scriptures manifest themselves to be the Word of God, by their majesty and purity; by the consent of all the parts, and the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God; by their light and power to convince and convert sinners, to comfort and build up believers unto salvation: but the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very Word of God.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Not quite. The Bible's self-attestation is derived from its status as God's Word, and this is evident from its indicia divinitatis, or marks of deity, which are clearly perceived through illumination of the Holy Spirit.

That is, the Bible is authoritative due simply to the fact that it is God's Word.

There is a good summary of this biblical teaching in the WLC . . .

Question 4: How does it appear that the Scriptures are the Word of God?
Answer: The Scriptures manifest themselves to be the Word of God, by their majesty and purity; by the consent of all the parts, and the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God; by their light and power to convince and convert sinners, to comfort and build up believers unto salvation: but the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very Word of God.

Does not the part in bold imply that consistency is a part of being self attesting? That would seem to be saying that it reason has a part to play in the claim that the Bible is the Word of God.

CT

 

[Confessor]

Not quite. The Bible's self-attestation is derived from its status as God's Word, and this is evident from its indicia divinitatis, or marks of deity, which are clearly perceived through illumination of the Holy Spirit.

That is, the Bible is authoritative due simply to the fact that it is God's Word.

There is a good summary of this biblical teaching in the WLC . . .

Question 4: How does it appear that the Scriptures are the Word of God?
Answer: The Scriptures manifest themselves to be the Word of God, by their majesty and purity; by the consent of all the parts, and the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God; by their light and power to convince and convert sinners, to comfort and build up believers unto salvation: but the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very Word of God.

Does not the part in bold imply that consistency is a part of being self attesting? That would seem to be saying that it reason has a part to play in the claim that the Bible is the Word of God.

CT

In order for that to be the case, there would have to be some authoritative rule which states or implies that "that which is internally consistent is God's Word" and place such consistency on a throne above God. Of course, the problems with that are (1) there is no such rule, and (2) that would demean God's sovereign authority.

The bold statement, along with its adjacent descriptors, is rather just an elaboration of what God's Word entails. In other words, they are evidence that the Bible is God's Word, but they are not proof which must be rationally established prior to the Bible being accepted as God's Word. They are confirmatory and not foundational.

 

[ChristianTrader]

There is a good summary of this biblical teaching in the WLC . . .

Does not the part in bold imply that consistency is a part of being self attesting? That would seem to be saying that it reason has a part to play in the claim that the Bible is the Word of God.

CT

In order for that to be the case, there would have to be some authoritative rule which states or implies that "that which is internally consistent is God's Word" and place such consistency on a throne above God. Of course, the problems with that are (1) there is no such rule, and (2) that would demean God's sovereign authority.

The bold statement, along with its adjacent descriptors, is rather just an elaboration of what God's Word entails. In other words, they are evidence that the Bible is God's Word, but they are not proof which must be rationally established prior to the Bible being accepted as God's Word. They are confirmatory and not foundational.

1)Would you say that consistency is one of God's attributes?
2)If yes, then how could using that as a key in identifying what is God's special revelation, be placing it about the throne of God.
3)If no, then what is it?
4)I never said that consistency is the only thing that one looks for when identifying truth (in any sphere), for one can be consistently wrong.
5)If it is not foundational, then you could accept something as God's word if it was not consistent?

CT

 

[kalawine]

I do not believe traditional Thomism, or old Princeton gives scandal the way presuppositionalism does.

That is because they functioned in a philosophical context which did not overtly announce its presuppositional framework.

YEP!

 

[Confessor]

1)Would you say that consistency is one of God's attributes?
2)If yes, then how could using that as a key in identifying what is God's special revelation, be placing it about the throne of God.
3)If no, then what is it?
4)I never said that consistency is the only thing that one looks for when identifying truth (in any sphere), for one can be consistently wrong.
5)If it is not foundational, then you could accept something as God's word if it was not consistent?

1) Yes

2) Because it would demean the witness of the Holy Spirit and the perspicuity of God's authoritative revelation. If we determine that the Bible is God's Word because it is consistent -- rather than merely seeing consistency as an aspect of God's Word, and one that confirms what the Holy Spirit has told us -- then we have logically placed the criterion of consistency above God's own authority.

3) A confirmatory aspect, but not a foundational one: i.e. we are confirmed that our conviction is true, but the Bible is not proven to be God's Word as a result of its consistency (or any other attribute).

4) I know. I am pointing out that the bolded statement was not positing some criterion by which we can determine which revelation is God's Word. Just as its majesty and purity, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, its power to convince and convert sinners, and its power to comfort and build up believers unto salvation do not prove that the Bible is God's Word.

5) Inconsistency could evince that something is not special revelation, but only because God has sovereignly established consistency as a tool under His authority. In other words, the answer to your question is "yes," but not because consistency is some independent criterion outside of God's purview.

 

[kalawine]

I do not believe traditional Thomism, or old Princeton gives scandal the way presuppositionalism does.

That is because they functioned in a philosophical context which did not overtly announce its presuppositional framework.

Lets assume that is correct for a minute. I think it is a good idea to not discuss the presuppositional framework when talking with my Muslim friends.
Not overtly announcing the presuppositional framework allows us to discuss the protestant Christian evidences and not be distracted by aarguements over wheather or not circularity is in and of itself irrational.

But the fact that we and the Muslims both have presuppositions is a great starting place, is it not? They need to see their own "presuppositionalism." Besides, what are our "protestant Christian evidences?"

 

[ChristianTrader]

1)Would you say that consistency is one of God's attributes?
2)If yes, then how could using that as a key in identifying what is God's special revelation, be placing it about the throne of God.
3)If no, then what is it?
4)I never said that consistency is the only thing that one looks for when identifying truth (in any sphere), for one can be consistently wrong.
5)If it is not foundational, then you could accept something as God's word if it was not consistent?

1) Yes

Good

2) Because it would demean the witness of the Holy Spirit and the perspicuity of God's authoritative revelation. If we determine that the Bible is God's Word because it is consistent -- rather than merely seeing consistency as an aspect of God's Word, and one that confirms what the Holy Spirit has told us -- then we have logically placed the criterion of consistency above God's own authority.

How does God have authority over an essential attribute? If God has authority over it, then he can change it right?

Next, we agreed that the witness of the Holy Spirit was needed to break our rebellion against that which is already clear, not to make something unclear clear. It seems that now you want to make it necessary in order to make something unclear clear.

3) A confirmatory aspect, but not a foundational one: i.e. we are confirmed that our conviction is true, but the Bible is not proven to be God's Word as a result of its consistency (or any other attribute).

But as I said, if it is God's attribute or "calling card" to be/do something then how can my looking for this undermine him?

4) I know. I am pointing out that the bolded statement was not positing some criterion by which we can determine which revelation is God's Word. Just as its majesty and purity, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, its power to convince and convert sinners, and its power to comfort and build up believers unto salvation do not prove that the Bible is God's Word.

If such things are not foundational then they can be removed and one still accept it as being what it is. That is not true with the claim that the Bible is God's word and self-attesting.

5) Inconsistency could evince that something is not special revelation, but only because God has sovereignly established consistency as a tool under His authority. In other words, the answer to your question is "yes," but not because consistency is some independent criterion outside of God's purview.

So God is sovereign over the things that make him God? He is sovereign over Holiness, Justice, Eternality, etc

CT

 

[Confessor]

How does God have authority over an essential attribute? If God has authority over it, then he can change it right?

I didn't say He has authority over the attribute which is part of His character (that's an entirely different discussion and unrelated to apologetics); I implied that His witness has authority over man's determining whether a text is consistent or not.

Next, we agreed that the witness of the Holy Spirit was needed to break our rebellion against that which is already clear, not to make something unclear clear. It seems that now you want to make it necessary in order to make something unclear clear.

How so? I talked about "the perspicuity of God's authoritative revelation."

But as I said, if it is God's attribute or "calling card" to be/do something then how can my looking for this undermine him?

Looking for consistency per se is not undermining; seeing it as an entity which necessarily must be established prior to its acceptance as God's Word (e.g. arguing with an unbeliever that God's Word is authoritative because it is consistent) is undermining it, however.

If such things are not foundational then they can be removed and one still accept it as being what it is. That is not true with the claim that the Bible is God's word and self-attesting.

That's not at all what I meant by "foundational." I used the word in the sense that foundational propositions are premises of an argument, and the Bible's veracity is the conclusion of the argument -- i.e. rather than they stemming from the Bible's truthfulness (being confirmatory), the Bible's truthfulness is stemming from them. That is what I meant by being foundational.

So God is sovereign over the things that make him God? He is sovereign over Holiness, Justice, Eternality, etc

Again, we are not speaking of God's attributes. That's not what I was referring to when I said that consistency (or anything else) was on a throne above God. I meant "consistency" in the sense of man accepting the Bible because he saw it to be consistent.

In like fashion, man should not accept the Bible because it appears holy to him (or consistent or majestic, etc.), but rather because it is indisputably God's Word due to its marks of deity. As a result of being God's Word, then, the book's holiness and majesty are confirmatory of the Holy Spirit's leading.

 

[yeutter]

Presenting the historical evidence for, logical arguements for, archeological evidence for, or scientific arguements for the historic reliability of the Bible does not make the Bible suppordinate to logic, archaeology, science or the study of history.

I do not deny for a second that they are true. But -- and surely you can agree with me on this -- if they are used incorrectly they will not point to the truth of Christianity.[/guote]

I do not agree with you that if Protestant Christian evidences are used incorrectly they will not point to the truth.

And, of course, one of the ways to use them incorrectly is to assume that they are coherent outside of a Christian framework. To assume this would be to deny the doctrine of God's sovereignty.

I do not have a clue why you believe this. Exactly the opposite would seem to be true

The arguements from the various secular disciplines do not prove that the Bible is the Word of God. The arguements from the various secular disciplines prove that the Bible is historically reliable.

this could be heavily disputed. There are some oft-changing standards of historical reliability, and the Bible is not accepted by most people as historical fact (e.g. Genesis 1, the Exodus, the Virgin Birth, etc.).

The skeptic might not acknowledge the historical reliability of the New Testament when he would accept similar evidence to prove the historical reliability of some other document in antiquity. The fact that he does not accept the proof only means he is flying from reason.

Circular reasoning. This approach seems inherently illogical to me. To Muslims this approach is offensive. Muslims are scandalized by by presuppositionalism. The Gospel alone gives offense. There is no need to use an approach that gives additional offense.

Please, brother, point out the actual flaws you see. You keep claiming how it's so "scandalizing" and "offensive," which causes me to offer a rebuttal in defense. In reply to my defense, you repeat how offensive it is. Please, critique my defense if it honestly causes you and your friends such grief.

I have never seen a rational defense of the circular reasoning that Post Kantians, including VanTillians and Dooyeweerdians insist on asserting. The mere assert of a thing is something to which I can not offer a rebuttal.
One muslim friend, a physician from the Indian subcontinent, equated the presuppositional arguement a Christian had advanced to the kind of introspection of ones naval that hindus and sikhs engage in.

-----Added 12/5/2008 at 08:16:04 EST-----

That is because they functioned in a philosophical context which did not overtly announce its presuppositional framework.

Lets assume that is correct for a minute. I think it is a good idea to not discuss the presuppositional framework when talking with my Muslim friends.
Not overtly announcing the presuppositional framework allows us to discuss the protestant Christian evidences and not be distracted by aarguements over wheather or not circularity is in and of itself irrational.

But the fact that we and the Muslims both have presuppositions is a great starting place, is it not? They need to see their own "presuppositionalism." Besides, what are our "protestant Christian evidences?"

No!!!!! It is most assuredly not a great starting point. They do not believe they are proceeding from a set of presuppositions. They think they are just being logical.

 

[MW]

One muslim friend, a physician from the Indian subcontinent, equated the presuppositional arguement a Christian had advanced to the kind of introspection of ones naval that hindus and sikhs engage in.

If he provided the basis for this judgment, and then gave some account of his authority, he would then be seen to be making a circular argument and engaging in the same Hindu introspection. Presuppositions are a fact of rationality. All conclusions are based on premises which themselves are conclusions based on premises which ultimately are derived from a fundamental authority regarded as the source of rationality.

 

[kalawine]

No!!!!! It is most assuredly not a great starting point. They do not believe they are proceeding from a set of presuppositions. They think they are just being logical.

Then you need to attempt to show them that EVERYONE has presuppositions! Even basing your foundation on logic is a presuppostion. Thus your comment, "They do not believe..." In order to NOT believe we have to have a positive belief in something which would be our pressumed belief.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

The Bible is the highest authority. If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible. Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority. How would classical apologists or evidentialists respond to this?

How about this analogy: Lets say that you are a fed and you want to make a big case against a mafia boss. You get a henchman to talk and eventually you make the case against the big boss. Did you have to assume the henchman was bigger/more authoritative/a higher authority etc than the big boss?

CT

I don't think this is a correct analogy. The point being made is that if the mafia boss himself admitted to being a mafia boss and the feds still felt the need to find a henchman to finger him, the feds would be claiming the henchman is more authoritative than the mafia boss himself. The bible claims to be God's word. For someone to need other proof than what the bible claims shows the denial of biblical authority.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

The Bible is the highest authority.

God is the highest authority. The bible is God's word, but ultimately the authority stems from him.

If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible.

I see no reason to think that "logic, science, or the findings of archaeology" have more authority than the bible if it proves what the bible says is *true*. Why would they?

Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority.

Why suppose this? At this point these are just assertions, which I don't see as following at all. That's probably how they would respond.

 

[Confessor]

I have never seen a rational defense of the circular reasoning that Post Kantians, including VanTillians and Dooyeweerdians insist on asserting. The mere assert of a thing is something to which I can not offer a rebuttal.
One muslim friend, a physician from the Indian subcontinent, equated the presuppositional arguement a Christian had advanced to the kind of introspection of ones naval that hindus and sikhs engage in.

We can't have an infinite regression of justifying claims. For example, if I were asked how I knew that this computer screen was in front of me, I could answer that I see it; then after being asked how seeing it entails knowledge, I could respond that a faithful God has given me reliable sense perception to reality; then asked how I know that, I could say that He has revealed Himself through the Bible; then asked how I know that He has done that, I couldn't really go further. Even if I could, there would have to be some axiomatic starting point in order to avoid an infinite regression. There necessarily is a self-authenticating starting point, and by being self-authenticating, it necessarily is circular. Presuppositionalists are being honest about this point, not fallacious.

Autonomous philosophies use logic, the uniformity of nature, sense perception, etc. as axiomatic and go from there to attempt to explain the world. Christians start from God's Word as axiomatic and go from there. Muslims may either start from the Qur'an or from the same axioms as autonomous philosophies do.

Everyone has a starting point, even if they think that it is logic or some other "common ground." You must expose why this is not neutral, namely because it presupposes that a God who is sovereign over such entities (logic et al.) does not exist. If asked wfor what rational reasons they should believe that God is the starting point, you give 'em TAG.

No!!!!! It is most assuredly not a great starting point. They do not believe they are proceeding from a set of presuppositions. They think they are just being logical.

Of course they don't think they are being antitheistic. They, just like we were, are totally depraved. You have to point out their obvious misotheism and not just assume that they are being neutral because they claim to be.

-----Added 12/6/2008 at 02:12:43 EST-----

God is the highest authority. The bible is God's word, but ultimately the authority stems from him.

This isn't really a dichotomy. Just as if God were to speak to you directly and tell you something, the Bible carries the exact same authority. It is essentially God's own words written down in a book graciously given to us.

I see no reason to think that "logic, science, or the findings of archaeology" have more authority than the bible if it proves what the bible says is *true*. Why would they?

They don't prove the Bible true, because they're based on presuppositions that the Bible is not true, and moreover, Christian apologists who use such arguments are actually deceivingly concealing their own presuppositions before the unbeliever.

Why suppose this? At this point these are just assertions, which I don't see as following at all. That's probably how they would respond.

Because it's logical. If proposition X were to authenticate proposition Y, then Y could not possibly be authoritative over X, since its authority would be stemming from something outside itself, removing any intrinsic potency from which it can have authority over X. If X gives Y its authority, then X is necessarily authoritative over Y. The relationship couldn't arbitrarily reverse.

Furthermore, if this is just an assertion, then so is your claim that something lesser can justify something greater. You would need to positively justify that.