Presuppostionalism "Eventually bogs down?"

Discussion in 'Apologetical Methods' started by TomVols, Aug 19, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    Sure, it counts. But the reason that William Lane Craig represents classical apologetics and I do not is because he has visibility.
    yes.
    You have to presuppose my system before you can even make sense of that question.
     
  2. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    I like Kline. His Images of the Spirit is truly ground breaking work. But Kline never saw himself as an apologist.
     
  3. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    Poythress isn't an apologist.
     
  4. Taylor Sexton

    Taylor Sexton Puritan Board Junior

    Thank you for your honesty. This is not an intellectual objection; this is prejudice.
     
  5. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    You didn't see the irony in the post, did you? I grant that there are presups who don't embody the "Yaah, howdoya know?" Approach. That's great. They also don't have the status or public visibility of Bahnsen. They aren't debating in major university forums. That's why I don't focus on them.
     
  6. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    Some of what Kline and Poythress wrote is apologetics. "The Structure of Biblical Authority" by Kline is very apologetical in nature and dedicated to Van Til. The books on worldview and the bible by Poythress are also apologetical.
     
  7. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    Sure, they have apologetic value. Neither man, though, considered himself an apologist.
     
  8. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    That doesn't mean it isn't apologetic. Just because they don't claim to be apologists, and I'm not sure about that claim, doesn't mean they weren't doing apologetics. You seem, if I understand you correctly, to be restricting apologetics so that they can be ruled out as apologists. Am I right there?
     
  9. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    They do apologetics, but they aren't apologists like Bahnsen. Neither one did formal debates on the existence of God, or even appeared on CNN discussing this with atheists.
     
  10. Taylor Sexton

    Taylor Sexton Puritan Board Junior

    Neither did Van Til, as far as I am aware.
     
  11. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    True but the point is you said there are no presups doing "nitty gritty" scriptual apologetics. Those are two major scholars that did.
     
  12. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    It seems to me that God utilizes thousands upon thousands of people to do apologetics from all traditions and only hundreds upon hundreds to do it in a popular setting.
     
  13. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    Accounting for anything, not just knowledge.
     
  14. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    You can't possibly decide who does or doesn't count. That is up to the individual to decide whether they represent it or not. You also can't decide what a pressupossitional apologetics is by picking and choosing who counts, which seems to be the worst of us, and say "that's what pressupossitonalism is" (that's a straw man fallacy).
     
  15. Taylor Sexton

    Taylor Sexton Puritan Board Junior

    To be honest, brother, I don’t know how far this conversation is capable of going. I have a strong feeling we are dealing with some special pleading and some Texas sharpshooting. The difficult thing about that is that it’s very difficult to dialogue with it, since everything that is said in response will never meet the arbitrary criteria of the interlocutor.

    So far, the only two objections I’ve gotten are these:

    1) “The unbeliever on the street doesn’t understand it.”

    2) “Sye Ten Bruggencate”

    I’m not sure how to move forward with this.
     
  16. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    I'm willing to conversate with anyone as long as they want to. You've given great posts BTW, very Insightful.
     
  17. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    What is Texas sharpshooting? I lived there for 4 years and I never heard that before. It's funny.
     
  18. Semper Fidelis

    Semper Fidelis 2 Timothy 2:24-25 Staff Member

    By the way, I consider James White to be an example of someone who is a presuppositionalist who does nitty-gritty apologetics. I also think Ravi Zacharias's worldview structure of Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny is a form of presup. I've found Van Til to be helpful but I agree with some criticisms that have been leveled against really strict approaches that focus primarily on the issue of epistemology.

    I've tried to follow the philosophical debates over the years over whether or not common sense realism or idealist approaches are philosophically sound. Some blame the former for Princeton's slide into heterodoxy.

    I tend to see philosophy as a useful tool but the more fundamental issue is a respect for the Creator-creature distinction and a theological commitment to God's Word as God-breathed. People like the Socinians are more committed to the idea that they can philosophically pin God down before they are committed to God's Revelation to creatures. There's a whole crop of Christian intellectuals in the William Lane Craig mold who are more committed to arguments that are philosophically sound first according to the creature's standards and then subjecting the Scriptures to what is theologically fruitful to truth as measured by man.

    I personally think that 2 Tim 2:24-25 is a solid foundation upon which any apologetic should proceed. The Christian no longer lives in bondage, soul and mind to idolatry. He never loses track of the fact that the person whom he is interacting with is enslaved just as he once was and should be patient in answering objections. He must never forget, however, that he's not converting people to a sound philosophical argument or to a worldview but from death to life. The person born in Adam is altogether like him as a man created in the image of God but is ethically hostile to God. He has the "machinery" of thought but it is weaponized in hostility to the Creator. We can and should defeat all arguments that deny God but in a spirit of humility and pity. It's a tall order.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Amen Amen x 1
    • List
  19. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    Ravi endorsed Norman Geisler's apologetics. Ravi did admit, though, that he is more of an existential apologist.
     
  20. Semper Fidelis

    Semper Fidelis 2 Timothy 2:24-25 Staff Member

    Fair enough. Wherever he falls he is a warm person who engages hard questions and challenges people to think through their assumptions I don't always agree with the way some of his team is soft on certain assumptions they are committed to the idea that faith in Christ is more than an intellectual movement and aren't as speculative as WLC.
     
  21. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    Ravi is amazing his way of talking alone is amazing. I do like the existential side of things, thet tend to get more personal, like the examples I gave.
     
  22. Henry Hall

    Henry Hall Puritan Board Freshman

    Is that what you see coming out of Sye Ten Bruggencate?
     
  23. Henry Hall

    Henry Hall Puritan Board Freshman

    But do you know that fact only inasmuch as you presuppose the Christian God, or do you know it denying that that fact was preinterpreted by God?
     
  24. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    Well for me, I hope some humility. I'm glad that he's changed. There's no reason to engage people like he used to.
     
  25. Henry Hall

    Henry Hall Puritan Board Freshman

    I think part of what people didn't like about him was that he would destroy them in debates. When you do that, and may be you don't have the tact of Pastors Bahnsen and Durbin, then people--I'm sorry...like some women I've known--will start complaining about the WAY you're arguing.
    But my point was, here's a guy who applies presup at the in a popular, less academic, street-level way.
     
  26. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    I don't really worry abuot those questions, to be honest.
     
  27. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    Isn't one of his lines, "I don't do bible studies with unbelievers?"
     
  28. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    I'm a guy who does "less academic, street-level" pressupossitional apologetics with people and I've never treated them that way. The value of Van Till is you can let start wherever they want and go from there.
     
  29. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    That's just a sorry line for him say. Why?
     
  30. TomVols

    TomVols Puritan Board Freshman

    How much value is in the “In your Face” street style? Tim Keller said once he wasn’t a fan of doing CNN etc because it led to “sound-byte apologetics” and I have to agree. That said, I want public engagement in congenial ways. Again, Keller and others have addressed Google and Veritas. But Keller did say that presuppositional apologetics is the best method if you’re in that circumstance because it quickly addresses the root of the issue involved rather than lengthy proofs.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page