Well, that's what your job as an apologist is, to show him that difference. You have to take him beyond his own and your own presuppositions, to the objective truth of things. In doing so you will be showing him how he abuses reason in rationalizing his views. So you can't be guilty of the same thing, of course. It's not a contest between personal presuppositions. That's what the earlier Van Til was concerned about.

JD, you're right. These things seem to be contradictory to us. Too often we're putting the finite against the infinite, and instead of seeing how the former fits into the latter, we make contradistinctions, and call them contradictions. Of course they're not. We just don't understand, that's all.

We don't have to understand everything in order to understand some things.

__________________
JohnV :detective:

John Vandervliet
Ontario, Canada
member of: Canadian Reformed Church
"In coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of the facts as they are" C.S Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism