I'm sorry to keep asking questions on the topic, but I want to refine my apologetic until it is flawless.

Van Til made a huge deal about arguing for Christianity as a whole, but I'm not sure exactly how to do it. The "piecemeal" method seems unavoidable.

This problem arose when I was trying to see how to definitely point unbelievers to Christ so that they are “without excuse.” I was trying to see what aspect of our universe would point to Christ as Redeemer, and not some generic desire for salvation. I fear from this that I am still trapped in the remnants of the traditional apologetic method.

How do we avoid the “piecemeal” nature of the method? It seems we have to build up one by one the doctrines of Christianity, through a transcendental method (e.g. the transcendence of a deity is established through the existence of universal laws, then the equally ultimate plurality and unity [triunity] are established with the one and the many problem, then the personal aspect is added with the notions of love).

For example, if we engaged with an unbeliever on the nature of uniformity, and I demonstrated that the notion is intelligible on Christian presuppositions but not on atheistic presuppositions, the atheist could take whatever aspect of Christianity that allows for uniformity and replace his old belief with that. He would no longer be an atheist, but he would also not be a Christian. In such a case, I would have to argue further to get closer to Biblical Christianity, but he could just keep refining his presuppositions to accommodate my arguments without turning to Christ. He could keep doing this until the entirety of Christianity was proven transcendentally.

Rather than causing a devastating shift of presuppositions from unbelief to Christ, all the argument seems to do is modify the starting presupposition closer and closer to Christianity, thus leaving man’s autonomy untouched inasmuch as it is short of the Reformed faith. As close as it can get to Christianity (establishing the necessity of a personal Triune God, or even further), such a method would have to prove all of Biblical doctrines by transcendental argumentation, which would annihilate the authority of the Bible by subjecting it to an external standard (as well as be very difficult to do).

Have I discovered a fatal flaw in presuppositionalism or am I doing something terribly wrong? I’m strongly hoping for the latter.

__________________
Ben - C&MA - Ohio

"What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ." - Philippians 3:8

Nothing? Come on, this is killing me!

__________________
Ben - C&MA - Ohio

"What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ." - Philippians 3:8

Herein lies one problemo.

I'll try to help in a second. I'm eatin an apple.

__________________
Andrew DeShazo, Deacon, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"All of us stumble in many ways, but if anyone is never at fault in what he says, then he is mature, able to control his whole body."(James 3:2)

The whole point of that Romans text is that they are already without excuse.

__________________
Tim Vaughan, 48 years old, member PCA church but currently attending EV Free church. San Luis Obispo County, California.

The modification of the worldview shouldn't involve a slow slide toward a more Christian worldview, but remember that you're dealing with fallen human beings who hate God and will do everything they can, including being illogical and dishonest, even with themselves and you, to avoid acknowledging that Christ is Lord.

The unbeliever is already a defeated adversary. As Mr. Tim has already pointed out, the unbeliever is already without excuse because natural revelation is sufficient enough to convey that God is there. Any aspect of natural revelation can be used to show this, from the existence of morality to the existence of existence itself. One of these alone being necessarily used by the unbeliever to complete their farce of a worldview is enough to warrant an intellectual conversion to Christianity, but conversions are not worked in the mind alone, but in the heart by God.

The whole point of it is thus:

If A, then C.
A.
C.

If you believe in morality, then you must use the Christian morality.
You believe in morality.
You must believe in Christian morality.

From there, logic would warrant a conversion to Christianity because God is the one who penned Christian morality, but this probably isn't the case.

The unbeliever at this point could just simply assent to this one outcome and make no move toward Christ, but we wouldn't expect them to. Although it would be logically and intellectually consistent to do so, they won't without God working in their heart. This is not a fatal flaw in the approach, but the nature of depravity; their reasoning is depraved, along with everything else.

Remember the purpose of apologetics. Both Calvin and Bahnsen agreed that its purpose was not to convert the heart of the unbeliever, it's to shut their mouths.

__________________
Andrew DeShazo, Deacon, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"All of us stumble in many ways, but if anyone is never at fault in what he says, then he is mature, able to control his whole body."(James 3:2)

That's my problem -- how do you get them to shut their mouths if they can offer a non-Christian worldview that accounts for everything? All they intellectually must do is modify their presuppositions to account for all the transcendental arguments presented. For the morality argument towards Christianity, the unbeliever could just take whatever he wanted from Christianity that accounts for morality, change his worldview accordingly, and reject the rest of Christianity. This is the problem I'm facing. It's hypothetical, but it's nonetheless a problem.

I know that unbelievers are already without excuse, but obviously they will deny this, since they are blinded by sin. My problem is getting them to understand why they are without excuse.

__________________
Ben - C&MA - Ohio

"What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ." - Philippians 3:8

Have you looked at past discussions in which the shortcomings of the TAG was discussed?

__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Currently in the process of transferring membership to an as-yet-undecided church in Chapel Hill
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

Packa,

The unbeliever's denial of his blindness is one of the strongest weapons in your arsenal. The wickedness of man's heart is the issue. If you want to get them to acknowledge that they are so desperately wicked that they denial was is plain and evident, that will take a supernatural work of God the Holy Spirit. His appointed method is the declaration and application of Holy Writ. Do this, and you will slay demons (and, no, not in a charismatic sense).

Cheers,

__________________
Adam Brink, Grace Church of Pleasanton, PCA, Pleasanton, California

"Mark you this, Bassanio, The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart: O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!"

Antonio - The Merchant of Venice (Act 1, Scene 3)

Yeah, I just looked at the "TAG Questions" thread, and I do not see anything similar to the problem I have expressed here. Certainly there are problems regarding certainty in transcendental argumentation, since it is really a form of deductive reasoning which is never 100% reliable as long we are humans, but that thread did not mention anything about the problem I have expressed.

I know that it's not my job to change their heart and realize their wickedness, but it is my job to shut their mouths. If they can have an adequate philosophical system by accepting all of the characteristics their worldview must have (that I prove through transcendental argumentation), but they do not accept all of Christianity, then they are excusable before God. That is a problem.

__________________
Ben - C&MA - Ohio

"What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ." - Philippians 3:8

At this site, Free Articles, they have many free articles on Apologetics written by the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen. The majority of the book published after his death, Always Ready, is contained in these free articles. They also sell his lectures in mp3 format. I would recommend buying the DVD Basic Training for Defending the Faith with the book 'Pushing the Antithesis.' It lays a good foundation. I would follow this up with the mp3 lecture 'Practical Apologetics', then "Transcendental Argumentation", follow these with the 3 part series on the History of Apologetics and then his Seminary Apologetics. For money's sake you can leave out the History of Apologetics. Another good series is "Challenge to Unbelief" which was once available online for free.


Concerning your post:

What justification under an atheist worldview does he have for accepting as true the uniformity of nature? The Presuppositional argument is that one cannot appeal to the uniformity of nature without first appealing to the God which makes nature uniform.

The following is a list of links for the debate between Gordon Stein (atheist) and Dr. Greg Bahnsen:

The PDF file: http://www.bellevuechristian.org/fac...Transcript.pdf

The audio files:
Here is a link to the DVD series I mentioned above posted at YouTube:
Hope this helps.

__________________
Chris Thomas | SBC-Founders | Fairbanks, AK

Q. How many things are necessary for thee to know, that thou, enjoying this comfort, mayest live and die happily?
A. Three, the first, how great my sins and miseries are, the second, how I may be delivered from all my sins and miseries, the third, how I shall express my gratitude to God for such deliverance.

Blog: http://johngillisdead.blogspot.com/

If I've read this right, you're already starting off with an incorrect presupposition that the atheist worldview is 'an adequate philosophical system.' Another point I just thought of, atheists already accept many premises from the Christian worldview. Here are a few examples: uniformity of nature, laws of logic, murder is wrong, 1+1=2, the ability to read, etc. In the apologetic encounter you show the atheist that he has no right to these beliefs under his worldview. If he wishes to use them, then he must reject atheism and accept Christianity. Without the operation of the Holy Ghost he will naturally refuse to do this, but by this point you have reduced his position to absurdity and have left him without the ability to speak without first presupposing the existence of the Christian God. All he can then do is sit there saying nothing. His mouth has been stopped, and now you can share the gospel with him.

__________________
Chris Thomas | SBC-Founders | Fairbanks, AK

Q. How many things are necessary for thee to know, that thou, enjoying this comfort, mayest live and die happily?
A. Three, the first, how great my sins and miseries are, the second, how I may be delivered from all my sins and miseries, the third, how I shall express my gratitude to God for such deliverance.

Blog: http://johngillisdead.blogspot.com/

Thanks for the links. I've pretty much read through all of Van Til's Apologetic by Dr. Bahnsen, so I've got a relatively firm grasp on the material. Although, I don't think you understand my problem with it.

When the Christian shows the atheist that uniformity in nature is a belief only on Christian grounds, the atheist can ask what character of uniformity requires the entire Bible to be true. The Christian couldn't say the entire Bible -- he could only say something about the transcendence of God (or possibly the triunity) -- but the entire Christian worldview could not be proven on one single aspect.

Therefore, the atheist could modify his worldview to contain a theistic and even a triune god without having to believe in the Christian God. He could therefore account for the uniformity of nature and tell the Christian to tell him why the rest of Christianity is true. He would no longer be an atheist, to be sure, but he would also fall short of Christ. He would not be rationally required to be a Christian.

This could go on for a long time until the entirety of the Bible is proven, but that would mean the Bible loses its authority. It seems like a very large problem to me.

__________________
Ben - C&MA - Ohio

"What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ." - Philippians 3:8

Yeah, my point is that the Christian can't demonstrate why this leads wholly to Christianity, and not some generic belief in a triune theistic deity.

__________________
Ben - C&MA - Ohio

"What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ." - Philippians 3:8

What does belief in a generic triune theistic deity look like?

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

What do you mean by the bolded statement?

If I understand your intent correctly, the atheist has attempted to flip the tables. The problem for him in doing this is that in his worldview there is no reason for the uniformity of nature. Why is nature uniform? Atheist response: it's just so.

The Bahnsen/Stein debate deals with this issue. Stein tries the 'just so' argument and Bahnsen tears the argument to shreds showing its futility. In the end Bahnsen demonstrates that an atheist cannot make any claims to uniformity without first presupposing the Christian God. But if the atheist is going to do that, then he has lost the argument.

Make the atheist explain why he believes in uniformity.

__________________
Chris Thomas | SBC-Founders | Fairbanks, AK

Q. How many things are necessary for thee to know, that thou, enjoying this comfort, mayest live and die happily?
A. Three, the first, how great my sins and miseries are, the second, how I may be delivered from all my sins and miseries, the third, how I shall express my gratitude to God for such deliverance.

Blog: http://johngillisdead.blogspot.com/

Which lecture is that covered in Practical Apologetics by Bahnsen? I think it's in either the 1st two or the last two.

__________________
Chris Thomas | SBC-Founders | Fairbanks, AK

Q. How many things are necessary for thee to know, that thou, enjoying this comfort, mayest live and die happily?
A. Three, the first, how great my sins and miseries are, the second, how I may be delivered from all my sins and miseries, the third, how I shall express my gratitude to God for such deliverance.

Blog: http://johngillisdead.blogspot.com/

The non-Christian's response could be that they don't have to explain it, as long as they explain the characteristics of it that make the universe intelligible, they don't have to explain any further.

It would be the burden of the Christian to explain why belief in a triune god must be belief in The Triune God.

__________________
Ben - C&MA - Ohio

"What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ." - Philippians 3:8

Maybe a mock response will help (I'm going to oversimplify the argument against uniformity, but my point will still stand):

Christian - Atheism can't support uniformity, because that requires a necessary cause for uniformity, some kind of being that transcends the universe and gives order to it. Christianity satisfies this, but not atheism.
Atheist - Okay, that's cool. I'll believe in a transcendental being that gives uniformity.

Note that he would no longer be an atheist, but he would be rationally justified in his beliefs without resorting to Christianity.

__________________
Ben - C&MA - Ohio

"What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ." - Philippians 3:8