 » Site Navigation | | | |  | 
10-01-2009, 12:32 AM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: renton, washington
Posts: 171
Thanks: 1
Thanked 36 Times in 28 Posts
| | | Evidentialism and Presuppositionalism ?
I've been doing some reading on inspiration and the authority of Scripture and came across this debate.
supports the idea that the evidence of God can be argued from outside of Scripture, i.e natural revelation. supports the idea that God can only be known through special revelation, i.e. Scripture.
Specifically with respect to Scripture, the evidentialist would say that proof for Scripture's validity can be found outside of its source. The presuppositionalist would say that the Scripture itself holds its only truth claim, which can only be understood through the Holy Spirit's illumination. Otherwise, the non-believer would be called to judge the merits of Scripture, i.e. about God through a darkened lens.
What view do you support and why?
-Side note-
I cam across this from another website-
__________________
Robert Brown
Emmanuel OPC
Kent Washington
Augustine. ' Animam meam in odia haberem'
(Translated) I would hate my own soul if I did not find it loving God
|
10-01-2009, 01:28 AM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: shelbyville, ky
Posts: 1,127
Thanks: 424
Thanked 447 Times in 294 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by DeoOpt  I've been doing some reading on inspiration and the authority of Scripture and came across this debate.
supports the idea that the evidence of God can be argued from outside of Scripture, i.e natural revelation. supports the idea that God can only be known through special revelation, i.e. Scripture.
Specifically with respect to Scripture, the evidentialist would say that proof for Scripture's validity can be found outside of its source. The presuppositionalist would say that the Scripture itself holds its only truth claim, which can only be understood through the Holy Spirit's illumination. Otherwise, the non-believer would be called to judge the merits of Scripture, i.e. about God through a darkened lens.
What view do you support and why?
-Side note-
I cam across this from another website- |
Presuppositionalist. Because God says so. 
__________________
Bob, elder, RBC Louisville. 1689 LBCF
"... Of such also, or of those who make a credible profession of being such, all those particular churches consist, which constitute our Lord's visible kingdom. ... Consequently, all the subjects of His government must have spiritual dispositions, , and yield spiritual obedience- obedience proceeding from an enlightened understanding, an awakened conscience, and a renewed heart."- Abraham Booth 1788 | | The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to rbcbob For This Useful Post: | |
10-01-2009, 08:43 AM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 29
Thanks: 3
Thanked 24 Times in 12 Posts
| | |
All theology begins with propositional revelation. Even the evidentialist gets his justification for evidentialism from the presupposed scriptures. There cannot be anything ‘higher’ than the word of God to justify the word of God or it (that is the other thing) becomes the word of God by default (and that’s heretical). By definition, the word of God must stand alone as its own authority. Scripture is does not merely constitute the content of dogmatics, it must serve as the alone justification for dogmatics as an enterprise. If the locus of justification resides outside of the scriptures, its own self-attesting witness to its own self-justification would be contradicted. In other words, the bible teaches that’s its ground for veracity does not subsist in environs external to itself (Luke 16:27-31). Thus, theological content must determine apologetic method. The scriptures are the starting point of all knowledge. We must begin with propositional revelation and then interpret the world (not the reverse!).
__________________
Steve
Pastoral Intern, RPCNA
Ottawa, CA
|
10-01-2009, 09:04 AM
| | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 806
Thanks: 388
Thanked 206 Times in 127 Posts
| |
Presuppositionalist. If you haven't read it yet, check out " The Attestation of Scripture" by John Murray. Better yet, get the entire Infallible Word volume it was published in. Take a look at where Clark Pinnock is now to see what happens when you base the veracity of Scripture on the attestation of natural revelation.
__________________
Bryan Peters Providence Reformed Church ( URCNA)
Des Moines, Iowa
Doctrinal truth should be preached always, openly, without compromise, and never dissembled or concealed. There is no offence in it; it is the staff of uprightness.
~Martin Luther~
|
10-01-2009, 09:12 AM
|  | Semper ubi sub ubi | | Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Janesville, WI
Posts: 7,401
Thanks: 403
Thanked 2,943 Times in 1,076 Posts
| | |
Romans 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
I believe in the importance and efficacy of evidentialism based on the presuppositional truth that there is a God and He's revealed himself in His Word, the Bible; hence, evidentialism is presuppositionally true.
| | The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BobVigneault For This Useful Post: | |
10-01-2009, 06:54 PM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 354
Thanks: 221
Thanked 85 Times in 47 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by rbcbob Presuppositionalist. Because God says so. | Ooooh, I will have to use that answer! 
__________________
MarieP
Reformed Baptist Church
Louisville, KY
"I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies and of all the truth which You have shown Your servant" (Gen. 32:10)
| | The Following User Says Thank You to MarieP For This Useful Post: | |
10-01-2009, 07:01 PM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Leesburg, VA
Posts: 368
Thanks: 17
Thanked 120 Times in 76 Posts
| | |
I'm what they call a common sense presuppositionalist or maybe a presuppositional classicist. In essence, I have a common sense epistemology while taking into account the presuppositions of my audience.
No good presuppositionalist ignores evidence just as no good classical apologist will ignore presuppositions.
Shouldn't this be in the apologetics forum?
| | The Following User Says Thank You to P. F. Pugh For This Useful Post: | |
10-01-2009, 07:08 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Perth, Scotland UK
Posts: 1,313
Thanks: 256
Thanked 432 Times in 287 Posts
| | |
Even Van Til believed in the use of evidences, in a presuppositional way.
__________________
Richard
communicant member, FCoS
Perth, Scotland UK
His Name forever shall endure;
last like the sun it shall:
Men shall be blessed in Him,
and blessed all nations shall Him call (Ps. 72:17)
|
10-01-2009, 08:16 PM
|  | Moderator | | Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 7,334
Thanks: 916
Thanked 5,328 Times in 1,952 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Tallach Even Van Til believed in the use of evidences, in a presuppositional way. | Yes, and he provides an excellent illustration as well: Quote: |
"We cannot prove the existence of beams underneath a floor if by proof we mean that they must be ascertainable in the way that we can see the chairs and tables of the room. But the very idea of a floor as the support of tables and chairs requires the idea of beams that are underneath. Thus there is absolutely certain proof for the existence of God and the truth of Christian theism...." The Defense of the Faith, p. 103.
| He explains in more detail what is meant by "absolutely certain proof for the existence of God:" Quote:
"It is the weakness of the Roman Catholic and the Arminian methods that they virtually identify objective validity with subjective acceptability to the natural man. Distinguishing carefully between these two, the Reformed apologist maintains that there is an absolutely valid argument for the existence of God and for the truth of Christian theism. He cannot do less without virtually admitting that God's revelation to man is not clear. It is fatal to the Reformed apologist to admit that man has done justice to the objective evidence if he comes to any other conclusion than that of the truth of Christian theism.
As for the question whether the natural man will accept the truth of such an argument, we answer that he will if God pleases by his Spirit to take the scales from his eyes and the mask from his face. It is upon the power of the Holy Spirit that the Reformed preacher relies when he tells men that they are lost in sin and in need of a Savior..." ibid. p. 104.
|
__________________
Yours sincerely, 
"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."
| | The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to armourbearer For This Useful Post: | |
10-01-2009, 08:18 PM
| | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 913
Thanks: 160
Thanked 169 Times in 117 Posts
| | |
If someone asks me, "why should I believe in scripture?", I imagine I ought to give him some good reasons to think scripture is reliable.
__________________
Steven Nemes
Phoenix, AZ
Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy must be answered - C.S. Lewis |
10-01-2009, 08:24 PM
| | Moderator | | Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 7,334
Thanks: 916
Thanked 5,328 Times in 1,952 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by steven-nemes If someone asks me, "why should I believe in scripture?", I imagine I ought to give him some good reasons to think scripture is reliable. | "Good reasons" are only such as meet the preconditions for rationality, and the ultimate precondition is the divine self-revelation.
| | The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to armourbearer For This Useful Post: | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | |
|
