Thread: How would classical apologists or evidentialists respond to this?

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?

I don't know how clever people would respond, but, at a quick glance of the stated question, it seems that it is a mere case of logic, and/or science simply agreeing with the Bible, not superseding it. This seems like too simple an answer, though. I think I have failed to see the full spectrum of the issue.

Originally Posted by cih1355

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?

I am neither, particularly, but I'd say the above is simply a restatement of the problem of induction, identified by Hume long ago.

The short version: inductive methods cannot prove an absolute truth. The nature of the method precludes it.

Science and archaeology are inductive and empirical. There is always the possibility of a contrary observation out there. As for logic, it needs something to work with or start from. In other words, it needs a connection from the abstract to the concrete. On its own it cannot prove anything.

They might say that the Bible is deemed as authoritative once we show the unbeliever why even on his terms it is reasonable to do so (although I doubt that this is possible), but that we are forced to appeal to lesser authorities to avoid fideism.

Of course, this is not really an answer to the question. I don't think evidentialists can answer this convincingly.

If something were to prove that the Bible is the word of God, then would it have more authority than the Bible?

I think it is kind of a moot question: how can anything prove that the bible is the word of God? The only way of asking that question would be to ask God: and the only way of hearing is answer is to look at the record of what he has spoken -- scripture.

An impossible hypothetical is normally impossible to answer without contradiction.

(Side note: this is partly why our confessions deny the use of external means to prove scripture to be from God: the only "proof" is the spirit bearing witness in our hearts.)

My

-----Added 12/1/2008 at 04:38:11 EST-----

Sorry, I just realized I misread the opening post, and this in no way answers your question.

Originally Posted by cih1355

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

Originally Posted by cih1355

If something were to prove that the Bible is the word of God, then would it have more authority than the Bible?

1. If we were to believe that the Bible is God's Word due to some rationalistic proof then that proof would be viewed as more authoritative by us.

2. There is no way to prove that the Bible is the Word of God from some external, non-Christian framework. And this is the case because there is no way to prove anything from outside a Christian framework.

-----Added 12/1/2008 at 04:50:38 EST-----

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Originally Posted by cih1355

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'm not sure exactly how to respond to this. It is difficult because it appears you are equivocating on the meaning of "authority." The Bible is not more authoritative than logic in the same sense that a mob boss is more authoritative than a henchman. Further, even the mob boss is subject to other, more authoritative things, such as God's law.

Originally Posted by cih1355

Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority. How would classical apologists or evidentialists respond to this?

Firstly, I would disagree and say that we something we know as a lesser authority can indeed authenticate something of greater authority in the mind of a skeptic.
Secondly, part of the job of the apologist is to demonstrate based on evidence the skeptic will accept.

Originally Posted by yeutter

Originally Posted by cih1355

Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority. How would classical apologists or evidentialists respond to this?

Firstly, I would disagree and say that we something we know as a lesser authority can indeed authenticate something of greater authority in the mind of a skeptic.
Secondly, part of the job of the apologist is to demonstrate based on evidence the skeptic will accept.

(1) Then how would such an entity actually have greater authority, if it is subject to the lesser one? Further, how does that work in the mind of a skeptic? (I'm not trying to put you on the spot.)

(2) Presuppositional apologetics attempts to show that the skeptic's standard for acceptable evidence is nonsensical (and unethical), leading to the destruction of knowledge.

Originally Posted by cih1355

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?

I was less than clear in my first response. Let me try again.

The Bible in some sense is not the highest authority. God is the highest authority. Because He is the highest authority, whatever He says is of the highest authority (in a derivative sense). It would be very hard to push forward the point that the Bible is the highest authority without making some points about the God who speaks through the Bible.

I would think that a classical apologist would say that the foundational points about God can be made through natural theology.

Since one can be certain that God exists, the only question is which book is His word.

CT

-----Added 12/1/2008 at 05:29:19 EST-----

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Originally Posted by cih1355

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'm not sure exactly how to respond to this. It is difficult because it appears you are equivocating on the meaning of "authority." The Bible is not more authoritative than logic in the same sense that a mob boss is more authoritative than a henchman. Further, even the mob boss is subject to other, more authoritative things, such as God's law.

1)Analogies break down at various points, hopefully at a point that is non essential to the point being made (if it was exact, it would not be an analogy)

2)The Bible is not more authoritative than logic, neither does it need to be. If it was then it could critique logic (for example the law of non contradiction etc) For example, we use the law of non contradiction to rule out various interpretations of the Bible.

3)My main point was that something lesser could point to something greater without making the lesser the end all be all.

CT

We take the authority the skeptic accepts and confront him with the fact that it proves that scripture is reliable and that Christ rose from the dead is a historical fact. For example, we can takes the arguements advanced by Locke to show a Muslim that to believe Christ rose from the dead is good history.
We do not need to show the skeptic that his standards are nonsensical. We attempt to use his standards to prove to his satisfaction that the Bible is good history. Therefore he must accept the Bibles message or he is irrational

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

1)Analogies break down at various points, hopefully at a point that is non essential to the point being made (if it was exact, it would not be an analogy)

2)The Bible is not more authoritative than logic, neither does it need to be. If it was then it could critique logic (for example the law of non contradiction etc) For example, we use the law of non contradiction to rule out various interpretations of the Bible.

3)My main point was that something lesser could point to something greater without making the lesser the end all be all.

(1) I'm aware that analogies must break down; it simply seems to me that your analogy breaks down before making its point (therefore at an essential point).

(2) It is more authoritative than man's use of logic, and it does need to be. You are right in the sense that God and His Word are not supreme over or subordinate to logic itself, but fallible human reasoning is clearly inferior.

(3) How does your analogy demonstrate that in the same way a use of human reasoning could retain the Bible's authoritativeness?

-----Added 12/1/2008 at 06:25:42 EST-----

Originally Posted by yeutter

We take the authority the skeptic accepts and confront him with the fact that it proves that scripture is reliable and that Christ rose from the dead is a historical fact. For example, we can takes the arguements advanced by Locke to show a Muslim that to believe Christ rose from the dead is good history.
We do not need to show the skeptic that his standards are nonsensical. We attempt to use his standards to prove to his satisfaction that the Bible is good history. Therefore he must accept the Bibles message or he is irrational

Regardless of the theoretical methodology, the question, ""Is the skeptic's standard nonsensical?" is strongly relevant. Without doing this he can hide behind it.

For instance, even if he were to admit that Jesus Christ was previously dead and subsequently alive, he would not have to concede His deity or any type of theological significance. The skeptic can see the resurrection as a naturalistic anomaly; he is rationally obliged to see it so given his presupposition. Further (and I don't know why I didn't think of this before), he could also point out that Lazarus and other people were raised from the dead.

Originally Posted by packabacka

(2) Presuppositional apologetics attempts to show that the skeptic's standard for acceptable evidence is nonsensical (and unethical), leading to the destruction of knowledge.

The presuppositionalist attempts to convince the skeptic that his standard for acceptable evidence is nonsensical by using and glorying in circular reasoning which is nonsensical and offensive to the skeptic.
The approach of the presuppositionalist gives scandal to the skeptic. The cross gives scandal to the unbeliever; we should not add to it.

Originally Posted by yeutter

Originally Posted by packabacka

(2) Presuppositional apologetics attempts to show that the skeptic's standard for acceptable evidence is nonsensical (and unethical), leading to the destruction of knowledge.

The presuppositionalist attempts to convince the skeptic that his standard for acceptable evidence is nonsensical by using and glorying in circular reasoning which is nonsensical and offensive to the skeptic.
The approach of the presuppositionalist gives scandal to the skeptic. The cross gives scandal to the unbeliever; we should not add to it.

Is your objection to presuppositionalism that it has an aspect of circularity?

What exactly should we not add to the cross? You were advocating a different form of apologetics earlier.

Someone once testified that Jesus is the Holy One of God, and the Lord Jesus Christ rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, Mark 1:25. Not all testimonies given on behalf of Jesus Christ are favourable to a sound reception of the truth. The quarter from which such testimony is given may prejudice the authority of Christ.

Originally Posted by packabacka

Originally Posted by yeutter

The presuppositionalist attempts to convince the skeptic that his standard for acceptable evidence is nonsensical by using and glorying in circular reasoning which is nonsensical and offensive to the skeptic.
The approach of the presuppositionalist gives scandal to the skeptic. The cross gives scandal to the unbeliever; we should not add to it.

Is your objection to presuppositionalism that it has an aspect of circularity?

What exactly should we not add to the cross? You were advocating a different form of apologetics earlier.

In my experience the circularity of presuppositionalism is offensive to Muslims and unbelieving Catholics.
We should not add to the cross an apologetic approach that gives scandal to the skeptic. The cross is scandal to the unbeliever in and of itself.
I do not believe traditional Thomism, or old Princeton gives scandal the way presuppositionalism does.

Originally Posted by yeutter

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.

Originally Posted by yeutter

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

Well, I do not believe presup gives scandal the way evidentialism does. Do you understand the defense of presuppositionalism's circularity?

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by yeutter

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.

Originally Posted by yeutter

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by yeutter

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.

It is impossible to set presuppositions aside.

Originally Posted by yeutter

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.

The theistic worldview you share with your Muslim friend will eventually lead to a disagreement wherein it will become necessary to discuss an underlying belief and the way it works itself out in the competing systems of Christianity and Mohammedanism. To do otherwise would be to attempt to trick your Muslim friend into believing Christianity is true without actually examining its ultimate truth claim.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The theistic worldview you share with your Muslim friend will eventually lead to a disagreement wherein it will become necessary to discuss an underlying belief and the way it works itself out in the competing systems of Christianity and Mohammedanism. To do otherwise would be to attempt to trick your Muslim friend into believing Christianity is true without actually examining its ultimate truth claim.

True, when I show the Muslim that he has no reason to see the New Testament documents as anything other then historically reliable; the usual responce is to raise all sorts of other objections. It is at that point that a discussion of ultimate truth claims of Christianity and presuppositions becomes of some value.
When I talk with unbelieving papists, I have never seen how presuppositionalism would have been of any value. On the contrary they give me a hearing an tell me how irrational some of my fellow evangelical are.
I either case they have been shown that the New Testament is reliable and are left without excuse.

-----Added 12/1/2008 at 09:25:55 EST-----

Originally Posted by packabacka

It is impossible to set presuppositions aside.

If that is the case knowledge of truth is impossible because none of us can get past our own presuppositions. This is the kind of circular reasoning my Muslim friends view as irrational.

Originally Posted by yeutter

When I talk with unbelieving papists, I have never seen how presuppositionalism would have been of any value.

The self-attesting authority of Scripture is a fundamental starting point for a Protestant in discussions with Romanists. For Romanists, following Aquinas, reason leads to faith; whereas for Reformed Protestants, following Anselm, faith seeks reason.

Originally Posted by packabacka

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

1)Analogies break down at various points, hopefully at a point that is non essential to the point being made (if it was exact, it would not be an analogy)

2)The Bible is not more authoritative than logic, neither does it need to be. If it was then it could critique logic (for example the law of non contradiction etc) For example, we use the law of non contradiction to rule out various interpretations of the Bible.

3)My main point was that something lesser could point to something greater without making the lesser the end all be all.

(1) I'm aware that analogies must break down; it simply seems to me that your analogy breaks down before making its point (therefore at an essential point).

My point three should answer this.

(2) It is more authoritative than man's use of logic, and it does need to be. You are right in the sense that God and His Word are not supreme over or subordinate to logic itself, but fallible human reasoning is clearly inferior.

How does that work out in practice? Do we not (as fallible humans) use the law of non contradiction to critique other interpretations of scripture besides our own? How is that not letting man's use of logic be more authoritative than God's word?

(3) How does your analogy demonstrate that in the same way a use of human reasoning could retain the Bible's authoritativeness?

My analogy was supposed to be about God and logic not scripture and logic.

CT

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The self-attesting authority of Scripture is a fundamental starting point for a Protestant in discussions with Romanists. For Romanists, following Aquinas, reason leads to faith; whereas for Reformed Protestants, following Anselm, faith seeks reason.

That is an interesting observation I will have to think about.

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

How does that work out in practice? Do we not (as fallible humans) use the law of non contradiction to critique other interpretations of scripture besides our own? How is that not letting man's use of logic be more authoritative than God's word?

We are not using human reason to say that Scripture contradicts itself.

To disprove a false interpretation of Scripture is not to supersede God's Word with human reasoning but to supersede a fallible human interpretation with a more faithful one. Reason here is a tool in submission to God's authority.

My analogy was supposed to be about God and logic not scripture and logic.

Regardless: Scripture is God's Word and would carry with it whatever authority which God Himself possesses.

-----Added 12/1/2008 at 09:59:23 EST-----

Originally Posted by yeutter

If that is the case knowledge of truth is impossible because none of us can get past our own presuppositions. This is the kind of circular reasoning my Muslim friends view as irrational.

Knowledge of truth is possible only because God does not give us over entirely to our unbelieving presuppositions (common grace). The entire presuppositional apologetic is built on the fact that everyone possesses believing presuppositions, metaphysically speaking, though everyone may not espouse the same presupposition. Only by starting with Christianity may anything make sense at all.

With a Muslim, you can show him inconsistencies within his system.

Originally Posted by packabacka

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

How does that work out in practice? Do we not (as fallible humans) use the law of non contradiction to critique other interpretations of scripture besides our own? How is that not letting man's use of logic be more authoritative than God's word?

We are not using human reason to say that Scripture contradicts itself.

To disprove a false interpretation of Scripture is not to supersede God's Word with human reasoning but to supersede a fallible human interpretation with a more faithful one. Reason here is a tool in submission to God's authority.

Umm, that is the whole point of the discussion over several threads. Reason can simple be used as a tool in submission to God's authority. To use it to challenge God is to abuse reason.

My analogy was supposed to be about God and logic not scripture and logic.

Regardless: Scripture is God's Word and would carry with it whatever authority which God Himself possesses.

That counter would only work if logic was something opposed to God and not dependent on God. Since that is not the case, I fail to see the force of your statement?

CT

Originally Posted by packabacka

Knowledge of truth is possible only because God does not give us over entirely to our unbelieving presuppositions (common grace). The entire presuppositional apologetic is built on the fact that everyone possesses believing presuppositions, metaphysically speaking, though everyone may not espouse the same presupposition. Only by starting with Christianity may anything make sense at all.

With a Muslim, you can show him inconsistencies within his system.

1. I do not believe in common grace, at least not as it is defined by the Christian Reformed Church.
2. Natural law should reveal to man the existance of the Law Giver who inhabits eternity.
3. Starting out with the presuppositional apporach does not allow you to have that conversation with a Muslim. He will quickly identify you as someone who is irrational as evidenced by your engaging in ciruclar reasoning.

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Umm, that is the whole point of the discussion over several threads. Reason can simple be used as a tool in submission to God's authority. To use it to challenge God is to abuse reason.

I understand. My point is that correcting false interpretations is an example of this, not a counterexample. Using reason to correct (e.g.) an Arminian view is not tantamount to using reason to contradict God Himself.

That counter would only work if logic was something opposed to God and not dependent on God. Since that is not the case, I fail to see the force of your statement?

How does my statement regarding God's authority being tantamount to Scripture's (God's Word's) authority require that logic be opposed to God?

I was simply asking how your analogy worked. I did not see how it demonstrated that human reason can prove God (non-transcendentally) in the same sense that a henchman can rat out the mob boss.

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 12:09:06 EST-----

Originally Posted by yeutter

1. I do not believe in common grace, at least not as it is defined by the Christian Reformed Church.
2. Natural law should reveal to man the existance of the Law Giver who inhabits eternity.
3. Starting out with the presuppositional apporach does not allow you to have that conversation with a Muslim. He will quickly identify you as someone who is irrational as evidenced by your engaging in ciruclar reasoning.

1. I agree with you on denying common grace, but I use the term to cover a broad meaning. Regardless, surely you believe in some sort of providential benevolence, i.e., that God's blessings towards reprobates are at least like "fattening cattle for the slaughter." The explanation works given either view.

2. Natural law outside a framework of authoritative special revelation (i.e. Scripture) is meaningless. Considering that the unbeliever must select some type of presupposition prior to reasoning (it's impossible to reason otherwise), and considering that it won't be the Christian presupposition (since he's an unbeliever), he cannot make a "brute" interpretation of law ==> Lawgiver. He can simply view it as a natural phenomenon, and given his presupposition, he's rationally obliged to do so.

3. Discussions regarding absolute authorities are necessarily circular, and they are not irrational. To do otherwise would be to deny your presupposition's authority and thus concede the argument.

What is clear is that the Christian and the Muslim have completely different starting points. If you were to try to convince that Islam is wrong on Christian terms, he would necessarily disagree; if he were to try to convince you that Christianity is wrong on Muslim terms, you would necessarily disagree. You must step inside his shoes and show him why Islam is wrong even on Muslim terms (i.e. internal inconsistency). This is transcendental argumentation.

Originally Posted by packabacka

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Umm, that is the whole point of the discussion over several threads. Reason can simple be used as a tool in submission to God's authority. To use it to challenge God is to abuse reason.

I understand. My point is that correcting false interpretations is an example of this, not a counterexample. Using reason to correct (e.g.) an Arminian view is not tantamount to using reason to contradict God Himself.

Okay. I never said otherwise.

That counter would only work if logic was something opposed to God and not dependent on God. Since that is not the case, I fail to see the force of your statement?

How does my statement regarding God's authority being tantamount to Scripture's (God's Word's) authority require that logic be opposed to God?

My point is that logic is not opposed to God and that using it to defend God/ prove God etc is not a problem.

I was simply asking how your analogy worked. I did not see how it demonstrated that human reason can prove God (non-transcendentally) in the same sense that a henchman can rat out the mob boss.

I was assuming that you were attempting to advance a point of view. The only way to rule out a proof of God is to rule it out apriori on some other grounds. Which I am not sure those grounds could be.

CT

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by yeutter

When I talk with unbelieving papists, I have never seen how presuppositionalism would have been of any value.

The self-attesting authority of Scripture is a fundamental starting point for a Protestant in discussions with Romanists. For Romanists, following Aquinas, reason leads to faith; whereas for Reformed Protestants, following Anselm, faith seeks reason.

Exactly, per Hebrews 11.3: We believe in order to understand.

When I talk with unbeliefing papists I usually start by showing them that the Church Fathers including Augustine, Anselm, & Aquinas all believed that the Bible was inerrant. From there I proceed to show them what the Bible says about justification by faith. Usually, though not always, I am interrupted an ask to prove the New Testament documents are historically reliable. From there I proceed to a discussion of reasons we should believe the documents to be reliable.
At this point, if not at the beginning of the conversation, a presuppositionalist would raise the issue of the ultimate truth claims of the Christianity. I do not. I want them first to come to grips with what the Bible teaches and recognize they have no reason to doubt that this is what Jesus and St. Paul taught.

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Originally Posted by packabacka

I understand. My point is that correcting false interpretations is an example of this, not a counterexample. Using reason to correct (e.g.) an Arminian view is not tantamount to using reason to contradict God Himself.

Okay. I never said otherwise.

Then how does the fact that we may correct interpretations falsify what I said regarding God's authority over human reasoning?

My point is that logic is not opposed to God and that using it to defend God/ prove God etc is not a problem.

But the sense which people use logic to prove God is the sense which implies that logic is some entity existing separate from and not presupposing God. That is a misuse of a God-given tool.

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Originally Posted by cih1355

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

When you say, "authority", are you talking about having the right to give orders or being the standard of what is true?

Originally Posted by packabacka

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Originally Posted by packabacka

I understand. My point is that correcting false interpretations is an example of this, not a counterexample. Using reason to correct (e.g.) an Arminian view is not tantamount to using reason to contradict God Himself.

Okay. I never said otherwise.

Then how does the fact that we may correct interpretations falsify what I said regarding God's authority over human reasoning?

From what I have understood from you thus far, you have been attempting to place scripture above human reasoning. That does not work because if scripture was against human reasoning then you would reject it as "false" scripture. We already reject certain interpretations of scripture (Arminianism) because it is against (correct) human reasoning.

Everything: Human reasoning, logic, scripture etc is dependent on God and there is no need to pit one against another.

My point is that logic is not opposed to God and that using it to defend God/ prove God etc is not a problem.

But the sense which people use logic to prove God is the sense which implies that logic is some entity existing separate from and not presupposing God. That is a misuse of a God-given tool.

That just is not true. The only way you can make a semblance of an argument is that because one does not explicitly lay out, in the beginning, that one is arguing towards the Theistic God found in the Bible, one is therefore presupposing that such a God does not exist. That would be crazy talk.

CT

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Everything: Human reasoning, logic, scripture etc is dependent on God and there is no need to pit one against another.

Protestants usually distinguish between the magister, Scripture, and the minister, reason. For reason to competently function in dependence on God it must be "captive to the Word."

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

From what I have understood from you thus far, you have been attempting to place scripture above human reasoning. That does not work because if scripture was against human reasoning then you would reject it as "false" scripture. We already reject certain interpretations of scripture (Arminianism) because it is against (correct) human reasoning.

Everything: Human reasoning, logic, scripture etc is dependent on God and there is no need to pit one against another.

When I said that human reasoning is below Scripture, I meant merely that it cannot be used to disprove Scripture. Doing so would be an attempt to remove the foundation for human reasoning itself.

There is no need for me to view reason as false Scripture rather than a God-given tool in submission to Scripture.

We use human reasoning to correct poor use of human reasoning, such as Arminianism.

That just is not true. The only way you can make a semblance of an argument is that because one does not explicitly lay out, in the beginning, that one is arguing towards the Theistic God found in the Bible, one is therefore presupposing that such a God does not exist. That would be crazy talk.

That's what the entire presuppositional apologetic is all about! God is not a god who can be proved; He is the requisite for proof itself. Accordingly, we must show why the starting point of God is consistent with itself and with the parts of experience which cannot be distorted by depravity due to God's common grace (e.g. the existence of laws of logic, uniformity of nature, etc.). No other starting point has these consistencies, especially the supposedly "neutral" method where we see what we've got and "humbly" try to discern what it all means, a.k.a. autonomy. If we were to try to do that, we would be stuck in an abyss of epistemological nothingness.

It's not just some random piety I am trying to convey when I say that God cannot be proved; He really cannot. If we were to try to prove Him from the ground up in any situation, we would never approach the truthfulness of Christianity, rationally speaking -- only by inconsistently applying our approach and hiding our presupposition could we arrive there. I can play devil's advocate for you if you wish to try that.

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 06:11:49 EST-----

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Everything: Human reasoning, logic, scripture etc is dependent on God and there is no need to pit one against another.

Protestants usually distinguish between the magister, Scripture, and the minister, reason. For reason to competently function in dependence on God it must be "captive to the Word."

Now, there's a cool word: magister. I shall add that to my vocab.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Everything: Human reasoning, logic, scripture etc is dependent on God and there is no need to pit one against another.

Protestants usually distinguish between the magister, Scripture, and the minister, reason. For reason to competently function in dependence on God it must be "captive to the Word."

At a certain level I do not have a problem with the statement, but at other levels I do. For example, reason must be captive to what is first determined to be God's word. Reason is not captive is the Korah or other so called scriptures. So there must be some sort of differentiation between false scriptures and true scriptures.

I am not sure how you are going to do that without reason and natural theology.

CT

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

At a certain level I do not have a problem with the statement, but at other levels I do. For example, reason must be captive to what is first determined to be God's word. Reason is not captive is the Korah or other so called scriptures. So there must be some sort of differentiation between false scriptures and true scriptures.

I am not sure how you are going to do that without reason and natural theology.

What the presuppositionalist is doing when he provides evidence for his beliefs is showing how these are "consequences" which confirm his faith, not the "causes" why he believes. There is quite a difference in the two highlighted words, as they indicate diverse approaches to the use of rational argumentation.