Thread: Presuppositional Tract

Am just preparing a simple tract "Is there a God?" for students here and would appreciate some constructive suggestions/criticisms. One of the major problems with the endless philosophical/theological disputes on Presupp vs Evident is that almost nothing in the way of practical apologetics seems to result. This board in many ways typifies this trend.

So, may be we can reverse the trend and produce something collectively. In this tract, I have sought to keep it presuppositional (to my knowledge). I set out a basic framework below:

IS THERE A GOD?

All men know that God exists from three sources:

INTERNAL

(1) Conscience - Law of God in their hearts

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.

(2) Intuitive - Eternity planted in their hearts

Ecc 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

EXTERNAL

(3) Creation (Rom 1:19-20)

(a) Teleology
- Macro - planets (Psa 19:1;Isa 40:22 )
- Micro - e.g. cell, brain (Psa 143:5

(b) Cosmological - First Cause based on evidence for beginning of univese e.g. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
Heb 1:11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

(c) Morality - Objective Moral Lawgiver needed by universal objective moral norms.

(d) Consciousness - life is more than materialism.

(e) Meaning of Life - without God there is no meaning or purpose

As Donald Barnhouse says, "Will God give man brains to see these things and will man then fail to exercise his will toward that God? The sorrowful answer is that both of these things are true. God will give a man brains to smelt iron and make a hammerhead and nails. God will grow a tree and give man strength to cut it down and brains to fashion a hammer handle from its wood, and when man has the hammer and the nails God will put out 'His hand and let men drive those nails through it and place Him on a cross in the supreme demonstration that men are without excuse."

Strictly speaking the Cosmological and Teleological Arguments are part of the Thomistic Proofs and would be more consistent with Evidentialism.


Have you looked at Richard Pratt's Every thought Captive

5.0 out of 5 stars Yes, it's the Best Intro. to Biblical Apologetics!..., July 25, 2001
By Chang Yuon (Emeryville, CA USA) - See all my reviews
Pratt gives us a very short and condensed form of what is known as Pressupositional Apologetics (following after VanTil). Although Pratt hardly defends this approach from all it's critics, he lays down clearly what is at the heart of biblical apologetics. He does this by first showing his readers that God-centered apologetics arises from love for God and the gospel.

God depends on no one to defend His truth. His truth stands as true regardless. However, because we are called and loved by God, studying apologetics should be our passionate duty. Thus, God's word becomes "both the foundation upon which our defense must be built and one of our belief which must be defended." (pg.4)

Pratt then focuses on the nature of common grace in apologetics. More specifically, nature of man before and after the fall, and man's ability to come to the knowledge of God. This foundation is critical for biblical defense and clear thinking. Is it that man has no knowledge about God but is still able to reason Him out? Or is it that man has the knowledge of God, so that he must be rationally honest with himself to see God? Finally, is there a neutral ground where Christians and non-Christians could come together for an unbiased examination?

Without getting too technical, Pratt gives us an enriching exercise of searching and examining the Scriptures. However, Pratt's treatment is so brief and condensed that it lacks clarity on some major points. For instance, I cannot agree with his view on logic--that it is merely a part of creation. True, there are inferences and conventions in logic that are man-made; but Pratt seems to over-simplify the nature of logic as being completely separated from God. I come to understand that logic has a transcendental quality that reveals the eternal character of God. Therefore, God cannot create a thing not equivalent to itself! Oh well, I give Pratt the benefit of the doubt...I'm probably wrong or mistaken (after all, He's the certified theologian!)

Interestingly, Pratt then critiques Evidental method of apologetics. Namely, Paul Little's "Know Why You Believe." Although, I thought Pratt's critique was necessary and valuable (I whole-heartly agreed), I thought it was a bit unfair because he never bothered to examine the critique of VanTil's apologetics. (But then again, this is an intro. designed for High schoolers)

I teach a theology/apologetics course to my school’s 11th & 12th grade students. I don’t see where the Presup/Evid debate here at the PB doesn’t lead to any practical apologetic methods.

First, use presuppositional apologetics is to dismantle the unbeliever’s worldview and show it to be nonsensical. Then you can lead him to the Scriptures to learn truth.

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Strictly speaking the Cosmological and Teleological Arguments are part of the Thomistic Proofs and would be more consistent with Evidentialism.

Thanks for the reference.

I do not accept the argument that the Teleological argument is evidential because from the presuppositions of Psa 19 and Romans 1 we are told that the handiwork of God in creation declares His existence to all men. That can be seen in the intelligent design around us. Even John Frame in his book Intro to Apologetics accepts the use of the TA but for a slightly different reason.

Re the Cosmological pt, I think Heb 1:10-11 as well as Isa 40:22 indicate that the scientific evidence fits perfectly with the Biblical presuppositions there. That is why I think it is valid to point to these testifying evidences grounded on the Biblical premises.

The fact that Aquinas used them to establish the existence of God without reference to Scripture does not invalidate evidences used in light of the premises of Scripture. Frame and Bahnsen make the point that Van Til accepted the use of evidence in respect of the latter.

Michael

I hope we do not end up in one of these longwinded hyper Van Tilian vs Van Tilian lite arguments. Would prefer if we kept those to another thread.

I am not against strong arguments here (I have been the one arguing on translations thread for a consistent presuppositional approach to the Greek and Hebrew texts). However, I am hoping that this thread could be used to produce something for practical apologetics such as a tract.

[QUOTE=ThomasCartwright;692259
Michael

I hope we do not end up in one of these longwinded hyper Van Tilian vs Van Tilian lite arguments. Would prefer if we kept those to another thread.

I am not against strong arguments here (I have been the one arguing on translations thread for a consistent presuppositional approach to the Greek and Hebrew texts). However, I am hoping that this thread could be used to produce something for practical apologetics such as a tract.[/QUOTE]

Maybe a "tract" isn't an appropriate method of conducting apologetics. A booklet would give you enough room to develop your arguement.

Might I suggest that the tract include,...um,... THE GOSPEL

No but seriously, I like the idea that this tract have presupposition apologetics in it but if it doesn't have the gospel then I don't think it very beneficial.

I do not accept the argument that the Teleological argument is evidential because from the presuppositions of Psa 19 and Romans 1 we are told that the handiwork of God in creation declares His existence to all men. That can be seen in the intelligent design around us. Even John Frame in his book Intro to Apologetics accepts the use of the TA but for a slightly different reason.

Re the Cosmological pt, I think Heb 1:10-11 as well as Isa 40:22 indicate that the scientific evidence fits perfectly with the Biblical presuppositions there. That is why I think it is valid to point to these testifying evidences grounded on the Biblical premises.

The fact that Aquinas used them to establish the existence of God without reference to Scripture does not invalidate evidences used in light of the premises of Scripture. Frame and Bahnsen make the point that Van Til accepted the use of evidence in respect of the latter.

Point taken and appreciated. I was indeed referring to the classical Thomistic Proofs in the way that Aquinas used them.

Originally Posted by MMasztal

Maybe a "tract" isn't an appropriate method of conducting apologetics. A booklet would give you enough room to develop your arguement.

Unfortunately we need to mass produce these in a simple and economical format for the many universities here.

Jason - obviously the gospel will be included. I did not include it here as I supposed we all agreed on those elements. Sorry that has not been made clear - we are all presuppositionalists!

Originally Posted by ThomasCartwright

Am just preparing a simple tract "Is there a God?" for students here and would appreciate some constructive suggestions/criticisms. One of the major problems with the endless philosophical/theological disputes on Presupp vs Evident is that almost nothing in the way of practical apologetics seems to result. This board in many ways typifies this trend.

So, may be we can reverse the trend and produce something collectively. In this tract, I have sought to keep it presuppositional (to my knowledge). I set out a basic framework below:

IS THERE A GOD?

All men know that God exists from three sources:

INTERNAL

(1) Conscience - Law of God in their hearts

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.

(2) Intuitive - Eternity planted in their hearts

Ecc 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

EXTERNAL

(3) Creation (Rom 1:19-20)

(a) Teleology
- Macro - planets (Psa 19:1;Isa 40:22 )
- Micro - e.g. cell, brain (Psa 143:5

(b) Cosmological - First Cause based on evidence for beginning of univese e.g. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
Heb 1:11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

(c) Morality - Objective Moral Lawgiver needed by universal objective moral norms.

(d) Consciousness - life is more than materialism.

(e) Meaning of Life - without God there is no meaning or purpose

As Donald Barnhouse says, "Will God give man brains to see these things and will man then fail to exercise his will toward that God? The sorrowful answer is that both of these things are true. God will give a man brains to smelt iron and make a hammerhead and nails. God will grow a tree and give man strength to cut it down and brains to fashion a hammer handle from its wood, and when man has the hammer and the nails God will put out 'His hand and let men drive those nails through it and place Him on a cross in the supreme demonstration that men are without excuse."

After talking about God's existence, you can also discuss God's authority over everyone and that God judges everyone. Then, you can talk about the sinfulness of man and God's plan to save His people.