Thread: Presuppositionalism Q&A

Post your objections/questions, and I'll answer them to the best of my abilities.

Originally Posted by Confessor

Post your objections/questions, and I'll answer them to the best of my abilities.

Ben,

We are uninformed about such things, and therefore are having trouble grasping exactly what the "presuppositional" apologetic really is.

Would you mind going back to square-one and explaining your foundational premise?


Thank you,

Mr. and Mrs. Rush,

Tell me if anything in this thread is not clear.

Ben

1. God created the world
2. Man sinned, and became corrupt through and through.
a. This includes his thinking. He is now at war with God in his thinking, and cannot submit to him.
b. Rom 1 describes this as suppressing the truth. Fallen man knows God, God has not left Himself without witness. He has made himself known to sinful man such that man cannot escape the knowledge of God. But he so does not like God that he suppresses the truth of God in unrighteousness.
3. Sinful man is committed to being the supreme interpreter of reality. That is, he reasons autonomously (as a law unto himself, or as Judges would put it, "everyone as he sees fit".)
4. Presuppositional apologetics recognizes that because of the preceding points, any non-Christian worldview will be in contradiction with itself or at least with reality. So...
5. It shows that the unbeliever cannot account for his actions, his arguments . . . for anything, really.
6. This is NOT to say that unbelievers don't reason. They may do reason and science quite well. But their worldview does not give them warrant for the reason or science that they are doing. So presuppositional apologetics calls them on it, showing them that they act one way (because they live in God's world) while speaking another (denying God).

That's not a very good or complete analysis, but as a nutshell version it's probably okay.

1. Why presuppose presuppositional epistemology over common sense?

2. How is presuppositionalism different from platonist epistemology?

3. Does presuppositionalism assume a Kantian epistemology?

I'm asking specific questions in order to better understand the philosophical underpinnings. The description given above assumes a particular epistemology that I am still trying to understand.

Originally Posted by Confessor

Tell me if anything in this thread is not clear.

If the following statement were true there could be no such field as Christian apologetics:

Presuppositionalists believe that, because of contrary presuppositions that permeate to affect one’s entire belief-structure, believers and unbelievers have absolutely no common ground in principle.

What has happened to the imago Dei as providing common ground?

Originally Posted by Confessor

Mr. Rush,

Tell me if anything in this thread is not clear.

Ben

Being a newcomer, seeing you offer a Q and A, I hoped for a direct and simple answer, but thanks for this much.

I will start plowing through it all . . .

Originally Posted by P. F. Pugh

1. Why presuppose presuppositional epistemology over common sense?

2. How is presuppositionalism different from platonist epistemology?

3. Does presuppositionalism assume a Kantian epistemology?

1. Because fallen common sense will never arrive at the biblical God. It cannot.

2. This is a big question. But for one thing, Platonism, like all pagan philosophy reasons autonomously and univocally, whereas we reason theonomously and analogically. For another, Plato cannot account for changing particulars. His abstract universals may work well, but as Van Til used to say, it's a highway in the sky. That is, there's no exit ramp from abstract universal to concrete particular. This is hardly an adequate answer to the question, and will probably lead to more questions, but that's what this thread is about, right?

3. No. No. A thousand times, no.

-----Added 6/14/2009 at 10:50:17 EST-----

Imago dei provides an ontological point of contact, but not epistemological common ground.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

Imago dei provides an ontological point of contact, but not epistemological common ground.

Precisely, so it is incorrect to say there is absolutely no common ground. Further, presuppositionalism requires an ontic foundation for its epistemic claims -- God exists therefore man is rational. Hence the ontological point of contact is fundamental.

Philip,

Clark got em for the most part. Additionally,

1. Assuming your view is "common sense" begs the question. I would say that accepting the Bible on its own authority is common sense.

2. In Van Til's Apologetic, Van Til personally shows faults in the epistemologies of many big-time thinkers in the history of philosophy, going from Plato to Aristotle to the rationalists and empiricists to logical positivism, etc.

Otherwise, the singlemost distinctive of presuppositionalist epistemology from all secular philosophies (including Platonic and Kantian philosophy) is that it is not autonomous. It starts with God's interpretation of the world, Biblical philosophy, rather than assuming man has that prerogative.

Rev. Winzer,

As Clark said, it is the ontological point of contact. Remember that I said that on the unbeliever's principles he will have a 100% different worldview. The imago Dei is what provides the points of contact (e.g. belief in universal, immaterial laws of logic) that the Reformed apologist can identify as belonging to the Christian worldview rather than the unbeliever's.

Originally Posted by Reformed Rushs

Originally Posted by Confessor

Mr. Rush,

Tell me if anything in this thread is not clear.

Ben

Being a newcomer, seeing you offer a Q and A, I hoped for a direct and simple answer, but thanks for this much.

I will start plowing through it all . . .

I think Ben believes that the opening post of that thread is as simple and direct as he can be.

CT

I never know where to draw the line between brevity and full explanation.

Originally Posted by Confessor

As Clark said, it is the ontological point of contact. Remember that I said that on the unbeliever's principles he will have a 100% different worldview. The imago Dei is what provides the points of contact (e.g. belief in universal, immaterial laws of logic) that the Reformed apologist can identify as belonging to the Christian worldview rather than the unbeliever's.

The second sentence denies what the third sentence affirms. Either the unbeliever believes in universal laws of logic or he does not. One cannot have it both ways. Certainly the unbeliever cannot account for his belief on the basis of his worldview, but the fact remains that he still holds the belief, which means that his worldview is not 100% different.

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

I think Ben believes that the opening post of that thread is as simple and direct as he can be.

CT

Is it just me, or did this have a little sting in it?

1. You misunderstood my question, Clark. I wasn't asking apologetic methods, but in terms of a theory of knowledge. What is our criterion for knowledge? Is it reasonable certainty, or indubitability?

2. In terms of a theory of knowledge, Plato said that knowledge must meet two criteria: it must be justified, and it must be true. Does presuppositionalism hold to such an epistemology?

3. Van Til and Clark have no problem using Kant when arguing against classical apologetics, so is there an inconsistency here?

Originally Posted by chbrooking

Imago dei provides an ontological point of contact, but not epistemological common ground.

What is meant by epistemological common ground? In plain language it would seem to mean knowledge held in common by two or more people regardless of professed presupposition. In other words, it's common presupposition.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Confessor

As Clark said, it is the ontological point of contact. Remember that I said that on the unbeliever's principles he will have a 100% different worldview. The imago Dei is what provides the points of contact (e.g. belief in universal, immaterial laws of logic) that the Reformed apologist can identify as belonging to the Christian worldview rather than the unbeliever's.

The second sentence denies what the third sentence affirms. Either the unbeliever believes in universal laws of logic or he does not. One cannot have it both ways. Certainly the unbeliever cannot account for his belief on the basis of his worldview, but the fact remains that he still holds the belief, which means that his worldview is not 100% different.

The world he lives in is the same; the God whose image he bears is the same. He cannot help acting to some degree in conformity with the world God made and put him in. But his worldVIEW is wholly at odds with this.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Confessor

As Clark said, it is the ontological point of contact. Remember that I said that on the unbeliever's principles he will have a 100% different worldview. The imago Dei is what provides the points of contact (e.g. belief in universal, immaterial laws of logic) that the Reformed apologist can identify as belonging to the Christian worldview rather than the unbeliever's.

The second sentence denies what the third sentence affirms. Either the unbeliever believes in universal laws of logic or he does not. One cannot have it both ways. Certainly the unbeliever cannot account for his belief on the basis of his worldview, but the fact remains that he still holds the belief, which means that his worldview is not 100% different.

If he were consistent in his unbelieving principles, he would not believe in the laws of logic. But they are retained in him because the imago Dei cannot be eradicated.

Also, keep in mind Rev. Winzer that we can speak of different ontologies. Although it is an ontological fact that the unbeliever bears the image of God, this is only the case on a Biblical presupposition.

I apologize for misunderstanding. Yes, knowledge is justified true belief. But presuppositionalism shows that a non-believer cannot justify his belief. This is precisely where the attack is focussed.

By reasonable certainty do you mean probable-ness? We would argue that the nonbeliever cannot even arrive at reasonable certainty because they cannot account for reason. But indubitably, the Christian God exists, and the proof is the impossibility of the contrary.

The thing is, Kant and classical apologetics are arguing in the same arena, with the same autonomous footing beneath them, so it is quite fair to use Kant to critique classical apologetics.

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Originally Posted by Reformed Rushs

Originally Posted by Confessor

Mr. Rush,

Tell me if anything in this thread is not clear.

Ben

Being a newcomer, seeing you offer a Q and A, I hoped for a direct and simple answer, but thanks for this much.

I will start plowing through it all . . .

I think Ben believes that the opening post of that thread is as simple and direct as he can be.

CT

Uh . . .

So Ben simply denies the obligatory powers and demands of natural law?

He could have said so, but perhaps he thinks if too simply put, it appears weird?

Originally Posted by chbrooking

The world he lives in is the same; the God whose image he bears is the same. He cannot help acting to some degree in conformity with the world God made and put him in. But his worldVIEW is wholly at odds with this.

I don't think his view is wholly at odds, otherwise a believer could not identify for the unbeliever what the unbeliever regards as unknown, Acts 17.

The unbeliever of Romans 1 seems fully able to know many things about God...can we call this a common ground?

Originally Posted by Confessor

If he were consistent in his unbelieving principles, he would not believe in the laws of logic. But they are retained in him because the imago Dei cannot be eradicated.

Then one should not speak of the noetic effects of the fall as if the fall eradicated the imago Dei and left believers and unbelievers with no common ground.

Originally Posted by Reformed Rushs

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Originally Posted by Reformed Rushs

Being a newcomer, seeing you offer a Q and A, I hoped for a direct and simple answer, but thanks for this much.

I will start plowing through it all . . .

I think Ben believes that the opening post of that thread is as simple and direct as he can be.

CT

Uh . . .

So Ben simply denies the obligatory powers and demands of natural law?

He could have said so, but perhaps he thinks if too simply put, it appears weird?

Rather, he denies the ability of sinful man to interpret natural revelation aright. And he makes that denial with biblical warrant.

Originally Posted by Confessor

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Confessor

As Clark said, it is the ontological point of contact. Remember that I said that on the unbeliever's principles he will have a 100% different worldview. The imago Dei is what provides the points of contact (e.g. belief in universal, immaterial laws of logic) that the Reformed apologist can identify as belonging to the Christian worldview rather than the unbeliever's.

The second sentence denies what the third sentence affirms. Either the unbeliever believes in universal laws of logic or he does not. One cannot have it both ways. Certainly the unbeliever cannot account for his belief on the basis of his worldview, but the fact remains that he still holds the belief, which means that his worldview is not 100% different.

If he were consistent in his unbelieving principles, he would not believe in the laws of logic. But they are retained in him because the imago Dei cannot be eradicated.

Also, keep in mind Rev. Winzer that we can speak of different ontologies. Although it is an ontological fact that the unbeliever bears the image of God, this is only the case on a Biblical presupposition.

It is the case because of Creation. Creation is Revelation. It is clear in this context and rationally defensible in this context. This is why an unbeliever is held accountable in the context of a clear general revelation. The Bible need not be presupposed for this to be reality.

Originally Posted by P. F. Pugh

1. You misunderstood my question, Clark. I wasn't asking apologetic methods, but in terms of a theory of knowledge. What is our criterion for knowledge? Is it reasonable certainty, or indubitability?

2. In terms of a theory of knowledge, Plato said that knowledge must meet two criteria: it must be justified, and it must be true. Does presuppositionalism hold to such an epistemology?

3. Van Til and Clark have no problem using Kant when arguing against classical apologetics, so is there an inconsistency here?

1. I'd say reasonable certainty. I'm not a Clarkian, and the infallibilist constraint seems artificial and leads to skepticism.

2. That is not an epistemology. It is a small subset of epistemology which has no bearing on presuppositions. It's like asking, "Did you and that unbeliever agree that you had eggs for breakfast this morning?"

Anyway, in Van Til's Apologetic Bahnsen classifies knowledge as justified, true belief. The example he uses against the notion of knowledge as only true belief is this one: suppose someone says he believes that the president during the 1980's had the initials R.R. because he believed the president's name was Robert Robertson (Bahnsen used another name ). He would not really know in that case that the president's initials were R.R.

3. What do you mean they "used" Kant? Employed transcendentalism? It's not wrong to use some concepts made throughout the history of philosophy; the entire apologetic is against autonomous reasoning as a presupposition.

What is meant by epistemological common ground?

In principle, the unbeliever has an entirely different worldview from the believer (no epistemological common ground). In practice, the unbeliever is actually made in the image of God as a being in God's creation (tons of metaphysical common ground).

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Confessor

If he were consistent in his unbelieving principles, he would not believe in the laws of logic. But they are retained in him because the imago Dei cannot be eradicated.

Then one should not speak of the noetic effects of the fall as if the fall eradicated the imago Dei and left believers and unbelievers with no common ground.

No EPISTEMOLOGICAL common ground. We do not have an archimidean point of agreement on the basis of which to argue. But we do live in the same world, and bear the same God's image. That's why the unbeliever is living in contradiction.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

The unbeliever of Romans 1 seems fully able to know many things about God...can we call this a common ground?

Yes, but it would be a common ground in practice and not in principle. Unbelieving worldviews deny that they have this knowledge.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

Originally Posted by Reformed Rushs

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

I think Ben believes that the opening post of that thread is as simple and direct as he can be.

CT

Uh . . .

So Ben simply denies the obligatory powers and demands of natural law?

He could have said so, but perhaps he thinks if too simply put, it appears weird?

Rather, he denies the ability of sinful man to interpret natural revelation aright. And he makes that denial with biblical warrant.

Really?

If this were true, how could reprobates possess the necessary knowledge to willingly and actively suppress Godly truth?

sorry Ben, cross posting with you.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Confessor

If he were consistent in his unbelieving principles, he would not believe in the laws of logic. But they are retained in him because the imago Dei cannot be eradicated.

Then one should not speak of the noetic effects of the fall as if the fall eradicated the imago Dei and left believers and unbelievers with no common ground.

The unbeliever believes he is not made in the image of God and therefore the worldviews do not have common ground (epistemological) at that point.



And thanks, Beth.

-----Added 6/14/2009 at 11:26:34 EST-----

Originally Posted by chbrooking

sorry Ben, cross posting with you.

No prob, I consider us a tag team.

Originally Posted by Reformed Rushs

Originally Posted by chbrooking

Originally Posted by Reformed Rushs

Uh . . .

So Ben simply denies the obligatory powers and demands of natural law?

He could have said so, but perhaps he thinks if too simply put, it appears weird?

Rather, he denies the ability of sinful man to interpret natural revelation aright. And he makes that denial with biblical warrant.

Really?

If this were true, how could reprobates possess the necessary knowledge to willingly and actively suppress Godly truth?

Well, for starters, you missed the word "aright"
But consider that Romans 1 indicates that God "makes known to him" his eternal power and divine nature. It is in them and God has made it plain to them. He does not have to reason to God. He knows God. But he suppresses that truth. So he's living a lie. We are merely showing him that he cannot live consistently with his lie, since the lie is not consistent with the world he lives in or the God he knows but suppresses.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

No EPISTEMOLOGICAL common ground. We do not have an archimidean point of agreement on the basis of which to argue. But we do live in the same world, and bear the same God's image. That's why the unbeliever is living in contradiction.

First, I'm speaking to Ben, who only made a distinction between principle and practice, and has made an absolute denial which does not recognise your distinction. Secondly, I've already responded to your distinction by noting that the presuppositional view of epistemology is dependent on the ontological reality presupposed; therefore your distinction is artificial and has no practical relevance.

Originally Posted by Reformed Rushs

Originally Posted by chbrooking

Originally Posted by Reformed Rushs

Uh . . .

So Ben simply denies the obligatory powers and demands of natural law?

He could have said so, but perhaps he thinks if too simply put, it appears weird?

Rather, he denies the ability of sinful man to interpret natural revelation aright. And he makes that denial with biblical warrant.

Really?

If this were true, how could reprobates possess the necessary knowledge to willingly and actively suppress Godly truth?

The distinction between natural revelation and natural theology is crucial here. Everyone has a non-inferential knowledge of Jehovah as Creator and Judge, but they always suppress it (Romans 1:18 ff.) (natural revelation). It does not follow from this, however, that humans are capable of inferentially deducing from nature things about God on an autonomous basis (natural theology).

Originally Posted by Confessor

The unbeliever believes he is not made in the image of God and therefore the worldviews do not have common ground (epistemological) at that point.

This response requires you to assume of all unbelievers what might only be true of some of them. And already you are modifying your absolute statement to be applicable only at certain points.

I apologize for horning in. I'll desist. But I would suggest that it does have practical relevance. We do not share the same view of the world. We see the same world, but we see it very differently. We cannot don God-denying glasses with the unbeliever and then try to point God out using them.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by chbrooking

No EPISTEMOLOGICAL common ground. We do not have an archimidean point of agreement on the basis of which to argue. But we do live in the same world, and bear the same God's image. That's why the unbeliever is living in contradiction.

First, I'm speaking to Ben, who only made a distinction between principle and practice, and has made an absolute denial which does not recognise your distinction. Secondly, I've already responded to your distinction by noting that the presuppositional view of epistemology is dependent on the ontological reality presupposed; therefore your distinction is artificial and has no practical relevance.

Originally Posted by Beth Ellen Nagle

Originally Posted by Confessor

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The second sentence denies what the third sentence affirms. Either the unbeliever believes in universal laws of logic or he does not. One cannot have it both ways. Certainly the unbeliever cannot account for his belief on the basis of his worldview, but the fact remains that he still holds the belief, which means that his worldview is not 100% different.

If he were consistent in his unbelieving principles, he would not believe in the laws of logic. But they are retained in him because the imago Dei cannot be eradicated.

Also, keep in mind Rev. Winzer that we can speak of different ontologies. Although it is an ontological fact that the unbeliever bears the image of God, this is only the case on a Biblical presupposition.

It is the case because of Creation. Creation is Revelation. It is clear in this context and rationally defensible in this context. This is why an unbeliever is held accountable in the context of a clear general revelation. The Bible need not be presupposed for this to be reality.

Yes... creation is revelation. But we presuppose that to be the case.

Just kidding. I agree creation is revelation. One can deny revelation ad infinitum and claim it merely presupposition but actually that is just choosing to be irrational. Unless of course we presuppose that all belief is on equal footing which leaves us only with dialectic truth, which denies truth and revelation. That brings us back to one can choose to be irrational and deny revelation. Which of course is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Confessor

The unbeliever believes he is not made in the image of God and therefore the worldviews do not have common ground (epistemological) at that point.

This response requires you to assume of all unbelievers what might only be true of some of them. And already you are modifying your absolute statement to be applicable only at certain points.

Unbelievers believe they are not made in the image of God (as the Bible teaches it) by definition. I guess there could be someone who acknowledges the truth of the Bible and hates it, but for all intents and purposes that person is a "believer," intellectually speaking.

How am I modifying my statement to be applicable only at certain points? I said there was no common ground at all; you replied that the imago Dei counted as common ground; and I replied that it was not. I was simply attempting to rebut a defeater to my claim, not limiting its scope.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

We cannot don God-denying glasses with the unbeliever and then try to point God out using them.

Hence the antithetical approach with which we speak to the unbeliever on the common ground which the image of God provides.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

Originally Posted by Reformed Rushs

Originally Posted by chbrooking

Rather, he denies the ability of sinful man to interpret natural revelation aright. And he makes that denial with biblical warrant.

Really?

If this were true, how could reprobates possess the necessary knowledge to willingly and actively suppress Godly truth?

Well, for starters, you missed the word "aright"
But consider that Romans 1 indicates that God "makes known to him" his eternal power and divine nature. It is in them and God has made it plain to them. He does not have to reason to God. He knows God. But he suppresses that truth. So he's living a lie. We are merely showing him that he cannot live consistently with his lie, since the lie is not consistent with the world he lives in or the God he knows but suppresses.

Well, we guess we are extremely unsophisticated and thus too theologically radical, for we believe that reprobates who suppress God's truth are sovereignly left to do so, without moral excuse.


And all the apologetics in the world cannot reverse God's decrees to leave some souls in such a state of denial and hatred of His truth.

The only thing that can reverse sinners' natural enmity to the truths of God, is divine mercy and grace.

And that mercy and grace comes only by the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which should be our primary emphasis and interest in this life.

J&R
(Simple believers)

J&R,

We are not trying to classify you as simpletons or anything of the sort. Nor do we do believe that apologetics can in itself resurrect the hearts of unregenerates.

However, what apologetics can do is show more vividly just how wrong the unbeliever is. He can acknowledge this fact intellectually without having his heart turned morally. The Spirit provides the moral change. (And of course God in His providence provides the intellectual ammunition anyway; it's not wholly "of ourselves.")

Ben