Mr Bosse and I were having a discussion on the Gerstner thread on classical apologetics. I humbly recognize Mr Bosse's much more thorough grasp of apologetics than mine. I am glad he would choose to interact on apologetics with me.

I decided to avoid the temptation to hijack the Gerstner thread. The following page reference is from Reymond's latest edition of his systematic theology. He is critiquing RC Sproul's book on apologetics. I will interact with it later.

He is referencing Sproul's Reason to Believe, page 30-31. (Reymond, page 74).

He later tackles Sproul/Gerstner's Classical Apologetics (Reymond, page 77).

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

Hello Jacob,

I own all three books, and will do the same.

Sincerely,

Brian

__________________
Brian Bosse
Faith Community Church
Tucson, Arizona
Scientiam Dei

Pitting presuppositionalism v. evidentialism is not helpful. It doesn't take into account the different worlds within which the two were formulated. Classical apologetics provides an objective defence. Presuppositionalism provides subjective reasons when classical apologetics is not accepted -- it throws the question back on method. In the days when evidentialism was prevalent the world in general was considered absolutely. This closed universe worldview provided an implied presuppositional framework. Modern presuppositionalism makes this implied framework explicit in a day when relativism is assumed as valid. I suggest that Reymond fails to approach the subject with an awareness of the historical development of apologetics into the modern day. Meanwhile the Ligonier apologetic is trying to make the classical model do too much.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Hello Jacob,

I started digging into Reymond’s critique. It seems that his objection deals not so much with Classical Apologetics per se, but rather the validity of the argument for the infallibility of the Scriptures used by Sproul in his book Reason to Believe. I think it is too much to say that Reymond has provided a critique of Classical Apologetics based on his dealing with one specific argument. I think Reyond is correct in his critique, but I do not think this undermines Classical Apologetics. Let’s consider the argument ourselves. Here is the argument as Reymond laid it out…

Technically, as the argument stands it is not valid. However, it would not take much to make it valid. As a believer, I find this argument to be helpful. The idea that Jesus’ view of Scripture was so high helps me to have confidence in the Scriptures. Being a Christian, I can affirm the various premises, and so there is some apologetic value in that it strengthens my faith. But again, its value is due to the fact that I already believe the Scriptures to be all true.

On the other hand, if I play the skeptic, this is a terrible argument. First off, what does it mean to say that the Scriptures are generally reliable? Does that mean that 51% of all that the Bible teaches is true? Or maybe it is 60%? Who knows? Secondly, are the passages that teach about Jesus and His view of Scripture part of this 51% or not? How do we know? Thirdly, is Jesus' view the 66 books of the Protestant Bible or the Old Testament? As a skeptic, this argument does not even get off the ground. Sproul is actually asking me to accept the Scriptures as all true to establish the Scriptures as being all true. This sounds awfully close to asking me to presuppose the Scriptures as being true! Maybe Sproul is the purest of presuppositionalists?

Jacob, what do you think?

Brian

__________________
Brian Bosse
Faith Community Church
Tucson, Arizona
Scientiam Dei

Hello Brian,

Okay.


Same here.

I used this line of reasoning with a lot of theological liberals. They only held to "the teaching of gentle Jesus" (except the parts where Christ endorsed the mosaic law ) and could use that premise, so I thought.

That was exactly my impression. Frame gave the critique that Sproul et al had not sufficiently dealt with recent advances in philosophy: Kuhn, Wittgenstein, etc. Well, I haven't either, to be fair, so I can't use that critique. Do you know if that is true?

Thank you,
Jacob

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College