Cheshire Cat
Puritan Board Sophomore
This will be a brief explanation of Van Tilian Presuppositional apologetics.
Neutrality is a myth; no one is neutral. Everyone interprets facts through presuppositions. A presupposition is an elementary (or foundational) assumption about reality. Furthermore, everyone has a worldview. A worldview is a network of interconnecting presuppositions that make up one’s view of the world and everything in it. For example, our worldview is Christianity.
Presuppositional apologetics is a ‘whole’ worldview apologetic. It argues at the foundational level. It is not a ‘piece-meal’ apologetic that argues for different facts here and there. At this point one might ask, if we have entirely different and mutually exclusive worldviews, how can we make any progress in discussions or debate? Two points should suffice to answer this question. 1. All human beings are made in the image of God. 2. Even unbelievers have a knowledge of God through ‘General Revelation’ (Romans 1). This makes it so that we have a point of contact.
Although I personally think that presuppositionalism is more of an ‘outlook’ than anything else, some have argued that it is a certain form of argumentation.
This can be seen in a two fold apologetic strategy against the unbeliever:
“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes” (Proverbs 26: 4-5 NIV).
In other words, Don’t argue assuming your opponents presuppositions, because this will lead you astray. *For the sake of argument*, take his presuppositions and show that they lead to absurdity, futility of thought, irrationality, etc.
One way of doing this is by the primary argument in the presuppositionalist arsenal. This is the transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG for short). A transcendental argument takes the following form: If X is possible, then Y is the case (because Y is the/a precondition for X). X is possible, theyfore Y is the case.
e.g. if Consciousness is possible, the a Mind is the case (because a Mind is the precondition for Consciousness being possible/the case). Consciousness is possible/the case, therefore a Mind is the case.
I made up this example, and it could be a horrible example for transcendental arguments , but it makes since to me!
As far as TAG is concerned, we could say, If X is possible, the God is the case (exists).
X can be anything from ‘morality’, the ‘uniformity of nature’, universals (like the laws of logic), etc.
One could also argue that the trinity solves the problem of the one and the many, whereas other worldviews do not.
Presuppositional arguments do not have to take this form. Here are two examples of some other forms of presuppositional arguments:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/victor_reppert/reason.html
and http://hisdefense.org/articles/ap001.html
Okey I am short on time and have to go to bible study. Perhaps I will add more later. ~Caleb
I also recommend reading these two intro. articles by John Frame: http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/pt/PT.h.Frame.Presupp.Apol.1.html and http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/pt/PT.h.Frame.Presupp.Apol.2.html
Neutrality is a myth; no one is neutral. Everyone interprets facts through presuppositions. A presupposition is an elementary (or foundational) assumption about reality. Furthermore, everyone has a worldview. A worldview is a network of interconnecting presuppositions that make up one’s view of the world and everything in it. For example, our worldview is Christianity.
Presuppositional apologetics is a ‘whole’ worldview apologetic. It argues at the foundational level. It is not a ‘piece-meal’ apologetic that argues for different facts here and there. At this point one might ask, if we have entirely different and mutually exclusive worldviews, how can we make any progress in discussions or debate? Two points should suffice to answer this question. 1. All human beings are made in the image of God. 2. Even unbelievers have a knowledge of God through ‘General Revelation’ (Romans 1). This makes it so that we have a point of contact.
Although I personally think that presuppositionalism is more of an ‘outlook’ than anything else, some have argued that it is a certain form of argumentation.
This can be seen in a two fold apologetic strategy against the unbeliever:
“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes” (Proverbs 26: 4-5 NIV).
In other words, Don’t argue assuming your opponents presuppositions, because this will lead you astray. *For the sake of argument*, take his presuppositions and show that they lead to absurdity, futility of thought, irrationality, etc.
One way of doing this is by the primary argument in the presuppositionalist arsenal. This is the transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG for short). A transcendental argument takes the following form: If X is possible, then Y is the case (because Y is the/a precondition for X). X is possible, theyfore Y is the case.
e.g. if Consciousness is possible, the a Mind is the case (because a Mind is the precondition for Consciousness being possible/the case). Consciousness is possible/the case, therefore a Mind is the case.
I made up this example, and it could be a horrible example for transcendental arguments , but it makes since to me!
As far as TAG is concerned, we could say, If X is possible, the God is the case (exists).
X can be anything from ‘morality’, the ‘uniformity of nature’, universals (like the laws of logic), etc.
One could also argue that the trinity solves the problem of the one and the many, whereas other worldviews do not.
Presuppositional arguments do not have to take this form. Here are two examples of some other forms of presuppositional arguments:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/victor_reppert/reason.html
and http://hisdefense.org/articles/ap001.html
Okey I am short on time and have to go to bible study. Perhaps I will add more later. ~Caleb
I also recommend reading these two intro. articles by John Frame: http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/pt/PT.h.Frame.Presupp.Apol.1.html and http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/pt/PT.h.Frame.Presupp.Apol.2.html
Last edited: