Confessor
Puritan Board Senior
I'm sorry to keep asking questions on the topic, but I want to refine my apologetic until it is flawless.
Van Til made a huge deal about arguing for Christianity as a whole, but I'm not sure exactly how to do it. The "piecemeal" method seems unavoidable.
This problem arose when I was trying to see how to definitely point unbelievers to Christ so that they are “without excuse.” I was trying to see what aspect of our universe would point to Christ as Redeemer, and not some generic desire for salvation. I fear from this that I am still trapped in the remnants of the traditional apologetic method.
How do we avoid the “piecemeal” nature of the method? It seems we have to build up one by one the doctrines of Christianity, through a transcendental method (e.g. the transcendence of a deity is established through the existence of universal laws, then the equally ultimate plurality and unity [triunity] are established with the one and the many problem, then the personal aspect is added with the notions of love).
For example, if we engaged with an unbeliever on the nature of uniformity, and I demonstrated that the notion is intelligible on Christian presuppositions but not on atheistic presuppositions, the atheist could take whatever aspect of Christianity that allows for uniformity and replace his old belief with that. He would no longer be an atheist, but he would also not be a Christian. In such a case, I would have to argue further to get closer to Biblical Christianity, but he could just keep refining his presuppositions to accommodate my arguments without turning to Christ. He could keep doing this until the entirety of Christianity was proven transcendentally.
Rather than causing a devastating shift of presuppositions from unbelief to Christ, all the argument seems to do is modify the starting presupposition closer and closer to Christianity, thus leaving man’s autonomy untouched inasmuch as it is short of the Reformed faith. As close as it can get to Christianity (establishing the necessity of a personal Triune God, or even further), such a method would have to prove all of Biblical doctrines by transcendental argumentation, which would annihilate the authority of the Bible by subjecting it to an external standard (as well as be very difficult to do).
Have I discovered a fatal flaw in presuppositionalism or am I doing something terribly wrong? I’m strongly hoping for the latter.
Van Til made a huge deal about arguing for Christianity as a whole, but I'm not sure exactly how to do it. The "piecemeal" method seems unavoidable.
This problem arose when I was trying to see how to definitely point unbelievers to Christ so that they are “without excuse.” I was trying to see what aspect of our universe would point to Christ as Redeemer, and not some generic desire for salvation. I fear from this that I am still trapped in the remnants of the traditional apologetic method.
How do we avoid the “piecemeal” nature of the method? It seems we have to build up one by one the doctrines of Christianity, through a transcendental method (e.g. the transcendence of a deity is established through the existence of universal laws, then the equally ultimate plurality and unity [triunity] are established with the one and the many problem, then the personal aspect is added with the notions of love).
For example, if we engaged with an unbeliever on the nature of uniformity, and I demonstrated that the notion is intelligible on Christian presuppositions but not on atheistic presuppositions, the atheist could take whatever aspect of Christianity that allows for uniformity and replace his old belief with that. He would no longer be an atheist, but he would also not be a Christian. In such a case, I would have to argue further to get closer to Biblical Christianity, but he could just keep refining his presuppositions to accommodate my arguments without turning to Christ. He could keep doing this until the entirety of Christianity was proven transcendentally.
Rather than causing a devastating shift of presuppositions from unbelief to Christ, all the argument seems to do is modify the starting presupposition closer and closer to Christianity, thus leaving man’s autonomy untouched inasmuch as it is short of the Reformed faith. As close as it can get to Christianity (establishing the necessity of a personal Triune God, or even further), such a method would have to prove all of Biblical doctrines by transcendental argumentation, which would annihilate the authority of the Bible by subjecting it to an external standard (as well as be very difficult to do).
Have I discovered a fatal flaw in presuppositionalism or am I doing something terribly wrong? I’m strongly hoping for the latter.