Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In my cursory reading of presuppositional apologetics, it seems that it is more often defended in a philosophical way, rather than with the teaching of the Bible. Is anyone aware of an expositional defense of the presuppositional method?
In my cursory reading of presuppositional apologetics, it seems that it is more often defended in a philosophical way, rather than with the teaching of the Bible. Is anyone aware of an expositional defense of the presuppositional method?
An article by Richard Gaffin in WTJ was reprinted in "Revelation and Reason," ed. Oliphint and Tipton, which contains very useful exegetical work in laying a foundation for presuppositionalism, focussing especially on Matthew 11 and 1 Corinthians 2. These texts were also the loci classici of the traditional reformed distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology, so the essay will be of some interest to historical theologians also.
"Revelation and Reason," ed. Oliphint and Tipton
Agreed,I've been peeping some of Oliphant and Tipton's works and it's real edifying stuff! I'm going to buy all their books on Van Tillian Apologetics
An article by Richard Gaffin in WTJ was reprinted in "Revelation and Reason," ed. Oliphint and Tipton, which contains very useful exegetical work in laying a foundation for presuppositionalism, focussing especially on Matthew 11 and 1 Corinthians 2. These texts were also the loci classici of the traditional reformed distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology, so the essay will be of some interest to historical theologians also.
Mike, does the presuppositional method not use reason, evidence, or eyewitness testimony?
I'm not sure. How does it handle arguments for the resurrection of Jesus?
Mike, does the presuppositional method not use reason, evidence, or eyewitness testimony?
Yes but they are all put into perspective. Reason, evidence, and eyewitness testimony all have their uses and their limitations. Ultimatly it is our presuppositions that determine how we think about these things.
It is this principle that classical apologists like Gerstner would have used to prove a necessary being. And from that they could have considered another principle of reason, to prove that an infinite regress is logically impossible.
Yes but they are all put into perspective. Reason, evidence, and eyewitness testimony all have their uses and their limitations. Ultimatly it is our presuppositions that determine how we think about these things.
Hi James, I came across an interesting passage from John Frame,
"The law of noncontradiction denies that p and not-p can both be true at the same time and in the same respect. That is a Christian principle, presupposed by Scripture itself. But it is, of course, also highly abstract. Nothing more concrete can be derived from the law of noncontradiction alone. To derive concrete conclusions we need additional principles, principles which are religiously, as well as philosophically, problematic."
The problem though is that he is mistaken to say that concrete conclusions cannot be derived from the principle of noncontradiction. It is this principle that classical apologists like Gerstner would have used to prove a necessary being. And from that they could have considered another principle of reason, to prove that an infinite regress is logically impossible.
Let me make an addendum to what I put above. Does the bible does endorse rationalism, empiricism, or irrationalism (as isms). If not, what's left?
What he is refering to is the problem of moving from an abstract principle to a concrete example. It is like cause and effect, you can abstractly work out the law of cause and effect but that law by itself will never tell anything about any particuler instance of causation. you may be able to prove that this law proves a neccessary being but thta tells you nothing about any actual beings out there.
I not exactly sure how to say it... of course the Bible doesn't endorse any of those isms. You do understand that being rational, doesn't mean you've embraced rationalism.
Now what's left? Trinitarianism?
...cosmological arguments have a limited scope, but they do go far enough in proving atheism to be absolutely false.
Let me try to explain this as best as I can, and I'll begin be pointing out that just because a classical apologist uses reason, doesn't mean he or she has embraced rationalism.
I have no problem, picking up with the cosmological argument, more specifically that a material effect must have a material cause. This is most simply dealt with by the way in which you or I cause an action... and believe me I have been down this road to the point where an atheist denied his ability to snap his fingers.
What he is refering to is the problem of moving from an abstract principle to a concrete example. It is like cause and effect, you can abstractly work out the law of cause and effect but that law by itself will never tell anything about any particuler instance of causation. you may be able to prove that this law proves a neccessary being but thta tells you nothing about any actual beings out there.
It's one thing to say there is a problem, and it's another to say that it cannot be done. The ontoligical and cosmological arguments have a limited scope, but they do go far enough in proving atheism to be absolutely false. It's almost like what you say about cause and effect, the difference is in that you know there is a cause. And that may be concrete enough given the nature of the disagreement.
I don't see a problem using classical arguments (as long as they are logically valid) within the presuppositional framework. But still, I am not sure what your answer is?
Right, I think the existence of an immaterial mind and rationality is the best route to take. But, that is not the "cosmological" argument and results in a much more inductively controversial point of view when you are talking to materialists.
You are right, I am not saying that it cannot be done. Only pointing out what he is refering to. So causality alone cannot provide any jump from abstract to concrete.
It's not a big deal, but I think using the term "presuppositionalism" as an overarching term to describe biblical epistemology is a bit confusing.
I was responding to the premise that material effects must have material causes. Now before moving on, what is there about this "inductively controversial point of view"?
It is this principle that classical apologists like Gerstner would have used to prove a necessary being. And from that they could have considered another principle of reason, to prove that an infinite regress is logically impossible.
And isn't that the problem? It uses reason as it is found in rationalism.
But reason and rational thought in and of themselves are not contradictory to Christianity. Look at Paul's argument for the resurrection in I Cor 15; it relies on divine revelation, yes, but it's not devoid of rational thought or logic.
Right, I think the existence of an immaterial mind and rationality is the best route to take. But, that is not the "cosmological" argument and results in a much more inductively controversial point of view when you are talking to materialists.
That is what I was referring to. I don't understand why it results in a much more inductively controversial point. Is it that materialists cannot see that they have the ability to freely act?