ccravens
Puritan Board Freshman
Currently reading R.C Sproul's book/sermon series on Romans. Enjoying it greatly. I had always read and heard from R.C. his critique of the pre-suppositional appraoch to apologetics. So I was really suprised when I came to page 40 of the book. R.C. relates an occurrence when he was asked to speak to an athiest club. After giving his lecture on arguments for the existence of God, at the very end, he said:
"I'm giving you arguments for the existence of God, but I feel like I'm carrying coals to Newcastle because I have to tell you that I do not have to prove to you that God exists, because I think you already know it. Your problem is not that you do not know that God exists; your problem is that you despise the God whom you know exists. Your problem is not intellectual; it is moral - you hate God."
Why I agree with his statement, my confusion comes from the fact that this seesm to be a pre-supp argument. Maybe I'm mistaken about that. But if it is, and if he believed his statement is true, why did he give the (I'm assuming) classical apologetics approach in his lengthy presentation? Why not lead with this? It would seem to make his classical apologetic argument moot.
I've heard Frank Turek do the same thing on multiple occasions when answering questions from unbelieving college kids. He uses mostly evidential apologetics, and gives sometimes an hour long presentation, then a Q & A. But when a questioning kid is stubborn and won't bend to the testimony of Frank's evidence, and after the two of them have gone round-and-round for a good amount of time, to end things Frank will use what sounds like a pre-supp argument. Something along the lines of (I'm paraphrasing here):
"If I were able to give you enough evidence to your satisfaction that God does exist, would you become a Christian?" Or sometimes "If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?" When/if the college student hesitates or says no (they usually do), Frank responds something along the lines of: "Your problem is then not intellectual/evidential, your problem is volitional."
If lack of evidence is not the issue, why make an evidential argument? Why not lead with the above, instead of saving it as a last resort?
Am I misreading things here? Or are these two examples of the strength of the pre-supp view? Or are these examples of the ability to use different arguments at different times? The pre-supp position seems to exclude the vaibility of the other apologetic approaches.
Your comments and insights are appreciated.
"I'm giving you arguments for the existence of God, but I feel like I'm carrying coals to Newcastle because I have to tell you that I do not have to prove to you that God exists, because I think you already know it. Your problem is not that you do not know that God exists; your problem is that you despise the God whom you know exists. Your problem is not intellectual; it is moral - you hate God."
Why I agree with his statement, my confusion comes from the fact that this seesm to be a pre-supp argument. Maybe I'm mistaken about that. But if it is, and if he believed his statement is true, why did he give the (I'm assuming) classical apologetics approach in his lengthy presentation? Why not lead with this? It would seem to make his classical apologetic argument moot.
I've heard Frank Turek do the same thing on multiple occasions when answering questions from unbelieving college kids. He uses mostly evidential apologetics, and gives sometimes an hour long presentation, then a Q & A. But when a questioning kid is stubborn and won't bend to the testimony of Frank's evidence, and after the two of them have gone round-and-round for a good amount of time, to end things Frank will use what sounds like a pre-supp argument. Something along the lines of (I'm paraphrasing here):
"If I were able to give you enough evidence to your satisfaction that God does exist, would you become a Christian?" Or sometimes "If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?" When/if the college student hesitates or says no (they usually do), Frank responds something along the lines of: "Your problem is then not intellectual/evidential, your problem is volitional."
If lack of evidence is not the issue, why make an evidential argument? Why not lead with the above, instead of saving it as a last resort?
Am I misreading things here? Or are these two examples of the strength of the pre-supp view? Or are these examples of the ability to use different arguments at different times? The pre-supp position seems to exclude the vaibility of the other apologetic approaches.
Your comments and insights are appreciated.