Moral Argument and Presuppositionalism

[RamistThomist]

Fun fact about Sudduth: he was on PB back around 2005. He only posted a few times.

The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology

Dr. Michael Sudduth would like to announce his new book: The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology by Dr. Michael Sudduth For those interested in the topics of general revelation and natural theology, especially from a Reformed perspective, I'm pleased to announce the completion of my...

puritanboard.com

 

[jwright82]

Many excellent points have already been made. To attempt one more, there is a distinction between knowing that Christianity is true and defending that Christianity is true.

1. Knowing that Christianity is true does not require argumentation. In fact, there are various definitions of "knowledge." Depending on context, more than one of these might even apply to one's belief that Christianity is true; I might "know" that Christianity is true in more than one sense (e.g. internalism vs. externalism, infallibilism vs. fallibilism).

2. Defending that Christianity is true will often entail argumentation (the realm of what we typically consider to be apologetics)... although one might also say that simple, unspoken obedience to God - even to the point of martyrdom - is an indirect witness to and defense of one's public faith that does not involve syllogistic reasoning.

When I was young, I conflated 1 and 2. While I did not waver in my faith - I've always considered Christianity better than any alternative I have encountered or considered - I did not have full, "epistemic" (as opposed to a mere, psychological "feeling") assurance that Christianity was true. In my mind, there were always more alternatives to Christianity than I could concretely, specifically, internally critique. In my mind, there was no transcendental argument which uniquely selected for Christianity. Underlying my sense of unease was that I needed to argue my way to having full, "epistemic" assurance that Christianity is true. On the contrary, I now think that I defend knowledge I already have had.

Thus, there might be called varieties of presuppositionalism:

A) "Epistemic" presuppositionalism, in which one recognizes that he makes knowledge claims on the basis of assumptions or presuppositions which may be intrinsically "justified" (the full meaning and applicability of which will depend on context), "justified" without the need for argumentation. In this way, one may have "knowledge" (even in the sense of "full, epistemic assurance") that Christianity is true without having to critique infinitely many worldviews or rely on inferential reasoning.

B) "Apologetic" presuppositionalism, in which one defends his presuppositions by intentionally provoking reflection upon his or other's presuppositions: e.g. attempting to show how his presuppositions are coherent and answer certain questions, how other's presuppositions are incoherent, unable to answer certain questions, or incompatible with what else they may claim to believe, etc.

Interestingly, the more one articulates A) in the sense of fleshing out one's exact meaning, the more one will tend to actually be performing B). For example, in a fuller discussion of what it means for something to be intrinsically "justified," one might differentiate and expound on foundationalism in contrast to coherentism, infinitism, and positism. In so doing, one might defend the former (and, by proxy, his alleged intrinsically justified "knowledge") against the latter. One's apologetic will always have a tendency of attempting to confirm what one already "knows." I find this interesting because it shows how circularity might appear in one's apologetic but not in one's structure of knowledge. This might bridge a gap between Clarkian and Van Tilian species of "presuppositionalism."

With all that said, an advantage of one's affirming presuppositionalism of variety A) is that presuppositionalism of variety B) need not be the only apologetic of which one might avail himself. For example, one's internally and epistemically "justified" presupposition might legitimatize other modes of "knowing" (e.g. empirical) and, therefore, other modes of apologetic defenses (e.g. "evidentialism").

Nice post. I have my own peculiar reservations on Clark but my knowledge I've never criticized him on here. Obviously he was a brilliant man and a sharp thinker but I think his general outlook was too much grounded in a Modernist and Enlightenment mold. But all in all he's still good.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Do you mean a Reformed view of how the Spirit forms faith in us, or do you mean a Reformed view of arguing for the faith ala apologetics? Men like Shedd and Hodge used the traditional arguments, as did many of the post-Reformation Reformed.

I mean a Reformed view of the way in which faith is formed in us.

I was talking out loud in the thread about what I'm thinking when I listen to certain apologists from a semi-Pelagian perspective.

I also think that even Reformed folk forget that faith is a gift secured by Christ. I don't mean, strictly speaking, in an apologetic encounter, but in the sense that we often tend to see unbelief as an intellectual defect.

When I preach, I feel the weight of trying to preach in such a way that convinces. I wish I could reach into the hearer's soul and pull them toward what I know is true about Christ, but I'm also struck with the reality that the power to change the heart is outside of my power to convince.

I know I'm not strictly keeping with the gist of this thread. As I said from the beginning, I'm ambivalent about specific methods. I don't think I much care whether one uses evidences, moral arguments, TAG, etc. I do think that when we give an answer, we ought to give an answer as a believer and not "prize" doubt in the hearer.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I also listened to a Moreland interview today and he said, speaking as a classical guy, that apologetics just removes roadblocks; it doesn't "argue people into the faith."

Understood, yet, a semi-Pelagian view of faith ultimately concludes that what "blocks" a person from faith does not owe to any lack of prevenient grace (or whatever you call it) from God's side. Something in the person is either stubborn or receptive to the truth and, if the person cooperates sufficiently, it will be found in them to believe. Whether one admits it then, there is a certain "well that didn't work but maybe this will" that drives some apologetics and, as I noted about the Unbelievable program, the sinner's acceptance can become the aim of apologetics rather than presenting Christ with all the offense that comes with Him.

 

[jwright82]

I don't have the philosophical chops to articulate why certain appeals to epistemic certainty don't work for me or end up being grounded on human reason, etc but I sort of keep it simple with respect to how a person comes to faith in Christ.

What I try to emphasize with fellow Christians is that knowing Christ is much more than gathering all the fats together and agreeing to them.

Christ, at the return of HIs disciples from their proclamation of the Kingdom, praises the Father because He has revealed Himself to them. It's nigh impossible, in my mind, to come up with a mechanism, as science, that really expresses the inscrutability of how the Spirit works to draw men and women to Christ. Even Christ Himself said that the Spirit blows where it wills.

This is why there is always such a sharp line between a Reformed/Biblical understanding of arguing for the faith and a semi-Pelagian or Pelagian view.

The Biblical answer to why I have faith in Christ and know that He alone has words of eternal life is not because I don't waiver but precisely because I have nowhere else to go.

One feels the weight, however, when asked how you know that Christ is risen and ascended because it's not something that you can articulate in a way that won't sound like: "Well, I just know and unless the Father draws you, you will not come to Christ."

It doesn't sound intellectually respectable. It doesn't allow you to engage in the kinds of debates that a William Lane Craig can engage in where he operates on the same plane of human reason as the unbeliever because he thinks that the reason the person isn't believing is ultimately found in a defect of enough intellectual energy to see that all the arguments are in favor of believing in Christ and becoming a believer.

I'm just talking out loud, but I think one of the reasons why a TAG model is satisfying to some Christians owes to a desire to see the unbeliever put in his place and not to have to deal with the fact that we look like knuckleheads. I agree that it's impossible to really understand things truly without Divine revelation but, ultimately, we have to concede that we were not argued into the Kingdom by being shown what fools we are.

I like your points and especially agree with the last paragraph, that's why I mentioned William Edgar before as a personal example of how apologetics should be done. He combines a, as R Albert Mohler called it, "ruthless presuppositionalism" with the evangelistic care of concern for the unbeliever.
But apologetics isn't just for unbelievers it's for believers as well. Many times in my life have I helped believers deal with objections to the faith that they were concerned with and it showed them that there answers out there.
But your point is valid. I once had a Christian friend who loved to talk to me about Van Til and so I was explaining his method to him. He was obsessed with these trolls (obnoxious and rude) on the internet. He liked Sye something begining with B guy who I can't stand listening to. He didn't know why I would never do that so our friendship decayed because he thought I was cowardly (he never used that word though or personally insulted me) for not being that way. You see it's funny I read Schaeffer before I read Van Til and so Edgar's approach appealed to me because he went the same route.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

A lurker friend offered an observation given shape to something I've thought about:

I think the older reformed theologians could appeal to moral arguments because the basic framework was already Christian. In that environment "light of nature" was itself presuppositional; they just didn't recognise it as such. In fact all their evidential arguments were framed from the Bible on the presupposition of the self-authenticating God of Scripture and the need for Scripture to clarify what the fall had obscured. This balance was disturbed by the rise of a "pure" kind of rationalism towards the end of the 17th century. By the 18th century deism and unitarianism started to undermine the Christian framework of ethics. By the end of the 19th century it was all out war, which prepared the way for modernism. At that stage an explicit presuppositional approach was necessary and you start to see it develop in the Dutch and Scotch theologians who were steeped in the reformed tradition. When Van Til emerged he followed the trend and came out with a systematised form of presuppositionalism.

In the work The Infallible Word, Van Til notes the validity of natural Revelation. What I think his apologetic took aim at was the idea that man was in a position to divorce his reason and investigation of the world around him from a reference to the Creator.

I think some Reformed folk in modern time have concluded that, in order to be truly presup, you have to take a hard line that fallen man has no access to natural Revelation. I think that's a mistake.

That said, I think we cannot merely look at the past as if ideas don't exist within certain times and places and forget that the intellectual climate is much different today. In other words, an appeal to natural law in the past was reflexive. Today, one has to clear the ground in some places to help people see that they are completely missing the point.

I don't want the thread to go in the wrong direction, but I recently finished Critical Dilemma by Neil Shenvi and Pat Sawyer. Contemporary Critical Theories are so blinding in many corners of the culture that we cannot even agree on what a word like "justice" means. I use that as one example because, depending on the encounter, one cannot count on a natural law argument "landing" since the person may conclude that logic is a patriarchal tool of whiteness.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I like your points and especially agree with the last paragraph, that's why I mentioned William Edgar before as a personal example of how apologetics should be done. He combines a, as R Albert Mohler called it, "ruthless presuppositionalism" with the evangelistic care of concern for the unbeliever.
But apologetics isn't just for unbelievers it's for believers as well. Many times in my life have I helped believers deal with objections to the faith that they were concerned with and it showed them that there answers out there.
But your point is valid. I once had a Christian friend who loved to talk to me about Van Til and so I was explaining his method to him. He was obsessed with these trolls (obnoxious and rude) on the internet. He liked Sye something begining with B guy who I can't stand listening to. He didn't know why I would never do that so our friendship decayed because he thought I was cowardly (he never used that word though or personally insulted me) for not being that way. You see it's funny I read Schaeffer before I read Van Til and so Edgar's approach appealed to me because he went the same route.

Thanks for turning me on to Edgar's wTS lectures. I downloaded the episodes and will be working my way through them.

 

[jwright82]

Thanks for turning me on to Edgar's wTS lectures. I downloaded the episodes and will be working my way through them.

The best part is when he gets into Modernity. The first lecture there, not to give any spoilers but this isn't a movie, goes into clips from a movie and looking at various paintings that the infinitely sinful ways humans have attempted to find meaning fail.

 

[RamistThomist]

Understood, yet, a semi-Pelagian view of faith ultimately concludes that what "blocks" a person from faith does not owe to any lack of prevenient grace (or whatever you call it) from God's side. Something in the person is either stubborn or receptive to the truth and, if the person cooperates sufficiently, it will be found in them to believe. Whether one admits it then, there is a certain "well that didn't work but maybe this will" that drives some apologetics and, as I noted about the Unbelievable program, the sinner's acceptance can become the aim of apologetics rather than presenting Christ with all the offense that comes with Him.

It is true that semi-Pelagians believe that. Men like the Reformed scholastics, Hodge, and Warfield did not think that a sufficient defeater for using the classical approach.

I'm not trying to get the sinner's acceptance. I have a number of beliefs, listed below, that will not win unbelieving friends and influence people:

1. Nephilim
2. Bases under Antarctica
3. Governments are in league with planetary spirits.
4. Monarchy

With that said, I can show sinners that their beliefs about the cause of the world, God's being, etc do not hold up logically. Whether they accept that or not is beside the point.

I guess I don't see the conflict between presenting Christ in all his offense and the truth that there must be an Unactualized Actualizer.

 

[RamistThomist]

I do think that when we give an answer, we ought to give an answer as a believer and not "prize" doubt in the hearer.

I agree, which is why I no longer use the Bahnsenian types of argument.

 

[RamistThomist]

I like your points and especially agree with the last paragraph, that's why I mentioned William Edgar before as a personal example of how apologetics should be done. He combines a, as R Albert Mohler called it, "ruthless presuppositionalism" with the evangelistic care of concern for the unbeliever.
But apologetics isn't just for unbelievers it's for believers as well. Many times in my life have I helped believers deal with objections to the faith that they were concerned with and it showed them that there answers out there.
But your point is valid. I once had a Christian friend who loved to talk to me about Van Til and so I was explaining his method to him. He was obsessed with these trolls (obnoxious and rude) on the internet. He liked Sye something begining with B guy who I can't stand listening to. He didn't know why I would never do that so our friendship decayed because he thought I was cowardly (he never used that word though or personally insulted me) for not being that way. You see it's funny I read Schaeffer before I read Van Til and so Edgar's approach appealed to me because he went the same route.

I know what you mean. I revere men like Carl F. H. Henry. What a lot of these young whippersnappers (i.e., trolls on the internet; #datpostmil) don't realize is that I was reading Van Til (all of Van Til), Frame, and Bahnsen decades before they were even Reformed.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It is true that semi-Pelagians believe that. Men like the Reformed scholastics, Hodge, and Warfield did not think that a sufficient defeater for using the classical approach.

I'm not trying to get the sinner's acceptance. I have a number of beliefs, listed below, that will not win unbelieving friends and influence people:

1. Nephilim
2. Bases under Antarctica
3. Governments are in league with planetary spirits.
4. Monarchy

With that said, I can show sinners that their beliefs about the cause of the world, God's being, etc do not hold up logically. Whether they accept that or not is beside the point.

I guess I don't see the conflict between presenting Christ in all his offense and the truth that there must be an Unactualized Actualizer.

I'm not sure how your post interacts with my basic point about semi-Pelagian notions of the will. I'm not arguing for method but making a very basic point.

 

[jwright82]

I know what you mean. I revere men like Carl F. H. Henry. What a lot of these young whippersnappers (i.e., trolls on the internet; #datpostmil) don't realize is that I was reading Van Til (all of Van Til), Frame, and Bahnsen decades before they were even Reformed.

I Henry as well. I have 4 volumes of his magnum opus, the name escapes me now. As well as his "Uneasy Conscious on Fundamentalism" an amazing book.
Yeah I agree those "whippersnappers" are sadly mostly but not all young. Sye and White I'm not real fond of, although I'll listen to White but I refuse to listen to Sye. Choosinghats and Reformed Forum are my go to Van Til sites because of their humility and knowledge in these issues.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm not sure how your post interacts with my basic point about semi-Pelagian notions of the will. I'm not arguing for method but making a very basic point.

Fair enough. I acknowledge your point, but much of the thread was precisely about method. I was commenting with the larger thread in mind.

 

[jwright82]

I'm not sure how your post interacts with my basic point about semi-Pelagian notions of the will. I'm not arguing for method but making a very basic point.

I agree about semi-Pelagian approaches that seek to convince the totally depraved sinner into the kingdom. We defend the faith and pray the Lord regenerates the sinner by using the gospel and defense we lay out in our fallible attempts.
I mean Van Til used to love street preaching as I understand it. But the good news is for all of the arguments between Thomists and Vantillians in history the two are the best of friends in paradise looking down and chuckling at their followers bickering back and forth at each other. I'm sure Van Til, Clark, and Thomas go on daily walks discussing how wrong they all were.

 

[Knight]

Nice post. I have my own peculiar reservations on Clark but my knowledge I've never criticized him on here. Obviously he was a brilliant man and a sharp thinker but I think his general outlook was too much grounded in a Modernist and Enlightenment mold. But all in all he's still good.

Clark was a helpful springboard for me coming out of the epistemic quandary in my younger days of feeling like I needed to construct theistic arguments to have full assurance that Christianity was true. He influenced my thought on the distinction between knowledge and apologetics, and that was significant in framing my understanding of Christianity in general and Scripture in particular as the foundational lens through which I must view the world.

Ironically, it is that same framework which has enabled me to distance myself from Clark's rationalistic views in his elder years (occasionalism, necessitarianism, anthropology, etc.). Even so, I often find his views on these matters (and matters on which I do agree with him) as helpful gateways to engaging with contemporary philosophy. For example, his late views anticipated Amy Karofsky's A Case for Necessitarianism by several decades.

 

[RamistThomist]

Clark was a helpful springboard for me coming out of the epistemic quandary in my younger days of feeling like I needed to construct theistic arguments to have full assurance that Christianity was true. He influenced my thought on the distinction between knowledge and apologetics, and that was significant in framing my understanding of Christianity in general and Scripture in particular as the foundational lens through which I must view the world.

Ironically, it is that same framework which has enabled me to distance myself from Clark's rationalistic views in his elder years (occasionalism, necessitarianism, anthropology, etc.). Even so, I often find his views on these matters (and matters on which I do agree with him) as helpful gateways to engaging with contemporary philosophy. For example, his late views anticipated Amy Karofsky's A Case for Necessitarianism by several decades.

And Clark was such a delightful writer.

 

[Knight]

And Clark was such a delightful writer.

He was. I found a lot of unpublished material he wrote at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis. The archivist was very helpful when I visited, and I'm in the midst of transcribing what was there as part of a larger project to create a comprehensive chronological bibliography and digital transcription of all his works. A more immediate hope is to publish a book containing some of his sermon notes from over the years.

 

[gcdugas]

Bahnsen makes this logically indisputable observation....

1. In any system you will have an ultimate authority.
2. That ultimate authority must, by definition, be self attesting.
3. Therefore any argument asserting/proving that authority must demonstrate that self attesting nature via an indirect and transcendental logical structure.

If you can digest this, then you will see that all the rest is just smoke and mirrors evading the issue regarding the structure of any argument for ultimacy and/or authority [the two are one and the same]. It simply MUST be transcendental in structure.

Listen to him make these points in a lecture to the faculty at WTS Philly.

http://media1.wts.edu/media/audio/gb201_podcast.mp3

 

[RamistThomist]

Bahnsen makes this logically indisputable observation....

1. In any system you will have an ultimate authority.
2. That ultimate authority must, by definition, be self attesting.
3. Therefore any argument asserting/proving that authority must demonstrate that self attesting nature via an indirect and transcendental logical structure.

If you can digest this, then you will see that all the rest is just smoke and mirrors evading the issue regarding the structure of any argument for ultimacy and/or authority [the two are one and the same]. It simply MUST be transcendental in structure.

Listen to him make these points in a lecture to the faculty at WTS Philly.

http://media1.wts.edu/media/audio/gb201_podcast.mp3

Even Aristotle knew that the axioms for a system cannot be derived outside the system. Saying the ultimate authority is self-attesting is fine, but it is not always self-attesting to our knowledge of it.

And I wouldn't let the Muslim or the Mormon say their book is self-attesting.

Moreover, when Paul was on Mars Hill he didn't use the Transcendental Argument per the preconditions of intelligibility.

 

[gcdugas]

Even Aristotle knew that the axioms for a system cannot be derived outside the system. Saying the ultimate authority is self-attesting is fine, but it is not always self-attesting to our knowledge of it.

And I wouldn't let the Muslim or the Mormon say their book is self-attesting.

Moreover, when Paul was on Mars Hill he didn't use the Transcendental Argument per the preconditions of intelligibility.

You are confusing self attesting and self authenticating.

Self authenticating is what the Muslims do, it's what tyrants do, it's what stubborn men do. It says "I'm right because I say I'm right."

Self attesting is when the scriptures manifest themselves to be the Word of God because God himself attests to them in Creation, Providence and in redemption. In Creation and Providence via general Revelation. In redemption via special revelation.

5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture;a and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.b

a. 1 Tim 3:15. • b. Isa 59:21; John 16:13-14; 1 Cor 2:10-12; 1 John 2:20, 27.

Jesus made this same speak to the witness of the Spirit in John 8.

18I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. 19Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

And in 1 John 5...
9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

This appeal to the work of the Holy Spirit is all we have and it is all Jesus ever had and it is all there ever is and ever will be.

Finally... Paul didn't outline the transcendental argument but he used it. In Romans when he asserts that "God has made himself known so that they are without excuse." That is an appeal to the attestation of God in nature via General Revelation.

There is a difference between self authenticating and self attesting.

 

[RamistThomist]

You are confusing self attesting and self authenticating.

Self authenticating is what the Muslims do, it's what tyrants do, it's what stubborn men do. It says "I'm right because I say I'm right."

Self attesting is when the scriptures manifest themselves to be the Word of God because God himself attests to them in Creation, Providence and in redemption. In Creation and Providence via general Revelation. In redemption via special revelation.

5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture;a and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.b

a. 1 Tim 3:15. • b. Isa 59:21; John 16:13-14; 1 Cor 2:10-12; 1 John 2:20, 27.

Jesus made this same speak to the witness of the Spirit in John 8.

18I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. 19Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

And in 1 John 5...
9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

This appeal to the work of the Holy Spirit is all we have and it is all Jesus ever had and it is all there ever is and ever will be.

Finally... Paul didn't outline the transcendental argument but he used it. In Romans when he asserts that "God has made himself known so that they are without excuse." That is an appeal to the attestation of God in nature via General Revelation.

There is a difference between self authenticating and self attesting.

I get the distinction. I just don't think it cashes out in apologetic encounters.

 

[Cranmer19591959]

Is the moral argument classical apologists use similar to that which presuppositionalists use?
I just saw Jeff Durbin using something like the moral argument(you believe in materialism therefore you have no standard as you're just matter in motion,etc.) in a debate. So are there arguments like the moral argument where VanTillianism and Evidential apologetics overlap? Is the only difference that presuppositionalists demolish atheistic presuppositions before they present evidence or something?

I adhere to the apologetics of Gordon H. Clark. You are correct that Clark's approach was to first show the presuppositions and inconsistencies in the position taken by the other side. Clark referred to this as reducing their arguments to absurdity. And in fact, Clark's approach was a system of logical and propositional truths as summarized by the Westminster Confession of Faith. Atheists often try to shift the burden of proof to the Christian. But if everyone is a fideist, including atheists, why would the atheist complain that Christians have unproven starting points? What is the proof that animals would evolve and then deduce logic from rocks, trees, and dirt? Man is the image of God because man alone is a rational creature. John 1:1, 9; Genesis 1:27.

 

[Cranmer19591959]

You are confusing self attesting and self authenticating.

Self authenticating is what the Muslims do, it's what tyrants do, it's what stubborn men do. It says "I'm right because I say I'm right."

Self attesting is when the scriptures manifest themselves to be the Word of God because God himself attests to them in Creation, Providence and in redemption. In Creation and Providence via general Revelation. In redemption via special revelation.

5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture;a and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.b

a. 1 Tim 3:15. • b. Isa 59:21; John 16:13-14; 1 Cor 2:10-12; 1 John 2:20, 27.

Jesus made this same speak to the witness of the Spirit in John 8.

18I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. 19Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

And in 1 John 5...
9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

This appeal to the work of the Holy Spirit is all we have and it is all Jesus ever had and it is all there ever is and ever will be.

Finally... Paul didn't outline the transcendental argument but he used it. In Romans when he asserts that "God has made himself known so that they are without excuse." That is an appeal to the attestation of God in nature via General Revelation.

There is a difference between self authenticating and self attesting.

The difference between accepting Islam and accepting Christianity is the new birth. You said as much. I disagree with Van Til's Transcendental Argument for God because natural religion and natural revelation are insufficient for saving belief. The more complete revelation is the special revelation of the Holy Scriptures. Even the Westminster Confession of Faith begins with the chapter on Sola Scriptura. We have an unproven starting axiom, the Holy Scriptures. Since everyone must begin somewhere, it follows that the unprovable starting point does not need to be proved. Everything else is deduced from the beginning axiom. Genesis 1:1; John 1:1-3, 9; John 10:35; 2 Timothy 3:16.

 

[Cranmer19591959]

The difference between accepting Islam and accepting Christianity is the new birth. You said as much. I disagree with Van Til's Transcendental Argument for God because natural religion and natural revelation are insufficient for saving belief. The more complete revelation is the special revelation of the Holy Scriptures. Even the Westminster Confession of Faith begins with the chapter on Sola Scriptura. We have an unproven starting axiom, the Holy Scriptures. Since everyone must begin somewhere, it follows that the unprovable starting point does not need to be proved. Everything else is deduced from the beginning axiom. Genesis 1:1; John 1:1-3, 9; John 10:35; 2 Timothy 3:16.

It seems to me that your distinction is a distinction without a difference. Islam begins with the axiom of the Qu'ran. It's not necessarily self-authenticating or self-attesting. It's a matter of axioms. The way to defeat Islam is to show the superiority of Christianity by first demonstrating the contradictions in the Qu'ran and Islamic Hadiths. It would be hard work to demonstrate the logical absurdity of Islam, but that would be the most effect rebuttal of that religion.

 

[gcdugas]

I get the distinction. I just don't think it cashes out in apologetic encounters.

Of course you don't think so. You are committed to Thomism which posits the sufficiency of autonomous human reason as the arbiter of truth.

 

[RamistThomist]

Of course you don't think so. You are committed to Thomism which posits the sufficiency of autonomous human reason as the arbiter of truth.

That’s not what Thomas teaches. Reason participates in God, hardly autonomous

 

[gcdugas]

Well then, you had better alert all the Thomists what they should believe because even the best of them at The Davenant Institute believe in human reason is sufficient for determining truth.

Does God initiate by revealing or does Man perceive by probing?

 

[Cranmer19591959]

I think I used to be more enthusiastic about presuppositionalism when I was younger and the world seemed to have a greater sense of the law written on the heart. Bahnsen and others were interesting because the arguments seemed so capable of destroying the confidence of atheists who suddenly discovered they had their feet firmly planted in mid-air.

The problem, as I see it, with some presub approaches is that it's not enough to apologetically destroy arguments and convince others that they are wrong. I know there is more to that, but I also think that there needs to be a place to positively construct, with people who may not be Christians, a policy or law decision that is appropriate. I realize that there is a place for apologetics to defend against scorrers and convince others of the claims of the Gospel but there is also a world in which unbelievers will continue to unbelieve and we need to be able to produce arguments that will affect both the big and the mundane decisions of how to govern or provide policy advice.

Gordon H. Clark did that. He has at least three lectures on the topic of a Christian construction/worldview. Christianity is not a religion among religions. It is an entire worldview.

 

[Cranmer19591959]

That’s not what Thomas teaches. Reason participates in God, hardly autonomous

There are at least two major problems with Thomism. The first is Thomas's view that truth is twofold. God's truth and man's understanding of truth do not coincide at any single point? The other problem is Thomas's empiricism. He apparently rejected any idea of God's image as an innate and inherent aspect of the dichotomous view of the human nature. Are humans really born with a tabula rasa?