On What Ground do You Presuppositionalists Pre-Suppose Your'e Pre-Suppositions? And other questions.

[Sam Jer]

Having been introduced to Presuppositionalism through a back door, I have a very basic question: What is it, snd what is it based on? In other words, on what ground do you pre-suppose your'e pre-suppositions?

If Atheos Foolsson asks you "how do you know that there is a God", or "how do you know that Jesus Christ has died and rose again", or "how do you know that the Gospel of Mark is inerrant", what is your'e reply?

If you can explain the answer simply, without complex philosophical rabbit-holes, that'd be prefferable.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

Because the Bible tells me so.

WCF 1. 4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]

WCF 1.5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] 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.[11]


[9] 2 Peter 1:19, 21. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.... For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Timothy 3:16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 1 John 5:9. If 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. 1 Thessalonians 2:13. For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
[10] 1 Timothy 3:15. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
[11] 1 John 2:20, 27. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.... But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. John 16:13-14. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. 1 Corinthians 2:10-12. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Isaiah 59:21. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Just to clarify, presuppositionalism is often an apologetic method or a debate about whether the unbeliever has a neutral standing with respect to reason and what may be known from natural theology.

I think the thing that every person needs to wrestle with is how we have come to truly know that Christ in the Son of God. Some 20th Century theologians accused Calvin and others of a form of mysticism because he was trying to get at the idea that you cannot really "reason" your way upward from a fallen human condition to come to know Christ. It is given above. I've come to realize recently, for instance, that I think what Barth did was mangle the idea of being born again to try to spread it out to humanity and making every person capable of the knowledge of God through a Divine encounter but I digress.

I think, at the end of the day, what any form of faithful Christianity is getting at is that you can't really come to Christ through some purely rational process of knowing. We know that we know because the Spirit testifies to us. We don't come about it through some syllogism even though you can express it through plain words.

This doesn't necessitate a specific apologetic method. I'm sure others will weigh in and noted that it wasn't just Calvin, but even Aquinas had a form of this Divine disclosure in his own theology.

The bottom line with what is called presuppositionalism in many cases is that you cannot NOT know that Christ is the Son of God once you know that He is. A Christian cannot ultimately then approach the world as if he's still hostile to God and considers God something he can either affirm or deny based on his autonomous reason. He realizes, forever after, that the creature is in no place to start from his own reason in order to doubt or affirm the existence of the God Who created his reason.

 

[Sam Jer]

Just to clarify, presuppositionalism is often an apologetic method or a debate about whether the unbeliever has a neutral standing with respect to reason and what may be known from natural theology.

I think the thing that every person needs to wrestle with is how we have come to truly know that Christ in the Son of God. Some 20th Century theologians accused Calvin and others of a form of mysticism because he was trying to get at the idea that you cannot really "reason" your way upward from a fallen human condition to come to know Christ. It is given above. I've come to realize recently, for instance, that I think what Barth did was mangle the idea of being born again to try to spread it out to humanity and making every person capable of the knowledge of God through a Divine encounter but I digress.

I think, at the end of the day, what any form of faithful Christianity is getting at is that you can't really come to Christ through some purely rational process of knowing. We know that we know because the Spirit testifies to us. We don't come about it through some syllogism even though you can express it through plain words.

This doesn't necessitate a specific apologetic method. I'm sure others will weigh in and noted that it wasn't just Calvin, but even Aquinas had a form of this Divine disclosure in his own theology.

The bottom line with what is called presuppositionalism in many cases is that you cannot NOT know that Christ is the Son of God once you know that He is. A Christian cannot ultimately then approach the world as if he's still hostile to God and considers God something he can either affirm or deny based on his autonomous reason. He realizes, forever after, that the creature is in no place to start from his own reason in order to doubt or affirm the existence of the God Who created his reason.

I guess my question would, then, be for those to hold to that apologetic method.

 

[RamistThomist]

I guess my question would, then, be for those to hold to that apologetic method.

Even though I am not presup, I can try to rephrase the problem, maybe from a different angle: among the things we presuppose, why do we presuppose the specifically Protestant canon, which is an a posteriori fact? There is not anything about the Self-Contained Concrete Universal that demands a Protestant canon.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I guess my question would, then, be for those to hold to that apologetic method.

The answer is the same. The point of presuppositionalism is that you cannot begin to reason rightly unless you know that you are a creature and that God is God.

The "ground" that the presup apologist stands on is that God is God and that the God Who reveals Himself in nature is the same Who reveals Himself in Scripture.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

I do hold to that apologetic method. Scripture is the ground on which I presuppose God as God. Scripture is also self-attesting. That which bars the non-believer from accepting this is not a rational argument, but his sinful state.

Van Til writes this in his essay titled "My Credo", found in Jerusalem and Athens:

My proposal, therefore, for a consistently Christian methodology of apologetics is this:

1. That we use the same principle in apologetics that we use in theology: the self-attesting , self-explanatory Christ of Scripture
2. That we no longer make an appeal to “common notions” which Christian and non-Christian agree on, but to the “common ground” which they actually have because man and his world are what Scripture says they are.
3. That we appeal to man as man, God’s image. We do so only if we set the non-Christian principle of the rational autonomy of man against the Christian principle of the dependence of man’s knowledge on God’s knowledge as revealed in the person by the Spirit of Christ.
4. That we claim, therefore, that Christianity alone is reasonable for men to hold. It is wholly irrational to hold any other position than that of Christianity. Christianity alone does not slay reason on the altar of “chance.”
5. That we argue, therefore, by “presupposition.” The Christian, as did Tertullian, must contest the very principles of his opponent’s position. The only “proof” of the Christian position is that unless its truth is presupposed there is no possibility of “proving” anything at all. The actual state of affairs as preached by Christianity is the necessary foundation of “proof” itself.
6. That we preach with the understanding that the acceptance of the Christ of Scriptures by sinners who, being alienated from God, seek to flee his face, comes about when the Holy Spirit, in the presence of inescapably clear evidence, opens their eyes so that they see things as they truly are.
7. That we present the message and evidence for the Christian position as clearly as possible, knowing that because man is what the Christian says he is, the non-Christian will be able to understand in an intellectual sense the issues involved. In so doing, we shall, to a large extent, be telling him what he “already knows” but seeks to suppress. This “reminding” process provides a fertile ground for the Holy Spirit, who in sovereign grace may grant the non-Christian repentance so that they may know him who is life eternal.”

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Even though I am not presup, I can try to rephrase the problem, maybe from a different angle: among the things we presuppose, why do we presuppose the specifically Protestant canon, which is an a posteriori fact? There is not anything about the Self-Contained Concrete Universal that demands a Protestant canon.

The problem you posed was why the post-Reformation orthodox created a doctrine of Scripture to answer this question.

Roman Catholics argued that Scripture was beneficial but not necessary for the Church to exist. The Protestant orthodox held that the Word created the Church. Not the physical media per se but Divine Revelation itself.

 

[RamistThomist]

The problem you posed was why the post-Reformation orthodox created a doctrine of Scripture to answer this question.

Roman Catholics argued that Sctiprue was beneficial but not necessary for the Church to exist. The Protestant orthodox held that the Word created the Church. Not the physical media per se but Divine Revelation itself.

I agree, but if we are presupposing Scripture in order to make sense of everything--and granted that is a more Clarkian slant than a Van Tillian one--it is not clear why we need the Protestant canon to do so. Now, if the Van Tillian isn't claiming as much as first generation presups did, then he can say that the Protestant canon is justified on historical grounds, and I wouldn't disagree. That is a more moderate claim.

I will try to say it another way:

If we take our stand on the Self-Contained Concrete Universal, we presumably do so from knowledge of Scripture, yet the canon of Scripture is an posteriori fact. A legitimate one, but one doesn't normally think of a posteriori facts as the things we need to make sense of everything else.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

I believe the question was to answer an atheist regarding how we may know that God is God, that Jesus rose from the dead, or if Mark is inerrant. Additionally, can we answer these simply and from a presuppositional perspective?

I presuppose that God exists and that He reveals Himself because God does exist and He does reveal Himself.

I know God is God because He revealed it, in nature and Scripture. However, nature is not enough to get from "god" to "God", therefore I need my eyes to be opened to the truths of the Scripture by the Holy Spirit.

Is there another way to know that Jesus rose from the dead without Scripture?

I know Mark is inerrant because of the Self-Attestation of the Scriptures. There is nothing in nature that tells me God has inspired certain writings. But the Bible does address that topic.

Therefore, I know these things because the Bible tells me so.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

The answer is the same. The point of presuppositionalism is that you cannot begin to reason rightly unless you know that you are a creature and that God is God.

The "ground" that the presup apologist stands on is that God is God and that the God Who reveals Himself in nature is the same Who reveals Himself in Scripture.

Good day Elder Rich,

You said that "you cannot begin to reason rightly unless you know that you are a creature and that God is God."

I have a few questions:

1. What is it to "reason rightly"?
2. Is the above to suggest that those who profess to deny they are created by God and that God is God cannot "reason rightly" at all?
3. Can the non-presuppositionalist affirm the above statement and thereby show the unbeliever that they indeed do live and act as though they are a creature and that God is God, providing a demonstration from the light of nature / general revelation?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I agree, but if we are presupposing Scripture in order to make sense of everything--and granted that is a more Clarkian slant than a Van Tillian one--it is not clear why we need the Protestant canon to do so. Now, if the Van Tillian isn't claiming as much as first generation presups did, then he can say that the Protestant canon is justified on historical grounds, and I wouldn't disagree. That is a more moderate claim.

I will try to say it another way:

If we take our stand on the Self-Contained Concrete Universal, we presumably do so from knowledge of Scripture, yet the canon of Scripture is an posteriori fact. A legitimate one, but one doesn't normally think of a posteriori facts as the things we need to make sense of everything else.

I wasn't arguing with you, but merely noting that this is one of the things that drove Protestants to develop a "doctrine" on Scripture. Mileage varied in the times before the Reformation, but the Church held that the Scriptures were the infallible Word of God but also could "find" whatever they wanted in them in order to affirm the doctrines they believed had been handed down. The Reformation didn't change the idea that the Scriptures were the Word of God, but (controversially at the time) placed Church deliverances under the authority of what the Scriptures taught. This had to be fleshed out in later decades to consolidate what to us may seem a basic point about the nature of Scripture - what it is and how we know what it is.

I'm writing this not to argue with the question you're posing but to note that it was part and parcel of what was wrestled with in order to arrive at a Confessional doctrine of Scripture.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Good day Elder Rich,

You said that "you cannot begin to reason rightly unless you know that you are a creature and that God is God."

I have a few questions:

1. What is it to "reason rightly"?
2. Is the above to suggest that those who profess to deny they are created by God and that God is God cannot "reason rightly" at all?
3. Can the non-presuppositionalist affirm the above statement and thereby show the unbeliever that they indeed do live and act as though they are a creature and that God is God, providing a demonstration from the light of nature / general revelation?

1. I don't intend to deny that a person retains the capacity for what we call reason. I only mean that a person cannot approach God's creation and come to an ultimately accurate apprehension of something without considering that God created it and that even His reason comes from the fact that he is created in the image of God.

2. No. I think the best analogy was made by Kuyper where he speaks of man's reason as the Admiral of a fleet of warships that switches his allegiance to a new king. He doesn't sink all his ships but directs the powerful tools that his King gave Him in rebellion against Him.

3. Yes. I'm not a pure presup. I'm only answering questions about presuppositions. I think some have well-argued, though, that prior generations of apologetics were inherently pre-suppositional and we need to take that into account when dealing with a culture that no longer grows up assuming that God exists.

 

[Sam Jer]

This is chinese to me. Can you explain what you mean?

Even though I am not presup, I can try to rephrase the problem, maybe from a different angle: among the things we presuppose, why do we presuppose the specifically Protestant canon, which is an a posteriori fact? There is not anything about the Self-Contained Concrete Universal that demands a Protestant canon.

I believe the question was to answer an atheist regarding how we may know that God is God, that Jesus rose from the dead, or if Mark is inerrant. Additionally, can we answer these simply and from a presuppositional perspective?

I presuppose that God exists and that He reveals Himself because God does exist and He does reveal Himself.

I know God is God because He revealed it, in nature and Scripture. However, nature is not enough to get from "god" to "God", therefore I need my eyes to be opened to the truths of the Scripture by the Holy Spirit.

Is there another way to know that Jesus rose from the dead without Scripture?

I know Mark is inerrant because of the Self-Attestation of the Scriptures. There is nothing in nature that tells me God has inspired certain writings. But the Bible does address that topic.

Therefore, I know these things because the Bible tells me so.

If Atheos Foolsson, or Muhammad ibn-Kidb for that matter, asks you to explain why you believe scripture, what would you reply? (And quoting the confession is nice, but could you maybe explain rather than merely quote?)

Basically, it seems to me that your'e answer to how you get from A (god) to B (JEHOVAH) is the Bible.
How do you then get to the Bible?

 

[RamistThomist]

This is chinese to me. Can you explain what you mean?



If Atheos Foolsson, or Muhammad ibn-Kidb for that matter, asks you to explain why you believe scripture, what would you reply? (And quoting the confession is nice, but could you maybe explain rather than merely quote?)

Basically, it seems to me that your'e answer to how you get from A (god) to B (JEHOVAH) is the Bible.
How do you then get to the Bible?

An a posteriori fact is a contingent fact, one derived from experience.

The self-contained concrete universal is what Van Til called the Trinity. You have to presuppose that in order to make sense of unity and particularity. Of course, what "self-contained concrete universal" means is anybody's guess.

 

[Knight]

I agree, but if we are presupposing Scripture in order to make sense of everything--and granted that is a more Clarkian slant than a Van Tillian one

This reads as if there is a premise prior to Scripture, something with which Clark would have disagreed:

If I want to buy food, then I should go to the store.
I want to buy food.
I should go to the store.

So I go to the store.

P1. If I want to make sense of everything, then I should "presuppose" Scripture.
P2. I want to make sense of everything.
C. I should "presuppose" Scripture.

So I "presuppose" Scripture.

But P1. is not something any "Clarkian" should defend is knowable prior to his "presupposing" Scripture. I don't even think a "Clarkian" would defend it posterior to his "presupposing" Scripture! The prophets certainly weren't able to "make sense of everything" that happened to them.

As an aside, in reference to the title of this thread, I think "presupposition" is less felicitous than "foundation" or "axiom." If our "presuppositions" can have "presuppositions," it can become entirely confusing what is the purpose of this sort of conversation.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

From PRRD-2

Scripture as Principium or Foundation of Theology

A. The Scriptural Foundation of the Theology of the Reformers: The Perspective of the Reformed Confessions

The logical priority of Scripture over all other means of religious knowing in the church—tradition, present-day corporate or official doctrine, and individual insight or illumination—lies at the heart of the teaching of the Reformation and of its great confessional documents. Indeed, it is the unanimous declaration of the Protestant confessions that Scripture is the sole authoritative norm of saving knowledge of God. The Reformed confessions, moreover, tend to manifest this priority and normative character by placing it first in the order of confession, as the explicit ground and foundation of all that follows.

The more systematically ordered Reformed confessions, the First and Second Helvetic, the Gallican, the Belgic, juxtapose the doctrine of God with the doctrine of Scripture—a pattern followed in the seventeenth century by the Irish Articles and the Westminster Confession. This confessional pattern holds considerable significance for the development of Reformed theology, since it provides the basic form of the orthodox theological system: the confessions present the cognitive foundation or principium cognoscendi of revealed theology, the Holy Scriptures, and, based upon Scripture, the essential foundation or principium essendi of all theology, which is to say, God himself.1 Without the former, theology could not know the truth of God—without the latter, there could be no theology, indeed, no revelation. The movement of faith from one principium to the other is noted explicitly by the Belgic Confession: “According to this truth and this Word of God, we believe in one only God who is one single essence, in whom there are three persons, really, truly and eternally distinguished according to their incommunicable properties, namely, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”2 Thus, Scripture leads us to the consideration of the unity and trinity of God, specifically of the essential unity and personal trinity of God.

As an examination of these several confessions will demonstrate, there are two ways in which this presentation of principia may proceed. The most direct path is taken by the First and Second Helvetic confessions and, in the era of orthodoxy, by the Irish Articles and the Westminster Confession: the doctrine of Scripture introduces the confession and the doctrine of God follows. The other path, taken by the Gallican and Belgic Confessions, states in brief the existence of the one God, presents the divine attributes, and then moves to the question of revelation, natural and supernatural, finally reaching the doctrine of the Trinity by way of the doctrine of Scripture. Although the former order may seem to be the simpler, more straightforward approach, there are two significant reasons for the latter approach to the doctrines of God and Scripture—one theological and one historical. The theological reason is the intimate relationship of the two principia: while we cannot know God truly apart from Scripture, the existence of the scriptural revelation also presupposes the existence of God. The Gallican and Belgic standards, therefore, first confess their belief in God and then proceed to the issues of revelation and of the full doctrine of trinity in unity. We observe, also, that both confessions derive their initial statement of belief in God explicitly from Scripture—so that the circle of argument is complete. In the absence of Scripture, human reason could not confess the essential unity or the essential attributes of Almighty God.

The second reason is historical. Before the Reformation, we do not encounter extended discussion of Scripture and certainly not a formal presentation of the doctrine of Scripture as a prologue to theological system. The Sentences of Peter Lombard, the standard textbook of later medieval theology, began with the doctrine of the Trinity. Aquinas’ Summa and Scotus’ commentaries on the Sentences have prolegomena in which Scripture is presented as the source of revealed theology, but neither develops a doctrine of Scripture. The development of a doctrine of Scripture belongs to the Reformation—indeed, to the second generation of the Reformation, to writers like Calvin and Bullinger. Even so, most of the early confessions of the Reformers assume the biblical foundation of doctrine but do not state a doctrine of Scripture: the Augsburg Confession, the Confession of Basel, the Confession of Württemberg (1551), written by Johannes Brenz, and Edwardine or Forty-two Articles (1553) of the Church of England all begin with the doctrine of God. The First Helvetic Confession, therefore, is something of an exception to this early pattern and already represents a certain systematizing tendency. The other early confessions simply reflect the shape of the Apostles’ Creed, by moving from God and creation, to salvation, to the articles concerned with the church.

For all of the Reformed confessions, then, the sole foundation of all true knowledge of God is God’s own revelation. There can be no true knowledge of God, indeed, no knowledge of God at all, if God does not manifest himself to his creatures. Not only is human knowledge as it now exists clouded and warped by sin, but even the unfallen reason of the first moments of man’s earthly existence could not have been sufficient to reach out to God unaided by God’s own gracious, self-revealing work of mediation.3 Of course, the act of creation itself is a movement of holy God toward the creature which, in its completion or result, provides a basis for knowledge of God. We can, therefore, speak of a first form of revelation whereby God makes himself known “in his works, in their creation, as well as in their preservation and control.”4 God’s universe is set “before our eyes as a beautiful book, wherein all creatures, small and great, serve as signs to lead us to contemplate the invisible things of God, namely, his eternal power and Godhead.”5 This revelation cannot, however, save mankind from sin—it can only convince sinful mankind of the existence of God and leave the unrepentant world without excuse in its sins.6

This confession of a revelation of God in and through his works, together with the initial formal confession of the existence of God in his attributes of eternity, incomprehensibility, invisibility, immutability, infinity, omnipotence, omnisapience, justice, and goodness, has led to a criticism of the Reformed confessions themselves as opening the door to a rationalizing natural theology such as would bring the post-Reformation era to an inglorious close at the beginning of the eighteenth century.7 From this critique we must dissent. Calvin himself had argued a “two-fold knowledge of God” according to which God is known first through the world and through the general revelation recorded in Scripture as Creator and second through the revelation in Christ as Father and Redeemer.8 Calvin’s contemporaries and the Reformed scholastics were also guided by this distinction, many of them adding to Calvin’s concept the qualification that apart from Christ, God is known as wrathful Judge, not merely as Creator.9 Calvin and his contemporaries all recognize a non-salvific revelation of God in the natural order—and, from the perspective of faith, can wax eloquent on its fulness, as is the case in many of Calvin’s commentaries on the Psalms.10 The critique can, therefore, be dismissed on historical and theological grounds.

Neither does the attempt to force a distinction between Calvin’s views on natural theology and the views expressed in the Reformed confessions make any historical sense. Calvin himself had a hand in the production of the Gallican Confession, and he had access to the Belgic Confession some two years prior to his death. In addition, the final editor of the Belgic Confession, Francis Junius, was one of Calvin’s most eminent students. We have no evidence that Calvin saw any problem with the language or theology of either document or that he viewed these confessions or their authors with anything but approbation.

While there is no foundational status given to natural theology in either the Reformed confessions or in the theology of the Reformers generally, both the confessions and the dogmatic systems acknowledge the presence of a revelation of God in the created order. What is more, this revelation is recognized differently by the regenerate and the unregenerate: the unregenerate mind encounters the revelation of God in nature and fashions not a true description of God but blasphemies and idols; the regenerate or elect, however, see God clearly through the “spectacles” of Scripture, which make sure and certain their knowledge of God as Creator.11 There is, therefore, a regenerate view of the created order which, by the grace of God and with the aid of Scripture, recognizes the revelation of God in the created order for what it is—a manifestation of the greatness and goodness of God to his eternal glory.

This means that there are two levels on which the confessional statements concerning natural revelation must be read. On the first level, the confessions declare to the community of faith the Christian perception of the world as an open book declaring the glory of the God and Father of Jesus Christ. The initial declarations of the Belgic and Gallican Confessions are not intended to present the being and attributes of God as known to naked reason but as confessed by the church in faith. Similarly, the church confesses in faith that God is truly manifest in his works. But the church also confesses that this knowledge of God as Creator is utterly insufficient for salvation. Thus, on the second level, the church confesses that those who have only the created order are left without excuse. In the same breath, moreover, the confessions praise the clarity of God’s revelation in Scripture and recognize that there alone is saving knowledge of God bestowed. No Reformed confession, therefore, views natural theology as a preparation for revealed theology, since only the regenerate, who have learned from Scripture, can return to creation and find there the truth of God.

The Scripture, upon which true knowledge of God rests, is the Word of God, not a word of man brought into being “by the will of man” but rather the revealed Word of God put in writing at the command of God and through the agency of the Holy Spirit by the prophets and the apostles.12 Since the Scriptures are the “true Word of God” and have “sufficient authority of themselves”, they supersede all human authority in “the confirmation of doctrines” and “the confutation of all errors.13 No authority stands above Scripture except the authority of God himself. Even the great ecumenical symbols of the church, the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds, have authority only insofar as they reflect the truth of Scripture.14

It is theologically incorrect and historically inaccurate to claim, as some recent writers have done, that the Reformers and the earliest of the Reformed symbols make a distinction between Jesus Christ as the only true Word of God and the Scriptures as Word in the derivative sense of witness to the incarnate Word. Nor can it be argued that any of the confessions—not even the Articles of the Synod of Bern (1532)—so identify revelation with Word and Word with Jesus Christ as to exclude any revelation of God outside of Christ.15 Both the Reformers and the confessions use the term “Word” with reference to Christ and to Scripture, recognizing that the identity of Christ as the incarnation of the eternal Word and Wisdom of God in no way diminishes but instead establishes the status of Scripture as Word.16 Thus Scripture is definitively Word, but not exclusively so. Word is, first of all, the eternal Word of God, the personal and archetypal self-knowledge of God. Second, Word is the unwritten revelation of God given to the prophets and the apostles. Third, it is the Word written and, fourth, it is the inward Word of the Spirit which testifies to the heart of truth of Scripture.17

---

1 Cf. principia theologiae s.v. in Richard A. Muller, A Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), hereinafter DLGT, with the discussion PRRD, I, 9.3.
2 Belgic Confession, VIII, in Schaff, Creeds, III.
3 Calvin, Institutes, II.xii.1.
4 Gallican Confession, II, in Schaff, Creeds, III.
5 Belgic Confession, II.
6 Belgic Confession, II; Westminster Confession, I.1, in Schaff, Creeds, III.
7 Gallican Confession, II; Belgic Confession, II; cf. Barth, CD, II/1, p. 127 with idem, The Knowledge of God and the Service of God according to the Teaching of the Reformation, trans. J. L. M. Haire and Ian Henderson (London: Hodder and Stoughton), p. 57.
8 Calvin, Institutes, I.ii.1; vi.1; II.vi.1; and cf. Edward A. Dowey, The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology (New York: Columbia University Press, 1952), pp. 41–49. On the limitations of this theme in Calvin see Richard A. Muller, Unaccommodated Calvin, pp. 133–138.
9 See Richard A. Muller, “ ‘Duplex cognitio Dei in the Theology of Early Reformed Orthodoxy,’ ” in Sixteenth Century Journal, X/2 (1979), pp. 51–61.
10 Cf. Calvin’s commentary on Psalm 19:1–6 (CTS Psalms, I, pp. 308–316) with the commentary on Psalm 104:1–4 (CTS Psalms, IV, pp. 145–147).
11 Calvin, Institutes, I.v.4–5; with I.vi.1.
12 Belgic Confession, III.
13 Second Helvetic Confession, I.i–iii, in Schaff, Creeds, III.
14 Gallican Confession, V.
15 Contra Jan Rohls, Reformed Confessions: Theology from Zurich to Barmen, trans. John Hoffmeyer, intro. by Jack Stotts (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), p. 29.
16 Cf. Calvin, Institutes, I.vi.2–4; vii.1; ix.3; xiii.7.
17 See: verbum internum and testimonium internum Spiritus Sancti in DLGT; for a brief description the fourfold paradigm of Word, and further, Richard A. Muller, “Christ—the Revelation or the Revealer? Brunner and Reformed Orthodoxy on the Doctrine of the Word of God,” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 26/3 (Sept. 1983), pp. 311–315.

 

[Sam Jer]

From PRRD-2

What / who is PRRD-2?

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

What is PRRD-2?

Muller's "Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2", I believe.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Muller's "Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2", I believe.

Correct.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

If Atheos Foolsson, or Muhammad ibn-Kidb for that matter, asks you to explain why you believe scripture, what would you reply? (And quoting the confession is nice, but could you maybe explain rather than merely quote?)

Basically, it seems to me that your'e answer to how you get from A (god) to B (JEHOVAH) is the Bible.
How do you then get to the Bible?

The Muslim has a category for divine revelation and acknowledges the Bible (I believe that in some places they even affirm it). I think a discussion with them would probably be closer to "why I don't accept their holy book" instead of explaining "why I have confidence in mine". Additionally, I think at a practical level I'd want to move to a different subject if I was engaged in a conversation with a Muslim. I hope you don't see that as a dodge, but just the reality of what you would ideally want to do in an evangelical/apologetic conversation with someone from a different faith.

The atheist is, practically, the same as another faith. He has a worldview and belief system that he presupposes, and he has certain authorities he believes. If he is consistent in his worldview, he would agree that every argument has a beginning, and we all stand on the foundations that we presuppose. The conversation could point to who has a more reliable foundation at this point - again, I want to give a reason for my hope and expose the inconsistency in his belief. And, for the record, I don't think the transcendental argument or just burping out the phrase "by what standard?" is the only means to accomplish that. But, the goal would be to show them that only the Christian worldview can account for the facts of reality.

If asked why I hold to the Bible as my foundation, I would say because I believe it to be the Word of God, because I trust in the historical process by which we have the book and because the internal evidence is "confirming" to me. I don't expect him to accept the internal beauty of the Scriptures, or the prophetic fulfillment, or the manuscript evidence as something that will suddenly convert him to my perspective. But, I can give a reason for my hope, and that is found in the fact of the Person and work of Christ Jesus.

Whatever his qualms might be, it would not stop me from telling Him the truth of Scripture. Lost people don't believe Romans 5.8 - that doesn't mean they don't need to hear it.

 

[Sam Jer]

The Muslim has a category for divine revelation and acknowledges the Bible (I believe that in some places they even affirm it). I think a discussion with them would probably be closer to "why I don't accept their holy book" instead of explaining "why I have confidence in mine". Additionally, I think at a practical level I'd want to move to a different subject if I was engaged in a conversation with a Muslim. I hope you don't see that as a dodge, but just the reality of what you would ideally want to do in an evangelical/apologetic conversation with someone from a different faith.

The atheist is, practically, the same as another faith. He has a worldview and belief system that he presupposes, and he has certain authorities he believes. If he is consistent in his worldview, he would agree that every argument has a beginning, and we all stand on the foundations that we presuppose. The conversation could point to who has a more reliable foundation at this point - again, I want to give a reason for my hope and expose the inconsistency in his belief. And, for the record, I don't think the transcendental argument or just burping out the phrase "by what standard?" is the only means to accomplish that. But, the goal would be to show them that only the Christian worldview can account for the facts of reality.

If asked why I hold to the Bible as my foundation, I would say because I believe it to be the Word of God, because I trust in the historical process by which we have the book and because the internal evidence is "confirming" to me. I don't expect him to accept the internal beauty of the Scriptures, or the prophetic fulfillment, or the manuscript evidence as something that will suddenly convert him to my perspective. But, I can give a reason for my hope, and that is found in the fact of the Person and work of Christ Jesus.

Whatever his qualms might be, it would not stop me from telling Him the truth of Scripture. Lost people don't believe Romans 5.8 - that doesn't mean they don't need to hear it.

Okay, I guess that makes sense in a way, though it does not resolve all my questions.
If you pardon me moving the goalposts a little, how would you reply to a covenant child, or a doubting, yet quite possibly regenerate Christian, regarding the reasons to trust in scripture? How does this self-attestation of the scripture work in practice?

 

[TheInquirer]

All knowledge of God comes down to the fact that "God has spoken"

If you pardon me moving the goalposts a little, how would you reply to a covenant child, or a doubting, yet quite possibly regenerate Christian, regarding the reasons to trust in scripture? How does this self-attestation of the scripture work in practice?

You can't talk someone into belief. You tell them the truth, they either choose to believe it or not. If the Spirit is at work in their life, they will believe in time. If not, they will not.

What frustrates me about the whole apologetic debates is it tends to leave everything on the human level and not include the work of the Holy Spirit. Men are spiritually dead in their unbelief. It takes a supernatural work to believe.

If we look at examples in the Bible that are actually given, the evangelists simply preached the gospel. Does it really need to get more complicated than that? No man has the ability to talk ANYONE into belief, no matter his apologetic method.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Okay, I guess that makes sense in a way, though it does not resolve all my questions.
If you pardon me moving the goalposts a little, how would you reply to a covenant child, or a doubting, yet quite possibly regenerate Christian, regarding the reasons to trust in scripture? How does this self-attestation of the scripture work in practice?

To be clear, the Spirit convinces the person to believe and rest in God's Word.

Jesus, in His parable, condemns the rich man for not believing in the Scriptures. Because it is God's Word, man has a duty to believe but, outside of the work of the Holy Spirit, he will remain unable to believe.

If I was counseling my own child (which I have), I would simply remind them that it is God's Word. Doubt and lack of assurance cannot be overcome by a mere exercise of the mind and will. We are dependent upon God's grace to hold fast, and I would pray with and for him. We depend upon God's grace to believe in His Word.

That's not to say that there are not evidences of the Divine nature of God's revelation. It's beautiful. It holds together. It is conformed by the work of God in human history. Yet, ultimately, one can only be convinced by the grace of God.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

Ultimately, apologetic methodology should get you to talk about Christ (your hope) as quickly as possible. That might be by showing how Christ challenges their views, but it might be by showing them how their needs find fruition only in Christ..

I love when David Brainerd's writes, "There are many with whom I can talk about religion: but alas, I find few with whom I can talk religion itself: But, blessed be the Lord, there are some that love to feed on the kernel rather than the shell."

Much apologetic discourse gets caught up on "the shell".

 

[Knight]

All knowledge of God comes down to the fact that "God has spoken"

You can't talk someone into belief. You tell them the truth, they either choose to believe it or not. If the Spirit is at work in their life, they will believe in time. If not, they will not.

What frustrates me about the whole apologetic debates is it tends to leave everything on the human level and not include the work of the Holy Spirit. Men are spiritually dead in their unbelief. It takes a supernatural work to believe.

If we look at examples in the Bible that are actually given, the evangelists simply preached the gospel. Does it really need to get more complicated than that? No man has the ability to talk ANYONE into belief, no matter his apologetic method.

Fair points. Any conversation on apologetics should bear this qualification in mind.

Your reminder gives occasion for discussing something else that often go unsaid in these sorts of conversations: Christianity is a religion of super-sufficiency. Our God Himself is wholly sufficient for us, yet with how much more are we gifted? His grace extends far beyond our needs. Indeed, God has even ordained that the means by which we are ordinarily blessed is through His church. But this is already a surplus of divine favor!

Another example: we are all blessed each Lord's Day. What might have been a simple, sufficient reading of God's word is typically beautified homiletically, a clear product of the session's meditation upon God's word. A plain presentation of God's word would suffice for a sermon, but is it improper to say that we are more benefitted from a wise and didactically intentional application of it? I don't think so.

And surely we would agree our pastors don't think that the root of conviction in the minds of his congregants lies in his own efforts. The Holy Spirit works the conviction... through the preaching. That is, we wouldn't want to say the preaching was irrelevant to the conviction even while we acknowledge the Efficient Cause of its effectuality. I think that good efforts (such as a hard-worked sermon) tend to coincide with an increased manifestation of God's presence - even if not in the worker's own life (e.g. "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church").

Likewise, I think a simple, sufficient defense of the faith might be rhetorically beautified. Is this "necessary" in all cases? "Necessity" is a function of context, and apologetics can function as a means towards several ends: to stop the mouths of unbelievers, to persuade, to increase the psychological or epistemic assurance of believers, to solidify good habits, etc. Different contexts might relevantly bear on one's decision to speak or act differently.

Suppose one considers the different ways to speak or act in a given context but that in each scenario, he will speak the truth. I might have replied to this post much differently yet spoken the truth. Is consideration "unnecessary" under these conditions? I think framing the situation this way tends to dampen the recognition that Christianity is a religion of super-sufficiency. Are not the different ways in which one might speak or act relevant to the outcome - even while we believe that it is only due to the Spirit that anyone will be convicted of the truth? I think so. That we meet the needs of those around us is important. The way we meet the needs of those around us is important too.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Fair points. Any conversation on apologetics should bear this qualification in mind.

Your reminder gives occasion for discussing something else that often go unsaid in these sorts of conversations: Christianity is a religion of super-sufficiency. Our God Himself is wholly sufficient for us, yet with how much more are we gifted? His grace extends far beyond our needs. Indeed, God has even ordained that the means by which we are ordinarily blessed is through His church. But this is already a surplus of divine favor!

Another example: we are all blessed each Lord's Day. What might have been a simple, sufficient reading of God's word is typically beautified homiletically, a clear product of the session's meditation upon God's word. A plain presentation of God's word would suffice for a sermon, but is it improper to say that we are more benefitted from a wise and didactically intentional application of it? I don't think so.

And surely we would agree our pastors don't think that the root of conviction in the minds of his congregants lies in his own efforts. The Holy Spirit works the conviction... through the preaching. That is, we wouldn't want to say the preaching was irrelevant to the conviction even while we acknowledge the Efficient Cause of its effectuality. I think that good efforts (such as a hard-worked sermon) tend to coincide with an increased manifestation of God's presence - even if not in the worker's own life (e.g. "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church").

Likewise, I think a simple, sufficient defense of the faith might be rhetorically beautified. Is this "necessary" in all cases? "Necessity" is a function of context, and apologetics can function as a means towards several ends: to stop the mouths of unbelievers, to persuade, to increase the psychological or epistemic assurance of believers, to solidify good habits, etc. Different contexts might relevantly bear on one's decision to speak or act differently.

Suppose one considers the different ways to speak or act in a given context but that in each scenario, he will speak the truth. I might have replied to this post much differently yet spoken the truth. Is consideration "unnecessary" under these conditions? I think framing the situation this way tends to dampen the recognition that Christianity is a religion of super-sufficiency. Are not the different ways in which one might speak or act relevant to the outcome - even while we believe that it is only due to the Spirit that anyone will be convicted of the truth? I think so. That we meet the needs of those around us is important. The way we meet the needs of those around us is important too.

I think this is a good point.

If I could summarize what you're saying, it's that if people come to you with legitimate questions, you ought to try to answer them.

This doesn't mean we'll be able to convert or even fully persuade, but we ought to try.

I think the important thing is not whether one employs a particular method but the belief one employs while using it.

I am flabbergasted by modern "Evangelicals" who speak of God as most probably true given the preponderance of the evidence and speak as if God is somehow pleased with "authentic" searching. It seems that God is, ultimately, very polite and concerned with the feelings and sensibilities of modern man and anything is fair game to question or deny among the doctrines of the Christian faith in order to get a person to agree to some conception of Christ in their mind.

The last paragraph was more of a rant or an aside about modern Evangelicals. I think my point is that, if you are answering a person whom you believe really wants to know then you ought to bring the tools to bear that you have available. I recognize that not everyone can answer every question but I do try to read in order to provide an answer to people. There may be a point where the issue becomes too technical for me to give an answer but the fact that it is technical doesn't mean that it shouldn't be answered.

I hope I'm making sense. What I'm trying to get at is that it isn't "faithful" to remain as uniformed or as illiterate and unread as possible and then condemn others when you give an uninformed response to a question. They may not be rejecting the Christian faith in some instances as much as they didn't find an answer coherently. The Christian faith is supernatural but it does have content that needs to be explained.

 

[TheInquirer]

I am flabbergasted by modern "Evangelicals" who speak of God as most probably true given the preponderance of the evidence and speak as if God is somehow pleased with "authentic" searching. It seems that God is, ultimately, very polite and concerned with the feelings and sensibilities of modern man and anything is fair game to question or deny among the doctrines of the Christian faith in order to get a person to agree to some conception of Christ in their mind.

Excellent statement which leads me to the next point:

If I could summarize what you're saying, it's that if people come to you with legitimate questions, you ought to try to answer them.

This doesn't mean we'll be able to convert or even fully persuade, but we ought to try.

I would note that Jesus did not always answer the question people wanted but the question they needed - Nicodemus comes to mind in John 3. I think sometimes we need to do the same with people who often ask the wrong questions because they are blinded and don't understand their true spiritual need. If we follow them down the rabbit hole of whatever curiousity or self-justifying inquiry they might have, we may never get to what they really need. I guess it takes wisdom in the moment to assess the situation and what kind of answer is appropriate. I just don't like allowing unbelievers to drive the discussion - it often is not fruitful in my experience.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Excellent statement which leads me to the next point:



I would note that Jesus did not always answer the question people wanted but the question they needed - Nicodemus comes to mind in John 3. I think sometimes we need to do the same with people who often ask the wrong questions because they are blinded and don't understand their true spiritual need. If we follow them down the rabbit hole of whatever curiousity or self-justifying inquiry they might have, we may never get to what they really need. I guess it takes wisdom in the moment to assess the situation and what kind of answer is appropriate. I just don't like allowing unbelievers to drive the discussion - it often is not fruitful in my experience.

That's a good point. I think we need to move people who are asking questions to what the real issue is and not the presenting problem they see in their minds.

For example, if someone comes to me asking how it is possible that an all-loving and all-powerful God could permit evil, I would shift the conversation from one in which they think they are neutral people able to weigh God's actions in the balance to one in which they are presented with the reality of the Fall, human depravity, and the wrath that abides upon us all.

The other day, my daughter sent me an email asking me if God was impeccable or peccable. I told her that Christ was impeccable but also noted that we typically don't speak about God, as God, as sinning because He would have to be answerable to someone else. It's not that her question was illegitimate but I wanted her to understand something of the Creator/creature distinction and how we speak of creatures as impeccable and God as Holy and righteous.

 

[RazorsKiss]

Hey there, folks. Ran into this thread on my presup keyword alerts.

This question is something we ran into at CH quite a bit back in the day. This post I did some time back breaking down part of one of Van Til's examples might be helpful.

Mr. White, Mr. Grey, and Mr. Black X

When Mr. Black objects against Mr. White that unconditional surrender to the authority of Scripture is irrational, then Mr. Grey nods approval and says that, of course, the “rational man” has a perfect right to test the credibility of Scripture by logic. When the Bible speaks of God’s sovereign elec

choosinghats.org