Practical Presuppositionalism advice

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Henoch

Puritan Board Freshman
Is there a good book which offers practical advice on how to do presuppositional apologetics(like on how to ask questions regarding presuppositions and so on)? Many books(like Oliphint's The Battle Belongs to the Lord) seem to have more information about apologetics rather than pragmatic advice on how to reason with unbelievers.
 
Henoch said:
Is there a good book which offers practical advice on how to do presuppositional apologetics(like on how to ask questions regarding presuppositions and so on)? Many books(like Oliphint's The Battle Belongs to the Lord) seem to have more information about apologetics rather than pragmatic advice on how to reason with unbelievers.
Click to expand...
Well "Covenantal Apologetics" by Oliphint has some practical but fake interactions with various unbelievers for what its worth. Richard Pratt has a book called "Every Thought Captive" which is good. Choosing Hats website has wonderful resources plus actual college debates.
Most of it is learned through experience. Any topic you had in mind and we could discuss it? I've been engaged in Vantillian Apologetics practically for 15 years, maybe I can show you how I would deal with it.
 
In Apologetics to the Glory of God John Frame gives some mock dialogues. When I took apologetics from him, we had to write our own dialogues with unbelievers. That is good practice.
 
Henoch said:
Is there a good book which offers practical advice on how to do presuppositional apologetics(like on how to ask questions regarding presuppositions and so on)? Many books(like Oliphint's The Battle Belongs to the Lord) seem to have more information about apologetics rather than pragmatic advice on how to reason with unbelievers.
Click to expand...
A little off the beaten path, but I remember finding this volume interesting when I read it years ago.

Westminster Theological Seminary -

<?php echo addslashes($section_data->description); ?>
dev.wts.edu dev.wts.edu
 
And here is some general advice for all practical apologetics: there is no such thing as a silver bullet argument. People are different. They have different questions. You will need to get good at thinking on the fly.

I also recommend the following, just to see how philosophical dialogues usually go:

Plato. Almost any of his dialogues. Not only that, it will give you a foundation in philosophy, and they are really fun to read.
Peter Kreeft, Socrates Meets ______. Not a presup, but still fun.
 
jwright82 said:
Well "Covenantal Apologetics" by Oliphint has some practical but fake interactions with various unbelievers for what its worth. Richard Pratt has a book called "Every Thought Captive" which is good. Choosing Hats website has wonderful resources plus actual college debates.
Most of it is learned through experience. Any topic you had in mind and we could discuss it? I've been engaged in Vantillian Apologetics practically for 15 years, maybe I can show you how I would deal with it.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the resources brother. I was once talking to an atheist friend and I told him absolute moral right and wrong exist because of God's law and he responded saying that in wars and similar situations people(Christians) justified killing others though in other cases murder isn't justified by the same standards, yada yada ... making the point that morality is governed by society.
I didn't really know how to carry the conversation further.
 
Henoch said:
Thanks for the resources brother. I was once talking to an atheist friend and I told him absolute moral right and wrong exist because of God's law and he responded saying that in wars and similar situations people(Christians) justified killing others though in other cases murder isn't justified by the same standards, yada yada ... making the point that morality is governed by society.
I didn't really know how to carry the conversation further.
Click to expand...

The fact that Christians felt they had to justify their actions testifies that they knew there was something off about them. That is the moral law (which, incidentally, the West sort of codified at Nuremberg).

Positive law, or applications of the law, do depend on society. The eternal law is not.
 
Henoch said:
Thanks for the resources brother. I was once talking to an atheist friend and I told him absolute moral right and wrong exist because of God's law and he responded saying that in wars and similar situations people(Christians) justified killing others though in other cases murder isn't justified by the same standards, yada yada ... making the point that morality is governed by society.
I didn't really know how to carry the conversation further.
Click to expand...

It's often helpful to make situations concrete:

Example: "I was in the store the other day and though about stealing a candy bar - do you think that would that would have been permissible?"

If they say, "Well, what if you were starving?" they are trying to draw you into abstractions. They aren't dealing with real-life any more. Imagining hypothetical scenarios in which a person might be starving is irrelevant when you or they deal with actual, concrete temptations.
 
Henoch said:
Thanks for the resources brother. I was once talking to an atheist friend and I told him absolute moral right and wrong exist because of God's law and he responded saying that in wars and similar situations people(Christians) justified killing others though in other cases murder isn't justified by the same standards, yada yada ... making the point that morality is governed by society.
I didn't really know how to carry the conversation further.
Click to expand...
First off I completely agree with my two brothers who commented. The trick with presuppositionalist arguments is showing in love how they assume that which if they were consistent they would have to deny.
Now in that situation I would remark that war is inevitable in our world. So whether God exists or not (Van Til called this stepping into the ground of the unbeliever) war would still be here, so their atheism doesn't solve that.
Then I would attempt to take them through just war, war crimes and anything else natural law teaches us about how to handle violence.
Then I would say I have a better answer and hope than you I think. I believe natural law is key here.
You see Van Til taught us to take advantage of the image of God within, moral law and all, and general revelation outside. They know they are God's creatures and owe him obedience and worship.
You see a sociological basis for morality is a logical fallacy. I would then try walk them through the great history of redemption. That God Himself had to come down and solve the problem for us, in the son incarnate.
Then say on your basis for morality is just a logical fallacy but on my basis it is part of a grand history of saving us from the worst problem we got ourselves into.
They know they are accountable to him, why else would they try to blame him for our problem. Don't point that out to them but just remember that's what's going on. That's taking advantage of what we know they know deep down inside.
Then I would agree with them about how horrible war is and that you understand why they feel that way. But in your worldview (Van Til called this asking them step onto your ground) you can have hope because he solved it for us and they can keep their logical fallacies but you'll keep your history of hope and reason. Then see how it goes.
Disclaimer this is a large template for a method of handling this question. Obviously I can't anticipate all the different ways a conversation can go. So in love and wisdom take the big picture template I layed out and adjust it to your needs.
 
jwright82 said:
First off I completely agree with my two brothers who commented. The trick with presuppositionalist arguments is showing in love how they assume that which if they were consistent they would have to deny.
Now in that situation I would remark that war is inevitable in our world. So whether God exists or not (Van Til called this stepping into the ground of the unbeliever) war would still be here, so their atheism doesn't solve that.
Then I would attempt to take them through just war, war crimes and anything else natural law teaches us about how to handle violence.
Then I would say I have a better answer and hope than you I think. I believe natural law is key here.
You see Van Til taught us to take advantage of the image of God within, moral law and all, and general revelation outside. They know they are God's creatures and owe him obedience and worship.
You see a sociological basis for morality is a logical fallacy. I would then try walk them through the great history of redemption. That God Himself had to come down and solve the problem for us, in the son incarnate.
Then say on your basis for morality is just a logical fallacy but on my basis it is part of a grand history of saving us from the worst problem we got ourselves into.
They know they are accountable to him, why else would they try to blame him for our problem. Don't point that out to them but just remember that's what's going on. That's taking advantage of what we know they know deep down inside.
Then I would agree with them about how horrible war is and that you understand why they feel that way. But in your worldview (Van Til called this asking them step onto your ground) you can have hope because he solved it for us and they can keep their logical fallacies but you'll keep your history of hope and reason. Then see how it goes.
Disclaimer this is a large template for a method of handling this question. Obviously I can't anticipate all the different ways a conversation can go. So in love and wisdom take the big picture template I layed out and adjust it to your needs.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the answer brother!
 
Knight said:
It's often helpful to make situations concrete:

Example: "I was in the store the other day and though about stealing a candy bar - do you think that would that would have been permissible?"

If they say, "Well, what if you were starving?" they are trying to draw you into abstractions. They aren't dealing with real-life any more. Imagining hypothetical scenarios in which a person might be starving is irrelevant when you or they deal with actual, concrete temptati
Click to expand...
Knight said:
It's often helpful to make situations concrete:

Example: "I was in the store the other day and though about stealing a candy bar - do you think that would that would have been permissible?"

If they say, "Well, what if you were starving?" they are trying to draw you into abstractions. They aren't dealing with real-life any more. Imagining hypothetical scenarios in which a person might be starving is irrelevant when you or they deal with actual, concrete temptations.
Click to expand...
Thanks for answering!
 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Me Died Blue
  • Locked
Just getting into presuppositionalism, could use some advice
Replies
10
Views
3K
Bryan
B
H
  • Locked
Doubt in presuppositionalism
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
MW
M
Whitefield
  • Locked
Bahnsen on Presuppositionalism
Replies
4
Views
3K
jwright82
jwright82
steven-nemes
  • Locked
Against fundamentalist presuppositionalism
2
Replies
55
Views
18K
Christusregnat
Christusregnat
Brian Bosse
  • Locked
Presuppositionalism in Practice
Replies
16
Views
5K
Philip
P
Back
Top