Presup Questions

[SicEtNon]

Hello this is my first post on the PB, my name is Robby and I’m a Bible College Student seeking the truth of God! I hope all is well for everyone.

So I have a genuine question about presuppositional apologetics since I am new to it. I’ve heard it said over and over again that the Christian God is the precondition for all other knowledge but I wanted to know why the Christian God is. Looking humbly and not to argue or debate so I appreciate any response! And if there is another thread addressing this I will look there as well!

 

[Taylor]

Hello this is my first post on the PB…

And you thought this topic would be a good first one, huh?

 

[SicEtNon]

And you thought this topic would be a good first one, huh?

Well yeah, I recently had a conversation with an atheist and I found the classical arguments to lack authority as I felt I was trying to meet the atheist's standard. So I wanted to dive into presup because I have been convinced it's mostly biblical to start with God as the authority of our apologetics.

 

[Taylor]

Well yeah, I recently had a conversation with an atheist and I found the classical arguments to lack authority as I felt I was trying to meet the atheist's standard. So I wanted to dive into presup because I have been convinced it's mostly biblical to start with God as the authority of our apologetics.

Well, welcome to Puritan Board, and I’m sorry for what is about to unfold.

 

[Polanus1561]

Well yeah, I recently had a conversation with an atheist and I found the classical arguments to lack authority as I felt I was trying to meet the atheist's standard. So I wanted to dive into presup because I have been convinced it's mostly biblical to start with God as the authority of our apologetics.

Both general and special revelation is God's.

And was Jesus wrong in meeting the often wrong standards of his inquirers? He was truth and had truth, which he presented. When atheists ask you questions, there is a commonality which you can use as a platform for conversation. Bring them into how you perceive life and all its issues. Also hear them out on their own perceptions. Guide them to see their inconsistencies as they hold onto evolution but posit objective morality.

Use all methods and be flexible.

(by the way I am not going to argue here with any VT's who may want to reply, probably my last post here for what is going to be an interesting thread)

EDIT: Misread the OP. Sure OP, study presup and let it be part of your method. But my thrust is that you should not abandon classical and you should not think talking about evidence is in anyway showing a lack of allegiance, if you do think so.

 

[RamistThomist]

Well, welcome to Puritan Board, and I’m sorry for what is about to unfold.

This wins post of the year.

 

[JLB]

Prov 1:7 and col 2:3 are a good starting points for "why" if you had to isolate to verses.

You don't reason backwards to God but reason forward from God. If the triune God was not the starting point you'd be reduced to absurdity if you follow any worldview to it's ultimate conclusion and that applies to any religion, not just atheists.

There is no neutrality. Remember: athiests aren't neutral and neither should you be. You can't defend a hill without standing on the hill and you can't see if you have something in your eye without using your eye. Stand on scripture and push the antithesis of his worldview and show that without Christianity you cannot account for or justify knowledge, ethics, human dignity and science just to name a few. They can only think, reason and use logic, etc. because they are in constant contact with God but are surpressing the truth.

I'd suggest reading Greg Bahnsen "Always Ready" and American Vision's trilogy of Bahnsens work (Against all Odds, The Impossibility of the Contrary and Pushing the Antithesis) which are lectured edited for book form and is more "conversational" and thus "easier" to read.

 

[RamistThomist]

Also, remember that "neutrality" and "common" aren't synonyms. You can use "common ground" without being neutral or conceding neutrality.

Most importantly, remember that no argument is going to give you the Ultimate Silver Bullet, whether classical or TAG.

 

[Ulster Fry]

Here was a recent thread covering presuppositionalism that you might find interesting, though it got pretty big:

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/i-feel-like-presup-is-mostly-pointless.110423/page-12

I will also put a link below to a debate that was mentioned in said thread between Greg Bahnsen (presuppositionalist) and R.C. Sproul (classical). This is a very good introduction to the different approaches. I gave some of my thoughts after watching the debate in post #340 of that thread I believe, if you're interested in reading it.

I should also say that while I myself do not agree with presuppositionalists, I am very appreciative of the conversations I've had on here with them so far and hope they feel the same. Already I've found myself learning new things from these discussions.

 

[Polanus1561]

Hello this is my first post on the PB, my name is Robby and I’m a Bible College Student seeking the truth of God! I hope all is well for everyone.

So I have a genuine question about presuppositional apologetics since I am new to it. I’ve heard it said over and over again that the Christian God is the precondition for all other knowledge but I wanted to know why the Christian God is. Looking humbly and not to argue or debate so I appreciate any response! And if there is another thread addressing this I will look there as well!

I have a hunch.. are you studying at Reformation Bible College?

 

[SicEtNon]

I have a hunch.. are you studying at Reformation Bible College?

Yep!

 

[MyCrows]

but I wanted to know why the Christian God is

And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.”
- Exodus 3:14

Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
- John 8:58

He is because He is.

 

[RamistThomist]

but I wanted to know why the Christian God is.

There are two issues in this one clause. One is the order of being and the other is the order of knowing. God is first in the order of being. All sides, even classicists, agree on that. But is God first in the order of knowing? That's the key question. It's important to keep the questions separate.

Some other things tot keep in mind:
1) What exactly do you expect the arguments to do? No one group is going to "win every time and mightily convert souls." That's the Holy Spirit's job.
2) Whatever one thinks of the Bahnsen-Stein debate, that's not going to happen with you. Stein was utterly incompetent.

 

[SicEtNon]

Some other things tot keep in mind:
1) What exactly do you expect the arguments to do? No one group is going to "win every time and mightily convert souls." That's the Holy Spirit's job.
2) Whatever one thinks of the Bahnsen-Stein debate, that's not going to happen with you. Stein was utterly incompetent.

I guess it’s not really for debate but just to strengthen my faith. I’m aware that I’m not going to be arguing anyone to salvation, just want to be faithful to 1 Peter 3:15. So was really looking more for resources to point me into learning more.

 

[RamistThomist]

I guess it’s not really for debate but just to strengthen my faith. I’m aware that I’m not going to be arguing anyone to salvation, just want to be faithful to 1 Peter 3:15. So was really looking more for resources to point me into learning more.

The best thing is to get a strong grasp on the doctrine of God (Dolezal, All That is in God) and basic reasoning skills.

I think we might have been misinterpreting 1 Peter 3:15 for about 100 years. The actual text makes it seem like humility and gentleness is the deciding factor. But if we need the apologetic thrust on strengthening our faith, I recommend Esther Lightcap Meek's A Little Manual for Knowing and Longing to Know.

 

[Polanus1561]

The best thing is to get a strong grasp on the doctrine of God (Dolezal, All That is in God) and basic reasoning skills.

I think we might have been misinterpreting 1 Peter 3:15 for about 100 years. The actual text makes it seem like humility and gentleness is the deciding factor. But if we need the apologetic thrust on strengthening our faith, I recommend Esther Lightcap Meek's A Little Manual for Knowing and Longing to Know.

Perhaps Peter is telling us to be meek when asking unbelievers to account for their worldview and not to steal from the Christian’s

 

[RamistThomist]

It's no secret that I am an outspoken critic of presuppositionalism, but because presup is so new to the Reformed scene, it is actually able to take in modern advances in logic and epistemology in ways that classical guys don't always do.

Classical guys are strong on the square of oppositions and proper rules of inference--all very important. The problem is that very few epistemic discoveries today follow that square (in much the same way that very few presup debates actually look like the Bahnsen-Stein debate). Francis Bacon said as much 500 years ago.

Any apologetic methodology must account for advances made by Torrance, Polanyi, and Esther Meek. Meek was a student of John Frame and acknowledges him, though there is nothing uniquely Framean or presup in her epistemology.

The hard truth I had to learn is that the literature on epistemology is quite broad and complex. It is in fact overwhelming.

 

[Sam Jer]

Wait, in discussions like this, are we talking about debating some super-genius philosopher in a university, in a debate of the kind most people wouldn't understand, or a random guy talking to his co-workers? Or is it both?

 

[RamistThomist]

Wait, in discussions like this, are we talking about debating some super-genius philosopher in a university, in a debate of the kind most people wouldn't understand, or a random guy talking to his co-workers? Or is it both?

And most secular philosophers in universities aren't really geniuses. I think we are dealing with the average guy on the street. He watches Tik Tok all day and probably believes the news.

 

[Sam Jer]

And most secular philosophers in universities aren't really geniuses. I think we are dealing with the average guy on the street. He watches Tik Tok all day and probably believes the news.

Okay, let me rephrase.

Wait, in discussions like this, are we talking about scholarly debate of the kind most people wouldn't understand, or a random guy talking to his co-workers? Or is it both?

 

[RamistThomist]

Okay, let me rephrase.

Wait, in discussions like this, are we talking about scholarly debate of the kind most people wouldn't understand, or a random guy talking to his co-workers? Or is it both?

No one ever actually says. Only scholars understand things like "impossibility of the contrary" and "impossibility of an infinite regress." Ultimately, the target is the man on the street, yet when we have these conversations on pB we are parsing advanced level philosophy.

 

[jwright82]

Hello this is my first post on the PB, my name is Robby and I’m a Bible College Student seeking the truth of God! I hope all is well for everyone.

So I have a genuine question about presuppositional apologetics since I am new to it. I’ve heard it said over and over again that the Christian God is the precondition for all other knowledge but I wanted to know why the Christian God is. Looking humbly and not to argue or debate so I appreciate any response! And if there is another thread addressing this I will look there as well!

Not just knowledge, everything. Metaphysically, epistemologically, and ethically. The reason, in my opinion, that everyone reduces presup to epistemological considerations is Bahnsen and Sye Bennington (or however you spell his last name). With Bahnsen it makes sense, his PhD was in epistemology. Sye no idea, I'd stay away from him though.
But remember the transcendental argument can start from any aspect of experience and move out from there. This is what sets the transcendental argument apart as a method, it can start anywhere.

 

[jwright82]

There are two issues in this one clause. One is the order of being and the other is the order of knowing. God is first in the order of being. All sides, even classicists, agree on that. But is God first in the order of knowing? That's the key question. It's important to keep the questions separate.

Some other things tot keep in mind:
1) What exactly do you expect the arguments to do? No one group is going to "win every time and mightily convert souls." That's the Holy Spirit's job.
2) Whatever one thinks of the Bahnsen-Stein debate, that's not going to happen with you. Stein was utterly incompetent.

When you say "God is not (that seems to be what you're implying) first in the oder of knowing). Are you implying knowledge of God is not immediate to the person? Doesn't that take it as completely discursive in nature, as a reached conclusion after a reasoning process?
How can infants and mentally disabled people be guilty of suppressing a knowledge they don't have the capability of arriving at? I'll side with Paul and Calvin on the immediate nature of our knowledge of God.

 

[jwright82]

No one ever actually says. Only scholars understand things like "impossibility of the contrary" and "impossibility of an infinite regress." Ultimately, the target is the man on the street, yet when we have these conversations on pB we are parsing advanced level philosophy.

You seem to be implying that all presuppositionalists do or must argue that way. I don't, I find very easy to reason with unbelievers without such loaded language. Please make it known who these bogeyman apologists are you're referring to before laying out bad personal attacks on all presuppositionalists. Its not fair and it paints all of us in an unnecessary bad light. If all you meant was top level debates between scholars than fair enough but make that known upfront please.

 

[RamistThomist]

Its not fair and it paints all of us in an unnecessary bad light. If all you meant was top level debates between scholars than fair enough but make that known upfront please.

I didn't mean to be unfair, but I was repeating every conversation I heard on this topic.

 

[RamistThomist]

When you say "God is not (that seems to be what you're implying) first in the oder of knowing). Are you implying knowledge of God is not immediate to the person? Doesn't that take it as completely discursive in nature, as a reached conclusion after a reasoning process?
How can infants and mentally disabled people be guilty of suppressing a knowledge they don't have the capability of arriving at? I'll side with Paul and Calvin on the immediate nature of our knowledge of God.

In order for me to make a concept about God, I have to use things like language and logic. That's why Calvin said you could either begin with man or God, it didn't matter.

As to how babies and the mentally infirm know God, I don't know. I can't fathom what it means to have a concept of God without using the concept of concept. I guess that that is possible, but it is beyond my ability to know. I suspect that's why German idealists used the concept of anschauang, an immediate, non-inferential intuition of a thing.

 

[jwright82]

I didn't mean to be unfair, but I was repeating every conversation I heard on this topic.

I know Jacob, but the only conversations I've heard like that are characters of of other ones. Van Til, Oliphant, Knudsen, Frame, Anderson, and Edgar don't talk like that. I don't talk like that.

 

[jwright82]

In order for me to make a concept about God, I have to use things like language and logic. That's why Calvin said you could either begin with man or God, it didn't matter.

As to how babies and the mentally infirm know God, I don't know. I can't fathom what it means to have a concept of God without using the concept of concept. I guess that that is possible, but it is beyond my ability to know. I suspect that's why German idealists used the concept of anschauang, an immediate, non-inferential intuition of a thing.

Than they have an excuse no mystery there.

 

[RamistThomist]

I know Jacob, but the only conversations I've heard like that are characters of of other ones. Van Til, Oliphant, Knudsen, Frame, Anderson, and Edgar don't talk like that. I don't talk like that.

Van Til kind of did in his dialogues of Mr Black and Mr White, though it has been 20 years since I've read them. And in his Credo he seems to do just that.

 

[RamistThomist]

Back to the OP. Over the years I've become increasingly convinced of the limitations of apologetics. If you want to know a lot about epistemology, don't read apologetics. Read systematically in the field of epistemology. If you want to know a lot about metaphysics, read systematically in the field of metaphysics. And most importantly, if you want to know theology, read the absolute best on the doctrine of God. Move from theology to apologetics and never the other way around.

Apologetics is meeting people where they are, removing mental stumbling blocks, and trying to arrive at the truth.