jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
That was a mock dialog, and credo was written for the average person. Can you give examples from the gentlemen I mentioned?
Presup Questions
- Thread starter SicEtNon
- Start date
- Status
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
The other men didn’t really write dialogues
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Oliphant did but I'm bowing out my friend. I like greenbaggins am concerned about the amount of Van Til bashing going on here. So because you're my friend and I respect you I'm bowing out. I respect you too much to carry on a pointless conversation. I apologize if I offended you and or wasted your time, please forgive.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
No one is bashing Van Til.
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but one possible problem with the classical school (other then human stupidity) is that all it proves is that some religion is true. Miracles for example don't prove anything when you believe in non-divine spiritual beings who are opposed to the creator for whatever reason.
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Junior
The resurrection proves some (any) religion is true?
Ok, I guess I see you're point
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Remember that no one argument, not even the fabled TAG, can prove everything. The classical apologist does not seek to persuade, but to remove stumbling blocks. The Holy Spirit persuades.
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Ok got my head on straight and I'm ready to take another shot at this for clarifications sake. Now at best, and I'm going to interpret you in the best light I can so please correct if I'm wrong, this seems highly subjective which is fine since this is your personal experience. But we don't know who you have in mind.
You seem to give the impression that this is for better or worse what all/most of presuppositionalists are doing. If I'm wrong there than please correct me. Now we know who you don't have in mind the list of people I provided (throw Tipton, Poythress, and Collet in as well).
I'd like to challenge that assumption. If R.C. Sproul is right when he says something like "presuppositionalism is the majority report among Reformed Christians" and all/most presupps argue that way (to be fair you didn't mention statements like "how do you know" or "by what standard" but you have before) you'd expect there to be young obnoxious men running around Reformed churches saying those things. But I never have, I've heard of obnoxious Theonomists and Arminian debating folks acting that way but no presupps in your average church.
So if its not scholars and the pew sitter who could it be? Well there's always the internet. But not everywhere because Choosing Hats website and Reformed Forum are both pretty popular and they don't talk like that outside of a particular scholarly audience. But both are respectful and fair. As well as here and you know as well as I do the code of conduct enforced here, every once and awhile someone slips through the cracks.
So than no scholars, pew sitters (maybe a small number), or popular websites geared towards this sort of thing. Who could they be? Well your small but vocal obnoxious internet dudes. But after your original implication about all/most (if I misunderstand you there please correct me) dying the death of a thousand qualifications why not just say its these people you have in mind?
For the OP do you think that giving a false impression of presuppositionalism is going to help them grasp the truth of the subject? I get you're exaggerating but will they?
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Geeze, I never answered your question. I'm sorry let me take a shot at it. When you point out "preconditions for knowledge" thats only part of the picture. God is metaphysically the precondition for everything. That would include knowledge as well. But the form of the method is this: believers and unbelievers share in the same world that is common ground. But the question needs to be asked "what must be true or exist for things to be as they are"?
Must Christian Theism be true for things to be as they are?
Since we know that unbelievers "suppress that knowledge in unrighteousness", how can they have true understanding of anything? Easy despite themselves and their sinful rebellion. They rebel against their very nature in trying to understand things in a non-Christian fashion. But they do live in inconsistencies within their own life, and common grace.
So the method is simply pointing out those inconsistencies. But then pointing out how they can live and think in a relatively consistent way since Christian Theism is true. So Christian Theism is the precondition for everything not just knowledge. Imagine it like this the Bible gives the "playbook" of the unbeliever, why not use that in our development of an apologetical method? Does that help? What sports team wouldn't kill for the opposing team's playbook?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
That is what I have been saying you all are saying.
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Yeah but who are you talking about? See post #39. I honestly don't know, I'm not asking trick or gotcha questions.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Well, for starters, you. As to examples, I referenced Van Til's dialogues. You said they didn't count. I don't really know what else to do.
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Well they were written for the average person. Other than that if thats the only "that doesn't count" statement I said than thats a far cry from all/most presupps say this. But I remember you being as dismissive of at least 3 scholarly Vantillians, 2 of which you'd never be able to prove your case.
So I'm guessing no answer to question. Ok.
Thank you!
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
If you have anymore questions I'm available whenever to answer them. I hope I helped, sorry for derailing your thread.
- Status
