Presuppostionalism "Eventually bogs down?"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Isn't one of his lines, "I don't do bible studies with unbelievers?"
Yes. I've heard it on The Unbelievable Podcast. The host is a pretty welcoming guy to viewpoints that are even Christian heresies but Sye hasn't been asked back.

I think his point when unpacked, actually makes some sense but one needs to take the time in a dialog to demonstrate folly rather than simply stating it upfront. Even Jesus took the time to make his opponents see themselves in His Parables to demonstrate the folly of their thinking rather than just saying, upfront, that He wasn't going to waste His time talking to them.

Most of the hard-core atheists are just professional skeptics who want to be skeptical of everything and will abuse the Scriptures or even claim a morality for themselves that makes no sense. It takes some work to get them to see it and you can't just cut them down if your goal is hopeful for them.
 

Henry Hall

Puritan Board Freshman
I don't really worry abuot those questions [such as whether one knows a fact presupposing the Christian God or denying His existence and preinterpretation of the fact], to be honest.
But that conditions everything about any knowledge there could be of a fact!
And would represent a pivotal moment in the apologetical encounter.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
How much value is in the “In your Face” street style? Tim Keller said once he wasn’t a fan of doing CNN etc because it led to “sound-byte apologetics” and I have to agree. That said, I want public engagement in congenial ways. Again, Keller and others have addressed Google and Veritas. But Keller did say that presuppositional apologetics is the best method if you’re in that circumstance because it quickly addresses the root of the issue involved rather than lengthy proofs.
No value whatsoever. The thing I like Van Til for the most is you can start anywhere and do apologetics, not that other traditions don't have that only Van Til seems to be the best. Schaeffer certainly had an apologetical method that could start anywhere but not quite like Van Till. In fact a anecdote about Schaeffer is that he was on a riverboat in France talking to a guy on his honeymoon and the guy basically came to the view "you can't know anything is real or true". Now that's a crackerjack philosophy to say the least but Schaeffer responded with "you mean to tell me that when you below deck and embrace your wife in love there will be any doubt in your mind that she's real?" Now he could have gone any number of directions but he chose to go to the heart of the matter. Good choice.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
That assumes that one should follow Kant instead of Reid.
I'm confused do you mean follow as in the substance of their philosophy or merely their particular method of argumentation? When you don't qualify your statements it hard to see what you're saying. Those are two different things BTW.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
I'm confused do you mean follow as in the substance of their philosophy or merely their particular method of argumentation? When you don't qualify your statements it hard to see what you're saying. Those are two different things BTW.
Substance of the philosophy.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
To believe that God has an interpretation/plan for any fact which is different than that of the one who suppresses the truth in unrighteousness, is not to follow Kant or Reid, but the Bible.
What am I really supposed to make of this? Thomas Reid's philosophy is how we understand concept- and belief-formation--how the mind relates to objects. To bring in Van Tillian rhetoric is like criticizing orange juice because it has a bad sound.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
Substance of the philosophy.
Oh so a guy who criticized Kant endlessly agrees with him in substance philosophically. Could you please qualify your statements, flesh them out a little so as to make sense. I mean I hate to say it but that statement is incorrect. What are you getting at? Explain and we can discuss it.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
What am I really supposed to make of this? Thomas Reid's philosophy is how we understand concept- and belief-formation--how the mind relates to objects. To bring in Van Tillian rhetoric is like criticizing orange juice because it has a bad sound.
For one that's harsh. For two someone who criticized Vantillians for being mean and behaves this way is like the pot calling the kettle black. You don't qualify your statements we have no idea what your talking about. He's right Van Til wanted a biblical basis for apologetics. Please qualify your statements so we're not going around in circles here. I really want to continue this conversation but your making it hard.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
For one that's harsh. For two someone who criticized Vantillians for being mean and behaves this way is like the pot calling the kettle black. You don't qualify your statements we have no idea what your talking about. He's right Van Til wanted a biblical basis for apologetics. Please qualify your statements so we're not going around in circles here. I really want to continue this conversation but your making it hard.
I can literally say word for word to the other side. I don't have to qualify every statement. Reid is talking about concept-formation in the mind. The post-Kantian tradition is talking about the necessary structures that must exist to make intelligibility possible. They are talking about two different things. That's why I said when Van Tillians criticize Reid, it's like saying orange juice has a bad sound to it. It's two different things.
 

Henry Hall

Puritan Board Freshman
What am I really supposed to make of this? Thomas Reid's philosophy is how we understand concept- and belief-formation--how the mind relates to objects. To bring in Van Tillian rhetoric is like criticizing orange juice because it has a bad sound.
You presented the conditioning of one’s knowledge of a fact by either accepting God’s preinterpretation of it on authority or suppressing the truth in unrighteousness as “following Kant” as opposed to following Reid (why not Plantinga?)
But God is the All-Conditioner. His conditioning comes first. God’s works of Providence are His most holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing all His creatures, and all their actions. (You’re probably going to call that “Westminsterian rhetoric “ or “talking points.”
How is that “following Kant”? Is God really in the noumenal realm?
Accepting God as the All-Conditioner is neither Kantian nor Reidian.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
I can literally say word for word to the other side. I don't have to qualify every statement. Reid is talking about concept-formation in the mind. The post-Kantian tradition is talking about the necessary structures that must exist to make intelligibility possible. They are talking about two different things. That's why I said when Van Tillians criticize Reid, it's like saying orange juice has a bad sound to it. It's two different things.
For one qualifying your statements would make it edifying for those who don't understand the lingo. You maintain though that Van Til, who criticized Kant endlessly, has the same substance (not just method) as Kant please elaborate?
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
You presented the conditioning of one’s knowledge of a fact by either accepting God’s preinterpretation of it on authority or suppressing the truth in unrighteousness as “following Kant” as opposed to following Reid (why not Plantinga?)
But God is the All-Conditioner. His conditioning comes first. God’s works of Providence are His most holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing all His creatures, and all their actions. (You’re probably going to call that “Westminsterian rhetoric “ or “talking points.”
How is that “following Kant”? Is God really in the noumenal realm?
Accepting God as the All-Conditioner is neither Kantian nor Reidian.
I agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top