Presuppositional Apologetics Problem?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Caleb Kautt on November 10, 2010 at 8:59am

I believe that you are correct in saying that the argument of the universal negative cannot be proved. However, this should not reflect badly upon our position as Christians. It should highlight that what we believe is faith, and what the evolutionists believe is faith. Moreover, our belief is the only one that, to use Dr. Lisle's terms, does not come around and blow us up from the behind. Think of it this way; it may or may not help you out:

1.1 The Biblical worldview is the only one that logically accounts for the origin of meaning, order, knowledge, and logic in the universe.
1.2 The evolutionary worldview (and every other non-biblical worldview) cannot make logical sense of the existence of order, knowledge, laws of science (for example, the law of gravity), meaning, and logic in the universe.
2.0 Knowledge, logic, scientific laws, order (for the most part), and meaning exist in the universe.
3.0 Therefore, the Bible is true

Ultimately, if we rely solely upon evidence (either philosophical or physical), where is our faith in the authority of God's Word? Our stance should not be that of trying to use evidence to prove the Bible. It should be looking to the Bible as the ultimate Authority in all areas of life, and then looking through those "worldview-glasses" to see that things in the natural world agree with, and can be explained by, the Bible.

Permalink Reply by Justin Mooney on November 10, 2010 at 9:59am

Thanks for your reply. I think that the way you laid out the argument still has the same defect, though. To demonstrate that 1.1 and 1.2 are true, one would have to prove a universal negative (i.e. that no unbiblical worldview can logically account for meaning, order, knowledge, logic etc.). I believe that 1.1 and 1.2 are true, but I don't see how it could ever really be proved, and therefore the conclusion that the Bible is true (3.0) cannot be proved.


Caleb Kautt said:

I believe that you are correct in saying that the argument of the universal negative cannot be proved. However, this should not reflect badly upon our position as Christians. It should highlight that what we believe is faith, and what the evolutionists believe is faith. Moreover, our belief is the only one that, to use Dr. Lisle's terms, does not come around and blow us up from the behind. Think of it this way; it may or may not help you out:

1.1 The Biblical worldview is the only one that logically accounts for the origin of meaning, order, knowledge, and logic in the universe.
1.2 The evolutionary worldview (and every other non-biblical worldview) cannot make logical sense of the existence of order, knowledge, laws of science (for example, the law of gravity), meaning, and logic in the universe.
2.0 Knowledge, logic, scientific laws, order (for the most part), and meaning exist in the universe.
3.0 Therefore, the Bible is true

Ultimately, if we rely solely upon evidence (either philosophical or physical), where is our faith in the authority of God's Word? Our stance should not be that of trying to use evidence to prove the Bible. It should be looking to the Bible as the ultimate Authority in all areas of life, and then looking through those "worldview-glasses" to see that things in the natural world agree with, and can be explained by, the Bible.

Permalink Reply by Justin Mooney on November 10, 2010 at 10:07am

I just had another thought. The solution to this problem might lie in the nature of knowledge, and in the fact that if you do not have a worldview that can justify knowledge, then you don't know anything. We can show that all unbiblical worldviews that an opponent can think of self-destruct, and the opponent can always escape by saying "well, maybe in the future I will think of another worldview that works." But until he does so, he doesn't actually have any justification for knowledge (unless he accepts the Christian worldview). So maybe the argument only relies on showing that all worldviews that a person can think of self-destruct.

Permalink Reply by Caleb Kautt on November 11, 2010 at 10:06pm

Wow. Well said, Justin. I think that your statement here is exactly what Dr. Lisle was trying to communicate in his book The Ultimate Proof.

Permalink Reply by Dustin Crider on November 16, 2010 at 10:04pm

Justin, I believe you have gotten it with you last post. Unbelieving worldviews self-destruct. They cannot give an account for even knowledge (sometimes called epistemology). They can't account for how they know what they know. Presupp shows the unbeliever that no matter what unbelieving position he adopts, it cannot account for what Dr. Bahnsen called the "preconditions of intelligibility." The Christian worldview does. Let me quote Dr. Greg Bahnsen.

"Differing worldviews can be compared to each other in terms of the important philosophical question about the “preconditions of intelligibility” for such important assumptions as the universality of logical laws, the uniformity of nature, and the reality of moral absolutes. We can examine a worldview and ask whether its portrayal of nature, man, knowledge, etc. provide an outlook in terms of which logic, science and ethics can make sense. It does not comport with the practices of natural science to believe that all events are random and unpredictable, for instance. It does not comport with the demand for honesty in scientific research, if no moral principle expresses anything but a personal preference or feeling. Moreover, if there are internal contradictions in a person’s worldview, it does not provide the preconditions for making sense out of man’s experience. For instance, if one’s political dogmas respect the dignity of men to make their own choices, while one’s psychological theories reject the free will of men, then there is an internal defect in that person’s worldview.

It is the Christian’s contention that all non-Christian worldviews are beset with internal contradictions, as well as with beliefs which do not render logic, science or ethics intelligible. On the other hand, the Christian worldview (taken from God’s self-revelation in Scripture) demands our intellectual commitment because it does provide the preconditions of intelligibility for man’s reasoning, experience, and dignity."

Notice the he refers to our contention in the last paragraph. This is shown practically through our discussion with the unbeliever. It should also be noted that Preupp Apologists have pretty much offered critiques of all varieties of unbelieving thought.

Permalink Reply by Lance Ponder on November 17, 2010 at 6:39am

To quote from the book in question: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Ro 1:18-23, ESV)

It occurs to me, based in part on the above passage and from common sense, that it isn't the bible per se, but the person of God who is the source of knowledge and wisdom without whom we would not only know nothing, but would not exist at all. All the rest of this discussion is semantics.

Permalink Reply by Dustin Crider on November 17, 2010 at 7:17am

Lance, God is indeed the source of knowledge and wisdom. But how has God revealed Himself? Through the Bible. It is the authoritative revelation of God. If we didn't have the Bible, we wouldn't know God or how to be saved. I think you have to view this discussion in that context.


Lance Ponder said:

To quote from the book in question: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Ro 1:18-23, ESV)

It occurs to me, based in part on the above passage and from common sense, that it isn't the bible per se, but the person of God who is the source of knowledge and wisdom without whom we would not only know nothing, but would not exist at all. All the rest of this discussion is semantics.

Permalink Reply by Lance Ponder on November 17, 2010 at 9:27pm

Dustin, I appreciate where you're coming from, but.... All I'm saying is that the bible is a created thing, not the Creator. It is a revelation from God, not God Himself. Paul wrote that even without scripture God is self-evident in creation. Man can ignore God's revelation - and does - whether the revelation is in the form of language (scripture) or nature. The bible is wonderful, don't get me wrong, but it is what it is. The prophets wrote that God would write on our hearts and minds. We know this not as merely reading and believing scripture, but as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. God enters us spiritually, revealing Himself to us in a way that transcends written words. When one assigns the power of deity to the written word the result is gnosticism or something akin to it. That's dangerous because knowing about God isn't good enough. Salvation isn't knowledge, salvation is a person. Do you see my concern?

Dustin Crider said:

Lance, God is indeed the source of knowledge and wisdom. But how has God revealed Himself? Through the Bible. It is the authoritative revelation of God. If we didn't have the Bible, we wouldn't know God or how to be saved. I think you have to view this discussion in that context.


Lance Ponder said:

To quote from the book in question: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Ro 1:18-23, ESV)

It occurs to me, based in part on the above passage and from common sense, that it isn't the bible per se, but the person of God who is the source of knowledge and wisdom without whom we would not only know nothing, but would not exist at all. All the rest of this discussion is semantics.

Permalink Reply by Caleb Kautt on November 21, 2010 at 9:34am

Mr. Ponder,

Of course you are right that God's Word is a created thing, that we are not to elevate it to the point of worshiping it instead of God and that God is the source of knowledge. I agree with you 100% about this.

However, as Mr. Crider was implying, without the Special Revelation (God's Word), we would not have a complete knowledge of who the Creator is, and how He sent His Son to die as a substitute for us. If we rely solely upon the "General Revelation" (nature) to guide us toward a knowledge of who God is, we will end up with a skewed perception of who God is based upon our fallible observations of a sin-cursed creation.

This has been a great discussion, guys.

Permalink Reply by Lance Ponder on November 28, 2010 at 5:43am

I'm not talking about general revelation. I'm talking about the special revelation that comes from the indwelling holy spirit. In no way am I discounting holy writ. I'm just saying that a blanket statement that the bible stands alone as the sole source of knowledge is simply false.

The three statements, or rather the argument stated in three steps, is not able to be proven for exactly the reason you stated in your post. In other words, I was agreeing with you all along. The question is not whether the premise is correct - we have already settled that. The next logical question rather is whether the bible is the sole source of knowledge which is also a direct implication of the statements. Creation confirms scripture. Special and general revelation confirms scripture. Inspired testimony of believers confirms scripture. None of these are scripture, yet they all provide (among other things) knowledge. See what I'm getting at?


Caleb Kautt said:

Mr. Ponder,

Of course you are right that God's Word is a created thing, that we are not to elevate it to the point of worshiping it instead of God and that God is the source of knowledge. I agree with you 100% about this.

However, as Mr. Crider was implying, without the Special Revelation (God's Word), we would not have a complete knowledge of who the Creator is, and how He sent His Son to die as a substitute for us. If we rely solely upon the "General Revelation" (nature) to guide us toward a knowledge of who God is, we will end up with a skewed perception of who God is based upon our fallible observations of a sin-cursed creation.

This has been a great discussion, guys.

Permalink Reply by Dustin Crider on November 28, 2010 at 7:56pm

Lance, I believe I understand what you are saying and would agree with a lot of it. Hopefully I can help clarify the presuppositional argument.

If the Bible were not true, knowledge would not be possible. Think of it this way. If the Bible were false, God would not exist and would not have created the world. There would be no natural revelation because God is not the creator. There would be no inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. This is the unbelieving worldview. Presupp apologetics seeks to show the unbeliever that their worldview has no basis for the preconditions of intelligibility. It has no basis for things like logic, science, ethics, etc. We do this by showing them how if you take their presuppositions (Bible is not true, etc.) to their logical conclusions, there is no basis for these things. In a sense, we are taking on the false assumption that the Bible is not true and showing them the problems with this, including not having a basis for basis for knowing anything. Remember, if the Bible is false, then there is no natural revelation and no indwelling of the Holy Spirit. There is no basis for knowledge in an unbelieving worldview. In fact, they borrow from the Christian worldview to justify their conclusions, showing that they do know God deep down, but they suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18ff).

On the other hand, we show them that only in terms of the Christian worldview do things like logic, science, ethics, etc. make sense. Our presupposition is that the Bible is true and it is the word of God. God is the Creator who made all things and He also gives the Holy Spirit to those who believe. We can then present the Gospel of grace to the unbeliever. For the Christian, the Bible is the standard of knowledge. Indeed, general revelation does declare the glory of God and shows His attributes. The Holy Spirit also leads us in truth. However, what knowledge we get from general revelation or the inward work of the Holy Spirit should be tested against the Scriptures.

Also, historically, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit has not been called "special revelation." This terminology has been reserved for the Scriptures alone. The Holy Spirit in us does not give us "revelation," that is, it does not give us words from God. It convicts us, testifies to the truth of God's Word, and helps to pray, much of which is discussed in Romans 8.



Lance Ponder said:

I'm not talking about general revelation. I'm talking about the special revelation that comes from the indwelling holy spirit. In no way am I discounting holy writ. I'm just saying that a blanket statement that the bible stands alone as the sole source of knowledge is simply false.

The three statements, or rather the argument stated in three steps, is not able to be proven for exactly the reason you stated in your post. In other words, I was agreeing with you all along. The question is not whether the premise is correct - we have already settled that. The next logical question rather is whether the bible is the sole source of knowledge which is also a direct implication of the statements. Creation confirms scripture. Special and general revelation confirms scripture. Inspired testimony of believers confirms scripture. None of these are scripture, yet they all provide (among other things) knowledge. See what I'm getting at?


Caleb Kautt said:

Mr. Ponder,

Of course you are right that God's Word is a created thing, that we are not to elevate it to the point of worshiping it instead of God and that God is the source of knowledge. I agree with you 100% about this.

However, as Mr. Crider was implying, without the Special Revelation (God's Word), we would not have a complete knowledge of who the Creator is, and how He sent His Son to die as a substitute for us. If we rely solely upon the "General Revelation" (nature) to guide us toward a knowledge of who God is, we will end up with a skewed perception of who God is based upon our fallible observations of a sin-cursed creation.

This has been a great discussion, guys.

Permalink Reply by Dustin Crider on January 20, 2011 at 8:18pm

All, I came across a quote today that answers Justin's initial question.  This is written by Michael Butler and appears in the book, The Standard Bearer: A Festschrift for Greg L. Bahnsen. Note that TAG stands for the Transcendental Argument for God's Existence, which is the presuppositional method.

 

"TAG argues for the impossibility of the contrary (the non-Christian worldview) and not the impossibility of an infinite number of possible worldviews. TAG does not establish the necessity of Christianity by inductively refuting each and every possible non-Christian worldview (as finite proponents of TAG, this is an impossible task) but, rather, contends that the contrary of Christianity (any view that denies the Christian view of God) is shown to be impossible. And if the negation of Christianity is false, Christianity is proved true."

 

The task of the apologist is the to show that any view that denies the Biblical God is false.  One does not have to refute every single worldview in isolation.  The chapter goes into much more detail, but that is a short summary.  Hope this helps!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page