His concluding remarks are certainly true I think, but then you also have to consider the fact that ultimately it is only God's sovereign regenerating work, and not the persuasive abilities of man, that will cause a person to turn from sin and embrace Christ. An apologetic should be first and foremost honoring to God (when quoting 1 Pet. 3:15 we always seem to forget the first part of the verse...), and I don't think the evidentialist approach is such, for various reasons.
@WarrantedFaith I wonder if there isn't a legitimate way to synthesize presuppositional and classical apologetics. Do you think so? Something like Van Til/Bahnsen's argument from the impossibility of the contrary followed by some strong evidences used as a positive argument for the Christian worldview?
I would say presuppositionalism already synthesizes both positions in that sense. Presuppositionalism doesn't deny the usage of extra-biblical evidence; it only argues that such evidence should be presented in the context of biblical truth, and not as the basis itself for affirming biblical truth. It's really an issue of method. And I would say the methods cannot be reconciled, no, because the fundamental question sets up a dichotomy: Is God's Word the basis of truth, yes or no?
In evidentialism, God's Word is not treated as the ultimate standard of truth (even though the evidentialist may affirm this belief with his mouth) because the philosophy of this method says that whether Scripture is authoritative depends on whether human reasoning can determine it to be so. This is why, I would argue, an argument from the impossibility of the contrary is necessary...because there is no other way, not consistently.
(I.e. there is no other way to consistently argue that the Bible is the ultimate standard of truth. To argue that God's Word is the highest authority, it must be treated as such an authority even when arguing for it, and cannot itself be submitted to some other authority for verification. Of course, this does mean such an argument is circular. But critics who point this out overlook the fact that *every* worldview is at base circular. But Christianity's circularity is indirectly justifiable.)
His concluding remarks are certainly true I think, but then you also have to consider the fact that ultimately it is only God's sovereign regenerating work, and not the persuasive abilities of man, that will cause a person to turn from sin and embrace Christ. An apologetic should be first and foremost honoring to God (when quoting 1 Pet. 3:15 we always seem to forget the first part of the verse...), and I don't think the evidentialist approach is such, for various reasons.
WarrantedFaith 2 years ago
@WarrantedFaith I wonder if there isn't a legitimate way to synthesize presuppositional and classical apologetics. Do you think so? Something like Van Til/Bahnsen's argument from the impossibility of the contrary followed by some strong evidences used as a positive argument for the Christian worldview?
the13thof12 1 year ago
@the13thof12
I would say presuppositionalism already synthesizes both positions in that sense. Presuppositionalism doesn't deny the usage of extra-biblical evidence; it only argues that such evidence should be presented in the context of biblical truth, and not as the basis itself for affirming biblical truth. It's really an issue of method. And I would say the methods cannot be reconciled, no, because the fundamental question sets up a dichotomy: Is God's Word the basis of truth, yes or no?
WarrantedFaith 1 year ago
In evidentialism, God's Word is not treated as the ultimate standard of truth (even though the evidentialist may affirm this belief with his mouth) because the philosophy of this method says that whether Scripture is authoritative depends on whether human reasoning can determine it to be so. This is why, I would argue, an argument from the impossibility of the contrary is necessary...because there is no other way, not consistently.
WarrantedFaith 1 year ago
(I.e. there is no other way to consistently argue that the Bible is the ultimate standard of truth. To argue that God's Word is the highest authority, it must be treated as such an authority even when arguing for it, and cannot itself be submitted to some other authority for verification. Of course, this does mean such an argument is circular. But critics who point this out overlook the fact that *every* worldview is at base circular. But Christianity's circularity is indirectly justifiable.)
WarrantedFaith 1 year ago
1 star for the donation link on your website. Why do you people always want money? Does "God" really need money?
EnervatedSociety 2 years ago
The Christian God is not a rational choice to posit in attempting to address the epistemic questions raised by Presupp argumentation.
To see why, you can check out my video watch?v=ED5WSK_Ixg4
Diacorda 2 years ago
I think Greg is right on target with this response.
stevecastlen 2 years ago
I presuppose you are wrong; therefore, you are wrong.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
lol :)
ncs901 2 years ago