Paul Washer - Presuppositional Appologetics Q&A

[crem004]

1Cor 2:1-5 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

[gejost]

The point is of course that the logic for to justify faith doesn't convince you when people of other faiths use the same argument.The Quran is a scripture. 2:14, interesting. The majestic view? I guess it depends which part of scripture u read. Sermon on the mount is inspiring. The genocide oft the canaanites isn't.

[teceyS3]

Amen~ let Truth bear witness of Truth.

[LittleShinikami]

Where can I get this whole talk? And what is it called?

[PhatLarkin]

How do I know the Koran is the word of God? I have read it. I have felt it's changing power. It's that simple.

And don't reply to this with an intellectual argument. Don't try and wrestle with me with man's logic.

If you prove my God doesn't exist, I won't throw away my faith in my God. Because I know him, I know him!

Praise Allah.

[WarrantedFaith]

@PhatLarkin So what you are saying is that your god basically amounts to a personal feeling? That's a subjective experience, not a relationship with a real Person.

[PhatLarkin]

@WarrantedFaith If you replace the word "Koran" with "Bible", and "Allah" with "God", my statement would be an exact mirror of what Paul Washer is teaching in this video.

Your inability to see this fact is only a testament to your blind bias. Any faith aside from yours is wrong, even if they use the exact same arguments and evidence.

Your relationship could be a shadow of a relationship with the Real God. And until you seek other Gods to see if they are the True God, you will never know.

[WarrantedFaith]

@PhatLarkin Did you even watch the video? Presuppositionalism has nothing to do with a subjective emotional experience. It is very intellectually rigorous stuff.

[PhatLarkin]

@WarrantedFaith You have GOT to be kidding. Presuppositionalism isn't "intellectually rigorous", it's starting and ending every debate with the mindset that Christianity is right and nothing can ever change that.

My statement about the Koran is a MIRROR of Paul Washers arguments, except I'm presupposing another position. I did that to point out how obviously flawed and dishonest it is. "Dismiss any opposition, even if it proves you wrong!" "The Bibles right because I KNOW it is"

[WarrantedFaith]

@PhatLarkin You are proving my own statements with your comments my friend. You clearly have no idea what Presuppositionalism really is all about, if you honestly believe it actually amounts to saying "the Bible is right because I know it is." Try reading Van Til's systematic theology, and then come back and tell me this isn't intellectually rigorous stuff. He had students who dedicated much of their writing carriers just to explaining what in the world he was talking about.

[WarrantedFaith]

@PhatLarkin Your asserting that you can use the presuppositional method to argue for the Koran as easily as the Bible demonstrates the extent of your ignorance on the matter. Presuppositional argumentation relies on arguments that take a reductio ad absurdium form. That is, the very point of the position is the indirect demonstration of the fact that apart from presupposing the Christian God, you cannot make sense of anything at all. That necessarily excludes the Koran.

[PhatLarkin]

@WarrantedFaith I can sum up the presupposition method in about a paragraph. People realized that logical arguments for the Christian God failed on several levels. So they invented a method of argumentation that begins and ends with them being correct. And the pillars of that argument are very very thin logical arguments. Reductio Ad Absurdum itself relies on objective logical proofs and evidence. You have to logically demonstrate why something is contradictory, or why something else fails *cont

[WarrantedFaith]

@PhatLarkin PhatLarkin, I would advise familiarizing yourself with presuppositionalism before criticizing it. You are so confused it is difficult for me to point out all of your errors in understanding. Reducto ad absurdium is a tool, I never said it could not rely on logical demonstrations. Presuppositionalism is nothing "new." In fact, it is used in the Bible itself, by Paul in Acts 17. You confuse presuppositionalism and fideism. Presuppositionalism never shies away from logical proof. (Cont)

[WarrantedFaith]

@PhatLarkin (...Cont) It is simply the METHOD of using logical proofs that makes it distinct. Presuppositionalism recognizes that everyone has worldview commitments, and so when debating worldviews, the only way for anyone to avoid begging the question and getting no where is by acknowledging their starting assumptions and indirectly justifying their usage of those assumptions, through transcendental argumentation. Such argumentation surely makes use of logical proofs!

[PhatLarkin]

@WarrantedFaith If that is presuppositionalism , then it is by all means a useless title. All it means, in your definition, is that people are arguing logically for what they believe to be true. DUH HUH! That doesn't need some pseudo intellectual title and people saying its sooo hard to understand.

And if your definition is correct, then Paul Washer is the one who needs to familiarize himself with it. Specifically shown by what he says around 5:00. basically, faith trumps all logical arguments

[WarrantedFaith]

@PhatLarkin "People are arguing logically for what they believe to be true."

How does that make the term "presuppositionalism" out to be "useless"? Surely you're not going to claim that there is only one way to argue logically. The mere fact that presuppositionalism uses logical arguments, just as non-presuppositionalists use logical arguments, has no bearing on the "usefulness" of the title. Again, presuppositionalism is a METHOD of logical argumentation. There are numerous such methods.

[PhatLarkin]

@WarrantedFaith A method of logical argumentation would be something like Polysyllogism. If Prepositional apologetics is as you described (people arguing for what they believe to be right), then the term is superfluous. Because apologetics is necessarily arguing for what you believe to be right.

Prepositional apologetics is nothing more then starting and ending all debates with believing you're right and refusing to admit you could be wrong. THAT'S WHAT SETS IT APART IN CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

[PhatLarkin]

@WarrantedFaith It's criticized endlessly as anti-intellectual. Who would debate someone who refuses to admit they could be wrong? Usually LOGIC is the COMMON GROUND (presupposed truth) in a debate. If you could convince an atheist logically that God exists, he would admit to it. Whereas if he used the same tactics as your presupposition apologetics, no amount of evidence or logic would convince him because he can't come on the common ground that he COULD be wrong.

See why it's a such a joke?

[WarrantedFaith]

@PhatLarkin lol criticized "endlessly" by whom? You? I can tell you don't read much pertaining to this debate. Logic is not enough of a common ground, before proof is not the same as persuasion. This is the whole point my friend. Romans 1:18-20. There is the common ground of logic, but that common ground is not neutral ground, first of all, since logic can only be accounted for on the terms of a Christian worldview. Secondly, you can show atheists all the time logical arguments proving (Cont...)

[WarrantedFaith]

@PhatLarkin (...Cont) God's existence, and most of the time they won't buy into it, due to an EMOTIONAL commitment to their position, not an intellectual one. So the "common ground" of logic is not enough. They must be shown that the worldview they hold to cannot account for their belief in logic, and hence they operate on terms of the Christian worldview unknowingly. That is what presuppositoinalism demonstrates, logically.

[WarrantedFaith]

@PhatLarkin And no, nothing is a joke here except your own attempt at understanding my position. You are acting like a child. How about proving your willingness to engage in responsible and mature conversation by demonstrating that you can actually look into what the other side has to say, rather than just pontificating your own sentimental ideas about what you suppose they believe? I would invite you to start by reading something I threw together myself -> tl -dot- gd -backslash- btgse2

[PhatLarkin]

@WarrantedFaith All you just did is re-state the prepositional method. That you believe logic is not a common ground. If you refuse to use logic as the common ground, then I have no willingness to talk to you. As logic and evidence isn't enough to sway you. And disagreeing that this prepositional apologetics is "intellectually rigorous" isn't being childish.

And who criticizes it? Other Apologists who know Faith and emotion proves nothing, and is not ground to argue from. :/

[WarrantedFaith]

@PhatLarkin And all you just did was re-state that you believe that there's no such thing as logic at all (See, I can play your game too). If you're going to continue making things up rather than interacting with the actual content of my explanations, then yes, you may as well find something better to do. QUOTE ME where I said that logic is not a common ground. QUOTE ME where I said that faith and emotion are grounds to argue from.

[PhatLarkin]

@WarrantedFaith "So the "common ground" of logic is not enough."

What other ground are you arguing from? If your argument is that the Christian worldview is the only worldview that accounts for logic, then the only common ground you need to argue on is logic. Because if your argument fails logically, then that's it. It has failed. And if someone elses argument is more correct logically, then that's it. There's no need for another ground, and no need for the extra title "prepositional"

[WarrantedFaith]

@PhatLarkin PhatLarkin, on what basis do you even appeal to logic? How do you account for your belief in logical laws?

[PhatLarkin]

@WarrantedFaith This conversation has been too muddled to carry on. I meant to say "You believe logic is not the only common ground needed" a few posts back. And my original post about the Koran was direct parody of this video. Except I used the word Koran where Paul Washer would put Bible.

Regardless of where you're coming from on the subject, several things Paul washer has said in this video are tragically stupid. For one, telling people to not even consider they're wrong. 5:07

Logic>Faith

[WarrantedFaith]

@PhatLarkin Let me also remind you of the very first thing you said in this conversation:

"How do I know the Koran is the word of God? I have read it."

Hmmmm. Really? That's it? You just, *ahem*, read it, believe it, and therefore know that it's true?

The irony in our discussion is you are accusing me of the very errors which you have made, and refuse to take my position seriously enough to recognize that your accusations misrepresent it.

Forum link on my page if you want to discuss further.

[PhatLarkin]

@WarrantedFaith to explain life as well as the Bible. Without logically demonstrating that point, then all you have is an assertion. i.e. "The Bible explains everything, because I just know it does." The "intellectually rigorous" parts of presuppositional apologetics is that when someone points this flaw out clear as day, apologists ignore it and say "no no no. This isn't an intellectual argument." Tell me how the Bible more true than the Koran without using an intellectual argument.

[PhatLarkin]

@WarrantedFaith and yeah, I have a couple friends that live up in Boone. Mountains are beautiful, I'm right off in the foothills.

[hrobertb]

@xTHExELEVENTHxHOURx I totally agree. Nothing worked as hard on me as the Gospels and that was when I got saved. But I never would have opened God's word to read it if I did not think I could take it seriously. So while an argument will not bring someone to God per se it can open a person up to reading God's word and thereby allow God's Spirit to work.

[hrobertb]

If by doing apologetics I can bring one person to belief in the one true God or stop one person from falling away from the Christian faith it is worth studying. Paul Washer is a great preacher but is very mistaken here.

I happen to be one person that was brought to faith with the help of apologetics.

[dptroutt]

You are confusing evangelism with apologetics. Evangelism is the proclamation of the gospel; apologetics is the defense of the faith.

"I believe it because I read it" is actually humanist argument. It places the authority of scripture in you, not it God. You believe the bible because you, as an autonomous intellect, determined that what it says is true.

[DreamsofMajesty]

scribd (dot) com/nb812



[benwantstosk8]

Paul Washer, this that you claim is "not" an intellectual argument is actually a specific type of intellectual argument. It is where a view is supported by "fitting" with life. But, for a claim to be true you need three tests. 1)Logical Consistency 2)Empirical Adequacy 3)Experiential Relevance

[Entropy56]

PSA 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."

ISA 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

[bigjuice777]

@Entropy56 "The righteous man perishes, and no man takes it to heart; And devout men are taken away, while no one understands. For the righteous man is taken away from evil," Isaiah 57:1. You missed the half of the verse.

[marvy1118]

Atheists don't recognize the Bible's authority so quoting from it is about as useful to them as quoting from the Koran.

They are waiting for objective proof.

[mariuspieter]

@marvy1118 Most atheists don't even know what objective truth means, they think it means by only looking at logic (presupposed) and reason (presupposed) that they have objective truth, but it is still based upon the things they learned about how the world works, objective truth is only possible for God since he is also outside of what we can see

[mariuspieter]

@marvy1118 Most atheists use their own presuppositions to argue their premises for why God doesn't exist, they just don't realize this, or don't want to acknowledge it.

[WarrantedFaith]

@marvy1118 No they aren't. They don't need the evidence. The evidence is all around them. What they need is a change of heart. They already know God in their heart of hearts. But they deceive themselves of this knowledge because they suppress the truth by their unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18ff). That's why presuppositionalism is the way to go. Reveal to them how the very worldview they espouse cannot account for the principles of reasoning they utilize in their argumentation.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Here's Exhibit A that religion is irrational. (He basically just admitted that he's going to believe even if he was persuaded that it wasn't rational to do so.)

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Or I should say, was "shown" that it wasn't rational to do so - as nothing could "persuade" him.

[brad78ton]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo

Oh, come on..he didn't "basically" just say that. He said he wouldn't give up his faith because someone beat him in an argument. Why? because his belief doesn't just rest on intellect, its also based on 1st person experience. Which any "rational" person knows you can't touch.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

I agree with that - he's admitting that rational reasons alone aren't why he believes. So he's already flirting with admitting irrationality. But he's going to stick to his guns, even if reason refutes it? That puts him over the edge into admitting that his belief isn't connected to reason.

Note that first person experiences aren't excluded when we're discussing the rationality of belief. The justifying power of personal experience is itself a matter subject to Reason's scrutiny.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(cont)

I'll give you an indisputable argument showing that personal experience is inadequate to the task of rationally justifying a supernatural belief:

Last summer, my friend said: "I lack explainable reasons for my belief, but I hold it none-the-less because of indescribable personal experiences that you can't understand". Here's the point - he's a Hindu. There are billions of people whose supernatural beliefs are justified by private experience, yet they hold contradictory beliefs.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(cont)

Since their beliefs are contradictory, they CANNOT all be correct. Either one such set of beliefs is correct, or none are. Either way, it's absolutely certain that billions have made an error when they've held a supernatural belief justified by private personal experiences. It is therefore absolutely 100% established that private personal experiences are not a reliable means of justifying supernatural beliefs.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(cont)

Oh, and in one of the most amusing acts of Apologetic hoop jumping and irrationality, many Christians - even WL Craig - try to pull "But if it's from the Holy Ghost, it's a different story." This is the most shameless act blatant fallacious special pleading I've ever heard. As if the Hindu can't say, "but this is different, because it's from a Vishnu aspect". Such reasoning mitigates the strength of my argument by exactly NOTHING.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(cont)

To boot, this apologetic rejoinder to my argument isn't just blatant special pleading, but it's also blatantly circular. Consider "I'm justified in my supernatural belief because, assuming my supernatural belief is correct, it justifies that my belief as follows..." - can you spot the problem. This argument is decisive. It's simply the case that private personal experiences are not rationally reliable justifiers of belief in the supernatural.

[brad78ton]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo

Your entire rebuttal has been built upon a Straw Man. If you are going to rebut a claim make sure you get it right. The individual never claimed he based his entire belief on existentialism, likewise, you assume a lot in the argument that "if" someone had a better argument it would show the person's belief has contradictory, which is begging the question. If this wasn't your assumption then I don't know why you'd bring up 1st person experiences and contradictory beliefs.

[brad78ton]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo

I can't follow your reasoning on this point. I do not see how claiming the "Holy Ghost" based on 1st person experience is a Special Pleading fallacy. Obviously a SPF cites some info that supports a claim and leaves out contradictory evidence that says otherwise. Since its obvious that Hindu's don't subcribe to the Christian worldview your analogy to a "spirit" from Vishnu is a faulty analogy.

[brad78ton]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo

Your indisputable argument can be easily disputed. All you established is that contradictory personal beliefs aren't reliable. That t doesn't warrant the conclusion that all personal experiences aren't reliable regardless if they're based on the supernatural or not.

[legodesi]

"admitting irrationality."

Accepting that one's belief isn't merely intellectual doesn't mean he's accepted "irrationality"

[brad78ton]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo

Your rebuttal is a blatant Straw Man. The man never said he wouldn't abandon his views if reason refuted them. He said that just because someone had a better argument that it wouldn't cause his to give up his faith. I'm sure you are aware by the fact that just because someone has a beter claim than yours then it doesn't necessarily entail that there isn't a retort to what the better argument claims.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

brad78ton,

Um... why would I bring up 1st person experience? I didn't - you did. Let me refresh your memory. Here is your initial comment to my initial posts (mine made no reference to 1st person experience):

"He said he wouldn't give up his faith because someone beat him in an argument. Why? because his belief doesn't just rest on intellect, its also based on 1st person experience".

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(cont)

So our posts, about the rational justification for religious belief, went:

1) My saying he's irrational, because he admits to holding his faith regardless of rationally justification.

2) You said his justification isn't just by reason, but also by 1st person experience.

3) My long argument says that 1st person experience alone cannot rationally justify belief in the supernatural. Thus if it can't be justified by reason, 1st person experience can't make it rationally justified.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(cont)

4) You accuse me of "If you are going to rebut a claim make sure you get it right." But I was making an argument in response to your "its also based on 1st person experience." I was right on target.

5) You attempted to rebut parts of my argument.

Now in reply to your rebuttals:

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Re: "I do not see how claiming the 'Holy Ghost' based on 1st person experience is a Special Pleading fallacy."

10 people sit in a room. They close their eyes, and after an hour each announces that their private experiences have justified a certain supernatural belief. They all admit that they have no viable argument for their belief beyond their experience. All the beliefs are contradictory - at most one can be correct.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(cont)

I say to them "The fact that you all disagree, that alone indisputably proves there's no rational justification for belief in the supernatural based on personal experience alone. It's now a demonstrated fact this method is unreliable." Person #7 objects, saying "Ah, but my conclusion that the Holy Ghost exists is justified by my private experience because the Holy Ghost privately revealed himself to me."

If that isn't blatant special pleading (and blatantly circular), then nothing is.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Re: "All you established is that contradictory personal beliefs aren't reliable. That t doesn't warrant the conclusion that all personal experiences aren't reliable regardless if they're based on the supernatural or not."

No. What I established is that the METHOD of using 1st person experience to justify supernatural beliefs is indisputably unreliable, and so can't by itself create a rational justification for a supernatural belief.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Re: "Since its obvious that Hindu's don't subcribe to the Christian worldview your analogy to a "spirit" from Vishnu is a faulty analogy"

False: "a Vishnu aspect" isn't borrowing from the Christian worldview

Irrelevant: the story why someone's private experience is special matters not one bit. To be special would be to introduce evidence beyond private experience, but that's exactly what we're not discussing. Whether it's Vishnu, the Holy Ghost, or whatever, they're all on the same footing.

[brad78ton]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo I already dealt with with "Special Pleading fallacy," and the fact you don't seem to know what that is nor trying to justify this claim is based on a faulty analogy.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

brad - You clearly don't understand special pleading. When I argue that method X is unreliable because when you use X, X doesn't work, you respond by calling that "ad hoc by definition"(?!?) and in need of justification (huh? a justification is exactly what I gave). You said my (rock-solid) reasoning here was a non-sequitur. Before, you said that I introduced something that actually you did. You're confused on so many levels that further discussion is pointless.

[brad78ton]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo

I think its obvious you don't know what Special Pleading is since you gave no example of how the person you are arguing against is exempt from any claim he made while applying it to others. Just claiming its so doesn't get it done. Likewise, your "justification" is predicated on a faulty analogy. ALL you can justify in your claim is that some people have false beliefs, not that all supernatural claims are invalid. No amount of empirical examples warrants the conclusion that

[brad78ton]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo ...that ALL examples are invalid. since your argument is justified on two different worldviews you would logically expect that the outcome to any supernatural claim to be different.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Based on your posts, I think that you don't understand what special pleading is, or what most of the other terms you're using are, so I'm not teach you in YouTube comments. Let's just agree that I'm right about this because I was born in Colorado, and leave it at that, ok?

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

When I post

"What I established is that the METHOD of using 1st person experience to justify supernatural beliefs is indisputably unreliable, and so can't by itself create a rational justification for a supernatural belief"

get back

"ALL you can justify in your claim is that some people have false beliefs, not that all supernatural claims are invalid. No amount of empirical examples warrants the conclusion that ALL examples are invalid"

I conclude that a rational discussion is impossible.

[brad78ton]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo You are right because you were born in Colorado? Haha, well, with a knock down rebuttal such as that I must concede.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

LOL - it's just too damn easy...

[brad78ton]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo I pointed out why this wasn't a Special pleading fallacy, 4 it to be such there has to be some information they neglect to put forth, that contradcits what they say. Such as the Holy Ghost told me my belief was true and not true in the same way and in the same sense. Where is that info? Likewise your analogy was faulty since u claimed the Holy Spirit was interacting with the Hindu, which if u've ever studied the difference between the faiths u'd know they r totally unrelated.

[brad78ton]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo Lets deal with 1 premise at a time.

1) U presuppose 1st person experience isn't rationally justified in ANY from. If thats your argument then I guess u can't claim u believe what u think in any regards since thats solely 1st person in perspective.

2)I agree with 2.

3) And as I pointed out in your previous rebuttal your argument was a total non-sequitur. Your argument depended upon faulty analogies and the fact it was a Special Pleading fallacy, which it obviously was not.

[brad78ton]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo

I didn't say you did bring up 1st person experience, so lets make sure we are on the same page. You said It was irrational to hold a belief if someone has a better argument than you. However, this presupposes that this "better" argument is the best argument, which is begging the question. Likewise, claiming 1st person experience is invalid (in ALL cases) as justification to adhere to a belief is ad hoc by definition. This needs to be justfied in itself.

[indebt2Him]

1 cor. 2 is so Good! Paul did not come with arguments but determined to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified. How awesome (check out 1 cor.2:1-5)

[JPT62089]

It isn't about which book is "better". It's about who is actually in control of salvation. Rom 1:16 says that "the gospel... ...is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" and Rom 10:17 says that "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.". So yes. We use the Bible in apologetics as our main and only authoritative source. If you aren't preaching from the Word of God, how can one be saved?

[JPT62089]

"Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?" - Galatians 3:2

"Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness?" - Galatians 3:5,6

"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." - 1 Cor 1:18

[JPT62089]

Since the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, there is no point in trying to argue by our own means. We are to preach the gospel. Not argue whether the Bible is better or not. As Romans 3:11 says that there is none who understand and none who seek for God. We must faithfully preach His Word and His Gospel and leave the rest up to God. That's not saying we preach the Gospel and ignore everything from that person from then on, but as I said faithfully preach His Word.

[netskyllc]

this is off topic, (sorry) but look at 2:18 than look at 2:20... something dissapeared from the screen haha

[JPT62089]

Haha! I didn't notice that. Probably just an artifact of some sort.

[fenmoorz]

andben... The question is not whether the person referred to is well presented, articulate or any other thing. The question is whether the person is true. The same is true for the Bible. I would suggest you read "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. I had a hard time with the historocity of the Bible as well... This might help.

[freezerfeet32]

Andben I am sure Mr. Washer knows what he is talking about but if you must have someone who knows much about others texts and faith here is a source: check DrOakley1689 youtube page.

[Entropy56]

All a Christian has to do is bring Jesus into the room to win the argument. Still waiting....

[speaklife2people]

Titus 3:9

Titus 1:15

[plumpis]

"God exists" as an axiom presupposes a lot. The axioms of logic presuppose very little.

[fruitofspirit]

Washer's my fave. So glad I found this. I sometimes get slammed by atheists in my mail on here. He's right about letting the Bible speak for itself. Of course, I prefer to take a more flippant approach with atheists and tell them if they're looking to get someone's "goat," they should try another pin. "BAHHH..." Do ewe know what I mean? Kinda like the rapture--they never see it coming.

[littlejrt]

Maybe his cultural background as a Baptist has hindered his approach. . .he demonstrates that he has no IDEA what presuppositional apologetics really is...Has he never read of the Apostle Paul's debates in Athens? Paul does NOT appeal to the Torah to prove his case, but rather to the Greek poets...how could Washer muddle this up so badly?

[Godpleaser77]

Littlejrt, to begin with Paul Washer would not want to be referred to as a great preacher! I love the way he shared this. Its shows a great angle of truth. What I am wondering is that you have mentioned a few things like Pauls debates in Athens. Maybe you could share some wisdom in this area for all of us. How would you handle a situation like this? Thanks Joshua.

Baptist has hindered his approach? How so?

[littlejrt]

This formula, by the numbers approach does not take into account the actual presuppositions of the listeners - We don't appeal to Toarh to prove non-believers that Torah is true...Its circular reasoning and poorly constructed arguments that so often fail to give the person the opportunity to hear, really hear the Gospel. Joel

[Godpleaser77]

Hey Joel, my question was, how would you handle the situation? You are repeating yourself. I am trying to get to the heart of your biblical (expression. Please give me an example of what methods you would use. I already get what you don't like! See I believe Paul did a great job of Presuppositional Appologetics Thanks Joshua. What I am saying is tell me how you would do it! Thanks again.

[littlejrt]

i would listen very carefully to the speaker, and look for the presuppositions that govern his or her life...Using a formula or template is worthless...One cannot begin to preach the Bible to someone who does not believe in HaShem. Shalom, Joel

[Godpleaser77]

OK! Now were getting somewhere. You need to know Jesus to understand this important message. I Corinthians 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

John 7:17 (Jesus said) If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

[Godpleaser77]

Come and join us in the Sonlight. Jesus is the Word, the truth and the life.

[littlejrt]

Paul Washer is a great preacher, but his reasoning is circular, and offers no reason for why someone should believe who has no belief at all. Its a very dangerous and naive way that he answers unbelievers. He should read and reread Schaeffer and Van Til on what presuppositionalism is all about. This is just terrible.

[GodisHoly474]

Great truth,

Thanx for sharing.

[lannopez]

Great Video! Love it! Awesome!