The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Apologetics

As a student of Pressuppositional Apologetics one of the things I want to do is look at what a few of its opponents say about it.
One such opponent is found https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/2003-3_257.pdf
I also plan watching a debate between RC Sproul and Greg Bahnsen on the subject.
Hopefully, by doing so I will learn the subject better.
Of course nothing works better than studying the real thing. So with that in mind I am slowly working my way through Greg Bahnsen's 'Always Ready'. As well as a few resources I have found on 'The Highway'.
If anyone wants to comment on the link I provided and\or the debate between RC Sproul and Greg Bahnsen, it would be appreciated.
Thanks
Tom

I thought I would give one accusation the opponent of Presuppositionalism gave.
He accused Van Til of confusing natural revelation with special revelation.

Tom

One i through the creation, and the other is thru Jesus and the Bible, correct?

1. The author misrepresents the Presuppositional position in order to give credence to his Evidential position.

2. Presuppositionalism certainly makes use of "evidences", but differently and consistently with Sola Scriptura.
- Evidentialism: If Noah's Ark was discovered, it proves the Bible is true.
- Presuppositionalism: If Noah's Ark was discovered, it should not be a surprise because the Bible is true.

3. There is no need to "prove" the existence of God for His existence is incontrovertable: 1) through natural revelation; that which God has created, and 2) being created in the image of God, all human beings have an internal testimony of God's (the One True God) existence. This truth is certainly known to ALL but it is hated and denied by the natural man and substituted by lies.

4. For anyone to argue against Christianity, they have to "borrow" many truths of Christianity, e.g., logic, reason, continuity, absolutes, etc. Ironic isn't it!

Great answer.
I have a question.
If I was talking to an atheist and he said to me that there is no absolute proof that Jesus even existed. Would it be ok to state (citing examples) that most of the top atheists admit that Jesus lived and was probably a good man.
If not, how would you deal with their accusation?
Tom

Why not ask such a person what he considers to be "absolute proof"? Since non-Christians believe that the only thing that is absolute is relativity, how could there be anything "absolute"? and especially something called "proof".

Interesting way to respond.
Did you see a problem with what I said?

Tom

The problem I see is that the answer then comes down to a matter of opinion from someone who might be held in high regard. What if the individual has no regard for "most of the top Atheists"? How does this person know with 'absolute proof' that Julius Caesar existed, or anyone who he has never personally met? And how would he know that whatever sources he would depend upon for 'absolute proof' were in fact absolutely and infallibly true?

Good point, if I did say something like that, it would be best if I did not steer the conversation that way. It might be helpful to show him that their reasoning is not shared by many atheists, but that is all it can do.
Therefore, adding something such as what you mentioned should be my main focus.
I should try to show them the whole matter is one of contrasting world views. There is no such thing as neutrality.
Actually come to think of it, your reasoning even makes sense in against people who do not believe in things like the innerrancy of Scripture.
I have an old friend from my charismatic days, who says the Bible is not innerant and it does not bother him that it is not. It is enough that it is authoritive. He believes that this is a fact and anyone who does not believe that is delusional.
I cited the denomination that we were both part of when we were friends as well as many other denominations showing him that he was going against even what most denominations believe on the issue.
Unfortunately, he said he is not beholden to any man's statement of faith, because it is obvious that there are mistakes in Scripture. He gave me several examples, to which I showed him this was simply not the case. He laughed off what I said.
At this point, I think the problem lies with the fact we have different world views.
I ended that conversation believing that it was a waste of time and effort, doing anything else besides prayer, would be an exersize of futility.

Tom

This person just opened a very wide door for you to enter.

1. If the Bible is not "inerrant", then it cannot be "divinely inspired" (which the Bible does claim for itself).
2. Thus "authoritative" is an empty term, for if the Bible is not inspired, inerrant and infallible, what authority does the Bible possess?
3. This means that each individual picks and chooses what is true and must be obeyed (authoritative) and what is false and must be rejected. Man, therefore is authoritative... becomes a god unto himself (cf. Gen 3:1-5; Rom 1).
4. His view is grounded in post-modernism which rejects absolute truth and substitutes the indefensible position of relative truth, which is a non sequitur because it is a contradiction of terms.

IF the scriptures are not fully inspired/inerrant, than how would we even know which portions are to be observed and obeyed, and which one we can reject then?
IF Jesus was God Incarnate, which he was/is, and he stated that all scriptures are inspired, than why could we rekect Him on this issue?

Pilgrim
Believe me I opened those doors. Yet he replied as though I was being silly.
I tend to try to be fairly nice in how I reply, however when my brother saw his reply to me, he blasted him,😃
Tom

JesusFan you are preaching to the choir. They say things like "the fact that the Bible is not inerrant, to me makes it even more real...."
I have had more success talking to a wall that my old charismatic friend. Sigh..,

Shake the dust off your sandals and move on.

I have done that already. Though I probably spent more time with him than I should have.