Donations for the month of December

We have received a total of $25 in donations towards our goal of $175.

Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Member Spotlight
Posts: 2,931
Joined: September 2003
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,540
Tom 3,563
chestnutmare 2,931
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,773
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 7
Tina 2
Recent Posts
The Godly Man
by chestnutmare. Mon Dec 17, 2018 7:05 AM
Abortion and Politics
by Pilgrim. Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:42 AM
Is the Following Legit?
by goldenoldie. Sun Dec 09, 2018 8:00 AM
None but Christ!
by chestnutmare. Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:01 PM
Chau is no Jim Elliot
by Tom. Thu Dec 06, 2018 12:13 AM
Build Thy spiritual temple among us
by chestnutmare. Mon Dec 03, 2018 5:53 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Classical vs.Presuppositional Apologetics #54524
Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:34 PM
Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:34 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,563
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,563
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Apologetics: Classical vs. Presuppositional Apologetics’
One of the arguments that those who believe in ‘Classical Apologetics’ sometimes called ‘two step apologetics’ (not to be confused with Evidential Apologetics) against ‘Presuppositional Apologetics’ is that only in Classical Apologetics does it allow for mediate (knowledge we have about God from creation) and immediate (knowledge we have of God, from God Himself). They make the claim that Greg Bahsen himself conceded this point in his debate with RC Sproul.
Although I watched this debate myself and did not hear Bahnsen concede anything. I thought I would give them the benefit of the doubt until I understand that particular point better. The debate between Bahnsen and Sproul made me wonder if Sproul even understood what the Presuppositional argument was. I was actually disappointed, because I am a Sproul fan. Some (even Presup) people did say the nature of the debate probably played into this, seeing Sproul could not adequately defend his position in the time allotted; whereas Bahnsen was more orderly and knew how to use his time effectively.
As I think about this issue; one of the most used passages of Scripture that those who use the Presuppositional method is Romans chapter one; appealing to creation and how it leaves people with no excuse. So how is this not using both the mediate and immediate? Am I missing something?
From what I am gathering from discussion on these apologetic methods is both schools believe the Bible is the ultimate authority. So the debate center around which method best exemplifies the teaching of the Bible.
Yet, it appears (not sure if they actually do) that the classical school uses the mediate to establish its truth before they go onto the immediate. Whereas in the Presuppositional school, realization that the unbeliever starts with their own world view that interprets everything through it. Thus the Presuppositionalist attempts to show the inconsistencies in their world views; thus shutting their mouths. In this way; they show that a world view must start and end with God. Only a world view based around God’s mediate and immediate knowledge can make sense of anything in life.
I have been following a Facebook conversation on these things and so far the answers given left more confusion than anything else. Having said all this; Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones who was a Presuppostionalist, did not believe in entering these kinds of debates. Instead he said he did not engage the non-believer with the futility of debate because they already know there is a God; because in light of Romans 8:7 “Because the carnal mind is at enmity against God for it is not subject to the law of God, neither can it be.” So rather than deal with the non-believer on science, philosophy or logic. He dealt with them on the “foolishness of the Gospel” (1Cor.1:18-21).
If I understand his point; although he was a Presuppositionalist in theory, he did not believe it was effective trying to shut their mouths. So he would jump straight to the foolishness of the Gospel.
If I understand him properly, I wonder if he makes a valid point? Learning apologetics is quite hard; I wonder if it might be better just to stick with the Gospel?
Yet, by doing this would I be submitting to Fideism? Which sometimes is an accusation that is wrongly thrown at Presuppositionalism?
Better stop there, my brain hurts. whatsgoingonhere

Re: Classical vs.Presuppositional Apologetics [Re: Tom] #54525
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:45 AM
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:45 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,540
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,540
1. Presuppositionalists do NOT deny nor use 'evidences' in defending the faith. Nor do they reject 'mediate knowledge'. Rather the issue is more, IMHO, the order in which 'immediate and mediate' knowledge are used. For myself, immediate knowledge; knowledge which God has revealed in His Word and in some things to all men internally, i.e., as man made in the Imago Deo, e.g., God's existence and power via the things which are made and the moral law of God, must precede mediate knowledge. Why? Because "Thy Word is Truth" and it being the sole and final authority in all matters of faith and practice it serves as the 'glasses' through which one can properly see truth in the things which are made.

2. One cannot be accused of being a Fideist, i.e., one who bifurcates faith and reason by holding to Presuppositional Apologetics. In fact, that would be impossible, for it is by reason/logic that one believes what Scripture teaches concerning itself and all that it teaches. Scripture itself enjoins man to 'reason' (Josh 9:13; 1Sam 12:7; Job 9:14, 13:3; Eccl 7:25; Isa 1:18; Jer 12:1; Dan 4:36, 5:10; Mk 2:8; 8:17; Acts 18:14; Heb 5:14; et al). Immediate knowledge is and must be the beginning of all knowledge for God has endowed all men with it. The problem is that fallen man hates the truth that is within him concerning God as the supreme ruler and creator of all things and that he is subject to Him. And consequently, man exchanges the truth for a lie (Rom 1:18-25). The Word of God is immutable and unchangeable and thus it is the only reliable source of truth to man.

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 34 guests, and 110 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Ronald Bargebo, mottley, SnydersSoapbox, Susan, reformedbygrace
932 Registered Users
Shout Box
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
862,151 Gospel truth
Page Time: 0.041s Queries: 15 (0.002s) Memory: 2.8202 MB (Peak: 3.0839 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-12-19 04:59:57 UTC