<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Is the use of presuppositional apologetics better than the use of evidential apologetics? </font><hr></blockquote><p> In my former brief reply, I stated, "...All presuppositionalists use evidence, and all evidentialists use presuppositions." The Master's Seminary Article actually uses the same EVIDENCE I would use to prove what it needs to prove--the Scripture, but refer to this as the Presuppositionalism approach. Again it goes to the definitions of the "terms", as I am attempting to get Paul to see and put forth such. According to the Master's seminary description I would embrace...Presuppositionalism, but note carefully "some" of the terms used even in its definition:<br><br><ul>(1) The [color:red]evidence</font color=red> of Scripture (O.T.) (1 Cor. 15:3–4)<br>(2) The [color:red]evidence</font color=red> of the external world (1 Cor. 15:5–7)<br>(3) The [color:red]evidence</font color=red> of personal experience (1 Cor. 15:8)[/LIST] Thus, as you see they also use EVIDENCE--Scripture. Without clear cut definitions we can go back and forth with this stuff all day long and get no nowhere.<br><br>The BEST approach we have is Scripture alone. I view the terms pre-suppositional and evidential as both being with limitations if used "solely" alone, without the other at all. <br><br>As to the E approach: There are "other evidences" that exist for sure, but these may change and maybe fleeting or raise unnecessary questions.....i.e. attempting to prove a star is so many million of light years away to prove XYZ to an astronomer may change next year with newer information. But on the other hand the existence of oxygen is a pretty reliable fact, though we do not know "all" the inner-dynamics of its complexities. The use of "oxygen" as a ministry tool example may have some ground with some people (you say God does not exist because you cannot see Him, but do you believe oxygen exists.....), but on the other hand may raise more questions: will there be oxygen in heaven, in hell, et. al....thus it is always better to stick with the Scripture Alone. In apologetics begin with what you know is true--Scripture. <br><br>A Good book on this issue is John Frame's, Apologetics to the Glory of God Alone (or, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God). Frame is basically a Vantilliam (PS), but by his own admission does drift from him at times. You can also read Classical Apologetics by Sproul...(the E side of things). Me thinks there needs to be a balance of the two and the balance should begin with FAITH ....<br><br>BTW thanks for the article. I have not finished it yet and it is interesting.

Reformed and Always Reforming,