Here's something a little different. I would like any who consider themselves versed in the various apolegetics schools (presuppositionalist, evidentialist, etc.) to read a particular, current article from the New York Times and offer an outline of a response in terms of one of the apologetics disciplines. Please assume you are speaking to the author of the article, and simply outline what you would convey as a presuppositionalist, etc. Please indicate at the outset which approach you are using, and if you use an approach with which you disagree, please be reasonably fair in your presentation! I am hoping to demonstrate in a real-life context the differences between the approaches, so if you care to comment about why you feel one approach is better than another in the context of this article, please do so!
Is this for a term paper? Is this your approximate definition(s) of:<br><br>Presupposition is, a predisposition to believe something. It is a kind of knowledge that leads to judgments about other kinds of knowledge. In some schools of thought, a presupposition maybe an "assumption," a "bias," a "categorization," an "expectation," a "theory," a "law," an "organizing principle," a "world view," or a "framework for thought."<br><br>Evidence is knowledge that does not by itself lead a person to be predisposed toward anything. It takes its meaning in regard to a theory, or presupposition, about something. Certain facts may act as "evidence" to either support or undermine a general belief.<br> <br>Of course, confusion occurs in regard to the terms Presupposition and Evidence. These concepts are not exclusively the domain of one system or the other. All presuppositionalists use evidence, and all evidentialists use presuppositions. Cornelius van Til, the founder of modern presuppositionalism, frequently used evidence in apologetic discourses, and Francis Schaefer, probably the most well known recent Presbyterian evidentialist, continually talked about the importance of presuppositions.<br><br>So, are these definitions what you concur with or?
No, this is not for a term paper--those days are far behind me. If I did not make my intent clear by saying I wanted to demonstrate the differences between the systems by applying the systems to a particular subject, that is my intent.
For that purpose, coupled with my relative ignorance of the subject, I would rather not concur at the outset with a definition of the various schools. (For one thing, I am surprised to hear you call Schaeffer an evidentialist--I have called him a presuppositionalist for years. Like I said, I am largely ignorant of these differences) What I am hoping to have people contribute is the application of the system. Ie, "I am a presuppositionalist. First I would ask the author..."
BTW, I do not mean to limit the thread to the 2 systems mentioned so far, they are the only two that came to mind. But if anyone has another approach, please use that as well.
Is the use of presuppositional apologetics better than the use of evidential apologetics? <br><br>What do you think of this article?<br><br>http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/SC03-1057CDNotes.htm<br><br><br>I think a lot of good points are made in it, but does that mean evidence should not be used at all? I see "effective evangelism" as us getting the Gospel across to the nonbeliever; whether or not he responds to it by faith is out of our hands.<br><br><br><br>
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I would rather [color:red]not</font color=red> concur at the outset with a definition of the various schools.</font><hr></blockquote><p> Well if there is NO CLEAR definition of terms then I believe you will be discussing this for no reason at all. Without a firm definition(s) of the two sides then what have we to discuss? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/shrug.gif" alt="shrug" title="shrug[/img]<br><br>Basically, I would call myself in neither camp, but to some extents float in and out of both, i.e. I am always looking for evidence that confirms the TRUTH of God and His Word, which some see as mere suppositions, but personally I see as total fact.<br><br><ul> 1. the Scripture is true. This is not a presupposition, but a fact as confirmed by Christ, thus no argument. I see God as more than a mere pre-supposition...!<br>2. Since the Scripture is true, it provides its own evidence (1) by it own truthfulness (2) by God's confirming authority (3) by facts in history, et al.<br>3. Thus, to look at the article you posted I would simply say look at the Scripture alone and not at either system....., but evaluate them through faith in what the Scripure states....[/LIST] The measure of truth is Sola Scriptura! To believe in Sola Scriptura is more than a pre-supposition, i.e. an act of faith! And faith is the EVIDENCE.....
<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.
Hi all- Joe wrote: "The measure of truth is Sola Scriptura! To believe in Sola Scriptura is more than a pre-supposition, i.e. an act of faith! And faith is the EVIDENCE..... "<br><br>Christ gave a very clear discourse on evidence and it's reported in John 5:30-47.<br><br>My point is that while belief in the tenets of Sola Scriptura may be an act of faith, we can see that it certainly was not a believing unto salvation for those to whom Jesus was speaking!<br><br>best to you all-<br>Cecil
Cecil:<br><br>You wrote, quite correctly and to the point, in my opinion:<br><br>"My point is that while belief in the tenets of Sola Scriptura may be an act of faith, we can see that it certainly was not a believing unto salvation for those to whom Jesus was speaking!"<br><br>The scriptures repeatedly speak of faith that saves and faith that does not and to ignore this is foolish. Thus the question is "what is real saving faith and how can I know I have it".<br><br>The following quote from an article by J. Beeke gives part of Calvins take on the answer. He believed it was found in the nature of the subjective or inward evidence of salvation verses external evidence and the Holy Spirit's part in this process:<br><br><br>"Thus, Calvin's line of reasoning proceeds like this: (1) The purpose of election embraces salvation. (2) The elect are not chosen for anything in themselves, but only in Christ. (3) Since the elect are in Christ, the assurance of their election and salvation can never be found in themselves apart from Christ, nor in the Father apart from Christ. (4) Rather, their assurance is to be had in Christ; hence vital communion with Him is the basis of assurance.47 But the questions remain: how do the elect achieve this vital communion? How does such communion impart assurance? <br><br>Calvin's answer is pneumatological: the Holy Spirit applies Christ and His benefits to the hearts and lives of guilty, elect sinners, through which they are assured that Christ belongs to them and they to Him by saving faith.48 The Spirit especially confirms within them the reliability of God's promises in Christ. <br><br>Calvin advocates a cardinal and pervasive role for the Holy Spirit in the application of redemption. As personal comforter, seal, earnest, testimony, security, and anointing, the Holy Spirit bears witness to the believer's gracious adoption.49 To distinguish the reprobate from the elect, the Holy Spirit must subjectively seal an objective reliance upon God's promises as the primary ground for assurance. The reprobate may claim God's promises without experiencing the "feeling" (sensus) or "consciousness" of those promises.50 <br><br>When distinguishing the elect from the reprobate, Calvin feels compelled to speak more about what the Spirit does in us than what Christ does for us, for in the subjective aspect the line of demarcation is sharper. He speaks much of inward experience, of feeling, of enlightenment, of perception, even of "violent emotion."51 Though aware of the dangers of excessive introspection and subjectivity, Calvin also recognizes that the promises of God are sufficient for the believer only when the Spirit brings them within the scope and experience of faith.52 <br><br>By insisting that the Spirit's primary mode of bringing assurance is to direct the believer to embrace the promises of God in Christ, Calvin rejects any confidence being placed in the believer as he is in himself. Nevertheless, Calvin does not deny that a subordinate means to bolster assurance is through the Spirit as He works within the believer to bear fruit in good works and various marks of grace. Specifically, the Holy Spirit may assure the believer that he is not a reprobate ortemporary believer by revealing to him that he possesses "signs which are sure attestations"53 of faith, such as "divine calling, illumination by Christ's Spirit, communion with Christ, receiving Christ by faith, the embracing of Christ, perseverance of the faith, the avoidance of self-confidence, and fear."54 Though never foundational, this secondary support is highly beneficial for the "further establishment" of assurance.55 <br><br>Thus, Calvin does not present a denial of the practical syllogism so much as "a warning against its misuse and misinterpretation."56 The real issue at stake in the practical syllogism is not its presence in the thought of Calvin and the Calvinists, but the form it takes within their systems and the message it implies for both doctrine and life. For Calvin the practical syllogism must be in the context of great hallmarks of the Reformation: Scripture alone,57 faith alone, Christ alone, and the glory of God alone. Break one of these principles in teaching the practical syllogism, and the whole concept becomes a curse instead of a blessing. At best, works serve as an adjunct to faith in Christ. The practical syllogism may never replace the promises of God as the primary ground of assurance; it must always retain a secondary confirming role." <br><br>The whole article, entitled; "Does Assurance Belong to the Essence of Faith?" can be found at:<br><br>http://www.geocities.com/reformedchristian/BeekeAssurance.htm<br><br>This article explains how those who came after Calvin modified his teaching on the nature of assurance of faith to put an undue emphasis on the external rather than the internal work of the spirit and how this has become the prevailing view these days. <br><br>I believe this is the essence of the discussion here and addresses your quote above and brings some light to why some are satisfied with only and "objective" faith, and why such a faith does not "endure", though as Calvin points out elsewhere in the article, it may appear to be a saving faith, especially to those who wish to "speak peace to their own soul" and to those who have never been taught otherwise, in short, to those who exhault the bare letter over:<br><br> "For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; 1Thes 1:5"<br><br>And many like passages such as: "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life".<br><br><br>An interesting article.<br><br><br>Gerry <br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]My point is that while belief in the tenets of Sola Scriptura may be an act of faith, we can see that it certainly was not a believing unto salvation for those to whom Jesus was speaking!</font><hr></blockquote><p> And where may I add did I say say it did, or is a pre-supposition on your part for you definitely have no evidence, unless you take what I have said formerly from its initial setting and purpose, which of course you did!!!<br><br>This post is NOT about HOW people come to Christ--I think we all know that regeneration comes from the Holy Spirit first and then...... What we were discussing, which apparently you and Acts2027 missed, is the HOW TO share. Should we share from a PS or a E method? IMHO as I stated to sbc and reformed it is neither method by itself, but by the Scripture alone (which I do pre-suppose as the best evidence, thus I float in and out of both PS and E systems)........ please go back and re-read the posts for more clarification. I never said the unregenerate could believe Sola Scriptura (unless given faith to believe), but I did say that is the basis from which the Gospel should be shared with them...
As far as your request of me to pre-define my terms, the reason I have not done so is simply, I do not know a formal definition of the differences between the approaches! I have, however, heard something of them, and was hoping to learn more. Your definitions, discussions, and the links provided have indeed helped me grow in my understanding, and for that I am grateful.
What I am still hoping to see, however, is the [color:blue]real-life application of several apologetic approaches, by people knowledgable enough to do so. Hopefully that would engender both further discussion and a deductive understanding of the strengths and/or weakness of each system for those, like myself, who are hoping to see application rather than mere definition. And who knows, it might just help someone out there when they go to the office tomorrow and someone throws a copy of the Times article on their desk, saying, "What do you think about this?"
Is there any reason we can't return to my original request?
Well Paul I would look “briefly” at the article this way (this is just a very brief review of a few points…we could write a book against it given the proper amount of time and effort):<br><br><ul> 1. Should “The Virgin Birth of Christ” be celebrated by any denomination? IMHO no. I do not believe Mary would desire the honor and praise being pronounced upon her name. While Mary was an extraordinary woman she was also an ordinary woman, a sinner at best (Rom 3:23). Only the gift she received from God made her extraordinary. She with Scripture would set it right today and say, “No man can serve two masters…….”. According to the evidence of Scripture all worship is do our Lord and not Mary. (Here I have presumed the evidence of Scripture)<br><br>2. While the sarcasm of the article states [color:blue]“The Virgin Mary is an interesting prism through which to examine America's emphasis on faith because most Biblical scholars regard the evidence for the Virgin Birth, and for Mary's assumption into Heaven (which was proclaimed as Catholic dogma only in 1950), as so shaky that it pretty much has to be a leap of faith,”</font color=blue> one would immediately ask who all these biblical scholars are that merely “think” the Virgin Birth is on shaky ground. The Bible is true—thus what other evidence other than the Scripture do we need to confirm the miraculous birth of Christ. Only minds not renewed by the glorious Gospel of Christ would say the Virgin Birth is on shaky ground. The Christian presupposes the truthfulness of the Word of God as a standard of truth and direction. True knowledge depends on God’s prior knowledge, begins with the fear of the Lord (which these biblical scholars of the article reveal they have none), and requires submission to God’s Word. Any Bible Scholar that does not presuppose God’s word is merely in vain deception and submits himself rather to traditions of men and other futile reasoning’s of depravity. (Here I have presumed the evidence of Scripture and the proper Philosophical method of discerning truth).<br><br>3. The author quotes Jaroslav Pelikan, the great Yale historian and theologian. Why would one quote a historian and not the Scripture? Truly the author is using a slight of hand approach of deception to bring others to his view point of doubting the Virgin Birth! While the author’s quote of the great Yale historian and theologian was correct it was also out of context. Pelikan has stated in his five volume series, The Christian Tradition, "several times” the belief of the Virgin birth as established in history. One such quote says, [color:red]“It is probably to Ambrose, who in turn became the mentor of Augustine on these matters, that we should attribute the definitive establishment of a firm ‘casual relation between the virginal conception and the sinlessness of Christ’….”</font color=red> Of course, the witness of God is greater than man and thus we rest our case in Scripture against the warfare of the article itself quoting a mere mortal. (Here I have presumed the evidence of Scripture and used the evidence of the very man quoted to disprove the quotation given in the article.). [/LIST] Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.<br><br>I hope this helps. But, definitions are important and thus my other questions deemed to be posted....
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Is there any reason we can't return to my original request? </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I'm working on it Paul I am working on it. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]
Dear Joe,<br><br>Thank you! That's the sort of response I was hoping the thread would elicit, which I believe can lead to illumination and/or discussion.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]definitions are important and thus my other questions deemed to be posted</font><hr></blockquote><p>I completely agree with the importance of definitions, and never meant to imply they were not important. My family and catechism classes shudder whenever I start talking about a new term, because they know I am about to spend the next 10 minutes defining it. My reasons for not "pre-defining" the terms here were 1) I myself wanted to learn a great deal more about them, and 2) I hoped to do so in the context of a particular application.
Dear Joe,<br><br>Before getting to the particulars of your applied apologetic, I wanted to ask you to please clarify one sentence of yours.<br><br>You stated: [color:red]Should “The Virgin Birth of Christ” be celebrated by any denomination? IMHO no. </font color=red><br><br>From your explanation, I assume that you meant something like "should the virgin, who bore Christ be celebrated?"<br><br>Your choice of words in this sentence, however, makes it seem that the virgin birth itself is no exceptional value.[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/sad.gif" alt="sad" title="sad[/img]
