3 comments

1. 

   Comment by Horeb's Cave on August 13, 2010 at 9:18 pm

   OK, just for the sake of discussion – Why devote so much time exercising your left brain to the nth degree on this when, even if true, (and I believe it is) Van Til/Bahnsen presuppositional apologetics is a classic form of “petitio principii” or begging the question? If arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise, how likely is it that you ever convince the other person to simply beg the question with you?

   At best, you may defeat his/her presuppositions as inferior to ours, but obviously there is no “proof” of TAG, only faith. So – how convincing is it to argue our Christian worldview by using lots of semantics and syllogism, and throw in some cool latin words like I did above, but in actuality just say lots of ways “I’m right because based on my assumptions that I’m right you must be wrong so its clear we must agree I’m right”.

   So, besides being, admit it – fun, and giving our cranial synapses a workout, how effective an evangelical method has it been shown to be? Kind of like the question – “given the legions of 5 point TULIP Calvinists and Arminian adherents, since the debate still rages between the brightest of theologians after 5 centuries, is it worth debating/church splits/denominationalism once you are sure where you yourself stand?”

   I’m just sayin … 🙂 Look forward to your response RK

2. 

   Comment by RazorsKiss on August 14, 2010 at 2:43 pm

   It’s hardly “classical” petitio principii, since there is no possible way for it be, as there is no true circularity possible. The foundation is absolute – self-sufficient and self-existent. Therefore, there can be nothing to “support” it, and therefore be truly circular. Epistemologically, it’s circular, in a sense, but not viciously so. What is often not examined is that every other position is circular – but viciously so. Since it is viciously circular, they can’t state anything, less object to anything, from that position.

   That’s the point of TAG – demonstrating that the proof that God exists is that without Him, you can’t prove anything. I’m still curious as to why it would be assumed that we’re after this for mere intellectual exercise. What the above post is intended to show is that *any* argument can *only* be made with the preconditions given by the Christian worldview, and are incoherent outside of it. TAG demonstrates that without presupposing god, you can’t prove anything. This is showing that only by arguing transcendentally, can you even use logic at all. It’s showing the impossibility of being a consistent unbeliever. As Schaeffer would put it, driving them to despair.

   You’re not “just saying” – but that’s my answer 🙂 There is indeed a “proof” to TAG – an indirect one, as needs be, when there is a constant antithesis between you and the unbeliever on every point – and to answer your later discussion, there is a constant antithesis between you and other believers when they think by the wisdom of the world, and not the widsom of God – which is why there are always theological debates. Unity is found in truth, not in shades of error – and there is only one truth. Since this is so, it is not only crucial, but not necessary, that we be transformed by the renewal of our minds.

   Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.

   ~Rom 12:1-3

3. 

   Comment by Horeb's Cave on August 14, 2010 at 9:26 pm

   Really good discussion response, very well done/helpful apologetic. I can use several of your thoughts in my own slow but sure evangelism in the workplace of an avowed atheist and a wobbling deist – an old(er!) dog can truly learn a few new tricks. I have several follow-on questions – something I think I still disagree with, something you can explain further, and a case where I would appreciate you “unzipping” some nomenclature for me you’re clearly used to using that I’m not familiar with:
   1) You said – “It’s hardly “classical” petitio principii, since there is no possible way for it be, as there is no true circularity possible. The foundation is absolute – self-sufficient and self-existent. Therefore, there can be nothing to “support” it, and therefore be truly circular.” It seems you just grouped three unsupported presuppositions together to “support” your a priori conclusion – a) no possible way to be begging the question b) no true circularity possible c) foundation is absolute. These may all be true statements, but I don’t see why they aren’t just more examples of “demonstrating a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion” – the “classical” definition of begging the question/petitio principii.
   2) Help me with some nomenclature, it might make your argument clearer to me: what is meant by “true” circularity vs “vicious” circularity?
   3) You said – “TAG demonstrates that without presupposing god, you can’t prove anything.” I grant that TAG posits this, but (you should enjoy this) how does TAG prove this? And a corollary, even if TAG indirectly proves God exists, how does it prove the Christian worldview God is the One that exists?
   4) I’m not positing that presup apologetics IS mere intellectual exercise, but asking (truly) for some examples or an understanding where it is efficacious toward bringing about a saving faith in Jesus Christ and consequent committed discipleship. In lieu of an apologetic that shows/supports this efficacy, I WOULD posit that it may be a mere intellectual exercise. Apologetics is honorable and expected of each Christian to the extent we are capable, but any effective line of apologetics must do what you rightly quoted above – “prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” I would certainly agree understanding the precepts of presup apologetics (e.g. those you started this thread with) clearly meets the first part of that sentence for the believer – becoming “transformed by the renewing of your mind”. I’m asking for evidence it is effective in “proving” anything to anyone else, i.e. the second part of the command sentence, the part that the world can see/react to following (your) internal transformation/renewing.
   3) You said – “there is a constant antithesis between you and other believers when they think by the wisdom of the world, and not the widsom of God – which is why there are always theological debates. Unity is found in truth, not in shades of error – and there is only one truth.” No doubt antitheses exist when believers have a theological debate on Calvinism vs Arminianism. We both agree 5 point Calvinism, to the best of our ability, appears most consistent with the totality of Scripture. However, for many centuries both “camps” use dozens of Scripture verses for their evidence, both sides think theirs is the wisdom of (Christian worldview) God, all debating believe their conclusion is the “Truth”, brilliant theologians (most not thinking more highly of himself that he ought) of either stripe write eloquently and persuasively. My question again was about efficacy – help me understand why the DEBATE is efficacious. A believer’s personal conclusion after appropriate study/prayer should inform his/her evangelistic approach. But, evangelism by those on both sides of the debate appears to result in equally saved souls. What then is the impetus for constant debate? Is there a point at which one/both contestants admit unbreakable intransigence? How spirited should one be? So – my question is what is YOUR normal modus operandi? Why?
   4) my “I’m just sayin …” was my typical weak attempt at a common colloquial to keep things light. My affection and respect for you remains – presuppositional. 🙂 So I’m still just sayin …(!)

The comments are closed.