Presuppositionalism: A Biblical Approach to Apologetics

Dr. Paul S. Nelson, Associate Pastor at Sovereign Grace Baptist Church of Silicon Valley,  has released a book entitled "Presuppositionalism: A Biblical Approach to Apologetics" for free. 

The book is a compilation of lectures and articles on biblical apologetics.



Lecture by Dr. Nelson that goes with his book:

Matt Dillahunty v. Sye Ten Bruggencate

My comments on the Refining Reason Debate, with its topic, "Is it Reasonable to Believe God Exists?"  

Ten Bruggencate's opening statement sought to argue that any worldview, specifically Dillahunty's, which does not start with God is reduced to absurdity. He argues in favor of the topic by the following argument:

(1) It is reasonable to believe that which is true.              P->Q

(2) It is true that God exists                                             Q->R

(3) Therefore it is reasonable to believe God exists.        P->R

Rightly, Ten Bruggencate identifies premise (2) as the most controversial. So he sets his guns towards Dillahunty's worldview to indirectly prove (2). Ten Bruggencate goes about this task by pointing to the epistemic fruits of Dillahunty's worldview. Dillahunty's worldview requires solipsism to be, in principle, possible, if not actual. Dillahunty's worldview permits this on the grounds that solipsism cannot be disproven, and thus could be true, but he thinks this in no way impinges his worldview. Ten Bruggencate uses Dillahunty's admission to solipsism as a primary example of the absurdity that flows from unbelief. Ten Bruggencate goes to the second phase of his attack by chipping away at Dillahunty's theory of truth. Dillahunty defines truth as that which corresponds or coheres to reality. Bruggencate presses Dillahunty to provide sufficient justification, to know, Dillahunty's beliefs correspond or cohere to reality. Dillahunty concedes the problems Ten Bruggencate raise. So Dillahunty takes a reductionist view of knowledge and whittles it down to mere belief, one might say, opts for Fideism. 

Dillahunty counters Ten Bruggencate's arguments as arbitrary. In fact, he construes all forms of presuppositionalism as a method of utter arbitrariness. He then faults Ten Bruggencate for not demonstrating the uniqueness of Christianity.        

Dillahunty in his opening statement admits to arbitrarily selecting logic, truth, realism, and parsimony as presuppositions. Dillahunty's admission strikes me as Fideism. Likewise, Dillahunty refuses to defend any form of knowledge claims; and he equates any given belief as knowledge. Moreover, Dillahunty views the evidence for solipsism as underdetermined and thus he arbitrarily believes realism. I can't help but wonder if possible world semantics would show, by model logic, Dillahunty must espouse solipsism. Here is a feeble attempt:

1. It is possible for solipsism to be true in all possible worlds.

2. If it is possible that solipsism be true in all possible worlds then solipsism is necessarily true in some possible world.

3. If solipsism is necessarily true in some possible world, then it must be true in every possible world. 

4. If solipsism must be true in every possible world, then it must be true in the actual world.

5. If solipsism must be true in the actual world, then solipsism is true.   

If  Dillahunty grants premise (1) then he logically must affirm solipsism. I think Dillahunty misses Bruggencate's whole argument when he demands proof for exclusively Christianity. Dillahunty is interpreting Ten Bruggencate's argument through evidential lenses. Ten Bruggencate's argument is from the impossibility of the contrary. It is an argument against all tokens of the same type--namely non christian. Dillahunty does not see the necessity of presuppositions that, coheres well into a worldview and, has wide explanatory power.        

I would recommend Dillahunty read Dr. James Anderson's  first  and second reply  to my encounter with a fellow atheist fideist.  

Primer on Presuppositional Apologetics

I want to share a lecture by Pastor Dr. Paul S. Nelson on Presuppositional apologetics. He is a friend that, over the years, has helped me greatly understand the depth of Presuppositional Apologetics.

Presuppositionalism Made Simple

Too often there is more dispute on how Presuppositional apologetics should be performed and less practical instruction on how to put it to use. 

There are many great men who have made successful efforts to fill in these gaps in presuppositional apologetics application. John Frame, Greg Bahnsen, James Anderson, Jason Lisle and Sye Ten Bruggencate all come to mind. 

Where Do We Start?

We show existence, truth, goodness, justice, and beauty, can only be made sense of by the truth of Christianity alone. This can take effect in various ways. But it always involves comparing worldviews. We show Christianity to be true by demonstrating its logical opposite is false. Two principles must be followed in this process, (1) no one can be religiously neutral in their beliefs, and (2) no one, except God, can claim the rights of power and authority over all things, especially in intellectual or moral judgements. 

Some one-liner objections I recently encounter on the college campus. 

1. That's your interpretation. 

2. God is prideful

3. God is unloving if babies go to hell

4. The Bible is not God's word.

5. The Bible has been corrupted

6. Genocide is not justice. 
7. The heathen goes to hell without any hope. 

How can all these objections be answered properly without getting away from the gospel? All these questions can successfully be addressed by attacking the underlying presuppositions. Make God in all reasoning the ultimate standard. Man cannot be elevated to the position of God to judge Him. Man must be brought down intellectually to face his position before God--a mere limited creature dependent upon God for everything.   Let's try to do this. How would you answer these above one-liners?    

1. That's your interpretation. Often this objection is given to a particular passage or doctrinal teaching of scripture. You can always quote the disputed passage of Scripture. Ask the objector, "why do you say I am not interpreting this passage correctly?" And then proceed to tell the person its a quotation.  Notice the objector has made a fatal move in his objection. By pressing hard against the scripture's plain meaning, the objector substitutes its content with his desired meaning. He thinks the text has more than one valid interpretation. One interpretation is no better than another. The problem is the objector cannot possibly claim to know the text has multiple valid interpretations unless the objector also claims to interpret the text better than you. Thus the objector refutes himself. The objector claims, "nobody's interpretation is any better;" but in the same breath utters, "except my interpretation that nobody's interpretation is any better." To keep God first in handling this objection one can always simply say, "since you are limited in knowledge how can you know?  You are not God, yet you elevate yourself in the place of God to judge God. By who's authority, power, and right do you sit in judgement of God? If you arbitrarily appoint yourself as judge over God, you are no less than irrational, and no better than insane."                

2. God is prideful. This objection takes pride to be immoral. One could challenge the objector to make sense of morals without God. Or one can say the objector is a hypocrite, since he judges God as prideful, yet the objector makes the objection out of pride. He says in his heart, " at least I am not like that." The objector can rightly be corrected by biblical theology. God is the most perfect being and thus there is no pride that resides in Him. He ought to be praised, honored and glorified, not merely because he commands it, but, since he deserves it. He commands, deserves, and is worthy of, worship.    

3. God is unloving if babies go to hell. This is a sensitive issue which should be answered with precision and caution. I'd say Christ died for all those that will, or physically cannot (i.e. mentally disabled or infants), believe. Other plausible positions can be argued for as well. Let us assume though God sends babies to hell. How would this be unloving or unjust? Where can love or justice exist without God? God is the source of love and justice. Does not God have the right to do what He wants with His creation? Who are we, as limited humans, to question God? Is it not possible that God would still love them even in hell? The Scriptures teach us no one is innocent of sin. All humans are guilty of sin. Thus God would be perfectly just to send all mankind to hell. Yet God chose in His mercy to redeem and transform people from their sins in Jesus Christ. And I believe God, in His providence and compassion, saves those He has not given the time or physical ability to exercise faith in Christ to magnify His justice, mercy, love and grace.       

4. The Bible is not God's Word. Such an objection assumes the objecter knows the Bible is not God's Word. But how can a creature with limited knowledge know this? How does the objector know there is no evidence proving the Bible is God's Word?  Often this objection is made with a cluster of beliefs that drive it. So probe the objector with questions to get to the root of the problem. Underlying all these objections is the commitment that the objector is the standard of truth. This commitment must be challenged by the Bible itself. First, do this by showing the objector's prejudice against the Bible. Second, demonstrate the necessity of starting first with God to even approach the question of whether or not the Bible is or isn't God's Word. Third, reveal the glaring gaps in the objector's knowledge by explaining the historical reliability of the Scriptures, fulfilled prophecies, and archaeological  discoveries. Show the Bible alone provides us with explanation, consistency, coherence, conscience, hope, fulfillment and livability. It takes us from a limited perspective to an incorporation of the normative, existential and situational perspectives that finds completeness, an objective perspective, in Christ. That is to say, it brings us from the limited to the complete in Christ alone.         

5. The Bible has been corrupted. This objection can be taken as a shot in the dark. Simply ask, " can you prove this?" The objection is at its heart autobiographical information of the objector. It is merely the objector's opinion.   

6. Genocide is not justice. Why is genocide wrong to the objector since he rejects God? How can justice make sense if God is not taken as King in our beliefs? Once again, though, the objector is ignorant of Biblical theology. First, God has the right to dispose of His creation however He sees fit. Second, God is the locus of moral perfection, therefore, He alone is the standard of goodness. Third, all humans are guilty, so God can never be charged with Genocide.  God can only be seen as enforcing justice. 

7. The heathen goes to hell without any hope. There are multiple views on how to rightly answer this objection. I will simply say, that given general and/or special revelation, no one can claim to be without hope of knowing God since He has given us all sufficient knowledge of Himself. The heathen that goes to hell goes willfully rejecting God. He had enough revelation from God, to exercise faith in God, but He chose to fashion an idol in His place. 

David Robertson v. Matt Dillahunty

Here are my thoughts on the Unbelievable Podcast debate. The first debate centered on Robertson’s articulation of the traditional proofs for God’s existence, namely the cosmological argument, teleological argument, moral argument, and argument from religious experience.

Dillahunty attacked Robinson’s formulation of the teleological argument on the basis that it’s viciously circular. He objected that the argument builds its premises on the assumption God designed, and fine-tuned the universe then uses empirical data to extrapolate order and design to the conclusion of God. Dillahunty asserted that any given claimed fact must be contrasted to other known facts, for any given fact, to even be considered a fact.

 Robertson presented a type of Leibnizian cosmological argument. But Dillahunty claimed it was an argument from ignorance. Since, he thinks, there can be vital undiscovered information that would naturalistically explain the origin of the universe. So according to Dillahunty one is too rash to logically take a stand, on the origin of the universe, where science is still advancing. Therefore, Dillahunty commends the listeners to suspend judgment until all the relevant data can be assessed.

Robertson used the Nazi concentration camps as an instance of moral evil that presupposes an objective moral standard. Dillahunty simply asserted morality is based on nonmaleficence or beneficence. However, he goes on to say it is situational.

First, the teleological argument is not viciously circular. Since it presupposes what science depends on—the order, and design for any continuity of human experience in the past, present, and future. Second Dillahunty’s criterion of facts is self-refuting. His criterion states that any given claimed fact must be contrasted to other known facts, for any given fact, to even be considered a fact. This criterion would also apply to itself. But what can it contrast with to prove it a fact? As I see it Dillahunty’s criterion of facts cannot stand against its own tests. Moreover such a criterion assumes knowledge possible given Dillahunty's viewpoint. Yet this begs the question. Furthermore, the same problems with correspondence and coherence theories of truth can be applied to Dillahunty's view of facts.  Third to criticize an argument on the basis of it being predicated on ignorance assumes there is knowledge, or alternative positions, which an argument overlooks. But if neither knowledge or alternative positions can be provided the criticism is groundless. If anything such an accusation appeals to the mere possibility of further knowledge or alternative positions but no actual knowledge or alternative positions. Therefore such a critcism should be regarded as a desperate attempt to revive a failed position, only to be left in resounding defeat.

How can one know what is relevant data and what is not? Especially considering Thomas Kuhn’s insights on theory ladenness?  When someone suspends judgment is not one making a judgment against those positions that require belief? Put in another way, if one suspends judgment on a viewpoint that claims it is always wrong to suspend judgment, is not one already judged the viewpoint in advance to be wrong?

If morality is based on the well-being of others, who or what defines what is ‘well’? In any case, regardless of how humanity “is,” what is it that determines how humanity “ought” to be?  How is it humans are morally equal? I think Dillahunty’s position reduces to relativism, ethical subjectivism, or moral nihilism.      

          

Atheism, Unicorns, Santa, and Pixies

Preliminary Remarks

I listened to the Unbelievable? Podcast this week; and to my surprise the atheist guest claimed the status of belief in God is equal to belief in unicorns (or Santa, and Pixies). 

Presuppositions

What are we to reply to atheists with such a claim? First, any reasonable atheist would not conclude belief in God is the same as the belief in unicorns. Since such a claim entails the absurd conclusion that the most brilliant Christian philosophers (e.g. Alvin Plantinga) are deluded. Second, for an atheist to claim that two beliefs are equal requires justification. Anything short of justification for a claim is mere arbitrariness. Third, why think belief in God is like the belief in unicorns? Why not think of belief in God is like belief in other minds, the law of contradiction, or the external world? 

In fact, to the Christian, belief in God presupposes the creator/creature distinction. God is necessarily: triune, infinite, perfect, omnipotent, omnicient, and omnibenevolent. God created man in His image to be personal, relational, rational, moral, and administerial. Thus man is contingent, finite, limited and dependent upon God for everything. God extends some of His attributes to man. In such a way that God is necessary for knowledge, truth, goodness, and beauty. In other words, man must presuppose God (and borrow from Christianity) to make sense of knowledge, truth, goodness, and beauty.

  

Anderson Lectures

A book recommendation, for James N. Anderson's new apologetics book recently released, plus a link to some of his lectures here.

Clark's Thought

After some criticism from a friend, on my previous post of Clark and Van Til, I repost this article on Dr. Gordon Clark to be more balanced (i.e. less VanTillian). This is a repost from my Clark blog (here).

I would like to just highlight a few of the important features of Dr. Gordon Haddon Clark's system of thought. For a more complete introduction to Dr. Clark's thought see Gary W. Crampton's, Trinity Review, entitled, Scripturalism: A Christian Worldview (here)

Epistemology

Dr. Gordon Clark first would start with epistemology. Since before there can be talk of objects there must be established a system that can bring together subjects and objects. There must be an epistemic axiom, a starting point, that makes knowledge possible. Dr. Clark would argue that knowledge is possible, not by sensation or reason but, by divine propositional revelation. 

 Significantly, contrary to what Empiricism maintains, sensations can never convey or organize information that has truth-value. Nor can knowledge come from the senses in virtue of the ontology, ambiguity, unreliability, and relativity of sensations. Yet God created all mankind with innate propositional knowledge. However, this knowledge can only come to man's mind by Jesus Christ, the Divine Logos, revealing the propositional Word of God. 

As the Lord Jesus Christ, the Divine Logos, reveals the propositional Word of God to our minds we come to know the only axiom that can furnish us knowledge is the Bible alone, God's very thoughts and words for man. By the same token, we know the biblical axiom's deduced propositions entail consistency, coherence and richness to provide a system of thought that can account for Religion, Knowledge, Science, History, Politics, and Ethics.     

Metaphysics

It is disputed among Clarkian scholars if Clark was an Absolute Idealist. Dr. Robert Reymond and Dr. Ronald Nash both thought this. Dr. Reymond writes,

"Quoting Acts 17:28, “In him we live, and move, and have our being,” Clark affirms that “the New Testament is clear: we live and move and have our being in God’s mind,” and he then draws the conclusion that “our existence in the mind of God puts us in contact with the ideas in the mind of God.” Quoting 1 Corinthians 2:16 and Philippians 2:5, Clark asserts that these verses mean that “our mind and Christ’s mind overlap or have a common area or coincide in certain propositions” (ibid., p. 406–407). This obviously means for Clark that our thoughts, indeed, our very existence, are real only in the sense that God is thinking us and our thoughts. But this is a form of absolute idealism."(1)

I tend to be more charitable of Clark and view his thought in the tradition of St. Augustine who gleaned from the insights of Plato. So in my interpretation of Clark's metaphysics he is a realist.  There is an objective world independent of human minds. However, God is the creator, sustainer, and goal of all things. And thus God's mind is the standard and power that sustains and relates human minds and the world together. Therefore, there is a distinction between the Creator and creation. 

In Clark's view, God determines all things. By God's decree man was created in the very image of God. Whereby God communicated to man the same quality of rationality. Such that God and man think the same thoughts. Moreover, God's knowledge is exhaustive while man's knowledge is limited and dependent upon divine revelation. 

Some have suggested Clark brings God down to man's level since there is no significant creator/creature distinction. But quite the opposite, the distinction between the Creator and creature lies in the very designation of the 'Creator' and 'creature.' The former is the originator, the latter is not. More can be cited but I find it unnecessary here.  

Ethics

Dr. Clark held to a divine command theory of ethics. So he emphasized God's sovereignty over any moral intuitions man may have; and he grounded objective moral values in God's will and decree. Since divine simplicity tells us that God wills His own existence, and character. We conclude then, God also wills what commandments man ought to obey. But not being himself bound by the commandments He establishes for man. 

For Dr. Clark there is no such thing as free-will, man is accountable simply by the fact that God is the highest authority, who has established obligations to man, that will hold man responsible for disobedience. As Dr. Clark writes 

“God is neither responsible nor sinful, even though He is the only ultimate cause of everything. He is not sinful because in the first place whatever God does is just and right. It is just and right simply in virtue of the fact that He does it. Justice or righteousness is not a standard external to God to which God is obligated to submit. Righteousness is what God does…God’s causing a man to sin is not sin. There is no law, superior to God, which forbids Him to decree sinful acts. Sin presupposes a law, for sin is lawlessness. Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God. But God is “Ex-lex.” (2)

---------------------

(1) Robert Reymond. The Justification of Knowledge. p.72.

(2) Gordon H. Clark. Christian Philosophy, vol 4. Unicoi: Trinity Foundation, 2004. p. 269.
See also Sean Gerety's recent post, God is Not Responsible For Sin. 

Biblical Apologetics

The Lord impressed my heart to preach these two sermons, at my church Free Grace Baptist Church of Yuba City. Here is the order I preached them, with my handout below: 

1. Biblical Apologetics: Principles and Practice here 

2. Biblical Apologetics: The Existence of the Biblical God here

Biblical Apologetics: Principles and Practice

A. The Definition of Apologetics  (1 Peter 3:15-16)

Biblical apologetics can be defined as a rational defense of the Christian faith. 

B. The Purpose of Apologetics

The purpose of apologetics is to glorify God (1 Cor 10:31, Romans 11:36).  

   Why should Christians engage in apologetics?

1.   God commands us to engage in apologetics.

2.   It can strengthen our faith.

3.   It can make evangelism more effective.

4.   It can promote zeal for Theology and Evangelism.

5.   It can put the unbeliever to shame.

 C. The Method of Apologetics

The Apostle Paul our Example  (Acts 17:16-36)

Presupposition: an ultimate belief or conviction that is the standard for judging, evaluating, and interpreting knowledge, reality and morals. 

Worldview: a set of presuppositions (i.e. ultimate beliefs or convictions that are the standards for judging, evaluating, and interpreting knowledge, reality and morals).

Paul’s example shows us the Biblical method of apologetics is presuppositional.

D. The Practice of Apologetics 

We are to transparently presuppose, proclaim, and argue from the necessity and authority of God’s revelation in Scripture and nature. 

James Anderson explains,

"The core of presuppositionalism can be encapsulated in two foundational principles: the No-Neutrality Principle and the No-Autonomy Principle.42

According to the No-Neutrality Principle, no one can approach any intellectual endeavor from a position of strict religious neutrality. Whenever we apply our minds to a particular subject matter, we inevitably bring with us a host of presuppositions...

The second principle states that there are ultimately only two kinds of philosophical precommitments—those that are for God and those that are against God—and that only the former are acceptable. In short, either we are committed to the idea that God and his Word are our ultimate authority and standard in every area of life, including our intellectual endeavors, or we are committed (at least implicitly) to some other ultimate authority and standard—which amounts to a rejection of God and his Word. Either we acknowledge that we are creatures whose thoughts should be conformed to the mind of our Creator or we don’t. And those who locate their ultimate authority and standard elsewhere than in the mind of God invariably try to locate it in the mind of man. (What other relevant mind is there?) Consequently, what is reasonable, plausible, possible, and so on turns out to be what conforms to our own “natural” patterns of thought. As noted earlier, the word autonomy literally means “self-law.” An autonomous thinker is one whose mind has become a law unto itself: not subject to any higher authority or corrective standard. According to the No-Autonomy Principle, this understanding of human reason must be firmly rejected.

Taken together, these two presuppositionalist principles assert that everyone thinks with some kind of religious bias, and that the only acceptable religious bias is one submissive to the ultimate authority of God and his Word.”[1]

As Christians we are to practice apologetics from these two principles. Ideally, every argument we make to defend the faith in some way should conform to these principles.

John Frame’s Apologetics Method Outline

I. Normative

A. Always presuppose the truth of God’s Word.

B. Identify the non-Christian’s presuppositions, vs. his claim to neutrality.

C. Show his rationalism (belief the human mind is the ultimate criterion of truth) and irrationalism (the belief there is no ultimate criterion of truth.).

D. Show that he cannot justify or account for meaning and truth. 

II. Situational

A. Present facts that confirm the Christian claims, always presupposing the Word of God. 

B. Present facts that call in question non-Christian views. 

III. Existential

A. Present your arguments with clarity and appropriate passion. 

B. Show that the Christian faith alone is ultimately satisfying. 

C. Speak the truth in love. 

D. Testify to God’s grace in your own life. 

E. Pray that the Spirit will bring the inquirer to faith.

 

Tips for Apologetics

1.   Study: Study and memorize the Bible, Systematic Theology, Evangelism and Apologetics to know what you believe, so you can Biblically preach and defend it. Apologetics presupposes Theology, and Evangelism. One cannot properly engage in Biblical Apologetics without engaging in Biblical Theology with the goal of Evangelism.

2.   Prayer: In apologetics one’s defense is only as good as one’s offense. So both study and prayer must be properly indulged in first before engaging in apologetics with the unregenerate. Remember all men have a sufficient knowledge of God but suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Only God can open the unregenerate eyes so we ought to pray God would do so in our apologetic encounters. Apologetics can only show the foolishness of rejecting the gospel. But God can make the gospel and our defense effective.

3.   Respect: Respect the unregenerate as made in the image of God. Don’t assume you know what the unregenerate believes even if he associates himself with a particular religion. Let the unbeliever articulate his views and arguments. When refuting the unbeliever always refute and articulate the unbeliever’s position accurately. Further, always refute the strongest argument the unbeliever can make in favor of his position.

4.   Wisdom: When dealing with the unbeliever’s arguments against or from the Bible always read the scriptures in context and look up the original Hebrew or Greek meaning. Since often times the unbeliever takes scriptures out of context or twists the original meaning of any given passage.  Moreover, we should anticipate the unbeliever’s objections and arguments.

5.   Fellowship: Talk among believers about theology, evangelism, and apologetics. Fellow Christians can learn and encourage one another. Moreover, Christians possess spiritual resources, skills, and experiences that can be shared to proclaim and defend the faith.     

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Biblical Apologetics: The Existence of the Biblical God

I.   Cultural Climate: Unbelief

II.  Knowing God Exists

     1. General and Special Revelation (Romans 1:16-25; 2:14-15)

     2. The Holy Spirit’s Testimony (Romans 8:16)

III. Showing God Exists

     A. Proper Motives     

     B. Presuppositions, Proof, and Persuasion 

     C. Arguments for God’s Existence

1. Cosmological Argument (Col 1:16-17) 

 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
 2. The universe began to exist,

 3. Therefore the universe has a cause.[2]

Unbelievers claim the universe is eternal.

Problems

1. Such a claim is arbitrary.

2. It is inconsistent with the unbeliever’s faith in philosophy and science. Since both support the beginning of the universe. 

Philosopher Peter Kreeft gives a helpful analogy:

“Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it. . . et cetera, etcetera, ad infinitum. No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it. Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, God.” ^[3]

Christianity makes sense of the origin of the universe.

2. Teleological Argument (Col 1:16-17)

          

Unbelievers appeal to evolution to dodge design. However, if God didn’t design everything, we cannot trust our minds to tell us any truths.

Unbelievers appeal to chance and evolution.

Problems

1. If evolution is true we cannot trust our minds.

2. If the universe is a byproduct of random chance then anything can happen in the universe (e.g. Donkeys popping into existence from nothing).

3. We cannot make sense of chance without the presupposition of order.

Christianity accounts for the exquisite: fine-tuning, order, purpose and design in the universe.

 3. Moral Argument (Romans 2:14-15)

1. If God does not exist then objective moral values and duties do not exist,

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist,

3. Therefore, God exists.

Unbelievers claim there are no objective moral values.

Problems

1.Their actions betray their beliefs.

2.There would be no distinction between right and wrong.

Christianity makes sense of objective moral values and duties.

4. Ontological Argument (Acts 17:25)

1. God has all perfections.

2. Necessary existence is perfection.

3.Therefore, God exists.[4]

Christianity makes sense of logical (e.g. If p, then q, p therefore q), conceptual, (e.g. “necessity” 2+2=4) and causal (every effect has a cause) necessity.

5. The Resurrection of Christ (1 Cor 15:3-11)

1. Jesus died by crucifixion

2. Jesus’ tomb was found empty.

3. The origin of the Christian faith: Jesus’ disciples were transformed and sincerely believed that He rose from the dead and appeared to them.

4. Paul, the church persecutor, was converted to Christianity and willing to die for his faith.

5. James, the skeptic, was converted to Christianity and willing to die for his faith.

Unbelievers respond by the swoon, hallucination, conspiracy, and twin brother explanations. Yet all of these alternative explanations are historically discredited.  

Christianity makes sense of the resurrection of Christ.

6.Transcendental Argument (1 Cor 1:20)

Unless Christianity is true, we cannot prove or know anything.

Unbelievers charge this argument as fallacious. They say given enough time they will be able to provide a foundation for human thought and experience without Christianity. However centuries have passed and unbelievers are still without a foundation for human thought and experience. To resist Christianity with hope to find an alternative foundation is blind faith. Consequently, by admitting Christianity provides the foundation for human thought and experience unbelievers acknowledge defeat.  

Christianity makes sense of human thought and experience.              

7. Personal Experience (John 14:21)

Christianity makes sense of Christians’ personal experiences.

---

[1] http://www.proginosko.com/docs/Frame_Festschrift_Essay.pdf

James N. Anderson, “Presuppositionalism and Frame’s Epistemology,” in John J. Hughes, ed., Speaking the Truth in Love: The Theology of John M. Frame (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009)pp.447-448.

[2] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith; Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books. 1994 p.92.

^[3] http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

[4] John Frame. Apologetics to the Glory of God (P&R, Philipsburg 1994) p.115.

Hope they edify!

Excellent Apologetics Seminar

Check out this worldview apologetics seminar by James N. Anderson here. 

Faith Before Reason?

I believe faith is the foundation for reason. Since one cannot reason apart from prior affirming by faith that reason reliably gives one truth. In other words, a faith commitment must be made for reason before one can reason.  If one denies this position, then he/she must show reason is the foundation for faith. However,  if this is the case,  then one cannot assume reason gives one truth.  Since such an assumption is a faith commitment. If one does not by faith assume the validity of reason one is left in skepticism. Nevertheless, some may still insist that one cannot make a commitment without first affirming reason to distinguish between faith and reason. I think such a criticism looses sight of the issue. It confuses between semantics and ontology. But even if I am wrong here, the problem still remains that the very thing in question is if one can affirm anything without a prior faith commitment. I wonder if my concerns can be put in a syllogism? Perhaps these will do?   

Modus tollens

1. If reason precedes faith then reason is affirmed by reason and not faith. 

2. Reason cannot be affirmed by reason (since it is viciously circular).

3. Therefore, reason cannot precede faith.

Disjunctive

1. Either faith precedes reason, or reason precedes faith (This is based on the law of contradiction). 
2. Reason cannot precede faith (The very thing in question is if reason can be trusted without faith)
3. Therefore, faith precedes reason.

Yes, I draw this conclusion with reason, by faith, in the Triune God of Scripture.

Now some have tried to dodge the conclusion I have drawn by denying premise (2) in the first argument. They say it is not circular. I don't see how it isn't. It clearly begs the question. Maybe reason is taken as an axiom, like in Geometry, but then it is unprovable. Or maybe reason is just assumed arbitrarily. In either case, I don't see how my conclusion can be avoided. 

Check out:

http://youtu.be/1JjiClztcwQ