Do You Believe in Absolutes?

I am not sure I know what specifically you mean when you say you are a presuppositionalist, but I do agree that we must have the presupposition of the Bible to form our philosophy and theology.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/03/21/feedback-logic-over-bible

Have you ever watched Dr. Jason Lisle's talk on "Nuclear Strength Apologetics" and heard his irrefutable argument?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media#/video/ondemand/nuclear-strength-apologetics

 

What is the purpose of the school of apologetics called presuppositionalism in regard to unbelievers?

Surely those unbelievers will not be able to understand the truth apart from the receiving of the Spirit?:

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God" (1 Cor.2:11-12).

There is only one way of receiving the Spirit and that is by believing the gospel, as evidenced by the following rhetorical question asked by Paul:

"I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?" (Gal.3:2).

Why not just cut to the chase and preach the gospel to unbelievers?

I cannot see any purpose for the school of apologetics called presuppositionalism. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Thanks!

 

From Atheism - An irrational Worldview

Most of us reason based on our own experiences... but how do we know the memory of our experiences is reliable? There are certainly presuppositions we have to use to even trust our senses enough to believe there is a God.

 

I do not, as I stated before I am a presuppositionalist. That is not how presuppositionalists prove anything. We acknowledge there are presuppositions that everyone holds. I believe you must hold to one. the issue is whether your presuppositions are accurate or not. Bahnsen explains what are accurate presuppositions is the issue.

 

3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.

The context shows that David is describing their SINFUL NATURE as it characterizes them from birth. This is self-evident in verses 4-5.

The context is repentance over his sin as an adult and in the case of Uriah and Bathsheba. Your interpretation is rediculous as what mother is not a sinner when they conceive children! To imply that he was conceived out of wedlock is without any historical or Biblical evidence.

This text like the former is admission that he born a sinner by nature and thus his sins in connection with Uriah and Bathsheba simply demonstrate and manifest that sin nature.

God is the author of physical life but these texts do not support your position at all.

He was not concieved by a sinful woman as other humans were. He was conceived by the Spirit of God without a human father. It takes a father and mother to concieve a child naturally.

No, I did not hate my children and to insinuate that is absurd! You are sorely mistaken about your daughter and you are looking through rose colored glasses which will be shattered before long.

If your position had any truth the bible would never say that foolishness is "bound up in the heart of a child" and never would warn against sparing the rod but just simply say love your child and you will never have any discipline problems. Your position is rediculous and manifestly unbiblical.

All men fear death because it is unknown and because many know they must pay for their sins. Fear is not the cause of sin nor is it the cause of death - that is pure false doctrine. We were "MADE SINNERS" by "ONE MAN'S OFFENCE not by fear of death!

 

I would listen to the Bahnsen debate that I posted. Everyone holds to presuppositions that they do not prove and are circular. We believe that the system must be reviewed based upon their presuppositions. It is my view that all other systems are irrational unless you hold onto the Christian worldview. Thus, we show the atheist how their system is a failure based on their own presuppositions and that the only one that stands is the Christian viewpoint. It is through regeneration will they believe, so then we turn to the Bible and Special Revelation.

 

Answers in Genesis, while not officially presuppositional in their approach, is very sympathetic and often employ our apologetical methods. I have much respect for their honest in this regards.

 

It doesn't! If you say that General Revelation is more trustworthy than Special Revelation and should be the foundation of philosophy, you prove my point by quoting Scripture as your basis.

Yet, in General Revelation it shows that everyone rejects General Revelation. It is only through Special Revelation do people change their mind and renew their mind. that is the point of Romans.

Yet, if you use Scripture, you are saying your presupposition is Scripture as your basis. Yet, you said it is not accurate to go to Scripture, it is like looking through coke bottle bottoms, and thus not clear. So, I am waiting for a naturalistic or General Revelation evidence to support your belief. If you can't you are proving your own argument is inadequate.

 

The Bible is clear, while there are some minor differences the Bible is still perspicuous. I would not say that a Presbyterian or a Sovereign Grace Ministries believer is not a Christian. We have essentials in which we agree. There are minor differences, but no major issues. It is when people replace the Bible with modernism/liberalism/philosophy do they no longer become a Christian.

 

Intuition is not proof. There is nothing rational about it. Rather, it is an excuse for irrationality.

 

BTW, prove to me there is a God. I cited a great debate on the issue that says that God exists because of the impossibility of anything else. Yet, you have not proven anything.

 

The problem with your "stubborn heart" rampage is that General Revelation is insufficient to turn the stubborn heart. Only Special Revelation can do that. This is the entire point of Romans.

 

If I took out out of context, I am sorry. However, explain what you meant by those phrases. You seem to base Special revelation as secondary to General. I base General Revelation secondary to Special. You believe Special Revelation is not as trustworthy or clear as General. I believe General Revelation is not as trustworthy or clear as Special. How is that wrong?

 

the difference is that you believe Scripture is okay to make a point, but you believe it is inadequate. Thus, I am asking you to make your points rationally without Scripture. If Scripture is not to be trusted, you cannnot use it to make your point. I want you to make your point without the Bible. Why? I can make my point using Scripture, but you will reject my arguments on the perspicuity and other doctrines of the Bible. Thus, I want to hold you to the standard within your worldview.

If II Timothy 3:16-17 is accurate, then we must use the Scripture first and foremost. To argue to old argument. Your side would say that man creates the Word of God (General or Special Revelation). I say that the Word of God has always created man. From Genesis 1:1, God spoke and created. With Abraham, he called him, in the New Testament he created us to be new. The Word of God is what creates man, it is authoritative.

There were no evidence. His statement was not a rational proposition, evidence, and conclusion.

To say that we judge scripture is really arrogant. God's Word is not judged by man, but judges man. Like with Job, to question God's Word is saying we are superior to God. Rather, my point is to say that the Word should not be subject to me, but I am subject to God's Word.

II Timothy 3:16-17 refers to God's Word as "God-Breathed", this is directly from God and is an intimate aspect of God. This is good for a number of things like doctrine, reproof, training in righteousness that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. You wish to say that it is insufficient. In other words, we need something else to make us thoroughly equipped if you are right. That mentality contradicts II Timothy 3:16-17. In fact, we should "Preach the word" (II Timothy 4:1-2). The focus of our entire Christian life is Special Revelation, not General.

By definition, Scripture is Special revelation and not General Revelation. This is theology 101.

Your presupposition is a circular reason. You base choice upon your own definition of choice and thus you think you proved something. This is clearly circular. You have yet to prove choice is even accurate.

Calling my philosophical statement is silly is okay, I really don't care. But you have yet to prove morality apart from Scripture.

Secondly, morality is legislated but that is not a rational basis for morality. this morality is made up or they rely upon God. I could address this, but I will just refer you to Bahnsen's debate that I have previously cited and asked you to read. Without God, morality is a figment of your imagination. You cannot prove morality without God.

Yes, it is impossible to prove Hitler was wrong without God. As you cannot have universal abstracts without the God of the Bible. I ask, prove to me universal abstracts apart from special revelation. This is a major philosophical debate and one you have not engaged in. Again, I point you to Bahnsen's debate.

You can argue based on intuition. So can a Muslim argue that they should kill all those who do not believe in Allah and say it is intuitive. Hindus can say that child rape is good. Romans in the 1st Century said it was good to have sexual relations with boys at young age. They believed it was evident.

You have not showed how one can come to the conclussion that morality exists apart from Scripture. The fact is, nothing can be proven without Scripture. You can say "intuition" but if one person's intuition disagrees with another then who is right? The fact is, you have nothing to argue except that you think I am wrong and you call me names in making your argument.

 

Again, listen to Bahnsen. I disagree and I think you can read Van Til to see that you can develop theology and philosophy. Yet, you also say that the Bible is like looking through the bottom of a coke bottle while General Revelation is more trustworthy. Thus, I think the conclusion is simple, you dont' think Scripture is clear and trustworthy.