Apologetic Methodologies III
One strength of the classical approach to apologetic is that it does not take into account the inerrancy of the bible in its proof of God's existence. For the evidentialist, it does not take into the fact that the bible is an inspired text and therefore treated the bible as a historical document as the rest such as Homer. The presuppositional approach is a wholly different approach altogether.
The central basis for a presuppositionalist is that for every argument we make, we have certain basic presuppositions that we cannot run away with. Because of the noetic effect of sins, we are incapable, therefore, of deriving proper knowledge outside of the word of God. Moreover, since we assume something as basic everytime we make a proposition, why not let the word of God be the basic presupposition of knowledge? In other words, the presuppositional approach to apologetics is to presuppose the truth of the Word of God to prove the authenticity of the Word of God.
Essentially, I would argue that presuppositionalism, in its purest form advocated by Cornelius Van Til, is a form of fideism which allows the tools of apologetic. Van Til, or in fact the presuppositionalists that I have read, are not adverse to using proofs such as historical proofs or other arguments that classical apologists advocate. However, it is their contention, from what I have understood, that the word of God has to be the starting point of any apologetic for the case for God.
I wonder if this is really the case. This really begs the question (though I believe the presuppositionalists will be able to defend this robustly) if we can really take the word of God as an appropriate starting point for apologetics. Certainly when Paul presented his case on the unknown God to the Greeks, he did not start with the word of God to prove God. Why would anyone want to believe that the word of God is the starting point for knowledge? Don't get me wrong, I believe in the word of God, every single word in the bible and I think that the Word of God depicts clearly the human conditions and the solutions for them. However, what about those who refused to take the bible as the word of God? I think this presents a problem for presuppositionalism, and indeed there is no reason for me to just take the word of God as it is if I am not even a believer in the first place.
Presuppositional basis for apologetic is a sound one if I believe in the word of God, but not when I am a non-believer. Initially when I first read the arguments, I found myself agreeing with what John Frame mentioned. However, further thoughts and reflections convinced me that my approach in apologetics will never end up this route precisely because of the premise on the condition of the human heart, even though I need to agree that our apologetic needs to be grounded in the Word of God, but the basis for our case needs not be if we can properly formulate our test for truth. In fact, it is my conviction that our case for God will be even more convincing if we are able to derive our conclusion using what people would think as 'secular' methodology. The classical approach and the evidential approach are the best examples, and perhaps the most convincing approaches I have read so far.
Will post up my last post on apologetic methodology on Reformed Epistemology.
The central basis for a presuppositionalist is that for every argument we make, we have certain basic presuppositions that we cannot run away with. Because of the noetic effect of sins, we are incapable, therefore, of deriving proper knowledge outside of the word of God. Moreover, since we assume something as basic everytime we make a proposition, why not let the word of God be the basic presupposition of knowledge? In other words, the presuppositional approach to apologetics is to presuppose the truth of the Word of God to prove the authenticity of the Word of God.
Essentially, I would argue that presuppositionalism, in its purest form advocated by Cornelius Van Til, is a form of fideism which allows the tools of apologetic. Van Til, or in fact the presuppositionalists that I have read, are not adverse to using proofs such as historical proofs or other arguments that classical apologists advocate. However, it is their contention, from what I have understood, that the word of God has to be the starting point of any apologetic for the case for God.
I wonder if this is really the case. This really begs the question (though I believe the presuppositionalists will be able to defend this robustly) if we can really take the word of God as an appropriate starting point for apologetics. Certainly when Paul presented his case on the unknown God to the Greeks, he did not start with the word of God to prove God. Why would anyone want to believe that the word of God is the starting point for knowledge? Don't get me wrong, I believe in the word of God, every single word in the bible and I think that the Word of God depicts clearly the human conditions and the solutions for them. However, what about those who refused to take the bible as the word of God? I think this presents a problem for presuppositionalism, and indeed there is no reason for me to just take the word of God as it is if I am not even a believer in the first place.
Presuppositional basis for apologetic is a sound one if I believe in the word of God, but not when I am a non-believer. Initially when I first read the arguments, I found myself agreeing with what John Frame mentioned. However, further thoughts and reflections convinced me that my approach in apologetics will never end up this route precisely because of the premise on the condition of the human heart, even though I need to agree that our apologetic needs to be grounded in the Word of God, but the basis for our case needs not be if we can properly formulate our test for truth. In fact, it is my conviction that our case for God will be even more convincing if we are able to derive our conclusion using what people would think as 'secular' methodology. The classical approach and the evidential approach are the best examples, and perhaps the most convincing approaches I have read so far.
Will post up my last post on apologetic methodology on Reformed Epistemology.
Comments
Post a Comment