Open call for Presups

[Athée]

Hi again,

Recently I started a thread about a comment made by a friend who has gotten into presup apologetics. It generated some interesting discussion but I feel like it unfairly hung an unsophisticated view on the presups in these forms.

I am quite interested in the presup apologetics approach these days and offer this open call to any presup that happens to read this.

What is the method? How is it an apologetic? What are the important ideas? What books do I need to read?
Are you interested in a bit of a back and forth to demonstrate the method?

Peace

 

[Tree of Life]

I think that presup apologetics is the most biblical method. "Apologetics to the Glory of God" by Dr. John Frame is a good place to start in terms of books. I'd be happy to demonstrate a presuppositional approach if you want to do some back and forth.

 

[cvanwey]

Hi again,

Recently I started a thread about a comment made by a friend who has gotten into presup apologetics. It generated some interesting discussion but I feel like it unfairly hung an unsophisticated view on the presups in these forms.

I am quite interested in the presup apologetics approach these days and offer this open call to any presup that happens to read this.

What is the method? How is it an apologetic? What are the important ideas? What books do I need to read?
Are you interested in a bit of a back and forth to demonstrate the method?

Peace

I'm no 'presup', but would like to offer my 2 cents...

The gist of the argument seems to stem from the premise of logic. Meaning, the 'driving force' or initial 'organization' of any and all thoughts, which humans use, can ONLY be orchestrated from a prior organized initial force.

Presups will argue that to deny God means one is denying the very module of logic, which could only be given to you by an organized God. In conclusion, presups attest that it becomes too unlikely that our brains received its logic and complete organization from random chance. The entire embodiment of logic, in which all humans use, could only stem from an organized being, force, entity, etc...

I hope this helps, because it is very easy to chase many rabbit trails.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Hi again,

Recently I started a thread about a comment made by a friend who has gotten into presup apologetics. It generated some interesting discussion but I feel like it unfairly hung an unsophisticated view on the presups in these forms.

I am quite interested in the presup apologetics approach these days and offer this open call to any presup that happens to read this.

What is the method? How is it an apologetic? What are the important ideas? What books do I need to read?
Are you interested in a bit of a back and forth to demonstrate the method?

Peace

If you're interested in a sophisticated example of the presuppositional apologetic in practice, then might I direct your attention to the following:

Responses to Atheist Philosopher, Michael Martin
Martin/Butler Dialogue over TANG

 

[Bumble Bee]

Will you please define "presup" for me?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Hi again,

Recently I started a thread about a comment made by a friend who has gotten into presup apologetics. It generated some interesting discussion but I feel like it unfairly hung an unsophisticated view on the presups in these forms.

I am quite interested in the presup apologetics approach these days and offer this open call to any presup that happens to read this.

What is the method? How is it an apologetic? What are the important ideas? What books do I need to read?
Are you interested in a bit of a back and forth to demonstrate the method?

Peace

What is the method? Read the following article published in IVP's Dictionary of Christian Apologetics written by Christian Philosopher Dr. Frame

Presuppositional Apologetics

As for going back and forth, currently I am a bit tired of insults aimed at presupp from several in your other thread, enough to hold me over for awhile.

 

[Sabertooth]

This is the first time that I have heard of the phrase "presuppositional apologetics."

I would like to make some observations about it.

1. I believe the Bible (and its implications) to be 100% inspired of God and (to the extent that we align ourselves with its intent) it is the basis of rational thought.
2. No Christian --myself included-- (on this side of Heaven) has a thorough understanding of its implications. That is the Holy Spirit's job [John 14:26]. If we ever do arrive at that place, it will be when we see Jesus [1 John 3:2].
3. Thinking that has not yet been so transformed (Christian or non-Christian) can still be rational, if to a lesser degree, through a process called Black Box analysis.

Engineers and psychologists both use this technique. You have an unknown subject. You introduce or observe inputs to it and monitor its outputs. After you've done that for a while, you will begin to anticipate that subject's responses while still not knowing how it works internally. (Most people are in this frame of mind when they operate a vehicle or any other form of modern technology.) It is the basis for the scientific method.

Certainly, it pales to the instruction of the Holy Spirit, but it IS rational.

"For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known." 1 Corinthians 13:12 NKJV

 

[Bumble Bee]

Hi again,

Recently I started a thread about a comment made by a friend who has gotten into presup apologetics. It generated some interesting discussion but I feel like it unfairly hung an unsophisticated view on the presups in these forms.

I am quite interested in the presup apologetics approach these days and offer this open call to any presup that happens to read this.

What is the method? How is it an apologetic? What are the important ideas? What books do I need to read?
Are you interested in a bit of a back and forth to demonstrate the method?

Peace

From what I can understand about it, presupposition apologetics is taking what you know about the Bible (your presuppositions) and using it to prove the Bible. I think it is an important tool to use in Christian circles because we must understand as much as we can about what we believe before we can explain it or debate it with a non-believer. However, evangelically, I think it can become problematic because someone who does not trust the Bible cannot understand the presuppositions you are trying to get them to believe.

 

[Athée]

I think that presup apologetics is the most biblical method. "Apologetics to the Glory of God" by Dr. John Frame is a good place to start in terms of books. I'd be happy to demonstrate a presuppositional approach if you want to do some back and forth.

Sounds great, how do we start?

 

[Athée]

I'm no 'presup', but would like to offer my 2 cents...

The gist of the argument seems to stem from the premise of logic. Meaning, the 'driving force' or initial 'organization' of any and all thoughts, which humans use, can ONLY be orchestrated from a prior organized initial force.

Presups will argue that to deny God means one is denying the very module of logic, which could only be given to you by an organized God. In conclusion, presups attest that it becomes too unlikely that our brains received its logic and complete organization from random chance. The entire embodiment of logic, in which all humans use, could only stem from an organized being, force, entity, etc...

I hope this helps, because it is very easy to chase many rabbit trails.

The chase is half the fun at least!

 

[Athée]

If you're interested in a sophisticated example of the presuppositional apologetic in practice, then might I direct your attention to the following:

Responses to Atheist Philosopher, Michael Martin
Martin/Butler Dialogue over TANG

Thank you, I will check that out.

 

[Athée]

Will you please define "presup" for me?

I'm a bit wary of defining a position I don't hold at a risk of strawmaning it. That said it seems to me that it is an approach to apologetics that distinguishes itself from the evidential method, I believe a presuppositional apologetic approach asserts that the Christian worldview is the only internally coherent one and then attempts to demonstrate that any competing worldview leads to contradictions. There is more to it obviously but in my very brief initial survey, that seems to be the jist of it.

Again though it is not my belief and I welcome correction to the above if I have misrepresentated it out of ignorance.

 

[Athée]

What is the method? Read the following article published in IVP's Dictionary of Christian Apologetics written by Christian Philosopher Dr. Frame

Presuppositional Apologetics

As for going back and forth, currently I am a bit tired of insults aimed at presupp from several in your other thread, enough to hold me over for awhile.

Thanks for the link, I hope you don't feel that I have been insulting. If you at any point feel like taking up that kind of conversation, I would welcome it.

Peace.

 

[Athée]

From what I can understand about it, presupposition apologetics is taking what you know about the Bible (your presuppositions) and using it to prove the Bible. I think it is an important tool to use in Christian circles because we must understand as much as we can about what we believe before we can explain it or debate it with a non-believer. However, evangelically, I think it can become problematic because someone who does not trust the Bible cannot understand the presuppositions you are trying to get them to believe.

That seems like a reasonable worry if the approach is as you have described it there. I think it might be more nuanced than that though, so I guess we can find out together on this thread

 

[Occams Barber]

Will you please define "presup" for me?

Certainly:
PRESUP: a form of upper body exercise where one lies face down and uses one's arms to alternately raise and lower one's body while keeping said body rigid. Also known as a "Pushup".
OB

 

[JIMINZ]

Hi again,

Recently I started a thread about a comment made by a friend who has gotten into presup apologetics. It generated some interesting discussion but I feel like it unfairly hung an unsophisticated view on the presups in these forms.

I am quite interested in the presup apologetics approach these days and offer this open call to any presup that happens to read this.

What is the method? How is it an apologetic? What are the important ideas? What books do I need to read?
Are you interested in a bit of a back and forth to demonstrate the method?

Peace

.
For the life of me I cannot envision Jesus and His 12 Disciples sitting around and heaving a Presuppositional Debate.

 

[Athée]

.
For the life of me I cannot envision Jesus and His 12 Disciples sitting around and heaving a Presuppositional Debate.

Again not a presup myself but I would suggest that at the ti.e and place of Jesus there would have been very few atheists if any. A presup is not opposed to evidence as I understand it. Rather the idea is that you have to acknowledge that a revelational epistemology is the only possibility for a justified account of knowledge and that a God exists as a guarantor of that account. If you are willing to grant this metaphysical picture, the presup will be happy to discuss evidences for why Yawwh/Jesus/Spirit is the God at the base of it all.

Again not a presup and not an expert, just doing some reading up on the position so anybody who actually holds it, please correct me if I have misrepresentated it.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Thanks for the link, I hope you don't feel that I have been insulting. If you at any point feel like taking up that kind of conversation, I would welcome it.
Peace.

Hi friend, no, I didn't feel you were insulting, actually more insulted by some of the Christians and their responses. If you're interested, I'd like to explain some of the history behind what came to be called "presuppositionalism". The man who came to be known as the "father" of presuppositionalism was the late Dr. Cornelius Van Til. He was born in the Netherlands, raised on a farm, a dutch Calvinist, his family moved to the US when he was age ten. He was the first in his family to go into higher education. He received his PhD at Princeton University. To quote from wikipedia: "Van Til drew upon the works of Dutch Calvinist philosophers such as D. H. Th. Vollenhoven, Herman Dooyeweerd, and Hendrik G. Stoker and theologians such as Herman Bavinck and Abraham Kuyper to devise a novel Reformed approach to Christian apologetics, one that opposed the traditional methodology of reasoning on the supposition that there is a neutral middle-ground, upon which the non-Christian and the Christian can agree." It is kind of funny he came to be known as the "father" presuppositionalism because he never really liked the term "presuppositionalism" because his goal was always a distinctly Reformed approach to defending the faith, distinct from past traditional approaches, and firmly rooted in Scripture. He became such an important figure to the history of apologetics to me, that years ago I created a blog dedicated to him and other "Van Tillians": Presuppositionalism 101 In recent years, one Van Tillian, Dr. Scott Oliphint professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology at Westminter Theological Seminary in PA wrote a book entitled "Covenantal Apologetics" where at least part of the discussion is an argument against the term "presuppositinal apologetics" and probably based on a couple things I've mentioned. Of course I created my blog/site before the book came out so...yeah. Dr. Van Til had several famous (to the apologetics world) students including: Dr. John Frame, Dr. Greg Bahnsen, and Dr. Francis Schaeffer. So much more could be said, but I will leave it at this for now, just thought a little background info might be desirable.

 

[Athée]

Hi friend, no, I didn't feel you were insulting, actually more insulted by some of the Christians and their responses. If you're interested, I'd like to explain some of the history behind what came to be called "presuppositionalism". The man who came to be known as the "father" of presuppositionalism was the late Dr. Cornelius Van Til. He was born in the Netherlands, raised on a farm, a dutch Calvinist, his family moved to the US when he was age ten. He was the first in his family to go into higher education. He received his PhD at Princeton University. To quote from wikipedia: "Van Til drew upon the works of Dutch Calvinist philosophers such as D. H. Th. Vollenhoven, Herman Dooyeweerd, and Hendrik G. Stoker and theologians such as Herman Bavinck and Abraham Kuyper to devise a novel Reformed approach to Christian apologetics, one that opposed the traditional methodology of reasoning on the supposition that there is a neutral middle-ground, upon which the non-Christian and the Christian can agree." It is kind of funny he came to be known as the "father" presuppositionalism because he never really liked the term "presuppositionalism" because his goal was always a distinctly Reformed approach to defending the faith, distinct from past traditional approaches, and firmly rooted in Scripture. He became such an important figure to the history of apologetics to me, that years ago I created a blog dedicated to him and other "Van Tillians": Presuppositionalism 101 In recent years, one Van Tillian, Dr. Scott Oliphint professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology at Westminter Theological Seminary in PA wrote a book entitled "Covenantal Apologetics" where at least part of the discussion is an argument against the term "presuppositinal apologetics" and probably based on a couple things I've mentioned. Of course I created my blog/site before the book came out so...yeah. Dr. Van Til had several famous (to the apologetics world) students including: Dr. John Frame, Dr. Greg Bahnsen, and Dr. Francis Schaeffer. So much more could be said, but I will leave it at this for now, just thought a little background info might be desirable.

Thanks for the background. If you will forgive my ignorance, as I am reading through this content I am having a hard time seeing it as an apologetic approach. It seems like a theologically motivated epistemology (which is fine), but I'm not sure I get the part where it acts as a reasoned defense of Christian beliefs. Am I missing the point somehow?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Thanks for the background. If you will forgive my ignorance, as I am reading through this content I am having a hard time seeing it as an apologetic approach. It seems like a theologically motivated epistemology (which is fine), but I'm not sure I get the part where it acts as a reasoned defense of Christian beliefs. Am I missing the point somehow?

You're fine, we all have ignorance in areas. It is distinct from the Roman Catholic and Arminian approach, and one reason why it is often criticized and rejected by many Christians as well. It is both a philosophical and theological approach, and highly involved with epistemology. Although I am unclear where Dr. Alvin Plantinga stands on the Van Tillian Apologetic, I think his work in philosophy has complimented or contributed to the Van Tillian Apologetic. Apologetics has both a defense and an offense, kind of like in many sports, and to an extent presuppositionalism presents an offense, or in other terms a negative defense, rather than a positive. In a way it is kind of a tool, a method of looking at assumptions, and can be applied to well most anything and everything. It is invaluable in looking at schools of thought in terms of a worldview, in how beliefs and thoughts are linked or overlap. So far as a reasoned defense in terms of positive proofs, Van Tillians tend to use transcendental arguments or abbreviated as TAG, that is a transcendental argument for the existence of God. Hope this helps.