Presuppositonal apologetics

[Athanasias]

I do not understand what this is. Is it only a Reformed theological or protestant thing?

 

[Tone]

I do not understand what this is. Is it only a Reformed theological or protestant thing?

My favorite apologist summed it up like this:

"If the unsaved man was consistent he would be an atheist in religion, an irrationalist in philosophy (including a complete uncertainty concerning 'natural laws'), and completely a-moral in the widest sense."

--Francis_Schaeffer

So it deals with secular worldviews and shows their inconsistencies with what is true to reality.

*It's for any who think deep...

 

[Athanasias]

My favorite apologist summed it up like this:

"If the unsaved man was consistent he would be an atheist in religion, an irrationalist in philosophy (including a complete uncertainty concerning 'natural laws'), and completely a-moral in the widest sense."

--https://googleweblight.com/i?u=https%3A%2F%2Fen.m.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFrancis_Schaeffer

So it deals with secular worldviews and shows their inconsistencies with what is true to reality.

Yeah but if I understand it right its presupposed certain things like there is a God and the bible is true. Is this correct?

 

[Tone]

Yeah but if I understand it right its presupposed certain things like there is a God and the bible is true. Is this correct?

Well that's kinda the point...that everybody has pressuppositions...we can't escape it...it is like the Matrix. So, the apologist s make the case that the Biblical worldview is the one that is consistent to what is...to what we see in the world.

 

[Athanasias]

Well that's kinda the point...that everybody has pressuppositions...we can't escape it...it is like the Matrix. So, the apologist s make the case that the Biblical worldview is the one that is consistent to what is...to what we see in the world.

I see. Its true we all have our own world view but I think presuppositional approach to apologetics in my experience is not nearly as successful as starting from the beginning with Atheist or agnostics and making arguments from our knowledge of the world around us and how that reflects God. I like the slow system approach that brings them logically to God then I argue for Christ , then the Church etc etc. I guess this is why I tend to appreciate people like St. Thomas Aquinas in his arguments or 5 ways to prove God exist and also why I like apologist like Dr. William Lane Craig and Trent Horn .

 

[Tone]

I see. Its true we all have our own world view but I think presuppositional approach to apologetics in my experience is not nearly as successful as starting from the beginning with Atheist or agnostics and making arguments from our knowledge of the world around us and how that reflects God. I like the slow system approach that brings them logically to God then I argue for Christ , then the Church etc etc. I guess this is why I tend to appreciate people like St. Thomas Aquinas in his arguments or 5 ways to prove God exist and also why I like apologist like Dr. William Lane Craig and Trent Horn .

Yeah, that's what presuppositional is all about, it backs away from everything and takes an objective look at what religious, atheist, agnostic, or secular humanist people believe so that they can orient themselves and decide which view is most consistent with their existence. I've read Schaeffer's books and I've also taken some regular (secular) philosophy courses and have done my own research and the arguments hold up. In fact, it's part of how I've arrived at my current understanding.

 

[tulc]

been here:
Presuppositional apologetics - Wikipedia
as always, Wikipedia is a starting place, not an end.
tulc(interesting article)

 

[Athanasias]

Yeah, that's what presuppositional is all about, it backs away from everything and takes an objective look at what religious, atheist, agnostic, or secular humanists believe so that they can orient themselves and decide which view is most consistent with their existence. I've read Schaeffer's books and I've also taken some regular (secular) philosophy courses and have done my own research and the arguments hold up. In fact, it's part of how I've arrived at my current understanding.

I am in full agreement with you on the issues and I know your right and there is good reasons to believe in God, Jesus, the bible, the Church etc. I just think that the presuppositional approach does not work as well with atheist. It often comes off as anti-intellectual to atheist and Christian alike and presuppositional apologetics often times will not look at or be able to answer the bigger pictures(from what I can see). This is because you have to find some commonality to dialog with a person. For example while some presuppose Christ is God and the bible is the word of God, the Atheist does not. You often have to convince and atheist using reason alone and not revelation. This is why I prefer Thomas Aquinas or St. Pauls method . They can use reason alone (apart from divine revelation) to demonstrate the reality that its only logical to believe in God.

 

[Tone]

I am in full agreement with you on the issues and I know your right and there is good reasons to believe in God, Jesus, the bible, the Church etc. I just think that the presuppositional approach does not work as well with atheist. It often comes off as anti-intellectual to atheist and Christian alike and presuppositional apologetics often times will not look at or be able to answer the bigger pictures(from what I can see). This is because you have to find some commonality to dialog with a person. For example while some presuppose Christ is God and the bible is the word of God, the Atheist does not. You often have to convince and atheist using reason alone and not revelation. This is why I prefer Thomas Aquinas or St. Pauls method . They can use reason alone (apart from divine revelation) to demonstrate the reality that its only logical to believe in God.

Well, I can't say I've read too many presuppositional apologists besides Schaeffer, but if you give him a try or even read about him in the Wikipedia or whetever, you will see that he was very in tune with the culture of his day and even opened up, like, coffee houses or something like that for the Hippies. He was very into art and culture and could find common ground with the most self-professed godless characters.

I can't speak for the others, but he started L'Abri fellowship too which you can read about.

But, yeah, I get a sense of what you are saying. But I also feel that presuppositional apologetics didn't spring from nowhere, it is the natural outgrowth from classical apologetics and the others. Schaeffer runs down the whole thing from England to the 60s in the U.S. so he is dealing with a culture that is "christianized". They do have an understanding of the biblical worldview, in fact that's what they were rebelling against...well, sadly, the hypocrisy of what they were taught in church and what they saw in the culture.

Anyways, what I'm trying to convey is that, yeah, maybe it is geared more towards those who have been indoctrinated already, so it may not be the best fit for certain cultures. Personally, I was born into "churchianity" and I have travelled the whole spectrum of it and presuppositional apologetics was really helpful to me, because I did go astray into some mysticism, etc... and I needed the reorientation. And I found that I even had to slide past, even reformed thinking by taking what I was taught to it's conclusion...

 

[Athanasias]

Well, I can't say I've read too many presuppositional apologists besides Schaeffer, but if you give him a try or even read about him in the Wikipedia or whetever, you will see that he was very in tune with the culture of his day and even opened up, like, coffee houses or something like that for the Hippies. He was very into art and culture and could find common ground with the most self-professed godless characters.

I can't speak for the others, but he started L'Abri fellowship too which you can read about.

But, yeah, I get a sense of what you are saying. But I also feel that presuppositional apologetics didn't spring from nowhere, it is the natural outgrowth from classical apologetics and the others. Schaeffer runs down the whole thing from England to the 60s in the U.S. so he is dealing with a culture that is "christianized". They do have an understanding of the biblical worldview, in fact that's what they were rebelling against...well, sadly, the hypocrisy of what they were taught in church and what they saw in the culture.

Anyways, what I'm trying to convey is that, yeah, maybe it is geared more towards those who have been indoctrinated already, so it may not be the best fit for certain cultures. Personally, I was born into "churchianity" and I have travelled the whole spectrum of it and presuppositional apologetics was really helpful to me, because I did go astray into some mysticism, etc... and I needed the reorientation. And I found that I even had to slide past, even reformed thinking by taking what I was taught to it's conclusion...

Thanks I will keep this in mind. The only presuppositonal apologist I ever heard of was Dr Greg Bahnsen. What is Churchianty?

 

[Tone]

Thanks I will keep this in mind. The only presuppositonal apologist I ever heard of was Dr Greg Bahnsen. What is Churchianty?

I use that term to basically make the distinction between the church as a building and the church as a people (congregation of believers). When someone says "I'm going to church" you can pretty much know that "churchianity" is involved with all of it's trappings: A head pastor, praise and worship team, tithing, the sermon, Sunday school, pews, etc...

 

[Athanasias]

I use that term to basically make the distinction between the church as a building and the church as a people. When someone says "I'm going to church" you can pretty much know that "churchianity" is involved with all of it's trappings: A head pastor, praise and worship team, tithing, the sermon, Sunday school, pews, etc...

Interesting. I will grant you that the Church is the body of Christ ie the people united by common baptism and faith in our Lord Jesus. But can the word Church have multiple or even secondary meanings to Christians? Are these things in themselves against your belief? Just curious.

 

[Tone]

Interesting. I will grant you that the Church is the body of Christ ie the people united by common baptism and faith in our Lord Jesus. But can the word Church have multiple or even secondary meanings to Christians? Are these things in themselves against your belief? Just curious.

I believe the word itself comes from "Circe" where we get circus or circle. I also understand that this may have come from the way pagans gathered. Actually, when we meet, a circle's not bad...sure beats everybody lined up in rows, attention rapt on the seminarian on his high pedestal. When I think of the gathering of His called out ones I think of having a meal and the body free to exercise all their gifts. Of course, the "Holy convocations" (Feasts) come to mind, like Passover and Tabernacles.
And, you know, a place to study Scripture and pray.

From wiki:

"A synagogue (pronounced /ˈsɪnəɡɒɡ/; from Greek συναγωγή, synagogē, 'assembly', Hebrew: בית כנסת‬ bet kenesset, 'house of assembly' or בית תפילה‬ bet tefila, 'house of prayer'"

It's mostly just how I've come to understand some things I was exposed to growing up. Like you said "the Body of Messiah" is what is important...

 

[Athanasias]

I believe the word itself comes from "Circe" where we get circus or circle. I also understand that this may have come from the way pagans gathered. Actually, when we meet, a circle's not bad...sure beats everybody lined up in rows, attention rapt on the seminarian on his high pedestal. When I think of the gathering of His called out ones I think of having a meal and the body free to exercise all their gifts. Of course, the "Holy convocations" (Feasts) come to mind, like Passover and Tabernacles.
And, you know, a place to study Scripture and pray.

From wiki:

"A synagogue (pronounced /ˈsɪnəɡɒɡ/; from Greek συναγωγή, synagogē, 'assembly', Hebrew: בית כנסת‬ bet kenesset, 'house of assembly' or בית תפילה‬ bet tefila, 'house of prayer'"

It's mostly just how I've come to understand some things I was exposed to growing up. Like you said "the Body of Messiah" is what is important...

Thank you for the explanation of your understanding of this. Do you believe that one should be called by God to be a minister and that study and training(Seminary) is necessary in order to lead properly? Or do you not believe in a hierarchy of offices in the Body of Christ?

 

[Tone]

Thank you for the explanation of your understanding of this. Do you believe that one should be called by God to be a minister and that study and training(Seminary) is necessary in order to lead properly? Or do you not believe in a hierarchy of offices in the Body of Christ?

I believe we are all called to be ministers, which is why we all have spiritual gifts. Yeah some may be called (I guess) to do seminary (this word comes from seed, as in, inseminate the churchgoers with that particular denoms. dogma,e.g., pay your tithes because it's right there in the old testament, but don't observe the Sabbath or do the Feasts). Well, I think Paul said something about the gift of prophecy being most desirable. For the purpose of organization, there should be some distinct ion, but I wouldn't say "heirarchy".

 

[Radagast]

I like the slow system approach that brings them logically to God then I argue for Christ , then the Church etc etc. I guess this is why I tend to appreciate people like St. Thomas Aquinas in his arguments or 5 ways to prove God exist and also why I like apologist like Dr. William Lane Craig and Trent Horn .

And that might work with people who retain the traditional belief in objective truth.

 

[Tone]

And that might work with people who retain the traditional belief in objective truth.

Yeah, this is true, first you gotta get them there. Schaeffer is good at showing how the culture in the U.S. drifted from that understanding as eastern mysticism crept in.

 

[Athanasias]

And that might work with people who retain the traditional belief in objective truth.

Objective truth is required for belief in Christianity period. But honestly to logically show the fallacy of relativism is not that hard. So that is where we would start with a relativist. I hope that helps.

 

[Athanasias]

I believe we are all called to be ministers, which is why we all have spiritual gifts. Yeah some may be called (I guess) to do seminary (this word comes from seed, as in, inseminate the churchgoers with that particular denoms. dogma,e.g., pay your tithes because it's right there in the old testament, but don't observe the Sabbath or do the Feasts). Well, I think Paul said something about the gift of prophecy being most desirable. For the purpose of organization, there should be some distinct ion, but I wouldn't say "heirarchy".

Just curious why would you not say Heirachy?Do you beleive God works in Hierachical fashion in sacred order?

 

[Tone]

Just curious why would you not say Heirachy?Do you beleive God works in Hierachical fashion in sacred order?

Galatians 3:28

Among the body...no. We do have one Head that is above us and holds us all together. Yes, there are different parts with different functions, but we were warned about how we are to esteem eachother.

Matthew 23:9

Puts a damper on the whole clergy/laity dichotomy. I think this divide has been used to "Lord it over"
the people and I believe that history reflects this.

*Oh yeah, by the way, if you have different views than me please share. Believe me, I am open to other perspective s. I didn't get this far by being locked in...