Presuppositional apologetics is Biblical. I have learned much from Sye Ten Bruggencate who makes things simple, and Tony Miano and others have also used this as well as proclaiming the Gospel.
Romans 1 makes it clear that people know God exists, but they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. People know the only true God exists. People who claim to be atheists have presuppositions as well. People need revelation from the One who knows everything to be able to know anything for certain. Knowledge itself presupposes God.
Presup. Apologetics is not the Gospel itself. It is helpful, because unbelievers are not the judge of God, and God can use the apologetic to get people to admit what they are denying. Still, it is the Holy Spirit who finally convicts hearts. The Law and Gospel still need to be proclaimed...the Law to point out sin and the judgment we rightly deserve, and that nothing a person can do can in any way save them or contribute to their salvation and the forgiveness of the debt that can never be paid by us. Even good works are filthy rags. Judaizers thought they could supplement Christ's sacrifice and faith with their works, but it is only through the grace and mercy of Christ that God chooses some dead sinners who rebel against the God they know exists and regenerates them and gives faith apart from works of the law. As a Christian, I do not consider the RCC as a Christian faith, because works are added to faith. Also, "sacred tradition" (that is not the Biblical tradition) and papacy are put on the level with the Bible, etc.
The Bible has the Words of God, and whatever religion that puts anything as equal to that or adds to or subtracts from the truth therein and the Gospel message lies about who God is. Mormons, Islam, etc. all have twisted and added false beliefs. Presup. & the Bible lets us know that God has made Himself evident to us, but people have traded the truth for a lie.
Ok Well I would politely disagree here brother. I am sorry you do not consider the Catholic Church a Christian Church. You sound very Lutheran in your approach. Perhaps you can benefit from seeing the dialogs on the Lutheran documents that Mark a Lutheran and I are having.
It seems you want to bring in all kinds of issues to this dialog like Apostolic tradition which is in scripture(2 Thess 2:15) the Papacy, works, judiazers heresy etc. Well I have a standing challenge to anyone to prayerfully dialog one on one in the debate section about the Papacy and its merits biblically and historically if you want dialog there hit me up.
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-office-of-the-papacy.7861615/
As for works I would also politely disagree here. The big difference that St. Paul makes in Romans and Galatians is that Judiazers wanted to keep the mosaic law and those ritual works( ie circumcision which was to no avail because it has been fulfilled by the sacrament of Baptism in the New covenant Col 2). Apart from Gods grace in the new covenant our works are like rags because all have fallen. This is the point of (Is 64) However after one is justified and sanctified in Christ then His grace builds on our nature and perfects it. So good works done in God's grace that are not strictly keeping the "Mosiac law"(as we are not under Moses anymore but are under Christ and his law) are beneficial and do in fact merit eternal life according to St. Paul in those same books(Rom 2:5-9 Gal 6:6-10).
Presuppositional apologetics is very circular and that is why many presuppositional apologist have a hard time converting atheist when debating. it shows the striking difference between the approach that Christian fundamentalist like Kirk Cameron use and solid Christian philosophers and theologians like Catholic St. Thomas Aquinas, and Protestant Dr. William Lane Craig use in debates.
Presuppositional apologetics basically is a bankrupt system that proves little because its says "the bible says so because the bible says so and its right". Thats all good if you already believe the bible to be God word as then you have a commonality to start with but if you do not then its a real issue. It really a fundamentalist tactic to use presuppostional apologetics. And any religion can do the same. "the book of Mormon is true because the book of Mormon says its true" or the Koran says so because the Koran says so". Fundamentalism is essentially at the same core in most world religions.
St. Paul in Romans 1 was not using presupposiitonal apologetics at all. He says "Ever since the creation of the world his
invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.
So they are without excuse" (Rom 1:20). Here Paul is not saying believe God because his word says so and we can assume the bible is Gods word. Rather what he is showing is that God gave man a spiritual gift of an intellect and by this intellect man can know or perceive God through his natural creation or order(ie the world or universe).
This is a logical and philosophical argument using what philosophers call the argument from nature or the argument from design. This can also be applied to the philosophical arguments of causality, contingency, change, degrees of perfection etc. They have nothing to do with presuppositon of the bible as God's revelation or the Christian faith. What they do show is that man can know God or a higher power exist for certain by his perception of created things in this world. Now one can say that Paul was writing to Christians and Jews in Rome and that is true so in that sense they did have a similar understanding of revelation.
But Socrates and many Philosophers never had divine revelation and came to see by logic or what we call natural revelation(what Paul talks about) that God exist. So I start with reason alone not presuppositions that the Christian faith is the only right way.
