Last post, we looked at how, given the religious and philosophical presuppositions of believers and non-believers, there really is no such thing as "neutral ground" between their positions. All the facts in dispute are interpreted through a grid. The world is being interpreted either through eyes that see things in terms of dependence upon the God of Scripture or through those that see the world in terms of human autonomy. This includes all non-Christian religions, BTW, but we'll get to that later, D.V.
Keeping this in mind will determine our method of defending the Faith. We do not reason in terms of the way the non-Christian looks at the world. We do not act as if his interpretation is true. For example, he believes that his mind is perfectly adequate to weigh the "evidences" with which he is presented. But we believe we are fallen creatures with minds clouded by sin, who will suppress anything coming close to the truth if it will hold us accountable. Revelation is therefore necessary to true interpretation. So we cannot approach him as if he can objectively weigh the facts. Proverbs says, "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you become like him." If we grant his presuppositions we are bound to the same intellectual problems to which they inevitably lead.
But the next verse says, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he become wise in his own conceit." We demonstrate how taking his position to its conclusion leads to intellectual disaster. We sort of walk into his worldview and look around, seeing if it hangs together.
What we're doing is arguing indirectly or transcendentally. We are setting the worldviews or sets of presuppositions side-by-side and seeing which one holds itself together. We aren't looking for neutral ground--we're looking for ground, period. We are showing that without the Biblical truth there is no foundation at all.
We will examine the method a little more closely next posting.
No comments:
Post a Comment