Last post I stated that the presuppositional defense of the Faith was an indirect or a transcendental argument. Let's take a look at what that is.
Direct argumentation is a presentation of evidences for the non-Christian to weigh against the evidences for his position. There are loads of books that take this approach--The Case for Christ, Faith on Trial, Evidence That Demands a Verdict...and the Lord has used these many times to convince those whom He has appointed to life. Even so, this method of argumentation is not the best method, because it assumes certain things that do not line up with the Biblical teaching.*
Evidentialist arguments assume that the non-Christian is capable of an objective evaluation of the facts. He isn't. He's got an ax to grind. Suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, he has a worldview already skewed towards the rejection of God. He will interpret all evidences according to that view. He has a stake in ignoring the evidence.
Further, we encourage him in his disobedience if we grant his false presuppositions. When we argue as if the facts in question rest upon neutral ground, we affirm that there is a realm of brute facts that exist independent of God. When we attempt to convince him through logic and reason we concede that logic and reason are possible in a world such as the one he claims exists. In short, we lend to him what he needs to continue to deny the truth.
The Presuppositional approach cuts to the chase and asks, "Does this pagan worldview hang together on its own? What has to be true in order for it to do so? Is reason even possible in this world?" And most importantly, "Does the unbeliever reason in terms of his worldview, or ours?"
We argue by demonstrating how the unbelieving system contradicts its presuppositions. We examine the "givens" necessary for that system to function, and whether or not they are provided by the unbeliever's view. We point out where he has had to reason in terms of that which only the Biblical view can provide.
Our goal is nothing less than to show beyond any doubting that the Triune God speaking infallibly in His Word must be taken for granted in order to even have the conversation. And all men having the conversation do this no matter which side they are on, if only unconsciously.
More to come.
* I need to add that evidences are indeed useful, and will always validate the truth, but they are only interpreted correctly when God is presupposed.
6 comments:
Good words. Definitely gives me more to think about with regard to "The Case for Christ."
Would you say that books such as those you listed work "better" or more "healthy" for believers rather than tools for dealing with those with a pagan worldview?
Todd, evidences are fine (one criticism of this method is that it dismisses evidence. It really doesn't), but in dealing with evidence one must always challenge the unbeliever's ability to handle it.
Here's an example: Mr. Atheist argues against the divinity of Jesus because he discounts the miracles He performed. The historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts can be presented to him, but he's just going to dismiss the evidence.
So we instead ask, "What would he need to know in order to say the miracles did not occur?" He'd have to have empirical evidence of what did occur. He doesn't have it; he wasn't there.
Or, "What would he need to know in order to say conclusively the Gospels are false?" He'd need to know what was true. Okay, Mr. Atheist, let's find out how you know the whole truth. Show me some evidence.
At that point, the foundations of his entire worldview can be challenged, and (over a pretty long conversation, no doubt) the Biblical worldview can be shown to be the only one which will allow for the kind of inquiry he wants to pursue.
By providing the only foundation for true reasoning, Scripture authorizes Itself. Thus, the Gospels are shown to be not only reliable, but authoritative. And Christ's testimony of Himself in them is the truth.
I'm going to get into some practicalities in later posts. It's not as complicated as it sounds once you get the hang of it.
And then, evidences serve to reinforce the main thrust of the argument.
I think believers are edified by evidence in the sense that it provokes in us a greater thanksgiving to see the truth confirmed in our experience. I think it's neat when archaeologists discover things previously dismissed by non-Christians as mad up.
But I also think that it greatly blesses us to look into how our worldview is really the only one that works. We tend to be intimidated by sophisticated atheists on TV and stuff. But I get a chuckle out of their arguments. The emperor really is naked, and it's pretty funny.
i love it when someone extols the virtue of science over blind faith, and then proceeds to be unscientific in their approach. real science takes in the evidence before making a decision. this, however, is not so with most post-modern minds. as you said, they begin with a presupposition and then build a case to support their presupposition, conveniently leaving out all evidence that opposes their personal assertions.
nice post john!
"Made up."
Crap!
No comment here, just soakin' it in.
Thanks
Now carry on.
Post a Comment