Is it possible to show that Protestants must presuppose the authenticity of Catholicism in order to orient itself? (Bear with this Johnathan as I know you cringe at the thought of presuppositional apologetics 
http://www.envoymagazine.com/
for...nal,apologetics
I think there is considerable truth in that. I've long held that it is impossible to be an anti-Catholic Protestant, because it is impossible for there to be a Protestantism and yet not a Catholic religion. If the one exists, so must the other, based on the nature of Christianity.
To add to the above comments, most protestants dont understand or have a concept of "heresy" because something can only be heretical when contrasted with orthodoxy. In the case of Christianity, apart from the Catholic Church you cant know what is or is not heretical because the Church sets the parameters of orthodoxy.
On to the article...from what I understand about this "Presuppositional Apologetics" it looks very weak and sadly laughable. If the non-Christian has to accept Christian theology from the get go, or else the "Apologist" will refuse to dialog, then really what kind of a "discussion" is that? To top that off, Dave threw in the Total Depravity factor and that utterly obliterates the "apologetics" aspect because the only way a non-Christian could agree to the "presuppositions" is if he was regenerate at that moment, if not then he could not accept those "presuppositions"...and POOF, the concept of "apologetics" cant exist.
It is no wonder only the Catholic Church and secularists can stand philosophy, while Protestant theology in general doesnt and thus it is not possible for any meaningful debate to take place.
I am half way through the article at this point, I will post again when Im done.
Well, I was disappointed with that level of reasoning by the presuppositionalist. He never seemed interested in actual debate with a non-believer, but rather a easy victory. The example where he talked about how an atheist would see things unorganized and he cant help it is a cop out on the Christian's part considering how organized things really are, especially on the atomic level. I was especially disappointed when he kept arguing HIS side had to rely on circular reasoning, anyone who goes into a question with that mind set is doomed to failure because at most they can do is play for a draw. Christians should never argue/debate in such a manner as that.
At least this discussion was civil and I certainly learned something new today.
Hi Nick,
I thought similar things whenever I first started getting into Presuppositionalism (I'm still Catholic, though). However, the more I read about it, the more rational I found it to be.
"If the non-Christian has to accept Christian theology from the get go, or else the 'Apologist' will refuse to dialog, then really what kind of a 'discussion' is that?"
I can understand why at first glance this appears to be an accurate summary, but the truth is that Christian Presuppositionalist does in fact have a method of dialogue with the non-believer (what Van Til calls the "point of contact"). The non-Christian is asked to place himself in the mindset of the Christian in order to demonstrate the coherence and rationality of the Christian worldview. On the other hand, the Christian puts himself in the mindset of the non-Christian to show that the non-believer's beliefs and practices are inconsistent with his ultimate presuppositions.
Here's a Van Tillian illustration. How would a Presuppositionalist dialogue with someone who does not believe in the sun (this is a trivial example, but I find it effective). If I had a friend who denied the sun's existence, and we drove to the beach, and I then saw him laying out to get a tan, I would say: You know [insert name], that is something that a believer in the sun would do.
In the above example, the believer demonstrates to the non-believer (under the non-believer's own terms) that his worldview is irrational. The same can be done when we begin talking about religious matters.
If the use of reason (i.e. laws of logic, morality, etc.) necessarily entails a belief in God, then the Christian has grounds for using a Presuppositional method of apologetics in dialoguing with the non-Christian.
Doug,
How can a non-Believer put them self in the shoes of a believer? It is like a false conversion as far as I can tell.
Worse yet, how would you go about with issues like total depravity? The only way a non believer would accept it is if he became "regenerate" and thus a Christian.
"How can a non-Believer put them self in the shoes of a believer? It is like a false conversion as far as I can tell."
The Christian asks the non-believer to think in terms of how belief in God makes sense out of objective laws of reason and morality. It is one thing to do an intellectual exercise in order to come to understand another's worldview, but quite another to actually adopt the other's worldview as his own. When I put myself into the mindset of a non-believer, I am not abandoning my faith; likewise, the non-believer does not necessarily convert.
"Worse yet, how would you go about with issues like total depravity? The only way a non believer would accept it is if he became 'regenerate' and thus a Christian."
I will let John speak for himself, but since I am not of the Reformed persuasion, I do not hold to Total Depravity.
My point is that how can a non-believer truly put themselves in our shoes? They cant because they misunderstand, dont know key teachings, etc.
I could never put myself in the position of a non-believer because I wouldnt know what to think as a non-believer.
I think you have hit on an important point. As St. Anselm says, we must believe in order to understand. However, our apologetic may be one way in which the non-Christian comes to believe, by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, who enables the non-believer to come to a saving knowledge of Christ. In other words, arguments do not make converts; that is the work of grace. The Presuppositionalist and the Evidentialist alike are aware of this, so I think if your argument is correct, it ends up proving too much--namely, if the non-believer cannot understand our apologetic via saving knowledge of Christ, then we should not attempt an apologetic.
I hope my thoughts are intelligible
"I could never put myself in the position of a non-believer because I wouldnt know what to think as a non-believer."
While there is no single worldview that represents all non-believing thought, they all have one thing in common: they reject the God of the Bible. In terms of TAG, the argument is the following.
Assume God does not exist. If this is the case, then the laws of reason and morality become unintelligible and non-objective. But they are intelligible and objective, which means that "God does not exist" is false. Therefore, God exists.
When we place ourselves in the shoes of non-believers, we are only seeking to demonstrate that their beliefs and practices are inconsistent with their ultimate presuppositions.
I wrote:
~~~ At the same time, the presuppositionalist offers the unbeliever the benefits which flow from acknowledging the fear of the Lord as the beginning of knowledge, wisdom, & understanding. He points to the riches of knowledge that are to be found in Jesus Christ. As Augustine put it, “Without belief there is no understanding.” ~~~
Dave asks:
~~~ How does one have a discussion at all with someone, if one requires them to accept one’s own conclusion in the first place? That would mean that there is no rational discussion to be had at all, because in effect one is required to say, “you have to be a Christian [my position] before we can even begin this discussion.” So the situation reduces to blind faith from the outset, since the Christian cannot discuss anything with the atheist until the atheist first becomes a Christian (or, adopts Christian presuppositions, which amounts to the same thing, in terms of the discussion at hand). ~~~
When we look at Bahnsen’s debates, or those of some others, we can see from the example of very good presuppositionalist debaters that this interpretation of the Van Tillian approach is misguided. The approach is emphatically not to say, “You must accept my presuppositions before I will even talk to you.”
Rather, the approach is to show the unbeliever two things: (1) Unbelief leads to ignorance & irrationality. (2) The Christian world-view provides a foundation for knowledge. IOW: “Premise A leads to ignorance & logical contradiction. Premise B leads to logical coherence & empirical knowledge.” The actual work of demonstrating the cases is, of course, non-trivial.
Peace,
Dave distinguishes between two propositions:
1) Whoever does math, logic, science, language, and makes moral claims is ultimately relying on the inherent knowledge and presuppositions that God gave them [ability to reason, senses, presupposing basic tenets of knowledge and existence of ourselves and the universe, assuming the general “uniformitarianism” and predictability of life and nature, etc.], whether aware of it or not.
2) Whoever does math, logic, science, language, and makes moral claims must deliberately, consciously adopt overtly Christian presuppositions before it is even possible to do these things.
Agreed. That is exactly the distinction that Bahnsen, Frame & others make.
The very idea of “presuppositional apologetics” is to force the unbeliever — through reason & example — to acknowledge that he implicitly relies on Christian presuppositions when using math, science, language, moral claims, and so on. This approach depends on showing the unbeliever the implications of his false world-view — logical contradiction & ignorance — in contrast to the implications of the Christian world-view.
Peace,
I wrote:
~~~ Paul even equates philosophy with “empty deception” when that philosophy is “according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” (Col 2:8,9) Their speculations “futile” — that is, their theories & philosophies are pointless, useless, ineffectual. (Romans 1:21) ~~~
Dave repies:
~~~ Oftentimes, yes. But not always; else why would Paul bother to cite two pagans in his Sermon on Mars Hill? ~~~
I would argue that Paul could quote pagan philosophers because those pagan philosophers had (unknowingly) relied on Christian presuppositions in order to attain those insights. Paul turns it back on them showing how their insights contradict their premises. For example, Paul highlights the altar to “the Unknown God,” with it inherent contradiction between ignorance of this unknown god & sufficient knowledge to properly honor him.
The problem for the pagan is that, whatever insights he may have, he cannot justify them on pagan grounds. In that sense, his speculations are futile, unable to rationally justify his knowledge-claims.
Peace,
from lender loan personal private from lender loan personal private from lender loan personal private. loan military spouse loan military spouse loan military spouse.
Commenting by HaloScan
