I really like what you two said along the lines of, "Is the Holy Spirit not certain or is the mind of Christ not certain? Yet Scripture says we have both - and somehow WE'RE not certain?" Never heard that or thought of it before, but you're right.
Thanks for answering my question Eli and Scarlett. It has helped me a lot to understand presuppositional apologetics even more. I will be attending the reformation Bible College one year program and hopefully in the plan of God, further my pursuit of him to Westminister Theological Seminary. Great defenders of the faith. God bless.
I think PA and reformed theology is necessarily connected. Since everything is preinterpreted by God for us (ectypal theology) there is nothing that is just out there. Therefore, there cannot be room for any kind of indeterminism.
Thanks Elias. Wonderful discussion. I wonder why the classical and evidential approach grant logic and ability to reason to the unbelieving camp. We can't even open our mouth without reasoning, how much less argue?!
The problem is, is that philosophy will never give you a “certain” God at least not in the modern epistemic sense. There will always be a level of probabilism. I totally agree with you that there is no room whatsoever for a probable resurrection of Jesus. Certainty re: the claims of Christ and Scripture comes through the work of the Holy Spirit.
IOW, the Christianity of synergistic evidentialism is not the Christianity of the Scriptures. The problem is, as someone once said, "What you win them WITH is what you win them TO." If you win them with unbelief you win them to unbelief.
Presuppositional apologetics seems to be viciously circular. If one presupposes that the Scriptures are a first principle of reason, I see no way to avoid being circular. You are literally begging the question by assuming Christianity in order to prove Christianity. It’s obviously logically fallacious.
Do you have an alternative first principle of reason that isn't circular? Can you prove this first principle of reason without appealing to reason? Also I can't help but note, your post seems to be viciously circular. You started out with the premise that presup is viciously circular, concluded that it is viciously circular, and every premise along the way reasserted that it is viciously circular.
@@Gisbertus_Voetius But the presup contention is that everybody knows that God exists. How else would we falsify such a claim, other than through self-examination?
@@SimeonDenk Remember: How can you gain a true picture of yourself when your faculties don't work proper in the first place. Therefore, we hold that we do not gain that knowledge through self-examination, but through the word of God. Not we are the measure of all things, Gods word is.
@@SimeonDenk Yes and no. Yes in the sense of an instrument: This is called an aproximate starting point and stands first in the temporal priority. No in the sense that our faculties are not the principle by which the information we have is being interpreted. This is temporal after, but first in the logical order. The question is not by which mechanics the information is coming to us (senses, reason), but with which principle that information is 'disagreggated' in a way that we can have knowledge. And here, reason is not our principle, as it is for the rationalists. The object is like in a box, we experience it, and for that we need our senses and our reason. But to know what's in the box we have to open it. This is called the 'principio cognoscendi' in theology and philosophy.
I really like what you two said along the lines of, "Is the Holy Spirit not certain or is the mind of Christ not certain? Yet Scripture says we have both - and somehow WE'RE not certain?" Never heard that or thought of it before, but you're right.
Vishal Mangalwadi's book is called "The Book That Made Your World." It's excellent!
I liked this installment very much, particularly because of its personal nature.
"But in your hearts honor Christ as probably risen...", said no Apostle ever.
The article is here:
bluepurpleandscarlett.com/biola-apologetics-the-ocean-of-uncertainty/
Amazing hearing about how fair and gracious that teacher was at Biola, wow!
Thanks for answering my question Eli and Scarlett. It has helped me a lot to understand presuppositional apologetics even more. I will be attending the reformation Bible College one year program and hopefully in the plan of God, further my pursuit of him to Westminister Theological Seminary. Great defenders of the faith. God bless.
Is she wearing a Strip Mall Seminary shirt? Which would be really cool if so.
Go Dr. Strachan!
This is a great show. What do the apoloigetics professors at Biola think of presuppositionalism?
I think PA and reformed theology is necessarily connected. Since everything is preinterpreted by God for us (ectypal theology) there is nothing that is just out there. Therefore, there cannot be room for any kind of indeterminism.
Thanks Elias. Wonderful discussion.
I wonder why the classical and evidential approach grant logic and ability to reason to the unbelieving camp. We can't even open our mouth without reasoning, how much less argue?!
I'm at the 42 minute mark... great show! Sye is write, women get it.
The problem is, is that philosophy will never give you a “certain” God at least not in the modern epistemic sense. There will always be a level of probabilism. I totally agree with you that there is no room whatsoever for a probable resurrection of Jesus. Certainty re: the claims of Christ and Scripture comes through the work of the Holy Spirit.
IOW, the Christianity of synergistic evidentialism is not the Christianity of the Scriptures. The problem is, as someone once said, "What you win them WITH is what you win them TO." If you win them with unbelief you win them to unbelief.
Presuppositional apologetics seems to be viciously circular. If one presupposes that the Scriptures are a first principle of reason, I see no way to avoid being circular. You are literally begging the question by assuming Christianity in order to prove Christianity. It’s obviously logically fallacious.
Do you have an alternative first principle of reason that isn't circular? Can you prove this first principle of reason without appealing to reason?
Also I can't help but note, your post seems to be viciously circular. You started out with the premise that presup is viciously circular, concluded that it is viciously circular, and every premise along the way reasserted that it is viciously circular.
If I can look into my own mind and determine that there is no God-given certainty of his existence, does that falsify presuppositionalism?
No, it rather aproofs even more.
@@Gisbertus_Voetius But the presup contention is that everybody knows that God exists. How else would we falsify such a claim, other than through self-examination?
@@SimeonDenk Remember: How can you gain a true picture of yourself when your faculties don't work proper in the first place.
Therefore, we hold that we do not gain that knowledge through self-examination, but through the word of God.
Not we are the measure of all things, Gods word is.
@@Gisbertus_Voetius Is it not through our faculties that we discover what the Bible says?
@@SimeonDenk Yes and no. Yes in the sense of an instrument: This is called an aproximate starting point and stands first in the temporal priority.
No in the sense that our faculties are not the principle by which the information we have is being interpreted. This is temporal after, but first in the logical order.
The question is not by which mechanics the information is coming to us (senses, reason), but with which principle that information is 'disagreggated' in a way that we can have knowledge. And here, reason is not our principle, as it is for the rationalists.
The object is like in a box, we experience it, and for that we need our senses and our reason. But to know what's in the box we have to open it.
This is called the 'principio cognoscendi' in theology and philosophy.