I once read that if your writing is not clear, most likely your thinking is not clear. After some initial confusion on attempting to explain why Scripture rather than logic was my presupposition, I have finally cleared my thoughts and hopefully will give some clear up the confusion.
Presuppositions Defined
Presuppositions are a person’s most basic non-negotiable truth, ultimate authority, and/or ultimate committment in a person’s worldview. Said differently, presuppositions are the guiding truth and standard used to gauge all other truth claims. All other truths will be evaluated through these basic presuppositions.
Thus, if a person (from now on used interchangably with a male pronoun) appeals to another authority and not his claimed “presupposition” then he shows that his “presupposition” was not his most basic, guiding truth. In other words, his presupposition was no longer his presupposition; his ultimate authority had another authority; and his ultimate commitment was no longer ultimate.
Simply put, the person would be inconsistent.
Take my example of claiming Scripture is my presupposition, if I had conceded that logic is used to verify the truthfulness of Scripture, then I would’ve betrayed my presupposition. By saying yes, logic verifies the truthfulness of Scripture, I would have been inconsistent. If I really believed Scripture is my presupposition, then I wouldn’t be testing Scripture with another authority (logic).
My refusal to acknowledge logic as a standard to test Scripture reveals two things. The first is that my presupposition is still my presupposition— not just my claimed “presupposition”. Put another way, I remained consistent, demonstrating a coherent worldview by continuing to use my presupposition to evaluate all other claims. The second is that the source of my disagreement didn’t come from a clear understanding of logic (at the time; more on logic later) but rather a clear understanding of my presuppositions— Scripture.
My Confusion
During my discussion I kept agreeing that Scripture must be logical. My error was assuming that saying Scripture is logical was the same as admitting Scripture must be tested with logic (Footnote 1).
By agreeing that Scripture is logical, the objection might be raised, “Doesn’t that mean logic is the ultimate authority?” The answer is no.
Interpreting Scripture is not the same as testing Scripture.
When a person checks to see whether or not a proposition from the bible is logical, he’s not testing the logic of Scripture, he’s testing his own logic! The key was consistently applying the inerrancy of Scripture to my incorrect assumption. Because Scripture is truthful, Scripture is inherently logical. By assuming the truthfulness of Scripture beforehand, I no longer was conflicted.
My Presuppositions
The source of my confusion was assuming that testing my interpretation of Scripture is the same as testing the logic of Scripture. God doesn’t automatically give a pat on the back with an invisible hand when you understand Scripture correctly. Instead, he gives us minds to think and logical tests to verify we are interpreting Scripture correctly.
Thus, Scripture’s logic is not in question. Man’s understanding of Scripture is in question. If anything Scripture seems illogical, it is safe to conclude that in reality the person, not Scripture, was illogical. Man can only think logically and truthfully if he aligns his thinking to God’s thinking and follows his thoughts from God’s thoughts (Footnote 2).
By assuming the doctrine of inerrancy, I know beforehand that Scripture is automatically truthful and therefore logical.
In the form of a logical argument, my reasoning might be clearer:
If Scripture is truthful, Scripture is logical.
Scripture is truthful
Therefore Scripture is logical.
My Conclusion
Don’t despair if you are confused and frustrated but especially don’t give in. Be God-fearing and admit you don’t have an answer instead of man-fearing and setting aside your faith and source of all truth.
Putting aside your source of all truth, Christ, even temporarily will make you inconsistent but more importantly hostile to the knowledge of God. Remember, “the fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction (Prov 1:7).” It’s ok to be confused; it’s not ok to be neutral.
Footnote 1: If you make the mistake of denying Scripture as logical, you validate fideism, a belief that religion is irrational. Don’t fall into this mistake! Christians can admit that Scripture is logical without automatically implying Scripture is not an ultimate authority. So the next time someone asks if Scripture is logical, say yes.
Footnote 2: For a more elaboration see Section 4.5.2 “Man Knows God Analogously to God’s Knowing” Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis by Greg L. Bahnsen pg 257.
Thank you for sharing and posting this entry with your thoughts.
Of course, any opposition against this, one needs to begin with a discussion of one’s inevitable presuppositions in their own world view.
Hi — I stumbled across your blog recently. I am a Christian and fellow sharer of the call to ministry. So, please understand that my questions are not hostile! The presuppositional method continues to intrigue me. Maybe you can answer some of my questions.
(1) Don’t you have to presuppose the basic reliability of sense perception to even know what the Scripture says?
(2) Could you give a definition of truth?
(3) If Scripture was filled with blatant contradictions or verifiably false historical claims, would you still use it as your presupposition?
Thanks! I’ll look forward to your reply.
-Max G. Parish
Max,
Thanks for your comment. I hope I can be of some help brother for your question.
(1) Don’t you have to presuppose the basic reliability of sense perception to even know what the Scripture says?
Response: Yes. Within the Christian world view, it would be rational for us to presuppose the reliability of our senses, but the fundamental axioms of other world views does not necessarily grant us that (or, basic reliability is arbitrary in their worldview), and with certain cases the fundamental beliefs even undermine the basic reliability of our senses.
Thus, the question within the framework is not so much if the senses are basically reliable, but IF the senses are reliable what would be the NECESSARY pre-conditions for the reliability for our senses? Thus, presuppositional apologetics engages in an analysis one’s foundational beliefs.
(2) Could you give a definition of truth?
RESPONSE: For the presuppositionalists, the issue is not so much as Correspondence vs. Coherence theory of truth, but that truth is ultimately what the Thoughts of God is. Truth in some sense is ultimately what cohere within the mind of God (as He is creator of all facts, and made them intelligibly and a reflection of His rational mind), but on a practical basis to have knowledge of truth, it requires that our beliefs correspond with God’s thoughts so to speak (as revealed from Scripture, general revelation properly interpreted, etc).
(3) If Scripture was filled with blatant contradictions or verifiably false historical claims, would you still use it as your presupposition?
I think this is much more complicated question than at first glance. What I mean is that it might assume a lot. To be more specific, if you mean to ask me about when something is false would I (or SHOULD I) still accept it as my foundation for the rest of my beliefs and knowledge, then the answer is no. Of course not.
Secondly, is it even rational to even presuppose that Scripture has all those problems you cited? Most often, critics (even friendly devil’s advocate during the moment of role playing) assumes another philosophy of facts that is unbiblical (and ultimately arbitrary, unwarranted or self-refuting) or problematic when it is adopted to apply towards Christianity. Only on the basis of faulty tools and erroneous methodologies could one someone derive the conculsion that Scripture is as you attributed it.
Moreover, in order for the arguments that the Bible are those things you mentioned above, it has been taken for granted that their are such things as the law of contradictions and other laws of logic. But are these intelligible themselves, and what world view would be able to make sense of these entities (to begin with, to even assume that these entities even exists!)? If one’s world view can not account for these laws of thought as prescriptive, then these laws are arbitrary and the very employment of these laws of logic is render useless; if the foundation is irrational to begin with during the attack on the Bible, everything else crumbles and the attack (in utilizing a logic that is really arbitrary and non-prescriptive) reduces down to irrationality or nonrationality but clearly not be described as displaying the virtues of rationality. Even if the Bible is shown supposedly to be irrational (contradicting, not factual) all the arguments and evidences are in vain when the worldview that these arguments are founded in (which the critic also seek to persuade believers to accept) are themselves irrational. It is futile: Arguing for rejecting something (in this case, the Bible) because it is irrational when the foundation for everything else in your own worldview is irrational is (how do I say it) irrational, since everything about is irrational (irrational worldview to begin with, tools of arguments that are irrational, trying to presuade one to accept an irrational foundational beliefs, etc)
This entry on neutrality is really important here because ultimately no facts, methodologies, laws (logic, mathematics, etc) and evidences are religiously neutral. Christians can not (and nonbelievers are not) pretend to be neutral. Should you accept the Bible as your ultimate presuppositions or should you accept some other unbiblical foundation for your belief?
For more links about religious neutrality:
http://www.teamtruth.com/articles/art_neutralityoutline.htm
http://www.teamtruth.com/articles/art_oaneutrality.htm
I hope that helps brother.
Hi Again — Thanks for the prompt and thoughtful reply. I have some more questions though. 🙂
Concerning (1), I agree with your basic thought that sense perception (and even rational thought) require preconditions. However, I believe that in this case the presuppositionalist asserts more then he can justify. I can understand that Theism is a precondition for being able to reasonably place a general trust in sense perceptions. But why, as the presuppositionalist asserts, is Christian Theism unique in this regard? I have never heard a presuppositionalist demonstrate why they are justified in claiming Christianity as the ultimate precondition, and why a Muslim or a Jew is not justified in claiming the same.
Concerning (2), if truth is what coheres in the mind of God, then our only portal into God’s mind is His revelation. How, then, are we to determine the truth value of f
acts which cannot be determined by biblical knowledge (i.e., my car is 11.5 feet long)? If truth is defined by what God thinks (or knows), then it seems like the only way to test any truth claim would be to see if it is in God’s mind; that is, if it is somehow given in his revelation. But this would cripple our ability to determine the truth value of propositions such as I named.
Concerning (3), you said: “if you mean to ask me about when something is false would I (or SHOULD I) still accept it as my foundation for the rest of my beliefs and knowledge, then the answer is no. Of course not.”
Actually, I meant exactly what I said. But by your response, it seems that if you found the bible to be filled with systemic contradictions, you would consider it to be false. Is this correct?
“Secondly, is it even rational to even presuppose that Scripture has all those problems you cited? ”
Of course it isn’t. 🙂 I would be foolish to presuppose that any document has blatant contradictions. One has to first analyze its truth claims and see if they are logically consistent.
“Only on the basis of faulty tools and erroneous methodologies could one someone derive the conculsion that Scripture is as you attributed it.”
You are saying, in essence, that the only way the Bible could be found to have flaws is if someone is applying faulty tools and methodologies. But this is simply to say that it is impossible to prove the Bible false. This is a scary statement to me because a Muslim could tell me the exact same thing, and there is no way to rationally adjudicate between the two options.
Concerning your large paragraph, I guess I disagree with your stance on logic. First of all, you note that I am assuming the laws of logic in even positing the possibility of contradictions existing in Scripture. I agree. But logic is different than most other axioms in reasoning, namely, it is impossible for it to not exist. In other words, the laws of logic would exist in any possible world. However, the Christian worldview makes lots of empirical truth claims which are no logically necessary (i.e., Jesus rose from the dead). I find if difficult, therefore, to see why we must epistemologically assume the proposition “Jesus rose from the dead” in order to make sense of the existence of logic. I think it actually works the other way around.
I’m not sure what you mean by logic being prescriptive. The laws of logic are certainly applicable to any thought system. They are, in fact, the precondition for any thought system. I would say that rather than a worldview accounting for logic, all worldviews must simply assume logic to even exist, Christianity included. Meaningful thought and dialog is impossible without it. And, as you probably know, we can’t justify, nor should we try to justify an axiom. That is precisely why it is an axiom.
I guess I also disagree with your standard for dialog. If I understand you correctly you are saying that if a person does not have an entirely coherent worldview, then any argument they make against Christianity is rubbish. Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you, but this, again, sounds rather dangerous to me. If you have defined truth to be simply what God thinks, and the way we know that truth is by His revelation, then you are in essence saying that it is impossible for anyone to refute the truth of the scriptures who is not a Christian. Since Christians are not interesting in doing that themselves, you have effectively made your worldview non-falsifiable. Combine that with our (as humans) ability to be deluded, and I consider this a very dangerous position. I grew up in a cult, so I am intimately familiar with the psychology and power of deluded thinking.
You make an interesting assertion in the close of your response that the laws of logic are not religiously neutral. I’m not sure I understand how this is possible. Could you demonstrate this fact?
Thanks again for you thoughts!
In Christ,
-Max
Max,
Hey brother, I just got around visiting your page. How old are you brother? Are you in the California area currently?
Before we proceed any further, I think we do need to establish something foundational to our discussion about apologetics methodology:
(1) What is your ultimate authority (the standard that is your final court of appeal)? Is it the Scriptures or something else?
(2) I’m also curious as to how you understand the relationship of Biblical theology to apologetics.
We might have a disagreement in these areas, and if so then I think these must be fundamentally discussed firsthand, which influence our entire discussion.
And as something on the side, your page mentioned that you discovered Clark, Van Til and Bahnsen, even linking the Bahnsen-Stein debate. I hope you understand that I’m trying to be charitable when I say this, but have you read any of the three of them to know what their responses are to some of your comments and questions?
Max,
Good discussion. I like your website and your desire to serve in the area of apologetics and evangelism.
Do let us know the next time you will be in the Los Angeles area so we can meet up to discuss apologetics and philosophy and also go out with us to do evangelism.
I think the current discussion on apologetic methodology is an important area for it leads to other aspect of theology i.e bibliology. So much to write, the best is to meet and talk.
But before any of this takes place, what is your opinion and view of Gordon Clark’s book on “A Christian View of Men and Things.” And Greg Bahnsen’s, “Always Ready.”
Have you listen to the debate between Greg Bahnsen and RC Sproul on Apologetic Methodology?
Hi again brothers. It is possible I am going to be in the LA area three weeks from now. I’m speaking at a Senior Citizen’s community on the 29th of June, and the following weekend I’m thinking about visiting my brother who lives down there (I think in the Simi Valley area) . Where are you guys at and what church do you attend? It could very possibly work for us to meet up!
Now, to answer your questions:
I am 22 years old, and currently living in the Fresno area.
My ultimate standard of appeal in terms of a system of thought is the scriptures. However, I don’t believe that the Bible, nor epistemology demands that the entire corpus of scripture be presupposed in order for knowledge to be possible. I guess I stand with Norman Giesler in this regard in that I believe Theism (at least Supernaturalism) is necessary for rational thought to exist. But Judaism and Islam fulfill this requirement as well as Christianity.
Now, I do not believe that being a Christian is simply a weighing of the facts and making an intellectual decision. But I do believe, being fully aware of the power of delusion, that we should be able to test the internal witness of the Holy Spirit against other things like logic, empirical studies of some sort, etc…. Otherwise we end up with a purely experientially based faith, which, though it can be subjectively certain, cannot be objectively collaborated. I know this will probably leave you with more questions, but it is a start.
Concerning the interface of apologetics and theology, I am actually writing a paper on that topic right now. However, it likely won’t be done for several weeks still, so I’ll give you a nutshell version.
As I see it, there are two venues for apologetics: (1) discipleship, and (2) evangelism. The first has mainly to do with what I already referenced — buttressing the faith of existing Christians by helping them see that what they believe in their hearts does indeed make sense in their minds (to borrow a phrase from Ravi Zacharias). I think you know what I mean here.
Concerning apologetics as a tool of evangelism: You and I know that the fundamental problem with Man is that he is dead toward God, in need of a Savior. In short, the problem is moral, not intellectual. As I see it, the task of evangelistic apologetics is to lead people IN THEIR OWN MINDS to this fact. You see, I can outright tell them–and sometimes we should–that their main problem is a moral problem — they are in rebellion toward God. It is a whole different thing when they come to that conclusion in their own mind as a result of finding out their objections don’t actually work. Now, I believe that for the apologist, this consists of a positive element (giving a case for Christianity — giving a reason for the hope within), and a negative element (answering objections and destroying false arguments — II Cor. 10:5). But, the whole point is to drive people to the truth of the matter, which is that they are in rebellion against God and need to humbly repent. In other worlds, apologetics should bring people intellectually/emotionally/psychologically to the cross. Whether they spurn it or embrace it is up to the Grace of God.
Obviously there is much more to say, but as I promised, there it is in a nutshell. 🙂
As you noted, Clark and Bahnsen were instrumental in getting me interesting in apologetics. However, I would consider Ravi Zacharias the most dominant influence in my apologetic interests. I have never read Van-Till, and I think that is my greatest weakness. I’ve read most of Bahnsen’s “Always Ready,” and here and there in Clark’s literature. I have listened to the debate between Bahnsen and Sproul, though my CD set only had two out of the three CDs. 😦 I make no claim to be an expert on Presuppositionalism — quite the opposite really. In addition to what I’ve already listed, I’ve read various articles, heard some lectures by Bahnsen, read a debate between Frame and Martin on the TANG, and other various things. I know I don’t fully understand the position, which is precisely why I’m engaging you guys in dialog!
Since it is so heavy on my mind, I really want to engage on a thorough study of it culminating in a research paper. It is just a matter of piecing out enough time! I have many other interests as well, not to mention responsibilities.
As you probably saw, I am an undergad philosophy major. That doesn’t mean I’m sharp, but it does mean I am familiar with a lot of the issues, and think about them quite a bit.
That better be all for now. I need to get back to my class work. I have no problem continuing communication in the comments section, but since it is getting more personal, I am also open to email communication–especially about details concerning meeting up.
In Christ,
-Max
Max,
I have just emailed you.
Max,
Lord willing, looking forward to meeting you.
Seem like you are a busy man, I concur with what Andy suggested, for I think that these things are best discussed in person where we can flesh it out over a bull session of some sort directly and in person rather than delayed in long long comments (to save time, I talk faster than I write like everyone else). We are all busy (myself, with Seminary and other things).
Given the limit of time, I will respond to comment 7 at this time.
1.) My ultimate standard of appeal in terms of a system of thought is the scriptures.”
Response: Praise God.
2.)”However, I don’t believe that the Bible, nor epistemology demands that the entire corpus of scripture be presupposed in order for knowledge to be possible.”
Response: If the entire corpus of Scripture does not need to presupposed for the precondition for knowledge, does Scripture need to be presupposed at least IN PART for the possibility of knowledge?
Second, if the Bible is the ultimate standard of appeals, should it be supposed ahead of time (thus, pre-supposed) in one’s worldview, which a theory of knowledge (or epistemology) happen to be a part of and thus under the jurisdiction of Scripture?
3.) “I guess I stand with Norman Giesler in this regard in that I believe Theism (at least Supernaturalism) is necessary for rational thought to exist.”
Response: Do you mean Theism as simply “God exists”?
I do not think it is sufficient in it of itself. Bare theism is just, well bare theism. Even a bare supernatural theism seem inadequate as the foundation for rational thoughts.
What I mean is that I don’t see how just the premise “God exists”or its necessary corollary in absence of more details of this God would lead to the necessity or the foundation of rational thoughts.
If you still disagree, can you give me a syllogism drawn from the premise “God exists” which leads to the conclusion of the possibility of knowledge.
4.) “But Judaism and Islam fulfill this requirement as well as Christianity.”
I agree with you that Judiasm, at least if it accept certain specific premises that is Biblical can lead to the possibility of knowledge.
Bahnsen have taught that heretical movements of Christianity loosely based upon the Bible might be able to ‘account’ for knowledge. But if so, the same Bible also refutes there errors.
Even if I grant you that some false relion can account for the narrow area of epistemology, I still think Presuppositioanlism is not defeated. Clark has said before that if a worldview can account for one aspect of human experience, its not just one area only that we are exclusively looking at, but to see if the particular worldview can provide the precondition or undermine it for as many aspects of human experiences possible (ethics, knowledge, science, etc), so that we see not just tiny mosaics but the bigger picture.
Islam is often invoked as a possible competitor against Christianity if one uses presuppositional argumentation. But I believe this is more often assumed possible than thought out. I believe if we search the Koran, the Koran lead us to skepticism of knowing truths even if you are a believer of Allah (see Surah 4:157 about Allah deceiving Muslims believers without finally correcting them!). More can be said about Islam I believe, but that’s it for now.
5.) “But I do believe, being fully aware of the power of delusion, that we should be able to test the internal witness of the Holy Spirit against other things like logic, empirical studies of some sort, etc….”
I also am strongly aware of the power of delusion! But the problem really is not that the internal witness of the Holy Spirit is delusional as much as man’s sinfulness deludes him in a very powerful way from the truth. The Bible as presented in Romans 1, talks about this delusion and the nonbeliever’s attempt to supress the truth ought to be exposed as totally irrational not only with their conclusion but also in their foundation (or presuppositions), epistemology and methodology. The nonbeliever’s philosophy of fact must not go unchallenged.
I hope at the least this communicates what I’m trying to say in a concise manner possible.
Good post. But I guess I still have some questions but this post did clear things up.
These two articles may be of interest, generally speaking with reference to Christianity, Islam and presuppositionalism.
Dear g-knee,
Your comment was encouraging, I’m glad the post is helping to clarify presuppositional apologetics.
If your questions are directly relevant to this post on the logic of scripture post a comment.
If the question is not directly related to this post’s focus, leave a comment also. Although most likely, you may not get an answer or a very delayed answer for any question that requires an extended answer.
Jeff,
Sometime next week Lord willing, I’ll get around to reading those articles