Can a Molinist be a Presuppositionalist?

Calvinistic Cartoons: What? That's What!

Calvinistic Cartoons: What? That's What!

Presuppositional vs Natural Theology

I think that the following article is important/ I'm always interesting in Apologetic Methodologies because we can learn from each one!

Presuppositional vs Natural Theology:
Jeff DownsSome of you will already be aware of this, but the latest edition of Unbelievable, features Scott Oliphint and Kurt Jaros. This is a discussion regarding apologetic methodology.



"Scott believes that the best apologetic method is to assume that Christianity is true and show why a non-Christian is suppressing that truth. Atheists presuppose the existence of God even to argue against Him. This approach is called presuppositional or covanental apologetics.


Kurt Jaros believes that method is flawed and argues for the primacy of Natural Theology (or evidential apologetics) in presenting the case for Christianity to non-believers."


As of writing this, I have not had a chance to listen, so I can not share my thoughts. To listen click here.

I have some reservations about going to this conference, but I would love to attend these two particular sessions. I believe we need more scholarly discussion (audio) on apologetic methodology. Such as the one between Greg Bahnsen and R. C. Sproul.

I have heard the discussion between Dr Bahnsen and Sproul, but I haven't listened to the one Jeff points us to from the Unbelievable radio program yet I look forward to hearing it

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: On How to Answer a Presuppositionalist

John Loftus has recently posted an attempt to answer the challenge to Atheism posed by Presuppositional Apologetics.  He fails. I'm not even willing to describe it as a "good try" because that would be lying. 

Tim Shaughnessy is posting at DC a one note song. It doesn't matter what tune we sing, his song remains the same:

Christianity only has ONE presupposition. We presuppose the truth of the bible. God and his word cannot be divorced and are synonymous with one another so we could also say that we presuppose the God of the bible as true.

Okay then, let's sing this note. Let's presuppose the Bible and the God in it, yes! But let's first understand the Bible and the God in it. Q.E.D.

Could the God of the Bible exist but the Bible be false? Nope.  However just like Loftus is woefully incapable of correctly describing what "faith" is and is not, he doesn't know what Presuppostional Apologetics is. I have collected a few audios and videos and articles that would help anyone who is confused. Just follow the link.

Debunking Christianity: On How to Answer a Presuppositionalist

THEOparadox - The Biblical Paradox Blog: Cornelius Van Til - "Why I Believe In God"

Image via Wikipedia

Here is a good blog post containing a video of Dr Cornelius Van Til answering the question of why he believes in God.



THEOparadox - The Biblical Paradox Blog: Cornelius Van Til - "Why I Believe In God"

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Islam: a contradiction to reason and logic and evidence

Ken has posted a great blog post about presuppostional apologetics regarding Islam. A must-read!

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Islam: a contradiction to reason and logic and evidence

Atheism Exposed: Truth Wins Once Again via Presuppositional Apologetics

Jamin Hubner posted links to a recent debate between presuppositional apologist Sye TenBruggencate and skeptic atheist Justin Scheiber on the Yahweh or Myweh podcasts. They discussed the existence of God. Jamin posted a link to the audio and Sye' s unedited transcript with the parts highlighted in red that Justin has originally edited out when the exchange was first published. Jamin and Sye believe that Justin edited out the parts where his arguments fell apart. Everyone should listen to the podcast and read the transcript to see what you think.

Atheism Exposed: Truth Wins Once Again via Presuppositional Apologetics

Related articles

• Atheism: The Paper Tiger (josiahconcept.org)
• Why Not Sensing a Need for God Doesn't Prove His Nonexistence (psychologytoday.com)
• The New Atheism by Norman L. Geisler (Essential apologetics) (rodiagnusdei.wordpress.com)
• book review: van til's apologetic (jude3project.org)

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: The Self-Sufficient Knower: an introduction to revelational epistemology

Mike Felker has posted a video about presuppositional apologetic methodology. Here is how how he introduced it:

The argument i'm presenting was originally proposed by the late GREG BAHNSEN in his book, "PRESUPPOSITIONAL APOLOGETICS: STATED AND DEFENDED". This video will hopefully be the beginning of a work in progress to provide some illustrations and defenses of revelational epistemology. Revelational epistemology, biblically speaking, is the idea that one cannot have knowledge without revelation. In other words, unless you begin with Scripture, you cannot know anything at all

I agree with Mike. Without scripture there is precious little we can know. I put a picture of Greg Bahnsen in this post.




THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: The Self-Sufficient Knower: an introduction to revelational epistemology

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Greg Bahnsen on YouTube

James Swan just posted an announcement that there is a YouTube Channel featuring Greg Bahnsen videos!

I just stumbled upon a Greg Bahnsen YouTube page. I'm sure many of you already knew about this, but well, no one told me. Here's a sample:

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Greg Bahnsen on YouTube

Related articles

• Presuppositional Apologetics - Resources (xercised.wordpress.com)
• Presuppositional Apologetics - 2 (xercised.wordpress.com)
• Presupposational Apologetics, Morality, and The Intellectual Legacy Of Greg Bahnsen (outofthegdwaye.wordpress.com)
• Presuppositional Apologetics - 3 (xercised.wordpress.com)
• "Super Bowl Ads Live On at YouTube and Facebook" and related posts (textually.org)

Presuppositions Presentation

Here is a lecture Dr James White gave on the presuppositions he used in a recent debate. He wrote the following by way of introduction.

I was asked to speak on the presuppositions of my debate with Robert Sungenis up in Newberg, Oregon, and here is the presentation I gave in response to the request. (The audio unsync'd for the first 2/3 of the presentation, then caught up...somehow).

Presuppositions Presentation

Presuppositional Apologetics and the Trinity

Colin Smith has written an article about how Presuppositional Apologetics connects with the Trinity. A must read!

Presuppositional Apologetics and the Trinity

Where Should I Begin in Reading Van Til and Presuppositional Works?

Jamin Hubner has posted an excellent article about where to start reading the works of Cornelius Van Til (Pictured) and what books one should read to get up to speed on Presuppositional Apologetics.


Where Should I Begin in Reading Van Til and Presuppositional Works?

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Another great presuppositional debate

I just heard of a great debate between two Christians and two atheists on Mike Felker's blog. The Christians were using the Presuppositional Apologetic method to argue the point that the Christian God does exist. I happen to like the Presuppositional approach because everytime I see it used effectively it points to and glorifies Christ. While the Evidential approach has its uses, this one method that I think is devastating to those who would deny God. However, I agree with Mike when he wrote:

For instance, if a skeptic argues, "How can you trust the Bible when all we have are copies of copies of copies of copies?" the presuppositionalist can remain consistent and still respond to the specific claim. Instead, presuppositionalists may respond with, "How can you talk about trusting the Bible when you have no rational basis for trusting your rationality?" I do not think this is always necessary.

It's important to use all the tools you have and sometimes an evidential approach is best. We must trust the leading of the Holy Spirit to know what approach to take.








THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Another great presuppositional debate

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Presuppositional apologetics vs. Atheism on the Unbelievable radio program

I think that Presuppositional Apologetics is really unassailable. It highlights that without God we cannot explain anything. One of the examples that I thought were really truly epic is the point that you have to assume your own existence to assert it. That is circular reasoning. This is definitely an epic discussion between an Atheist and a Christian. I agree that you can't make sense of logic and existence without presupposing God's existence. Sye expertly shows why presuppossitional apologetics works!

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Presuppositional apologetics vs. Atheism on the Unbelievable radio program

A Failure to Do Real Apologetics: The Classical Face-plant #2 : RealApologetics Blog

Image via Wikipedia

I read an article tweeted by Brian from Apologetics 315.  I like it, but..... the author criticizes William Lane Craig for failing to arguer for Biblical inerrancy and suspend the truthfulness of scripture:

So, the classical apologist says that we can’t yet appeal to Scripture as our final authority – at least regarding the resurrection. For that reason, Craig asserts that we should accommodate to the unbelieving mind. We should do whatever it takes – even suspend the truthfulness of the Word of God (!) – so that unbelievers will become Christians. Forget the fact that our most trustworthy testimony and description of who Jesus is comes from the Bible and that God commands us to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, the Bible must be set aside until the proper time (post-salvation). Piece by piece, chip by chip, we (religiously neutrally) work our way towards the fullness of the Christian worldview.

I understand the frustration. When I listen to debates by William Lane Craig and Dinish D'Souza. 
and their opponents attack scriptural inerrancy and the Bible text is challenged, I want to see them fight for the truth of the Bible. At the same time I see that they are avoiding these issues because they see that the their opponent is on;ly trying to shift the focus of the Gospel. I have never heard William Lane Craig or D'Souza compromise the truth of the Bible but arguing from external evidence outside the Bible  does have a place in witnessing. Some people actually get saved because of the work of Craig and  D'Souza.. For some their apologetic works and i see the hand of God in their ministries and i am certain that God is using them. That is what matters. I see Dr. Craig's endorsement of molinlism as problematic and even unbiblical but ui don't think believing it means that you are doing a disservice to non-believers because in witnessing debating the existence of God and the Resurrection it wouldn't come up. I hope Craig will soon stop teaching molinism because it's not scriptural but if you want to have the sovereignty of God and human free will in the same worldview I don't see how you can teach anything else.

A Failure to Do Real Apologetics: The Classical Face-plant #2 : RealApologetics Blog