Presuppositionalism and Reformed Theology

To them anyways and uh... we're going to talk to uh... in up in utah. High-end.

Hi doctor what are you going to get. And a long-time listener first-time caller and figure. And you you found at.

The right time even i'm very proud of that.

Uh... yes yes uh... Wasn't occurred at the time. Change. There you go there you go you you you.

Recognize that you all have engaged in artificial time behavior over the.

Weekend.

And we just don't do that so anyway. Artificial time behavior. But i've never come up with that one before. But uh...

Anyway what can i do for you.

Presuppositionalism and the Need to Start with God

Well uh... i'm a student at columbia evangelical seminary getting ready to write my dissertation uh... i'm choosing an apologetic topic uh... basically uh... presuppositionalist and i listen to you a lot listen to a lot of your debate uh... however uh... i was wondering if you have read r .c. sproles book on.

I've signed it as a textbook in classes when i talk christian philosophy of religion. As far back as uh... When did that come out. I'm trying to. I'm trying to remember. Yeah i've used it. I've used it many times as the counterpoint uh... to always ready or something like that so we can discuss the differences and compare and contrast.

And uh... uh... yes uh... and in fact i i will tell you that uh... when uh... I will ask the man behind the soundboard here. It was like september of oh nine. Is that when the ligonier conference was in scottsdale.

Is that about right. How did i remember that. I'm i'm horrible at things like that.

Uh... what.

September of oh eight. Okay uh... the the the rookie says september of oh eight. So anyway uh... it was it was ironic that uh... there is the ligonier conference and and r .c. sproles speaking at scottsdale bible church in the big big big auditorium and during the q and a he's just ripping on presuppositionalism while i'm in another building with a line of guys that i'm talking to about presuppositionalism.

So uh... at least the dialogue can take place but.

Hey.

I love r .c. I just think this is a blind spot uh... because the book uh... has been i think soundly and properly criticized by.

Uh...

A wide range of people uh... john frame and others students of greg bonson have pointed out that the representation of the presuppositional perspective that is presented there just isn't overly robust or accurate shall we say.

I thought it was a little.

Weak.

Uh... that's that's a nice way of putting it but yeah it wasn't it didn't really uh... fill in the gaps. No no it didn't. And did you hear uh... did you hear uh... The uh... debates uh... that took place between uh... guys uh... justice for the right between uh... sprawl and boston.

Yes i did i did.

But that helps to give some context.

I did and actually i thought there were some weak point on on both sides.

Okay um...

But i was wondering well first of all of the one of things i was wondering is or because they say well we have to start with god and he basically makes the argument how can you start outside of yourself you have to start.

And i was just wondering if there was an answer to that and some resources that would help me with that.

Well i mean that's a that is a fundamental uh... epistemological assertion uh... that are our knowledge of that all of our knowledge including our knowledge of god has to be based upon uh... mankind upon our own experience uh...

That's a that is one of the huge differences and uh... that's where from a reform perspective i i just don't understand doctors roles assertion of that uh... we cannot escape ourselves. But what are we.

We.

Are created in the image of god right. And the very the very connecting points uh... that we are that we assert as a as presuppositionalist is exactly that that we are uh... individuals create the image of god.

And that there is no moral uh... morally neutral point or any other kind of neutral point whatsoever because god has created everything as it is to have true knowledge of anything creation. This comes from our our radical belief that that god is the creator of all things that jesus christ is the creator of all things and that all things have a purpose.

If you if you start there and that's not just a reformed idea that that's pretty much just a christian theistic idea i would think uh... but if you start there.

Then.

What does that do to that assertion that we will we cannot escape ourselves. We cannot escape our creatureliness. But does that mean that that creatureliness.

Do you think rc is saying more than that. Because that's kind of what he always comes back to is that is that we we are limited as creatures and that's why we have to start with ourselves.

Well but see i would say uh... our limitedness as creatures makes us dependent upon god's revelation. That's why we don't start with ourselves. Because because again and this is where the reformed issue comes in is if we were unfallen creatures you might at least be able to make the argument that it's god's intention that as unfallen creatures for some purpose that you know i can't imagine what it would be but some purpose god wants us to function that way.

My my concern is that we are not unfallen creatures we are fallen creatures and therefore we have to have uh... that that type of uh... external source which is found in revelation. But i would argue that even adam in his unfallen state was still dependent upon divine revelation.

God had to tell him what his purpose was god had to.

Provide.

Revelation for him. Uh... i'd i'd never see a time.

When.

Man could ever start with himself alone outside of the priority and centrality of the divine revelation of god. And to be perfectly honest with you i think r .c. and others drive this from thomas aquinas their their love of aquinas uh...

And he was just inconsistent at this point. He's not i don't i just don't believe his philosophy is consistent with a reformed epistemology. I would i would agree with a lot of criticisms that uh... van till uh... aims that direction.

And that's why i felt that the debate uh... that took place between uh... boston and and r .c. was was rather telling along those lines uh... and very useful. I'm awful glad they did it again. I i i mentioned uh... in bellflower uh... just a couple nights ago that it really bugs me when certain people say well i'm not going to debate christians uh... we should be the people of the best at doing inter interpersonal and intervarsity debates because we can show each other respect and go to the word of god.

But i'm awful glad that they did that so we can hear those two perspectives. And from from my perspective the radical.

Purposefulness.

Of divine creation and hence the reality of god's decree the fact is accomplishing something and that we are created in such a way that we can interact with that purpose and and are are central to that purpose.

I mean certainly it's that the the glorification trying god in the salvation of a specific people that is central to what god is doing. That gives us a ground of understanding who man is how man's to function howard to know god is found that radical purposefulness.

And i just don't see how asserting epistemology says we start with ourselves uh... rather than start as creatures.

Do you think it. We might be equivocating over the word start with.

Well he's one. Use it. I mean the you have to. Uh... What what's it. What is the weight of the argument that arcee's making if it is not to change the starting point to our interaction uh... with the world around us and hence to a something like a cosmological argument or or some type of observation of the created universe.

What's. What's the way the argument if that's not what start with means.

Yeah yeah. Evening. He means start with ontologically but i think he also means start with uh... logically too. Yeah yeah. I mean he says we can't escape ourselves and therefore logically we have to.

Begin from ourselves and work our way to god. Yeah. And i i i honestly believe that if man begins with himself he will never work and see his way to the triune god of scripture. Uh... Uh... i'd just i'd did it.

For from my perspective if we start with ourselves we will end up creating an image of god that is compatible with us and pleasing to us. Uh... we are dependent upon divine revelation. For for so much of the the truth about who god is and i i i understand you know i i was mentioning i i mentioned this.

Uh... saturday night bellflower planes can have the videos up sometime soon and you'll you'll notice that i did address this. But i read that there was a philosophy major from biola who asked me a question similar to this and so that that that's also a piggyback off of each other even though he wasn't asking us for his time a general presuppositional ism.

But one of the things that that i emphasized in that context uh... that that i'm emphasizing here is this when we look at who we are and what we are and how god has created us.

Uh...

The starting point has to be found in the radical creator the one who has made all things. When we start with ourselves it's sort of like as calvin said our eyes are always going to be upon the ground rather than uh... looking up and seeing the bright light of of the sun.

And i think it's a great illustration that that's uh... the calvin used. And i'd just don't believe that if we start with ourselves that the line of argumentation is going to lead us uh... to uh... the kind of argumentations used.

But but.

I also recognize that there are connections between the arguments that we use. For example you're obviously from there is a transcendental argument.

And.

You are aware of the fact. Uh... uh... i'm not sure if you've heard this particular phraseology but there is something called p s are the principle sufficient reason and you can hear the dependence the transcendental argument upon the upon p s are in the bonds and stein debate where were bonds and says the sign what you're appealing to brute facts and brute facts are irrational.

That is once i get saying what's just the way things are is that they just.

Asked.

Well that's a violation of p s. Are the principle sufficient reason for the principle. Special reasons as there has to be a reason why things are the way they are. You can't just simply appeal to prove facts.

Well.

Uh... The best form of the cosmological argument.

Uh...

Really boils down to whether p s are is valid or not. If p s are is valid than the cosmological argument is valid as well so there's a connection between the two but i'd i'd firmly believe that any argument.

Uh...

No matter what how you you phrase it it's the it's the interpretive framework that you fit it into. Uh... that has to do. It has to be first and foremost our mind. And if you're dealing with an individual who is a creature of god who's rejecting his creatureliness he's going to find a way to fit any arguments into that continued rejection.

That's the that's the that's the uh... not only the the epistemological but the moral connection point that we need to be that we need to be going for. Uh... you know because our argumentation isn't just simply to provide an argument our desire is to see this person repent of their sins and bow the knee to the lord jesus christ.

And so you know that's not that doesn't fit into the strict philosophers handbook of how you do things. But that's another reason why functioning of the lordship of christ uh... means you're gonna do things differently than the world does.

And so if i'm dealing with somebody i'm gonna deal with them as the bible describes them to be. And i'm going to go ahead and press upon that conscience. Uh... that is that is hurting. And that they because they are suppressing the knowledge of god and i'm gonna pry up those fingers from him withholding and suppressing the knowledge of god.

That's what i feel view my role as. And uh... that's that's i think the power of the the presuppositional.

Perspective.

Is because the evidential perspective basically leaves you appealing to that person as if they are autonomous authority to judge your evidences as if they have the authority to judge whether they are or not a creature of god.

I just don't see how that fits with the authoritative proclamation that we see in act seventeen were where paul says god is a point of day where he will judge every man by a man that he has appointed having raised him from the dead.

I mean there is a day of judgment coming and you're going to be judged by somebody else. And you don't have the right to say well i'm gonna opt out of that. No you're not. Uh... That day of judgment is coming and god has fixed it and set it and that's the way it is.

And that's authoritative proclamation. That's not. Well you know i'd like to suggest these things to you. Maybe if you think about it long enough you might find that this no because paul recognizes these are idolaters they're already suppressing the knowledge of god.

What are they going to do with more knowledge of god? They're going to suppress it too. So what does he do? He pries up the fingers. That's what i see. Uh...

But there's some disconnect there between suppressing the knowledge of god and whether or not the arguments.

Are valid arguments but it has epistemological ramifications because it.

Is so.

Because it is systemic it's not just in the moral realm but it is a part of the very definition of the creature. Just as for example look at how over overarching and invasive homosexuality becomes amongst homosexuals themselves.

It becomes their identity. The suppression of the knowledge of god becomes part of the very identity of the.

Person.

Who is in rebellion against god. And so it creates an epistemological methodology where you can find a place for any argument as long as it allows you to suppress the knowledge of god. Uh... i've seen this happen.

I mean.

We've seen it happen. But they do it with uh... the transcendental argument too. It's not like uh... somebody listens to the transcendental argument says oh i'm going to be a christian here. Here's much better argumentation.

Right but the difference is the difference is the form of argumentation.

You're using.

Does not appeal to the sinner to continue in his rebellion and grant to him the grounds to judge the existence of god. When you when you present the cosmological argument which by the way i think is valid given the validity of PSR i believe that it's valid.

Why do i believe that. Because it is consistent with the christian world view. Uh... there's there's there's there's reason to it. But when i present it in such a way that the that the the atheist i'm saying well you know i think if you'll examine this you'll come to the same conclusion that i'm coming to.

And if you do so then these these are things you need to do on the basis of that. That's different in saying well i would like you to judge the existence of god and you can make up your mind one way or the other from there.

That's very different from saying.

You.

To even consider the argumentation i'm using are having to steal from the god whose existence you are you are suppressing. There is an immediate.

Moral.

Pressure.

In the transcendental argument that is not present in the cosmological now you can call that just a functional thing but i i think it it it's very very important to observe and to recognize and from my perspective you have to have a big enough theology to substantiate that and that's why you don't find too many non-reformed folks using a uh... uh... presuppositional approach because i don't think their their theology is big enough to support it.

So what you're saying. If i can maybe boil it down you can tell me if i'm right about this or not. The transcendental or the presuppositional argument.

Given the nature of the person to whom we're making it. Yes yeah it says.

Which which. The uh... what you're saying. The uh... cosmological argument doesn't it just says here are the facts and then you make up your own mind but presuppositional argument you would say.

It's not just here. Are the facts right. You don't have the rights your your mind has already been made up and you need to change that mind. In other words there's an implicit call to repentance and uh... you know that doesn't fit with theologies that don't have repentance in anymore either.

Uh... That's why that's what i found odd about my reformed brethren who who reject it because it just seems to. This is something i've said many many times and that is our apologetics must flow from our theology.

We shouldn't just simply have our theology and try to come up with an apologetic that at least will will fit without too much of a difficulty. It should just be the natural flow and conclusion of our theology.

And it just seems to me that the presuppositional perspective flows so naturally from what we we believe about god and we believe about his decree and what we believe about man and his suppression of knowledge of god and all these other things that you just did.

There's just this flow that it did. That is to me the real the real strength of the of the entire argument.

Apologetics Must Flow from Theology

Well thank you cleared up quite a bit for me.

Okay and i i i i would like to uh... i'd love to see what you come up with when you when you write your write your work.

Well thank you. I might have to call you again and and clarify a couple of stuff but you don't have time just for me on your show.

Well i appreciate your recognition of that.

Alright thanks ian.

Hey that's how you start off.