Post by Soulfyre on Jan 24, 2005 0:42:28 GMT -5
Francis Schaeffer's implementation of presuppositionalism (sometimes referred to as "modified presuppositionalism", although I think that this is inaccurate, as the presuppositional bases remain the same) addresses what may be considered the "elephant in the room" concerning Van Til's apparent rigidity. Essentially, we communicate with others whose presuppositions are at variance with ours daily on a more or less successful basis. How then can this be true? The answer, of course, is disarmingly simple. While everyone may in essence choose a world-view or presuppositional framework that is manifestly at variance with the Christian world-view, everyone must also live within the reality that God has created. In other words, the only world-view that ultimately "counts" is God's. In order to live with any degree of success in God's created reality, the non-Christian must pragmatically "borrow" from Christianity certain assumptions that are at variance with their own presuppositional framework. Francis Schaeffer's approach was to find these points of tension, and confront the non-Christians with their inconsistencies. A Biblical illustration of this apologetic device is found in Acts 17:22-31, when Paul made his defense to the Epicureans and Stoics at the Areopagus (Mars Hill) . Paul reasoned with the pagan philosophers by attacking the inconsistency of their presuppositions, then interposing the Christian solution to the inconsistency. The result? A few men became followers of Paul and believed.
Are either Francis Schaeffer or Paul arguing, as did Thomas Aquinas, that the reasoning faculties of man are unaffected by the Fall? To quote Paul, "God forbid." Nevertheless, one may argue that it pleases God, who created man as a cognitive being, to incorporate the use of reason in concert with His word and the effectual work of the Holy Spirit as the means by which He has chosen to save individuals. Is it then the effectiveness of reason alone? No. Yet it is a valid and, indeed, important part of evangelism. It was Peter who commanded: "Always be prepared to give an answer [Gk., apologia] to every one who asks you to give reason [Gk., logon] for the hope that you have."
One might also add that it is this same assumption--that of a common, irreducible reality that may only be adequately approached with a Christian world-view, yet in which those who do not hold a Christian world-view survive by "borrowing" assumptions--that evidences may be used. To the extent that a person borrows upon Christian presuppositions to assign validity to the "facts" that purportedly support their own beliefs, a Christian may then present evidence that meets or exceeds the litmus test that persons "facts". This creates a dynamic tension not unlike using a queen and a rook in chess to limit the moves of an opponent's king until no moves are left. If the non-Christian rejects Christian evidences whose validity meet or exceed his or her own litmus test, then the heart of the matter is revealed. The issue then does not become one of "reasonableness" or "proof", but one of the fallen will whose natural choice is to rebel against God. This then serves to validate the Christian "hypothesis" that only the Christian world-view adequately fits all the data, addressing both perception and will. And one comes, then, full-circle to the proclamation of the Gospel.
Note, however, that evidentialism cannot stand on its own, because its treatment of the human condition is inadequate. But presuppositionalism may contextually use evidentiary argumentation, having established a presuppositional basis and context in which to do so.
God bless and keep you always,
Matthew (soulfyre)
Are either Francis Schaeffer or Paul arguing, as did Thomas Aquinas, that the reasoning faculties of man are unaffected by the Fall? To quote Paul, "God forbid." Nevertheless, one may argue that it pleases God, who created man as a cognitive being, to incorporate the use of reason in concert with His word and the effectual work of the Holy Spirit as the means by which He has chosen to save individuals. Is it then the effectiveness of reason alone? No. Yet it is a valid and, indeed, important part of evangelism. It was Peter who commanded: "Always be prepared to give an answer [Gk., apologia] to every one who asks you to give reason [Gk., logon] for the hope that you have."
One might also add that it is this same assumption--that of a common, irreducible reality that may only be adequately approached with a Christian world-view, yet in which those who do not hold a Christian world-view survive by "borrowing" assumptions--that evidences may be used. To the extent that a person borrows upon Christian presuppositions to assign validity to the "facts" that purportedly support their own beliefs, a Christian may then present evidence that meets or exceeds the litmus test that persons "facts". This creates a dynamic tension not unlike using a queen and a rook in chess to limit the moves of an opponent's king until no moves are left. If the non-Christian rejects Christian evidences whose validity meet or exceed his or her own litmus test, then the heart of the matter is revealed. The issue then does not become one of "reasonableness" or "proof", but one of the fallen will whose natural choice is to rebel against God. This then serves to validate the Christian "hypothesis" that only the Christian world-view adequately fits all the data, addressing both perception and will. And one comes, then, full-circle to the proclamation of the Gospel.
Note, however, that evidentialism cannot stand on its own, because its treatment of the human condition is inadequate. But presuppositionalism may contextually use evidentiary argumentation, having established a presuppositional basis and context in which to do so.
God bless and keep you always,
Matthew (soulfyre)