Presuppositional Apologetics

  • Thread starter Thread starter RobedWithLight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RobedWithLight

Guest
I’ve heard that certain Non-Catholic apologists sometimes make use of this apologetical method and that its immediate intent if I’m not mistaken is to gradually change the opponent’s deeply held worldview. Can anyone elaborate upon this subject?

Your (name removed by moderator)uts would be highly appreciated. Thank you.

Gerry 🙂
 
well, it’s difficult to know where to begin, not knowing what you don’t know. could you tell us what you know about it, and then we can go from there? for instance, do you know what presuppositional thinking is?
 
I know nothing about it. Could you give me some background?

Thanks,

In Him, through her,
PioMagnus
 
Hello

I’ve sometimes heard Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong mention this method (often employed by some theologians) in his articles and mentioned that it is really anti-apologetics. However I must admit I know little about it then, so I started this thread.

Well, just found out something about it.

Presuppositionalism is said to be an apologetical method that presupposes the existence of God and the validity of scripture and argues from that perspective to prove the truth of Christianity. It is said to be frequently employed by Reformed Protestant theologians. Its aim is to gradually clear up deeply held presuppositions of the other person, to the point of at least making them* open* to the apologist’s position.

In CARM’s (Christian Research Apologetics Ministry) website, they gave an example of how presuppositionalist apologetics works. One example of how a presuppositionalist (B) argues:

A: I’m an atheist. Can you prove to me that God exists?

B. Probably not, I’m afraid. Your **presuppositions **don’t allow for me to present proofs that you would find convincing.

A: That is because there is no God!

B: Bingo! You see? You merely confirmed what I was saying.

A: Can you explain why?

B: The deeply held assumptions you hold simply prevents you from understanding anything that I would tell you, no matter how logical they are presented. If I quote scripture, you would merely dismiss it as a work of fiction, a product of human imagination. Even if God would show Himself to vast numbers of people at the same time, you would say it is just a case of mass hallucination. If I would say that the prophecies in the Old Testament were fullfilled in the New Testament, you would say they were forged. Nothing can be proven to you because your presupposition that God does not exist simply does not allow it. Your assumptions limits your ability to appreciate the evidence.

A: I beg to disagree. It isn’t limited.

B: Yes it is limited. Even if I present to you incontrovertible proof, your presupposition will force you to interpret whatever facts are presented to fit in with your deeply held views.

A: I understand your point. I may be* open* to being persuaded, if you are able to.

B: Now. Since you say you are open to being presuaded, what kind of proof would you require to prove the existence of God? I must see what your presuppositions are and work either for or against it.
I am interested in getting the perspectives of all our friends here. All your contributions would be highly appreciated. Thanks and God bless you all.

Gerry 🙂
 
that’s a pretty good description of what it does. presuppositional thinking is the foundation, the BASIS, for all our other thoughts. it’s the ‘givens’.

if someone presupposes, for instance, that God does not exist, then no matter how convincing the proof, no matter what miracles he witnesses, he will still not believe there is a God, because his thinking prohibits the possibility.

cs lewis was one of the few apologists who were able to address and change presuppositions effectively. he does so in ‘mere christianity’ better than anywhere else. he basically starts with aspects of human existence that are common to all and not deniable, and goes from there to a theological deduction. the appeal to the human condition is one of the best ways to overcome presuppostional biases.

does that help?
 
Hmmm…

Then maybe this is an answer to many of the frsutrated Catholics on here who have Faith, yet still struggle with doubt. Are there presuppositions lingering in their minds at some level that are conflicting with their Faith??? It would seem to me this is why we feel a “struggle” in our thought life many times.

What is the Catholic Answer (pun intended) for this condition???
 
one presupposition that you find very often with protestants is the idea of sola scriptura. it amuses and saddens me at the same time when i see the look of confused and helpless perplexity that comes across the faces of my protestant friends when i ask them what seems to be a simple question: where does the idea that we should only do what the Bible says come from?

i think most of the false presuppositions that people accept today are based on lies, perpetrated by the enemy, and largely finding their beginning point in the renaissance/reformation/enlightenment. not that the concepts (most of them) didn’t exist in other forms before that time. but they seemed to really take off then. and we see their repurcussions now.
 
It seems that presuppositionalists, when debating for instance atheists about God’s existence, they attack not the atheist’s immediate arguments, nor do they begin to prove God’s existence by stating deductive a priori proofs to prove He exists, but by attacking or weakening the atheist’s deeply held prejudices, that is, why he believes what he believes and coax him to at least become more open-minded about the possibility.

The approach itself, is based on the proponent’s deeply held convictions, which he assumes to be absolutely true, and therefore is beyond logic, that is, it is based on faith, and all else begins from there. In that sense it is not logical because they assume that it is above and beyond human logic.

That is how I view it.

Gerry
 
A few thoughts:

What is SS meant to mean ?​

Does it mean that Scripture is God’s only canon (= measure/ plumbline/) for Christian theology ?

If so, I think it can be defended. Not by Protestants only

“But the Church was earlier than the NT” In time, yes (in some sense) - but in value/dignity/authentia ?

An analogy from St.Thomas’s discussion of the Hexaemeron (the work of the Six Days of Creation): The ordo intentionalis (= what God meant to do) of creation is logically prior to the actualisation of the ordo creationis (= the doing of what God meant) - yet the ordo creationis is better, because a more complete reality, than its existence in the Mind of God. An apple that man can see, smell, taste, and enjoy, is more complete than the un-real-ised idea of that apple in God’s intention: the apple becomes more of an apple by being given away.

Likewise, the NT is - possibly - nobler in divine “authority” than the Church - the Church, that is, on earth. One is the written word of God, and so, is analogous to the Word made flesh; The other is that Word’s Mystical Body. One is Inscripturate, the Other is Incarnate. The Word is the model both for the Holy Book and for the Holy People; each is related to Him, in different and equally important ways. Either one is better than the other, but, in different aspects. One is Word, One is Body: He alone is Word and Body. He combines in their rightful pattern things we isolate from that pattern, and set at odds with each other.

So maybe arguing the relative excellence of one compared with the other is an incomplete way of trying to account for their value - both are from Christ. Trying to put one over the other, is like the disciples competing with each other to be be “first” in the Kingdom of Heaven: it’s a wrong question. Christ is First - and First as man too, because He made Himself the least and last.

ISTM that one should look at what authority is, and how it is expressed, and what is for. “Sola Scriptura” - which may be meant as “Scripture alone”, or “by Scripture alone”: far too many people these days do not understand Latin, let alone Latin grammar, let alone books in Latin that use its grammar - is not a “free-standing” doctrine - it is part of a “body of divinity”. It has a setting, a context. And a purpose. Which is to cast light on how the Christian Faith is to be expressed. Does it do that as well as it could ?

Does it need to be completed by other doctrines ?

Does it express something which could be better expressed in some other way ?

It is wrong, and if it is, how is it wrong ?

Does the Church already say what it expresses, and if so, how ?

Is it an element of Catholic tradition that has been overlooked and so, become Protestant by default ?

Is it a thing the Church might profitably learn from non-Catholics ?

Or is it complete and total garbage of no use to man or beast or Christ ? (Can a thing be that ?)

What do Protestants mean by their theological concepts ?

Ask a Protestant theologian; or read one of them - such as Karl Barth, or Luther, or Calvin; or someone else.

Just as Catholics have beliefs in common, with different insights on to what all hold as true, so do Protestants. What looks like chaos, is often not chaos, but the variety which comes from being an organic, and healthy, reality. Shinbones are not the liver: but they would be foolish to compete with one another. The body and its parts are interdependent. they are made for service to each other. That is not stagnation, nor is it chaos - stagnation is a very Catholic temptation, chaos a very Protestant one: both are unhealthy, in different ways. ##
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top