tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post405521972040404037..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: "Hardline presuppositionalism"Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71294689523837837312010-03-03T15:29:44.181-05:002010-03-03T15:29:44.181-05:00Hi Truth,
Thanks a bunch for the correction re: t...Hi Truth,<br /><br />Thanks a bunch for the correction re: the author. I have corrected below so that Dr. Patton is not mistakenly imputed with my friendly objections. <br />************************************<br />My uber brief thoughts in response to Copan's article is as follows:<br /><br />1. This article reminded me of A general observation I've made many times: Many folks who don't like certain evangelistic methods that start with the bad news often don't do evangelism themselves. Thus, I like my way of doing it better than their way of not doing it. Of course, I'm not saying Patton doesn't do evangelism, nor am I saying that all evangelistic methods are worthy of consideration simply because people employ them. I'm just saying that it is much easier to write about it and critique others' efforts at it than to actually do it ourselves. I may wonder about the presentation of a guy yelling at the top of his lungs at the flea market standing on a soapbox, but as long as he's preaching the truth with a concern for souls, then I'm happy with it. The Apostle Paul himself said that some men preach Christ with envy, some with contention, but he said he'd rejoice either way since Christ was preached even when it was obvious that less than ideal attitudes, motives, and methods were utilized.<br /><br />2. I'm scratching my head wondering why Copan referenced men like Donald Miller and Greg Boyd to make his points when other Biblically orthodox men can answer to the problems of equivocation in religious conversation in our pluralistic culture (i.e., D.A. Carson)? This implies that Boyd and Miller are orthodox evangelicals.<br /><br />Greg Boyd is an open-theist, which I take to be a damnable heresy and Donald Miller denies that truth is objective and knowable. See my article on Miller here: http://graceinthetriad.blogspot.com/2010/03/green-like-puke-donald-millers.html.<br /><br />Also, I have noticed that some who quote Emergents like Boyd and Miller favorably do so because they don't like the emphasis of other professing Christians on pointing out the unbeliever's sin. My brief response is "If it's good enough for the Apostles then it's good enough for me.<br /><br />3. I agree with Copan that different people come to Christ in different ways and so, we shouldn't be stuck so much on one particular "method". The main thing I focus on in my own evangelism is exalting Christ as the solution to our sin problem. Then when the objections come, I answer them with Scripture.<br /><br />4. Copan is concerned about "scolding unbelievers". I am too. However, unbelievers will not like what you have to say regardless of how you say it and the context in which you say it. Should we present the truth in love? Absolutely. However, the gospel is offensive no matter how much we "love" on sinners.<br /><br />5. My view is that an appeal to a Christian sociologist to determine the effectiveness of certain evangelistic methods is less than helpful. Here's why: Before the advent of the 60s, the modern missionary movement has done just fine with the gospel without any appeal to sociologists. Heartcry Missionary Society has been funding indigenous missionaries to countries around the entire globe yet the message is the same, turn from your sins to Christ or perish. This ministry has been quite effective in spreading the gospel and making disciples by simply training indigenous missionaries to preach the gospel without the help of any sociologists, Christian or otherwise. The bottom line is this: God is sovereign in the salvation of sinners. We are to be obedient in evangelism and God will do the rest.<br /><br />Those are my 20 cents!Dusmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18050174688923887698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-6729144096057512242010-03-03T15:18:46.240-05:002010-03-03T15:18:46.240-05:00Deep thanks Dusman for the thoughtful reply!!
I h...Deep thanks Dusman for the thoughtful reply!!<br /><br />I have to concur with your assessment, except that the article was written by Dr. Paul Copan, not C. Michael Patton!<br /><br />I'm not too crazy about Boyd either since he's an open theist, but I know folks continually tout his book that contains letters to his dad.<br /><br />I enjoyed certain parts of Miller's "Blue Like Jazz" to the point where it outweighed the parts that I thoroughly detested.<br /><br />But yeah, I agree with your general point... why not reference more biblically orthodox pastor-writers than those two.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30841839271793412692010-03-03T15:01:55.188-05:002010-03-03T15:01:55.188-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Dusmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18050174688923887698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49157974153948186072010-03-03T10:43:44.667-05:002010-03-03T10:43:44.667-05:00Dusman: "I stay far away from philosophical ...<b>Dusman</b>: <i>"I stay far away from philosophical argumentation in open air preaching because it almost always becomes a distraction away from the gospel.</i>"<br /><br />I intuitively suspected as much. Thanks for clarifying and/or confirming my inklings about your experiences in open-air evangelism/preaching.<br /><br />BTW, if you're still tracking this thread, could you render your thoughts on Dr. Paul Copan's blog post and the ensuing thread titled "<a href="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/03/do-we-need-to-tell-people-the-bad-news-before-the-good-news/" rel="nofollow">Do We Need to Tell People the Bad News Before the Good News?</a>Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63326608786991015832010-03-03T08:26:56.929-05:002010-03-03T08:26:56.929-05:00Hi Folks,
Dusman here. I have not used the stron...Hi Folks,<br /><br />Dusman here. I have not used the strong modal form of the TAG in years because I no longer think that it actually proves what it sets out to prove; namely, the existence of the Trinitarian God. I think that at best any philosophical "proof" can only get at a uniplural god, and that only with probability. My own view is that I don't need to prove the existence of the Creator when the Creator Himself tells me that He has hardwired that information into all people as a self-evident truth (Rom. 1:19-21). Because that self-evident Truth is sufficient to damn but not to save, and all men suppress that Truth, I proclaim to them the special revelation of who the Creator is and what he's done in Christ Jesus. In open air preaching, I simply answer people's questions with Scripture and stay away from philosophical argumentation. I do this because their problem is not a lack of evidence; but a need for repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ. If I get an objection like, "Prove to me the Bible is the word of God!" I say, "I can't, God Himself has to prove it to you!" and then I appeal to 2 Cor. 4:4-6 and explain to them that they reject the knowledge that God has placed within them as well as the knowledge being preached to them in the gospel because they need God to "shine in their hearts"; i.e., they need regeneration. I stay far away from philosophical argumentation in open air preaching because it almost always becomes a distraction away from the gospel. I focus on proclaiming the gospel and answering questions systematic theology.<br /><br />I <i>do</i> sometimes argue transcendentally though (as is evident in my blog articles and interactions with atheists), which is a whole different thing altogether than using the strong modal TAG as it was framed by Bahnsen and Butler. I also point to articles and general evidences sometimes. I do this because it can be useful in showing that the unbeliever simply doesn't know what he's talking about. After that, I simply preach the gospel to them over and over again until they either leave or get converted. I'm not interested in debating back and forth since that usually turns into a fleshly spitting match that wastes a load of time. I'm interested in seeing men come to Christ. If they want to fight, I let them take their fight elsewhere since I'm looking for those who will listen versus those who want to prove their intellectual mettle. <br /><br />That's generally how I do it. I hope that clarifies things!Dusmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18050174688923887698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68831051528656536612010-03-03T01:56:44.319-05:002010-03-03T01:56:44.319-05:00What are the differences between Van Til's, Ba...What are the differences between Van Til's, Bahnsen's, Frame's, etc presuppositionalism?JMattChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14428264407573101935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73140230086501493312010-03-02T18:38:09.770-05:002010-03-02T18:38:09.770-05:00Truth - I rather wonder what Dusman thinks of pres...Truth - I rather wonder what Dusman thinks of presuppositionalism. He's on the frontlines as an open-air preacher and I wonder how he utilizes the presupp approach in his evangelism.<br /><br /><br />Vytautas - He uses the standard TAG argument as seen in his discussion with the atheist who balked at the doctrine of creation. He tends to make the argument personal such as asking pointedly if it would be okay if I raped your daughter to awaken their lethargic minds. It is one thing to agree to relitive ethics but another to carry it out consistantly.Vytautashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563655929016752682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20690539080633701672010-03-02T15:34:52.354-05:002010-03-02T15:34:52.354-05:00Very, very good post, Steve.
Your rebuttal points...Very, very good post, Steve.<br /><br />Your rebuttal points to Paul Helm are quite striking and effective.<br /><br />I rather wonder what Dusman thinks of presuppositionalism. He's on the frontlines as an open-air preacher and I wonder how he utilizes the presupp approach in his evangelism.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71097656160304325182010-03-02T13:04:48.850-05:002010-03-02T13:04:48.850-05:00In Van Tilian apologetics, the Bible is not a chro...<i>In Van Tilian apologetics, the Bible is not a chronological starting point, as if it enjoys temporal priority in the “order of knowledge.”<br /><br />The point, rather, as I understand it, is that biblical revelation is a necessary presupposition in the justification of knowledge.</i><br /><br />"According to the principle of Protestantism, man’s consciousness of self and of objects presuppose for their intelligibility the consciousness of God. In asserting this we are not thinking of psychological and temporal priority. We are thinking only of the question as to what is the final reference point in interpretation. The Protestant principle finds this in the self-contained ontological Trinity."<br /><br />Van Til. Christian Apologetics, 2nd ed. 97.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05690738239872948496noreply@blogger.com