Presuppositional Apologetics=Good stuff

[darinhouston]

Jill, you may want to check out something like this:

http://www.americanvision.com/presuppos ... etics.aspx


or

http://www.wtsbooks.com/product-exec/pr ... Hardcover_


Consider this audio series by a presuppositionalist...

http://unchainedradio.com/index.php?key ... &Itemid=26

[Jill]

.

[darinhouston]

It's been a while since I've heard it, but this was a debate between a Christian Apologist using Presuppositional Apologetics against an atheist. (August 5th, 2007 debate between Pastor Gene Cook, Jr and Steve Scianni on the question of "Is the Atheistic Worldview Superior to Christianity?")

http://tnma.blogspot.com/2007/08/debate ... erior.html

[Jill]

.

[lee]

Darin, cool thanks for the link on the new audio. I've only listened to all of Bahnsen's videos on youtube, a little of White's approach, and Kerrigan Skelly. I'd like to hear more formal debates with presuppositional apologetics involved.

Jill said: To an ousider, the term "Presuppositional Apologetics" must be a debate skill term. It apparently has little to do with Presuppositions nor Apologetics as far as I can gather."
You need to listen to just a little of Bahnsen's series on youtube or his debates. Presuppositional apologetics exposes the faulty presuppositions of any worldview while at the same time highlighting the perfect consistency, reliability, and veracity of the Christian worldview.

To be reduced to infinite skepticism means that a person without acknowledging the perfect, infinite, foundational, triune God of scripture as the basis for logic, ethics, etc., one has absolutely no basis for entertaining the thoughts of logic, ethics, etc. For example, for what reason could an atheist put trust in the laws of logic or appeal to morality if they are only social conventions. How could an atheist even give an account for or trust his/her 5 senses? They can't, which reduces them to infinite skepticism. For another example, Mormonism is inherently polytheistic, which denies the clear teachings of inspired scripture. Therefore, presuppositionally speaking, it is self-contradictory and self-refuting. Polytheism is logically impossible and also diminishes to infinite skepticism because it begs the question of infinite regress.

Finally, the scriptures (Old and New Testament alone) can be trusted because they are God-breathed. Amongst all of the different manuscripts and translations that you, Jill, continuously seem to imply are untrustworthy do not, in fact, give rise to different versions of Christianity. Compile all the manuscripts and translations and what do you come up with? A triune God and Creator and Sustainer of all things, fallen mankind in need of salvation and redemption, Jesus the 2nd person of the trinity's death, burial, and ressurrection, and the command for mankind to believe the gospel, repent, be baptized, and continue in obedience and evangelism through the power of the 3rd person of the trinity, the Holy Spirit. This is what you will, in fact, come up with if you compare all manuscripts and translations.

[Jill]

.

[lee]

Jill, why choose to pontificate? You have done nothing more than offer denials, denials so consistent with an infinite skeptic. If you compare the two most disparate manuscripts of the New Testament (Wescott/Hort vs. Byzantine) do you come up with a different Jesus? No. Amidst all of the rapid, decentralized transmission of the New Testament text, you still come up with the triune God, the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus, fallen man, need of salvation, etc. So now you have to choose between two options: 1) Believe the clear revelation God has given in the OT and NT, or 2) reduce yourself to infinite, radical skepticism. Mormon ideology is self-refuting, so you have no haven there. Submit to the Lord Jesus and obey His commands.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3323
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3714

[Jill]

.

[lee]

Jill, are you outside the US? I ask because your writing is sometimes very awkward for me to understand. On the other hand, you seem, in your writing, to not understand what is written in other posts. What do you mean by "scientifically irrational modulations?" You still have yet to provide any meaningful statements, but only confuddled assertions.

[Jill]

.