On August 9th, Dan posted an entry about the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) sanction of same-sex couples as parents, calling for laws that would allow greater adoption rights for such parents. Dan ended the post with a question…
While Christians can combat this view from the Biblical vantage point, I would like to try and address this from a non-Christian point perspective.
In other words, can we use persuasive argumentation that comes from a best-for-society point of view. What are some reasons why ‘Co-Parents’ will damage society?
What followed looked at times like a bit of a melee, but can be an interesting case study in apologetic method.
C.A. kicked things off with a story of personal experience. It was a first-hand experience with strong emotional appeal and no overt reference to any moral standard. This is essentially a postmodern approach to apologetics.
Hugh and I jumped in with classic attempts to make the argument by appealing to standards that non-Christians would generally agree to. Following this general line, Jeffrey masterfully showed how even playing within the secularist’s worldview, same-sex parenting was harmful. Jeffrey never condoned the secularist’s worldview. He just showed that even within their false system, their argument fails.
Then Larry weighed in with the insight that all arguments ultimately rest on some bedrock. Ours rest on the authority of Scripture. Therefore, we cannot make an argument without appealing ultimately to Scripture. This is essentially the presuppositional approach to apologetics.
All along, David, served as the capable antagonist, fueling the debate.
Let me start by saying that I am sympathetic to the presuppositional concern. Ultimately, unregenerate man is resting on false presuppositions. However, (and this is where my presuppositionalists friends take issue with me), I don’t think it should prevent us from employing the other methods, depending on the circumstances.
C.A.’s story has great appeal in a one-on-one setting. It also plays well in our media-driven, sound-bite oriented forms of public discourse (e.g., Oprah, Rush Limbaugh, etc.).
I also think Hugh’s and Jeffrey’s approaches have merit. Jeffrey, of all people, gives no quarter to Darwin’s theory of evolution. But his playing it out to show that it implodes on the naturalists very argument was outstanding.
(Editors note: The debate appears to still be going on over there. This little analysis is based on the discourse as it stands at the time this is published.)
Picking up Eric’s play-by-play:
Hugh demanded that David admit he was just causing trouble. Then, Dan challenged C.A. to an arm-wrestling match because he called him “Lord Daniel” and he “didn’t like his tone.” Not long after that, Larry told Jeffrey exactly what he could do with his “pretty-boy evidentialist swill.”
And just now, Eric called Ken a “wuss” because he hadn’t posted anything yet…
Makes me think of Ghostbusters…
… brought to you by the blogs at forgodsfame.org. 🙂
For the presuppositionalists out there, I wonder: what about logic? What about truth? The Bible doesn’t teach logic, but we must use it to even talk about the Bible. Is logic bad, then, because it’s an extra-Biblical standard? And truth…there is truth outside the Bible. We can make Biblical arguments without using the Bible to support itself, because the truth about our world lines up with the Bible itself–not the other way around.
I guess what I’m saying is, I don’t have the sympathy that you have for presuppositional thinking, Eric. 🙂
I think being thrust into ancient history classes in public school with just the historical record with which to defend myself cured me of it.
Jeffery, you’ve hit on a key issue. Presuppositionalists will accuse you of putting reason above the Scriptures, which is not really what you are doing.
In my view, we must bring reason with us when we come to the Scriptures. Otherwise, how could we make any sense out of it (or any words for that matter)? So, reason is logically prior to revelation in that sense. But does that mean that we are putting it over revelation? I think not.
We certainly must bring reason with us when we come to the scriptures. We should use all the gifts God has given us in understanding His word. However, we must also remember that as Christians when we come to the scriptures we come with the help of the Holy Spirit, something unregenrate man, no matter how reasonable and logical he may seem, does not have.
Man’s thinking has been impacted by the fall and therefore cannot be relied upon for a true assessment of things in all respects.
Where man’s reason conflicts with scripture, we must go with scripture. Man’s reason tells us dead people don’t come to life and virgins don’t become pregnant. Those things are nevertheless true. It becomes problematic when we get that backwards, rejecting scripture, or portions of it, because it does not fit what we view to be logical or reasonable.
Logic and reason certainly have an important place but, as I think Eric suggests, they must be aids to our understanding of Biblical truth, not the final arbiter of it.
I don’t see that as a conflict with presuppositionalism, at least not as I understand it.
First, let me say that I agree with the sentiment behind what you are saying.
But, I think that to refer to man’s reason blurs the idea of reason in an unhelpful way. The idea that virgins do not give birth or that dead men do not rise are beliefs. They are not logically impossible. The Scripture should cause us to change our beliefs, but would never require us to abandon our reason.
In a sense, logic and reason are necessarily the arbiters of what the Scriptures actually communicate. If I read James 2:21 and say that we are saved by our works, how would you respond? You would reason with me that I misunderstand the passage. You would show me Romans 4:9 and reason that the Scriptures would not contradict each other. If I just responded “Don’t give me man’s reason. I believe what the Scriptures say.” Where would we be? You would reason that I’m simply question begging, because the very question (what do the Scripture say) is the thing I’m concluding. I accuse you of using reason again. Etc., etc., etc.
I just don’t think it’s helpful to pit reason against revelation. God gives us both. Yes, we are fallen, and therefore reason imperfectly. But that same problem applies to our interpretation of revelation.
I completely agree that regeneration is required to grasp (and accept) the ultimate truths within the Scriptures. But I don’t see Scriptural (or anecdotal) evidence that regeneration is any sort of guarantee that we will understand the Scriptures perfectly. In fact there is quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.
I should also add a disclaimer, that I have a presuppositionalist friend who insists that I don’t properly understand presuppositionalism. That may very well be the case. If so, then I’ll just offer my ideas out there. If there is no conflict between what I’m saying and presuppositionalism, then great!
Very funny stuff Hugh. Thanks!
And by the way..that was lord Daniel with a little l. 😉
Perhaps I am lumping what I’m calling man’s reason and reason as you are describing it into one category when they actually belong in two.
I absolutely agree that we need to use reason in understanding the scriptures. Your example of James 2:21 vs. Romans 4:9 is a good one. However, we would only reason that the scriptures would not contradict one another if we already (presuppostitionally?) believed the Bible to be true. If the Bible is not all true it would be perfectly logical to assume that it might contradict itself. Did we use reason to arrive at that conclusion (that the Bible is true) or, once we arrived at that conclusion, to interpret scripture in light of that belief?
This is the problem, for example,of the so-called higher critics who attempted to prove (more likely dis-prove) the truth of scripture through naturalistic means leading them to reject virtually all of the supernatural things described in the Bible. They applied what they would consider reason and logic to the text without a presupposition as to the truth of the text. When we use reason in that way, we will almost always end up rejecting all or part of scripture.
I agree wholeheartedly that regeneration is no guarantee of correct interpretation. I see evidence of that no further away than an examination of my own life over the years!
I see your point, Larry: one’s starting point vis-a-vis the Scripture is going to inform your resolution of the tensions one finds within them.
For example, at face value, the tension between James 2:21 and Romans 4:9 leaves us with a couple of options:
* The tension suggests a contradiction, or
* The tension suggests a difficult truth.
An unenlightened, but careful, thinker might lean toward dismissing this as a contradiction, but logic cannot give him that conclusion.
Logically, a contradiction is when something is claimed to be true and not true at the same time and in the same way. In this case at least, I think it is straightforward to demonstrate that the two verses in question fall short of that definition.
Larry, I think you are hitting on the key point: the relationship between reason and revelation, and does one one need to presuppose the authority of Scripture before he can reason properly about them.
This is where I say that I am sympathetic to the view, but don’t ultimately accept the whole system (as say Van Til or Frame would pose it). Probably in the same way that Francis Schaeffer would be. Those presuppositions are critical, but I do not think that this means that we cannot reason with unregenerate man, even giving evidence that the Scripture is authoritative (the thing that must be presupposed according to presuppositionalism).
Presuppositionalism, in my view, attempts to over-systematize. It’s idealizes what is in actuality a mysterious process–namely, God bringing unregenerate man to submission to His Word. I see examples of God’s people reasoning with fallen men in the Scriptures, giving evidences and reasons. Off hand, I think of Jesus showing Thomas his hands, Paul appealing to the 500 witnesses of Christ’s resurrection, Jesus doing performing signs and wonders, Paul making a highly reasoned argument about resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15. Further, I don’t see any prohibition against reasoning with unbelievers.
I agree that if our reasoning leads us to disbelieve something that is clear in Scripture, we must reexamine our reasoning (including the premises that got us there). But I’m not comfortable saying that I do this simply because I presuppose the truth of Scripture, because I have reasons to believe that the Scriptures are true.
Ultimately, yes, there is a step of faith involved that is only Spirit-enabled, but that is God’s doing. I make my best case with all of the reasons and evidences I can marshal.
It occurs to me that the role of reason merits some clarification.
It is often claimed that “you cannot argue (reason) someone into the Kingdom.” Because the Holy Spirit is primarily responsible for saving souls in the name of Christ, I agree with that claim.
However, I think the apologetic use of reason and evidence — even without the direct invocation of scripture — has some compelling features that commend it:
1. God is glorified when we engage others with our intellect. I think this follows logically from Jesus’ identification of loving God with all our minds; see Mark 12 for a case study on this.
2. “Scripture-free” argumentation is effective a “defeater.” Let me explain.
Arguments can be analyzed in terms of two categories: defeaters and persuaders. I agree that the only effective persuader is the testimony of the Holy Spirit, but I think logic can be effectively used as a defeater.
There are two kinds of defeaters: rebutting defeaters and undercutting defeaters.
A rebutting defeater addresses a claim by arguing for the contrary position; for example, a “young earth” proponent might address the claims of an “old earth” advocate by providing evidence that the creation is a certain age.
An undercutting defeater works by demonstrating the inadequacy of the argument in favor of the claim. For example, the “young earth” person might address the “old earth” claim by demonstrating that the “old earth” appeal to carbon dating is unreliable.
Note that defeaters do not establish anything. They serve to “pull the rug out” from under a contrary position. As I see it, this is an example of what Paul meant when he wrote of “destroying arguments” in 2 Corinthians 10.
3. Scriptural support. Consider Paul at the Areopagus. Consider Jesus’ frequent appeals to extrabiblical argument (“Consider the lilies…“, “Even sinners love those who love them“, etc.). Consider Paul’s appeal to the testimony of the creation.
Conversely, I’m unaware of any scriptural mandate to repudiate evidence or arguments that do not make explicit appeals to scripture; consider that 2 Cor. 10:5 only speaks against arguments that are contrary to the knowledge of God.
I just added a comment on Dan’s blog appealing to football:
As I was thinking that through, it struck me: isn’t the presuppositional view akin to a defensive strategy in football that just sort of stands around waiting for a fumble?
So what does David really think?
I think certain things can be argued outside of scripture (murder, theft, etc) but the topic on Dan’s blog is an especially tough one. That’s why I’m picking up the opposing view point.
“Now, just imagine you’re weightless, in the middle of the ocean, surrounded by tiny little seahorses.”
Agreed. The presuppositionalist view shines in such a debate. If the debate were abortion, or child protection laws, or widening GA400, I believe it would be harder to make the case that we can only argue from Scripture.
Well, I have tried to learn from past mistakes and listen (or read) rather than speak. Surely you are all wondering if I quit reading (or maybe just Eric).
I am a presuppositionalist and have a truck-load of opinions about what has already been said, but just for clarification let me state:
Most presuppositionalists are not opposed to showing the non-believer that his worldview, if carried out to its logical conclusion, leads to poor consequences and logical fallacies. Our issue would not be against this methodology, but rather against modeling false neutrality for the non-believer through our arguments (I am not accusing anyone here of doing this).
Good presuppositionalists will tell you that reason cannot be ignored in the apologetic endeavor. We cannot even communicate without it. We would employ the laws of logic as a primary tool in our arguments. The non-believer cannot account for them.
Whether or not you place reason above the scriptures depends on the argument you are making. Faith preceeds true reasoning, but not reasoning altogether. That would be Fideism. We are made in God’s image and part of that image is the ability to reason.
Van Til, or Frame do not teach that we should not reason with the non-believer. Nor to they argue against the use of evidence in this endeavor. I am afraid you may have misunderstood them. Either that, or I did.
Jason, thanks for your perspective.
Without rehashing some of the old debates (if that’s possible), what is your take on making a case on any social policy in the public arena without appealing directly to Scripture. I’m thinking of areas with obvious moral implications like abortion law as well as areas where it is much less direct like should we spend more money on airport screeners versus investing in technology like detection devices.
Jason, well said. Much better than my stumbling attempts to explain what I meant!
Eric, Apologetics being a defense of the faith, I don’t think an apologist (of either persuasion) would see the choice between screeners or detection devices at the airport as a question to which apologetics should be applied.
Since the Bible is silent on the correct method of preventing people with bombs from getting on airplanes and the two choices are presumably morally neutral, we would be free to use our God-given reasoning ability to make the best choice (in terms of cost, effectiveness, etc.)
In other words, I don’t think we’re called to ‘make a case’ on any and every social policy but where social policy has obvious conflicts with the teaching of scripture (such as homosexuality and abortion) we should certainly defend the scriptural view.
Jason, would you agree with that?
Larry, where do you draw the line then? I assume that you would say that it would not be profitable to make a case against abortion without an appeal to authority (Scripture). What about tax policy? Is that enough of a moral issue that Scripture must be invoked?
Oh, by the way, I agree with my presuppositionalist friends that moral neutrality is a myth and that we should not be shy is saying so.
I consider our tax system to be a form of theft so, yes, I would put it under a moral heading invoking the 8th Commandment. 🙂
Seriously, though, I think we draw the line based on what the choices are, primarily whether or not they are morally neutral. God doesn’t provide us direct guidance for every single thing we come up against in life. For example, which city should I work in or which of two Christian girls should I marry. We make those choices with the faculties He’s given us. This is not really making a decision apart from scripture so much as it is recognizing the proper role of scripture in decision making.
Now, that may not be a pure presuppositionalist way of looking at it, I’d be interested in Jason’s reply.
Depends what you mean by ‘moral neutrality’. In my previous post I mentioned the example of marriage. The choice between two Christian girls is truly a morally neutral decision for the believer (all other things being equal)
The myth is that we can be ‘neutral’ with regard to God. The world assumes the ‘neutral’ position is the one that is not dogmatic and does not insist on the truth of certain things, etc. However, we either serve God or we serve the enemy. Our worldview is either that of fallen man or that of God. There is no neutrality there most certainly.
Yeah, that’s what I mean by moral neutrality being a myth as well.
Eric, I will try to answer your first question to me without rehashing old debates. I think that we as Christians should appeal to scripture in the public arena whenever it applies. Now, there is the caveat that there are greater and lesser “levels of exegetical certainty.” For example, I am not so sure that Psalm 139 was written to inform us about the abortion debate. Therefore, when applying the scriptures to such a debate, we should be honest about the fact that Psalm 139 can help us make logical inferences….but it has a low level of exegetical certainty concerning information about when a soul is actually created in the womb (if it is created at all for our Traducian friends). I know you are thinking, “What about Ex. 20:13?” The abortionists believe that they are not killing a person because you can’t be a person without a soul/rational thought. I believe we can make reasonable inferences about this issue based on Ex. 20:13, but I might not lead off with this argument from scripture when debating this issue. Give me a specialist in fetal development with a biblical worldview and I will trust his arguments instead.
On the other hand, the homosexuality debate may have a higher degree of exegetical certainty. When our culture tells us that homosexuality is morally neutral, well then that can clearly be defeated by applying scripture. (Lev. 18:22 for example)
I know that for me as a pastor, I want to teach my students to develop a biblical worldview so that when they go out into the social areas of life in their respective professions, then they can make such applications. I am not so sure that pastors themselves are qualified to form social policy. Give me a politician who is a believer in Christ and equipped with a consistent, biblical worldview. I will take that person over some other famous pastors right now who are speaking out on such issues. We as pastors need to repent of our sacred/secular distinction and acknowledge that the bible teaches that ALL of life is to be lived to the glory of God. Could it be that God could call a politician to be just that- a politician? Could it also be that this is ministry in the Lord’s eyes? Pastors would do well to trust common grace insights from other professions so long as they do not contradict the clear teachings of scripture. (Sorry for the soapbox- I know that this is a weakness of mine sometimes)
Should we spend more money on airport screeners? I trust the men God has appointed to do their job for his glory and pray that they do so. If God puts me before them to express my exegetical insights (where they are applicable) and my opinions, then I will do so. Otherwise, I pray for the men who make such important decisions. It is a noble calling.
I think I generally agree with all of that.
I guess the question (from the referenced debate) comes down to this…
When arguing for a social good (like keeping speech free so the gospel can be proclaimed, protecting innocents, etc.), is it legitimate to start from common ground with the unbeliever, even though we know that the only way to ground that common position is from the Scriptures, which the unbeliever rejects? For example, if the unbeliever holds that it is wrong to take an innocent life (even if he cannot ground that claim), is it God-honoring to argue from that point that abortion is wrong because it takes an innocent life (by showing scientifically and philosophically that the aborted material is an innocent life) without appealing to Scripture?
Ahh, I see. I was wondering why you asked the previous question, but now I know where you are going. If the unbeliever holds that it is wrong to take an innocent life, then he is borrowing from my worldview (the fact that he cannot ground that claim based on his own worldveiw is precisely the point). The fact that the unbeliever will concede this point is an appeal to scripture (the only place where we are told directly by God that murder is morally wrong). Do I have to quote chapter and verse to him? No.
Personally I would not let him hold such a view without thinking through epistemology. I would ask, “Why do you think that it is wrong to take an innocent life?” Then I would point out that given his presuppositions (namely, that there is no absolute basis for morality), he has no buisness making such a claim. In that sense, I am pressing him to be consistent with his own worldview in order to show him that it’s logical conslusion is foolish.
For clarification, I do not believe we have to use ultimate arguments (proofs from scripture) exclusively. I think that showing scientifically and philosophically that the aborted material is an innnocent life is a powerful argument. It often moves me as a father.
I always knew there was more agreement between us than our previous debates made it seem.
I just want to add one more thought, just to help show why I raise the whole question….
There are forums in which a believer will be invited to make a case for a particular viewpoint where he will not be invited to argue for the gospel or from religious authority of any sort (or at least it will seriously undermine his ability to be heard on the issue).
For example, suppose you are a lawyer speaking before the Supreme Court with an opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade. I think it would be tactically wise to argue from the U.S. Constitution, the intent of the framers, philosophy, and current science. The good that would be done with success in such a task is immense–potentially preventing the slaughter of millions of defenseless human beings. We might like to argue from their assumptions to the authority of Scripture and to gospel, but that would get us summarily dismissed from the debate. So, I would save that for another day.
Does that make me a sell-out? Probably in some people’s eyes, but I’d be willing to accept that if I could be an instrument in preventing such a great evil perpetrated against God’s creation. Ultimately, we each have to choose a path that we can live with, knowing that we will face our Lord some day.
Let’s say this senario did happen to you. If you failed….would you think, “If only I had played the right card, used the right argument, said the right thing at just the right time. If only I could have learned the right apologetic argument to use….then I could have saved millions of defenseless human beings.”?
Is being “soft censured” by being dismissed from the debate not a form of persecution? Should we seek to avoid persecution at the cost of removing the Bible from our appeals in such an important debate?
I agree with you about the usefulness of evidences, but I cannot go as far as to say that in such an important debate…I would leave the most important tool outside the courtroom because the non-believer asked me to play by his rules and not God’s.
God himself raises the epistemological question often without concern for the sinner or non-believer’s “rules.”
“Who told you that you were naked?” (Gen. 3:11). And the famous example of the rich young ruler-“Why do you call me good?” (Mark 10:18) Jesus failed with his apologetic argument in Mark 10:18 by some people’s eyes.
Ultimately, I do agree that our views are compatable.
Before, you talked on this blog about the means of grace. If the Word of God is the primary means by which man is saved, why are we leaving it out of our debate. Is our purpose to win a debate or have God work in the way he prefers to work by his Spirit to regenerate those to whom we are witnessing?
To the “if only” question… Yes. If I were a lawyer and found myself in that position and lost, I would bear responsibility for not making a convincing argument. Ultimately, God is in control of all things, but that doesn’t mean that a lawyer wouldn’t be responsible for being ill-prepared to make a case. Now, it may be the case that no argument would carry the day. In that case I must rest knowing that I did the best I could.
I don’t think I understand the question in the last paragraph. Could you rephrase it for me?
Eric, it sounds to me like you equate presuppositionalism with fideism. Possibly implied by your “over-systematizing” comment. Maybe you have heard me say we are not fideists, and you think I am self-deceived. I don’t know. I just want to clarify that Van Til anticipated this response to his writings and denied it. His greatest student Greg Bahnsen had a lower view of common grace….and maybe that is what you are anticipating. Again I don’t know.(You can find audio files of some of Bahnsen’s debates online…I encourage you to listen to them- not for any reason other than they are interesting)
I don’t want to rehash old debates and I think that the blog has serious limitations in this discussion. Maybe one day when I am in Atlanta, we will get together again. Certainly I agree that we have far more in common than what we differ on. Fortunately, we are both for Christ and his kingdom.
I was generally impressed with Greg Bahnsen in his debate with Gordon Stein (the only one I’ve heard).
I would very much enjoy talking these things over one day. Until then, may God continue to bless you, your family, and your ministry with RUF.