|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 1, 2006 3:16:58 GMT -5
I have been studying "presuppositional apologetics" for the purpose of open air preaching on Universities and it has helped a great deal.
The approach is one of being on the offensive, to show that the wisdom of the world is complete foolishness. You do this by answering a fool according to his folly. Step into his shoes and look out from his eyes, from his ultimate presupposition or world-view, and point out the internal inconsistencies. Reductio Ad Absurdum - Reduce to absurity or "tweak with their epistomology" as I like to say it.
You then explain how only the Christian presupposition "in the beginning God" is self-attesting. It's the only world-view that is internally consistent. Without "in the beginning God" we have no reasonable reason to believe in reason, no logical basis to believe in logic. As Augastine said, "We believe in order to know". Or as the proverb says, "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom". So you prove the Christian world-view because of the impossibility of the contrary.
Offensively show how all other ground is sinking sand except for the solid rock of Jesus Christ. This biblical approach rips the carpet out from under their feet. It shows them how they have firmly planted their feet in thin air and that they are sawing off the branch they are sitting on.
So I came up with a question for a relativist using the internal critique method:
"if truth is relative, then could this truth, that you say is true, that all truth is relative be relative itself and thereby not always be true?"
-----------
I recommend that every Christian read "Always Ready" by Greg Bahnsen
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 1, 2006 14:00:32 GMT -5
www.carm.org/relativism.htm There is some good info on reletivism. I ordered the book you recommened the other day. Here is a link for anyone who may not know the difference between presuppositional apologetics and classical aplogetics. www.carm.org/apologetics.htm in the reguarding applogetics section there are links that discuss the difference. I have been reading alot of stuff on carm lately. It is really a good website.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on May 8, 2006 18:57:26 GMT -5
So I came up with a question for a relativist using the internal critique method: "if truth is relative, then could this truth, that you say is true, that all truth is relative be relative itself and thereby not always be true?" And? If I claim truth is relative and you argue the truth of my claim is itself relative, then you have only demonstrated that truth is sometimes objective. You have not refuted my claim that truth is relative. Nice try though.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on May 8, 2006 19:43:21 GMT -5
So I came up with a question for a relativist using the internal critique method: "if truth is relative, then could this truth, that you say is true, that all truth is relative be relative itself and thereby not always be true?" And? If I claim truth is relative and you argue the truth of my claim is itself relative, then you have only demonstrated that truth is sometimes objective. You have not refuted my claim that truth is relative. Nice try though. Larryflynt, is what you are saying true?
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on May 8, 2006 21:12:59 GMT -5
Larryflynt, is what you are saying true? Relatively, yes. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on May 8, 2006 21:14:52 GMT -5
Don't you see the foolishness of saying "truth is relative"?
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on May 8, 2006 21:26:07 GMT -5
Don't you see the foolishness of saying "truth is relative"? Don't you see the foolishness of asking this question to a relativist? :rimshot:
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 8, 2006 21:30:49 GMT -5
Relativists are worse than atheists; at least atheists are consistent in their bogus ideas and views....you, larry, seem to be inconsistent; relatively speaking of course
|
|
|
Post by Jeffrey Olver on May 9, 2006 9:06:34 GMT -5
"Don't you see the foolishness of asking this question to a relativist."
While that comment was meant to be funny (and was, i think. :-) ) I think it is a very good example of how presuppositions serve as a filter for any evidence/discussion.
As John Locke said, "The mad man reasons rightly from the wrong presuppositions." While the relativist may be able to reason rightly from his skewed presupposition, down the road in his argument, you begin to see the consequences of being, even if only, a few degrees off.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on May 9, 2006 9:14:38 GMT -5
Miles, Jeffrey, ... Thumper, ... you seem to believe that you have refuted relativism. You haven't. There are strong arguements against relativism, but you certainly haven't found them yet. Care to try again?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 9, 2006 9:17:35 GMT -5
That's not true. I don't believe it so therefore it is not true.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 9, 2006 9:19:08 GMT -5
Are the laws of logic relative? If they are, then I am always right because the moon is made of blue cheese.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on May 9, 2006 10:52:56 GMT -5
Wow, Josh, it seems like you have really caught on to the relativist perspective. Those are two perfectly valid relativist positions.
Now, generally speaking, the laws of formal logic are not relative. How could this be used to form a strong arguement against relativism? Hmm.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 9, 2006 11:18:24 GMT -5
If the laws of logic are not relative, then not all truth is relative. That would seem to refute the thought that all truth is relative. Then there has to be absolute truth. Truth is absolutely true, no matter what one believes or thinks.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 9, 2006 11:23:33 GMT -5
That prospective is not valid if the laws of logic are absolutely true. Can I sit on a particular chair and not sit in that particular chair at the same time? No! That is absolutely true all the time. (that I can't sit in the chair and not sit in the chair at the same time) That violates the universal laws of logic.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on May 9, 2006 12:32:47 GMT -5
If the laws of logic are not relative, then not all truth is relative. That would seem to refute the thought that all truth is relative. Again, you're making the same mistake that Jesse made. If the laws of logic are not relative, then not all truths are relative in the context of the laws of logic. But, that doesn't mean you couldn't arrive at a different relative truth by using another discipline of thought. For example, you might use a syllogism to prove that Napoleon Bonaparte enjoys wearing women's clothing. I.e. Transvestites enjoy wearing women's clothing Napoleon Bonaparte is a transvestite Therefore, Napoleon Bonaparte enjoys wearing women's clothing. In the context of this syllogism, the claim that Napoleon Bonaparte enjoys wearing women's clothing is accepted as an objective fact. However, I could argue from a historical persepective or a theological perspective that Napoleon Bonaparte did not enjoy wearing women's clothing, and in that new context my claim might be equally true. You see, there are many equally valid disciplines of thought and they do not always agree with each other. For example, empiricism and thoeology are both valid two answer certain kinds of questions, but the "truths" that you find with these two disciplines of thought may conflict with one another (e.g. the origin of species). Furthermore, all disciplines of thought rely upon our subjective experiences in a world (or universe, or multiverse) which may or may not exist objectively. The relativist does not believe that you are, in fact, both sitting and not sitting in a particular chair at the same time. The relativisit believes that either claim could be true and, ultimately, we have no way to determine which claim is in fact true. If all paths to truth rely on subjective experience, then all paths are relatively true.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 9, 2006 12:50:35 GMT -5
Can you give me a valid line of thought that can produce truth that is outside the laws of logic?
Truth is not relative, opinions are.
No matter which line of thinking you use it cannot be ultimately true that Napoleon enjoys and doesn't enjoy wearing women's clothing at the same time. Either it is true that he does, or it is true that he does not.
How do you define truth? What is your definition? You seem to equate it with opinion.
How do you define experience? Have you "experienced" the laws of logic? Even if you were a vegetable it would not be true that something can bring itself into existance. That would be objective and would not matter if you experienced it or not. In other words it doesn't matter what your belief or line of thinking is it is never true that something can bring itself into existance.
The statement was not an either/or. It is absolutely not true that I can sit in a chair and not sit in a chair at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on May 23, 2006 12:57:31 GMT -5
There is a difference between an opinion and a subjective truth. Opinions are based solely on feelings. An opinion cannot be challenged because it concerns one person's feelings at a particular time. E.g., if I believe Aria Giovanni is the sexiest woman alive at 1:41 pm, 5-23-06 ... then nothing anyone else can say could change the truth of that feeling because it is my feeling. OTOH, a subjective truth is a conclusion representative of a particular perspective. E.g. throughout history, scholars have supported various theories about the movement of celestial bodies ... Newton's laws of motion and Einstein's theory of relativity are two subjective truths that were valid for their times. In both cases, these theories were logical conclusions given the information that was available at the time.
You claim that there is only one truth (and conveniently, it happens to be your truth). I would ask, how did you arrive at that truth? Well, in some round-a-bout way you must have arrived at your truth by interpreting the stimuli from your sensory organs (your eyes, ears, nose, mouth and skin). The notion of an obvective truth rests upon the assumption of an obvective universe. But the concept of an objective universe is untestable, because we can only observe and record the obvective universe (if it exists) via our subjective perceptions. And who's to say that one person's subjective perceptions are accurate? The relativist claims that all truths are equally valid because all truth relies upon subjective perceptions, which invariably differ and may be flawed. At any given moment, you may perceive that you are preaching the gospel on a street corner in Columbia, MO ... but at that same moment I may perceive that you are talking to yourself in a padded cell in Wallawalla, WA. How do you prove that your perception is more valid than mine? How do you prove that you are not batsh!t crazy? You can't. Furthermore, your particular claim to objective truth is especially silly because you believe in the objective truth of a supernatural world. You believe in the existance of a god and a heaven which cannot possibly be observed here on earth.
The only real fault of relativism is that it is a tautology. No evidence could ever refute relativism, because any evidence could be interpreted as a relativist truth. Relativism is very similar to theism in that way. No evidence could ever refute theism, because any evidence which might contradict theism could be reinterpreted to support it. E.g., the fact that all living things share the same molecular building blocks (e.g. lipids, proteins and nucleic acids, etc.) supports theistic creationism because it shows the world is ordered, therefore it must have been designed by an intelligent force. Yet, if living things were constructed with vastly different matierials, it would also support theistic creationism because it would show that god took the time to design each living thing as a unique creation. So, you may believe that relativism is silly ... but it shares its only fault with your world view. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 23, 2006 14:50:30 GMT -5
I have noticed how relativists will pick and choose according to their arbitrary desires and to their convenience what is relative and what is not relative.
It's really a wonderful world of make believe they have created for themselves. Imagine if reality was really that self serving!
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on May 31, 2006 16:38:44 GMT -5
Did you read Jesse's quote as saying "The approach is one of being offensive..."? It is being on the offensive, as opposed to the defensive.
KJV says in Proverbs 26:4-5: Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
I think the explanation given for this Dr. Greg Bahsen and Dr. Cornelius Van Til are spot on.
Have you read Jesse's article on presuppositional apologetics? I think you are misunderstanding his words here. You cangive me a call too if you like. I'd love to talk again.
Blessings,
Miles
I also had some audio of me using this approach while on a campus loaded up in the audio section. The link has expired but I can load it up again if anyone wants.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on May 31, 2006 20:08:47 GMT -5
I'm not sure I see what you mean. I see Paul and others in Acts "disputing" publicly. Ac 6:9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.
Ac 9:29 - And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.
Ac 17:17 - Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.
Ac 19:8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.
Ac 19:9 But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.
We are told to "convince the gainsayers"
Tit 1:9 - Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
and in Jude to "contend earnestly for the faith".
Jude 1:3 - Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
I DO also see where we are to avoid foolish and unlearned questions that generate strife, contention, etc... And to answer in meekness and gentleness, excercising fruits of the spirit. But we are to still contend for the faith. I use discernment in who not to waste time with, I think about what Jesus said about casting pearls before swine. They will turn and rend you. Some conversations I cut short when I percieve he is truly a fool who does not want to have anything to do with wisdom. This happened recently at the Indy 500. This guy was being completely unreasonable and I told him that the conversation was coming to an end and cut it short.
2Ti 2:23 - 25 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
Tit 3:9 - But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
I think whenever we are answering questions with those who oppose us, it is in an "argumentative manner", by argumentative, I mean disputing and persuading and reasoning, not mean and dogmatic and unreasonable. We need to have "always ready" an answer (an apologetic) to give to those who ask the reason for the hope that is within us. Some are sincere, some are not, but we are to have an answer ready nonetheless.
I agree with you here, just because we can get people to concede does not mean they will have a saving faith. The law of the Lord truly is what converts the soul. There are many people though who do not have a knowledge of God and they have legitimate objections and questions to the Christian message. I want to be able to answer these questions in a reasonable manner, one that ministers grace to the hearers, then come in with the law and show why they need to obey the gospel. We can't limit our evangelism to the good test, even though I see it as one of the most powerful tools we have in preaching. The apologetic approach is another tool, I say use them all and use them wisely.
BTW, I don't think Jesse has radically changed for the worse like you may think. A lot of things have been said about him, (and me) that simply are not true. I suppose the only way to know is to just see us in action for yourself. We have been trying to just let the ministry speak for itself and so far so good. Don't worry, we are still preaching the law, and we are still preaching the gospel, we still believe in law to the proud, grace to the humble. Be blessed brother, and feel free to give me a call, I would still love to talk anytime. Haven't seen you in a while.
Blessings,
Miles
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Jun 1, 2006 0:08:27 GMT -5
I'm not sure I know specifically what we would be disagreeing on.
When? The first campus during the Texas Tour? That was a while back and nobody seemed to have a problem then. Anything specific that is wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 1, 2006 16:55:54 GMT -5
Just a fair warning... I wouldn't put my number on here. Not everyone on here is Christian.... I would use a PM or something..
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 4, 2006 23:03:42 GMT -5
I have noticed how relativists will pick and choose according to their arbitrary desires and to their convenience what is relative and what is not relative. Exsqueeze me? Just where do you suppose I am picking and choosing? I clearly said that everything is subjective. Again, the objective world might not even exist, but even if if it did, each person could only arrive at their own relative truths within that objective world by utilizing their personal subjective perceptions (which invariably differ among individuals and may be individually flawed). BTW, Josh was totally right, Avery, ... I will now proceed to distribute your personal cell phone number over various gay adult chat networks. If someone calls asking for H0T_Karl34, you'll know who to thank. The rest of you should probably check Outpersonals.com, AdultFriendFinder.com and Alt.com to look for the adult profiles I've created using your profile pics. I'm just saying. Hey, did you know that there is a Christian underground in the BDSM community? Apparently some women within the Christian church take the biblical notion of submitting to your husband way too seriously. The pics are totally righteous though.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Jun 5, 2006 10:39:22 GMT -5
LOL. I'm really, REALLY hoping that was sarcasm Larry Ave, Miles and Jesse......You guys all know my thoughts on the OAO outreach ministry. I made some snap judgments about the methods as a whole, and was pr oven incorrect when we went out together in OKC. I didn't agree with everything that I saw, but my issue was with the intent, not the method. From what I saw our intent is very much the same. We should have liberty to disagree in love on methodology. There are varying ways that we will interpret how we are to preach from the scripture, and it's good to learn from one another on these things. I think we all change in our methods of preaching, witnessing, etc as we grow in the Word and in our walk with the Lord. Does Jesse sound different than the first time I heard him preach in Bricktown? Sure. Just as I am sure he would say the same about me. In the end, I don't think there has been a change from preaching the Law, sin, eternal destination, and grace. I know that I have written some posts on here speaking of being unnecessarily confrontational. I do think that some of the things that you guys do are a bit much. The signs for example.....but I recognize also that those tools may be appropriate for the crowds that you preach to. I did notice that you guys chose not to take them out when we went to Bricktown and I also noticed that there were some very different methods that you used in the family area of Bricktown and the nightclub/bar area of Bricktown. This tells me that you are using discernment which I think is all that we can ask for. End result here is that there is something to learn from each opinion on how evangelism is to be done. We need to be open to all ideas from one another and measure those things with God's word and with prayer. Both sides on this issue have some great things which I know that I am already learning from.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 5, 2006 23:47:04 GMT -5
Praise God Larry... I will witness to all of them... Thank you... Witnessing. Hmm. I've never heard someone call it that before. But good luck with that. In fact, I'm picturing it now .... [avery][mouth full] SSLLLLLUUURRRRRPPPPP!!!!!! NN ESUS EHD, "I AH EH AY, AH OOTH, AH UH IGH." SLPP. SLPP. SSLLLPPP. "EE, OOH AHLOWS EE ..." SLPP. [flutters tongue] "will not ALKEN ... ARNESS" SSSSLLLLUUUURRRPPPPP!!!!! "but ..." [gulp] "... will ..." [gulp] " ... have ..." [gulp gulp] "the light" [gulp] '... of life" [/mouth full][/avery] [cigarette]
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Jun 6, 2006 8:54:22 GMT -5
Praise God Larry... I will witness to all of them... Thank you... Witnessing. Hmm. I've never heard someone call it that before. But good luck with that. In fact, I'm picturing it now .... [avery][mouth full] SSLLLLLUUURRRRRPPPPP!!!!!! NN ESUS EHD, "I AH EH AY, AH OOTH, AH UH IGH." SLPP. SLPP. SSLLLPPP. "EE, OOH AHLOWS EE ..." SLPP. [flutters tongue] "will not ALKEN ... ARNESS" SSSSLLLLUUUURRRPPPPP!!!!! "but ..." [gulp] "... will ..." [gulp] " ... have ..." [gulp gulp] "the light" [gulp] '... of life" [/mouth full][/avery] [cigarette] You know....I'm not even going to touch on Christianity at this point. Your profile says that you are 29 years old.....29, yet you are behaving like a 13 year old. There are many heated exchanges and discussions on this board between believers and non-belivers, but even the non-belivers don't travel this path. If you are interested in discussion and even debate, then great to have you here. If the inmatuarity that you have shown in this thread is what you are here for, then I would suggest that you go elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jun 6, 2006 22:33:08 GMT -5
I appreciate that post. I think the danger really comes in when we believe everyone should witness and preach the same exact way. It's paralyzing to the body of Christ when you don't give people liberty and freedom to grow and obey the Spirit. I've learned after time to give more grace to preachers who preach differently then I do as opposed to having a set "cookie cutter mold" that I expect every single evanglist to fit into. Cookie cutter evangelism hinders the Spirit of God.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Jun 7, 2006 22:10:14 GMT -5
You know, the Ray Comfortite "cookie cutter" do the trivia, give away money, do the good test, do the courtroom analogy, grace, read your Bible every day and obey what you read. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking that method nor am I knocking Ray. (He has has had more influence on me preaching than anyone). But I remember for myself thinking that if the preaching wasn't done a certain way and certain things weren't said, then it wasn't right. I did it just like Ray, that was standard. I wish more people would preach "just like Ray" or just like anybody for that matter. But when we start using an "I am of Paul, I am of Ray, I am of John Duncan..." and reject others, there is a problem. I can't really answer for Jesse, but I don't think it was a strike against anyone, just against those who say there is only one way to preach open air. I used to be guilty of it.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Jun 7, 2006 23:31:52 GMT -5
I think he was actually referring to himself when he made that comment.
|
|