A Presuppositional Bible Study Approach

[Jon777]

Cornelius Van Til, a Reformed theologian, was the main architect of Presuppositional apologetics, in contrast to Classical or Traditional apologetics. I have used the term “presuppositional” in reference to my view of Bible study and doctrines in theology and I’ll give the scriptural basis upon which I base that.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them… Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. (Rom 1:19, 22-23 NRSVue)

When gentiles, who do not possess the law, by nature do what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, as their own conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them (Rom 2:14-15 NRSVue)

When I encounter the militant atheist, I see him as accepting a lie of Satan and thinking he is wise and I do not waste time in dialogue with him, for he is a fool. All men have some knowledge of God and basic morality written on the heart, and it has been so since the creation, so they have to reject what they were born with, basic logic, knowledge of God and a denial of the creation around him.

If we receive human testimony, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has testified to his Son. (1Jn 5:9 NRSVue)

I have applied all this to myself and Apol′los for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. (1Cor 4:6, RSV)

so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose and succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (Isa 55:11 NRSVue)

If I use correct grammar and standard rules of interpretation in understanding Scripture. I stop at a certain point when I believe those whose disagreement takes so much verbiage and ‘around robin hood’s barn’ reasoning to deny a clear statement of the word, so I have no obligation to reply to everything posted in disagreement. Man’s reasoning and adding what is seen as implications, I reject as a substitute for God’s word. For the child of God, the Holy Spirit will apply the word to his heart.

First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2Pe 1:20-21 RSV)

God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For what human knows what is truly human except the human spirit that is within? So also no one comprehends what is truly God’s except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. (1Co 2:10-12 NRSVue)

The infallible word of God in Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit, so that Scripture cannot be interpreted by human interpretation alone, it requires the Holy Spirit to aid and illuminate what He has inspired to be written for us.

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. (1Co 3:16-17 KJV) *The KJV “ye” is plural, showing this represents the church, the body of Christ as being indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Eph. 4:11 shows clearly that “pastors and teachers” were a gift to the church, and 1 Tim 3:15 says the church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”. Jude 3 instructs the church to “contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” Therefore, to teach that which cannot be shown in the confessions, creeds and writings of the church through the centuries, is to presume to have more of the Holy Spirit than the church has had down through the centuries. The documents of the church serve as guard rails to keep us from straying far from the path of truth.

 

[homwardbound]

Seek God, answer the phone, God is still calling, knocking and speaking. This does not stop at the Bible, God is not silent, never has been, never will be, this truth I am thankful to God for this gift to learn from mistakes I have made and to continue, to move forward standing, willingly learning in belief to God Father and Son as won for me too. Col 1:21-23 John 19:30., Matt 5:17 Hebrews 9:14-17
1 John 2:1-27, to see presently Acts 17:28 is for us all presently, daily and forever form God to us all in love too us all. Wow!
Isaiah 6:1-7
Thank you Father Psalm 103:12, 100:4, Ezekiel 36:26

 

[timf]

A friend had a presupposition that the Great Commission was for the church. I asked him if the Great Commission was given to Israel or the church. After a while he said that it was given to those who would become the church. I see the process of "making something fit" as presuppositional.

 

[GWH]

Cornelius Van Til, a Reformed theologian, was the main architect of Presuppositional apologetics, in contrast to Classical or Traditional apologetics. I have used the term “presuppositional” in reference to my view of Bible study and doctrines in theology and I’ll give the scriptural basis upon which I base that.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them… Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. (Rom 1:19, 22-23 NRSVue)

When gentiles, who do not possess the law, by nature do what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, as their own conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them (Rom 2:14-15 NRSVue)

When I encounter the militant atheist, I see him as accepting a lie of Satan and thinking he is wise and I do not waste time in dialogue with him, for he is a fool. All men have some knowledge of God and basic morality written on the heart, and it has been so since the creation, so they have to reject what they were born with, basic logic, knowledge of God and a denial of the creation around him.

If we receive human testimony, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has testified to his Son. (1Jn 5:9 NRSVue)

I have applied all this to myself and Apol′los for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. (1Cor 4:6, RSV)

so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose and succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (Isa 55:11 NRSVue)

If I use correct grammar and standard rules of interpretation in understanding Scripture. I stop at a certain point when I believe those whose disagreement takes so much verbiage and ‘around robin hood’s barn’ reasoning to deny a clear statement of the word, so I have no obligation to reply to everything posted in disagreement. Man’s reasoning and adding what is seen as implications, I reject as a substitute for God’s word. For the child of God, the Holy Spirit will apply the word to his heart.

First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2Pe 1:20-21 RSV)

God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For what human knows what is truly human except the human spirit that is within? So also no one comprehends what is truly God’s except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. (1Co 2:10-12 NRSVue)

The infallible word of God in Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit, so that Scripture cannot be interpreted by human interpretation alone, it requires the Holy Spirit to aid and illuminate what He has inspired to be written for us.

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. (1Co 3:16-17 KJV) *The KJV “ye” is plural, showing this represents the church, the body of Christ as being indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Eph. 4:11 shows clearly that “pastors and teachers” were a gift to the church, and 1 Tim 3:15 says the church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”. Jude 3 instructs the church to “contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” Therefore, to teach that which cannot be shown in the confessions, creeds and writings of the church through the centuries, is to presume to have more of the Holy Spirit than the church has had down through the centuries. The documents of the church serve as guard rails to keep us from straying far from the path of truth.

I had not heard the phrase "presuppositional apologetics" before, but according to the definition I googled,
that is what I do, except that I begin with a blank slate and show logically how atheism and non-Christian
beliefs are inferior to NT Christianity.

 

[Dino246]

Man’s reasoning and adding what is seen as implications, I reject as a substitute for God’s word. For the child of God, the Holy Spirit will apply the word to his heart.
...
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2Pe 1:20-21 RSV)
...
The infallible word of God in Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit, so that Scripture cannot be interpreted by human interpretation alone, it requires the Holy Spirit to aid and illuminate what He has inspired to be written for us.

Your interpretation of 2 Peter 1:21 is incorrect. It is (flawed!) human reasoning and adding implications... which you decried.

Peter is not saying that humans cannot (or may not) interpret Scripture. He is also not saying that humans cannot rightly interpret Scripture. He is not even talking about Scripture as a whole. What is is saying is that the prophecy recorded in Scripture does not have its origin in human interpretation.

Eph. 4:11 shows clearly that “pastors and teachers” were a gift to the church, and 1 Tim 3:15 says the church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”. Jude 3 instructs the church to “contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” Therefore, to teach that which cannot be shown in the confessions, creeds and writings of the church through the centuries, is to presume to have more of the Holy Spirit than the church has had down through the centuries. The documents of the church serve as guard rails to keep us from straying far from the path of truth.

To assume that everything that can be known can be found in extant Christian writings outside of Scripture is to exalt man above the Holy Spirit. God is capable of revealing more to a person today than what has been revealed. That is not claiming to have "more" of the Holy Spirit... indeed, such is a ridiculous accusation. Scripture is the guard rail. Creeds have their place but that place is in expressing and relating complex truths of Scripture in simplistic form.

 

[rewriter]

Cornelius Van Til, a Reformed theologian, was the main architect of Presuppositional apologetics, in contrast to Classical or Traditional apologetics. I have used the term “presuppositional” in reference to my view of Bible study and doctrines in theology and I’ll give the scriptural basis upon which I base that.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them… Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. (Rom 1:19, 22-23 NRSVue)

When gentiles, who do not possess the law, by nature do what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, as their own conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them (Rom 2:14-15 NRSVue)

When I encounter the militant atheist, I see him as accepting a lie of Satan and thinking he is wise and I do not waste time in dialogue with him, for he is a fool. All men have some knowledge of God and basic morality written on the heart, and it has been so since the creation, so they have to reject what they were born with, basic logic, knowledge of God and a denial of the creation around him.

If we receive human testimony, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has testified to his Son. (1Jn 5:9 NRSVue)

I have applied all this to myself and Apol′los for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. (1Cor 4:6, RSV)

so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose and succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (Isa 55:11 NRSVue)

If I use correct grammar and standard rules of interpretation in understanding Scripture. I stop at a certain point when I believe those whose disagreement takes so much verbiage and ‘around robin hood’s barn’ reasoning to deny a clear statement of the word, so I have no obligation to reply to everything posted in disagreement. Man’s reasoning and adding what is seen as implications, I reject as a substitute for God’s word. For the child of God, the Holy Spirit will apply the word to his heart.

First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2Pe 1:20-21 RSV)

God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For what human knows what is truly human except the human spirit that is within? So also no one comprehends what is truly God’s except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. (1Co 2:10-12 NRSVue)

The infallible word of God in Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit, so that Scripture cannot be interpreted by human interpretation alone, it requires the Holy Spirit to aid and illuminate what He has inspired to be written for us.

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. (1Co 3:16-17 KJV) *The KJV “ye” is plural, showing this represents the church, the body of Christ as being indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Eph. 4:11 shows clearly that “pastors and teachers” were a gift to the church, and 1 Tim 3:15 says the church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”. Jude 3 instructs the church to “contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” Therefore, to teach that which cannot be shown in the confessions, creeds and writings of the church through the centuries, is to presume to have more of the Holy Spirit than the church has had down through the centuries. The documents of the church serve as guard rails to keep us from straying far from the path of truth.

You have a sound basis, but I notice that you skipped Romans 1:25, which is often mistranslated anyway, "They exchanged the truth about God for a (should actually be "THE") lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator --- who is forever praised, amen. (NIV)

The issue is then, what single, specific lie is being referenced, as the definite article does imply that a very specific lie is the problem.

 

[JohnRH]

... to teach that which cannot be shown in the confessions, creeds and writings of the church through the centuries, is to presume to have more of the Holy Spirit than the church has had down through the centuries.

That's a groundless assertion.

 

[Jon777]

I had not heard the phrase "presuppositional apologetics" before, but according to the definition I googled,
that is what I do, except that I begin with a blank slate and show logically how atheism and non-Christian
beliefs are inferior to NT Christianity.

The ‘blank slate” illustration is what defines Classical apologetics, not Presuppositional apologetic. In Presuppositional apologetics the “slates” do not begin blank. Man starts out with the God given logic and basic knowledge of God and morals, not a blank slate. My basic reasoning on that comes from Romans 2:14-15

I think of it like the BIOS in a computer. That is the Basic Input/Output System needed to start installing the OS and the various software. A computer has to have that basic system already in place. Somehow the newborn babe needs some sort of logical system already to be able to start connecting the dots.

I hope I clarified rather than muddied the waters.

 

[Jon777]

Your interpretation of 2 Peter 1:21 is incorrect. It is (flawed!) human reasoning and adding implications... which you decried.

Peter is not saying that humans cannot (or may not) interpret Scripture. He is also not saying that humans cannot rightly interpret Scripture. He is not even talking about Scripture as a whole. What is is saying is that the prophecy recorded in Scripture does not have its origin in human interpretation.


To assume that everything that can be known can be found in extant Christian writings outside of Scripture is to exalt man above the Holy Spirit. God is capable of revealing more to a person today than what has been revealed. That is not claiming to have "more" of the Holy Spirit... indeed, such is a ridiculous accusation. Scripture is the guard rail. Creeds have their place but that place is in expressing and relating complex truths of Scripture in simplistic form.

You write, "God is capable of revealing more to a person today than what has been revealed." In spite of the sentence sounding nonsensical, it seems you are claiming God still gives more revelation to individuals than was completed in the 66 books of our Bible. Revelation, what we have received written, was authenticated by the signs of an Apostle, which were miracles and signs. Those miracles included raising the dead, so until I see someone raising the dead, I'll ignore any revelation he claims to have received from God.

Illumination (aid in interpretation) of what is written, is what the Holy Spirit does today, not continued Revelation. If someone wishes to claim he got a revelation, words directly from God, etc.; as long as he does not try to instruct me or bind me by his flaky revelation, he can believe what he wishes. But I know what sort of person claims these revelations today, and it is not impressive.

 

[Dino246]

You write, "God is capable of revealing more to a person today than what has been revealed." In spite of the sentence sounding nonsensical, it seems you are claiming God still gives more revelation to individuals than was completed in the 66 books of our Bible.

You have changed the subject. You made claims about creeds and early writings, and when I challenged those claims, you shifted to claims about Scripture.

Which are we going to discuss... creeds and writings of post-canon Christians, or Scripture itself? They are not in the same category.

 

[Jon777]

You have a sound basis, but I notice that you skipped Romans 1:25, which is often mistranslated anyway, "They exchanged the truth about God for a (should actually be "THE") lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator --- who is forever praised, amen. (NIV)

The issue is then, what single, specific lie is being referenced, as the definite article does imply that a very specific lie is the problem.

I'll add the following, not to debate but just for information. Such translation questions are far above me.

Romans 1:25 (Greek ἔδωκαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ψεύδει) literally reads:
“they exchanged the truth of God for a lie.”
The key to the English rendering lies in how the Greek article τῆς (“the”) interacts with the noun ψεύδος (“lie”). In Koine Greek the article does not function exactly like the English definite article. It can be used:

1. Definitively, to point to a specific, known thing.
2. Indefinitely, simply to mark a noun as a substantive when no article would otherwise appear, especially with abstract nouns.

In this verse the phrase τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ θεοῦ (“the truth of God”) is clearly definite—the truth that belongs to God. The second noun, ψεύδη (“lie”), however, is an abstract concept. The article τὴν does not appear before it; the construction ἐν ψεύδει uses the dative of ψεύδη without an article, which is the typical Greek way of speaking about “a lie” in a generic sense rather than a particular, previously identified falsehood.
English, on the other hand, tends to require an article before singular count nouns. Translators therefore have two options:

• “the lie” – treating ψεύδη as a specific, identifiable falsehood.
• “a lie” – treating it as an indefinite, generic falsehood.

Most modern translations (e.g., NIV, ESV, NRSV) choose “a lie” because the surrounding context speaks of humanity’s overall turning away from God, not a single, concrete deception. The passage says that people “exchanged the truth of God for a lie,” meaning they replaced divine truth with falsehood in a broad, collective sense.
So the translation “a lie” reflects:

• Greek idiom: the lack of an article signals indefiniteness.
• Contextual reading: the verse addresses a general moral decline, not a particular lie.
• English readability: adding “a” avoids the awkwardness of “the lie” when no specific lie has been introduced.

If a translator wanted to emphasize a particular falsehood—perhaps a specific doctrine or myth—they could render it “the lie,” but that would shift the nuance away from the original Greek’s broader, indefinite sense. Hence most scholars and translators opt for “a lie.”

 

[Jon777]

You have changed the subject. You made claims about creeds and early writings, and when I challenged those claims, you shifted to claims about Scripture.

Which are we going to discuss... creeds and writings of post-canon Christians, or Scripture itself? They are not in the same category.

The church's creeds, confessions and catechisms are the overall interpretation and understanding of Scripture, of the church which is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. When that character in the pulpit is teaching something contradicting the creeds, confessions and catechisms of the church; do you believe the interpretation of that individual or his little group; over the historic stand of the church? Where does error come from? Following some man, some individual:

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (1Cor 4:6, KJV)

 

[Dino246]

The church's creeds, confessions and catechisms are the overall interpretation and understanding of Scripture, of the church which is indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

No, they are the works of man. The "church" is not indwelt by the Holy Spirit; individual believers are. The creeds, confessions, and catechisms ("writings) are simplifications and summaries, not "overall interpretation and understanding".

When that character in the pulpit is teaching something contradicting the creeds, confessions and catechisms of the church; do you believe the interpretation of that individual or his little group; over the historic stand of the church?

Neither. I believe Scripture.

Where does error come from? Following some man, some individual:

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (1Cor 4:6, KJV)

Yet you exalt the works of some men over the works of other men.

 

[Aaron56]

The church's creeds, confessions and catechisms are the overall interpretation and understanding of Scripture, of the church which is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. (1Cor 4:6, KJV)

The church in Rome gave up her authority in Christ by choosing to be the state religion of the empire. This happened in the late 300's. She hasn't been chaste since.

 

[rewriter]

I'll add the following, not to debate but just for information. Such translation questions are far above me.

Romans 1:25 (Greek ἔδωκαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ψεύδει) literally reads:
“they exchanged the truth of God for a lie.”
The key to the English rendering lies in how the Greek article τῆς (“the”) interacts with the noun ψεύδος (“lie”). In Koine Greek the article does not function exactly like the English definite article. It can be used:

1. Definitively, to point to a specific, known thing.
2. Indefinitely, simply to mark a noun as a substantive when no article would otherwise appear, especially with abstract nouns.

In this verse the phrase τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ θεοῦ (“the truth of God”) is clearly definite—the truth that belongs to God. The second noun, ψεύδη (“lie”), however, is an abstract concept. The article τὴν does not appear before it; the construction ἐν ψεύδει uses the dative of ψεύδη without an article, which is the typical Greek way of speaking about “a lie” in a generic sense rather than a particular, previously identified falsehood.
English, on the other hand, tends to require an article before singular count nouns. Translators therefore have two options:

• “the lie” – treating ψεύδη as a specific, identifiable falsehood.
• “a lie” – treating it as an indefinite, generic falsehood.

Most modern translations (e.g., NIV, ESV, NRSV) choose “a lie” because the surrounding context speaks of humanity’s overall turning away from God, not a single, concrete deception. The passage says that people “exchanged the truth of God for a lie,” meaning they replaced divine truth with falsehood in a broad, collective sense.
So the translation “a lie” reflects:

• Greek idiom: the lack of an article signals indefiniteness.
• Contextual reading: the verse addresses a general moral decline, not a particular lie.
• English readability: adding “a” avoids the awkwardness of “the lie” when no specific lie has been introduced.

If a translator wanted to emphasize a particular falsehood—perhaps a specific doctrine or myth—they could render it “the lie,” but that would shift the nuance away from the original Greek’s broader, indefinite sense. Hence most scholars and translators opt for “a lie.”

You do an excellent job of following well-establish tradition on this passage. And well-established tradition seems to be intended to avoid certain problems. Modern science is quite capable of pointing to a very specific lie that could produce all the generic problems, plus many Paul did not list. But clearly that cannot be accurate or else it confirms Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities---his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Plucking a specific verse out of its overall context, in this case a complete paragraph beginning with Romans 1:18 and running through verse 21. Verse 22 begins a new paragraph emphasizing a related, but different point.

But traditional interpretations are very good at doing such. Scholars will claim, and people follow, that Paul references current events, except where he doesn't, and seeing any passages as referencing current events in a letter that points in a direction that tradition does not want to go is a clear sign that Paul is not referencing a current event. Ben Witherington, a well-regarded scholar with many commentaries to his name, has made that point clear to me when I referenced current events in one letter and he assured me that consensus was that it was an updated Old Testament reference. Likely because if it was current events, OMG that would change everything we know about earliest Christianity, Paul meant what????, impossible. Even worse, it would link the birth narratives of Jesus, women's hair from 1 Corinthians and 2 Timothy 3:16 among other passages. Nah, such could not be correct says tradition

 

[GWH]

The ‘blank slate” illustration is what defines Classical apologetics, not Presuppositional apologetic. In Presuppositional apologetics the “slates” do not begin blank. Man starts out with the God given logic and basic knowledge of God and morals, not a blank slate. My basic reasoning on that comes from Romans 2:14-15

I think of it like the BIOS in a computer. That is the Basic Input/Output System needed to start installing the OS and the various software. A computer has to have that basic system already in place. Somehow the newborn babe needs some sort of logical system already to be able to start connecting the dots.

I hope I clarified rather than muddied the waters.

Yes, that clarifies the difference. My classical approach seeks to avoid the accusation of bias by assuming a blank slate in the
newborn baby and then proceeding logically, because atheists would say Rom. 2:14-15 is due to naturalism and does not warrant presupposition of a moral Deity. IOW, I show why an apologetic tie goes to NT theism because of what I call the "Propensity Principle" (PP), which is this:

The PP employs linear logic (rather than circular reasoning) to propose faith in the NT God as the best belief that solves the maze of reality as follows:

1. Current scientific knowledge cannot explain how the universe came to exist by means of natural causes, thus it is possible that the cause of the universe is a supernatural Creator/God.

2. The most creative species is humanity, whose traits also include language, moral conscience and God consciousness (personality), so it is possible that these human traits reflect attributes of a God who created humanity.

3. Existential reality indicates that humans are mortal and life is painful, but when life is happy, one wishes it would continue indefinitely. Thus, it is rational to seek ways to become immortal in a heavenly existence (where there is love and justice for all forever, the DOD).

4. Comparing all possible ways of achieving the DOD, the best or most credible way/hope at this point appears to be the God who resurrected Christ Jesus.

5. When words from God are sought, the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul seem to be the most highly inspired when compared with other scriptures (including the OT), because its concept of one God as the just and all-loving Judge (rationale for morality) is spiritually highest or most advanced, and the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is most credible.

6. Thus, it is appropriate or wise to believe in the NT God and to accept Jesus as God’s Messiah.

Atheists deny the validity of this argument, but in the absence of disproof, I find the decision to reject the biblical gospel of salvation from selfishness, spiritual death, and a miserable destiny to be illogical or foolish. This is why all truthseekers should agree on NT theism now rather than assume atheism is an unlucky guess.

As someone has said, heaven is like a vision of water in the desert: the scoffer will surely die where he/she is, while the believer will live if right. Again, however, this analogy should be viewed in terms of comparison shopping and right logic rather than of blind faith and presupposition.

Those who reject the PP apparently employ a logical fallacy that might be called non praecedere (comparable to non sequitur), making an unwarranted conclusion/presupposition which precedes unknown facts, namely the cause for the universe “banging bigly”. Atheists assume a natural cause will be discovered, but their assumption/presupposition is premature and thus inappropriate or illogical.

 

[rewriter]

The church in Rome gave up her authority in Christ by choosing to be the state religion of the empire. This happened in the late 300's. She hasn't been chaste since.

You are being generous in your dating. The western Church fell to imperial influence in the 310's, the eastern half sold itself out in 325. At least the eastern half got a better price for selling out. But you might also remember that according to scripture, Jerusalem was the "Great Babylon", not Rome.

 

[rewriter]

Cornelius Van Til, a Reformed theologian, was the main architect of Presuppositional apologetics, in contrast to Classical or Traditional apologetics. I have used the term “presuppositional” in reference to my view of Bible study and doctrines in theology and I’ll give the scriptural basis upon which I base that.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them… Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. (Rom 1:19, 22-23 NRSVue)

When gentiles, who do not possess the law, by nature do what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, as their own conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them (Rom 2:14-15 NRSVue)

When I encounter the militant atheist, I see him as accepting a lie of Satan and thinking he is wise and I do not waste time in dialogue with him, for he is a fool. All men have some knowledge of God and basic morality written on the heart, and it has been so since the creation, so they have to reject what they were born with, basic logic, knowledge of God and a denial of the creation around him.

If we receive human testimony, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has testified to his Son. (1Jn 5:9 NRSVue)

I have applied all this to myself and Apol′los for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. (1Cor 4:6, RSV)

so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose and succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (Isa 55:11 NRSVue)

If I use correct grammar and standard rules of interpretation in understanding Scripture. I stop at a certain point when I believe those whose disagreement takes so much verbiage and ‘around robin hood’s barn’ reasoning to deny a clear statement of the word, so I have no obligation to reply to everything posted in disagreement. Man’s reasoning and adding what is seen as implications, I reject as a substitute for God’s word. For the child of God, the Holy Spirit will apply the word to his heart.

First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2Pe 1:20-21 RSV)

God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For what human knows what is truly human except the human spirit that is within? So also no one comprehends what is truly God’s except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. (1Co 2:10-12 NRSVue)

The infallible word of God in Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit, so that Scripture cannot be interpreted by human interpretation alone, it requires the Holy Spirit to aid and illuminate what He has inspired to be written for us.

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. (1Co 3:16-17 KJV) *The KJV “ye” is plural, showing this represents the church, the body of Christ as being indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Eph. 4:11 shows clearly that “pastors and teachers” were a gift to the church, and 1 Tim 3:15 says the church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”. Jude 3 instructs the church to “contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” Therefore, to teach that which cannot be shown in the confessions, creeds and writings of the church through the centuries, is to presume to have more of the Holy Spirit than the church has had down through the centuries. The documents of the church serve as guard rails to keep us from straying far from the path of truth.

An interesting take on things I trust that you are aware that in the Lutheran Book of Concord, one of the earliest, if not the earliest Protestant statements of what was believed, it spells out the points where the Lutherans differ with the Catholics, If I remember correctly there are 7 points of difference, including one that is pure semantics. Then it spells out, again I think I am right, I might have reversed the numbers, 9 points where it is unclear if there is difference but makes clear the Lutheran position. It then concludes with observing that on ALL other points there is full agreement.

As for sun worship and Christianity, likely you are unaware of links between Judaism and Helios, the sun god, that clearly predate Christianity as well as the polytheistic comments in the gospels, which are never stated as being corrected by Jesus, although he was present when some disciples made them.

Finally on Nero, I hope you are aware of the Roman habit of reading disgraceful habits back in an individual's life after they fall. Crassus was a brilliant military leader a hero for saving Rome, until he was defeated, after which he never should have led any military action. And the same holds true for other Roman leaders, brilliant, deserving of praise until something bad happens and then all their good deeds are forgotten, and shameful deeds suddenly appear. Or in the case of Tiberius, he went from being great and powerful, to being weak and worthless then back to great and powerful. The occasions were, actively being the emperor, taking semiretirement and coming out of semi-retirement to block an attempted coup. Are you certain Nero was so bad or was he largely disgraced because he wanted to retire from being emperor? And you might note that there is evidence that he might not have initiated the persecution of Christians, or if he did, it was earlier than is widely recognized by several years, and for different reasons, but tradition cannot reveal that, so be careful.

 

[Aaron56]

You are being generous in your dating. The western Church fell to imperial influence in the 310's, the eastern half sold itself out in 325. At least the eastern half got a better price for selling out. But you might also remember that according to scripture, Jerusalem was the "Great Babylon", not Rome.

Sure, I was using the date when Roman empire chose "Christianity" as the state's religion. You could say it was when the corruption had the baby.

 

[NightTwister]

Yes, that clarifies the difference. My classical approach seeks to avoid the accusation of bias by assuming a blank slate in the
newborn baby and then proceeding logically, because atheists would say Rom. 2:14-15 is due to naturalism and does not warrant presupposition of a moral Deity. IOW, I show why an apologetic tie goes to NT theism because of what I call the "Propensity Principle" (PP), which is this:

The PP employs linear logic (rather than circular reasoning) to propose faith in the NT God as the best belief that solves the maze of reality as follows:

1. Current scientific knowledge cannot explain how the universe came to exist by means of natural causes, thus it is possible that the cause of the universe is a supernatural Creator/God.

2. The most creative species is humanity, whose traits also include language, moral conscience and God consciousness (personality), so it is possible that these human traits reflect attributes of a God who created humanity.

3. Existential reality indicates that humans are mortal and life is painful, but when life is happy, one wishes it would continue indefinitely. Thus, it is rational to seek ways to become immortal in a heavenly existence (where there is love and justice for all forever, the DOD).

4. Comparing all possible ways of achieving the DOD, the best or most credible way/hope at this point appears to be the God who resurrected Christ Jesus.

5. When words from God are sought, the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul seem to be the most highly inspired when compared with other scriptures (including the OT), because its concept of one God as the just and all-loving Judge (rationale for morality) is spiritually highest or most advanced, and the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is most credible.

6. Thus, it is appropriate or wise to believe in the NT God and to accept Jesus as God’s Messiah.

Atheists deny the validity of this argument, but in the absence of disproof, I find the decision to reject the biblical gospel of salvation from selfishness, spiritual death, and a miserable destiny to be illogical or foolish. This is why all truthseekers should agree on NT theism now rather than assume atheism is an unlucky guess.

As someone has said, heaven is like a vision of water in the desert: the scoffer will surely die where he/she is, while the believer will live if right. Again, however, this analogy should be viewed in terms of comparison shopping and right logic rather than of blind faith and presupposition.

Those who reject the PP apparently employ a logical fallacy that might be called non praecedere (comparable to non sequitur), making an unwarranted conclusion/presupposition which precedes unknown facts, namely the cause for the universe “banging bigly”. Atheists assume a natural cause will be discovered, but their assumption/presupposition is premature and thus inappropriate or illogical.

Everyone has a bias based on how their life has formed their worldview. That's the point of presuppositional apologetics. People cannot evaluate anything outside of their worldview unless they recognize it. Most don't.