In honor of Mr. Rauch and his outstanding article Footnotes or Flowers: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=1089 I've decided to begin a series of discussions that will highlight some of the fundamentals involved in thinking "presuppositionally." Enjoy:Well meaning Christians have donned red bandannas, climbed onto their horses, and robbed at gunpoint that great Van Tillian theological steam engine, emptying the safe of all catchphrases…
They robbed the train of its terms, and then turned them over to their boss, Mr. Semi Pelagian, to corrupt as he sees fit!
To recover the stolen goods, take my hand and let’s stroll down memory lane.
There is a black lab I know. He LOVES playing fetch. When a ball was thrown into our swimming pool, he would enthusiastically dive in after it! For a brief moment, he was submerged! Let’s freeze this moment and examine it closer.
Held in our thoughts should be the image of a black lab, grinning for all he’s worth, completely submerged in the swimming pool, surrounded by wide eyed children.
I would consider the human condition to be in much the same state as that black lab. God, of course, can be compared to the water, while all the particulars of creation (everything from angels on clouds picking banjos to babies spitting up mysterious substances onto their victims) can be compared to the black lab. They are at all times surrounded and supported by, God…or, for the analogy to work…the water.
In such a metaphysical scheme, to speak of something “standing on its own” is to speak of something that is external to the water. This is the point where the sheriff will confront the train robbers in an all out gun battle that would make Doc Holiday proud! The lab does not float on his own nor do facts stand on their own, apart from interpretation. Like the lab, man is surrounded by, and supported by God. All of our empirical observations are first interpreted by God, and then re-interpreted by man.
Only by systematically critiquing a person’s view on its own basis, and seeing what philosophical preconditions that person holds as self evident or “granted” can we then truly claim to be critiquing it presuppositionally. We do not hold their presuppositions up in one hand, and neutral “facts” up in the other, and compare the two to see if they match. Rather, we see if their presuppositions (as they state them) are consistent with themselves and have sufficient warrant. (Greg Bahnsen has pounded the concept into my head. We are looking for arbitrariness, and inconsistency!)
Robbers have stolen Reformed concepts of "worldviews" and "presuppositions." Join me in a high-noon gun fight to retrieve our property!
***spits into a can...then tips his cowboy hat...***
If the little bird within our bosom sings sweetly, it is of small consequence if all the owls in the world hoot at us! - Spurgeon