Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Tom Lemke - Infatuated with Sye's Presuppositionalism!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    ... Tom Lemke - Infatuated with Sye s Presuppositionalism! http://thechifiles.com/2013/05/14/how-to-answer-the-fool-a-review/
    Message 1 of 1 , May 14, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      Tom Lemke - Infatuated with Sye's Presuppositionalism!

      https://www.facebook.com/sye.tenbruggencate (Sye)

      (Tom's Article)

      How to Answer the Fool: A Review

      Posted on May 14, 2013
      by Tom Lemke


      I consider myself a presuppositionalist...

      I...have watched it completely through
      twice now, in addition to viewing some
      of my favorite scenes several more times
      on top of that.

      I'd like to report here what I thought,
      which will make this the Chi Files' first
      real product review...

      I'm going to stick to talking about the
      7 elements that stood out to me in particular
      and leave the comprehensive stuff to the
      folks who are more experienced at reviews
      than I.


      The thing about the film that is immediately
      striking is the raw-ness of it.

      And I mean that in a good way.

      I've long enjoyed watching good street
      preachers interact with the people that
      stop by, and Sye is as good as they come.


      Throughout the film, Sye makes excellent
      use of parables to illustrate specific

      Through the use of these stories he
      deals with such issues as:


      why it is not appropriate to let the
      unbeliever use our worldview to argue
      against us,


      what presuppositions are and why they


      why it is important to exercise this
      apologetic method with gentleness and
      respect, and others.

      This is a definite strong point to the


      On the other hand, another complaint
      that I would register is what felt to
      me to be a little bit of a frenzied
      pacing to some of it.

      (W)hat to me is somewhat of a weakness
      may actually be a strength when it comes
      to a different type of audience who
      might be more accustomed to this kind
      of cinematography, which may serve to
      keep them better tuned in.


      One thing that is hard to walk away
      from this film without noticing is
      the boldness with which Sye proclaims
      the Law and the Gospel.

      He is fearless in the face of verbal
      attacks, veiled threats, and even
      those of profess to be Christians but
      who deny fundamental truths of the faith.

      But all the while he is respectful,
      gentle, and compassionate, which the
      viewer will see to fullest effect in
      the last scene of the film.


      A good portion of the film amounts to
      a polemic in favor of presuppositional
      apologetics, exposing the weaknesses
      and false assumptions of the
      evidentialist/classical school of
      apologetic thought, most of which
      viewers with a background in the
      presuppositional method will already
      have a handle on.

      (G)oodness knows that the evidentialist
      school rarely wastes an opportunity to
      polemicize against us.


      I will point out here that – as inferred
      above – there is not necessarily much
      new in this film for avid readers of
      Bahnsen, Van Til, Oliphant, and other
      presuppositional authors.


      Throughout the film, Sye's enthusiasm
      for the subject is contagious.

      I want to thank Sye, American Vision,
      and Crown Rights for putting together
      this tool for learning, and look forward
      to sharing it with others.


      (Sye's Endorsement)

      From: Sye Ten Bruggencate
      Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2013
      Time: About 6:45 PM MT

      A well written review of HTATF
      by Thomas Lemke


      (My Posting to Tom's Article)

      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2013
      Time: About 7:05 PM MT

      (Comments awaiting moderation)

      Hey, Tom, Sye is watching your blog,
      even while he continues to run from me!

      So, since you are not up to "coming out
      to me" to discuss the merits of Sye's
      "proof of God" claim, I will post my
      unanswered challenge again here, if you
      will oblige, and that in the context of
      a little thing one of his people have
      been up to today.

      Here goes:


      Cameron Lewis
      Sean Boatman

      https://www.facebook.com/groups/528766180509430/ (venue)
      https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9 (Sean)
      https://www.facebook.com/cameronscottlewis (Cameron)

      Cameron Lewis asked Sean Boatman:

      - "How can YOU (Sean)
      - be certain about God?"

      Sean Boatman replies:

      - "The same way you are.
      - Because God makes us
      - certain."

      Sean did not dare to answer the question!

      I think that goes, in part, to illustrating
      again why Presuppositionalists like Sean
      and his hero Sye will not engage me in
      written negotiations for a discussion of
      the merits of Sye Ten Bruggencate's claim

      - "the proof of God is that
      - without Him you could not
      - prove anything".

      It's not about me.
      It's not about Cameron.
      It's not about God.

      It's about folks like Sye who troll our
      streets and campuses cornering kids and
      others unsuspecting of what folks like
      Sye are getting them into and that with
      claims they cannot sustain and that they
      don't really want to have tested.

      Sye needs to repent, his people need to
      repent, they need to bring forth their
      works meet for such repentance, and they
      need to quit going around claiming that

      - "the proof of God is that
      - without Him you could not
      - prove anything."

      Matthew 7:1,2
      James 3:1

      Presuppositional Challenge
      to Sye Ten Bruggencate or
      his Surrogate

      Sye's Affirmative Claim

      - "The Proof that God exists is
      - that without Him you couldn't
      - prove anything."

      Sye's Implied Argument

      Major Premise:

      - If God did not exist,
      - then you could not
      - prove anything.

      Minor Premise:

      - You can prove something.


      - Therefore, God exists.

      Issue #1:

      Do you think the argument is
      so constructed that if its
      premises are true its
      conclusion will follow as
      true therefrom?

      - Sye Ten Bruggencate: Yes
      - Robert Baty: Yes

      Issue #2:

      Do you think the minor premise
      is true?

      - Sye Ten Bruggencate: Yes
      - Robert Baty: Yes

      Issue #3:

      Do you think the major premise
      is true?

      - Sye Ten Bruggencate: Yes
      - Robert Baty: No

      Challenge for Sye or Surrogate:

      - Present your affirmative rationale
      - for your conclusion that the major
      - premise is true and why others
      - should accept the truth of the
      - major premise, thereby "proving
      - God exists".

      Challenge for Robert Baty:

      - Accept the above affirmative as
      - supporting the truth of the major
      - premise and "proving God exists,
      - or offer a rebuttal.

      Challenge for Both:

      - Negotiate the logistical details
      - and other matters necessary to
      - produce the above proposed
      - exchange as between Sye Ten
      - Bruggencate or his Surrogate and
      - Robert Baty.


      Robert Baty is waiting for Sye or
      his Surrogate to engage in the
      negotiations for the production
      of the proposed exchange.

      Please send replies via email to:


      Robert Baty

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.