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

Re: Justin Wishart on "minds", peanut brittle & Presuppositionalism!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    ... https://www.facebook.com/groups/176826508997634/ (venue) http://blog.faithbeyondbelief.ca/ (Justin s blog) https://www.facebook.com/wishwon (Justin) (27)
    Message 1 of 32 , Jul 17, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      https://www.facebook.com/groups/176826508997634/ (venue)
      http://blog.faithbeyondbelief.ca/ (Justin's blog)
      https://www.facebook.com/wishwon (Justin)


      From: Jason Wishart
      Date: Wednesday, July 17, 2013
      Time: About 6:35 PM MT

      So now is your demand that I only come "up with the proposition that reflects upon your identity as a Presuppositionalist as distinguished from theists/Christians generally"?

      I thought I could choose to express my brand of Presuppositionalism. Then I thought you said that needed to come up with a proposition that reflects both my Presuppositionalism and brand of Presuppositionalism.

      How can I play your game when you keep changing the rules.

      And, why do you keep commanding me to "repent"?
      For what?
      Not understanding your changing rules?

      Unless I sin against you, I don't have any reason to repent to you. You keep saying very odd things.


      From: Jason Wishart
      Date: Wednesday, July 17, 2013
      Time: About 6:40 PM MT

      I would agree with that other quote you used about what some guy said about Clark.


      From: Robert Baty
      Date: Wednesday, July 17, 2013
      Time: About 6:45 PM MT


      The challenge for you to state a fundamental, foundational proposition that identifies you as a Presuppositionalist has not changed.

      You, Justin, have not been open and honest in responding to the challenge so that we might consider a one-on-one exchange regarding your Presuppositionalism.

      Repent of what?
      Of your dishonest handling of this latest exchange.

      If your identity as a Presuppositional is "Clarkian" as you now admit it may be defined, your guilt is made all the more manifest, Justin.

      Why have you been writing so many words when you know, as it is now made manifest, that you could have simply proposed:

      - I, Justin Wishart, presuppose
      - the truth of the Bible for
      - purposes of discussing
      - "worldviews", but I do not
      - claim that such a position
      - "proves" anything.
      -- Justin Wishart: Affirmed

      Shame on you, Justin!
      Shame on you!

      I have no debate with that proposition, Justin. I accept that that is where you are coming from and our previous exchanges demonstrate other grounds of agreement; including your joining with me in rejecting Sye Ten Bruggencate's Presuppositional "proof God exists" claim.

      Thanks, Justin, for finally offering a little "clarity" on that.

      I will leave it to you, Justin, to give further consideration to your need for repentance and what works you might bring forth meet for such repentance if you do repent of your recent antics.

    • rlbaty50
      Here are some references for those interested in what Gordon Clark, one sort of Presuppositional champion, had to do with these things: (1) Gordon Clark
      Message 32 of 32 , Jul 19, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Here are some references for those interested in what Gordon Clark, one sort of Presuppositional champion, had to do with these things:


        Gordon Clark (Presuppositionalism)
        David Hoover (Evidentialism)

        Link to Audio:



        Here's some of what Gordon Clark had to say about what has been discussed here in recent days (I might have more to say later about one or more of the statements):

        Gordon Clark Lecture:




        Axioms are not demonstrable.

        You do not argue for them,
        you argue from them.

        Every system must have its axioms.

        Christianity cannot be faulted for
        insisting on certain axioms.

        It is my opinion that we must accept
        the truth of the teaching of the Bible
        as the set of axioms from which we
        deduce everything else.

        It's impossible to demonstrate the
        inerrancy of scripture. It must be an
        axiom; you accept it and begin there.

        All the teaching of the Bible is true;
        thousands of truths could be deduced

        I am asking that we use logical deductions
        from the teaching of Scripture.

        Every system of philosophy must begin
        with something that cannot be demonstrated.

        Therefore, Christianity cannot be faulted
        for picking certain axioms.

        You cannot demonstrate or prove axioms,
        but you can prove things by using the axioms.

        You have no reason to pick one axiom
        rather than another.

        All your theorems have to come from
        the axioms.

        Why do you use the Bible to prove
        anything at all?

        Unless you assume something,
        you will never get anything.

        No evangelist can cause a person to
        change his mind or assent to the truth
        of Scripture.

        Faith is a gift of God.

        The system of theology must be axiomized
        and depend on presuppositions from which
        you get your theorems.

        The Holy Spirit does various things.
        He has a number of functions.

        We must indicate what the Holy Spirit does.

        The Holy Spirit would cause us to believe
        certain things.

        The Holy Spirit might not cause us to believe
        in axiomatization, at least not right away.

        Many ordinary Christians don't believe very

        If you are going to have an apologetic,
        then you have to be a little technical.

        Now, you depend on the Spirit,
        but you have to be technical.

        This is my way of trying to do it.

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