This is the fourth part in an "ancient" series on apologetic by the late Greg Bahnsen. He comes from the presuppositional school of apologetics. Hopefully this admittedly dated series will provide some insight into the world of apologetics.
They are neutral. And you shouldn't be. Good stuff. How long do you think it would take us to teach this to our churches? Not just intellectually but practically.
I enjoy "hokey analogies". I have an apple orchard. I love apples. :-) I'm not sure about this apple sorting machine but let us hear Bahnsen out. Would it be possible to devise such a machine? And can you make this machine without having the knowledge to determine it yourself? This actually isn't a hokey analogy at all. I see this all the time as a computer engineer. One cannot design what someone does not fully and completely understand.
The application of this to epistemology is a little shaky. But if it can be properly attributed then it stand as a great mark against this philosophical methodism. How then are we to argue over the apple sorting machine when people don't understand what apples truly are?
The ultimate authority for a thought must be self verifying. This really isn't far from the physical idea that every reaction must have a cause. And in the scientific realm we argue this concerning creation. That there simply is creation proves a creator, an "unmovable mover" as Plato described Him. Yet the world would prefer to deny this simple principle. How do we fight this? We must push for the intelligibility of worldviews. And when the Christian worldview wins, the secular worldview must deny knowledge and understanding to deny God. We see the world doing this but we must push them to profess this.
Greg Bahnsen is the first person I have heard who interprets Proverbs 26:4-5 this way. I heard it a couple months ago and continue to be intrigued by it. I think he may be correct. But he isn't coming to these verse with neutrality! ;-)
