Prayer Service 8-19-26

Let’s begin with this reminder:

Romans 12:12 ESV

12 Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.

Open in Prayer

Needs from our Bulletin:

Luke Walters

Allen: Recovery from blood flow surgery

Clark Lovingood: Lung Cancer Diagnosis

Sherry Williams: Leukemia (Acceptance of Bone Transfusion)

Joy Stewart: Lung Cancer

Luke Smith: Recovery from Motorcycle Crash

Michelle Roberts: Recovery from Brain Aneurism

Cheri Lynn: Cancer Diagnosis

Andrew Herrington and Children: Protection from Unjust Assaults.

Iva Lee: Multiple Health Issues

Lelia Walters: Cognitive Decline and Other Health Concerns.

Oliver Farley: Chronic Lung Disease

Cathy Stewart and Julie Orr: Breast Cancer

Hope Sanders: Liver Disease

Imprecations against Abortion in our land.

A prayer for The Valley of Vision

“Lord, High and Holy, Meek and Lowly, Thou Hast brought me to the valley of vision, where I live in the depths but see thee in the heights, hemmed in by mountains of sin I behold thy glory”

Here’s our petition:

“Let me learn by paradox:

That the way down is the way up,

That to be low is to be high,

That the broken heart is the healed heart,

That the contrite spirit is the rejoicing spirit,

That the repenting soul is the victorious soul,

That to have nothing is to possess all,

That to bear the cross is to wear the crown,

That to give is to receive,

That the valley is the place of vision.”

And at the end:

“Let me find thy light in my darkness,

Thy life in my death,

Thy joy in my sorrow,

Thy grace in my sin,

Thy riches in my poverty

Thy glory in my valley.”

Can we pray that with sincere hearts?

Historical Theology

Following the general outline of this book:

(show photo)

Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine Chapter 1: Introduction to Historical Theology

Historical theology is the study of

The Doctrine of God (Theology Proper)

Under that heading...

...we’ve been looking at:

Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine The Existence and Knowability of God in the Modern Period

THE EXISTENCE AND KNOWABILITY OF GOD IN THE

And we’ve come...

...in that portion of our study...

...to a consideration of...

...some of its most influential skeptics.

For the last two weeks...

...we’ve been focusing on these two:

Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine The Existence and Knowability of God in the Modern Period

Chief among these were David Hume and Immanuel Kant, who sought to overturn decisively

And we started looking at...

David Hume (1711–1776) Scottish Enlightenment philosopher

Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine The Existence and Knowability of God in the Modern Period

David Hume not only attacked the

Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine The Existence and Knowability of God in the Modern Period

He also marshaled evidence

Remember the syllogism?

In SIMPLE terms:

Epicurus argues that if God is both all-good and all-powerful, he would want to prevent evil and have the ability to do so.

Yet evil still exists,

which leads to the conclusion that a god who is all-powerful and all-good does not exist.

The syllogism forces a choice: either God lacks the power to stop evil, lacks the desire to stop it, or doesn’t exist at all. — (Paraphrase of Lexham Bible Dictionary)

-And for the last two weeks

...we’ve been looking at...

...the different ways...

...that Christian apologists...

...have sought to respond to that:

(Survey generated by AI:)

A. Classical Apologists

B. Evidentialist Apologists

C. Reformed Classical Apologists

D. Pastoral / Existential Apologists

And, we began...

...but didn’t have time to finish:

E. Reformed / Presuppositional Apologists (Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame)

I think it would be worth our time...

...to interject some definitions:

Here’s a definition (from AI):

Presuppositionalist apologetics is a method of defending the Christian faith that starts by saying everyone already has basic assumptions (presuppositions) that shape how they see the world, and Christianity must be defended by showing that only the Christian worldview makes human experience—logic, morality, science, meaning—actually possible.

Here’s how that fleshes itself out practically:

1. The Core Idea

Every person interprets evidence through a worldview.

There is no “neutral ground” where believers and unbelievers can evaluate facts objectively.

The Christian worldview is the necessary foundation for rational thought, moral values, scientific laws, and meaning.

So instead of trying to prove God from “neutral” evidence, presuppositionalists argue:

Without the Christian God, you couldn’t make sense of evidence in the first place.

2. What It Tries to Show

Logic requires a rational, orderly God.

Morality requires an absolute, personal Lawgiver.

Science requires a universe with stable laws upheld by God.

Human dignity requires humans being made in God’s image.

Meaning and purpose require a transcendent Creator.

In short:

Christianity provides the preconditions for intelligibility.

Non-Christian worldviews collapse into irrationality or inconsistency.

3. How It Differs From Classical/Evidential Apologetics

Other apologetic methods say:

“Let’s examine evidence neutrally.”

“Let’s reason together and see if God exists.”

Presuppositionalists say:

Neutrality is impossible.

Unbelievers already suppress the truth (Rom. 1).

Evidence only makes sense within a Christian worldview.

So instead of arguing for God, they argue from God.

4. The Method in Practice

A presuppositionalist typically:

Asks the unbeliever to justify their worldview. (“How do you account for logic, morality, science, meaning?”)

Shows internal contradictions in the unbeliever’s worldview.

Argues that Christianity alone provides a coherent foundation for those things.

Presents the gospel as the necessary starting point for true knowledge.

This is often called the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG).

5. A One-Sentence Summary

Presuppositionalist apologetics defends Christianity by showing that only the Christian worldview makes rational thought, morality, and science possible—and that all other worldviews ultimately self-destruct.

So… when it comes to Hume...

...and the “Problem of Evil”. . .

Presuppositionalists do not respond by trying to solve Hume’s argument on neutral ground.

They argue that Hume’s argument cannot even get off the ground within his own worldview.

Their response has four major components:

1. Hume’s Argument Assumes Objective Evil — but His Worldview Cannot Account for It

Bahnsen:

“To call something evil, you must have an objective moral standard. Hume’s empiricism cannot provide one.” — Greg Bahnsen

Van Til:

“The problem of evil presupposes the Christian worldview. Only Christianity makes evil intelligible.” — Cornelius Van Til

Why?

In Hume’s worldview:

Morality = sentiment

Evil = subjective feeling

No objective standard exists

No transcendent moral lawgiver exists

Hume’s argument is self-defeating:

He uses the existence of evil to attack Christianity...

...but his worldview cannot define evil in the first place.

2. Hume’s Argument Assumes God Has No Good Reasons for Allowing Evil

Hume assumes God must act according to human expectations.

Hume assumes humans can judge God’s purposes.

Hume assumes omnipotence means “God must do what I think He should do.”

Van Til:

“Hume’s argument presupposes human autonomy. It assumes man can sit in judgment over God.” — Van Til

Job 40:2 ESV

2 “Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty? He who argues with God, let him answer it.”

Romans 9:20 ESV

20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”

Bahnsen:

“Unless you know all things, you cannot say God has no morally sufficient reason for evil.” — Bahnsen

This is a transcendental critique:

Hume’s argument requires divine-level knowledge to conclude God has no good reason for permitting evil.

Job 38:1–5 ESV

1 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: 2 “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? 3 Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. 4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. 5 Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?

And he goes on and on and on.

Job 40:3–4 ESV

3 Then Job answered the Lord and said: 4 “Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth.

But God goes on:

Job 40:7–8 ESV

7 “Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. 8 Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be in the right?

And on and on He goes again

And finally, Job says:

Job 42:2–4 ESV

2 “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. 3 ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. 4 ‘Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you make it known to me.’

3. Evil Only Makes Sense in a Christian Worldview

Presuppositionalists argue:

Evil is a violation of God’s character and law.

Evil presupposes a moral order.

A moral order presupposes God.

Thus:

The existence of evil is actually evidence for God, not against Him.

This flips Hume’s argument on its head.

4. God’s Sovereignty and Scripture Provide the Framework

Reformed presuppositionalists emphasize:

God ordains all things (including evil) for His glory.

God is good and cannot do evil.

Evil is real but subordinate to God’s purposes.

God uses evil to accomplish redemption.

This is not a “free will defense.”

It is a sovereignty defense grounded in Scripture.

In Summary:

Hume cannot define evil within his own worldview.

Hume assumes human autonomy and judges God by human standards.

Only Christianity provides the preconditions for objective morality.

Evil is meaningful only if God exists.

Scripture reveals God’s sovereign, wise, and good purposes in permitting evil.

Thus the presuppositionalist concludes: (Show)

Hume’s problem of evil is not a problem for Christianity. It is a problem for Hume.

Any Questions?

-Next, we have:

Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics Kant, Immanuel

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804)

Here’s a summary:

Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics Kant’s Philosophical Agnosticism

Before Kant the two dominant European streams of thought were rationalism and *empiricism. The rationalists included René Descartes (1596–1650), Benedict de Spinoza (1632–1677), and Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716). The empiricists were led by John Locke (1632–1704), George Berkeley (1685–1753), and David Hume (1711–1776). The rationalists stressed the a priori and the empiricists the a posteriori. Rationalists believed in innate ideas, but empiricists insisted we are born a tabula rasa. Kant was trained in the rationalist tradition, but in his own words he was “awakened from his dogmatic slumbers” by the Scottish skeptic Hume.

The genius of Kant was in synthesizing these two divergent epistemologies (see EPISTEMOLOGY). The empiricists, he concluded, are right that we are born blank slates, with no innate ideas. The content of all knowledge comes a posteriori from experience. On the other hand, the rationalists correctly stress that there is an a priori dimension to knowledge. While the content of all knowledge comes through the senses, the form or structure is provided by the a priori forms of sensation and categories of the mind (Critique of Pure Reason, 173–75, 257–75).

The price of the Kantian synthesis was high: Lost in his model of the knowing process was the ability to know reality. If Kant was right, we know how we know, but we no longer really know. For if all knowledge is formed or structured by a priori categories, we can only know things as they appear to us, not as they are in themselves. We can know phenomena but not noumena. Thus, the net epistemological gain was the ultimate ontological loss. Reality or the thing-in-itself, including God, is forever beyond us. What is left for us is the thing-to-me, which is appearance but not reality. Thus, Kant’s view ends in philosophical agnosticism.