There are a least three problems I (I got these objections from a different group on facebook) have with this approach: 1) If the noetic effects of sin are what these folks say they are then why think a transcendental argument is going to be more successful that any other kind of argument? It is just another kind of argument? 2) There is nothing around or about man that is not from God. Seems that as Christian we have a responsibility to speak of all of God's revelation as rightly His 3) The example we find in the NT is one in which the appeal leverages both general and special revelation to engage. Acts 26 is an example “I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner." This if anything is an argument appealing to history and at minimum a form of evidentialism, the very thing that Bahnsen's article argues ought not be done. Since I have said much here perhaps you can help me reconcile the tension between Acts 26 and Bahnsen's conclusion "The Impropriety of Evidentially Arguing for the Resurrection."
Let's discuss
To see this working, head to your live site.
Search
The second and third points have a bit of a straw-man character: the presuppositional model isn't against presenting evidence. I know presups who are, but that's a personal choice they make - not something that the model leads to (Bahnsen and van Til were all for evidence). So I agree with points 2 and 3. We should use all of revelation to hold the unbeliever accountable. And we certainly see this done in the New testament (we could also reference Acts 17).
Anyway. The first point is actually a good one, and I'm giving it some thought. But we must note, though, that we're not saying that we oughtn't use arguments such as the Kalam or the fine-tuning argument because of the noetic effects of sin. In fact, I don't think presuppositional apologetics is against any of these arguments (as long as they are sound). We just think that the transcendental argument is the best of them for two reasons: 1) it's actually about the problem (two worldviews clashing) and not merely about abstract premises and conclusions and 2) because it seems to be what Solomon is getting at when he commands us to answer the fool according to his folly.
Personally, when I use other arguments, I use them as a subsection of the TAG. For example: I'll use the evidential argument for the resurrection (based on an epistemology of evidences) to confront the unbeliever with something his worldview cannot explain. I'll make it clear that I think, even if we accept his epistemology, there're still a lot of problems with his worldview. Then I'll present some classical/evidential arguments and ask how his worldview is able to make sense of the beginning of the cosmos, or the fine-tuning of the universe, or the existence of life, or the fact that 500 people saw Jesus after He died. In this way their worldview is undermined by itself: if we accept their epistemology we still cannot intelligibly make sense of all this stuff without concluding that God must exist. This is just my personal way of using evidential arguments in a presup-framework. I'm happy to hear of it if anyone's got a better way. :-)
Definitely, evidence can be presented but never outside of the Christian worldview that can make them intelligible. Acts 26:26 is used as evidence of Paul being an evidentialist, but Paul makes it perfectly clear why he can proclaim a resurrection: Acts 26:8: "Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead?" Acts 26:22-23 "To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass: that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.” Acts 26:25-27 "But Paul said, “I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words. For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak boldly. For I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this has not been done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe.” From this it is quite clear that Paul never abandoned His worldview or the Scriptures in appealing to the facts.