SUNDAY NIGHTS—NEW RADIO PROGRAM on internet

[darinhouston]

It was my pleasure, and I think it went very well. In addition to the dulcet and rich tones from the microphone in the studio, I really enjoyed the honesty of the show. I would love to have one of my atheist friends call in. I look forward to hearing more, and I especially like the approach. I know many (especially the Reformed among us) think we're "selling out" the gospel to do anything but proclaim their sin before the righteous God of the bible, I think what you are doing is all the more loving and likely to actually lead some folks to follow Christ. I would love to have the occasional guest, too -- I doubt Dawkins, et al. would join you (though I'd love to hear them answer YOUR questions compared to those of Bill O'Reilly, etc.), but there must be some anthropologists, sociologists, philosophers, evolutionists, etc. from nearby universities who fancy themselves up to the task.

Good on ya!

[Sean]

Very good radio program. Steve is certainly the right man for the task. While I can't say I really like trying to convince someone God exists, etc. I have probably had more meaningful conversations with people in the agnostic/atheist category than with most people who are in the Christian camp. They just seem more willing to talk about the subject.

[lee]

I've been listening to this new program and I began listening to your debate on atheism...
I was wondering if you've ever studied presuppositional apologetics as espoused by Van Til and later Greg Bahnsen.
If yes, why don't you employ these arguments (the TAG argument) against your opponents or those with whom you converse on an apologetic level?

Is there anyone here on the board that has delved into this side of apologetics?

[darinhouston]

Those are definitely the favorite approaches of today's "neo-Reformed" I think. I think they have a place, but from my perspective I don't think it gets you very far with a certain type of unbeliever. I think they like it because it appeals to those they would consider the "elect." In one sense, I think it sort of begs the question. In another sense, though, I think that is precisely what Steve has done in some of his discussions when he suggests that the atheist has no basis for things such as morals and values without a standard and that they have to "borrow" from the Christian worldview to reason their own worldview. He just uses different words and much more gentle approaches, I think, to express some of those same concepts.

I have even heard some of these guys refuse to let the atheist make any argument until they admit the existence of the God of the bible because they can't "legitimately" make any arguments without sharing our worldview. That seems counter-productive to me.

[steve]

[Darin and I apparently posted simultaneously. We say some similar things]

Lee,

I am a simple man. I do not give much thought to labels about various apologetic approaches. Therefore, I could not tell you whether my approach would be closer to the "Thomistic" (classical) apologetics, or to "evidentialism" (I assume the latter, but only because of the sound of the word, not because I have analyzed it or any other approach).

When I talk with an unbeliever, I take whatever approach common sense would seem to commend, based upon my perception of what he/she already knows and what he/she is failing to consider. In other words, I don't enter the arena armed with a set of arguments, nor with a defined philosophy of apologetics. I guess I am just interested in genuine communication.

From what little I understand of presuppositionalism (I have read about it many times, but most of what I have read has gone right over my simple head), it is an outgrowth of the Calvinistic convictions of total depravity and divine sovereignty. It starts the argument with the presupposition that the Bible is true. Of course, I myself believe that the Bible is true, but I see no reason to expect an unbeliever to accept this as his starting point. To me, it is a proposition to be tested and reached as the conclusion of prior considerations.

I once was listening to a debate between an atheist and a presuppositionalist. The atheist gave his reasons for not believing in God (the typical attacks on religion and the scriptures). Then the Christian rose to speak. He said, "I believe that God exists because He said He exists [i.e., in the Bible]." Needless to say, he got nowhere with the atheist. I doubt that this bothered him. He could simply reassure himself that the atheist failed to be convinced because the man was not one of the elect. Had he been one of the elect, he would have been persuaded by the argument.

However, I am (arguably) one of the elect, but I was not impressed with his argument either.

[darinhouston]

However, I am (arguably) one of the elect, but I was not impressed with his argument either.

haha -- yes, it seems as foolishness to me, too, so I guess I should reconsider my election.

[featheredprop]

...I would be glad to get some feedback from any of you who may have a chance to listen to the broadcast...

Steve,

I finally listened to the show today. I thought it was great, and I was surprised (but pleased) to discover you had a guest! That was a nice touch, and may be something you can consider doing more often (but never one that agrees with you, please).

I'm really excited about the show - though I must admit it is for selfish reasons. I have learned tons (yes, tons) from you over the years. I have listened to hours and hours of verse by verse, as well as every radio episode for the past 4 years. I have discovered, however, that my learning experience is greatly enhanced whenever you are in a "debate" situation - that is, whenever your ideas are being challenged by another. The better versed your "opponent" is in his or her discipline, and the more articulate they are, the better the learning experience is. Hopefully, this new show will draw out more opponents to Christianity, and allow listeners like myself to learn their points of view.

... oh yeah, and I hope souls get saved.

peace,

dane

[Jess]

Just got a chance to listen. Overall very good job. I think back to when I first was confronted with the claims of Christ in about 1972. It was the genuineness of those sharing with me over the course of a summer, their personal acceptance of me as a friend, the attractiveness of their lives, their lack of pretense that attracted me to Christ as much as the truth and logic of the gospel. I know it is a bit of a cliche, but I wanted what they had.

I think as "the Road to Find Out" progresses it will be this same attitude that will draw people (that and the Holy Spirit). To see that Christ followers are coherent, logical, well meaning people who are actually enjoyable to be around will be what compels non-believers to investigate the claims of our faith with an open mind.

May God richly bless this endeavor.

Jess

[lee]

From what I've read and heard about presuppositional apologetics hasn't been the declaration that the Bible is true to the unbeliever and the expectation that he/she will accept that. Rather, it's the idea that an individual can't explain anything without acknowledging that the Christian God exists. Basically, one can't expect to give an account of morality, uniformity of nature, universals (logic), and abstract immaterial entities (justice, love, etc.) within any other worldview except the Christian worldview. I've seen the evidentialist have difficulties because he/she presents evidence, then the unbeliever either simply interprets the evidence according to his/her worldview, or presents what they believe to be contrary evidence. The presuppositionalist approach cuts to the heart of the matter...perhaps a "radically Christian" apologetic?

[Jason]

Steve's approach on "The Road to Find Out" seems to be a very good one. I don't subscribe to evidentialism or presuppositionalism but would much rather engage the person I'm talking with, wherever they happen to be. When I run across those who are outright hostile toward God I don't present evidence at all. It's throwing caviar to dogs. Rather, I've found it more helpful to politely question the logic of the aggressor. This is just my own approach so to each his own. But so often we give contrived, prepackaged arguments to people and expect them to be impressed but they know when something isn't genuine. I've caught even highly esteemed Christian apologists doing this and it makes me blush. As long as Steve genuinly engages his audience and callers, his sincerity will win them over even if the arguments don't.