I am currently studying at Westminster Theo.
During my studies there I was exposed to
Dr. John Frame and the late Dr. Greg
Bahnsen. As I'm sure you know they
are presuppositional apologists. I am not
yet a confirmed presuppositionalist, yet I
find many good points in their approach.
I detect from your webpage that you are
not as impressed.
I'm sure you are aware that both Frame and Bahnsen's specialized in epistemology. Bahnsen makes the comment that ALL worldviews have to be defended or "argued for" in a circular fashion. Not all arguments "within" the worldview have to be circular, but the worldview itself is always circular. Are you aware of that particular point of view and if so, what are your thoughts? It sounds reasonable to me. I, of course, have always believed that circular reasoning was the one thing you want to avoid in any debate. Help please.
ZZZ...thanks for your dedication to our Precious Lord...
I cannot get into your issue now...it is so complex, but let me ask you
one of the questions that led me to believe in 'common ground' or in a
non-circular place to stand...
One form of the question is:Archimedian
The very fact that we can transcend worldviews long enough and far
enough to even discuss or objectify them, indicates that there are at
least TEMPORARY Archimedean places to stand...They may shift as we become
self-critical of them, but they always afford temporary transcendence and
I am sorry to be so brief...but maybe this will start your thinking down
the same path, and give you something to interact with...