What do you think?
Rate this book
We Destroy Arguments by Stephen Feinstein
Have you ever had your faith challenged by an unbeliever to where you felt helpless and without an answer? If so, this book is for you. Whether the challenge comes from unsaved loved ones, co-workers, college professors, or TV personalities, you can be certain that such challenges will come to every Christian. Knowing this, the Bible commands every Christian to be ready. The purpose of this book is to help Christians to always be prepared to make a defense for the hope that is within them (1Peter 3:15). Yet, if we are to properly achieve this goal, then a particular type of defense is in order-a presuppositional defense. "We Destroy Arguments" gives you just that. When it is all said and done, Christians will learn how to make an irrefutable defense for the hope that is within them. Truly, this book is what Evangelicals have been waiting for. Stephen Feinstein is a pastor at Sovereign Way Christian Church in Hesperia, CA. His ministry focuses heavily on expositional preaching, biblical counseling, systematic theology, apologetics, church history, and practical theology. His goal is to help Christians become biblical people doing biblical things in the biblical way. He also is a United States Army Reserve chaplain.
- GenresChristian
Paperback
First published March 29, 2015
23 people are currently reading
20 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 28, 2024
A PASTOR PROPOSES PRESUPPOSITIONAL APOLOGETICS AS ‘THE BIBLICAL WAY”
Stephen Feinstein is a pastor at Sovereign Way Christian Church in Hesperia, CA; he is also an Army Reserve chaplain.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 2015 book, “Many Christians engaging in apologetics … understand that the Bible commands them to do apologetics… Yet, at the end of the day,… Rather than ‘seeking according to the rule,’ they use the world’s methods, thoughts, and tactics in an attempt to obey this command. In so doing… they dishonor God each and every time they defend the faith… At the church that I pastor, I have one overarching goal for the saints: I desire that Sovereign Way Christian Church would be a church of biblical people, doing biblical things, in a biblical way… that they would… consistently obey God’s commands… Correct doctrine should lead to an overflow of obedient living. Thus, orthodoxy must necessarily lead to orthopraxy.” (Pg. 2-3)
He continues, “This book seeks to demonstrate what apologetics looks like when it is informed by the Bible. And in doing so, evangelicals will be doing the biblical thing of apologetics, but doing so in the biblical way. Given the fact that there is no chapter in the Bible dedicated to how one defends the faith against unbelievers, a biblical apologetic must be derived from a holistic understanding of the doctrines of Scripture. This is to be done in conjunction with scriptural examples of men of God engaging in apologetics. When this is followed, presuppositional apologetics is the outcome…
“It is my contention that presuppositional apologetics is the biblical way to do apologetics, and it glorifies God above any other methodology… Secondary to this thesis is a plea for evangelicals to embrace … this method of apologetics… Allowing fallen mankind to sit in judgment over God, appealing to their tests, methods, and interpretations in order to vindicate God, and embracing the myth of neutrality will always be the wrong way to do this. Unbelievers continued to lose more and more respect for Christianity in general, and for the most part the classical and evidential arguments do not impact them too much.” (Pg. 5-6)
In the first chapter (after describing the Bible and theology), he states, “Be clear on one thing. All of this is not being presented to PROVE the Bible is the God’s special revelation. The Bible is God’s special revelation regardless of what Christians or its critics claim. There is no standard higher than the Bible that we can judge it by. Instead, I brought these things up to show that the Bible indeed is consistent with what we would expect in a message from the independent, absolute, and infinite God.” (Pg. 27)
He asserts, “there is no neutral ground on which we can agreeably argue with the unbeliever. The entire universe is God’s whether the fallen man accepts it or not, so all ground is God’s ground. None of it is neutral, ever! The main thing we have in common with the unbeliever is we are both made in the image of God. He suppresses the truth and reasons away from God, yet he does so inconsistently… given the fact that both of us exist in God’s creation bearing His image deep inside, we can appeal to that as the common ground by which we reason with the unbeliever. However, this means we have to start at the presuppositional level since that is where we can expose his inconsistency of interpretation.” (Pg. 31-32)
He argues, “In a sense… everyone reasons circularly. This is frowned upon in logic, but even the logician reasons circularly when he uses logic to say circular logical is unacceptable. In other words, how does he know that logic discredits circular reasoning? Well, by logic of course!... but there are two different levels of circularity: a narrow circularity … must be avoided, for it is begging the question, a logical fallacy. [A broad circularity] is what everyone does, whether realized or not, due to the inability to escape presuppositional reasoning… an apologist … is often accused of logical circularity, but … he will do well to expose the same problem in the unbeliever… the Christian should assume the more he presents it, the more it will start to make sense to the unbeliever. After all, Romans 1:18 teaches us that every unbeliever already knows the truth but is suppressing it. Remember, our theology must guide our defense.” (Pg. 48)
He observes, “the atheist knows things. The atheist does science. That is not the issue. Neither atheists nor any unbeliever can account for the fact that they know things and do science. Their presuppositions render knowledge and science as impossible. Thus, as [Cornelius] Van Til observed, they are like a child slapping their father’s face while sitting on his lap… Likewise, the unbeliever’s rejection of God in science is dependent on God’s common grace allowing for intelligibility at all.” (Pg. 83-84)
He says, “Looking at the Bible, it bears all of the signs expected if the self-attesting God who is beyond contestation decided to give it a written revelation… The Bible then is self-attesting. We cannot put it on trial any more than we can put God on trial… Yet fallen man assumes his own independence and autonomy in knowledge and thinking. Therefore… he will not accept the true God because he will not accept the idea of a self-attesting God that is beyond the trial and judgment of man. Without realizing it, the fallen man declares his own mind to be self-attesting since he deems it to be worthy to judge the claims of God… The finitude of the human mind makes this impossible.” (Pg. 94-95)
He summarizes, “The transcendental argument can begin with any item of experience or belief, and from there we ask what conditions would need to be true in order for the experience of belief to make sense… It shows the unbeliever what he already knows to be true deep down; namely, that the God of the Bible is the only explanation for anything that exists. Presuppositionalism… forcefully proclaims that all sides have presuppositions that guide their interpretation of facts and logic. It immediately removes the lies of neutrality and unbiased observation… Presuppositionalism argues in favor of the Christian worldview by showing all other worldviews to be impossible. As a method, it agrees perfectly with the Bible’s teaching that there is no neutrality. It truly is a God-honoring and biblically based apologetic.” (Pg. 100-101)
For the ‘Problem of Evil,’ he points out, “If the Christian apologist were to look at scripture first, rather than immediately offering philosophical speculations, then he would not offer the free-will defense… the [FWD] position assumes that God does not foreordain the willful actions of volitional creatures. Yet… a prodigious number of [Bible] passages clearly teach that God ordains specific evil actions of men, yet He still holds them responsible. The scriptural position is that of compatibilism, where volitional creatures make choices, but it works in a compatible way with God’s decreed sovereign decisions… the free-will defense loses its primary assumption, namely, that the choices of volitional creatures are uncontrolled and are not foreordained by God. Clearly the scriptures say otherwise… Of course this invites the charge that God then loves some more than others, and this is a welcome charge since it agrees with scripture… clearly this effectual love that predestined people to adoption was not given to all humans, otherwise all humans would be saved.” (Pg. 181-183)
He notes, “the unbeliever has to be able to justify with his worldview the ability to authoritatively call anything evil. If his justification is arbitrary or relative, then he loses the argument. If he claims good is what makes people happy, well in the case of child molestation, the molester was happy to commit the action. If there is no God, then there is no such thing as evil, and everyone can do what is right in his own eyes and no one should be able to condemn anyone else for any action. The irony is that if the unbeliever points to the existence of evil to disprove the existence of God, he is attempting to be rid of the necessary precondition for the existence of evil itself. It is a self-defeating argument.” (Pg. 190)
He continues, “Even if God told us why evil things take place, and exactly how it works into His greater glory and our greater good, there is a strong likelihood that we would not understand it… Perhaps God is doing things with the evil in our lives that are so entirely complicated that they are beyond our ability to comprehend. For the Christian, this is where true biblical faith comes into the picture… The psychological problem of evil, therefore, can only be solved by trusting in God. The unbeliever absolutely hates this idea… No amount of proof, evidence, logic, rationale, etc. that a Christian offers will ever be enough to satisfy the unbeliever’s demand.” (Pg. 192-193)
He suggests, “Concerning the eternal salvation or damnation of the children executed by Israel, the Bible does not directly say. However, the Christian can be confident that since [Deut 1:39] claims that small children do not yet know good and evil… then the children probably were not held guilty by God for their sin… God, then, is completely just in eternally damning children, but in His mercy He chooses not to do so. However, God reserves the right to use human means or natural disasters to end the physical lives of both adults and children for judgment of sin. In such a case, I believe the infants, small children, and the mentally retarded will receive spiritual salvation since sin was not imputed eternally into their account.” (Pg. 196)
This book will be of great interest to those studying the Presuppositional method of apologetics (e.g., Greg Bahnsen, Cornelius Van Til).
Stephen Feinstein is a pastor at Sovereign Way Christian Church in Hesperia, CA; he is also an Army Reserve chaplain.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 2015 book, “Many Christians engaging in apologetics … understand that the Bible commands them to do apologetics… Yet, at the end of the day,… Rather than ‘seeking according to the rule,’ they use the world’s methods, thoughts, and tactics in an attempt to obey this command. In so doing… they dishonor God each and every time they defend the faith… At the church that I pastor, I have one overarching goal for the saints: I desire that Sovereign Way Christian Church would be a church of biblical people, doing biblical things, in a biblical way… that they would… consistently obey God’s commands… Correct doctrine should lead to an overflow of obedient living. Thus, orthodoxy must necessarily lead to orthopraxy.” (Pg. 2-3)
He continues, “This book seeks to demonstrate what apologetics looks like when it is informed by the Bible. And in doing so, evangelicals will be doing the biblical thing of apologetics, but doing so in the biblical way. Given the fact that there is no chapter in the Bible dedicated to how one defends the faith against unbelievers, a biblical apologetic must be derived from a holistic understanding of the doctrines of Scripture. This is to be done in conjunction with scriptural examples of men of God engaging in apologetics. When this is followed, presuppositional apologetics is the outcome…
“It is my contention that presuppositional apologetics is the biblical way to do apologetics, and it glorifies God above any other methodology… Secondary to this thesis is a plea for evangelicals to embrace … this method of apologetics… Allowing fallen mankind to sit in judgment over God, appealing to their tests, methods, and interpretations in order to vindicate God, and embracing the myth of neutrality will always be the wrong way to do this. Unbelievers continued to lose more and more respect for Christianity in general, and for the most part the classical and evidential arguments do not impact them too much.” (Pg. 5-6)
In the first chapter (after describing the Bible and theology), he states, “Be clear on one thing. All of this is not being presented to PROVE the Bible is the God’s special revelation. The Bible is God’s special revelation regardless of what Christians or its critics claim. There is no standard higher than the Bible that we can judge it by. Instead, I brought these things up to show that the Bible indeed is consistent with what we would expect in a message from the independent, absolute, and infinite God.” (Pg. 27)
He asserts, “there is no neutral ground on which we can agreeably argue with the unbeliever. The entire universe is God’s whether the fallen man accepts it or not, so all ground is God’s ground. None of it is neutral, ever! The main thing we have in common with the unbeliever is we are both made in the image of God. He suppresses the truth and reasons away from God, yet he does so inconsistently… given the fact that both of us exist in God’s creation bearing His image deep inside, we can appeal to that as the common ground by which we reason with the unbeliever. However, this means we have to start at the presuppositional level since that is where we can expose his inconsistency of interpretation.” (Pg. 31-32)
He argues, “In a sense… everyone reasons circularly. This is frowned upon in logic, but even the logician reasons circularly when he uses logic to say circular logical is unacceptable. In other words, how does he know that logic discredits circular reasoning? Well, by logic of course!... but there are two different levels of circularity: a narrow circularity … must be avoided, for it is begging the question, a logical fallacy. [A broad circularity] is what everyone does, whether realized or not, due to the inability to escape presuppositional reasoning… an apologist … is often accused of logical circularity, but … he will do well to expose the same problem in the unbeliever… the Christian should assume the more he presents it, the more it will start to make sense to the unbeliever. After all, Romans 1:18 teaches us that every unbeliever already knows the truth but is suppressing it. Remember, our theology must guide our defense.” (Pg. 48)
He observes, “the atheist knows things. The atheist does science. That is not the issue. Neither atheists nor any unbeliever can account for the fact that they know things and do science. Their presuppositions render knowledge and science as impossible. Thus, as [Cornelius] Van Til observed, they are like a child slapping their father’s face while sitting on his lap… Likewise, the unbeliever’s rejection of God in science is dependent on God’s common grace allowing for intelligibility at all.” (Pg. 83-84)
He says, “Looking at the Bible, it bears all of the signs expected if the self-attesting God who is beyond contestation decided to give it a written revelation… The Bible then is self-attesting. We cannot put it on trial any more than we can put God on trial… Yet fallen man assumes his own independence and autonomy in knowledge and thinking. Therefore… he will not accept the true God because he will not accept the idea of a self-attesting God that is beyond the trial and judgment of man. Without realizing it, the fallen man declares his own mind to be self-attesting since he deems it to be worthy to judge the claims of God… The finitude of the human mind makes this impossible.” (Pg. 94-95)
He summarizes, “The transcendental argument can begin with any item of experience or belief, and from there we ask what conditions would need to be true in order for the experience of belief to make sense… It shows the unbeliever what he already knows to be true deep down; namely, that the God of the Bible is the only explanation for anything that exists. Presuppositionalism… forcefully proclaims that all sides have presuppositions that guide their interpretation of facts and logic. It immediately removes the lies of neutrality and unbiased observation… Presuppositionalism argues in favor of the Christian worldview by showing all other worldviews to be impossible. As a method, it agrees perfectly with the Bible’s teaching that there is no neutrality. It truly is a God-honoring and biblically based apologetic.” (Pg. 100-101)
For the ‘Problem of Evil,’ he points out, “If the Christian apologist were to look at scripture first, rather than immediately offering philosophical speculations, then he would not offer the free-will defense… the [FWD] position assumes that God does not foreordain the willful actions of volitional creatures. Yet… a prodigious number of [Bible] passages clearly teach that God ordains specific evil actions of men, yet He still holds them responsible. The scriptural position is that of compatibilism, where volitional creatures make choices, but it works in a compatible way with God’s decreed sovereign decisions… the free-will defense loses its primary assumption, namely, that the choices of volitional creatures are uncontrolled and are not foreordained by God. Clearly the scriptures say otherwise… Of course this invites the charge that God then loves some more than others, and this is a welcome charge since it agrees with scripture… clearly this effectual love that predestined people to adoption was not given to all humans, otherwise all humans would be saved.” (Pg. 181-183)
He notes, “the unbeliever has to be able to justify with his worldview the ability to authoritatively call anything evil. If his justification is arbitrary or relative, then he loses the argument. If he claims good is what makes people happy, well in the case of child molestation, the molester was happy to commit the action. If there is no God, then there is no such thing as evil, and everyone can do what is right in his own eyes and no one should be able to condemn anyone else for any action. The irony is that if the unbeliever points to the existence of evil to disprove the existence of God, he is attempting to be rid of the necessary precondition for the existence of evil itself. It is a self-defeating argument.” (Pg. 190)
He continues, “Even if God told us why evil things take place, and exactly how it works into His greater glory and our greater good, there is a strong likelihood that we would not understand it… Perhaps God is doing things with the evil in our lives that are so entirely complicated that they are beyond our ability to comprehend. For the Christian, this is where true biblical faith comes into the picture… The psychological problem of evil, therefore, can only be solved by trusting in God. The unbeliever absolutely hates this idea… No amount of proof, evidence, logic, rationale, etc. that a Christian offers will ever be enough to satisfy the unbeliever’s demand.” (Pg. 192-193)
He suggests, “Concerning the eternal salvation or damnation of the children executed by Israel, the Bible does not directly say. However, the Christian can be confident that since [Deut 1:39] claims that small children do not yet know good and evil… then the children probably were not held guilty by God for their sin… God, then, is completely just in eternally damning children, but in His mercy He chooses not to do so. However, God reserves the right to use human means or natural disasters to end the physical lives of both adults and children for judgment of sin. In such a case, I believe the infants, small children, and the mentally retarded will receive spiritual salvation since sin was not imputed eternally into their account.” (Pg. 196)
This book will be of great interest to those studying the Presuppositional method of apologetics (e.g., Greg Bahnsen, Cornelius Van Til).
Displaying 1 of 1 review