It may be argued that it is always necessary to make assumptions at the outset, in order to gain any order and organisation, composition and understanding. It may be urged that without this initial resolution, there is no resolution.

This is one way of approaching the matter.

However, there is another way, far more natural, immediate and true to empirical reality.

We may happen to note that we are reasoning in even considering such issues, and whether to make issues of them.

If reason be not used, nothing can be argued for or against. That means that if reason be not taken at the outset, not even the structure of considerations is available for review, and any argument is lost immediately, so that only one logical way is left. It is that which does not make such a negative view of logic, and use it accordingly.

That is not an assumption but a procedural necessity, both absolutely and relatively to other options.

If then we proceed to use what is necessary for thought itself, and so have the privilege of thought at all, other then dreaming, we come to the necessity of God and the truth of Bible as His sole authorised written word to mankind. This is shown direct in SMR, confirmed in TMR, and elements of it are often reviewed (see indexes) in detail.

However, it may be reasoned that to follow the ONLY workable line of thought that there is available to man, does not in itself constitute its validity. This is true, though not the whole truth, and for this reason, much is written on the topic of validity*1. However, even this does not remove the issue from due test. Since ALL our logical machinations and projections and retrojections are empty without reason, and indeed language then does not have meaning, the matter has been duly investigated from many element, including of course the Kantian error (cf. Predestination and Freewill). Such impacts never stand. They involve either antithesis or antilogy or both. They fail to face all the facts, just as Hume does (cf. SMR Ch. 3).

We turn therefore to the simplest of tasks (IN PRINCIPLE!). Since the object of our search and research has been truth, and we have identified as manifest Almighty God as set forth by His will and expression in the Bible, and this has been the RESULT in discovery (in this particular domain) of the use of reason, then the issue is too vast to be a ground for vacillation, uncertainty or diversity. God is infinite, independent, almighty as shown in SMR, TMR. The revelation found through reason, the Bible and what it shows,  is to the effect that He made the worlds, which is also independently shown. Now then, if the issue is the exclusive infinity of God (no infinite entity being dependent, which specifies a lack in that regard), and His definitive criteria, it is not a difficulty to find out if the Bible, shown to be so by reason, has the marks of such a Being as His distinctive word.

]If I write a book, that is something; if you do, that is another thing; but if God causes it to be written (as for example shown in I Corinthians 2:9ff.), then there will be distinctions in purpose (His and mine are in the one case, infinite, in mine finite), in  precision, in power, in chronological capacity to predict and retrodict at will, in majesty and perspective, in wisdom, in heart and in mentality, in ownership and continual watchfulness for what only He knows to perfect, and may becomes known to man in some cases, in due course. Nothing will daunt Him. In fact, He claims no less (Isaiah 14:27).

Having the opportunity, just as we do in 'nature' to examine an extant object, so in the case of the Bible, a set of communication, we may do the same, and in this our target is clear-cut in the present exercise. If it validates, in its vastly specialised and grand way, the use of reason which found it, by being what reason showed it must at least be, then reason as a mode of operating is validated. It is not its only validation; but this is supreme.

The result then of this application, and what is involved ? It is not a presupposition; it is a finding. It is not a preference; it is a result. It is not a way of looking at things; it is a confirmation. You may reject it, along with reason; but you cannot logically reject it because of reason and its options, since this is precisely what is confirmed.

Thus in Romans 1, we do not find that the power and deity of God are presuppositionally a superior option, but "manifest." We do not find that it is an inferior option with many internal inconsistencies which may nevertheless be patched up rather obstreperously, but instead that sinners "suppress" this knowledge, the truth, in "unrighteousness." The truth has been SHOWN to them, we read, not suggested as vastly preferable. From the first, the matter was understood, and till He comes it is perseveringly misunderstood by a process of holding down the manifest. What they opted is deemed FUTILITY, not mere oddity and comparative lack; and even their thoughts were futile. They would not think straight, and thought itself was corrupted.

The presuppositional  approach is interesting and makes a contribution; but much more is available, both logically and biblically.

For further on Christian Apologetics, see Aporchestra and the Index concerned.


*1 See for example:

TMR    5  7 , It Bubbles ... Ch.    9, esp. *1A,
The Bright Light
Repent or Perish, Ch.  7, pp. 152ff.; Ch.   2;
 Christ, the Wisdom ... Ch.   6; BAB 29,  19;
A Spiritual Potpourri Chs.  1-3;  SMR   3,   
Little Things
Ch.  5,
  Wake Up World! ... Ch.  5, End-Note 1A,
Tender Times ... Ch. 11;

Barbs ... 29,  19;  

TMR Epilogue, News 94;  The Divine Drama Ch.  4,
Grand Biblical Perspectives   7,
SMR  pp. 146, 271, 295, 422C, 1138;
TMR   Appendix, Grand Biblical Perspectives Ch.   7,
What is the Chaff to the Wheat!  Chs. 3, 4, 10, 11
Deity and Design, Designation and Destiny Chs.   3, *3,