Frank Turk Undone: Why Presuppositional Apologetics is Biblical and Proves Turk Denies T in TULIP

Exposing Frank Turk for his unbiblical views and behavior, but also showing why presuppositional apologetics is biblical. 

I believe Turk represents the New Calvinists in that he's very ungracious, harsh (name calling with snotty remarks), and appeals to the fallen mind of man, thus denying in practice what he claims in slogan: total depravity. In fact, his anti-PA stand bears this out very clearly. Turk (as many of today's Reformers do), don't believe man's intellect is as fallen as the rest of himself; that is, to use their often-used mantra, man's mind really DOES have an island of righteousness that isn't tainted with and dead in its sins. No, rather, man's intellect is neutral. This is contrary to all of Scripture, not the least of which is Romans 3:10-18, Eph. 2:1-4, 1Cor. 2:14, and Romans 8:


Rom 8:6  For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7  because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8  and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 

Total Depravity of TULIP is rejected in practice by Turk.

Quote:

Turk makes the same mistake when he tries to explain his view via the example of Margaret Sanger. Yes, he admits, she was a racist by modern views, but her demonic agenda was rooted in the education and science of her day, as well as a genuine experience and genuine concern for the poor. Thus, approaching her from the position of a preacher preaching sin and the Word of God would not have gained the moral high-ground. Her motives (something right up there is emotives) were too lofty and pure....[quotes and footnotes given and a right rebuke with Scripture ~Denise]

So when Turk says,

So you will excuse me if, on that basis, I will ask the presuppositionalist to stay out of it. He’s most of the way out of it already anyway.  If he wants to get involved, he should start where the person in question actually is rather than where he would rather they be.

I can’t think of a more theologically ignorant thing to say (except for another I will show you in a moment). And honestly, I don’t think Turk even realized the full extent of what he was saying. PA and only PA among apologetic approaches begins where the person actually is: morally depraved and rebellious before God. Whatever intellectual or emotional deceptions they have embraced in the process of suppressing the truth of God (Rom. 1:18), we know that the real problem is the fallenness and rebellion against God. The rest is just a symptom. Turk is thinking only in terms of the intellectual starting point of the discussion (and apparently a very limited experience of it at that). ...

But this is not how PA rolls. On the contrary, PA can begin at any starting point in any conversation, because there is not a single human thought or idea that falls outside the rule of God’s Word. But it is only that Word that will ultimately grind hearts and bust the power of those emotional narratives.

Turk, on the other hand, demands we simply present statistics and facts to the woman who is about to abort her child...

Now you tell me: what is most likely to change any human being’s mind on any issue at any crisis moment? What is the single most powerful force of communication with depraved, non-reasoning, emotion-driven people? Statistics pulled from Freakanomics.com? Notes from a Gallup poll? The majority opinions of atheistic doctors? Or, perhaps, the Spirit-empowered Word of God? What is going to create that pause, if anything? I will place my bet on the pronouncement of God’s Word any day, be it unpopular, considered unscientific, out of place, in bad taste, demeaned by other Christians, or whatever, for the situation. It will come in different styles and approaches depending upon the persons and settings, but nothing can penetrate the veils of various emotive nonsenses like God’s Word and Spirit—and that is not only as presuppositional as it comes, but only presuppositionalism goes there.

End quote.

Read the whole article because it also explains further about presuppositional apologetics. 

Really what most of today's Reformers do, as perfectly illustrated by Frank Turk, is that they believe that not only is the mind unaffected by the Fall, but that its not the same as the heart. They will readily agree with Jeremiah that the heart is desperate wicked, then turn around when talking about doctrine or dealing with abortion (as mentioned in the quote above) or other issues and think the  mind can be convinced by statistics, information, and logical argumentation (ironically Turk lacks logic as do most Reformers who demand everyone else must abide by logic rules except for themselves). Scripture makes it clear that the heart = the mind, and the mind=the heart. They are used interchangeably throughout Scripture.

Mat 22:37  And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'