Apologetics to the Glory of God

An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 14 – Nature of the transcendental.

By C.L. Bolt

We spoke before of beliefs that are preconditions for intelligible experience; transcendental beliefs. A set of transcendental beliefs constitute what we might call the transcendental conceptual scheme. If there were some view of the world that were completely “other” with respect to our own then we would be unable to comprehend it as a competitor. When no comparison can be made between two different schemes the two schemes are not recognizable by their respective adherents. The foreign scheme would simply not mate with our own. If we were unable to understand such an allegedly competing transcendental then we would not recognize it for what it is; another competing view. We have not established by virtue of this observation that there is only one possible scheme, but rather that we can only know one. Indeed, there is more than one scheme, as God does not share our scheme.

However, it can be established that there can only be one such scheme with respect to human intelligibility. If transcendental beliefs are necessary for intelligible experience then there cannot be other beliefs which fit the bill, else the aforementioned beliefs would not be necessary. So these beliefs taken together constitute the conceptual scheme which serves as the transcendental; this conceptual scheme and none other is the necessary precondition of intelligible experience. Finally, note that the Christian worldview is not merely a conceptual scheme, but worldview and scheme inextricably tied together as noted before. Understanding what has been discussed here may seem a bit difficult or fuzzy at first, but it is essential for understanding what is going on “behind the scenes” of an apologetic encounter using transcendental argumentation.

< Previous | Next >


6 responses to “An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 14 – Nature of the transcendental.”

  1. […] Previous | Next > Blog this! Bookmark on Delicious Digg this post Recommend on Facebook Buzz it up share via Reddit […]

  2. Peter Ochoa Avatar
    Peter Ochoa

    I am still not following how we go from the Christian worldview being sufficient to necessary. Is it simply because it fits and nothing else does and then we appeal to experience.

  3. C.L. Bolt Avatar

    See Part 13 on that.

  4. […] < Previous | Next > Blog this! Bookmark on Delicious Digg this post Recommend on Facebook Buzz it up share via Reddit Share with Stumblers Share on technorati Tweet about it Subscribe to the comments on this post Bookmark in Browser […]

  5. Peter Ochoa Avatar
    Peter Ochoa

    Funny how we are full circle here. It has been a year and everything you said here really didn’t stick. But here I am a year later and it makes a lot more sense. I am almost to a point where I could explain it which is a good indicator of comprehension.

    By the way as I read this I am thinking how much more faith God has given me through properly understanding his word and how it relates to belief and apologetics. I can’t tell you much of a blessing you guys have been in my life and to my faith. Truly building me up and edifying me through your ministry. It is a wonderful thing to be able to look at God’s Word and take it as absolute necessary truth and you guys have been a major part of growing me. Thanks be to God through our Lord Jesus Christ for imparting to me a spiritual gift and helping establish me.

  6. Pat Avatar

    What is meant by “conceptual scheme”?

Leave a Reply to An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 15 – Illustrating necessity by the impossibility of the contrary. | Choosing Hats Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *