Unfortunately, that approach is itself presupposition,
Actually, I'm not sure that it is a presupposition. At least, it does not function in my argument the way presuppositions typically do. What is a presupposition? It's an assumption or set of assumptions that you have in place (often unspoken) before you start forming an argument (using the word "argument" in its logical sense, not a synonym of "altercation"). Most of the time, people think of presuppositions as assumptions that the
person decides on ahead-of-time. But the statement "The Holy Spirit convinces me that the Bible is true", if true, says that the
Holy Spirit has put this thought into my mind; it is
not a thought that I decided on, independently of the Holy Spirit's work. In other words, the reason that thought is in my mind at all is because the Holy Spirit put it there, not because I arbitrarily decided to put it there. There is a causal direction here.
I'm also not sure the word "Unfortunately" is necessarily accurate, at least to my mind. I like the fact that the Holy Spirit conviced me the Bible is true!
Define "subjectivity". Do you mean that because it's "subjective" it is therefore not real? Or do you mean "subjective" in the narrower sense: as in, it's subjective because it is not universal for all people? I would agree with the latter, but not the former. I don't see this as a problem, however. No one ever comes to the Christian faith without the Holy Spirit's work, anyway. It is the Holy Spirit Who regenerates the unbeliever's heart so that they want God. The natural man hates God. All the apologetics in the world won't do anyone any good at all if the Holy Spirit isn't working. It follows that evangelism is something that the Holy Spirit does. While He works through secondary causes (us!), He is the mover and shaker when it comes to conversions.
How can Ackbach know for sure that it was “the Holy Spirit” that convinced him that the Bible is true?
Good question. I'm claiming that the statement "The Holy Spirit convinces me the Bible is true" is my foundation. There isn't anything more foundational for me. This statement
is my epistemology! It reminds me of the quote from
The Matrix: "...being the One is just like being in love. No one needs to tell you you are in love, you just know it, through and through."
How can Ackbach prove that if an atheist (a psychologist for example) states that Ackbach's conviction was merely a symptom of some inner psychological need, that the atheist is wrong?
I can't. You don't prove foundational statements. Just like in geometry, you take the axioms as assumptions, so this statement, that the Holy Spirit convinces me the Bible is true, I take as my foundational starting-point, as my fundamental assumption.
I'd like to point out something very important here:
everyone has foundational assumptions. Everyone has a starting-point, including atheists. They'd like to think they don't, but they do. Logic cannot immediately tell you the right starting assumptions (unless they are contradictory). Whatever those assumptions are constitute your worldview. The fact that you have assumptions that logic cannot force on you does not mean they are illogical (against logic); it just means they are alogical (outside of logic, but not against it). Side question: many atheists want to use reason and logic in their arguments. Doing so assumes that logic and reason are good ways of arriving at the truth. How can they assume that?
Ackbach presupposes the existence of the Holy Spirit,
Actually, I don't; at least, not in the way most people would say. The Holy Spirit reveals Himself to me. Again, the causal direction of information travel here is
from the Holy Spirit
to me.
then on the basis of that presupposition he postulates that it was that Holy Spirit that convinced him the Bible is true. Now, the Bible speaks about the existence of the Holy Spirit. Therefore the Holy Spirit exists, and the outworkings of that existence must be true. Therefore the original convincing of Ackbach must have been true. Q.E.D – quod erat demonstrandum – what was set out to be proven has been proven. Circular reasoning. however.
See above.
==============================================================================================
Now let’s look at Pedrito’s presupposition, and see if there's a difference.
Pedrito has presupposed that if God exists, and if He chose to reveal Himself via the writings within the Bible – that collection of 66 books penned by around 40 different authors over more than a thousand years – then we would expect that collection to exhibit a cohesion of revealed truth that would be mind boggling, consistent and irrefutable. Every statement and passage within, would mesh seamlessly with all the others. There would be no need to avoid passages and statements because they don’t “fit” – there would be no need for explaining away, were avoidance impossible.
(If the Bible lacked that cohesion, then there would be no authority on which to base the Christian faith. Would there? Really? What would it be?)
The difference is, that Pedrito’s presupposition can be subjected to objective analysis, leading to, or not leading to, an undeniable proof of concept.
I would certainly agree with your implication: if God exists and He has revealed Himself in the Bible, then the Bible should be consistent, and I believe it is utterly and completely consistent.
Questions: What does the term "objective analysis" mean? Who decides what the criteria for judgement are? Would the answers to these two questions constitute something more foundational that your assumptions above, or less? If they are more foundational, then those are your fundamental assumptions (possibly, unless there's something even further down!). How do you know those are right?
==============================================================================================
So, will anyone be willing to undertake that objective analysis, in the absence of all “tradition”
Impossible. Doing analysis in the first place, if it has any resemblance to what I would consider analysis, already has in place many assumptions about what constitutes good analysis and what constitutes bad analysis. Those assumptions don't come out of thin air: they'd have been around for a while, and are hence "traditional" - at least to somebody. Neutrality is impossible.
and the multiplicity of conflicting denominational doctrines?
Will anyone be willing to start from scratch and read the Bible as God had it written, to prove objectively that the Bible is indeed God’s Holy and Sufficient Revelation to mankind (or not)? And just maybe by so doing, understand definitively what the original apostolic Gospel actually was (or perhaps that there was no such thing)?
Or will people be content to simply continue to exist within their existing situations, paying lip service to the Bible that they override with conflicting concepts of human origin, concepts that have led to the multiplicity of denominations we see today?
Well, I believe the Reformed hermeneutic does this the best. I can't claim it's perfect, but the central idea of the
analogia fide: Scripture interprets Scripture, is the over-riding principle. Moreover, the truly Reformed person understands that if they ever find themselves believing something contrary to Scripture, then we must
reform again in conformity to it.
Will people be content to uphold the circular epistemology that currently pervades?
I'm not convinced my epistemology is circular, yet. See above.
