At the moment I'm trying to understanding the presuppositional apologetics, a defence of the Christian faith particularly popular in Reformed Christianity. I understand enough to say that one assumes particular foundational premises and proceed to build a worldview from this point, the consistency of which should establish the validity of the premises. I may have the wrong end of the stick, but I'd be interested in receiving answers to the following questions from someone who knows more about the issue than me:
Firstly, how does one establish that presuppositionalism is a valid way of doing apologetics?
Secondly, when one proceeds from the premise of biblical inerrancy and starts interpreting Scripture passages, isn't one adopting a whole series of new presuppositions about interpreting the Bible?
Thirdly, how are competing interpretations of a passage resolved?