# My name is____I use this apologetic...



## tdowns (Jun 9, 2009)

Maybe this has been done. I'm trying to get a handle on what a presup and classic apologist look like. I listened to James White's critique of William Craig. That helped.

For reference, can somebody or anybody, chime in on the teachers I'm familiar with, and what their leaning is? I know most are a mix.

I'm not in any way putting these guys in the same category, in support of, etc...just people I'm familiar with.

James White
William Lane Craig
R.C. Sproul
Paul Manata
Hank Hanegraph
C.S. Lewis
Norman Geisler
Josh Mcdowell

Let me add:

Michael Horton
R. Scott Clark


----------



## rbcbob (Jun 9, 2009)




----------



## tdowns (Jun 9, 2009)

*Bueller?*

Feel free to comment on any one, don't need to know them all.


----------



## Blue Tick (Jun 9, 2009)

I'll bite at this:

James White- Presuppositional with evidential overtones. 
William Lane Craig-Classical 
R.C. Sproul-Classical
Paul Manata- Presuppositional (Van Tillian)
Hank Hanegraph- Evidentialist 
C.S. Lewis- Not sure?
Norman Geisler- Classical (Highly Arminian)
Josh Mcdowell-Evidentialist


Not sure about Dr. Clark and Dr. Horton. However, my guess is presuppositional.


----------



## tdowns (Jun 9, 2009)

*Thanks John...*

for taking the bite.

I have my guesses, similar to yours, I wasn't sure about Sproul?

With all the discussion about these issues, I sometimes get  about what and who is what and why...


----------



## Blue Tick (Jun 9, 2009)

Trevor,

Your most welcome.

Sproul and Gerstner wrote a critique about Presuppositional Apologetics.

Here's a link to the book.


----------



## tdowns (Jun 9, 2009)

*Excellent...*

Thanks for the link.


----------



## J. David Kear (Jun 9, 2009)

I am not sure that C.S. Lewis ever self-classified his methodology. I think his style most closely resembled the Cumulative Case method.

If you want to get the best understanding of the Presuppositional method read Bahnsen and listen to recordings of his debates.

If you want to read or hear a contemporary apologist who applies the method with the greatest skill look at Doug Wilson. I know, I know, FV this and that. When it comes to demonstrating the Van Tillian Presuppositional method Doug is one of the best at it today. Plus he has debated a lot of people and there is a good amount of material to read or listen to.

Peace


----------



## tdowns (Jun 9, 2009)

*Thanks...*

I'll do that.

This thread is already bearing fruit for me, although I may have seen/glanced at the above Sproul book years ago, now as I read their chapter critiquing Presup (online) I'm at least getting a better handle on the discussion.


----------



## Craig (Jun 9, 2009)

James White----probably presupp
William Lane Craig---Classical
R.C. Sproul---Classical
Paul Manata---quasi hybrid (heavily presupp, though)
Hank Hanegraph---evidential
C.S. Lewis---classical (probably)
Norman Geisler---Who cares? 
Josh Mcdowell---Evidentialist
Michael Horton---Presupp
R. Scott Clark---?


----------



## steven-nemes (Jun 9, 2009)

Craig said:


> Norman Geisler---Who cares?



Haha, no love for Geisler?


----------



## Blue Tick (Jun 9, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> Craig said:
> 
> 
> > Norman Geisler---Who cares?
> ...




I find it very hard to read Geisler's writings...


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Jun 9, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> Craig said:
> 
> 
> > Norman Geisler---Who cares?
> ...



Sure. Geisler rocks!!!!!!  

His "hatred" for calvinism surely hinders me from hearing anything he has to say, or even taking the time out to listen to him. I rather listen to James White.


----------



## steven-nemes (Jun 9, 2009)

I've never read any Geisler and don't know much about him. Didn't know he hates Calvinism.


----------



## Blue Tick (Jun 9, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> I've never read any Geisler and don't know much about him. Didn't know he hates Calvinism.



His "famous" defense of _A Balanced View of Divine Election_ _Chosen But Free[/I]. I believe James White responded with The Potters Freedom._


----------



## Craig (Jun 9, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> Craig said:
> 
> 
> > Norman Geisler---Who cares?
> ...



Nope. No love for that guy. Not just because he's anti-calvinistic...although you can see his weaknesses really easily there. 

He also wrote a book addressing Open Theism...that was also quite wretched. The man cannot represent, nor address, the opposing view with any cogency. I'm not sure if it's purposeful, or sheer laziness on his part.

I wouldn't touch any of his apologetics because he left such a bad taste in my mouth. That's before I read anything by White that refuted Geisler...after reading White, I can't seriously consider buying another book by Geisler...unless I have a wobbly table and only one of his books will eliminate the wobble.


----------



## Reformed Rush (Jun 9, 2009)

tdowns said:


> Maybe this has been done. I'm trying to get a handle on what a presup and classic apologist look like.



Hi Trevor!

New members here at PB.

We too, are trying to get a handle on the apologetic differences, and are thinking if perhaps a listing of the leading scholars and "regulars" at PB, revealing _their _apologetic positions, might be more helpful for readers such as ourselves . . .for these persons are present and able to answer questions and stand scrutiny, and thereby and supposedly, better able to defend and define their positions than distant authors/dead men not represented on this site.

Would such a request be out of order, or too off-topic?

Jim


----------



## steven-nemes (Jun 9, 2009)

A classical apologist might answer the question, "Why believe that God exists?", with an answer along the lines of, "There are a number of evidences or arguments that would lead a person to the conclusion that a person like God exists..." A presuppositionalist answers the question along the lines of, "Unless you presuppose that God exists, you can adequately describe and account for the phenomena of nature as we encounter them and allow them to be meaningful and coherent, etc." No presuppositonalist really argues to the conclusion that God exists on the basis of a priori or a posteriori truths, but rather holds that God is a necessary precondition and presupposition that one must hold to to make human experience meaningful.


----------



## tdowns (Jun 9, 2009)

*Good idea...*



Reformed Rushs said:


> tdowns said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe this has been done. I'm trying to get a handle on what a presup and classic apologist look like.
> ...



Welcome Jim, 

It's a great idea, more than happy to open this thread to that. I have a good idea, having read many of the threads, but I could see as a new person, it could be helpful. In fact, I believe there has been a poll on that before.

As far as my list, these are just the "big names" I've heard or read over the years, some in my early days as a Christian, some who I listen to today.

James White specifically mentioned his _presup_ view, in contrast to Craig's view, in recent review of his debate against Hitchen. I had thought maybe Sproul would be a candidate for _presup_, which got me thinking to start this thread.

So that was a good clarification for me. 

As for me, I think the debate is def. one of academics at many levels, meaning, giving a good defense of the faith, for most people, does not depend on understanding whether or not one is _presup_ or not. But, I enjoy "trying" to get a handle on these subjects.

Back to 

I'll start, Confessor is _presup_ Christian Trader is not.


----------



## Reformed Rush (Jun 9, 2009)

tdowns said:


> Reformed Rushs said:
> 
> 
> > tdowns said:
> ...


----------



## tdowns (Jun 10, 2009)

*Just a note,*

I know many of us have been around here for a long time, and seen pretty much every debate and discussion there is, but, I for one enjoy seeing topics (well, maybe not all topics) discussed from a fresh perspective. I don't think people should fret too much about old threads (other than for research) that may have covered it.

There is a reason for message boards, most all these topics can be found in books, it's fun to interact with topics as we learn. I believe that's one reason old threads are locked, so that after a time, if the discussion bears repeating, a new one can begin.

It doesn't happen often, but it does happen when someone who has "done it all" feels the pain of and comments on it.

That is also why some recent threads don't have all the action. I think, with the new flow of board members, it's great to let them have their day in hashing at, what to some may be old issues.

Sorry for that aside. I guess I'm saying, don't worry if it's been discussed, battle on!


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 10, 2009)

Can anyone give a short def. of "classical"


----------



## Blue Tick (Jun 10, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Can anyone give a short def. of "classical"



Try this Perg.


----------



## Myshkin (Jun 10, 2009)

http://www.modernreformation.org/mag_pdf/Chart3_98.pdf

This may be of help to some of you. I (and I am sure others) would make some qualifications to the positions as stated. But be sure to read the section under the chart. I think that is most important.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 10, 2009)

OKay, it sounds like I use either a clasical or an evidentialist approach, but what are the differences between classical and evidentialist?

Sorry, Allan, I think that Modern Reformation chart is not unbiased. I think the author is merely batting for what he terms "the reformed" position...i.e., hijacking terms. I mean, who represented "the reformed position" before Van Til anyway? No one in the 1700's? 

Also, the chart isn't very clear, I think it arbitrarily sticks people into schools and makes it appear that apologetics follows different schools whereas most folks use a mixed approach in practice.

The classicists, too, spoke of a _sensus divinitatis_ and an innate knowledge of God. 

Also, Aquinas never said that "sound reason will get you to the truth" I think he would have only granted that reasoning can get you to a generic theism, the rest (theology) would need revelation as well.


----------



## Whitefield (Jun 10, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> OKay, it sounds like I use either a clasical or an evidentialist approach, but what are the differences between classical and evidentialist?



What is usually labelled "evidentialist apologetics" is of the historical kind (e.g., providing *evidence* for God's existence based on miracles, etc.). Classical apologetics is evidentialist of the philosophical kind (e.g., providing *evidence* for God's existent through rational arguments - ontological, cosmological, teleological, moral, etc.). 

For instance, Sproul argues against historical evidentialism but proposes a philosophical evidentialism. This is why Nash and Reymond classify Sproul as an evidentialist.


----------



## Myshkin (Jun 10, 2009)

Pergamum-

No need to apologize for your thoughts. I agree with you. That's why I stated I would make some qualifications. Essentially those qualifications are the same ones you mentioned. I also see the bias that you see. Regarding your thoughts on being mixed in practice, that is why I mentioned the importance of reading what is said underneath the chart.

I linked the chart not with the intention of sharing exhaustive information, but simply as a starting point for getting a general idea of things. Not knowing where every individual is at on these issues, I see nothing wrong with starting very basic. 

For what it's worth I take a classical/evidential position with some Schaeffer thrown in.


----------

