# Van Til's "Defense of the Faith"



## openairboy (Jan 9, 2005)

I'm reading Van Til's "Defense of the Faith", and I think I'm missing a paragraph or sentence in my book. Can someone help me out?

The bottom of page 179 in Chapter IX, "Argument By Presupposition", reads, "Does this imply the end of all reasoning? Only he who assumes, with the Romanist, that it is possible to find a firm foundation for human predication on some form or other of non-Christian thought, can claim that it does. But once we have followed the development of non-Christian thought and motivation." This is where the page ends, and page 180 follows with, "found that it always leads toward the destruction of predication, we think otherwise."

Can anyone fill in the missing sentence/s or paragraph?

Thank you,
openairboy


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 9, 2005)

The missing words are "and have."


----------



## openairboy (Jan 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> The missing words are "and have."



Thanks a lot. Should this be one sentence then? I have a period at the end of p. 179 and p. 180 acts like it picks up on another sentence.

Thans again,

openairboy


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 9, 2005)

You're welcome! That's right, it's all one sentence.


----------



## Bryan (Jan 11, 2005)

I finished this book today.
I agree with Van Til's view on Apologetics but I have two problems with the book.

First one is that it seems to be half-harzerdly put together. He is continually quoting himself from other things he has written in responce to other people's writtings becasue of this he seems to say the same things over and over again and there is really little flow to the book. It's readable but not nice to read.

Second one is that without a background in philosphy a lot of what he said didn't really matter to me. He likes to talk about 4 people in the book; Warfield, Barth, Aquanis and Aristotle. I've read a fair bit of Warfield (Reading The Plan of Salvation before this book is a good idea) so it was no problem following him there. I understand what Aquanis was about a bit so I could understand his thoughts on him but I've never touched Barth and Aristotle before so I was lost when he was interacting with their views. Now this isn't a fault of the book, but of my lack of knowledge. Obviously the book was written for people who had a background in philosphy which actually brings up a third point. The interaction story between Mr. Black, Grey and White has Mr. Black as a very philosphical person. Is this accurate? In my expirence most non-beleivers do not have an elebrate philosphical background.

Just some thoughts

Bryan
SDG


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 12, 2005)

Does Van Til mention Herman Dooyeweerd in this book? If so, what section/page does he do? I am doing a thesis (kinda) on Dooyeweerd and want to know CVT's view of him. Does he mention him in other works?
Thanks


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 12, 2005)

You should pick up Jerusalem and Athens. It's a collection of essays concerning Van Til. Van Til was alive and kicking, he contributed adding some comments/criticisms/refutations. If you want to see Van Til shine find a copy of this. Dooyeweerd has an essay, and Van Til responds critically. A must have in my opinion. Really fun material.


----------



## crhoades (Jan 12, 2005)

If you're wanting to jump into Dooyeweerd, check out Robert Knudsen's lectures on him and his set on Calvinistic Philosophy which also covers: Kuyper, Bavinck,
Weicher, Stoker, Vollenhoven and Van Til. 
WTS Bookstore lectures by Knudsen
(anyone who wants to buy me these lectures can - or at least let me listen to theirs! )


Knudsen was a prof at WTS PA alongside Van Til and was definitely sympathetic to Dooyeweerd. Check out his article as well in Jerusalem and Athens.


----------



## openairboy (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bryan_
> 
> First one is that it seems to be half-harzerdly put together. He is continually quoting himself from other things he has written in responce to other people's writtings becasue of this he seems to say the same things over and over again and there is really little flow to the book. It's readable but not nice to read.



I couldn't agree more. I haven't finished it yet and I'm using an old, old library copy, but I can't believe the way the book ends a sentence with a footnote, but the actual footnote can't be found for several pages or is completely missing. Not to mention missing words as well.

Thank God for computers and easy editing now-a-days.

openairboy


----------



## Bryan (Jan 13, 2005)

Paul, any suggestions for a book on Presup Apologetics that could be used as an introductionary book for people that don't have much of a background in philosphy? I'm looking for a book I could go through with some other guys I know from my church, and outside of it, that have never considered this approach before.

Thanks,

Bryan
SDG


----------



## openairboy (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bryan_
> Paul, any suggestions for a book on Presup Apologetics that could be used as an introductionary book for people that don't have much of a background in philosphy? I'm looking for a book I could go through with some other guys I know from my church, and outside of it, that have never considered this approach before.
> 
> Thanks,
> ...



An o.k. introduction can be found at cmfnow.com. It is a free e-book by Joseph Farinaccio and is an adobe file. If you go to their homepage, it should be right there.

Pratt's isn't a bad introduction either and you can also peruse "Always Ready" by Bahnsen.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bryan_
> Paul, any suggestions for a book on Presup Apologetics that could be used as an introductionary book for people that don't have much of a background in philosphy? I'm looking for a book I could go through with some other guys I know from my church, and outside of it, that have never considered this approach before.
> 
> Thanks,
> ...



I second Bahnsen's _Always Ready_.


----------



## Bryan (Jan 13, 2005)

I'll have to look into that book. On Amazon it says that it's a "Randy Booth Edition"?

Bryan
SDG


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 13, 2005)

That is correct, Bryan. I think Randy Booth did a good job compiling those essays. This was the first Pressup book I read and I loved it.


----------



## openairboy (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> I second Bahnsen's _Always Ready_.



It's been about 4 or 5 years since I read it, but I don't remember him explaing a "transcendental argument" that well in the book. I'm sure I could've missed it, b/c those ideas were all new to me at the time. That, I believe, was the missing ingredient for me for several years. If you can get your hand's on Butler's article in Bahnsen's _Festschrift_, then that is also recommended. Also, have the gentlemen get a basic philosophical dictionary, so they can look up terms and get familiar with the language, especially looking up the entries on transcendental arguments and related entries.

openairboy


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 13, 2005)

I am almost finished with _The Standard Bearer_; it is one of the best books I have read this school year.


----------



## Van Tillian2 (Jan 13, 2005)

*Kant*

Paul, 
How much of Kant should I address in a lecture on the TAG and a paper for my philosophy of religion class?


B.J.


----------



## openairboy (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I think that Mike Butler's paper on TAG (Josh has a copy) is a good primer on Kant and TA's.



Paul,
Is this the one in _The Standard Bearer_?

Thanks,
openairboy


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 14, 2005)

Paul,
How long is that first lecture on TA's? Is it less than 80 minutes?


----------



## openairboy (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Paul,
> How long is that first lecture on TA's? Is it less than 80 minutes?



90 minutes


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 14, 2005)

Paul,
It fits on both sides of a tape right?

Also most of the lectures are over 80 minutes, some are under 70 though.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> note: the last link says, "no philosophical background assumed." I would whole-heartedly disagree with that statement. Mike Butler told me he has no idea why they put that there. It's not the heaviest thing, but a background is definately assumed.
> 
> [Edited on 1-14-2005 by Paul manata]



I was thinking to myself, what kind of people that have no philosophical background, are they talking about.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> yeah it fits on both sides of one tape. All i have are tapes since I bought almost his entire library about 4 years ago.



I am working on it. Did that put you in a financial bind, if you don't mind me asking?


----------

