# "Van Tillian Presuppositional Apologetics - A Critique"



## Civbert (Mar 30, 2007)

For those interested in the apologetic method of Cornelius Van Til, Brian Bosse has concluded his series "Van Tillian Presuppositional Apologetics - A Critique".

The series begins here at Part 1. (no purchase required  )

For further reading Brian (the Brain) is starting a serious on Traditional Logic - something more Christians should be knowledgeable in.


----------



## tewilder (Mar 30, 2007)

Civbert said:


> For those interested in the apologetic method of Cornelius Van Til, Brian Bosse has concluded his series "Van Tillian Presuppositional Apologetics - A Critique".
> 
> The series begins here at Part 1. (no purchase required  )
> 
> For further reading Brain is starting a serious on Traditional Logic - something more Christians should be knowledgeable in.



"The presuppositionalist claims to provide objective, philosophically certain proof for the existence of God."

Actually that is what a rationalist or empiricist apologetics would claim to do. A presuppositionalist presupposes the existence of God.


----------



## Answerman (Mar 30, 2007)

Has Brian Bosse written any articles on how the faith ought to be defneded?

Just curious.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 30, 2007)

tewilder said:


> "The presuppositionalist claims to provide objective, philosophically certain proof for the existence of God."
> 
> Actually that is what a rationalist or empiricist apologetics would claim to do. A presuppositionalist presupposes the existence of God.



That's the _Van Tilian_ presuppositionalist claim .


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 30, 2007)

Civbert said:


> For further reading *Brain* is starting a serious on Traditional Logic - ...



What about Pinky? 

"Hey Brain, what do you want to do tonight?"
"The same thing we do every night Pinky, try to take over the world!"


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 30, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> What about Pinky?
> 
> "Hey Brain, what do you want to do tonight?"
> "The same thing we do every night Pinky, try to take over the world!"





I'm sure Brian doesn't mind being referred to as "The Brain" {hmmm...diabolical Admin thought just occurred...}


----------



## Greg (Mar 30, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> What about Pinky?
> 
> "Hey Brain, what do you want to do tonight?"
> "The same thing we do every night Pinky, try to take over the world!"



 

"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
" I think so, Brain, but where are we going to find a duck and a hose at this hour?"


----------



## Brian Bosse (Apr 1, 2007)

Hello SemperFideles,



> I'm sure Brian doesn't mind being referred to as "The Brain" {hmmm...diabolical Admin thought just occurred...}



Yes, I just noticed the diabolical Admin. thought. Very nice. My parents called me 'Brain' when I was growing up - and still do so today. They do not do this because of any kind of special mental prowess on my part, but rather because I would spell my name as 'Brain' when I was little.


----------



## schaflera (Apr 4, 2007)

*Van Tillian Critique - Edited for Reading*

Hi All,

I've posted an edited version of Mr. Bosses' critique on the scripturalist yahoo group. It's been edited for brevity, added clarity, and chronology (although some formatting errors occurred copying it over from MSWord). If you would like me to send you a copy of the MSWord version please email me at [email protected]

Brian points out 3 main problems in the Van Tillian method:

1) Even the simplest deductive proofs do not provide philosophical certainty because as fallible human beings we can always make mistakes in our application of the laws of logic. 

2) The Van Tillian apologist does not provide us with a philosophically certain exhaustive list of preconditions for rational inquiry, and as such cannot demonstrate in a philosophically certain manner that Christianity meets those preconditions. 

3) For the apologetic method to be certain based upon the impossibility of the contrary, then it must be able to deductively prove that the Christian world view is a necessary condition for knowledge. The rebuttal to this point so far has been merely to restate that we have really only two worldviews. Of course, this still has yet to be demonstrated.

God bless,
Rhett


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Apr 4, 2007)

I should note that Brian's critique seems to be an "in camp" critique. It upholds the framean view where one doesn't hold to the "strong" modal claim of impossibility to the contrary. I think this is perfectly compatible with Van Til's methodology on the whole, even though it dissents on this point.


----------



## Brian Bosse (Apr 4, 2007)

Hello Caleb and the Board,

You are correct to say that my critque is an "in camp" critique. I respect Van Til. I also respect Gordon Clark. 

Rhett's summary of my critique is a good summary. The main point of my critique was Rhett's point 3. The other 2 points I consider very minor - although point 2 does weigh in on point 3. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------

