# Is Presuppositionalism Self-Defeating?



## Apologist4Him

Throughout my internet adventures to defend the faith according to the Van Tillian apologetic, one of the common objections I run into is the claim that “presuppositionalism is self-defeating”. The thought that goes into the objection is circular (which is fine so far as it goes), in other words, the claim is that we have to use presuppositions to establish our presuppositions, which does not prove or establish anything. Now there are several problems with this objection. The most glaring to me, is the generic use of the word “presuppositionalism”. This is a generic fallacy because when a Van Tillian uses the term, it is within the context of the Van Tillian apologetic, and not any other kind of presuppositionalism. And yes, there are different types of presuppositionalism, such as the methodology of Gordon Clark, or Clarkian presuppositionalism. Another problem with the objection, is that at the core, every method and worldview is circular, and by necessity. Take the rationalist method for example, how do we prove or validate the use of logic without using logic? It simply is not possible. Another example, take the agnostic worldview, how does the agnostic know that we cannot know? They may not express it, but they do not know, even though the claim one cannot know is a knowledge claim in itself! So as it turns out, the objectors fail to see the circularity of their own methodology and or worldview while pointing the finger. Now that I have provided a negative aspect of the response, I will provide a positive approach.

Van Tillian presuppositionalism (Van Til never liked the word himself) is not a mere presupposing of (generic) presuppositions. Our presupposition is dependent (rather than autonomous independence) on the knowledge of God, and the revealed knowledge of God in Scripture. Our presuppositions are subordinate under the authority of Jesus Christ. Our defense of the faith begins under the authority of Christ and ends under the authority of Christ. We presuppose not only a god, but the God of Christianity, but not only the God of Christianity in a generic sense, but Christianity according to the Reformed creeds and confessions. Our God centered worldview demands not only God centered interpretation, but God centered epistemology and methodology.

Finally, in summary, Van Tillian presuppositionalism is not self-defeating, and *we should remind our objectors of the circularity of their methodology and or worldview*.
*
Quotes by Van Til:*

“We hold it to be true that circular reasoning is the only reasoning that is possible to finite man. The method of implication as outlined above is circular reasoning. Or we may call it spiral reasoning. We must go round and round a thing to see more of its dimensions and to know more about it, in general, unless we are larger than that which we are investigating. Unless we are larger than God we cannot reason about Him by any other way, than by a transcendental or circular argument. The refusal to admit the necessity of circular reasoning is itself an evident token of Antitheism. *Reasoning in a vicious circle is the only alternative to reasoning in a circle*” (_MA_ 24).

“*To admit one’s own presuppositions and to point out the presuppositions of others is therefore to maintain that all reasoning is, in the nature of the case, circular reasoning. The starting-point, the method, and the conclusion are always involved in one another*” (_DOF_ 118).

“*At the outset it ought to be clearly observed that every system of thought necessarily has a certain method of its own.* Usually this fact is overlooked. It is taken for granted that everybody begins in the same way with an examination of the facts, and that the differences between systems come only as a result of such investigations. Yet this is not actually the case. It _could not_ actually be the case. In the first place, this could not be the case with a Christian. His fundamental and determining fact is the fact of God’s existence. That is his final conclusion. But that must also be his starting point. If the Christian is right in his final conclusion about God, then he would not even get into touch with any fact unless it were through the medium of God. And since man has, through the fall in Adam, become a sinner, man cannot know and therefore love God except through Christ the Mediator…

“If all things must be seen ‘in God’ to be seen truly, one could look ever so long elsewhere without ever seeing a fact as it really is. If I must look through a telescope to see a distant star, I cannot first look at the star to see whether there is a telescope through which alone I could see it. If I must look through a microscope to see a germ, I cannot first look at the germ with the naked eye to see if there is a microscope through which alone I can see it. If it were a question of seeing something with the naked eye and seeing the same object more clearly through a telescope or a microscope, the matter would be different. We may see a landscape dimly with the naked eye and then turn to look at it through a telescope and see it more clearly. *But such is not the case with the Christian position. According to it, nothing at all can be known truly of any fact unless it be known through and by way of man’s knowledge of God*” (_SCE_ 4-5).

I wrote this short article for my blog: Is Presuppositionalism Self-Defeating? « Presuppositionalism 101 I thought it might serve as an introduction for good discussion here.


----------



## Philip

Apologist4Him said:


> Another problem with the objection, is that at the core, every method and worldview is circular, and by necessity.



In which case, arguments are ultimately futile, as there is no common ground. Without common ground, no communication is possible. If all you mean by this is that all metaphysical theories cannot justify themselves on a _de jure_ basis, I might agree with you, but they can be validated or invalidated by an external appeal to things as they are.

As for methodologies---to call a methodology "circular" is a category mistake. Arguments and systems can be circular, but not methodologies. Give me an example of a circular methodology.



Apologist4Him said:


> Take the rationalist method for example, how do we prove or validate the use of logic without using logic?



That's the rationalist philosophy, not the rationalist method. The rationalist method is to use only reason---but use of the rationalist method does not entail that one is a rationalist, merely that one tends to use logic exclusively. It may be that a thinker uses logic exclusively simply because that is his personality, or because it's the method he finds most useful. It does not, however, entail a commitment to rationalist philosophy.


----------



## jwright82

Philip said:


> In which case, arguments are ultimately futile, as there is no common ground. Without common ground, no communication is possible. If all you mean by this is that all metaphysical theories cannot justify themselves on a de jure basis, I might agree with you, but they can be validated or invalidated by an external appeal to things as they are.



That’s what a TA does it seeks to make sense out of things as they are experienced and examine which set of presuppositions accomplishes this.


----------



## Philip

jwright82 said:


> That’s what a TA does it seeks to make sense out of things as they are experienced and examine which set of presuppositions accomplishes this



According to whose set of criteria?


----------



## jwright82

Philip said:


> According to whose set of criteria?



Reality.


----------



## Apologist4Him

Philip said:


> In which case, arguments are ultimately futile, as there is no common ground.



There is a common ground, a point of contact, according to our worldview, human beings were created in the image of God. Arguments are ultimately futile, because without the regenerating work of God the Holy Spirit, our arguments, rational or not, with or without empirical evidence, are futile. Even Clarkians acknowledge this, listen to Ronald Nash's free online apologetics course, he gives a great example of this, in a lecture where he talks about a man who believes, is convinced that he is dead, even when taken to the doctor and pricked in the finger, as blood comes out, he exclaims "dead men can bleed!" 



Philip said:


> Without common ground, no communication is possible.



No, apart from the necessary existence of our Triune God of Scripture whom created us in His image with the faculties for communication, communication would not be possible.




Philip said:


> If all you mean by this is that all metaphysical theories cannot justify themselves on a _de jure_ basis, I might agree with you, but they can be validated or invalidated by an external appeal to things as they are.



Oh, how so?



Philip said:


> As for methodologies---to call a methodology "circular" is a category mistake. Arguments and systems can be circular, but not methodologies. Give me an example of a circular methodology.



I gave an example of circular methodology where I mentioned using logic to prove logic. I agree with Dr. Van Til, when he say's:

“*To admit one’s own presuppositions and to point out the presuppositions of others is therefore to maintain that all reasoning is, in the nature of the case, circular reasoning. The starting-point, the method, and the conclusion are always involved in one another” (DOF118).*



Philip said:


> That's the rationalist philosophy, not the rationalist method. The rationalist method is to use only reason---but use of the rationalist method does not entail that one is a rationalist, merely that one tends to use logic exclusively. It may be that a thinker uses logic exclusively simply because that is his personality, or because it's the method he finds most useful. It does not, however, entail a commitment to rationalist philosophy.



I agree, and I believe there is a time and place for a kind of Christian rationalism we call "classical apologetics". I think you might have misunderstood me on that point, or read something into my thinking which is not there. Dr. Van Til was not opposed to the use of classical apologetics, he was opposed to the use of the rationalism of the method as the means of defending the faith. Quite often Christian apologists mistakenly give up rationality as a "common ground", when it is not, the opponent has to borrow from the Christian worldview, and does to claim rationality, how else can they give an account for it?


----------



## Philip

Apologist4Him said:


> No, apart from the necessary existence of our Triune God of Scripture whom created us in His image with the faculties for communication, communication would not be possible.



Granted, but communication also requires common ground.



Apologist4Him said:


> I gave an example of circular methodology where I mentioned using logic to prove logic.



Except that logic isn't the sort of thing that needs proving. I would call such a move rather silly.



Apologist4Him said:


> the opponent has to borrow from the Christian worldview, and does to claim rationality



All right, then: please show that this is _de facto_ the case---that Christianity is the worldview from which rationality has been "borrowed." Simply because the unbeliever cannot give a nice metaphysical account of rationality in no way entails that the concept of rationality has been borrowed from Christianity, persay, or even that the Christian account is the correct one.

What you are really doing is arguing by means of a tedious process of elmination, a project that would take millennia to complete (and that's a conservative estimate).


----------



## Loopie

It is true that we cannot exhaustively go through every possible worldview and deconstruct them. This would mean that the Christian worldview can be proven to be true by a process of elimination. But as a fan of Van Til, I completely agree that the ONLY worldview that is perfectly consistent, and can make true and full sense of the world is the Christian worldview. But even though a person cannot deconstruct every possible worldview in detail, I would say that one does not have to necessarily do so in detail (I believe that all non-Christian worldviews have certain things in common that can be deconstructed en masse).

Yet when it comes down to it, I honestly believe that as Christians, we should engage in a 'pincer movement' against those with whom we present the gospel. We point out their sin against God, and the futility of their worldview WHILE AT THE SAME TIME giving them a positive presentation of the Christian worldview, focusing on the person of Christ. This is in essence a 'double-whammy' method of apologetics. I have had experiences where I ONLY presented to my atheist friends a positive Christian worldview. The problem was that I never attempted to deconstruct the worldview that they already held. I never addressed the arbitrariness and futility of their own worldview (and they were never inclined to budge). On the other hand, I have had experiences where I ONLY attempted to deconstruct the other person's worldview. In essence all I did was continually show them that they needed to change their worldview. But without offering a positive presentation of the Christian worldview, they just jumped from one worldview to another in an attempt to avoid having to accept the Christian worldview.

For this reason I do believe that there is a place for traditional apologetics, just like there is a place for Van Til's apologetics. What I found to be the most effective method in apologetics is to deconstruct the atheist's worldview WHILE presenting a positive presentation of the Christian worldview. 

In the end though we must keep in mind that no amount of arguments will by themselves convince someone to bend the knee to Christ. Even if a person could deconstruct every possible non-Christian worldview, this would not make the unbeliever WILLING to accept Christ. In their rebellion they would rather hold to arbitrariness, meaninglessness, and futility than to bend the knee to Christ. On the other hand, no matter how much 'evidence' is presented in support of the Christian worldview, this evidence alone is not going to convince the unbeliever to abandon his own worldview in order to bend the knee to Christ. This brings to mind Van Til's dialogue between Mr. White, Mr. Grey, and Mr. Black in his book Defense of the Faith (I recommend that you take a look at that dialogue). Even when presented with the evidence in support of Christ's resurrection, Mr. Black acknowledges that this is a world of chance, and that chance things may happen in this universe that is subject to randomness. In Mr. Black's mind there is nothing to warrant him accepting such a person as his Lord and Savior, since there may yet be another random event where a person rises from the dead.

Ultimately, salvation is of God, and the work of the Holy Spirit is necessary. Still, this does not mean that we as Christians should not seek to be the best apologists that we can be. This involves knowing HOW to present the Christian worldview in a positive way WHILE AT THE SAME TIME knowing HOW to deconstruct your opponent's worldview. Just my two cents.


----------



## Philip

Let's back up here: first of all, let's stop treating Christianity as if it's just a metaphysical system. As Christians, we should not be interested in creating consistent metaphysical systems but in bringing all ideas under the Lordship of Christ. In God all things hold together---we confess this as truth, but we know it only because it has been revealed. Where there is no revelation, there is no knowledge of God. You cannot meaningfully speak of God without God revealing Himself, without God speaking, without God becoming man. We know God because of the incarnation.*

The unbeliever, though, refuses to acknowledge this and therefore cannot know God as we do. His problem has nothing to do with his faculties or with any sort of inability to provide metaphysical justifications that will only be judged passe in favour of new philosophical trends. The problem of the unbeliever is that He does not know God---not the way we do. He suppresses his natural knowledge of God and so it is useless both to him and to the apologist.

How is it that we know the triune God? Because the Son reveals the Father by the Spirit. Revelation takes place: the Inspired Scriptures reveal Christ, and to know Christ is to know the Father. The evidence for this is found in the revelation itself and no appeal to anything outside of that is going to prove it. You can provide evidence for Christian faith, you can bear witness to its truth, but you can no more prove it to the atheist than you can convince a colourblind man that the light is red.

*This applies as much to the Old Testament saints as to us. Hebrews 11 points out that the promise of Christ was sufficient for knowledge of God prior to the incarnation. The incarnation provided knowledge of God even before it happened.



Loopie said:


> I believe that all non-Christian worldviews have certain things in common that can be deconstructed en masse



The things they have in common are not intellectual problems and therefore cannot be subjected to deconstruction. How does one go about deconstructing an attitude, exactly? Can one subject a posture of rebellion to scrutiny of this kind?


----------



## Loopie

Philip said:


> Let's back up here: first of all, let's stop treating Christianity as if it's just a metaphysical system. As Christians, we should not be interested in creating consistent metaphysical systems but in bringing all ideas under the Lordship of Christ.



But you would probably agree that Christianity IS a consistent metaphysical system. Bringing all ideas under the Lordship of Christ will involve presenting a consistent metaphysical system to your opponent, while showing them how their metaphysical system cannot, and does not, stand up to scrutiny.



Philip said:


> In God all things hold together---we confess this as truth, but we know it only because it has been revealed. Where there is no revelation, there is no knowledge of God. You cannot meaningfully speak of God without God revealing Himself, without God speaking, without God becoming man. We know God because of the incarnation.



We also know God through the created order, through general revelation. The 'sense of the divine' is in EVERY person. God's eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen by all, and so all are without excuse. So even though I agree that we know God because of the incarnation, I would not say that we ONLY know God because of the incarnation. People before the incarnation knew God, and even the unbeliever (in a sense) knows God.



Philip said:


> The unbeliever, though, refuses to acknowledge this and therefore cannot know God as we do. His problem has nothing to do with his faculties or with any sort of inability to provide metaphysical justifications that will only be judged passe in favour of new philosophical trends. The problem of the unbeliever is that He does not know God---not the way we do. He suppresses his natural knowledge of God and so it is useless both to him and to the apologist.



It is true that he does not know God as we do. But he does indeed know God. You are absolutely right that he suppresses that knowledge of God. Yet the apologist, in proclaiming the gospel, points out to the unbeliever that he is suppressing the truth and in rebellion against God. And even though the unbeliever doesn't see it that way, the apologist is still right in pointing it out.



Philip said:


> How is it that we know the triune God? Because the Son reveals the Father by the Spirit. Revelation takes place: the Inspired Scriptures reveal Christ, and to know Christ is to know the Father. The evidence for this is found in the revelation itself and no appeal to anything outside of that is going to prove it. You can provide evidence for Christian faith, you can bear witness to its truth, but you can no more prove it to the atheist than you can convince a colourblind man that the light is red.



I agree that we cannot 'prove' anything to the atheist (because he will not recognize it as proof). But this is where you can drive him into a corner. You get at his presuppositions, what he considers to be 'proof' and how anything could be 'proven' in the first place. He is a creature of God, made in God's image. His rebellious nature is going to lead him to twist God's revelation and interpret it wrongly. In fact, nothing is wrong with appealing to BOTH general revelation and special revelation. The two harmonize with each other. One can indeed appeal to the created order as a testimony to God's power and glory. One can indeed appeal to the moral consciousness of man to show that God is the source of morality. Presenting the gospel properly is going to naturally involve a positive presentation of Christ, and a deconstruction of the opponent's worldview.

For instance, you can tell the atheist about Jesus, the Trinity, and the resurrection, but the atheist needs to be told WHY he is in need of a savior (because of sin). Yet he does not claim to be in sin, but rather claims to be a good, moral person. At this point you can deconstruct his worldview, and point out that in his system, morality can only logically be relative, arbitrary, and meaningless. He might not admit it, and he might try to avoid it, but you have done your job. The atheist still uses the same laws of logic and nature that we use. Of course, he has no idea why they exist, and how they came to exist, but he still uses them. But seeing as how God is the law-maker behind the laws, there is only one consistent and correct way to interpret and apply them, and that is from the position of one who bends the knee to Christ.



Philip said:


> This applies as much to the Old Testament saints as to us. Hebrews 11 points out that the promise of Christ was sufficient for knowledge of God prior to the incarnation. The incarnation provided knowledge of God even before it happened.



Certainly the Old Testament saints had a concept of the incarnation, but not nearly as clear as what we have been given through the New Testament. But even so, general revelation still makes men culpable. The Gentiles themselves had the law written on their hearts, and were a law to themselves even though they did not have the Hebrew scriptures. They are held accountable.




Philip said:


> The things they have in common are not intellectual problems and therefore cannot be subjected to deconstruction. How does one go about deconstructing an attitude, exactly? Can one subject a posture of rebellion to scrutiny of this kind?



Well, first of all you point out to your opponent that they are indeed a slave to sin and rebellious against God. This rebellious 'attitude' LEADS THEM to adopt certain presuppositions in their worldview that are simply wrong. Remember, we as Christians CANNOT CHANGE the attitude (that is in the hands of the Holy Spirit). But we CAN address the logical results of such a rebellious attitude. A rebel against God is not going to interpret the world correctly. They are attempting to interpret the world apart from God, and any attempt to do so will be inconsistent and incorrect. We point to their rebellion, and make known that their false presuppositions, their inconsistent worldview, are a result of their sinful and rebellious attitude. Whether they recognize that as true or not is in God's hands. But again, any correct presentation of the gospel is going to necessarily involve a presentation of Christ and a deconstruction of their worldview. They must be told WHY they are in need of Christ, and WHY their current position is untenable.


----------



## Philip

Loopie said:


> But you would probably agree that Christianity IS a consistent metaphysical system.



I think it's consistent, but it's not a metaphysical system. There are certain metaphysical propositions that it contains, but they do not amount to a system or an exhaustive metaphysical theory.



Loopie said:


> Bringing all ideas under the Lordship of Christ will involve presenting a consistent metaphysical system to your opponent



No, it means presenting the Gospel and squaring metaphysical statements with those metaphysical statements that are found in Scripture. There may be multiple Christian attempts to systematize these statements (such as those of Jonathan Edwards, Thomas Aquinas, George Berkeley, and Gordon Clark) but none of them are authoritative or binding on the believer.



Loopie said:


> I would not say that we ONLY know God because of the incarnation. People before the incarnation knew God, and even the unbeliever (in a sense) knows God.



Without incarnation, the creator/creature distinction is unbridgable, in my view. Before the incarnation, people could know God in anticipation of it (ie: incarnational revelation applies throughout space and time). 



Loopie said:


> But this is where you can drive him into a corner.



I wouldn't recommend that. It usually ends up looking like a poor witness and is hard to do without intellectual bullying (a la Nietzsche).



Loopie said:


> You get at his presuppositions, what he considers to be 'proof' and how anything could be 'proven' in the first place.



Which is completely subjective. You are no better than he is in this respect. There are certain propositions which no amount of evidence would convince you of.



Loopie said:


> At this point you can deconstruct his worldview, and point out that in his system, morality can only logically be relative, arbitrary, and meaningless.



And at this point you've lost because (if he knows what he's doing) he'll just tie you up in a semantic maze and you'll never get back to the point. The whole business becomes a sideshow where you waste your energy trying to prove him wrong rather than showing him the wonder and majesty of God and the grace of the Gospel.



Loopie said:


> But seeing as how God is the law-maker behind the laws, there is only one consistent and correct way to interpret and apply them



One correct way in no way entails that all other ways are inconsistent with themselves. One can be consistently wrong.


----------



## Apologist4Him

Philip said:


> Granted, but communication also requires common ground.



As I previously mentioned, that common ground is the image of God in mankind.



Philip said:


> Except that logic isn't the sort of thing that needs proving. I would call such a move rather silly.



No Clarkian would, for the Clarkian logic is the almighty axiom! Here is the situation, logic is a part of the image of God, and analogous of the mind of God, of how God thinks. What seems silly to me is the assumption that logic could be independent of the mind of God! Christ is Lord over all, including reason!





Philip said:


> All right, then: please show that this is _de facto_ the case---that Christianity is the worldview from which rationality has been "borrowed." Simply because the unbeliever cannot give a nice metaphysical account of rationality in no way entails that the concept of rationality has been borrowed from Christianity, persay, or even that the Christian account is the correct one.



I think you might be misunderstanding...the method is presuppositionalism, the starting point is the Reformed Faith, rationality is "borrowed" because the Reformed Faith is the only Biblical worldview and as Nash say's "God's worldview", there is no shortage of evidence that mankind uses God given rationality to suppress the knowledge of God (per Rom 1), the consequences of the corruption of man's rationality in the garden of Eden when Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit.



Philip said:


> What you are really doing is arguing by means of a tedious process of elmination, a project that would take millennia to complete (and that's a conservative estimate).



No, what I am doing is saying that God's worldview is the correct one, and that the Reformed faith represents (analogous of) His worldview, and if you start with the correct worldview, there is no process of elimination, and the defense becomes (negative) one of showing how incorrect worldviews do not hold up on their own presuppositions. Now, if we started with pure reasoning as classical apologists do, then we would be caught up in the the tedious process of elimination which you speak of.


----------



## Philip

Apologist4Him said:


> No Clarkian would, for the Clarkian logic is the almighty axiom!



Hence why I am not a Clarkian.



Apologist4Him said:


> I think you might be misunderstanding...the method is presuppositionalism, the starting point is the Reformed Faith



Fine. But you've just lost your audience. You cannot appeal to the unbeliever where he is not. To have any sort of meaningful discussion, every option must be on the table, so to speak. The method here refuses to acknowledge the necessary conditions for a discussion. We end up with Karl Barth saying "belief cannot argue with unbelief. It can only preach to it." Granted, this is a point of view with a long pedigree in the church, but I doubt that most of us here would agree with it.



Apologist4Him said:


> No, what I am doing is saying that God's worldview is the correct one, and that the Reformed faith represents (analogous of) His worldview, and if you start with the correct worldview, there is no process of elimination, and the defense becomes (negative) one of showing how incorrect worldviews do not hold up on their own presuppositions.



But from the perspective of the unbeliever, the only really interesting thing you are doing is a process of elimination. If you simply assume the Christian faith to be true, then you haven't given the unbeliever a reason to think it true. Remember that you are never arguing in a vacuum but always with a particular audience in mind. If general arguments were any sort of convincing proof, then the Ontological Argument would have rid the world of atheism centuries ago.


----------



## Apologist4Him

Philip said:


> Fine. But you've just lost your audience.



Not really, since the intended audience (of the OP) is Christians, and the issue at stake is the primary (not exclusive) method the Christian should employ in defending the faith. So towards the end of a polite discussion, the non-Christian informs us that we're engaging in circular reason...ok and the point is...they TOO must reason in vicious circles! Maybe we should keep them aware of the situation. 



Philip said:


> You cannot appeal to the unbeliever where he is not. To have any sort of meaningful discussion, every option must be on the table, so to speak. The method here refuses to acknowledge the necessary conditions for a discussion. We end up with Karl Barth saying "belief cannot argue with unbelief. It can only preach to it." Granted, this is a point of view with a long pedigree in the church, but I doubt that most of us here would agree with it.


Where is the unbeliever at? To what extent has man fallen? Do we not believe the whole man is fallen, his heart, mind, body, and soul? How can we have meaningful discussion, when we are as it were, giving positive proofs in the way of rational arguments, empirical evidences and such in a tomb, to those without ears to hear, or eyes to see? Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ denounced the cities where he performed most of his miracles because they did not believe, even when the miraculous evidence was before their very eyes! We can argue with unbelief, if for no other reason than to “shut the mouths of the lions”. There are other reasons to defend the faith than conversion, but ultimately we have to depend on the foolishness of preaching, that is the power of God to salvation, not probability arguments.



Philip said:


> But from the perspective of the unbeliever, the only really interesting thing you are doing is a process of elimination.



From the perspective of the unbeliever, all we're (any Christian) doing in presupposing the truth of Christianity is question begging, but here is the rub, their worldview also stands on their basic assumptions concerning the basic questions of philosophy. This is where rather than going on the defense, we can play some offense! If they had their way, we would keep the burden of proof and thus be on the defense ad infintum. The way I see it, the task of defending the faith, has both a negative and positive, a defense and an offense.



Philip said:


> If you simply assume the Christian faith to be true, then you haven't given the unbeliever a reason to think it true. Remember that you are never arguing in a vacuum but always with a particular audience in mind. If general arguments were any sort of convincing proof, then the Ontological Argument would have rid the world of atheism centuries ago.


The Van Tillian apologetic is not a mere assumption, and includes positive proof, like TAG for example. Can you imagine the impact of providing intellectual arguments in a tomb? The foolishness of God is wiser than the wisest of men.


----------



## Philip

Apologist4Him said:


> Do we not believe the whole man is fallen, his heart, mind, body, and soul?



Indeed we do and it is to such men that we speak.



Apologist4Him said:


> How can we have meaningful discussion, when we are as it were, giving positive proofs in the way of rational arguments, empirical evidences and such in a tomb, to those without ears to hear, or eyes to see? Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ denounced the cities where he performed most of his miracles because they did not believe, even when the miraculous evidence was before their very eyes!



We give the same proofs that Jesus gave His hearers.



Apologist4Him said:


> We can argue with unbelief, if for no other reason than to “shut the mouths of the lions”.



Shutting the mouths of the lions is God's job, not ours.



Apologist4Him said:


> So towards the end of a polite discussion, the non-Christian informs us that we're engaging in circular reason...ok and the point is...they TOO must reason in vicious circles!



Andrew, let me make this abundantly clear: if you, in the end, are using a circular argument, then you have not actually addressed the position of your listener. He has no reason, on the basis of your argument, to accept your position, because he has to accept your position to accept your argument, and he doesn't. Your task as an apologist is to give _the unbeliever_ a reason to believe.



Apologist4Him said:


> This is where rather than going on the defense, we can play some offense!



The trouble is that once you do this, you are by default on his ground and he can lead you in so many circles.



Apologist4Him said:


> The Van Tillian apologetic is not a mere assumption



Really? I'm not convinced of it.



Apologist4Him said:


> like TAG for example.



Speaking of impossible burdens of proof . . .



Apologist4Him said:


> Can you imagine the impact of providing intellectual arguments in a tomb?



None, given that there is no audience to begin with. Corpses are not persons.

Sorry, but this is no excuse for circular reasoning. I, for one, do not believe that all reasoning is circular. If all reasoning were circular, communication would never happen. Given the reality that communication happens, not all reasoning is circular. The first rule of any argument is that you communicate with your audience and reach them where they are. You cannot talk past your audience.


----------



## Apologist4Him

Philip said:


> We give the same proofs that Jesus gave His hearers.


What’s that? Healing the lame, the sick, raising the dead, walking on water? Those are the works of God, not ours. 



Philip said:


> Shutting the mouths of the lions is God's job, not ours.


I did not say it was ours. Even so, God in His infinite wisdom chooses to accomplish His will, even through His people, not that we can boast, as God leaves us no room to boast, but in Christ. 



Philip said:


> Andrew, let me make this abundantly clear: if you, in the end, are using a circular argument, then you have not actually addressed the position of your listener. He has no reason, on the basis of your argument, to accept your position, because he has to accept your position to accept your argument, and he doesn't. Your task as an apologist is to give _the unbeliever_ a reason to believe.


There is a difference between using a circular argument, and circular reasoning from the most basic presuppositions that make a worldview. Why must the task be only positive? Should we not remove obstacles and stumbling blocks? Sometimes the best defense is a good offense! 



Philip said:


> The trouble is that once you do this, you are by default on his ground and he can lead you in so many circles.


Not really, being that there is also a defensive side to Apologetics



Philip said:


> Really? I'm not convinced of it.


I’m not surprised, better Van Tillians than me have tried to convince you.



Philip said:


> Speaking of impossible burdens of proof . . .


How is it impossible, when the argument is for the impossibility of the contrary? 



Philip said:


> None, given that there is no audience to begin with. Corpses are not persons.


So the person dead in sins and trespasses, is not dead? Or perhaps you twisted the whole meaning of what was meant. Of course corpses are not persons, but the Bible tells us that non-Christians are spiritually dead. What they need is not a little help with intellectual problems, but a resurrection of Spirit which only God can do…which is to say they need to be born again. I believe the best approach is a warm meal and a gospel hearing, even at that, there is no guarantee they are one of the elect, even though the call is general.


----------



## Philip

Apologist4Him said:


> Those are the works of God, not ours.



Exactly. If they won't believe the works of God which we bear witness to, then what will they believe?



Apologist4Him said:


> Why must the task be only positive? Should we not remove obstacles and stumbling blocks?



Because the means are wrong. I'm not going to resort to the tactics of Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx in arguing for Christianity. Somehow I can't find that in Scripture.



Apologist4Him said:


> How is it impossible, when the argument is for the impossibility of the contrary?



Simply because it requires deconstructing every possible permutation of unbelief. You end up taking on the unbeliever's burden of proof and showing that there is no gold in China. The impossibility of the contrary can be proven one of two ways: directly (via something to the effect of an ontological argument, or a demonstration that the direct propositional negation is self-contradictory) or indirectly (via examining every possible alternative exhaustively to show how they do not meet the necessary criteria---which also have to be demonstrated).



Apologist4Him said:


> So the person dead in sins and trespasses, is not dead?



I am merely pointing out that the Biblical analogy is misapplied here. We are not arguing with corpses, but with human beings made in the image of God. And as such we ought to appeal to that image.


----------



## Apologist4Him

Philip said:


> Because the means are wrong. I'm not going to resort to the tactics of Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx in arguing for Christianity. Somehow I can't find that in Scripture.



None of the classical arguments etc. are in Scripture either. To associate the Van Tillian apologetic, with "tactics of Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx in arguing for Christianity.", ESPECIALLY as a Reformed believer is insane. Sorry Philip, but as far as I am concerned, discussion with you is over.


----------



## Philip

Apologist4Him said:


> To associate the Van Tillian apologetic, with "tactics of Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx in arguing for Christianity.", ESPECIALLY as a Reformed believer is insane.



A hermaneutic of suspicion is a hermaneutic of suspicion no matter who uses it. Maybe you've found a way to use it in a charitable and loving fashion, but I haven't. It's a simple tactic: you assume that a work is coloured by X. Y, or Z motive or agenda and then proceed to critique the whole. For Marx, it's economic control. For Nietzsche, it's power. I don't see how reading the unbeliever's whole motive as rebellion is much different. While it is certainly true that the unbeliever is in rebellion, to read his whole thought process as such is, I think, rather uncharitable and proves less than helpful. Every time I've tried this tactic, I ended up with less understanding of the author I was reading. You do not understand any person's thought until you understand their legitimate concerns.


----------



## JohnGill

Apologist4Him said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the means are wrong. I'm not going to resort to the tactics of Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx in arguing for Christianity. Somehow I can't find that in Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the classical arguments etc. are in Scripture either. To associate the Van Tillian apologetic, with "tactics of Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx in arguing for Christianity.", ESPECIALLY as a Reformed believer is insane. Sorry Philip, but as far as I am concerned, discussion with you is over.
Click to expand...


Andrew,

He's made such charges before in other threads and has yet to provide any substantial proof. Even if we were to assume what he asserts as true, it would be meaningless. Just because Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx used a technique does not mean that technique cannot be used. It's a classic form of the ad hominem:

Person A makes claim X
Person B makes an attack on person A
Therefore A's claim X is false

If he wishes to invalidate Van Til because he erroneously believes he used the tactics of those three, then we can just as easily invalidate his entire argument since it is accepted that Aristotle was the first to codify logic as we know it. Therefore we shouldn't use Aristotle's tactics of logic because the means are wrong. Or we could argue that we should not use the tactics of Algebra since it originated in ancient Egypt & Babylon. We shouldn't use Arabic numerals either, or anything that was first proposed by an unbeliever because according to his argument, if it was proposed by an unbeliever, then the means are wrong. Which of course invalidates the idea of class concepts thereby making language and communication impossible. Or to put it another way, Philip refutes himself with such posts and therefore no response is necessary.


----------



## Apologist4Him

JohnGill said:


> He's made such charges before in other threads and has yet to provide any substantial proof. Even if we were to assume what he asserts as true, it would be meaningless. Just because Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx used a technique does not mean that technique cannot be used. It's a classic form of the ad hominem:
> 
> Person A makes claim X
> Person B makes an attack on person A
> Therefore A's claim X is false
> 
> If he wishes to invalidate Van Til because he erroneously believes he used the tactics of those three, then we can just as easily invalidate his entire argument since it is accepted that Aristotle was the first to codify logic as we know it. Therefore we shouldn't use Aristotle's tactics of logic because the means are wrong. Or we could argue that we should not use the tactics of Algebra since it originated in ancient Egypt & Babylon. We shouldn't use Arabic numerals either, or anything that was first proposed by an unbeliever because according to his argument, if it was proposed by an unbeliever, then the means are wrong. Which of course invalidates the idea of class concepts thereby making language and communication impossible. Or to put it another way, Philip refutes himself with such posts and therefore no response is necessary.


Brother Chris, thank you for your wonderful well thought out timely response. Reading it brought something to my remembrance. Philip’s argument hinges on the assumption that man can have an original thought. Since God is omniscient, how is it man could surprise God with an original thought? How often we (including me) all fail to give God credit where it’s due, how we fall short of His glory. All knowledge is dependent upon the knowledge of God, whether revealed in Scripture or outside of Scripture. That said, Holy Scripture is our ultimate authority, the breath of God, the standard and measure the judge of all other knowledge outside of the Revelations from God. Aristotle may have been the first to codify logic as we know it, but we know he did not create the rules, laws of logic, he merely discovered (analogically) knowledge which God allowed to be made known and first put into writing, and that by the common grace of God.


----------



## Philip

JohnGill said:


> Just because Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx used a technique does not mean that technique cannot be used.



Correct, except that we do criticize the methods of these three, not just their conclusions. I don't suppose you like being told that all of your motive for arguing for the existence of God is either wish-fulfillment or a desire to dominate others. Your argument would be that the method here is inherently flawed. 

I'm not arguing that these methods are wrong because they originated with Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud (I find many useful ideas in these thinkers, after all), but that the methods they used are unhelpful and are just as unhelpful when used by a Christian as any other time. I really do think this style of argumentation to be in bad taste, uncharitable, and as leading to minuderstanding and therefore to less skillful critiques. Karl Barth, for instance, claimed that he could not see himself in Van Til's critique of his work. Now I have plenty of places where I can critique Barth, but I always try to do so sympathetically. My job as a critic is to save Barth from himself. When I write such critiques, I try to do so in such a way that would actually hit home by appealing to the things that the writer himself is trying to accomplish.


----------



## Philip

Apologist4Him said:


> Philip’s argument hinges on the assumption that man can have an original thought.



No, simply that he is capable of creative thought. 



Apologist4Him said:


> he merely discovered (analogically) knowledge which God allowed to be made known and first put into writing



I'm not aware that God discovers anything so I'm puzzled as to how Aristotle's discoveries could be analogical.

Please don't misunderstand me: I have every sympathy with Van Til's reaction against evidentialism and desire to bring apologetics back to Scripture. His work contains many insights from which I have derived profit. Rightly interpreted, he is useful and helpful (though not in a systematic way). However, his methods of critique leave much to be desired and are, sad to say, easily used to bully. I was once given the advice never to back an opponent in an argument into a corner but always to give them an out because yes, you may have won the argument logically, but you've just lost the person because you've made them defensive. No one really listens when they are being defensive because they are too busy trying to score points. Once you've backed someone into a corner like that, you are no longer attacking their position, but their ego, and once you attack someone's ego in so blatant a manner, you've lost them.


----------



## Apologist4Him

Philip said:


> No, simply that he is capable of creative thought.



Ah, the discovery of the laws of logic occurred through creative thought...the inventions of men...without origin in the mind of God.



Philip said:


> I'm not aware that God discovers anything so I'm puzzled as to how Aristotle's discoveries could be analogical.



I did not say nor suggest that God discovers anything, to quote Dr. Van Til concering analogical knowledge:

"For this reason, Christians must also believe intwo levels of knowledge, the level of God’s knowledge which is absolutelycomprehensive and self-contained, and the level of man’s knowledge which is notcomprehensive but is derivative and re-interpretative. Hence we say that asChristians we believe that man’s knowledge is *analogical* of God’sknowledge."

"As man’s existence is dependent upon an act ofvoluntary creation on the part of God, so man’s knowledge depends upon an actof voluntary revelation of God to man. Even the voluntary creation of man isalready a revelation of God to man. Thus every bit of knowledge on the part ofman is derivative and reinterpretative. This is what we mean by saying thatman’s knowledge is *analogical*.


Romanism also speaks of human knowledge as being *analogical*. But Rome does not make the sharp distinction we have made between God as the original being and man as created being. It introduces this distinction after it has made many assertions about being in general. It follows that in the Romanist view human knowledge is not always and everywhere dependent upon a prior original act of God. In fact on the Romanist view human knowledge is never wholly derivative and reinterpretative. Rome therefore cannot really claim to think of human knowledge as *analogical* to God’s knowledge." - Cornelius Van Til *An Introduction to Systematic Theology” Chapter2: A-2 Human Knowledge Analogical*



Philip said:


> However, his methods of critique leave much to be desired and are, sad to say, easily used to bully.



Bullying seems to be the heart of your protest against the Van Tillian method. So much could be said on this, perhaps an entire book. I have witnessed bullying from all sides, far too often throughout my life, I've been on the receiving end (especially growing up) of it. I do believe that bullying has more to do with people's personalities, their psychological makeup, how they were raised, and experiences than anything, some people are more likely to bully than others, it is a sinful behavior that really has nothing to do with apologetic methods. It's is just as, if not easier to bully with Christian rationalism, throwing technical words at the average person and acting high and lofty because we know something that someone else does not. One thing they probably do not teach in seminaries and institutes of higher learning, is that the temptation to puff up with pride increases with the acquirement of knowledge. I would imagine the temptation is even greater for professors. If any professor ever had the right to puff up with pride and bully, it would be Van Til. To date, every person I have talked to whom actually knew or met Dr. Van Til, speak of him as being meek and humble, they speak of him as a "grandfather" like figure. In at least one of his lectures I've listened to, he talks of being raised on a farm, and jokes about his accent, and wearing wooden shoes. I imagine there were times throughout his life when he (like the rest of us do) gave into the flesh, but that is not what defined him. Finally, what Van Til did for me, was to help provide a sure solid foundation to stand up to bullies. Where I used to get shaken up, disturbed, struggle with intellectual doubts, be intimidated, etc. by non-believers arguments against the faith, I have a steadfast quiet confidence and assurance. I can see where confidence and assurance could be mistaken for bullying, but they are not one and the same. 



Philip said:


> I was once given the advice never to back an opponent in an argument into a corner but always to give them an out because yes, you may have won the argument logically, but you've just lost the person because you've made them defensive. No one really listens when they are being defensive because they are too busy trying to score points. Once you've backed someone into a corner like that, you are no longer attacking their position, but their ego, and once you attack someone's ego in so blatant a manner, you've lost them.



You have a point, and I agree with the advice you received in general, let's be fair. If you listen to Dr. Greg Bahnsen, over and over repeatedly when he quotes 1 Peter 3:15 "But *sanctify the Lord God in your hearts*, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, *with meekness* and fear;" He puts a good deal of emphasis on the context of defending the faith, stressing the need to *sanctify the Lord God in your hearts *and to do it *with meekness and fear*. I believe there is such a thing as humble boldness and using it to chip away at pride.


----------



## Philip

Apologist4Him said:


> Ah, the discovery of the laws of logic occurred through creative thought...the inventions of men...without origin in the mind of God.



Did I say that?



Apologist4Him said:


> I did not say nor suggest that God discovers anything, to quote Dr. Van Til concering analogical knowledge



What kind of analogy are we making, though? What properties do God's knowledge and ours share in common and where does the analogy break down? Or is the word "analogy" not being used in a linguistic sense (in which case it is being used analogically)? 



Apologist4Him said:


> Bullying seems to be the heart of your protest against the Van Tillian method.



My protest is multilayered:

1) It focuses on the negative.
2) It focuses on the deconstruction of ideas and the winning of arguments, not the winning of souls.
3) It sets impossible burdens of proof on the apologist.
4) It uses methods that I find to be in bad taste when used against me, therefore I wouldn't use them on anyone else. Further, such deconstruction techniques never result in a real critique, but always in a straw man because they refuse to engage authors on their own terms. As I have said before, I used to use these techniques, and it always resulted in less understanding, not more.



Apologist4Him said:


> I believe there is such a thing as humble boldness and using it to chip away at pride.



But I believe Peter is talking about meekness and fear in the speaker, not trying to instill it in the listener. Chipping away at pride is something to be done very carefully and not, I submit, in the context of intellectual discussion when the defences are rather high.

At this point, I should bow out, given that I'll be offline till tomorrow evening.


----------



## Loopie

Philip said:


> I think it's consistent, but it's not a metaphysical system. There are certain metaphysical propositions that it contains, but they do not amount to a system or an exhaustive metaphysical theory.



Well, we use the term 'systematic theology' in the sense that it IS a system. I agree that scripture contains metaphysical propositions, but in doing systematic theology you are organizing God's revelation into a 'system'.




Philip said:


> No, it means presenting the Gospel and squaring metaphysical statements with those metaphysical statements that are found in Scripture. There may be multiple Christian attempts to systematize these statements (such as those of Jonathan Edwards, Thomas Aquinas, George Berkeley, and Gordon Clark) but none of them are authoritative or binding on the believer.



They are authoritative and binding on the believe if they are the Word of God. I honestly believe that God has presented enough information for us to formulate a systematic theology that is indeed a metaphysical system. 



Philip said:


> Without incarnation, the creator/creature distinction is unbridgable, in my view. Before the incarnation, people could know God in anticipation of it (ie: incarnational revelation applies throughout space and time).



But you still have the problem of the Gentiles KNOWING God. Again, you must take into account Romans 1. Before the time of Christ the Gentiles did not have an 'anticipation' of the incarnation (at least, scripture does not say that they did). They knew of God from CREATION around them, and the law that was on their hearts. I am not sure what you mean when you say that God needed to 'bridge' the creator/creature distinction. It will always be there. Even Christ in the flesh was creator, not creature. So I think you need to clarify what you mean.



Philip said:


> I wouldn't recommend that. It usually ends up looking like a poor witness and is hard to do without intellectual bullying (a la Nietzsche).



It was a figure of speech Philip. You put them into a corner logically (you can also do so 'emotionally'). Presenting the gospel is not bullying, but if you aren't making the person 'uncomfortable' in some sense, you are doing it wrong. When I was called to repentance, and to confess my sin before Christ, I was not really comfortable in that moment. Proclaiming Christ involves making people uncomfortable, not because you are being mean, but because they need to be made aware that they are under the wrath of God. Being under God's wrath should make someone uncomfortable. This does not mean that you are 'bullying' someone.



Philip said:


> Which is completely subjective. You are no better than he is in this respect. There are certain propositions which no amount of evidence would convince you of.



I agree that it is subjective. But if he is not consistent in his application of logic and reason, you can call him out on it. He considers one standard to be 'sufficient' for one thing, but uses another standard for Christianity. As Dr. James White would put it: "inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument".



Philip said:


> And at this point you've lost because (if he knows what he's doing) he'll just tie you up in a semantic maze and you'll never get back to the point. The whole business becomes a sideshow where you waste your energy trying to prove him wrong rather than showing him the wonder and majesty of God and the grace of the Gospel.



Didn't I just say multiple times that you do BOTH. You deconstruct his worldview WHILE presenting the majesty of God and the grace of the gospel. If you fail to address his worldview, he won't care about the grace of the gospel (why does he need grace?). He won't care about the majesty of God (why is the Bible correct, and not the Quran?). You assume that he will just tie me up in a semantic maze. I would like you to show me how he would do that (because he can't without abandoning his own worldview, resulting in him being INCONSISTENT).



Philip said:


> One correct way in no way entails that all other ways are inconsistent with themselves. One can be consistently wrong.



Yes, one can be consistently wrong, but again, any system must be consistent INTERNALLY and EXTERNALLY. God's general revelation harmonizes with his special revelation (they don't contradict each other). So a system must not only be internally consistent, it must be consistent with the universe around us (it must be able to account for all that we see in creation). You made the point clear yourself when you said that a system can be consistently wrong (because you are assuming that you are able to judge its 'wrongness' or 'rightness' with external evidence, something which I agree is vital).


----------



## Loopie

Philip said:


> A hermaneutic of suspicion is a hermaneutic of suspicion no matter who uses it. Maybe you've found a way to use it in a charitable and loving fashion, but I haven't. It's a simple tactic: you assume that a work is coloured by X. Y, or Z motive or agenda and then proceed to critique the whole. For Marx, it's economic control. For Nietzsche, it's power. I don't see how reading the unbeliever's whole motive as rebellion is much different. *While it is certainly true that the unbeliever is in rebellion, to read his whole thought process as such is, I think, rather uncharitable and proves less than helpful. *Every time I've tried this tactic, I ended up with less understanding of the author I was reading. You do not understand any person's thought until you understand their legitimate concerns.



So you honestly believe that an unbeliever can use reason and logic from a non-rebellious attitude? As a rebel, his will, emotions, and mind are ALL enslaved to sin. Even the sweet buddhist who lives down the street is in rebellion against God, and uses reason and logic to promote, justify, and sustain his rebellion.


----------



## Apologist4Him

Loopie said:


> It is true that we cannot exhaustively go through every possible worldview and deconstruct them. This would mean that the Christian worldview can be proven to be true by a process of elimination. But as a fan of Van Til, I completely agree that the ONLY worldview that is perfectly consistent, and can make true and full sense of the world is the Christian worldview. But even though a person cannot deconstruct every possible worldview in detail, I would say that one does not have to necessarily do so in detail (I believe that all non-Christian worldviews have certain things in common that can be deconstructed en masse).



Exactly, one only needs to pick up a copy of works like classical apologist Norman's Geisler's "Christian Apologetics" to see that 1.) non-Van Tillians spend just as much time refuting and rebutting (with the negative aspect of apologetics) and 2.) it is not necessary to deconstruct every possible worldview, as you mention all non-Christian worldviews have certain things in common, and what we're concerned with are not every detail of a worldview, but the basic assumptions that make the worldview. 



Loopie said:


> Yet when it comes down to it, I honestly believe that as Christians, we should engage in a 'pincer movement' against those with whom we present the gospel. We point out their sin against God, and the futility of their worldview WHILE AT THE SAME TIME giving them a positive presentation of the Christian worldview, focusing on the person of Christ. This is in essence a 'double-whammy' method of apologetics. I have had experiences where I ONLY presented to my atheist friends a positive Christian worldview. The problem was that I never attempted to deconstruct the worldview that they already held. I never addressed the arbitrariness and futility of their own worldview (and they were never inclined to budge). On the other hand, I have had experiences where I ONLY attempted to deconstruct the other person's worldview. In essence all I did was continually show them that they needed to change their worldview. But without offering a positive presentation of the Christian worldview, they just jumped from one worldview to another in an attempt to avoid having to accept the Christian worldview.



In the years 2002-2004 I posted at CARM (Christian Apologetics Research Ministry). I was an Arminian, had been my entire life and didn't know it until those years. At CARM I spent countless hours debating agnostics, atheists, pantheists and the like as a classical apologist, even before I learned about different methods or approaches and such. I defended the faith there using the classical apologetic method. In defending the faith there I operated on the assumption of "neutral ground", and they always had room to wiggle out. I presented positive proofs, I tried to remove every stumbling block, using any and every argument, not to mention the arguments of others using either the same method, or evidentialist methodology. And to the best of my knowledge, not even one non-Christian ever budged on their position. After embracing the Five Points of Calvinism (2004 or 2005), and I had done further studying and research etc. I started posting at Theologyweb for awhile, and after posting there for awhile, I decided to debate a particular atheist on TAG. As it turned out, after I had posted a couple of times in the debate, I decided to bow out and discontinue the debate, mainly because I needed to learn and research more and did not have time to gather my thoughts from the material. Anyway, I stopped posting at Theologyweb after a year or two. I later found out the guy I had decided to debate, much to my surprise converted to Christianity. I have no clue as to what influenced him the most, but in all those years of online discussion and debating, he is the only convert I know of.



Loopie said:


> For this reason I do believe that there is a place for traditional apologetics, just like there is a place for Van Til's apologetics. What I found to be the most effective method in apologetics is to deconstruct the atheist's worldview WHILE presenting a positive presentation of the Christian worldview.



Many mistaking believe that Dr. Van Til was against traditional apologetics, but he was not. Years ago I gathered some quotes from his writings as proof in addition to the quotes from Richard Pratt's article: COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF VAN TIL'S APOLOGETIC (see misconception #7)


----------



## Ajf777

Philip said:


> Let's back up here: first of all, let's stop treating Christianity as if it's just a metaphysical system. As Christians, we should not be interested in creating consistent metaphysical systems but in bringing all ideas under the Lordship of Christ. In God all things hold together---we confess this as truth, but we know it only because it has been revealed. Where there is no revelation, there is no knowledge of God. You cannot meaningfully speak of God without God revealing Himself, without God speaking, without God becoming man. We know God because of the incarnation.*
> 
> 
> The unbeliever, though, refuses to acknowledge this and therefore cannot know God as we do. His problem has nothing to do with his faculties or with any sort of inability to provide metaphysical justifications that will only be judged passe in favour of new philosophical trends. The problem of the unbeliever is that He does not know God---not the way we do. He suppresses his natural knowledge of God and so it is useless both to him and to the apologist.
> 
> How is it that we know the triune God? Because the Son reveals the Father by the Spirit. Revelation takes place: the Inspired Scriptures reveal Christ, and to know Christ is to know the Father. The evidence for this is found in the revelation itself and no appeal to anything outside of that is going to prove it. You can provide evidence for Christian faith, you can bear witness to its truth, but you can no more prove it to the atheist than you can convince a colourblind man that the light is red.
> 
> *This applies as much to the Old Testament saints as to us. Hebrews 11 points out that the promise of Christ was sufficient for knowledge of God prior to the incarnation. The incarnation provided knowledge of God even before it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Loopie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that all non-Christian worldviews have certain things in common that can be deconstructed en masse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The things they have in common are not intellectual problems and therefore cannot be subjected to deconstruction. How does one go about deconstructing an attitude, exactly? Can one subject a posture of rebellion to scrutiny of this kind?
Click to expand...

Very,Very good stuff here.Ive been studying Van tillian apologetics lately and I love it.Ive used it in online discussions and forums.I think it works very well because the unbeliever has no answer to it and they have never had to think about accounting for logic ect.With that said,I don't agree with Van Tillians that say that classical apologetics is sin or dis honoring to God.I think both methods can be very successful & to combine them into a Francis Schaefer type of hybrid is the best method yet.


----------



## Ajf777

Great thread all the way around.Im New to this board(I just signed up today) & I'm very interested,but new to apologetics.I have been thinking about which method would be the right method to employ in my discussions with unbelievers.I think all those involved here have made great points and really this is the discussion I've been looking for to compare and contrast methods.God-bless!


----------



## Philip

Loopie said:


> Well, we use the term 'systematic theology' in the sense that it IS a system. I agree that scripture contains metaphysical propositions, but in doing systematic theology you are organizing God's revelation into a 'system'.



But it is not a metaphysical system. You will not find within it complete accounts of phenomena, nor will you find satisfactory answers to every question. What you will find are all things necessary to life and Godliness. 



Loopie said:


> They knew of God from CREATION around them, and the law that was on their hearts. I am not sure what you mean when you say that God needed to 'bridge' the creator/creature distinction.



There has to be some point of contact between God and man, between creator and creature. There is no analogy without incarnation. 



Loopie said:


> You put them into a corner logically (you can also do so 'emotionally'). Presenting the gospel is not bullying, but if you aren't making the person 'uncomfortable' in some sense, you are doing it wrong.



I'm not talking about making people uncomfortable, but about cornering people. Cornering has to do with the tactic of treating your interlocutor as an opponent rather than saying with God "come, let us reason together." You can never allow yourself to succumb to the temptation to be adversarial in your apologetic. When you try to corner someone, you have allowed yourself to forget that the goal is to win the person, not to score points. Trying to back someone into a corner doesn't work for the simple reason that in any argument (not just apologetic), that is the position where a person is least likely to be convinced. 



Loopie said:


> As Dr. James White would put it: "inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument".



Oh dear, then no human has ever had a successful argument.



Loopie said:


> You assume that he will just tie me up in a semantic maze. I would like you to show me how he would do that



By leading you around in circles in your attempt to deconstruct him.



Loopie said:


> Yes, one can be consistently wrong, but again, any system must be consistent INTERNALLY and EXTERNALLY.



True, but a system may be apparently consistent in both regards, while still not actually consistent.



Loopie said:


> So you honestly believe that an unbeliever can use reason and logic from a non-rebellious attitude? As a rebel, his will, emotions, and mind are ALL enslaved to sin.



Yes and no. Yes in the sense that he is in an attitude of rebellion. No in the sense that he is not being disingenuous given that he really believes his own view to be the truth. In order to understand him, you must do so on his own terms, not on your assumptions about what he thinks. You have to read him fairly.



Apologist4Him said:


> what we're concerned with are not every detail of a worldview, but the basic assumptions that make the worldview.



Reductionism is as unhelpful when used by Christian apologists as at any other time.



Apologist4Him said:


> all non-Christian worldviews have certain things in common,



Other than their rejection of Christianity, this is debatable.


----------



## Loopie

Philip said:


> But it is not a metaphysical system. You will not find within it complete accounts of phenomena, nor will you find satisfactory answers to every question. What you will find are all things necessary to life and Godliness



How does the Christian worldview not completely account for all phenomena? We believe God as the cause and creator of ALL things. That accounts pretty much for all phenomena. Just because WE don't exhaustively understand it does not at all mean that the Christian worldview cannot account for all phenomena. Also, some people are 'satisfied' by different answers than others. You assume that there is some objective (or absolute) definition of 'satisfactory answers'. Obviously the unbeliever is not going to be satisfied with the argument that God created the heavens and the earth. That has nothing to do with the weakness or insufficiency of the Christian worldview, but the sinfulness and rebellion of the unbeliever.



Philip said:


> There has to be some point of contact between God and man, between creator and creature. There is no analogy without incarnation.



Yes the point of contact is that we are made in the image of God. Simple. Again, God still held unbelievers accountable even though they had no special revelation, and no understanding of the incarnation.



Philip said:


> I'm not talking about making people uncomfortable, but about cornering people. Cornering has to do with the tactic of treating your interlocutor as an opponent rather than saying with God "come, let us reason together." You can never allow yourself to succumb to the temptation to be adversarial in your apologetic. When you try to corner someone, you have allowed yourself to forget that the goal is to win the person, not to score points. Trying to back someone into a corner doesn't work for the simple reason that in any argument (not just apologetic), that is the position where a person is least likely to be convinced.



I agree that we should always show love, grace, and mercy in our discussions with the unbeliever. But even Christ declared that the world will HATE us for what we believe and what we say. I mean, when Stephen spoke to the Jews, they gnashed their teeth at him and stoned him. There is a spiritual hostility that is always present, although the unbeliever at times hides it under a facade. I am not at all suggesting that we incite anger on purpose, or attempt to make the unbeliever mad. I agree that we must 'reason together', but we both know that the Christian and non-Christian are 'reasoning' from completely different foundations. We must address those foundations as soon as possible, in order to get to the real issue (in order to figure out just why the unbeliever can never be 'argued' into believing). So when I talk to my atheist friends, I always show them love, and I do not initiate 'hostilities'. Yet I recognize that spiritually they are opposed to God, and opposed to me telling them about God. Being that they are 'rebels' they are indeed enemies of God in a certain sense.



Philip said:


> Oh dear, then no human has ever had a successful argument.



So you believe that no person can ever be consistent, and that no worldview can ever be consistent? Do you believe that the Christian worldview is fully consistent both internally and externally?



Philip said:


> By leading you around in circles in your attempt to deconstruct him.



Well, I have not yet experienced that, but I will let you know when I do. Yet it would just testify to the failure of his own position. He can try to jump from one worldview to another, but all he has done is shown that he has no solid foundation, and it is here that I would present Christ as the ONLY solid rock. 



Philip said:


> True, but a system may be apparently consistent in both regards, while still not actually consistent.



Ok, this makes no sense whatsoever. So you are saying that a worldview could be perfectly consistent with itself and with the universe we see around us, but STILL be inconsistent? That is an absolute contradiction. Would you please define for me what you mean by consistency then? To be consistent internally and externally is to BE truly consistent. Now it may in fact be the case that something only at first looks to be consistent, but upon further inquiry it fails completely. That is why we should think carefully and critically about things, so as not to be caught up by some shallow argument. I do not believe at all that it is impossible to know for sure whether a worldview is consistent. God gave us a mind for a reason, so let us use it.



Philip said:


> Yes and no. Yes in the sense that he is in an attitude of rebellion. No in the sense that he is not being disingenuous given that he really believes his own view to be the truth. In order to understand him, you must do so on his own terms, not on your assumptions about what he thinks. You have to read him fairly.



What do you mean by 'fairly'? His own terms are terms of rebellion. I am not going to join him in his rebellion in order to show him that his rebellion is wrong. Of course he really believes his own view to be true, but he still does not reason rightly. We can attempt to show him the error of his reasoning, which is a result of his rebellious attitude. He will ALWAYS use his mind, will, and emotions to sustain and justify his rebellion. Now if he was actually correct in his worldview, then it would be more consistent internally and externally than the Christian worldview. But being that the unbeliever has BOTH a wrong attitude and wrong presuppositions (the result of his wrong attitude), his worldview is not going to be internally and externally consistent. Only a worldview founded upon the Triune God of Scripture will be consistent (because it is TRUE). 

In the end, if we join the rebel by having a discussion 'on his own terms', we are essentially affirming the truth of his own presuppositions. Yet those presuppositions sustain and justify his rebellion. We must deal with those assumptions (and with his attitude) if we wish to get anywhere in the discussion. Otherwise, he truly can lead us around in circles as he pleases.


----------



## Philip

Loopie said:


> How does the Christian worldview not completely account for all phenomena?



I did not say "account for" I said "account of." Accounting for simply means that you have an ultimate explanation. Accounting for means that you have a specific "why" and "how" for each particular phenomenon. Thus we say "God did it" as an ultimate explanation, but on questions like "what is the relationship between parts and wholes" there is no one "Christian" answer. There is a world of difference between plain sufficiency and exhaustiveness.



Loopie said:


> Again, God still held unbelievers accountable even though they had no special revelation, and no understanding of the incarnation.



Understanding has nothing to do with it: the fact of the incarnation is all that is necessary.



Loopie said:


> But even Christ declared that the world will HATE us for what we believe and what we say.



Fair enough. But we must not purposefully use inflammatory tactics like arguing people into corners.



Loopie said:


> So you believe that no person can ever be consistent



Only Jesus.



Loopie said:


> Do you believe that the Christian worldview is fully consistent both internally and externally?



Yes. The problem is that none of us actually has a fully Christian worldview because we're still sinners.



Loopie said:


> Ok, this makes no sense whatsoever. So you are saying that a worldview could be perfectly consistent with itself and with the universe we see around us, but STILL be inconsistent?



No. I am saying that a worldview could be _apparently_ consistent (ie: you can't find the problem) but _actually_ inconsistent (ie: there is, in fact, a problem).



Loopie said:


> Well, I have not yet experienced that, but I will let you know when I do. Yet it would just testify to the failure of his own position.



Not at all. He leads you in an constant circle so that you never actually get to the point.



Loopie said:


> What do you mean by 'fairly'? His own terms are terms of rebellion. I am not going to join him in his rebellion in order to show him that his rebellion is wrong.



Case in point. Until you admit that the unbeliever has legitimate concerns and until you understand them and the appeal of his position because of them, you will never understand it and you will never really address it. He is made in the image of God and therefore has legitimate and rightful concerns. Until you understand where the unbeliever is right, you will never be able to address where he is wrong.



Loopie said:


> We must deal with those assumptions (and with his attitude) if we wish to get anywhere in the discussion. Otherwise, he truly can lead us around in circles as he pleases.



All right: so on whose terms willl you deal with those assumptions? What "objective" (as if there was such a thing) standard will you use that he would agree to?


----------



## JohnGill

*Two word refutation*



Philip said:


> I'm not talking about making people uncomfortable, but about cornering people. Cornering has to do with the tactic of treating your interlocutor as an opponent rather than saying with God "come, let us reason together." You can never allow yourself to succumb to the temptation to be adversarial in your apologetic. When you try to corner someone, you have allowed yourself to forget that the goal is to win the person, not to score points. Trying to back someone into a corner doesn't work for the simple reason that in any argument (not just apologetic), that is the position where a person is least likely to be convinced.



If the interlocutor is lost, then he is our opponent as are all lost people to Christians and vice versa. We are at war after all. We do not say to the lost, "Come now, and let us reason together." That is a misapplication of the verse. That verse is dealing with God talking to a remnant who were afraid to come unto him because they believed their sin unpardonable before the Judge of all flesh. The lost are no remnant of God. They are our enemies and we are taught in scripture how to love our enemies in very specific ways. Part of that is through apologetics and evangelism.

Yes we are to corner our opponents. We are to leave them with nothing to turn to and no point of escape. We are to leave them utterly destitute and no hope in their vanity. We are to leave them without refuge in their sinful thinking. For us to do so is sin. The goal is not to win the person. You are confusing apologetics with evangelism. The goal in apologetics is to leave the unbeliever with nowhere to hide and show that without Christ he is destitute, not just spiritually, but intellectually, morally, politically, etc. After you have accomplished this task then you present the Gospel of Christ to him. We are to do this with the attitude commanded in 1 Peter 3:15 & 16, "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear. Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." No one is disputing that we must guard against the flesh during the apologetic encounter, but your constant implication that in cornering our opponent we will be in more danger of slipping into the flesh reveals your own biases and does not constitute an argument. You have still not presented any real arguments, but constantly put forth your opinions and how you feel, which is immaterial to the discussion. Provide a real argument. Show from scripture where Van Tillian apologetics is wrong. There are a multitude of resources showing that it is Biblical and consistent with what the Bible teaches. You may disagree, fine. But actually provide something Biblical to base your disagreement on. Offering your experiences and feelings will not be enough. When you do so you are refuted with two words, "I disagree."


----------



## Philip

JohnGill said:


> If the interlocutor is lost, then he is our opponent as are all lost people to Christians and vice versa.



In the sense that he opposes God. Not in the sense that he is a debate opponent, that is, a competitor, one to score points off of.



JohnGill said:


> Yes we are to corner our opponents. We are to leave them with nothing to turn to and no point of escape. We are to leave them utterly destitute and no hope in their vanity. We are to leave them without refuge in their sinful thinking. For us to do so is sin. The goal is not to win the person. You are confusing apologetics with evangelism.



You seem to have missed the point of apologetics, then. The goal of apologetics is to present Christ winsomely, reasonably, and well---to give reasons for the hope within us, and to show the unbeliever that there are reasons why he should believe. Cornering the unbeliever does little to advance this. Apologetics must always be evangelical and evangelism must always be apologetic.

If the goal is specifically to anger the interlocutor, then by all means argue him into a corner so that his rational faculties are clouded by emotion. If, however, you wish to present the truth winsomely and well, this is probably not the best method.



JohnGill said:


> Provide a real argument. Show from scripture where Van Tillian apologetics is wrong. There are a multitude of resources showing that it is Biblical and consistent with what the Bible teaches.



I haven't seen them, then. I've seen a bunch of verses interpreted under the assumption of Van Tillian apologetics, but I see no need to adopt its language or the methods of suspicion that accompany it on that basis.



JohnGill said:


> No one is disputing that we must guard against the flesh during the apologetic encounter, but your constant implication that in cornering our opponent we will be in more danger of slipping into the flesh reveals your own biases and does not constitute an argument.



Certainly it constitutes an argument: I am arguing that the methods employed are unhelpful and decrease the apologist's understanding of the unbeliever's intellectual position. To understand someone's position you have to, in some sense, get inside it and put yourself in their shoes. You have to stop analyzing. You cannot answer a position adequately until you do this.



JohnGill said:


> But actually provide something Biblical to base your disagreement on.



My disagreement is based in the fact that the passages in question do not provide evidence at all for Van Til's suggested methods. I don't recall the hermaneutic of suspicion being employed at all in Scripture, while I see quite a lot of the common sense method employed (Jesus' argument from miracles, ridicule of idol worship, etc).


----------



## JohnGill

Philip said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the interlocutor is lost, then he is our opponent as are all lost people to Christians and vice versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1.) *In the sense that he opposes God. Not in the sense that he is a debate opponent, that is, a competitor, one to score points off of.
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we are to corner our opponents. We are to leave them with nothing to turn to and no point of escape. We are to leave them utterly destitute and no hope in their vanity. We are to leave them without refuge in their sinful thinking. For us to do so is sin. The goal is not to win the person. You are confusing apologetics with evangelism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *2.)* You seem to have missed the point of apologetics, then. The goal of apologetics is to present Christ winsomely, reasonably, and well---to give reasons for the hope within us, and to show the unbeliever that there are reasons why he should believe. Cornering the unbeliever does little to advance this. Apologetics must always be evangelical and evangelism must always be apologetic.
> 
> *3.) *If the goal is specifically to anger the interlocutor, then by all means argue him into a corner so that his rational faculties are clouded by emotion. If, however, you wish to present the truth winsomely and well, this is probably not the best method.
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Provide a real argument. Show from scripture where Van Tillian apologetics is wrong. There are a multitude of resources showing that it is Biblical and consistent with what the Bible teaches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *4.) *I haven't seen them, then. I've seen a bunch of verses interpreted under the assumption of Van Tillian apologetics, *5.)* but I see no need to adopt its language or the methods of suspicion that accompany it on that basis.
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing that we must guard against the flesh during the apologetic encounter, but your constant implication that in cornering our opponent we will be in more danger of slipping into the flesh reveals your own biases and does not constitute an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *6.) *Certainly it constitutes an argument: *I am arguing that the methods employed are unhelpful and decrease the apologist's understanding of the unbeliever's intellectual position.* To understand someone's position you have to, in some sense, get inside it and put yourself in their shoes. You have to stop analyzing. You cannot answer a position adequately until you do this.
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> But actually provide something Biblical to base your disagreement on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *7.) *My disagreement is based in the fact that the passages in question do not provide evidence at all for Van Til's suggested methods. I don't recall the hermaneutic of suspicion being employed at all in Scripture, while I see quite a lot of the common sense method employed (Jesus' argument from miracles, ridicule of idol worship, etc).
Click to expand...


1.) No one here has implied such. To imply otherwise is bearing false witness.
2.) Again, you confuse apologetics with evangelism. The two are not the same.
3.) No one here has stated that is to be the goal. Will the lost become angered, yes and so what? The lost are always angered when confronted with their self-delusion. You may not like the method, but that does not make the method wrong or less best. Once again, your opinion on the matter is immaterial.
4.) Others have seen them. Disagree, fine. Provide Biblical support for your views. You have yet to do this and until you do, your comments about Van Tillian apologetics are just your opinions. Big whoop. 
5.) Until you can justify from scripture the use of such language as, "methods of suspicion that accompany it", you should refrain as you come dangerously close to breaking the 9th commandment. 
6.) The bolded underlined is not an argument. It is your opinion and therefore simply refuted with, "I disagree" or "You're wrong." Call it an argument all you wish, but to do so does a disservice to the word.
7.) Once again you provide nothing but your biases and prejudices against Van Tillian apologetics as if they offered something of substance. They do not. Each one of your posts is little more than, "I think it's wrong or mean or contentious, etc. and therefore my opinion makes it so and we shouldn't use it." You haven't provided anything of substance in any of your posts. And so, once again, I refute your most current post and all your postings on this subject with just two words, *"You're wrong."* Because until you provide an actual argument, that is all that is needed.


----------



## Unoriginalname

JohnGill said:


> 7.) Once again you provide nothing but your biases and prejudices against Van Tillian apologetics as if they offered something of substance. They do not. Each one of your posts is little more than, "I think it's wrong or mean or contentious, etc. and therefore my opinion makes it so and we shouldn't use it." You haven't provided anything of substance in any of your posts. And so, once again, I refute your most current post and all your postings on this subject with just two words, "You're wrong." Because until you provide an actual argument, that is all that is needed.


I think this post sums up the central failure of Van Tillianism. It demands to be proven wrong when it never bothers to prove itself right. If I am unconvinced of something it is not helpful to say that unless I can prove it wrong I have no reason to disagree. If I disagree your duty is to prove yourself right. I have followed this thread for weeks and the only defense of van tillianism from scripture has in my opinion just been general proof texts on being ready. I have not seen in those texts a usage of a TAG or anything that resembles this counter intuitive way of arguing. If you are trying to prove that this apologetic is the correct one is your duty to prove it, not anyone else's job to disprove it. I am going to bail out because I think Philip does a much better job explaining the same concerns I have.


----------



## JohnGill

Unoriginalname said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7.) Once again you provide nothing but your biases and prejudices against Van Tillian apologetics as if they offered something of substance. They do not. Each one of your posts is little more than, "I think it's wrong or mean or contentious, etc. and therefore my opinion makes it so and we shouldn't use it." You haven't provided anything of substance in any of your posts. And so, once again, I refute your most current post and all your postings on this subject with just two words, "You're wrong." Because until you provide an actual argument, that is all that is needed.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this post sums up the central failure of *Van Tillianism. It demands to be proven wrong when it never bothers to prove itself right.* If I am unconvinced of something it is not helpful to say that unless I can prove it wrong I have no reason to disagree. If I disagree your duty is to prove yourself right. I have followed this thread for weeks and the only defense of van tillianism from scripture has in my opinion just been general proof texts on being ready. I have not seen in those texts a usage of a TAG or anything that resembles this counter intuitive way of arguing. If you are trying to prove that this apologetic is the correct one is your duty to prove it, not anyone else's job to disprove it. I am going to bail out because I think Philip does a much better job explaining the same concerns I have.
Click to expand...


Based on the bolded sentence I must conclude that you have never studied the writings, videos, audios, etc. produced by Van Tillians and therefore no nothing of the subject, or you have done the research and are therefore deliberately misrepresenting Van Tillians. Van Tillians have produced a wealth of information demonstrating from scripture why they believe that their version of apologetics is Biblical. You may disagree with their conclusions and their understanding of the scriptures, but then it is your burden and Philip's to provide a Biblical refutation. Provide a real argument from scripture interacting with the Van Tillian material demonstrating that it is unbiblical. Philip hasn't done anything close to this. Claiming VT is wrong simply because he doesn't like it, doesn't make it wrong. Nothing Philip has provided has done anything to invalidate VT. As to you claiming it's my duty to prove it, I don't have to reiterate all the arguments from scripture in favor of Van Tillian apologetics. There are books, videos, audios, etc. that do that quite well. But these are arguments from scripture and NOT mere opinion. You may disagree with the conclusions of such arguments, but do more than claim VT is wrong simply because you don't like it. For in the end, Philip's and your position is little more than, "It's wrong, because I don't like it." That's not an argument.


----------



## Unoriginalname

JohnGill said:


> Based on the bolded sentence I must conclude that you have never studied the writings, videos, audios, etc. produced by Van Tillians and therefore no nothing of the subject, or you have done the research and are therefore deliberately misrepresenting Van Tillians


Should I make a list of everything I have read of VT or should I just counter and say for someone who likes accusing people of ninth commandment violations you do it alot. 


JohnGill said:


> Van Tillians have produced a wealth of information demonstrating from scripture why they believe that their version of apologetics is Biblical.


I have seen their arguments and I find them unconvincing. I do not see Paul or Jesus or Moses employing a TAG ever in scripture and I do not feel like any verse ever directly discusses one. Furthermore my point was not to deal with every VTillian argument possible but to say that whenever I found a verse used to support it on this thread it was not proven that the verse in question proved VT's method. 


JohnGill said:


> Nothing Philip has provided has done anything to invalidate VT.


The best argument for that still has to be the silliness of the TAG itself. If I am a marxist and you prove marxism is wrong you still haven't proven every other possible philosophy is wrong. Claiming to be able to deconstruct every possible philosophy would take a life time. 


JohnGill said:


> For in the end, Philip's and your position is little more than, "It's wrong, because I don't like it." That's not an argument.


It really seems like your argument is that Philip is wrong because you don't like it.


----------



## Unoriginalname

JohnGill said:


> Based on the bolded sentence I must conclude that you have never studied the writings, videos, audios, etc. produced by Van Tillians and therefore no nothing of the subject, or you have done the research and are therefore deliberately misrepresenting Van Tillians


Should I make a list of everything I have read of VT or should I just counter and say for someone who likes accusing people of ninth commandment violations you do it alot. 


JohnGill said:


> Van Tillians have produced a wealth of information demonstrating from scripture why they believe that their version of apologetics is Biblical.


I have seen their arguments and I find them unconvincing. I do not see Paul or Jesus or Moses employing a TAG ever in scripture and I do not feel like any verse ever directly discusses one. Furthermore my point was not to deal with every VTillian argument possible but to say that whenever I found a verse used to support it on this thread it was not proven that the verse in question proved VT's method. 


JohnGill said:


> Nothing Philip has provided has done anything to invalidate VT.


The best argument for that still has to be the silliness of the TAG itself. If I am a marxist and you prove marxism is wrong you still haven't proven every other possible philosophy is wrong. Claiming to be able to deconstruct every possible philosophy would take a life time. 


JohnGill said:


> For in the end, Philip's and your position is little more than, "It's wrong, because I don't like it." That's not an argument.


It really seems like your argument is that Philip is wrong because you don't like it.


----------



## Philip

JohnGill said:


> 1.) No one here has implied such. To imply otherwise is bearing false witness.



If the unbeliever is not a debate opponent, then cornering him is not an acceptable tactic.



JohnGill said:


> Again, you confuse apologetics with evangelism. The two are not the same.



Yet you cannot and should not do one without the other.



JohnGill said:


> No one here has stated that is to be the goal. Will the lost become angered, yes and so what? The lost are always angered when confronted with their self-delusion. You may not like the method, but that does not make the method wrong or less best.



They should be confronted with what God says, not with an inflammatory method. Let them be angered by God, not by you. We must not intentionally cause anger but be gracious and courteous in our methods.



JohnGill said:


> Until you can justify from scripture the use of such language as, "methods of suspicion that accompany it"



I don't recall Van Til's method being in Scripture. A hermaneutic of suspicion is, in fact, what the method constitutes. You begin your approach to an author or position under the assumption that there is a driving agenda behind it. Thus, if you are a Marxist, you assume that everything is economic. A Freudian assumes that everything is subconsciously sexual. A Nietzschean assumes that everything is a power-grab. I do not see how the Van Tillian assumption that everything is rebellion does not constitute a hermaneutic of suspicion as well.



JohnGill said:


> Because until you provide an actual argument, that is all that is needed.



What would you accept as an actual argument? A reading of your previous statements using a hermaneutic of suspicion? (I won't do that, by the way, because I'd end up violating the 9th commandment). The trouble here is that you are (appropriately enough) assuming Van Tillianism and thus any verse or argument I brought to the table would be read accordingly.



JohnGill said:


> Provide Biblical support for your views.



I haven't yet outlined a clear view, therefore there is little to provide positive support for. My approach is generally pre-modern, as are the Scriptures, the Reformers, and the Church Fathers, but that's about as specific as I've gotten, at this point. 



JohnGill said:


> For in the end, Philip's and your position is little more than, "It's wrong, because I don't like it." That's not an argument.



You haven't understood my argument then. My argument is that the methods employed decrease understanding by employing a herameutic of suspicion and treat the whole exercise like a debate round. The goal is to convince, not to impress, not to anger. It is very possible that anger will be the reaction no matter what our method, but it should not be our goal. Our goal is to present Christ winsomely and well.

At any rate, this discussion seems to have run its course (though thankfully Godwin's Law has yet to be invoked). So I'll bow out for good.


----------



## Hilasmos

Unoriginalname said:


> The best argument for that still has to be the silliness of the TAG itself. If I am a marxist and you prove marxism is wrong you still haven't proven every other possible philosophy is wrong. Claiming to be able to deconstruct every possible philosophy would take a life time.



...



> TAG argues for the impossibility of the contrary (the non-Christian worldview) and not the impossibility of an infinite number of possible worldviews. TAG does not establish the necessity of Christianity by inductively refuting each and every possible non-Christian worldview (as finite proponents of TAG, this is an impossible task), but rather contends that the contrary of Christianity (any view that denies the Christian view of God) is shown to be impossible. And if the negation of Christianity is false, Christianity is proved true. In other words, the structure of the argument is a disjunctive syllogism. Either A or -A, -- A, therefore, A.
> 
> ...The Transcendental Argument for God's Existence


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Much could be said here, but I'll say just three things:

1. Apologetics and evangelism are of a piece: the latter is the proclamation of the faith and the former is its defense. Both are to be biblical, not evangelism only (with apologetics simply being philosophy). There is a distinction between apologetics and philosophy, though apologetics may use philosophy in the service of theology and the defense of the faith. 

2. Both apologetics and evangelism, in the most proper sense, involve proclamation and not persuasion. Yes, we are to be winsome, to listen to the other, and to deal humbly with all. So it looks, when we are rightly being all things to all men, as if we are persuading, but that is the job of the Holy Spirit, who alone can enable men to see (I Cor. 2). 

3. The contention that Van Til's approach is akin to that of Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche (with respect to a hermenuetics of suspicion) is a red herring. The mere perspectivalism of these men (in which they reduce all reality to the economic, sexual, or power aspects and then absolutize those aspects and make them the lens through which they view everything) cannot compare to the multi-perspectivalism of a Van Tilian approach which seeks to hold all in balance. We know that the unbeliever knows the truth (externally and internally--Romans1 and 2) and that we have ontological common ground--we're both in God's image in God's world--but that in rebellion against Him whom they will not have to rule over them (no matters how many guards testify to the resurrection), they reject and refuse the truth they know. This is not a hermeneutics of suspicion based on an false worldview, but a biblical recognition of man's depraved condition. We are to engage with love, kindness, and humility: to tell the truth that the unbeliever knows but suppresses. This does create a crisis within them that the balm of the gospel cures. Yes, there will be cognitive dissonance but we are not being unfair with the unbeliever. Bill Edgar is a great example of one who is _sauviter in modo_ as well as _fortiter in re_. Yes, the Van Tilian approach has been badly used and abused by those who do not go about their task humbly. It may even invite such an approach, so we need to hear those who complain of such and redouble our efforts to speak the truth in love.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Philip

Ok, one more thing here:



Alan D. Strange said:


> This is not a hermeneutics of suspicion based on an false worldview, but a biblical recognition of man's depraved condition. We are to engage with love, kindness, and humility: to tell the truth that the unbeliever knows but suppresses. This does create a crisis within them that the balm of the gospel cures. Yes, there will be cognitive dissonance but we are not being unfair with the unbeliever.



But let's also treat his stated goals, motives, and concerns as his real ones. Let's assume that he really means what he says and take his words at face value. If we do not do this then, I submit, we are engaging in precisely a hermaneutic of suspicion because we aren't treating the positions of others in the way that we expect our own to be treated. 



Alan D. Strange said:


> multi-perspectivalism of a Van Tilian approach which seeks to hold all in balance.



This is what I wish more Van Tillians would emphasize. It's the thing I most appreciate about Frame's approach. We need to acknowledge the real complexity and diversity of motive that is present in all, both believer and unbeliever and the very real strengths present in anyone's thought. The unbeliever is made in the image of God, and thus we are required to extend the principle of charity to him, even if he fails to reciprocate. I understand that we all fail to extend charity, but we should acknowledge that any sort of reductionism---even a reductionism to rebellion---is inherently uncharitable.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Philip:

It's not that the unbeliever does not want what he says he wants: peace, security, prosperity, acceptance, control, and so forth. It's that he is, by virtue of his sinful unregenerate nature, an idolator and that he pursues these things above all, instead of the living and true God. Unbelievers have many goals and concerns (their motives are always selfish outside of Christ) that may have many good consequences. The problem is that they pursue these things instead of the God who made them and in doing so they turn these things into idols to which they give their lives. Believers, too, have to fight against this every day of our lives.

None of what I just said in that paragraph, however, is distinctly Van Tilian. It's simply Reformed (and even evangelical, in the classic sense). Rebellion does characterize everything that the unbeliever does, but that too is a broad Calvinist confession: we always act either in covenantal obedience or disobedience. At its best, as John Muether shows nicely in his fine work on Van Til, CVT strove simply to be a consistent Calvinist (not only soterically but epistemically). So rebellion does characterize the unbeliever, but, even then, the unbeliever cannot be reduced to his rebellion. He is in the image of God, made to worship God, somehow perverting that worship. We need to show him or her that the pursuit of acceptance, e.g., is vain outside of Christ and that we have it only in Him, in whom we are accepted (in the Beloved). I agree fully, Philip, with your last paragraph.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## jwright82

Alan D. Strange said:


> Much could be said here, but I'll say just three things:
> 
> 1. Apologetics and evangelism are of a piece: the latter is the proclamation of the faith and the former is its defense. Both are to be biblical, not evangelism only (with apologetics simply being philosophy). There is a distinction between apologetics and philosophy, though apologetics may use philosophy in the service of theology and the defense of the faith.
> 
> 2. Both apologetics and evangelism, in the most proper sense, involve proclamation and not persuasion. Yes, we are to be winsome, to listen to the other, and to deal humbly with all. So it looks, when we are rightly being all things to all men, as if we are persuading, but that is the job of the Holy Spirit, who alone can enable men to see (I Cor. 2).
> 
> 3. The contention that Van Til's approach is akin to that of Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche (with respect to a hermenuetics of suspicion) is a red herring. The mere perspectivalism of these men (in which they reduce all reality to the economic, sexual, or power aspects and then absolutize those aspects and make them the lens through which they view everything) cannot compare to the multi-perspectivalism of a Van Tilian approach which seeks to hold all in balance. We know that the unbeliever knows the truth (externally and internally--Romans1 and 2) and that we have ontological common ground--we're both in God's image in God's world--but that in rebellion against Him whom they will not have to rule over them (no matters how many guards testify to the resurrection), they reject and refuse the truth they know. This is not a hermeneutics of suspicion based on an false worldview, but a biblical recognition of man's depraved condition. We are to engage with love, kindness, and humility: to tell the truth that the unbeliever knows but suppresses. This does create a crisis within them that the balm of the gospel cures. Yes, there will be cognitive dissonance but we are not being unfair with the unbeliever. Bill Edgar is a great example of one who is _sauviter in modo_ as well as _fortiter in re_. Yes, the Van Tilian approach has been badly used and abused by those who do not go about their task humbly. It may even invite such an approach, so we need to hear those who complain of such and redouble our efforts to speak the truth in love.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



Wonderfully put sir. I would only humbly add that traditionally a hermeneutic of suspicion has been used to avoid dealing with the substance of an argument. So a Marxist might refuse to deal with any evidences or arguments being used by me as just being “bourgeois”. We Vantillians can avoid this by working into our methods the latest developments by Vantillians beyond just Bahnsen and Frame, although they are good too. Also we need to mine recent work in Analytical philosophy that has worked out exactly how a transcendental argument is different from a direct/implication one (modus whatever, there are many) and how it logically functions. This will help us to bridge the gap in appearing a certain way and being a certain way. 

Also Rich has pointed out time and again that we need to understand the theological environment in which Van Til developed his thought, the archetypal/ectypal distinction (I am grateful to him for insisting on this point, it helped me get Van Til better than I did before). If we ground ourselves in the theological foundation that Van Til did, and I take this to be Rich’s intention in posting this thought before (if I have gotten you wrong Rich than please correct me), than we cannot be taken captive by any ungodly philosophy out there for we have a solid rock to stand on, our theology. 

As Professor Strange wonderfully pointed out that philosophy is to be brought into service of our theology. This could be either to do philosophy from a biblical perspective or to develop an apologetic that puts our theology first. I am a Vantillian first off because I believe it to be the most biblical approach out there but second because it is adaptable to any situation and philosophy. We can take any philosophy out there and transcendentally critique it to show that it is inconsistent with itself and reality; but also we can show from any scrap of creation why it “proves” Christianity, al be it the complexity of such a proof is beyond here. 

Finally I would like to say that our brothers and sisters in Christ who use a different method of apologetic from us are still “reformed” in their theology. I have always benefited from my interaction with those reformed brothers and sisters who disagree with me. I would rather stand shoulder to shoulder with someone who used a different method from me in defending the faith than to stand alone.


----------



## Loopie

I think that both Professor Strange and James have summed up the situation nicely. I truly do love and respect all of my brothers who use different apologetic methods. Even if we have long discussions on our differences, what matters is that we still all hold to the same faith. Certainly there have been misrepresentations on both sides, and we should always seek to avoid these things, while at the same time trying to understand what each side is trying to say. Professor Strange makes an excellent point when he says that Van Til simply wanted to be a consistent Calvinist. Though Van Til may not have articulated himself as clearly as we would like, or may have said a few things differently then we would have said them, I think it should be the goal of everyone to be consistently 'reformed'.


----------



## Apologist4Him

Unoriginalname said:


> I think this post sums up the central failure of Van Tillianism. It demands to be proven wrong when it never bothers to prove itself right.



God does not present positive arguments for His existence in Scripture. There is no burden of proof on God to prove Himself right, nor can there be, He is the proof and the standard by which we could even judge anything as “right”. In the same manner, Van Tillians begin with on the authority of the Trinity and end on the authority of the Trinity. 

If we start with the notion of proving oneself right, we also start with the burden of proof? Why should the burden of proof be on the Christian from the start? Do we give up our Theonomous authority to meet the autonomous authority on their ground?

We would have to assume that Van Tillians reject positive arguments to assume “it never bothers to prove itself right.” But that is certainly not the case! Dr. Van Til did not reject positive arguments, and although TAG is usually framed in “impossibility of the contrary” terms, it contains positive elements. TAG is proven right because the Christian worldview is the right starting point. The classical arguments are valid within the Christian worldview, and they can help strengthen the faith of a Christian, however outside of the Christian worldview, they do not prove what they intend to prove from the outset.



Unoriginalname said:


> If I am unconvinced of something it is not helpful to say that unless I can prove it wrong I have no reason to disagree. If I disagree your duty is to prove yourself right.



It takes at least two opposing views for a disagreement. Why is it one’s duty over the other? On what authority will the disagreement be settled?



Unoriginalname said:


> I have followed this thread for weeks and the only defense of van tillianism from scripture has in my opinion just been general proof texts on being ready. I have not seen in those texts a usage of a TAG or anything that resembles this counter intuitive way of arguing. If you are trying to prove that this apologetic is the correct one is your duty to prove it, not anyone else's job to disprove it.



The original aim of the thread was not to defend the Scripturalness of Van Tillianism, but to address an objection based on circular reasoning. Be that as it may, the Van Tillian apologetic is as theological as it is philosophical as it is Biblical. I have yet to find one non-Calvinist using the Van Tillian apologetic, and the primary reason is because it depends on Biblical Reformed theology. All other methods compromise the doctrine of total depravity, or do not take it into consideration, and the order of salvation. All other methods give man more credit than he deserves, and man deserves none, Soli Deo Gloria!


----------



## rbcbob

There is so much in this thread that is lacking in Christian grace that it would be impossible to address it all.


----------

