# A small annoyance with Van Til and analysts of Van Tillian t



## Ianterrell (May 18, 2004)

I really think I agree with Van Til's arguements for the presup-apologetic, but I am having a difficult time thinking practically about applying it. Could someone (preferably an adherant to the method) please create a brief sketch of how the Van Tillian apologetic works in contrast to a &quot;classical&quot;, or &quot;evidentialist&quot; approach?

I would really appreciate it.


----------



## Ianterrell (May 18, 2004)

Paul,

this is the type of &quot;application&quot; I was referring to, an actual practical example of the difference between the different disciplines. What book are you referring to? I've read Christian Apologetics by Van Til, I probably need to re-read the &quot;Why I believe in God&quot; pamphlet. I've also read a small number of essays by Bahnsen and Frame.

Guess I just haven't fully grasped the approach yet.


----------



## Ianterrell (May 18, 2004)

Thanks a lot Paul, I'll be sure to take you up on that offer!


----------



## panicbird (May 18, 2004)

Is there ever any uncertainty within the presuppositional system? Here is what I mean: though we are regenerate, we do not always reason as we ought (still fallen, after all); is there ever any worry that fallen reason has been applied to presuppositional thought? Van Til and Bahnsen are quick to dissect the irrational systems of others. It almost seems as if their method is above this reproach.

I guess my question boils down to: how do they deal with the fact that they are still fallen?

Lon


----------



## JohnV (May 18, 2004)

If I may, I would like to critique Paul's example. Not for the purposes of putting forth another apologetic methodlogy, because I don't like any exclusively clad apologetic unless it is strictly (exclusively) reasonable and true to the Word and the revelation of God in creation. I would rather think that we ought to work together within our particular persuasions, for the mutual benifit of our own understandings, but also because the truth is higher than any man-made methodology.

I think it will help a great deal to understand apologetics.


----------



## Ianterrell (May 18, 2004)

Lon,

I think that they might handle it the same as any man should, with humility. If we make a mistake we should admit it. Consequently, the Christian world-view as expressed through reformed theology is a consistent world-view, whereas the non-Christian world-view is inevitably inconsistent though they may have some sense of truth it is the exception not the rule. Particularly the athiest who has no grounds for believing in absolutes at all. He has no ground to establish any truth except by his own subjective reason. Christianity has objectivity in the form of Divine revelation as well as in the form of divine nature. We have a leg to stand on so to speak.


----------



## panicbird (May 18, 2004)

That is what I meant: the way we use reason is affected by the fall. Here is what I am trying to get at: how far do you take your confidence in the transcendental method? You will say that it is the biblical method, but I think non-presuppositionalists would say the same thing. It could be said that non-presuppositionalists are reading and interpreting Scripture with cultural (or philosophical or sinful or whateverful) blinders on; they cannot or will not see the truth of Scripture on the issue. However, could not the same thing be said about presuppositionalists? Who is to say that we are not reading and interpreting Scripture wrongly? I mean, learned and godly men (Warfield chief among them) were not presuppositionalists (strictly speaking).

I think that presuppositionalism is right; I just have these few, nagging questions about it.

Lon


----------



## JohnV (May 18, 2004)

[quote:3557cd5b0a]We should work together but until the other schools submit to the self-attesting authority of God's word this will never happen. We are still being charged with circular reasoning. [/quote:3557cd5b0a]
I agree; and I would add as well that Presuppositionalism, as you rightly suggest, ought to submit to the self-attesting revelation of God in creation. It is just as much perspicuous, though perspicuous about different things.

Thus I am in full agreement that other schools need to submit to the self-attesting authority of God's revelation of Himself. 

Let us hang up our generalized accusations, and get to work on truth.

I'll leave off my critique until this present discussion abates. No use getting two going at once.


----------



## JohnV (May 19, 2004)

I shall try to confine myself to your assertions, Paul. I also am not looking the the same old same old. We need to move on and get somewhere with our differences. I still have high hopes that we can overcome the relatively few things we differ over. I hope you are also of the opinon that I am as sincere in my convictions as I believe you are. The question about sincerity in faith is beyond doubt, I believe. So there has to some kind of mental block, or intellectual block, that either one of us, or maybe both of us, can not at this time get over. I respect your reasoning, and in that confidence I think we can do some pretty arresting things together. 

Lon and Ian have another train of thought going, and I don't want to cut into that right now. I think that they deserve thougthful answers first. There's no hurry.


----------

