# Presentation and doubt about pressupositionalism



## PlasticSoul (Jul 17, 2007)

Hia, brothers!!

Well...
Im a 24 years old man, brazilian, reformed christian, from a presbyterian church since 1998.
I found this forum when searching more about the mysterious Vincent Cheung.
I started studying apologetics in the site www.monergismo.com (portuguese), so i found articles by Bahnsen, Clark, Van Til, Frame, Sproul, Cheung, and others...
I started like a lot readings about debates and articles about the defense of faith.
I thought I had discovered the perfect apologetic method with scripturalism (Cheung/Clark), yet I ve great appreciation by Bahnsen / Van Til documents.
So I found puritanboard forums and I found a site called reformed.plus/aquascum, that has sincere and reasonable critics of the scripturalism, mainly regarding Cheung apologetic methods.
Here in Brasil there are some people thinking Cheung/Clark are perfect for debates, sorry but i m not sure about this, i need study more about this and present these people the articles pointing a few errors in sripturalism epistemology.
I found the blog called Triablogue, I ve read some writings by Paul Manata and Steve Hays, and I love it too!!!
Now im a bit confused, trying to discover a better way to refute skeptics, atheists and agnostics.
I sent a mail to Aquascum, but for some reason, he didnt answer me back.
Im thinking in translate the "Aquascum papers" to portuguese, but i dont know if is it legal, do i need permission for this?
And a last question: if scripturalism is not the best apologetic method, what is it? Im open minded to learn more about apologetics and i could be glad if somebody have the time to teach me a better way to find a better apologetic/epistemology.
Sorry by my english, i never did a course, u can correct me any time, i dont care, no problem, my beloved brothers.
Thanks by your attention.
Solie Deo Gloria.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 17, 2007)

Welcome to the Puritan Board, brother!  Keep reading Paul Manata's writings -- he's good!


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 17, 2007)

Welcome brother,

I understand from where you are coming. This was (is!) a real debate for me. I hold to Van Til/Bahnsen/Frame's apologetic, but I appreciate a lot of what Gordon Clark says. In fact, one of my dearest heroes--Carl F. H. Henry--was a follower of Gordon Clark.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jul 18, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> Welcome brother,
> 
> I understand from where you are coming. This was (is!) a real debate for me. I hold to Van Til/Bahnsen/Frame's apologetic, but I appreciate a lot of what Gordon Clark says. In fact, one of my dearest heroes--Carl F. H. Henry--was a follower of Gordon Clark.



I was just thinking about this tonight on the way home from work. I think your (former) roommate made a comment along the lines that a Clarkian appologetics tends to appeal to/lead to one being a reformed baptist while Van Til appeals to/leads to one being a Presbyterian.

The more I think about it, the more it rings true.

CT


----------



## Civbert (Jul 18, 2007)

Stick to Scripturalism! 

I take issue with much of Aquascum's attack on Scripturalism - not the least of which is he has constructed a straw-man. Also, he offers no viable alternative. The more vociferous anti-Scripturalists (anti-Clarkians) also tend not to understand fundamental points of Scripturalism - and are so amorous of Van Til that they can not countenance any flaws in his views. I've read many positive points in Van Til's works, buy he has made some big mistakes also (that the Scriptures are full of paradoxes the we must embaces with a passion, that the Trinity is one person and three persons, that all knowledge of God is anological).

Read John Frame for a more balanced view of Van Til.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 18, 2007)

This is from Aquascum:



> "Gentlemen,
> 
> Aquascum gives permission for PlasticSoul to translate the Aquascum
> papers into Portugese.
> ...


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 18, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> I was just thinking about this tonight on the way home from work. I think your (former) roommate made a comment along the lines that a Clarkian appologetics tends to appeal to/lead to one being a reformed baptist while Van Til appeals to/leads to one being a Presbyterian.
> 
> The more I think about it, the more it rings true.
> 
> CT



I've heard this too, but in our reformed Baptist congregation, the majority of people read and like Van Til while a very small minority (about three of us) read and like Clark. Only the "Clarkians" among us have read both.

I think you have to take both with the proverbial grain of salt and apply that traditional Puritan notion of "avoiding the ditches" on either side. Both have done me a lot of good (Clark can sound like Machen and even Dabney sometimes, when dealing with current culture). Neither has done as much good for my learning as Calvin or Augustine.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jul 18, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> I've heard this too, but in our reformed Baptist congregation, the majority of people read and like Van Til while a very small minority (about three of us) read and like Clark. Only the "Clarkians" among us have read both.
> 
> I think you have to take both with the proverbial grain of salt and apply that traditional Puritan notion of "avoiding the ditches" on either side. Both have done me a lot of good (Clark can sound like Machen and even Dabney sometimes, when dealing with current culture). Neither has done as much good for my learning as Calvin or Augustine.



My core point is that one's viewpoint will determine "what is a ditch" to be avoided.

CT


----------



## Brian Bosse (Jul 18, 2007)

Hello Anthony,



> I take issue with much of Aquascum's attack on Scripturalism - not the least of which is he has constructed a straw-man.



I know not Aquascum's critique, but I don't think you have been able to overcome my objections to Scripturalism. Is this something you are going to pick back up? 

Brian


----------



## Civbert (Jul 18, 2007)

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Anthony,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've be delinquent, I know. I believe I've answered your objections, but I have not convinced you of that yet.


----------



## Brian Bosse (Jul 18, 2007)

Anthony,



> I believe I've answered your objections, but I have not convinced you of that yet.



Well, I _presuppose_ that my objection is sound. So, good luck convincing me.


----------



## PlasticSoul (Jul 20, 2007)

Thanks for the replies, brothers! Much appreciated!
I ll keep studying christian filosophy! []


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 20, 2007)

PlasticSoul said:


> Thanks for the replies, brothers! Much appreciated!
> I ll keep studying christian filosophy! []



Blessings in all of your endeavors!


----------

