I still don’t see that these 2 approaches are multually exclusive. I love the fact that we are all born in God’s image, and yet the Bible has answers. I don’t see a problem here. If we are too scriptural we are probably going over heads, if we are not, what do we truly have to offer? God’s fingerprint is everywhere and if we go against his moral and natural laws nothing but misery and self destruction, and in the end without mercy and grace is physical and spiritual death. Why limit our approach?
A short quote from the debate:
"I hope my indirect responses address this belief, I hope when we are done you will conclude Calvinistic presuppositionalism is: “the basis, the foundation, as an apologetical framework for all other apologetic methods from reason, facts, experience, and faith.” (See Axioms and Science heading)"
Here is part of a quote from Van Til which I included into the context of the debate:
“Historical apologetics is absolutely necessary and indispensable to point out that Christ arose from the grave, etc. But as long as historical apologetics works on a supposedly neutral basis, it defeats its own purpose. For in that case it virtually grants the validity of the meta- physical assumptions of the unbeliever. So in this case a pragmatist may accept the resurrection of Christ as a fact without accepting the conclusion that Christ is the Son of God. And on his assumptions he is not illogical in doing so. On the contrary, if his basic metaphysical assumption to the effect that all reality is subject to chance is right, he is only consistent if he refuses to conclude from the fact of Christ’s resurrection that he is divine in the orthodox sense of the term. Now, though he is wrong in his metaphysical assumption, and though, rightly interpreted, the resurrection of Christ assuredly proves the divinity of Christ, we must attack the unbeliever in his philosophy of fact, as well as on the question of the actuality of the facts themselves. For on his own metaphysical assumptions, the resurrection of Christ would not prove his divinity at all."
To answer the question, I do not see Revelational Epistemology or a Calvinistic Presuppositionalism as limiting at all, rather the necessary preconditions of a Reformed worldview to justify (warrant) all other approaches.
