A Presuppositional Systematic Theology?

[RamistThomist]

I know that Van Til did write some on systematic theology, but is there a full-orbed systematic from a Van Tillian perspective? Is there one that answers contrary arguments by reasoning transcendentally? I know that transcendentals dealmore with knowledge claims than with Arminianism, but I am curious on this one. I have been reading Berkof and the little that I have read of him I see that he answered the prevailing evolutionary claims by pointing out their unproven assumptions.

Would it be possible, if not already done, for a systematics to come out from a presuppositional perspective?

PS: I bet if John Frame did it he would be the "Augustine of the 21st century."

 

[Puritan Sailor]

It's not necessary to write a "presuppositional" ST. ST is based upon extracting doctrine from Scripture and putting it into a system. Any Reformed ST is already "presuppositional" because it's based on Sola Scriptura as it's parameters. If you want a greater focus on apologetics, that's one thing, but ST is used to explain what doctrines the Scriptures teach primarily to build up the faith of believers, not how to defend the faith from an atheist who could care less what the Scriptures say. Two cents...

 

[RamistThomist]

That's similar to my thoughts. I guess I was wondering if one could apply transcendental reasoning to theology in a systematic fashion. I got enough to think about at the moment, anyway

 

[RickyReformed]

Morton Smith, a VT presuppositionalist, has a systematic theology. I've never read it, but I'm pretty sure his focus is not apologetics. Vincent Cheung, on the other hand, has a systematic theology with a focus on apologetics. It tends to be more of a general outline of Christian theology (it's only 208 pgs.) It's available for free on his website.

Ricky

 

[openairboy]

[quote:c268ccaa80="Finn McCool"]I know that Van Til did write some on systematic theology, but is there a full-orbed systematic from a Van Tillian perspective? Is there one that answers contrary arguments by reasoning transcendentally? I know that transcendentals dealmore with knowledge claims than with Arminianism, but I am curious on this one. I have been reading Berkof and the little that I have read of him I see that he answered the prevailing evolutionary claims by pointing out their unproven assumptions.

Would it be possible, if not already done, for a systematics to come out from a presuppositional perspective?

PS: I bet if John Frame did it he would be the "Augustine of the 21st century." [/quote:c268ccaa80]

Yea, one of Van Til (and Bahnsen's points) is to apply our approach in systematic theology--beginning with the Scriptures--to our apologetic. Part of the critique of traditional apologetics is that it begins without the Scriptures, but expects someone to end up there.

Frame is definitely the closest, consider "The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God" and "The Doctrine of God". Both of these are explicitly Christian, but interact well apologetically. In the long run I believe that Frame will be considered one of the greatest minds of our generation and his works, assuming he continues to build on his foundation, will be standard reading for a long time. The more time I spend with the man (his writings) I find him to be an absolute genius, gracious, charitable, and thoroughly reformed. He is truly example to everyone on how to do theology.

openairboy

 

[Me Died Blue]

I don't want to be a kill-joy, especially in this thread since I very much appreciate presuppositional thought and its relation to theology, but I must respond to what has been said in this thread about John Frame. To keep the original intent of this thread from being shifted, however, I have done so in a new thread which can be found here.

 

[RamistThomist]

Killjoy! Just kidding. The only frame I have read is Apologetics to the Glory of God. He did explain somethings fairly well but his creativity got the best of him at times. Also, his footnotes were more exciting than some of the book!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Patrick comments above really make mine superfluous.

I think presuppositionalism (ppm) would constitute more of an attitude brought by the systematic theologian (STn) to his task, rather than a "way" of doing systematics. As someone said above, critiquing certain alternative positions might be a way of implementing ppm. But as far as doing systematics, once we get past prolegomena and the doctrine of Scripture, the [i:033b6ed49b]Christian[/i:033b6ed49b] STn is already restricted to sola Scriptura for gathering and analyzing his data.

Van Til contributes to Systematics two ways:

1) His [i:033b6ed49b]Intro. to Systematic Theology[/i:033b6ed49b]. It is all about the mindset need by the STn to do his job, and the self-attesting Scriptures, which are prolegomena's subject. Apologetics precedes ST [i:033b6ed49b]at every point[/i:033b6ed49b] in its presentation.

2) His articles critiquing other Reformed and non-reformed theologians and their writings. Here he exposes, in various places and ways, how ostensibly Christian writers fail to use a methodolgy that is [i:033b6ed49b]thoroughly[/i:033b6ed49b] Christian and biblical. For example he critiques his former student E. J. Carnell's Systematic Theology.

Van Til would probably (I am only guessing!) recommend (with appropriate criticisms!) Berkhof, Dabney, Hodge, for older ST's, and M. Smith, Reymond, and Frame's ST work for modern ST. But he would probably ask, "Why don't you just read Calvin's Institutes?"

 

[openairboy]

[quote:48a66de746="Contra_Mundum"]
Van Til would probably (I am only guessing!) recommend (with appropriate criticisms!) Berkhof, Dabney, Hodge, for older ST's, and M. Smith, Reymond, and Frame's ST work for modern ST. But he would probably ask, "Why don't you just read Calvin's Institutes?"[/quote:48a66de746]

I unfortunately can't remember where I read it, but read Bavinck if you want Van Til's theology. I will try to remember where I read it, but the article, chapter, or whatever it was really pointed to Bavinck.

openairboy

 

[RamistThomist]

Do the majority of Dutch theologians from the nineteenth century onward hold to a proto-presuppositional approach to theology (Kuyper, Van Til, possibly Bavinck)?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

[quote:99433de88d="openairboy"][quote:99433de88d="Contra_Mundum"]
Van Til would probably (I am only guessing!) recommend (with appropriate criticisms!) Berkhof, Dabney, Hodge, for older ST's, and M. Smith, Reymond, and Frame's ST work for modern ST. But he would probably ask, "Why don't you just read Calvin's Institutes?"[/quote:99433de88d]

I unfortunately can't remember where I read it, but read Bavinck if you want Van Til's theology. I will try to remember where I read it, but the article, chapter, or whatever it was really pointed to Bavinck.

openairboy[/quote:99433de88d]
Van Til being Dutch, this would not surprise me. However Bavinck has only been available to English readers in bits and pieces in the 80+ years since his death. His full four-volume Dogmatic (Systematic) Theology [i:99433de88d]may[/i:99433de88d] finally be available in English now (or rather, beginning its sequenced publishing run) here in the early 21st century. Check with Dr. Beeke, the Puritan Reformed Theo. Sem., or the Dutch Reformed Translation Society.