There is a thread about "What approach are you?"....I voted Classical.....but I have a question....I voted as I did due the fact that some early Sproul stuff really influenced me....but if I am not mistaken do not not Sproul and Geisler incorporate some Presuppositinal elements in their writings? I am sorry if this is a REALLY dumb question...and maybe some of the PB "wise" will help me better define my terms. Love some feedback on this I have been thinking about it from the time the other thread came up. Grace and Peace.
About Sproul and Geisler.......
- Thread starter etexas
- Start date
- Status
I DID warn it was a dumb question! I think I refered to Sproul due to a lot of what he read and was expossed to, even if he would be viewed as Classical in stance, from his early years...few would deny that some presuppositional writers and apologist had some influence on him. But your point about "who is really a Purist" is a good point.....and well taken.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
The Bahnsen/Sproul Debate Over Apologetic Method - ASM5-CD
Geisler has (very poorly) argued against presuppositionalism. Sproul's arguments are interesting and slightly better. Sproul wrote a book, Amazon.com: Classical Apologetics: Books: Dr. R.C. Sproul,John H. Gerstner,Mr. Arthur W. Lindsley, against presuppositional apologetics.
Geisler has (very poorly) argued against presuppositionalism. Sproul's arguments are interesting and slightly better. Sproul wrote a book, Amazon.com: Classical Apologetics: Books: Dr. R.C. Sproul,John H. Gerstner,Mr. Arthur W. Lindsley, against presuppositional apologetics.
Thank you. I was wondering if as Dennis pointed out, if you find that Sprout despite his "official" stance, isnot always totally consitent in regard to his approach to aologetics, in that it "feels" at least, from time to time, that there are some presupp. undercurrents from time to time?
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Sproul's apologetic is basically in sync with his mentor at Pittsburg, John Gerstner. They both emphasize classical apologetics and the role of reason in their writings. The book Spear Dane references (Classical Apologetics) is the best accessible introduction to Gerstner/Sproul's attack on presuppositional apologetics.
I did not mean to say that Sproul is anything but a classical apologist, merely that anyone will find elements of the other types in most apologetic writers. For example, the Creation Museum folks are strongly presuppositional in their approach. They even sit around reading Bahnsen in their spare time (Dr. Georgia Purdom, PhD biology, was telling my family how much the entire staff there is "into" Bahnsen's apologetic). Yet, if you travel through the museum, while the major thrust is on worldview differences and presuppositionalism, you will still find creationist exhibits featuring "evidence" for creation rather than evolution. Despite our basic "type," don't most of us include elements and arguments from the other systems???
See Spear Dane's wonderful summary of the various apologetic types in his post today on the "What View are You?" thread (Tom the classicist, Joe the evidentialist, Cal the presuppositionalist, Martin the fideist, and Alvin the Reformed epistemologist).
I did not mean to say that Sproul is anything but a classical apologist, merely that anyone will find elements of the other types in most apologetic writers. For example, the Creation Museum folks are strongly presuppositional in their approach. They even sit around reading Bahnsen in their spare time (Dr. Georgia Purdom, PhD biology, was telling my family how much the entire staff there is "into" Bahnsen's apologetic). Yet, if you travel through the museum, while the major thrust is on worldview differences and presuppositionalism, you will still find creationist exhibits featuring "evidence" for creation rather than evolution. Despite our basic "type," don't most of us include elements and arguments from the other systems???
See Spear Dane's wonderful summary of the various apologetic types in his post today on the "What View are You?" thread (Tom the classicist, Joe the evidentialist, Cal the presuppositionalist, Martin the fideist, and Alvin the Reformed epistemologist).
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
Bahnsen and Van Til both advocated the use of evidence. They taught that all things were evidence for God. They affirmed value in arguing for the historicity of the resurrection and the like. What they challenged was the claim that one could be autonomous in evaluating the evidence. Presuppositions affect what we consider to be evidence, how much weight we give it, and the like. One the best series on this topic is by Bahnsen himself: The Place of Evidence in Apologetics. Bahnsen said he did not spend a lot of time on those issues, because a lot of people were already doing it and he was more interested in the foundational presuppositions. Still, you hear evidences interspersed in some of his talks, such as those on evolution, the age of the earth, and the like.
I have read, Christian Apologetics, by Geisler. He says that Van Til is a fideist. Geisler advocates using two tests when evaluating worldviews- unaffirmability and undeniability. Unaffirmability is used as a test for falsity. If it is impossible to affirm something, then it is false. For example, self-refuting statements are unaffirmable. All worldviews except for Christianity are unaffirmable. Undeniability is used as a test for truth. Christianity is the only worldview that is undeniable.
Sebastian Heck
Puritan Board Freshman
Of course, from the perspective of a Thomist, a Reformed apologist will always be a fideist.
They are lacking the categories for "presuppositional" thinkinga dn also the basic hermeneutic (role of Scripture) behing Reformed apologetics.- Status
Similar threads
