Distinctly Reformed Approach to Classical Apologetics

[WillofGod]

I grew up learning apologetics from more popular-level guys like Frank Turek and Cliffe Knechtle, and after being convinced of the truth of Reformed theology in recent years, I've became increasingly uncomfortable with their methodologies. When doing apologetics this way, I hated feeling as though I was having to "put my faith on the shelf" while guaging the evidence/argumentation for Christianity, and I never liked WLC's "this is the most probable explanation" way of speaking about his defense of the faith. As expected, all of the usual presup talking points have become very convincing to me. I understand that many on this board hold to a more classical approach in keeping with historic reformed orthodoxy, so my question is: Is there a way of doing classical apologetics in a distinctly reformed way that gets around many of the charges raised by presuppositionalists?

 

[83r17h]

It may be worth checking out Hodge's discussion of Scripture in The Way of Life. It seems hard to say that he is putting is faith to the side, or using some kind of "neutral starting point."

You can find it here: https://archive.org/details/wayoflife00hodg/page/8/mode/2up

 

[Ploutos]

I grew up learning apologetics from more popular-level guys like Frank Turek and Cliffe Knechtle, and after being convinced of the truth of Reformed theology in recent years, I've became increasingly uncomfortable with their methodologies. When doing apologetics this way, I hated feeling as though I was having to "put my faith on the shelf" while guaging the evidence/argumentation for Christianity, and I never liked WLC's "this is the most probable explanation" way of speaking about his defense of the faith. As expected, all of the usual presup talking points have become very convincing to me. I understand that many on this board hold to a more classical approach in keeping with historic reformed orthodoxy, so my question is: Is there a way of doing classical apologetics in a distinctly reformed way that gets around many of the charges raised by presuppositionalists?

Sproul offers a popular alternative to presuppositional apologetics in the Reformed world. I personally did not much care for his Classical Apologetics, but you may find it a worthwhile read.

Incidentally, you will find a variety of opinions here on the board. Many take issue not with presuppositionalism in general, but with Van Til's specific approach, or with the way it has been interpreted and applied by others. There are many many threads about apologetical methods on here, and frankly some of them are tedious and exhausting, but others are quite insightful. You might also check out the blog of Keith Mathison, who is a college professor and a very thoughtful and insightful critic of Van Til. He has spent a lot of time engaging with some of Van Til's most ardent defenders.

Last thought: I don't know if this would technically be considered an apologetics book, but I second all those on the board who recommend Greg Koukl's book "Tactics". I recently read it for the first time, and it really is as good as they say it is.

 

[RamistThomist]

Read what the Reformed scholastics say about prolegomena and the doctrine of God. I’ll post more later

 

[RamistThomist]

The Reformed Orthodox all held to classical categories. While they weren't unanimous on what they meant by "being" and "causation," it isn't hard to see from where they got it. If you read through Richard Muller, you can start to connect the dots.

Despite himself, Van Til did say some classical-ish things. See his remarks on subordination. He mightily rebuts the heresy of ESS. Try to find the actual quote. I couldn't say it better myself. Once you remove his claim that the Trinity One Person and Three Persons, he's pretty good on the doctrine of God. Good luck figuring out what concrete universal means, though.

I've gotten to the point where I don't care if someone says I am putting the bible on the shelf when doing apologetics. I don't think I am and I leave it at that.