Just getting into presuppositionalism, could use some advice

[Me Died Blue]

I recently met with a PCA pastor here in Cincinnati that Fred referred me to. He gave me a couple of short books, one of which was [i:45d0d9f4ae]Every Thought Captive[/i:45d0d9f4ae] by Pratt, subtitled "A Study Manual for the Defense of Christian truth." Except for reading some mostly evidentialist work by McDowell and Strobel, in addition to a small booklet by Ravi Zacharias, I've never really studied apologetics that much. But since I'm getting ready to head off to college in less than a week, and I just received that book by Pratt, I definitely figure it's time. I'm planning to read Pratt's book pretty quickly. It's emphasized that while the book is heavily based on Van Til's thought, it is not specifically intended as a general exposition of his thought, but rather as a training manual.

I figure I could definitely really use that now, but I also could use some pointers as to what to look for, how to approach things, and some keys to understanding main points and different emphases as I go about studying presuppositional apologetics. What's the difference between Van Til and Clark? Where does Zacharias fit on this "spectrum"? After Pratt's book I'll probably pick up [i:45d0d9f4ae]Defense of the Christian Faith[/i:45d0d9f4ae]. Are there any good articles you would recommend online? But more than references, I'm basically looking for specific advice on how to approach this subject and what to keep in mind and expect.

Thanks for listening to my long, begging rant! :bs2:

 

[Me Died Blue]

After finishing Pratt's book, I plan to read Van Til's [i:70ab43d537]Defense of the Faith[/i:70ab43d537] and Bahnsen's [i:70ab43d537]Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis[/i:70ab43d537]. Are there any other "must have" books on the subject anyone would recommend?

 

[luvroftheWord]

The following books by John Frame:

[u:e9d11c46c5]Apologetics to the Glory of God[/u:e9d11c46c5]

[u:e9d11c46c5]The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God[/u:e9d11c46c5]

[u:e9d11c46c5]Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought[/u:e9d11c46c5]

And to a lesser extent, [u:e9d11c46c5]Five Views of Apologetics[/u:e9d11c46c5]. This book is not the best, but it might be helpful.

 

[JohnV]

Craig:

[quote:9eea6f51e3]And to a lesser extent, Five Views of Apologetics. This book is not the best, but it might be helpful.[/quote:9eea6f51e3]
Isn't that the book in which Dembski presents the evidentialist's position?

Chris:
I would recommend Schaeffer's little book, [u:9eea6f51e3]He is There and He is Not Silent[/u:9eea6f51e3]. [u:9eea6f51e3]The City of God[/u:9eea6f51e3] is an aboslute must read; but that is likely a course requirement anyways.

 

[SmokingFlax]

I would 2nd John V's recommendation of Schaeffer's [u:f2da0465ff]He is There and He is Not Silent[/u:f2da0465ff]. It's a very powerful little book that, in my estimation, dovetails nicely with Van Til and Bahnsen by pointing out the failure and inconsistency of unbelieving thought -even on it's own terms. I should read it again.

 

[SmokingFlax]

Oh yeah, Schaeffer's [u:6d518481d4]How Should We Then Live[/u:6d518481d4], though not necessarily a manual of presuppositionalism, is also very good for showing a general overview of secular thought and it's subsequent bankruptcy and hopelessness (since the Rennaisance). Good stuff!

But I think that it particularly resonated with me because of how he showed the flow of thought through the arts which I have a degree in so I found that really interesting -especially since I'd never heard such a perspective before.

 

[RamistThomist]

ALthough it is not an apologetics work per se (more along the lines of a cultural critique), I would suggest the book by Wilson and Jones, [i:16bf18395c]Angels in the Architecture[/i:16bf18395c]. It shows a beautiful, if not entirely accurate, view of the Middle Ages, positing it as a standard that we ought to embrace today. Among other things in teh book is its presentation of the antithesis between pagan (taking the form of modernity and postmodernism) and Christian thought, the effiminacy of modern political parties, and the desire for the "good life."

 

[Me Died Blue]

Thanks for your suggestions, everyone. Another question I have for people who have read both is which book would be better to start with: Van Til's [i:81122f61cc]Defense of the Faith[/i:81122f61cc] or Bahnsen's [i:81122f61cc]Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis[/i:81122f61cc]?

 

[Monergism]

[quote:2ec492c690="Me Died Blue"]Thanks for your suggestions, everyone. Another question I have for people who have read both is which book would be better to start with: Van Til's [i:2ec492c690]Defense of the Faith[/i:2ec492c690] or Bahnsen's [i:2ec492c690]Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis[/i:2ec492c690]?[/quote:2ec492c690]

Actually, I'd recommend you start with Bahnsen's "Always Ready"
http://www.cmfnow.com/product.asp?0=339&1=340&3=8821

 

[SmokingFlax]

I agree with Monergism ...[u:ef540c1a43]Always Ready [/u:ef540c1a43]is the simplest treatment of the pre-sup view and a pretty easy read. I think everyone should ponder the thoughts in this book.

[u:ef540c1a43]Defense of the Faith [/u:ef540c1a43]was my first book on or by Van Til but his style is kind of dense (or is that just me ???) and I needed to read some parts a few times over before I caught the drift of his compelling argument. Even so, I found myself getting exited many times during the reading of (it) because I came to see how Christianity can be defended in a supremely logical and smart way.

Finally!!! I didn't have to concede the intellectual world to the infidels. I had no idea of the intellectual world of Christianity (sad as that sounds).

This was HUGE for me because when I read it I was still immersed in the the fideistic and subjective stream of charismatic type belief. It might be the most important book I've read in that respect.

[u:ef540c1a43]Readings and Analysis[/u:ef540c1a43] I've just started to read. It's 733 pages long! That alone would prohibit it for a lot of people and I might be tentative in recommending it first because of its size.

 

[Bryan]

Ok, the I hear about presuppositionalism, the more I find I'm in agreement with it. I used to persent evidance to people thoughtout High School but that was a waste of time, and I relized that.

I really want to read a whole book on the subject instead of a few sites about it, so I'm curious is Van Till's short paper "Why I believe in God" along the lines of thereading level of his book "Defense of The Faith". I really liked that short paper and if his book and found his arguemnts quite easy to follow, so if his book isn't too much harder I think I will get it sooner rather then later.

Bryan
SDG