terry72
Puritan Board Freshman
I have for a week now been learning about the presuppositional apologetics of Greg Bahnsen, and I have also listen to several lectures by Van Til. I believe that i now have a good understanding of the preuppositional method and find that I have been a presuppositionalist all along, I just did not have the ability to frame my arguments in as precise as I should.
In light of what i have learned, I have a question for those that disagree with the presuppositional approach.
The question is this.
Why are there two differant approaches to preaching and apologetics? Or, in other words, why do we consider it important to use a presuppositional appraoch to our preaching, (i.e. begin with the word of God as our absolute self atesting standard), but when it comes to apologetics, the defense of the faith, we regard this as circular reasoning and invalid?
Looking forward to the answers to this question.
Blessings,
Terry
In light of what i have learned, I have a question for those that disagree with the presuppositional approach.
The question is this.
Why are there two differant approaches to preaching and apologetics? Or, in other words, why do we consider it important to use a presuppositional appraoch to our preaching, (i.e. begin with the word of God as our absolute self atesting standard), but when it comes to apologetics, the defense of the faith, we regard this as circular reasoning and invalid?
Looking forward to the answers to this question.
Blessings,
Terry