Greg
Puritan Board Sophomore
First off I want to say that I do not want this to become a heated debate thread. I'm fairly new to the study of presuppositional apologetics and thus far have read Bahnsen's "Always Ready" as well as have listened to a few of his lectures and have read a few posts here regarding presuppositionalism.
With that said, I have two questions concerning both Van Til's and Clark's approach to presuppositional apologetics:
1) How/where do they both agree with one another?
2) How/where do they differ?
Sorry if this has already been asked before.
With that said, I have two questions concerning both Van Til's and Clark's approach to presuppositional apologetics:
1) How/where do they both agree with one another?
2) How/where do they differ?
Sorry if this has already been asked before.