My friend Jim over at The Domain for Truth has provided a series of excellent links that answer objections to Presuppositionalism. These are articles / blogs that answer objections given by Paul Copan at The Gospel Coalition website.
Go HERE for his links post.
If I were to drive in a 6 inch nail it would take me a few blows to do it. Trying to get Presuppositional Apologetics into my brain is very similar and when a concept gets driven home – by many blows – it seems like a good idea to post on it to test my own understanding. This way I have to try to explain it simply to myself and you the reader.
I’ve been listening to Greg Bahnsen (many times) and have recently started reading his ‘Always Ready’ book (Kindle) on defending the faith. So here’s my initial attempt an explanation of how the method used is consistent with the conclusion to be reached. Suppose I seek to prove to you the Lordship of Jesus – because He is Lord. I presuppose His Lordship in order to reach my conclusion – Jesus is Lord. This is sometimes called ‘Begging the Question’ (or petitio principii, “assuming the initial point”). But suppose someone else comes along and seeks to prove there is no such thing as the Christian God. Are they not also ‘Begging the Question’? What is this person to assume at the start of his investigation – there is no such thing as the Christian God. The conclusion – no Christian God. But the Atheist might well then retreat into a ‘neutral’ position and assume Agnosticism. But this is just to try to slide into a place that in the end confesses no more than ignorance – though it would be ‘sold’ as being really smart.
The arch Atheist Richard Dawkins pours scorn on the Christian and yet says he does not know (6.9). Never mind begging the question this is called ‘trying to have your cake and eat it’. Is someone, anyone, going to tell me Richard Dawkins does not already assume what he’s trying to prove – that is, the Christian God is a figment of our imagination. And if it (the Bible) might just be true ( even 0.1 of 7.00) then why go to the trouble of name-calling Christians at almost every opportunity. (I have a theory about why but I’ll share it in another post.)
Choosing Hats — Biblical Apologetics to the Glory of God.
Just flagging up this Apologetics website for people to check out. Follow the link above for more info and articles.
Presuppositionalism Link: Lord of Non-Contradictions and argument for God « The Domain for Truth.
Thanks to Jim at The Domain for Truth.
I’ve been in regular kind of philosophical discussions with a Philosophy & Religious Studies (PRS) teacher. I like him and we get on well. He’s a bright guy with a degree in Philosophy & Logic and is way smarter than I am. Recently he asked about incest and where did Adam & Eves children come from. I sent him a couple of (brief) articles from the CARM website about incest and the children of Adam & Eve that I thought would answer his questions.
After a couple of weeks his reply came back and what I read really surprised me – it shouldn’t have, but it did. I had to re-learn or be reminded of something so easily forgotten by Christians. He asked where the children had come from and it made me wonder if he did, in fact read the articles I sent him. His reply made me realise that even if he had read them and was merely pulling my leg he just would not see it. More than that, he does not want to see it.
Whatever our apologetic methodology, in the end it’s a work of grace that’s needed. I’m convinced it’s right to set out our case, after all God has given us minds that He intends us to use. The work of Salvation does not normally by-pass the intellect though in some cases I’m sure God in His grace does do that. But it challenged me – I might discuss, send articles, link to sermons, point to Christian philosophers and more and yet not really pray for him. Do I bring this man to the throne of Grace. Do I cry out to God – at all – for him that God might open his eyes, that he might see Christ in all His glory and grace and be saved.
The darkness that this man is in – and maybe you are in as well – is a damnable darkness. Unless the light of the glory of God in the face of Christ shines upon unbelievers they – and you – will remain in darkness – and that for all eternity. It’s no accident that Jesus is the light of the world, that unless faith and trust is firmly placed in Christ the only Saviour for sinners then the darkness will remain.
Jesus said “I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness (John 12:46).
Ok, so my hope was to understand something – no matter how small – of this seminal work by Van Til. At the time of writing this post I have reached page 53 covering an extremely helpful introduction to the book by Scott Oliphint, Van Til’s preface and introduction and his section on Christian theology. I’ve also read the section on ‘The Christian Philosophy of Reality’ and have just started the next section on ‘The Christian Philosophy of Knowledge’.
My concern is this: have I bitten off more than I can chew? Do I actually have the ability to comprehend what is read? With no training in philosophy or theology a great deal of what has been read has the ‘whoosh factor’ as it goes flying over my head. There’s little point in trying to comment on his introduction as it sets the philosophical context for a series of academic objections to his apologetic. The footnotes are vital here but the bulk of it is beyond me – a second reading may provide some clarity. [What’s interesting though is the comment on ‘knowing’ a flower (p. 16ff). I’ve heard this before as a criticism of Van Til , but if I have understood it aright, it’s the criticism that is attributed to him and not what he actually wished to communicate – this will, I trust, become clearer.] Having confessed that, over the years my reading of sound Christian literature and listening to sound theology and especially through reading and studying the Scriptures I find myself in complete agreement with Van Til’s brief section on Christian Theology. I see this theologically as a safe place to be. When venturing out into unfamiliar territory it’s important to have a framework or a strong tower to which one can retreat or regroup. The foundations that Van Til lays out forms such a framework. My counsel to any new Christian is get these foundations in place as quickly as possible. One of the best places to get these is the 2 Volume Study Guide to the Westminster Shorter Catechism by G I Williamson.
The theological headings (foundations) covered are: 1) The Doctrine of God, 2) The Doctrine of Man, 3) The Doctrine of Christ, 4) The Doctrine of Salvation, 5) The Doctrine of the Church, and finally 6) The Doctrine of the Last Things.
It’s important – I believe – to be honest about my reading as a lay person. I’m not a specialist but an ordinary believer wishing to understand Van Til in order to effectively defend the faith. That’s my little caveat.
Onto A Christian Philosophy of Reality. Again, much of this is over my head despite the notes by SO (Scott Oliphint) until reaching ps. 52 & 53 under heading 3. ‘Sin and Its Curse’ whereupon I read the following:
‘When men ask us, What is, according to your notion, the nature of reality or being?, we shall have to say that we cannot give an answer unless we are permitted to split the question. For us God’s being is ultimate, while created being is, in the nature of the case, derivative.
Again, if we are asked, What do you think of the relation of the eternal to the temporal?, we reply that the eternal for us does not exist as a principle but as a person, and that as an absolute person. Accordingly, we do not use the eternal as a correlative to the temporal; we use he notion of the eternal God as the personal creator of the temporal universe.’
We are brought here face to face with practical implications (in part) of God existing as a Triune person in complete blessedness. He is totally other than we are as His creatures, He has no need of us, at all. Yet, out of His love and free grace He has chosen to redeem a people for His glory, sending His own blessed and glorious Son to shed His precious blood to pay the price of redemption. With that I’ll end. More to follow in due course.
As previously explained, my aim is to understand PA, try to explain it to others and then apply it – probably in that order. Any helps to do this then are welcome. Here’s a few book recommendations, a couple of booklets, some articles and a link to some quite extensive lecture notes. BTW The ‘Two Circles’ graphic is taken from The Confessional Outhouse and is how Van Til expressed the Creator / Creature distinction. Notice the two circles do not touch because God is totally other than we are. The initiative therefore is all of God.
Four book recommendations are: Every Thought Captive by Richard Pratt, The Battle is the Lord’s by Scott Oliphint, a biography, Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman by John R. Muether and The Defence of the Faith by Cornelius Van Til edited by K. Scott Oliphint (Just started reading it)
Two booklets to read – both by Van Til – are: Why I Believe in God and Paul at Athens. I’m also waiting for a copy of The Intellectual Challenge of the Gospel (recommended by Jim) also by Van Til and may be ordered from Covenant Media Foundation ($4.96 + $5.00 international shipping). There are also many free resources available at CMF. This e-book available through CMF may also prove helpful: Faith with Reason: Why Christianity is True by Joseph R. Farinaccio. Download HERE.
The following on-line Articles are helpful: Let God Be True: A Brief Defense of the Christian Faith by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr; Presuppositional Apologetics by John M. Frame; two others by John Frame, PRESUPPOSITIONAL APOLOGETICS: AN INTRODUCTION Part 1 of 2: Introduction and Creation & PRESUPPOSITIONAL APOLOGETICS: AN INTRODUCTION
Part 2 of 2: Fall and Redemption; and Summary and Conclusion. I realise links change but these articles are all still available.
Follow Erik Wait’s Introduction to Van Tillian Apologetics for extensive notes taken during lectures given by Greg Bahnsen (and be sure to read his caveat). Thanks to Slim Jim for the link.
I have been putting these links together for a few weeks now and I don’t have to tell you that there are probably thousands of articles and links to do with Presuppositional Apologetics but these are the ones I have read, am reading or will be reading. More posts to follow on this topic.
Now all I have to do is try to explain it to someone else without sounding like a complete idiot.
At last, a long-awaited copy of ‘The Defence of the Faith’ by Cornelius Van Til dropped through my letterbox today. The edition that seemed to be most helpful is the volume edited by K. Scott Oliphint. This will be my Christmas reading, so I’m probably going to be really boring. It will most likely be a case of ‘listen to this’ and then I’ll realise as I try to explain it to my long-suffering wife that I haven’t understood it at all and will require many further readings. Well, at least I’ve made a start.
I am persuaded my experience will be similar to the editor of this edition when he writes on page xii ‘… the book arrived. I devoured it, but only understood a fraction of what I read.’ If only I could have such high hopes! To understand a fraction of what I read. It’s encouraging though and with the help of the extensive notes I will understand at least a fraction.
Again to quote from professor Oliphint’s introduction, ‘Once Van Til’s thought is grasped, the implications for the work of the church are most profound.’ Even my limited understand finds agreement with this. And so, I will begin to read and slowly understand. This method I believe inevitably leads to ALL the Glory being given to God – I’m sure Van Til would wish it to be so.
The first aspect of ‘Reformed Apologetics’ that I’ll try and understand (explain) is the pretended or supposed neutrality of the unbeliever. I need to make it clear that I’m only just entering the world of Van Til, as such I’m very much on the periphery, learning to walk as it were.
If in our conversations with the unbeliever we allow them a neutrality toward the things of God, indeed toward God Himself, we do God a great dis-service (to put it mildly) and, actually of little help to the unbeliever. In his little booklet ‘Why I Believe in God’ Van Til compares his own upbringing in a Christian home to what we might call – at least to some extent – an educated unbelieving home. I’ve at last entered the world of un-diluted Van Til (pretty scary!). So in the context of our topic here’s a couple of quotes from ‘Why I Believe in God’.
“Shall we say then that in my early life I was conditioned to believe in God, while you were left free to develop your own judgment as you pleased? But that will hardly do. You know as well as I that every child is conditioned by its environment. You were as thoroughly conditioned not to believe in God as I was to believe in God. …. If you want to say that belief was poured down my throat, I shall retort by saying that unbelief was poured down your throat. ….”
He continues:
“How different your early schooling was! You went to a “neutral” school. As your parents had done at home, so your teachers now did at school. They taught you to be “open-minded.” God was not brought into connection with your study of nature or history. You were trained without bias all along the line.”
I’ve met these people, maybe you’re one them, that like to make a show of their open-minded worldview, of how neutral they are. Common sense tells us and them that such is not really the case. How then is the Reformed Apologetic any different from this quite obvious fact? Now that’s a good question. Maybe it’s no different at all. The answer is to be found in the way some approach (I know I have) the unbeliever and try to slug it out on neutral ground. The verse used for this could be 1 Cor 9:20-22 ‘To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. … I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.’ Used this way, it seems to me now, is clear mis-use of the Biblical text. It must be so, and you’ll see why.
But, as soon as I step onto this pretended neutral space I have already given to the unbeliever the autonomy he already claims – indeed craves. In one sense, in a very real sense, the battle is at this point already lost to the unbeliever. We need to avoid aggression in our demeanor but intellectually as a direct clash of worldviews this is going to be quite difficult. Clearly, this is more than just having an argument and we ought to pray for Holy Spirit help in presenting Christ in all His confrontational glory.
This is where I’m at so far with this point. Obviously there’s much more to it than that – but I have to start somewhere. Remember I’m learning to walk.
Jim (see previous post comment) recommended ‘The Intellectual Challenge of the Gospel’ and if I manage to find it online I’ll link to it. I did find ‘Van Til’s Challenge to Illegitimate Common Ground’ by Dr. Greg Bahnsen. Iv’e not read this yet but it looks to be helpful (find it HERE). Bahnsen does explain neutrality with more detail in the ‘Westminster Professors’ lectures.
One of the objectives – for me – is to try to explain it in such a way that helps me realise whether I have actually grasped it or not. I would also like to explain it to others that might be struggling to get to grips with Van Til & PA.
This second post was meant to see if I understand some of the basics of Presuppositional Apologetics, but that will now have to be for another post. I know some would balk at the name and prefer Covenantal, but I guess it’s really what it has come to be known as, so for now I’m sticking with it. However, from what I can tell so far, Van Til would prefer to call it ‘Reformed Apologetics’. So, maybe, that’s what I’ll call it in the blog posts – but I’ll stick with PA in the post title. BTW, I’m not sure how accurate the Wikipedia links are – so surf with discernment!
An excellent series of lectures can be found via iTunes from Westminster Theological Seminary. The series title is ‘Westminster Professors‘ and is well worth a listen with a lecture by Van Til and also includes lectures by Greg Bahnsen and Scott Oliphint.
Two other recommendations by Geoff Thomas are, both by Van Til, ‘Paul at Athens’ & ‘Why I Believe in God’. The second of these may be found here. Geoff assures me these will serve as a good introduction to his thought. According to the biography by the time of writing these booklets – even before – Van Til was settled in his apologetic and never changed. I’ve read ‘Why I Believe in God’ and I can see how this will be helpful – further readings however are required! I’ll provide some quotes from this in further posts.