Presuppositionalism (Van Til and Clark)

[Ryan Dozier]

I will be posting an article concerning the differences between Dr. Cornelius Van Till and Dr. Gordon Clark on apologetical methodology.

I am a Van Clarkian (or Clark Tillian) in other words, I like what they both have contibuted to apologetics. But I must say both methodologies are mutually exclusive so if one holds to Van Till's views he excludes Clark's for they contradict each other.

However, if you are doing apologetics remember the Bible is our guide to truth, so we must look to the Scriptures to see if what these men say are true.

[Paul A. Kaiser]

There you go making my head hurt again!

I look forward to your article....

[Calvins_Kid]

Just a note on "Presuppositional" Apologetics:

Often after watching/listening to an encounter in which I was the witness or "cameraguy" I come across things that I didn't see during the actual event.

Also, it seems to me that their objections stay much the same (in the short time I have been witnessing) and the presentation of the objection changes without end.

I think this is what I'm trying to say:
=============Objections stay much the same=============
====Presentation of objections changes from person to person===

So for me, identifying a presupposition can often occur too late,
ie: I realize that their presupposition was "A good God would not let bad things happen", but I only realize that that's what they meant long after the actual encounter.

And that leads me to recommending the following to you:
1. Apart from however you usually know you theology, know it systematically
2. Watch/listen to past witnessing encounters

[Ryan Dozier]

Not really part of the upcoming article but interesting nonetheless.

“Fideism is the view that religious belief relies primarily on faith or special revelation, rather than rational inference or observation (see natural theology).
Presuppositional apologetics is a Christian system of apologetics associated mainly with Calvinist Protestantism; it attempts to distinguish itself from fideism, although some may find the differentiation elusive. It holds that all human thought must begin with the proposition that the revelation contained in the Bible is axiomatic, rather transcendentally necessary, else one would not be able to make sense of any human experience (see also epistemic foundationalism). To a non-believer who rejects the notion that the truth about God, the world and themselves can be found within the Bible, Christian theology literally has nothing to say; however, some presuppositional apologists believe that such a condition is impossible, claiming that all people actually believe in God, whether they admit or deny it.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism)

I was really trying to understand some of the differences of Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til and one aspect is their understanding of epistemology. Clark taught that the Bible was our axiom (first principle) and from it we deduce from the propositions of scripture (explicitly and implicitly) true beliefs (knowledge). Clark’s view is a unique type of Rationalism because Clark was utterly against empiricism and its philosophy of knowledge which I believe most people including Christians usually hold to.

I will write the article when time permits me concerning Clark and Van Til's understanding of God's analogical Knowledge which today most Christian do not hold to.

[Ryan Dozier]

Calvins__Kid great observation. Great recommendation I agree.
We must listen. Quick to hear and slow to speak analysizing their words compared to the Bible.


I will post something you maybe already familiar with for things to look for when talking to unbelievers.

[Calvins_Kid]

Looking forward to it! I'm back online now and can't wait to catch up with all these new posts!

[j3frea]

I got interested in presuppositional apologetics a few weeks ago (just before I joined this forum) because of an article on Christian Worldview Network and some James White stuff I had been looking at.

I have just (yesterday) read Van Til's "Why I Believe in God".

I wonder if you could clarify something for me, he says in his article that a belief in God is required as a basis to attempt to prove or disprove His existence. I understand His position on initial circular reasoning and I realise that he is saying that the existence of God is the basis for logic etc. But could you elaborate on how he would argue that point.

Thanks

[Ryan Dozier]

Sure. What Van Til argues in that booklet/tract is what is refered to as the transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG). I have posted a lengthy article in the debating worldviews section, but I will try to summerize here. Basically we TAG states that unless the Christian worldview be true it is impossible to prove anything. For example, the laws of logic which are necessary for rational discourse does not comport with atheism because the laws of logic are immaterial (which is a big problem for atheism because it is materialistic in nature), universal, and invariable. So basically atheists cannot account for logic in terms of their worldview. However, the Christian can account for logic because it derives from God as a reflection of His character and nature. I mentioned accounting this must be distinguished from ability. For example, most atheists can count, they do their math very well, but in terms of their worldview they cannot account for their ability to count because math/ numbers are absolute and universal. I am not saying atheists do not use logic rather the non-Christian worldview if held consistently would lead to irrationality. Atheists use logic inconsistently with their worldview by borrowing from the Christian worldview.


If this does not make sense please let me clarify further. I recommend reading Dr. Greg Bahnsen's book Always Ready for a Defense or some of his articles and lectures on youtube.

[j3frea]

No, that's excellent thanks. I understood the transcendental argument but I thought that Van Til had some other magic bullet tucked away.

My problem with this argument is the same as my problem with arguments like Anselm's Ontological Argument... It is rational and logical (less so in Anselm's) and you can get someone to nod his/her head in agreement with you as you take him/her through the proof but at the end it is purely and academic - "well that argument makes sense" response that I doubt will ever change someone's mind because it doesn't really ever hit home. For example, if I witnessed to an atheist I would basically begin by causing him/her to submit to agnosticism by saying that s/he cannot have infinite knowledge to say there is no God and that I would recommend that s/he doesn't try to accumulate infinite knowledge because that would make you suspiciously like the thing you are trying to disprove... I wouldn't use this sort of argument because while it makes sense at a deep philosophical level it doesn't make sense where we do rational thinking.

[Ryan Dozier]

Induction, free-will, logic, moral, and knowledge are all used. Go to the atheism thread and watch the youtube videos. The argument you stated is not a very good one because if you get a sharp atheist he will say "So how do you know elves don't exist?" According to the argument you like the atheist would have to say "Well, since I am not omnicient I don't know" this becomes a problem. Personally, it is best to apeal to morality or the conscience.

Check out my tract in the open air and tracts thread.