“Cornelius Van Til and Alvin Plantinga: A Brief Comparison” by James N. Anderson
Note: The following comments were first posted to the reformed-epistemology discussion group in July 2001, in response to a query about the main areas of agreement and disagreement between these two Christian thinkers. I have corrected a few typos, made some minor changes of wording, and added relevant hyperlinks. …
“Comments on John Johnson’s Response to Frame & Hays” by James N. Anderson
1. Johnson’s article is shot through with a confusion between arguments for presuppositional apologetics (i.e., as a distinctive methodology) and presuppositional apologetic arguments (i.e., the actual arguments employed by presuppositionalists). In his introduction, Johnson states that his goal is to show that Muslims could use Van Tilian presuppositional arguments just as well as Christians: “My point is not that Islamic apologists are using the Van Tillian system to promote Islam. Rather, I wish to show that they easily could if they so desired.” …
“The Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence” by Michael R. Butler
Cornelius Van Til revolutionized Christian apologetics in the twentieth century. His system of the defense of the faith rejected the common practice among Christian apologists of assuming a neutral, autonomous point of view when confronting unbelief. In its place he urged a presuppositional, theonomic approach of establishing the truth of Christian theism. He maintained that because God, speaking in his word, is the ultimate epistemological starting point, there is no way of arguing for the faith on the basis of something other than the faith itself. God’s authority is ultimate and thus self-attesting. To argue for the faith on any other authority is to assume there is a higher authority than God himself to which he must give account. But the very attempt to do this is self-defeating. Consequently, the Christian apologist must stand upon God’s authoritative word and presuppose its truth when contending for the faith. This stand does not relegate the apologist to fideism. Indeed, the very opposite is the case. Upon the rock foundation of God’s word the Christian is able to demonstrate the foolishness of unbelieving thought while at the same time vindicate the greatness of divine wisdom. …
“TAG vs. TANG” by Michael R. Butler
I shall now turn to Dr. Martin’s philosophical attack on the Christian faith. In response to the transcendental argument for God’s existence (TAG), Dr. Martin puts forth what he calls the transcendental argument for the non-existence of God (TANG). …
“Frame on Van Til and Transcendental Arguments” by Michael R. Butler
Cornelius Van Til was the apologist of antithesis. He, perhaps more than any other Christian thinker, made clear that there is a radical distinction between the Christian worldview and those that stand opposed to it. It is not surprising, therefore, that a man who laid such emphasis on this distinction would also attract antithetical views of himself. Van Til seems to be either devoutly followed or scornfully repudiated. With him, one is either hot or cold; there is no neutrality. In his recent book, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought, John Frame endeavors to move beyond these polarized views of the late Westminster apologist. On the one hand he rejects the “movement mentality” that has characterized many of Van Til’s followers. This mentality is typified by the conviction that Van Til’s thoughts and formulations are beyond criticism. On the other hand, he rejects the “debunkers” whose open hostility toward Van Til’s teaching prevents them from having any genuine understanding of it. Rather, Frame attempts to sympathetically and yet critically analyze Van Til’s thought. …
“Follow-Up Response to Michael Martin” by Michael R. Butler
EDITOR’S NOTE: Some thoughtful questions have been raised in response to Mr. Butler’s article in last month’s Penpoint critiquing Dr. Michael Martin’s “Transcendental Argument for the Non- Existence of God” (TANG). In this issue some of the questions raised are addressed. Mr. Butler begins his discussion with a few further comments about the nature of transcendental arguments. …
“A Truly Reformed Epistemology” by Michael R. Butler
Throughout the history of the church, apologists and theologians have adopted (sometimes consciously, but often unconsciously) epistemological views from pagan and secular sources in an attempt to defend the truth of Christianity. But as Greg Bahnsen has warned us, these epistemologies need to be investigated in order to discover whether they comport with Christianity. Sadly, this has rarely been attempted and thus Christian apologists have rarely had a completely biblical epistemology with which to defend the faith. …
“Analogical Knowledge: A Systematic Interpretation of Cornelius Van Til’s Theological Epistemology” by James D. Baird
William D. Dennison in his 1995 article, “Analytic Philosophy and Van Til’s Epistemology,” argued that Cecil De Boer, Jesse De Boer, and John M. Frame misunderstood the epistemology of Cornelius Van Til (1895–1987). The De Boers endeavored to make sense of Van Til’s epistemology by examining his terminology and its historic philosophical usage. This led them to interpret Van Til according to a philosophical tradition he openly opposed: idealism. Frame followed, in Dennison’s view, a more commendable route amongst Van Til scholars as Frame recognized that Van Til’s epistemology is inherently biblical, even though Van Til employed idealist terminology. Frame attempted to advance Van Til’s thought, while cleaning up his complex idealistic language for philosophical clarity and the practical purposes of the church. Still, Dennison pointed out, what resulted in Frame’s case was a perspectival epistemology that neglected the “main rubric of Van Til’s own epistemology—the philosophy of history.” In Dennison’s estimation, the De Boers and Frame implemented analytic philosophical methods of interpretation that were inadequateto comprehend the holistic, redemptive-historical structure of Van Til’s epistemology. Dennison concluded, “Herein lies the crux of the problem: both the De Boers and Frame failed to perceive the importance and centrality of the ‘story’ of Scripture (redemptive history) in Van Til’s epistemology.” Furthermore, according to Dennison, to recognize the centrality of redemptive history in Van Til’s epistemology is to perceive nothing less than the influence of Van Til’s biblical theology professor at Princeton, Geerhardus Vos. …
“An Apology For My Theology: The Inseparable Link Between Reformed Theology and Presuppositional Apologetics” by Bryan Neal Baird
Apologetics is the branch of theology dealing with the defense and proof of Christianity. Apologetics in no way refers to being sorry (apologizing) for one’s faith; on the contrary, it involves being proud enough of one’s faith to defend it. Most importantly, however, apologetics is about the business of obeying the command to be “always ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15, NASV). …