“The Old New Reformed Epistemology” by K. Scott Oliphint
What are the epistemological implications of a Reformed apologetic? The question is more easily asked than answered. Any Reformed approach to apologetics must be itself grounded in Reformed theology. In order to answer the questions, then, it would be helpful to see the epistemological implications of a Reformed theology first, in order, second, to link those implications to a Reformed apologetic. …
“The Consistency of Van Til’s Methodology” by K. Scott Oliphint
THE purpose of this article will be to trace the apologetic method of Cornelius Van Til in order to see, first of all, whether or not he was consistent in his method throughout his writings, and secondly, to clarify what that method is. …
“Jonathan Edwards: Reformed Apologist” by K. Scott Oliphint
O, how is the world darkened, clouded, distracted, and torn to pieces by those dreadful enemies of mankind called words!
Though when Jonathan Edwards penned these words he was discussing morality, particularly of the Sabbath, his exclamation could just as easily be applied to the debates over his own words. Due to the sheer volume of Edwards’ publications as well as the depth of his insight, there seems to be no end to the potential debates with regard to the “real Edwards” on a given topic or position. Perhaps Jonathan Edwards’ many exegetes are the clearest example of the influence of one’s presuppositions on any interpretive endeavor.
The title of this article displays, at least implicitly, its twofold purpose. First, I will be attempting faithfully to explicate Edwards with a view toward a Reformed apologetic. More specifically, I will look briefly at Edwards’ ontology and then a bit more specifically at his view of man, particularly as that view relates to the unregenerate. Secondly, in explicating such a view, I will be attempting to distinguish Edwards’ insights from a so-called “classical” approach to apologetics and further to incorporate his work into a presuppositional or transcendental framework of apologetics. …
“Cornelius Van Til and the Reformation of Christian Apologetics” by K. Scott Oliphint
It would be difficult to overstate the primary and radical significance that the late Professor Dr. Cornelius Van Til has had on Reformed thinking. To have the opportunity to contribute to this volume will rekindle memories of my discussions and correspondence with Dr. Van Til as he personally, and through his writings, reformed without my own thought.
Dr. Cornelius Van Til was born in the Netherlands in 1895. When he was ten years old, his family came to the United States and settled among the Dutch immigrants on a farm in Indiana. Van Til graduated from Calvin College, Princeton Theological Seminary and earned his Ph.D. from Princeton University. After teaching apologetics for one year at Princeton Theological Seminary, he left to become one of the founders of Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929 where he taught apologetics for forty seven years. Dr. Van Til went to be with Christ on April 17, 1987. Having left us physically, his influence will remain in the church until Christ comes again. No one since Thomas Aquinas has had such an enormous impact on Christ’s church in the area of apologetics. Van Til, like Augustine and Calvin, has pressed the claims of Christ on His Church in a way that cannot be ignored by serious students of theology. …
The Great Debate: Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein [audio] [transcript]
“Summary of Presuppositional Apologetic Method” by Greg L. Bahnsen and Steve Scrivener
Summary of Presuppositional Apologetic Method by Greg Bahnsen (from Always Ready)—with Bahnsen’s Bible references added, except those in square brackets. Edited by Steve R. Scrivener …
“Inductivism, Inerrancy, and Presuppositionalism” by Greg L. Bahnsen
At the heart of contemporary evangelical Bibliology and apologetics is the question of Scriptural inerrancy — in particular, the most appropriate and effective method of its exposition and defense. The three elements mentioned in the title of this paper have been derived from a short but potentially significant interchange between Daniel Fuller and Clark Pinnock in the CHRISTIAN SCHOLAR’S REVIEW. Their brief discussion of Biblical authority is a noteworthy skirmish — one that puts a particular epistemological and apologetical outlook to a critical test. An analysis of the Fuller-Pinnock encounter may very well offer evangelicals unexpected but sound guidance through the thicket of present-day theological and apologetical questions impinging on inerrancy. To begin this recommended analysis, we can rehearse how Fuller and Pinnock relate the three topics of inductivism, inerrancy and presuppositionalism to each other. Three major theses emerge from a reading of the two published letters exchanged between these two writers and each can be substantiated by quotation from the relevant literature. Thesis I may be stated as follows: PRESUPPOSITIONALISM IS OPPOSED TO EMPIRICAL PROCEDURES AND INDUCTIVE INVESTIGATION. …
“Another Cup of Coffee” by Greg L. Bahnsen
According to Van Til, apologetics aims to defend the Christian faith by answering the variety of challenges leveled against it by unbelievers, thereby vindicating the Christian philosophy of life (worldview) over against all non-Christian philosophies of life (worldviews). …
“Presuppositional Procedure” by Greg L. Bahnsen
Here then is how the presuppositional (transcendental) method of defending the faith would proceed once the preliminary discussions and clarifications have taken place with the unbeliever – and the two outlooks now come head to head. The unbeliever says that he knows that miracles are impossible, that a personal almighty God does not exist, that ethical principles are not normative across cultural boundaries, etc. Or the unbeliever says that the believer cannot know that the Bible is God’s word, or that Jehovah exists, or that Christ was His Son, etc. The Christian apologist must seek to uncover what this unbeliever’s personal convictions are regarding metaphysical and (coordinated with it) epistemological matters which are relevant: e.g., what is the nature of things which are real, how does the world operate, where did it come from, what is man’s place in the world, what is man’s nature, are there moral or epistemological norms which are not chosen by the individual, what are the criteria of truth, what are the proper methods of knowing, is certainty possible, etc.? Once the believer has a fairly good grasp of the general kind of worldview assumed (or explicitly advocated) by the unbeliever, we can suggest that it should be compared to the worldview of the Christian. The Christian can show that the particular objections raised by the unbeliever would, within the Christian outlook, not prove to be legitimate objections or intellectual problems at all. Thus who really “knows” what he is talking about, the Christian or the non-Christian? The cogency of each side’s theory and practice of knowing must be tested within the broader worldviews of which they are a part. The apologist explains how rationality, communication, meaning, science, morality, man’s redemption and renewal are quite understandable, meaningful, coherent, or intelligible within the Biblical worldview – within “the picture” of thinking God’s thoughts after Him. The apologist then engages in an internal critique of the unbeliever’s worldview to show that it is (1) arbitrary, and/or (2) inconsistent with itself, and/or (3) lacking the preconditions for the intelligibility of knowledge (language, logic, science, morality, redemption, etc.). Since that is the case, the unbeliever cannot “know” the things which he urges against Christianity – indeed, could not know anything at all and loses all claim to rationality. The Christian has proven the rationality and necessity of His scripturally based worldview. …
“The Crucial Concept of Self-Deception in Presuppositional Apologetics” by Greg L. Bahnsen
That self-deception which is practiced by all unregenerate men according to the Apostle Paul’s incisive description in Romans 1:18ff. is at once religiously momentous and yet philosophically enigmatic. It is also one of the focal points in continuing criticism of Cornelius Van Til’s apologetic and, as such, invites analysis with a view to supplementing and strengthening the saintly professor’s remarkable contribution to the history of apologetics. …