“A Critique of the Evidentialist Apologetical Method of John Warwick Montgomery” by Greg L. Bahnsen
By means of three parables J. W. Montgomery attempts to supply some reason for drawing back from presuppositional apologetics. After examining his critique of Van Til’s position, we shall turn to a (non-parabolic) analysis of Montgomery’s own. …
“On Worshiping the Creature Rather Than the Creator” by Greg L. Bahnsen
Darwinism dawned and cast its glaring rays upon the life of the English novelist and poet, Thomas Hardy. Hardy discerned that the evolutionary theory was not a restricted biological hypothesis but a new worldview with profound theological consequences, as illustrated in A Plaint to Man (from God): …
“The Impropriety of Evidentially Arguing for the Resurrection” by Greg L. Bahnsen
It is indubitable that the resurrection of Jesus Christ has paramount significance for the history of redemption and for Christian theology (cf. Rom. 4:25; 1 Peter 1:3). It is also clear that this resurrection must be held by the Biblical Christian as one which took place in calendar time and involved Jesus’ empirical body (cf. Luke. 24:39; 1 Cor. 15:4). Moreover, a decisive refutation of the resurrection would shatter the validity of the Christian faith (cf. 1 Cor. 15:14, 17). Hence the Christian’s affirmation of Christ’s resurrection is not an empty assumption, dreamy speculation, or a timeless axiom. The Biblical faith is not indifferent to God’s acts in history, nor is it pessimistic about evidences. The dead bones of Jesus will never be found, and the believer need never fear investigation into the facts. All facts are created facts which can be properly understood only when given the interpretation the Creator intends; as such, all facts demonstrate the truth of Christianity. So any and all relevant evidence pertaining to Jesus Christ’s resurrection in history will be significant for the believer. And such evidence can have a role in his apologetical efforts. …
“Cornelius Van Til” (IVP Dictionary of Apologetics) by John M. Frame
Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987), Reformed theologian and apologist, was born in Grootegast, Holland. At the age of ten, he moved with his family to Highland, Indiana. The Van Tils affiliated with the Christian Reformed Church, and Cornelius attended denominational schools, the Calvin Preparatory School, Calvin College and (for one year) Calvin Theological Seminary, all in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He transferred to Princeton Theological Seminary and earned his Th. M. there in 1925, followed by his marriage to Rena Klooster. He completed his Ph. D. at Princeton University in 1927. His dissertation, supervised by Archibald Allan Bowman, compared Reformed theology’s view of God with the absolute of philosophical Idealism. …
“What Is the Presuppositionalism of Cornelius Van Til? Apologetics in Action” by Vern S. Poythress
Dear A———:
I appreciate your inquiry.
I am sorry to hear of your distress. I am taking this opportunity to pray for you. My experience is that when people are in spiritual distress, only a limited amount can be done at a distance. I would encourage you to talk and pray with your pastor. Spiritual crises do not solve themselves by merely intellectual means. In fact, they tend to prolong themselves by intellectual means, because the intellect becomes a false godlike source of reliance.
I hesitate to say more about presuppositional apologetics, because you have already studied it. But people who study it on their own, and even some who study it in the classroom or with a mentor, frequently develop misconceptions. So let me say a few things that you may already know. If I am off base, please excuse it. …
“Van Til on Antithesis” by John M. Frame
As we seek to make the best use of Cornelius Van Til’s thought in our own time, it is especially important that we come to grips with his concept of antithesis, the diametrical opposition between belief and unbelief and therefore between belief and any compromise of revealed truth. The concept of antithesis is one of Van Til’s own major concerns, and it is that element in his thought which has brought him the most severe criticism. In the present pluralistic theological climate, it seems particularly difficult to draw lines sharply enough to support Van Tilian talk of antithesis: lines between denominational traditions, between liberal and conservative, between Christianity and other religions, between belief and unbelief. Universalism is taken for granted in contemporary liberal theology, and conservative Christian thinkers, if not going that far, often tend nevertheless to play down the differences between themselves and others. Is it possible, even necessary, to maintain Van Til’s emphasis in our time and to repudiate all these tendencies toward accommodation? Or did Van Til overstate his case, unnecessarily inhibiting biblical ecumenism? Or is the truth to be found somewhere between these two evaluations? …
“Van Til and the Ligonier Apologetic” by John M. Frame
Classical Apologetics has been eagerly awaited. This book puts into systematic (and at least somewhat technical) form an apologetic approach of considerable interest, which up until now has been expressed primarily in popular writings and taped lectures. It is also notable for its critique of “presuppositionalism” (mainly in its Van Tillian form). This book is one of the most extensive critiques of Van Til to date, and I think of all the critiques of Van Til this one shows the most thorough research and the most accurate interpretation. In saying this, I should acknowledge a possible conflict of interest: The authors express indebtedness to me for correspondence between myself and Gerstner which “significantly sharpened our understanding of Vantillian apologetics.” However, in commending these authors for their understanding of Van Til, I am not intending to commend myself. My contribution to their formulations was relatively small (and, as it turns out, not always understood and/or accepted). But Gerstner himself is a former student of Van Til and has (as I know from personal discussions) been mulling over Van Til’s position for many years, with an intense interest and scholarly care not matched, in my view, by other critics of Van Til. Thus the credit for the book’s high critical standards must go to the authors themselves. …
“Transcendental Arguments” by John M. Frame
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is responsible for introducing the term “transcendental” to philosophical discussion. Seeking to repel the skepticism of David Hume, but unable to accept the methods of his rationalist teacher Christian Wolff, Kant came to advocate transcendental argument as a new means of grounding the certainty of mathematics, science, and philosophy.
All of us, he argued, must concede that knowledge is possible. Else there is no point to any discussion or inquiry. Now, given that knowledge is possible, said Kant, we should ask what the conditions are that make knowledge possible. What must the world be like, and what must the workings of our minds be like, if human knowledge is to be possible? …
“Presuppositional Apologetics: An Introduction” [Part 1] [Part 2] by John M. Frame
In defending the Christian faith, the most important question before us is “What sort of defense will best glorify our God (cf. 1 Cor. 10:31)?” God forbid that in seeking to defend the faith before others we should in that very act compromise it.
The so-called “presuppositional” school of apologetics is concerned above all with answering this question. Of course, there are other questions in apologetics which, although of less ultimate importance, also deserve answers. Presuppositionalists have discussed those too. But in view of our space limitation, and in order to do justice to the main thrust of presuppositionalism, I must focus our attention on this most important question and then as space permits relate some other issues to this one. …
“Presuppositional Apologetics” by John M. Frame
1. Presupposing God in Apologetic Argument
Presuppositional apologetics may be understood in the light of a distinction common in epistemology, or theory of knowledge. In any factual inquiry, it is important to distinguish between the ideas we have prior to the inquiry and those we gain in the course of the inquiry. No one, of course, embarks on an investigation with an empty mind. If indeed we had done no previous thinking, nothing would motivate us to seek further information. …