It’s the strangest thing…
Podcast after podcast has been devoted to the alleged refutation of Van Tilian covenantal apologetic arguments over the last year or so. Since I am a contributor here, and since the site is “dedicated to the explanation and demonstration of presuppositional apologetics in defense of the Christian faith to the glory of God,” I have tried to respond to such podcasts when I am able to do so. The same holds true with respect to blog posts. Scripture teaches that non-Christians have no apologetic, or defense, of their position. I believe that, and hence when I can I take advantage of it, spending some time listening to, reading, and responding to especially atheist material. The other contributors here operate under similar assumptions.
The response from the atheist camp has been most interesting. They complain a lot about “verbosity.” We write too many posts. Our posts are too long. The sound quality on the podcasts is terrible (and it is!). We make too many podcasts. Our podcasts are too long. Sometimes the atheists actually attempt to respond to some of our counter arguments. Most other times they complain about the aforementioned “problems.” Their response to our material is generally a resounding, “Stop answering us!” Or, we can call it the “TL;DR (Too Long; Didn’t Read) Argument.” It’s atheistic anti-intellectualism at its best. They want to be able to make their podcasts and posts without being concerned about a response from our side. Oh well. No one can make them respond to critiques of their position if they do not want to. So much the worse for their position.
But enough about the atheists. Someone commenting under the name, “Lou” recently left the following comment:
“Admit it, VanTil is your golden calf.”
To which my response is – of course! All I can think of all day long is Van Til. I wrote Nike to ask them about wooden shoes. When a man cut me off in traffic yesterday I screamed at him in German about a chicken. I play darts using a poster of Karl Barth. Whenever I read that something is written by Cornelius Plantinga Jr. I get really excited only to have my spirits crushed an instant later. I asked my wife if we can name our children Van Til. All of them. Before I die I want to make a pilgrimage to WTS. And so on and so forth. The other contributors are worse!
I don’t know what motivates a person to take the time to write a comment like that, or what he thinks it will accomplish, but it is funny, and reminded me of the atheist responses noted above. What reminded me even more of those responses was a comment from Lance Greer which followed:
“If I were to remake Lou’s point — VanTil wasn’t perfect, but you guys do spend an aweful lot of time defending him and his writings. Not sure if that is what Lou meant, but if so, I would say that it is possibly a weakness.”
Actually, I spend very little time defending Van Til and his writings, and probably should spend more time doing so. Lance is more likely referring to the apologetic method of Van Til. That aside, pay closer attention to Lance’s argument. If a group of people spend a large amount of time defending a man and his writings or his apologetics, then it exhibits a weakness either in the man, his writings, his apologetic, or the people offering the defense. Well, I reject Lance’s premise, but think about the alternative. We don’t defend Van Til and his writings. Then what? Well, then there would a number of attacks on Van Til, his writings, and his apologetic method left unanswered. And then somebody would be wrong on the Internet. And we all know we can’t have that.
In all seriousness, Lance’s qualm is very similar to the atheists’ above. If there is a group of men who spend some of their spare time explaining and defending an apologetic method in an effort to help others learn and use the method in defense of the Christian faith for the glory of God then they are displaying a weakness. If, on the other hand, they do nothing in response to those who initiate the discussion and debate of the method in question, then they are leaving their method untaught, undefended, and ultimately unused. Convenient.
I want to make an argument like that. If anyone comments on any posts here in the future in contradiction to what we write, then that person is clearly wrong. I mean, if your position is correct, then obviously there is no need to defend it, right?
Tagged as “drama.”
Comments disabled to prevent self-refutations.