I came across a very good post discussing the rise of of some popular level apologetic methodology that tries to brand itself as Van Tilian presuppositionalism but is really just an impostor.
Check it out here: http://pousto.wordpress.com/2013/11/29/naive-presuppositionalism/
uh this is strange you guys several years ago had several blog posts praising Sye Ten about how easily he refutes “foolish” atheists and now you guys seemed to have made a complete 180, so what was the change of heart? what turned you guys against his methodology?
I’m not really sure what you are talking about. First of all, I don’t think the post here targeted Sye specifically. Second, this is far more concerned with some who claim the name but seemingly do not understand or reject what Van Til wrote see: https://choosinghats.org/2013/11/infallibilism-knowledge-attenuated-presup-and-unwitting-clarkianism/. Third, having a podcast or posts explaining what is being said (by Sye) is hardly a resounding endorsement implying full agreement with everything. Fourthly, not every post is of the third point, there are some correctives as well. So no, I don’t really understand how this is a complete 180 even if this post was only about Sye (which it isn’t).
Leave a Reply