Category: Method
-
Van Til and starting with the self
I’m posting this here because the blogger I’m responding to has a character limit on his blog comments. The original post can be found here, and my initial comment can be found here. Here is my response.
“Yes, Van Til distinguishes between “mystery” of modernism and the “mystery” of Christianity.”
Then perhaps you should have made the separation clear in your conclusion. It didn’t seem to be clear – it seemed to be confusing “mystery in general”, and/or conflating them.
…“Yes, to Van Til, the “mystery of modernism” is irrational, while the “mystery of Christianity” is rational.
So
-
Acts 17 and Covenantal Apologetics
Re-posted from here – http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/03/13/answering-objections-to-presuppositionalism.
J.R.
March 14, 2012 at 12:51 PMtaco,
Non-presuppositionalists argue that Acts 17 is clearly a classical (specifically Greek) apologetic used by Paul. You’ll need to find another example to make your case. “So Paul, standing in the midst of Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religiou. For as I passed and observed the objects of your worship, I found an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.”Reply-
tacoMarch 14, 2012
-
-
Debate: Covenantal Apologetics is the only Biblical apologetic methodology
Date: March 25th
Time: 2pm EST (Watch for updates)
Location: IRC, #chdebate channel – fuller detail will be given the day of the debate.I’ll be debating Scotty Bowers, aka “Ransom” on this topic. I will, of course, be taking the affirmative in this debate. Anyone is invited to attend the debate.…
-
Theology Determines Apologetic: Van Til
…“All Protestants will agree with one another that the doctrines of Protestantism must be defended as over against Romanism. But not all agree that there is a distinctly Protestant method of defending Christianity as a whole. Some hold that Protestants should first join the Romanists in order with them to defend the doctrines that they have in common. All Christians, we are told, believe in God. All believe that God has created the world. All Christians hold that God controls the world by His providence. All believe in the deity of Christ. These and other doctrines may therefore be defended
-
Van Til’s Argument Part II
In our last post, we dealt with the claims made over at The Gospel Coalition Blog that Van Til did not make an argument while setting forth his methodology. “Roberto G” made that claim, and we dealt with that sufficiently for the time being. Now, we will deal with Doug Perry’s assertion that Van Til’s “legacy” has “given us the school [of] circular reasoning held by most presuppositionalists”. His sentence is rather garbled, and none too clear, but it seems to be saying that transcendental argumentation is circular, as far as I can tell. Now, even if this isn’t precisely …
-
Van Til’s Argument Part I
In the comment section of Justin Taylor’s post, we have already seen perhaps the most common claims made by opponents of the covenantal apologetic. By “Roberto G”, we have the claim that Van Til didn’t make an argument; and by Doug Perry, we have the claim that the argument is circular. To head off any claims that I misunderstand what they have to say, let me quote the two gentlemen in question on the specified topics, and then I’ll deal with their comments as a whole in later posts, as I’ve decided to make this a short series, to …
-
Brian Knapp of Choosing Hats to appear with atheist Matt Oxley on Praxis Presup this weekend for informal debate
Brian Knapp, Founder and Administrator of Choosing Hats and atheist Matt Oxley of RagingRev.com plan to participate in an informal debate consisting of interview, cross-examination, and discussion hosted and moderated by Chris Bolt of the Praxis Presup podcast this weekend. The event will not be live streamed, however the recording of it will be made available on the next episode of Praxis Presup right here on Choosing Hats around the beginning of next week, Lord willing. You won’t want to miss it!…
-
Adventures in Missing the Antithesis
Paul Baird recently addressed what he seems to think is the “philosophy that underpins the Christian Presuppositional Apologetics.” He’s wrong, of course, but let us show him why, shall we? He cites Chris’ citation of an argument tucked away in the appendix of PA:S&D as that supposed “underpinning.” Interestingly, he goes on to ask why “do Presuppositional Apologists not start with this explanation that PA is about establishing the need for a unique self sufficient knower and identifying that self sufficient knower exclusively as the Christian god?” Well, that is readily apparent – because we don’t believe that to be …