Tag: Cornelius Van Til
-
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
-
Theology Versus Philosophy
As someone who loves, and uses, both theology and philosophy on a routine basis, I am somewhat confused by the perceived great divide between the two disciplines. Theologians typically tout the sanctified status of their discipline while demonizing philosophy as though it is evil in and of itself. Meanwhile philosophers boast about their clarity and demean theology as though its contributions to Christianity are not that important after all. Yet each party struggles to define its discipline in distinction from the other. And both have serious problems with relating to the other party. These things should not be!
Those who …
-
Choosing Hats Friday Links
Ron DiGiacomo tells Ben Wallis that he knows God – http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2011/12/no-true-agnostics-or-atheists.html
Paul Manata excoriates Jerry Coyne on Alvin Plantinga – http://analytictheologye4c5.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/coyne-on-plantinga
TurretinFan on the foundation of our religion – http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4929
James Anderson has moved his blog here – http://www.proginosko.com
Anderson ties his article on logic back to Van Til – http://www.proginosko.com/2011/12/antitheism-presupposes-theism-and-so-does-every-other-ism
Anderson rebuts Wallis – http://www.proginosko.com/2012/01/could-propositions-exist-contingently-a-response-to-ben-wallis
There is a 50% off sale at WTS Bookstore – http://www.wtsbooks.com/sitesearch/search.php?keywords=Best-Seller+2011
And a sale on some academic sets at CBD – http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content?page=329111&sp=1013&p=1165962…
-
Is the Transcendental Argument a “Magic Bullet”?
Sometimes the term “magic bullet” or “silver bullet” comes up in discussions of Van Tilian apologetic methodology. The term is typically if not always used in a negative sense in reference to transcendental argument. Its use is not limited to any particular attitude toward Van Tilian apologetics. The first time I saw the term used was in John Frame. Paul Manata has used it in critiquing “right wing” Van Tilianism. K. Scott Oliphint has used it to correct misunderstandings of Van Til’s thought. Sometimes atheists use it. Many others do as well. So the use of the phrase in question …
-
Three Very Different Philosophers: Necessity of Epistemic Circularity
…“But don’t the doctrines of the imago dei (the image of God), and the purpose of human creation already presuppose that we can have substantive knowledge of God? They seem clearly to do this, and if so, then they cannot be appealed to in a noncircular argument for this theological optimism as a conclusion.
First, it must be pointed out that the possibility of any kind of basic knowledge cannot be demonstrated by means of noncircular, nonquestion-begging arguments, by arguments that do not in any way already presume to some extent that to which they intend to lend some support.
-
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 …