Apologetics to the Glory of God

Tag: Cornelius Van Til

  • Did Van Til set Christianity alongside other worldviews?

    I was sent a link to some sort of “progressive” podcast, called “Homebrew Christianity”, with a guest named Peter Rollins. Mr. Rollins, supposedly, is a “Christian atheist”, in some existential sense. His self-description, frankly, was rambling, confused a host of categories, and was quite unintelligible. The host(s) were equally confused, rambling, and made a riproaring shambles out of every theological topic they touched. I’m more than happy to link to the podcast so you can see for yourself, being quite confident that the ideas expressed therein are self-refuting. Be that as it may, I was interested primarily because he …

  • Introduction to Presuppositional Apologetics by D.S. Smith

    These are recordings of a lecture that our new contributor D.S. Smith gave on presuppositional apologetics.

  • Van Til taught that nonbelievers cannot know anything

    A common objection or typical misrepresentation of what Van Til taught in respect to presuppositional apologetics is that nonbelievers cannot or do not know anything. This usually stems from a misunderstanding of how the Christian view of epistemology works in practice and in principle regarding the nonbeliever as espoused by people who adhere to presuppositionalism. But first, let us allow Dr. Van Til speak for himself on this point as this objection will often be raised in the form “I heard Van Til wrote that nonbelievers don’t know anything.”

    Still further, it is when we presuppose with Calvin that all

  • Various and Sundry Issues to Recap

    Last week, my comment at Aporetic Christianity resulted in a bit of a firestorm – of posts, and sometimes fiery discussion. I’d like to use this opportunity to make a few comments on this exchange, and exchanges in general. In the exchange between Paul, myself, and BK, some might consider the “tone” in places to be overly harsh. While I think Paul may have thought at one point that I was objecting to the tone, I think we’ve come to at least a partial understanding of the other’s goals. That being said, there’s a balance to be had in the …

  • Knowledge, Attenuated VanTillianism, and a False Dilemma

    Yesterday, I did some commenting on a post by Paul Manata entitled “Do All Men Know that God Exists?“.

    In this post, he offers a couple possible responses he would consider Van Tillians to potentially offer, tells us he’s an “attenuated” Van Tillian (which is unsurprising, at best); we interacted in the comments for a bit, (complete with his typical ad hominem) and he returns today with a bit of screed, venting about Van Tillians. His problem, apparently, seems to be my “certainty”. Far be it from me to point out that he acts anything but uncertain, but …

  • Mr. White, Mr. Grey, and Mr. Black V

    These posts contain lengthy quotations from Defense of the Faith, by Cornelius Van Til – this post will deal with pages 319-323. In the previous post, Van Til dealt with the unbeliever’s state before God, his self-deception, suppression of the truth, and the proper apologetic methodology to use with the unbeliever. Beginning here, he begins to answer the charge that a covenantal apologetic is “circular reasoning”, or has no “point of contact” with the unbeliever.

    The one main question to which we are addressing ourselves in this series of articles is whether Christians holding to the Reformed Faith should

  • Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering 4

    Argument from Horrific Suffering

    The exchange has taken place as follows: The Argument from Horrific Suffering for the Non-Existence of God (Mitch) / Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering (Chris) / Bolt and Horrific Suffering (Mitch) / Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering 2 (Chris) / Bolt and Horrific Suffering II (Mitch) / Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering 3 (Chris) / Bolt and Horrific Suffering III (Mitch) / …Answers the Argument from Horrific Suffering (ZaoThanatoo).

    Mitch notes that I am still challenging premise (4) of the following argument:

    Horrific Suffering (def.) = that most awe-full form of suffering that

  • Mr. White, Mr. Grey, and Mr. Black IV

    In our last post, we examined the Romanist, “evangelical,” and putatively “Reformed” apologetic methods, as advanced by Jacques Maritain, Dr. Carnell and Charles Pinnock, and Dr. Sproul, and applied them to our discussion. In this section, we address Mr. Black, and begin to examine in greater detail the difference in approach that Mr. White and Mr. Grey have in their apologetic. This section comes from pgs 317-319 of Defense of the Faith.

    So also with Mr. Black. He daily changes the truth of God into a lie. He daily worships and serves the creature more than the Creator. He

  • Mr. White, Mr. Grey, and Mr. Black III

    In our previous post, we saw the beginnings of the typical evidential/classical method, as posed by Dr. Carnell. We will continue our journey through Van Til’s dialogue, on pages 316-317 of Defense of the Faith.

    Of course, Mr. Black will be greatly impressed with such an argument as Mr. Grey has presented to him for the truth of Christianity. In fact, if Christianity is thus shown to be in accord with the moral nature of man, as Mr. Black himself sees that moral nature, then Mr. Black does not need to be converted at all to accept Christianity. He

  • Mr. White, Mr. Grey, and Mr. Black II

    In the previous post, we saw Cornelius Van Til examining the apologetic method of the Reformed, vs the Evangelical varieties. By Evangelical, he means the Arminian or Roman Catholic schools of theology and/or apologetic. As our friend Dr. White is wont to say, “theology determines apologetic”. We’ll continue this series in this post, the second of the series, and pick up where we left off.

    An excerpt from Defense of The Faith, by Cornelius Van Til – Chap. 12, Sec. 3, pg. 313-315, 4th Ed.

    The Believer Meets the Unbeliever – Part II

    Let us first look briefly at