Dude, that's a caricature!

This is what I originally said:

I was making a point about Robinson’s apologetic method. So often he uses the following tactic to “disprove” Calvinism:
i) Compare and contrast Reformed theology with Orthodox theology.
ii) Arrive at the conclusion that Reformed theology is different than Orthodox theology
iii) Case closed!
Of course, that begs the question of why Orthodox theology should supply the standard of comparison. He almost never tries to prove his theological criterion. He takes that as a given. And the few times I’ve seen him try to prove his theological criterion, he did so in a way that took for granted his Orthodox ecclesiology. I have yet to see him offer a defense of his theological criterion that doesn’t assume what he needs to prove. And most of the time he doesn’t even try.

This was Nick’s original response:

Sounds remarkably like Perry employs a presuppositional apologetic! I might be wrong about this (please correct me if I am), but I think I read once upon a time that Steve Hays was a presuppositionalist (or maybe it was Paul Manata, they both write for Triablogue). If this is the case then the above statement has more than a twinge of irony. In any event, give it a read as I’m sure it will exercise your mind.

And this was (part of) my comeback:

i) It would be more accurate to say that, according to Van Tilian apologetics, the unbeliever is taking certain truths for granted that only make sense within a Christian worldview. The unbeliever is a closet presuppositionalist. And the job of a Van Tilian apologist is to make the unbeliever aware of his tacit, theistic presuppositions.

ii) And a Van Tilian apologist doesn’t simply take his own position for granted, and leave it at that. On the one hand he tries to disprove the unbeliever’s worldview by exposing its residual and irreducible commitment to certain theistic truths.

On the other hand, he tries to prove his own position by process of elimination.

Here is Nick’s latest reply:

I’ll grant that this is presuppositional apologetics simplified, but not caricatured. Saying that the presuppositional apologetic is circular or takes its position for granted is like saying that air is breathable or water is wet, which is to say that it’s fairly uncontroversial (or so you’d think).

http://rdtwot.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/dude-thats-not-a-caricature/

i) Of course, that’s a caricature of what I originally. Every apologist assumes the truth of his own position. That doesn’t single out presuppositionalism.

ii) The real question at issue is whether you make a case for your operating assumptions. Perry didn’t do that. I was quite specific about what was lacking in his approach. Go back to my reply (see above).

Continuing with Nick:

Frame said that “argument is always circular when it is an argument for an ultimate criterion of truth.” (Five Views on Apologetics, 197) And also that circularity is “unavoidable for any system, any worldview.” (Ibid., 207) Perhaps Steve thinks I’m accusing presuppositional apologetics of being viciously circular or something like that (I’m not), but I fail to see the caricature. What follows in Steve’s post may be entirely true, but I don’t see how it rescues presuppositionalism from charges of begging the question or circular reasoning.

i) On the one hand, Nick says he’s not accusing presuppositionalism of vicious circularity. On the other hand, he charges presuppositionalism with begging the question. But if it’s not viciously circular, then how is it begging the question?

ii) Moreover, Nick says that “What follows in Steve’s post may be entirely true, but I don’t see how it rescues presuppositionalism from charges of begging the question or circular reasoning.”

Well, this is what I said about the Van Tilian apologist in my post:

On the one hand he tries to disprove the unbeliever’s worldview by exposing its residual and irreducible commitment to certain theistic truths.

On the other hand, he tries to prove his own position by process of elimination.

Now, if that’s entirely true, then how is that two-pronged approach begging the question?

Continuing with Nick:

Steve admits that the presuppositional apologist takes his position for granted when he says: “And a Van Tilian apologist doesn’t simply take his own position for granted, and leave it at that.” Good and well, I’ve not said that they ”simply” or “ just” anything, only that Steve’s description of Perry’s apologetic sounds ironically presuppositional. Steve’s response has failed to convince me otherwise (of course I’m sure that all boils down to our differing presuppositions).

i) On the one hand, Nick doesn’t accuse the Van Tilian apologist of simply or just taking his own position for granted. On the other hand, Nick accusing the Van Tilian apologist of begging the question. But how would he beg the question unless he were simply or just taking his own position for granted?

Nick comes across as hopelessly confused. The more he tries to explain himself, the more deeply mired he becomes in the quicksand.

ii) Now, it’s also possible for a Van Tilian to perform a reductio ad absurdum on the opposing position. That, however, would not be begging the question. Moreover, Perry didn’t perform a reductio ad absurdum on Calvinism in his reply to TF.

iii) However, let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Perry was mounting a presuppositional critique of Calvinism in his reply to TF. According to Nick, this would mean that Perry was begging the question. If so, then Nick is confirming my original allegation.

iv) BTW, one commenter by the name of Fletcher is offering some useful correctives in the combox.