tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post1682587175656225415..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Wintery Knight on Van TilRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-29409662488075027842013-06-19T13:26:04.534-04:002013-06-19T13:26:04.534-04:00I had a little chat with WK on this topic yesterda...I had a little chat with WK on this topic yesterday, who had in his most recent post attacked presuppositionalism as "anti-intellectual." I asked him on what he based such an opinion. He gave no reply other than to say it was his opinion and to refer to his prior posts, which conspicuously lack anything justifying such dismissiveness. (He also was nice enough to edit his post, downgrading the insult from "anti-intellectual" to "ineffective.")<br /><br />Anyone who is predisposed to launch against Van Til and his better students as "anti-intellectual" has obviously already lost the argument. It appears that WK's complaints against Van Til and presuppositionalism are based on ignorance and blind prejudice. Until reading the introduction to this post, I hadn't heard that WK was Arminian, but it figures. Like many Calvinists, I too was formerly Arminian, until I was forced to see and admit how the Bible directly addresses and absolutely, overwhelmingly defeats Arminian arguments.<br /><br />I say all this while still regarding WK as a fine, intelligent brother in Christ, whose articles I often enjoy reading, because they are generally very fine work. Even the finest men have their weaknesses ... and should be expected, and even politely asked, to confess them.Alan K Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10866066734456634026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61130045684226556602012-07-17T01:53:41.384-04:002012-07-17T01:53:41.384-04:00I consider myself a presuppositionalist. I use wha...I consider myself a presuppositionalist. I use whatever the situation calls for, but I keep in mind that my ultimate commitment is to God's word. If I am talking to someone who is a Naturalist who understands the worldview, then I attack the presuppostions of naturalism. It rarely gets to this point, because normally the unbelievers I talk to are not that anti-common sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55174612830267422952012-07-16T15:29:26.981-04:002012-07-16T15:29:26.981-04:00Prophetic evidence is helpful today. In the Bible,...Prophetic evidence is helpful today. In the Bible, immediately fulfilled prophesy was used as evidence to validate a prophet. But most of the evidence is the Bible was supernatural signs ans wonders. God marked the Exodus with extraordinary acts that were referred to many times in scripture to encourage his people to follow him. Peter referred to the signs and wonders that Jesus worked as evidence that he was the messiah.<br /><br />But Jesus himself, although he worked signs and wonders, when reasoning with people who wouldn't accept such things always gave presuppositional arguments. It's not that he ended up changing them either, but his followers who heard him answer this way were more firmly established in their following him. John 1:1ff is a presuppositional argument. Paul in Athens started off with a presuppositional reference if nothing else.<br /><br />So there's certainly Biblical uses for both, but referring to evidence always assumes a common presupposition of the stability of reason.Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23288540515867936062012-07-16T14:39:36.741-04:002012-07-16T14:39:36.741-04:00There seems to be some conflating of evidenCES wit...There seems to be some conflating of evidenCES with evidentialISM. The presuppositionalist is not opposed to the former, and indeed makes use of the former, but he is more skeptical of the latter (yet, there may be versions of evidentialism that can fit with presuppositionalism, e.g., Wykstra's "A Sensible Evidentialism"). Evidences can play many roles in an apologetic context, and a sophisticated presuppositionalist realizes this. Consider the field of epistemology and the sub-category of 'defeaters.' So for one example, a presuppositionalist can and will use evidences as defeater-defeaters. Another use of evidences is to press the presuppositional debate. Present the evidences in a particularly strong way, and you'll see the non-Christian quickly resorting to a *presuppositional* response. The evidence, it will be said, "can't say that," and the reason why will be a more fundamental philosophical presupposition that determines how evidences can be used and what they can tell us. People also ignore the *intra*faith role of apologetics. Fellow believers share a common worldview. But they can also face doubts and criticisms. Evidences can be used in these cases to strengthen the faith of the believer. Show that the world comports to his confession. When Van Til and Bahnsen objected to evidences, they largely did so because of the different worldviews, belief policies, or philosophies of fact between the believer and unbeliever. Or because some pretended neutrality. But when the issue is believer-to-believer, that isn't (typically) going on. There's a shared worldview, a shared set of presuppositions. Evidences can be appealed to boldly and straight-forwardly, without apologies, and without taking the debate into the (often) esoteric and confusing clouds of common presuppositional argumentation—which, sadly, as employed by many ostensible "presuppositionalists" simply causes the interlocutors eyes to glaze over and head to start searching for the nearest church exit.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72903684055800390302012-07-16T12:39:16.237-04:002012-07-16T12:39:16.237-04:00Regarding arguments for a Biblical apologetic meth...Regarding arguments for a Biblical apologetic methodology, we need to be careful of assuming that because the Bible doesn't present a particular apologetic strategy (such as, say, appeals to scholarly consensus) that it can be labeled 'unbiblical' and used as an argument against its use. In the same way that the proposition 'Steve Hays exists on July 16, 2012' is 'unbiblical' it does not mean that it isn't true so an apologetic strategy might not be used in Scripture and yet it might still be <i>consistent</i> with a Scriptural methodology. This distinction is often overlooked when adherents to a particular apologetic methodology critique rival methodologies to the detriment of all participants in the discussion and especially those unfamiliar with these kinds of debates.<br /><br />I'm not saying that you're guilty of this Steve (you're clearly not) but many - evidentialist and presup alike - are.David J. Houstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11846106292250369261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64239490530781588252012-07-16T11:55:52.595-04:002012-07-16T11:55:52.595-04:00"I would therefore engage in historical apolo...<i><br />"I would therefore engage in historical apologetics. (I do not personally do a great deal of this because my colleagues in the other departments of the Seminary in which I teach are doing it better than I could do it.) Every bit of historical investigation...is bound to confirm the truth of the claims of the Christian position. But I would not talk endlessly about facts and more facts without ever challenging the non-believer's philosophy of fact."</i>- Van Til, The Defense of the Faith p. 199<br /><i><br />"...the Christian faith is not a blind faith but is faith based on evidence."</i> - Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge p. 250<br /><i><br />"...we present the message and evidence for the Christian position as clearly as possible, knowing that because man is what the Christian says he is, the non-Christian will be able to understand in an intellectual sense the issues involved."</i>- Van Til, "My Credo"<br /><i><br />"I do not reject 'theistic proofs' but merely insist on formulating them in a such a way as not to compromise the doctrines of Scripture."</i> Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, p. 197; A Christian Theory of Knowledge, p. 292<br /><i><br />"It is impossible and useless to seek to vindicate Christianity as a historical religion by a discussion of facts only."</i>- Van Til, Apologetics (Syllabus)<br /><i><br />"Men have not done justice by the facts, by the evidence of God's presence before their eyes, unless they burst out into praise of him who has made all things"</i>-C. Van Til in A Christian Theory of Knowledge p. 234<br /><i><br />"Christianity meets every legitimate demand of reason" and "is not irrational" but "is capable of rational defense."</i>- Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel p. 184<br /><i><br />"I do not artificially separate induction from deduction, or reasoning about the facts of nature from reasoning in a priori analytical fashion about the nature of human consciousness. On the contrary, I see induction and analytical reasoning as part of one process of interpretation."</i> Thom Notaro quoting Van Til page 19 of "Van Til and the Use of Evidence" by Thom Notaro<br /><i><br />"The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks. Moreover, it speaks of everything...either directly or by implication."</i>- Van Til, Apologetics<br /><br /><br />I recommend Thom Notaro's book "Van Til and the Use of Evidence" to anyone who would like to know in what sense Van Til believed in the use of evidences and how they should be used.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46160154522035271852012-07-16T11:35:01.897-04:002012-07-16T11:35:01.897-04:00In some sense, Van Til probably had a higher view ...In some sense, Van Til probably had a higher view of the evidence than many contemporary evidentialists do:<br /><br />"The objective evidence for the existence of God and of the comprehensive governance of the world by God is therefore so plain that he who runs may read. Men cannot get away from this evidence. They see it round about them. They see it within them. Their own constitution so clearly evinces the facts of God’s creation of them and control over them that there is no man who can possibly escape observing it. If he is self-conscious at all, he is also God-conscious. No matter how men may try they cannot hide from themselves the fact of their own createdness. Whether men engage in inductive study with respect to the facts of nature about them or engage in analysis of their own self-consciousness they are always face to face with God their maker. Calvin stresses these matters greatly on the basis of Paul’s teachings in Romans."<br /><br />A Christian Theory of Knowledge, 10.3.b.1The Janitorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12591757439983957057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83554344327714104052012-07-16T11:26:17.828-04:002012-07-16T11:26:17.828-04:00There was an informal division of labor at Westmin...There was an informal division of labor at Westminster, when he was teaching there. The "evidence" was generally presented by the OT prof (E. J. Young) and the NT prof (Stonehouse). When Kline was hired, he also presented some evidence. <br /><br />That goes to the specialization of knowledge. Van Til delegated the evidentiary side of things to his colleagues.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34433205056037133922012-07-16T10:53:11.579-04:002012-07-16T10:53:11.579-04:00I do think that it is important to address presupp...I do think that it is important to address presuppositions like naturalism when discussing science and history, with naturalists like Peter Atkins and John Dominic Crossan. It's important to get them to admit they are evaluating the evidence with these presuppositions in place. I think it's good, but I think that it is also good having addressed that to go ahead and present the evidence which should cause them to question their presuppositions. So I guess I would say that my view is that evidence can cause people to overturn presuppositions, and that it is important to address presuppositions when presenting evidence. What I oppose is not presenting any evidence at all. I like presuppositional arguments in combination with evidence, but not presuppositionalism that excludes the use of evidence like miracles.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87919449068882173902012-07-16T10:44:20.090-04:002012-07-16T10:44:20.090-04:00Excellent! I'll link to this from my blog firs...Excellent! I'll link to this from my blog first, then read it. I'm willing to be corrected.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com