One of these days I suppose I will endeavor to avail myself to the debate among Christians between two different schools of apologetics: the classical and the presuppositional. Perhaps that day is today. Below are the words of Van Til regarding the later, taken from his argument for the existence of God.
"Now, in fact, I feel that the whole of history and civilization would be unintelligible to me if it were not for my belief in God. So true is this, that I propose to argue that unless God is back of everything, you cannot find meaning in anything. I cannot even argue for belief in Him, without already having taken Him for granted. And similarly I contend that you cannot argue against belief in Him unless you also first take Him for granted. Arguing about God's existence, I hold, is like arguing about air. You may affirm that air exists, and I that it does not. But as we debate the point, we are both breathing air all the time. Or to use another illustration, God is like the emplacement on which must stand the very guns that are supposed to shoot Him out of existence."
"Do you suppose that our God approves of this attitude of His followers? I do not think so. The God who claims to have made all facts and to have placed His stamp upon them will not grant that there is really some excuse for those who refuse to see. Besides, such a procedure is self-defeating. If someone in your home town of Washington denied that there was any such thing as a United States Government would you take him some distance down the Potomac and testify to him that there is? So your experience and testimony of regeneration would be meaningless except for the objective truth of the objective facts that are presupposed by it. A testimony that is not an argument is not a testimony either, just as an argument that is not a testimony is not even an argument."
These of course are some of Van Til's reasons behind the presuppositional apologetic method. In the future I hope to explore some of the reasons given for the classical method, and to decide whether or not one must choose one or the other.
"Now, in fact, I feel that the whole of history and civilization would be unintelligible to me if it were not for my belief in God. So true is this, that I propose to argue that unless God is back of everything, you cannot find meaning in anything. I cannot even argue for belief in Him, without already having taken Him for granted. And similarly I contend that you cannot argue against belief in Him unless you also first take Him for granted. Arguing about God's existence, I hold, is like arguing about air. You may affirm that air exists, and I that it does not. But as we debate the point, we are both breathing air all the time. Or to use another illustration, God is like the emplacement on which must stand the very guns that are supposed to shoot Him out of existence."
"Do you suppose that our God approves of this attitude of His followers? I do not think so. The God who claims to have made all facts and to have placed His stamp upon them will not grant that there is really some excuse for those who refuse to see. Besides, such a procedure is self-defeating. If someone in your home town of Washington denied that there was any such thing as a United States Government would you take him some distance down the Potomac and testify to him that there is? So your experience and testimony of regeneration would be meaningless except for the objective truth of the objective facts that are presupposed by it. A testimony that is not an argument is not a testimony either, just as an argument that is not a testimony is not even an argument."
These of course are some of Van Til's reasons behind the presuppositional apologetic method. In the future I hope to explore some of the reasons given for the classical method, and to decide whether or not one must choose one or the other.
2 comments:
Evidential Opening Arguments and Presuppositional Closing Arguments.
In witnessing, the evidential approach may get the lost to walk into the room and feel the walls for a light switch.
Presuppositional apologetics puts the light switch on the wall
God's sovereign will determines whether of not the honest skeptic will find the switch and turn it on.
Thanks for writing the post on this topic. It led me to examine the subject and I will probably be a more effective witness as a result.
Please God; convert China.
I'm thrilled that someone would benefit in any way from the articles I post. I agree with you about the "end" of the evidential approach, and I am still looking into this topic, thus my understanding is still infantile. I will say this, on the surface it appears that the strict classical/evidential approach (through a presentation of general revelation) actually only leads the skeptic to deism, but the presuppositional approach (through a presentation of special revelation) relies entirely upon the Spirit to move one's soul toward God. Paul's words still ring true today, Romans 1:"18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." & this, from 1 Cor. 1:"23but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."
I don't want to give the impression that I think that evidentialists DON'T rely on the spirit to move a person to believe, b/c there are great men of God who take this approach, Sproul for instance.
Post a Comment