Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcFadden  Sproul's apologetic is basically in sync with his mentor at Pittsburg, John Gerstner. They both emphasize classical apologetics and the role of reason in their writings. The book Spear Dane references (Classical Apologetics) is the best accessible introduction to Gerstner/Sproul's attack on presuppositional apologetics.
I did not mean to say that Sproul is anything but a classical apologist, merely that anyone will find elements of the other types in most apologetic writers. For example, the Creation Museum folks are strongly presuppositional in their approach. They even sit around reading Bahnsen in their spare time (Dr. Georgia Purdom, PhD biology, was telling my family how much the entire staff there is "into" Bahnsen's apologetic). Yet, if you travel through the museum, while the major thrust is on worldview differences and presuppositionalism, you will still find creationist exhibits featuring "evidence" for creation rather than evolution. Despite our basic "type," don't most of us include elements and arguments from the other systems??? |
Bahnsen and Van Til both advocated the use of evidence. They taught that all things were evidence for God. They affirmed value in arguing for the historicity of the resurrection and the like. What they challenged was the claim that one could be autonomous in evaluating the evidence. Presuppositions affect what we consider to be evidence, how much weight we give it, and the like. One the best series on this topic is by Bahnsen himself:
The Place of Evidence in Apologetics. Bahnsen said he did not spend a lot of time on those issues, because a lot of people were already doing it and he was more interested in the foundational presuppositions. Still, you hear evidences interspersed in some of his talks, such as those on evolution, the age of the earth, and the like.