First off I want to say that I do not want this to become a heated debate thread. I'm fairly new to the study of presuppositional apologetics and thus far have read Bahnsen's "Always Ready" as well as have listened to a few of his lectures and have read a few posts here regarding presuppositionalism.

With that said, I have two questions concerning both Van Til's and Clark's approach to presuppositional apologetics:

1) How/where do they both agree with one another?
2) How/where do they differ?

Sorry if this has already been asked before.

__________________
~Greg Carpenter~
Deerfield Beach, FL

"It is a throne of grace that God in Christ is represented to us upon; but yet it is a throne still whereon majesty and glory do reside, and God is always to be considered by us as on a throne." –John Owen