There is a thread about "What approach are you?"....I voted Classical.....but I have a question....I voted as I did due the fact that some early Sproul stuff really influenced me....but if I am not mistaken do not not Sproul and Geisler incorporate some Presuppositinal elements in their writings? I am sorry if this is a REALLY dumb question...and maybe some of the PB "wise" will help me better define my terms. Love some feedback on this I have been thinking about it from the time the other thread came up. Grace and Peace.

__________________
~etexas~

Sproul argued against both presuppositionalism and evidentialism. However, is anyone really a total purist in apologetics?

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

I DID warn it was a dumb question! I think I refered to Sproul due to a lot of what he read and was expossed to, even if he would be viewed as Classical in stance, from his early years...few would deny that some presuppositional writers and apologist had some influence on him. But your point about "who is really a Purist" is a good point.....and well taken.

The Bahnsen/Sproul Debate Over Apologetic Method - ASM5-CD

Geisler has (very poorly) argued against presuppositionalism. Sproul's arguments are interesting and slightly better. Sproul wrote a book, Amazon.com: Classical Apologetics: Books: Dr.... , against presuppositional apologetics.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

Thank you. I was wondering if as Dennis pointed out, if you find that Sprout despite his "official" stance, isnot always totally consitent in regard to his approach to aologetics, in that it "feels" at least, from time to time, that there are some presupp. undercurrents from time to time?

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???

See Spear Dane's wonderful summary of the various apologetic types in his post today on the "What View are You?" thread (Tom the classicist, Joe the evidentialist, Cal the presuppositionalist, Martin the fideist, and Alvin the Reformed epistemologist).

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.

__________________
Scott Roberts
Ruling Elder, Lakeside Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Southlake, Texas

In v.1 of Hodge's systematic one find the impossibility of the contrary argument, which I had thought was a Bahnsen signature move.

__________________
Ruben

Spanish Blog -Teologia en Mexico
English Blog -The Howling Wilderness

I have read, Christian Apologetics, by Geisler. He says that Van Til is a fideist. Geisler advocates using two tests when evaluating worldviews- unaffirmability and undeniability. Unaffirmability is used as a test for falsity. If it is impossible to affirm something, then it is false. For example, self-refuting statements are unaffirmable. All worldviews except for Christianity are unaffirmable. Undeniability is used as a test for truth. Christianity is the only worldview that is undeniable.

__________________
Curt Hayashida
member, Community Bible Church (Non-denominational)
Vallejo, CA

Of course, from the perspective of a Thomist, a Reformed apologist will always be a fideist. They are lacking the categories for "presuppositional" thinkinga dn also the basic hermeneutic (role of Scripture) behing Reformed apologetics.

__________________
Sebastian Heck
PCA & yet to be founded Reformierte Kirche Deutschland
Ph.D. candidate Westminster Theol. Seminary/Philadelphia
Church Planting in Germany
Reformation2Germany