Classical or Presuppositional Apologetics

Blue Tick · #1 (**permalink**) 11-07-2006, 10:16 AM

What is the primary difference between classical and presuppositional apologetics?

cih1355 · #2 (**permalink**) 11-09-2006, 02:54 AM

Presuppositional apologetics: Presuppose the truth of Christianity and show that you cannot make sense out of logic, moral values, science, and the intelligibility of the world unless you presuppose the truth of Christianity.

Classical apologetics: Scripture is not used as a starting point for apologetics. Begin by proving God's existence by appealing to general revelation or natural theology. After proving God's existence, use the facts of history, archaeology, science, etc. to prove the reliability of the Bible. Once you prove the reliability of Bible, you can prove that it is inspired by God.

Semper Fidelis · #3 (**permalink**) 11-09-2006, 03:07 AM

Nah! The primary difference is that presuppositionalists argue with each other way more than classical apologists do!

Blue Tick · #4 (**permalink**) 11-09-2006, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Nah! The primary difference is that presuppositionalists argue with each other way more than classical apologists do!

Magma2 · #5 (**permalink**) 11-09-2006, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cih1355

Presuppositional apologetics: Presuppose the truth of Christianity and show that you cannot make sense out of logic, moral values, science, and the intelligibility of the world unless you presuppose the truth of Christianity.

Classical apologetics: Scripture is not used as a starting point for apologetics. Begin by proving God's existence by appealing to general revelation or natural theology. After proving God's existence, use the facts of history, archaeology, science, etc. to prove the reliability of the Bible. Once you prove the reliability of Bible, you can prove that it is inspired by God.

I would generally agree with your second point, not your first. Your definition of presuppositionalism is exclusively Van Tilian. For example, Gordon Clark demonstrated that science is always false because the methods it employs are a tissue of fallacies. Presupposing the truth of Scripture does not make fallacious arguments or methods any less so fallacious and doesn't miraculously make science a cognitive enterprise.

Clark also argued, unlike Van Til, that Scripture is logically coherent. Or, to put it in confessional terms, the meaning of Scripture is not manifold but one. By contrast, Van Til's presuppositional turf is that all of Scripture is "apparently" contradictory rendering the Scriptures useless as a workable presupposition. So, I think it's important to examine what it is that is being presupposed and if VT's doctrine of Scripture is correct (thankfully it isn't), then presupposing Scripture is no advantage in apologetics and even less in epistemology.

FWIW, I don’t think persuppositionalism can continue to stand on Van Tilian grounds. Evidence is all around. The Van Tilian idea, so central to their apologetic, of the so-called “impossibility of the contrary” is under assault by, well, Van Tilians! This is a problem that Clark's presuppositional system (as Frame has pointed out elsewhere and whom I cited in this regard on another recent thread) was able to simply avoid. While evidently lost on some, this distinction alone gives strong evidence of the difference between these two presuppositional positions or systems.

It should be obvious that remaining a presuppositionalist of the Van Tilian stripe is going to be tough and recognizing Clark’s use of axiomization in apologetics (and epistemology) as superior would be to admit defeat in their long war against Clark. So my guess is that most thoughtful Van Tilians will continue to gravitate to Plantigna’s so-called “Reformed epistemology” which is not Reformed in any sense of the word except for an occasional tip of the hat to Calvin’s sensus divinitas, or will fall back into the natural theology of the classical school, or a hybrid of both, which is what we see in men like Michael Sudduth.

IMO Clark’s Scripturalism will be the only remaining viable presuppositional position. It is the only defensible and consistent presuppositional position and should be included in any discussion of presuppositionalism.

matthew11v25 · #6 (**permalink**) 11-09-2006, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Tick

matthew11v25 · #7 (**permalink**) 11-09-2006, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magma2

I would generally agree with your second point, not your first. Your definition of presuppositionalism is exclusively Van Tilian. For example, Gordon Clark demonstrated that science is always false because the methods it employs are a tissue of fallacies. Presupposing the truth of Scripture does not make fallacious arguments or methods any less so fallacious and doesn't miraculously make science a cognitive enterprise.

Clark also argued, unlike Van Til, that Scripture is logically coherent. Or, to put it in confessional terms, the meaning of Scripture is not manifold but one. By contrast, Van Til's presuppositional turf is that all of Scripture is "apparently" contradictory rendering the Scriptures useless as a workable presupposition. So, I think it's important to examine what it is that is being presupposed and if VT's doctrine of Scripture is correct (thankfully it isn't), then presupposing Scripture is no advantage in apologetics and even less in epistemology.

FWIW, I don’t think persuppositionalism can continue to stand on Van Tilian grounds. Evidence is all around. The Van Tilian idea, so central to their apologetic, of the so-called “impossibility of the contrary” is under assault by, well, Van Tilians! This is a problem that Clark's presuppositional system (as Frame has pointed out elsewhere and whom I cited in this regard on another recent thread) was able to simply avoid. While evidently lost on some, this distinction alone gives strong evidence of the difference between these two presuppositional positions or systems.

It should be obvious that remaining a presuppositionalist of the Van Tilian stripe is going to be tough and recognizing Clark’s use of axiomization in apologetics (and epistemology) as superior would be to admit defeat in their long war against Clark. So my guess is that most thoughtful Van Tilians will continue to gravitate to Plantigna’s so-called “Reformed epistemology” which is not Reformed in any sense of the word except for an occasional tip of the hat to Calvin’s sensus divinitas, or will fall back into the natural theology of the classical school, or a hybrid of both, which is what we see in men like Michael Sudduth.

IMO Clark’s Scripturalism will be the only remaining viable presuppositional position. It is the only defensible and consistent presuppositional position and should be included in any discussion of presuppositionalism.

Calvin Royal · #8 (**permalink**) 12-18-2006, 01:17 PM

I was once told that presuppositionalists were existentialists in sheeps clothing! How offensive!