I am doing this to summarize and clarify my own views on the transcendental argument, and possibly to highlight the differences between Bahnsen and Frame.

By transcendental I mean what kind of argument establishes the preconditions of intelligibility.

Reasoning by Presupposition
1. Point out the presuppositions that control one's method.
This however, won't convince the unbeliever of your case if you tell him that he has his own presuppositions. Therefore,

2. He must see that every method presupposes the truth or falsity of the Christian claim (not yet to the heart of TAG)

3. CVT then makes the TAG: "that unless this God, the God of the Bible...be presupposed as the foundation of human experience, this experience operates in a void (Defense of Faith, 100).

To summarize CVT before moving to a critique,

1. All intelligibility presupposes Christian theism.
2. It is indirect, rather than direct.
3. It requires each member to place himself upon his opponent's position for the sake of argument in order to show how the position affects the intelligibility of predication.

Frame's Critique (p. 315)
Frame notes that Van Til has not actually given us an argument but rather,
1. A conclusion
2. a logical model
3. a Practical strategy.

just thinking out loud and trying to see where Van Tillianism will go (of which I count myself an adherent) if the TAG has to be rejected.

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