Thread: Poll...Who utilizes what apologetic method?

Sorry...I don't know how to make a poll...so, just tell us what you are.

1. Evidentialist/Classical
2. Clarkian Presuppositionalist
3. Van Tillian Presuppositionalist
4. Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology
5. Other...if other, please explain.

So, to what do you hold?

I, personally, was trained Clarkian, but have since, moved to the Van Tillian camp.

I preach the gospel.

Originally Posted by JonathanHunt

I preach the gospel.

Ahh...I see, so you are Van Tillian too, eh?

Not learned enough to know the differentiations in presuppositionalism, but I use it.

Van Tillian Presuppositionalist

Originally Posted by nicnap

Originally Posted by JonathanHunt

I preach the gospel.

Ahh...I see, so you are Van Tillian too, eh?

If you say so! Some time ago I took time to work out what all these schools of thought taught and believed. Then I thought 'I still need to preach the gospel!' In fact, rather like the day I discovered that not all the world was amillennial, and I thought my brain might explode (when I was about 15) with all the jargon, schools of thought, and fine differences, so apologetical methods have similarly fried my mind

Bottom line is, not one person in my church would understand any of what you wrote in the OP, and I have a rebellious streak a mile wide when it comes to making academica out of life-giving theology. I'm not anti-intellectual, just sympathetic. If we could have a show of hands, I am convinced that a lot of readers of the PB don't understand what you are asking.

Perhaps a one-line explanation next to each view? Okay, a paragraph. Then someone will disagree with your definition. And on we go.



-----Added 4/3/2009 at 07:33:59 EST-----

And to be precise, in theory I am #3 but in practice I waver between #1 and #3

Originally Posted by nicnap

I, personally, was trained Clarkian, but have since, moved to the Van Tillian camp.

In my early years I was evidentialist/classical. Now in my later years, I tend to be more presuppositional.

Please give a little insight into your distinction between Clarkian and VanTillian presupp.

Whatever fits the particular situation and person to whom I'm talking in that context.

I choose Other. I would choose Van Tillian except that there are some who would insist that I'd have to stick to TAG or the impossibility of the contrary. I don't claim to be a sophisticated philsopher but tend toward common sense realism. The way I see it, God's existence doesn't have to be proven. It is public knowledge, like gravity and air. I don't have a problem with evidences but they have to be grounded in a commitment that God exists and things are therefore logical and predictable.

Funny how many here reflected my thinking. If I had to produce an academic paper, it would likely reflect Mr. Van Til. When I'm talking with someone, I'll use whatever seems to best meet the need, although I do find all-out evidentialism to be rather distasteful; and I am convinced that no philosophy outside of Christianity can be internally self-consistent (although my husband claims he can do so mathematically; this was the basis for our first big argument together).

I subscribe to and teach presuppositional apologetics (PSA), but in practice can be eclectic (but mostly presup) depending on whom I am speaking to. In any case however, I do not make any attempt to find "common ground" with the unbeliever.

One reason I like PSA is that it gives the believer a method on which to defend the faith rather than a list of facts as the evidentialist would use. In my opinion, the evidentialist position tends to put God in the defendant chair, but as Rich rightly noted, God's existence doesn't have to be proven.

Originally Posted by Gomarus

Originally Posted by nicnap

I, personally, was trained Clarkian, but have since, moved to the Van Tillian camp.

In my early years I was evidentialist/classical. Now in my later years, I tend to be more presuppositional.

Please give a little insight into your distinction between Clarkian and VanTillian presupp.

The distinction "simplified" is (from my understanding): Van Til sees a Creator/creature distinction, God's knowledge full-orbed as the Creator, our knowledge is derivative. Clark sees logic as being outside of God, and God is bound to it, instead of God giving logic meaning.

-----Added 4/3/2009 at 09:08:07 EST-----

Originally Posted by JonathanHunt

Originally Posted by nicnap

Originally Posted by JonathanHunt

I preach the gospel.

Ahh...I see, so you are Van Tillian too, eh?

If you say so! Some time ago I took time to work out what all these schools of thought taught and believed. Then I thought 'I still need to preach the gospel!' In fact, rather like the day I discovered that not all the world was amillennial, and I thought my brain might explode (when I was about 15) with all the jargon, schools of thought, and fine differences, so apologetical methods have similarly fried my mind

Bottom line is, not one person in my church would understand any of what you wrote in the OP, and I have a rebellious streak a mile wide when it comes to making academica out of life-giving theology. I'm not anti-intellectual, just sympathetic. If we could have a show of hands, I am convinced that a lot of readers of the PB don't understand what you are asking.

Perhaps a one-line explanation next to each view? Okay, a paragraph. Then someone will disagree with your definition. And on we go.



-----Added 4/3/2009 at 07:33:59 EST-----

And to be precise, in theory I am #3 but in practice I waver between #1 and #3

I know that many of the members in our pews would not know the terms, that is fine, but as ministers we ought to in some way be relaying the truths of our apologetic, so that they may defend their faith. We don't have to say, "Well, this is the transcendental argument for God...or (on the classical side) this is the basic reliability of sense perception," but we do need to relay to them the necessity of taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, and we need to work through the ramifications of that with them. It is not academia, but is the whole counsel of God (not the terms, but the concepts).

What is "Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology"? You know, in 3 sentences or less.

Originally Posted by louis_jp

What is "Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology"? You know, in 3 sentences or less.

Heading to class...will try to sum it up (if someone else doesn't) when I get off this afternoon/evening.

I voted "other" because I mix classical with presuppositional, to at least some extent. I personally am better able to defend the cosmological argument--specifically William Lane Craig's Kalam variant--than the argument from logic, but I feel they can be used interchangeably.

I am Rational Presuppositionalist. See attached.

http://westminsterfellowship.com/

Originally Posted by nicnap

Originally Posted by Gomarus

Originally Posted by nicnap

I, personally, was trained Clarkian, but have since, moved to the Van Tillian camp.

In my early years I was evidentialist/classical. Now in my later years, I tend to be more presuppositional.

Please give a little insight into your distinction between Clarkian and VanTillian presupp.

The distinction "simplified" is (from my understanding): Van Til sees a Creator/creature distinction, God's knowledge full-orbed as the Creator, our knowledge is derivative. Clark sees logic as being outside of God, and God is bound to it, instead of God giving logic meaning.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong...but Clark said logic is identical to God...that our knowledge, if it is to be correct, is not analogical to God's, but identical.

Clark rejected the inductive method and believed all knowledge was revealed in God's word and logically deduced from it.

As for myself...I find that I tend to be Van Tillian...though I'm open to tweaking here and there. Like others have noted, I will use a hybrid approach with Joe on the street...otherwise, it seems like you end up arguing for a method rather than the Christian God.

Originally Posted by nicnap

Clark sees logic as being outside of God, and God is bound to it, instead of God giving logic meaning.

I question this statement based on this:

Clark, Logic p. 114 -

Similarly in all other varieties of truth, God must be accounted sovereign. It is his decree that makes one proposition true and another false. Whether the proposition be physical, psychological, moral or theological, it is God who made it that way. A proposition is true because God thinks it so.

Ibid. p. 116 -

Not only do the followers of Bernard entertain suspicions about logic, but even more systematic theologians are wary of any proposal that would make and abstract principle superior to God. The present argument, in consonance with both Philo and Charnock, does not do so. The law of contradiction is not to be taken as an axiom prior to or independent of God. The law is God thinking.

Ibid. p. 117 -

Hence logic is to be considered as the activity of God's willing.

Other: Good and Bad can be extracted from both. I wouldn't identify myself as Van Tillian or Clarkian or ___________. I'd say, though, that I am presuppositional.

Originally Posted by louis_jp

What is "Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology"? You know, in 3 sentences or less.

Essentially, the idea that belief in God is perfectly rational even if accepted on no evidence whatsoever, and in fact need not be accepted on evidence. Plantinga also proposes that belief in God can be warranted to the point of being called knowledge if it is produced by properly functioning cognitive faculties in the proper circumstances for which those faculties were designed.

I would consider myself Reformed Epistemologist.

Originally Posted by Craig

Originally Posted by nicnap

Originally Posted by Gomarus

In my early years I was evidentialist/classical. Now in my later years, I tend to be more presuppositional.

Please give a little insight into your distinction between Clarkian and VanTillian presupp.

The distinction "simplified" is (from my understanding): Van Til sees a Creator/creature distinction, God's knowledge full-orbed as the Creator, our knowledge is derivative. Clark sees logic as being outside of God, and God is bound to it, instead of God giving logic meaning.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong...but Clark said logic is identical to God...that our knowledge, if it is to be correct, is not analogical to God's, but identical.

Clark rejected the inductive method and believed all knowledge was revealed in God's word and logically deduced from it.

As for myself...I find that I tend to be Van Tillian...though I'm open to tweaking here and there. Like others have noted, I will use a hybrid approach with Joe on the street...otherwise, it seems like you end up arguing for a method rather than the Christian God.

Clark would say that we know a rose as God knows a rose...Van Til would say he knows it as Creator (more fully) and we know it in a derivative fashion.

-----Added 4/3/2009 at 10:38:20 EST-----

Originally Posted by Whitefield

Originally Posted by nicnap

Clark sees logic as being outside of God, and God is bound to it, instead of God giving logic meaning.

I question this statement based on this:

Clark, Logic p. 114 -

Similarly in all other varieties of truth, God must be accounted sovereign. It is his decree that makes one proposition true and another false. Whether the proposition be physical, psychological, moral or theological, it is God who made it that way. A proposition is true because God thinks it so.

Ibid. p. 116 -

Not only do the followers of Bernard entertain suspicions about logic, but even more systematic theologians are wary of any proposal that would make and abstract principle superior to God. The present argument, in consonance with both Philo and Charnock, does not do so. The law of contradiction is not to be taken as an axiom prior to or independent of God. The law is God thinking.

Ibid. p. 117 -

Hence logic is to be considered as the activity of God's willing.

Thanks for the clarification...apparently, I wasn't thinking as I was typing. I would, however, say the distinction lies in the type of knowlege the creature has.

I use them all except for Clark.

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Originally Posted by louis_jp

What is "Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology"? You know, in 3 sentences or less.

Essentially, the idea that belief in God is perfectly rational even if accepted on no evidence whatsoever, and in fact need not be accepted on evidence. Plantinga also proposes that belief in God can be warranted to the point of being called knowledge if it is produced by properly functioning cognitive faculties in the proper circumstances for which those faculties were designed.

I would consider myself Reformed Epistemologist.

That is an excellent summary. While I would consider myself to a VT presuppositionalist, there is something appealing about Plantinga's RE. However, there is also a question as to how seriously he takes the noetic effect of sin in developing his methodology.

Is it just me, or is there a presuppostional aspect to Plantinga's RE (perhaps more Clarkian)? That is, is there possibly an overlap in saying the belief in God is properly basic and saying that one must presuppose God in order to be rational?

I use a mixture of classical and presuppositional apologetics, so I chose "other."

My early years were in the classical/evidentialist camps. Classical arguments in philosophy and Josh McDowell/Montgomery style evidence dominated my thinking. In my old age (as I have become more and more Calvinistic), my thinking has become more presuppositionalist in the Rich Leino sense.

I use the heathen face-rocking method of apologetics.

Originally Posted by Zenas

I use the heathen face-rocking method of apologetics.

Please describe this approach. I smell a book in the works.

You'd have to be a heathen for me to tell you, lest ye be totally destroyed.

Originally Posted by Zenas

You'd have to be a heathen for me to tell you, lest ye be totally destroyed.

I feel its power.

I am a, "foolishness of preaching" apologist trusting God to convert whom He will from the gospel.

I guess that makes me a presuppositionalist, but I think all reformed people have to be presuppositionalist 1st from the point we believe God ordained who will believe and that they will believe.

Now what legitimate means we use for Him to work through after that given, I see some liberty.

But formerly being a Mormon and JW basher, I no longer attack their error so much as point them to the gospel including God's sovereignty which they have never heard of before and they are humbled to see something they don't know. Usually more so than Arminains who get mad and say I wouldn't have a god like that.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Originally Posted by louis_jp

What is "Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology"? You know, in 3 sentences or less.

Essentially, the idea that belief in God is perfectly rational even if accepted on no evidence whatsoever, and in fact need not be accepted on evidence. Plantinga also proposes that belief in God can be warranted to the point of being called knowledge if it is produced by properly functioning cognitive faculties in the proper circumstances for which those faculties were designed.

That is an excellent summary. While I would consider myself to a VT presuppositionalist, there is something appealing about Plantinga's RE. However, there is also a question as to how seriously he takes the noetic effect of sin in developing his methodology.

Is it just me, or is there a presuppostional aspect to Plantinga's RE (perhaps more Clarkian)? That is, is there possibly an overlap in saying the belief in God is properly basic and saying that one must presuppose God in order to be rational?

Yes I think Platinga is a presuppositionalist too. He presupposes that belief in God apart from evidence is rational to a fallen human mind. Rom 1 -2

He may not be Van Tillian but I don't think VT has a monopoly on presupposition.

So Starting with God's sovereignty we move on, Paul used the circumstance of the Statue and belief in The Unknown God as a place to get a hearing. How Genius.

I think that would be Platinga, assume they have a belief in God and tell them who the real God is, and no need for evidence but I would not say it is wrong to offer evidence. In fact is it not evidence that we have within us an ability to believe in a God and maybe even a need to worship something or recognize a higher power. This evidences there is a Creator. Rom 1-2

But I no longer start with arguing archeology or other Aminian logical tactics to convince and satisfy the intellect of he hearer as I did when I was an Arminain in college. I "converted" too many who were still unregenerate with that false gospel of decisionalsim, and gave false assurance to them telling them never to doubt. The most wicked works of my life I repent of more than anything. I was a false prophet. Gal 1:7,8,9 and
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. NKJV

Preacher of foolishness to dead people unable to respond.

And apart from the breath of the Spirit in the hearer this is all any of it will be! Amen

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

However, there is also a question as to how seriously he takes the noetic effect of sin in developing his methodology.

What do you mean to say?

Is it just me, or is there a presuppostional aspect to Plantinga's RE (perhaps more Clarkian)? That is, is there possibly an overlap in saying the belief in God is properly basic and saying that one must presuppose God in order to be rational?

When RE argumentation is used perhaps along with his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, you can make quite a good case of theism being rational and atheism irrational, although he would hardly say that the only sense you can make of the universe is "presupposing God", I should think.

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

When RE argumentation is used perhaps along with his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, you can make quite a good case of theism being rational and atheism irrational, although he would hardly say that the only sense you can make of the universe is "presupposing God", I should think.

He may not say that but don't you think it is true? I mean there is some apparent rationality in working to eat and provide for your family but ultimately if we do not know God all was irrational since that was what we made for
Ecclesiastes 12:8 "Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher,
"All is vanity."
NKJV

Is there a website somewhere were I can find a disscription of the different types?

Originally Posted by nicnap

Clark would say that we know a rose as God knows a rose...Van Til would say he knows it as Creator (more fully) and we know it in a derivative fashion.

I wouldn't put it at all like this. The difference between Van Til and Clark was whether our knowledge at any point intersects with God's. The question was "qualitative" not "quantitative." So, Clark would say that when I look at a rose and think, "This is a rose," there is an identical proposition somewhere in God's mind. Van Til would say that man and God share no identical propositions in common, but that all human knowledge is analagous to God's knowledge, which is simple rather than discursive.

Besides the issue of the Van Til/Clark debate regarding analogicity and knowledge, I think this is the prime difference between the two schools: a Van Tillian epistemology is one which is grounded on Scripture, while a Clarkian one is nothing more than Scripture. Or, to put it another way, Van Til believed that Scripture was a light that illuminated the rest of the universe to give us knowledge, while Clark believed that Scripture was the entirety of our knowledge.

Originally Posted by JonathanHunt

Originally Posted by nicnap

Originally Posted by JonathanHunt

I preach the gospel.

Ahh...I see, so you are Van Tillian too, eh?

If you say so! Some time ago I took time to work out what all these schools of thought taught and believed. Then I thought 'I still need to preach the gospel!' In fact, rather like the day I discovered that not all the world was amillennial, and I thought my brain might explode (when I was about 15) with all the jargon, schools of thought, and fine differences, so apologetical methods have similarly fried my mind

Bottom line is, not one person in my church would understand any of what you wrote in the OP, and I have a rebellious streak a mile wide when it comes to making academica out of life-giving theology. I'm not anti-intellectual, just sympathetic. If we could have a show of hands, I am convinced that a lot of readers of the PB don't understand what you are asking.

Perhaps a one-line explanation next to each view? Okay, a paragraph. Then someone will disagree with your definition. And on we go.



-----Added 4/3/2009 at 07:33:59 EST-----

And to be precise, in theory I am #3 but in practice I waver between #1 and #3

Jonathan, I hear you. If I was compelled to give an answer, I would probably be more comfortable being labeled as a Van Tillian Presuppositionalist. My question is whether we must be forced into an apologetical method named for men. Human understanding, even at its best, is flawed.

...as ministers we ought to in some way be relaying the truths of our apologetic, so that they may defend their faith.

Nicholas, absolutely. No debate here. My contention is that our apologetic does not need to fit lock, stock and barrel into one apologetical method.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Originally Posted by nicnap

Clark would say that we know a rose as God knows a rose...Van Til would say he knows it as Creator (more fully) and we know it in a derivative fashion.

I wouldn't put it at all like this. The difference between Van Til and Clark was whether our knowledge at any point intersects with God's. The question was "qualitative" not "quantitative." So, Clark would say that when I look at a rose and think, "This is a rose," there is an identical proposition somewhere in God's mind. Van Til would say that man and God share no identical propositions in common, but that all human knowledge is analagous to God's knowledge, which is simple rather than discursive.

This is what I was getting at in my one sentence summary. If the parenthesized more full seemed to indicate a quantitative difference, it wasn't meant to. I was aiming at analogous when I ued derivative.

I don't always use one methdology. I don't think people are logical nor consistant so it's not always helpful using one system. It's good to start out with one system but one might have to break away as one progresses and see's what can help an invidiual.

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

However, there is also a question as to how seriously he takes the noetic effect of sin in developing his methodology.

What do you mean to say?

This has been a criticism leveled against Plantinga -- that he misuses Calvin's notion of the senus divinititas (or, perhaps, takes it too far) and perhaps fails to consider the effect of sin on the human mind in this area.

PM me and I'll supply the sources I'm thinking of here.

Keep in mind that Plantinga argues against the classical doctrine of divine simplicity, claiming it reduces to the proposition that God is a property, thereby precluding that God is a person.

For more, see his Does God Have A Nature? (Marquette: Marquette University Press; 1980).