since there are about 6 views of apologetics which view are you?

i am presuppositional from the van til school

__________________
Jonathan Qualls
member
christ community PCA
Clearwater, FL

I'm the same - 100% vote in the poll so far.

__________________
T W Hopper
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church
Currently between churches since PRC closed here - attending Crossroads Christian Church.
Canberra, Australia.

I am presuppositional.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

Broadly Reformed Epistemology

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

Gordan Clark was not presuppositional, he was a Christian Rationalist.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

I'm largely in-line with the mindset (and the way of approaching issues) of the Van Tillian school of thought, except that I've never been convinced of the TAG as a silver-bullet.

__________________
Chris


A passion to know and reflect Christ by living and demonstrating the truth and richness of the historic Reformed faith

Visit My Website Here

Christopher Blum
Member of Trinity Presbyterian Church of Northern Kentucky (PCA) in Burlington, KY

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Hrm... If existential means appealing to subjective religious experience(regeneration) as the basis for belief, then I'd be existential. Not sure if that that's the proper definition though.

Just read what existential apologetics are. Much different from what my approach.

__________________
Andrew C.
IFB
LBCF 1689

I am Biblical-Covenantal-Reformed Orthodox-Calvinist-Van Tilian. Honestly, I don't think Van Til reinvented the wheel here. He has more of the Reformed orthodox distinctions down (such as e.g. archetypal/ectypal distinction) than many realize. That's why I think the term/name "presuppositionalism" is not a very good one. It suggests Van Til was the founder of a new school which he wasn't. Guess what, he was Reformed!
Gordon Clark wasn't biblical/presuppositionalist. But also Schaeffer shouldn't be grouped with Van Til - too many differences. Not even John Frame should be grouped with Van Til for that matter...
Oh well, what a complicated world we live in! :-)

__________________
Sebastian Heck
PCA & Selbständige Evangelisch-reformierte Kirche in Deutschland (Free Evangelical-Reformed Church of Germany)
Ph.D. student at Theological Universiteit Apeldoorn/Netherlands
Church Planting in Germany
Reformation2Germany

Hello Everyone,

I voted for Presuppositional I; although, I think the poll is somewhat misleading. For instance, I think Clark is correct to understand starting points to be axiomatic. So, I am Clarkian in this sense. However, I do not believe that only and all knowledge is knowledge properly derived from the Scriptures. The key point being that there must already be knowledge of some sort prior to being able to derive anything from the Scriptures. The reason I pick Presuppostional I is because it really does attempt to start at the beginning - the presuppositions/axioms if you will. This underlies everything.

With that said, I do not think Reformed Epistemology is properly called an apologetic method, even though it can be used with an apologetic method. The reason for my thinking being this way is that Reformed apologetics is really not offensive in nature. It does not provide a reason for someone to reject 'X' and embrace Christianity. It does provide an answer why my belief in God is warranted. So, it is not fair to compare it with all of the other methods listed.

Classical apologetics is fun for me because of its philosophical basis. When one brings into apologetic the presuppositional underpinnings, then these arguments can be compelling.

Evidential apologetics is my least favorite. If one wants to use this method, they need to be on top of all the latest science and discoveries. And even then, unless they deal with the presuppositional biases they will not get far. I do appreciate those who go into this arena - especially if they are able to point out the biases on the other side.

Cumlative Case apologetics is part of evidentiary apologetics and maybe others. Again, you need to be on top of your stuff, and I absolutely enjoy reading these guys. Richard Swinburne's The Existence of God is a classic using an inductive logic based on several arguments to come up with the final conclusion that it is more likely God exists than not. Fun and fascinating. The problem with this is that you always have to be modifying the argument in some way as science continues to develop.

Existential apologetics? What's that???

In the end, I actually use a little of everything mentioned with the exception of "Existential", and the presuppositional argument underlies everything.

Brian

__________________
Brian Bosse
Faith Community Church
Tucson, Arizona

My views are ecclectic so I really couldn't cram myself into one camp.

I really like Francis Schaeffer but I like C.S. Lewis as well, and Sproul. So I guess that would make me just plain appologetically ecclectic.

__________________
Donald Jacobs
Roanoke VA.
Covenant Reformed Episcopal Church.

Cum vero infirmor tunc potens sum.

How about primarily 4 but with influences from 5 and 6; and 1, 2, and 3 (and possibly 4 depending on what is meant by "existential"--but no to the irrationalism of Kierkegaard and the likes, in any case), in supplemental, later work (such as after a presuppositional groundwork has been set, perhaps in an "ad hominem" of the opponents view as Clark called it).

__________________
Patrick
Covenant (OPC), Brighton, MI

I don't think this is true. A rationalist believes that truth can be obtained by human faculty alone. Clark believed that all knowledge depends on revelation. And his approach to revelation was completely presuppositional. Am I missing something?

__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emily
Member of All Saints Anglican Church - Chapel Hill (AMiA / Anglican Church of North America)
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German and Classics

Lately I have been feeling irrational/fideistic/existential.

just kidding. I like a lot of what Van Til had to say. Read most everything he wrote, bahnsen wrote, and frame wrote. I disagree with Van Til's critiques of other apologists, though. In fact, I can show where Van Til uses the same terminology and methods as people he critiques (actually, followers of people he critiques use the same stuff as Van Til).

I don't hold to the silver bullet TAG (not many do, come to think of it).

As pertaining to a negative critique of opposing worldviews, I am definitely Van Tillian. This was Bahnsen's best arena.

I really don't know what I would at this point as to offering a positive alternative. I guess that's where the existential fideist in me arises, sort of.

Right now, if I had to offer an argument I would just say--look at this example of Beauty. Therefore, God exists (or something like that).

I'd have to agree here.

Even though RE guy Kelly James Clark contributed to Zondervan's 5 Views on Apologetics Book, Michael Sudduth told me that RE was not an apologetic *method* but that doesn't mean an RE can't have a *view* on apologetics.

In this sense, the poll is misleading....

__________________
Regards,

P.M.
PCA
Suffix

What is this exactly: Cumlative case (cs lewis, zacharias)?

__________________
Doug
Baptist
Hemet, Ca
Old Time Radio Podcast

CC guys point to a lot of individual lines of evidence, taken singularly aren't impressive but taken together are supposed to make a good case for Christianity. Its pros is that it has a lot of good names wiht it. But I am not too impressed.

Jacob,

I'd recommend

The Presups 1 has won the day.

__________________
~Keon Garraway~ Brooklyn, NY Member of Franklin Square OPC

Love for God demonstrated by the love for our children in giving them a God centered education is the only hope for our country. by David Morrow
Pslam 71:20 [Thou], which hast shewed me great and sore troubles, shalt quicken me again, and shalt bring me up again from the depths of the earth.

I am so glad you said that!

__________________
Donald P. Grubb
theol46@embarqmail.com

Berean Baptist Church, Mansfield, OH
Mansfield, OH

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing.
The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

I think so. You're talking about rationalists like 'Descartes.' But he was not a Christian rationalist. That a classical rationalist thinks that all truth can be obtained by human faculty alone does not imply that a Christian rationalist would think so.

Now, this is not to say that the classification "Christian rationalist" is apropos to Clark (it may or may not be, you guys would need to debate that), it's just to say that I don't think your point serves to offer a rebutting defeater to Daniel Ritchie's claim.

Paul, the link of that book you recommended doesn't work either. What is the name of the book?

__________________
Caleb
Trinity Baptist Church
Spokane, WA

I wonder why that was...

heh...sometimes I don't have a lot of common sense...

Caleb McWoodrow out.

I fixed the link. It just had "http://" twice in a row.

This subject is for me one of the top 3 biggest disappointments I have as a pastor in Reformedom.

That is, we spend 98% of our time (perhaps I am being too gracious, truth be known I see it more like 99.9%) discussing and debating apologetical methodologies then actually employing them in discussions with those on their way ot eternal destruction.

I'm not saying that in criticism of this thread, there is certainly a place to discuss this subject. I just hope all those who spend a lot of time discussing and arguing over this subject spend even more time dealing with unbelievers.

If I were on my presbytery's credentials committee for the examination of elder candidates, the question of "when was the last time you witnessed to an unbeliever?" would be far more important to me than "What is your apologetical methodology?" (Not that I wouldn't ask the second question.)



[[to the mods...I have no idea why my sig will not show in this post.]]

Sorry I missed this; Curt Daniel explains the difference between Gordon Clarke's Christian Rationalism and Van Tillian Presuppositionalism in this lecture on Calvinistic Philosophy.

So...should I be trying to figure out which one of these labels I firt under? I've got no clue? Does my ignorance of these labels affect my evangelism?

Where can I find simple explanations of these positions? And how each would appraoch an unbeliever? Would they approach them hugely different?

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

I think a presuppositional approach is best for evangelism for a number of reasons:

a) Its Biblical.

b) It shows men that the pride of their hearts is their real problem with the gospel, not a lack of proof that the Christian faith is true.

c) It means that the weakest believer can confront the greatest scholar without fear.

Tom the classicist would tell the unbeliever, "The Christian faith is entirely rational. I will prove to you by deductive arguments that the Christian worldview is rational." And then he would use something like the Cosmological argument: All things have a cause. The universe has a cause. That cause is God."

Joe the evidentialist would tell the unbeliever: There is good evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. You should look at these facts for the resurrection and on the basis of these evidences, believe the gospel.

Cal the presuppositionalist would tell the unbeliever: Unless you submit to Christ's lordship, you cannot make sense of reality. The proof of the Christian God is the transcendental argument: believing in Christ provides you with the preconditions of intelligibility.

Martin the fideist would tell the unbeliever: Your deepest heart-felt need is to find fulfillment in the gospel, which you would find by taking a leap of faith.

Alvin the Reformed epistemologist would tell the unbeliever: The Christian is warranted in believing in God even without foundational evidence. You, on the other hand, are not warranted in believing ___________."

I'm a presuppositional classical evidentialist.

__________________
K. Joel Gilliard, Husband of Danielle since 7/11/09 (I married up!)
Theologically Correct dot Com
http://www.theologicallycorrect.com
MEMBER: Wallace PCA in College Park, MD as of 10/18/09
The Blog: THINK! - Wrestlin' With Wordz -N- Ideaz
Now announcing: Life | Doctrine | Music - join the message board now! Site launch with streaming radio coming in 11/09!

That is what I call having your cake and eating it.

What I have been wondering lately is what distinguishes this remark from a form of evidence. To say that Christianity provides the necessary conditions for intelligibility --is that not a sort of evidence that Christianity is correspondent to reality?

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Vanities and disguises have covered us, and thereby we are naked; licenciousness hath inflam'd us, and thereby we are frozen; voluptuousness hath fed us, and thereby we are sterved, the fancies and traditions of men have taught and instructed us, and thereby we are ignorant.
John Donne

Board Rules - Signature Requirements - Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando
Teología en Mexico
The Howling Wilderness

Short answer--yes. Long answer (and more technical)--the above worldview argument makes possible the use of evidence. In other words, so goes the argument, appealing to evidence without a worldview fails to give the evidence any meaning.

Spot on.

What is it you use to say to me about the use of terms? We had to agree to our terminology first and it had to be yours. Something like that.

__________________

Norseman Moderator

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Where is Common Sense Realism?

__________________
Rev. Andrew J. Barnes
Husband of Dena
Father of Oliver
Master of Bruce
Pastor of Tchula Presbyterian Church

What can I say, I like blogs!

Could be classical apologetics or it could be Reformed Epistemology. The two top thinkers in RE, Alvin Plantinga and Nick Wolterstorrf, have appreciation for common-sense realism. Heck, if we properly qualify it, I don't mind it either.

I'm all alone . Seriously though I think I gave New Evidence That Demands a Verdict to Goodwill...

Something like that, but that's not always possible. First, if I were talking to an evolutionist or a Marxist, I would make it clear to them what kind of "God" I am defending--namely the Triune God. I can't take that for granted in a discussion.

As to the OP, I actually like the way the Radical Orthodoxy guys read Thoma Aquinas. I don't think it is fully accurate as to what Thomas believed, but it does make for an interesting apologetic answering postmodernity and modernity.

I like Martin Luther's method - argument by assertion.

"Peter commands us to give a reason for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). And what need is there of a multitude of proofs? Nothing is more familiar or characteristic among Christians than assertion. Take away assertions, and you take away Christianity."
(The Bondage of the Will)

__________________
Richard Kairelis
Westminster Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCNA (Prarie View, IL)
Chicago, IL