» Site Navigation | | | » Online Users: 103 | | 32 members and 71 guests | | Blue Tick, BobVigneault, ChristianHedonist, ChristianTrader, Christusregnat, CovenantalBaptist, Gomarus, Ivan, jaybird0827, JM, Jon Peters, JOwen, Kenneth_Murphy, panta dokimazete, Pergamum, Pilgrim72, puritan lad, R Harris, sastark, tcalbrecht, TimV, toddpedlar, yeutter | | Most users ever online was 856, 07-06-2007 at 12:19 AM. | | |
View Poll Results: what is your preferred apologetic method? | |
Classical (aquinas, geisler, sproul)
|    | 8 | 10.00% | |
Evidential (hanegraff, mcdowell, montgomery)
|    | 1 | 1.25% | |
Cumlative case (cs lewis, zacharias)
|    | 3 | 3.75% | |
Presuppositional I (van til, schaeffer, bahnsen)
|    | 58 | 72.50% | |
Presuppositional II (gordon clark)
|    | 7 | 8.75% | |
Reformed epistemology (plantiga, kj clark)
|    | 1 | 1.25% | |
Existential (barth, kierkegaard)
|    | 2 | 2.50% |  | | 
11-07-2007, 05:26 AM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 432
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| | | what view are you? 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
| 
11-07-2007, 06:28 AM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 410
Thanks: 18
Thanked 36 Times in 24 Posts
| | | 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.
| 
11-07-2007, 07:07 AM
| | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: ***
Posts: 2,784
Thanks: 191
Thanked 391 Times in 255 Posts
| | I am presuppositional.  | 
11-07-2007, 07:22 AM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: LA
Posts: 9,818
Thanks: 827
Thanked 754 Times in 464 Posts
| | | Broadly Reformed Epistemology
__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College
| 
11-07-2007, 08:04 AM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,568
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
| | | 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)
| 
11-07-2007, 08:26 AM
|  | Moderator | | Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 4,373
Thanks: 273
Thanked 119 Times in 61 Posts
| | | 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. | 
11-07-2007, 08:33 AM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 537
Thanks: 416
Thanked 17 Times in 11 Posts
| | | 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 Clerebout
Joy Baptist Church, IFB (Westland, MI) "Let us never forget that truth, distorted and exaggerated, can become the mother of the most dangerous heresies." - J.C. Ryle, Holiness
Last edited by christianyouth; 11-07-2007 at 08:37 AM.
Reason: forgot something
| 
11-07-2007, 08:45 AM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Germany
Posts: 74
Thanks: 10
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
| | | 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 & yet to be founded Reformierte Kirche Deutschland
Ph.D. candidate Westminster Theol. Seminary/Philadelphia
Church Planting in Germany Reformation2Germany | | The Following User Says Thank You to Sebastian Heck For This Useful Post: | | 
11-07-2007, 11:40 AM
| | "The Brain" | | Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Green Valley, AZ
Posts: 340
Thanks: 15
Thanked 36 Times in 22 Posts
| | | 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 Scientiam Dei | 
11-07-2007, 04:37 PM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Marysville WA
Posts: 2,398
Thanks: 176
Thanked 77 Times in 60 Posts
| | | 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
Marysville. WA
Cascade Church (CRCNA) Cum vero infirmor tunc potens sum. | 
11-07-2007, 05:23 PM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 82
Thanks: 0
Thanked 6 Times in 3 Posts
| | | 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 Arnold
Covenant OPC, Brighton, MI
MA student in philosophy at the University of Michigan
| 
11-07-2007, 08:39 PM
|  | Puritanboard Graduate | | Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 3,864
Thanks: 601
Thanked 479 Times in 311 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie Gordan Clark was not presuppositional, he was a Christian Rationalist. | 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 Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics This may explain the old adage about Baptists being Methodists with shoes, and Presbyterians being Baptists who can read. To round out the adage, Lutherans might qualify as Presbyterians who drink to excess, and Episcopalians as Lutherans who know when to say when. - D.G. Hart
| 
11-07-2007, 09:09 PM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: LA
Posts: 9,818
Thanks: 827
Thanked 754 Times in 464 Posts
| | 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).  | | The Following User Says Thank You to Ivanhoe For This Useful Post: | | 
11-07-2007, 10:34 PM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 602
Thanks: 7
Thanked 109 Times in 68 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse 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. | 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,
J.J.
PCA
Suffix
| 
11-07-2007, 10:36 PM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Hemet, Ca
Posts: 304
Thanks: 38
Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts
| | | What is this exactly: Cumlative case (cs lewis, zacharias)? | 
11-07-2007, 10:41 PM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: LA
Posts: 9,818
Thanks: 827
Thanked 754 Times in 464 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by historyb What is this exactly: Cumlative case (cs lewis, zacharias)? | 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. | 
11-07-2007, 10:43 PM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 602
Thanks: 7
Thanked 109 Times in 68 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Spear Dane
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).  |
Jacob,
I'd recommend this book .
It's on my wish list, so I can't tell you anything from personal experience, but it comes highly recommended from people I highly respect.
It is expensive, so here is a paper he wrote on the subject. If you like it, that may influence you to break down and purchase the loner, more rigorous (both intellectually and monetarily!) project.
When I clikc on that link it doesn't work for me, so I'll offer the non-hyperlinked version http://www.calvin.edu/faith/resource...ce_natural.pdf
Last edited by Me Died Blue; 11-08-2007 at 03:06 AM.
Reason: Fixing link
| 
11-07-2007, 10:48 PM
|  | Puritanboard Graduate | | Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: NYC
Posts: 3,462
Thanks: 595
Thanked 113 Times in 87 Posts
| | | The Presups 1 has won the day.
__________________
~Keon Garraway~ Brooklyn, NY
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.
| 
11-07-2007, 10:56 PM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 508
Thanks: 16
Thanked 22 Times in 13 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie Gordan Clark was not presuppositional, he was a Christian Rationalist. | 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? | 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.
| 
11-07-2007, 11:07 PM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 602
Thanks: 7
Thanked 109 Times in 68 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie Gordan Clark was not presuppositional, he was a Christian Rationalist. | 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? | 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. | 
11-07-2007, 11:44 PM
| | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: May 2006 Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 507
Thanks: 21
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
| | | 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
| 
11-08-2007, 12:18 AM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 602
Thanks: 7
Thanked 109 Times in 68 Posts
| | | | 
11-08-2007, 02:44 AM
| | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: May 2006 Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 507
Thanks: 21
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
| | | heh...sometimes I don't have a lot of common sense...
Caleb McWoodrow out. | 
11-08-2007, 03:08 AM
|  | Moderator | | Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 4,373
Thanks: 273
Thanked 119 Times in 61 Posts
| | | I fixed the link. It just had "http://" twice in a row. | | The Following User Says Thank You to Me Died Blue For This Useful Post: | | 
11-08-2007, 09:22 AM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 278
Thanks: 5
Thanked 48 Times in 33 Posts
| | | 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.]] | |