Van Til's Apologetic by Greg Bahnsen

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

How many of you have read all the way through this book?

I am about 300 pages into it (of 733) and I must say Greg Bahnsen deserves some type of posthumous Pulitzer Prize for this tome. It is a flat out amazing piece of work. Highly recommend it to those of you without it or those who have not read it. 10 out of 10 stars.

 

[RamistThomist]

read it. also listened to about 500 bahnsen lectures. it does deserve praise and respect. However, it represents only one subset of a time period in philosophy and apologetics. GB does a good job in debunking some bad criticisms of CVT, and clarifies a lot of terms in philosophical history.

However, philosophy is not as dependent on Kant as it used to be. for that reason I would caution a lot of van tillians from turning this book into some kind of intellectual newkular bomb or silver bullet.

 

[discipulo]

However, philosophy is not as dependent on Kant as it used to be. for that reason I would caution a lot of van tillians from turning this book into some kind of intellectual newkular bomb or silver bullet.

In my humble opinion I think we need presuppositionalism and logic, as always, even more than ever.

Putting aside the Incomprehensibility debate, Clark and Van Til are very welcome today, I would say,

In a sense Kant was a mixed bag.

While Kant thought reason was our natural frame of mind, for what we could derive everything else, ethics, and so on, Kant was also the one who criticized the objectivity and ability of reason to go beyond our inner frame, our self, for those specific purposes.

The funny thing is that Hegel comes and says, Mr. Kant how did you find that out, trough you reason isn’t it, that is a circular «reasoning» my friend.

My opinion is that Hegel was already a post modernist and even a post positivist (even being 30 years older than August Comte).

Christians need to continue to defend the primacy of reason and logic, and to state that we all have postulates.

Even those who say: «there are no postulates», just made the most absolute self centred unreal and unfounded presupposition and we must show them precisely that

Otherwise we will just be on the quick sands of relativism or on the muddy waters of fideistic experience.

(Karl Barth and Emil Brunner are good symbols of these 2 opposite / mutually feeding problems infecting Christian thinking)

 

[sastark]

I haven't read it all the way through (I keep getting distracted by SCHOOL), but what I have read, I have been very impressed with.

 

[RamistThomist]

I am not saying that Kant was good or bad (he was bad). I am simply saying that CVT was schooled in Kantian and Continental Idealism and formed his langauge and method that way. Most philosophers don't toe that line anymore and if you go in the debate parroting idealistic language, odds are your opponent will have no idea what you are saying (and neither will the presup, probably).

The TAG is very clever argument, and it helped me at a time in my life, but how useful is it in everyday street evangelism? how many people, seminarians included, usually talk about "the preconditions for intelligiblity?"

Also, the TAG has problems with the Quadrinity counter.

Now, CVTRA is good in terms of introducing worldview, and in debunking a lot of Sproul and Gerstner on apologetics.

But I don't think Van Til accurately represented Aquinas and the early church.

 

[sastark]

Also, the TAG has problems with the Quadrinity counter.

If possible, could you give a brief description of the Quadrinity counter? I've never heard of it before.

 

[RamistThomist]

Also, the TAG has problems with the Quadrinity counter.

If possible, could you give a brief description of the Quadrinity counter? I've never heard of it before.

Paul Manata used to have a thread where he explained his reasons for leaving it. I can't find it. If I see it I will let you know.

 

[nicnap]

How many of you have read all the way through this book?

I am about 300 pages into it (of 733) and I must say Greg Bahnsen deserves some type of posthumous Pulitzer Prize for this tome. It is a flat out amazing piece of work. Highly recommend it to those of you without it or those who have not read it. 10 out of 10 stars.

I am about to start...thanks for the pre-read encouragement.

 

[BobVigneault]

I once owned this book but a long time ago, before I joined the PB, I became a Clarkian and so I sold it through Amazon to a seminary student from Louisiana, don't remember the name. It's my prayer that I sold it to a PB member.

Since then I softened as a Clarkian and I wish I had it back, if just for bragging rights.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Also, the TAG has problems with the Quadrinity counter.

If possible, could you give a brief description of the Quadrinity counter? I've never heard of it before.

Paul Manata used to have a thread where he explained his reasons for leaving it. I can't find it. If I see it I will let you know.

Not sure this is it...

Quadrinity
The term refers to an argument used by anti-Trinitatians who suggest there might be a fourth member of the Godhead.

The "quadrinity" question ... is whether, if we say that God is a personal being in whom are the three persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we do not end up with four divine persons rather than just three.
definition by Robert Bowman

Bowman himself, in arguing against this theory, uses the more accurate term "quaternity."

Some Muslims uses the term "quadrinity" to refer to another argument, namely "why not consider Melchizedek to be the fourth partner of the Godhead?"

from here

Here is a relevant (I think) post on Triablogue from Manata.

also - I have the book - the portions I have read are good...

 

[Answerman]

Also, the TAG has problems with the Quadrinity counter.

If possible, could you give a brief description of the Quadrinity counter? I've never heard of it before.

I think it has to do with someone countering a Christian Trinitarian view with a view that is virtually identical to it but with a Quadrinity in the godhead instead of a Trinity and therefore can account for the problem of the one and the many aspect of reality.

-----Added 2/9/2009 at 02:21:25 EST-----

I remember Bahnsen dealing with this counter in one of his lectures and if I remember correctly, his counter to this counter was to ask if this quadrinity has revealed itself to mankind. Sorry, this is all I can remember, mabey Jacob can fill in more details...

 

[panta dokimazete]

also - I don't buy the "Quadrinity counter" - it is a "what if" scenario instead of a "what is" - which is what presuppositionalism lives or dies on - I am not interested in "what if" - a counter which I think Paul tends to concede, thus, in my opinion, his difficulty with TAG and the Quadrinity.

 

[cih1355]

The TAG is very clever argument, and it helped me at a time in my life, but how useful is it in everyday street evangelism? how many people, seminarians included, usually talk about "the preconditions for intelligiblity?"

Suppose that you are talking to an atheist about Jesus Christ and he says that he does not believe that God exists. You could point out that without God there would be no moral values, laws of logic, human rights, and so on. Those things presuppose God's existence and if he believes in the existence of those things, then he is believing in things that presuppose God's existence.

 

[lynnie]

Sorry to thread drift from the wonderful teaching of CVT, but four members of the Godhead? You can do better than that:

We have a stunning tape of Benny Hinn saying that the Father is three, the son is three, and the spirit is three, there are nine of them. Better listening than reading, but here you go:

Nine in the Godhead

Benny Hinn: Man, I feel revelation knowledge already coming on me here. Lift your hands. Something new is going to happen here today. I felt it just as I walked down here. Holy Spirit, take over in the name of Jesus...God the Father, ladies and gentlemen, is a person; and he is a triune being by himself separate from the Son and the Holy Ghost. Say, what did you say? Here it, hear it, hear it. See, God the Father is a person, God the Son is a person, God the Holy Ghost is a person. But each one of them is a triune being by himself. If I can shock you - and maybe I should - there's nine of them. Huh, what did you say? Let me explain: God the Father, ladies and gentlemen, is a person with His own personal spirit, with His own personal soul, and His own personal spirit body. You say, Huh, I never heard that. Well, you think you're in this church to hear things you've heard for the last 50 years? You can't argue with the Word, can you? It's all in the Word. (Benny Hinn, Praise The Lord, October 3, 1990)

 

[CharlieJ]

Suppose that you are talking to an atheist about Jesus Christ and he says that he does not believe that God exists. You could point out that without God there would be no moral values, laws of logic, human rights, and so on. Those things presuppose God's existence and if he believes in the existence of those things, then he is believing in things that presuppose God's existence.

Technically, only the "laws of logic" are treated by TAG. It is an argument for preconditions of intelligibility. In other words, if there is no God, then there is no ability to predicate anything. Obviously, this is going to lead to a rather abstract and usually unprofitable conversation. When I took apologetics in seminary, most of my class didn't get the underlying philosophy of Van Til and TAG by the end of the semester. Chances are an uninitiated person isn't going to get it during your conversation.

 

[discipulo]

Suppose that you are talking to an atheist about Jesus Christ and he says that he does not believe that God exists. You could point out that without God there would be no moral values, laws of logic, human rights, and so on. Those things presuppose God's existence and if he believes in the existence of those things, then he is believing in things that presuppose God's existence.

Technically, only the "laws of logic" are treated by TAG. It is an argument for preconditions of intelligibility. In other words, if there is no God, then there is no ability to predicate anything. Obviously, this is going to lead to a rather abstract and usually unprofitable conversation. When I took apologetics in seminary, most of my class didn't get the underlying philosophy of Van Til and TAG by the end of the semester. Chances are an uninitiated person isn't going to get it during your conversation.

That's why, like Ivanhoe suggested, we shouldn’t make the mistake of Kant to state that the TAG is the only possible argument.

We know the fallen mind cannot know Truth only by Natural Revelation, but we know there is Revelation in Nature and even Revelation of God´s Attributes.

in spite of Van Til bypassing it, since he establishes the existence of God as an aprioristic sine qua non. Pretty much like Kant did / would do

Aquinas Natural Theology is far more than an Aristotelian hocus pocus, and I think we can use it for several purposes in apologetics or evangelism.

I highly recommend Etienne Gilson - God and philosophy, yes he is a Catholic, and yes he is a Tomist, but he makes a very interesting interaction with rationalism and modern thought.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Van Til does not "bypass" Natural Law. In fact he deals with it a good bit.

 

[discipulo]

Van Til does not "bypass" Natural Law. In fact he deals with it a good bit.

Sorry not clear enough, I meant Van Til bypasses Natural Revelation as stated in traditional apologetics. – stating all the compromise (s) of traditional apologetics.

Van Til thinks natural revelation is enough for man to know in his conscience he is a covenant breaker, and he is accountable before God.

But on the other hand Van Til states we should not try to prove God's existence by traditional arguments because they are useless to a non believer, but rather proclaim God’s Word.

I think this is too radical, this is throwing the baby with the water in my opinion.

As I was an atheist for almost half of my life, often «natural» evidences of God’s existence made me think that God should / could exist, I’m sure it was a result of God’s Grace, prevenient Grace, God knows.

But I still find that a dialogue / apology along the lines of the evidences of God's existence, with a non believer, can be used by God.

Why should TAG be the only possible argument? Is this not the Kantian mistake again?

 

[CharlieJ]

But on the other hand Van Til states we should not try to prove God's existence by traditional arguments because they are useless to a non believer, but rather proclaim God’s Word.
....
Why should TAG be the only possible argument? Is this not the Kantian mistake again?

Exactly. There is an inconsistency. If the unbeliever due to depravity cannot receive, say, the cosmological argument for God, there is no reason why he should be able to receive the transcendental argument. The same depravity prevents it.

On the other hand, if you are really convinced the traditional theistic proofs are invalid (not just unpersuasive), then you can't use them. I think they are valid, so I do. Actually, I tend to take more of the moral authority approach exemplified in the Wilson-Hitchens debate through Christianity Today.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Van Til does not "bypass" Natural Law. In fact he deals with it a good bit.

Sorry not clear enough, I meant Van Til bypasses Natural Revelation as stated in traditional apologetics. – stating all the compromise (s) of traditional apologetics.

Van Til thinks natural revelation is enough for man to know in his conscience he is a covenant breaker, and he is accountable before God.

But on the other hand Van Til states we should not try to prove God's existence by traditional arguments because they are useless to a non believer, but rather proclaim God’s Word.

I think this is too radical, this is throwing the baby with the water in my opinion.

As I was an atheist for almost half of my life, often «natural» evidences of God’s existence made me think that God should / could exist, I’m sure it was a result of God’s Grace, prevenient Grace, God knows.

But I still find that a dialogue / apology along the lines of the evidences of God's existence, with a non believer, can be used by God.

Why should TAG be the only possible argument? Is this not the Kantian mistake again?

I think you should take a look at "A Christian Theory of Knowledge" as well as Van Til's book on Common Grace. It answers quite succinctly everything you have mentioned above.

 

[RamistThomist]

Suppose that you are talking to an atheist about Jesus Christ and he says that he does not believe that God exists. You could point out that without God there would be no moral values, laws of logic, human rights, and so on. Those things presuppose God's existence and if he believes in the existence of those things, then he is believing in things that presuppose God's existence.

Technically, only the "laws of logic" are treated by TAG. It is an argument for preconditions of intelligibility. In other words, if there is no God, then there is no ability to predicate anything. Obviously, this is going to lead to a rather abstract and usually unprofitable conversation. When I took apologetics in seminary, most of my class didn't get the underlying philosophy of Van Til and TAG by the end of the semester. Chances are an uninitiated person isn't going to get it during your conversation.

That's why, like Ivanhoe suggested, we shouldn’t make the mistake of Kant to state that the TAG is the only possible argument.

We know the fallen mind cannot know Truth only by Natural Revelation, but we know there is Revelation in Nature and even Revelation of God´s Attributes.

in spite of Van Til bypassing it, since he establishes the existence of God as an aprioristic sine qua non. Pretty much like Kant did / would do

Aquinas Natural Theology is far more than an Aristotelian hocus pocus, and I think we can use it for several purposes in apologetics or evangelism.

I highly recommend Etienne Gilson - God and philosophy, yes he is a Catholic, and yes he is a Tomist, but he makes a very interesting interaction with rationalism and modern thought.

Etienne is awesome!

 

[RamistThomist]

I don't do much presup anymore. I am more towards narratival apologetics.

 

[john_Mark]

Can one be a Christian and not be presuppositional in their apologetic?

I'm not sure they can be. Note, I am not asking about actually arguing presuppositionally.