Misrepresentation of Presuppositional Apologetics
Culver makes a surprising misrepresentation of presuppositional apologetics (henceforth PA) in the following quote near the top of p. 34:“What shall we do when we meet the wholly secular mind? We, of course, shall declare the gospel. If I understand what the ‘presuppositional’ disciples of Cornelius Van Til aright [sic], they hold this to be the only ‘apologetic’, i.e. proof of the truth of ‘the Faith’ available to us. There is, they say, no common ground of agreement we can find to mount a programme of evangelistic or pre-evangelistic encounter with unbelievers. The effect of the fall has rendered their minds incapable of considering the saving truth of the gospel. Arguments are unavailing. We must simply proclaim the truth and leave the rest to the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit.”This is very surprising despite how hard Van Til can be to understand. It seems like Culver hasn’t come across Greg Bahnsen’s debates with atheists, or Doug Wilson’s book Persuasions. If they aren’t arguing with unbelievers than I don’t know who is. This is hardly a bare proclamation of the Gospel.
Many represent PA as fideistic, but it isn’t. Not only does PA use versions of the classical theistic proofs and other ‘evidences’ (see Greg Bahnsen’s Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis), but it goes beyond them to look at total worldviews and the underlying presuppositions.
In a nutshell, PA says that Christianity as a system is true, because of the “impossibility of the contrary”. Any other worldview does not “comport with reality”. Every aspect of reality shouts forth that the God of the Bible exists and is the only, living and true God. PA puts a lot of emphasis on logic and reason; indeed, without the true and living God, PA would argue that you have no basis for either. There is thus a big focus on the self-contradictions of the opposing systems.
Read the rest...
posted by Timothy Davis | 5:51 PM
17 Comments:
The issue of "common ground" is a key distinction between evidential and presuppositional apologetics. PA does not say that believers and unbelievers do not believe the same way about certain things. For instance, both will probably believe that 2+2=4, that the sky is blue, and that (in logic) "a" does not equal "not-a".
But whereas EA will use such commonly-held beliefs as "neutral" or common ground to build arguments for the existence of God and the authority of the Bible ("a does not equal not a" is a popular starting point for EA), PA approaches them from the perspective that belief in such things can only be true if God exists. In other words, if someone believes in them and yet denies God, he has no basis upon which to believe them and therefore he contradicts his own system of belief to believe them!
The worldview-systems arguments of PA are very powerful. For example, ask an atheist, who believes that everything is material and came about by evolution, "Why shouldn’t I be able to just shoot you right now? Why do you believe that murder is wrong?" With no absolutes, unbelievers may resort to “society has decided” or “anything that causes pain is bad.” But what basis, on their belief system, do they have to believe such things? How can they even postulate “right” or “wrong” if everything is material and there are no absolutes? Even very “learned” atheists have been stumped by such questions. It reveals the inherent contradictions of any system without God; the “impossibility of the contrary.”
I was once in a class with a PA professor. He was asked by one of the students 'when will we think about engaging with other beliefs?' His answer, something along the lines of, 'Well, it doesn't really matter what other people believe...' In that instant I gave up on being a presuppositional apologist. And, I think Van Til is unreadable, confusing, hopelessly modernist, and obsessed by Catholicism. We'd all be better off reading Barth - both Barth and Van Til are 'modern' conservatives - although Van Til criticised Barth ferociously, he didn't see that he was really firing boomerang shots.
I think that Frame is excellent! He has taken the good from Van Til, and made it accessible and practical.
An advoctate of a system making an unwise statement isn't a good reason for rejecting a whole system. Should we reject Christianity if Calvin makes an unwise statement? Strange that you like Frame, if you gave up on PA!
Would you care to elucidate on how Van Til is "hopelessly modernist" and "obsessed by Catholicism"?
Why should we all be reading Barth, when he is seriously in error in fundamental areas?
I find Van Til so difficult, that I've only read about half of one of his books - did no one help him edit the stuff that is published in his name - it just comes across to me as a ramble - and, more often than not, in the one half book I read, it was aimed mostly at Catholicism as some kind of metaphysical titanic enemy - as if, in defeating it, you would see all other enemies run in horror.
To me, Barth and Van Til are both 'dogmatic' and 'modern' in the sense that they simply state their positions, without any critical engagement with other methodologies or other systems. Their theological statements hang in bubbles, protected from the outside by sheer force of argument. Van Til and Barth appear to me as 'all or nothing' theologians - you buy into the whole system, or you have to leave it alone entirely. I think Barth is more rewarding to read for flourishes of rhetoric and sublime thoughts - but, as far as I experience their writings so far, both need to be treated with caution - otherwise, you just get lost in a Barthian or a Van Tilian view, a slave to men rather than Christ. This is the danger with big name theologians - and it is one good reason why we need people/books like Culver.
This is off topic, but what are the main problems you identify with Barth?
Just quickly,
Mary's post is excellent. A helpful summary of PA. I would also agree with Philip that to understand Van Til you don't start with Van Til. I have a friend finishing his Ph.D. in Apologetics from Westminster and he always says that if you want to understand Van Til, you start with Bahnsen.
The one major book that all who attempt to misrepresent PA fail to interact with is Thom Notaro's Van Til and the Use of Evidence which clearly shows that PA is not opposed to the use of evidence.
Allen,
Thanks for the useful pointer. I'd never heard of the book before.
David,
What book of Van Til's had you read part of? In my experience of his books, he deals with other theologians and systems as well as with Catholicism.
I also found that he didn't defend his apologetics in complete isolation from other systems of apologetics. He definitely should have referenced Scripture a lot more and I wish he had been easier to read; but it wasn't too bad and I was greatly helped by reading Bahnsen as well!
I definitely agree that we should never buy into a system of belief simply because a prominent theologian agrues for it; all of our beliefs should be thoroughly grounded in Scripture. However, from what I've read of Van Til and Bahnsen, I believe that PA on the whole is very Scriptural.
Bahnsen wrote an excellent little introduction to PA, where he sought to show how firmly rooted in Scripture it was. It is part of his book Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith, which is a very engaging and practical read.
I'd like to read Frame. I've heard he differed in one key area from Bahnsen and Van Til in PA, but I forget how!
Barth denied many fundamental doctrines of Christianity, including the inspiration of the words of Scripture (believing that they are fallible, being just man's account of God's mystical revelation) and the atonement of Christ (believing that reconciliation came about when God was joined to man in Jesus' incarnation, rather than that Jesus' becoming man was in order to bring about reconciliation on the cross).
Dave, I see that Princeton has a Centre for Barth Studies. Have you been?
Dave,
I can't understand how you can call Barth a 'modern conservative', when he is anything but that.
I also can't understand how can extol Barth and yet accuse Van Til of being unreadable and rambling. I've just looked at both again. Van Til may be hard to understand at times, but at least he uses "plain-speak" and tries to communicate. With Barth and his mystical ramblings, you are left asking, "What drug was he on?" (Rowan Williams eat your heart out!)
I think you are referring to Van Til's "Christian Apologetics". It seems to me that he just takes Romanism as a test case. I usually come across PAs dealing with Atheism all the time: is that something we should condemn?
I'll be posting my problems with Barth on my own blog, lest we go too tangential.
Another quick thing,
Yes, Van Til is difficult. But he summarized his position rather succinctly in an essay called "My Credo" which can be found in the book Jerusaelm and Athens which was a commemorative study of Van Til in honour of his birthday.
Bahnsen reprints the end of 'My Credo' as 'Van Til's Most Succint Synopsis' near the end of his book on Van Til.
It must always be stressed that PA is more than Van Til.
It is very interesting that Culver brackets Van Til and Barth in the same class of theologians who reject 'natural theology' (see p43). I think this is what I was trying to get at - I couldn't remember the details of the comparison. No doubt the two men worked this out differently - but they both emphasised the absolute necessity of revelation. Or, has Culver just misrepresented one or both? I suspect not.
Wow, what a great discussion! I haven't been on the blog a while, and seeing as how C G closed Anablepo, I feared you guys were all but done. Long live the Culverites!!!
As for Van Til, although he can be a bit confusing at times, and either invent words or use ones so obscure that the reader isn't sure of the meaning, he really isn't that hard to read.
I think a basic introduction to key elements of his thought would provide a gateway into the wonderful world of Van Til.
He is the perfect blend of the "Old Princeton" style of apologetics, a la Warfield; and the Amsterdam theology of Kuyper and Bavinck.
Thanks Mary for the work you've done in elucidating PA -- very helpful indeed.
David,
I believe that Culver has not understood Van Til's position on natural theology correctly here. Van Til did not mind using terms, frameworks, or categories that non-Christians had come up with - as long as they were correct observations of God's created order. As Culver says, "Insofar as [Aristotle's] discoveries in logical methods conformed to reality as God created it, they are useful."
What distinguishes Van Til and PA is not that they do not believe in using such categories, but how they use them. He was opposed to the use of such categories or frameworks as starting points to prove God's existence. As I stated in my first comment, PA would utilize them, but for far stronger and more God-glorifying arguments.
I do not agree with much of Culver's use of the different arguments for God's existence in chapter 5 - I will try to write a quick post on this, as it is a slightly different subject.
Ian,
Glad you found it helpful! Bahnsen's book Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith has a useful introduction to Presuppositional Apologetics. It is also good in that it shows how firmly grounded in Scripture this approach is. It was a very edifying read! What I love most about Van Til and Bahnsen is their fervent desire that God be glorified - including in the way that we do apologetics!
Davey,
Culver does "bracket" Barth and Van Til together in the context of general revelation, but this is different to grouping them as "modern conservatives" (if this is what you refer to).
One of the better known beliefs of Barth was his rejection of general revelation as revelation (as also the Word of God as revelation). Brunner disagreed with Barth on this.
Van Til does agree with the use of evidence from nature, but he rejects the pretended neutrality of those approaches which categorise themselves as "natural theology".
Why Culver dislikes the term "general revelation" so much, in favour of "natural light", I don't know. Does anyone know?
I guess we have gone away from the older term due to the Enlightenment undertones that it now carries.
BTW is your new photo the real you (apart from the hat and hair!)?
Post a Comment
<< Home