Didn't the seminary acquire and destroy all remaining copies of a book that this man wrote because there was a problem with his teaching on the doctrine of God?
good content. i will use this method as negative apologetic and outlook to show that the christian worldview makes most sense with the reality we all live in. although i still like classical apologetics for building a positive reasable case for christianity. Learn all the methods, understand them custumize depending on who your talking with and their objections or/and questions.
David, I think your response is in part an illustration of the reason Dr Oliphint is unhappy with the term presuppositional apologetics. It (the term) leaves the impression that nothing other than a direct evaluation of the presuppositions of the unbeliever can be used. In reality the form of apologetics he is explaining can use any other form of apologetics as well - because there is a time and place for them BUT if we are going to use them we need to recognize their limitations. To illustrate: The psalms tell us that the heavens declare the glory of God and Paul reminds us that the natural man knows what creation reveals about God, sufficiently to "leave him without excuse" for worshiping and serving the creature rather than the creator. So depending on what part of the discussion you are in it is perfectly legitimate to bring in the evidence from creation - as long as we are aware 1) that natural man distorts this evidence for his own idolatrous purpose and that 2) natural revelation needs special revelation in order to show someone how they can avoid the penalty due for their sin. Classical apologetics is useful - as is discussions about movies - as a means to start a person thinking through the implications of the kind of world we live in and how it reflects the glory of God but man is not neutral in evaluating the data and the best we can do against such bias is show that "a" god is likely to exist - the Intelligent Design people have warned us about that - we would still have to show that the God of Scripture DOES exist. The step taken to do this may be more or less overtly biblical but it does need to be taken and Van Till (and Oliphint) remind us that it does. Actually they help us to anticipate where to go when we have presented our best classical apologetics case and it is still rejected. And by anticipating it construct our case so it doesn't give the (false) impression that our switch to discussing presuppositions is a "Plan B" approach.
Oh, by the way, even the best presuppositional approach does not convince an unbeliever - that is the work of the Holy Spirit. We can, however, show that one can be a thinker and a Christian as well.
I love Westminster!
May the Lord continue his work.
Didn't the seminary acquire and destroy all remaining copies of a book that this man wrote because there was a problem with his teaching on the doctrine of God?
I would say it's doesn't make a lot of sense to the unregenerate, but for the regenerate it makes perfect sense :)
good content. i will use this method as negative apologetic and outlook to show that the christian worldview makes most sense with the reality we all live in. although i still like classical apologetics for building a positive reasable case for christianity. Learn all the methods, understand them custumize depending on who your talking with and their objections or/and questions.
David, I think your response is in part an illustration of the reason Dr Oliphint is unhappy with the term presuppositional apologetics. It (the term) leaves the impression that nothing other than a direct evaluation of the presuppositions of the unbeliever can be used. In reality the form of apologetics he is explaining can use any other form of apologetics as well - because there is a time and place for them BUT if we are going to use them we need to recognize their limitations.
To illustrate: The psalms tell us that the heavens declare the glory of God and Paul reminds us that the natural man knows what creation reveals about God, sufficiently to "leave him without excuse" for worshiping and serving the creature rather than the creator. So depending on what part of the discussion you are in it is perfectly legitimate to bring in the evidence from creation - as long as we are aware 1) that natural man distorts this evidence for his own idolatrous purpose and that 2) natural revelation needs special revelation in order to show someone how they can avoid the penalty due for their sin.
Classical apologetics is useful - as is discussions about movies - as a means to start a person thinking through the implications of the kind of world we live in and how it reflects the glory of God but man is not neutral in evaluating the data and the best we can do against such bias is show that "a" god is likely to exist - the Intelligent Design people have warned us about that - we would still have to show that the God of Scripture DOES exist. The step taken to do this may be more or less overtly biblical but it does need to be taken and Van Till (and Oliphint) remind us that it does. Actually they help us to anticipate where to go when we have presented our best classical apologetics case and it is still rejected. And by anticipating it construct our case so it doesn't give the (false) impression that our switch to discussing presuppositions is a "Plan B" approach.
Oh, by the way, even the best presuppositional approach does not convince an unbeliever - that is the work of the Holy Spirit. We can, however, show that one can be a thinker and a Christian as well.
@Mike82ARP nice one