--------------5085259F059EC420DB63AFC5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi William;
"William A. Wetzel" wrote:
> Greetings:
>
> A point here that probably needs clarification. Many newcomers to what is
> known as apologetics get these condensed courses which seem to be heavily
> presuppositional and include little or no real philosophy to them. One in
> particular came to me from a friend that got his from Dallas Theological.
Having read Van Till's book and utilizing large segments of it in a Templeton
Course in Religion and Science I wrote, I find your inference that
presuppositional apologetics' lacks "real" philosophical content very
puzzling. Perhaps I don't understand your definition of philosophy, but surly
the likes of Cornelius Van Till as well as others like Herman Dooyeweerd
warrant the title "philosopher"!
Are you saying there is a) presuppositionalism OR b) philosophy?
>
>
> The use of presuppositional logic was done by Cornelius Van Till. He plus
> many that follow his work fall into a camp of theology known as:
>
> Dominion Theology, more properly known as "Reconstructionists".
>
What does this categorization imply? It would at least imply that they then
are involved in philosophical inquiry and therefore warrant a classification
as real philosophers.
>
>
> Now as for Romans 1:20? Read 1:19 --> it's evidentual and applies to all,
> and is normally referred to as "inate knowledge" in many confessions.
Actually, these verses, when read in context, support a presuppositional
claim for the ever abiding need for God's initiative through grace for
enlightenment. Verse 20 and onward are meant to support Paul's contention
that God is just in exercising His wrath (vs. 18). Additionally, vs. 19
discloses God's self revelation in declaring "that which may be known of God
is manifest in them for God hath shewed it unto them." (KJ) The thrust of
Paul's message is not the evidentulism you speak of but the judgment upon
humanity for not retaining it after it had exercised its revelatory role.
Furthermore, the consequences of man's rejection are outlined in vs.. 24, 26
and - most importantly to this discussion - vs. 28. In particular, humanity
tragically loses any innate ability to see God as their "foolish heart was
darkened" (vs. 21) and even more serious, are given over to reprobation by
God! Thus, only an act of God can remove humanity from this horrible state; a
major component in the philosophy of the Dutch reformed presuppositionalism
of Dr. Van Till and company.
Vs. 14 - 16 do speak to an "innate knowledge" but this is moral not
evidential.
Sincerely.
George
--------------5085259F059EC420DB63AFC5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
Hi William;
"William A. Wetzel" wrote:
Greetings:Having read Van Till's book and utilizing large segments of it in a Templeton Course in Religion and Science I wrote, I find your inference that presuppositional apologetics' lacks "real" philosophical content very puzzling. Perhaps I don't understand your definition of philosophy, but surly the likes of Cornelius Van Till as well as others like Herman Dooyeweerd warrant the title "philosopher"!A point here that probably needs clarification. Many newcomers to what is
known as apologetics get these condensed courses which seem to be heavily
presuppositional and include little or no real philosophy to them. One in
particular came to me from a friend that got his from Dallas Theological.
Are you saying there is a) presuppositionalism OR b) philosophy?
What does this categorization imply? It would at least imply that they then are involved in philosophical inquiry and therefore warrant a classification as real philosophers.The use of presuppositional logic was done by Cornelius Van Till. He plus
many that follow his work fall into a camp of theology known as:Dominion Theology, more properly known as "Reconstructionists".
Actually, these verses, when read in context, support a presuppositional claim for the ever abiding need for God's initiative through grace for enlightenment. Verse 20 and onward are meant to support Paul's contention that God is just in exercising His wrath (vs. 18). Additionally, vs. 19 discloses God's self revelation in declaring "that which may be known of God is manifest in them for God hath shewed it unto them." (KJ) The thrust of Paul's message is not the evidentulism you speak of but the judgment upon humanity for not retaining it after it had exercised its revelatory role. Furthermore, the consequences of man's rejection are outlined in vs.. 24, 26 and - most importantly to this discussion - vs. 28. In particular, humanity tragically loses any innate ability to see God as their "foolish heart was darkened" (vs. 21) and even more serious, are given over to reprobation by God! Thus, only an act of God can remove humanity from this horrible state; a major component in the philosophy of the Dutch reformed presuppositionalism of Dr. Van Till and company.Now as for Romans 1:20? Read 1:19 --> it's evidentual and applies to all,
and is normally referred to as "inate knowledge" in many confessions.
Vs. 14 - 16 do speak to an "innate knowledge" but this is moral not evidential.
Sincerely.
George
--------------5085259F059EC420DB63AFC5--
--------------B6DBDE7A42E0C70C20DBF7E4
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="gandrews.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for George Andrews
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="gandrews.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Andrews Jr.;George
tel;home:757 565 2890
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:College of William & Mary;Applied Sciences
adr:;;;Williamsburg;VA;23188;
version:2.1
email;internet:gandrews@as.wm.edu
title:Graduate Student
fn:George A. Andrews Jr.
end:vcard
--------------B6DBDE7A42E0C70C20DBF7E4--