Real philosophy includes natural philosophy, socratic philosophy, what we
know as the scientific method, metaphysics, ethics, and so on...
All Van Till did was very narrow in scope and is debated heatedly in many
churches such as, but not limitted to the P.C.A.
And as you may have guessed - I am not one of his fans...
Best Wishes,
William - N6RKY
George Andrews wrote:
>
> 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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
-- William A. Wetzel icq-uin# 13983514 http://home.pacbell.net/n6rky http://www.qsl.net/n6rky mailto:n6rky@pacbell.net mailto:n6rky@qsl.net