tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post4242060574593721378..comments2024-03-21T03:04:18.673-04:00Comments on Unapologetica: Apologetics and EpistemologyRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-3292745214393047572015-05-16T04:08:13.343-04:002015-05-16T04:08:13.343-04:00What Josh said makes sense to me because I have no...What Josh said makes sense to me because I have noticed in the short time that I have looked at Van Til's approach (primarily through Bahnsen), it seems that Bahnsen has a better grasp on Philosophy than Van Til did and filled in some of the gaps that Van Til had.<br /><br />Reminds me of Gordon Clark and someone I know..........Beauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05798287182293245212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-18555851712935504812015-04-30T21:13:41.307-04:002015-04-30T21:13:41.307-04:00I've been reading Van Til's A Survey of Ch...I've been reading Van Til's A Survey of Christian Epistemology recently. It's well written and engaging, which somewhat surprises me for as much as I've heard Van Til is difficult reading. <br /><br />Either way, I see why he would argue the impossibility to the contrary, given his belief that truth is internally related. I can also see why this, coupled with his belief in divine simplicity, would lead to a theory of analogical knowledge. I plan to write a post on it soon, as it confirms a suspicion I had a few years ago.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-13169691267781127452015-04-30T10:41:50.045-04:002015-04-30T10:41:50.045-04:00Somewhat hilariously, their differences are simila...Somewhat hilariously, their differences are similar to those of Barth and Brunner, though reversed. <br /><br />Brunner was always a pastoral figure and thus accepted the notion of a point of contact for evangelistic and pastoral counseling purposes. Barth primarily a professor of theology and thus said "Nein" to any such notion and started with an impossibility of the contrary. <br /><br />Ones contact with actual non-Christian people and experiences sharing the gospel with them seems to make a difference in apologetic approach, imo.Geoffhttp://shallowthoughtswithgeoff.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-39047434835673551552015-04-30T09:41:19.467-04:002015-04-30T09:41:19.467-04:00I have sometimes entertained the notion that one o...I have sometimes entertained the notion that one of the chief differences between Clark's approach to apologetics and Van Til's approach to apologetics stems from their different contexts--Clark was a professor of philosophy at a university for a good portion of his career whereas Van Til was a seminary professor. That Van Til would choose to assert the "impossibility of the contrary" (to use Bahnsen's term) at the front end of an apologetic, prior to demonstrating the inconsistency or incoherence of the opponent's view makes better sense when instructing pastors and theologians. Clark's asserting the axiom of Christianity only after he has performed the destructive task makes better sense when training or responding to philosophers who are not pastors or theologians.<br /><br />That Clark hammered consistency and coherence as apologetic standards and not epistemological ones is probably one of the biggest mistakes that critics (and followers!) of Clark make, but hopefully less so with expositions such as yours here available.Joshua Butcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762961484152028177noreply@blogger.com