at the University of Southern California, specializing in the field of epistemology (“the theory of knowledge”). Bahnsen taught for a period of time at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi, and then, as an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, served as pastor for a congregation in California.
at the University of Southern California, specializing in the field of epistemology (“the theory of knowledge”). Bahnsen taught for a period of time at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi, and then, as an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, served as pastor for a congregation in California.Tags: Biographical Research PaperTrends And Issues In Hrm EssayHsc English Creative Writing QuestionsApply Texas Essays For Transfer StudentsOutline On Gay Marriages For Research PaperPassion Definition Essay
Clark, however, “disappoints us when we take into account what he says elsewhere.” There are “problems in his apologetical writings that sully and set aside these positive statements.
An audit of those difficulties leads us to draw back from adopting Clark’s apologetics” (137-142).
Those not formerly introduced to Van Til or Bahnsen will understand shortly after beginning this volume—for this book presents the most clear, systematic, and rigorous statement and defense of Van Tillian presuppositional apologetics written to date (vii). In his theological, philosophical, and apologetic endeavors, Dr. He correctly adhered to the need for a rational Christianity.
There is a sense in which what is said in this paragraph is true; and there is a sense in which it is false. He believed that a rational defense of the faith was essential to defending the faith.
” (3-23); chapter two, “The Christian Mind and Method” (25-75); and chapter three, “Neutrality and Autonomy Relinquished” (77-131).
There is some fine work in these chapters, and the reader should benefit from a perusal of them.
This is not to impugn Van Til’s character, for every indication is that he was a godly man; he was a man who greatly desired to see the furtherance of God’s kingdom on Earth. Van Til was not averse to speaking disparagingly of logic; he believed and taught that logic was a part of creation (rather than being intrinsic to the essence of God), and he rigidly held to the idea of logical paradox found throughout the entirety of the Word of God.
Several scholars have documented this in their analyses of Van Til (2). Bahnsen and Van Til (whose apologetic methodology was far from a “Copernican Revolution”) would part company in their systems. Bahnsen is attempting to construct a rational apologetic based on the philosophical foundations of his mentor, he is on shaky ground.
The first two “difficulties” in Clark’s apologetic methodology that Dr.
Bahnsen deals with, “Starting Points and Certainty” (142-147) and “Possibility and Necessity” (145-148), have to do with Clark’s alleged view of “possibility.” The author later returns to this “difficulty” under the heading of “Clark’s Probabilism” (174-176). Clark’s writings wherein he speaks of the “possibility” of the Bible being the Word of God.