Cristopher

            Dr. Knudsen started his survey by narrating the diminishing influence of apologetics in the Reformed circle particularly from the Dutch Reformed tradition and the goal of Cornelius Van Til to regain its influence. He then proceeded to identify presuppositionalist theologians and stated in detail his points of differences particularly from Van Til’s version of presuppositionalism. Listening to the ideas of both sides, the points of differences between Cornelius Van Til and Dr. Knudsen about apologetics is based on each having his own school of philosophy, the transcendental presuppositional and cosmonomic. The year 1928 was considered a milestone in the history of apologetics for it was in that year that Cornelius Van Til took the position of Instructor of Apologetics at the Princeton Theological Seminary. A year after, Princeton was reorganized cutting off the tradition of the Old Princeton. As a result, under the leadership of J. Gresh...

In Van Til’s judgment, the ineffectiveness and flaws of the traditional method of defending the faith are tied to an underlying theological outlook that is biblically deficient, such as Roman Catholicism or Arminianism. Reformed theology, which is more scripturally sound, would lead if one were faithful to its tenets, to a presuppositional conception and practice of apologetics. Now, in the early decades of the twentieth century, the Reformed world had two exceptional elder statesmen. Both Kuyper and Warfield exercised a formative influence on the thinking of Van Til as he sought a rigorously consistent, Reformed understanding of apologetics. But they did not see eye to eye on every point, and on the subject of apologetics their disagreement was readily apparent. Warfield gave expression to this disagreement particularly in the introduction that he penned for Francis R. Beattie’s Apologetics. There are two good reasons for examining Van Til’s own analysis of, and response to, the...

            Theology applies the word of God. So does evangelism. So does Christian philosophy. So does apologetics (just notice how often Scripture has been alluded to above). It ought to be clear, then, that these different tasks at least share a common commitment to the authority of God as revealed in His word. On the other hand, the work of the theologian, philosopher, or evangelist cannot be carried out without to some degree defending the truth of Christianity—in apologetics. All of these tasks are both positive and defensive in nature.   They are all interdependent. To be sure, there are shades of difference between apologetics, theology, philosophy, and evangelism—differences in the primary audience, or type of questions addressed, or immediate aim. But all of these tasks come under the common umbrella of applying God’s word to the hearts of men. Apologetics is a way of doing theology, a way of doing evangelism, a way of doing philo...

       In ancient Greece an apologia was the defense offered in a court of law in answer to an accusation. Socrates was accused of atheism and of corrupting the youth of Athens; eventually he was sentenced to die. Christians in the ancient world knew what it was to have accusations and ridicule directed at them for their religious convictions and practices. Twentieth-century believers can sympathize with their brothers in the ancient world. Our Christian faith continues to see the same variety of attempts to oppose and undermine it.  What kind of response should be made to such accusations and challenges? It is clear from the New Testament record that the believers in the early church were not content to be relativists, subjectivists, or eclectics. In the accounts of opposition that are mentioned above, Christians are not found replying that nobody can know anything for sure (especially about supernatural matters), in which case there is no absolute truth. R...