Progressive and Regressive Tendencies in Apologetic

         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. Gresham Machen, Van Til left Princeton and helped in the formation of Westminster. It was in this seminary that Van Til developed the new approach in Christian apologetics. His goal was to establish apologetics on Christian foundation.

Prior to the realization of Van Til’s goal, modern apologetics was based on empirical foundation “prepared by modern scientific discovery”. Van Til saw this as problematic for under this framework, proving Christianity is considered impossible and irrational. However, though unreasonable, Christianity is still accepted provided that it will confine itself on practical matters.

The most devastating critic of classical apologetics came from David Hume. For him, Butler’s argument was invalid for “it had sought to appeal to experience to establish the probability of things that lay beyond the scope of experience” (p. 278). For Hume, the regularity of nature cannot be used to prove the relationship “between what was within experience” and “what was beyond experience”.

After stating Hume’s empirical stance, Dr. Knudsen acknowledged that Reformed apologists recognize that Hume’s criticism of traditional apologetics as found in Butler (and William Paley) has an element of truth. However, Hume also adopted similar stance found among modern thinkers. Basically, Hume’s concept is deistic for he shares the idea that reason and nature are independent from God. Reason is then employed to explain God instead of finding in God the foundation and meaning of reason.

For Dr. Knudsen, the unique elements in Orr’s transcendental approach was picked up by Van Til. These elements include “the importance of presuppositions and of one’s starting point” (p. 282). Van Til’s starting point includes the following theological elements: doctrine of creation, which distinguishes between Creator and creatures, clarity and accessibility of revelation making man inexcusable, doctrine of the fall making sinners incapable to rightly interpret God’s revelation, and doctrine of redemption teaching us that Christ is God’s ultimate revelation and the only way to restore man the ability to correctly interpret divine revelation.

Gordon H. Clark is a presuppositionalist in the sense that his apologetical stance “depends upon the choice of a set of axioms” taken from Christian faith (pp. 284-285). He is described as a “rationalist” who thinks that “Truth can be expressed only in propositions” (ibid.). Another presuppositionalist, Edward John Carnell was a disciple of Gordon Clark in the early apologetical stance of the latter.

They part ways later due to the change both in Clark’s and Carnell’s stance. Dr. Ronald Nash is familiar with this change in Clark’s position, rejects it and follows Carnell’s position instead. For Clark, the origin of his axioms is found “in the intellect of the sovereign God” (p. 285) known only by way of divine revelation. Dr.Knudsen describes its position as “metaphysical theism” (p. 286).

 

                                                      PERSONAL RESPONSE

 

        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. Gresham Machen, Van Til left Princeton and helped in the formation of Westminster.

 It was in this seminary that Van Til developed the new approach in Christian apologetics. His goal was to establish apologetics on Christian foundation. Van Til’s ambition was “to reinstate apologetics” “on a new basis”. Van Til did not agree with Kuyper’s conclusion. For him much weakness is not due to the inherent nature of apologetics itself, but because Christian apologists allows its critics to occupy a neutral ground. 

He wants to address this problem. In the Modern times, modern apologetics was based on empirical foundation “prepared by modern scientific discovery” which makes Christianity impossible. Some of the Christian apologists who employed empirical basis were Bishop Butler, William Paley, and David Hume. 

Bishop Butler has an argument about life after death. In here he discussed that our physical death will not destroy our identity. Because of this, it is acceptable to believe that there will be life after death. I also believe this belief that physical death has nothing to do to our real identity as our spirit when we die will come back to God who gave it and who we are in Christ will never be taken away from us. 

Therefore we must not fear death. But for Hume the regularity of nature cannot be used to prove the relationship between “what was within experience”. The only alternative is found “by means of the cause-effect relationship.” But it had its meaning only “within the bounds of experience itself.” I also believe in William Paley when He said that the designs brought us back to the Designer. I remember one of the passages in the Bible that all the works of God’s hand, the creation will speak and prove of His existence.

There were other apologists whose arguments were shared on the article but I haven’t mentioned them here. I only give emphasis to the people who had impacted me. After all, I salute all the apologists mentioned for they really taught me to be a critical and analytic thinker. We will see that the apologists have their own argument. 

We will also notice that apologetics has its strong and weak points. After discussing the Impericism to Idealism, the birth of Presuppositional Apologetics was discussed. I love the conclusion of this paper where it stated that when you disagree with an author, it entails an extra cautious reading on your part for you to critically assess both the points of disagreement and at the same time, for you to humbly listen and learn from the insights the author is trying to communicate. Every new learning requires further research to come up with the best ideas that we will be able to use not to argue but to provide better solution to the problem.