My Journal

This psalm is a rigtheous defense against the lies spoken for (not against) us.

It appears that Van Til's presuppositionalism is due to the fact that he is evangelical while the later Westminster Theological Seminary's intent to transform that apologetics into "covenantal" apologetics, I believe, is due to the fact that the WTS (namely William Edgar, Scott Oliphint) is becoming less evangelical.

They rightly point out that presuppositionalism is one, unlike other apologetics (classical, evidential), that doesn't start the discussion from a neutral ground (outside the scope of scripture) with unbelievers. But in covenantal apologetics, one is more inclined to treat his subjects as believers already...thus here is the problem of the evangelism. From here spun the problem of many traditional orthodox churches of the West...risking the worship of moralism, etc. because the Lordship of Christ is not communicated without repentance - since the unbelievers are taken to be believers already (since christianity is true to begin with). It skipped the process of conversion and freedom from death...the principle on the part about "which sinners of the two would love God more" is washed out.

No, I'm not trying to promote the wild ecstatic conversion the modern day evangelicals and charismatics are pursuing. Nor do I wish to abolish convenantal apologetics. I'm merely stating that in evangelicalism, presuppositional apologetics is irreplaceable by covenantal apologetics since the latter actually requires the former to stand in the beginning.

Convenantal apologetics could even be evidential or rational apologetics in disguise.

Though I can see why they would be inclined to reject the use of the word "pressuposition". It is because of one simple misunderstanding. Pressuposition is not equal to assumption. It is the highest accepted premise. The chinese could translate it better: 先設 非 假設.

One chief problem I have seen, while spending time in the southern Bible belt, is that these American evangelicals love to treat everyone they do not know, as non-believers.

This itself, is sinful. Because they do not judge rightly.

Their fellowship is with those who have given them much praise and benefits. Thus, they could only remain in the south, digging the money pockets of their old members. Their fellowship is with those who have given them much praise and benefits. In a way, it is very similar than the modern day traditional churches. I just got a call from one of such organization (Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals) asking for some donation - Why? Because they do not evangelize...they do not think it is their duty to evangelize...they think evangelize is cultural mandate, not going out into the streets to preach to strangers. Though they differ from the south that they are more responsible and have proper respects to strangers who are Christians.

The problem with most modern day Christian Psychology is that the counselors treat others only as patients, they never treat them as equals or as ones better than themselves. This is the pride which made them enemies of God.