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.
"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."
The only thing that is apparent here is the false dichotomy you have set up. In fact, it reflects that you have not read any of Oliphint's work in advancing Van Til's Theological, and apologetic legacy. Have you read Oliphint's exegesis on Exodus 3 (and it's ramifications for apologetics), what about his exegesis of Romans 1 (and it's apologetical ramifications)? Saying they are becoming "less evangelical" is a serious charge, and one that, after serious examination of what has been written and taught at WTS (see the lectures provided at iTunesU), can't be substantiated.
"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..."
Where has anyone argued this in the way you just have? Don't you think you should cite where you believe they've said this? At least to demonstrate to your readers that you aren't making this up.
"thus here is the problem of the evangelism"
thus the problem of the fact you cannot represent your opponent accurately
"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)"
Still, no quotations from Oliphint or Edgar so that your reader can examine where they've said this. Just more poison in the well.
" 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."
I'm really curious to know if you actually believe that they said this. As someone who listens to Oliphint very often, and has read a great deal of his writings, this reflection is new to me. It's actually very shocking that someone resort to imputing this meaning into what he's taught. It's naive, at best, and dishonest, at worst.
"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."
First off, Van Til promoted a "Reformed" apologetic, and he even said as much in his writings
" The two systems, that of the non-Christian and that of the Christian, differ because of the fact that their basic assumptions, or presuppositions differ. On the non-Christian basis man is assumed to be the final reference point in prediction… The Reformed method…begins frankly “from above.” It would “presuppose” God. But in presupposing God it cannot place itself at any point on a neutral basis with the non-Christian… Believers themselves have not chosen the Christian position because they were wiser than others. What they have they have by grace alone. But this fact does not mean that they must accept the problematics of fallen man as right or even as probably or possibly right. For the essence of the idea of Scripture is that it alone is the criterion of truth. " - Cornelius Van Til A Christian Theory of Knowledge, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969, pp. 15, 18, 43.
"Rather than wedding Christianity to the philosophies of Aristotle or Kant, we must openly challenge the apostate philosophic constructions of men by which they seek to suppress the truth about God, themselves, and the world ... It is only if we demand of men complete submission to the living Christ of the Scriptures in every area of their lives that we have presented to men the claims of the Lord Christ without compromise. It is only then that we are truly Biblical first and speculative afterwards. Only then are we working toward a Reformed apologetic" - Cornelius Van Til, Toward a Reformed Apologetics, pp. 24–28)
He even criticized "Evangelicalism's" approach, given the connotations provided in the label. Since Reformed and Covenantal are used Interchangeably, it is an accurate portrayal of Van Til's thought to coin the term "Covenant apologetics". We are still arguing transcendentally as the Scripture requires us to (which means we are stil arguing by presupposition).
"Convenantal apologetics could even be evidential or rational apologetics in disguise."
As stated above, it's just Covenantal apologetics is just a renaming of presuppositionalism (the reasoning given above, and by Oliphint in a 3 part youtube video named "Apologetics and the Doctrine of Scripture). So Thomism and Evidentialism would be at odds with this method.
"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."
1) presuppositionalism is not being rejected as a method, rather it's being rejected as the label, as it is capable of bringing in post-modern connotations
2) A presupposition, as Van Til defined it, is the "final reference point" or "authority" in reasoning. It can be conscious or unconscious. So I would agree in saying it isn't "equal" to assumption, although it involves them. Nor would I say that it is the "highest accepted premise", because the Triune God isn't just a conceptual premise, but rather an Ultimate Personality; and according to Van Til, our highest authority is The Triune God of Scripture.
Okay okay...I'll read them.
But the whole point I'm on is the use of the word, though I wouldn't argue to a point where the whole spirit becomes meaningless...since it is not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter killeth.
I've heard Van Til was very evangelical since he even preached and gave out gospel tracts on the streets to strangers...hence my assertion.
But as for the use of the word Presupposition, I'd say it is better to attempt to reclaim it's proper meaning from misuse, than to jump to another boat for help...at this time.
Although, after reading your comments, I must clarify that I stand by my charge on the Reformed/Orthodox churches today aren't doing much on the evangelical part, compared to the crazy, unbiblical/shallow charismatics and Evangelicals. I won't even need to bring up the mormons. "Saying they are becoming "less evangelical" is a serious charge"... consequently, I must say claiming one is evangelical with all kinds of talk and words, and actually BEING evangelical are 2 different matters. Most reformed traditionalists would still claim evangelical by arguing: "oh...I always look for a chance talk about the Gospel when a stranger comes talking to me"...but the thing is, evangelizing also consists of taking the INITIATIVE to talk to strangers. Hence, my stand on the usage of the word evangelical. At this point, I'm sure some readers may have "Judge not" in their minds, I shall just reply...unless it is judged incorrectly, we must begin the cut at some point for surgery. Because I don't have an optimistic view about what's happening in the Christian West nations of today (Christian nations being those that once flooded with pious people - I say this so that there is no need for anyone to argue "Not all Israel is Israel" with me. I chose the word "nations" because I am referring to the literal countries as a whole that has Christianity influence), though I would do God's will actively with joy.
"I've heard Van Til was very evangelical since he even preached and gave out gospel tracts on the streets to strangers...hence my assertion."
Yes, he was. But being "evangelical" in the biblical use of the word is not evangelicalism (which is what he criticized)
Also, when did you get a schedule of activity from Oliphint or Edgar (or anyone else from WTS)? How do you know what they do in between classes? You shouldn't make judgements on what you haven't a clue about.
"But as for the use of the word Presupposition, I'd say it is better to attempt to reclaim it's proper meaning from misuse, than to jump to another boat for help...at this time."
This is begging the question, you're the only one saying it's another boat. But as I pointed out earlier, and you conceded, you haven't done your homework, so you wouldn't know whether it is or not.
"Although, after reading your comments, I must clarify that I stand by my charge on the Reformed/Orthodox churches today aren't doing much on the evangelical part"
Have you heard of MTW? What about Pioneers? What about Westminster Biblical Missions? What about Reformed Presbyterian Missions? What about Reformed Missions in Latin America? What about Christian Reformed World Missions? How about Middle East Reformed fellowship? What about Presbyterian Mission Union? Not to mention the ministry that each of the Reformed denominations provide in their area. There are hundreds of counter examples to your point. Perhaps you have a spurious definition on what evangelism looks like. Or perhaps you don't pay attention. From reading what you've written, I think it's both.
"compared to the crazy, unbiblical/shallow charismatics and Evangelicals"
Who are they winning? Just because someone comes screaming to the altar doesn't mean they've been evangelized? Did you know that more people would respond to something that would suit their entertainment/psychological/financial/emotional wants, than to solid preaching of the Gospel? Did you factor your charge? I doubt it.
" consequently, I must say claiming one is evangelical with all kinds of talk and words, and actually BEING evangelical are 2 different matters. Most reformed traditionalists would still claim evangelical by arguing oh...I always look for a chance talk about the Gospel when a stranger comes talking to me"
And which reformed traditionalists are you speaking of? Or are you conveniently leaving out examples again so that everyone can take your word for it. I mean, do you expect people to read your blog and consider your judgement honestly? Or is this just a place where you spill your thoughts? Because if it's the former you need to give examples of who you are arguing against and cite what they said that you disagree with. Otherwise you are just bearing false witness.
".but the thing is, evangelizing also consists of taking the INITIATIVE to talk to strangers."
and honestly critiquing the person or denomination that you are concerned about consists of taking the INITIATIVE to accurately represent them with substantial evidence.
" At this point, I'm sure some readers may have "Judge not" in their minds, I shall just reply...unless it is judged incorrectly, we must begin the cut at some point for surgery."
I don't have judge not in my mind, rather it is just judge on right judgement. But your readers can't judge on right judgement if the only thing they have to judge by is your opinion about what someone is doing without citations of activity or statements made by a Reformed theologian/denomination as a whole.
"Because I don't have an optimistic view about what's happening in the Christian West nations of today"
Well God isn't limited to your optimism of something
" (Christian nations being those that once flooded with pious people"
Not sure what your idea of a "Christian nation" . There are always floods, but then the water sinks back down, until the next flood. It seems like you have an issue with God's grace in the ordinary.
" I say this so that there is no need for anyone to argue "Not all Israel is Israel" with me. I chose the word "nations" because I am referring to the literal countries as a whole that has Christianity influence), though I would do God's will actively with joy."
Well we live in the Already/not yet period, the catch is that whatever the circumstances, the LORD is sovereign, and we are to be faithful, the definition of faithful is according to His Word, not according to what you see or feel to be the case.
Thank you again for such swift response. Looks a lot...So I'll just take a few crucial ones for now:
As for your accusation of me setting an dichotomy of Presupposition and Covenantal apologetics, I did not mean to make it a dichotomy. I intended to show that covenantal apologetics is still the subset of presupposition, and thus does not replace it.
This is actually my diary/journal. Not a blog as the way many would define it. The directory 'blog' is the default setting and I see no need to correct that word for now since it is my web log or web diary, one which I transferred to from the traditional book form diary. As for the publicity, well there really isn't any, nor is that my intention, but I do follow the motto of "I have nothing to hide". So sure, if you think I've done some injustice...I would be glad to clarify. But please give me slowly...I don't want another huge assignment on my head. Other than that, I welcome all criticisms.
As for Dr. Edgar and Oliphint's schedules, I would love for you to show me, and prove me wrong. I don't see a preacher (or even the attempt) like Paul in them, and that's that. Merely teachers. Teachers I can respect, but I cannot view them as preachers. That is the difference I'm making here.
Secondly, you named a lot of missions. No, I've never heard of them. But it looks like you are making me wanting to say: "Fix your own country first, before you go 'judging' other countries". Because I really do not wish to see another RCA, PCUSA liberals in those countries. In the mean time, I admire all those true works of God in any lands by any missions. Those that particularly do not call me asking for donations from time to time. I give where I see the Gospel is preached.
To give you a better knowledge of myself...I fully support the speech delivered at WST: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE34znikf-Y
So whatever criticism I made, I believe most part concurs with Dr. Stephen Tong's speech, but do correct me if I am wrong, as I do not wish to be the cause of any bad reputation on my dear mentor.
By the way, are you someone I know? Your identity is very inconspicuous. I would love to know you well. It isn't everyday I get attacks like this from a fellow brother...or sister in the Lord, you know. I'll be going to the WTS ACE God and science conference in April ACE God and science, maybe you are around to chat - face to face.
Thank you again.
"As for your accusation of me setting an dichotomy of Presupposition and Covenantal apologetics, I did not mean to make it a dichotomy. I intended to show that covenantal apologetics is still the subset of presupposition, and thus does not replace it."
Did you watch the video series I pointed you to? Nobody is trying to replace the methedology, it's a biblical one. It's the name that's being replaced because it was a bad term. Van Til hardly ever used the term to describe himself anyway. But I guess it's not going to do any good repeating it, you are just going to have to do your own homework at this point.
"This is actually my diary/journal. Not a blog as the way many would define it. The directory 'blog' is the default setting and I see no need to correct that word for now since it is my web log or web diary, one which I transferred to from the traditional book form diary. As for the publicity, well there really isn't any, nor is that my intention, but I do follow the motto of "I have nothing to hide". So sure, if you think I've done some injustice...I would be glad to clarify. But please give me slowly...I don't want another huge assignment on my head. Other than that, I welcome all criticisms."
That's fine, I don't expect you to make radical changes now, but now you have a reason to reconsider your charge, and I know sifting through things takes time. 🙂
"As for Dr. Edgar and Oliphint's schedules, I would love for you to show me, and prove me wrong."
1) I didn't make the initial assertion, you did, so I asked you to show me substantial evidence that warranted them being "less evangelical".
2) Oliphint was a Pastor in Texas for 10 years before he started teaching at seminary, and preaches at different venues. I'm sure you're aware of pastoral duties
"I don't see a preacher (or even the attempt) like Paul in them, and that's that. Merely teachers. Teachers I can respect, but I cannot view them as preachers. That is the difference I'm making here."
The problem with your difference is that it lack substance. It isn't realistic, it's a "knee jerk" charge. Also if you actually listened or read anything by Oliphint, then you would realize that he is very pastoral in his approach to teaching. If you don't believe it, then read "If I should die before I wake" and "The Battle Belongs to the Lord". By the way, all teaching positions at WTS require ordination which requires being involved in the local church under rulership of elders. So the teaching ministry at WTS is also a pastoral ministry as well. It's Pastors training men to be pastors.
"Secondly, you named a lot of missions. No, I've never heard of them. But it looks like you are making me wanting to say: "Fix your own country first, before you go 'judging' other countries"."
It was not supposed to be read that way. All nations need "fixing". I'm just pointing out that your criticisms are without warrant
"Because I really do not wish to see another RCA, PCUSA liberals in those countries."
My sentiments exactly. In fact, we don't want them here in our country either 🙂
"To give you a better knowledge of myself...I fully support the speech delivered at WST: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE34znikf-Y"
I'll have to check this out
"So whatever criticism I made, I believe most part concurs with Dr. Stephen Tong's speech, but do correct me if I am wrong, as I do not wish to be the cause of any bad reputation on my dear mentor."
I'll have to check this out and get back with you, as I am unfamiliar with Dr. Tong
"By the way, are you someone I know?"
I don't think so. If we know of each other I'm not aware of it
"Your identity is very inconspicuous."
Yeah, I'm not really an anybody. I'm just laymen that contributes to an apologetics website page.
" I would love to know you well."
Maybe you should check out the site then 🙂
"It isn't everyday I get attacks like this from a fellow brother...or sister in the Lord, you know."
I'm a brother, and don't consider it an attack. Consider it a correction.
"I'll be going to the WTS ACE God and science conference in April ACE God and science, maybe you are around to chat - face to face."
Don't know if I will make it to that one, but I suppose there is still time. I'm sure we will see each other if you keep following WTS and the Lord's workings there.
Well, as I tried to show, I agreed with you about the two terms been merely label replacement. I was just arguing that there really is no need to change even the label. I would love to be shown where to look for the process it has taken to make such a change (yes, even if it is just the label, I wanna make a big deal out of it).
I supposed I would want to see someone preaching to a crowd of nonbelievers like George Whitefield, that is very frustrating if I hear so much talk on theology (Good theology lectures - I'll give you that) but no Whitefield, Wesley(the preaching part, not the arminian), Dr. John Sung (from China), etc.
But no, not the charismatic, tv evangelist way. To some point, I would agree with Paul Washer's take on the "Reformed Christians" (though I still consider myself with the Reformed community) that all they do is just to fill their heads with knowledge and no other actions. And yes, the statement would be unjust if applied as a whole but often times, I must admit it is true.
I love attacks, from both friends and foes. For different purposes of course. I cannot view it as correction unless I carefully look through everything, since I have to consider the 'presupposition' of what I've written. And at this point, I believe we held similar views...so I just have to say there's been much misunderstanding. Such as...when I said of my "pessimism", it is because I consider homosexuality, feminism, the professor who got fired from WTS not long ago (I dunno who, but maybe you do - I wish someone would just tell me), etc. all the things that many churches are accepting today as huge huge problem to the church. I'm sure you do too, so I'm not even going there to accuse you for that when you tried to "correct" my 'pessimistic' statement. Though I am pessimistic, I do actively do my part to deal with this. That means, though I would not be as happy as these majority 'Christians' many of whom I considered brothers, but perhaps just confused, for believing what they are believing about the Okayness of all these problem, I would deal with them with provocative love.
On this site, you will notice crude criticisms here and there. Just know that this is not where my thesis is published. I don't even know how you get here, as I don't believe my website is that hot. Though I intend to make the official one "without the /blog" url extension popular: with resources from Calvin to puritans. Resources I compiled myself, including some transcription from Calvin's Sermons on Job to Marten Schoock's Admiranda on Rene DesCartes.
This is excellent. This entry is now one of my more treasured.
Now, just to sum things up, after further research.
Since it is an apologetic, meaning involving non-Christians, presupposition is itself a common ground. Just like we have to use a common language to communicate. It is not however a kind of tolerated or
compromised common ground apologetic.
As for the purpose of original post is to tackle on the issue of replacing the word "Presupposition" with "Covenantal", the person Resequitur had spent long effort defending something against what I said.
From all his responses, no doubt he is no slacker. I'll be just in that. However, despite his attempt to show he is responding not off topic, one would think by making a response to each quoted original sentence, one understood and replied accurately on topic. But all I recognize is mostly accusation which sometimes got off topic and helpless defense from a cornered creature, hoping to have a blow of victory where there is none to obtain.
Don't get me wrong, I do not disregard these people as outside the family of Christ, I should not...contrary to what is seen in Christian Communities today. Especially in the American South...segregation, the we don't want them with us attitude, etc.
I wonder, what happened to Resequitur after he watched Dr. Tong's speech, if he watched.
To conclude, I'll give two points. One on topic, and the other off topic, based on the responses I get.
1. Of all the challenges, the only on topic challenge I received from Requisitur was that the reason not to use the word "presupposition" is because of the possible misuse in post-modern connotation. I have searched for a while, but found no concrete reason. And thus, my accusation of the problem with the West reformers of today is self justification of fear of preaching to a crowded strangers out in the open public space. And there is a difference between admitting one is not called or not brave enough to face that challenge, and to say that this is now replaced by social gospel, bloggings, seminaries and the likes. Of course, I doubt unlike some, Resequitur would not go that far, but when he challenged me to proof my point by showing my knowledge of some reformed professors' evangelism schedule (I wonder how he would think of Dr. Tong's comment - "Students do not preach because their teachers do not preach"), it shows already some truth to my saying. One might have answered "Yes, we reformed Christians today do lack the zeal preaching the Gospel to strangers, crowds in the park, taxi drivers, people we meet", which is the true case today. So by saying I do not see any rally in stadiums, Billy Graham type crusade, Pauline preaching in places where crowd has stones in hands, Christ's preaching on mountains and sea shores, and the likes, I have done more favor in answering. I need not respond unless he has to prove me wrong, instead of just keeps picking bones here and there.
2. On the remark that "all nations need fixing" - I don't know if he purposely missed my point or not...but it should be understood that we all know "all nations need fixing", but I was talking about "America is trying to fix other countries while America needs [[MORE]] fixing itself", the part about before you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye [other countries] - Matthew 7:3, as for fixing one's own country, the attitude of "we don't want them here in our country either" is not the right one...the Union had taught this lesson to the Confederate once...looks like history is repeating itself. Same goes with the recent discussion on restricting immigrants.
After reading to various sources on Covenantal Apologetics (I bought the book by Oliphint but have yet to finish reading it), my pre-conclusion would be that:
Convenantal Apologetics is merely a subset/prerequisite of Presuppositional Apologetics. Not a replacement of it.
The semantics of "presupposition" promotes preaching to even the most ignorant, while the other term just focus on preaching to the choir or "seekers". I can bet one can tell the difference between who has done proper (I use proper because there are pretenders, but the word "proper" is not necessary here) street (or similar public stages for strangers) and who has/will not done/do such thing based on the terminology they use.
It would be like saying: Let's not call soldiers "soldiers" because some may have the wrong idea of soldiers, but call them "peacekeepers".