A SYLLABUS ON CORNELIUS VAN TIL’S HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND CONTRIBUTION TO PRESUPPOSITIONAL APOLOGETICS

A SYLLABUS ON CORNELIUS VAN TIL’S HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND CONTRIBUTION TO PRESUPPOSITIONAL APOLOGETICS[1]

1. Introduction: Why I Believe in God, and why this syllabus?
   1. Question of the purpose of this syllabus
      1. As part of a more in-depth church syllabus lecture on apologetics, it might be asked why a biographical historical/theological approach to the father of Presuppositional Apologetics, Cornelius Van Til is needed?
      2. However, the question must be rephrased to the following: “Does Van Til himself thinks there is a relationship between his background (biographical, theological and otherwise) and his apologetics methodology?”

b. The importance of the booklet Why I Believe in God and its insight in answering the question

1. It has been identified by John Frame as Cornelius Van Til’s best writing[2]
2. It is the only work of Van Til addressing nonbelievers.[3]
3. This is a concise summary of Van Til’s apologetics.
4. According to Greg Bahnsen it is “a profound and readable illustration of the ‘transcendental’ argument for the truth of the Christian worldview”[4],
5. The pamphlet, Why I Believe in God, illustrates the application of the apologetics of Van Til in non-technical terms.[5]
   1. This work is a model of how Van Til sees his apologetics would be applied.
   2. Thus, it’s insight, if any, would be important to answering the question.
   3. In Van Til’s own words decades later,

“In this pamphlet I tried to point out in simple terminology why I believe in the God of the Bible, the God of historic Reformed theology. The God I believe in is the triune God of the Bible. I believe in this God because He himself has told me in the Bible who He is, what I am, and what He, in Christ and by the Holy Spirit, has done for me. Or I might say ’has done for men.’ I was brought up on the Bible as the Word of God. Can I, now that I have been to school, still believe in the God of the Bible? Well, can I still believe in the sun that shown on me when I walked as a boy in wooden shoes in Groningen? I could believe in nothing else if I did not, as back of everything, believe in this God.”[6]

1. In Why I Believe in God, his apologetical challenge to the nonbeliever is blended with his testimony.
   1. This is seen in how he writes in the beginning of the booklet,

“To make our conversation most interesting, let’s start by comparing notes on our past.  That will fit in well with our plan, for the debate concerning heredity and environment is prominent in our day.  Perhaps you think that the only real reason I have for believing in God is the fact that I do so in my early days…Now in fact, I feel that the whole of history and civilization would be unintelligible to me if it were not for my belief in God.  So true is this, that I propose to argue that unless God is back of everything, you cannot find meaning in anything.  I cannot even argue for belief in Him, without already having taken Him for granted…My whole point will be that there is perfect harmony between my belief as a child and my belief as a man, simply because god is Himself the environment by which my early life was directed and my later life made intelligible to myself.”[7]

1. The booklet then proceed with the biographical testimony of his life from birth and onwards.
2. In a sense, his testimony is part of his apologetics.
3. Why is understanding the historical and theological background in Van Til’s biography important to Van Til’s apologetics?
   1. In light of the importance of the place of the booklet Why I Believe in God in Van Til’s apologetics,  the part-testimonial and part-philosophical challenge against unbelief which has been characteristic of Van Til’s apologetics would be missing something important if it does not take seriously Van Til’s background.
   2. So much of Van Til’s apologetics strive to defend the Sovereign God of the Bible, who has acted in history through providence and miracle.
      1. The biographical, theological and philosophical background of Cornelius Van Til further testify to the existence of the God of the Bible and His character, since God sovereignly conditioned the event which resulted in the development of Presuppositional Apologetics through Van Til.
      2. Knowing the biography and background of Van Til means seeing the Sovereign God of the Bible as the hero, and Van Til as just the means God use, thereby glorifying God instead of man.
         1. For the Christian, there is something to thank God about His providence in the thoughts of Van Til in a historical light.
         2. An understanding of Van Til’s biographical background would allow a deeper appreciation of his thoughts.
         3. Knowing the historical background of Van Til demonstrates how his consistently Reformed theology spawned his apologetics.
            1. For those who want a consistently Reformed apologetics of the faith, such a study as this would affirm Van Til’s apologetics.
            2. Knowing the theological root of Van Til’s apologetics have led some to the Reformed faith.
               1. Internet slogan call Presuppositional Apologetics “the back door to Calvinism”
               2. As a personal testimony, Presuppositional Apologetics as articulated by Van Til and those that followed in his vein has contributed to my adoption of the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace.
   3. The approach and direction for this syllabus
      1. This syllabus will roughly provide an overview of Van Til’s biography, through the path of the booklet Why I Believe, and further sources.
      2. Along the way, this syllabi will attempt to show how even in a Christian testimony such as Van Til’s is an apologetics challenge to the unbeliever.
      3. Some specific theologically Reformed doctrines will be shown of how Van Til applied them to his unique apologetics.
4. Early life
   1. Birth of Van Til
      1. After the introduction in Why I Believe, Van Til began his testimony with reference to his birth.

“Well, I was born in a little thatched roof house with a cow barn attached, in Holland. You wore “silver slippers” and I wore wooden shoes.”[8]

1. Van Til was born on a lovely cloudy Friday on May 3^rd, 1895 to his father, Ite, and mother, Klazina.
2. He was born at Grootegast, Holland.[9]
3. The authorized biographer of Van Til, William White described the scene of Van Til’s birth in this way:

“Nothing spectacular or noteworthy in the annals of history happened in the Low Countries on the lovely spring day in 1895.  However, in the old farmhouse of Ite Van Til, with it attached barn and red tile roof, Ite’s good wife, Klazina, gave birth to their sixth child, Kornelis.  True, the chroniclers of men and nation may never note the birth of the little Dutch boy nor his later career, but hundreds of thousands of God’s people around the world have read his writings and…have taken heart to follow the Lord Jesus Christ in the turmoil and unbelief of the present century.”[10]

1. What does Van Til’s birth have to do with Presuppositional apologetics?
   1. Van Til used the occasion of his birth to arrange a “clash of worldview” in Why I Believe.
      1. Van Til writes:

“We are frequently told that much in our life depends on ‘the accident of birth.’”[11]

1. A crucial tenet of Van Til’s thought is that religious neutrality simply doesn’t exist.[12]
2. Every fact is not interpreted in a religiously neutral fashion, even in the ‘mundane’ typical birth of a Dutch child name Cornelius Van Til.
   1. The Christian worldview believes that each birth is part of the providence and will of God.
   2. The nonbeliever who claim to not believe in God’s existence on the other hand,  believes that each birth is the result of an ‘accident’ (non-purposeful happenstance, of no real cosmic significance nor design)
   3. By titling this section of the booklet, “The Accidents of Birth”, he was bringing the unbelieving audience to the awareness that they are not religiously neutral towards God in their interpretation of facts of any fact.particulary
   4. Van Til used the occasion of his birth to set the parameters of his debate to defending exclusively the God of Christianity.
      1. Van Til writes concerning his birth,

“Is this really important for our purpose? Not particularly, but it is important that neither of us was born in Guadalcanal or Timbuktu. Both of us, I mean, were born in the midst and under the influence of “Christian civilization.” We shall limit our discussion, then, to the “God of Christianity.” I believe, while you do not believe or are not sure that you do believe, in this particular kind of God. That will give point to our discussion. For surely there is no sense in talking about the existence of God, without knowing what kind of God it is who may or may not exist.”[13]

1. There is a sense in the Bible, where God’s providential control over nation’s boundaries and man’s inhabited location would offer the condition for people to search for God.

²⁶and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,  ²⁷that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;  ²⁸for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ (Acts 17:26-28)

1. It is this faith that Van Til was interested in defending.
2. Childhood and upbringing in Holland
   1. Cornelius was nicknamed Kees by his family.
   2. Orthodox Presbyterian Church historian John R. Muether described Van Til’s household in this way:

“Ite Van Til’s household was a “Christian civilization’ where Reformed faith and practice became ‘the atmosphere of our daily life’.”[14]

1. Beginning with Cornelius’ grandfather, the family was part of a minor Christian group within the Reformed Church of the Netherlands called the Afscheiding party.[15]
   1. The Afscheiding party disagreed with the majority on various issues, among them they did not believe that baptized children of the covenant were regenerate.[16]
   2. As a result of his Afscheiding upbringing, Van Til was exposed to the theology of Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck.[17]
      1. This influence Van Til’s theology such as his adherence to the doctrines of common grace and pressing the antithesis against the world, which was so essential to Van Til’s apologetics.[18]
      2. As a product of the Afscheiding, Van Til was influenced by Kuyper to confront secularization by the development of a robust Christian worldview.[19]
      3. Had a private Christian education

1. “Like any child in any good Reformed families Kees was sent to a Christian school.  Accompanied by his brother, Jacob, he trudged two miles to the school house.”[20]

1. His first recollection of the place was the memorization of the first question and answer to the Heidelberg Catechism…”[21]
2. Van Til’s childhood in his own words
   1. Van Til also referred to his childhood during his testimony in Why I Believe.
   2. He writes,

“Ours was not in any sense a pietistic family. There were not any great emotional outbursts on any occasion that I recall. There was much ado about making hay in the summer and about caring for the cows and sheep in the winter, but round about it all there was a deep conditioning atmosphere. Though there were no tropical showers of revivals, the relative humidity was always very high. At every meal the whole family was present. There was a closing as well as an opening prayer, and a chapter of the Bible was read each time. The Bible was read through from Genesis to Revelation. At breakfast or at dinner, as the case might be, we would hear of the New Testament, or of “the children of God after their families, of Zephon and Haggi and Shuni and Ozni, of Eri and Areli.” I do not claim that I always fully understood the meaning of it all. Yet of the total effect there can be no doubt. The Bible became for me, in all its parts, in every syllable, the very Word of God. I learned that I must believe the Scripture story, and that “faith” was a gift of God. What had happened in the past, and particularly what had happened in the past in Palestine, was of the greatest moment to me. In short, I was brought up in what Dr. Joad would call “topographical and temporal parochialism.” I was “conditioned” in the most thorough fashion. I could not help believing in God—in the God of Christianity—in the God of the whole Bible!”[22]

1. What does Van Til’s childhood have to do with Presuppositional apologetics?
   1. Van Til used the occasion of his childhood to point to God.

Since there is no neutrality, Van Til was still pointing to God and presenting a different explanation of his upbringing that led to his faith.

1. Van Til used the occasion of his childhood to be honest instead of being “intellectually schizophrenic” concerning why he really believed in the God of the Bible.
   1. He did not hype his testimony, nor cover-up the credit to God but was upfront and honest with the unbeliever concerning his childhood condition that led him to believe.
   2. He was not ashamed for the humble background that led to his faith since,

“For the word of the cross is ^(AI)foolishness to ^(AJ)those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is ^(AK)the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:18)

1. Yet, he also would throw down an intellectual challenge against unbelief knowing the promise from the Word of God that,

For it is written,
“I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,  AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.” (1 Corinthians 1:19)

1. Moving to America
   1. The Van Til family emigrated from Holland and arrived on May 19^th, 1905 at the piers of Hoboken, New Jersey.[23]
   2. They eventually settled in Indiana.[24]
2. Later schooling
   1. Van Til’s desire for the ministry led him to Calvin College for his undergraduate studies.
   2. In 1922, Van Til enrolled at Princeton Seminary and completed up to his Th.M in 1925.[25]
   3. After his theological studies, Van Til went on to the Secular program at Princeton University where he earned a doctorate in philosophy in 1927.[26]
      1. Important for understanding Van Til, his studies of Idealist philosophy at this time is the source of much of Van Til’s old idealistic philosophical terminology that can seem rather archaic today.
      2. Van Til did not construct his apologetics in the absence of rigorous challenge against Christianity; rather, he was aware of them.
      3. Van Til wrote with his own words, in Why I Believe,

“By this time you are probably wondering whether I have really ever heard the objections which are raised against belief in such a God. Well, I think I have. I heard them from my teachers who sought to answer them. I also heard them from teachers who believed they could not be answered. While a student at Princeton Seminary I attended summer courses in the Chicago Divinity School. Naturally I heard the modern or liberal view of Scripture set forth fully there. And after graduation from the Seminary I spent two years at Princeton University for graduate work in philosophy. There the theories of modern philosophy were both expounded and defended by very able men. In short I was presented with as full a statement of the reasons for disbelief as I had been with the reasons for belief. I heard both sides fully from those who believed what they taught.”[27]

1. What does Van Til’s later schooling have to do with his defense of the faith?
   1. Van Til’s has been honest as seen earlier in Why I Believe of the condition that led to his simple faith.
   2. Yet that faith that spawned because of the simple Christian friendly condition he was in as a child, is still vibrant when he became a man, in light of and because of the new condition God has put where there is hostility against his faith.
   3. In Van Til’s own words,

“My whole point will be that there is perfect harmony between my belief as a child and my belief as a man, simply because God is Himself the environment by which my early life was directed and my later life made intelligible to myself.”[28]

1. Professorship at Princeton then Westminster Seminary and beyond
   1. His prowess in apologetics led Van Til to returned to Princeton Seminary to teach apologetics in 1928-29, and was even offered the chair of apologetics which he declined to return to pastor a Christ Reformed Church.[29]
   2. Those who were liberal slowly gained control of the Board of Trustee overseeing the Seminary.
   3. As a result, “four members of the Princeton Seminary faculty, Robert Dick Wilson, Oswald T. Allis, J. Gresham Machen, and Cornelius Van Til, tendered their resignations in protest against the shattering maneuvers of the General Assembly.”[30]
   4. Under the leadership of Gresham Machen, Westminster Seminary was formed in Philadelphia.
   5. Gresham Machen had to plead persistently with a reluctant Van Til to join the faculty at Westminster and leave the small church he was pastoring, but Machen was finally successful just a few days before the start of the Seminary on September 1929.[31]
   6. He was the Professor of Apologetics at Westminster from 1929 to 1972.
      1. It was during this time that his thoughts was put on print, whether as syllabuses, books and booklets.
      2. His works have impacted various people
         1. Apologist Francis Schaeffer

“Schaeffer studied with Van Til in 1936-37 and then left to join the student body at the newly formed Faith Theological Seminary.  Schaeffer saw himself as a kind of bridge between Van Til and the more traditional apologetics…”[32]

1. Apologist Greg Bahnsen

Frame stated in speaking of Bahnsen before his death,

“A student of Van Til’s with a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Southern California under Dallas Willard, Bahnsen is one of the sharpest apologists working today.  In my view, he is the best debater among Christian apologists of all persuasions.  Bahnsen is doing a valuable work in teaching people how to make practical use of Van Til’s approach—‘taking it to the streets,’ as he says.”[33]

1. Almost C.S. Lewis—if only he was!

“Douglas Johnson, an English friend of Van Til’s, tried to interest C.S. Lewis in readign Van TIl but Lewis returned unread copies of Van Til’s syllabi to Johnson, regretting that he lacked the time to read them.”[34]

1. He died in 1987.[35]

Greg Bahnsen in reflecting of Van Til’s last years, wrote:

“A young family came to live with him in his old home in the Philadelphia suburb of Ambler.  The last time I saw him (in June 1985), he was pushing one of their children in a stroller and singing gospel hymns.  On April 17, 1987, Cornelius Van Til, one of the towering Christian intellectuals of the twentieth century—who could confound scholars and sing to children—joined ‘all the saints who from their labors rest,’ and now hymns God’s praise in heaven’s choir.”[36]

1. Some Key Van Til’s ideas
   1. Starting note: The theological background for Van Til’s apologetics is grounded in Biblical and (Dutch) Reformed theology
      1. The confessions and references to the Bible can be seen throughout his writing.
      2. As John Frame pointed out, “He is very often paraphrasing ideas from the Dutch tradition.”[37]
      3. Frame also adds that, “It is clear from the outset that one of Van Til’s basic concern is to present an apologetic which is true to Scripture and Reformed doctrine.”[38]
      4. “In the case of the ethical/metaphysical distinction, the source is Bavinck.”[39]
      5. “…the shadow of Abraham Kuyper looming behind Van Til.”[40]
   2. Summary: Given Van Til’s theological background, his contribution was his application of Biblical and Reformed truths towards theology, philosophy and apologetics.
      1. Frame makes the observation that “Van Til’s apologetics may well be described as a group of original applications of some familiar Reformed doctrines.”[41]
      2. As a result of these original applications of Reformed theology in apologetics and theology, Van Til also calls for those who are Christian and Reformed to be consistent in their application of their theology.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the most emphatic opposition to the Calvinism of Van Til (as well as Dooyeweerd, and others) has come from men who are ostensibly Calvinist leaders: the integrity of van Til’s Calvinism exposes the inconsistency and the betrayal inherent in their thinking.”[42]

1. Self-evidencing nature of Natural and Special Revelation means there’s no true atheist
   1. General revelation does reveal truth of God to man immediately without any other support (self-evidencing)
      1. Reveals truth that nonbelievers knows but suppresses

Speaking of Romans 1:18-21, Van Til wrote,

“In the first place we observe that Paul says that men do actually in some sense see the truth.  We do not do justice to this passage by merely saying that all men or most men believe in a god or believe that God probably exists.  Paul says that the revelation of the only existing God is so clearly imprinted upon man himself and upon his environment that no matter how hard he tries he cannot suppress this fact.  They hold down the truth, to be sure, but it is the truth that they hold down.”[43]

1. Reveals truth about God immediately to man

a. “In the sensus deitatis, then, we find a welling up within the consciousness of man an immediate awareness of the fact that God is the creator and sustainer of this world.”[44]

1. He knows God right away, without waiting for an argument from nature.

“Literally, every part, every aspect, every phase, every sphere, every structure reflects the being of God.  All men ‘bump’ into God at all times, in all places, in all settings, and in all circumstances.”[45]

1. Special Revelation does reveal truth of God to man immediately without any other support (self-evidencing)[46]
   1. Reveals truth that is so clearly God’s Word, nonbelievers have no reason to reject it

“It is this whole system of truth that is set forth in the Bible.  The writers of Scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit to set forth this system of truth.  Thus the system is self attesting.”[47]

1. Reveals truth that about God even apart from the Holy Spirit role of witness bearing

“The Scripture would no longer be self-attesting if the Spirit gave additional information.  On the other hand it is by the sovereign act of the Holy Spirit that the Scripture can be seen to be the self-attesting Word of God.”[48]

1. In other words, Greg Bahnsen has articulated this point in his debate with Edward Tabash that the reading of the Bible contains within itself the self-evidencing Word of God.[49]
2. Creator-Creature Distinction means no religious neutrality[50]
   1. Van Til, in Why I Believe makes this keen observation

“The point is this. Not believing in God, we have seen, you do not think yourself to be God’s creature. And not believing in God you do not think the universe has been created by God. That is to say, you think of yourself and the world as just being there. Now if you actually are God’s creature, then your present attitude is very unfair to Him. In that case it is even an insult to Him. And having insulted God, His displeasure rests upon you. God and you are not on “speaking terms.” And you have very good reasons for trying to prove that He does not exist. If He does exist, He will punish you for your disregard of Him. You are therefore wearing colored glasses. And this determines everything you say about the facts and reasons for not believing in Him. You have as it were entered upon God’s estate and have had your picnics and hunting parties there without asking His permission. You have taken the grapes of God’s vineyard without paying Him any rent and you have insulted His representatives who asked you for it.[51]

1. The non-believer is not neutral, he is a sinner and needs to be shared the gospel and call to repent.
2. Doctrine of man determine philosophy of laws and fact
   1. Note: What Van Til meant by laws pertains to logic, math, physical laws, etc.
   2. Van Til stated that,

“Believer and non-believer have opposite philosophies of fact and opposite philosophies of law. They also have, behind both of these, opposite views of man. Corresponding to the idea of brute fact and impersonal law is the idea of the autonomous man. Corresponding to the idea of God-controlled fact and law is the idea of God-controlled man.”[52]

1. Laws and facts are determined by him, since he was the own who discovered it, or even created it!
2. The Christian on the other hand does not see himself as ultimate, but submit to the Creator by interpret reality according to the revealed laws of thought and facts.
3. Since the nonbeliever should know God (point c), and is not neutral towards God (point d), to the point of suppressing God’s existence (point f), it would come no surprise that the nonbeliever would have a philosophy of fact that would undermine Scripture so he can be autonomous, taking God’s place as the measure of all things.[53]
4. Thus in apologetics, dealing with the presuppositions of the nonbeliever’s philosophy of facts is an essential component in defending the faith
   1. Van Til wrote,

“It is impossible and useless to seek to vindicate Christianity as a historical religion by a discussion of facts only.”[54]

1. In his book on evidence and Van Til’s apologetics, Thom Notaro writes,

“As would be expected, miracles such as the part of waters, the feeding of thousands, and the raising of the dead have received frequent mention along with the amazing growth of the church and preservation of the biblical text.  Certainly, Dr. Van Til does not disqualify such types of evidences.  They serve as proofs within their proper framework.”[55]

1. Suppression of truth means the Transcendental Argument
   1. In light of the fact that man suppresses the truth to the point of antithetical philosophy of facts and laws, there must be an argument on the basis of presuppositions, i.e., the Transcedental Argument.

Van Til writes,

“The method of reasoning by presuppositions may be said to be indirect rather than direct.  The issue between believers and non-believers in Christian theism cannot be settled by a direct appeal to ‘facts’ or ‘laws’ whose nature and significance is already agreed upon by both parties to the debate.  The question is rather as to what is the final reference-point required to make the ‘facts’ and ‘laws’ intelligible.”[56]

1. The gist of the argument: Atheism presupposes Christian theism.

1. The nonbeliever’s commitment to randomness instead of God’s sovereignty destroys rationality.

“Because the unbeliever’s commitment to random eventuation in history (i.e., a metaphysic of ‘chance’) renders proof impossible, predication unintelligible, and a rational/irrational dialectic unavoidable, Van Til claims repeatedly in his writings that the truth of Christianity is epistemologically indispensable.”[57]

1. Since the presuppositions are the issues, any argument for Christianity must refute autonomous presuppositions and show that the Christian foundation is the foundation for rationality, human experience, morals, etc.
2. Denying the existence of God using this form of argument show how utterly irrational it is to argue against God.
   1. There is a self-destructive rational-irrational dialectic in the unbeliever

“In fact the ‘free man’ of modern non-Christian thought is Janus-faced. He turns one way and would seem to be nothing but an irrationalist. He talks about the ‘fact’ of freedom. He even makes a pretence of being hotly opposed to the rationalist. With Kierkegaard he will boldly assert that what cannot happen according to logic has happened in fact. Then he turns the other way and would seem to be nothing but a rationalist. Surely, he says, the ‘rational man’ will accept nothing but what has intelligible meaning for him in accord with the law of contradiction. There must be coherence in experience.”[58]

1. Denying God is like denying the existence of air.

Van Til in Why I Believe said it beautifully,

“Arguing about God’s existence, I hold, is like arguing about air. You may affirm that air exists, and I that it does not. But as we debate the point, we are both breathing air all the time. Or to use another illustration, God is like the emplacement on which must stand the very guns that are supposed to shoot Him out of existence”[59]

1. The Trinity as the Solution to the One-and-the-Many dilemma
   1. Critics have asked why Presuppositional Apologetics lead only to the Christian God; Van Til creatively argued that in Christianity, only the Trinity as the only basis can solve the philosophical dilemma of what is ultimate: Unity (“One”) or the  particulars (“many”)?
      1. Those who see unity as ultimate would then be unable to account for particulars.
      2. Those who see particulars as ultimate would be unable to have the condition to be justified in classifying, generalizing, etc.
      3. When asked in a personal correspondence with Dr. Frame about how to explain the One-and-the-Many, he writes,

“This is not easy to understand. I gave my best shot at it in the chapter on the Trinity in my book Cornelius Van Til (P&R, 1995). Of course, Van Til takes up the issue in many places, such as The Defense of the Fath and Christian Apologetics.
The basic issue: in trying to understand the universe, we try to group things under general categories: e.g. individual grapes under the concept “grape.” That is, we try to group particulars under universals, manys under ones. Now philosophers take this a step further, as they try to analyze what the universe is “really” like. Is it really one, or many? That is to say, is there an absolute oneness, devoid of manyness? Or is there an absolute particle that cannot be grouped under some universal concept?

…

Then philosophers hope that they can gain a godlike exhaustive knowledge of the world, either by finding an ultimate universal that includes everything, or an ultimate particle, of which everything is made. But they have been unable to do this. The ultimate reason is that in God there is no many without oneness; and God has made the universe to be the same.”[60]

---

[1] Note: This syllabus assumes what has already been covered in the Truth Chinese Alliance Church’s Introductory Presuppositional Apologetics course.  The intention of this syllabus is to build upon that foundation.

 

[2] John Frame, “Annotated Bibliography” in Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thoughts, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1995), 450.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Greg Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetics: Readings And Analysis, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1998), 120.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Cornelius Van Til, Toward A Reformed Apologetics, (Philadelphia: Privately printed, 1972), 1-2. NOTE: This is a combination of three booklets by Van Til.

[7] Cornelius Van Til, Why I Believe in God, (Philadelphia: Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1948),3.

[8] Ibid,4.

[9] John Frame, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thoughts, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1995), 19.

[10] William White, Van Til: Defender of the Faith, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979), 15-16.

[11] Cornelius Van Til, Why I Believe in God, (Philadelphia: Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1948), 4.

[12] For more on religious neutrality, see what follows below.  For a philosophical articulation of this point against the critic utilizing the framework of humanistic philosophy, see my article:

Jimmy Li, “Impossible Neutrality: An Analogy from Humanistic Geography”, Reformed Perspective Magazine, Volume 9, Number 33, August 12-18^th, 2007 (http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/jim_li/jim_li.impossibleneutrality.html).

[13] Cornelius Van Til, Why I Believe in God, (Philadelphia: Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1948), 4.

[14] John Muether, Cornelius Van til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2008), 29.

[15] William White, Van Til: Defender of the Faith, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979), 19.

[16] Ibid.

[17] John Muether, Cornelius Van til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2008), 24-27.

[18] Ibid, 25.

[19] Ibid, 24.

[20] William White, Van Til: Defender of the Faith, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979), 20.

[21] John Muether, Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2008), 30.

[22] Cornelius Van Til, Why I Believe in God, (Philadelphia: Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1948), 5-6.

[23] John Muether, Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2008), 30.

[24] Ibid, 32-33.

[25] Greg Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetics: Readings And Analysis, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1998), 8-9.

[26] Ibid, 9.

[27] Cornelius Van Til, Why I Believe in God, (Philadelphia: Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1948), 10-11.

[28] Ibid, 3.

[29] John Frame, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thoughts, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1995), 23.

[30] William White, Van Til: Defender of the Faith, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979), 85.

[31] Ibid, 90.

[32] John Frame, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thoughts, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1995), 395.

[33] Ibid, 392.

[34] John Muether, Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2008), 138.

[35] William Edgar, “Two Christian Warriors: Cornelius Van Til And Francis Schaeffer Compared.” The Westminster Journal 57, no. 1 (Spring 1995): 57.

[36] Greg Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetics: Readings And Analysis, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1998), 20.

[37] John Frame, Van Til: The Theologian, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Pilgrim Publishing Company, 1976), 3.

[38] Ibid, 4.

[39] John Frame, Van Til: The Theologian, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Pilgrim Publishing Company, 1976), 3.

[40] Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. and K. Scott Oliphint, “Preface.” The Westminster Journal 57, no. 1 (Spring 1995): i.

[41]John Frame, Van Til: The Theologian, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Pilgrim Publishing Company, 1976), 3.

[42] Rousas John Rushdoony, By What Standard? An Analysis of the Philosophy of Cornelius Van Til, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1959), 6.

[43] Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974), 93.

[44] Ibid, 90.

[45] Henry Krabbendam, “Cornelius Van Til: The Methodological Objective of a Biblical Apologetics.” The Westminster Journal 57, no. 1 (Spring 1995): 131.

[46] My small attempt to develop this idea is found in the Truth Chinese Alliance Church’s Systematic Theology Course, available online at http://teamtruth.com/articles/articlesbycategory.htm#sys_selfattesting.

[47] Cornelius Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969), 32

[48] Ibid, 33.

[49] CD: “Does God Exist? A Debate- Bahnsen/Tabash” available at http://www.cmfnow.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=4588.

[50] An outline from the Truth Chinese Alliance Church Presuppositional Apologetics course might be helpful for a further refutation of religious neutrality biblically and philosophically: http://teamtruth.com/articles/art_neutralityoutline.htm.

[51] Cited in Cornelius Van Til, The Works of Cornelius Van Til, (New York: Labels Army Co.) 1997.

[52] Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1954), 6.

[53] For a short outline on why Biblically autonomy is wrong, see http://teamtruth.com/articles/art_caseagainstautonomy.htm.

[54] Cornelius Van Til, Apologetics (Philadelphia: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1947), 1.

[55] Thom Notaro, Van Til and the Use of Evidence (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980), 58.

[56] Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1955), 117-118.

[57] Greg Bahnsen, “The Crucial Concept of Self-Deception in Presuppositional Apologetics.” The Westminster Journal 57 no. 1 (Spring 1995): 3-4.

[58] Cornelius Van Til, The Intellectual Challenge of the Gospel, (London: Tyndale Press, 1950). Quoted in The Works of Cornelius Van Til, (New York: Labels Army Co.) 1997.

[59] Cited in Cornelius Van Til, The Works of Cornelius Van Til, (New York: Labels Army Co.) 1997.

[60] Correspondence took place on Facebook, May 6^th, 2009.

RALLY FOR RIFQA BARY!!!!

Calling all those who want to stand up against Islam’s intolerance (PLEASE POST THIS ON YOUR OWN BLOG ALSO AS WELL), rally for the Rifqa, a muslim turned Christian 17 year old girl who’s been threatened by her father HERE IN THE UNITED STATES:

(NOTE: Here is my backlog entry that provide some background: http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/?s=rifqa)

Be there on Monday, November 16th. Say no to sharia law. Say not to an islamized America. Speak up! Stand for freedom of religion.

PLEASE JOIN ATLAS SHRUGS, JIHAD WATCH, DR. BOSTOM

HUMAN RIGHTS RALLY!

A RALLY FOR RIFQA’S CIVIL RIGHTS
NOVEMBER 16TH
“DORRIAN COMMONS PARK”
ACROSS THE STREET FROM
FRANKLIN COUNTY JUVENILE COURT
11AM – 2PM

Simon Deng – ex-slave from Sudan

Nonie Darwish – Executive Director, Former Muslims United

James Lafferty – chairman of the Virginia Anti-Sharia Task Force

Amal Imani, Iranian dissident and pro-democracy reformer

Jamal Jivanjee – apostate, Pastor and Rifqa’s friend

Patricia Said, mother of Amina and Sarah Said

Honor killing victims’ family members

Geller!

Spencer!

Bostom!

Rally details here.

Pervez Masih: Pakistani Christian Dies Protecting Hundreds of Muslim Women from Muslim Suicide Bomber

Over at Answering Muslim’s site:

On October 20th, Pervez Masih, a poor Christian janitor in Pakistan, was killed while protecting hundreds of female students from a Muslim suicide bomber.

Story:

ISLAMABAD, Oct 21: The courage shown by two unsung heroes, including one who lost his life during the two suicide bombings in the International Islamic University (IIU), saved lives of hundreds of girl students in the institution’s cafeteria on Tuesday.

Pervez Masih, a 40-year-old Christian worker, saved scores of lives at the double-storey cafeteria, where around 400 female students were present at the time of the attack.

“There would have been dozens of deaths had the suicide bomber not been blocked by Pervez Masih,” said Saifur Rehman, a senior security official of the IIU.

The other hero, Mohammad Shaukat, survived the attack but he is fighting for his life on a bed in the surgical ward of Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, as a shot fired by the suicide bomber hit him in lower abdomen.

Narrating the scene of the suicide attack on the cafeteria for women, Shaukat told Dawn that: “The attacker clad in a black burka was heading towards the cafeteria for female students at a time when they were having their lunch. I felt something wrong as no girl student, even one who observes veil, wears a head-to-toe burka on the women campus. I intercepted the bomber, who shot me, and I fell down but Pervez, who witnessed the scene, understood the designs of suicide bomber and held him at the entrance of the dining hall where the blast took place.”

Organs and flesh of the suicide bomber littered the entrance area and Pervez was thrown at the wall on the other side of the dining hall, said another eye-witness. Source.

While the media are busy trying to avoid the connection between Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan’s actions and his religious beliefs, Pervez Masih, by sacrificing himself for others, has show the connection between his actions and his Christian beliefs.

Clear thinking concerning Nidal Malik Hasan’s motive for the Fort Hood Shooting

I first heard the news of the Fort Hood shooting during Thursday Night Bible study, when a lady informed me that there was a horrific shooting by a Major who didn’t wanted to go to Afghanistan.

At first it sound like someone who really lost their mind with no other sinister motive other than that of a wicked man who has “snapped”

Then it turned out Nidal Malik Hasan was muslim.  My first thought was, “Let’s give the man the benefit of the doubt. Most muslims I know are just normal Americans who are trying to make it in life, just like any American.” Then you hear the typical Public Media Campaign of Islamic propaganda group like C.A.I.R crying that they fear Muslim backlash.  Which reasoning struck me as odd, because last I check it was Nidal Malik Hasan who was a muslim who did the shooting, and it was non-muslim who did the dying. If anything, it should have been more of a campaign to assure non-Muslims their safety, that true Muslims will not go ballistic.

The campaign to explain whitewash Nidal Malik Hasan has begun.  Some bring up the explanation that those who are muslim in the U.S. military often suffer from harassment for their faith, and Nidal Malik Hasan must have snapped because of it.  No actual statistics or studies have been cited to document this alleged Post 9-11 growing phenomenon. On the contrary,  a Muslim-American Veteran Groups even have said that there is no report of Islam solidiers harassed for their faith.

Then there is the ridiculous suggestion that Hasan went ballistic because he didn’t wanted to go in a dangerous war zone, because he heard how dangerous it was from traumatized soldiers.  For the uninitiated, it sounds plausible but those in the Military knows that this guy is a medical physician not an infantryman who will be “seeing things”.  Plus, it’s ridiculous to see the rationale that the guy doesn’t want to risk dying, and tries to get out of it by risking his own life when he shot up 12 soldiers dead, and 31 injured.  That’s really leveling the playing field for his chance of not getting hurt, does it not?

Or perhaps Hasan’s faith had nothing to do with it because he was not a practicing Muslim. The morning before the shooting, he was giving out Koran, even a copy of the Ali’s translation to his neighbor:

Then that same morning he went in his muslim attire to 7-11:

Of course, some might say that the above is rather superficial: How are you going to tie Hasan’s religious motivation as his motive on the basis of him giving out a Koran and dressing Arabic? Isn’t that a slippery slope? Good point, I agree, I bring up the above to make readers to come to the conclusion themselves that it’s really what the CONTENT of his religion and not just the superficial religious observances that manner.  What are the exact content of his Islamic teaching?

We get an insight from NPR of the teachings of Hasan faith, when Hasan took an opportunity to lay down what he believe to other soldiers:

But he seemed almost belligerent about being Muslim, and he gave a lecture one day that really freaked a lot of doctors out.

They have grand rounds, right? They, you know, dozens of medical staff come into an auditorium, and somebody stands at the podium at the front and gives a lecture about some academic issue, you know, what drugs to prescribe for what condition. But instead of that, he – Hasan apparently gave a long lecture on the Koran and talked about how if you don’t believe, you are condemned to hell. Your head is cut off. You’re set on fire. Burning oil is burned down your throat.

And I said to the psychiatrist, but this cold be a very interesting informational session, right? Where he’s educating everybody about the Koran. He said but what disturbed everybody was that Hasan seemed to believe these things. And actually, a Muslim in the audience, a psychiatrist, raised his hand and said, excuse me. But I’m a Muslim and I do not believe these things in the Koran, and then I don’t believe what you say the Koran says. And then Hasan didn’t say, well, I’m just giving you one point of view. He basically just stared the guy down.

If these are beliefs that he openly shares to those in the military, what kind of beliefs does this guy keep to himself???

Hasan has even attended radical Islamic Mosque, the same one that two of the 9/11 hijackers attended:

Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother’s funeral was held there in May that year.

The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations.

Other military officers were concerned about Hasan’s view of suicide bombers:

Another student had warned military officials that Hasan was a “ticking time bomb” after he reportedly gave a presentation defending suicide bombers.

Even another soldier who was a recent convert to Islam sadly believe Hasan was perhaps guided by his religious conviction:

Using the name Richard, the recent convert to Islam described how he frequently prayed with Hasan at the town mosque after Hasan was deployed to Fort Hood in July. They last worshipped together at predawn prayers on the day of the massacre when Hasan “appeared relaxed and not in any way troubled or nervous”. But Richard had previously argued with Hasan when he said that he felt the “war on terror” was really a war against Islam, expressed anti-Jewish sentiments and defended suicide bombings.

“I asked Richard whether he believed that Hasan was motivated by religious radicalism in his murderous actions,” Mr Pasha said.

“Richard, with great sadness, said that he believed this was true.

Systematic Theology Outlines: Introduction and Doctrines of the Bible

Systematic Theology Outlines

• Systematic Theology
  • Introduction to Systematic Theology
    1. Part I: Definition and Its Place with other Theologies
    2. Part II: Why Should Christians Study Theology?
    3. Part III: Objections to Systematic Theology
    4. Part IV: How Should We Study Systematic Theology: Issues of Source and Authority
    5. Part V: How Should We Study Systematic Theology: Practical and Personal Considerations
  • Doctrine of Divine Revelation
    1. Part VI: General Revelation
    2. Part VII: Special Revelation
  • The Authority of the Bible
    1. Part VIII: The Self-Authorizing Scripture
    2. Part IX: God’s Word & God’s Character
    3. Part X: Heretical Views of God Undermine Authoritative Revelation – An Apologetic Tool
    4. Part XI: Objections to Culture and Traditions As Authority
  • Doctrine of Inerrancy
    1. Part XII: Doctrine of Inerrancy Part I
    2. Part XIII: The Nature of Debating Inerrancy in Light of the Doctrine of Biblical Authority
    3. Part XIV: Scriptural Response to Two Common Objections
  • Part XV: Doctrine of Biblical Clarity
  • The Self-Attesting Word of God
    1. Part XVI: Meaning and Philosophical Issues
    2. Part XVII: The Biblical Case
  • Part XVIII: The Doctrine of Illumination
  • Part XIX: The Eternal Word of God
  • The Canon of Scripture
    1. Part XX: Introduction to the Canon of Scripture
    2. Part XXI: Foundation of the Canon from the Doctrines of the Bible
    3. Part XXII: Missing Books in Light of Anti-Supernatural Presuppositions
    4. Part XXIII: Against the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Canon
    5. Part XXIV: Inerrancy and the Canonical Coherence Test

New winners for the 2009 Christian Worldview Essay Contest

Winners of the 2009 Christian Worldview Essay Contest

The First Prize of $3000 plus 15 books goes to Savannah Parker of Greentown, Indiana, for her essay “The Enemy is Within the Gates.”

The Second Prize of $2000 plus 10 books goes to Marisa Kobilan of Washougal, Washington, for her essay “The Sword of the Spirit.”

The Third Prize of $1000 will be split between Patrick Arnold of Ann Arbor, Michigan, for his essay “In Defense of Revelation,” and Ryan Hedrich of Lawrenceville, Georgia, for his essay “Speculations Hammered: The Word of Truth, Asserted and Vindicated.” Both will receive 5 books.

Congratulations to our winners, and thanks to all those who entered the Contest. All entrants had to read the book God’s Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics by Dr. Gordon H. Clark and write an essay about the book.

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/09winners.php

What happened at the battle of Wanat: Day where 9 Americans died in Afghanistan

Those of us here at Veritas Domain are former military and have an ear still to the military’s current misson

For those of you who are not aware, the battle of Wanat was the incident which 9 Americans were killed in a small outpost

Special Washington Post entry page: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/battle-of-wanat/

Of most particular interest: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/battle-of-wanat/correspondence/documents/2-Army-Historians-Report.pdf

It was very similar to the incident where 8 Soldiers died on October 4th

This ought to be a wake up call concerning Afghanistan, things are getting more violent

Book recommendation: Preaching that Changes Lives

With a title like “Preaching that changes lives”, it is clear what the purpose of this book is about. In this work, the author Michael Fabarez gives a treatment concerning the application of sermons. This is a good and necessary balance for all the books in the market on expository preaching, since somewhere in the midst of the sermon preparation expository preachers can forget the importance of application in the exegetical work. It was with great anticipation and eagerness that I read this book, as a young preacher working on improving this aspect of the sermon!
Fabarez devotes a chapter (chapter four) on studying the passage and the audience of the message. This was a helpful reminder, since a sermon is always delivered to a specific audience, which means our sermon preparation should not be done in a vacuum. The chapter gave some useful principles for studying, such as camping on and revisiting the imperative verbs in the selected passage (41-42). Of course, camping out on imperatives has its theological risks concerning what can transfer over for contemporary application, but Fabarez introduces a great controlling principle here, where one ask if the immediate text limit the target of the application, or other parts of the Bible limit the target of the application (44). Concerning legitimate transfer of application, Fabarez states principles that assures an imperative’s direct transfer of application if it is rooted in God’s character (46), addressing man’s depravity (46-47) and God’s created order (47). Other valuable questions that Fabarez suggest as guides during the study of the passages include “How is my audience currently neglecting or abusing the application?” and “What should my audience feel about the application?” Concerning the structure of the outline of the sermon itself, the book argues that it is important to use second person pronouns in the main points and to make these main points imperatives (62-63).
Perhaps the most edifying aspect about this book is the sections that dealt with the personal life of the preacher. For instance, in chapter three the author discusses about the need of the preacher’s life to be changing. One can’t expect preaching to change lives if the preacher himself is not changing! Then in chapter six, Fabarez discuss the importance of prayers for the sermon if it is going to really change lives. It was convicting, as it was a wake up call of my lack of faith in God when I do not pray for the sermon, or seek others to pray for my preaching. If lives are going to change because of God and I but just His agent and messenger, then I need to really seek God in prayer for lives to be changed, and souls to be saved when I preach. He lists on pages 73-76 what to pray for, beginning from the sermon prep to the actual delivery and it was sobering to think about how many steps a preacher can walk thinking they are depending on their own might! Fabarez also recommended enlisting a prayer team for the sermon, truly a simple yet revolutionary idea and he even offered in the appendix a practical example of his prayer team schedule.

Terrible news: Rifqa Bary sent home

Rifqa Bary, a 17 year old from a Muslim family, who converted to Christianity and ran away out of fear for her life…

I’ve been following this and praying for Rifqa for some time now.

Read it here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/10/judge-orders-apostate-rifqa-bary-returned-to-ohio.html

The only thing holding her back right now from being sent is that everything is pending her parents provide documentation that they are here in the US legally.

I can’t believe they are going to send her back.

Crazies and now even Maoist in the Obama administration?

Is it just me but with the passing months, as we learn more about Obama’s administration, we see that his staff are a little left wing crazy?

Anita Dunn must be another one

As a Chinese American, I find it very offensive how she can find Mao as her political philosopher; that’s like saying “Hitler’s my favorite political philosopher”. Ridiculous.

We don’t need no Maoist in our government.

Seeing/Hearing the entire White vs. Barker’s second debate

Available as MP3 here: http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2009/09/james-white-vs-dan-barker-mp3-was-jesus.html

Watch the full video here: http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3520

Feedback on the Second James White vs Dan Barker Debate

The September 26th, 2009 debate has some early feedback in the blogosphere

I will highlight some of them.

PART I: BARKER’S INTERRUPTION OF JAMES WHITE

Here is the clip of the incident that everyone is talking about, where Dan Barker didn’t wanted James White to quote from Barker’s book

James White first written post-debate reaction concerning this moment (from http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3514):

He went first, so I had the second 20 minute opening statement. Exactly 20 seconds into that statement he interrupted me, objecting to the moderator. His objection? I was quoting from his own book! “This debate isn’t about my book. Please stick to the topic!” Can you believe it? He wanted me to do my presentation without any reference to the very arguments he himself had put in print on the very same topic in a book he was selling in the foyer of the church! I couldn’t believe it. In all my nearly twenty years of debate I had never encountered a more absurd situation. Someone demanding that you not hold them accountable to their own published statements on the topic of the debate! Amazing beyond words. Obviously, I refused to let him silence me, and I proceeded to document error after error in his work. But it was truly the most amazing thing I had ever seen.

My brother in Christ, Christian apologetics’ blogger Chris Bolt was listening to this debate and his reaction to this moment is as follows (from http://choosinghats.blogspot.com/2009/09/futility-of-unbelief.html):

After Barker’s opening statement, Dr. White got up to begin his opening statement. As Dr. White always does his homework, his opening statement was full of quotes from Barker’s books. One would think that Mr. Barker would be glad to have his works read and quoted, but this was not the case!

Before Dr. White could even finish his first quotation, Barker loudly objected to having his own book quoted! He kept saying, “I may have changed my mind”. There was a short spat regarding this and Dr. White (as well as my wife) pointed out that Barker is still selling the books that Dr. White was quoting from. The moderator did not uphold Barker’s objection.

If I were an atheist, I would be ashamed of Dan Barker and concerned about his confirmation of the truth of Christianity. His thinking and behavior show that he is clearly just a man who hates God and has no apologetic, which is exactly what the Bible says he is. (Romans 1.20b)

Update: To make matters worse, Barker just quoted from his own book with respect to naturalism and miracles.

Tur8infan’s reaction (http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3516):

Before Dr. White could even get started, Barker committed what can be considered at best to be an enormous faux pas. He interrupted Dr. White’s speech to object to Dr. White responding to Barker’s own book. It was a boneheaded move, since it made Barker appear to be attempting to disrupt his opponent’s speech. Furthermore, the rationale for the objection tended to undermine Barker’s credibility, since normally scholars are willing to stand behind their books, especially when they are still selling that particular book.

The MennoKnight gives further insight (http://mennoknight.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/initial-thoughts-on-the-dan-barker-vs-james-white-debate/):

1.  Dan comitted a fatal error right off the start.  When White started his opening statement, Barker interupted him and pleaded for a point of order; he asked that White would not quote from his own book Godless.  Why?  Barker essentially has changed some of his positions from the book (released in 2008) and doesn’t want to have to defend some of the things that he’s changed his mind on.  Ironically, the book was apparently for sale on the merch table at the debate though.  Fatal error is an understatement.  Barker came to the debate and brought his latest book, but protested to his opponent actually refering to his published offerings on the subject.  If Barker is still in transition on the issues of the debate, selling his book at the debate while admitting it’s error is both a marketting flaw and a debating seppuku.

White rightly remarked that he’d never heard of anyone doing that in a scholarly debate.  Usually, people desire to have people quote their books (as opposed to some T.V. interview, or some sound bite, or a blog post, etc.).  It seems that when a person writes a 400 page book on an issue, they’re relatively confident on the subject matter and have done enough thinking about the issue to think it’s worth publishing, for the benefit of the world at large.  Barker is a bizarre exception to this rule.

James White later delve into further details that Barker’s argument in his first book, “Losing Faith in Faith”, was nothing different in Barker’s new work, “Godless” (Source: http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3517 ; the reader should read all of what White has to say there!):

As soon as I got into the office today I went over to my atheism section in my library and pulled down Dan Barker’s 1992 publication, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist. This book is the immediate predecessor of Godless which came out, not two years ago as Dan recalled in the debate, but in 2008. I immediately began thumbing through the book, and very quickly encountered chapter 51, beginning on page 359. Now, there may be some minor editing of this chapter as it appears in Godless (pp. 251ff), but the sub-headings are the same, as are the citations.
Consider for a moment what this means. Dan Barker has been promoting the Barbara Walker “Mithraism parallels” foolishness, in print, for seventeen years. Seventeen years! Same argument—even to having eight self-contradictory “natural explanations”—over the course of two books. And I replied to that argument. What else would you expect me to do? Dan Barker has been promoting the same material for nearly twenty years. Should I ignore the consistent argumentation, documented for nearly seventeen years, in print in books Dan Barker has been distributing through the Freedom From Religion Foundation and at all his speaking events, let alone on the very day of the debate, in the foyer of the church? If you have been presenting the same arguments for that long, and have never given the slightest indication (until your opening statement anyway!) of having changed your views, upon what possible grounds should I have concluded that I should ignore his own published arguments and respond to…something else?

PART II: REST OF THE DEBATE

This was James White’s perspective of the rest of the debate (http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3514).  Speaking of Barker:

He later openly, and without repentance, broke the rules of cross-examination we had agreed to before the debate, and openly said that was a rule he was “proud” to break. It was an amazing display of atheistic ethics, to be sure. I know the atheists in the audience were rowdy, doing a fair amount of vocal “participation” from what those sitting next to them tell me. One yelled out at the end of my closing, “What about Islam?” As if I haven’t debated that topic enough! But these were the same zealots who applauded wildly every time Barker mentioned the “Flying Spaghetti Monster.” When I pointed out how irrational and absurd Dawkins and his argument actually is, they were very displeased. They just about worship Dawkins, sad to say.

MenoKnight’s insight (http://mennoknight.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/initial-thoughts-on-the-dan-barker-vs-james-white-debate/):

Barker got horribly outgunned by White on the various source texts that are used to establish the Isis/Mithras/Osiris issue, as well as the supposed Christian borrowing from those texts for the creation of the “Jesus Myth”:

• First, White knew the source material and had done original language work that adequately challenged the translation of some of the source documents.  Barker apparently does not know Greek enough to simply read a Greek text without helps, since he had nothing to say about White’s interpretative points stemming from original language work.
• Secondly, White commented on the parallels and showed how utterly non-parallel they are; i.e Osiris was “resurrected”, but this really means he was hacked to pieces and sewn together and ultimately became a zombie.  Not quite as similar to the resurrection of Christ as many people attempt to portray it.
• Barker admitted that the Old Testament’s essential message was one of how the Israelites were constantly flirting with idolatry; thus he made the effort to show how the Israelites were familiar with paganism and attempted to incorporate it into Judaism.  White responded by pointing out that the univocal response to paganism in the OT was one of disgust; the prophets consistently and constantly showed a hatred of paganism in all its beliefs and practices.   Also, the paganism was essentially set by the leadership; i.e. when a king was bad, the nation was bad (idolatrous like Ahab or Manasseh), but when the leadership was good, the nation was good (non-idolatrous like David or Josiah).  It’s very hard then, knowing how completely “anti-idolatry” the Jews were after the Babylonian captivity, to suggest that anyone in Judaism would support what would have clearly been idolatrous concessions, if early Christians were Jews stealing from paganism to make up their Christianity.  The Jews, especially the leadership (Pharisees and Sadducees), would have condemned any pagan concessions, and the early Jewish converts would have gone with them in condemning the ‘psuedo pagan message’ that the Christians were delivering.  This is not the case with Christ though.  Everyone knew he was a miracle worker, and the historical records of the gospel suggest blasphemy where Christ said he was God.  This was an utter attack against the Jewish monism that was found nowhere in preceding paganism.  The 1st and 2nd century Jews knew that Christianity was new and different, but nobody thought it was a reversion to, or new version of, pagan idolatry.  Many things were rightly said of early Christianity by the Jews, but ‘pagan rip off’ was not one of them.
• Barker completely abandoned this topic in both of his Q&A periods, which is telling.  Barker used his Q&A time to pursue obvious ad hominem arguments; namely the idea of Young Earth Creationism and ideas surrounding Mormonism and their “scriptures”, attempting to establish evidences of inconsistency with White.  The YEC questions were simply attempting to show that White was a crack pot, and Barker didn’t go near Mithraism/Isis/Osiris, etc. in his Q&A time.  In channel, everyone was consistently asking “Why is he changing the debate subject?” and “Why is he using such obvious rhetorical traps and ad hominem arguments?”

3.  Barker started off the debate attempting to give proof that Christianity stole from pagan sources to manufacture the “Jesus story” but ended up the debate reverting to a pleading for uncertainty.  He closed his final statement suggesting that White looks for “proof” when you cannot prove anything, suggested that Christianity is unprovable, his atheism is equally unprovable but more rational (though he abandoned any form of reasoning, outside of ad hominem attacks against White, to show how it is more rational), and gave the standard “I only believe in 1 less god than you” line.  Barker was on the ropes, and it seemed like he knew it.  I was wondering where his notorious “capital ‘A’ atheism” (I’m going to prove that God does not and can not exist…) went by the end of the debate.

I’m guessing that’s why the “Jesus never existed” camp is so utterly small (what, >10 biblical scholars support that, if that?), and why the “Jesus is entirely a concoction from earlier pagan myths” camp is not much bigger (what, >100 biblical scholars, if I’m being generous?).  The first position, when thrown in the ring of actual debate and when demanded to present its factual evidence in the face of articulate and informed rebuttal, is simply atrociously weak and utterly indefensible.  The second position, when thrown in the ring of actual debate and when demanded to present its factual evidence in the face of articulate and informed rebuttal, needs to rest in ambiguity and has to completely ignore the numerous glaring differences between Christ and the pagan ideas in order to argue for [precious few tiny similarities.

The web groups that applaud things like Zeitgeist are essentially filled with high-school level skeptics who are incompetent critical thinkers that are allergic to self-critical examination, and the whole “Jesus never existed” and  “Jesus is a concoction of pagan components” positions are built upon bizarrely improbable skepticism stacked upon bizarrely improbable skepticism stacked upon bizarrely improbable skepticism.   Let’s face it; the majority of people who support the latter position on a popular level, have no training in anything relevant to anything biblical (Ancient Near Eastern History, Religious Studies, Classical or Semmitic languages, let alone Biblical studies, theology, exegesis, biblical languages).  I think that’s why biblical scholarship (i.e. the SBL or…*cough* the ETS) currently has less than a dozen scholars who positively defend the position as opposed to the thousands of currently active biblical scholars who, although they represent a wide variety of opinions about Jesus, recognize that he was a figure who was not simply a figure built from the lego blocks of the paganism that came before.

That of Tur8intin (http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3516):

Dr. White recovered well from the interruption and went on to demolish (quite thoroughly) the argumentation used by Barker against the New Testament. The cross-examination section was especially good, in that during Dr. White’s time to ask questions he was able to demonstrate the weakness of Barker’s position, while Barker had to resort to trying to argue and grand-stand during the cross-examination section.

What made things worse for Barker was the fact that such argumentation in the cross-examination is not just against the general rules of debate, but against the specific rules that Barker had agreed to just before the debate. Barker acknowledged this but then indicated that he was “proud” to violate the very rules to which he had agreed. At that point, I think that most of any remaining credibility he had was shot.

Of course, the full debate will eventually be available through Alpha Omega Ministries.  Here’s some further preview:

Review: Van Til’s “Paul at Athens”

In the corpus of Christian apologist Cornelius Van Til’s work, this would probably not go down in history as the most memorable one of his works. Having been titled, “Paul at Athens”, I think Van Til could have further expounded Acts 17, and exegetically digested the passages itself! As a small work, with a broad stroke, the general thrust of what Van Til has to say here is important: Christians in their defense of the faith ought to get deeper in the actual confrontation of unbeliever’s presuppositions, after all, it is the unbelieving presuppositions which reject the “Christian” fact of the resurrection even if they say that the resurrection did happen. The nonbeliever holds to autonomy and a metaphysics which ultimately believe that everything is one. The works mention some of Van Til’s important theme in his apologetics, and the general reader might not comprehend the significance of Van Til’s insight from this brief booklet. I suggest they read Van Til’s other works, such as “The Defense of the Faith” (see my review of it!), for the fuller development of Van Til’s insight.

Kids taught to praise Obama

Wow

Gary DeMar on Obama’s definition of “tax”

Fascinating observation by Gary DeMar, concerning the health care debate

http://www.americanvision.org/article/it-depends-on-what-the-definition-of-tax-is/