Tags: Critical Analytical EssayIntroduction To Road Safety EssayProper 5 Paragraph EssayProblem Solving With AlgebraMalcolm X Essay OutlineConceptual Framework For Research Paper
The author begins Part 2 by stating that the “presuppositional defense of Christianity” presented by Cornelius Van Til is the “most consistently Biblical” presuppositionalism that is found in the discipline of Christian apologetics.
Several scholars have documented this in their analyses of Van Til (2). Bahnsen and Van Til (whose apologetic methodology was far from a “Copernican Revolution”) would part company in their systems. Bahnsen is attempting to construct a rational apologetic based on the philosophical foundations of his mentor, he is on shaky ground.Clark, however, “disappoints us when we take into account what he says elsewhere.” There are “problems in his apologetical writings that sully and set aside these positive statements.An audit of those difficulties leads us to draw back from adopting Clark’s apologetics” (137-142).Part Two is titled “Consistency Applied: Critiques of Incomplete Presuppositionalism.” This part consists of four chapters: Chapter four, “Gordon Clark” (137-196); chapter five, “Edward J.Carnell” (197-240); chapter six, “Francis Schaeffer” (241-260); and chapter seven, “Conclusion to Part 2: The Critical Quintessence” (261-268).” (3-23); chapter two, “The Christian Mind and Method” (25-75); and chapter three, “Neutrality and Autonomy Relinquished” (77-131).There is some fine work in these chapters, and the reader should benefit from a perusal of them.Those not formerly introduced to Van Til or Bahnsen will understand shortly after beginning this volume—for this book presents the most clear, systematic, and rigorous statement and defense of Van Tillian presuppositional apologetics written to date (vii). In his theological, philosophical, and apologetic endeavors, Dr. He correctly adhered to the need for a rational Christianity.There is a sense in which what is said in this paragraph is true; and there is a sense in which it is false. He believed that a rational defense of the faith was essential to defending the faith.The author’s conclusion is that Clark is not considering the Word of God as a “certainty,” but only as a “possibility.” The interesting thing here is that Dr.Bahnsen approvingly quotes Clark in statements wherein he tells us how he uses the word “possibility.” According to Dr.