Now, a few concerns with Plantinga and his followers.
Logical thinking doesn't always mean biblical thinking. While Plantinga's work has largely helped show the problems with classical arguments, he has not - as Van Til did - thoroughly demonstrate the problems with classical apologetics' assumptions - and the main problem with traditional apologetics is not that the arguments are lame, but because the method is not biblical. --James White--
A Case Study in Theology and Philosophy: Alvin Plantinga, His Followers, and His Proposals
Posts
2 comments:
One might note here that Gordon H. Clark's emphasis on logic as a basis for apologetics is presuppositional and begins with Scripture, since that is how God has revealed Himself to us. Van Til, on the other hand, has embraced an Evangelical form of neo-orthodoxy and "paradox". While I have seen problems with both Van Til and Clark, ultimately I believe Clark's approach has been more faithful to the Reformed tradition and to Scripture.
Take for example Van Til's idea that God is both one person and three persons. That is clearly illogical AND against the Scriptures and the creeds.
Charlie
Oh, and Clark did not accept evidential or empirical arguments for God's existence whatsoever. The same cannot be said of Van Til, who still allowed for the classical arguments.
Post a Comment