Christian Apologetics by Cornelius Van Til 2nd (second) Edition [Paperback(2003)]

by Cornelius Van Til

All Students of Apologetics should read at least one book by arguably the most important apologist of the twentieth century: Cornelius Van Til. The single best point of entry into Van Til's writings is Christian Apologetics. Here Van Til presents the underpinnings of his uniquely biblical approach. He shows how Christian apologetics is rooted in a unified system of scriptural truth, a worldview that encompasses all spheres of knowledge. Noting the ultimate conflict between Christian and non-Christian systems, Van Til sets forth a method of argument that centers on an all-important, biblically defined point of contact with the unbeliever. In this the first typeset edition, William Edgar sheds light on Van Til's approach by adding a new introduction and explanatory notes.

Genres: Theology, Philosophy, Christian, Nonfiction, Christianity, Religion, Spirituality

Paperback

First published January 1, 1976

About the author

Cornelius Van Til, was a Christian philosopher, Reformed theologian, and presuppositional apologist.

Biographical sketch

Born on May 3, 1895, in Grootegast, The Netherlands he was the sixth son of Ite and Klazina Van Til, who emigrated to the United States when "Kees," as he was known to friends, was 10. He grew up helping on the family farm in Highland, Indiana.

Van Til graduated from Calvin College in 1922, receiving a ThM from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1925 and his PhD from Princeton University in 1927. He began teaching at Princeton, but shortly went with the conservative group who founded Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught for forty-three years of his life as a professor of apologetics.

He was also a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church from the 1930s until his death in 1987, and in that denomination, he was embroiled in a bitter dispute with Gordon Clark over God's incomprehensibility known as the Clark-Van Til Controversy in which, according to John Frame, neither man was at his best and neither quite understood the other's position.

Van Til's thought

Van Til is perhaps best known for the development of a fresh approach to the task of defending the Christian faith. Although trained in traditional methods he drew on the insights of fellow Calvinistic philosophers Vollenhoven and Herman Dooyeweerd to formulate what he viewed as a more consistently Christian methodology. His apologetic focused on the role of presuppositions, the point of contact between believers and unbelievers, and the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian worldviews.

Source: Theopedia

Reviews

[Adam T. Calvert · Rating 3 out of 5]

Professor William Edgar rightly warns the reader in his preface to this book that Cornelius Van Til never meant this to be a published book but simply a class syllabus for his students. It's not too hard to understand why once you start reading it.

While this work of Van Til does provide some more insight into the presuppositional apologetic approach which he championed, the writing is not the most polished and the thoughts are sometimes very difficult to grasp. Nonetheless, this is where you will find Van Til's reference to the man of water climbing out of the water on a ladder made of water and the buzz saw analogy (among others) which are so often referenced by Van Til's successors in this field of apologetics.

Amidst the unpolished writing and the difficultly of this book, it's still a very powerful presentation for the presuppositional method of defending the faith - a method I wish all Christians could be exposed to at least once. As Van Til repeatedly and so strongly points out: "If we first allow the legitimacy of the natural man's assumption of himself as the ultimate reference point in interpretation in any dimension, we cannot deny his right to interpret Christianity itself in naturalistic terms ... If the natural man is given permission to draw the floor-plan for a house and is allowed to build the first story of the house in accordance with his own blueprint, the Christian cannot escape being controlled in a large measure by the same blueprint when he wants to take over the building of the second story of the home" (p119, 144-145). The solution, then, Van Til admonishes: "We have seen that in reality their own [Catholic and Arminian apologists] false interpretations of the facts of Christianity mean that they do not really present the facts fully for what they are. But to the extent that they do present the facts as they are, they still do not challenge the natural man to take off his colored glasses. And it is precisely this that the Reformed apologist seeks to do. He will first present the facts for what they really are and then challenge the natural man by arguing that unless they are accepted for what they are according to the Christian interpretation of them, no facts mean anything at all" (p. 193).

This is the thrust of Van Til's argument (though it's more clear when one is more familiar with Van Til); and if understood correctly it is a very powerful, Biblical position in the field of Christian apologetics and evangelism. But Van Til did more than promulgate the idea of presuppositional apologetics. He truly showed us what it means to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. Even our thinking must be subject to the authority of our Creator-Redeemer (p. 140). Even the way we reason can be done in a godly or ungodly way. Van Til shows in this work (like in others) that it's not simply a matter of fact between the believer and unbeliever, but it's even more a matter of philosophy of fact that separates us.

Being a syllabus as it is, this type of thinking is found better presented in other works. Van Til's own "Defense of the Faith," as well as Greg Bahnsen's "Always Ready," John Frame's "Apologetics to the Glory of God," and Richard Pratt's "Every Thought Captive" are all great introductions to Van Til's method. And they all are written in more comprehensible form. (Richard Pratt's book is geared even toward high schoolers, but worth reading no matter where your education is at).

Do I recommend this book for every Christian? No. I most assuredly recommend Van Til's method of Christian apologetics to every Christian (see above referenced works), but I only recommend Van Til's syllabus "Christian Apologetics" to those who want to read a primary source from Van Til and gain a little more insight into his thoughts than what he presented as a published book in "Defense of the Faith."

While this work (even in published format) is not for everyone, Van Til's understanding of Christian theology and its application to the unbelieving world is! But unless you already know Van Til, I'd recommend his "Defense of the Faith" first.

[Henry Holmberg · Rating 3 out of 5]

4.5/5 content 3/5 readability (which is 94% my fault).

[Philip Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

"...a consistently Christian method of apologetic argument, in agreement with its own basic conception of the starting point, must be by presupposition. To argue by presupposition is to indicate what are the epistemological and metaphysical principles that underlie and control one's method."

Good to get back to Van Til after seven(!) years (I read The Defence of the Faith in 2015). Really solid reflections on the nature of apologetics in conversation with various philosophical perspectives and Christian traditions. Van Til is a giant, pushing Reformed thinkers to be consistent with their own claims about God's decrees and human depravity. Because he assumes a fair bit of philosophical literacy of his readers and writes as someone for whom English is a second language, Van Til has a reputation of being difficult to read. This is fair. His prose can be tricky and tedious at times, and you find yourself having to restart paragraphs a lot because you didn't understand the first sentence correctly. I'm grateful for thinkers who have spent serious time with Van Til (sometimes in person, but at least in his written works) and can articulate his thinking to the masses so us common men can get what he's on about. Even still, Van Til is well worth your time if you're wanting to think about how apologetics can function without compromising the claims Christianity actually makes about itself.

[Katie Larson · Rating 5 out of 5]

“...the only method that will lead to the truth in any field is that method which recognizes the fact that man is a creature of God, that he must therefore seek to think God’s thoughts after him.” (p. 131)

VanTil in this work, does just that—seeks to think God’s thoughts after him and present them clearly and beautifully. He also gives help to understanding how arguments which contradict this truth breakdown. This book was not only a helpful guide to Christian Apologetics, but also an enjoyable read. I would gladly read VanTil again if looking to grow more in this content area.

[Benjamin Glaser · Rating 4 out of 5]

I sometimes get the feeling that Van Til is not really that difficult to understand, but merely made harder to comprehend by his interpreters. While it may be the case that Cornelius Van Til is sometimes not the most eloquent of writers it certainly is not the case with this book which is very clear and straightforward. If you are looking for a place to start reading Van Til I would recommend beginning with this book.

Highly Recommend.

[John Dube · Rating 5 out of 5]

While I’ve been trained in his philosophy, I’d never actually read Van Til. I’d only read Frame and Bahnsen. Saying that, I found his writing tremendously engaging. Logic is superb and nearly every point is paired with a wonderful illustration. Based on this work, I’m in disagreement with those who say Van Til is too hard to read (inscrutable). To the point, one doesn’t have to grasp all the philosophy jargon (e.g., inderivative comprehension, noumenal, etc.) to understand Van Til’s presuppositional apologetic.

[Josh Yerkes · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not easy to read as the preface warns it is compiled lectures and not a book meant to be a book. Thoughts are deep as well. The idea of arguing for a worldview and not ceding ground on the truth of the Bible and the triune God in order to prove “theism” is not popular, today. However, Van Til makes a good case. I will be reading other authors for different perspectives, but if you want to know where Van Til starts, start here.

[Brian Frick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall very good. VT spends what feels like 75% of the book describing how Roman Catholicism and Arminian Protestantism are deficient in apologetics as a foil to the consistent Reformed position. I wish he would have spent more time directly defending the Reformed position. But still a solid and intriguing read.

[Jesus Salgado · Rating 5 out of 5]

Simple, straight to the point, and demonstrates the need for a balance of good theology and apologetics.

[Joonas Laajanen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Vindication of Reformed theology and its implications to apologetics over the systems of Rome and Arminianism.

[Joshua · Rating 2 out of 5]

Van Till offers many points that are helpful to sharpen the Reformed classicalist approach to apologetics. However, his entire framework is misguided. A thorough critique of this is found in "Classical Apologetics," by RC Sproul, et al. To suffice, a few major points should be mentioned:

1. Van Til confuses ontological order (the order of being) with the process of epistemology (order of knowing), in that he says man must do what is manifestly impossible, that is, begin his knowing outside of his mind.
2. Van Til confuses knowing "at all" with knowing "fully," manifested by his declaration that man cannot know anything if he does not know it within the Christian system. Full knowledge is categorically impossible (given the finitude of man), and so even according to this standard, man cannot know anything.
3. Van Til fundamentally contradicts himself in saying that the Christian and non-Christian have no rational point of contact while stating that the Christian can rationally argue against the presupposition of the non-Christian. His writing is riddled with categorical errors.
4. Van Til professes a system based on assuming its validity at the outset, committing the fallacy of circular reasoning and indeed reveling in it: "All reason is, in the nature of the case, circular reasoning." (Page 130)
5. Van Til, most annoyingly of all, simply declares much of his positions without proper proof or argument. Where he does offer argument, most of the time he is arguing not based upon the professed explications of the opposing position, but upon his perceived implications of their position. He rarely quotes his opponents in these instances; this results in blatant straw-manning. In instances where he does follow a line of reasoning clearly, he simply refuses to address the answered question and declares it insolvable.

Van Til misrepresents the classicalist approach to apologetics. His errors are systematic, but he does offer many valuable reminders regarding how the Christian is to consider the task of argument as well as correctives on the place of reason. His attempt to correct excesses found in Roman Catholic and Arminian circles is commendable, but these points are not enough to establish an epistemological method or system of apologetics. A robust classicalist approach (as advocated by Sproul, Gerstner, Warfield, Hodge, etc. all through Christian history to the early fathers of the Church) is the only thoroughgoing method that can be exercised over time.

[Todd Miles · Rating 4 out of 5]

I give four stars on the content, not the organization. This is a published class syllabus. When you know that going in, it is easier to be charitable with the organization and editing. Van Til was ahead of his time, bequeathing to the church an apologetic that I think is compelling in our current postmodern context. His conversation partners obviously arise from his own context of the previous century and are not as helpful today. Go to Frame or Bahnsen for a more contemporary presentation of Van Til's presuppositionalism.

[Scott Cox · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a classic work on the defense of Biblical presuppositional apologetics. Highly recommended, though it's slow-reading due to technical theological jargon.

[Jonathan Ammon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Van Til was an original thinker and the originator of presuppositional apologetics. Unfortunately this work, which is one of his most accessible along with WHY I BELIEVE IN GOD, is fairly obtuse. It was written as a syllabus, but still cannot be praised for its style or clarity.

I also have great disagreements with Van Tillian Presuppositionalism.

Presuppositionalism argues that God's existence is the necessary grounding for all epistemology and that the laws of logic, meaning, value, the one and the many, the reliability of sense perception and mental states, the uniformity of nature, and the intelligibility of the world only find their grounding and justification in the eternal, triune, God. I whole heartedly agree with this transcendental argument.

However, Van Til goes beyond this transcendental argument and argues that we must presuppose God's existence and revelation as epistemic instruments. He argues that belief in God is a priori. It is an unjustified, self-evident belief for all. He asserts that Romans 1:18-20 teaches this, but we see from those verses that knowledge of God is revealed through nature. This would make knowledge of God a posteriori: a conclusion we make based on evidence.

Arguing that God is an a priori presupposition is a circular argument. Van Til agrees but asserts that all arguments are circular. He argues that presupposing basic sense perception and the laws of logic are equally circular. However, these presuppositions are epistemic instruments-not the content of an argument. I agree that God is the necessary grounding for these epistemic instruments and that his ontological existence is certain. However, Van Til argues that God's existence is epistemically certain and wants to presuppose God's revelation as an epistemic instrument. This is circular and renders argument mere assertion because it includes the content of the argument within the argument itself (begging the question).

In addition we must ask if we live by certainty or if we live by faith? Do we please God by certainty or do we please God by faith? Van Til argues that all human beings are epistemically certain of God's existence. This would make faith unnecessary or redefine faith radically. Human beings cannot be epistemically certain. This is part of the fall of man. Only God has epistemic certainty. Human beings must walk by faith until glorified, which means it will always be possible for us to doubt or to suppress the truth. Because of this, we do have common ground with which to reason with the unbeliever. Firstly because we can sympathize with their fallen and rebellious state, and secondly because we can sympathize with their doubts. If not for God's miracle within, we too would rebel against God's revelation and suppress the truth.

[Sean Brenon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Haven’t finished yet; will amend the following thoughts if they change by the end.

If anyone knows the name of Van Til, it is assuredly for his work in Christian Apologetics. He is the father of ‘presuppositional’ apologetics, a radical idea that Van Til uses to reclaim philosophy for the Church. In that goal, I think he mostly succeeds. There’s no question that Van Til is a brilliant thinker.

I have two critiques:

1) Van Til is a dreadful writer. It seems clear to me that he either had no editor or his editor wanted nothing to do with editing this shipwreck of language. At least 80% of his sentences are in passive voice. At most junctions, Van Til almost goes out of his way to word things as unwieldily as possibly. It is always ‘the will of man’ instead of ‘man’s will,’ for example.

This is a shame, because it makes this book far more difficult to read than it should be. Yeah, the concepts are sometimes difficult, but simple, active language would make these concepts so much more accessible.

2) Van Til isn’t interested in making friends. As a Protestant, this doesn’t much bother me. However, he takes many swipes at Barth (mostly understandable) and Catholicism (kind of understandable?). If you accept Van Til’s characterization of the latter, it’s all good. If you don’t, then you’re probably Catholic, and Van Til will probably end up offending you.

All of that to say that I’m not sure his swipes at Barth and Catholicism are necessary here. They deserve a separate, more complete treatment. I am not familiar enough with Van Til to know if he ever did that. But I do know that Greg Bahnsen— Van Til’s bulldog— debated a number of Catholics, losing at least one of them because he didn’t understand his opponent’s views.

However, to add my own thought here, I do think that his critique of Catholicism is, more or less, right, even if out of place in the context of this book.

I view these two shortcomings as significant, holding it back from being a great work of philosophy, regardless of its influence and importance.

[Joshua Magnuson · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you are a seminarian at a Reformed school, you'll probably enjoy this. If you're looking for a practical book on apologetics, this is not the book for you. For that, I'd highly recommend Josh McDowell.

This book should perhaps more aptly be called "Why Calvinism is Better than Catholicism and Arminianism" because Van Til spends the entire book comparing and contrasting them, endeavoring to show how Calvinism (i.e, Reformed Theology) is the only one of the three that is actually "consistently Christian in its starting point and methodology" when it comes to apologetics.

Of course, Van Til had every right to write this book as he desired, but I personally wish he'd had a better understanding of the belief systems with which he disagreed before taking this tack. As a case in point, in the final chapter, "Authority And Reason," Van Til devotes 9 pages describing how the Arminian would approach this with a non-believer & then critiquing it without ever actually citing any Arminian sources whatsoever. Although I'm far from an expert, I have spent a great deal of time studying both Calvinist and Arminian theology, and Van Til makes a number of assertions about Arminian theology that are just not true [for the record, I have issues with both Calvinism & Arminianism, although I've found Arminianism far more biblically consistent].

On a positive note, I agree with Van Til's overall conclusion; viz., that when sharing the gospel with non-believers, it's necessary to address their preconceptions, showing them that their starting point is flawed. That said, I would again point to Josh McDowell as a better source for this as he personally came to faith trying to disprove Christianity, only to find out that it is the only belief system that holds up to scrutiny.

In conclusion, unless this book is required reading for you, there are many other books on Christian apologetics that are both more accessible and more practical.

[Justin DePalatis · Rating 5 out of 5]

"This view of Scripture, therefore, involves the idea that there is nothing in this universe on which human beings can have full and true information unless they take the Bible into account."

Christian Apologetics was originally a class syllabus, and is therefore a bit dry. Despite this, Cornelius Van Til sets forth a truly biblical (presuppositional) apologetic that debunks the modern notion that man can reason his way to God. Van Til articulates here that if the triune God of the Bible is not at the foundation of your reasoning, you can't prove anything. Rather than trying to reason to God by our own autonomous intellect, we ought to pause and consider just where we're placing our feet. Many of us, Christians included, might find that our feet are on shifting sands. When defending the Christian faith, both to ourselves and to others, Van Til argues that we must stand on the authority of Scripture to even begin to reason. And that's the very point. We must, therefore, prove the validity of Christianity by indirect rather than direct means, just as any presupposition must be proven.

Honestly though, it's a hard book to read. Van Til uses a lot of excellent illustrations, but his philosophical speech often requires considerable concentration and rereading to understand, and much of it still escapes my grasp. Just as Van Til is clarifying the apologetical approach passed from Paul to Augustine to Calvin, so too it would be helpful, after reading this book, to read some of those who try to distill Van Til's apologetic down for practical use. It may even be best to familiarize oneself with presuppositional apologetics prior to reading this book, because Van Til's reasoning and illustrations are much easier to understand that way.

Nonetheless, I'd recommend this book to any Christian who wants to study how to better defend the faith.

[Ethan McCarter · Rating 2 out of 5]

For the one who wants to learn more of Van Til's thought this is a great book to begin with. I can appreciate much of his systematic theology and usage of the Bible; I also have heard first hand details on how devout of a Christian Van Til was. However, there are some issues that I take with the book. First, it seems that Van Til has an implicit, dismissing rhetoric versus those who hold to other schools. He typically terms opposing schools as Roman Catholic or Arminian ways of thinking. He fails to realize that there were, and are, plenty of thinkers in the Reformed tradition who held and hold to the classical views of the church including Warfield, Dabney, Edwards, and John Gerstner. To claim that his views are the only way to do apologetics seems dismissive of those who are even within his own tradition. Another quibble is his writing style which, for any who are familiar with Van Til, is difficult to understand at best. Granted, this is not entirely his fault as English was his second language. But, that fact does not make the book any more easy to read. In conclusion, those who hold to presuppositionalism will find the book much more of an intriguing read than myself versus those of the classical school who will find their holes in it. My advice: read it for yourself and see if Van Til's arguments are convincing and logical. Don't let my reviews stop you from reading him! Van Til was the premier Christian apologist of the 20th century and should be studied even by those who disagree with his thought.

[Timothy Horton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Van Til defends an apologetic method that is now known as "presuppositional apologetics." Starting from the "purest expression of Christianity" found in Reformed theology, he establishes a method that is distinctly and uncompromisingly Christian.

This work mostly centers around fundamental principles. The practical outworking of these principles gets a cursory treatment at best.

My reaction: I have a lot of questions. When you start to catch his train of thought, it feels as though you've received a scathing critique for your own inconsistencies. Yet, many of the questions that arose for me weren't directly addressed. To take his critique to heart, it will require some focused labor to apply and test his method in different contexts.

Content: 5
Clarity: 3
Consistency: 5
Practicality: 3

[Seth Goodale · Rating 5 out of 5]

This little book (actually a syllabi) is a great starter to understanding Cornelius Van Til, the father of what we call as the “Presuppositional” approach in evangelism and apologetics. Actually tried much of his principles while talking with an atheist friend of mine, and it turned out that instead of me going to him and trying to find “commonality” and acting surprised if he says something interesting, we started right with his presuppositions and then exposed the errors in his arguments according to the standard of Scripture, all for the purpose of preaching repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. This syllabi is definitely better evangelism training than most of the “gospel-centered” training much receive today. If only some superficial baptists would convert back to their mother of Reformed theology, we would have a lot more content- and also competent- missionaries on the field.

[Chet Duke · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a student of Christian intellectual history, I would call this a "must-read." Van Til was obviously a titan in Reformed Theology, and I can see how he's left such a profound legacy.
However, I was not moved to adopt a Reformed/Presuppositionalist paradigm. I still cannot bypass Van Til's circularity (even though many credible thinkers have provided defenses of Van Til). The irony of his book is that in 200 pages, Van Til attempts to reason with those he would consider unreasonable. This is a book geared toward: (1) The Natural Man (the agnostic/atheist, Arminian, or Roman Catholic); (2) Adherents of Reformed Theology. If anyone does not adopt Presuppositionalism in all its dimensions, Van Til would label them as "Natural Men," bound on the idol of autonomy.

[Zack · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some great ideas, and I probably agree on the whole. I was soured on the horrible (sometimes impenetrable) writing style and strange illustrations. Overall, Van Til did not inspire me with confidence that he truly/completely understood the various philosophical positions he critiqued so vehemently. His read on Barth, Maritain, and Arminianism seems true, though. I would have liked to see demonstrated more solidarity with historic biblical/Reformed Christianity. Also, it is not clear to me how his apologetic method would work out in “real life” after reading this book. The vision of a Van Tillian apologist in my mind after reading this book is one that could be described as obnoxiously dismissive and narrowly read in other schools of thought.

[Dónal Walsh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having come to this book knowing much about presuppositional apologetics not much here was new to me. Appreciated how Van Til compared this to other Roman Catholic and Arminian systems of apologetics though and he lays a good theoretical groundwork for the method. Van Til is The Godfather of this movement and this is his preliminary sketch (so not a masterpiece). Introduction is great and have seen how Van Til's consistently Reformed approach impacts a host of other things: counseling, worship, cultural analysis, etc. Worthy to read but definitely would recommend going onto Van Til's later popularizers (Bahnsen, Frame, Sye Ten Bruggencate) to learn how to practically apply this great stuff and to do apologetics biblically and to the glory of God.

[Adam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Each of us has 5 senses and a 3-pound brain. This is our only fundamental, basic equipment for discovering, evaluating or knowing Anything. At least, this is the position of the atheist-materialist. Yet how do we know our equipment is adequate or even functioning properly? Ultimately, the best we can say is: I know my equipment works because my equipment tells me this is true. Circular reasoning! Well, Van Til is your best guide to this crisis--the problem of presuppositions, of our essential dependency and creaturliness--in view of Christianity. This book is often abstract but also accessible, and when read as intended it may have the effect of the Book of Psalms, the effect of doxology.

[Thaddeus · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must-read for the aspiring Presuppositional Apologist! With that said though, it is also just generally an important read for any apologist and theologian. Van Til is definitional in the Reformed Apologetic world, and his work is extremely important to understand if one is to have a good understanding of approaches to apologetic methodology.
The book is a bit of a more difficult read, as one has to get used to Van Til's style of thought and argument... however, it is well worth the effort to stick with it - for he is profound and deep in his thinking and arguments - and it will definitely get you thinking and wrestling about things in a good way.

[Tyler Brown · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lots of mixed feelings about this book. I’m personally still unsure of my take of presuppositional apologetics. So to learn about it directly from the horses mouth is pretty exciting. People warned me that Van Til is notoriously hard to read: I didn’t find him harder than his influences (Vos, Turriten, Bavink).

This work definitely challenged me to think more about the common ground that we do, or don’t have in an evangelistic encounter. It gave me very little to actually help that encounter, which was a disappointment.

[Keith Pinckney · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading this book is like eating unseasoned, healthy-food. So hard to digest and swallow but benefits you so much that it can be deemed as none other than NECESSARY. Presuppositional apologetics is like getting in a kiddie pool with your unbelieving friend and poking holes in it to show him that the water will inevitably run out. This method is easier caught rather than taught. But nonetheless presents a robust methodology for defending the Christian faith. Van til was brilliant and his writing is very dense in areas but awfully biblical from cover to cover.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Intro to presuppositional approach to apologetics. Van Til highlights how epistemic considerations lead to metaphysical conclusions. So, the best apologetic approach is to expose the faulty epistemic foundations of an unbelievers worldview and then demonstrate the consistent foundation and propositions of the Christian worldview as the best understanding of reality. Helpful overview of the method in contrast to other apologetic approaches, but can be improved to describe more of a practical implementation this method. Newer books on this topic (e.g Frame) do this much better.

[Eleasa · Rating 3 out of 5]

The rating is only because my brain finds it hard to grasp Christian philosophy and it'd be hard for me to fully explain this book to you. A good challenge to read the theologian who is credited with developing the Reformed "presuppositional" approach to apologetics (now updated to be known as covenantal apologetics), maintaining how to help unbelievers take off their coloured glasses -- because there can be no neutrality; every fact, every awareness is interpreted out of some kind of presupposition.

[Peter Kiss · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first three chapters were incredibly difficult to get through and I found them not very helpful. I understand Van Til was trying to lay out the framework of his theology, but it was very cumbersome, even if I agree with a lot of it. I'm not sure I understand the common grace aspect of his theology, but I do have his book on that so I ought to read it. The final two chapters are probably going to be the most useful and the most interesting. Overall, 4 stars because of the final two chapters...otherwise would've been three.